(Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity 7) Youhanna Youssef - John D'Alton (Eds.) - Severus of Antioch - His Life and Times-Brill (2016)

Severus of Antioch
Texts and Studies in

Eastern Christianity
Chief Editor
Ken Parry (Macquarie University)
Editorial Board
Alessandro Bausi (University of Hamburg) – Monica Blanchard

(Catholic University of America) – Malcolm Choat (Macquarie University)
Peter Galadza (Saint Paul University) – Victor Ghica (Norwegian School of Theology)
Emma Loosley (University of Exeter) – Basil Lourié (St Petersburg)
John McGuckin (Columbia University) – Stephen Rapp (Sam Houston
State University) – Dietmar Winkler (University of Salzburg)
volume 7
Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity is intended to advance the field of Eastern Christian
Studies by publishing translations of ancient texts, individual monographs, thematic collections,
and translations into English of significant volumes in modern languages. It will cover the
Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic traditions from the early through
to the contemporary period. The series will make a valuable contribution to the study of Eastern
Christianity by publishing research by scholars from a variety of disciplines and backgrounds.
The different traditions that make up the world of Eastern Christianity have not always received
the attention they deserve, so this series will provide a platform for deepening our knowledge of
them as well as bringing them to a wider audience. The need for such a series has been felt for
sometime by the scholarly community in view of the increasing interest in the Christian East.
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/tsec

Severus of Antioch
His Life and Times
Edited by
John D’Alton
Youhanna Youssef
leiden | boston
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: D'Alton, John (Priest), editor.

Title: Severus of Antioch : his life and times / edited by John D'Alton, Youhanna Youssef.
Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2016. | Series: Texts and studies in Eastern Christianity, ISSN 2213-0039 ;
VOLUME 7 | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016000253 (print) | LCCN 2016002783 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004298019 (hardback : alk.
paper) | ISBN 9789004307995 (E-book)
Subjects: LCSH: Severus, of Antioch, approximately 465-538.
Classification: LCC BR65.S3956 S48 2016 (print) | LCC BR65.S3956 (ebook) | DDC 270.2092–dc23
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2016000253
Want or need Open Access? Brill Open offers you the choice to make your research freely accessible online
in exchange for a publication charge. Review your various options on www.brill.com/brill-open.
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: www.brill.com/brill-typeface.
Text in Arabic has been typeset in Arabic Typesetting, designed for Microsoft by Mamoun Sakkal, Paul C.
Nelson and John Hudson.
issn 2213-0039
isbn 978-90-04-29801-9 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-30799-5 (e-book)
Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and
Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents
Foreword vii
Bishop Suriel
Preface ix
Bishop Mor Malatios Malki Malki
Notes on Contributors xi
Introduction xiv
Severus of Antioch: Heir of Saint John Chrysostom? 1

Pauline Allen
Se glorifier de sa ville et de son siège? La grandeur d’ Antioche et le mépris

des titres chez Sévère le Grand 14
Roger-Youssef Akhrass
A Letter from the Orthodox Monasteries of the Orient Sent to Alexandria,

Addressed to Severos 32
Sebastian P. Brock
The Asceticism of Severus: An Analysis of Struggle in His Homily 18 on the

“Forty Holy Martyrs” Compared to the Cappadocians and the Syrians 47
John D’Alton
Quotations from the Works of St. Severus of Antioch in Peter of Callinicus’

magnum opus ‘Contra Damianum’ 65
Rifaat Ebied
Severus of Antioch and Changing Miaphysite Attitudes toward

Byzantium 124
Nestor Kavvadas
The Doves of Antioch: Severus, Chalcedonians, Monothelites, and

Iconoclasm 138
Ken Parry
Severus of Antioch at the Crossroad of the Antiochene and Alexandrian

Exegetical Tradition 160
René Roux
vi contents
Hymns of Severus of Antioch and the Coptic Theotokia 183

Youhanna Nessim Youssef
Index 199
Foreword
Bishop Suriel
It gives me great pleasure to read this book titled: Severus of Antioch: His Life and
Times. This book started with a Symposium that took place at St. Athanasius
Coptic Orthodox Theological College—a member college of the University of
Divinity, Melbourne. His Eminence Mor Malatius Malki Malki, Archbishop of
our sister Syrian Orthodox Church and members of his clergy and community
were present.
I will make just a few brief comments on the relationship of St. Severus with
the Coptic Orthodox Church.
What is the Status of St. Severus of Antioch in the Coptic Orthodox

Church?
St. Severus holds a great status in the Coptic Church. For example, in the Coptic
liturgy in “The Absolution of the Servants” his name precedes the names of the
great Alexandrine Fathers, Athanasius, Cyril, and Dioscorus, and directly after
St. Mark the apostle. The same occurs when reciting “The Commemoration of
the Saints.” Another example of this phenomenon can be seen in the Coptic
Psalmody where Severus is mentioned amongst Athanasius and Dioscorus,
the two great fathers of the Coptic Church. In the Morning Doxology, the
Coptic Church expresses the value of the Christological teachings of Severus
by praying and saying, “The great patriarch, our father Abba Severus, whose
holy teachings, enlightened our minds.” This prominence given to St. Severus
in Coptic liturgical worship ahead of the Coptic Patriarchs shows how much he
is venerated and respected as a leader and teacher of Miaphysite Christology.
St. Severus, with a number of the [non-Chalcedonian] bishops, managed to
escape to Egypt. In Egypt, Severus lived a harried existence,1 but wrote some
of his most important works, and completed his correspondence with Sergius
from his exile. Lebon dates his great anti-Chalcedonian work, the Liber contra
impium Grammaticum, to around 519.
St. Severus lived in a monastery in Egypt under the direction of the abbot
Nephalius. Nephalius had fallen away from the Miaphysite view, and St. Severus
1 He mentions this twice in his Third Letter to Sergius: em p. 158.6–7; p. 176.14–17.

viii bishop suriel
made an unsuccessful attempt to reconvince him. This action resulted in his

being expelled from the monastery.
He died in the town of Sakha, east of Alexandria, on Monday, 8 February 538.
His body was transferred at a later date to the Monastery of Glass at Enaton,
outside of Alexandria.
Why is St. Severus Important for the Coptic Orthodox Church?
The name of Severus became widespread in Egyptian monasteries and intellec-

tual centres, where he was venerated not as a miracle-worker but as the greatest
theologian of the one-nature Christology.
St. Severus has been misunderstood for many centuries and attacked with
all sorts of names by the Byzantine Churches and the West since 536. As
Professor Pauline Allen states in her excellent book on Severus of Antioch, it
was only recently when Joseph Lebon wrote his 600 page monograph in 1909
that he discovered that the christology of Severus of Antioch was that of Cyril of
Alexandria. Hence, the Coptic Church sees St. Severus as one of its great fathers.
Christology of St. Severus of Antioch
St. Severus strongly defended the Cyrillian Alexandrine Christology and skil-
fully brought into unity the Antiochene and Alexandrine teachings concerning
the incarnation of the Logos.
And let me end with a quote of St. Severus on this very point:
Since the one Christ is one nature and hypostasis of God the Word incar-
nate from Godhead and manhood, it necessarily follows that the same is
known at once as consubstantial with the Father as to Godhead and con-
substantial with us as to manhood. The same is the Son of God and the Son
of man. He is not, therefore, two sons, but he is one and the same son.2
2 V.C. Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined (The Senate of Serampore College: Ma-
dras, India, 1977), 246, quoting Severus, Contra impium Grammaticum i, 227.
Preface
M.M. Malki Malki
The Lord of Glory entrusts us with His great glory when he tells us, “I am the
light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the
light of life” (John 8: 12). He also challenges us saying, “You are the light of the
world … Let your light so shine before men” (Matthew 5: 14–16).
In considering the course of the life and patriarchate of St. Severus of Anti-
och, the subject matter of this volume, we would notice how St. Severus was
on the one hand managing his own spiritual life, and the stages and means of
administering his patriarchate while in office or in exile on the other.
As Church history testifies, the lives and career of the Patriarchs of Antioch
were never easy. Severus of Antioch, who lived in a period of doctrinal and
historico-political turbulences and travails, is a perfect example. The “crown
of the Syrians”, as he is entitled by the Syrians, was born in Sozopolis of Pisidia
in Asia Minor around 456ad, on the edges of the schismatic Council of Chal-
cedon. Severus, the apologist of the Miaphysite doctrine of St. Cyril, was ele-
vated to the patriarchal See of Antioch in 512. To the Western Church and
scholars, his patriarchate ended in 518, when he was exiled by the order of the
Byzantine Emperor Justin i (518–527). For the Oriental Orthodox Church (Syr-
ian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox and Ethiopic Orthodox)
and scholars, Severus is considered a saint and his patriarchate lasted until his
death in 538.
St. Severus’ writings are of the utmost importance. His books, treatises,
letters and homilies (ca. 3900), albeit the majority of which have not survived,
reflect his talent as an administrator, composer and preacher and describe a
major critical stage in the history of Christianity. These works are an early,
firm, and defending frontline of the Miaphysite clear-cut stand of the post-
Chalcedon schism which ensued.
What is published in this volume are the papers, along with some invited
contributions, presented by scholars at the “Symposium on St. Severus of Anti-
och” which took place on the 2nd and 3rd March, 2013 at St. Athanasius Coptic
Orthodox Theological College (sacotc) under the patronage and presidency
of His Grace Anba Suriel, Bishop of the Coptic Orthodox diocese of Melbourne
and affiliated regions and Dean of sacotc.
In these papers, each contributor has treated an aspect of St. Severus’ life
and patriarchate. Thanks are due to His Grace Bishop Suriel for arranging and
shepherding the Symposium, to St. Athanasius Coptic Orthodox Theological
x malki malki
College for organizing and hosting the event, and to Dr. Youhanna Youssef and
John D’Alton for their efforts in bringing this volume to fruition.
St. Ephraim’s Cathedral, Sydney, April 2015

Notes on Contributors
Pauline Allen
is Director of the Centre for Early Christian Studies at Australian Catholic Uni-
versity, an honorary research fellow at the University of Pretoria, and a fellow
of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. She has written extensively on
the christological controversies of the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries, with
recent translation volumes of the letters and other writings of Severus of Anti-
och and Sophronius of Jerusalem. Most recently she has co-authored a volume
on Gelasius i of Rome, a book on early Christian letter-collections, and co-
edited the Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor.
is of Lebanese origin and belongs to the community of Saint Ephrem mon-
astery, Maarrat Saydnaya Syria. He teaches at the University of Saint-Esprit
de Kaslik, Lebanon, and is interested in the apostle Peter and Antioch in
the writings of Severus the Great. In 2015, he published with Geuthner his
doctoral thesis in Patristics at the Catholic Institute of Paris, under the title
Michel le Grand. Le Livre des Chapitres. This is in two volumes with the Arabic
text and French translation. He is the author of several books and articles
on Philoxenus of Mabboug, and is Executive Director of the Syriac Orthodox
Patriarchal Journal. He also currently leads the Syriac Studies Department at
the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East.
Sebastian P. Brock
is Emeritus Reader in Syriac Studies in the University of Oxford. He has pub-
lished extensively in the field of Syriac studies, with four volumes in the Vari-
orum Reprints series. His translations include St Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns on
Paradise (1990) and The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life (1987). He
is one of the editors of The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage
(2011), and of the three-volume The Hidden Pearl: the Syrian Orthodox Church
and its Ancient Aramaic Heritage (2001).
John D’Alton
is a priest in the Antiochian Orthodox Church and is completing his PhD at
Monash University on “The Jihad of Jesus: The concept of struggle in pre-
Islamic Syrian Christian and early Sufi Muslim writings.” His research covers
Syrian and Greek Church fathers from the 4th to 7th centuries and their ideas
of ascetic struggle, and compares this to early Arabic Christian and Sufi Muslim
viewpoints.
xii notes on contributors
Rifaat Ebied
is Foundation Professor of Semitic Studies in the University of Sydney. Prior to
his appointment at the University of Sydney in 1979, he taught Arabic, Hebrew
and Syriac at the University of St. Andrews (Scotland) and the University of
Leeds (England). He has published extensively in the field of Semitic Studies
in general and Arabic, Islamic, Hebrew and Syriac Studies in particular. His
publications include numerous books and articles of edited Arabic and Syriac
medieval texts.
Nestor Kavvadas
holds a doctorate from the University of Tübingen where he is a research fellow
in Ancient Church History. He has published monographs, translations and
articles on Late Antiquity and Byzantium, including Die Natur des Schlechten
bei Proklos (de Gruyter, 2009) and Isaak von Ninive und seine Kephalaia Gnostika
(Brill, 2015).
Ken Parry
is Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie
University, Sydney. He researches and publishes in the fields of Late Antiquity,
Byzantine Studies, and Eastern Christianity. He is the founding editor of the
series Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity in which this volume appears.
In addition he has edited The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (1999),
The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity (2007), Art, Architecture and
Religion along the Silk Road (2008), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Patristics
(2015), and co-edited Byzantium, Its Neighbours and Its Cultures (2014).
René Roux
studied philosophy, theology and patristics in Aosta, Rome, Oxford and Paris.
Until January 2015 he was Professor of Ancient Church History and Patrology at
the University of Erfurt (Germany) and since then he is Rector of the Theolog-
ical Faculty of Lugano (Switzerland). His research areas are history of biblical
hermeneutics in the Ancient Church, early Syriac theology, and theology of reli-
gions. Among his latest publications are “Antimarcionitica in the Syriac Liber
Graduum”, in Augustinianum 53 (2013) 91–104; and “Die katholische Theologie
im 20. Jahrhundert und die Kirchenväter”, in Theologie der Gegenwart 57 (2014),
275–286.
notes on contributors xiii

is an Associate Professor, sacotc, University of Divinity (Melbourne) and
a researcher in the Centre for Early Christian Studies, Australian Catholic
University. He holds a PhD from Montpellier and is the author of many books
and chapters in English, French and Arabic.
Introduction
Severus is central to the ongoing reappraisal of the events post-Chalcedon and

the growing rift between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches. This
volume contains nine papers covering a wide range of issues related to the life,
theology and context of Severus. Each one raises important questions about
how Severus is understood, with many calling for a re-evaluation of his stances
and legacy. A common theme is a concern for the context of Severus and seeing
him with more nuance than has often been presented. The papers include a
few invited submissions but are mainly those presented at the “Symposium on
St. Severus of Antioch” which took place on the 2nd and 3rd March, 2013 at St.
Athanasius Coptic Orthodox Theological College, Melbourne.
Pauline Allen’s opening chapter is an excellent introduction to the character
and contribution of Severus, and positions him in relation to Cyril of Alexan-
dria and John Chrysostom. Roger Akhrass follows with a discussion of Severus’
praise of, and relation to, the city of Antioch, and his concern for Ortho-
doxy. Sebastian Brock analyses one specific letter to Severus and its important
perspectives on Christ’s sufferings and the incorruptibility of his body. John
D’Alton places Severus within the broader Syrian and Cappadocian ascetic
traditions through analysis of Severus’ Homily on the Forty Holy Martyrs of
Sebaste. Severus’ works were often quoted, and Rifaat Ebied presents an exten-
sive collection of such quotations in the writings of Peter of Callinicus. If these
first five papers explore some literary and historical aspects of Severus, the
second four cover more the theological side. Nestor Kavvadas investigates the
changing attitudes of the Oriental Orthodox churches to Constantinople, and
Ken Parry overturns simplistic notions of christological causes of iconoclasm,
again contextualising Severus, in this case within the debates of Monothelitism
and Monenergism. René Roux discusses how Severus combined the exegeti-
cal methods of both Alexandrian and Antiochene traditions. Youhanna Youssef
concludes the volume with an analysis of the Coptic Theotokia in relation to
the Hymns of Severus. It is evident in relation to Severus that there are many
areas of textual and contextual analysis that are still in their infancy.
It is hoped that this rich collection of papers will demonstrate the signifi-
cance of Severus’ life and legacy and stimulate further research into this impor-
tant but often neglected church figure. The study of Severus of Antioch is still
in its beginning stages and many studies will surely follow soon.
John D’Alton and Youhanna Youssef

Severus of Antioch:
Heir of Saint John Chrysostom?*
Pauline Allen
In this paper I seek to redress the situation of interpreting Severus as a second

Cyril by showing how Severus, although a native of Pisidia in Asia Minor who
was educated in Egypt and Palestine and came to the patriarchate of Antioch
as an outsider, followed in the Syrian presbyter Chrysostom’s footsteps in the
see of Antioch, and cited or silently used over and over again the works of the
Golden Mouth in his homilies, letters, and dogmatic works.1 I will argue too
that just as Chrysostom saw himself as first and foremost a monk, so too did
Severus.
* This paper has its inspiration in the comments and encouragement of participants in the
session dedicated to the 1500th anniversary of the consecration of Severus as patriarch of
Antioch, which took place in the context of the Symposium Syriacum at the University of
Malta in July 2012, and where I delivered a paper now published as “Severus of Antioch, the
monk-bishop: monastic and epistolary networks”, Parole de l’Orient 38 (2014), 1–14. I would
like to thank especially Frédéric Alpi, Rifaat Ebied, Dominique Gonnet, René Roux, and
Youhanna Nessim Youssef for encouraging me to explore further the influence of Chrysostom
on Severus.
1 For a select bibliography on Severus and his background see Joseph Lebon, Le Monophysisme
sévérien. Étude historique, littéraire et théologique (Louvain: J. Van Linthout, 1909; repr. New
York: ams Press, 1978), revised in “La Christologie du monophysisme sévérien”, in Alois
Grillmeier and Heinrich Bacht (eds), Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart
(Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1951), vol. 1, 425–580; Roberta C. Chesnut, Three Monophysite
Christologies. Severus of Antioch, Philoxenus of Mabbug, and Jacob of Sarug (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1976) 9–56; Robin Darling Young, The Patriarchate of Severus of Antioch, 512–
518, unpublished PhD diss., Chicago, 1982; Pauline Allen and C.T. Robert Hayward, Severus
of Antioch, The Early Church Fathers (London and New York: Routledge, 2004); Frédéric
Alpi, La Route royale. Sévère d’Antioche et les Églises d’Orient (512–518), 2 vols, Bibliothèque
archéologique et historique 188 (Beirut: Presses de l’ ifpo, 2009). The main works of Severus
referred to in this paper are: E.W. Brooks (ed. and trans.), The Sixth Book of the Select Letters
of Severus Patriarch of Antioch in the Syriac Version of Athanasius of Nisibis, 2 vols (Oxford-
London, 1902–1903) hereafter sl; E.W. Brooks (ed. and trans.), A Collection of Letters of Severus
of Antioch, po xii.2 (Paris, 1916; reprint Turnhout, 1973), and po xiv.1 (Paris, 1920; reprint
Turnhout, 1973) hereafter cl; Hom. Zachariah, John of Beith Aphtonia, Athanasius of Antioch.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/9789004307995_002

2 allen
Introduction
The teachings of the wise and great Severus are a likeness of all the
right doctors and mystic instructors of the church: for in him one may
see of Ignatius the God-clad and the tried martyr the holy and God-
inspired words; of Athanasius the illustrious champion and combatant
the extended and exact knowledge of the faith; of Basil and Gregory the
sublime preaching of theology; and of John the admonitory instruction
which pours itself forth and expands like the sea; of Cyril the exactitude
of teaching concerning dogmas; of all together the purity of life and of
virtuous conduct.2
According to the composer of this hymn, Paul of Edessa in east Syria, a later con-
temporary of Severus, this was the saint’s theological pedigree. Let us examine
it more closely.
Ignatius, of course, was the first bishop of Antioch (110–130ce), in whose
name are transmitted seven letters, written to various early Christian commu-
nities.3 In the early church he was regarded as a martyr, although we have no
certain evidence that he was.4 There was a church dedicated to him in Antioch,
where Severus delivered homilies on at least four occasions.5 John Chrysostom
too preached on Ignatius, and we may regard this duty as part-and-parcel of
the work of a preacher in Antioch. In Severus’ homilies, however, he concen-
trates not on Ignatius but on Saints Basil of Caesarea and Gregory Nazianzen,
explaining that Basil and Gregory’s emulation of Ignatius is the reason why he
has had the people assemble in this house of prayer.6
Severus occasionally quotes Ignatius’ letters in his other works.7 It was inev-
itable that Severus’ hymnological pedigree should begin with the first bishop
of Antioch.
2 Hymn 191-i–ii; po 7/5, 653–654. Trans. adapted from that of E.W. Brooks; italics mine.
3 Text and trans. in Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers. Greek Texts and English Transla-
tions, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids, mi: Baker Academic, 2007), 166–271.
4 On Ignatius see Allen Brent, Ignatius of Antioch and the Second Sophistic: A Study of an Early
Christian Transformation of Pagan Culture (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006).
5 On the church see Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen, The Churches of Syrian Antioch (300–
638 ce), Late Antique History and Religion 5 (Leuven, Paris, Walpole ma: Peeters, 2012), 81–82,
86, 123–124, 127, 172, 189, 191, 194. On Severus’ preaching in the church see Hom. 9, 37, 65, 84;
possibly also 102, 116.
6 Hom. 37, p. 485.28–31.
7 E.g. Hom. 95, pp. 67–71; Hom. 113, pp. 281–282; cl 69, pp. 97–98.
severus of antioch: heir of saint john chrysostom? 3
Athanasius (d. 373), described in the hymn as “illustrious champion and

combatant”, was the patriarch of Alexandria renowned for his dogmatic works
against Arianism and his personal sufferings during the Arian debate.8 One
homily on him survives from Severus,9 in which the various exiles endured
by Athanasius are compared to the sufferings of Job, and the patriarch him-
self is called a “doctor” and a “combatant”. The hymn praises his “extended and
exact knowledge of the faith”. His works are frequently cited by Severus,10 and
one of his biographers informs us that during his student days Severus studied
his works.11 The great Alexandrian is included in Severus’ hymnological pedi-
gree as a fighter against heresy. We are told by his biographers that during his
student days Severus also read the works of Basil of Caesarea Cappadocia and
Gregory Nazianzen, as well as those of other Fathers.12 All three theologians are
frequently cited in Severus’ dogmatic and polemical works, and the patriarch
preached on Basil and Gregory Nazianzen annually.13 Severus’ admiration for
the Cappadocians is easy to understand, for not only did they reconcile Hel-
lenic learning with Christian beliefs but also systematized christological and
trinitarian doctrine.
The hymn with which we began next refers glowingly to the “admonitory
instruction” of John, that is, of the most famous preacher in Christian antiquity,
John Chrysostom.14 Severus’ biographer Zachariah recounts how in Alexandria
the pious man Menas prophesied that Severus would be illustrious among bish-
8 In general on Athanasius see Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theol-

ogy and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press,
1993); Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius, The Early Church Fathers (Routledge: London and
New York, 2004); idem, Athanasius: The Coherence of His Thought (London: Routledge,
2005).
9 Hom. 91, pp. 7–27.
10 See, e.g., Severus’ second letter to Sergius, in Ian Torrance, The Correspondence of Severus
and Sergius. Translation and Introduction, Texts from Christian Late Antiquity 11 (Piscat-
away, nj: Gorgias Press, 2011), 62/63, 72/73, 86/89; third letter, ibid., 148/149. Cf. Christo-
pher J.A. Lash, in Charles Kannengiesser (ed.), “Saint Athanase dans les écrits de Sévère
d’ Antioche”, Politique et théologie chez Athanase d’Alexandrie. Actes du colloque de Chan-
tilly 23–25 sept. 1973, Théologie historique 27 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1974), 377–394.
11 Zachariah, 52; trans. Brock and Fitzgerald, 61.
12 Zachariah, 67; 52; trans. Brock and Fitzgerald, 61.
13 Hom. 9, 37, 65, and 84. See the register of Severus’ homilies by Maurice Brière in po 29/1,
50–62.
14 On Chrysostom in general see e.g. John N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth. The Story of John Chrysos-
tom: Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (London: Duckworth, 1995); Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen,
John Chrysostom, The Early Church Fathers (London and New York: Routledge, 2000).
4 allen
ops, like holy John of Constantinople.15 As a young man Severus immersed

himself in John’s works, as he did also in those of Athanasius and the Cap-
padocians. Zachariah also relates that from the time of Severus’ first homily
in Antioch everyone admired his orthodoxy, his citations from Scripture, the
clarity of his speech, and looked on him really as a second John.16 This is
stretching the truth a little because while he was in Antioch John Chrysos-
tom was a priest, not a bishop, and when he did become patriarch it was of
the city of Constantinople. There is no extant homily of Severus on Chrysos-
tom or his feast and no church dedicated to him that we are aware of, but most
homilies on him come from Constantinople anyway and are later.17 John fea-
tures in Severus’ hymnological pedigree as a famous Antiochene and a great
preacher.
The sixth part of Severus’ pedigree as sung in the hymn is Cyril’s “exactitude
of teaching concerning dogmas”. This is similar to the earlier praise of Athana-
sius, another great Alexandrian, and links with what we know of Severus’
own approach to dogma, which was characterized by exactitude (akribeia in
Greek).18 Since several of Cyril’s works represented the touch-stone of ortho-
doxy for both anti-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians, it was inevitable that
Severus would cite them copiously, particularly Cyril’s works against Nestorius,
his twelve anathemata, and the two letters to Succensus. Hence Severus has
been seen first and foremost as a second Cyril. In illustration of this let us review
the opinion of the late Cardinal Grillmeier, a master of historical christology:
The Alexandrian is for Severus simply “the king of the explication of dog-
mas”. His pupil will do nothing else than think through logically the for-
mulations of the model, and if necessary also intensify them. All partners
in the dialogue will be measured by how they stand towards this great
teacher. Among the Fathers there is for Severus no higher authority than
Cyril.19
15 Zachariah, 11, 59, 158. See Alpi, La Route royale, vol. 1, 41.
16 Zachariah, 159. See Alpi, La Route royale, vol. 1, 68.
17 Information kindly supplied by my colleague, Dr Wendy Mayer, from her forthcoming
book, John Chrysostom: The Deconstruction of a Saint.
18 See Allen and Hayward, Severus of Antioch, 21.
19 Aloys Grillmeier with Theresia Hainthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 2, From the
Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590–604), part 2, The Church of Con-
stantinople in the Sixth Century, trans. John Cawte and Pauline Allen (London and Louis-
ville, ky: Mowbray and Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 21.
This statement will need to be reconsidered later in this chapter, but I would
like to conclude this part by pointing out the chronological and geographi-
cal symmetry of Paul of Edessa’s hymn: Antioch/Alexandria/Cappadocia/Anti-
och/Alexandria, which demonstrates where, in the eyes of a near contempo-
rary, Severus stood.
Comparison of Backgrounds and Career Paths
Whereas there is no extant biography of Cyril of Alexandria against which to

test the thesis that Severus was a second Cyril,20 we have several biographies
of John and Severus, all evincing various degrees of historical accuracy.21 I
concentrate here on the backgrounds and career-paths of John and Severus
as portrayed in their biographies. Both men came to their ministries in the
church of Antioch with different backgrounds. John was a Syrian by birth and,
according to Kelly, “His family, his mother at any rate if not his father, was
Christian”.22 For Severus, on the other hand, the evidence suggests that his
family from Pisidia in Asia Minor was pagan;23 hence the great pains taken by
his biographers to detail his opposition to paganism during his student years in
Alexandria and Beirut.24 It seems that only after he completed his legal studies
in Palestine did Severus contemplate the Christian ascetic life.
1. John’s educational background was in the rhetorical schools of Antioch,
particularly that of the famous pagan sophist Libanius.25 Severus’ was more
wide-ranging: he began in the rhetorical schools of Alexandria, after which
he embarked on legal studies in Beirut. Although, as we shall see, during his
postgraduate days he adopted an ascetical way of life characterized by severe
fasting and abstinence from bathing, he was still obviously a philosophical
rather than a Christian ascetic, who remained committed to a legal career.
“[D]on’t make me into a monk!”, he is reported as saying. “I am a law student,
20 On this point see Pauline Allen, “St Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, and Pastoral Care”, Phro-
nema 29.2 (2014): 1–20.
21 For John the earliest biography we have is Palladius’Dialogue on the Life of St John Chrysos-
tom. On the several biographies of Severus, contemporary, near-contemporary, and later,
see Brock and Fitzgerald, Two Early Lives of Severos, 11–15.
22 Kelly, Golden Mouth, 5.
23 See Allen and Hayward, Severus of Antioch, 5.
24 On this strategy see Brock and Fitzgerald, Two Early Lives of Severos, 20–21.
25 Kelly, Golden Mouth, 14.
6 allen
and my great interest lies in the law”.26 Severus’ legal training shines through
his preaching, exegesis, polemics, and letter-writing, in contrast to the works
of John Chrysostom, which, like those of Cyril, show little interest in the law,
except the Law of the Old Testament.
2. While both John and Severus had ascetic/monastic backgrounds, these
too were quite different. Chrysostom studied in an ascetic school in Anti-
och together with upper-class young Christian men.27 Here through continual,
extreme fasting he ruined his health. Although he was then ordained a reader
by Bishop Meletius of Antioch in 371, John opted for the ascetic life on the out-
skirts of the city until ill-health forced him to return. After twelve years serving
the next bishop of Antioch, John became patriarch of Constantinople, where
he strove to continue his ascetical life and to preach against social abuses.
On his consecration as patriarch he was said to have cut back expenditure
in the bishop’s palace, abandoning “lavish banquets and glittering receptions”,
although these comments could well be topoi.28 In his writings we discern a
continuing interest in the ascetic life: for example, he wrote a set of three books
against the opponents of the monastic life, and his homilies are replete with
references to holy men and women.
When he went on a trip to Jerusalem, Severus met some disciples of the
famous first-generation anti-Chalcedonian Peter the Iberian (that is, from
modern-day Georgia in the Caucasus), and became a monk in Peter’s mon-
astery near Gaza.29 With this step he had joined what has been described as
“the most volatile and influential subculture” of late antiquity,30 containing
as it did influential groups of monastics and intellectuals, both anti- and pro-
Chalcedonian. Influenced in its turn by its links with Egyptian monasticism,
this was a different monastic environment from that of Syria, one in which
political lobbying with the imperial government was rife. Although Severus
too, like John, at one stage ruined his health by extreme ascetic practices,31
26 Zachariah, 52; trans. Brock and Fitzgerald, 61.

27 Kelly, Golden Mouth, 18–20.
28 Kelly, Golden Mouth, 118–119, who points out that John continued to need warm baths for
his poor health.
29 John of Beit Apthonia, 25, ed. Kugener, 140; trans. Brock and Fitzgerald, 113. For background
to Gaza in this period see J.L. Hevelone-Harper, Disciples of the Desert: Monks, Laity,
and Spiritual Authority in Sixth-Century Gaza (Baltimore, md: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2005), with lit.; B. Bitton-Ashkelony and A. Kofsky, The Monastic School of Gaza,
Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 78 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006), esp. 82–106.
30 Darling Young, The Patriarchate of Severus, 26.
31 John of Beit Aphtonia, 35–36, 115–116; trans. Brock and Fitzgerald, 115–116.
soon we see him travelling to Constantinople with a large group of Palestinian

monks to seek the protection of Emperor Anastasius in his struggle against
Chalcedon.32 On his appointment as patriarch in Antioch in 512 we are told
that:
Immediately he expelled from there [Antioch] those kitchen servants

and cooks of the episcopal mansion as well as every culinary invention
found among them, He pulled down the bath-house that was there …
The worthless and wretched bread which bakers customarily made for
the poor was brought to him from the market.33
While we note here the similarity with John Chrysostom’s asceticism in the
bishop’s palace, it cannot be denied that readers and listeners of biographies of
the monk-bishop in late antiquity expected such passages for their edification
and entertainment.34 As I have already said, we have no biography of Cyril
with which to compare these details. Nor, for that matter, do we have one of
Athanasius.
A passage that clearly illustrates Severus’ continuing commitment to the
ascetic life is found in a homily delivered on his return from visiting churches
and monasteries in the country east of Antioch.35 He claims that these monas-
tics live on earth the life which they will live more truly still in the future. He
maintains somewhat rhetorically that while he was in these country monaster-
ies he wept for himself because he was cut off from this way of life, and asked his
soul whether he should stay with the mountain monks. At first his soul replied
“Yes”, but then remembered that the patriarch was “married” to the church of
Antioch and could not be divorced from her. The patriarch’s congregations who
listened to this and such other homilies must have been very familiar with his
persona as a monk.
32 On Severus’ sojourn in Constantinople see William H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite
Movement. Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1972), 216–220; Alpi, La Route royale, vol. 1, 44–48.
33 John of Beit Aphtonia, ed. Kugener, 159; trans. Brock and Fitzgerald, 126.
34 On late-antique bishops see Andrea Sterk, Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church.
The Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2004); Clau-
dia Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity. The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of
Transition, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 37 (Berkeley, Los Angeles, Lon-
don: University of California Press, 2005).
35 Hom. 45, 254–268. See further Allen, “Severus of Antioch, the Monk-Bishop”, 10.
8 allen
3. Let us contrast another aspect of the careers of both saints. John Chrysos-
tom was a native son of the church of Syria who had lived and worked in Anti-
och before being chosen as patriarch of Constantinople, a city in which he was
a stranger. Severus, on the other hand, was a stranger to Antioch and proba-
bly unfamiliar with catechizing the laity,36 but he had had significant political
experience lobbying in the court of Constantinople, having eventually become
the theological adviser to Emperor Anastasius.
Exegesis
Now I am going to argue that it is predominantly in the area of exegesis that we

see Severus as the heir of John Chrysostom. Here we must rely on the detailed
study of René Roux,37 whose main arguments I summarise. Professor Roux
makes the point that, while in his exegetical homilies we see how Severus bor-
rowed the biblical commentaries of John Chrysostom, Cyril, and other ortho-
dox writers, Severus does not hesitate to nuance or correct their opinions. This
correction is, however, made quietly, while the opinion of heretics is pushed
to the extreme and completely rejected.38 Similarly Severus draws freely on
John and Cyril, but does not hesitate to depart from his sources if it is conve-
nient.39 Severus also takes up and occasionally completes John’s explanations40
and does not hesitate to correct and systematize Cyril’s thought,41 which is
necessary since Cyril’s theology varied depending on whom he was refuting
(for example, Arians or Nestorians). Roux argues convincingly42 that Severus’
approach to legislative Old Testament texts came from the influence of John
Chrysostom and from Severus’ own legal training, a facet of Severus that we saw
above, while Chrysostom exercised on Severus an even greater influence than
Cyril, especially with regard to New Testament exegesis. Furthermore, Severus
conducts a kind of psychological analysis of the characters in the Gospel, which
is a technique frequently employed by John Chrysostom in his homilies on the
36 Darling Young, The Patriarchate of Severus of Antioch, 46.

37 L’ Exégèse biblique dans les Homélies Cathédrales de Sévère d’Antioche, Studia Ephemeridis
Augustinianum 84 (Rome: Institutum patristicum Augustinianum, 2002).
38 Roux, L’ Exégèse biblique, 16.
39 Roux, L’ Exégèse biblique, 124, 132.
New Testament texts.43 Occasionally, continues Roux, Severus’ explanation of

a biblical passage over against that of Chrysostom is characterized by a greater
interest in historical learning and a finer attention to human psychology, as well
as a greater desire to highlight the internal coherence of the biblical text.44
To Roux’ analysis we can add that among the works of Chrysostom it is the
homilies on Matthew and John that Severus uses most frequently, probably
because of their size—90 and 88 homilies, respectively.45 To be noted is that
Severus cites predominantly Chrysostom’s New Testament works: for example,
in his polemical works against Julian of Halicarnassus, he cites John’s homilies
on Matthew and John, and on Romans, Corinthians, Colossians, and Hebrews,
as well as homilies on various topics.46 Although Chrysostom is cited only once
in Severus’ homilies,47 and then in the company of Cyril and others, yet, as Roux
demonstrates, John is the exegete on whom Severus relies most.
In his magisterial christological work, the Philalethes or Lover of Truth
(meaning Cyril of Alexandria), Severus uses extensively John’s commentary on
Romans and his seven homilies, Praises of St Paul, in order to interpret the
works of the great Alexandrian in an anti-Chalcedonian sense.48 It is worth
remarking that Severus does not follow Chrysostom’s style of exegesis, which,
true to the preachers of Antioch, is a more literal elucidation of the scrip-
tural texts;49 instead Severus employs a more spiritual, allegorizing exegesis
43 Roux, L’ Exégèse biblique, 106–107.

44 Roux, L’ Exégèse biblique, 166, 169.
45 See cpg 4424 and 4425, respectively.
46 See the indices in Robert Hespel, Sévère d’Antioche. La polémique antijulianiste, ii.b,
L’Adversus apologiam Juliani, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 302, Scr.
Syr. 127 (Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus sco, 1969), 304–305; idem, Sévère d’Antioche. La
polémique antijulianiste, iii, L’Apologie du Philalèthe, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum
Orientalium 319, Scr. Syr. 137 (Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus sco, 1971), 125.
47 Hom. 119, 399.
48 The Philalethes is edited and translated by Robert Hespel, Sévère d’Antioche, Le Philalèthe,
Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 133 (text) and 134 (trans.), Scr. Syr. 68, 69
(Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1952). An Arabic version is being edited by Dr Youhanna Nessim
Youssef.
49 On which see Christoph Schäublin, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der anti-
ochenischen Exegese, Theophaneia 23 (Cologne and Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlag, 1974).
Cf. Bradley Nassif, “ ‘Spiritual Exegesis’ in the School of Antioch”, in idem (ed.), New Per-
spectives on Historical Theology. Essays in Memory of John Meyendorff (Grand Rapids, mi:
William B. Eerdmans, 1996), 343–377. For the nature of Alexandrian exegesis see Aloys
Grillmeier with Thereesia Hainthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 2, From the Coun-
cil of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590–604), part 4, The Church of Alexandria with
10 allen
reminiscent of Alexandrian theologians, and for this reason some modern

scholars speak of him as an Alexandrian in Antioch.50
Letters
In his letters Severus frequently refers to Chrysostom without necessarily quot-

ing him every time. He introduces John in such terms as “the holy/wise John
who was bishop of Constantinople,”51 “the holy John also the great in spiri-
tual wealth,”52 and “John, the holy and renowned, who adorned the church
of Constantinople.”53 In his letters Severus quotes John’s homilies on Matthew
and John, on 1Corinthians, Hebrews, and Titus.54 In addition apart from quot-
ing repeatedly from John’s commentary the Psalms, Severus refers to John’s
homiletical series Against the Jews, and the Praises of St Paul,55 and to John’s
homilies on martyrs.56
Concluding Observations
Severus, with his tidy, legal mind, and unlike both Cyril and John, was a sys-
tematic theologian. His overriding concern is Chalcedon, which of course post-
dates Chrysostom, and it is therefore inevitable that Severus uses Cyril’s argu-
ments against Nestorius extensively to support his own attack on the Council
of 451. This is not to say that Severus blindly follows Cyril, but rather that he felt
Nubia and Ethiopia after 451, trans. O.C. Dean (Mowbray: London, and Louisville, ky: West-
minster John Knox Press, 1996), 7–161.
50 Alexandre Olivar, La predicación cristiana antigua, Biblioteca Herder, sección de teología y
filosofía 189 (Barcelona: Editorial Herder, 1991), 188, supported by Roux, L’Exégèse biblique,
213.
51 sl 1.53; Brooks 176/159; sl 2.3 234/210; sl 5.1, 312/277; sl 10.7, 510/453.
52 cl 94, 178.
53 cl 84, 138–139.
54 For references to Chrysostom’s commentary on Matthew see cl 85, 142–143; cl 87, 149.
On the commentary on John see e.g. cl 81, 99–101; cl 91, 163; cl 93, 171–172. For John on
Hebrews see e.g. cl 88, 152; for 1 Cor. see cl 69, 99–101. For John on Titus see e.g. sl 2.3,
234/210; 139.
55 On Adversus Iudaeos see Collection, ep. 84, po 14/1; on Praises of St Paul see sl 5.1, 5.6.
56 sl 8.5; 468–469/ 414.
responsible for interpreting him against the proponents of Chalcedon. On the

other hand, Chrysostom, despite his engaging exegesis and pastoral emphases,
was not always directly relevant for Severus’ theological and dogmatic con-
cerns.
Was Severus, then, a second Cyril or the heir of John Chrysostom? Let us
return to the hymn with which we began. From what we saw in the hymnog-
rapher’s schema, Severus stood between the axes of Antioch and Alexandria,
with a pivotal point being Cappadocia and its influential theology. Let us then
posit, along the lines of Cardinal Grillmeier’s presentation of him, that Severus
was a second Cyril, to the extent that he had to rely on the great Alexandrian’s
refutation of Nestorius; at the same time Severus had to systematize and defend
Cyril’s often contradictory formulations in the face of Chalcedonian appropri-
ation of Cyrillian ideas. However, we must also designate Severus as the heir to
Chrysostom to the extent that he followed in the steps of the greatest Antioch-
ene preacher to his day and inherited a church that was used to Antiochene
exegesis, which Severus’ Alexandrine training led him to modify. In both these
senses Severus may then indeed more properly be called an Alexandrian in
Antioch and an heir to both Chrysostom and Cyril.
The Quotes from sl and cl Referred to above
sl 1.53, 159: I forbear to mention also the celebrated case of John who was bishop
of Constantinople … you know he incurred deprivation …
sl 1.60, 190: This is also confirmed by the wise John who was bishop of Con-
stantinople, in the sermon entitled ‘On the treason of Judas and on the
Passover’ (pg 49.380).
sl 2.3, 210: This the holy John also, who was bishop of cp, interpreted. when he
wrote as follows about Titus (pg 62.663).
sl 5.1, 277–278: I remember to have heard a discourse of the holy John, bishop
of cp, read (In laudes Pauli, pg 49.498).
sl 5.6, 306: And that this is so the saintly John will bear witness, who with
wisdom fed the holy church at cp, in that in the fifth book of his Praises of
the apostle Paul he speaks thus (pg 49.498–499).
sl 10.7, 453–454: The wise John, who was bishop of cp, towards the end of the
commentary on the gospel of Matthew … wrote (pg 58.768) …
cl 27, 253–254: And the most wise John, the expounder of the divine words, in
the commentary on the epistle to the Hebrews speaks as follows … And in
the commentary on the epistle to the Romans he gives an account of this
matter …
12 allen
cl 69, 99: That this is so, the holy John bishop of cp also testifies in the
fourteenth note of the second part of the commentary on the first epistle
to the Corinthians (Hom. 39.30) …
cl 81, 131: John also in the 34th homily of the commentary on the Gospel of John
uses these words (Hom. 34.3).
cl 84, 138–139: And John the holy and of renowned memory, who adorned the
throne of the church of cp at that time, said … (Adv. Iud. 5.10.11) … But for
your assurance I have thought it to be necessary for us to cite also the words
of the interpretation of the man whom we have mentioned, the holy John,
which are these …
cl 85, 142–143: as the very wise John bishop of Constantinople also said in the
56th homily of the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew …
cl 87, 148–149: John bishop of cp says that … (In Matt. Hom. 82.2)
cl 88, 152: That this is so is confirmed by John also the wise in the Spirit, who
became bishop of cp, in the 22nd homily of the commentary on the Epistle
to the Hebrews (hom 22.8).
cl 91, 160–164: And that these things are so laid down by the very wise John
also who became bishop of cp, when he is interpreting the 104th Psalm …
But in the above-mentioned commentary on the 104th Psalm we find the
holy John bishop of cp solving the point in Exodus that seemed doubtful …
But the wise doctor John …
cl 93, 171–172: … it is not we only who admit this, but men also who are highly
distinguished among the fathers, and guides to the mysteries and doctors of
the holy church. And John, who became bishop of cp, in the commentary
on the Gospel of John … says (In Ioh. Hom. 88.2).
cl 94, 178–179: For the holy Basil the wise in divine things in the homily on the
Faith says … But the holy John also the great in spiritual wealth taught in
accord with this in the commentary on the Epistle to the Corinthians (In Ep.
i ad Cor. Hom. 32.10)
cl 96, 184–185; And John the holy bishop of cp in the homily entitled ‘Why that
tree was called the tree of good and evil’ … (In Gen. Hom. 7, 4, 5)
cl 97, 198–199: But John, who became bishop of cp and was a preacher of
the true dispensation with boldness, in the homily entitled ‘Concerning the
cross and concerning the robber’ …
cl 98, 210–212: And John, in the 66th homily of the commentary on the Gospel
of Matthew states things consonant with these as follows (In Matt. Hom.
66.4) … and the same again in the 79th exposition when speaking of the
Passion … (In Matt. Hom. 79). And then in Matt. Hom. 82.6).
cl 100, 236–244: The very wise John who became bishop of Constantinople in
the 6th homily of the commentary on the Gospel of Matthew … (In Matt.
Hom. 6.3) … And in the 24th homily of the same work … John who became
bishop of cp in the 85th homily of the commentary on the Gospel of John
wrote as follows (In Ioh. Hom. 85.1, 2).
Se glorifier de sa ville et de son siège ?
La grandeur d’Antioche et le mépris des titres chez
Sévère le Grand
Introduction
Le 18 novembre 512, Sévère de Sozopolis, supérieur d’ un monastère à Maïouma,

le port de Gaza, est élevé au siège patriarcal d’ Antioche. La ville dont le nou-
veau patriarche reçoit le gouvernement est chargée d’ histoire, tant au plan
civil que religieux: fondée environ trois cents ans avant l’ère chrétienne par
Séleucus Nicator, un des généraux d’Alexandre le Grand, Antioche reste sous
la domination des Séleucides jusqu’à la conquête romaine. C’ est alors que la
ville, en tant que capitale de la Syrie et résidence du légat impérial, reçoit le
nom de «Reine de l’Orient» et devient «le centre de gravité de l’ empire grec ».1
À l’avènement du christianisme, la communauté chrétienne d’ Antioche est
la plus ancienne après celle de la «sainte Sion, mère de toutes les Églises ».
À Antioche, les disciples de Jésus reçoivent pour la première fois le nom de
«chrétiens» (Ac 11,26). Les apôtres Pierre et Paul y séjournent et, à partir
d’elle, les premières missions sont envoyées vers l’ Occident et vers l’ Asie. Selon
Eusèbe de Césarée (†340),2 l’apôtre Pierre a institué l’ épiscopat à Antioche en
le passant à Évode.3
1 L. Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien: études sur la liturgie latine avant Charlemagne (5e
éd.), (Paris: De Boccard, 1925) 21, cité par L. Laham, «Le patriarcat d’Antioche au premier
millénaire : juridiction patriarcale,» in I. Zuzek e. a., I patriarcati orientali nel primo millennio:
relazioni del Congresso tenutosi al Pontificio Istituto Orientale nei giorni 27–30 Dicembre 1967
(Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 181), (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studorium,
1968), 115–135 et en particulier 117.
2 Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire Ecclésiastique, G. Bardy (Sources Chrétiennes xxx), (Paris: Cerf,
2003) ch. iii, 22.
3 En introduction à l’ histoire et au rôle d’ Antioche dans l’histoire du christianisme, nous
renvoyons à G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest,
(Princeton, nj : Princeton University Press, 1961); D.S. Wallace-Hadrill, Christian Antioch. A
Study of Early Christian Thought in the East, (Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press,
1982) et C. Kondoleon, Antioch : The Lost City, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000).
W. Mayer and P. Allen, The Churches of Syrian Antioch (300–638) (Late antiquity history and
religion 5) (Leuven : Peeters, 2012).

se glorifier de sa ville et de son siège ? 15
Lorsque Sévère accède donc au trône patriarcal, il est conscient qu’ il se

tient à la tête d’ une grande et célèbre métropole.4 Cette conscience le pousse
à chanter souvent sa grandeur, sa distinction et son amour pour le Christ.5 Il
ne cessera de rappeler l’excellence de ses origines apostoliques et l’ actuelle
ferveur de son peuple. Les deux sujets traditionnels de fierté des antiochiens
sont, à son avis, le premier siège du chef des apôtres et le grand nom de
« chrétiens» qui a été béni sur la terre.6
Antioche, grandeur d’une ville apostolique et fidèle
Honneurs traditionnels
Antioche, siège de l’apôtre Pierre et de ses successeurs
Dans sa première homélie cathédrale prononcée à l’ occasion de son accès au
trône d’Antioche, Sévère déclare fièrement que la ville qu’ il vient de recevoir
la charge d’administrer, « est la pierre sur laquelle le Christ Dieu de tout l’ univers
a établi la base de l’Église en tout lieu (cf. Mt 16, 18) ».7 Ailleurs, il tempère
l’ emphase de cette affirmation en disant qu’Antioche a été fondée la première
de toutes les saintes Églises de tous les lieux de la terre.8
D’après le patriarche, la grandeur de la ville remonte à ses origines apos-
toliques, à Pierre le grand des apôtres,9 celui qui s’ est entendu dire: Tu es Pierre
4 M. Brière et F. Graffin, Les Homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche, traduction syriaque de

Jacques d’Édesse. Homélies xxvi à xxxi, (Patrologia Orientalis 36/4), (Turnhout: Brepols, 1974),
577 [43], Hom. 28 ; R. Duval, Les Homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche, traduction syriaque
de Jacques d’ Édesse. Homélies lii–lvii, (Patrologia Orientalis 4/1), (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1906)
94 [94], Hom. 57.
5 E.W. Brooks, The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus Patriarch of Antioch in the Syriac
Version of Athanasius of Nisibis, sl, ii, 3, vol. ii: 208 (= vol. i, 232 [syr.]); sl, i, 20, vol. ii, 71 (=
vol. i, 78 [syr.]). E.W. Brooks, A Collection of Letters of Severus of Antioch, (Patrologia Orientalis
12/2), (Paris : Firmin-Didot, 1915), 311 [139], let. 44.
6 M. Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche, traduction syriaque de Jacques
d’ Édesse. Homélies cxxi–cxxv, (Patrologia Orientalis 29/1), (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1960), 229
[733]–231 [735], Hom. 124.
7 M. Brière et F. Graffin et al, Les Homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche, traduction syriaque
de Jacques d’ Édesse. Homélies i à xvii, (Patrologia Orientalis 38/2), (Brepols: Turnhout, 1976),
259 [15], Hom. 1.
d’ Édesse. Homélies lviii–lxix, (Patrologia Orientalis 8/2), (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1912), 261–
262 [147–148]. Hom. 61.
9 Brière et Graffin et al., Les Homiliae cathedrales i–xvii, 259 [15], Hom. 1.
16 akhrass
et sur cette pierre je bâtirai mon Église et les portes du Shéol ne prévaudront pas
contre elle, et qui a reçu les clefs du royaume des cieux.10 La ville d’ Antiochos
ܳ
a été la première à recevoir Pierre en qualité de pasteur (焏q‫)ܪܥ‬, de mari (焏r‫)ܰܓܒ‬
et de constructeur (焏q‫;)ܰܒܳܢ‬11 elle l’a suivi en tant que pasteur qui a fait paître le
troupeau spirituel, en le nourrissant des dogmes saints de la religion;12 elle a
cohabité avec lui comme avec un mari en pratiquant la chasteté et en réglant
sa propre conduite sur la sienne, et elle a caché dans ses trésors le fondement
qu’il a posé en tant que constructeur.13
Antioche est dite «Église apostolique»14 mais elle se distingue des autres
Églises également apostoliques, par le fait qu’ elle a recueilli le siège évangé-
ܺ
lique,15 sacré et apostolique de Pierre16 (‫ܘܣ‬rq‫ ܕܦ‬焏‫ܬܒ‬熏‫ܬ ܰܡ‬熏rܽq‫ ܘܪ‬焏qqܳq‫ܠ‬r 焏‫ܡ‬熏‫)ܰܩ‬,
chef des apôtres.17 Il est fort possible que l’insistance de Sévère sur ce point
visât à contrecarrer les revendications de Rome et ceux qui, du diocèse de
l’Orient, ont fait appel à son évêque.
Après le séjour et l’accomplissement de la charge apostolique (焏‫ܡ‬熏‫ ܆ ܩ‬焏q‫ܬ‬焏‫ܡ‬
焏qqܳq‫ܠ‬r) de Pierre et sa présidence au siège (焏q‫ܡ‬煟‫ ܩ‬焏‫ܬܒ‬熏‫ ܆ ܡ‬焏‫ܬܒ‬熏‫ܬ ܡ‬熏rq‫)ܪ‬, il
revenait à Ignace Théophore – revêtu de Dieu – le grand évêque et martyr,
d’orner le siège des antiochiens et de faire paître leur Église.18 Sévère néglige
la mention d’Évode et se considère comme tenant le siège d’ Ignace. Il ne se
contente pas de parler de Pierre car l’épiscopat est différent de l’apostolat.
En effet, l’ancienne tradition chrétienne ne désignait pas un apôtre (Pierre
en l’occurrence) comme premier évêque de la ville où il avait implanté la
foi (Antioche ou Rome). C’était celui qui avait été ordonné par lui qui était
considéré comme le premier évêque. De cette manière, Eusèbe de Césarée
10 Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales lviii–lxix, 260 [146], Hom. 61.

12 Brière et Graffin et al, Les Homiliae cathedrales i–xvii, 259 [15], Hom. 1.
14 Duval, Les Homiliae cathedrales lii–lvii, 77 [77], Hom. 56.
15 Brooks, Select Letters, i, 20, vol. ii, 71 (= vol. i, 78 [syr.]).
16 Brière et Graffin et al, Les Homiliae cathedrales i à xvii, 255 [11], Hom. 1; E.W. Brooks, A
Collection of Letters of Severus of Antioch, (Patrologia Orientalis 14/1), (Paris: Firmin-Didot,
1920), 97 [267], let. 69.
17 M. Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales cxxi–cxxv, 229 [733–735] Hom. 124. Cf. M.A. Kuge-
ner, Vie de Sévère d’Antioche par Jean supérieur du monastère de Beth-Aphtonia, (Patrologia
Orientalis 2/3), (Paris : Firmin-Didot, 1904), 328 [244].
18 Brooks, A Collection of Letters, 97 [267], let. 69 ; Brooks, Select Letters, i, 57, vol. ii, 174
(= vol. i, 193 [syr.]). Cf. aussi M. Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche,
traduction syriaque de Jacques d’Édesse. Homélies lxxviii–lxxxiii, (Patrologia Orientalis
20/2), (Paris : Firmin-Didot, 1927), 298 [127], Hom. 78.
dans son Histoire ecclésiastique considère qu’Ignace avait obtenu, au second

rang dans la succession de Pierre, l’épiscopat à Antioche.19 Ceci explique pour-
quoi Sévère tenait à lier le nom d’Ignace, après celui de Pierre, au siège d’ An-
tioche.
Ainsi donc, dans la même lignée apostolique-épiscopale, la charge passe à
Sévère devenu successeur et héritier du siège de Pierre et d’ Ignace :
Après son élection et son avènement au trône patriarcal d’ Antioche, toute
la ville le considérait comme un second Pierre.20 Selon son biographe, Sévère
était semblable à Pierre par ses prodiges21 et ses œuvres qui se sont chargés de
le faire connaître.22 Et si, d’une part, ses détracteurs le comparaient péjorative-
ment à Pierre qui s’était donné tort à Antioche (Ga 2, 11),23 pour ses amis tel
que Théodose d’Alexandrie (535–538, †566), Sévère était semblable à Pierre
« rocher du Christ et gardien inébranlable de la foi pure».24 Les évêques de
l’ Orient, opposés à Chalcédoine, voyaient en lui le successeur de Pierre, des
pasteurs et des docteurs de l’Église orthodoxe.25
Le biographe de Sévère, Jean Bar Aphtonia, dit de lui qu’ il monta sur le
trône d’Ignace, lui succédant, il est vrai après beaucoup d’ autres au point de
vue numérique, mais immédiatement pour la vertu.26 Or Sévère, comme tous
les pères qui furent élus à de telles chaires élevées, quand il apprit le choix
qu’ on avait fait de lui pour être patriarche d’Antioche, songea à s’enfuir et
disait:
19 Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire Ecclésiastique, ch. iii, 36.

20 M.A. Kugener, Vie de Sévère d’Antioche par Zacharie le scholastique, (Patrologia Orientalis
2/1), (Paris : Firmin-Didot, 1903), 114 [114].
21 Kugener, Vie de Sévère d’ Antioche, Jean de Beth-Aphtonia, 260 [176].
23 Dans la correspondance entre Julien et Sévère, l’ évêque d’Halicarnasse critiquait l’évêque
d’ Antioche et ce faisant, il se comparait à Paul « le petit» (焏‫ܪ‬熏‫ )̇ܗܘ ܙܥ‬réprimandant à
Antioche Pierre « le chef » (焏r‫( )̇ܗܘ ܪ‬Ga 2). Mais, là où Pierre acceptait la réprimande –
peut-être même injuste à son égard – et saluait plus tard la grande théologie de Paul qui
se profile à travers ses épîtres quelque peu difficiles, Sévère successeur de Pierre, selon
Julien, ne supportait pas la critique. Cf. R. Hespel, La polémique antijulianiste i (Corpus
Scriptorum Christianoum Orientalium 244–245), (Louvain: Secrétariat du csco, 1964),
160 [208].
25 J.-B. Chabot, Documenta ad origines monophysitarum illustrandas, (Corpus Scriptorum
Christianorum Orientalium 37), (Paris : Typographeo Reipublicae, 1908), 192.
18 akhrass
Je ne suffis pas pour un ministère aussi sacré. Comment moi, petit, qui
ne suis pas préparé, pourrais-je m’asseoir sur le siège du grand Ignace?
Ordonnez un autre qui soit capable.27
Dans le même sens, il dira dans sa 9e homélie prononcée le jour de l’ an qu’ il

célébrait chaque année dans le sanctuaire de saint Ignace :
Comment en viendrons-nous au même état, moi et Ignace le Théophore,

celui sur le siège duquel j’ose m’asseoir? Est-ce que l’ eau ne diffère pas du
feu?28 Ainsi, ma vie dissolue ne ressemble pas à la vie ardente et céleste
de celui-là.29
Connaissant son indignité à s’asseoir sur ce siège ignacien, Sévère signera

sobrement toutes ses lettres: «Sévère, par la miséricorde de Dieu, évêque
d’Antioche.»30 En effet, nous verrons plus loin que les honneurs des sièges et
des titres lui importaient fort peu.
Bref, à ce premier grand honneur d’avoir accueilli l’ apôtre Pierre comme
pasteur, mari et constructeur, Antioche peut ajouter un deuxième mérite, celui
d’avoir donné au peuple de Jésus le nom de chrétiens.
Antioche, berceau du nouveau nom de chrétiens
Par conséquent, il faut donc glorifier cette ville et la saluer, parce qu’ alors
elle nous donnait les donateurs des aliments spirituels ; et c’ est à cause
d’eux que, nous étant multipliés et étant devenus une grande assem-
blée, nous avons été désignés également par le nom de ‘premiers chré-
tiens’.31
Lorsque Sévère se tenait devant la foule enthousiaste des fidèles à Antioche,

notamment aux anniversaires de son intronisation, il s’ enchantait, flattait ce
27 Kugener, Vie de Sévère d’Antioche, Jean de Beth-Aphtonia, 240 [156].

28 C’ est le sens du nom Ignace en latin.
29 Brière et Graffin et al, Les Homiliae cathedrales i à xvii, 347 [103], Hom. 9.
31 M. Brière et F. Graffin, Les Homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche, traduction syriaque de
Jacques d’Édesse. Homélies xxvi à xxxi, (Patrologia Orientalis 36/4), (Turnhout: Brepols,
1974), 577 [43], Hom. 28.
peuple fidèle et lui rappelait incessamment ses racines chrétiennes et apos-

toliques.
Selon le livre des Actes (11, 26), les antiochiens sont le peuple sur lequel a
été écrit le saint nom du Christ et qu’avant tous les autres a été appelé « les
chrétiens».32 Ce n’est pas rien qu’ils portent le même nom que le Christ.33 Ce
nom est un honneur pour l’Église d’Antioche qui fut la première à s’ en revêtir
avant les autres biens ainsi que de quelque chose de supérieur, comme d’ un
vêtement sublime, royal et de pourpre.34
Il est vrai que ce nom de chrétiens n’a pas été donné par le Christ à ses
disciples et qu’il provient d’une tradition ultérieure. Mais cela ne fait pas de
tort. Sévère souligne que les usages de l’Église ne nous sont pas tous venus
à partir de traditions apostoliques, mais il y en a qui ont passé dans toute
l’ Église également par suite d’ inventions successives et de progrès. Parmi ces
traditions,
il y a d’abord le fait que nous soyons nommés chrétiens beaucoup d’ an-

nées après que l’Évangile a été prêché: ce qui, après avoir commencé par
cette Église d’Antioche, nous a englobés pour former un peuple saint,
nous qui sommes en tout lieu de la terre.35
Bien que ce nom nouveau de chrétiens qui a été béni sur toute la terre ne fût pas
donné directement par le Christ, il a néanmoins été indiqué à l’ avance par le
prophète Isaïe:36 Et il appellera ton nouveau nom, celui que le Seigneur nommera
33 M. Brière, F. Graffin et C.J.A. Lash, Les Homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche, traduction
syriaque de Jacques d’Édesse. Homélies xxxii à xxxix, (Patrologia Orientalis 36/3), (Turn-
hout: Brepols, 1972), 447 [57], Hom. 35.
34 Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales lviii–lxix, 262 [148], Hom. 61.; M. Brière, Les Homil-
iae cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche, traduction syriaque de Jacques d’Édesse. Homélies
lxxviii–lxxxiii, (Patrologia Orientalis 20/2), (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1927), 324 [158], Hom.
80.
35 Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales cxxi–cxxv, 247 [751], Hom. 125. Sévère profite de cet
exemple pour l’ utiliser en faveur de l’ incise ajoutée au Trisagion «Celui qui a été crucifié
pour nous », qui était inconnue des Alexandrins et des Lybiens et a commencé par
la ville d’ Antioche, par où a commencé aussi le nom de chrétiens. Sévère veut que
l’ incise ajoutée au Trisagion, née à Antioche, trouve son chemin vers toutes les Églises
comme il en était du nom de chrétiens qui a commencé aussi à Antioche (Ibid., 249
[753]).
20 akhrass
(Is 62, 2). Or le nouveau nom est celui de l’Église et celui qui le complète, c’ est-
à-dire celui des chrétiens. C’est le Seigneur qui a donné ce nom et parmi les
hommes personne ne l’a inventé, puisque Jésus a été le premier à le révéler
lorsqu’il a dit: Tu es roc, et sur ce roc je bâtirai mon Église (Mt 16, 18).37
En somme, le premier siège de Pierre que la ville d’ Antioche a accueilli et
le grand nom de chrétiens qu’elle a propagé dans les Églises du monde, font
l’honneur des antiochiens. Mais ce qui attire davantage les éloges du patriarche
sur eux est qu’ils ont mérité en actes leur nom de chrétiens, par leurs vertus
et tout particulièrement par leur foi orthodoxe laquelle est leur plus grand
trésor:
Depuis que j’ai mis les pieds dans cette ville et jusqu’à ce jour, j’ ai trouvé
que vous amassez une grande richesse spirituelle, que vous confirmez
votre nom que vous avez bien mérité, d’ être appelés chrétiens les pre-
miers et que vous montrez dans la réalité et par les faits eux-mêmes les
ordonnances apostoliques qui sont proclamées en paroles à l’ Église.38
Un présent honorable
Conservation pratique du dépôt apostolique

Dès le premier jour de son intronisation, Sévère ne cachait pas son admiration
pour le peuple d’Antioche, qu’il appelle «peuple ami du Christ ».39 Il décrit
l’Église d’Antioche qui l’écoutait pour la première fois en ces termes: « Je vois
cette église remplie d’hommes bouillonnant de par l’ Esprit et resplendissant des
rayons de lumière de l’orthodoxie».40
En vertu de leur nom de chrétiens qui connote un lien privilégié avec le
Christ – ils sont, en effet, son peuple –, les antiochiens sont censés être les
mieux disposés à saisir les choses révélées et à s’ élever aux pensées sublimes et
spirituelles, là où Sévère souhaite les entraîner.41
Depuis que le nouveau patriarche a mis les pieds dans la ville, il a trouvé
que les antiochiens amassaient une grande richesse spirituelle. À leurs origines
apostoliques que nous avons déjà exposées, il faut ajouter que certaines de
37 Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales cxxi–cxxv, 99 [603], Hom. 121.

38 Brière et Graffin, Les Homiliae cathedrales xxvi à xxxi, 543 [9], Hom 26.
41 Brière, Graffin et Lash, Les Homiliae cathedrales xxxii à xxxix, 447 [57], Hom. 35.
leurs églises comme celle de Cassien jouissent d’ un fondement apostolique

direct, tant matériellement que spirituellement.42 Mais le plus important est
que les traditions transmises des apôtres aux pasteurs locaux de l’ Église se
trouvent conservées intègrement à Antioche qui a fidèlement et précieusement
sauvegardé ce dépôt traditionnel:
Je célèbre les traditions des apôtres, que les pasteurs de cette Église nous
ont léguées comme un héritage paternel, après les avoir reçues à tour de
rôle, ainsi qu’un fils reçoit de son père, après les avoir étendues par des
développements successifs, lorsque la connaissance du mystère s’ élargis-
sait avec les montées du cœur (cf. Ps 83, 6), comme dit David, et après les
avoir gardées avec soin.43
Outre leurs solides fondements apostoliques, les antiochiens ont pratiqué dans
la réalité et par les faits, les ordonnances apostoliques qui sont proclamées en
paroles à l’Église. À ce sujet, Sévère énumère dans sa 26e homélie les nom-
breuses vertus qu’il a constatées chez eux: ils aiment sans acception des per-
sonnes (cf. Jc 2, 1), ils haïssent le mal et s’attachent au bien ; ils travaillent à
montrer l’amour de la charité fraternelle les uns à l’ égard des autres; dans
le zèle ils ne sont pas nonchalants, ils sont fervents selon l’ esprit ; ils ser-
vent le Seigneur, ils se réjouissent dans l’espérance et sont constants dans
la tribulation (cf. Rm 12, 9–12).44 Sur ce dernier point, Sévère rendra plus
tard, depuis son exil, hommage à Antioche qui endure bravement la persécu-
tion.45
De même, les antiochiens ont célébré toutes les fêtes du Christ avec foi,
pureté et honneur. D’une part, ils sont nés de nouveau avec la naissance de
l’ Emmanuel parce qu’ils se sont préoccupés de marcher en renouveau de vie
(cf. Rm 6, 4) et, d’autre part, ils se sont levés avec le lever divin etc. Sévère
poursuit sa litanie montrant comment ils ont conformé leur vie à celle du
d’ Édesse. Homélies lxx–lxxvi, (Patrologia Orientalis 12/1), (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1915), 52
[334], Hom. 71.
44 Brière et Graffin, Les Homiliae cathedrales xxvi à xxxi, 543 [9], Hom. 26.
45 « In everything the consideration of your vigour church in Antiochus’ city (焏q‫ܩ‬熏‫ܒ‬
‫ܣ‬熏q熏qq‫ܢ‬焏‫ܗ ܕ‬r‫ܢ‬q煟‫ ̇ܗܝ ܕܒܡ‬焏‫ܬ‬煟‫ ܥ‬qq‫ܬ‬熏‫ܢ‬r‫ܠ‬qq‫)ܕ‬, causes me wonder, and the fact that you not
only hold yourself readily and courageously against disturbing elements coming from
without, but also manage your internal government wisely, and are guided in the right
way by the gospel law. » Brooks, Select Letters, v, 8, vol. ii, 319 (= vol. i, 361 [syr.]).
22 akhrass
Christ, en passant par la crucifixion et la résurrection et jusqu’à la venue de

l’Esprit-Saint.46
Si Sévère prend plaisir à prolonger ses hommages aux antiochiens, c’ est
surtout pour les disposer à accepter ses avertissements et ses critiques concer-
nant leurs mœurs païennes. En effet, il va constamment les avertir des specta-
cles des chevaux47 et leur dire ouvertement que leur attachement aux soucis
matériels et leur dérive vers les spectacles de prostitution dans les théâtres,
les conduiront à la perdition.48 Sévère n’hésite pas à interpréter le tremble-
ment de terre qui secoua Antioche, comme ayant lieu à cause des péchés et
des iniquités des gens de la ville. Cependant, il ne s’ en prend pas à la ville
ou l’attaque mais il ne la flatte pas non plus: il l’ appelle à la pénitence sans
plus.49
Cela dit, le plus grand danger qui a longtemps guetté et troublé Antioche
et qui occupe profondément Sévère est celui qui provient de l’ impiété des
hérétiques, en premier lieu Diodore de Tarse (372–392) et Théodore de Mop-
sueste (392–428), et ensuite leur disciple Nestorius patriarche de Constantino-
ple (428–431; †451).50 Alors que la ville vivait sous l’ influence de ces person-
nes, elle encourait les menaces de malédiction que le prophète Isaïe avait
jadis proférées contre Jérusalem qui s’était vidée des docteurs de la parole
divine et des auditeurs intelligents. Sévère, de son côté, comparant Antioche
à Jérusalem, rendait grâce à Dieu qui n’a pas enlevé l’ auditoire intelligent de
sa Jérusalem – entendre l’Église Antioche – qui a écouté et suivi la voix de son
vrai pasteur lequel n’est autre que Sévère lui-même, s’ est rebellée et rebiffée
contre les voix étrangères, celles des évêques hétérodoxes.51 Voici un nouveau
motif touchant la foi, qui agrandit encore plus le mérite d’ Antioche aux yeux
de Sévère.
Refus des époux étrangers et union à Sévère

Le thème de l’Église-épouse, inspirée par le Cantique des Cantiques, est cher
à notre auteur. Il se plaît à le développer dans ses homélies52 et à peindre la
47 Brière et Graffin, Les Homiliae cathedrales xxvi à xxxi, 545–557 [11–23], Hom. 26.
52 Cf. M. Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche, traduction syriaque de Jacques
d’ Édesse. Homélies xci–xcviii, (Patrologia Orientalis 25/1), (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1935),
36–42 [480–486], Hom. 92.
beauté53 de l’ Église ornée et parée comme une épouse amenée aux noces du
Christ.54 La prolongation de l’image continue avec les disciples du Christ qui
ont placé à la tête de chaque ville un évêque, figure de l’ époux spirituel qui
s’ unit à son épouse.55
À partir de cette image de l’évêque-époux de l’ Église locale sur laquelle il
est établi, Sévère représente le jour de son intronisation comme une union
matrimoniale avec les antiochiens.
Mais avant d’arriver à ce jour, Antioche a dû d’ abord répudier avec zèle les
époux impies – entendre les évêques hérétiques –, car elle ne pouvait supporter
que la parole de la vérité soit altérée par ceux qui trafiquent les choses de
Dieu. Les hommes qui se sont unis à cette Église d’ une façon indécente, après
qu’ ils eurent cohabité avec elle pour un bon moment et qu’ ils ne se furent
point repentis et détournés de leur impiété, elle les a chassés cruellement en
leur donnant un acte de répudiation (cf. Mt 5, 31). Et, leur portant une juste
haine, elle s’est refusé à cohabiter avec eux.56 Les ayant repoussés ainsi que
des étrangers, elle a montré qu’ils cohabitaient mensongèrement avec elle à
tel point que ceux aussi qui comme Jean-Baptiste sont animés de l’ Esprit,
gémissent et s’écrient: Il ne t’est pas permis de la posséder (Mt 14, 4). De
tels époux défectueux, lors même qu’ils étaient censés être avec l’ épouse,
n’ étaient pas en réalité avec elle, bien qu’ils eussent la témérité d’ être assis
corporellement sur le trône.57
Après qu’Antioche eût répudié les époux étrangers, Sévère a été conduit
au lit spirituel. Et le Christ qui négocie les fiançailles dans les mariages de ce
genre et dans les unions qui consolident l’orthodoxie de la foi et la pureté de la
conduite, lui a livré et confié, ainsi qu’une épouse sacrée, l’ Église d’ Antioche
qui s’est parfaitement accordée avec lui de telle sorte que les témoins de cette
union disaient: « Vraiment c’est de la part du Seigneur que cette épouse s’accorde
avec ce mari ».58
Le nouveau mari n’avait d’autre objectif que celui de transmettre à son
épouse la parole de la foi orthodoxe, afin d’en être aimé davantage.59 Il savait
53 Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales xci–xcviii, 121–126 [565–570], Hom. 97.

54 Cf. M. Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche, traduction syriaque de Jacques
d’ Édesse. Homélies civ–cxii, (Patrologia Orientalis 25/4), (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1943), 700
[194] – 717 [211], Hom. 108.
55 Brooks, Select Letters, ii, 3, vol. ii, 210 (= vol. i, 234 [syr.]).
57 Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales lxxviii–lxxxiii, 325 [159], Hom. 80.
58 Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales lxxviii–lxxxiii, 324–325 [158–159], Hom. 80.
24 akhrass
bien que cette célèbre mère des Églises brûle d’ amour pour lui et n’aime pas
qu’il la quitte. Lui aussi n’aimait pas s’en séparer,60 mais voilà qu’ il était obligé
parfois de le faire pour visiter les évêchés subordonnés à sa métropole. Sévère
exprime la souffrance du déchirement parce qu’ il allait se priver de la vue
sacrée des antiochiens, en disant: « Mais vous, dans quel état pensez-vous que
je me trouverai lorsque je cesserai pour un peu de temps de me mêler avec vous
les amis de Dieu? »61 Cette douleur venait de sa triple passion pour eux : il les
aime de la charité qui unit l’époux à la fiancée du Cantique des Cantique
qui symbolise à l’avance l’Église;62 il les aime également d’ un amour paternel
et filial décrit par Paul en ces termes: Nous, ô nos Frères, qui avons été fait
orphelin de vous pour un moment, de vue et non de cœur, nous étions surtout
sollicité par un vif désir de voir votre visage (1t 2, 17). Sévère explique que Paul
prenait la figure d’un père et s’appelait en même temps orphelin, donnant à
entendre qu’il possédait en lui les deux amours : l’ amour paternel et l’ amour
filial, aimant comme un père qui souffre dans son amour et comme un enfant
qui ne peut supporter d’être orphelin. Mais là où le père est peut-être en mesure
de supporter la séparation des enfants, le fils n’a ni la philosophie ni la force
d’agir ainsi; aussitôt il se laisse aller aux larmes et aux sanglots.63
Lorsque Sévère arrive, lors de sa tournée en dehors d’ Antioche, aux monas-
tères, il ressent une nostalgie de la vie ascétique et souhaite y retourner, adres-
sant à son âme la parole de Pierre: Veux-tu que nous dressions ici une tente? Et
il la voit accourir rapidement et donner son consentement.64 Mais quand son
âme se remet en mémoire que le Christ l’a unie par le mariage et l’ alliance à
l’Église d’Antioche, elle se rappelle l’amour des antiochiens et se dit : «Laisse
cette pensée, ô toi; tu es lié à une femme ne cherche pas à rompre ce lien (cf. 1 Co
7, 27)».65
Et là, par d’admirables paroles, le patriarche décrit le grand abîme séparant
la grandeur et la beauté d’Antioche de sa petitesse, exprimant son dévouement
pour son épouse et sa disposition à donner sa vie pour elle comme Christ a aimé
l’Église et s’est livré pour elle (cf. Ep 5, 25):
60 Cf. Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales civ–cxii, 782[276]–783 [277], Hom. 110.
61 R. Duval, Les Homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche, traduction syriaque de Jacques
d’ Édesse. Homélies lii–lvii, (Patrologia Orientalis 4/1), (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1906) 68 [68],
Hom. 55.
Après m’être remis en esprit l’image de cette sainte Église (d’ Antioche), et
avoir oublié cette philosophie (de la vie monastique), je lui ai appartenu
tout entier et je pensais que je dois me priver même de mon sang pour
elle, si l’occasion le demande. Car de même qu’ une femme comblée de
très grandes richesses, ornée et parée de la gloire de la naissance et de la
grâce de la beauté, et de plus réellement vénérable par la pratique et le
sceau de la chasteté, se trouve fiancée, en vue du mariage, à un pauvre et
à un malheureux qui ne possède absolument que des mœurs douces ; de
même cette Église a agi également à mon égard. Moi qui suis pauvre et
dépourvu de toute perfection, et qui ne possède rien autre chose que la
prédication orthodoxe de la foi, elle m’a réuni à elle-même, elle m’a fait
monter dans sa chambre mystique et elle a estimé cette seule qualité plus
que toute la richesse: c’est pourquoi, quand je suis présent, elle m’aime
et, quand je suis absent, elle me réclame.66
On ne dira jamais assez l’importance que notre patriarche accorde à la ques-

tion de la foi. Son amour et son union avec l’ Église d’ Antioche se basent
uniquement sur la foi. Pauvre et dépourvu de toute perfection, Antioche ne
l’ a choisi que pour sa foi droite et n’a requis de lui que la prédication de
l’ orthodoxie, ce qu’il fera volontiers et avec beaucoup de zèle.
Mais malgré les privilèges de la ville d’Antioche, de son siège et de celui qui
l’ occupe, il n’est pas inopportun d’évoquer le renoncement systématique chez
notre patriarche à tous les honneurs élogieux relatifs aux sièges et aux titres
ecclésiastiques.
Renoncement aux honneurs des sièges et des titres
La leçon des Pères cappadociens et d’Athanase

Le désintérêt des Pères à l’égard de la gloire des grands sièges et des titres
honorifiques, notamment lorsque l’intégrité de la foi était en question, a con-
stamment été pour Sévère un modèle à contempler et à proclamer.
Au cours de son épiscopat à Antioche, le patriarche saisissait chaque année
l’ occasion de la fête des saints Basile et Grégoire pour s’ étendre sur ce thème.
Il montrait à ses auditeurs comment ces deux frères théologiens considéraient
comme éphémères les honneurs terrestres et estimaient qu’ ils n’étaient même
pas dignes de l’honneur épiscopal qui leur était confié.67 Devant les menaces
66 Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales lviii–lxix, 261 [147].

26 akhrass
de mort, ils ont paru pleins d’émulation pour Ignace leur prédécesseur et
désiraient comme lui le martyre en employant ses paroles: Il est beau de se
coucher hors du monde et de se lever dans le Christ, sans aucun attachement à
leurs trônes « car ils n’étaient pas vissés à leurs trônes, ni liés aux délices de ce
monde ».68
Grégoire de Nazianze est un autre exemple de la modestie des Grands qui
n’ont aucun égard aux considérations humaines. Il reçut en charge la ville de
Nazianze, la plus petite des villes de Cappadoce ; or non seulement il ne se
jugeait même pas digne d’elle, mais il fuyait l’honneur de l’ épiscopat, non pas
en le mesurant à l’importance de cette ville, mais conscient que ce pouvoir
est unique et égal en honneur pour tous ceux qui exercent cette fonction
sacrée; il laissa le fait de penser à la grandeur ou à la petitesse de la ville,
aux personnes incultes et charnelles.69 Et lorsque Dieu l’ appela à rejoindre
Constantinople et à devenir archevêque de la ville impériale afin de remédier
aux hérésies pernicieuses qui sévissaient là-bas, il accepta le nouveau siège avec
indifférence, sinon malgré lui. Mais il continua à mépriser l’ honneur du siège
et regardait constamment vers sa petite bourgade Nazianze, en vue d’ imiter la
pauvreté du Maître qui, alors qu’il est l’auteur du ciel, roi et Dieu de toutes les
choses visibles et invisibles, a pris sur lui, à cause de nous, d’ être inscrit dans la
maison de ses ancêtres de Bethléem et de Nazareth.70
Contemporain des Cappadociens, leur analogue alexandrin Athanase le
Grand avait lui aussi souci de la pureté de la foi. Il s’ adonna à défendre l’ ortho-
doxie des dogmes contre l’arianisme, au risque de sa propre vie. Encore diacre,
mais riche en toute sagesse et intelligence, il fut invité à participer à Nicée aux
côtés de son évêque Alexandre. Sévère nous dit qu’ étant donné sa science, sa
force et la rectitude de sa doctrine, il jouissait, malgré l’ infériorité de son degré
ecclésiastique, « des premiers honneurs au point de vue de la première place des
conseils71 (焏q̈‫)ܕܡܠ‬, avant ceux qui avaient les premiers honneurs au point de vue
du siège».72 Devenu évêque, Athanase poursuivait sa lutte pour la foi et refusait
obstinément qu’elle fût altérée, quitte à être banni de son siège sacré, sur lequel
il estimait être assis en esprit, toutes les fois qu’ il en était chassé pour le motif
de la religion.73
68 Brière, Graffin et Lash, Les Homiliae cathedrales xxxii à xxxix, 485 [95], Hom. 37.
70 Brière et Graffin et al, Les Homiliae cathedrales i à xvii, 345–347 [101–103], Hom.9.
71 Variante : rois.
72 Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales xci–xcviii, 14 [458], Hom. 91.
73 Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales xci–xcviii, 22 [466], Hom. 91.
Voilà la leçon que les saints Pères du 4e siècle ont transmise à leurs disciples :
dédaigner les honneurs humains, titres et sièges, et rechercher la pureté de la
foi à tous les égards. Sévère, très bon connaisseur et admirateur des Pères, a bien
saisi la leçon et l’a appliquée à lui-même avant de l’ enseigner aux autres.
Sévère, disciple appliqué des Pères

Moins de deux mois après son intronisation sur l’ éminent siège d’ Antioche,
Sévère prononce le 1 janvier 513, dans l’Église de saint Ignace, sa neuvième
homélie cathédrale consacrée à la mémoire de Basile et de Grégoire. Le nou-
veau patriarche profite de cette fête pour se faire connaître devant les Anti-
ochiens comme un vrai disciple des Pères pour le refus des honneurs et des
pompes élogieuses.
Après avoir relaté les exploits de ces grands saints, il demande à son peuple
fier de sa ville:
Sommes-nous dignes alors de délier la chaussure de ces gens-là, ou même

plutôt de fouler la terre qu’ils foulaient, nous qui brûlons de désir pour
les premières places et pour les premiers honneurs, qui nous gargarisons
à gorge déployée de notre siège apostolique, qui relevons le front plus ou
moins haut, qui gonflons les joues, qui crachons à profusion et marchons
sur la pointe des pieds?74
Le patriarche continue à décrire la passion des évêques, y compris lui-même,

pour les cérémonies et les convois pompeux, au point qu’ ils trouvent pénible
de fouler le sol et se laissent porter en triomphe sur de grands ânes, au pelage
de belle couleur, en avançant comme sur des chars, alors qu’ ils reçoivent les
honneurs d’une foule de gens qui marchent devant, derrière et à leurs côtés.75
Il critique également les flatteries auxquelles on se complaît chaque jour
et remarque que la décence et la crainte de Dieu sont devenues un objet de
mépris. Ce sont, par contre, les félicitations et les compliments qui sont les plus
valorisés, et encore, ceux-ci seront bientôt insatisfaisants voire dédaignés car
on aspirerait, comme les rois de la terre, aux titres réservés à la divinité.76
Sévère déclare qu’il ne pense pas avoir reçu la primauté épiscopale par
convenance ou par mérite et qu’il ne peut pas, selon l’ opinion reçue, être fier
d’ un siège aussi exalté. Au contraire, il déplore au fond de lui-même qu’ il n’y a
28 akhrass
en lui nulle trace de perfection apostolique et, de plus, qu’ il est tourmenté de
passions: « Je tremble non pas seulement de toucher ce siège sacré, mais aussi d’y
souffrir quand je siégerai dessus.»77
Pour notre prédicateur, l’équation est simple : celui qui veut se glorifier des
honneurs apostoliques et des juridictions, doit se conduire comme un apôtre
et brûler de zèle dans les périls pour la cause de la religion. Suivant cette règle,
Sévère voyait le grand abîme qui le séparait d’ Ignace qui fut semblable aux
apôtres par sa lutte en faveur de la foi chrétienne :
Comment en viendrons-nous au même état, moi et Ignace le Théophore,

celui sur le siège duquel j’ose m’asseoir? […] Comment donc ne me faut-il
pas me lamenter sur moi-même, d’avoir part à la même dignité ?78
Sévère achève cette merveilleuse homélie en incitant chacun et chacune à fuir

la vaine gloire, à abandonner les éloges (ou du moins chercher à les mériter par
une saine conduite de vie!), à connaître soi-même en tout temps, à mépriser
les honneurs passagers d’ici-bas et à regarder, finalement, vers la glorification
qui ne passe pas dans le monde à venir.79
Dans d’autres homélies, Sévère exprime la même conviction, à savoir que les
saints attendent les éloges venant non pas des hommes mais de Dieu, à qui ils
crient avec le psalmiste: C’est d’auprès de toi que vient mon éloge dans la grande
Église (Ps 21, 26).80
Les clercs, malheureusement, sont les plus exposés à tomber dans la vaine
gloire. Sévère, pour sa part, reconnaît au fond de lui-même qu’ il n’a jamais
désiré l’ordination épiscopale ni son honneur prétendu.81 Au contraire, il
s’efforçait toujours de la fuir. Et, avec cette même maturité, à chaque anniver-
saire de son intronisation, il faisait un retour sur lui-même révisant sa fidélité
aux traités qu’il avait contractés avec Dieu par son ordination. Sévère dit qu’ il
retire grand profit d’un tel jour, non pas qu’il célébrerait son élévation à une
telle hauteur de gloire et d’autorité sacrée – il sait en effet que même s’il est
assis en haut, il manque beaucoup de la marque du pontife et rampe en bas
dans les œuvres terrestres bien qu’il soit appelé à s’ élever vers le ciel sur les
78 Brière et Graffin et al, Les Homiliae cathedrales i à xvii, 347–349 [103–105], Hom. 9.
d’ Édesse. Homélies cxiii–cxx, (Patrologia Orientalis 26/3), (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1948), 292
[346], Hom. 114.
81 Brooks, Select Letters, i, 29, vol. ii, 91 (= vol. i, 101–102 [syr.]).
ailes des vertus – mais parce que ce jour lui offre l’ occasion de s’ examiner lui-
même et de déplorer ses manquements devant ses fidèles.82
De cette manière, notre patriarche se soumettait à l’ autocritique et s’ alignait
humblement au rang des clercs qui s’occupent uniquement du titre et du trône,
en disant: « Mais à nous, prêtres et évêques, le nom de prêtre et d’évêque suffit
ainsi que le trône, et nous avons totalement oublié de vaquer à notre service».83
Il explique par ailleurs, que cette maladie de se vanter de l’ appellation et non
des actions, est passée de la tête aux autres membres, à savoir de l’ évêque aux
moines et aux laïcs:
Telles sont l’attention et la sollicitude que nous portons sur les noms,
et non sur les actions. Tous les hommes, pour ainsi dire, cherchent à
passer pour être tels, et non à l’être. La cause de tout cela remonte à la
tête (焏rq‫)ܪ‬, à l’évêque, à cause duquel les autres membres aussi ont été
corrompus. Car si moi je me préoccupais des actions et non des noms
seulement, les autres eux-mêmes s’en préoccuperaient. Or maintenant
si quelqu’un m’appelle “évêque”, et non “archevêque” ou “patriarche”, s’ il
retranche de moi ces deux syllabes, j’en souffre comme quelqu’ un dont
on couperait les extrémités des membres principaux et nécessaires de son
corps.84
Comme il est déjà évident, Sévère faisait toujours prévaloir la foi sur tout
honneur provenant de la fonction ecclésiale ou du siège :
D’une part, il considérait que ce qui décide de la vérité d’ une ordination
n’ est d’aucune façon le siège, mais l’embrassement de la foi droite en Dieu.85
Quand la foi est en danger, il n’y a pas lieu de se taire sous prétexte de respecter
la dignité du sacerdoce. Sévère tient ce principe du Christ qui, parlant en Paul,
enseigne: Mais quand même nous, ou quand même un ange descendu des cieux
vous annoncerait un autre Évangile que ce que nous vous avons annoncé, qu’il soit
anathème! (Ga 1, 8) Voici que l’αξίωμα ou la dignité des anges n’a pas été jugée
digne de respect par le maître, quand bien même celui qui change ou altère la
foi descendrait des cieux.86
82 Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales lxxviii–lxxxiii, 331 [165], Hom. 80.

83 I. Guidi, Les Homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche, traduction syriaque de Jacques
d’ Édesse. Homélies xcix–ciii, (Patrologia Orientalis 22/2), (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1930), 217
[17], Hom. 99.
84 Guidi, Les Homiliae cathedrales xcix–ciii, 219–220 [19–20], Hom. 99.
85 Brooks, A Collection of Letters, 338 [166], let. 57.
86 Guidi, Les Homiliae cathedrales xcix–ciii, 640 [134], Hom. 103.
30 akhrass
D’autre part, il faut que l’orthodoxie de la foi soit caractérisée et éprouvée,

non pas par les lieux ou par les autorités, mais par une confession saine et
apostolique.87 Et lorsqu’on mentionne à Sévère les querelles sur la première
place, en l’occurrence celle qui s’embrasa naguère à Constantinople, il invite à
éteindre la jalousie et à ignorer ces détails trop humains,88 pour fixer le regard
sur notre métropole céleste, la Jérusalem d’en-haut, la seule ville qui mérite
qu’on s’en glorifie.89 Maintes fois, Sévère affirme que les discours sur le siège
ne sont que bavardage si la foi n’est pas saine. Il nous faut, en effet, regarder la
foi saine seule et nous mettre en règle avec elle. Quand les Antiochiens, pour
leur part, auraient de puissants sujets de se glorifier (le premier siège du chef
des apôtres, le grand nom de chrétiens qui a commencé chez eux), « ce ne (sont)
là que des bavardages orgueilleux et superbes, si nous n’occupons pas le roc, mais
seulement le siège»,90 dit Sévère. En conséquence de ce principe, on devrait
consentir sans peur à quitter son siège en cas de pression et de persécution,
plutôt qu’à changer sa foi. Ce fut le sort de Sévère qui entrevoyait cette situation
dès le premier jour de son intronisation,91 et celui des cinquante-deux évêques
expulsés avec lui du diocèse d’Orient vers des terres d’ exil, notamment en
Égypte.92 Ce fut aussi le lot d’Anthime de Constantinople qui fut rallié par
Sévère à sa cause en 536. Le biographe de Sévère nous décrit cette conversion
et ses suites par ces termes: « Le vénérable Anthime comprit ces paroles, se les
grava bien dans l’esprit et s’en alla aussitôt, abandonnant tout: siège épiscopale,
chaire, honneur et gloire».93
Conclusion
En conclusion, il est utile de retenir un élément capital qui habite la pensée

ecclésiologique et morale de Sévère le Grand, à savoir le souci de l’ orthodoxie.
Quoiqu’il en soit des privilèges traditionnels d’ Antioche, de son siège et des
sources de fierté de son peuple, c’est la fidélité ou la conservation vivante du
dépôt apostolique ainsi que l’agir conforme à la foi droite qui font, selon Sévère,
la fierté des Antiochiens. Les honneurs et les titres importent peu, encore moins
87 Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales cxxi–cxxv, 209 [713], Hom. 124.

88 Brooks, Select Letters, ii, 2, vol. ii, 204–207 (= vol. i, 227–231 [syr.]).
89 Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales xci–xcviii, 48–49 [492–493], Hom. 93.
90 Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales cxxi–cxxv, 229–231 [733–735], Hom. 124.
91 Brooks, A Collection of Letters, 321 [149], let. 46.
92 Brooks, Select Letters, v, 8, vol. ii, 319–320 (= vol. i, 361–362 [syr.]).
93 Kugener, Vie de Sévère d’Antioche, Jean de Beth-Aphtonia, 256 [172].
lorsque la foi est en question. Un patriarche n’est pas vissé à un trône mais au
roc de la foi; il n’est non plus assis sur un siège illustre pour sa propre gloire
mais lié à sa ville et à ses fidèles par des liens sacrés de mariage qui demandent
une fidélité absolue devant le Christ, promoteur et parrain de cette union.
A Letter from the Orthodox Monasteries of the
Orient Sent to Alexandria, Addressed to Severos
Sebastian P. Brock
The Letter published here is taken from Harvard Syriac 22, an acephalous and
much damaged and disordered manuscript of the eighth or ninth century
containing a number of letters and documents, mostly belonging to the sixth
century, and including a number of Letters by Severos, as well as the present
Letter which is addressed to him at some time probably soon after his flight to
Alexandria in 518. An initial survey of the contents of Harvard Syr. 22 was given
in my ‘Some new Letters of the Patriarch Severus’,1 and some of the documents
contained in it have subsequently been published, while the publication of
others is under way.2 The documents published so far are, in chronological
sequence of appearance:
Severos: Letter to John the Soldier;3

The conversations with the Syrian Orthodox4 [Harvard Syr. 22, ff. 67rv +
78r–79v];
1 Studia Patristica 12 = Texte und Untersuchungen 115, (Berlin, 1975), 17–24. Quite a number of
folios contain the correspondence between Sergius and Severus; the list given on pp. 19–20
can now be supplemented: see I. Torrance, Christology after Chalcedon. Severus of Antioch and
Sergius the Monophysite (Norwich, 1988; repr. Piscataway, 2011), p. 20.
2 Editions of the ‘Document of Agreement’ (ff. 70+1) and Severos’ Letter to Antiochus (ff. 68+
61+74+?75–76+80) are in preparation.
3 S.P. Brock, ‘Severos’ Letter to John the Soldier,’ in G. Wiessner (ed.), Erkenntnisse und Mein-
ungen ii (Göttinger Orientforschungen, i. Reihe, Syriaca, Band 17; Wiesbaden, 1978), 53–75.
[Harvard Syr. 22, ff. 18v–20r, with a fuller text than that found in other manuscripts].
4 S.P. Brock, ‘The Conversations with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (532),’ Orientalia
Christiana Periodica 47 (1981), 87–121; reprinted in Studies in Syriac Christianity (Variorum
Reprints, 1992), ch. xiii. See also ‘The Orthodox—Oriental Orthodox Conversations of 532,’
Apostolos Varnavas [Nicosia] 41 (1980), 219–227; reprinted in Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiq-
uity (Variorum Reprints, 1984), ch. xi.

a letter from the orthodox monasteries of the orient 33
A report on trouble in Alexandria;5

Letter of Severos to Nonnos.6
The Letter published here is a response to one of a series of letters sent by

Severos to ‘the Orthodox monasteries of the Orient’7 on the topic of Julian of
Halicarnassus’ teaching; it must date from some time between 528 and 538
(see annotation to 23).8 The Letter was originally written in Greek, and had
been signed by Julian, abbot of the monastery of Beth Mar Bas(sos), along
with a number of abbots of different monasteries, but in the Syriac translation
as preserved in Harvard Syr. 22 only the name of Julian is specifically men-
tioned.
This new Letter is of interest from a number of different points of view,
but two in particular. Firstly, it sheds light on the practicalities of communi-
cation between Greek- and Syriac-speakers: Severos’ Letter, written in Greek,
was evidently translated at once on arrival at the Monastery of Mar Bassos into
Syriac (3), and perhaps also put into writing as well as translated orally; the
reply was also written in Greek (presumably by an educated bilingual speaker
in the Monastery) and then, before being sent off, it was translated into Syr-
iac (38) in order for the non-Greek speaking monks, evidently including the
abbot Julian, to give their approval to the contents before adding their signa-
tures.
Secondly, it gives some insight into the variety of differing views on the incor-
ruptibility of Christ’s body held by followers of Julian. Particularly intriguing is
the view of ‘some’ who held that Mary ‘was also immortal and not subject to
the passions, and that she was raised up to the state (katastasis) of Eve before
the Fall’ (16). The significance of this claim is indicated below in the annotation
to 16.
5 S.P. Brock, ‘A report from a supporter of Severos on trouble in Alexandria,’ in D. Atanassova

and T. Chronz (eds), Synaxis Katholike. Beiträge zu Gottesdienst und Geschichte … für H. Brak-
mann (Orientalia-Patristica-Oecumenica 6:1; 2014), 47–64. [Harvard Syr. 22, ff. 73rv+65rv+
60r].
6 V. Menze and K. Akalin, “Letter of Severos to Nonnos, scholastikos of Harran,” forthcoming.
[Harvard Syr. 22, f. 60r]. An earlier edition of this Letter which I sent to a periodical in 1975
was evidently lost on the death of the editor.
7 See sections 6–7.
8 Bold numbers refers to sections in the text below.
34 brock
Edition
Harvard Syriac 22, ff. 1r2–3r19
焏q‫ܢ‬煟‫ ܕܡ‬熏‫ܣ‬q‫ܬܕܘ‬r‫ ܐ‬焏rq煟̈‫ܐ ܩ‬r‫ܡ‬熏‫ ܥ‬爯‫ܕܪܬ ܡ‬rr‫ܬܐ ܕܐ‬r‫ܬܘܒ ܐܓ‬

焯q 煿‫ܡ‬r‫ ܘܡ‬焏rq煟‫ܬ ܩ‬熏‫ܘܢ܆ ܠ‬煿‫ ܕܡܢ‬焏qrq‫ܐ ܕ‬煿‫ ܐܠ‬q‫ܡ‬qr 煟q‫ ܒ‬焏q‫ܪ‬煟‫ܣܢ‬q‫ܠ‬焏‫ܠ‬
.焏q‫ܢܣ‬r‫ܩ‬q‫ ܐܠ‬焏‫ܢ‬q‫ܠ‬熏q 焏‫ܡ‬r rqqr‫ ܕ‬爿q‫ ܗܪܣ‬爏q‫ ܡ‬.‫ܘܪܐ‬焏‫ ܣ‬焏qrqrq‫ܦ‬
‫ܐ‬rqrr 焏‫ܬܐ ܘܡܠܦܢ‬熏‫ܥ‬r rq‫ ܪ‬焏q‫ ܘܪܥ‬:爯‫ܠ‬q‫ ܕ‬焏qrqrq‫ ܦ‬焏‫ܢ‬r‫ܒ‬熏q ‫ܘܪܐ‬焏‫ ܠܣ‬1
爯q‫ ܗܠ‬2 :焏q煟qqq‫ܐ ܕ‬rq‫ܩ‬q 煿‫ܡ‬煟‫ ܒ‬r‫ܢ‬q‫ ܙܒ‬焏‫ ܕܐܪܥ‬煿̇q‫ܦ‬熏̈‫ ܣ‬爯‫ܬܐ܆ ܕܡ‬煟‫ܕܥ‬
‫ܬܐ‬熏q‫ ܕܐ‬焏qrr‫ ܘ‬:焏‫ܢ‬r‫̈ܡ‬r‫ܬܐ ܘܡ‬rq‫ ܕ‬qrqr‫ ܘ‬焏rqr̈‫ܐ ܩ‬煿‫ܗܝ ܕܐܠ‬熏‫ܡ‬qr‫ܕܒ‬
‫ܬܐ‬r‫ܩ‬q‫ܐ ܡ‬r‫ܒ‬q̈rq ‫܆‬焏q‫ܒ‬熏r ‫ܬ‬犏q‫ ܬܪ‬焏q‫ܢ‬煟‫ܬܐ ܕܒܡ‬rq‫ ܕܕ‬焏qqr‫ܕܒܡ‬
.焏‫ܠܡ‬r 焏‫ܐ ܘܒܠܒ‬ ܼ rqq̈r‫ ܦ‬焏q煟q̈焏‫ ܒ‬.爯‫ܐ ܩܒܠܢ‬rq‫ܢ‬r‫ܘܥ‬煟q ‫ܢ‬熏q‫ܬ‬熏‫ܕܡܠܦܢ‬
‫ܐ‬煿‫ܠ‬焏‫ ܠ‬爟qr‫ ܠܡ‬10爿q‫ܐ ܡܦ‬犏q‫ ܬܪ‬焏‫ܢ‬煟‫ܩ‬熏‫ܐ ܘܦ‬煿‫ ܕܐܠ‬煿‫ܣ‬熏‫ ܕܢܡ‬焏‫ܢ‬qq‫ܐ‬
‫ܐ‬rq‫ ܬܪܒ‬rq‫ ܗܕܐ ܓ‬qq‫ ܕܐ‬3 .焏‫ܠ‬qq‫ ܘ‬焏r‫ܐ ܘܢܦ‬rq‫ ܘܬܪܥ‬焏‫ ܠܒ‬煿‫ܠ‬q 爯‫ܡ‬
‫܆‬焏qq‫ܪ‬熏‫ ܣ‬焏‫ ܒܩܠ‬爯‫ ܠ‬犟r‫ ܕܐܬܦ‬爯q‫ ܐܢ‬爯‫ܢ‬qr‫ܐ ܕܩ‬煟q‫܆ ܕܡ‬爯‫ܘܕܥܢ‬rr‫ܢ ܐ‬rr̈‫ܕܢܦ‬
‫ܬܐ‬焏‫ ܠܡ‬焏‫ܡ‬煟‫܆ ܘܥ‬爯qrr‫ ܘ‬爯qr‫ ܕܬܠ‬焏‫ܢ‬q‫ ܡܢ‬爯‫ܒ ܡ‬煿ܼq ‫ܐ‬r‫ ܥܠܠ‬q‫ܪܐ ܣܓ‬焏‫ܦ‬
.‫ܐ‬rq‫ܐ ܕܬܪܒ‬r‫ ܥܠܠ‬爏‫ܼܩ‬r 煟q .‫ܐ‬rq‫ܢ‬q‫ܒ‬rr‫ܡ‬
‫ܐ‬rq̈‫ܒ‬r‫ ܬ‬rq‫ܒ‬rr‫ܐ ܒ‬rq‫ ܕܗ̇ܝ ܕܐܡ‬焏‫ܡ ܐܠ‬煟‫ ܡ‬爯‫ ܗܘܐ ܠ‬rq‫ܣ‬q 爯q‫ ܕ‬焏‫ ܠ‬4
5 ‫ܗܼܝ‬熏‫ܘܡ‬r‫( ܒ‬1v1) ‫ܟ‬熏‫ ܘܐܠܒ‬焏‫ܩܠ‬煟‫ ܠ‬犟‫܇ ̇ܐܣ‬r‫ܡ‬焏‫ܐ ܢ‬rq煿‫ܐ ܐܠ‬r‫ܠ‬q 爯‫ܡ‬
‫ܐ‬rq‫ܠ‬熏‫ܬܐ ܕܒ‬r‫ ܘܐܓ‬焏‫ܡ‬q̈‫ܘܢ ܣ‬煿‫ܠ‬q 爯‫ ܡ‬焏‫ ܐܘ ܐܒ‬爯‫ ܒܠܒ‬爯‫ܐ ܣܡ‬r‫ܕܡ̈ܣܩ‬
焏‫ܒܢ‬熟‫܆ ܒ‬焏q‫ܢ‬煟‫ ܕܒܡ‬焏qrq‫ ܕ‬爯qrq‫ܐ ܐ‬煿‫ܗܝ ܕܐܠ‬熏‫ܡ‬qr‫ ܕܒ‬爯q‫ܠ‬q‫ ܐ‬:爯q煟q‫ܗܘܘ ܨ‬
焏‫ܕܥ‬熏‫ ܡ‬.rq焏‫ܢ‬q‫ܥܠ‬r‫ ܘܡ‬rq焏q‫ ܓܠ‬焏r‫ ܗ̇ܝ ܕܗ‬爯‫ ܡ‬爯q‫ ܕ‬rq‫ܐ‬rqrq .焏q‫ܕܪܕܘܦ‬
‫ܬܘܢ‬rq‫ ܕܐܬܢ‬爯q‫ܠ‬煿‫܇ ܠ‬焏‫ܢ‬qr‫ܬ ܡ‬熏‫ܥ‬q‫ܐ ܕܩܒ‬r‫ܥ‬qrq ‫ܐ‬r‫ܥܣ‬煟q 爯q‫ܠ‬煿‫ܠ‬
̈
.爯‫ ܗܘܝ ܡܢ‬爟q煟‫ ܩ‬爯‫ܢ ܡ‬熏̈ q‫ܬ‬熏q‫ܣ‬q 煟q‫ ܕܨ‬爯q‫ܠ‬q‫ܬܐ܇ ܐ‬rq犏‫ܬܢ ܒ‬r‫ܓ‬焏‫ܢ ܠ‬熏‫ܕܬܕܡ‬
‫ܬܗ‬煟‫ ܠܥ‬焏q煿̈‫ ܐܠ‬焏‫ܠܦܢ‬熏q‫ܕ ܕܒ‬熏q‫ܬ̇ܗ ܕܗܕܐ ܒܠ‬熏‫ܢ‬qq‫ ܩ‬爏‫ ܥ‬熏‫ ܠ‬焏‫ ܐܠ‬6
‫ܘܬܐ‬焏q‫ ܕܣܓ‬煿̇q‫ܡ‬煟‫ ܗ̇ܝ ܕܩ‬爏q‫ ܘܡ‬焏‫܆ ܐܠ‬焏‫ܠ̈ܣ‬熏‫ܒ ܩ‬rq‫܇ ܠ‬爯‫ܢ‬q‫ܒ‬煿q 焏qqr‫ܕܡ‬
‫ܐ‬r‫ܬܐ ܕܕܘܒ‬熏qq‫ܒ‬r‫܇ ܘ‬焏q煿̈‫ ܐܠ‬焏‫ܢ‬熏̈‫ܬܐ ܕܐܓ‬熏‫ܢ‬q‫ܦ‬q‫ ܘܡ‬焏r̈q ‫ܬ‬熏q熏r‫ܕ‬
‫ܐ‬rqq ‫ ܗܘܬ‬焏‫ܡ‬煟‫ ܗ̇ܘ ܕܩ‬qq‫ܐ܇ ܐ‬焏q̈‫ܐ ܢܒ‬r熏‫ܦ‬qr 爯‫ ܘܗ̇ܝ ܕܡ‬7 ‫ܐ܇‬rrq‫ܡ‬
爯‫ ܕܠ‬爯q‫ ܗܠ‬爯‫ ܡ‬焏‫ ܡܢ‬焏ܼ‫ ܐܠ‬8 .煿̇‫ܡ‬熏‫ܣ ܘܒܩ‬熏qqq‫ܗ ܕܐܢ‬r‫ܢ‬q煟‫̇ܗ ܕܡ‬r‫ܠ‬熏‫ܒܡܦ‬
.‫ܐ‬r‫ ܡܠ‬焏‫ܦ‬q‫ܐ ܡ‬煿‫ ܕܐܠ‬煿q‫ܒ‬熏r‫ܐ܇ ܗ̇ܝ ܕ‬r‫ ܠܡܠ‬煿̇q‫ܡܠ‬r‫ ܘܢ‬牯‫ܣ‬熏‫ ܢ‬爯‫ܡ‬q‫ܦ‬
‫ܢ ܐܘ‬熏q‫ ܕܠ‬爏q‫ ܡ‬焏‫ܦ‬q‫ ܡ‬爯‫ܠ‬q‫ܕܐ ܕ‬煿‫ ܠ‬rq焏‫ܢ‬焏q ‫ܢ‬熏q‫ܠ‬q‫ ܕܗ̇ܘ ܕ‬焏‫ ܐܠ‬9
爯q‫ܠ‬q‫ܬܐ ܕܐ‬rqrr ‫ܐ‬r‫ܥ‬煟q ‫ܒ‬煿̇q ‫ܐ܇‬r‫ܡ‬qq‫ ܕ‬煿̇q‫ܢ ܡܩܒܠ̈ܢ‬熏q‫ܬ‬熏q‫ ܕܐ‬爯q‫ܠ‬煿‫ܠ‬
‫ܢ‬熏‫ܦ‬犏q ‫ܐ‬r‫ܐ ܡܠ‬煟q‫ ܒ‬焏‫ܢ ܕܐܦܠ‬熏‫ ܗ̇ܢ‬:熏q熏q‫ ܐܬ‬煿̇‫ܒܠ‬熏‫ ܕܠܩ‬煟q‫ ܗ̇ܝ ܕ‬.爯q煿qrq‫ܕܐ‬
‫ܘܢ‬煿q‫ܠ‬q̈‫ܒ‬r‫ܬܐ ܘ‬熏‫ ܡ‬煟q‫ܗܘܢ ܨ‬rq‫ ܒ‬熏‫ܬܐ܆ ܣܡ‬熏‫ܢ‬焏q‫ ܕ‬焏‫ܠܦܢ‬熏q‫ܢ ܒ‬熏‫ܥ‬q熟‫ܕܢ‬
9 I am grateful to the Trustees of the Harvard College Library for permission to publish the
text. For convenience of reference section numbers have been provided.
10 Slightly correcting the manuscript’s 爿‫ܡܦ‬, which could only be understood in this context
as ‘permits’.
焏‫ܠ‬q̈‫ܒ‬r 熏‫ܡ‬煟‫ ܠܡܩ‬爯qqqr‫ ܡ‬焏‫ܠ ܗܕܐ ܠ‬熏q‫ ܡ‬10 .焏‫ ܐܪܥ‬爯‫ܝ ܡ‬煟̈q‫ܠ‬q 爟‫ܠ܆ ܥ‬熏qr‫ܒ‬
‫ ܗܘܘ‬11爯q‫ ܪܕ‬rq‫ ܓ‬熏‫ ܐܠ‬11 .焏q̈q‫ ܕ‬焏q̈‫ܢ‬r 爯‫ ܡ‬爯q‫ܡ‬煟‫ܩ‬r‫ ܡ‬焏‫( ܕܠ‬1v2) 爏q‫ ܡ‬.焏q̈q‫ܕ‬
爯qr‫ ܐܡ‬焏‫܆ ܘܠ‬焏‫ܩ‬q̈‫ ܕܙܕ‬爯q‫ ܗܠ‬焏q̈‫ܦ‬r 焏‫ܠ‬q̈‫ܒ‬r ‫ ܗܘܘ‬爯qqqr‫ ܡ‬.焏‫̈ܒ‬q 焏‫ܠ‬q̈‫ܒ‬r‫ܒ‬
爏q‫ ܘܡ‬12 .‫ܢ‬r‫ܘܗܝ ܡ‬rq‫ ܐ‬熏‫ ܡܢ‬爯q‫ ܐ̈ܢ‬爯‫ܠ‬q‫ܬܢ ܕ‬熏̈‫܇ ܣܦ‬焏‫ܥ‬q̈‫ܬ ܦ‬熏‫ܡ‬煟‫ܗܘܘ ܒ‬
爯q‫ܩ‬q‫ ܕܡܥ‬爯q‫ ܪܢ‬煟q ‫ ܗܘܘ܆‬爯q‫ܢ‬q‫ܕ‬熟‫ܐ ܡ‬rq煿̈‫ܠ‬焏‫ ܒ‬q‫ܡ‬q̈qq ‫ܬܐ‬煿̈‫ ܐܒ‬爏‫ܩܒ‬熏‫ܗܕܐ ܠ‬
爯q‫ܠ‬q‫ ܐ‬煟q‫܇ ܕ‬爯q焏q‫ܢ‬r‫ܢ ܕ‬熏‫ ܕܗ̇ܢ‬12‫ܪܬܐ‬熏qr ‫ܐ‬rq‫ܬ ܬܪܥ‬熏‫ܡ‬煟‫ ܒ‬.‫ܢ‬熏q‫ܬ‬熏‫ܢ‬r‫ܒ‬熏q‫ܠ‬
‫܆‬爯q‫ ܡܣܓܦ‬焏‫ܢ‬rq焏‫ ܕܠ‬爯qr‫ܗܘܢ ܣܒ‬r‫ܒܣ‬
‫ܢ‬熏q‫ܬ‬熏‫܆ ܕܨܠ‬爯‫ܢ‬q‫ܣ‬q‫ܢ ܡܦ‬熏‫ܬܗܘܢ ܕܗ̇ܢ‬熏‫ܢ‬q‫ܦܢ‬r‫ܐ ܕܡ‬煟‫ ܕܥܒ‬焏‫ ܐܠ‬13
焏r煿‫ ܠ‬焏‫ܡ‬煟‫ܢ ܕܥ‬熏‫ ܗ̇ܢ‬14 13.焏rq煟‫ܢ ܬܗܘܐ܇ ܐܘ ܩ‬熏qr‫ܬ ܡ‬熏‫ܐ ܕܠ‬rqq‫ܦ‬q
爏‫ܩܒ‬熏‫ ܠ‬爯q‫ ܕ‬rq‫ܐ‬rqrq ‫܇‬爯‫ܒܠ‬熏‫ ܠܩ‬rq焏‫ܢ‬q‫ ܕܐܡ‬熏q‫ܠ‬r 焏‫܆ ܠ‬焏‫ܥ‬r‫ܬܐ ܕܪܘ‬熏q‫ܢ‬r‫ܒ‬
.‫ܢ‬r煟‫ ܡܥ‬焏‫ܡܢ‬ ̈ q煿‫ ܠܡ‬焏‫ ܘܠ‬爯qq‫ܐ ܡ̈ܢ‬煿‫ܠ‬焏‫ ܠ‬焏‫ ܕܠ‬爯q‫ܠ‬q‫ܢ܇ ܐ‬熏‫ܣ‬r‫ܦ‬r‫ܪܐ ܢ‬rr
̈
‫ܘܢ‬煟‫ ܘܢܓ‬焏q‫ܢ‬q̈q ‫ܬܐ ܕܬܪܝ‬熏rq‫ ܒ‬爯‫ ܡ‬rqrq ‫ܐ‬rqr‫ܘܢ ܡ‬熟qr‫ ܢ‬爏qq‫ ܕܡ‬焏‫ܢ‬qq‫ܐ‬
‫ܘܡ‬煟‫ ܣ‬qq‫ ܡܢ‬r‫ܐ܇ ܐܙܕܕܩ‬r‫ ܐܡ‬rq焏‫ܢ‬煟qq‫ܐ ܕܡ‬rq焏q‫ܐ ܢܒ‬r‫ܘܢ ܠܡܠ‬煿q‫ܥܠ‬
‫܆‬爯q‫ܩ‬q‫ ܣ‬焏q‫ܢܣ‬r‫ܩ‬q‫ ܐܠ‬焏‫ܢ‬q‫ܠ‬熏q ‫ܐ‬r‫ܗܝ ܕܥܢ‬熏‫ܠܦ̈ܢ‬熏q‫ ܠ‬14爯q‫ ܗܠ‬煟q 爯q‫ ܕ‬爯q‫ ܗܠ‬15 .qqrq
焏‫ܢ‬q‫ ܒܣ‬焏‫ܢ‬q‫ܠ̈ܒ‬r‫ ܡ‬焏‫ ܠ‬.焏q‫ܕ‬r‫ ܒ‬爯qrq‫ ܢ‬焏‫ܦ‬焏q‫ܬܐ ܒ‬rq‫ ܕܒܡ‬焏q̈‫ ܡ‬qq‫ܐ‬
‫ܘ܆‬煟q‫ܬܐ ܐܬܬ‬熏q‫ܢ‬q‫ܕܡܢ‬
̇煿‫ ܡܢ‬焏‫ܘܢ ܘܠ‬煿r‫ ܕܢܦ‬焏‫ܣ‬熏‫ ܕܢܡ‬焏‫ܢ‬q‫ ܨܒ‬爯‫ܘܢ ܡ‬煿‫ ܡܢ‬rq‫ ܓ‬爯qr‫ ܐ̈ܢ‬16
‫ܬ‬煟‫ܠ‬q‫ ܠ‬煿̇‫ܘ ܘܠ‬煟q 爯‫ܐ ܡ‬rr熏rq 焏‫ܬܬܐ ܘܠ‬熏q‫ ܡ‬焏‫܆ ܠ‬焏q‫ܗ ܕܪܘ‬rq‫ܬ‬焏‫ܕܡ‬
‫ܢ‬熏‫ܪܘܬܗܘܢ ܕܗ̇ܢ‬熏qr‫ ܕ‬qq‫ ܐ‬爯qr‫ ܐܡ‬rq‫ ܘܕܐܬܥܠ‬.爯q‫ܦ‬犏q ‫ܕܘܢ‬熏‫ܐ ܕܢ‬煿‫ܐܠ‬
‫ܘܢ‬煿q煟q‫( ܨܐ‬2r1) 爯‫܇ ܗ̇ܝ ܕܡ‬焏‫ܢ‬煟‫ܩ‬熏‫ ܦ‬r‫ܡ ܥܒ‬煟‫ܐ ܕܩ‬熏q‫ ܕ‬爿q‫ܣ‬q‫ܣ‬q‫ ܩ‬煟q‫ ܨ‬焏̇q‫ܨܒ‬
煟q‫ ܨ‬煟q 爏qq‫ ܕܡ‬爏q‫ ܡ‬17 .‫ܬܬܐ‬熏q‫ ܡ‬焏‫ܐ ܘܠ‬rr熏rq 焏‫ ܗܘܬ ܠ‬煿̇qrq‫ ܐ‬焏‫ܢ‬qq‫ܒ‬
‫ܬܐ‬rqrr ‫ܐ‬rq熏‫ܐ ܠܣ‬r‫ ܕܥܩ‬焏q‫ ܕܘܡ‬qq‫܆ ܐ‬爯q‫ ܐܬ‬焏q煟qqq‫ܬܗ ܕ‬熏‫ܢ‬r‫ܒܣ‬r‫ܡ‬
‫ܘܗܝ‬rq‫ܘܐ ܐ‬煿‫ܬܐ ܢ‬熏‫ܢ‬r‫ܢ‬r‫ܒ‬r‫ ܕܡ‬焏̇‫ܠ‬q焏r ‫ܘܐ‬熟q‫ ܘܕ‬焏q‫ܣ‬q‫ ܕܕܦܢ‬.‫ܢ‬熏‫ܩܢ‬r‫ܢ‬
.‫ܕܐ‬熏‫ܥܒ‬
̈ ̈ ̈
‫ܬܐ‬煿‫ ܕܕܐܒ‬.‫ܬܘ‬煿‫ܬܐ ܒ‬焏q‫ܬܐ ܣܓ‬熏‫ܣܢ‬q‫ ܡ‬爯‫ ܡ‬煟q 爯q‫ ܕ‬焏‫ܢ‬rq‫ ܐ‬18
焏‫ ܐܠ‬.‫ܬܘܬܐ‬熏q‫ܬܐ ܘܡ‬熏r熏rq‫̇ܝ ܕ‬煿‫ ܕܒ‬.焏‫ܒܠܢ‬qr‫ܐ ܕܡ‬r‫ ܗ̇ܝ ܡܠ‬熏‫ ܙܕܩ‬煿̇qrq‫ܐ‬
.‫ܗ‬r‫ ܒܣ‬煟q‫ܐ ܨ‬r‫ܬܗ ܕܡܠ‬熏q煟q‫ ܕ‬煿̇‫ܬܐ ܗܘܐ ܡܢ‬熏q‫ ܡ‬焏‫ ܘܠ‬焏r熏rq 焏‫ܕܠ‬
爯q‫ܣ‬q‫ ܡܦ‬爏qq煟‫ ܥ‬.‫ ܗܘܬ‬焏q‫ܣ‬q‫ ܦܢ‬焏‫ ܘܕܠ‬rq‫ܐ‬rqrr 焏‫ܦܣܩܢ‬r‫ ܡ‬焏‫ ܠ‬焏‫ܒܢ‬熟‫ܕܒ‬
.焏qq̈r‫ܠܦ‬
熏‫ ܘܠ‬焏qr‫ܗ ܕܡ‬r‫ܘܗܝ ܒܣ‬rq‫ ܕܐ‬爯q‫ܕ‬熏‫ܬܐ ܡ‬熏q‫ ܘܡ‬焏r熏rq 爯q‫ ܕ‬焏‫ܢ‬rq‫ ܐ‬19
‫ܕܐ܆‬煿‫ ܒ‬焏‫ܒܠܢ‬qr‫ܡ‬
‫܆‬熏‫ܐ ܢܦܠ‬r‫ܢ‬r‫ܐ ܒ‬r‫ܥ‬q煟q‫ ܐ‬焏‫ܬܐ ܠ‬熏q‫ ܪܘ‬爯‫ ܕܡ‬qq‫ ܕܐ‬爯q‫ ܕ‬焏‫ܢ‬rq‫ ܐ‬20
‫ܘܢ‬煿‫ܠ‬q‫ ܠ‬爯q‫ܪܡ‬r‫ ܡ‬焏‫ܦ‬焏̈‫ ܒ‬焯‫̇ܝ ܕܒܡܣ‬煿‫ ܒ‬.爯q‫ ܡܦܣ‬爯qr‫ܡ ܕܐܡ‬煟‫ ܒܡ‬焏‫ܐܦܠ‬
爯q‫ܐܠ‬rr‫ ܡ‬.焏‫ܒܠܢ‬qr‫ܕܐ ܡ‬煿‫ܬܐ ܘܒ‬熏q‫ ܘܡ‬焏r熏rq‫̇ܝ ܕ‬煿‫ ܘܠ‬.‫ܐ‬犏qr‫ ܬ‬焏‫ܠܦܢ‬熏̈q
11 Correcting the erroneous 爯q‫ ܕܪ‬of the manuscript.

12 Correcting ‫ܪܘܬܐ‬熏qr of the manuscript (alternatively, read ‫ܪܘܬܐ‬熏qr‫)ܕ‬.
13 The manuscript has 焏rq̈煟‫ ;ܩ‬the two points (normally indicating a plural), however, will
originally have denoted a vocative.
14 The manuscript has the order 煟q 爯q‫ܗܠ‬, which can hardly be correct.
‫‪36‬‬ ‫‪brock‬‬
‫ܕ‪ 爯q‬ܠܡ‪焏‬ܡ‪ r‬ܗ̇ܝ ܕ‪qq‬ܢ‪ rq焏‬ܘܒ‪熏q熏r‬ܬ ‪熏r熏rq‬ܬܐ ‪ rq‬ܡ‪焏qr‬܇ ܗܘ ܕܨܒ‪q‬ܢ‪rq焏‬‬

‫̇‬
‫ܡ‪q‬ܠ‪̇r‬ܗ ܕܗܕܐ ܣ‪r‬ܩ ܢܦ‪ :煿r‬ܠ‪煿‬ܘ ܕ‪熏r‬ܒ‪ 焏q‬ܣܓ‪焏q‬ܐ ܡ‪q‬ܩ‪ r‬ܒ‪.爏q‬‬
‫̈‬ ‫̈‬
‫‪ 21‬ܡ‪ 爏q‬ܕܐ‪ qq‬ܕܡ‪ 爯‬ܢ‪煿‬ܪܐ ܕܣ‪q‬ܢ‪ 焏‬ܣܓ‪ q‬ܬܦ‪焏‬܆ ܠ‪焏q‬ܦ‪煿q‬ܘܢ ܕܗܠ‪爯q‬‬
‫‪熏q‬ܝ ܕܐܬܦܠ‪煿‬ܕܘ ܠ‪ 焏q‬ܘܠ‪焏q‬܇ ܨ‪ 煟q‬ܠ‪ 焏‬ܩ‪q熏‬ܡ‪ 焏‬ܕܬܪܥ‪rq‬ܗܘܢ ܪ‪qr‬ܥ‪r‬ܐ܇‬
‫ܗ̇ܝ ܕܡ‪熏qr 爯‬ܪܘܬܐ ܕܐ‪ qq‬ܗܕܐ ܩܢ‪熏r r‬ܪܪܐ܇ ܕ‪熏q‬ܠ‪q‬ܢ‪ 焏‬ܐܡ‪qr‬ܢ‪ 爯‬ܗ̇ܘ‬
‫ܐܠ‪q‬ܩ‪r‬ܢܣ‪ 22 .焏q‬ܕܒ‪ 煟q‬ܗܠ‪ 爯q‬ܬ‪rq熏̈q‬ܐ ܕܐ‪rq‬ܝ ܗ̇ܝ )‪ (2r2‬ܕܣܢ‪焏q‬܆ ܘܗ̇ܝ ܕܣ‪rq‬ܗ‬
‫ܕܐܕܡ܆ ܘܗ̇ܝ ܕ‪̈q‬ܡ‪ 焏r‬ܓ‪犏qr‬ܢ ܕܡ‪r‬ܩ‪ :爯q犏‬ܘܗ̇ܝ ܕܗܠ‪q̈ 爯q‬ܠ‪ 焏q‬ܕܢܦܠ‪ 熏‬ܒ‪焏‬ܬܘܢ‪焏‬܆‬
‫ܘ‪q‬ܠ‪ 爯q煿‬ܕܐ‪ qq‬ܗܠ‪ 爯q‬ܐ‪q‬ܠ‪ 爯q‬ܕܠܠ‪ 焏‬ܡ‪r‬ܓ‪r‬ܢ‪熏‬ܬܐ ܕ‪焏q‬ܒ‪ 焏‬ܡ‪熏r‬ܕܥ‪爯‬܆ ܠ‪焏‬‬
‫‪熏r熏rq‬ܬܐ ܘܠ‪ 焏‬ܡ‪熏q‬ܬܘܬܐ ܕܦܓ‪r‬ܐ ܡ‪焏‬ܪܢ‪焏q‬܆ ܡܢ̇‪ 煿‬ܕ‪熏q煟q‬ܬܐ ܠ‪焏‬‬
‫ܡ‪r‬ܦ‪r‬ܩܢ‪ܼrq‬ܐ ܐ‪ qq‬ܕܒ‪熏r‬ܥ‪rq‬ܐ ܒܼ‪煟‬ܐ‪ .‬ܐܠ‪ 焏‬ܘܒܡ‪焏‬ܡ‪r‬ܘܢ‪ 煿‬ܗ̇ܘ ܕܣܓ‪q‬‬
‫ܬܐ̈ܢ‪rq‬ܐ ܓܠ‪ rq焏q‬ܠ‪煿‬ܪܣ‪ 爿q‬ܕ‪q‬ܠ‪ 煿‬ܕܠ‪熏r 焏‬ܪܐ ‪ .qqr‬ܘܕܐ‪ qq‬ܠ‪ 焏q̈熏‬ܡ‪煟‬ܡ‬
‫‪̈qrq‬ܒ‪ q‬ܠ‪焏‬ܠ‪煿‬ܐ ܐ‪ qq‬ܢܡ‪熏‬ܣ‪ 焏‬ܣ‪ 爟‬ܠ‪爯‬܇ ܕ‪ 焏rq‬ܠ‪ 焏r熏rq 焏‬ܗܘ ‪焏rq‬‬
‫ܡ‪焏‬ܪܢ‪.焏q‬‬
‫̇‬ ‫̈‬
‫‪ 23‬ܐܠ‪ 焏‬ܠ‪ 焏‬ܡ‪r‬ܘܡ ܡ‪r‬ܪܡ‪q‬ܢ‪ 爯‬ܠܣ‪qr‬ܩ‪熏‬ܬ ܡܠ‪煿q‬ܘܢ ܕܗܢ‪ܼ熏‬ܢ ܒ‪煟‬ܩ‪qr‬ܢ‪爯‬‬
‫ܒ‪qq‬ܒ‪熏‬ܬܗ ܕܐܠ‪煿‬ܐ ܠ̈‪rq‬ܒ‪ 焏‬ܗܠ‪ 爯q‬ܕܐܬܦ‪r‬ܩ‪ 熏‬ܠ‪ 爯‬ܣ‪熏‬ܪ‪ .rq焏q‬ܕܡܢ‪煿‬ܘܢ‬
‫ܠ‪q熏r‬ܠܦ‪ 焏‬ܕܐ‪ qq‬ܗܢ‪ 焏‬ܐ‪煟q‬ܥܢ‪ 爯‬ܕܬܪܥ‪rq‬ܗ ܒ‪rrq‬ܐ ܕ‪熏q‬ܠ‪q‬ܢ‪ .焏‬ܘܕܐ̈ܒ‪煿‬ܬܐ‬
‫ܗܠ‪ 爯q‬ܕܒ‪r‬ܘ‪ 焏q‬ܕܐܠ‪煿‬ܐ ܡܠܠ‪熏q 熏‬ܠܦܢ‪ 焏‬ܡܥܠ‪ 焏q‬ܘܕܠ‪ 焏‬ܙܐܦ‪ 焏‬ܘ‪r‬ܡ‪q‬ܢ‪ .焏‬ܐ‪qq‬‬
‫ܕܒ‪rr‬ܪܐ‪ 24 .‬ܒ‪r‬ܪ ܗ̇ܢ‪熏‬ܢ ܕܐܦ ܐܙܠ‪q‬ܢ‪ .爯‬ܘܠ‪ 熏‬ܒ‪ rq犏‬ܕ‪ 爯q‬ܘܐܦ ܕܒ‪r‬ܪ ܡܠܦܢ‪熏‬ܬ‪熏q‬ܢ‬
‫̇‬
‫ܡܥܠ‪rq‬ܐ ܕܢ‪焏‬ܙܠ ܡ‪犏‬ܠ‪q‬ܢ‪ .爯‬ܠ‪ 熏‬ܒܡܠ‪r‬ܐ ܐܠ‪ 焏‬ܘܒܥܒ‪煟‬ܐ ܘܒ‪rr‬ܪܐ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 25‬ܒ‪煟‬ܓ‪熏‬ܢ ܘ‪ 煟q‬ܪܕ‪q‬ܢ‪ 爯‬ܥ‪ 爟‬ܗܠ‪ 爯q‬ܐ̈ܒ‪煿‬ܬܐ ܐ‪rq‬ܢ‪ :焏‬ܒ‪r‬ܪ ܒܣ‪q‬ܠ‪熏q‬ܣ‬
‫ܗ̇ܘ ܪܒ‪ 焏‬ܘ‪q熏q‬ܢ‪熏q 爯‬ܒ‪r‬ܢ‪ 焏‬ܐܦܣܩܦ‪ 焏‬ܕܐܘ‪rr‬ܠܡ‪ 焏q‬ܗ̇ܘ ܕܐܡ‪ :r‬ܘܐ‪qq‬ܢ‪焏‬‬
‫ܕܡ‪熏‬ܕ‪q‬ܢ‪ 爯‬ܕ‪ 焏r̈q‬ܕܒܣ‪r‬ܗ ܒ‪rr‬ܪܐ ܗܘܘ ܠ‪ 煿‬ܘܠ‪ 熏‬ܒܦܢ‪q‬ܣ‪ .焏q‬ܗ‪q‬ܢ‪ 焏‬ܘܗܠ‪爯q‬‬
‫ܕܢܦ‪ 焏r‬ܒ‪rr‬ܪܐ ܡ‪q煿‬ܡܢ‪q‬ܢ‪ 爯‬ܕܗܘܼܘ ܘܠ‪ 熏‬ܒܦܢ‪q‬ܣ‪焏q‬܆ ‪ 26‬ܠ‪煿‬ܠ‪ 爯q‬ܕ‪ (2v1) 爯q‬ܕܐ̇ܡ‪爯qr‬‬
‫ܕ‪ 煟q‬ܡ‪r‬ܢܓ‪ 煟‬ܗܘܐ ܠ‪焏̇q 焏‬ܒ ܗܘܐ ܠ‪ :煿‬ܐܘ ܕ‪ 煟q‬ܡ‪q犏‬ܠ‪ 焯‬ܠ‪焏q 焏‬ܫ ܗܘܐ‪煟q :‬‬
‫̈ܨܨܐ ܡ‪r‬ܩܒܥ‪ 爯q‬ܗܘܘ ܒ‪ .煿‬ܐ‪ qq‬ܕܠ‪qqr煿‬ܩ‪ 熏‬ܡ‪rq‬ܡ‪q‬ܢ‪.爯‬‬
‫‪ 27‬ܒ‪r‬ܠܡ‪熏‬ܬܐ ܐܡ‪qr‬ܢ‪ .爯‬ܕܐ‪q‬ܢ‪ 焏‬ܕܠ‪ 焏‬ܡ‪熏‬ܕܐ ܘܐ‪ qq‬ܒܣ‪q‬ܠ‪熏q‬ܣ ܗܘ̇‬
‫ܕܒ‪ rq‬ܩ‪ :焏rq̈煟‬ܕ‪rq‬ܒ ܨ‪̇ 煟q‬ܗܢ‪熏‬ܢ ܕܒܣ‪熏‬ܙܘܦ‪熏‬ܠ‪ .爿q‬ܘܡ‪ 爏q‬ܗܕܐ ܡ‪熟qr‬ܐ‬
‫ܗܼܘ ܡ‪ 焏ܼqr‬ܕܠ‪̇ 焏r̈q‬ܡ‪̈qq 爯‬ܢ‪ 焏q‬ܩܒ‪ 爏‬ܠ‪熏r‬ܪܪܐ ܕܡ‪r‬ܒ‪r‬ܢ‪r‬ܢ‪熏‬ܬܗ ‪rqrr‬ܬܼܐ ܘܠ‪熏‬‬
‫ܒܦܢ‪q‬ܣ‪ 28 .焏q‬ܐܘ ܐ‪q‬ܢ‪ 焏‬ܬܘܒ ܕܐ‪ qq‬ܩ‪q熏q 焏rq煟‬ܢ‪ 爯‬ܕܐܘܪ‪r‬ܠ‪ :爟‬ܠ‪ 焏‬ܡ‪熏‬ܕܐ‬
‫‪rqrr‬ܐ‪ rq‬ܠ‪rqrr‬ܘܬܗܘܢ ܕ‪ 焏r̈q‬ܨܒ̈‪q‬ܢ‪ .焏q‬ܡ‪rq‬ܡ‪ 焏‬ܢ‪煿‬ܘܐ‪ .‬ܘܢ‪r‬ܬܣ‪ 爟q‬ܥ‪爟‬‬
‫ܩ̈‪q‬ܠ‪ q‬ܠ‪焏‬ܠ‪煿‬ܐ‪.‬‬
‫‪q 29‬ܢ‪ 爯‬ܓ‪ rq‬ܐܘ ܐܒ‪熏‬ܢ ܩ‪焏rq煟‬܆ ܠ‪ 熏‬ܒܡܢ‪r‬ܐ ܐ‪q‬ܠܦܢ‪ 爯‬ܕܢ‪rq̇r‬ܫ ܠ‪熏‬ܩܒ‪爏‬‬
‫ܗܪܣ‪爿q‬܇ ܒܡܢ‪r‬ܐ ܕ‪ 爯q‬ܢ‪焏‬ܨܦ ܕ‪q‬ܠ‪ .煿‬ܐܠ‪ rq焏q熏r 焏‬ܒ‪qq 煟q‬ܒ‪熏‬ܬܗ ܕ‪熏rq‬ܥ‪.‬‬
‫̈‬
‫ܐ‪qq‬ܢ‪ 焏‬ܕܡ‪rq‬ܡ‪q‬ܢ‪ 爯‬ܠܣ‪熏‬ܢ‪煿‬ܕܘܣ ܪ‪qr‬ܥ‪r‬ܐ ܕ‪q‬ܠܩ‪煟‬ܘܢ‪ 焏‬ܕܒ‪qq 爯qrr‬ܢ‪ 爯q‬ܬ‪q‬ܡ‪:r‬‬
‫ܘܒܡܥܒ‪煟‬ܢ‪熏‬ܬܗܘܢ ܕܗܠ‪ 爯q‬ܘܒ‪q̈煟‬ܠ‪rq‬ܗܘܢ‪ :‬ܘܡܦܠܓ‪ 焏‬ܠ‪焏‬ܪܙܐ ܪܒ‪ 焏‬ܕ‪焏q‬ܢ‪熏‬ܬܐ‪.‬‬
‫̈‬
‫ܘܠ‪熏q‬ܡܣ‪ 煿‬ܕܠ‪焏‬ܘܢ ܘܠ‪ 煿‬ܠܠ‪焏‬ܘܢ܆ ‪ 30‬ܗ‪q‬ܢ‪ 焏‬ܘܠ‪ 焏qqr‬ܣ‪ 焏qr‬ܪܘܡܢ‪焏‬‬
‫ܐܦܣܩܦ‪ 焏‬ܕܪܣ‪熏‬ܣ ܘܠ‪煿‬ܪܣ‪ 爿q‬ܡܢ‪q‬ܢ‪rq‬ܐ ܕܠܩ‪熏‬ܒܠ‪焏‬܇ ܗ̇ܝ ܕܣܢ‪焏‬ܓ‪̇r‬ܗ ܐܬ‪熟q‬ܝ‬
‫‪熏q‬ܠ‪q‬ܢ‪ 焏‬ܗ̇ܘ ܐܠ‪q‬ܩ‪r‬ܢܣ‪焏q‬܇ ܕܒܡܠ‪r‬ܐ ܕ‪焏q‬ܢ‪熏‬ܬܐ ܠ‪ 煟q 煿‬ܠ‪ 煿‬ܠ‪rq‬ܡ‪ 焏‬ܐ‪qq‬‬
‫ܗܪ‪qq‬ܩ‪ 焏‬ܐܬ̇‪ .焯qq‬ܡ‪ 爏q‬ܕܒܡܠ‪r‬ܐ ܦ‪ rq焏‬ܠ‪r‬ܡܥ̇‪ 煿‬ܕܠ‪ 焏‬ܡ‪qr‬ܒܠܢ‪焏‬܆‬
‫ܠܠ̈ܒ‪熏‬ܬܐ ܕܦ‪ 焏qq̈r‬ܒ‪熏q‬ܠܦܢ‪ 焏‬ܡܢ‪q‬ܢ‪ 焏q‬ܐ‪q‬ܥ‪.q‬‬
‫‪a letter from the orthodox monasteries of the orient‬‬ ‫‪37‬‬
‫‪ 31‬ܘܡ‪ 爏q‬ܕܒܒܣ‪r‬ܗ ܕܠ‪熏q‬ܕܐ‪ rq‬ܕܐ‪ :焏q煟qqq‬ܗ̇ܘ ܕܡܢܦ‪煟q (2v2) r‬ܘܥ‪r‬ܢ‪rq焏‬܆‬

‫ܐ‪煟qq‬ܐ ‪ 焏rq‬ܘܠ‪熏r熏rq 焏‬ܬܐ ܬ̇‪ .爟q‬ܘܠ‪ 熏‬ܠ‪ 煿‬ܠܡ‪̇r‬ܗ ܕܬ‪r‬ܒ‪rq熏‬ܐ ܐܣ‪爏qr‬܇‬
‫‪ 焏r熏rq‬ܒܒܣ‪ r‬ܠ‪ 焏r熏rq 焏‬ܒ‪焏‬ܠ‪煿‬ܘܬܐ܇ ܡܣ‪qqr‬ܢ‪ 焏‬ܒܦܓ‪ r‬ܠ‪ 焏‬ܡܣ‪qqr‬ܢ‪焏‬‬
‫ܒ‪r‬ܘܚ‪ .‬ܐ‪qq‬ܢ‪ 焏‬ܕܐܡ‪ r‬ܓ‪qr‬ܓ‪熏qr‬ܣ ܗ̇ܘ ܕܒ‪ rq‬ܩ‪ 32 .焏rq̈煟‬ܕܥܡ‪ 煿‬ܕ‪熏q‬ܠ‪q‬ܢ‪焏‬‬
‫ܐ‪煿qrq‬ܘܢ ܡ‪q̈q‬ܒ‪ .焏‬ܘ̇ܗܢ‪熏‬ܢ ܕܒ‪煟q焏‬ܥ‪r‬ܐ ‪q犏q‬ܦ‪ 爯q‬ܕܪܘ‪r‬ܥ‪ 煿‬ܕ‪熏q‬ܠ‪q‬ܢ‪焏‬܇ ܘܡ‪爏q‬‬
‫‪ 焏rq‬ܐܢ‪ 焏qr‬ܐ‪ 熏qqr‬ܠܡ‪煿‬ܦ‪ 熏q‬ܠܥ‪煟‬ܬܐ ܕܐܠ‪煿‬ܐ ܕܐ‪r‬ܬܕܘ‪q‬ܣ‪熏‬܇ ܘܠ‪r‬ܕܘܦ‪焏q‬‬
‫ܕܡ‪焏q 爏q‬ܢ‪熏‬ܬܐ ܕܥ‪熏‬ܡ‪r‬ܐ ܩ‪ 焏rq̈煟‬ܡܠ‪焏‬ܘ̇ܗ ‪r̈q‬ܠ‪焏‬܇ ܘܦܣܩ‪ 爯q‬ܠܦܓ‪r‬ܗ‬
‫̇‬
‫ܕܡ‪ 焏qqr‬ܗܘ ܕܐܼܘܐ ܐ‪ qq‬ܕ‪r‬ܦ‪ r‬ܠ‪焏‬ܠ‪煿‬ܐ‪ .‬ܠܡ‪q熏‬ܩ‪ 焏‬ܘ‪q‬ܣ‪煟‬ܐ ܕ̇ܗܢ‪熏‬ܢ ܕ‪煟q‬ܪ‪.爯q‬‬
‫‪ 33‬ܘܐܡ‪ 爯qr‬ܡ‪ 爯‬ܡܠܦܢ‪熏‬ܬܗ ‪rqqr‬ܐ ܕ‪熏q‬ܠ‪q‬ܢ‪焏‬܇ ܕܦܓ‪r‬ܗ ܩ‪ rq煟‬ܒ‪熏q‬ܠ ܕܡ‪r‬ܢ‬
‫ܘܐܠ‪煿‬ܢ ܘܦ‪r‬ܘܩ‪熏rq 爯‬ܥ ܡ‪焏qqr‬܇ ܠ‪ 焏‬ܡ‪熏q‬ܬܐ ܘܠ‪ 焏r熏rq 焏‬ܐ‪rq‬ܘܗܝ ܩ‪煟‬ܡ‬
‫ܙܩ‪q‬ܦ‪ .焏‬ܘܒ‪煿‬ܓܓ‪熏‬ܬܐ ܘܦܢ‪q‬ܣ‪ 焏q‬ܡܢ‪q‬ܢ‪rq‬ܐ ܡܩ‪q‬ܡ‪ 爯q‬ܠ‪煿‬ܘܢ ܠ‪rqrr 焏r̈q‬ܐ‬
‫ܘܦ‪r‬ܘܩ‪焏q‬܇ ܘܠܡ‪熏‬ܬܗ ‪rqrr‬ܐ ܕܡ‪ 焏qr‬ܖܠ‪q‬ܠ‪ 爯‬ܦ‪r‬ܩ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 34‬ܒ̇‪ 煿‬ܒ‪煟‬ܡ‪熏‬ܬܐ ܢ‪煿‬ܘܘܢ ܐ‪煿qrq‬ܘܢ ܡ‪rq‬ܡ‪ 焏‬ܘܐ‪q‬ܠ‪ 爯q‬ܕܡܡ‪爯qqr‬‬
‫ܠܡ‪焏‬ܡ‪ r‬ܐܘ ܠܡ‪r‬ܪܥ‪熏q‬܇ ܕܦܓ‪r‬ܗ ܕܡ‪r‬ܢ ‪熏rq‬ܥ ܡ‪焏qqr‬܇ ܠ‪q‬ܒܠ‪ 焏‬ܘܠ‪焏qrr‬‬
‫ܕܒܩܒ‪r‬ܐ ܣܼܒ‪爏‬܇ ܐܘ ܕܒܩ‪rqq‬ܐ ܘܠ‪ 焏‬ܨܒ‪q‬ܢ‪ rq焏‬ܡ‪熏‬ܕ‪ 爯q‬ܕܼ‪rq‬܇ ܘܠ‪ 熏‬ܨܒ‪q‬ܢ‪rq焏‬‬
‫ܘ‪rqrr‬ܐ‪ rq‬ܠ‪q̈q 爯qr̈q‬ܢ‪ 焏q‬ܘܠ‪ 焏‬ܥ‪q̈煟‬ܠ‪ 焏‬ܩܒ‪ 35 .爏‬ܒ‪q‬ܠ‪煟‬ܘܟ ܓ‪ rq‬ܩ‪q煟‬ܡ‪ 焏‬ܗܝ ܗ̇ܝ‬
‫ܨܒ‪q‬ܢ‪rq‬ܐ ܠ‪̇煿‬ܝ ‪qq‬ܢ‪rq‬ܐ܆ ܐ‪qq‬ܢ‪ 焏‬ܕ‪熏q‬ܒ‪r‬ܢ‪熏‬ܬ‪熏q‬ܢ ܒܣ‪̈q‬ܡ‪ 煿̇q‬ܠ‪q‬ܠ‪ 煿‬ܬ‪rqq‬‬
‫‪r‬ܡ‪ 焏q‬ܐܼܠܦ‪ r‬ܐܘ ܐܒ‪熏‬ܢ܇ ‪ 36‬ܘܗ̇ܝ ܕܙܕܩ ܕܥ‪ 爟‬ܐ̈ܒ‪煿‬ܬܐ ܗܠ‪ 爯q‬ܡ‪̈qq‬ܡ‪ q‬ܡ‪爯‬‬
‫ܐܠ‪煿‬ܐ ‪qq 煟q‬ܢ‪ 焏‬ܢ‪熏‬ܕܐ )‪ (3r1‬ܗ̇ܘ ܕܐܠ‪煿‬ܐ ܡܠ‪r‬ܐ ܕܡܒܣ‪r‬܇ ܒܣ‪r‬ܐ ܒ‪qq r‬ܢ‪爯‬‬
‫ܘ‪焏q‬ܫ ܐ‪熏q‬ܬܢ܇ ܕܡܢܦ‪ r‬ܒܢܦ‪ 焏r‬ܡܠ‪q‬ܠ‪r‬ܐ ܘ‪煟q‬ܘܥ‪r‬ܢ‪rq‬ܐ‪ .‬ܕܒ‪煿‬ܠ‪ 爯q‬ܕ‪ 爯q‬ܢ‪r‬ܕܐ‬
‫̈‬ ‫‪ 焏qrr‬ܕܙܒܢ‪ 焏‬ܕ‪ 焏q̈q‬ܕ‪̈熏q‬ܡ‪ܼ r‬‬
‫ܐ‪.‬‬
‫̇‬ ‫̇‬
‫‪ 37‬ܬܦ‪ 爿q‬ܢܦ‪熏qr‬ܢ ܡܥܠ‪rq‬ܐ ܠܡ‪r‬ܗ܆ ܕܠ‪ 焏‬ܢ‪ 焯qqr‬ܒ‪煟q‬ܐ ܡ‪ 爯‬ܡܠ‪焏‬‬
‫ܒ‪熏q‬ܡ‪ 焏‬ܕܕ‪q‬ܢ‪焏‬܇ ‪ 煟q‬ܡ‪r‬ܬ‪q煟q‬ܢ‪ 爯‬ܒ‪熏q‬ܬܡ‪ 焏‬ܗܪ‪qq‬ܩ‪ 焏q‬ܐ‪q‬ܢ‪ 焏‬ܕܗܘ‪ .‬ܐܠ‪焏‬‬
‫ܕ‪rqrq‬ܐ‪ rq‬ܢ‪r‬ܬ‪ 煟q‬ܒ‪q煿‬ܡܢ‪熏‬ܬܐ ܕܠ‪ 焏‬ܡ‪熏‬ܡ܇ ܘܒܣ‪熏‬ܥ‪r‬ܢ‪ 焏‬ܡ‪̈rr‬ܒ‪.焏q‬‬
‫ܕܢ‪rr‬ܘܐ ܠ‪熏̈q‬ܒ‪ 焏‬ܕܡܠ̈‪ 15爯qqq‬ܒ‪ 煟q‬ܡܥ‪q熟‬ܢ‪熏‬ܬܐ ܕܪܕܘܦ‪ 焏q‬ܥܡ‪熏q‬ܢ܇ ܐܢ‬
‫ܡ‪rr‬ܘ‪q‬ܢ‪ 爯‬ܐܘ ܐܒ‪熏‬ܢ‪ .‬ܐܡ‪r‬ܝ ܕܡܠ‪ 焏q焏‬ܕ‪q‬ܠ‪ q‬ܒܦ‪r‬ܗܣ‪ 焏q‬ܣܓ‪焏q‬ܬܐ ܐ̇ܡ‪r‬‬
‫̈‬
‫ܗܐ ܐܢ‪ 焏‬ܘܒܢ‪ 焏q‬ܕ‪煿ܼq‬ܒ ܠ‪ q‬ܐܠ‪煿‬ܐ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 38‬ܠ‪熏r‬ܪܪܐ ܕ‪ 爯q‬ܕܗܠ‪ 爯q‬ܕܡܢ‪ 爯‬ܐܬ‪rq‬ܒ‪ :‬ܠ‪熏qrr‬ܢ ܡ‪q‬ܩ‪r‬ܐ ܐܘ ܐܒ‪熏‬ܢ ܩ‪.焏rq煟‬‬
‫ܐܬ‪ rq熟q‬ܠ‪ 爯‬ܕܐܦ ܒ‪焏‬ܪܡ‪ q‬ܐ‪ 爯q煟̈q‬ܢ‪rr‬ܪ‪ 煿̇q‬ܠ‪焏‬ܓ‪r‬ܬܐ ܗܕܐ ܕܐܬܦ‪r‬ܩ‪ r‬ܠ‪爯‬‬
‫ܣ‪熏‬ܪ‪ rq焏q‬ܒ‪rqrq‬ܘܬܐ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 39‬ܐܪܡ‪ q‬ܐ‪煟q‬ܐ‪ .‬ܐܢ‪熏q 焏‬ܠ‪q‬ܢ‪ 焏‬ܕܒ‪r‬ܡ‪熏‬ܗܝ ܕܐܠ‪煿‬ܐ ܪ‪rq煟rq‬ܐ ܕܒ‪ rq‬ܡ‪r‬ܝ ܒ‪.爿‬‬
‫̇‪r‬ܠ‪ 爟‬ܐܢ‪ 焏‬ܠ‪q‬ܠ‪ 爯q煿‬ܗܠ‪ 爯q‬ܕ‪q̈rq‬ܒ‪ 爯‬ܡ‪ 爯‬ܠܥ‪ .爏‬ܘܡ‪犏‬ܠ‪ 焏‬ܐܢ‪ 焏‬ܕܢ‪ 爯qr‬ܠ‪ 爯‬ܐܠ‪煿‬ܐ‬
‫‪ 焏q̈q‬ܕ‪q‬ܣ‪熏q‬ܬܟ ܐܒ‪熏‬ܢ ܩ‪.焏rq煟‬‬
‫‪ 40‬ܗ‪q‬ܢ‪ 焏‬ܐܦ ‪ 焏qrr‬ܕ‪q‬ܣ̈‪ qrr 焏q‬ܕ‪rq‬ܬܐ ‪rq‬ܒ‪ 熏‬ܐ‪q‬ܠ‪ 爯q‬ܕܡ‪熏q‬ܠ‬
‫ܣܓ‪焏q‬ܘܬܗܘܢ ܠ‪ 焏‬ܐܬ‪rq‬ܒ‪ 熏‬ܗܪ‪r .焏q‬ܠܡ‪.r‬‬
‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪.‬ܕܡܠ‪The manuscript erroneously has 爯qq‬‬

38 brock
Translation16
Next, the letter that was sent from the holy orthodox monasteries of the Orient
to Alexandria, through God-loving monks from among them, to the holy and
highly renowned Patriarch Severos, concerning the heresy of the shamefully-
named Julian of Halicarnassos.
1 To Severos, our blessed Patriarch and shepherd, chief shepherd and true
teacher of the Church from the extremities of the earth, (the Church) that has
been purchased by the honoured Blood of the Only-Begotten (cf. 1 Cor. 6:20,
Rev. 5:9): 2 we, who by God’s mercy are priests, heads of monasteries, and
deacons, and the rest of the orthodox brotherhood in Christ belonging to the
monasteries that are in the Orient, have received with outstretched hands and
with a perfect heart, the precious writings of your knowledgeable teaching, just
as the law of God and the upright command urges to love God with all the heart,
mind, soul, and strength (cf. Mt. 12:36, Mk 12:33, Lk. 10:27), 3 for we recognized
(in it) such great progress for our souls that the moment we read its contents,
once they had been translated into Syriac speech, they produced a ripe yield of
fruit, more than thirty- and sixty-fold, even reaching the praiseworthy hundred-
fold once they had received the harvest of (spiritual) growth (Mt. 13:8, 23; Mk
4:8).
4 Nothing was lacking for us apart from our saying what is spoken of in
the Song of Songs by the divine Bride ‘I will go up to the palm tree and take
hold of its topmost (fronds)’ (Cant. 7:9), 5 for we have placed ladders in our
hearts, O Father, as a result of all the compositions and letters which fittingly
reached us, who through God’s mercy are monks in the Orient at the time of
the persecution—especially as a result of that (letter) which now openly and
in an exalted way acknowledges the eleven veils of the fixture of the tent (Exod.
26:7, 36:14–15), with which you condescended to liken our insignificant letters
which had previously came from us to your Eminence.
6 But it is not about the finesse of this (letter) alone with (its) divine instruc-
tion that we give to the Church of Christ a panegyric, but also because of the
previous one (containing) much fellow-feeling in sufferings, encouragement in
godly struggles, with a resplendent display of noble conduct, 7 and that (further
letter) which from the trumpeted words of the prophets was, as it were, look-
ing ahead at the fall of the city of Antiochus and its (present) situation: 8—but
16 The translation is deliberately kept rather literal, so as to show up something of the

underlying Greek syntax that the Syriac translation reflects; indeed, in several places the
syntax and precise meaning remain unclear (this especially applies in sections 8, 10, 20
(final clause), and 21).
why should we add to and fill out the discourse from these things (just now)
compared to us—a discourse which the glory of God hides; 9 but in the case
of yours, rightly does it hide our (letter), because to you, or to those who are
like you (being) recipients of wisdom, He gives true knowledge of things that
exist—(a knowledge) against which there have appeared those who not even
with a single word have taken trouble to set in motion upright instruction,17
(thus) placing their habitation beside death and their paths in Sheol (Prov.
7:27), along with the earth-born: 10 for this reason they are unable to proceed on
the paths of life (Prov. 5:6, 15:24), because they are not anticipated by the years
of life(?). 11 For if they had been travelling on good paths, they would have found
the ‘smooth paths which belong to the righteous’ (cf. Prov. 4:18, 8:20, 12:28, etc.),
and they would not have been saying like fools ‘our lips belong to us: who is our
Lord?’ (Ps 11/12:5). 12 For this reason they were arming themselves against the
Fathers who are wise in matters divine, thinking that they were causing grief
to your blessed self, resembling the stupid mentality of those gone crazy: while
devouring their own flesh, they imagine that they are harming others.
13 But we urge that your prayer to our Lord, O holy one, will be assiduous,
for it (will) effect their return. 14 (We refer to) those who up till now have not
ceased in (their) mad wickedness from their continual opposition to us; but
especially let them be laid bare in their opposition to truth, people who carry
out things that are displeasing to God and do not assist the faithful, with the
result that henceforth they may be seen to be even more embittered than the
evil of the dyophysites, and may they attract to themselves the prophetic words
which say in a way that puts to shame, ‘Your sister Sodom has proved more just
than you’ (cf. Ezek. 16:48–52). 15 These same people, sucking up the teachings
of the perverse Julian of Halicarnassos, like water that comes rushing down
violently, unrestrained they have been caught in the mire of Manichaeism.
16 Now some of them, following the whim of their own law, and not as a
result of the coming of the Spirit, are concerned to confess that already the
Bearer of God was immortal and not subject to the passions, and that she was
raised up—according to what their folly wishes—to the state (katastasis) of
Eve before the transgression,—(the state) which, from their point of view, was
in (her human) nature, not subject to the passions, and which was immortal.
17 (This is) because, when they come to the incarnation of the Only-Begotten,
they might establish as it were a likeness of the root to the true branch—
(a likeness) that effects that the incarnation is a phantasy and a borrowed
appearance.
17 Or perhaps, ‘make any stir at (your) upright instruction’.

40 brock
18 Others, being ashamed as a result of many rebukes, rightly say that the
Word (was) subject to corruption with respect to passibility and mortality (is
the teaching) of the Fathers, but that He became not subject to the passions and
not subject to death after the union of the Word with His flesh, which occurred
in an unsplittable moment of time truly and not in phantasy. (In this) they still
persuade the simple.
19 Others confess that the flesh of the Lord is subject to passions and mortal,
but not thereby subject to corruption.
20 Others, as if as a result of some unknown drunken state, have fallen into a
sleep, unaware of what they are saying, in that they hypocritically consent to all
the upright teachings, both (on the matter of) ‘subject to passions’ and ‘subject
to death’, and thereby, ‘subject to corruption’, but they refuse to say that the Lord
suffered naturally and sharing in the passible state—He who had voluntarily
for this very purpose emptied Himself (Phil. 2:7), the one whose great glory is
held in honour by all.
21 This is because, as if from a river of mud that has many channels, (Julian)
has manifested the impetus of these people who have been dispersed hither
and thither for the instability of their wicked opinion, which as a result of such
folly as this has acquired a confirmation—we mean (the teaching) of Julian of
Halicarnassus 22 who, through these demonstrations which he adduced, of the
(burning) bush (Exod. 3:2) and of the side of Adam (Gen. 2:21–22), and of the
five loaves that were broken (Mt. 14:17, Jn 6:9), and of the Children cast into the
furnace (Dan. 3:49–50), and all such things which indicate the lack of awareness
of an illness, (namely the assertion of) the impassibility and immortality of the
Dominical Body after the inexplicable union, was babbling away as if in a story;
but he also clearly laid out his baseless heresy in that highly lamentable little
discourse of his, setting out for us as a law, as it were certain tablets written by
God, that the Lord’s suffering was a passionless suffering.
23 But we are never swayed by the vain words of those people, in that we
read, through the grace of God, those books which have been translated for us
into Syriac, from which we have come to know such a great variation in the
wicked opinion of Julian from that of the Fathers who spoke by the Spirit of
God exalted teaching, that is genuine and truly heavenly. 24 We follow after
them, and no less do we pray to follow after your exalted teaching, not (just) in
word, but in action and in truth.
25 Therefore, as we journey with these other Fathers, following the great
Basil, and the blessed John bishop of the people of Jerusalem who said, ‘and as
we confess that the sufferings of His flesh were in reality, and not in phantasy,
26 thus we also believe that (the sufferings) of the soul (of Christ) were in truth
and not in phantasy. To those who say that when He was scourged he had no
pain, or when He was crucified He was not suffering when the nails were fixed
in Him, we anathematize as heretics’.
27 In agreement (with you) we say that anyone who does not confess like
Basil, who is among the saints, who wrote to those in Sozopolis also concerning
this, ‘that the Lord is seen to have received the sufferings belonging to (human)
nature in confirmation of His true inhomination, and not in phantasy’. 28 Or
in the case of the person who does not truly confess, with the holy John of
Jerusalem, the reality of the voluntary sufferings, let him be anathema and set
alongside the killers of God.
29 As for us, O holy Father, it is not just in part that we have learnt to
struggle against heresy, while in part we are concerned for him, but equally,
by the grace of Jesus, just as we anathematize the wicked Synod of Chalcedon
which defined ‘in two natures’, and in the activities of these and in their
properties, dividing the great mystery of uprightness; and the Tome of Leo,
and Leo himself. 30 Thus also that foul smell, Romanos bishop of Rhossos, and
the opposing (?)18 Manichaean heresy, whose advocate Julian of Halicarnassus
appeared, who by upright word was guilty, as a heretic, of the same anathema,
who through the attractive sounding term ‘incorruptible’ led astray simple
hearts into Manichaean doctrine.
31 And because solely in the flesh of the Only-Begotten, (flesh) which is
ensouled intellectually, he defined suffering and impassibility, and did not
understand the Lord of glory ‘to be subject to passion in the flesh, and not
subject to passion in divinity, limited in body, but limitless in spirit’, as Gregory
who is among the saints said. 32 Those with Julian are condemned, and those
who knowingly take care for Julian’s wickedness, and who in the matter of
human suffering have dared to overthrow the Church of God of the orthodox,
and have (brought about?) the persecution for the sake of uprightness of the
holy monasteries, filling (the Church) with stumbling blocks, cutting up the
Body of Christ which consented, in a way pleasing to God, to the mockery and
insult of those round about (Him). 33 And they say, following the despicable
teaching of Julian, that the all-holy Body of our Lord and our God and our
Saviour, Jesus Christ, is not subject to death or suffering prior to the cross, and
they affirm to be in semblance and in Manichaean phantasy the true and saving
sufferings, and the true death of the Lord who has saved us all.
34 In like fashion let them be anathema, along with those who dare to say
or think that the body of our Saviour Jesus Christ endured corruption and
18 The sense of dalqubla here is unclear; in Severos’ anti-Julianist polemic haw dalqubla ‘the
opponent’ is frequently used of Julian; possibly the word has got displaced.
42 brock
dissolution in the tomb, or who confess that He suffered under compulsion and
not voluntarily; and that it was not voluntarily and truly that he accepted our
natural sufferings that are not subject to blame. 35 For everywhere ‘voluntary’
precedes ‘natural’, just as your Beatitude has taught the entire universe in his
writings, O Father. 36 And as is proper, along with these Fathers made wise
by God, let us confess one nature of God the Word made flesh, a flesh that
belongs to our (human) nature and suffers like us, ensouled with a rational and
intellectual soul; so that in these (teachings) we may journey for the rest of our
daily lives.
37 May your exalted soul beg its Lord that we not be condemned in a single
word on the day of judgement, being caught with some heretical stain of one
sort or another; but rather let us be caught up in blameless faith and with
praiseworthy actions, so that we may be held worthy of the promised bliss, by
means of holding out in persecution together with you, if we prove worthy, O
our Father, when your angel says with great confidence (parrhēsia), See, here
am I and the children that God has given to me.
38 For the confirmation of the things that have been written from us to your
honourable self (lit, head), O our holy Father, it has seemed (good) to us to
confirm with our signatures this letter that has been translated for us exactly
into Syriac.
39 Signature: I, Julian, by God’s mercy the abbot of Beth Mar Bas(sos), I agree
with all that has been written above, and I pray that God may grant to us the
(long) life of your Eminence, our holy Father.
40 Likewise all the rest of the reverend abbots have signed, but because of
their large number they have not been written down here.
The end.
Annotation19
4. its topmost (fronds): lit. ‘its heights’ = lxx, against Peshitta’s ‘its branches’.
5. ladders: i.e. to reach the topmost branches. This delightful image is not
suggested by anything in the ensuing biblical text.
19 Severos’ anti-Julianist works are cited from R. Hespel, Sévère d’Antioch, La polémique
antijulianiste, i, Lettres, Critique du Tome de Julien, Réfutation des Propositions hérétiques
(csco 244–245. Scr. Syri 104–105; 1964); iia, Le contra Additiones Juliani (csco 295–296,
Scr. Syri 124–125; 1968); iib, L’Adversus Apologiam Juliani (csco 301–302, Scr. Syri 126–127;
1969), and iii, Apologie du Philalèthe (csco 318–319, Scr. Syri 136–137; 1971).
eleven veils (or ‘curtains’): it is not clear exactly what meaning Severos’
reference to these intended; in a catena fragment preserved in Greek he had
stated that the veils refer to ‘the roughness of the philosophical (i.e. monastic)
life’ and the effects of ‘the labours of virtue’, etc.; see F. Petit (with L. van
Rompay), La Chaîne sur l’Exode. i. Fragments de Sévère d’Antioche (Traditio
Exegetica Graeca 9; Louvain, 1999), 76–77 (no. 806).
fixture of the tent: reflecting skēnopēgia (in the lxx, however, this term is
restricted to the Feast of Tabernacles).
7. city of Antiochus: i.e. Antioch (in fact founded by Seleucus i); the city
owed its name to Antiochus iv Epiphanes (175–164bc), who had considerably
expanded and adorned it. Severos too refers to Antioch as ‘the city of Antiochus’
in Letter i.11 of the sl. (52–53, text; ii, p. 48, translation), addressed to an abbot
of the Monastery of Mar Bassos.
15. the mire of Manichaeism: Severos regularly described Julian’s teaching
as being Manichaean; similarly in an anonymous ‘Report from Alexandria’,
section 20.20
16. the Bearer of God was immortal and not subject to the passions … the
state of Eve before the transgression: the attribution by some Julianists of Eve’s
pre-Fall state (by extension from Christ) to Mary is not to be found elsewhere;
possibly it was due to a typological interpretation in connection with the wood
of the Ark of the Covenant, made from wood not liable to decay (Exod. 25:10,
lxx ek xulōn asēptōn).21 The explicit statement here lends some support to
Mimouni’s suggestion that some of the developments in the Dormition and
(especially) Assumption legends had links with Julianist circles.22
22. the (burning) bush: for Julian’s use of this in support of his teaching, see
Severos, La polémique, i, pp. 125/96.23
20 Ed. S.P. Brock, ‘A Report from a supporter of Severos on trouble in Alexandria,’ in D. Atanas-
sova and T. Chronz (eds), Synaxis Katholike. Beiträge zu Gottesdienst und Geschichte der
fünf altkirchlichen Patriarchate für Heinzgerd Brakmann (Orientalia—Patristica—Oecu-
menica 6.1; Münster, 2014), 47–64, here 51–52, 61.
21 Cf. A. Grillmeier and Th. Hainthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition, ii.2. The Church of
Constantinople in the Sixth Century (London, 1995), 87–88.
22 S. Mimouni, Dormition et Assomption de Marie. Histoire des traditions anciennes (Théolo-
gie historique 98; Paris, 1995), 666–671; contrast S. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the
Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford, 2002), 261–268, where he argues against
any Julianist (or Miaphysite) connections. The single passage that Mimouni had adduced
in support of his argument was the view ‘of some simpler people’ mentioned by an Aph-
thartodocetist interlocutor in Leontios of Byzantium’s Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos
(cpg 6813), pg 86, cols 1325–1328.
23 This corresponds to excerpt 16 in R. Draguet, Julien d’Halicarasse et sa controverse avec
44 brock
the side of Adam: for Julian’s use of this, see Severos, La polémique, iia,
pp. 154/130–131.24
the five loaves: for Julian’s use of them, see Severos La polémique, iib, pp. 262/
229.
Children in the furnace: for Julian’s use of them, see Severos, La polémique,
i, pp. 180/139; they are also mentioned in the anonymous ‘Report’, section 19.25
the Dominical Body (pagra maranaya): the phrase occurs quite frequently
in Severos’ anti-Julian polemic, e.g. i, p. 45; ii. pp. 215, 234, 265, 308; iii, p. 18,
144.
little discourse (me’mruneh): the same diminutive (no doubt used pejora-
tively) is found in Severos, La polémique, iib, pp. 307/269.
23. books which have been translated for us into Syriac: it is very likely that
this is a reference to the Syriac translation of Severos’ dossier against Julian;
accordingly, the present letter will date between April 528 (the date of Vatican
Syr. 140 containing this translation26) and 538 (the date of Severos’ death). The
author of the letter indeed seems to have derived his quotations of John of
Jerusalem and Basil in 25–27 from this Syriac translation.
25–26. and as we confess … we anathematize as heretics: the author of the
letter has derived the passage from one or other of Severos’ longer quotations
from John of Jerusalem’s credal statement (cpg 3620); the passage quoted here
corresponds almost exactly with La polémique i, p. 139, lines 12–18 = p. 252,
lines 13–18 = p. 286, lines 3–7. The quotation also features in the anti-Julianist
Florilegia in British Library Add. 12,155, 14,532 and 14,533.27
27. that the Lord … not in phantasy: the author again derives this quotation of
Basil’s Letter 261 from Severos, La polémique, iia, p. 31, line 29 o 32, line 1 = p. 57,
lines 12–14 = 137, lines 25–26 = iib, p. 274, lines 13–14 = p. 278, lines 9–11 (cf. also
iii, p. 13). According to Severos, Julian, when quoting this letter, interpolated
his own views: La polémique, iia, pp. 31–2/26 and iib 274/241. Basil’s Letter
also features in the Syriac anti-Julianist Florilegia in British Library, Add. 12,155,
Sévère d’Antioche sur l’ incorruptibilité du corps du Christ (Louvain, 1924), 9*, 49*. Draguet’s
monograph remains fundamental.
24 This corresponds to excerpt 35 in Draguet, Julien, 14*, 53*.
25 Brock, ‘A Report’, 51, 60.
26 It is not clear whether the translation was actually made by Paul, bishop of Kallinikos, (as is
generally assumed), or just commissioned by him: see my, ‘Manuscripts copied in Edessa,’
in P. Bruns and H.O. Luthe (eds), Orientalia Christiana. Festschrift für Hubert Kaufhold
(Wiesbaden, 2013), 109–127, here 120–121.
27 See Wright, Catalogue, 932, 960, 969.
14,532 and 14,533,28 as well as in the Greek Florilegium, preserved under the
name of Leontios, in Vatopedi 236, v.46.29
28. voluntary sufferings (ḥashe ṣebyanaye): Severos uses the phrase extreme-
ly frequently in his anti-Julianist polemic (as indeed the composer of the letter
observes in 35).
30. Romanos bishop of Rhossos: Romanos of Rhossos’ work, entitled ‘the
Ladder’, was already criticised by Severos in his Cathedral Homily 119, given
during his last year on his patriarchal throne.30 Harvard Syr. 22 also contains
Severos’ Letter to Antiochos, an earlier abbot of the Monastery of Mar Bassos,
concerning Romanos, written ‘two years before he was expelled’ (see below,
under 39); and, on ff. 70+1, a ‘Document of agreement’ of the bishops who
gathered in Alexandria ‘when they also anathematized Romanos, bishop of
Rhossos in Cilicia’.
31. Gregory: the reference is to Gregory of Nazianzus, First Letter to Cledo-
nius (Ep. 101.14; ed. P. Gallay, in Sources chrétiennes 208, 1974). Severos quotes
from the passage in La polémique, iib, pp. 306/368 (just ‘subject to passion in
the flesh, and not subject to passion in the divinity’), iii, pp. 8/7, and especially
pp. 89–90/75 (with ‘limited…limitless’).
33. Manichaean phantasy: thus also Severos, against Julian, ii, p. 295, and iii,
p. 136.
saving sufferings (ḥashe paroqaye): another phrase very frequently used by
Severos in his anti-Julianist polemic.
35. For everywhere ‘voluntary’ precedes ‘natural’: this is borne out by the
frequency of the adjective ‘voluntary’ in connection with Christ’s sufferings in
Severos’ anti-Julianist writings (the Syriac adjectival form is in fact very rare
before the sixth century, during which it rapidly becomes very common).
39. Julian, abbot of the Monastery of Mar Bassos: Julian was the recipient of
a letter from Severos of which an extract is preserved in The Sixth Book of the
Select Letters of Severus i, no. 59 (ed. Brooks, i text, pp. 197–198 = ii tr. pp. 178–
179), and the beginning of which is also found in Harvard Syr. 22, f. 30v. Another
letter in the same collection (i, no. 11) is simply addressed to ‘the abbot of the
Monastery of Bassos’; a further letter in this collection (x, no. 6) is addressed to
28 See W. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum acquired since the
Year 1838, ii (London, 1871), 930, 959, 969. The manuscripts date from the eighth century.
Cf. also Draguet, Julien, 83–88.
29 Ed. M. Richard, ‘Le florilège du Cod. Vatopédi 236 sur le corruptible et l’incorruptible,’ Le
Muséon 86 (1973), 249–273, here, 272.
30 Draguet, Julien, 79–81; E. Honigmann, Évêques et Évêchés monophysites d’Asie antérieure
au vie siècle (csco Subs. 2; Louvain, 1951), 82–83.
46 brock
‘the members of the Monastery of the blessed Bassos’. In Letter v, no. 15, Severos
makes reference to the abbot of the Monastery as having sent two of his monks
to Alexandria with a letter to himself.
The Monastery of Mar Bassos, situated at Bitabo,31 was founded by the
periodeutes Mar Bassos, whose family came from Edessa, and who was a friend
of Symeon the Stylite; it played an important part in miaphysite affairs in the
sixth century: Jacob of Serug’s Letters 13, 16 and 17 were addressed to its abbot
Laʿazar (no. 15 is from Laʿazar to Jacob),32 and Harvard Syr. 22, f. 68r contains a
letter of Severos ‘to Antiochos, abbot of the holy monastery of Beth Mar Bas(os)
concerning the utterly wicked Romanos, bishop of Rhossos’;33 later in the sixth
century the abbot Eusebios is a signatory (in Syriac script) of two Letters in the
‘Documenta Monophysitica’.34
40. Compare, for such a list, the long list of names of those anathematizing
‘the Phantasiasts’, to be found in a sixth-century Syriac inscription found near
the village of El Gantari, between Raqqa and Ras al-ʿAin.35
31 Near Kefr Kermin, c. 30 km East South East of Aleppo (b1 in Map x, in R. Dussaud,
Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et mediévale (Paris, 1927), opposite p. 436).
32 Ed. G. Olinder, Iacobis Sarugensis epistulae quotquot supersunt (csco 110, Scr. Syri 57; 1937);
French tr. M. Albert, Les Lettres de Jacques de Saroug (Kaslik, 2004).
33 See note 2. The title adds that ‘he wrote it while still on the (patriarchal) throne, two
years before he was expelled’. For contents of the letter, which is not found elsewhere,
see provisionally Brock, ‘Some new Letters’, 23–24.
34 Ed. J-B. Chabot, Documenta ad origines monophysitarum illustrandas (csco 17, Scr. Syri 17;
1908), 127, 130. The two letters are Documents nos 15 and 16 in the convenient inventory
of the contents of the manuscripts given in A. van Roey and P. Allen, Monophysite Texts of
the Sixth Century (Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 56, 1994), 267–303.
35 Published by P. Mouterde, ‘Une inscription syriaque récemment trouvée en haute Djéziré’.
Annales archéologiques arabes de Syrie 10 (1960), 87–92. The inscription is on two blocks
of stone; a photograph with the opening of that part of the inscription with the names is
to be found in S.P. Brock with D.G.K. Taylor (eds.), The Hidden Pearl. ii. The Heirs of the
Ancient Aramaic Heritage (Rome, 2001), 24.
The Asceticism of Severus: An Analysis of Struggle
in His Homily 18 on the “Forty Holy Martyrs”
Compared to the Cappadocians and the Syrians
John D’Alton
Severus (roughly 446–542) was Patriarch of Antioch from 511–518 and one of the
chief leaders of resistance to the definition of orthodoxy formulated at Chal-
cedon (451).1 He was an ardent and influential supporter of the Christology
of Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444), and he was considered important enough
that his letters and homilies were collected and translated during his lifetime.2
The ongoing debate between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian branches
of Orthodoxy however has brought an imbalanced focus on Severus’ Christol-
ogy at the expense of other areas of his life such as his teaching on asceticism.
Severus was renowned for his pastoral approach, but his sermons on martyrs
and ascetics have been understudied.3 These ascetic letters reveal a broader
mindset shared by both sides of the Christological debate, and show his posi-
tion relative to the Cappadocian and Syrian fathers.
One hundred and twenty-five of the sermons of Severus are extant in the
Syriac and Coptic translations while the original Greek versions were lost when
Severus was condemned in 536. These sermons cover the martyrs, feast days,
instructions to catechumens, and various other topics.4 In this paper I will be
exploring just one homily of Severus, Homily 18, and focus on its theme of the
struggle (Greek agon, Syriac agona), and the conceptually-related imagery of
the soldier, athlete and gymnasium. I will compare this to similar homilies
by Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, and then also to the Syrian fathers
with their particular more Stoic approach, which emphasises the elements of
struggle against the passions, and struggle for stillness and perfection.
1 Pauline Allen and C.T.R. Hayward, Severus of Antioch (London: Routledge, 2004), 4–11. This
book is an excellent introduction to Severus and his life and teaching. See also Kathleen Hay,
“Severus of Antioch: An Inheritor of Palestinian Monasticism”, Aram 15 (2003), 159–171.
2 Allen and Hayward, Severus, 31.
3 Pauline Allen, “A Bishop’s Spirituality: The case of Severus of Antioch,” in Pauline Allen,
Raymond Canning and Lawrence Cross, eds. Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church Vol. 1
(Everton Park, Queensland: Centre for Early Christian Studies), 169–180, discusses Severus’
pastoral approach and notes that his homilies have been “little studied”, 169.
4 Allen and Hayward, Severus, 4, 25, 31, 50.

48 d’alton
By exploring these themes we can see Severus within the broader church
ascetic tradition inhabited by both the Cappadocians and Syrians. Allen and
Hayward have noted how much the Cappadocians were models for Severus,5
and this paper will build on this connection and also note the Syrian and Stoic
emphases in his writings, especially his references to the virtues of tranquillity
and perfection. Severus is thus revealed as very much an Antiochian synthesis
of the Cappadocian and Syrian approaches and an effective teacher of Christian
asceticism.
Homily 18
Homily 18 is Severus’ homily on the forty holy martyrs, forty Christian soldiers
who were thrown into a lake and froze to death rather than renounce their
faith.6 During this ordeal, one soldier deserted but was replaced by the guard
who was impressed by the faith of the remaining thirty-nine. The homily was
given around 513 by Severus to commemorate the martyrs, and was apparently
preached on a Saturday during Lent at the cathedral in Antioch.
Severus starts his homily by discussing the importance of intention as op-
posed to legalism in the fast. He speaks of “deprivation of food and other acts
of self-denial” and “training exercises for their struggles.”7 This idea of ascetic
struggle is a central theme for Severus, and is reflected in almost every section
of his homily. His opening sentence refers to the “victory” of the martyrs which
invokes the whole metaphor of battle or athletic contest, and this concept flows
all through his homily.8
Severus several times says that the forty holy martyrs “struggled.” The image
he is using is of the wrestler who grappled with an opponent, or of the soldier
who engaged in hand-to-hand combat.9 The Syriac word used each time is a
conjugate of agona, which is the cognate of the Greek agon, the term used
by the Cappadocians. Because the focus of this study is on the concepts and
metaphors used rather than the exact words, and because Severus’s homily is
not available in Greek, references to the original Syriac or Greek will generally
be omitted.
5 Allen and Hayward, Severus, 6.

6 Hom. 18: 6–23; English translation used here is from Allen and Hayward, Severus, 118–126.
7 Severus, Severus, 118. References are from the English translation of Homily 18 by Allen and
Hayward, Severus, 118–126. For struggles the Syriac has the word meaning athleticism, which
elsewhere is used as the equivalent to Greek agonistes.
8 Severus, Severus, 118.
9 Severus, Severus, 118, 120, 123.
the asceticism of severus 49
The struggle is also called by Severus a “contest”, which evokes the Olympic
games context of the organised struggle in the arena. Severus also uses a
number of other related words including “stadium”, “arena”, “conflict”, “battle”,
and “rules of combat.”10 He often speaks in extended metaphor weaving several
of these terms closely together. The homily is replete with military and athletic
imagery and Severus is quite a rhetorician.
This language of struggle hearkens back to St Paul who says to Timothy in
1 Tim 6:12, “fight the good fight of faith.”11 Christian faith for Paul is a kind of
fight against sin and the lusts of the flesh. This theme is most clearly seen in
Heb 12:1,4 where the author says:
Therefore, since we have such a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us

(the image is the stadium), let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and
the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the
race that is set before us (that is, the athletic contest), fixing our eyes on
Jesus … (v4) You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in
your struggling against sin.12
In this passage the author is referring back to Jesus in the Garden of Gethse-
mane where he wrestles with temptation. Luke 22:44 says “And being in an
agony He prayed more earnestly.”13
The metaphorical connection of asceticism as a kind of struggle originated
in Greek culture with the notion that the athlete or soldier wrestled with the
enemy, but was also applied to other domains of life like music contests, poetry
struggles, intellectual combats etc. The inherent breadth of the idea of the agon,
the struggle, made it a natural metaphor for ascetic practice since it too involves
wrestling with the passions and the demons. Winning in the struggle or contest
in both cases required training; that is, askesis. We see this in Paul who writes
that Scriptures are for “training in righteousness.”14 Similarly in Heb 5:14 we
read “But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses
trained to discern good and evil.”
10 For example see Severus, Severus, 120–121.

11 The Greek here has agon and the Syriac agona. This was the usual translation from Greek
to Syriac.
12 Note the Greek for struggle here is again agon, and the Syriac agona.
13 Again, in Greek this is agon, in Syriac agona.
14 2 Tim 3: 16.
50 d’alton
Severus uses this image of the ascetic training, when he affirms those in the
congregation who like the martyrs, “by means of a virtuous way of life, have
prepared (trained) themselves for the resurrection.”15 Naturally with a sermon
about forty soldier martyrs, the image of combat is appropriate, but Severus
uses this image in other homilies too. For example, in regards to the Maccabean
martyrs, he speaks of the “manly struggle of these seven youths” who fought in
the “stadium of conflict.”16 Severus also applies this image to his congregation
when he challenges them to “train” themselves and to stand “against debilitat-
ing fornication.”17 For him, being a well-trained spiritual soldier and struggling
athlete is a powerful metaphor.
So let us look further at how Severus uses these images of the athlete and
the soldier in Homily 18. Severus several times describes the Christian as an
athlete. He connects the forty martyrs to the forty days of fasting and says that
they are “the offspring of these forty days of fasting, for each day has brought
forth for us an athlete and martyr.”18 Indeed, the forty are called athletes several
times, and when they are thrown into the freezing water he says “The warmth
of [their] faith increased in proportion as [their] bodies chilled, and strongly
warmed the athletes.”19 These martyr athletes according to Severus fought in
the “arena” and “competed in a great contest.”20 Severus also applies this image
to his people, and says that a holy life is to imitate the forty, that is, to also be
an athlete and martyr.21
Severus writes with a beautiful extended metaphor about the athletic strug-
gles of the forty. He says that God Himself is the Umpire in the Arena. “From
heaven, the Master of Games watched over them” … “And a light, descending
from on high, picked out and illuminated the stadium of their contest.”22 Here
we see how richly Severus uses these images, likening God to the Umpire, the
martyrs’ location to the stadium, and their endurance as like that exhibited in
the Olympic Games contest.

16 Severus, Sermon 52: On the Maccabees. R.L. Bensly (trans.) The Fourth Book of Maccabees
(np: 1895) 17–31.
19 Severus, Severus, 122, 123.
21 Severus, Severus, 120, compare 126.
22 Severus, Severus, 122. This also invokes the frequent Syrian imagery of the Divine Light of
God’s Glory.
Severus does the same with the image of the soldier. To his audience he
challenges, “Let all learn” concerning “the discipline of the fast” so that the
“whole congregation in its entirety” is a “company of soldiers and a troop of
men armed.”23 He says that the holy are those people who know the “rules
of combat”, thus equating holiness with being a good spiritual combatant.24
Severus explicitly links actual with metaphorical fighting when he praises the
Forty Holy Martyrs because they were men who “transferred [their] experience
of battle and applied [it] to the spiritual conflict.”25 He even quotes Paul from
1 Cor 15:27 about taking “every thought captive to Christ” in relation to the
martyrs.26 Severus also speaks of the guard, who prior to his conversion was
watching over the forty, as viewing the “arena of the athletes, so as to receive any
fugitives [deserters] from the struggle who might desert their station [military
post].”27 Here we see the athletic sporting image blended with the military, and
this is an important point.
So far we have noted separately the images of soldiers, athletes, the arena,
and the gymnasium, when in fact these are all closely related. While in modern
life we usually consider sport and warfare as separate fields of interest requir-
ing different government ministries and unrelated sections in newspapers, in
Greek the word athletes could mean either a soldier or a sportsperson. In Greek
culture, sports grew out of practice for the military, for example wrestling,
javelin, discus, the marathon etc. were all of military importance.28 So soldiers
and athletes, and thus gymnasia and arenas, were all closely related, with the
core element being the struggle or fight (agon).29
What this previous discussion has shown is that Severus uses a cluster of
words and metaphors to describe the struggle. What he says is very similar
to the imagery used by Gregory of Nyssa and Basil, and indeed to many other
church fathers going right back to the New Testament.

25 Severus, Severus, 120–121.
28 See Jacob Burkhardt, The Greeks and Greek Civilization, trans. Shiela Stern (New York: St.
Martin’s Griffin, 1998), 160–217 for details of the breadth of the agon.
29 It is interesting that in current usage in many European languages this sporting and
military connection in shown by the frequent use of almost identical agonistic language
in newspaper references to both sport and the military. See John D’Alton, European
and Islamic notions of struggle: the opportunities in a shared history, Unpublished paper,
2011.
52 d’alton
In the last few sentences of Severus’ homily he explicitly notes that Basil has
already praised these martyrs “when he was composing eulogies for the athletes
of his own region.”30 For this reason and because of the similarities of approach
it is worth noting how Basil and Gregory of Nyssa discuss these martyrs. Basil in
his homily on the forty martyrs, and this is presumably what Severus is referring
to, uses very similar words to Severus. He discusses the soldiers as “athletes”, and
speaks of the “stadium” and “ascetic exercises”, and so does Gregory of Nyssa.31
Because Severus explicitly mentions Basil’s work it will be fruitful to explore in
detail the commonalities in content and theme, as well as the differences, to
see how he re-uses and re-works the previous material.
Severus, Basil, and Gregory
Basil (d. 379) was an extremely influential bishop who wrote on theology,
monasticism and ascetic practice, and whose work was esteemed by both the
Greek and Syrian churches.32 He delivered a homily on the forty holy martyrs
of Sebaste (Armenia) in 373 to the congregation at the martyrium in Caearea.33
The homily consists of eight sections which follow a similar progression to that
found in both Gregory and Severus. In section one Basil urges his hearers to
imitate the martyrs, emphasises that the martyrs had one soul and were united
in suffering, extols their virtue, and describes them in words similar to what we
will see again in both Gregory and Severus, that is, as “a phalanx of soldiers, a
corps hard to struggle against.”34 In section two Basil urges the congregation to
remember the martyrs’ virtue, and exhorts his people to imitate them. He then
gives a lengthy exposition on the unity of the martyrs, a theme also found in
Gregory but not in Severus.

31 Basil, ‘A Homily on the Forty Holy Martyrs of Sebaste,’ in Johan Leemans, Wendy Mayer,
Pauline Allen and Boudewijn Dehandschutter, “Let Us Die That We May Live” (New York:
Routledge, 2003), 68–77.
32 For details on the life and theology of Basil, see Philip Rousseau, Basil of Cæsarea (Trans-
formation of the Classical Heritage Book 20) (Los Angeles: University of California Press,
1998), or Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, Basil of Caesarea: A Guide to His Life and Doctrine
(Eugene, or: Wipf & Stock, 2012).
33 Pauline Allen, ‘Basil of Caesarea,’ in Johan Leemans, Wendy Mayer, Pauline Allen and
Boudewijn Dehandschutter, “Let Us Die That We May Live” (New York: Routledge, 2003),
55–56.
34 Basil, in Leemans et al, Let Us Die, 68.
In section three Basil begins recounting the actual events concerning the
martyrs, how they came to the attention of the emperor and boldly proclaimed
themselves to be Christians. Section four continues the story of how the em-
peror threatened them and includes a lengthy speech by the martyrs that is
not in Gregory or Severus. In these two parts Basil also describes the martyrs as
“the invincible and noble soldiers of Christ” who underwent “struggles”, “just as
in the stadiums those proceedings to the contest.”35
Section five describes the emperor’s torturing of the martyrs in the icy-cold
water. Basil’s description of the cold and the north wind is repeated almost
identically by both Gregory and Severus. He speaks of how “Piercing blasts of
the north wind rushed every living thing to its death.”36 Most of this section is
a vivid description of how the body is affected by freezing, including graphic
details of how the body turns “livid” and “jumpy” and how the extremities feel
as if they are burned by fire.
Section six mainly concerns the response of the forty and how they encour-
age each other. In section seven, when one of the forty deserts, the guard joins
them. Of note is the parallel between the martyrs’ self-description of their entry
into the water as being into a “stadium” and the guard as warming himself in
the “gymnasium.” Again, agonistic language is used, with the one who “gave up
the fight” “deserting” while the newly-repentant guard is “imitating those in the
line of battle.”37
Section eight concludes with a reminder about the great unity of the forty
who offer up “unanimous prayer.” Basil again challenges his hearers to imitate
the virtue of the martyrs, and uses more military language by describing the
forty as “an army of trophy-bearers.”38 He extols them as a “hallowed battalion”,
an “unbroken fighting order” and “common guards of the human race.”39
Gregory shared much theology with his older brother Basil, and this is evi-
dent in his homily on the same forty martyrs of Sebaste.40 Gregory of Nyssa gave
this homily, according to Leemans, around 376–377, and because of interrup-
tion had to deliver it on two consecutive days. After an opening where Gregory

40 For a good background on Gregory see Anthony Meredith, Gregory of Nyssa (The Early
Church Fathers), (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 1999), or Jean Danielou, From Glory to
Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical Writings (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press: New
York, 1997).
54 d’alton
mentions the size of his audience, he moves to urge his listeners to imitate the
virtue of examples, using Job. He then talks at length about honouring parents,
and about the geographical features of the city and its surrounds. Finally he
says he will turn to the main topic which is the “martyr’s stadium”, the “virtu-
ous” story of the Forty who went through a “common contest.”41 He discusses
their “virtuous life”, their miraculous victory in battle, and how they were cho-
sen for the “contest” of martyrdom.42 He speaks of their “perfection through
suffering” and of how the martyrs “marvellously transferred your experience in
military warfare to the battle line against the Devil.” They “marched against the
opposing force” and so “the Enemy falls to the ground and is decapitated.” Just
as in Basil, the martyrs are “soldiers of Christ,” and “foot soldiers of the Holy
Spirit.”43
Further, he describes this “spectacle” as a “wrestling match between the
Devil and men”, and contrasts “the serpent who floored Adam” with the martyrs
who are “loftier than the first contestants.” Whereas Adam and Eve brought
down human nature, the martyrs “by their courage erected it again.” These
“greatest of contestants” gained the “crown of the contests”, and the angels
rejoiced because of “the athletes’ achievement.”44 This is all similar to Basil
except that Gregory is more verbose and discusses soteriology at length. Also
notable is the interweaving as in Severus of both the military and sporting
imagery—both are aspects of the athletic struggle.45
Gregory then follows Basil by describing the actual details of the tortures
of the martyrs, the “chilly northerly winds”, the jailer who joins their number,
and the mother who places her son on the cart. He adds to his agonistic
imagery by speaking of how the martyrs who are “athletes” in their “contest”
“advanced towards their perfection through death” and were able to “attain
victory” and “grasp the crown.” He also urges his hearers to “run together with
the saints to the end of their contests.”46 In his concluding section, Gregory
says that the martyrs were able to enter paradise because the revolving sword
outside the garden of Eden which kept out Adam and Eve, rotated to let them
in.47
41 Gregory, in Leemans et al, Let Us Die, 96, 97.

44 Gregory, in Leemans et al, Let Us Die, 102–103.
45 This use of struggling soldiers and athletes is not confined in the Cappadocians to sermons
on the forty either, and they use these images concerning Christians elsewhere.
Severus broadly follows the same order of events and draws many of the
same lessons as the Cappadocians. After his introduction explaining the spirit
of the fasting rules, he introduces the martyrs using the athletic and military
language already discussed.48 He extols the bravery of the martyrs and chal-
lenges his congregation to imitate them. Severus then discusses the judge’s
efforts to make the soldiers renounce their faith and how he arrives at the per-
fect torture involving the icy-cold water.49 The story proceeds with details of
how the martyrs encourage each other, how the jailer joins them and how the
mother acts heroically.50 Severus frequently leaves the story to urge his people
to imitate their ascetic faith and concludes with various exhortations.51
We are now in a position to compare the three homilies. All three bishops
speak of the key moments of the events—the cold northerly wind, the torture
in the icy water, the jailer who converts and the mother of the dying martyr.
They all use athletic and military imagery and urge their listeners to imitate
the virtue of the martyrs.
But there are also differences, and Severus noticeably follows Basil more
than he does Gregory. Only Basil and Severus mention the Maccabean martyrs
and their struggles, and only they emphasise the emperor’s role. Severus and
Basil make the most of agonistic imagery, while Gregory alone waxes at length
about the soteriological implications of the martyrs’ actions. Basil discusses
unity while Severus does not.
Most noticeably, only Severus refers to tranquillity, an important Stoic-
derived Syrian Christian ascetic concept we will discuss below. Severus also dis-
cusses or mentions perfection four times, while Gregory briefly refers to it only
twice and Basil not at all. Severus challenges his hearers to “show me your per-
fection” in a way that is missing in the Cappadocians.52
In summary, Severus’ ascetic approach in language and concept is very
similar to the Cappadocian approach. But we must also note how at certain
points he expresses the more Syrian emphasis on tranquillity and perfection,
which is natural given his location in Antioch at the intersection of the Greek
and Syrian cultures.53

53 The particular emphases of the Syrian church have been widely discussed, and best
summarised in Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac
56 d’alton
Severus and the Syrians
The Syrian approach is somewhat different to the Cappadocian because it

speaks much more frequently of the struggle, and as a struggle against the
passions that in turn leads to tranquillity (or stillness) and perfection. I will
elaborate on this with several examples because there is a particular emphasis
in Severus that is not so usual in the Cappadocians and that can be defined
as the Syrian emphasis. This particular understanding of asceticism is seen in
Aphrahat, Ps-Macarius and Isaac, as well as in the Liber Graduum, Ephrem and
many other Syrians. I will focus on just four aspects of this Syrian emphasis,
that is, the centrality of the agon, the fight against the passions, tranquillity
(stillness), and perfection, and on four representative Syrians, Aphrahat, Ps-
Macarius, Theodoret, and Isaac.
We will start with Aphrahat because he is the earliest major Syriac author
and because his ascetic writings are so definitive. Aphrahat was a Persian
Christian and leader of the church in Syria. He writes between 337 and 344 a
series of 23 chapters or “Demonstrations”. Composed in Syriac, these describe
the ideal ascetic life in extensive detail and respond to issues raised by Jewish
opponents. At the same time, Aphrahat’s writings have often been noted as
exhibiting a uniquely early more-Jewish form of Christianity.54
In Demonstration Six, Aphrahat writes repeatedly of spiritual warfare-
trampling on Satan, fighting and striving against temptation etc. He says “Let
the one who wants to enter the stadium to fight, learn about his opponent.
Let the one who wishes to enter into battle take armour for himself in order
to fight.”55 In Demonstration Seven he develops this theme in 27 sections. He
argues that all spiritual warriors will at times fall in the struggle, but can be
healed by repentance. Christians need “not be defeated” by Satan if they “take
away his weapon” with vigilance. He says “You who have put on the armour of
Christ, learn the intricacies of war, so that you might not be defeated and weary
in the struggle. Our enemy is cunning and clever, but his armour is inferior to
ours.”56 Aphrahat returns to the theme of the struggle (agona) many times, and
Tradition (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 3–38. See also S.P. Brock, “Early Syrian Asceticism.”
Numen, Vol. 20 (Apr. 1973), 1–19.
54 Adam Lehto, Introduction, The Demonstrations of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage, trans. Adam
Lehto (Piscataway, nj: Gorgias, 2010), 4–7, 32–56.
55 Aphrahat, The Demonstrations of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage, trans. Adam Lehto (Piscat-
away, nj: Gorgias, 2010), 174.
56 Aphrahat, Demonstrations, 203.
this theme alone takes up roughly 10% of his general teaching.57 Whereas the
agon is somewhat peripheral for the Cappadocians, it is central for Aphrahat,
as well as for the other Syrians as we shall see.
Next I want to briefly provide examples from Ps-Macarius and Theodoret
that show parallels with Severus in order to place his writing in context. Ps-
Macarius writes extensively in Syriac in the late 4th century on asceticism and
holiness and his work is central in the Syrian tradition.58 He says in his 21st
homily:
Whoever truly desires to please God and truly makes himself an enemy
against the adversary must wage battle on a double front. One battle takes
place in the material affairs of this life by turning completely away from
… the sinful passions. The other battle … [is] against the evil spirits.59
Further, Ps-Macarius writes extensively about tranquillity or stillness. He says

for example in words reminiscent of Marcus Aurelius, “It is not becoming of
a servant of God to live in a state of disturbance, but rather in all tranquillity”
and in the same homily discusses prayer with tranquillity in some detail.60 In
relation to perfection Ps-Macarius says “whoever strives for perfection does not
long for evil things … [but are] servants to the holy and passionless Spirit.”61
He links various ideas of athletic struggle and perfect holiness together when
he challenges his readers to engage in “struggles of the race” and to “hunger
and thirst” for “righteousness”, “as befits those who strive for perfection.”62 Ps-
Macarius discusses all these concepts numerous times, and these Stoic terms
feature far more heavily in his works than in any of the Greek fathers. Given
that Ps-Macarius writes at roughly the same time as Basil and Gregory, his much
greater use of the Stoic concepts of tranquillity and perfection is notable. We
will see similar language to this later in Severus.
Another Syrian example is Theodoret of Cyrus who writes in Greek a “History
of the Monks of Syria” in the mid-5th century.63 He frequently uses the struggle
57 This is excluding the anti-Jewish polemic Demonstrations.

58 George Maloney, Introduction, in Pseudo-Macarius: The Fifty Spiritual Homilies and the
Great Letter (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), 6.
59 Ps-Macarius, Pseudo-Macarius: The Fifty Spiritual Homilies and the Great Letter (New York:
Paulist Press, 1992), 153.
60 Ps-Macarius, Pseudo-Macarius, 76.
63 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, A History of the Monks of Syria, trans. R.M. Price (Kalamazoo:
58 d’alton
motif all through his work, and it is by far the defining image. For example, in his
praise of James of Cyrrestica, Theodoret links athletes and war in an extended
metaphor.
Now that we have proceeded through the contests of the athletes of virtue
described above, narrating in summary their laborious exercises, their
exertions in the contests and their most glorious and splendid victories,
let us now record … the way of life of those … who contend magnificently
and strive to surpass their predecessors in exertion. (James) unceasingly
under the eyes of spectators … strives in combat and repels the necessities
of nature.64
The language of this is strikingly similar to Severus, and the description could
almost be a summary of his extolling of the Forty Martyrs. The themes of
athletes contesting virtuously and victoriously, and ignoring their bodies before
the spectators, make up a cluster of images that we have seen in all the Syrians,
Cappadocians and Severus. Given that Theodoret was a Chalcedonian with
strong Nestorian sympathies, the fact that Severus uses language very similar to
Theodoret shows us just how pervasive and non-sectarian this ascetic mindset
and language indeed was.
It is time now to turn to Isaac, who unlike the other authors is later than
Severus, but who again uses very similar language to describe asceticism. His
writings help us to locate several of Severus’ passages within a conceptual
and metaphorical framework. Isaac was born early in the seventh century in
Beth Qatraye on the South Coast of the Persian Gulf (near Bahrain). He lived
as a monk for many years and wrote numerous homilies on the ascetic life.
Although in 676 he was briefly made a bishop of the Church of the East (often
incorrectly called the Nestorian Church), he is also greatly revered as a saint in
the Eastern Orthodox churches because of his holiness and writings, and even
the Miaphysite churches respect him and use his writings.65
Isaac’s over 100 ascetic homilies were originally written for an audience of
monastics in the 690s.66 He wrote in Syriac and his work was early trans-
Cistercian, 1985). This work also has an excellent introduction to Theodoret which notes
the specific Syrian approach to asceticism.
64 Theodoret, History, 133, 135.
65 Hilarion Alfeyev, The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syria, (Kalamazoo: Cistercian, 2000) has
an excellent introduction to the life and teaching of Isaac.
66 Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Introduction, in The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the
Syrian (Boston: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 2011), 60.
lated into Greek and Arabic. His work evidences many Syriac thought-forms
intermingled with Greek philosophy, especially Stoicism. Other authors have
focussed on his Neoplatonic thought, but almost nothing has been written
about Isaac’s Stoicism.67 Isaac draws heavily on Ps-Macarius and follows the
earlier Syrian tradition but accentuates the Stoic even further, especially when
contrasted to both the Cappadocian and later Greek fathers.
Isaac repeatedly emphasises the ideas of struggle, fight, contest and battle,
often using the Syriac word agona. He writes of the “many struggles and diverse
kinds of warfare that are met continually on the path to righteousness”, and
reminds his audience to “never cease … from wrestling with your adversaries.”68
Isaac writes that anyone who is having difficulties in the fight “should not be
troubled on this account, nor quit the arena and the fight.”69 He also writes of
“holy athletes and strugglers who splendidly ran the course of their life” and of
the attainment of stillness.70 The spiritual fight for Isaac is specifically a struggle
against the passions which are the enemy within.71
He lists the passions towards the end of Homily 2 as being “love of riches;
amassing of possessions; the fattening of the body, from which proceeds carnal
desire; love of honours, which is the source of envy; … pride and pomp of power;
elegance; popularity, which is the cause of ill-will; fear for the body.”72 These
lists of virtues and passions are very reminiscent of the Stoic lists as found in
Seneca etc. For Isaac as for the Stoics, the path to victory over the passions is
through ascetic practice to attain to apatheia and stillness.
With regards to Stoic influence it needs to be emphasised that it is unclear
how much Isaac, Severus, and other Christian writers were drawing directly on
specific Stoic authors. They may have been simply building on earlier church
fathers who were in turn shaped by the Stoic language of popular culture. After
all, even in Acts we see Paul quoting Greek philosophers to communicate with
his audience, and some of Paul’s language is very Stoic-like.73 The Stoic idea of
67 For example, Alfeyev’s much-cited work noted above only treats Isaac’s NeoPlatonism and
does not even mention the Stoic influence on his work.
68 Isaac, The Ascetical Homilies, 191.
70 Isaac, The Ascetical Homilies, 232–233.
73 See Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “Setting the Scene: Stoicism and Platonism in the Transi-
tional Period in Ancient Philosophy,” in Stoicism in Early Christianity, ed. Tuomas Rasimus
(Grand Rapids, mi: Baker, 2010), and Leif E. Vaage and Vincent L. Wimbush eds, Asceticism
and the New Testament (New York: Routledge, 1999).
60 d’alton
philosophy was that it is not just a set of beliefs or metaphysics, but a whole way
of life involving constant practice and training (askesis). Given Paul’s emphasis
on training for holiness and fighting the passions, one can see how attractive
Stoic language was to other early Christian writers. This is not to say that Basil
and Gregory are not influenced by Stoicism, but that the Syrians are far more
affected.74
One of the main aims and virtues of the Stoics is ataraxia (tranquillity, still-
ness, or being undisturbed). In his Meditations, Marcus Aurelius says, “Do not
disturb yourself”, for the goal of life is to live a “tranquil and god-fearing life.”75
Another central Stoic concept and almost an equivalent to ataraxia is apatheia,
being without the passions which are seen as the base emotional responses of
fear, anger, and so on, which undermine one’s stillness. Stoics consider uncon-
trolled emotion to be a disturbance of the mind and against nature.76
Isaac often uses these very Stoic arguments against emotions by asserting
the need to flee passions and fight against them to attain apatheia and stillness.
He speaks of “contests with the passions”, and sees the goal of the monk
as acquiring “dispassion” (apatheia) which “cannot be acquired outside of
stillness.”77
Isaac writes frequently of stillness or of having a limpid heart. He opens his
4th Homily with the saying “The soul that loves God is at rest in God alone.”78
The aim of the monk is to make the soul a “limpid/still receptacle of the blessed
light.”79 Further, “… be assured that God is near to his friends … (those who)
follow Him with a limpid/still heart.”80 One is “lifted to God” by “stillness of
soul from the world.”81 This being god-like (the theology of theosis) is typically
74 See Michel René Barnes, “Divine Unity and the Divided Self: Gregory of Nyssa’s Trinitarian
Theology in its Psychological Context”, Modern Theology, Volume 18, Issue 4, October 2002,
pp. 475–496. Barnes discusses various aspects of Platonic and Stoic impact on Gregory’s
anthropology.
75 Meditations 2.5, 4.26, Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, trans. Robin Hard (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011), 11, 26.
76 F.H. Sandbach, The Stoics, (London: Chatto and Windus, 1975), 59–63.
77 Isaac, Isaac of Nineveh: The Second Part, trans. Sebastian Brock (Louvain: Peeters, 1995), 41;
Isaac, The Ascetical Homilies, 554.
78 Isaac, On the Ascetical Life, trans. Mary Hanbury, (Crestwood, ny: St. Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 1989), 63.
79 Isaac, On the Ascetical Life, 44. Severus’ reference to the light of God shining on the martyrs
is a related concept.
80 Isaac, On the Ascetical Life, 86.
81 Isaac, On the Ascetical Life, 43. There is a notable comparison here with the Stoics, for
whom ataraxia was an attribute of the gods.
Eastern Orthodox, but in the Syrian tradition the idea of attaining perfection
while on still on Earth is more pronounced.
So now after this contextualizing excursus on the Syrians’ approach to the
struggle, we can turn again to Severus and understand what he says about
stillness in this light. In his homily he writes:
Therefore, we too, having learned the martyr’s tactics, let us stir ourselves
against debilitating fornication, and in the face of the passion which turns
us savage like wild beasts, let us train ourselves to calmness [tranquil-
lity].82
This unites these two closely-related Stoic ideas of stillness and passionlessness,
with the spiritual combat of the martyrs. For Severus, the fight against the pas-
sions involves an ascetic training for stillness, just as we have seen in the Syri-
ans. Severus also draws a strong contrast between the martyrs who exhibit “gen-
tleness” and the judge who is “inflamed with fury”, and thus who is clearly not
virtuous in the Stoic conception.83 When Severus urges his hearers to struggle
for stillness he is drawing on Stoic concepts well embedded in a Syrian spiritual
tradition that starts in the 4th century and extends to Isaac and well beyond.
Again, it must be noted that the Cappadocians also mention stillness, but
relatively rarely compared to Severus or Isaac. Basil for example writes (using
the Greek word hesychia) “We must strive after a quiet mind [stillness].”84
Gregory Nazianzus similarly says, “It is necessary to be still in order to have clear
converse with God and gradually bring the mind back from its wanderings.”85
In this light, Severus’ statement “let us train ourselves to calmness” (stillness)
is like the Cappadocians, but his repeated emphasis on stillness is very Syrian.
I want to briefly mention one further theme in Severus which is also com-
mon to the Cappadocians but especially the Syrian fathers, the idea that the
goal of the spiritual struggle is perfection. The idea of perfection is important
for Severus. When the forty martyrs appear before the judge, Severus describes
them as having “arrived at the perfect man.”86 Later, the bathhouse guard is
so inspired by the courageous sufferings of the martyrs that he joins the forty.
Severus writes:

84 Basil, npnf 2.8, 110.
85 Gregory, quoted in Hierotheos Vlachos, Orthodox Psychotherapy, trans. Esther Williams,
(np: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 1994), 312.
86 Severus, Severus, 120. Severus is quoting Paul in Eph 4:13.
62 d’alton
He was smitten within his soul and completely overcome by the beauty
which was appearing … Proclaiming himself a Christian, he threw himself
into the midst of the martyrs, remaining with delight in the midst of the
ice … hence he too was deemed worthy of his divine desire and when
he had been dipped and made perfect in the contests of piety he flew
a martyr with the martyrs and swiftly saw him whom he so ardently
desired.87
Severus later challenges the congregation about their excuses and insists they
“show me your perfection this present hour.” He mentions excuses of horse-
races, and says that “(T)he theatre screams piercingly”, which is in contrast to
the calmness and tranquillity of true holiness.88 Again, he contrasts his hearers
with the forty holy martyrs who he says “had competed in a great contest, and
with a leap had been made perfect.”89 Briefly, this ascetical theology of Severus
is virtually identical to that of Ps-Macarius and Isaac and should be read in the
light of their extended discussions of this appeal to perfection.
Severus may also be compared with Gregory of Nyssa, who writes in his
“On Perfection”, and here we must note the extensive inter-twined language
of combat and perfection:
“How blessed is he who is drawn up under the divine generalship and

enlisted in the ranks of the thousands and thousands of men armed
against evil with virtues which are imprinted with the image of the king”
… “This, therefore, is perfection in the Christian life in my judgment,
namely, the participation of one’s soul and speech and activities in all
of the names by which Christ is signified, so that the perfect holiness,
according to the eulogy of Paul, is taken upon oneself in ‘the whole
body and soul and spirit,’ (1Thess 5:23) continuously safeguarded against
being mixed with evil” … “Let us struggle, therefore, against this very
unstable element of our nature, engaging in a close contest with our
opponent … not becoming victors by destroying our nature, but by not
allowing it to fall” … “Let no one be grieved if he sees in his nature
a penchant for change. Changing in everything for the better, let him
exchange ‘glory for glory’ (2Cor 3:18), becoming greater through daily
increase, ever perfecting himself, and never arriving too quickly at the

limit of perfection. For this is truly perfection: never to stop growing

towards what is better and never placing any limit on perfection.”90
So when compared to both the Syrians and Cappadocians, it can be concluded

that Severus is using a well-known set of interlaced ideas to challenge his audi-
ence to virtue. When he refers to perfection his congregation knows that this
is a philosophical and Christian ideal that can be achieved through ascetic
struggle. It must also be noted however that while the Cappadocians refer to
perfection at times, and usually in a NeoPlatonic framework, the Syrians dis-
cuss perfection more frequently, and from a Stoic perspective. In this homily,
Severus sits somewhere between the Syrians and Cappadocians in his level of
usage of typically Syrian/Stoic concepts. The differences between the Cappado-
cians and the Syrians should not be over-emphasised, however they exist and
are noticeable. Severus, having been trained in the Palestinian monastic tradi-
tion, which melded both Greek and Syrian traditions, and as the Patriarch of
Antioch, reflects a blending of the Cappadocian and Syrian approaches.
Conclusion
In this paper I have shown that Severus uses a cluster of words and metaphors
to describe the struggle in a way that is very similar to the imagery used by
Gregory of Nyssa and Basil. Further, I have shown evidence that Severus is also
firmly a member of the Syrian school of asceticism, in the lineage of Aphrahat,
Ps-Macarius and Isaac, with an emphasis on the struggle against the passions
leading to stillness and perfection.
It is important to note that despite some theological differences between
the three major branches of Syrian Orthodoxy (Chalcedonian, “Nestorian”, and
“Miaphysite”)91 their ascetic teachings are very similar and form a basis for
connection. Of particular note is that all three churches revere St Isaac of
Nineveh at some level. In the same way, Severus’ ascetic spirituality is also
a bridge for dialogue between the three groups, as his approach to spiritual
90 Gregory of Nyssa, “On Perfection” 119, 121, 122, In Gregory of Nyssa, Ascetical Works (The
Fathers of the Church, Volume 58), trans. Virginia Woods Callahan (Washington: Catholic
University of America Press, 1967).
91 Technically speaking, “Nestorian” is the popular misnomer for the Assyrian Church of
the East, and “Miaphysite” is the more accurate term for the Oriental Orthodox (which
includes the Syrian Orthodox and Coptic churches) who are commonly incorrectly la-
belled “Monophysite”.
64 d’alton
struggle is fully acceptable to all. Emphasis on Christology has obscured this

significant shared understanding, and this calls for a reappraisal of Severus’s
contribution.
For Severus, attainment of spiritual growth and stillness is only possible
through intense spiritual struggle, that is, being in combat as a soldier of Christ.
His emphasis on being a victorious athlete in the gymnasium of life places
him firmly in the Cappadocian and Syrian ascetic traditions. His emphasis on
stillness and perfection reveals his Syrian Stoic mindset.
It is appropriate to conclude with quotes from Isaac and Severus that relate
to the athletic martyrdom of the forty soldiers of Christ. Isaac writes “Better for
us is death in the battle for the love of God than a life of shame and debility.”92
Severus concludes, “The warmth of [their] faith increased in proportion as
[their] bodies chilled, and strongly warmed the athletes.”93

Quotations from the Works of St. Severus of
Antioch in Peter of Callinicus’ magnum opus
‘Contra Damianum’
Rifaat Ebied
The purpose of this paper is to identify, enlist, and reproduce (together with an
English translation and commentary) the numerous quotations, in their Syriac
dressing, from the various seminal works of St. Severus of Antioch, which are
contained in Peter of Callinicus’s magnum opus ‘Contra Damianum’. But first
I shall begin with a brief account of the Tritheist controversy which broke
out more than a hundred years after the acrimonious controversy over the
Council of Chalcedon had cooled down.1 I will focus mainly on the dispute
over the doctrine of the Trinity between Peter of Callinicus and Damian of
Alexandria which, in turn, led to the schism between Antioch and Alexandria
lasting about 30 years and also precipitated Peter’s authorship of his magnum
opus.
Everybody, or at least everybody who is interested in reading about the con-
troversy between Peter of Callinicus the ‘miaphysite’ patriarch of Antioch (581–
591)2 and Damian (578–605) his counterpart and spiritual superior of Alexan-
dria, will know that they fell out over the doctrine of the Trinity. When the
dust had settled on their graves and when churchmen turned their minds to
assuaging the bitterness of the rift between fellow-believers, men pronounced
the whole quarrel a mere logomachy, a battle of words in which the contes-
tants had been at cross-purposes.3 No doubt these churchmen were in part,
at least, right—even if in matters of this kind, ecclesiastical diplomacy, as so
often happens, puts akribeia to flight and remoulds the past to its own liking.
No doubt too as Gregory the Theologian observes (and that for both our contes-
1 For a detailed account of the history and doctrine of Tritheism, see Rifaat Ebied, “Peter
of Callinicus and Damian of Alexandria: the Tritheist Controversy of the Sixth Century,”
in Parole de l’ Orient 35 (2010), 184ff.; R.Y. Ebied, A. Van Roey and L.R. Wickham, Peter of
Callinicum: Anti-Tritheist Dossier [Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 10] (Louvain, 1981), 20–
33.
2 Not 578 as is usually given for the date of his assumption of the See of Antioch (cf. W. Wright,
A Short History of Syriac Literature, Amsterdam 1966, 113). See A. Van Roey, ‘Het Dossier van
Proba en Juhannan Barboer,’ in Scrinium Lovaniense 2 (1961), 183.
3 Chronique de Michel le Syrien, ed. J.-B. Chabot, Tome 11 (Paris, 1901, reprinted 1963), 391, Col. 1.

66 ebied
tants, Peter and Damian, is almost the equal of a divine utterance) ‘men must
have something to blaspheme or life would be unliveable’4—or, to paraphrase
more charitably, a living theology demands adventurous debate, and the adven-
ture runs the perpetual risk of turning into temerarious blasphemy. No doubt,
moreover, a calm student of church affairs would have good cause to point to
this quarrel as one further symptom of the rickety structure of a miaphysite
church which lacked secular authority to moderate its internal doctrinal dis-
agreements. All that would be true, or at least, partly true. Yet it would all, also,
be beside the point. Peter and Damian were in dispute about the substance of
the faith. That is what they believed and, if we are to understand them, what
we must try to believe too. When Peter called Damian a ‘Sabellian’ and Damian
retorted by calling Peter a ‘Tritheist’ each meant what he said.
About 586 Peter of Callinicus became involved in a stormy controversy
with his patron Damian, Patriarch of Alexandria, over a problem which arose
during the course of anti-Tritheist polemics. Damian was accused by Peter of
Sabellianism on the grounds that in the course of refuting Tritheism he had
taught that the divine hypostases were themselves the characteristic properties
of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Thereupon Damian accused his critic of
Tritheist sympathies. What follows is a brief word about Peter’s writings.5 But
I will confine myself here to those which contain the seminal quotations from
the works of St. Severus of Antioch, viz. his Anti-Tritheist Dossier and Adversus
Damianum.
The Anti-Tritheist Dossier
Peter wrote at least three treatises, one of which is his Anti-Tritheist Dossier
which also concerns us here and which has survived in only one manuscript,
viz. British Library Add. 12155, containing an extensive florilegium, and which
was published by Ebied, Van Roey and Wickham.6 It bears the title: ‘Rebuttal of
those who are charged with Sabellianism and who therefore maliciously spread
4 Oratio xxxi, 2.
5 For a detailed discussion of Peter’s writings, see Rifaat Y. Ebied, Albert Van Roey and Lionel
R. Wickham, Petri Callinicensis Patriarchae Antiocheni Tractatus Contra Damianum, i Quae
Supersunt Libri Secundi [Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca, 29] (Turnhout: Brepols, 1994),
xiv ff.
6 R.Y. Ebied, A. Van Roey and L.R. Wickham, Peter of Callinicum: Anti-Tritheist Dossier [Orien-
talia Lovaniensia Analecta, 10] (Louvain, 1981). [hereafter = Ebied et al, Anti-Tritheist Dossier].
quotations from the works of st. severus of antioch 67
the libellous report about us of holding the heathen dogmas of the Tritheists.’
The writing, then, is not directed against the Tritheists (as Baumstark7 has
wrongly suggested) but against people accused of Sabellianism, the heresy
diametrically opposed to Tritheism. The author’s aim is not to refute either
Tritheism or Sabellianism but simply to prove that the accusation of Tritheism
advanced by his Sabellian, or Sabellianizing, opponents is utterly baseless and
that, quite the contrary, he has from the start of his patriarchate (581) up to
the moment of composing his dossier of documents (586/7) always fought
against that heresy.8 The Anti-Tritheist Dossier of Peter of Callinicus forms part
of the controversy between the two patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria. It
was connected with the struggle against Tritheism and started as a result of
Damian’s refutation of Tritheism. The work, which is evidently incomplete and
may even be a portion of the lost Book i Adversus Damianum, is the dossier
of documents (prefaced by a short Introduction) assembled by Peter to show
how he and Damian were once friends, how they have fallen out and how
shamefully he (Peter) has been maltreated and slandered. Peter will prove that
far from being a tritheist himself, as Damian alleges, he has been a highly
successful combatant of tritheists with one outstanding convert to show for it;
besides which, Damian in earlier days wrote him extremely flattering letters,
congratulating him on his prowess in the battle. Moreover, when Peter had
arranged to meet Damian to sort out the issues in Egypt, the whole situation
turned out to be a fiasco, for which Damian was to blame. That in outline is the
subject matter.
Peter’s Magnum Opus: ‘Contra Damianum’
As mentioned above, Damian accused his critic (Peter) of Tritheist sympathies.

Peter, in turn, compiled his magnum opus: Against Damian9 in which he rebuts
the thesis defended by Damian in his refutation of the tritheists, that the
characteristic properties of the divine persons, i.e. fatherhood, sonship and
procession are the hypostases themselves. What this book reveals is that the
7 Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur (Bonn, 1922), 177.

8 Cf. Ebied et al, Anti-Tritheist Dossier, 15 ff.
9 A critical edition of this work was published by Rifaat Y. Ebied, Albert Van Roey and Lionel
R. Wickham, Petri Callinicensis Patrriarchae Antiocheni Tractatus Contra Damianum, i, ii, iii,
iv [Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca, vols 29, 32, 35 and 54] (Turnhout: Brepols, 1994–
2003). [hereafter = Ebied et al, Contra Damianum].
68 ebied
patristic doctrine of the Trinity inherited by Peter and Damian alike was, if
not actually inconsistent, at least expressed in various and genuinely puzzling
ways.
Quotations from the Works of St. Severus of Antioch
I now turn to a consideration of the quotations from the works of St. Severus
of Antioch in the above mentioned writings of Peter of Callinicus. Throughout
the extensive writing of Peter of Callinicus, the Contra Damianum, the author
appeals to patristic proof-texts and patristic theology in order to advance his
arguments and augment his thesis. To this end, he employs a large number
of patristic quotations from the works of many Church Fathers including Sts.
Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, Cyril of Alexandria, Eustathius of
Antioch, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and Severus
of Antioch. I shall confine myself here to the quotations from the various works
of St. Severus of Antioch which are contained in Peter’s magnum opus.
In his surviving Syriac magnum opus Peter quotes at least 107 (one hundred
and seven) passages of varying length from 27 (twenty-seven) different works
(Books, Epistles, Homilies, etc.) of St. Severus of Antioch. Some of the pas-
sages quoted are brief while others are very extended ones. By far the largest
number of quotations is from St. Severus’s seminal work, Contra impium Gram-
maticum10 [52 quotations]. I give below the translation of these quotations
arranged according to the books from which they have been extracted. These
are as follows:
i From the Letter to Eleusinus (po xii, 201–202) [1 quotation]
Now because Truth’s enemies are wont to accuse us and cast against us
the charge of the heterodoxy opposite to theirs, alleging that we hold to
a mixture, confusion, intermingling or mere appearance in respect of the
divine and inexpressible incarnation, we decide—the general view of the
church having been given—that I should clarify your indefinite statement
by a definition.11
10 cpg 7024, ed. Iosephus Lebon, Severi Antiocheni Liber contra impium Grammaticum. Oratio
prima et secunda. Textus (csco 111). Versio (csco 112) (Paris-Louvain, 1938).
11 Cf. Ebied et al, Anti-Tritheist Dossier, p. 73 (Syriac); pp. 46–47 (English).
ii From Contra impium Grammaticum (cpg 7024)12 [52 quotations]

(1) In quoting St. Severus, Peter of Callinicus says the following: “And again
he who illumined the world from the East says this in the 30th chapter of the
Discourse against the impious Grammaticum from Caesarea in refutation of the
impious man’s calumnies.” Severus says:
So you say you pity us—you being drunk with this incurable intoxication.
Thus are in error and need a great deal of pity, tears and wails of mourning.
Why should it be remarkable? For this is the way with such as are intoxi-
cated in error and drunkenness not only from wine but also from various
causes, who, in their confusion and dizziness, imagine that standing peo-
ple and very often that motionless ones too, are revolving.13
(2) In chapter 5 of his Book ii Peter quotes the following passage from St.
Severus’s Contra impium Grammaticum for the purpose of showing that the
term ‘Oosia’ (οὐσία) can signify not only the species but also an individual
hypostasis:
But we recognise the Son and Word, begotten before the worlds, incorpo-
really, impassibly and eternally as the Father’s Word, as a single hyposta-
sis. And if we find him denominated ‘substance’ by the God-clad fathers
and doctors of the holy Church, we recognize that they used the term
‘substance’ instead of hypostasis; and let us not because the term ‘sub-
stance’ properly speaking indicates the generic meaning comprehend-
ing a plurality of hypostases, transfer and ascribe the generic sense to
the hypostasis of the Only-begotten and think of him not as a single
hypostasis but as a substance comprehending the three hypostases for
the reason that he has been called ‘substance.’ We should also interpret
the appellation of the names or their imposition in accordance with the
subject.14
(3) In chapter 7 of his Book ii Peter quotes the following text from St. Severus’s
Contra impium Grammaticum, to which Damian appeals, in order to prove that
Damian’s interpretation of Severus leads to the view that the divine hypostases
and their characteristic properties are mere words and names:
12 See note 10 above.

13 Cf. Ibid., p. 97 (Syriac), p. 67 (English).
14 Cf. Ebied et al, Contra Damianum, vol. 29, pp. 25, 27 (Syriac); pp. 24, 26 (English).
70 ebied
We must also then recognize that fatherhood (i.e. ingeneracy) or generacy

or procession are not empty names and relationships bereft of realities
(as Gregory the Theologian says somewhere) but the fatherhood which
exists in the Godhead, so that God is Father, and the Sonship or generacy
which exists in the Godhead, so that God is Son or offspring and likewise
the procession which exists in the Godhead, so that the Holy Ghost is God
proceeding. If, again, you say “light” or any other common thing you will
mean the ingenerate light, the generate light and the proceeding light:
three lights in the hypostases.15
(4) Peter ends chapter 11 of his Book ii by quoting the following two passages
from St. Severus’s Contra impium Grammaticum who says that the divine per-
sons are not mutually opposed in their common substance but in their prop-
erties:
So in the same way that with us manhood is the whole substance com-
prehending many hypostases (Peter’s, Paul’s, John’s and each individual’s)
whereas Peter, Paul and John are hypostases sharing equally in the sub-
stance, for each of them shares fully and no less in the manhood, and
is a man, separated by his own designation and grouped with the con-
substantial hypostases because he resembles them unvaryingly in every
thing common without being the whole substance and manhood com-
prehending all the individual hypostases. In this very way, in the case
of the Holy Trinity too, the substance is the whole Godhead compre-
hending all the three hypostases of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but
each of the hypostases shares also by the same substance in equality
of honour, and is completely God, and has no difference at all from its
consubstantial hypostases, but is separated and parted by its particular
indication (ingeneracy, generacy or procession), the property safeguard-
ing the absence of confusion. He writes to the same effect in the eigh-
teenth chapter of the same book: So from this we learn that there is no
confusion of the hypostases within the Holy Trinity, but each hyposta-
sis exists along with its indication in the substance of the Godhead;
because through the community of substance, it possesses absences of
difference, complete similarity, unity and identity with the consubstantial
hypostases, whereas through its property it possesses absence of confu-
sion. So that, because of complete equality in the community, the others
15 Ibid., p. 83 (Syriac); p. 82 (English).

also, who participate in the same substance, will be seen and recognized
in each hypostasis.16
(5) We must also recognize that fatherhood (i.e. ingeneracy) or generacy or

procession are not empty names or relationships bereft of realities (as
Gregory the Theologian says somewhere) but the fatherhood which exists
in the Godhead, so that God is Father, and the sonship or generacy which
exists in the Godhead, so that God is Son or offspring, and likewise the
procession which exists in the Godhead so that the Holy Ghost is God
proceeding. If, again, you say ‘light’ or any other common thing, you
will mean the ingenerate light, the generate light and the proceeding
light: three lights in the hypostases. For it is not one light a triple-named
hypostasis which changes at different times into what the Father is or is
thought to be, into what the Son is or is thought to be and into what the
Holy Ghost is or is thought to be.17
(6) In the following passage, quoted from St. Severus’s Contra impium Gram-
maticum, Peter rebuts Damian’s interpretation, given in his Letter to the Eastern
Bishops, in which Severus, on the basis of Basil’s Adversus Eunomium, teaches,
allegedly that the proper names are the hypostases:
Whereas Peter, Paul and John are hypostases sharing equally in the sub-
stance, for each of them shares fully, and no less in the manhood; and
being a man, is separated by his proper designation and connected with
the consubstantial hypostases by similarity and equality in everything
generic and common”. And a little later: “In this very way, in the case of
the Holy Trinity too, the substance is the whole Godhead comprehend-
ing all the three hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but each of
the hypostases shares also by the same substance in equality of honour,
and is completely God, and has no difference at all from its consubstantial
hypostases, but is separated and parted by its proper indication (ingener-
acy, generacy or procession), the property safeguarding the absence of
confusion.18
16 Ibid., pp. 167, 169 (Syriac); pp. 166, 168 (English).

17 Ibid., pp. 175, 177 (Syriac); p. 176 (English).
72 ebied
(7) In the following two passages Peter continues his criticism of Damian’s
exegesis of Severus’s text, maintaining that Damian has mutilated the Father’s
text:
So in the same way that with us manhood is the whole substance com-
prising many hypostases whereas (Peter’s, Paul’s, and John’s and all the
rest) whereas Peter, Paul and John are hypostases sharing equally in the
substance; for each of them shares fully and no less in the manhood,
and is a man, and is separated by his own designation and grouped with
the consubstantial hypostases by similarity and equality in everything
generic and common without being the total substance and manhood
which embraces all the hypostases; in this very way too, in the case of the
Holy Trinity too etc. Despite this, he cut out the beginning of the proof-
text viz. So, in the same way that with us manhood is the whole substance
comprising many hypostases (Peter’s, Paul’s, John and all the rest) and set
down from it Peter, Paul and John are hypostases sharing equally in the
substance. In the same fashion he cut out from the middle without being
the total substance and manhood which embraces all the hypostases and
after putting and a little later, he added: “But in this very way, in the case
of the Holy Trinity too etc.”19
(8) Rebuttal of the mischievous tricks of heretics who think they can cloak
the blasphemy by changing the names and who state that ‘two natures’ is
to be interpreted as ‘two substances.’20
(9) The following two quotations illustrate how Severus clearly distinguishes
the names, designating by ‘Peter’, ‘Paul’ and ‘John’ the hypostases of Peter, Paul
and John, not their names:
Each of the hypostases, then, which is included under the genus and
the substance and under the common meaning (i.e. substance compris-
ing many hypostases) shares equally in what is perceived to be within
the common genus. For instance, Peter shares the common manhood
and substance i.e. rationality, mortality, capacity for understanding and
knowledge. Similarly, both Paul and John, though separated by unique
marks and not being mutually confused, share too the common sub-

stance i.e. are rational, mortal, capable of understanding and knowledge.

And again at another point he says (as has been set out before): So, in
the same way that with us manhood is the whole substance comprising
many hypostases (Peter’s, Paul’s, John’s and all the rest) whereas Peter,
Paul and John are hypostases sharing equally in the substance, for each
of them shares fully and no less in the manhood and is a man and is
separated by his own designation and connected with the consubstan-
tial hypostases by similarity and equality in everything generic and com-
mon without being the total substance and manhood which embraces all
the hypostases; in this very way, in the case of the Holy Trinity too, the
substance is the whole Godhead comprehending the three hypostases of
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but each of hypostases shares by the same
substance in equality of honour and is completely God, and has no dif-
ference at all from its consubstantial hypostases, and is separated and
parted by its particular indication (ingeneracy, generacy, or procession),
the property safeguarding the absence of confusion.21
(10) Wherein he displays the Father, as an image displays the original and as
the hypostatic Word displays, with total exactness, the mind which begot
him, and not as if the Father’s hypostasis were poured out into him; for
that is the blasphemous confusion of Sabellius and Marcellus. And again:
So from this we learn that there is no confusion of the hypostases within
the Holy Trinity, but each hypostasis exists along with its indication in
the substance of the Godhead. And in chapter nineteen he taught in
these words: You make a show, then, of satisfying true religion by empty
mouthings, saying ‘not as if the Father were the Son or the Son the Father,’
wherever you are caught out merging the hypostases by saying ‘in Christ
are the whole Godhead and the whole manhood’; and thus drawing the
blasphemous inference that Christ is in two substances in the common
meaning, with the consequence that in this way, as a result of this subtle
confusion of yours, the whole substance of the Godhead i.e. the Holy
Trinity will be found to be incarnate in the whole substance of manhood
and the whole human race.22
(11) The following quotation from Severus, who is referred to as the “divinely
inspired father”, is presented by Peter in chapter 8 of his Book iii in order to

74 ebied
rebut Damian’s claim that the phrase of Severus ‘the hypostasis is indicative
of the property’ means the indicator and the indicated are one and the same
thing. Peter further shows that this is not always the case as can be proved from
the fathers:
This, then, to sum up, is what we are saying: that substance is indicative
of the community and the generic sense, whereas hypostasis is character-
istic of a single separate substrate which we term also ‘prosopon’ when
it exists in its own proper subsistence, whether it be simple or brought
together into indivisible union by composition’. And again, he writes a few
lines later concerning our same divinely inspired father: The same doctor
instructs us again in what follows, by saying: ‘But in that other there is
a great and wide difference. For substance is indicative of the genus and
the sense inclusive of many species, whereas hypostasis is a determina-
tion of some one species i.e. it is indicative of the prosopon which has by
its property non-participation with the fellow-members of the genus, and
embraces the substrate in its proper mark.23
(12) The following lengthy passage from Severus is presented in chapter 9 of

Book iii in which Peter proves that Severus clearly distinguishes between the
natural properties and the substance even in the case of created nature and
that he also clearly distinguishes the characteristic properties of the hypostases
from the hypostases themselves when he describes the characteristic proper-
ties of Job and Elkanah:
But if anyone happens to mention Job, or Elkanah (father of Samuel),

the meaning of the appellation points out, as if with a finger, so-and—
so, and his single hypostasis. For immediately one hears ‘Job’, one has
understood man—not all man but one of those placed under the sub-
stance and common genus of manhood. For the particular appellation
‘Job’ does not permit the hearer’s understanding to be diffused over the
full expanse of the substance and embrace all men. No, it curbs the under-
standing by the properness of the designation; it limits and directs the
mind towards the one hypostasis of so-and-so; and indicates distinctively
what characterizes this very hypostasis. It grants us understanding of Job,
the king and inhabitant of the land of Uz, the one to whose complete
righteousness God bore witness, the one who was handed over to the evil
23 Ibid., vol. 32, p. 193 (Syriac); p. 192 (English).

demon and adversary for combat, that is for full mastery over him, which
would provide a testing-out of this witness; the one who used to offer to
God daily prayers and sacrifices for the transgressions or mental sins of
his sons and was deprived of these very sons and simultaneously of all
his possessions, and in his bereavement of his sons and penury after his
abundance of children and wealth, uttered that marvellous word of the
thanksgiving undimmed by time: The Lord gave, and the Lord took away;
as it has pleased God, so has it been done; blessed be the Lord’s name; the
one who, in addition to this, was smitten with ulcers all over his body
and held out despite the ailment’s unendurable and long ensuing pain,
and despite the reproaches from friends who trifled with it ignorantly; the
one to whom God again bore witness and who received the crown of mar-
tyrdom and divine splendours. Likewise, if one hears ‘Elkanah’, from the
particular name one mentally imagines the marks characterizing a single
man, not many men but a single hypostasis. For one mentally brings back
and depicts the one who is known as being from the country of Ramah;
the one who lived according to the Law; the one who used diligently to
accomplish the sacrifices and offerings ordained through Moses and the
other things, according to the prescribed cycles of seasons; who used to
go up to the place of the divine tabernacle as the Law had ordained; the
one who lived with Hannah, his chaste and devout wife who valued the
marriage embrace as a means to the procreation of sons and was without
fruit by childbirth, yet who, by prayers and tears, conquered the defect of
nature and received a child as a result of her petition; she brought Samuel,
who became renowned among the prophets and great among those who
invoke the Lord, and who was entrusted with the anointing of Israel’s
kings and used unerringly to foresee the future and prophesy what was
to happen, so that not one of his words fell to the ground (as the Scripture
says) for which reason he was called the visionary and the seer.24
(13) The following two passages from chapters 10 and 11 of Book iii are adduced
by Peter in order to refute the interpretation given by Damian of Severus’s
affirmation that the ‘hypostasis is indicative of the property’:
For substance is indicative of the genus and the sense inclusive of many
species, whereas hypostasis is a determination of indicative one species
having by its property non-participation with the fellow-members of the

76 ebied
genus and embracing the substrate in its proper mark. Indeed, he wrote
also in similar fashion in the fourth chapter of the same second book, as
follows: This, then, to sum up, is what we are saying: that substance is
indicative of the community and the generic sense, whereas hypostasis is
characteristic of a single, separate substrate.25
(14) Hypostasis, indeed, in reference to the meaning of “being” is the same

as “substance”. For just as “substance” means what is, so “hypostasis”
means what subsists, but what is and what subsists do not differ in
anything.26
(15) In chapter 11 of Book iii Peter quotes the following three texts from Se-
verus’s Contra impium Grammaticum to conclude that in the definitions of
‘substance’, ‘nature’ and ‘hypostasis’ given there, Severus intends to teach us
what the terms not the realities are indicative of:
The term ‘substance’, then, is indicative of something which is; for we

must produce definitive demonstrations of the terms by approximating
them to the thoughts and words of the divine Scripture. And again: For
it is clear that the term ‘substance’ is derived from ‘being’. Therefore the
word is not unscriptural, as the frigid and lamentable little arguments of
the Arians … And a little later he writes the words quoted by your wise
self, which are as follows: For substance is indicative of the genus and
the sense inclusive of many species, whereas hypostasis is a determina-
tion indicative of one species having by its property non-participation
with the fellow-members of the genus and embracing the substrate in
its proper mark. Besides this he wrote in the fifth chapter of the same
second book, setting down for us precise knowledge of the terms and of
those indicated by the terms, as follows: These distinctions having been
thus made and the force and meaning of each of the terms previously set
down for examination having been clarified as best I can, we are to recog-
nize that we find sound doctors of the holy churches often using the term
‘substance’ of the proper hypostasis too. And again: It is, therefore, not
unknown that here too the one flesh ensouled with intelligent soul, the
flesh hypostatically united with the Word, is clearly denominated ‘sub-
stance’; because the fathers sometimes apply the term ‘substance’ in the

proper sense. In the second chapter of the same book, he wrote as follows:
So much for substance and hypostasis. The term ‘nature’, on the other
hand, is sometimes indicative of the common and the genus like ‘sub-
stance’, sometimes of the species and of a single substrate like ‘hypostasis’
too. And again: it is to be noted and observed here too how the saint
termed the two hypostases of Father and Son ‘two natures’; and show-
ing that he applied the term ‘nature’ for the proper sense he said ‘two
hypostatic natures’, aware that the term ‘nature’ is often used also for ‘sub-
stance’. This can be seen not only in the case of the Godhead but in that of
the manhood too: sometimes the term ‘nature’ is used for substance and
the generic sense, sometimes for the proper sense declaratory of hyposta-
sis.27
(16) The term ‘substance’, then, is indicative of something which is; for we
must produce definitive demonstrations of the terms by approximating
them to the thoughts and words of divine Scripture.28
(17) In this latter case, then, substance, hypostasis and being share a meaning;
in the former the difference is wide. For substance is indicative of the
genus and the sense inclusive of many species whereas hypostasis is a
determination indicative of one species. But he clarifies the force of the
meaning of the terms under examination more subtly by saying: the holy
fathers often used the term ‘substance’ in the proper sense, of hypostasis
too. Likewise he also spoke of the term ‘nature’ in a different way, as
previously set down: Sometimes it is indicative of the common and the
genus like ‘substance’, sometimes of the species and of a single substrate
like ‘hypostasis’ too.29
(18) In chapter 11 of his Book iii Peter cites the following text from Severus’
refutation of the Grammarian in order to show that Severus uses expressions
sometimes to indicate the realities, sometimes the terms, leaving it to the
reader to determine their exact meaning by the context. He (Peter) concludes
that in the definitions given by Severus, the subject of the phrases is merely
a term, but the predicate a reality, and that, consequently characterizers and
characterized are sometimes identical but sometimes are not:
27 Ibid., pp. 305, 307, 309 (Syriac); pp. 304, 306, 308 (English).
78 ebied
So it is evident here too, that the nature is called one ‘prosopon’ and
‘hypostasis’. But where the doctor said that man’s nature has by Adam’s
transgression come under the curse and death, he has indicated, by the
term ‘nature’, the community of man and the whole race. Therefore ‘na-
ture’ sometimes signifies ‘substance’, sometimes ‘hypostasis’. And again, at
the very beginning of the third chapter: Thus also ‘being’ is indicative of
both substance and hypostasis and is sometimes intermediate, meaning
sometimes the one sometimes the other in accordance with the underly-
ing meaning. He speaks, indeed, in similar terms at the end of the fourth
chapter of the second book: This, then, to sum up, is what we are say-
ing: that substance is indicative of the community and the generic sense,
whereas hypostasis is characteristic of a single separate substrate which
we term also ‘prosopon’ when it exists in its own proper subsistence,
whether it be simple or brought together into indivisible union by compo-
sition. A few lines later, he introduced this too: But ‘nature’ and ‘being’ we
understand to be intermediate terms and are sometimes taken to stand
for ‘substance’, sometimes for ‘hypostasis’.30
(19) Peter quotes the following passage from Severus to prove that the fathers
teach that three hypostases along with their characteristic properties are in the
divine substance, but that the characteristics are to be distinguished from the
hypostases and exist in the common substance not as hypostases but as their
characteristic properties:
So from this we learn that there is no confusion of the hypostases within

the Holy Trinity, but each hypostasis exists along with its indication
in the substance of the Godhead; because through the community of
substance, it possesses absence of difference, complete similarity, unity
and identity with the consubstantial hypostases, whereas through the
property it possesses absence of confusion. So that, because of complete
equality in the community, the others also, who participate in the same
substance, will be seen and recognized in each hypostasis.31
(20) In chapter 15 of his Book iii Peter cites the following passage from Severus’s
15th chapter of the second book of his Against the Grammarian of Caesarea
to the effect that an evil trick of heretics is to mix intentionally into their
expositions heretical and orthodox statements:

That the heretics, as if in concord, and with the pretence of peace, are at
pains to say with evil trickery, ‘Let us use our phrases and those beloved of
the orthodox’, a thing which the word of truth will not accept. And again in
the same fifteenth chapter he wrote: Heretics are careful either to import
their heresy in toto or, at least, by all means to mix, in various plausible
ways, something heretical in with what is correct.32
(21) At the end of chapter 16 of his Book iii Peter quotes the following text from
Severus who reproached the Grammarian for the misuse of the homonymy of
the term ‘nature’, describing him as follows: “… this foolish ignoramus, like a
greedy hound ever drawn on by the smell of meat, is enticed towards the term,
‘nature’, and greedily seizing upon the fact that the doctor said ‘confirming the
nature of the resurrected body …’”
But this foolish ignoramus, like a greedy hound ever drawn on by the smell
of meat, is enticed towards the term, ‘nature’, and, greedily seizing upon
the fact that the doctor said ‘confirming the nature of the resurrected
body’, he supposed that this suffices him to divide the one Christ into two
natures after the union. Again, he speaks as follows in the 40th chapter
of the same third book: Why, then, you ignorant fellow, do you go around
collecting words idly, extracts from other people, and if you find the holy
fathers anywhere using ‘natures’ in the plural, you immediately exult like a
proverbial puffed-up, avaricious harlot, as though the orthodox deny that
Christ is from two natures?33
(22) The following two quotations of Severus’ Against the Grammarian are pre-
sented by Peter in chapter 18 of his Book iii in order to confirm the synonymy
of ‘hypostasis’ with ‘subsisting’, ‘being’ and ‘existing’:
Hypostasis, indeed, in reference to the meaning of ‘being’, is the same as

substance. For just as substance indicates existing, so too hypostasis indi-
cates subsisting. ‘Existing’ and ‘subsisting’, indeed, are indistinguishable.
Thus the God of all is brought forward by Jeremiah the prophet as saying:
If they stood within my basis. He who said I am ‘He who is’ himself said:
If they stood within my basis, signifying that he both exists and has been
subsisting perpetually and never either non-existing or non subsisting,

80 ebied
gathering together in himself all his eternal existence and subsistence.

The word ‘being’ also is the same in meaning as ‘existing’ and ‘subsist-
ing’, for there is no difference between existing, subsisting and being. He
speaks again also as follows in the third chapter of the same book: Thus
also ‘being’ is indicative of both substance and hypostasis and is some-
thing intermediate, meaning sometimes the one sometimes the other in
accordance with the underlying meaning.
Thus the God of all is brought forward by Jeremiah the prophet as
saying: If they stood within my basis. He who said I am ‘He who is’ himself
said: If they stood within my basis.
For this reason too, the voice came to Moses from the person of God
the Father and said I am ‘He who is’; thus shall you speak to the children of
Israel: I am has sent me to you.
Hypostasis, indeed, in reference to the meaning of ‘being’, is the same
as substance.
For just as ‘substance’ indicates existing, so too ‘hypostasis’ indicates
subsisting. ‘Existing’ and ‘subsisting’, indeed, are indistinguishable.34
(23) But why must we suffer that fate? Because we can in no other way under-
stand or utter what pertains to it save from thoughts and concepts which
arise from the inferior and the everyday. And again: But because it is
impossible to approach thoughts about God in any other way, we have
taken an example from concepts belonging to our ordinary condition.35
(24) For thus it is written of these men in the fourth book of Kingdoms: They
feared the Lord and worshipped their own gods, and again: And these were
the nations which feared the Lord and reverenced their own graven images,
for their children and grandchildren, too, do as their fathers did to this day.
But Elijah the prophet, aflame with the fire of divine zeal, rebuked these
wicked wretches with a foot in each camp when he said as follows: How
long will you limp on your two hams? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if
Baal is, follow him!36
(25) What Jeremiah who knows the mystery of lamentation will not weep over
so much madness and lack of feeling and impose a lament upon inani-
mate things, as though rational nature is not capable of worthy lamenta-

tion, and say: Let Zion’s walls pour out floods of tears day and night?37
(26) The grammarian: But perhaps our opponents will say that a difference
existed before the union, whereas after the union, none at all. But I pity
such people rather, for thinking the thoughts of Nestorius, for he too
grants that the man was created first and that God the Word then dwelt
in him. Which is what these present-day perverters of truth, who think
the thoughts of Nestorius, also assert. So you say you pity us, you, drunk
with this incurable intoxication and so frantic and in need of much pity,
tears and wails of mourning! What is surprising about that? For such are
those who are drunk not only with the drunkenness and craziness which
comes from wine, but with that which comes from different causes; who,
in their confusion and dizziness think that standing things, often indeed
immovable things as well, are going round.38
(27) The following two brief passages from Severus’ Against the Grammarian
are quoted by Peter in chapter 25 of his Book iii in order to show that Severus
used ‘subsistent’ of the Son’s generation or generacy, but also explained that
terms have to be understood in correspondence with the underlying realities:
Rebuttal of the mischievous trick of heretics which thinks it can cloak the
blasphemy by changing the names.39
(28) See how he has said the natures will be divided but the prosopon indivis-
ibly united: like dicers who are at pains to cheat those they are talking to
by alterations and changes round of terms, they call the unity of natures
a ‘unity of prosopon’.40
(29) The following three passages from Severus’ Against the Grammarian are
quoted by Peter in chapter 25 of his Book iii. They declare that the divine
hypostases are not distinguished by their eternity but only by their mode of
being; that the Son exists from the Father by generation and the Holy Ghost by
procession; and that each hypostasis is known by its property:

82 ebied
The hypostasis of the Father, that of the Son and that of the Holy Ghost
are different. For though eternity belongs to them and thereby the fact of
being equal in honour and without difference of substance, nevertheless
their mode of being is different. For the Father exists ingenerately unbe-
gotten by another; which is why he is Father in the full sense. Whereas
the Son is non-temporally and eternally begotten of the Father, shining
unparted from his Father’s hypostasis like a beam from the Sun, spiritual
light from spiritual light. But the Holy Ghost has his eternal being from the
Father, yet not generately like the Son, but by the procession. For just as
the Son exists from the Father by a divine, incorporeal and inconceivable
generation, which the mind cannot comprehend, so too the Holy Ghost
exists from the Father by a divine, incorporeal and inconceivable gener-
ation, which the mind cannot comprehend, so too the Holy Ghost exists
from the Father by divine, incomprehensible and inexplicable procession.
For it is written that he is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father.
Therefore, the fact of their existing non-temporally and eternally shows
the community and consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, whereas the dif-
ference in mode of being brings in the particularity and non-participation
of each of the hypostases with respect to the other two; For the Father
stands fixedly in being neither from anything nor existing generately, not
changing from this property whereby he is known as Father. Whereas the
Son abides in shining forth generately from the Father, not changing to
the ingeneracy of his begetter or to the procession of the Holy Ghost, but
having divine and incomprehensible generation as the unblended indica-
tion, present to him alone, whereby he is recognized as the Only-begotten
Son in his particular hypostasis. But the Holy Ghost possesses a fixed pro-
cession from the Father which shows clearly his hypostasis, not changing
to the ingeneracy of the Father or to the Son’s generacy. In this way, then,
with its innate property being present in each of the three hypostases
(generacy in the Son, procession in the Spirit) the Father remains Father
and not Son or Spirit, the Son remains Son and not Father or Spirit, and
the Holy Ghost remains Holy Ghost and not Son or Father. Thus the Holy
Trinity is known in three distinct hypostases by the distinction of proper-
ties, and in one substance by the identity of the Godhead.41
(30) The following two lengthy quotations from Severus’ Against the Gram-
marian is presented by Peter in chapter 25 of his Book iii. It gives Severus’

explanation of the term ‘hypostasis’ and that each has its peculiar appellation
designating the particular subject:
Therefore the term ‘man’, as we said previously, is indicative of the sub-

stance, signifying the community, equality, sameness and connaturality
of the whole genus. But if anyone happens to mention Job, or Elkanah
(father of Samuel), the peculiar mark of the appellation points out, as if
with a finger, so-and-so, and his single hypostasis. For immediately one
hears ‘Job’, one has understood man—not all man, but one of those under
the substance and common genus of manhood. For the particular appel-
lation ‘Job’ does not permit the hearer’s understanding to be diffused
over the full expanse of the substance and embrace all men. No, it curbs
the understanding by the peculiar mark of the designation; it limits and
directs the mind towards the one hypostasis of so-and-so and indicates
distinctively what things characterize it. And again: Likewise if one hears
‘Elkanah’, from the particular name one mentally imagines the impres-
sions characterizing a single man, not many men but a single hypostasis.
And a few lines later: Therefore Elkanah, who is signified to us by what
has been said, is a man like Job, but another one apart from him and sub-
sisting separately and particularly. For hypostasis establishes at the same
time the identity of being with the co-generic and separates the one sig-
nified by particular and unconfused marks, from those who share in the
genus and substance with him. No, says the doctor, the appellation curbs
the understanding by the peculiar mark of the designation; it limits and
directs the mind towards the one hypostasis of so-and-so and indicates
distinctively what things characterize it. And again: Likewise if one hears
‘Elkanah’, from the particular name one mentally imagines the impres-
sions characterizing a single man. And again: For hypostasis establishes
at the same time the identity of being with the co-generic and separates
the one signified by particular and unconfused marks.42
(31) So will one who said these things appear to you to be severing the sub-
stance of Father and Son or is he disclosing that each hypostasis exists
in the substance of the Godhead, having its own innate property? And
because of his being without difference with respect to his consubstan-
tials each will be said to share in the same substance because the sub-
stance over all the hypostases of the same genus is one. For just, he says,
84 ebied
as the Son exists from the Father by a divine, incorporeal and inconceiv-
able generation which the mind cannot comprehend, so too the Holy
Ghost exists from the Father by divine, incomprehensible and inexplica-
ble procession. Just as the Son exists from the Father, this: by a divine,
incorporeal and inconceivable generation. For the Father stands fixedly
in being neither from anything nor existing generately, not changing from
this property whereby he is known as Father. Whereas the Son abides in
shining forth generately from the Father, not changing to the ingeneracy
of his begetter or to the procession of the Holy Ghost, but having divine
and incomprehensible generation as the unblended indication, present
to him alone, whereby he is recognized as the Only-begotten Son in his
particular hypostasis. But the Holy Ghost possesses a fixed procession
from the Father which shows clearly his hypostasis, not changing to the
ingeneracy of the Father or to the Son’s generacy.43
(32) The following passage from Severus’ Against the Grammarian (Book ii,
chapter 7) is quoted by Peter in chapter 27 of his Book iii in order to show that
Severus rebukes the slippery character of people arguing as Damian:
Likewise you too, with the difference that you do not begin your first
assault involuntarily like them, but very willingly, speak at random and
claim it true, as if it were a point of dispute, that the uncreated is not the
same substance as the created, nor the made with the unmade nor the
temporally subject with the non-temporal. And though there is no one
who disputes the point, you quote a multitude of proof-texts by the holy
fathers. In regard to this it is good and very appropriate to say to you what
was said by one of the prophets: Woe to him who multiplies what are not
his—till when? And makes heavy upon him his yoke with severity; because
those who bite him will suddenly arise.44
(33) The following lengthy passage is quoted by Peter in chapter 30 of his

Book iii. It gives Severus’ interpretation of Cyril’s careful distinction between
‘substance’ (as the common to all members of the same genus) and ‘hypostasis’
(the individual member), a term never used by the fathers for the common
substance:
However, please listen. For we shall again whisper to you some of the
fathers’ Spirit-uttered words, those of Cyril, the proven doctor, who
teaches that the sameness of substance introduces no confusion of hypo-
stases into the Holy Trinity and that the substance of the hypostases is
comprehensive of each. He wrote in the first book of the treatise On the
Holy and Consubstantial Trinity addressed to a certain Hermias in the
form of a question and answer, as follows: ‘There is a natural and ineffa-
ble unity, not with the hypostases undergoing some mutual confusion (as
certain people have supposed) so that Father and Son should be the same;
but, with each of the two existing and subsisting and being said to possess
a particular being, it is the identity of substance which bestows unity. b.
So, are you saying that the Son is apart from the Father in a particular
substance? a. Not in a substance other than what he has qua God, but in
the hypostasis he has qua Son. b. In substance one thing and hypostasis
another? a. Yes, there is a big difference and distinction between them,
since the substance is comprehensive of each. b. How do you mean? I am
apparently slow in such matters. a. Do you not know that for me, too, dis-
course on these things is unfamiliar? You must, therefore, proceed none
the less to an examination, available by an image, since the divine great-
ness exists in exalted heights. Thus the meaning of substance seems to
apply to some common reality whereas the term “hypostasis” is said and
used of each thing that falls under this common reality. Suppose I now tell
you! a. What? b. We define man as a “rational, mortal animal”, ascribing
him the appropriate concept, and this we say is the definition of a sub-
stance which extends over each of the separate subsistents. So under this
common thing, man, i.e. the definition of man, fall, I suppose, Thomas
and Mark or, let us say, Peter and Paul, and in this way one will indicate
the substance. But one has not yet effected a clear and evident indication
of what are to be recognized separately. For all that is simply man is not
Peter and Paul. But by saying “Thomas” or “Peter” one will not bring the
signified outside the limits of the substance. For he is no less man, but one
has shown him existing in such and such a species in proper hypostasis
and separately. So substance applies to every man, because it is pregnant
with the common principle of the genus, whereas hypostasis to each one,
by its not bringing the signified out of the community or, again, confusing
and mixing into unrecognizability the properly individual’.45

86 ebied
(34) In proof of his understanding of ‘hypostasis’, Peter adduces the following

quotation from Severus’ Against the Grammarian which, according to Peter,
shows that, for the fathers, the collection of a hypostasis’ properties is always
with a substrate and does not subsist apart from it:
Wherefore the divine Scripture, about to discourse on each of those

mentioned (Job, I mean, and Elkanah) began in similar manner, there was
a certain man in the land of Uz and there was a certain man from Ramah;
and by ‘man’ sets out the identity of being and community of each, but
in saying ‘a certain’ and ‘in the land of Uz’ and ‘from Ramah’ separates
each of the hypostases without confusion. Although if it had only said
‘man was’, the noun would have disclosed the being, but, proceeding
into indefiniteness, it would have signified and indicated the substance
of every man and not of so-and-so, as does Man has not considered his
honour, he has surrendered to senseless brutes and has become like them,
but by adding to ‘man’ the phrases ‘a certain’ and ‘in the land of Uz,’ it
determined his being in the particular meaning. So, ‘being’, said without
determination, produces a generic indication and is indistinguishable
from substance, but, conjoined with a particular distinction, contains
the meaning of hypostasis; and the noun ‘man’, when stated without
determination, enunciates man, substance and generic being, but in there
was a certain man in the land of Uz hypostasis and particular being are
enunciated also.46
(35) In the following quotation from Against the Grammarian (Book ii, chap-
ter 18) Severus explains that fatherhood, sonship and procession are not empty
names but exist in the Godhead in such wise that Father, Son and Holy Ghost
are truly God:
And we must also recognize another thing: that fatherhood i.e. ingener-
acy, or generacy or procession are not empty names and ‘relationships
bereft of realities’ (as Gregory the Theologian says somewhere) but the
fatherhood which exists in the Godhead, so that God is Father, and the
sonship or generacy which exists in the Godhead, so that God is Son or
offspring and likewise the procession which exists in the Godhead, so that
the Holy Ghost is God proceeding.47

(36) Peter cites the following quotation from Severus’ Against the Grammarian
as a proof-text which had also been used by Damian in his Letter delivered
through Zachariah:
And we must also recognize that fatherhood i.e. ingeneracy, or generacy

or procession are not empty names and ‘relationships berefts of realities’
(as Gregory the Theologian says somewhere) but the fatherhood which
exists in the Godhead, so that God is Father, and the sonship or gener-
acy which exists in the Godhead, so that God is Son or offspring, and the
procession which exists in the Godhead, so that the Holy Ghost is God
proceeding. If, again, you say ‘light’, or any other common thing you will
mean the ingenerate light, the generate light and the proceeding light:
three lights in the hypostases. For it is not one light in a triple-named
hypostasis which is changed now into being or being thought Father, now
into being or being thought Son, and now into being or being thought
Holy Ghost, but they are three lights in hypostases. Because of this the
light is both recognized and believed to be one light, on account of the
participation in substance, the complete likeness and sameness, the one
will, the one activity and the one brilliant radiance they communicate
which shines forth upon those who are aided and participate in it. For
Gregory the Theologian said, in the Oration on the Holy Ghost, the follow-
ing too: ‘One commingling of light, as it were in three mutually linking
Suns.48
(37) In the following three quotations from Severus’ Against the Grammarian
Peter appeals to the authority of Severus. He (Peter) examines the proof-text
again, in its context, to establish that Severus, rebutting here Sabellian doc-
trines, teaches that ‘fatherhood’, ‘sonship’ and ‘procession’ represent real rela-
tionships:
For Christ is not the whole substance of the Godhead but one hypostasis
of the substance and Godhead viewed and known in trinity, a hypostasis
which is the Son, the Word who became incarnate without alteration, one
ensouled and mind-endowed flesh which he assumed from the Virgin
Mother of God by hypostatic union, wherein he displays the Father, as
an image displays the original and as the hypostatic Word displays, with
total exactness, the mind which begat him, and not as if the Father’s

88 ebied
hypostasis were poured out into him: for that is the blasphemous confu-
sion of Sabellius and Marcellus.49
(38) So if the Son (the begotten light, who displays in himself, as in an image,
the unbegotten light, the Father; who is unmerged with the hypostasis
of his begetter, and is a paraclete, other than the Holy Ghost, and sepa-
rate and different in hypostasis; and who because of the non-difference of
the common substance is viewed and known in him as in image) became
incarnate and made man; what division do you suppose will thereby be
made of the Holy Trinity, of the single substance and the Godhead in
which the three hypostases participate equally alike without difference?
And again: But if you shun saying that the Father was incarnate, or the
Holy Ghost, and say that the whole Godhead exists in the Son’s hypostasis,
you are to recognize that you lapse unconsciously into the same impi-
ety. For the Son is not whole Godhead, but one hypostasis out of the
three hypostases wherein the whole Godhead consists. For neither the
Father’s nor the Holy Ghost’s hypostasis is merged in him. For although
the archetype, which is the Father, is revealed and viewed in the Son as
in a living and unvarying image, nevertheless the image is not therefore
not other in hypostasis than the archetype nor are the two contracted
into one hypostasis. And again: So you hope, then, to appease true reli-
gion by empty mouthings, saying ‘not as if the Father were the Son or
the Son the Father’, wherever you are caught out merging the hypostases
by saying ‘in Christ are the whole Godhead and the whole of manhood’;
and thus drawing the blasphemous inference that Christ is in two sub-
stances in the common meaning, with the consequence that in this way,
as a result of this subtle confusion of yours, the whole substance of the
Godhead i.e. the Holy Trinity, will be found to be incarnate in the whole
substance of manhood and the whole human race. And we must also rec-
ognize that fatherhood i.e. ingeneracy, or generacy or procession are not
empty names and ‘relationships bereft of realities’ (as Gregory the Theolo-
gian says somewhere) but the fatherhood which exists in the Godhead, so
that God is Father, and the sonship or generacy which exists in the God-
head, so that God is Son or offspring, and likewise the procession which
exists in the Godhead, so that the Holy Ghost is God proceeding—proving
that there is not one triple-named hypostasis which is changed now into
being or being thought Father, now into being or being thought Son, now
into being or being thought Holy Ghost.50

(39) So will one who said these things appear to you to be serving the sub-
stance of Father and Son or is he disclosing that each hypostasis exists in
the substance of the Godhead, having its own innate property? In this
way, then, with its innate property being present in each of the three
hypostases (fatherhood in the Father, generacy in the Son, procession
in the Spirit) the Father remains Father and not Son or Spirit, the Son
remains Son and not Father or Spirit, and the Holy Ghost remains Holy
Ghost and not Son or Father. Thus the Holy Trinity is known in three dis-
tinct hypostases by the distinction of properties, and in one substance by
the identity of the Godhead. But the fatherhood which exists in the God-
head, so that God is Father, and the sonship or generacy which exists in
the Godhead, so that God is Son or offspring, and likewise the procession
which exists in the Godhead, so that the Holy Ghost is God proceeding.
And the sonship or generacy which exists in the Godhead, so that God is
Son or offspring, and likewise the procession which exists in the Godhead,
so that the Holy Ghost is proceeding.51
(40) Therefore each of the hypostases participates in the substance, but the
substance is the participated holding all the hypostases participating in
it by equality of honour in a common and generic principle. For each of
us participates in the common manhood and the one substance over all,
and is one man and one hypostasis. But he will not be called, because
he participates in the substance, not a hypostasis but substance. For the
former is the participant whereas the latter is the participated.52
(41) So you hope, then, to appease true religion by empty mouthings, saying
‘not as if the Father were the Son or the Son the Father’, wherever you
are caught out merging the hypostases by saying ‘in Christ are the whole
Godhead and the whole of manhood’; and thus drawing the blasphemous
inference that Christ is in two substances in the common meaning, with
the consequence that in this way, as a result of this subtle confusion
of yours, the whole substance of the Godhead i.e. the Holy Trinity, will
be found to be incarnate in the whole substance of manhood and the
whole human race. For this is the common meaning of ‘substances’:
being a substance comprehending many hypostases, and not a single
hypostasis participating with fellow hypostases of the same genus in

90 ebied
the same substance, in the way that so-and-so participates in manhood.

Otherwise, indeed, the same hypostasis would also be found to be a
substance because it participates in the substance; which is at once very
ludicrous, and very absurdly blasphemous.53
(42) In the following quotation from Severus’ Against the Grammarian (Book
ii, chapter 19 and Book iii, chapter 1) Peter repeats and expounds Severus’
teaching that the Holy Trinity is the substance comprehending the hypostases:
For Immanuel is not from two substances in the generic sense, compre-
hending a plurality of hypostases, but from one hypostasis of God the
Word and from proper flesh ensouled with intelligent soul, flesh which is
from Mary and subsists in unity with God the Word and completed with-
out confusion or division one Christ, one Lord, one hypostasis and nature
of the Word incarnate and in an ineffable manner made man. For it is not
the Godhead’s substance in the generic sense (which is the Holy Trinity)
which was incarnated into the substance and whole genus of manhood.
For this is the height of impiety and witlessness.54
(43) It has been revealed to us by the words and thoughts found in the sacred
Scriptures that we are to believe that God exists in one substance and in
three hypostases.55
(44) Peter returns to a critique of the contention that God the Father is both par-
ticipant and participated. To this end, he adduces the following quotation from
Severus’ Against the Grammarian (Book ii, chapter 1) where Severus establishes
that ‘God the Father’ refers only to the Father and not to the common divine
substance; he is not both hypostasis and comprehensive substance:
For this reason too, then, the voice came to Moses from the person of God
the Father and said I am ‘He who is’; thus shall you speak to the children of
Israel: He who is has sent me to you! John the theologian and evangelist, too,
said in the Gospel, about the living and subsisting Son and Word ‘Begotten
of the Father before the worlds’: In the beginning was the Word; and in his
epistle; Who was from the beginning; and in his Revelation: Who is and was

and is to come. And Job the philosopher, speaking of the holy hypostatic
Spirit who proceeds eternally from God the Father: But the divine spirit
who is in my nostrils.56
(45) The following quotation from Severus’ Against the Grammarian (Book
ii, chapters 17 and 25) is presented by Peter in order to show how Severus
demonstrates that if God the Father is both participant and participated, then
the whole Godhead or Holy Trinity must have become incarnate:
The Church’s God-clad masters of mysteries, indeed, call ‘union’ the join-
ing of God the Word to spiritually ensouled flesh, following, as they do,
the divinely inspired word of the Gospel which clearly proclaims the Word
was made flesh and dwelt among us; which union they also term ‘incarna-
tion’, ‘becoming man’ and ‘composition’, inasmuch as God the Word, one
hypostasis, united to himself hypostatically one particular flesh, rationally
and spiritually ensouled, from Mary the mother of God. And again: There-
fore, it was not a union of substances that was effected, but of one hyposta-
sis, that of God the Word with particular flesh endowed with soul and
mind, derived from the Virgin mother of God. He set down similar things
to these in the 25th chapter of the same second book, as follows: But the
one prosopon out of the Trinity, God the Word, is a hypostasis and not
a substance in the common sense, as you said; and the Word’s hyposta-
sis itself, which possesses, according to you, the Godhead’s substance, is
one of the three hypostases subsisting in the Godhead’s substance which
participate in the substance and in equality without diminution and fully.
And a hypostasis is not the substance; because it participates in the sub-
stance. And consequently God the Word made man is not, as you blather,
known in two substances; for being one hypostasis he also united to him-
self one flesh ensouled with rational soul in a concurrence of natural
union.57
(46) In the following quotation Peter reiterates Severus’ rejection of the notion
of an incarnation of the whole Trinity and Severus’ definition of the substance
of the Godhead in the generic sense as the Holy Trinity:

92 ebied
With the consequence that in this way, as a result of this subtle confusion
of yours, the whole substance of the Godhead i.e. the Holy Trinity, will be
found to be incarnate in the whole substance of manhood; and at another
point: For it is not the Godhead’s substance in the generic sense (which
is the Holy Trinity) which was incarnated into the substance and whole
genus of manhood.58
(47) The following passage is quoted by Peter in proof that he distinguished

substance and hypostasis without ever using the language favoured by Damian,
the purpose of which is to establish that the hypostases of the Holy Trinity are
only God in a derivative sense:
But the one prosopon out of the Trinity, God the Word, is a hypostasis
and not a substance in the common sense, as you said; and the Word’s
hypostasis itself, which possesses, according to you, the Godhead’s sub-
stance, is one of the three hypostases subsisting in the Godhead’s sub-
stance which participate in the substance and in equality without dimi-
nution and fully. And a hypostasis is not the substance, because it partic-
ipates in the substance.59
(48) So that, because of the equality of the community in everything which is

seen and recognized in each hypostasis, the others also will participate in
the same substance; for it is to this that the words of the Lord himself, He
who has see me has seen the Father, will lead us on.60
(49) Peter quotes the following brief passage from Severus’ Against the Gram-
marian (Book ii, chapter 1) which also speaks of the hypostases as ‘seen in the
Father, and in the Son and in the Holy Ghost’:
So that, because of the equality of the community in everything and con-

tinued the others also who participate in the same substance will be seen
and recognized in each hypostasis. (So that, because of the equality of the
community in everything) with seen and recognized in each hypostasis,
he put in the others also will participate in the same substance.61

(50) The following two passages are quoted from Severus’Against the Grammar-
ian (Book ii, chapter 1) wherein Severus trumps Basil and confirms through him
orthodoxy of doctrines irreproachable:
What, then, has been revealed let us love; what has not been revealed
let us not inquire after; for it has not been revealed: not out of grudg-
ingness (for grudgingness is far from God), but because it surpasses our
comprehension. It is a grand thing for us to know (and this when we are
purified, or educated by those who have been purified and illuminated)
that there is one common substance of Godhead of the blessed, uncre-
ated and unmade Trinity and three hypostases particularly, definitely and
unconfusedly seen in the Father, and in the Son and in the Holy Ghost.62
(51) For the Son is one of the hypostases which are based in the substance and
are included in the generic signification, whereas the substance and the
generic signification (i.e. the Godhead) is inclusive of the three hypostases
of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, with each of the hypostases participating
fully in the concept of the substance and being God. And again: For this
is how Saint Basil too, in the Letter to Terentius, explains the concept of
the divine substance from our humanity, when he writes as follows: ‘If we
too must say briefly what appears to us to be the case, we will say this:
that substance possesses with regard to hypostasis the same conceptual
relationship as the common to the particular. For each of us participates
in being and is such and such a person, by both the common concept of
substance and by the properties belonging with him. In this way, further-
more, the concept of the substance is common (for example, the good-
ness, Godhead, or whatever else is conceived of), but the hypostasis is
seen in the property of fatherhood, sonship or hallowing power.’ So, in the
same way that with us manhood is the whole substance embracing many
hypostases (Peter’s, Paul’s, John’s and each one’s), whereas Peter, Paul and
John are hypostases participating equally in the substance, for each of
them participates fully and no less in the manhood and, being a man,
is separated by his own designation and joined with the consubstantial
hypostases because of the complete resemblance and absence of varia-
tion belonging to the genus and community, without being the whole
substance and manhood comprehending all the individual hypostases;
in this very way, in the case of the Holy Trinity too, the substance is the

94 ebied
whole Godhead comprehending the three hypostases of Father, Son and

Holy Ghost; but each hypostasis participates also in the substance by
equality of honour, and is completely God, and has no difference from
its consubstantial hypostasis, and is separated and parted by its proper
indication (ingeneracy, generacy or procession), the property safeguard-
ing the absence of confusion. Therefore the same Son who was united
to flesh endowed with reason and became man, is one of the hypostases
based in the same substance of Godhead, and is not the whole substance
comprehending the three hypostases and signifying the community.63
(52) God is seen in one substance and Godhead and in three unconfused
hypostases, and again that three hypostases are seen, properly and sep-
arately, in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.64
iii From Contra codicillos Alexandrii (fragmenta inedita) [1 quotation]

(1) In the following two long quotations from Severus’ Against Alexander’s
Codicils and Letter to Eupraxias Peter appeals to the authority of Severus to
prove that this is indeed the meaning of his words: Severus says throughout
the same thing: the hypostases are not to be thought of as mere names but as
individually subsisting realities:
For the Holy Trinity exists in three hypostases and one substance. ‘God-
head’ is the term indicating the substance and identity or commonness,
for there is one substance of the three hypostases, and just as the Father
is God, so is the Son, who has shone forth without beginning from the
Father and has been eternally begotten from him, God; so too is the Holy
Ghost, co-eternal with Father and Son, God; for he is the Spirit of truth
who proceeds non-temporally from the Father. But each hypostasis has
its own, non-common name; one has ‘Father’, one has ‘Son’ and one has
‘Holy Ghost’. For fatherhood and not-being-from-something but existing
ingenerately is the Father’s particular and distinctive mark; the Son’s fixed
and immovable mark is Sonship and being-begotten-from-the-Father; as
the Holy Ghost’s proper, and incommunicable mark is procession from
the Father, not being generate like the Son or being ingenerate like the
Father. For the hypostases, properties and the names indicative of them,
are immutable and fixed. They do not transfer, flow or alter into another,

but safeguard the stability of each hypostasis by their fixedness, without

severing the unity and equality of honour of the substance and of the God-
head of the three. For the name ‘Father’ and ‘not-being-from-something’
never leaves the Father to transfer to the Son or Holy Ghost; nor again
is the name ‘Son’ and ‘existing-by-generation-from-the-Father’ stripped
from the Son, like clothing or a mask, to be applied to Father or Holy
Ghost; nor too can the title or procession of the Holy Ghost depart to
another. For what characterizes each hypostasis, fitting particularly only
the hypostasis whose it is, abides; so that there are understood to be three,
each recognized singly in a proper subsistence and disconnected by his
property from any other, though the community of the Godhead unites
the three without confusing them, and safeguards the Trinity as at once
inseparable and unconfounded. And a few lines later: For were the Father
wholly the Son (i.e. in every respect) and the Son in every respect the
Father, and were there nothing to distinguish the hypostases, the prop-
erty both of the Father and of the Son would be lost and effaced, and the
names would be empty of realities.65
iv From Epistula ad Eupraxium (po 14)66 [2 quotations]

(1) In the following passage from Severus’ Letter to Eupraxias Peter again
appeals to the authority of Severus who never says ‘an hypostasis is the whole
Godhead’, or ‘the substance of the Godhead is one thing and the hypostases of
the Holy Trinity another’:
But, because we are mutable, our mind is subject to changes and alter-
ations and emits a word uttered and dissolving in the air and likewise a
breath which is uttered and straightway dissolved in the same air. But God
the Father the living, hypostatic Mind, being thus eternally incorruptible
and immutable, begets, in consequence, a living, hypostatic Word and
emits a living hypostatic Spirit. And, just as the Father is Creator, so is the
Son and so is the Spirit Creator. For by the Word of the Lord were the heavens
made and all their host by the Spirit of his mouth. And because they belong
to the same substance as the Father, they must have the same glory, royalty
and eternity; for identity of substance implies equality in every respect.
For when we hear ‘Son’, we immediately understand that he is consub-
stantial with the Father; for every father must beget a consubstantial son.
65 Ibid., vol. 29, pp. 275, 277 (Syriac); pp. 274, 276 (English).
66 Ed. E.W. Brooks, po, vol. 14 (1920), 6–68.
96 ebied
In this way we infer notions about the Son, which are worthy of God, from
every title: from ‘Radiance’ we infer his co-eternity with the Father; from
‘Word’, the impassibility of his generation; from ‘Son’, his consubstantial-
ity. We cannot, indeed, define all that belongs to the divine nature by a
single title or indication, seeing that he is incomparable and peerless. But
taking from each term what is worthy of God, we reject all the rest and
let it stay beneath. But when we speak of the divine nature, we speak of
Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Though we distinguish the hypostases, we
unite the Godhead. And as the term ‘Father’ and the fact of not being
begotten by anything is the characteristic and the property of the Father’s
hypostasis, so the term ‘Son’ and the fact of being begotten by the Father
is the characteristic and the property of the Son’s hypostasis. In the same
way too the title ‘Holy Ghost’ and the fact of not being begotten by the
Father but proceeding from him is the characteristic and the property of
the Holy Ghost’s hypostasis.67
(2) For when we hear ‘Son’, we immediately understand that he is consub-

stantial with the Father; for every father must beget a consubstantial son.
In this way we derive notions about the Son, which are worthy of God,
from every title: from ‘Radiance’ we infer his co-eternity with the Father;
from ‘Word’, the impassibility of his generation; from ‘Son’, his consub-
stantiality. We cannot, indeed, define all that belongs to the divine nature
by a single name or indication, seeing that he is incomparable and peer-
less. But taking from each term what is worthy of God, we reject all the rest
and let it stay beneath. But when we speak of the divine nature, we speak
of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Though we distinguish the hypostases we
unite the Godhead. And again: The hypostases, then, or prosopa, being
seen in their own marks (Father not changing into Son or Holy Ghost,
nor Son transferring into Holy Ghost or Father, nor Holy Ghost altering
into being Father or Son), the three are one, by identity of substance and
Godhead; for the Father is God, the Son God, the Holy Ghost God. For the
hypostases abiding unconfused, the Trinity is in all things unalterable. For
one is its substance, glory, eternity, sovereignty, power, will, activity; there-
fore we hold that the three hypostases are one God.68
v From Epistula ad Oecumenium (cpg 7071) [1 quotation]

(1) The following quotation from Severus’ Letter to Oecumenius is drawn upon
by Peter in chapter 22 of his Book iii by way of apology for the length of the
argument against his opponent and also as support for the excuse:
For those, therefore, who desire summarily and briefly to learn the inten-
tion of what was written by us, these things had to be expressed, but to
those who yearn to know the reasons and the inner meaning herein the
whole letter will be given. Clearly one who has been given the conclusions
of statements also needs all the statements. For a conclusion is an abbrevi-
ation of the many details. So we must first know the many details in order
that we may know what it is an abbreviation of, otherwise it may happen
that we shall only utter empty words devoid of meaning like those, per-
haps, who longed only to speak in tongues, whom Paul rebukes, saying:
For if I were praying in a tongue, my spirit prays but my understanding is
sterile; adding subsequently what he preferred, I will pray with my spirit
but I will also pray with my understanding. I will sing with my spirit but I
will sing also with my understanding. With a small alteration, therefore,
I too may say that one ought to instruct in words but one ought also to
instruct with the understanding. For I do not know if any of the God-clad
fathers judged it right to speak briefly in his teachings. For it is a precious
thing in these matters if, even when we expend the whole force of lan-
guage which is in us, we say a small fraction and that obscurely, of what is
to be understood.69
vi From Homilia Cathedralis 21 (po 37)70 [1 quotation]

(1) Peter points out from the following text that the fathers do not admit the
general canon of Damian but distinguish sometimes between indicators and
indicated:
Where, then, do evils come from? Whence do they arise? From free-will.
For God made us in his image, by bestowing a rational soul which brings in
it the divine marks by its being incorporeal; because, in mental activities,
it reaches out and extends, as much as it can, towards everything it
desires, and is quite unbounded by place and is capable of virtues such
as righteousness and the rest.71

70 Ed. Maurice Brière and François Graffin, po, vol. 37 (1975), 64–87.
71 Cf. Ebied et al, Contra Damianum, vol. 32, p. 221 (Syriac); p. 220 (English).
98 ebied
vii From Homilia Cathedralis 42 (po 36)72 [2 quotations]

In chapters 20 and 44 of his Book iii Peter cites the following two passages from
Severus’ Homilia Cathedralis 42 in order to illustrate that the fathers regularly
introduce corporeal analogies as aids to comprehension of things divine. In the
following two passages Severus, inter alia, is cited as doing so:
(1) The phrase ‘he searches out’ indicates exalted knowledge and that noth-
ing passes by the Spirit’s knowledge as too inscrutable or incomprehen-
sible for him. Yet even this phrase does not escape our lowliness, for
‘searching out’ is the part of those who do not have knowledge. No, let
us reject the meanings of words, meanings which are remote from the all-
transcending substance, because more exalted terms are not available to
us when we make known things divine; and let us apply to it only those
ideas which are as close as possible to the subject.73
(2) Those who were eye-witnesses and stewards of the Word and those who
shepherded the apostolic Church everywhere in their footsteps, taught us
to believe in Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in a new and primeval mystery.
And a little later: But when I say Father, Son and Holy Ghost, understand
me: one substance and Godhead in three hypostases.74
viii From Homilia Cathedralis 67 (po 8)75 [1 quotation]

(1) Peter maintains at the beginning of chapter 37 of his Book iii that the claim
to oppose tritheism is a mask for atheism and is in contradiction with the
fathers who name each prosopon severally ‘God Himself’. As a proof-text from
Severus he quotes the following passage from Homilia Cathedralis 67:
But earlier, where the spirit of slavery was, there was a smoking mountain
which only received the appearance of the Lord’s glory as a burning fire,
and Moses was the ministering servant; whereas here, where the grace
of adopted sonship is, there is the Virgin, a spiritual mountain, which
blazes with purity and the indwelling of the Spirit; not the appearance
of God’s glory but God Himself, the Son, Word, Stamp and Image of the
Father’s hypostasis. He does not tread merely on the top of the mountain
72 Ed. Maurice Brière and François Graffin, po, vol. 36 (1971), 30–73.
75 Ed. Maurice Brière, po, vol. 8 (1911), 349–367.
but, without change he is incarnate and born of it; for the Word was made
flesh and dwelt among us.76
ix From Homilia Cathedralis 70 (po 12)77 [1 quotation]

(1) The following quotation underlines what Peter says towards the end of
chapter 48 of Book iii to the effect that ‘we must take the middle road not going
from one extreme to the other: not professing three gods on the one hand, or
making the Godhead a mental construct on the other. The divine unity in trinity
is a mystery and a paradox’:
For the Father is ‘God’, the Son ‘God’, the Holy Ghost God, but not three
‘Gods’ dividedly, because the Son and the Spirit lead back to the Father,
to one Beginning as non-temporal cause (for from him, though not after
him, are Son and Spirit, for they are co-eternal); so that the same Trinity
will be perceived threefold in the properties and recognized unitarily in
the Godhead, will be indivisibly separated and unconfusedly joined, and
will avoid the Jewish poverty of Sabellius which restricts the Godhead to
one prosopon and one hypostasis and will negate, by the oneness and
sameness of substance, the polytheism of Arius and the heathen; being
singly many (which is a paradox), because from one it extends only to
three and leads back again to one. For after ‘two,’ ‘three’ is an odd and
not an even number, so that no participation or comparability of God
with creation will here be understood. For amongst things incorporeal
we see nothing with oneness and threeness save God, whereas duality is
a property of bodies which consist of matter and form; but there can be no
composition in the Trinity either, for Godhead is simple and incomposite
in substance.78
x From Homilia Cathedralis 90 (po 23)79 [2 quotations]

(1) The following text by Severus, which is adduced in support of Damian, is
quoted and explained by Peter at the beginning of chapter 18 of his Book ii
where Peter calls attention to the rule that texts are to be interpreted in context:
But this is stuff for myth-makers not theologians. For ‘Father’, ‘Son’ and
‘Holy Ghost’ are characteristic titles explanatory of the hypostases’ free-

100 ebied
dom from confusion. For, they do not divide the Trinity in terms of superi-
ority and inferiority. Everything belonging to Father and Son is to be seen
in the Holy Ghost. For the prophet David, addressing the Father, made the
following prediction: In thy light shall we see light – i.e. in the Son we shall
see the Holy Ghost. For manifested to us in the flesh he revealed him and
was himself also revealed more gloriously by him.80
(2) Peter quotes the following long passage from the same Homily (90) in which
Severus rebuts Arians who argue from the difference of names to a difference of
substance between the divine persons. Clearly here Severus means the names;
‘Father’, ‘Son’ and ‘Holy Ghost’:
My Father is greater than I. But we must not be perfunctory in our atten-

tion to him who in those very Gospels says: The Father who gave me them
is greater than all and nobody can snatch them from my Father’s hand; the
Father and I are one. For because he became man for our sake without
altering, he became one of the ‘all’, and was reckoned with the ‘all’ (mean-
ing those thought of as inferior to God) without abandoning the divine
majesty. Accordingly he called the Father greater than himself because
his Father was greater than all. Consequently he calls the things he pos-
sessed and over which he was, as God, master, given him by the Father. But
(in virtue of the identity of substance) he says: The Father and I are one. In
this way greater belongs to the incarnate dispensation, one to the equality
of honour in the Godhead. This is the reason why, when he was criticized
for this remark, a spiteful crowd of Jews, hostile to God, hurried to pelt
him with stones saying: Though you are a man you are making yourself
God. Indeed by this same word of voluntary kenosis and his declaration
that he had been sent by the Father, that he received the commandment,
and that he could do nothing of himself, we are aware that being in the
form of God and condescending to accept a slave’s form, he spoke words in
keeping with slavery and obedience though these diminish not a whit the
elevation of his Godhead. For how could the humble language of the dis-
pensation bring about a lessening in the divine substance or glory? For if
ignorant people take The Father is greater than I as making a comparison
in Godhead, how could a creature have compared himself with the Uncre-
ated? Like things can be compared, not things utterly distant and remote
in nature. Moreover, if Christ is God’s power and God’s wisdom, would it not
be unthinkable to call the Father wiser and more powerful than his wis-
dom and power? The Son is inferior to the Father in nothing, because he is
endowed with the same glory, royalty, eternity and power as the Father. He
is the image of the invisible God, the effulgence of his glory and the image of
his hypostasis, Paul said. For all the features of the original are in the image
if he is to be the image in the full sense of the word: not an image, such
as we have, an inanimate piece of craftsmanship, nor in the way that we
are said to be in the image and likeness of God because we have received
some of his grace. No, he is the stamp of his Father’s hypostasis, whose
image he also is. So that he is hypostatic life from life, light from light, infi-
nite power from infinite and unbounded power. Where shall we establish
that ‘greater’, when at every point complete equality is what principally
strikes us, except one be constrained to say, perhaps, in the Son’s being
‘from the Father’, even if he has shone forth from him non-temporarily
and eternally as the effulgence of the paternal glory, co-eternal with him
who beams him forth? But this brings the Son no inferiority. For just as it
is a high thing for the Son to be begotten, unbeginning and eternal, from
the Father, so for the Father too it is a high thing and an honour appro-
priate to God that he should have a co-eternal Son not one subsequently
acquired. For were the Son to be thought the Father’s inferior, because
he is not the Father, then the Father too must be defective through his
not being the Son. But this is stuff for myth-makers not theologians. For
‘Father’, ‘Son’ and ‘Holy Ghost’ are characteristic titles explanatory of the
hypostases’ freedom from confusion. For they do not divide the Trinity in
terms of superiority and inferiority.81
xi From Homilia Cathedralis 109 (po 25)82 [3 quotations]

(1) In the following quotation from Severus, Peter (Book ii, chapter 10), after
making reference to an objection by Damian, points out the teaching of the
father’s prudent tongue (i.e. Severus) to the effect that: “when to ‘life’ is added
the characteristic property of the hypostasis, the hypostasis is indicated”:
So from what we have said now it will be clear to everyone that God is
known both in unity and Trinity, as he revealed to Moses in discourse with
him. In unity: Through singleness and identity of substance, lordship,
Godhead and moreover, of will, power, operation, kingship, glory, eternity;
102 ebied
in a word, all that can be thought and said of God. In Trinity: through the
particularity and freedom from confusion of the hypostases. So when you
mentally apprehend or imagine the Trinity, call the whole ‘one God,’ not
because you diffuse or merge hypostases but because you recognize in the
three one Godhead and the other indications of the common identity.
But when you confine your view to the Father, or e.g. to the Son, or it
may be, to the Holy Ghost, and use the invocation ‘God’ or ‘He who is’
or ‘Lord’ or any other term common to the Holy Trinity, you are making
a good invocation; but let the property be coupled by you, and invoke
God as Father who exists ingenerately and not from others, and likewise
name the Son ‘God’, ‘Lord’, and ‘He who is’ but who has been begotten
eternally of the Father; and likewise extol the Holy Ghost with the same
equally honourable names: not as if he were not from another, or were
begotten, but as proceeding from the Father. Let the properties remain
unshaken from the common indications and names, and likewise let what
is common remain inseparable from the properties. You have spoken of
three? Run uninterruptedly towards one! You have imagined one? Think
separately of the three! ‘Three’ will put a brake upon Sabellius’ Jewish
confusion; ‘one’ upon Arius’ heathen dissection.83
(2) The following text from the same Homily (109) by Severus, quoted by Peter
(Book iii, chapter 17), underlines the teaching of Severus which explains the
point made also by Basil that generacy follows life: meaning here by ‘life’ not
the whole Trinity but the hypostasis of God the Father alone:
So, when you mentally apprehend or imagine the Trinity, call the whole
‘one God’, not because you diffuse or merge the hypostases but because
you recognize in the three one Godhead and the other indications of the
common identity. But when you confine your view to the Father, or e.g.
to the Son, or it may be, to the Holy Ghost, and use the invocation ‘God’
or ‘He who is’ or ‘Lord’ or any other term common to the Holy Trinity, you
are making a good invocation; but, let the property be coupled by you,
and invoke God as Father who exists ingenerately and not from others,
and likewise name the Son ‘God,’ ‘Lord,’ and ‘He who is’ but who has been
begotten eternally of the Father; and likewise extol the Holy Ghost with
the same equally honourable names: not as if he were not from another,
or were begotten, but as proceeding from the Father. Let the properties
remain unshaken from the common indications and names, and likewise
let what is common remain inseparable from the properties.84
(3) The same passage cited above is quoted again by Peter in Book iii, chapter 31
in order to emphasise Severus’ explanation that by saying ‘God’ we indicate the
whole Trinity and distinguish the persons by name through the addition of the
property e.g. ‘God the Son’:
So when you mentally apprehend or imagine the Trinity, call the whole
‘one God’, not because you diffuse or merge the hypostases but because
you recognize in the three one Godhead and the other indications of the
common identity. But when you confine your view to the Father, or e.g. to
the Son, or it may be, to the Holy Ghost, and use the invocation ‘God’ or
‘He who is’ or ‘Lord’ or any other term common to the Holy Trinity, you
are making a good invocation but let the property be coupled by you,
and invoke God as Father who exists ingenerately and not from others,
and likewise name the Son ‘God’, ‘Lord’, and ‘He who is’ but who has been
begotten eternally of the Father; and likewise extol the Holy Ghost with
the same equally honourable names: not as if he were not from another,
or were begotten, but as proceeding from the Father. Let the properties
remain unshaken from the common indications and names, and likewise
let what is common remain inseparable from the properties.85
xii From Homilia Cathedralis 119 (po 26)86 [2 quotations]

(1) The following text from Severus’ Homily 119 is cited by Peter (Book ii, chap-
ter 21) in proof of the father’s teaching that we are not baptised into the names
of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but into the divine persons themselves:
For Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, taught us that perfect baptism, which
bestows, adoption, should be accomplished in the Father and in the
Son and in the Holy Ghost. With these three invocations of hypostases
there concurs an equal number of immersions, wherein there is another
mysterious Principle evidenced by the holy Scriptures. For because, as
Paul, writing to the Romans, declares: We are buried with Christ in baptism
by being baptized into his death, and because Christ’s burial (after which
104 ebied
the Resurrection occurred) was for three days, we display this fact by
three immersions in the water and bury the old sins in a life-giving
grave; we change into the new man, gaining therefrom an earnest of the
resurrection.87
(2) The following passage from the same Homily (119) by Severus is quoted by
Peter in Book iii, chapter 27 to point out that the father rebukes the slippery
character of people arguing as Damian:
We spurn such people as heretics and when they allege some defence
which chimes in with orthodoxy on another point and not on the one
which they are criticized or censured, they will be adjudged wrong-doers
and deceivers. For the fact that Eutyches and Nestorius judged the Holy
Trinity to be consubstantial does not free them from their other errors.
For nobody censured them over that. The fact that Novatus agreed with
the Church’s view on all other points was no help to him, when he would
not accept repentance. For it would be ridiculous for someone accused of
committing adultery to weave a defence of not having committed murder.
No heretic, in fact, can be found who never said anything sound, as the
Church holds it, and we do not therefore number them anywhere with
the orthodox.88
xiii From Homilia Cathedralis 123 (po 29)89 [3 quotations]

(1) The following long passage is cited by Peter (Book iii, chapter 25) in proof
that Severus used ‘subsistent’ of the Son’s generation or generacy, but also
explained that the terms have to be understood in correspondence with the
underlying realities:
Who is the father of the rain or who begat so much dew and abundance?
It was not to show the birth and generation of these things but because
he is explaining that to human generations or births and those of the
rest of what are on earth belong time and travail, this is why he says,
‘Do you suppose I have need of those things, of such delay and labour
in generation, for bringing dew, rain, frost and ice, and did not these
things subsist more swiftly than a word, as a result of the divine activity,
indeed, rather, by the will, by a sign only, or by whatever swifter thing

than these we can say of God?’ But we should, then, understand the terms
in correspondence with the meaning of the underlying realities and not
maim truth by a metaphorical usage of words. For one understands God as
Father ‘of the rain’ and ‘of the Son, the Only-begotten’, in different senses.
For the term ‘Only-begotten’ shows that God the Word was begotten of
God the Father, unique from unique and outside every kind and notion of
any generation. Therefore ‘Only-begotten’ separates the Son’s generation
on high from the later generations or births below, whether they really
exist or are called this by custom. In other words, if Scripture had only said,
‘The Father begat the Son’ and nothing else, one could have understood
the birth by a comparison with similar expressions, not as truly from the
Father’s substance but in its metaphorical usage as in the case of rain,
ice and frost. But because what concerns the Son’s generation does not
stand by this point and because we do not, as these inane people suppose,
depend on one word, and so, by a different explanation of it, run the risk of
losing the things of our faith, let them desist from filthily nibbling off the
very words like mice. For what are we to do when we hear John saying,
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word
was God. For if he was in the beginning as He who is with Him who is and
as God with God, how can we understand God’s generation which exists
perpetually, as not being true, subsistent and eternal and from the very
substance of the begetter, but compare it with rain and dew? But how can
we apply those words to ice and rain which were begotten, as you will say,
like the Son? And how will it suit one of those to say: And no one knows the
Son but the Father and no one knows the Father but the Son and him to whom
the Son shall, if he wills, reveal him. How, indeed, should he understand
ice as being the splendour of God and the image of his hypostasis? For a
creature cannot be the image of the Creator’s hypostasis, but the offspring
shows what the Father is in hypostasis, because of the participation in
nature. You will see how the Arians, when they attempt to belittle the
Son’s generacy, float like the empty upon empty verbal similarities devoid
of ideas, because they do not distinguish what underlies the terms or is to
be understood from them, and lapse into total folly.90
(2) For if he was in the beginning as He who is with Him who is and as God with
God, how can we understand God’s generation which exists perpetually,
106 ebied
as not being true, subsistent and eternal and from the very substance of
the begetter but compare it with rain and dew?91
(3) The following text from the same Homily (123) by Severus is quoted by Peter
in Book iii, chapter 43 in proof that the father spoke of the mutual equality and
implication of the hypostases. It speaks of ‘one God seen in one substance and
Godhead and in three unconfused hypostases’:
Co-eternal, then, is the holy and uncreated Trinity and consubstantial.

And as the Father is God, so too is the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God;
and as the Father is light, so too is the Son light, and the Holy Ghost light;
and as the Father is maker, creator and omnipotent, so too are both Son
and Holy Ghost. But there are not therefore three Beginnings. For because
the Son and the Holy Ghost have upward course towards the Father (the
one is begotten of him, the other proceeds from him) there must be one
Beginning and one God, seen in one substance and Godhead and in three
unconfused hypostases, as good, just, visiting all in care and kindness. For
The Lord is kind to all and his compassion is upon all his works; for being
maker of all, he justly cares for all and spares all.92
xiv From Contra additiones Juliani (cpg 7029)93 [5 quotations]

(1) The following short text from Severus’ treatise Against Julian’s Additions is
quoted by Peter (Book iii, chapter 8) in order to illustrate that it is clear that the
fathers do not admit the general canon of Damian but distinguish sometimes
between indicators and indicated:
For mortality and immortality (or imperishability) are not substances but
features belonging with the substance. That is why we believe that God
has immortality. Yet he does not have this immortality as his substance;
no, he is something other in substance, but his natural feature is his
endlessness and imperishability.94
(2) The following passage, also from Severus’ treatise Against Julian’s Additions,
is quoted by Peter (Book iii, chapter 2) to point out that St. Severus suffered a

93 Ed. Robert Hespel, Sévère d’Antioche. La polémique antijulianiste. iia: Le contra additions
Juliani. Textus [csco 295]. Versio [csco 296] (Louvain, 1968).
similar fate from Julian as did Saint Basil who showed sympathy to Eunomius,
but was also treated brutally by the heretic:
For, knowing as I did, from the start, that the enduring of a rebuttal is
not the part of just anybody but of those whose way of life runs in divine
wisdom, and having read his tome sent to me for scrutiny, I reminded his
Reverence in a humble letter: ‘I have read some of what you wrote but have
felt certain hesitations, for I see proven masters of piety who give us differ-
ent spiritual guidance.’ I did this without engaging in anything here except
that he should correct himself and compare the holy father’s statements
with his writings. This he did not do but only became upset and angered
because, as he said: ‘You did not straight away dispatch brief memoranda
on such matters’ but, more truly, because he was bitterly annoyed at my
failure to concur with his ill thought out writings, and I was like some-
one consorting with a thief and making his portion with an adulterer (as
David says in psalm at one point). And again I bore it patiently and wanted
to keep silence unlawfully (for it was a time to speak) but cherishing, as I
ought not to have done, affection towards him. Nevertheless he assailed
me, silent and remote though I am, and having armed a letter with abusive
remarks, he wanted, as it were, to murder me.95
(3) The following two quotations by Peter (Book iii, chapters 6 and 31) from
Severus’ treatise Against Julian’s Additions are cited by Peter in proof that
Damian’s last resort against the assaults will be the sort of countercharge of
falsification that Julian of Halicarnassus devised against Severus, according to
a declaration of the Patriarch in his treatise:
For, had he cared for truth, he should have written a pure defence of his
Tome and have aided his arguments, and he should not have added other
things from time to time covertly, like beaten slaves speaking through
clenched teeth, to make it look as if we, who had reminded him of these
things at the outset, had falsified words by cutting them short. And again:
Are these, then, no acts of perfidy? Me, who reminded him fraternally of
correct thought about God, he tries, by an ambush, to prove a slanderer
and falsifier, by devising his additions without abandoning his opinion or
heeding the wise counsellor who says, Sow not a lie against your brother,
nor reverencing the divine book of Proverbs which foretells what will

108 ebied
be the end of those who labour emptily in lying, when it says, He who
gets treasures by a lying tongue pursues vanities and comes to the snares of
death.96
(4) For, now, you have been convicted of lapsing, as I said before, into the last
dregs of Valentinus, Manes and Eutyches who say that Christ suffered like
a phantom figure of the night. For to the night truly belong such phan-
toms. But how will your speaking and writing against (as you suppose)
the Manichees, help in ridding you of this absurd suspicion? For you are
like someone charged with theft, who, though he ought to defend himself
on that count and prove himself free of the accusation, leaves it on one
side and hastens to charge robbers like him with another theft.97
(5) But how can he not appear self-contradictory when he says that man
became sick with sin of his own will and, again, on the contrary, says
that the body was attached to us as a result of that corruption which
is sin? And I first held back from a rebuttal of this madness, wanting
him to understand his own words; which is why, having credited him
with orthodoxy on the point, with a certain medicinal ‘economy’, so
that I might draw him towards correction, I only mentioned that the
terminology and mere wording were not good.98
xv From Contra Felicissimum (cpg 7032) [Fragmenta Inedita] [6

quotations]
(1) Having stated that Damian has criticized him because he wrote that ‘the
quotation was taken from the first book of the Against Eunomius, whereas it
belongs in fact to the third book’, Peter proves from the following two quota-
tions from Severus’ treatise Against Felicissimus that ‘Severus wrote with his
own hand, that not he but Damian was mistaken’:
Similarly, he says these things also, expressing them in almost the same
words, in the third book Against Eunomius (whose beginning goes: But
concerning the statement of the Apostle Peter, it is time to examine more
studiously what was said): ‘So that these things seem not to exist in the
two on their own with any division; but by juncture with the Godhead, the

temporal nature, being re-formed in accordance with the stronger nature,

receives the Godhead’s power, as one might say that the mixture makes
into sea a drop of vinegar mingled with the ocean, so that the natural
operation of the latter moisture no longer remains in the boundlessness
of what contains it’.99
(2) But Gregory of Nyssa, wise in things divine, will confirm that he recog-
nizes the immortal and uncreated nature, God the Father’s eternal and
Only-begotten Word, as unchangeable and immutable in the same divine
substance, and that he voluntarily took on the change involved in the pas-
sibility of the flesh which he united to him hypostatically. For he wrote in
the fourth book Against Eunomius the impious: ‘So believing the immor-
tal, impassible and uncreated nature to have been made in the passibility
of the Creation and therein understanding change, how can we be con-
demned for saying that he emptied himself by those who noise abroad
their own argument in opposition to our doctrines?’100
(3) Peter rebukes Damian for his carelessness in his references. He did not
specify the source of Severus’ statement; neither had he done so previously
in the case of Epiphanius’ phrase. Severus himself was always very accurate in
quoting the fathers and reproached Julian of Halicarnassus and Felicissmus.
The following passage is quoted by Peter (Book iii, chapter 7) in proof of all
these points:
But by usefully repeating these things to you, I have made known the
doctor’s words, put to shame the asinine and contentious ears of the
impious, and demonstrated with clarity to the listeners the soundness
of his profession, which takes no delight in the heretical, unsound and
implausible fabrications which they have wickedly ventured to publish
against him. Julian fabricates the name only (I mean, of saint Peter the
martyr) whereas Felicissimus has encompassed holy Timothy too, in his
fabrication, falsely quoting his book to make the deception of his pen
plausible, and this despite our making known the author of the discourse
at every testimony, and clearly announcing the intentions of the writings
and the number of the books which are devoted to the intentions and the
long-standing causes which each quoted testimony has been concerned

110 ebied
with. For this is the way with truth and the words of the wisdom from
on high which goes forth and has free expression, and shows the light
to everyone. For according to the sacred word of Proverbs: Wisdom is
honoured in the streets and in the market-places, she lifts up her voice, on
the walls, indeed, is she proclaimed. But slander and falsehood are fond of
hiding under the covering of tricks, just as thieves and bandits love to hide
behind walls and darkness,101
(4) Peter reverts to the explanation of Severus’ phrase that ‘the hypostasis is
indicative of the property’. For Damian, this phrase means that the character-
istic properties are not accidents or natural indications. Severus, however, in
his Against Felicissimus opposes hypostases to natural indications, as can be
proved from the following brief text from his Against Felicissimus cited by Peter
(Book iii, chapter 9):
For, Felicissimus, (for it is good to reply to you, because you are close)
does calling the same body “corruptible”, “passible”, and “mortal”, signify
three hypostases and three substrates, as e.g. Paul, Silvanus and Timothy
and Father, Son and Holy Ghost; for those exist in three separate and
unconfused hypostases?102
(5) In chapter 29 of his Book iii, Peter states that Damian is guilty of select-
ing rare and obscure phrases to advance his cause. He then quotes the fol-
lowing passage from Severus’ Against Felicissimus to prove that the Patriarch
denounces this practice:
The stupid fellow having been unable to prove this, those who devised
the last murky volume with him go the rounds to collect proof-texts for
him, as it were in a begging-bowl, and have even collected indeed some
texts which are quite irrelevant to the point proposed i.e. which say that in
the beginning man was made not mortal but immortal. The lunatic forgot
that nobody quarrels with him on that point. And then his retinue of these
little men, sick with the same plague as he, in their pretence strained every
nerve, as they say, to help out their penury by a theft capable of misleading
the simple: by testimony extracted somehow from books by the holy
fathers, the initiators into divine mysteries, without concern for the whole
teaching on the subject in all their writings, like contestants in suits in the
high courts who, eager for spoil, want to snatch an unjust victory.103
(6) In chapter 33 of his Book iii, Peter complains that though Athanasius
and Basil are quoted, Damian has failed to provide the necessary validating
references: a common practice of heretics, as Severus bears witness in the
case of Julian as can be shown in the following quotation from his Against
Felicissimus:
But by usefully repeating these things to you, I have made known the
doctor’s words, put to shame the asinine and contentious ears of the
impious, and demonstrated with clarity to the listeners the soundness
of his profession which takes no delight in the heretical, unsound and
implausible fabrications which they have wickedly ventured to publish
against him. Julian fabricates the name only (I mean, of Saint Peter the
martyr) whereas Felicissimus has encompassed holy Timothy too in his
fabrication, falsely quoting his book to make the deception of his pen
plausible, and this despite our making known the author of the discourse
at every testimony and clearly announcing the intentions of the writings
and the number of the books which are devoted to the intentions and the
long-standing causes which each quoted testimony has been concerned
with. For this is the way with truth and the words of the wisdom from
on high which goes forth and has free expression, and shows the light
to everyone. For according to the sacred word of Proverbs: Wisdom is
honoured in the streets and in the market-places, she lifts up her voice, on
the walls, indeed, is she proclaimed. But slander and falsehood are fond of
hiding under the covering of tricks, just as thieves and bandits love to hide
behind walls and darkness.104
xvi From Epistula ad Eustathium Scholasticum (cpg 7071) [1 quotation]

(1) In chapter 2 of his Book iii, Peter states that he will not follow human wis-
dom as does Damian, but only the inspired doctors of the Church. In proof of
this he quotes the following text from Severus’ Letter to Eustathius the Scholas-
ticus in which the father confesses to be a very rustic disposition and content
to follow only the orthodox doctors:

112 ebied
Your wisdom has, I think, seen therefore, by these statements that the
doctor designated as ‘sufferings’ both the partial and the complete cor-
ruptions and changes. You are to understand clearly that we follow him
therefore and the doctors who are like him, being ourselves of a very rustic
disposition and not accurately instructed in profane matters, in order that
we may be able therefrom to meet the tangles and objections expressed
by certain parties.105
xvii From Epistula ad presbyteros et archimandritas Iohannem et alios

(po 12)106 [1 quotation]
(1) In chapter 4 of his Book iii Peter makes it clear that he will happily name
the hypostases ‘properties’, as also the fathers did, in the sense of perfect, indi-
vidually subsisting properties. The fathers did not decline the use of terms
unfamiliar to them to establish peace and harmony. The dissension had been
removed for the most part in the days of Athanasius, but lasted till the time of
the Cappadocians and even of Severus as can be shown from the following quo-
tation from Severus’ Letter to the priests and archimandrites John and the rest:
But I hear that the Romans are saying: ‘We are afraid of calling him who
suffered for us in the flesh “one of the Trinity”, because we should not sub-
ject the Holy Trinity to number’. But all this is replete with ignorance and
impiety and is an opportunity for those who lay hold of pretexts for sins or
those who do not know what they are talking about or what they are making
assertions about as the apostle Paul says of certain persons. For the Trinity
is numerable in the hypostases but subsists outside number because it is
one and the same substance. And a little later: Therefore these very subtle
Romans are sick with a profound error, not knowing that the Trinity is, in
the substance, not numerable or divisible, but in the hypostases is divided
and separated in order that the unconfusedness may be preserved to the
proper marks of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But I am very surprised at
the Jebusites who resemble the Romans, both in impiety and ignorance
because they have termed the Holy Trinity ‘tri-hypostate’ in a rustic man-
ner using a new and exceedingly crude expression. For I have never before
today heard this compound word. Indeed it presents us with the idea that
they do not hold to three individually subsisting hypostases but a single
hypostasis which takes shape in three ways and alters, sometimes into

106 Ed. E.W. Brooks, po, vol. 12 (1916), 214–216.
the Father’s hypostasis, sometimes into the Son’s and sometimes into the
Holy Ghost’s: and that it is one hypostasis, but that it changes prosopa as
if it were on the stage and sometimes speaks and acts in the prosopon of
the Father, sometimes in the Son’s prosopon and sometimes in the Holy
Ghost’s prosopon, as witless Sabellius, the Libyan, saw fit to suppose.107
xviii From Epistula ad Constantinum episcopum Seleuciae Isauriae108 [1

quotation]
(1) In proof of his critique of the contention that God the Father is both
participant and participated, Peter (Book iii, chapter 34) adduces the following
text from Severus’ Letter to Constantine:
But if we were to accept those who assembled at Chalcedon on the

ground that they are against the heresies of Eutyches and were to praise,
rather than censure, them, for having in part spoken well, it is time we
also lauded the heresy of the Ario-maniacs, for contending with the evil
view of Sabellius and for being partly in harmony with the Church’s
orthodox teaching by professing God the Father as ingenerate and by
not confounding the three hypostases but defining them in their proper
marks or prosopa.109
xix From Epistula ad Sergium Grammaticum (cpg 7025)110 [4

quotations]
(1) Peter (Book iii, chapter 8) explains that Theodosius says that the character-
istic properties of the Godhead characterize the Godhead but does not mean
that these characteristic properties are the same thing as the Godhead. Indeed,
Severus teaches the contrary as can be shown from the following passage from
his Third Letter to Sergius the Grammarian:
What, then, will you say, my admirable fellow? Is goodness in this way
a property of God, just as laughter is a property of man or neighing of a
horse? Therefore, say first what God is in substance and in this way we
108 Ed. E.W. Brooks, The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, in
the Syriac Version of Athanasius of Nisibis. Vol. i (Text) Part i; Vol. ii (Translation) Part i
(London, 1902–1903), 3–12.
110 Ed. Iosephus Lebon, Severi Antiocheni orations ad Nephalium, eiusdem as Sergii Gram-
matici epistulae mutuae. Textus (csco 119), 103–177. Versio (csco 120), 53–136.
114 ebied
shall recognize what his property, in the full sense of the term, is. For it is
obvious that substance is something other than property, since a property
appears upon substances.111
(2) Peter adduces the following passage (Book iii, chapter 9) from Severus’
First Letter to Sergius the Grammarian in order to show that the father clearly
distinguishes between the natural properties and the substance even in the
case of created nature:
To say that Immanuel is composed of two properties or two activities is

foolish and ignorant. For do we, because reasoning is a property of ratio-
nal soul, whereas blackness or whiteness, it may be, is a property of body,
on that account say of the man himself that he is composed of reasoning,
whiteness (or blackness). No, no sane person says that; but he will say
that man subsists of the natures themselves, body and soul, to which the
things stated attach, on which they appear and in accordance with which
they naturally exist without separation. But in another way: must it not be
ludicrous to speak of two properties or two activities? For there are many
properties of each nature and not merely two. For example manhood’s
palpability, visibility, mortality, being subject to hunger, thirst and to other
things likewise; whereas of God’s nature there are a multitude of proper-
ties: invisibility, impalpability, being before the worlds and infinity.112
(3) In chapter 29 of his Book iii Peter states that Damian is guilty of select-
ing rare and obscure phrases to advance his cause: a practice denounced by
Severus in the following lengthy quotation from his Second Letter to Sergius the
Grammarian:
Will you not consider that we ought to use Saint Cyril as guide and
expositor of divine doctrines, and the words of the holy fathers, if we are
going to fight Nestorius’ division which exactitude? For though I could
have introduced many other passages written by Gregory the Theologian
and taken up very ferociously by those who divide the one Christ, I left
them aside on the ground that I did not want to disturb your mind; for you
perhaps, being far from mixture, would have required a defence of these
passages which is not easy for the inexpert but to those who have closely
examined everything said by the doctor they appear sound and clear of all
criticism and cavil. Did not even Peter, first-chosen of the Apostles write
of Paul’s wise and profound epistles, as follows: Wherein there are certain
things difficult to understand which the ignorant and unstable distort, as
they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own damnation? For one can
see those even who serve draughts from Eutyches’s cup of error alleging
Saint Gregory’s words in the sermon On the Epiphany, ‘The discarnate
becomes flesh, the Word condenses’; for the wretches think that the Word
condensed as water hardens into ice. And, contending for their error,
they quote in confirmation what he said in the oration On New Sunday as
follows: ‘Flesh hardening he becomes poor that by his poverty we might
become rich’. But they are clearly convicted of being sick in mind to the
last degree, and of gnawing off petty phrases like mice and dwelling on
the letter like Jews, although the same doctor said in the First Oration
on the Son, as follows: ‘He was in the beginning without cause (for what
is cause of God?) but later he “became” because of a cause: It was that
you, his despiser, might be saved; you who on account of this spurn his
Godhead which assumed your denseness’. So it is obvious from here that
Gregory said that the Word condensed with our denseness meaning that
he hypostatically united our substance to himself truly without illusion.
That is why he also said: ‘The Word condenses, the invisible becomes
visible, the impalpable becomes palpable, the timeless begins’. I could set
down very many words which those who contend with orthodoxy have
excerpted from the holy fathers’ sound doctrine and used as weapons
against us in various ways, but which refuted and shamed them when they
said them in full. But having compiled a book of up to 250 testimonies,
so called ‘excerpts’ from the proven doctor Cyril, and alleged him as an
advocate of the error of two natures, God stretched out his hand in the
imperial city and we set briskly to work against the error; and we wrote
a book entitled Philalethes using the same words of Cyril as weapons
against them and everybody knew what the force of truth was and what
was sacrilege and plausible falsehood.113
(4) The following passage is adduced by Peter (Book iii, chapter 29) from
Severus’ Third Letter to Sergius the Grammarian to show that both Gregory the
Theologian and Severus agree that ‘an isolated statement is not a law of the
Church’:
113 Ibid., vol. 35, pp. 311, 313, 315 (Syriac); pp. 310, 312, 314 (English).
116 ebied
For this reason we counsel your charity, with a mind of love, to bid adieu
to such sophisms, to honour faith’s simplicity and not to run too readily
into doctrinal discussions, but to reckon it a good thing always to follow
the fathers if, at any time, it befalls you of necessity to write or say some
such thing. For it is no small thing to make a slip in these matters or say
something not very expert and not first to save ourselves, so far as we
can, at all points from ambushes and cavils by opponents. For if we are
going to inquire after things said readily by certain persons and to defend
mis-statements, it will be opportune for us to mention the Holy Trinity of
one hypostasis; because we find Eustathius, of blessed memory, formerly
bishop of Antioch, saying in his Commentary on the 92nd Psalm of Father
and Son that they are one hypostasis.114
xx From Epistula ad Maronem (po 12)115 [3 quotations]

(1) In support of his critique of the contention that God the Father is both
participant and participated, Peter quotes the following passage from Severus’
Letter to Maron:
But the divine Scriptures instruct us in a different fashion, teaching us

that God the Word, one only of three hypostases, was incarnate and made
man. For the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Inasmuch as God
the Word, one hypostasis, united to himself hypostatically one particular
flesh, rationally and spiritually ensouled, from Mary the mother of God;
and then: Therefore, it was not a union of substances that was effected,
but of one hypostasis, that of God the Word with particular flesh endowed
with soul and mind; and again, at another point: But the one prosopon
out of the Trinity, God the Word, is a hypostasis and not a substance in
the common sense, as you said; and: A hypostasis is not the substance;
because it participates in the substance; and again, But the divine Scrip-
tures instruct us in a different fashion teaching us that God the Word, one
only of the three hypostases, was incarnate and made man.116
(2) The following two brief texts are adduced by Peter from Severus’ Letter
to Maron the Reader to show that characteristic properties may share some
aspects of hypostases yet differ from them and also in proof of his understand-
ing of ‘hypostasis’:
115 Fragments ed. E.W. Brooks, po, vol. 12 (1915), 196–200.
For the Son is all that the Father is, save only being Father, and likewise the
Holy Ghost has substantially what belongs to Father and Son naturally,
except fatherhood and sonship.117
(3) Hypostasis, therefore, without denying the identity of the being distin-
guishes the substrate by particular marks.118
xxi From Epistula ad Victorem (cpg 7071) [1 quotation]

(1) Peter quotes the following passage from Severus’Letter to Victor the presbyter
in proof of his statement that the claim to oppose tritheism is a mask for
atheism and is in contradiction with the fathers who name each prosopon
severally ‘God Himself’:
And these things will be apparent on a first and, one may say, superficial
interpretation, for I did not even propose to aim at grasping the profound
meaning of the passage; But now the previous words of Job’s discourse
seem to me to be leading to the higher meaning under discussion and
to be proving more clearly that we ought to understand the statement as
about the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father and is Life Itself
and God, who exists eternally with Father and Son.119
xxii From Epistula ad Isidorum Comitem (po 14)120 [2 quotations]

(1) The following passage from Severus’Letter to Count Isidore is quoted by Peter
(Book iii, chapter 42) as having inspired him (Peter) in writing his Memoran-
dum to Damian in which his interpretation of Damian is explained as a gentle
corrective modelled on Severus’ initial approach to Julian:
(Concerning these matters, then, I think we should avoid this composite

term and not call the Holy Trinity ‘uni-substantial’ or the Father ‘uni-
substantial’, both because it is not to be found in accurate teachers and
because it gives pretexts to the evil propensities of heretics, whereas the
doctors called the Trinity ‘consubstantial’ in order that by this word, so
plainly and very well established, there might be expressed both the ‘one’
of the substance and at the same time the separateness of the hypostases,
and by this one word, both unity and division; for when the Son is called

120 Ed. E.W. Brooks, po, vol 14 (1920), 3.
118 ebied
‘consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Ghost’ it shows that he
participates in the substance along with those numbered with him, but is
separate in hypostasis, for nobody is consubstantial with himself, but one
man is consubstantial with another), we added: Because the holy august
and consubstantial Trinity is three perfect, characteristic and individually
subsisting hypostases and three prosopa, and not simply three properties
viewed as belonging with the substance.121
(2) The following text, also from Severus’ Letter to Count Isidore, is adduced
by Peter (Book iii, chapter 44) in proof that Severus and Basil never say ‘an
hypostasis is the whole Godhead’ or ‘the substance of the Godhead is one thing
and the hypostases of the Holy Trinity another’:
For the Lord of the seed himself, who dawned, by fleshly advent, upon
us and came to cast good seed on the earth, that one of the Holy Trinity
who is spoken of in terms divine and glorified along with Father and Holy
Ghost (for in them we have the Godhead, indeed rather, they are the
Godhead) will increase in you the seed of piety many times over, the more
because you are aglow with vigilance and are aflame with zeal against the
seed of tares heretical.122
xxiii From Hypomnestica ad Caesarium (cpg 7071—Fragmenta inedita)

[3 quotations]
In chapter 19 of his Book iii, Peter states that Damian has criticized him because
he wrote that the quotation from Gregory was taken from the first book of
Against Eunomius, whereas it belongs in fact to the third book. But Peter proves
with quotations from Severus that the father wrote with his own hand and
that not he but Damian is mistaken. In support of his argument he quotes the
following two passages from Severus’ Hypomnesticon to Caesaria:
(1) Just as, too, the economy of the incarnation is termed ‘ministry’, because
the Only-begotten became obedient voluntarily to the Father, delineating
to us the pattern of obedience, ministry and service by his dealings with
men which (as we have often said) the doctors term ‘the form of the slave’.
Gregory, wise in things divine, brother of Basil the Great and bishop of
Nyssa, will confirm this in the second book Against Eunomius: ‘Therefore
he indicates by the word the fearful manifestations of the judge at the

end of the ages, when he will be seen no longer in the form of the slave
but seated in grandeur on the throne of empire, worshipped by all the
angels round him. For this reason, he who came once for all into the world
and was made first-born of the dead, of his brothers, and of all Creation,
when he comes again into the world, he who (as prophecy says) will judge
the world in righteousness, does not reject the title “first-born” which he
accepted once for all on our behalf.123
(2) The brilliant speech about the ant which demolishes the arrogance of
Eunomius who boasts that he knows what God’s substance is and the
nature of beings by the same author from the eighth book Against Euno-
mius: ‘So one who prides himself on having attained a knowledge of
beings should explain to us the kind of nature the smallest of visible things
has, so that he may assure us about the hidden by the known. Let him
explain to us by reason what the ant’s nature is.’124
(3) In chapter 19 of his Book iii Peter sets down the right numbering of Gregory’s
ten books and, describing their origin, as did Severus in the 101st Hypomnesticon
to Caesaria, he indicates the reason for Damian’s error. The following passage
from Severus is cited in support of his argument:
Your God-loving Eminence should know that Gregory, wise in the Spirit,
initially produced two volumes or books against Eunomius the blasphe-
mer, in defence of what Saint Basil had said which had been written
against by Eunomius; and these two books are not in the volume sent me
by you. Now when Eunomius wrote also against what had been written
by holy Gregory, he provided, as third in the order, those ten refutatory
books against the wicked fellow which are set down in this volume; and
thereafter he wrote, fourth in order, Against Eunomius’ Statement, which
is entitled ‘fourth’ in this volume; the blasphemous Statement, against
which was written the literary work standing fourth in order, is set down
at the end of the volume. So look for another volume which is not at fault.
But if you cannot, write to me, since the work is hard to come by.125

120 ebied
xxiv From Synodus Romana (pg 82, 1052–1056)126 [1 quotation]

(1) The following extract from a decree of a Roman synod confirms that the
Italians professed the Trinity only one hypostasis:
So, that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are to be believed to be
one power, one image and one hypostasis. Him who thinks otherwise we
judge estranged from our communion.127
xxv From Apologia Philalethes (cpg 7031)128 [1 quotation]

(1) Peter quotes the following passage from Severus’Defence of the 226th chapter
of his Philalethes in proof of his statement that the claim to oppose tritheism is
a mask for atheism and is in contradiction with the fathers who name each
prosopon severally ‘God Himself’:
Therefore he was thought by his beholders to grow and be deified, though

being God Himself and Wisdom Itself by nature, whereas it is we who are
truly deified and grow in him.129
xxvi From Censura Tomi Juliani (cpg 7027)130 [1 quotation]

(1) At the beginning of chapter 48 of his Book iii Peter says that we must
respect the tradition and adhere to the fathers’ teaching as Theodosius, the two
Gregorys, Cyril and Severus bid us. The following passage from Severus’ book
Against Julian is quoted in support of his statement:
But in addition to divinely inspired Scripture we must follow the proven

and lawful masters of mysteries of holy Church, who have lived at various
times, not only in doctrines but also in the words expressing the doctrines;
and we are to think secure what they say and insecure what they do not
say. For I myself acknowledge that I am conscious of my own frailty and
all my life I have been careful to direct my mind by their thoughts and
words, to bridle my tongue, and to say and write theirs whenever occasion
for it arose. Let us not acknowledge them as ‘fathers’ but exalt ourselves
126 Epistula ad episcopos Illyici. Cf. Theodoretus, Ecclesiastica Historia, ii, 22.
127 Cf. Ebied et al, Contra Damianum, vol. 32, pp. 133 (Syriac); pp. 130, 132 (English).
128 Ed. Robert Hespel, Sévère d’Antioche. La polémique antijulianiste. iii: L’Apologie du Phi-
laléthe. Textus [csco 318]. Versio [csco 319] (Louvain, 1971).
130 Ed. Robert Hespel, Sévère d’Antioche. La polémique antijulianiste. Textus [csco 244].
Versio [csco 245] (Louvain, 1964), 20–205.
above the cogent words expressing the exactness of their doctrines. For
it was not they who uttered them, according to the unlying word of the
Saviour, but it was the Spirit of their Father speaking in them, indicating
what they should say and, again, what they should not say, concerning
the cunning wiles of evil heresies to come, so that nothing unexamined
or uninvestigated would befall us. It is, then, a truly great thing for our
generation, even though we are set among the doctors, to think and speak
purely and without deceit what they studied and laboured over.131
xxvii From Locum non invenimus / Loco non reperto [5 quotations]
(1) We should, he says, interpret the appellation of the names or their impo-
sition in accordance with the subject. And again: And thus, falsifying and
altering the order of realities, and concluding some things instead of oth-
ers, you add what is very absurd; and arbitrarily and violently you assail
along with the realities also the names.132
(2) In chapter 6 of his Book iii Peter criticizes the behaviour of Damian who
promises further testimonies but actually repeats only the passage of the The-
ologian given a little earlier without even recording the proof-text of Severus
annexed to it. The following passage from an unidentified work by Severus is
quoted by Peter in proof that Severus condemns such behaviour:
Therefore, what penalty would this good fellow not have endured if, on
being in contention over some question in a lawsuit be concealed or
excised a text of the documents produced for examination? Would not
both his hands and his very tongue have been cut off? But because the
discussion concerns divine doctrines and he has ventured to do this very
thing in connection with the faith than which there is nothing higher for
believers and those who perceive the truth, no condemnation can be laid
down for him by men, but we abandon it to him who said Vengeance is
mine, I will repay!133
(3) In chapter 22 of his Book iii Peter draws upon some ironical words of
Severus, from an unidentified source, to pour scorn on Damian’s claims:
122 ebied
Oh, the profound considerations! Oh, the inventions of a profound under-

standing! Oh, the soul which is instructed, in the proverbial phrase, in the
repetition of words which are inescapable! But I was desirous of asking
your Wisdom whether it gave birth to these things for us after a long
watch, or whether it suddenly brought out such clever and acute things.
For the whole world ran the risk of not knowing (if you yourself had not
discovered it) that the human body is corruptible whereas the soul is
immortal.134
(4) And then in their pretence they strained every nerve, as they say, to help
out their penury by a theft capable of misleading the simple: by testimony
extracted somehow from books by the holy fathers, initiators into divine
mysteries, without concern for the whole teaching set down in all their
writings. They strained, he says, every nerve, as they say, to help out
their penury by a theft capable of misleading the simple: by testimony
extracted somehow from books by the holy fathers, the initiators into
divine mysteries, without concern for the whole teaching set down in
their writings.135
(5) Oh, words pregnant with a huge folly inviting heavy censure and bringing
upon us severe condemnation from God unless we be moved by righteous
zeal!136
Conclusion
All in all, then, it is clear from the foregoing discussion that Peter of Call-
inicus was well acquainted with the various seminal works of St. Severus of
Antioch. Thus, in support of his arguments against Damian of Alexandria,
he made full use of these works by quoting extensively from them in the
extant chapters of his extensive Syriac work, Contra Damianum, albeit, only
less than half of which has survived. The value of these quotations lies in the
fact that from them we could glean an insight into the theology, doctrine and
teaching of this great father with regard to the issues argued and discussed
therein.

In presenting these quotations in his surviving magnum opus, Peter refers to

St. Severus of Antioch, in more than one place, as “Cyril’s peer, proven Severus,
who always followed Saint Cyril” (‫ܘܪܐ‬焏‫ܐ ܣ‬rqq‫ ܒ‬:‫ܤ‬熏‫ܠ‬q‫ܪ‬熏‫ ܕܩ‬煿‫ܡ‬q‫ ܦ‬r‫ܒ‬
‫ܤ‬熏‫ܠ‬q‫ܪ‬熏‫ ܩ‬焏rq煟‫ ܠܩ‬牯‫ܡ ܢ̣ܩ‬煟‫ܠܡ‬q‫)ܘܕܒ‬.137 Furthermore, he introduces St. Severus
with such wonderful appellations as the following:
– “who illumined the world from the East” (焏‫ܪ ܠܥܠܡ‬煿‫ ܐܢ‬焏q‫ܢ‬煟‫ ܡ‬爯‫;)̇ܗܘ ܕܡ‬
̇
– “the distinguished patriarch Severus” (焏qrqrq‫ܘܪܐ ܦ‬焏‫ ܣ‬焏‫ܒ‬q‫ܒ‬q);
– “divinely inspired father” (焏‫ܐ ܐܒ‬煿‫ ܐܠ‬爯‫ ܡ‬qq‫;)ܕܢܦ‬
– “proven Severus, champion of the truth” (牯‫ܠ‬q‫ ܕ‬焏q‫ܢܣ‬熏‫ܐ ܘܐܓ‬rqq‫ܒ‬
‫ܪܐ‬rr);
– “sound Severus” (‫ܘܪܐ‬焏‫ܐ ܣ‬rqq‫;)ܒ‬
– “wise doctor” (焏‫ܡ‬qqq 焏‫;)ܡܠܦܢ‬
– “accurate Severus” (‫ܘܪܐ‬焏‫ܐ ܣ‬rqrq);
– “God-clad Severus” (‫ܘܪܐ‬焏‫ܐ ܣ‬煿‫ܠ‬焏‫ ܠ‬rq‫;)ܠܒ‬
– “the guide of truth” (‫ܪܐ‬rr‫ ܕ‬焏‫ܢ‬q‫ܕ‬煿̇‫;)ܡ‬
– “Severus, preserver and exact expositor of patristic teaching” (‫ܘܪܐ‬焏‫ܣ‬
‫ܐ‬rq煿̈‫ܬܐ ܐܒ‬熏̈‫ܐ ܕܡܠܦܢ‬rqrq 焏‫ܩܢ‬r‫ܪܐ ܘܡܦ‬熏q‫;)ܢ‬
– “the father’s prudent tongue (I mean Saint Severus)” (:‫ܐ‬rq‫ ܙܗ‬rq‫ ܓ‬焏‫ܢ‬r‫ܠ‬
‫ܘܪܐ‬焏‫ ܣ‬焏rq煟‫ ܩ‬爯q‫ ܕ‬焏‫ ܐܢ‬r‫;)̇ܐܡ‬
– “God-clad Severus, the expert destroyer of heretical practices” (‫ܘܪܐ‬焏‫ܣ‬
焏q‫ܩ‬qqr‫ ܗ‬焏‫ܘܪܐ ܕܐܡ̈ܢ‬r‫ܐ ܘܣ‬rqrq 焏‫ܘܥ‬煟q ‫ܐ ̇ܗܘ‬煿‫ܠ‬焏‫ ܠ‬rq‫;)ܠܒ‬
– “the teacher of truth” (‫ܪܐ‬rr‫ ܕ‬焏‫;)ܡܠܦܢ‬
– “Cyril’s peer, proven and accurate Severus” (‫ܐ‬rqq‫ ܒ‬焏‫ ܕܗܢ‬煿‫ܡ‬q‫ ܦ‬r‫ܒ‬
‫ܘܪܐ‬焏‫ܐ ܣ‬rqrq‫;)ܘ‬
– “Severus, the proven teacher of truth” (‫ܘܪܐ‬焏‫ܐ ܣ‬rqq‫ܪܐ ܒ‬rr‫ ܕ‬焏q‫)ܪܕܘ‬.
137 Cf., e.g., Ebied et al, Contra Damianum, vol. 35, pp. 66, 67; 324, 325.
Severus of Antioch and Changing Miaphysite
Attitudes toward Byzantium
Nestor Kavvadas
The career of Severus is a turning-point in the history of changing attitudes of

the Miaphysite movement toward the Byzantine imperial power, with its self-
legitimations and its claims of authority to intervene in, and exert influence on,
Church affairs. Just as critical, as is well known, was the role Severus played in
the actual ecclesio-political developments of the day, namely the progressive
deepening of the rift between Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians, which,
in one way or another, conditioned changes in the attitudes of Miaphysite
“opinion makers” and, through the latter, of the Miaphysite masses in the entire
Byzantine Orient. His name became directly linked, even in his own lifetime,
with the final separation between Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians, the
latter being labelled “Severans” by the former. In spite of this, his actual political
role—especially in the 20 years separating his deposition from his death (518–
538)—is as yet too understudied for one to judge to what extent this linkage
was justified. One can say with certainty, though, that his declared goal was
not separation but, on the contrary, restoration of Church unity. The following
observations are a preliminary attempt to inquire if this contradiction between
his intention and—at the very least—his opponents’ view of his actual political
role and its results may have its roots in a tension innate in Severus’ own
attitude toward Byzantine state power on the one hand, and the ecclesiastical
authority of Constantinople (and Rome) on the other.
Confession as a Matter of Loyalty
The osmotic movement between imperial policy and the high affairs of the
Church, going back to Constantine the Great, intensified dramatically in the
decades after Chalcedon, before climaxing in the age of Justinian.1 On the
one hand, we see those foremost in the ecclesiastical hierarchy claiming an
1 On this process during Justinian’s reign cf. F. Millar, “Rome, Constantinople and the Near
Eastern Church under Justinian: Two Synods of c.e. 536,” Journal of Roman Studies 98 (2008),
62–82, esp. 62–70.

severus of antioch and byzantium 125
authority unthinkable in even the very near past. For instance, the Roman
bishop Hormisdas, in an unparalleled move, excommunicated posthumously
in his so-called libellus, a document meant to be approved by the emperor
Justin and by all bishops of the Oriens, two deceased emperors, Anastasios and
Zeno,2 both sympathisers of the Miaphysite cause. It is all the more striking—
and characteristic of an unprecedented merging of imperial and ecclesiastical
politics, or rather an unprecedented expansion of ecclesiastical politics in the
field of imperial politics—that Justin did endorse this document.
Although pale compared with Hormisdas’ step of excommunicating two
emperors, there is something cognate in Severus’ attitude toward Anastasios i,
the emperor to whose support he owed his career. Even though Anastasios was
as favourably disposed as possible toward Severus and his theology, when he,
the emperor, asked from the Patriarch only to abandon, for the sake of Church
unity and even of social peace, his demand for an explicit condemnation
of the Council of Chalcedon,3 Severus refused persistently to give in—such
compromise in matters of faith was absolutely impossible for him.4 It was
2 See Collectio Avellana, ed. O. Günther, csel 35.2 (Wien, 1898), documents nr. 167, at p. 620 and
nr. 223, p. 684.
3 Such a condemnation would be impossible for Anastasios, primarily on account of the
influence of the Chalcedonian party in the capital, but also for formal reasons, seeing that
Chalcedon had been an Ecumenical Council convoked by an emperor and attended by more
bishops than any other Council until then.
4 This happened shortly after Severus’ election as Patriarch of Antioch, i.e. around May of
the year 513, right after Severus had sent a synodical letter to Timothy of Constantinople
condemning the Council of Chalcedon, Pope Leo and all adherents of the doctrine of two
natures. Reactions, not only in Constantinople but also in Antioch, were so grave that the
a secretis Asterios was sent to Severus to tell him that “the kingdom of the Romans is in a
turmoil on account of this” (煿ܿqrq‫ ܐ‬焏‫ܢ‬熏‫ܡ‬qq‫ ܗܕܐ ܒ‬爏q‫ ܡ‬焏q‫ܗܘܡ‬r‫ܬܐ ܕ‬熏q‫ ;)ܡܠ‬in reply,
Severus proclaimed his resolution to abide by his letter, i.e. his condemnation of Chalcedon
and Leo, at all costs: “I am ready to leave the city and resign the see, rather than upset one
stroke of what I wrote from the beginning in the synodical words expressed to Timothy”, was
his answer to Asterios; and he continues: “this I did not say without writing it down, but I
expressed myself with freedom in writing to the God-fearing emperor also” (rq‫ ܐ‬rq焏‫ܒ‬qq‫ܕܡ‬
爯‫ܒ‬qrq‫ ܕ‬爯q‫ ܗܠ‬爯‫ܥ܇ ܡ‬熟‫ ܐܙܥ‬焏qr‫ ܣ‬煟q ‫܆ ܐܘ‬焏q‫ܪܣ‬熏q 爯‫ ܡ‬牯r‫ܐ ܘܐ‬r‫ܢ‬q煟‫ ܡ‬爯‫ܩ ܡ‬熏‫ ܕܐܦ‬q‫ܠ‬
焏‫ܬ܆ ܐܠ‬r‫ ܐܡ‬焏‫ܒ‬rq 焏‫ ܕܠ‬熏‫ ܘܗܕܐ ܠ‬.‫ܐܘܣ‬r‫ܡ‬qq ‫ܬ‬熏‫ ܠ‬焏‫ܩ‬q‫̈ܕ‬煿‫ܢ‬熏‫ ܣ‬焏‫ ܒ̈ܡܠ‬焏q‫ܪ‬熏r 爯‫ ܡ‬q‫ܠ‬
焏q‫ܗܣ‬r‫ ܦ‬q‫ ܗܘܬ ܠ‬焏‫ܒ‬rq‫܆ ܒ‬焏q‫ܐ ܡܠ‬煿‫ܠ‬焏‫ ܠ‬爏qq‫ܬ ܕ‬熏‫ ܘܠ‬cl 321 (this letter of Severus to
Anastasios is lost)); cf. F. Alpi, La route royale. Sévère d’Antioche et les Églises d’Orient (512–
518), vol. ii: Sources et documents (Beyrouth, 2009), 71 f.; cf. also three further extant excerpts
from letters of Severus to Hippocrates the Alexandrian that illustrate Severus’ intransigence
in the question of the condemnation of Chalcedon and Pope Leo: “While the things wickedly
126 kavvadas
finally Anastasios that had to step back from his original position. Here too, we
see imperial policy conforming to the demands of Church politics.
Just as Church politics was invading with enormous elan the field of impe-
rial politics, the emperor and his milieu, for their part, were delving ever more
directly into Church affairs. In Zeno’s Henotikon we have the first highly influen-
tial (after Basiliskos’ ephemeral Enkyklion) such direct attempt on the part of an
emperor to dictate to bishops the creed that would guarantee Church union;5
moreover, at the other end of the period in question—i.e. the era of Severus—
Justinian appears, in his own theological writings (and through his personal
interventions in theological negotiations between the different Church par-
ties), as emperor and theologian in one, indeed in the latter role as attempting
to determine the creed that was to be taught by the Church.6
This politicisation found expression also in state documents. Beside the
notorious first lines of Justinian’s 6th Novella, to the effect that the sacerdotium
and the imperium were the two greatest gifts bestowed on humanity by the
heavenly Goodness,7 we have the following declaration by the Patriarch of Con-
stantinople Menas, made at an Endemousa Synodos held in May-June 536,
against Severus: “it is not appropriate that any change occurring in the most
holy Church should take place against his (sc. the emperor’s) opinion and com-
mand”.8 Thus, permeation between the two spheres of imperial and ecclesi-
astical politics was supposed to be mutual: on the one hand, there was the
done at Chalcedon against the orthodox faith are not anathematised by name, no argument can
persuade me like an interpreter of dreams to expound and forcibly understand the text of the
edict (sc. the Henotikon) as a rejection of the unlawful things … for it (sc. the Henotikon) contains
a right confession of faith only, though by itself it be destitute of healing for what is required”, (煟q
焏‫ ܠ‬焏‫ܡ‬r‫ ܒ‬焏q‫ܒ‬熏r ‫ܬ‬犏q‫ܬܐ ܬܪ‬熏‫ܡܢ‬q‫ ܗ‬爏‫ܩܒ‬熏‫ ܠ‬:焏‫ܘܢ‬煟‫ܠܩ‬q‫ ܒ‬rq焏‫ܠ‬熏‫ ܥ‬r‫ܥ‬r‫ ܕܐܣ‬爯q‫ ܗܠ‬rq‫ܓ‬
爯q‫ܐ ܕܗܠ‬r‫ܬ ܡܦܩ‬熏‫ܢ ܠ‬熏q‫ܩ‬q‫ ܕܐܕ‬焏qq‫܇ ܕܨ‬q‫ܣܢ‬q‫ ܕܬܦ‬焏qqr‫ܐ ܡ‬r‫ ܡܠ‬煟q 焏‫܆ ܘܠ‬爯q‫ܡ‬rqr‫ܡ‬
‫ܬܐ‬犏q‫ ܬܪ‬rq‫ܐ ܓ‬rq‫ … ܬܘܕ‬爏qr‫ ܐܣ‬rq‫ܐ‬rqq‫܇ ܘܩ‬犟r‫ ܐܦ‬焏‫ܠ̈ܡ‬q rr‫ܐ ܒܦ‬rq‫̈ܣ‬熏‫ ܢܡ‬焏‫ܠ‬
煿‫ ܘܠ‬煿‫ ܡܢ‬爯q̈‫ܒܥ‬r‫ ܕܡ‬爯q‫ܬܐ ܕܗܠ‬熏q‫ ܐܣ‬爯‫ ܗܘ ܕܡ‬爯‫ ܐܦ‬.‫ܕ‬熏q‫ ܒܠ‬煿‫ ܠ‬rq‫ܬܐ ܐ‬熏‫ܡܢ‬q‫ܕܗ‬
爏‫ܡ‬r‫ ܡ‬cl 320; cf. ibid., 322 f.).
5 See A. Grillmeier and Th. Hainthaler, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche 2/2: Das Konzil
von Chalcedon (451)—Rezeption und Widerspruch (Freiburg: u.a., 1989), 279–294.
6 Cf. Mischa Meier, Das andere Zeitalter Justinians (Göttingen, 2003), 234–293; J.A.S. Evans, The
Age of Justinian: The Circumstances of Imperial Power (London, 1996), 60–61; Millar, “Rome,
Constantinople and the Near Eastern Church,” 62–68; K.-H. Uthemann, “Kaiser Justinian
als Kirchenpolitiker und Theologe,” Christus, Kosmos, Diatribe. Themen der frühen Kirche als
Beiträge zu einer historischen Theologie, akg 93 (Berlin/New York, 2005), 257–331.
7 See Codex iuris civilis, vol. iii, R. Schöll and G. Kroll (eds), (Berlin, 1895), 35.
8 “προσήκει μηδὲν τῶν ἐν τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ κινουμένων παρὰ γνώμην αὐτοῦ καὶ κέλευσιν
γενέσθαι,” ed. E. Schwartz, aco iii (Berlin, 1940), 181, Par. 130 (fourth session).
imposing presence of the sacerdotium in the emperor’s law book; on the other
hand, there was the emperor as judge of last resort in the eyes of the Patri-
arch.
This politicisation of Church affairs and the concomitant theologisation of
state politics—amounting to a complete blurring of the boundaries between
Church politics and state affairs,—was deeply interrelated with the endless
conflicts around Chalcedon, beginning in the aftermath of the Council. Ever
since Chalcedon, confessional question turned more and more into one of
loyalty, a development that now, after Justin’s turn, further intensified. What
this meant for those not fully integrated into the structures of the Catholic
Church—in the period after the libellus of Hormisdas and the healing of the
Acacian schism, the Chalcedonian Churches in communion with the bishops
of Constantinople and Rome—was that their attitude toward the Catholic
Church was, at the same time, a stance taken toward the emperor—or the
Byzantine state.9
Developing Miaphysite Attitudes toward Constantinople
The Miaphysite movement had to somehow cope with this double problem of
taking a position vis-à-vis the emperor and the Catholic Church. This
problem—continuously in the background of Miaphysite politics since
Chalcedon—posed itself in its full acuteness only when the emperor Justin
made clear that he was determined to undo all the pro-Miaphysite measures
of Anastasios i and endorsed the libellus of Hormisdas.10 At the same time,
9 The question touched the very core of early Byzantine identity, which was most closely
connected to an ideal of—almost—limitless loyalty to the emperor; as G. Greatrex notes,
“loyalty to the emperor was the determining factor as to who was Roman and who was not
in the sixth century” (G. Greatrex, ‘Roman Identity in the Sixth Century,’ in: S. Mitchell
and G. Greatrex (eds.), Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity (London, 2000), 267–292,
at p. 274); cf. A. Rodolfi, ‘Procopius and the Vandals: How the Byzantine Propaganda
Constructs and Changes African Identity,’ in: G.M. Brendt and R. Steinacher (eds.), Das
Reich der Vandalen und seine (Vor-)Geschichten (Wien, 2008), 233–242; for an attempt to
relativise this position pointing at other essential elements of Roman identity, like the
opposition against the “Barbarians”, see S. Dmitriev, “John Lydus and His Contemporaries
on Identities and Cultures of Sixth-Century Byzantium,”Dumbarton Oaks Papers 64 (2010),
27–42, at pp. 28–30.
10 See A. Vasiliev, Justin the First. An Introduction to the Epoch of Justinian the Great (Cam-
bridge, ma, 1950), 176.
128 kavvadas
Severus was forced to leave Antioch.11 The problem was most pressing in the
Syrian Orient, while Egypt was at first kept out of it; seeing that the Egyptian
episcopate was almost unanimously Miaphysite, and that therein they enjoyed
the full support of the people, the bishops of Egypt were exempted from the
obligation to sign the libellus of Hormisdas.12
Faced with this pressing issue, the Syrian bishops, Church authors, etc.,
were forced by political reality to find and tender prompt answers. In the
most cases such answers were given implicitly, and this applies to Severus
too: it was rather by his actions that he took a stance. However, his stance in
this central, practical issue was at least as influential as his theology within
the Miaphysite movement, deeply informing its political orientation—even
if the result of his influence was askance, as we shall see, with his original
intention.
Attempting to situate Severus in the history of Miaphysite attitudes toward
the aforementioned double problem, one quickly realises that these attitudes
underwent a deep change from the time of his early youth until his death,
and then in the following actions of his immediate “successors”. One may dis-
cern roughly, with due caveats for attempting a schematisation of this kind, a
sequence of different attitudes toward the Byzantine state and the Chalcedo-
nians, such as were represented by successive generations of Miaphysite lead-
ers from the late fifth to the middle of the sixth century.
The Age of Emperor Zeno’s Henotikon
The generation of the older Miaphysite leaders, that is to say Severus’ elder con-
temporaries and predecessors in the movement’s leadership—such figures as
the Patriarch of Alexandria Timothy Ailouros, his successor Peter Mongos, and
Peter Knapheus (The Fuller) of Antioch—had supported in their overwhelm-
ing majority the Henotikon of emperor Zeno, interpreting it as an implicit rejec-
tion of Chalcedon, and this over a period of several decades, often with support
from the emperor(s). For this generation of Miaphysite leadership, dominated
by the Greek Patriarchs of Alexandria, the only possible prospect they could
envisage was the restoration of Church union; actually, the unity of the Church
was in their eyes intact, one had only to solve the obnoxious problem of the
“dyophysite heresy”. For them, there was no other option than the one ortho-
11 See V. Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church (Oxford, 2008), 44.
12 See ibid., 112.
dox (i.e. Miaphysite) Church under an orthodox emperor.13 Committed to this

prospect, they were in certain cases ready to make concessions to Constantino-
ple, even to the point of considering pro forma acceptance of Chalcedon,14 seen
as an exclusively anti-heretical Council which had but confirmed the condem-
nations of Eutyches and Nestorios.15
This elite was opposed, however, in both Egypt and the Syrian Orient by
groups of zealotic monks, who would not countenance any retreat from the
demand that the Council of Chalcedon, together with Pope Leo and his tomus
ad Flavianum, should be formally condemned before Church peace could be
restored. Of course, this demand ruled out in advance any real prospect of
an understanding with Constantinople. From the perspective of these groups
of zealotic monks, though, any departure from this demand was tantamount
to betrayal of the orthodox faith. Their influence on the popular basis of the
Miaphysite movement can hardly be overestimated,16 and only grew stronger
during Justinian’s measures against the Miaphysite leadership in the Oriens.
However, prior to Severus, their stance always remained oppositional to the
ruling “uniate”, one could say, line taken by the Miaphysite episcopal leadership.
13 Cf. W.H.C. Frend, ‘Severus of Antioch and the Origins of the Monophysite Hierarchy,’ in:
D. Neiman and M. Schatkin (eds.), The Heritage of the Early Church (Festschrift Georges
Vasilievich Florovsky), oca 195 (Rome, 1973), 261–275, at p. 262f.
14 Of course, the original position of these leaders was clearly anti-Chalcedonian. See e.g.
Timotheos Ailouros’ doctrinal demands from those converting from the Chalcedonian to
the Miaphysite creed, Zacharias Rhetor, Historia Ecclesiastica iv.12, ed. Brooks, csco Syr.
38, (Louvain, 1953), 202–205; cf. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac mss. in the British Museum,
part ii, (London, 1871), 643; however, they were in many cases ready to negotiate over
these condemnations, provided that the positive expression of the Christological doctrine
complied with their principles, as it was the case with Zeno’s Henotikon (see Zacharias
Rhetor, Historia Ecclesiastica vi.2, pp. 2–4, concerning Timotheos Ailouros).
15 For this view cf. Zacharias Rhetor, Historia Ecclesiastica ix.20, p. 140. Cf. Severus’ argu-
ments against this interpretation in a letter written before his ascension to the throne of
Antiochia and addressed to Constantine of Seleucia; sl i.1, pp. 4–5.
16 See Zacharias Rhetor, Historia Ecclesiastica vi.2, pp. 2–4: The influence of these monks,
in Egypt even more than in the Syrian Orient, was so strong that they succeeded, by
threatening a schism, in forcing the Patriarch Petros Mongos to deviate, shortly after
his election, from the stance taken by his predecessor Timothy (who was satisfied with
the Henotikon without explicit condemnations) and demand also the condemnation of
Chalcedon and Pope Leo (while still accepting the Henotikon); cf. W.H.C. Frend, The Rise
of the Monophysite Movement. Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth
Centuries (Cambridge, 1972), 180.
130 kavvadas
Severus of Antioch: Political Loyalism and Dogmatic

Zealotism—An Uneasy Coexistence and Its Breakdown
With Severus’ appearance on the central stage of Church politics, the massive
favoring of him by emperor Anastasios, and his election to Patriarch of Anti-
och, the end of this ambivalent co-existence of “uniate” leadership and popular
zealotic agitators began for the Miaphysite movement. Superficially, Severus
seemed to be a man after the Miaphysite leaders of the previous generation:
he was also Greek (at least in terms of linguistic and cultural identity), had
received the best classical education his age could offer, and was informed the-
ologically by the study of the classical Greek fathers, namely the Cappadocians
and John Chrysostom, who were of course equally cherished by both Chal-
cedonians and Miaphysites.17 However, Severus’ stance toward the Byzantine
emperor (and his claim to authority in matters ecclesiastical) was informed
not only by his own cultural background, but, perhaps even more decisively,
by the influence of Philoxenos of Mabbug, the most notorious proponent of
the aforementioned zealotic monastic circles in the Syriac Oriens. The over-
all influence of Philoxenos on the much younger Severus, reaching also to the
core issues of the latter’s theology, is well known;18 in matters of Church politics
this influence is even more palpable, going back to the time when Philoxenos
had mobilized his vast Syrian network to bring about the deposition of the
Chalcedonian Patriarch Flavian from the see of Antioch and his subsequent
replacement by Severus.19
Already at the beginning of his incumbency, under his protector Anasta-
sios i, Severus displayed an attitude bearing affinities with the ascetic zealots
of Philoxenos: He rejected, as mentioned already, the demand of his patron
and emperor that he should accept the Henotikon of Zeno without explicitly
condemning Chalcedon. Severus supported the Henotikon, which the zealotic
monks for the most part rejected as too mild, but for him to abstain from
explicit condemnation of Chalcedon was out of the question. Even a thor-
oughly new interpretation of the Council, one that aligned it to his views, could
17 See Zacharias of Mytilene, Vie de Sévère. ed. M.A. Kugener, PO 2/1, 48 and 54f.; cf. his por-
traits by Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 201–219 and P. Allen and C.T.R. Hay-
ward, Severus of Antioch (London/New York, 2004), 3–34, esp. 3–7.
18 As P. Allen and C.T.R. Hayward put it, “the two men developed a partnership which was a
turning-point in the history of incarnational christology” (Allen and Hayward, Severus of
Antioch, 8).
19 Cf. A. de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog: sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Louvain, 1963), 64–
75.
not bring him to revise this position. For the first time, this crucial element of
the zealotic opposition within the Miaphysite movement, the adamant persis-
tence in explicit condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon, even in the face
of a pro-Miaphysite emperor like Anastasios who was asking just for this one
concession, was put forward by its most prominent and influential leader.20
This does not imply that Severus favoured general restriction of the emperor’s
interventions in ecclesiastical affairs: As Patriarch of Antioch under Anastasios
he had no scruples in referring to the judgment of the emperor such problems
of the bishops of Oriens as did not necessarily pertain to his jurisdiction, or
in accepting the decisions of the Endemousa Synod of Constantinople in his
Patriarchate.21 It was on this one point of the explicit rejection of the Council
of Chalcedon that he was not ready to negotiate.
Nevertheless, for Severus too any future prospect other than the restoration
of Church unity as unity of an orthodox (i.e., Miaphysite) Church for the entire
empire was inconceivable. The way to this restoration was, for him, through
an uncompromising struggle on the part of orthodox prelates like himself. In
a sermon preached at the common feast of St Basil the Great and St Gregory
of Nazianzos, he drew a comparison between their steadfast opposition to
the Arian emperors of their day on the one hand, and the present struggle
by him and his followers against the modern “heretics” of Chalcedon on the
other; if he failed to display the same courage as they did, they would be his
denouncers at the Last Judgment.22 This image is most characteristic of the
way Severus saw his own full engagement in Church politics. Furthermore, it
clearly implies what he expected from the future: Just as the uncompromising
resistance of the Cappadocians had finally overcome the imperial heresy and
restored Nicene orthodoxy, so too his own struggles would restore orthodoxy
in the end—i.e, they would make his and his followers’ Miaphysite theology
into the creed of a united and peaceful Catholic Church under an orthodox
emperor.
20 On this attitude of Severus cf. Frend, Severus of Antioch, 267. As for Severus’ theological
authority within the Miaphysite camp, this was not uncontested; there was even a time
when his theological opponent among the Miaphysite theologians, Julian of Halicarnas-
sus, seemed to be gaining the upper hand in the controversy between them. In political
matters, his authority as Patriarch of Antioch was—at least apparently—second to that
of the Miaphysite Patriarch of Alexandria. However, his impact on the development, the-
ological and political alike, of the Miaphysite movement finally superceded by far that of
all other Miaphysite leaders of his time.
21 On this point see Alpi, Sévère d’ Antioche et les Églises d’Orient (512–518), vol. i, 117–119.
22 See Hom. 103, 279–282.
132 kavvadas
This vision was to remain unchanged even long after Anastasios’ death and
the demise of pro-Miaphysite imperial Church politics. After all, even under
Justinian this was not as unrealistic a prospect as it may seem if considered from
the posterior point of view: As late as 536, the two most powerful incumbent
patriarchs of the East, Anthimos of Constantinople and Theodosios of Alexan-
dria, were in ecclesiastical communion with the deposed (since 518) Severus.23
In such a constellation, any hope must have seemed realistic.
This “Severan” combination of uncompromising perseverance in a zealotic
dogmatic stance with a loyalism dictated by the prospect of a Miaphysite
Catholic Church with a Miaphysite emperor proved at least as formative as
Severus’ Christology was. It is eloquently expressed in a petition addressed to
Justinian by a group of deposed and exiled Syrian Severan bishops, who arrived
in 532 in Constantinople at the emperor’s invitation to participate in a theo-
logical negotiation with the Chalcedonians. The exiled bishops introduce their
petition letter as follows: “We, who have been ourselves judged worthy to venerate
your virtues, render thanks to you with a crown of laudation, which we weave with
splendour”.24 Only briefly alluded to is the fact that they had been sent into exile
by Justinian: “While we were in the desert, and, so to speak, at the end of the world
…”,25 they used to pray for the emperor, just like they do now, in Constantino-
ple, where the emperor had had the kindness and clemency to invite them.
Nonetheless, when their declaration of faith begins, the tone changes, becom-
ing noticeably more self-conscious: “Accordingly, victorious king, we do now also
declare the freedom of our faith …”,26 so they commence, and in the following
profession they remain all along uncompromising in the central theological
issue of the dogma of Chalcedon. But at the same time they argue for their posi-
tion in a pointedly inclusive manner, which clearly shows their devotion to the
prospect of the restoration of Church unity—after the Chalcedonian “heresy”
is overcome. First, they present their Christological stance as the simple truth
of the Scriptures, of the Councils from Nicaea to Ephesos, and of the Church
fathers, from which a succession of heretics had deviated: Diodore of Tarsos,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorios—and latterly Pope Leo and the Council of
23 ̈ q qrqr ‫ܐ‬r‫ ܬܠ‬爯q‫ ܗܠ‬煟q

See Zacharias Rhetor, Historia Ecclesiastica ix.19, p. 135: 爯q‫ ܐܘ‬焏‫ܢ‬煿
‫ܟ‬熏qq‫ ܕܐܢ‬爟qr‫ ܐܬܪܗܒ ܐܦ‬.‫ ܗܘܘ‬爯qrqr‫ ܦ‬焏‫ܕܐ ܠ‬煟q 爯‫ܬܐ ܡ‬熏‫ܡܢ‬q煿‫ ܘܒ‬焏‫ܒ‬熏q‫ܗܘܘ ܒ‬
q‫ ܐܬܕܠ‬q‫ ;ܘܣܓ‬cf. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 271.
24 爯‫ܢ‬q‫ ܐܢ‬爯q‫ܠ‬煟‫ ܓ‬煟q ‫ܐ‬rq熏‫ܒ‬r‫ ܕܬ‬焏‫ܠ‬q‫ܠ‬q‫ܪܘܬܟ ܒ‬rq‫ܬܐ ܕܡ‬煟‫ ܠܣܓ‬爯‫ܢ‬q 爯q‫ܘ‬rr‫ ܕܐ‬爯q‫ ܕ‬爯‫ܢ‬q
‫ܬܟ‬熏‫ܒ‬qq 爯‫ܢ‬q‫ܬܐ ܡܩܒܠ‬熏‫ܓ‬r‫ ܒܡܦ‬Zacharias Rhetor, Historia Ecclesiastica ix.15, ed.
Brooks, p. 115.
25 爏q‫ܬܐ ܕܬܒ‬rq‫ ܒ‬煿ܿ‫ ܒ‬r‫ܡ‬焏‫ ܕܢ‬qq‫ ܘܐ‬.‫ܐ‬r‫ܒ‬煟‫ ܒܡ‬爯qrq‫ ܐ‬煟q (ibid., 115).
26 焏r‫ ܘܗ‬爯‫ܢ‬q‫ ܐܢ‬爯q‫ܕܥ‬熏‫ܬܢ ܡ‬熏‫ܡܢ‬q‫ܪܘܬܐ ܕܗ‬焏q .焏q‫ ܡܠ‬焏qq‫ ܙ‬爯q煟‫( ܡ‬ibid., 116).
Chalcedon. Then, they presume as self-evident that the emperor shares their
faith in this one simple truth of Church tradition, which only the heretics defy:
“If those who strive against us (sc. the Chalcedonians) adhered to these things
(the Scriptures, the Councils and the Fathers) in truth … as we do and you do
and as our holy God-clad fathers consented to believe,”27 then there would be
no conflict at all. They close their petition with an appeal to the emperor in the
name of “the doctors of the Church”, “who, we believe, are now also entreating your
Serenity with us, that you may aid the truth of the faith”.28 This is no mere rhetoric,
but mirrors, one may assume, how the Syrian Severan Miaphysites conceived
of the entire conflict and of their own position within it.
A couple of years after the journey of these Severan bishops to Constantino-
ple, also Severus himself would receive an invitation from the emperor. His
sojourn in the capital (535–536) made possible contacts with churchmen like
the newly elected Anthimos of Constantinople, who was formerly not a Sev-
eran, amounting to the aforementioned unique—though very short-lived—
circumstance of 536, when the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople
sided both with Severus. However, while the Severan bishops of the Orient
had expressed themselves in the above way to Justinian, Severus himself is
supposed, according to John of Ephesos, to have given open expression to his
disappointment with the emperor already before traveling, almost reluctantly,
to the capital: “But the blessed Severus had before these things [sc. the deposition
of Anthimos] been summoned by the king to the royal city on account of the peace
of the Church; and under great pressure from everyone he came, saying, Since it is
everybody’s will lo! I will go up, but it is impossible that anything whatever will be
done by those who are in power; and so he went up, and passed two years [535–536,
i.e. the statement dates to 534–535] labouring and teaching. And, when he saw
that his statement that nothing would be done was being accomplished, he went
back to the southern regions of Alexandria.”29 In another place, John phrases
27 ‫ܬܢ‬熏q‫ ܐ‬爯q‫ܢ ܕ‬熏‫ ܡܠ‬.‫ܬܢ‬熏‫ ܠ‬爯qrqr‫ ܕܡ‬爯q‫ܪܐ … ܗܠ‬rr‫ ܗܘܘ ܒ‬爯q‫ܦ‬q‫ ܢܩ‬熏‫ ܐܠ‬爯q‫ܠ‬煿‫ܠ‬
‫ܢ‬熏‫ܡܢ‬q煿‫ ܗܘܘ ܕܢ‬爯q‫ܪܡ‬r‫ ܡ‬爯q煿‫ܐ ܐ̈ܒ‬煿‫ ܐܠ‬qrq‫ ܠܒ‬焏rq煟‫ ̈ܩ‬qq‫ ܘܐ‬.‫ܢ‬熏q‫ܬ‬熏q‫( ܘܐ‬ibid.,
119).
28 ‫ܬܢ‬熏‫ܡܢ‬q‫ܪܐ ܕܗ‬rr‫ ܕܠ‬.‫ܬܟ‬熏‫ܢ‬qr‫ ܠܡ‬爯q‫ܣ‬q‫ ܡܦ‬爯‫ ܕܥܡ‬爯‫ܢ‬q‫ ܐܢ‬爯q‫ܡܢ‬q煿‫ ܡ‬焏r‫ ܕܐܦ ܗ‬爯q‫ܗܠ‬
‫ܪ‬煟‫( ܬܥ‬ibid., 122).
29 See Lives of Five Patriarchs, ed. Brooks, po 18, 687: ‫ܠ‬熏q‫ ܡ‬爯q‫ܡ ܗܠ‬煟‫ܘܪܐ ܩ‬焏‫ ܣ‬爯q‫ ܕ‬焏‫ܒܢ‬熏q
爯‫ܬܐ ܕܡ‬rq‫ܬܐ ܣܓ‬犏‫ܝ܂ ܘܒܥ‬r‫ܬܐ ܐܬܩ‬熏q‫ܐ ܡܠ‬r‫ܢ‬q煟‫ ܠܡ‬焏q‫ ܡܠ‬爯‫ܬܐ܆ ܡ‬煟‫ ܕܥ‬煿ܿ‫ܢ‬qr
‫ܘܐ‬煿‫ܡ ܕܢ‬煟‫ ܡ‬煟q ‫܂‬焏‫ ܐܢ‬犟‫ ܗܐ ܣܠ‬r‫ ܐܢ‬爏q‫ ܕ‬焏‫ܢ‬q‫ ܨܒ‬爟‫ ܠ‬爏q‫܆ ܕܡ‬r‫ ܐܡ‬煟q ‫ ܐܬܐ‬r‫ܠܢ‬q
爏‫ ܥܡ‬煟q ‫܆‬爯q‫ܢ‬r 爯q‫ܬ‬r‫ ܬ‬r‫ ܘܥܒ‬犟‫ ܣܠ‬焏‫ܢ‬q‫ ܘܗ‬.焏‫ܪܣ‬熏‫ ܦ‬rq‫܂ܠ‬爯q煟qq‫ ܕܐ‬爯q‫ ܗܠ‬爯‫ ܡ‬r‫ܠܓܡ‬
焏q‫ܡܢ‬q̈‫ܘܬܐ ܬ‬r‫ܬ‬焏‫ ܠ‬q‫ ܗܘܐ܆ ܗܦ‬焏‫ܡ ܠ‬煟‫ܗ ܕܡ‬r‫ ܡܠ‬焏‫ܠܡ‬r‫ܐ ܕ‬熟q 煟q‫܂ ܘ‬牯‫ܘܡܠ‬
焏q‫ܪ‬煟‫ܣܢ‬q‫ܕܐܠ‬. It is worth noticing that the combination of dogmatical integrity on the
134 kavvadas
slightly differently the same account, having Severus answer to those urging
him to yield to the emperor’s call as follows: “Do not deceive yourselves; in the
days of these kings [sc. Justinian and Theodora] there is no way that [Church]
peace may come to be”30—a much more direct formulation, in fact implying
the wish for Justinian’s reign to come to an end. But can we take such reports at
face value? How likely could it be that Severus, just before the dashing break-
through of 536 in Constantinople, should be in the position to predict the vanity
of the enormous efforts he was about to undertake? And even if this was the
case, why should he speak out his dissatisfaction with Justinian and thus expose
himself to utmost dangers? It seems much more likely to assume that John
of Ephesos is projecting a hagiographical common place, the holy man’s fore-
knowledge, on his hero. In reality, Severus seems to have always tried—just like
the aforementioned Severan bishops—to keep the emperor out of all criticism
against the Chalcedonians.31
But after that singularly favourable constellation of 536, when Severus
seemed to be wining over the leadership of the Byzantine Church, a massive
Chalcedonian reaction broke out, triggered, at least apparently, by the Patriarch
of Antioch Ephrem of Amida,32 which led to the excommunication of Severus
and his followers in all cities of the empire, including the (shortly before)
deposed Anthimos of Constantinople. A new stage in the development of Mia-
physite attitudes toward Constantinople was opened. For this condemnation
of Severus and his followers—i.e. of the Miaphysite movement per se—was
to prove most consequential: Justinian endorsed and confirmed the condem-
nation with a harsh edict (6.8.536) against Severus, placing him in the same
group as Arius and Porphyry and threatening the copying and dissemination
of his writings with the hardest punishments.33 This was followed up by an
anti-Miaphysite campaign all over the empire, but most intensive in Syria and
Northern Mesopotamia.
one hand and loyalty to both the person of the emperor and the vision of Church unity
on the other is the overall tenor of John of Ephesus’ emblematic presentation of the “five
blessed Patriarchs who distinguished themselves in exile in the time of the persecution”,
Lives of the Eastern Fathers ii, ed. Brooks, po 18, 684–690—somewhat paradoxically fol-
lowed by the life of Jacob Baradaeus.
30 Cf. ‘Extraits, notices et poésies sur Sévère,’ in: John of Beith-Aphthonia, ed. M.A. Kugener,
̈
po 2, 302–303: 焏‫ܢ‬qr ‫ܘܐ‬煿‫ ܕܢ‬煿ܿ‫ ܠ‬rq‫ ܠ‬焏‫ܪܣ‬熏‫܆ ܦ‬爯q‫ ܗܠ‬焏q‫ ܡܠ‬q‫ܡ‬熏q̈‫ܢ܂ ܕܒ‬熏‫ܥ‬q‫ ܬ‬焏‫ܠ‬.
31 Cf. a telling personal testimonial of Severus in cl ii, 291.
32 Cf. Zacharias Rhetor, Historia Ecclesiastica ix.19, pp. 35–37.
33 See ‘Textes Grecs relatifs à Sévère,’ in: John of Beith-Aphthonia, ed. M.A. Kugener, po 2, 360–
361.
The Consequences
This condemnation may be seen as the critical point, after which all realistic
hopes for a restoration of Church union were lost. It certainly triggered unpre-
dictable developments, which finally led (in conjunction with other factors) to
the establishment of a separate Miaphysite episcopal hierarchy in the Syrian
Orient, tantamount to final solidification of the schism. This new reality con-
nected with the names of John of Tella and Jacob Baradaeus, who first began
to consecrate bishops outside the framework of the Catholic hierarchy, did
not have the effect of making Severus, who not only witnessed its beginnings
but also conferred on John of Tella the licence to ordain bishops, abandon his
vision of Church union. Notwithstanding the facts, Severus considered—and
allowed—these “schismatic” ordinations as a merely pastoral measure justified
by the lack of “orthodox” bishops, primarily in the Sassanian empire where the
“Nestorian heresy” held sway.34 It is characteristic that, in his view, the “schis-
matic” ordinations should only take place, if possible, outside the boarders
of the Byzantine empire; even if this was just wishful thinking, it shows how
important Byzantine loyalty was for him.
In this he was not alone: the leading “Severans” of his generation and some
of the next too, such as his followers Theodosios of Alexandria and Anthimos
of Constantinople, kept their faith in Severus’ vision of Miaphysite Catholic
Church unity, even when in practical terms it had been overturned by reality.
Theodosios of Alexandria, perhaps the most powerful Miaphysite leader for a
full thirty years from Severus’ death, said in a sermon held in Constantinople in
548 that whoever caused turmoil and schisms in the Church “cannot be deliv-
ered from this awesome and terrifying guilt even by the blood of martyrdom”.35
This same attitude is attested to by a most important piece of evidence, a let-
ter addressed either by Theodosios or by Anthimos of Constantinople (conge-
nial with Theodosios and Severus in this question) to Jacob Baradaeus, rebuk-
ing him for his excessive missionary zeal and giving him strict instructions to
restrict drastically the number of the ordinations he made.36
34 See Elias, ‘Vita Johannis episcopi Tellae,’ in: Vitae virorum apud Monophysitas celeberrimo-
rum, ed. E.W. Brooks, csco Syr. 25 (Paris, 1907), 60–61; cf. N.J. Andrade, “The Syriac Life
of John of Tella and the Frontier Politeia,” in: Hugoye 12 (2009), 199–234; Frend, Severus of
Antioch, 273.
35 ‫ܙܒ‬熏r‫ ܢ‬焏‫ܥ‬qq‫ ܘܙ‬焏‫ܠ‬qq‫ ܕ‬焏‫ܒ‬q熏q ‫ ܗܘ‬爯‫ܕܘܬܐ܆ ܡ‬煿‫ ܕܣ‬焏‫ ܕܡ‬焏‫( ܐܦ ܠ‬Documenta ad
origines Monophysitarum illustrandas, ed. Chabot, csco Syr. 37, (Paris/Leipzig, 1907), 78).
36 See F. Nau, “Littérature canonique syriaque inédite (fin),” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 4/14
(1909), 113–130, at pp. 123–124.
136 kavvadas
However, in reality the new direction taken by John of Tella, Jacob Baradaeus
and their comrades was to set the course for all later political developments
in the Miaphysite movement. This new generation of the “successors” (and
some younger contemporaries) of Severus, in many ways (in terms of—Syriac
instead of Greek—nationality, culture and education, mentality, and social
standing) different from their predecessors, had their own, very distinctive
voice in the matter of loyalty. Its proponents would not hesitate to utter things
unthinkable only a short while before: Even John of Ephesos, one of those most
faithful to the Severan loyalist tradition among the new generation of Jacob
Baradaeus,37 could depict a discussion between the Miaphysite Syrian ascetic
Zʼura, who had travelled to Constantinople to protest to the emperor, and
indeed Justinian himself, directly identifying the latter with “him who ‘roared
as a lion, and looked upon whom he should devour’”, i.e. the devil according
to 1Pet 5:8, and attributing to Justinian personally the responsibility for all
innocent blood (of persecuted Miaphysites) that had been shed in his time.38
This protest against imperial power and its abuse becomes even more rad-
ical in the (as yet unedited) Psalm Commentary by the contemporary Mia-
physite author Daniel of Salah, as David Taylor has shown, since it is discon-
nected from one specific emperor and directed against worldly rulers and
worldly power in general: “Let not the poor person sit ashamed, but let the
needy and the poor praise your name (Ps 74:21). Those who are opposed [the
demons etc.] have command over kings and over rulers, and in governors and
in nobles they boast. But those who proclaim your truth are the needy and poor.
Because these are overwhelmed by violence, ‘Arise O God and pronounce your
judgments.’”39 One could add here the numerous examples of more or less
direct Kaiserkritik against Justinian and his Church politics that was produced
by—mostly anonymous—authors of this generation, notably in the Syrian Ori-
ent.40
37 See J. van Ginkel, ‘John of Ephesus on Emperors: The Perception of the Byzantine Empire
by a Monophysite,’ in: vi Symposium Syriacum, ed. R. Lavenant, oca 247 (Rome, 1994),
323–333, 332–333.
38 See John of Ephesos, Lives of the Eastern Saints, ed. E.W. Brooks, po 17 (Paris, 1923), 23.
39 Cited by D. Taylor, “The Psalm Commentary of Daniel of Salah and the Formation of Sixth-
Century Syrian Orthodox Identity,” chrc 89 (2009), 65–92, at p. 88.
40 For several such cases see M. Papoutsakis, “The Making of a Syriac Fable: From Ephrem
to Romanos,” Le Muséon 120 (2007) 29–75, esp. 31; Ph. Wood, “We Have no King but Christ”:
Christian Political Thought in Greater Syria on the Eve of the Arab Conquest (c. 400–585),
(Oxford, 2010), 158–162; cf. D.L. Schwartz, ‘Religious Violence and Eschatology in the Syriac
Julian Romance,’ in: jecs 19 (2011), 565–587, at p. 568f.
Thus, in the peculiar antinomic mixture of dogmatic zealotism and political

loyalism that was typical of Severus and the Severans strictu sensu, loyalism lost
out at the end. Political developments, beginning with Justin’s and Justinian’s
policies toward the Miaphysite movement, had the effect of rendering the
loyalists obsolete, even as they gave the zealotic factor the upper hand, so that
at the very end “Severanism” (in part due to this antinomy in its inner logic)
became causally connected with a certain consequence—the establishment
of a separate Miaphysite hierarchy—diametrically opposed to the intention of
its author, who remained loyal to his vision of unity until the end.
The Doves of Antioch: Severus, Chalcedonians,
Monothelites, and Iconoclasm
Ken Parry
Introduction
The theme of this study focuses on the accusations of iconoclasm in the chris-
tological debates in the Christian East during the sixth to eighth centuries,
especially in relation to anti-Chalcedonians and Monothelites. Such accusa-
tions appear before the outbreak of iconoclasm in Constantinople in the eighth
century, and indicate that christology and iconoclasm had become linked in the
minds of theologians. The incidents of iconoclasm associated with Severus of
Antioch will be the starting-point of our investigation into these accusations.
In doing so we will need to discuss their textual history, and whether they rep-
resent any real connection with the faith communities they disparage, or are
simply the result of Chalcedonian polemic. This in turn will lead us to reassess
the politics of heresy in relation to these accusations and how they may have
impacted on Byzantine iconoclasm itself.
In an article published in 2012 in the Art Bulletin entitled ‘Iconoclasm as Dis-
course: From Antiquity to Byzantium’, the art historian Jaś Elsner has demon-
strated that in order to understand Byzantine iconoclasm it is important to
examine the long-standing debate over the status of images that is evident in
the ancient cultures of the Mediterranean.1 He has done so to some extent in
response to the exhaustive work on Byzantine iconoclasm by Leslie Brubaker
and John Haldon published in 2011.2 In their book Brubaker and Haldon have
isolated the phenomenon of iconoclasm in Byzantium and abandoned dis-
cussion of theological and christological themes and thereby diminished the
intellectual content of the controversy. I am in agreement with Elsner on this,
for it seems to me that unless we place Byzantine iconoclasm in this broader
perspective we miss vital aspects of that discourse on images that went on for
centuries across cultures and languages, and which undoubtedly impacted on
what happened in Constantinople in the eighth century. I would go further and
1 J. Elsner, ‘Iconoclasm as Discourse: From Antiquity to Byzantium’, Art Bulletin (2012), 368–394.
2 L. Brubaker and J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era c. 680–850: A History (Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, 2011).

the doves of antioch 139
say that it impacted on attitudes and responses in the early Islamic world as
well.3 It is therefore with this notion of ‘iconoclasm as discourse’ in mind that
I want to approach the topic of this study.
Severus of Antioch
There are two surviving passages that detail Severus’ apparent iconoclasm. The
first is from a petition against Severus by Chalcedonian monks and clergy from
Antioch preserved in the Acts of the Home Synod of Constantinople in 536,4
and cited at Nicaea ii in 787. It reads as follows:
He [Severus] did not even spare the sacred altars and vessels: for the
former he scraped off on the pretext they were impure, the latter he
melted down and distributed [the proceeds] among his fellow-thinkers.
This, too he has daringly done … He has appropriated, along with other
things, the gold and silver doves representing the Holy Spirit that hung
above the sacred fonts and altars, saying that the Holy Spirit should not
be designated in the form of a dove.5
This episode is referred to as a source of iconoclast authority in an eighth-

century work called the Nouthesia, or The Warning of the Elder Concerning
the Holy Images attributed to George, bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, who
may have been the George condemned by the iconoclasts at their council in
754 at Hiereia (an Asiatic suburb of Constantinople), along with the patriarch
Germanus and John of Damascus.6 Some of the contents of the Nouthesia
suggest a date prior to 754, but it erroneously refers to the Fifth Ecumenical
Council of 553 as condemning Severus for his supposed iconoclastic actions,
3 See the important study by G. Hawting, The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From
Polemic to History (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1999).
4 J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, viii. Florence 1767; Graz 1960–
1962, 1039a–b; C. Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312–1453 (University of Toronto Press:
Toronto, 1986), 44.
5 Mansi, xiii, 184a; Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, 44. Clement of Alexandria was the ear-
liest writer to discuss images of doves, in his case on signet rings, as Christian art, Paidagogos,
3.10.59. For a sixth-century silver dove from Syria in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New
York, see W. Mayer and P. Allen, The Churches of Antioch (300–638) (Peeters: Leuven, 2012),
367.
6 S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Constantine v with particular attention to
140 parry
when the Antiochene petition was cited at the synod of 536.7 Although Severus
is here cast in the role of an iconoclast, it cannot be used to support anti-
Chalcedonian influence on Byzantine iconoclasts.8
It is not known which works (if any) by Severus in Greek (or Syriac) were
available in Constantinople in the first half of the eighth century.9 We should
bear in mind that the emperor Justinian i (r. 527–565) had declared in his Novel
42, promulgated after Severus was banned from the capital in 536, that:
We forbid to all men that any should possess the books of Severus. And
just as it was not permitted to transcribe and possess the books of Nesto-
rius, because the emperors which have preceded us have decided in their
edicts to ‘categorise’ those works with the writings of Porphyry against
the Christians, so in the same way no Christian shall possess either the
speeches of Severus, but these from now on shall be considered as pro-
fane and contrary to the Catholic church …10
The banning and burning of the Neoplatonist Porphyry’s Against the Christians
had begun with Constantine the Great (r. 311–337) and culminated with the
emperor Theodosius ii (r. 408–450) in 448, but in spite of this, fifteen chapters
of his book have survived through incorporation into refutations and other
works.11 This act of book burning was not only a form of damnatio memoriae
but was to some extent on a par with iconoclasm.
The anti-Chalcedonian historian John of Ephesus writing in the late sixth
century informs us that in Syrian monasteries portraits of anti-Chalcedonian
the oriental sources. csco 384, Sub. 52 (Secrétariat du Corpus sco: Louvain, 1977), 23–36;
A. Kazhdan, A History of Byzantine Literature (650–850) (The National Hellenic Research
Foundation: Athens, 1999), 146–147; L. Brubaker and J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast
Era (ca. 680–850): The Sources (Ashgate: Aldershot, 2001), 251–252.
7 Gero, Constantine v, 34–36.
8 The iconoclasts at their council of 754 viewed themselves as orthodox Chalcedonians and
listed Severus as a heretic in several places, Mansi xiii, 236d, 244d, 260b; see T. Krannich,
C. Schubert and C. Sode (eds) Die ikonoklastische Synode von Hiereia 754: Einletiung, Text,
Überstezung und Kommentarihres Horos (Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 2002), 36, 38, 42.
9 For background, see M. Leontsini, ‘Views regarding the use of the Syrian language in
Byzantium during the 7th century’, Graeco-Arabica 9–10 (2004), 235–247.
10 Quoted in W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement: Chapters in the History of
the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1972),
273. See further Nestor Kavvadas’ chapter in this volume.
11 On the dating of Porphyry’s writings see, B. Croke, ‘The Era of Porphyry’s Anti-Christian
Polemic’, Journal of Religious History 13.1 (1984), 1–14.
fathers were removed by John iii Scholasticus, patriarch of Constantinople

from 565 to 577, to be replaced by his own ubiquitous image.12 However, on
John’s demise his own portraits were in turn replaced by those of his prede-
cessor and successor on the patriarchal throne, Eutychius (r. 552–565 and 577–
582).13 We can see from this episode the interplay of church politics involving
character assassination and damnatio memoriae. This example of replacing one
portrait with another demonstrates the power of images in the propaganda war
to win the hearts and minds of the faithful. It would be interesting to know who
exactly the anti-Chalcedonian fathers were whose portraits were removed, but
one would like to think that Severus’ icon was among them.
Another example from the late sixth century is mentioned by the seventh-
century historian Theophylact Simocatta. This relates to an event in 588 involv-
ing the general Priscus whose soldiers in Mesopotamia rebelled against a
decree by the emperor Maurice (r. 582–602) to reduce their pay. In the hope
of suppressing the rebellious soldiers Priscus ordered a copy (?) of the famous
icon of Edessa, the image of Christ not-made-by-hands, to be paraded among
the soldiers in order to distract them. However, instead of calming them and
showing their respect for it, the sight of the icon incensed them further and they
threw stones at it, thus obliging Priscus to grab a horse and ride quickly away.
The rebellious army did not stop there but went on, as Theophylact reports:
… to tear down the royal statues [of Maurice], and they also obliterated
the pictorial representations which had by the art of painting been com-
posed on panels and boards for the honour of the emperor; for they said
that they would not endure to be ruled by a shopkeeper.14
The last phrase ‘would not endure to be ruled by a shopkeeper’ refers to the par-
simonious action of the emperor in cutting the soldiers’ pay. The erasure of
Maurice’s portrait and the stoning of the Edessan icon are further examples
of iconoclast behaviour that demonstrate two things.15 Firstly that acts of icon-
12 E.W. Brooks, Johannis Ephesini, Historiae Ecclesiasticae pars tertia. csco 106, Syr. 55 (Secré-
tariat du Corpus sco: Louvain, 1936), 2.27.
13 Johannis Ephesini, Historiae Ecclesiasticae, 2.34.
14 History, 3.1.10–13; 3.2.8–9, see M. & M. Whitby, The History of Theophylact Simocatta: An
English Translation with Introduction and Notes (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1986).
15 See further A. Cameron, ‘The Mandylion and Byzantine Iconoclasm’, in H.L. Kessler and
G. Wolf (eds), The Holy Face and the Paradox of Representation, Papers from a Colloquium
at the Bibliotheca Hertziana, Rome and the Villa Spelman, Florence, 1996. (Bologna, 1998),
33–54.
142 parry
oclasm in relation to emperors and patriarchs were perhaps not that uncom-
mon, and secondly that images of emperors and patriarchs were integral to the
empire’s publicity machine.
A further example relative to our theme is from a collection of excerpts
from Theodore of Mopsuestia compiled by Justinian for the Fifth Ecumenical
Council of 553 and sent to pope Vigilius (r. 537–555) for his comments. In what
is called the First Constitutum Theodore is purported to have written:
There are two explanations of how it [Christ, the invisible word] serves
as an image. Those who love someone often set up images of them after
their death, thinking that this provides a sufficient solace for death; as if
beholding as in the image one who is neither seen nor present, they think
they see him, thereby calming the fire and strength of longing. But those
also who have in the cities images of the emperors honour as if present
and visible those who are not present, by means of the cult and veneration
of images
At the end of this passage (not quoted here in full) pope Vigilius adds his
commentary:
In the above-written eighteenth chapter Christ is asserted to be the image

of the invisible Word in the same sense as that in which images of absent
princes are revered in honour of them. If anyone holds, teaches, believes
and preaches this accordingly, let him be anathema.16
These passages were collected as part of an orchestrated campaign against

Theodore of Mopsuestia that began after the Council of Ephesus in 431, and
reopened in the early sixth century around the question of whether Theodore
should be condemned ad hominem in addition to his writings.17 Vigilius’ hostile
reaction to Theodore’s comparison of Christ as an image of the invisible Word
with an image of the emperor appears to be based on the premise that Christ
cannot be likened to an artificial image, and if this is what the pontiff meant,
then it anticipates the position of the Byzantine iconoclasts in the eighth
16 R. Price, The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553, 2 vols. tth 51 (Liverpool University
Press: Liverpool, 2009), ii, 163, with discussion on the authenticity of the excerpts, i, 227–
230.
17 J. Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450–680 a.d. (svs Press:
New York, 1989), 235–245.
century.18 The iconoclasts argued that it was impossible to represent Christ in

an image because the name Christ signified a unique person who was both
human and divine; thus in trying to depict Christ the painter was guilty of
separating the two natures and representing only the human, given that it was
impossible to represent the divine.19 However, other fathers such as John of
Damascus in the eighth century were never censured for drawing a comparison
between an image of the absent Christ and the image of the emperor.20 Taken
out of their original context these passages were intended to be read as proof-
texts for Theodore’s posthumous condemnation.
The second passage implicating Severus as an iconoclast is a fragment from
the Life of Severus attributed to John, Chalcedonian bishop of Gabala in Syria,
who was present at the Home Synod that condemned Severus in 536. It states
that Severus gave a speech opposed to the representation of angels in purple
vestments when white was their appropriate colour. The fragment was cited
at Nicaea ii in 787, but does not appear to be known before then. It reads as
follows:
Severus used to stand in the bema and deliver long addresses, and he
often attempted to persuade the multitude in the very church of the most-
holy Michael that white vestments, not purple ones, were appropriate to
angels. He was not ignorant of the fact that the holy [angelic] host had no
concern with vestments, but tried by this device to cause division and to
urge against one another people who had this or that opinion.21
The speech referred to by John of Gabala is clearly related to Homily 72 deliv-

ered in the Church of the Archangel Michael at Antioch in June 515,22 in
which Severus takes painters to task for depicting angels in imperial purple.
He writes:
18 See Mansi xiii, 336a–341e for the anathemas of the Iconoclast Council of 754 against those
who think that Christ can be represented in an icon; Krannich, Die ikonoklastische Synode
von Hiereia, 62, 64.
19 Mansi xiii, 252a; Krannich, Die ikonoklastische Synode von Hiereia, 40.
20 K. Parry, Depicting the Word: Byzantine Iconophile Thought of the Eighth and Ninth Cen-
turies (Brill: Leiden, 1996), 22–32.
21 Mansi xiii, 184c; Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, 22; G. Peers, Subtle Bodies: Represent-
ing Angels in Byzantium (University of California Press: Berkeley, 2001), 74–75.
22 On the Church of the Archangel Michael, see Mayer and Allen, The Churches of Antioch,
98–99, index.
144 parry
But the presumptuous hand of the painters, being a law unto itself since it
condones the fictions of pagan illusions regarding idolatry, and planning
everything for profit, clothes Michael and Gabriel in the manner of lords
or kings with a royal robe of purple, adorns them with a crown, and places
in their right hand the sign of rulership and universal authority [this refers
to a sceptre or orb]. For these reasons, and ones which are like them,
those who so senselessly honour the angels depart from the church and
transgress her laws: those who ordered and set in place the holy canons
have placed these people under anathema.23
The art historical evidence shows that by the sixth century angels were being
depicted in a variety of colours, for example, the archangels Michael and
Gabriel in the church of Sant’ Apollinare Nuovo at Ravenna,24 but mostly angels
were shown wearing white, for example, in the apse mosaics in the church of
San Vitale at Ravenna.25 Severus’ target here is not so much the representation
of angels, but rather those who exult and worship them.
Severus’ concern with the proper understanding of angels has been dis-
cussed in relation to the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius,26in particular his Celes-
tial Hierarchy.27 This is because Severus was one of the earliest witnesses to
the writings of the Areopagite.28 Although the debate continues over the iden-
tity of this pseudonymous author most scholars agree that it was someone
from within the circle of Peter the Iberian and/or Severus of Antioch.29 The
latter appears to cite Dionysius on only three occasions and one of these is
23 P. Allen and C.T.R. Haywood, Severus of Antioch (Routledge: London, 2004), 132. Canon 35
of the fourth-century Council of Laodicea outlawed angelolatry, see R.H. Cline, Ancient
Angels: Conceptualizing Angeloi in the Roman Empire (Brill: Leiden, 2011), ch. 6.
24 R.M. Deliyannis, Ravenna in Late Antiquity (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2010),
266–267.
25 Deliyannis, Ravenna in Late Antiquity, 238.
26 P. Allen, ‘Severus of Antioch and the Homily: The End or the Beginning?’, in P. Allen
and E. Jeffreys (eds), The Sixth Century: End or Beginning? Byzantine Australiensia 10
(Australian Association of Byzantine Studies: Brisbane, 1996), 163–175.
27 Allen, ‘Severus of Antioch and the Homily’, 170–174; Peers, Subtle Bodies, 71–79. See R.A.
Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The Development and Purpose of the Angelic Hier-
archy in Sixth Century Syria (Ashgate: Aldershot, 2008).
28 P. Rorem and J.C. Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating
the Areopagite (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1998), 11–15.
29 See B. Lourié, ‘Peter the Iberian and Dionysius the Areopagite: Honigmann—van Es-
broeck’s Thesis Revisited’, Scrinium 6 (2010), 143–212.
found in his Letter to John the Hegumenos,30 who may have been John of Beth
Aphtonia to whom is attributed a biography of Severus.31 The passage in ques-
tion is from the Areopagite’s Fourth Epistle where he attributes to Christ the
‘new theandric energy’ (καινήν θεανδρικὴν ἐνέργειαν),32 which became a heated
topic in the christological debates of the sixth and seventh centuries, espe-
cially in relation to Severus’ interpretation of it as ‘one composite activity’ and
the adoption of this by the Monenergists.33 It should be said, however, that
the dating and provenance of Severus’ Letter to John the Hegumenos is far from
clear.34
It was Hypatius, bishop of Ephesus, who was one of the first to cast doubts
on the authenticity of the Areopagite’s works at the colloquium held between
Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians in Constantinople in 532. He is re-
ported to have said:
But if none of the ancients made mention of them [the writings of Diony-
sius], I simply do not know how you can prove that they were written by
him.35
As has been pointed out Hypatius does not so much object to what the
Areopagite was saying as suggest that lack of discussion by earlier fathers
made it is difficult to ascertain when the author flourished.36 Yet the fact
that his works were absent from the writings of the fathers and from florile-
gia, and that the pseudonymity of the author was clearly recognised, did not
prevent the Corpus Dionysiacum from being accepted into the patristic para-
30 Allen and Hoyland, Severus of Antioch, 152–153.

31 On this question, see S. Brock and B. Fitzgerald, Two Early Lives of Severos, Patriarch of
Antioch. tth 59 (Liverpool University Press: Liverpool, 2013), 24–29.
32 G. Heil and A.M. Ritter (eds), Corpus Dionysiacum ii: Epistulae. Patristische Texte und
Studien 36 (Walter De Gruyter: Berlin, 1991), 161.
33 For Maximus the Confessor’s refutation of Severus and the Monenergist interpretation of
the Areopagite’s phrase, see J. Lollar, Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua to Thomas, Second
Letter to Thomas. Corpus Christianorum in Translation 2 (Brepols: Turnout, 2009), 70–74,
82, 129–130. For further discussion see C. Hovorum, Will, Action and Freedom: Christological
Controversies in the Seventh Century (Brill: Leiden, 2008), 111–120.
34 Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist, 107–108.
35 Quoted in Rorem and Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus, 18.
36 Rorem and Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus, 18. See further,
A. Louth, ‘The Reception of Dionysius up to Maximus the Confessor’, in S. Coakley and
C.M. Strang (eds), Re-Thinking Dionysius the Areopagite (Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, 2009),
43–53.
146 parry
dosis.37 It is of interest that Hypatius subsequently had attributed to him a

letter-fragment on the subject of images in which he appears to treat them in
a similar manner to Dionysius. However, the attribution of this fragment to the
sixth-century bishop of Ephesus has been questioned and it may in fact belong
to the eighth century.38
It was Hypatius who headed a delegation to Rome in 534 where he was
instrumental in persuading Pope John ii (r. 533–535) to accept Justinian’s pro-
motion of the Theopaschite formula ‘One of the Holy Trinity suffered in the flesh’,
which the emperor wanted to add to the Trisagion.39 The Trisagion was the
liturgical refrain ‘Holy God, Holy and strong, Holy and immortal, have mercy upon
us’, which had become a bone of contention since Peter the Fuller, the anti-
Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch who died in 488, had added the phrase ‘who
was crucified for us’. In Constantinople the Trisagion was taken to be addressed
to the Trinity whereas in Syria and in Egypt it was understood as referring
to Christ. The Fifth Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 553 con-
demned those who denied that Christ, who was crucified in the flesh, was one
of the Trinity.40 This was reinforced by the bishops at Nicaea ii:
It is obvious … that those who ascribed the passion to the divinity are
Theopaschites, and those who share in this heresy do not allow them-
selves to accept icons, as neither Severus the impious one did, nor Peter
the Fuller, Philoxenus of Mabbug, or any of their many-headed but head-
less hydra.41
The ‘many-headed but headless hydra’ is a pun on the title Acephaloi or head-
less ones, a title by which Severus’ anti-Chalcedonian party was known. We
notice here the iconophile assimilation of leading anti-Chalcedonians, includ-
ing Severus, into the iconoclast camp and the automatic assumption than anti-
Chalcedonians must by definition be iconoclasts.
37 See my, ‘Reading Proclus Diadochus in Byzantium’, in H. Tarrant and D. Baltzly (eds),
Reading Plato in Antiquity (Duckworth: London, 2006), 223–235.
38 P. Speck, ‘On the Fragment of Hypatios of Ephesos on Images, with an Appendix on the
Dialogue with a Jew by Leontios of Neopolis’, in his Understanding Byzantium: Studies in
Byzantine Historical Sources (Ashgate: Aldershot, 2003), viii, first published in German in
1984. See most recently, S. Mariev, “Hypatios of Ephesos and Ps.-Dionysios Areopagites”,
Byzantinische Zeitschrift 107, 1 (2014), 113–138.
39 Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions, 224–226.
40 Price, Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553, i, 144; ii, 123.
41 Mansi, xiii, 317b–c.
Further indication of a concerted effort by Chalcedonians to blacken anti-

Chalcedonians, particularly Antiochene anti-Chalcedonians, as iconoclasts, is
found in a quotation provided by John of Damascus in the first half of the eighth
century. In the florilegium to his Third Oration in Defence of Icons he quotes
from the sixth-century History of the Church by Theodore the Lector:
Palladius, the bishop of Antioch, to gain the favour of the Emperor,

loathed the followers of the holy dogmas of Chalcedon and cast down the
icons of the holy fathers.42
The Palladius mentioned here succeeded Peter the Fuller as bishop of Antioch
in 488 when the anti-Chalcedonian inclined emperor Zeno (r. 474–491) was
reigning. Palladius had accepted the Henotikon or ‘act of union’ issued by Zeno
in an attempt to reconcile the differences between the supporters of Chalcedon
and their opponents.43
Whatever the merits of the case for redating Hypatius’ letter the text is of
interest because of the position it takes on images. It states:
Thus we allow even material adornment in the sanctuaries, not because

God considers gold and silver, silken vestments and vessels encrusted
with gems to be precious and holy, but because we allow every order of
the faithful to be guided in a suitable manner and to be led up to the
Godhead, in as much as some men are guided even by such things towards
the intelligible beauty …44
Earlier in the fragment Hypatius expresses his preference for the written word
over the painted image, but concedes that the latter is suitable for the ‘less
perfect’ (ἀτελέστεροι).45 This section is cited in a letter by the ninth-century
iconophile Theodore the Stoudite, and as one might expect, it does not meet
42 Contra imaginum caluminatores orations tres, iii, 97; B. Kotter (ed), Die Schriften des
Johannes von Damaskos, iii (Walter De Gruyter: Berlin, 1975), 187. On the fragments of
Theodore the Lector, see W. Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians (Palgrave Macmil-
lan: New York, 2007), 169–174.
43 R. Kosiński, The Emperor Zeno: Religion and Politics (Historia Lagellonica: Cracow, 2010),
196–197.
44 P.J. Alexander, ‘Hypatius of Ephesus: a note on image worship in the sixth century’, Harvard
Theological Review 45 (1952), 177–184.
45 Parry, Depicting the Word, 36.
148 parry
with his acceptance.46 When it came to the veneration of icons Theodore was
not prepared to accept a ‘them’ versus ‘us’ situation, any more than he liked
monks wearing the great habit (μεγάλο σχήμα) to distinguish rank within his
monastic community.47 Although there is no reason to suppose that Hypatius
was directly dependent upon the Areopagite, it is worth remarking that Diony-
sius himself refers to painted images as aids for those who are ‘uninitiated
(ἀτελέσιν).’48
If Severus did know the Celestial Hierarchy then he would have come across
what Dionysius calls ‘dissimilar similarities’ or ‘unlike likenesses,’ paradoxical
expressions that sum up his theory of angelic representation and its anagogical
or uplifting purpose. He writes:
In this way the wise men of God, exponents of hidden inspiration, sepa-
rate the “holy of holies” from defilement by anything in the realm of the
imperfect or the profane. They therefore honour the dissimilar shape so
that the divine things remain inaccessible to the profane, and so that all
those with a real wish to see the sacred imagery may not dwell on the types
as true … For this reason there is nothing ridiculous about representing
heavenly beings with similarities which are dissimilar and incongruous,
for the reasons mentioned.49
The reference to dissimilar and incongruous representations is to images of

angels with multiple eyes and zoomorphic shapes and does not, as far as I
can see, reflect disapproval of their representation as such, so long as their
anagogical function is understood.
However, it has been suggested that Dionysius was only concerned with their
spiritual nature and not with their material representation,50 because he also
says:
46 Epistle 499; G. Fatouros (ed), Theodori Studitae Epistulae, 2 vols. (Walter De Gruyter: Berlin,
1992), ii, 737.
47 Testamentum 12, pg 99: 1820c.
48 Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 3.3.2; Heil and Ritter, Corpus Dionysiacum ii: De Ecclesiastica
Hierarchia, 82.
49 Celestial Hierarchy, 2.5; Heil and Ritter, Corpus Dionysiacum ii: De Coelesti Hierarchia, 15–
16; trans. C. Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works (Paulist Press: New York,
1987), 152–153.
50 Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist, 63.
We cannot … profanely visualise these heavenly and godlike intelligences

as actually having numerous feet and faces. They are not shaped to resem-
ble the brutishness of oxen or to display the wildness of lions. They do not
have the curved beak of the eagle or the wings and feathers of birds. We
must not have pictures of flaming wheels whirling in the skies …51
What Dionysius is referring to here is the artistic representation of angels

as described by the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah as well as the author of the
Apocalypse. These consist of seraphim with many wings covered with eyes and
cherubim with the faces of a man, an ox, a lion, and an eagle, and with the feet of
creatures. The faces of the tetramorph became associated in early Christianity
with the four evangelists, the man with Matthew, the ox with Luke, the lion
with Mark, and the eagle with John.52 The legitimacy of representing angels was
debated during the Byzantine iconoclastic controversy in the eighth century
and appeals to Dionysius by iconophiles were made because by then he had
been accepted as a patristic authority.53
According to a passage from the Vita of Severus attributed to John of
Beth Aphtonia, and found in the Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell Mahre,
when Severus arrived at his episcopal residence in Antioch:
… and found the kitchen servants and cooks of the residence and all the
equipment installed by them, he removed (all of it) from the place. He
also destroyed the bath which was there … he reverted to the austere
customs of monasticism, which were his habit previously. He practised
lying down on the ground, refraining from washing, (performing) offices
with long psalmody, eating vegetables like the youths of Babylon.54 He
brought back from the market place bread which was very inferior and
low quality.55
51 Celestial Hierarchy, 2.1; Heil and Ritter, Corpus Dionysiacum ii: De Coelesti Hierarchia, 9–10;
Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, 147.
52 Peers, Subtle Bodies, 33–34. The earliest writer to make the association of the four living
creatures with the four Gospel authors was Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3,11,8.
53 Parry, Depicting the Word, ch. 9. See F. Ivanović, Symbol and Icon: Dionysius the Areopagite
and the Iconoclastic Crisis (Pickwick Publications: Eugene, 2010).
54 On vegetarianism in the period under discussion, see my, ‘Vegetarianism in Late Antiquity
and Byzantium: The transmission of a regimen’, in W. Mayer and S. Trzcionka (eds),
Feast, Fast or Famine: Food and Drink in Byzantium. Byzantina Australiensia 15 (Australian
Association of Byzantine Studies: Brisbane, 2005), 171–187.
55 W. Witakowski, Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre: Chronicle Part iii. tth 22 (Liverpool Uni-
150 parry
However, the austerity of Severus’ own lifestyle was not carried over into the
decoration of churches within his jurisdiction. This is clear from his Homily
100 on the feast of the martyr St. Drosis in which he appeals to his congre-
gation to donate silver to complete the canopy (ciborium) in the church of
St. Drosis, suggesting that each member of the congregation could donate a
pound of silver or a single donor could give the whole amount required.56
Like the reference to gold and silver doves, donating silver vessels and adorn-
ing churches with silver revetment was a meritorious way of contributing to
ecclesiastical wealth in the sixth century.57 A good example is that provided
by Paul the Silentiary in his ekphrasis on Justinian’s recently rebuilt church of
Hagia Sophia in which he waxes lyrical over the silver furnishings in the chan-
cel.58
So how are we to interpret these various accusations against Severus by his
Chalcedonian opponents, especially the destruction of church furnishing, such
as gold and silver doves representing the Holy Spirit hanging over altars and
fonts? This alleged iconoclastic action has been interpreted as an attempt by
Severus to stamp out pagan practices, based on the suggestion that there was
a strong cult of the goddess Atargatis or Aphrodite in parts of Syria in the sixth
century, and that images of doves connected with her cult may have found their
way into Christian places of worship.59 The problem with this interpretation is
that doves were not her only attribute because lions and fish were associated
with her as well. Furthermore, it does not explain why a Chalcedonian would
condemn an anti-Chalcedonian for trying to eradicate pagan practices. If noth-
ing else, both sides of the Chalcedonian divide would have been united in their
condemnation of paganism. Whatever lies behind the accusations levelled at
versity Press: Liverpool, 1996), 14–15. Section 58 in the Life attributed to John of Beth
Aphthonia, see Brock and Fitzgerald, Two Early Lives of Severos, 126.
56 Allen and Hayward, Severus of Antioch, 25; Mayer and Allen, Churches of Syrian Antioch,
115–116.
57 R.E. Leader-Newby, Silver and Society in Late Antiquity: Functions and Meanings of Silver
Plate in the Fourth to Seventh Centuries (Ashgate: Aldershot, 2004), 70–71. On the use of
silver utensils in pagan rituals in the Life of Severus by Zacharias Rhetor, see Brock and
Fitzgerald, Two Early Lives of Severos, 72.
58 Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, 87.
59 This argument seems first to have been proposed by E. Honigmann, Évêques et évêchés
monophysites d’Asie antérieure au Vie siècle. csco 127, Subs. 2 (Secrétariat du Corpus
sco: Louvain, 1951), 23, n. 4. On the multiple usages and readings of doves in antiquity,
see D.T. Potts, ‘The deacon and the dove: on some early Christian (?) grave stelae from
al-Maqsha and Shakhura (Bahrain)’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 19 (2008), 109–
119.
Severus by his Chalcedonian opponents they look like a polemical red herrings
and as such belong to our ‘iconoclasm as discourse’ theme.
Philoxenus of Mabbug
We have seen that at Nicaea ii Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbug in northern

Syria, was included in a list of anti-Chalcedonians as iconoclasts along with
Severus and Peter the Fuller. A passage from the lost Ecclesiastical History of
John Diakrinomenos was also cited at Nicaea ii,60 in which Philoxenus is said
to have opposed the representation of angels in human form as well as the
representation of the Holy Spirit as a dove. It reads:
He [Philoxenus] used to say it was not lawful to endow angels with bodies
since they were incorporeal, and to represent them in bodily human form
or, for that matter, to deem that by confecting a painted image one was
offering honour or glory to Christ; and that the only [image] acceptable
to Him was worship in spirit and in truth.
And continues:
… one ought to know this also, namely that it is an infantile act to rep-
resent the most-holy and venerable Spirit in the likeness of a dove seeing
that the text of the Gospel teaches not that the Holy Spirit became a dove,
but that it was once seen in the form of a dove, and that since this hap-
pened only once by reason of dispensation and not essentially, it was in
no way fitting for believers to make for it a bodily likeness. Philoxenus not
only taught these things, but he also practised his teaching; for he took
down and obliterated images of angels in many places, while those repre-
senting Christ he secreted in inaccessible places.61
The iconophile historian Theophanes Confessor in the ninth century endorses

this but adds that Philoxenus opposed images of the saints as well.62 The focus
on the representation of angels and doves, whether symbols of the Holy Spirit
60 On the ‘Hesitants’ (διακρινομένοι), those reluctant to accept the Council of Chalcedon from
whom John derives his cognomen, see Johannis Ephesini, Historiae Ecclesiasticae, 2.37, 47.
61 Mansi xiii, 180e–181a; Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, 43–44.
62 am 5982, see C. Mango and R. Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and
Near Eastern History ad 284–813 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1997), 206.
152 parry
or not, is a common feature in the accusations of iconoclasm against Severus

and Philoxenus, and suggests that both may have been points of contention in
discussions between the opposing factions. Awareness of what Philoxenus had
said concerning the Holy Spirit as a dove seems to be reflected in what he writes
in the passage quoted below.
It is a matter of some interest that in the second fragment of his Commentary
(Memrē) on Matthew and Luke, Philoxenus discusses the theme of the dove
as found in Matthew 3:16 and Luke 3:22. In these verses the Gospel writers
refer differently to the descent of the Holy Spirit at the time of Jesus’ baptism.
Matthew writes that ‘he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove’, while
Luke writes ‘the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form like a dove upon him’.
In his exegesis of these verses Philoxenus makes the following observations in
relation to the reality of the incarnation:
How, then, O heretic, may the corporality of Christ be compared with the
likeness of the dove in which the Spirit was seen? … When the Holy Spirit
appeared alone, it was in the likeness of a dove; as they say, “No one saw
except only John [the Baptist]” [John 1:34]. But everyone was well aware
of Jesus … Now it was not by the physical eye that the Spirit was seen,
but by revelation He was perceived by the mind in the way that the early
prophets were also accustomed to seeing … By this kind of revelation the
Holy Spirit was seen by John in the likeness of a dove.63
And continuing:
But you have compared the incarnation of the Word to the likeness of the
dove in which the Spirit appeared, and you have betrayed the Scripture
(in your statement): “As the Person of the Spirit appeared in the likeness
of a dove, so the Son showed Himself in the likeness of a man.” … It is
clear that the time was short and swift in which the Spirit appeared to
John in the “likeness of the body of a dove” [Luke 3:22] … Now if Jesus had
also appeared to men in that likeness, why was His kind of revelation not
even such that the man would suddenly be revealed and then concealed,
like the Spirit in the likeness of a dove, and like the Father in various
appearances, and like angels in the likeness of men?64
63 D.J. Fox, The “Matthew-Luke Commentary” of Philoxenus: Text, Translation and Critical
Analysis (Scholars Press: Missoula, 1979), 133–134.
64 Fox, The “Matthew-Luke Commentary” of Philoxenus, 136.
The descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove was part of theological
debate before the time of Philoxenus. For example, John Chrysostom in his
Homilies on John discusses the question of the Holy Spirit in the likeness of a
dove in terms of what John the Baptist saw.65 Quite clearly Philoxenus in the
passage cited above does not denounce the making of a dove on the grounds
that it appeared to John only once as a dispensation. His concern is to show
that there is no comparison between the Holy Spirit appearing in the likeness
of a dove and the appearance of Christ in human form, the latter being in no
sense a mere concession to spiritual discernment.
The Chalcedonian diatribe against Philoxenus and Severus for destroying
images of doves was surely intended to belittle their anti-Chalcedonian posi-
tion.66 We have noted the evidence for the presence of doves in early Chris-
tian and Byzantine art,67 but we should also note doves in the decoration of
churches in Constantinople. For example, in the twelfth-century ekphrasis by
Michael of Thessaloniki, he describes the golden dove with wings hanging over
the altar in Hagia Sophia,68 and according to one Byzantine tradition the vis-
itation (ἐπιφοίτησις) of the Holy Spirit at the time of the consecration would
flutter the golden dove suspended over the altar.69 Such references suggest that
the image of the dove over the altar was symbolic of the invocation or epicle-
sis of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine during the anaphora. Indeed
depictions of the descent of the Holy Spirit at the Baptism of Christ could be
linked pictorially to liturgical performance.70 The fact that Severus was accused
65 Homily on John, 17. 3; P. Schaff (ed), A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
xiv. (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1975), 60–61. Epiphanius maintains that the Holy Spirit
took the form of a dove to distinguish himself from the other persons of the trinity, see
F. Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books ii & iii, Sects 47–80 (Brill: Leiden,
1994), 125.
66 In a recent paper Henry Maguire has taken the reports of Severus’ and Philoxenus’ icono-
phobia at face value, see his ‘ “They worshipped the creature rather than the creator.”
Animals in 8th century art and polemic’, in M. Campagnolo et al (eds), L’aniconisme dans
l’ art religieux byzantin. Actes due colloque de Genève (1–3 octobre 2009) (La Pomme d’or:
Geneva, 2014), 141–147.
67 See further R.M. Jensen, Baptismal Imagery in Early Christianity: Ritual, Visual, and Theo-
logical Dimensions (Baker International: Grand Rapids, 2012), 116–121.
68 C. Mango and J. Parker, ‘A Twelfth-Century Description of St. Sophia’, Dumbarton Oakes
Papers xiv (1960), 233–245.
69 J. Wortley, John Moschos: The Spiritual Meadow (Pratum Spirituale). (Cistercian Publica-
tions: Kalamazoo, 1992), 240.
70 H.-S. Schulz, The Byzantine Liturgy: Symbolic Expression and Faith Expression (Pueblo
Publishing: New York, 1986), 80–98.
154 parry
of destroying doves hanging over altars and fonts in the sixth century clearly
indicates their existing function as liturgical ornaments.
Monothelites
In addition to accusations of iconoclasm against anti-Chalcedonians we find

similar accusations against Monothelites. In 711 the new Byzantine emperor
of Armenian descent, Philippikos Bardanes (r. 711–713), a Monothelite,71 is said
to have refused to enter Constantinople until a wall-painting of the Sixth Ecu-
menical Council of 680–681 was removed from the imperial palace. Agathon,
archdeacon and chartophylax of Hagia Sophia, records the following in his Epi-
logos:
He ordered the destruction of the image of the Holy Sixth Council which
several years previously had been set up between the Fourth and Sixth
Schola [quarters for the palace guard] in the vestibule of the imperial
palace, for, he said he would not deign to enter the palace unless this
had been done. He also insisted this further arbitrary demand that the
names of Sergius, Honorius and their followers [who had been expelled
and anathematised by the same Sixth Ecumenical Council] should be
proclaimed in the sacred diptychs of the holy churches and that their
images should be set up again in their proper places …72
Agathon then describes the deposition of Philippikos and the accession of his
successor, emperor Anastasius ii (r. 713–716):
After the destruction of the conciliar image just mentioned, he who had
ordered this lawless act … decreed that in the vault of the so-called
Milion [the mile-marker monument] the five holy Ecumenical Councils,
and they alone, should be represented on a picture and he had himself
together with Sergius portrayed standing upright in the middle of it. These
71 On the Armenian-Monothelite connection see especially, T. Greenwood, ‘“New Light from

the East”: Chronography and Ecclesiastical History through a Late Seventh-Century Arme-
nian Source’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 16, 2 (2008), 197–254; also M. Nichanian,
‘Byzantine Emperor Philippikos-Vardnes: Monothelite Policy and Caucasian Diplomacy’,
in R.G. Hovannisian and S. Paysalian (eds), Armenian Constantinople. ucla Armenian His-
tory & Culture Series 9 (Mazda Publishers: Costa Mesa, 2010), 39–52.
72 Mansi xii, 192d–e; Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, 141.
two personages were now necessarily and quite appropriately removed,

and the holy Sixth Ecumenical Council was depicted there together with
the other five.73
Depending on the christological alliance of the Byzantine emperor depictions

of the ecumenical councils could either be removed or reinstated. Just like the
patriarchs John Scholasticus and Eutychius in the sixth century, the emperors
of the early eighth century engaged in iconoclast politics prior to the official
edict of Leo iii (r. 717–741) around 726.74
According to Theophanes Confessor both Andrew of Crete the hymnogra-
pher, and Germanus bishop of Kyzikos, the future patriarch of Constantinople,
signed and condemned the Sixth Council at a synod called by Philippikos in
712.75 After the removal of Philippikos in 713 Andrew of Crete dedicated a poem
to Agathon the Deacon celebrating his return to orthodoxy after his compliant
support for Monothelitism. Apparently Andrew saw the error of his ways when
Agathon sent him a book to read, but unfortunately we do not know what book
that was.76 Both Germanus and Andrew were replaced as bishops by the icon-
oclast emperor Leo iii, but again not before both had become implicated to
some extent in the new heresy.
Agathon informs us that Philippikos had the official copy of the proceedings
of the Sixth Council burned and he exiled those bishops who did not adhere
to Monothelitism. At the synod he convened in 712 the emperor installed his
own patriarch and was supported in this by many bishops, including it seems
Germanus and Andrew of Crete, who later claimed they were intimidated.77 In
Rome pope Constantine i(r. 708–715) refused to accept the emperor’s portrait
and coins minted with his image as well as declining to commemorate him in
the liturgy.78 It is not without significance that Philippikos came to the throne
after the deposition of Justinian ii, who had promoted the image of Christ
73 Mansi xii, 193d–196a; Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, 141. See J. Herrin, ‘Philippikos
“The Gentle”’, in H. Amirav and B. ter Haar Romeny (eds), From Rome to Constantinople:
Studies in Honour of Averil Cameron (Peeters: Leuven, 2007), 251–262.
74 On this date and the resignation of Patriarch Germanus under Leo iii, see Brubaker and
Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era c. 680–850: A History, 117–127.
75 am 6177; Mango and Scott, Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, 505, where it is noted that
this appears to be an interpolation.
76 Kazhdan, A History of Byzantine Literature (650–850), 38–39.
77 Herrin, ‘Philippikos “The Gentle” ’, 254.
78 Liber Pontificalis, 90.10; see R. Davis, The Book of the Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis to ad 715).
tth 6 (Liverpool University Press: Liverpool, 1989), 90.
156 parry
over the symbol of the lamb in canon 82 at the Council of Trullo in 692, as
well as depicting Christ for the first time on imperial coinage.79 If nothing else
Philippikos’ iconoclastic actions appear to show that he was determined to
overthrow the policies of Justinian ii in relation to christology and the Sixth
Council.80
These events demonstrate the difficulty of knowing which way to jump when
emperors imposed doctrine on the Byzantine Church. In the case of iconoclasm
it was not immediately apparent to the bishops that heresy was in the offering,
and that Leo iii would instigate a policy that would divide the patriarchate of
Constantinople for the next hundred years or more. The fact that a Monothelite
emperor was soon followed by further heretical emperors, the Iconoclasts,
would seem to suggest that the christological debates were far from over. As
John of Damascus reminded his readers when defending the cult of icons in
the early eighth century, this was not the first time that Byzantine emperors
had promulgated heretical doctrines.81Although he does not use the term,
John could see that ‘caesaropapism’ was well and truly active in the Byzantine
state. His condemnation of Leo iii was known to the Iconoclast Council of 754
because he was anathematised by the bishops at that council and his Arab
name Mansūr ridiculed.82
The restoration of the councils in the vault of the Milion by emperor Anas-
tasius ii may not have lasted long, if we are to believe the Vita of the iconophile
saint, Stephen the Younger. This is suggested by the actions of the eighth-
century iconoclast emperor Constantine v (r. 741–775):
Having gone out the palace, the tyrant proceeded to that part of the public
street that is called Milion. At that public spot the Six Holy Ecumenical
Councils had been depicted by the pious emperors of olden times and
were conspicuously displayed so as to proclaim the orthodox faith to the
people. These the new Babylonian tyrant had at that time smeared over
and obliterated, and portrayed in their stead a satanic horse-race and that
79 Illustrated in J. Herrin, The Formation of Christendom (Blackwell: Oxford, 1987), pl. 9 a,

c.
80 The eighth-century Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai claims that he erred out of ignorance,
see A. Cameron and J. Herrin, Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: The Parastaseis
Synotomoi Chronikai (Brill: Leiden, 1984), 161, whereas the oriental sources suggest that
he was highly educated theologically, see Herrin, ‘Phillipikos “The Gentle”’.
81 Contra imaginum calumniatores orations tres, ii, 16; Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von
Damaskos, iii, 113–114.
82 Mansi xiii, 356c–d; Krannich, Die ikonoklastische Synode von Hiereia 754, 68.
demon-loving charioteer whom he called Ouranikos—so much he loved

him … that he honoured him more than he did the holy fathers of the
church.83
Now it seems unlikely that Constantine v would have destroyed a depiction of

the six ecumenical councils when his own Iconoclastic Council of 754 explic-
itly evoked the previous six councils in order to legitimize its pretensions to
be called the seventh.84 There is no evidence that the Byzantine iconoclast
emperors were anything less than orthodox adherents to all previous ecumeni-
cal councils.
Byzantine iconoclasm has, of course, been seen as a further attempt to recon-
cile the anti-Chalcedonian churches with Constantinople, but no matter how
attractive this argument may appear there is not a great deal of evidence to sup-
port it.85 The political and religious situation for the Byzantine emperors in the
early eighth century was markedly different from that of the seventh century
when the emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641) attempted to impose Monenergism
and Monothelitism on the Byzantine Church.86 By the early eighth century
most of the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa, along with their Chal-
cedonian and anti-Chalcedonian communities, were firmly under the control
of the Arabs. The Byzantine general of Syrian extraction who broke the Arab
siege of Constantinople in 717 became a celebrated hero and was subsequently
enthroned as emperor Leo iii. However, he did not promote his iconoclast pol-
icy in the immediate aftermath of his victory over the Arabs, but waited some
years before announcing his position on the veneration of icons. Leo’s icon-
oclasm had to wait till the reign of his son Constantine v and his Iconoclast
Council of 754 to formulate its christology, which was subsequently preserved
in the proceedings of the sixth session of the Second Council of Nicaea in 787.87
83 See M.-F. Auzépy, La Vie d’Étienne le Jeune par Étienne le Diacre: Introduction, Édition et
Traduction (Ashgate: Aldershot, 1997), ch. 65; Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, 153;
Gero, Constantine v, 113.
84 Mansi xiii, 208d, 217b; Krannich, Die ikonoklastische Synode von Hiereia 754, 30, 32.
85 G. Young, ‘Byzantine Iconoclasm: An Imperial Religious Policy Aimed at Unification’,
Phronema 23 (2008), 35–66.
86 It has been suggested that Heraclius issued his Ekthesis in 638 to coincide with the cente-
nary of Severus’ death and that George of Pisidia penned his poem, Contra Severum, in the
same year, see L. MacCoull, ‘George of Pisidia, Against Severus: In Praise of Heraclius’, in
R. Dahood (ed), The Future of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Problems, Trends, and
Opportunities for Research (Brepols: Turnhout, 1998), 69–79.
87 Mansi, xiii, 204a–364e.
158 parry
Conclusion
Finally, the question I would like to ask is: what difference, if any, does chris-
tology make to the use of images and their veneration? Certainly Byzantine
iconophiles argued that only their interpretation of Chalcedonian christol-
ogy provided the orthodox basis for the painting and venerating of Christ’s
icon. However, the historical evidence does not support the view that the anti-
Chalcedonians, or the Church of the East for that matter,88 were iconoclasts
because of their christologies. There is no evidence as far as I am aware that
christological differences contributed to the removal of mosaics from some
churches in Syria-Palestine in the eighth century under the Arabs.89 The fact
of the matter is that theologians on all sides of the christological divide wrote
treatises on the role of images within their respective traditions. In addition,
we should emphasise that the Byzantine iconoclasts thought of themselves as
the true interpreters of Chalcedon; in other words, even among Chalcedonians
there were differences in interpretation of what Chalcedon meant in relation
to icons and their veneration. All the Byzantine iconoclast emperors adhered
to this council and never wavered in their support for it.
The literary and art historical evidence taken together indicates that chris-
tological and sectarian differences were not divisive in relation to images in
churches. I am not saying that a full-blown icon cult was the norm in all the
Christian churches of the Eastern Mediterranean, but I am saying that we need
to be more cautious than we have been in the past in identifying christo-
logical differences with iconoclastic positions. It turns out that the situation
is less complicated than the polemical texts would have us believe, mainly
88 H. Teule, ‘The Veneration of Images in the East Syriac Tradition’, in B. Groneberg and
H. Spieckermann (eds), Die Welt der Götterbilder (Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, 2007), 324–
346; and my, ‘Images in the Church of the East: The Evidence from Central Asia’, in
J.F. Coakley and K. Parry (eds), The Church of the East: Life and Thought, special edition
of the Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 78, 3 (1996), 143–162.
89 R. Schick, The Christian Communities of Palestine from Byzantine to Islamic Rule: A His-
torical and Archaeological Study (Darwin Press: Princeton, 1995), ch. ix. ‘Iconoclasm’;
S. Obnibene, Ummal-Rasas: la Chiesa di Santo Stefano ed il ‘problema iconofobico’ (Rome:
‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider, 2002); and my ‘Byzantine and Melikite Iconophiles under Icon-
oclasm’, in Ch. Dendrinos et al (eds), Phorphyrogenita: Essays in the History and Literature
of Byzantium and the Latin East in Honour of Julian Chrysostomides (Ashgate: Aldershot,
2003), 137–151. For a recent reassessment, see J. Signes Codoñer, ‘Melkites and Icon Worship
during the Iconoclastic Period’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 67 (2013) 135–187. And the same
author’s ‘Theodore the Studite and the Melkite Patriarchs on Icon Worship’, in M. Cam-
pagnolo et al (eds), L’ aniconisme dans l’ art religieux byzantin, 95–103.
because they belong to our ‘iconoclasm as discourse’ theme, and that we need
to reassess divisions in the Eastern Churches less on how they differed and
more on what they shared.
Severus of Antioch at the Crossroad of the
Antiochene and Alexandrian Exegetical Tradition
René Roux
In a fragment from one of his letters,1 Severus claims:
(…) I testify to all that confess the right faith (…) that I have stood and
stand as a mediator between the holy church of Alexander’s city and that
of the city of Antiochus, holding the right hand of each of them (…).2
The exegetical material contained in Severus’ writings reveal that there is more
in the image of the Patriarch holding the hands of both Churches than a
mere declaration of ecumenical or political intentions. Indeed, the modern
reader is at times baffled at finding so many typically Alexandrian features
under the pen of the man who was about to become the most influential of
all Antiochene bishops and the Doctor par excellence of the Syrian Orthodox
Church.3 In dealing with the Holy Scriptures, Severus proves to be a sovereign
master of the exegetical tradition of the ancient Church, able to exploit and
combine the methods of both Alexandrian and Antiochene hermeneutical
traditions as well as to develop the exegetical science in new directions, thanks
to his own intellectual background, in order to answer to the new pastoral
and controversial needs.4 This chapter aims at providing an initial orientation
through Severus’ exegetical works.
Firstly, after some methodological considerations on the use of the Bible
in Severus, we shall briefly describe the exegetical material contained in his
1 Addressed to a certain Hippocrates, scholasticus working in Alexandria; cf. F. Alpi, La route

royale. Sévère d’Antioche et les Églises d’Orient (512–518). ii Sources et documents (Beyrouth,
2009), (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 188), 135.
2 Severus Antiochenus, Epistulae selectae 48 (po 12, 323).
3 Cf. P. Allen, Severus of Antioch as Theologian, Dogmatician, Pastor, and Hymnographer, in
Questions liturigiques 92 (2011), 361–375, in part. 365.
4 Studies on Severus’ biblical exegesis are still at their very beginnings: cf. R. Roux, L’exégèse
biblique dans les Homélies cathédrales de Sévère d’Antioche (Roma 2002), (Studia Epheme-
ridis Augustinianum 84). For further interesting observations on the subject, cf. also Allen,
Severus of Antioch as Theologian, 361–375; R. Roux, Merkmale der theologischen Argumenta-
tion in den Katechetischen Homilien des Severus von Antiochien, in Sacris Erudiri 52 (2013),

severus of antioch at the crossroad 161
works. Secondly, the main characteristics of Severus’ hermeneutical method

will be highlighted. Finally, an attempt shall be made at assessing the histori-
cal significance of his exegesis and at showing how a better understanding of
Severus’ attitude towards the language of the Holy Scripture casts new light
on the real reasons of his opposition to the Council of Chalcedon and on the
successful spreading of Alexandrian Christology well into Antiochene terri-
tory.
Severus’ Exegetical Writings: A Survey
Severus was probably the most learned bishop and theologian of his time,5
well versed not only in dogmatic, canonical and spiritual matters, but also in
exegetical questions, as shown by the huge number of those who addressed
him with biblical queries during his life and by the great authority, indeed
veneration, he has enjoyed among Miaphysite Christians (Copts and Syrian
Orthodox) after his death. In spite of his popularity as exegete,6 he did not leave
commentaries nor series of homilies on biblical books. His most important
exegetical writings are to be found in the Cathedral homilies7 and in his surviv-
ing letters,8 both mainly preserved in Syriac versions. Only the 77th homily, on
the contradictions among the resurrection narratives,9 and some fragments10
161–179; Sapere teologico e sapere profano all’inizio del vi secolo: l’esperienza di Severo di
Antiochia a Beiruth, in C. Noce, M. Pampaloni, C. Tavolieri (eds.), Le vie del sapere in ambito
siro-mesopotamico dal iii al ix secolo. Atti del convegno internazionale tenuto a Roma nei
giorni 12–13 maggio 2011 (Roma, 2013), (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 293) 91–103.
5 For a general introduction to Severus, cf. F. Alpi, La route royale. Sévère d’Antioche et
les Églises de l’ Orient (512–518). i Texte (Beyrouth, 2009), (Bibliothèque archéologique et
historique 188) and P. Allen, C.T.R. Hayward, Severus of Antioch (London, 2004).
6 Cf. Otoechus for Severus (po 2, 327–328).
7 Cf. cpg iii, 7035.
8 Cf. cpg iii, 7070. Unfortunately, most of the letters have been heavily edited. The surviving
exegetical excerpts, however interesting they might be, do not always allow us to exactly
understand the context of the exegesis.
9 The contradictions among the gospel narratives of the resurrection was felt to be an
extremely serious menace to the credibility of the New Testament in Christian late antiq-
uity. Thanks to its clear and convincing solution, Severus’ homily has been preserved
under various pseudonyms. Cf. Roux, L’exégèse, 80–86.
10 Cf. for instance F. Petit, L. Van Rompay, La chaîne sur l’Exode. 1. Fragments de Sévere
d’ Antioche (Lovanii, 1999); F. Petit, L. Van Rompay, Sévère d’Antioche. Fragments grecs tirés
des chaînes sur les derniers livres de l’ Octateuque et sur les Règnes (Lovanii, 2006). It is not
162 roux
have survived in the original Greek despite the order of the emperor Justinian
to destroy all his works.
Severus’ exegetical texts are mostly very close to the genre of the quaestiones,
i.e. explanations and commentaries of specific words or passages of the Bible,
which were brought to the attention of Severus by his correspondents or were
read during liturgical assemblies. What at first sight seems a rather incompre-
hensible and arbitrary way of making use or sense of the Holy Scripture displays
its internal logic when the context in which the exegesis takes place, the inten-
tion of the exegete, and the nature of biblical text, are taken into account. Given
that almost all the homilies are precisely dated, and that the addressees of
many letters are known, it is often comparatively easy to figure out Severus’
intentions, according to which different typologies of exegetical material can
be identified.
A first group is represented by the many texts in which Severus tries to
explain a specific biblical text as such; this might be called “direct exegesis.”11
In another set of texts, Severus is using biblical citations or references not
to explain them as such, but to clarify or confirm a doctrinal point, or to
explain the meaning of the liturgical feast being celebrated, or even only to
spiritually inspire or entertain his audience. All these uses of the Bible imply an
interpretation, but obviously they do not adhere to the same logic that governs
the direct exegesis, and in order to grasp the mens exegetica of Severus need to
be treated separately.12 A third set of texts is made up by the highly significant—
if not very numerous—explicit observations of Severus on the right approach
to the Bible.13
Direct Exegesis
Severus’ strictly exegetical texts can be divided into four categories according to
the nature of the biblical pericope he comments upon and, as a consequence,
on the basis of his hermeneutical approach: those related to the Old Testament;
the solution of the contradictions among the Gospels; the commentaries on
unlikely that more fragments might show up in the future. Unfortunately, due to the fact
that they are decontextualized and variously shortened, they prove less useful in order to
reconstruct Severus’ exegetical method.
11 Cf. Roux, L’ exégèse, 20–25.
narrative texts from the New Testament, deeds and parables; the interpretation
of the words uttered by Jesus or his Apostles.
Direct Exegesis of the Old Testament
Even if the Old Testament is constantly present under Severus’ pen as a source
of typologies and references of various kinds, it seldom receives critical exeget-
ical attention in the Cathedral homilies. Among the few examples of direct
exegesis of the Old Testament to be found in the homilies, there are three
cases of direct exegesis of historical texts: 2Kgs. (lxx) 23. 18–19 (on a weird
wording of the text),14 2Macc. 6–7 (on the narrative of the Maccabean mar-
tyrs),15 and Jon. 2.7 (it seems that Severus considered this as an historical event,
unfortunately we only have a fragment of the homily, so that we cannot really
understand what Severus’ intention was);16 three further examples of exegesis
of prophetical texts: Is. 19.18;17 Is. 42.1–4;18 Jer. 20.14–15.19 The text Is. 42.1–4 is
commented on because it is cited in the New Testament (Mt. 12.15–21). Finally,
we have one instance of exegesis of the Song of Songs, (Song 5.2–3) which
is fundamental for Severus’ understanding of the dynamic of divine revela-
tion.20
The pericopes Is. 19.18, Song. 5.2–3, 2Kgs. (lxx) 23.18–19 and Jer. 20.14–
15 have been explained in two homilies (hom. 107 and 108) delivered during
Lent 517, in the form of a quaestio:21 Severus says that a deacon Philip had
submitted him these four passages for clarification.22 The passage from 2 Macc.
6–7 was the reading for the liturgical feast of the Maccabean Martyrs, so that in
this case the direct exegesis complemented for the liturgical celebration.23 As
already mentioned, the pericope Is. 42.1–4 is explained in the context of a larger
interpretation of Mt. 12.15–21, because this text is cited in the New Testament
14 Cf. hom. 108 (po 25, 717–719).

15 Cf. hom. 52 (po 4, 7–23).
16 Cf. hom. 3 (po 38, 293–297).
17 Cf. hom. 107 (po 25, 670–696).
18 Cf. hom. 98 (po 25, 140–150).
19 Cf. hom. 108 (po 25, 719–730).
20 Cf. hom. 107 (po 25, 700–717); Roux, L’ exégèse, 59–64.
21 Cf. Roux, L’ exégèse, 58–59, 65, 67–73.
22 Cf. hom. 107 (po 25, 667–669).
164 roux
in homily 98.24 The fragment on Jonah (hom. 3) is unfortunately too short to

permit a contextualisation.
Other examples of direct exegesis can be gathered from his letters:25 we
find answers to some general questions (on the metaphorical meaning of the
anthropomorphisms;26 on the reasons for the circumcision27); the explana-
tions of difficult expressions (for instance: Is. 45.7;28 Job 29.13;29 Job 42.1730); and
the search for a higher or symbolical meaning alongside the historical or fac-
tual interpretation (for example: Ps. 126.4;31 Ex. 20.25;32 Eccl. 4.1733). They are
usually in the form of a quaestio.
Direct Exegesis of the New Testament: The Contradictions among

the Gospels
The contradictions among the Gospels constituted a serious theological prob-

lem in late Christian antiquity not only because they cast doubt on the credi-
bility of the Gospels as historical documents but also because they questioned
belief in their divine inspiration.34 Severus tackled the problem in the homilies
77 and 94 to 96.35 Homily 77 was preached in summer 515 and deals with the
Resurrection narratives, in particular with the contradictions concerning the
visits of the women to the empty tomb, their identity, and the Lord’s appear-
ances after Easter.36 The trilogy 94 to 96 was preached one year later and deals
at length with the contradictions among the two genealogies of Christ, the one
according to Matthew and the one in Luke.37 It seems that both explanations
have been prompted by the people attending the liturgical services. In the case

25 Unfortunately, they have not been critically studied yet.
26 Cf. ep. 28 (po 12, 259–260).
27 Cf. ep. 45 (po 12, 44–54).
28 Cf. ep. 67 (po 14, 69–71).
29 Cf. ep. 69 (po 14, 89–91).
30 Cf. ep. 69 (po 14, 91–101).
31 Cf. ep. 70 (po 14, 104–107).
32 Cf. ep. 90 (po 14, 156–157).
33 Cf. ep. 106 (po 14, 258–259).
34 Cf. H.G. Klemm, Die Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien. Ihre polemiche und apologetis-
che Behandlung in der alten Kirche bis zu Augustinus (Tübingen, 1971).
36 Cf. hom. 77 (po 16, 794–861).
37 Cf. hom. 94–96 (po 25, 51–120).
of homily 77, it was because the four Resurrection narratives had been read one
after the other, thus bringing out their inconsistencies. On the other hand, the
genealogies of Christ were not only contradictory, but their liturgical procla-
mation had proved boring and irrelevant for Christian life. Severus wants to
show their spiritual usefulness and, at the same time, given the difficulty in
harmonizing their content, he claims that such an exegetical endeavour is a
fitting alternative to the public games that were held nearby, in Daphne.38 As
has already been mentioned, the short treatise on the Resurrection narratives
is the only complete text of Severus to have survived in the original Greek, even
if under various pseudonyms. This was possible because the homily does not
contain any reference to the theological debates of the day. Moreover, it is a
clear sign of the success and popularity of Severus’ approach to that kind of
exegetical problem.
Direct Exegesis of the New Testament: Deeds and Parables
The biblical texts of this group are basically facta or narratives of events, real
or invented.39 They can be historical deeds performed by Jesus or the Apos-
tles, as opposed to the words they uttered, or just parables, as long as they
narrate facts. Severus systematically handles these kind of texts using a two-
level interpretation scheme. The first level is the level of history: he tries to
establish their literal meaning, making use of philological analysis and histor-
ical research. This first level of interpretation eventually leads to dogmatic or
moral teachings. The second level of interpretation is the realm of the theo-
ria in which the narrated events are somehow seen as reflection of the history
of salvation. The various characters may be considered as symbols or types
of humanity, of the Law, or of the Church, and so on. Some of these homilies
of Severus are literary master-pieces, and one feels sorry the original text has
been destroyed. Here is a list of the main pericopes explained in this way: Mt.
17.23–32 (on the temple tax),40 Mt. 22.15–22 (to Caesar what belongs to Cae-
sar),41 Lk. 7.36–50 (the sinful woman),42 Lk. 10.25–37 (the good Samaritan),43
38 Cf. hom. 94 (po 25, 71–74) and hom. 95 (po 25, 92–96).
166 roux
Jn. 2.1–11 (the wedding at Cana),44 Jn. 9.6–7 (the born blind),45 Acts 3.1–11 (the
lame beggar of the temple gate).46 Other shorter examples can be find in
the letters: Lk. 11.5–10,47 Mt. 17.2 (why did Jesus take three disciples up to the
mountain of the transfiguration?),48 or Jn. 21.1–11.49 Some of these pericopes
had been read during the liturgy (Acts 3.1–11; Lk. 10.25–37); other had been
brought to Severus’ attention ( Jn. 2.1–11); in other cases it might well have been
that the questioning had been prompted by the liturgical readings, even if we
do not know for certain (Mt. 17.24–32; 22.15–22).
Direct Exegesis of the New Testament: Words of the Lord or of the

Apostles
A final group of biblical texts which Severus has analysed directly consists
of words uttered by the Lord or his Apostles.50 They might be either words
that in the Gospels have been put in the mouth of Jesus, or simply citations
from the letters of Paul. While in the case of the facta the literal meaning
of the biblical text was basically clear, and the main scope of the exegesis
was to bring out its moral or dogmatic value in order to make it relevant
for the audience, in this case the literal meaning is already theologically rel-
evant, but it lacks clarity in its literal wording. The purpose of Severus is
not to find out possible symbolic meanings hidden in the text by the Holy
Spirit for the sake of our meditation, but to define the exact literal mean-
ing entrusted to those words by the same Spirit. While in the exegesis of
the facta the meanings are organized on two hierarchical levels, the histor-
ical meaning (moral and dogmatic teachings) and the theoretical or higher
one (symbolical or typological, showing God’s attitude through the history
of salvation), in the case of the dicta the meaning is usually only one. If the
text allows more than one interpretation in agreement with the regula fidei,
then they are all legitimate and on the same level. The main examples of
pericopes explained in this way are the following: Mt. 5.13–12/Lk. 6.20–26,51

47 Cf. ep. 69 (po 14, 76–79).
48 Cf. ep. 85 (po 14, 140–146).
49 Cf. ep. 86 (po 14, 146–148).
Mt. 5.25,52 Mt. 12.31–32,53 Mt. 13.23 (just a fragment),54 Mt. 15.5–6.11,55 Mt. 16.17–
18,56 Mt. 23.51,57 Mt. 26.29,58 Rom. 5.12–14,59 1Cor. 3.10,60 1 Cor. 6.18,61 1 Cor. 14.4,62
1 Cor. 15.28,63 Gal. 3.13,64and 1Tim. 4.7–8,.65
It should be noticed that a single biblical pericope may contain words
uttered by the Lord included in a narrative context, in which case Severus
might follow both hermeneutical procedures, defining the exact meaning of
the words as in the case of the dicta and expanding on the story as with the
facta: Jn. 9.2–32 and Jn. 20.17, or, in the letters, the short comment on Mt.
24.20/Lk. 17.34–35.66
Indirect Exegesis: Uses of the Bible in the Life of the Church
The most important biblical texts, like the theophanies of the Old Testament,
the prologue of John, the mysteries of the life of Christ (e.g. Nativity, Transfigu-
ration, Passion, Ascension) have not been explained by Severus according to
the methods of the direct exegesis. Even if he has written extensively on all
these topics and always with constant and systematic references to the Holy
Scripture, there is an essential difference: in the case of the direct exegesis,
his intention is to explain the biblical text as such, while here his intention is
to explain a reality outside of the text thanks to the information provided by
the Bible. Moreover, by the beginning of the 5th century many biblical peri-
copes had already been collected and organized according to their function
for liturgical or controversial purposes. This means that most of those texts
52 Cf. ep. 65 (po 14, 54–58).

54 Cf. ep. 73 (po 14, 118–119).
57 Cf. ep. 69 (po 14, 79–86).
58 Cf. ep. 87 (po 14, 148–150).
59 Cf. hom. 44 (po 36, 96–106); hom. 49 (po 35, 340–352); on Severus’ understanding of Paul,
cf. Roux, L’ exégèse, 149–162.
60 Cf. ep. 77 (po 14, 122–123).
61 Cf. ep. 65 (po 14, 58–68).
62 Cf. ep. 69 (po 14, 86–89).
63 Cf. hom. 49 (po 35, 352–356).
64 Cf. ep. 65 (po 14, 30–40).
65 Cf. hom. 45 (po 36, 108–119).
66 Cf. ep. 71 (po 14, 107–109).
168 roux
were usually read within a new context which opened up their meaning in new
directions. Let’s briefly consider three main fields of these uses of the Bible: the
dogmatic exegesis, the liturgy and the catechesis.
Dogmatic Exegesis
Dogmatic exegesis was the battlefield of doctrinal controversies in the ancient

Church. The great theological debates on the divinity of the Son or on the
theandric identity of Christ took place on the base of scriptural arguments.
Each party involved used to scrutinize the Bible in order to collect evidence in
favor of its own position. The lists of testimonia, or biblical citations, fostered
the theological discussion, but organizing the biblical passages in a new context
opened the door to new meanings that the original context of the quotes could
no longer support.67
Even in Severus’ homilies there are some examples of this kind of exegesis,
or, more correctly, of the use of biblical testimonia. A typical case is the explana-
tion of the verb egéneto in Jn. 1.14 (“and the Word became flesh”).68 For Severus
it is clear that the interpretation of this verb has to be such as not to suggest
the idea of change or alteration in God, thus finding in this text an answer to
later problems that as such may not have been foreseen in the original text.69
Another example is the explanation of the words uttered by Jesus on the cross
(Mt. 27/Mc. 15.34; and Lk. 23.43).70 Whatever meaning they might have had in
the original text, they became after Chalcedon the battlefield between mia-
physite and diphysite theologians. Severus, loyal to the traditional doctrine of
the communicatio idiomatum, sees in the diphysite approach of Theodoret the
danger of dividing Jesus Christ in two separated beings, while the diphysites
accuse the miaphysite of missing the reality of the two natures after the Incar-
nation. Indeed, the lists of testimonia produced by both parties in support of
their theological ideology inevitably became the source of further speculations
in their own right.71 In all these cases, the dogma is at the same time the result
of a traditional interpretation and the framework for future exegesis.
67 Cf. M. Simonetti, Alcune osservazioni sull’interpretazione teologica della Sacra Scrittura in

età patristica, in Id., Profilo storico dell’esegesi patristica (Roma, 1981), 113–127. Basically, all
references to the Bible in Severus’ dogmatic works are examples of dogmatic exegesis.
68 Cf. hom. 23 (po 37, 114–133); hom. 43 (po 36, 74–95).
69 On this extremely complex matter, cf. Roux, L’ exégèse, 180–190.
70 Cf. hom. 22 (po 37, 88–113).
The Bible as Part of the Liturgy
In the Cathedral homilies, a large number of biblical texts are explained in the
context of a liturgical celebration that very often determines the choice of read-
ings and always their interpretation.72 As in the case of the dogmatic exegesis,
the pericopes are extrapolated from their original context and embedded in
a new one, made of other pericopes, memories or teachings from the life of
the saints, liturgical actions, or external events. The hermeneutical horizon is
therefore different. The intention of Severus is not to explain the meaning of
the readings as such, but their relation to the actual celebration. Old Testa-
ment pericopes are mainly taken in their typological meaning. It is therefore
not surprising that the Jewish Pentecost is understood as a type of the Christian
Pentecost.73 During the feast of Saint Basil and Saint Gregory, the vestment of
the High Priest is explained as a symbol of the moral and spiritual virtues of
the High Priest, which were typologically shown in the Old Testament through
the priestly garments but have been shown in reality through the life of these
two great Church Fathers.74 In the case of liturgical feasts celebrating events
of the life of the Lord, the New Testament narratives are the main source for
our knowledge of what happened. Differences between the four Gospels are
not felt as a contradiction, but rather as a help to establish the historical events
more exactly, as Severus explains in one of his sermons for Palm Sunday.75 The
homily for the feast of St John the Baptist gives an interesting example of double
level of interpretation.76 On the one hand, Severus reconstructs the life of John
exploiting all the evidence he can collect at a historical level, as he usually does
for celebrating the memory of a saint. But since in this case the source is the
Bible itself, the various events and historical details receive a second or higher
level of interpretation, as we have seen for the direct exegesis of the facta. The
Baptist’s diet, for instance, prompts all sorts of allegorical speculations.77
On other occasions, the readings may not have been immediately and com-
pletely related to the liturgy. It was the preacher’s duty to explain them in such
a way as to make them fit into the celebration. An extreme example is the
interpretation of the Ark of the Covenant, which is a type of the Virgin Mary

73 Cf. hom. 25 (po 37, 146–148).
74 Cf. hom. 116 (po 26, 328).
75 Cf. hom. 20 (po 37, 57).
76 Cf. hom. 32 (po 36, 402–412).
77 Cf. hom. 32 (po 36, 402).
170 roux
in homily 67 for a feast of the Mother of God,78 but becomes a type of the 40
days of fasting in homily 105 which was preached at the beginning of Lent.79
Another example can be found in homily 92, preached on the occasion of the
fasting held on Friday after Pentecost, a devotional practice which apparently
had been introduced or at least reinforced in Antioch by Severus.80 The Gospel
reading proclaimed on that occasion was Mt. 9.10–16 (on Jesus eating with
sinners). Severus deals at length with the pericope, explaining it at both the
historical and higher level, but his purpose is to show that the fasting on that
day was the implementation of Mt. 9.15 (“the days will come, when the bride-
groom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast”).81 Another example
is the commentary on Mt. 25.1–14 (the parable of the ten virgins). The text was
read on the occasion of the procession to the Baptistry which took place at the
beginning of Lent. The doors of the Baptistry were then closed and remained
closed until the Easter Vigil. The closing of the doors is the obvious link between
the liturgical action and the pericope which provides the occasion for further
symbolical considerations.82
On the whole, in his commentaries on liturgical readings Severus adopts
almost the same exegetical methods that he used for the direct exegesis, but
not systematically. Hermeneutical procedure and details to be explained are
chosen as a function of the liturgical context that, at the same time, allows him
to find further, sometimes otherwise unexpected, meanings.
The Theophanies in the Catechetical Homilies
The chapter on the uses of the Bible cannot be complete without mentioning
the reference to the theophanies in the catechetical homilies, which make
up a special group among the Cathedral homilies. Every year during the Holy
Week Severus gave a special sermon for those who were going to be baptized.83
Overall, he preached six catecheses, one for each year in Antioch. In four
78 Cf. hom. 67 (po 8, 350–356).

79 Cf. hom. 105 (po 25, 644–646).
80 Cf. hom. 92 (po 25, 28–29).
81 Cf. hom. 92 (po 25, 42–43).
82 Cf. hom. 121 (po 29, 96–100).
83 Cf. F. Graffin, La catéchèse de Sévère d’Antioche, in L’orient chrétien 5 (1960), 47–54; J. Gri-
bomont, La catéchèse de Sévère d’Antioche et le Credo, in Parole de l’Orient 6–7 (1975–1976),
125–158; R. Roux, Merkmale der theologischen Argumentation in den Katechetischen Homi-
lien des Severus von Antiochien, in Sacris Erudiris 52 (2013), 161–179.
cases, Severus begins the catechesis with the description of a theophany: Moses
ascending to Sinai (Ex. 3);84 the angelic choirs (Eph. 3.10; Ez. 2.1; and Is. 6.2);85
Moses in front of the burning bush (Ex. 9);86 and the Transfiguration (Mt.
17.1–9/Mk 9.2–10/Lk 9. 28–36).87 Apart from the literary beauty of these texts,
the use of the theophanies in this context is a direct consequence of Severus’
understanding of how humanity can attain knowledge (theoria) of the divine.
This might happen through three ways: immediate revelation (as in the case
of the Prophets and the Apostles—but it is not excluded for us, in spite of
possible demonic deceptions), the study of Scripture, and the knowledge of
the dogmatic teaching of the Church, which for us is the safest of all ways but,
due to its dryness, by far the less able to nourish devotion or to influence human
behavior.88 By putting the explanation of the creed in the framework of biblical
theophanies, Severus stresses the unity of God’s revelation, highlights the role
of Church dogmas, which are the criterium veritatis to assess the value of both
exegetical results and mystical experiences, invites the audience to go beyond
the simple intellectual knowledge of the catechism in order to reach a real
communion with God, and implicitly shows that the study of the biblical text
is a privileged occasion for this to happen.
Severus on Biblical Exegesis
Severus did not write any systematic treatise on biblical exegesis, but he did
occasionally make some observations on the topic. They are all the more
interesting, because Severus, especially in his homilies, was quite keen to avoid
repetition and, when collected, these provide us with a very rich theology of
the Word of God.89
Severus’ ideal of biblical exegesis is well expressed in homily 116, in honor of
Saint Basil and Saint Gregory.90 Describing their virtues, he writes: “they were
at the same time administrators and spiritual intendants of the depth of the
Divine Book; they did not despise nor did they suppress the superficial beauty
of the letter and its exterior simplicity; but they used to draw out, according
84 Cf. hom. 21 (po 37, 64–87), 64–67.

85 Cf. hom. 90 (po 23, 120–165), 124–128.
86 Cf. hom. 109 (po 25, 732–781), 732–738.
87 Cf. hom. 123 (po 29, 124–189), 124–129.
90 Cf. hom. 116 (po 26, 325–338).
172 roux
to the degrees of an accomplished science, the richness of the Spirit that was
hidden in them, without being intoxicated, because of ignorance, by the chal-
ice without mixture of the different erroneous or fictitious explanations, those
imbibed with the deception of the heretical chattering and having adulterated
and falsified the beauty of the truth by fanciful narratives apt for the interpreta-
tion of dreams.”91 Here we find the three main characteristics of a good exegesis:
able to appreciate the letter of the text as well as its higher or spiritual mean-
ings, and faithful to orthodoxy. In connection with this, the exegete has to be a
peacemaker (Mt. 5.9), that is: “be able scientifically and conveniently to solve
the questions that, in the holy Scriptures, are likely to raise contradictions at
any time, to harmonize the teachings of the Old with those of the New Tes-
tament, like the different chords of a cithara that produce a single beautiful
symphony.”92 Indeed, Severus, following the tradition of the Church, consid-
ered the Old Testament a prefiguration of the New: “We say that according to
the letter the law was abolished, but that in the spirit it was much more fully
brought to fulfillment,”93 which explains the need of claiming continuity while
at the same time acknowledging innovation. Since the Scripture is a work of the
Holy Spirit, it is not possible for the interpreter to discover all its hidden mean-
ings. Biblical exegesis is by its nature a research that remains open. This concept
is also expressed through images. The Scripture is compared to a mine,94 to
the chalice of divine wisdom,95 to a precious pearl,96 and to a fascinating pic-
ture.97 The reader has to listen not only with his intelligence, but also with his
heart.98
Severus as Exegete of the Bible
After this brief survey on the kind of exegetical material to be found in Severus’
homilies and letters, let’s now more systematically consider the general fea-
tures of his exegesis. Some are common to all the Church Fathers, others are
91 Cf. hom. 116 (po 26, 334–335).

92 Cf. hom. 99 (po 22, 227). Cf. Origenes, In Matthäum fragmenta (ed. E. Klostermann),
Matthäuserklärung iii, Origenes Werke xii (Leipzig, 1941), 5.
93 Severus, ep. 83 (po 14, 132).
94 Cf. hom. 81 (po 20, 344–347).
95 Cf. hom. 104 (po 25, 625–626).
96 Cf. hom. 113 (po 26, 265–269).
97 Cf. hom. 118 (po 26, 357–359).
98 Cf. hom. 89 (po 23, 100–101); hom. 98 (po 25, 139–140); hom. 119 (po 26, 375–376).
more specifically linked with regional traditions, the Alexandrian and the Anti-
ochian, now merging under the pen of Severus, and some seem to be more of a
specific contribution of Severus, most likely derived from his legal training and
adapted to the need of Christian theology.
Severus as Heir to the Ancient Church Understanding of the

Scripture as Divine Word
In agreement with all the Church Fathers, Severus believes firmly that the
Bible has been inspired by the Holy Spirit and that this fact needs taking into
account in order to understand its real message. This has implications for his
exegetical practice,99 which might at first sight puzzle the modern student of
theology, almost exclusively trained in the principles and methods of the so-
called “historical-critical method” which is uncritically assumed to be the only
legitimate and consistent approach to the Scriptures. If the Spirit of God is
the author of the Scripture, then it is, first of all, necessary to consider it as a
single work. That is why it is possible to use a text from one book to explain a
point in another one, like the classical school taught to explain Homer through
Homer. Secondly, all contradictions in the text and all unworthiness need to be
explained away, because they are incompatible with a single divine authorship.
Concerning the Old Testament this is easily done by referring to the divine
oikonomia; in the case of differences or disagreements in the New Testament,
by considering the texts as complementary, each one of the human authors
having been entrusted with an aspect of the truth. Thirdly, since the scope of the
exegesis is not to find what the human writer meant, but what the Holy Spirit
wanted to communicate through him, it is necessary to take into account the
fact that the Spirit is still present and manifests himself in the life of the Church
and has guided the great Fathers in the penetration of the divine mysteries as
well as the saints in their everyday life. This is why Severus seems to consider
Basil of Caesarea or Gregory of Nazianzus almost as divinely inspired,100 and
why, in case of difficult passages, like those concerning the divinity of Christ, the
regula fidei plays a defining role. Moreover, he frequently affirms that the life of
the saints is an exegesis of the Gospel, even though this affirmation remains
99 Cf R. Roux, Individuelle Aneignung von Heiligen Schriften in der christlichen Antike, in

B. Kracke, R. Roux, J. Rüpke (eds.), Die Religion des Individuums (Münster, 2013), 51–61.
100 Cf. hom. 37 (po 36, 481–483); Philalethes (csco 133, 130. 183 [t.]; 134, 106. 150 [vers.]);
Apologia Philalethis (csco 318, 14 [t.]; 319, 12–13 [vers.]).
174 roux
very general.101 Finally, if the scope of the exegesis is to understand a divine

message, the exegete needs to purify himself and the eye of his mind, because
it was generally assumed that only the spiritual could know the spiritual.102 All
these elements are a common heritage of Christian thinking in antiquity and
underlie every single utterance of Severus on the Scripture.
A Learned Exegesis
A more characteristic feature of Severus’ approach to the Bible is that it is a

learned or scholarly “exegesis”. We know from Zacharias Scholasticus, Severus’s
friend and biographer, that Severus began studying the Bible and the works of
the most important Fathers during his stay at Beirut, in what seems to have
been a rather systematic approach.103 Considering his dogmatic and canonical
writings, one can only wonder at his knowledge of the theological tradition.
Before formulating his own view on a given subject, he used to scrutinize the
opinions of the Fathers. This was not done simply on the basis of collections of
testimonia, but with an appreciation of the original context of the citations.104
In dealing with exegetical matters, he basically follows the same method,105
though with a minor difference. The opinions of the previous exegetes are not
always explicitly quoted. In a normal context, which is the case of the majority
of the homilies, the “authorities” are not usually mentioned; on the contrary, in
a polemical context, like in the homily 119 against a certain Romanos106 and in
some of the letters,107 citations from the Fathers are inserted in the argument,
as is the case in the great theological treatises. Severus shows great liberty in
choosing, integrating, and sometimes even correcting their views. In his homily
on the Beatitudes, he adopts a less radical interpretation of the beatitude of
poverty (Mt. 5.3) than the one suggested by Gregory of Nyssa;108 even more
101 Cf. hom. 9 (po 38, 376); hom. 27 (po 36, 562); hom. 65 (po 8, 322–323).
102 Cf. hom. 15 (po 38, 420); hom. 123 (po 29, 178).
103 Cf. Zacharias Scholasticus, Vita Severii (po 2, 53–54): Zacharias gives a reading list with
“orthodox” authors, among which the most important are Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of
Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria.
104 Cf. for example Severus, Philalethes 12 (csco 133, 222[t.]; 134, 182 [vers.]).
105 Cf. Roux, L’ exégèse, 69.
107 Cf. for example Severus, ep. 85 (po 14, 140–146); ep. 87 (po 14, 148–150).
108 Cf. hom. 113 (po 26, 268–277); Gregorius Nyssenus, De beatitudinibus 1 (ed. J.F. Callaghan),
Gregorii Nysseni Opera 7,2 (Leiden, 1992), 88.
surprisingly, in the interpretation of Mt. 12.31–32 on the blasphemy against the

Holy Spirit, Severus adopts the solution given by Origen even though it had
been criticized by Athanasius.109
Severus and the Antiochian Exegetical Tradition
John Chrysostom has largely influenced Severus in exegetical matters. In line

with the Antiochian tradition, John avoids allegorical interpretations, and looks
for the moral and spiritual teaching in the letter of the Scripture. In this, Severus
follows his example. The moral and spiritual teachings are always found at
the historical level, while in the typical Alexandrian tradition they already
belong to the higher meaning. A rather striking example of this procedure is
Severus’ comment on Song of Songs, in which he tries to take into account
the dialogical nature of the text and deduces a lesson of humility in spiritual
matters from the attitude and the answer given by the girl in Songs 5.2–3
(in their allegorical interpretation, Theodoret of Cyrus and Gregory of Nyssa
had overlooked this aspect).110 A second feature that is clearly reminiscent of
Chrysostom is the attention given to the psychology of the characters, which
was a method involving meditation on the biblical narratives in order to reach a
better understanding of the moral teaching implied in them. Various examples
of this can be found especially in the direct exegesis of the facta: for instance in
the analysis of the attitude of those who asked Jesus about the tax to Caesar (Mt.
17.24–32);111 or of those who took part in the banquet where the sinful woman
washed Jesus’ feet (Lk. 7.36–50).112 On one occasion, Severus seems even to
outdo John Chrysostom. Commenting on Mt. 16.13–18,113 Severus derives from
John Chrysostom the historical and geographical details,114 but then he adds
some psychological observations that Chrysostom had not made.115
A third aspect in which we can discern the impact of the Antiochene tradi-
tion on Severus is the banishment of the concept and the very word “allegory”
from the exegetical activity. In his De Principiis, Origen had justified the need
for allegorical interpretation arguing that the Holy Spirit had put some passages

111 Cf. hom. 81 (po 20, 357–359); Roux L’ exégèse, 106–107.
113 Cf. hom. 124 (po 29, 208–212).
114 Cf. Roux, L’ exégèse,130–131.
115 Cf. Johannes Chrysostomus, In Mattäum 54,1 (pg 58, 531–533).
176 roux
in the Bible that had no literal meaning in order to push the reader towards the
search for the higher meanings.116 This was felt as a threat to the historicity of
the facts narrated from the Bible, which were reduced to a simple myth. Already
Cyril of Alexandria had somehow distanced himself from the Alexandrian ideal
of finding a spiritual (i.e. christological) meaning to every single passage of the
Old Testament,117 and abandoned the word allegory118 due to the criticism of
Diodorus and Theodore.119 Severus shares the same objections to the notion of
allegory understood as a negation of the historical reality of the narrated facts
and even though he practices allegorical readings he never qualifies them as
such.120
Severus and the Alexandrian Exegetical Tradition
The Alexandrian tradition has had a double impact on Severus’ exegesis as we

can see from the exegetical consequences of the Miaphysite christology and in
the search for a higher meaning, above the historical or literal one. The ortho-
dox confession of faith sets the boundaries for every exegetical activity. If the
study of the Word of God is per se an unending activity, not every meaning one
can think to find in it is correct and acceptable. The criterium veritatis is given
by the dogma of the Church. We have already seen the importance of this in
Severus dealing with the contradictions among the Gospels and between the
Old and the New Testament. The typical Alexandrian perspective is to be found
in christological matters. Severus adheres wholeheartedly to the Miaphysite
theology that he derives from Athanasius121 and Cyril;122 this is the principle
116 Cf. Origenes, De Principiis iv, 3.

117 Cf. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, In Jonam (pg 71, 600–601).
118 Cf. M. Simonetti, Lettera e/o allegoria. Un contributo alla storia dell’esegesi patristica
(Roma, 1985), 217.
119 Cf. Diodorus Tarsensis, Commentarii in Psalmos. Prologus (ccg 6, 7–8); T. Hainthaler,
Die “antiochenische Schule” und theologische Schulen im Bereich des antiochenischen Patri-
archats, in A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche. 2/3. Die Kirchen von
Jerusalem und Antiochien nach 451–600 (Freiburg in B., 2002/2004), 227–261, in part. 233–
238.
120 For an attempt at reconstructing Severus’ exegetical terminology on the basis of the Syriac
translations: cf. Roux, L’ exégèse, 39–48.
121 We now know for certain that the famous formula “mia physis tou theou logou sesar-
komenê” comes from Apollinaris of Laodicea, but Severus thought it was of Athanasius
of Alexandria: cf. for instance Severus, Ad Nephalium 2 (csco 64, 16).
122 Cyril had occasionally spoken of “two natures” and even signed (433) a christological dec-
that governs his understanding of the Gospels where we see Jesus acting as God
(performing miracles, commanding to the elements, resurrecting) and as a man
(suffering, dying, ignoring things). Everything has to be referred to the one sub-
ject (nature) of God’s incarnate logos, according to the traditional teaching of
the communicatio idiomatum. Severus reacts sharply to the Diphysite approach
to the Gospel, as we can see for instance in homily 22 where he comments on
the words uttered by Jesus on the Cross. In this context, he radically criticizes
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Leo of Rome and the Council of Chalcedon along with
them for their attempt to separate what is said about the divinity from what
belongs to humanity.123 According to Severus, this approach inevitably leads to
the affirmation of two sons, and two persons in Christ, which is why he consid-
ers the Diphysite theology unacceptable.
A second feature that links Severus’s exegesis with the Alexandrian tradi-
tion is the search for a higher meaning. As we have seen, Severus systematically
explains narrative texts, historical events or parables, at two different levels. At
the level of history, where he clarifies philological, geographical or historical
details, he analyses the events and expands on the psychology of the main char-
acters in order to discover moral teachings for his audience. In a second step
he looks for what he calls the theoria or higher meaning. Circumstances and
characters are now allegorically (even though the word is not used) explained
as referring to the history of salvation or to the divine revelation. In homily
89 on the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10.25–37), the first level of interpretation high-
lights the moral message of the parable, that is the need for universal love or
solidarity,124 but the higher interpretation sees the Good Samaritan as Jesus,
the divine Logos that has become man in order to save humanity, symbolically
represented by the man assaulted by the bandits; the hostel is the Church, and
so on.125 The event of sinful woman at the banquet (Lk. 7.36–50), at an histori-
cal level,126 gives teachings on how to participate in the Holy Mass, on humility,
and on doubts about the faith, but at a higher level,127 the Pharisee represents
the Synagogue, and the sinful woman the Church, and the perfume symbol-
laration which contained this formulation. Taking into account Cyril’s own explanation
of that declaration in the letters to Succenus, Severus had no difficulties showing that
Cyril considered the “two natures” a mere theoretical abstraction of the human mind (en
theôriai), but that he never thought them as being actually existing after the union.
124 Cf. hom. 89 (po 23, 101–104).
125 Cf. hom. 89 (po 23, 104–114).
126 Cf. hom. 118 (po 26, 359–365).
127 Cf. hom. 118 (po 26, 366–372).
178 roux
izes the Christian perfection made out of doctrinal purity and virtuous acts.128
The historical event wherein the prophet Elijah has been fed by “ravens who
brought him bread in the morning and meat in the evening” (3 Kings 17.16), is
“pregnant with mystic and secret teachings,”129 and shows that even unworthy
priests, like ravens that are unclean animals, can celebrate the Eucharist in a
valid manner, because in reality Christ himself is performing the offering while
the priest fulfills a mere ministerial function.130
Legal Science and Biblical Exegesis
Severus had been a very committed student of Law in Beirut during the years
487 to 492.131 After his conversion, not only did he keep in touch with some of
the former students from Beirut,132 but he became himself the most important
authority in all matters concerning canon law. As a lawyer, he had to learn
how to deal with a huge number of legal texts, laws, edicts, and rescripts, with
all of these being a source of law but having different degrees of authority
and often contradicting each other. It is not surprising, therefore, that some
of the hermeneutical strategies that he acquired during his legal training may
have influenced his theological method and consequently his exegesis.133 As a
matter of fact, some peculiar and otherwise seemingly contradictory features
of Severus’ exegesis reveal their internal logic when seen as an application of
contemporary legal methods to theology.
128 Cf. hom. 118 (po 26, 372–374).

129 Ep. iii.3 (ed. E.W. Brooks, The Sixth Book of the Selected Letters of Severus Patriarch of
Antioch (London, 1903–1904), v. 1, 270–271 [textus], v. 2, 239 [versio]).
130 Cf. ep. iii.3 (ed. Brooks, The Sixth Book, v. 1, 268 [t.], v. 2, 238 [ver.]). For further examples
of this procedure, cf. for instance ep. 65 (po 14, 44–54); ep. 69 (po 14, 89–91); ep. 70 (po 14,
104–107); ep. 74 (po 14, 120: a mere fragment on the nature of the higher understanding). A
systematical analysis of the exegetical material in the surviving letters remains a desider-
atum.
131 Cf. Zacharias Scholasticus, Vita Severi (po 2, 46–92, in part. 92).
132 Cf. Alpi, La route royale i, 212–213.
133 Cf. R. Roux, The Concept of Orthodoxy in the Cathedral Homilies of Severus of Antioch, in
M.F. Wiles, E.J. Yarnold (eds.), Papers Presented at the Thirteenth International Conference
on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1999 (Louvain, 2001), 487–493 (= Studia Patristica 35);
and, more recently, Id., Sapere teologico e sapere profano all’inizio del vi secolo: l’esperienza
di Severo di Antiochia a Beirut. For the influence of legal science on theology during the 3rd
and the 4th century, see C. Humress, Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity (Oxford,
2007), 147–152.
A major case is the role of dogmatic definitions in exegesis. We have already

seen that the dogmas of the Church are considered by Severus as a criterium
veritatis to assess the validity of both biblical exegesis and of eventual mys-
tical experiences. On the other hand, Severus does not hesitate to criticize
the dogmatic definition of the council of Chalcedon. This apparent contra-
diction can be better understood if we compare the function of a proclaimed
dogma, or regula fidei, with the function of the regulae iuris in legal science.
Severus himself applies the classical definition of a regula iuris to the regula
fidei in the Cathedral homily 91134 when he explains the nature of the defi-
nition of the Council of Nicea. The regula iuris is not the law and does not
take the place of the law, but is a summary that helps to establish the law
when the actual laws are difficult to understand or to harmonize due to their
number or disparate nature. Similarly, the regula fidei states in summarized
form what is otherwise scattered through the Holy Scriptures. In this way, it
becomes a norm to guide the exegete through difficult or contradictory pas-
sages in the Bible, but does not have authority above the Bible itself. On the
contrary, it must be founded upon a sound understanding of the Scripture. This
explains why Severus, in spite of his attachment to the teaching of the Church,
feels obliged to fight with all his strength against the regula defined at Chal-
cedon.135
A second significant case is the way of dealing with the teachings of the
Church Fathers. It has already been mentioned that the exegesis of Severus is a
very learned one, but, in spite of his great esteem for the Fathers whom he con-
sidered almost inspired, he does not feel obliged to follow them slavishly. Now,
this singular mixture of fidelity to and freedom from tradition can better be
understood if compared with the rules that governed the correct approach to
the opinions of the great lawyers of the past.136 In case of disagreement among
the main scholars, one had to follow the opinion of the majority, in case of
parity, one had to follow the group of a specific one of them, namely Papini-
anus, who enjoyed the greatest esteem among them. In the absence of a clear
majority, one had to decide on one’s own. Moreover, a similar hierarchy was
established even between the works of a single author. Much in the same way,
Severus works with his own theological authorities, Basil, the two Gregorys,
134 Compare hom. 91 (po 25, 15), and Digesta 50, 17,1: cf. Roux, Sapere sacro e sapere profano,
91–103.
135 Cf. hom. 124 (po 29, 225–231): the “rock” upon which the Church is built is not the “See” of
Peter, but the “Faith” of Peter.
136 Cf. Codex Theodosianus i,4,3; Roux, Concept of Orthodoxy, 487–493.
180 roux
John Chrysostom, and Cyril, but does not hesitate to choose among them or
even to adopt different interpretations in some cases.137
A third field in which the legal mind is discernible is in the interpretation
of the legislative texts in the Scriptures, where he avoids both the Antiochene
and the Alexandrian approach and shows greater attention to the particular
characteristics of juridical texts.138 A typical example of this kind of “juridical”
exegesis is the interpretation of the numerous prescriptions relating to food
or hygiene.139 A representative of the Antiochene exegesis, John Chrysostom,
sees in these rules nothing more than elements of Judaism that have been
abolished by Jesus Christ, so that no need is felt to find anything positive in
them.140 Other authors from the Pseudo-Barnabas onwards,141 very much in
line with the classical Alexandrian approach, read these texts as allegories
of spiritual realities, thus finding in them a relevance for today’s reader, but
denying them any real literal sense: the Jews who take them literally just lack
a spiritual understanding. Severus agrees with the Alexandrian in the attempt
at finding a permanent validity in those laws, but adopts a juridical method.
When interpreting a text of legislation, one has to grasp the intention of the
legislator, especially when the wording, if taken at face value, might lead to
absurd consequences which cannot be in line with the will of the law-maker.
In the case of food and hygiene rules, Severus demonstrates that with the
Incarnation the intention of the divine Legislator has not changed but has been
perfectly revealed. What was said about bodily rules has revealed its fullness
when applied to the soul. The intention of the legislator is the same, but the
ways of application of the law vary according to time and space. The “Christian”
interpretation of those rules is no allegory and no abolishment, but it is the
fulfillment of their real meaning as the legislator intended them.142
137 This is mostly evident in christology, where Severus does not accept the Chalcedonian
interpretation of the diphysite formulae of Cyril, but corrects them on the basis of the
later letters of Cyril to Succensus, thus correcting de facto his main theological authority.
139 Cf. hom. 79 (po 20, 299–319).
140 Cf. Johannes Chrysostomus, In Mattäeum hom. 51 (pg 58, 513–516).
141 Cf. Roux, L’ exégèse, 172, n. 127; 174, n. 134.
142 For further examples, cf. Roux, L’ exégèse, 169–175.
Conclusion: Final Remarks on the Historical Significance of

Severus’ Exegesis
Severus has not left any systematic commentary but he has written extensively
on almost all the important passages of the Bible, either as direct exegesis,
in form of answers to quaestiones that arose from the readings of the day or
that were brought to his attention by others, or in form of “indirect” exegesis,
as in the homilies for liturgical feasts and celebrations or in the context of
doctrinal controversies. In dealing with biblical texts, Severus shows that he
masters all the methods of patristic exegesis: philologically and historically
sound according to the standards of the time, consciously embedded in the
framework of a broader theological hermeneutical theory, able to make use
of the Greek exegetical tradition in its entirety, Alexandrian (especially Cyril
of Alexandria) as well as Antiochene (essentially John Chrysostom),143 able
to appreciate the different literary genera of the Biblical pericopes and to
systematically adopt appropriate exegetical strategies in order to provide his
hearers with orthodox theology and deep spirituality, and not lacking at times
in extraordinary literary beauty, still shining through the Syriac translation. In
a sense, Severus’ exegesis represents the climax of Greek patristic exegesis, in
which the various exegetical trends of late antiquity converge in the service of
preaching, theology and Christian life.
It is only in matters related to the theandric identity of Christ that Severus’
exegesis would not have been accepted by the adherents to the council of
Chalcedon. Severus’ opposition to the dogmatic horos of Chalcedon on the
ground of the problems caused by the concept of “physis” is well known,144
but the analysis of Severus’ exegesis reveals that there is another reason that
comes from his exegetical practice. When reading about Jesus Christ in the
Gospel, the Diphysite approach distinguishes the assertions that are proper to
the divinity (like performing miracles) from those that belong to the humanity
(like suffering). While Severus might have agreed that discerning the different
modes of operation of Christ is perfectly legitimate and even necessary in order
to grasp His real identity, he could not possibly accept the inquisitive asking
about the underlying subject (“who does this, God or the man?”) which is
143 He does not seem to have read theological treatises written in Latin, although he must
have learned the language as a student. As far as Syriac is concerned, we know that he was
in contact with Philoxenus of Mabbug, but there is no evidence that he knew Syriac: cf.
Roux, L’ exégèse, 188, n. 11.
144 Cf. A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche. 2/2. Die Kirche von Konstanti-
nopel im 6. Jahrhundert (Freiburg in B., 1989/2004), 161–171.
182 roux
typical of some Diphysite theologians, and this for two main reasons: firstly,
as already said, because in Severus’ understanding it inevitably leads to the
assertion of two persons in Christ, and, secondly, because it implicitly claims
the right to correct and improve the Word of God. If Jesus himself, his Apostles
and consequently the Evangelists never felt the need to distinguish Christ’s
deeds according to the abstract notions of humanity and divinity, then the
arrogant strive to correct and specify the language of the Scriptures is nothing
but a sinful act of hubris in the name of man-made philosophical categories
and cannot be justified.
In conclusion, through his criticism of the Diphysite exegesis, Severus aims
at defending not just the traditional doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum,
but the very way in which the Scriptures speak about Jesus Christ from what
he considers an arrogant and ill-founded attempt at reducing the divine Reve-
lation into human limited concepts.
At this point one could wonder if this desire to be faithful not only to the con-
tent of the Gospel but also to its very language and manner of expression might
have contributed to the diffusion of the Miaphysite doctrine into traditionally
Antiochene territory. This certainly opens up a new field of investigation, and
already casts new light on the motives beyond Severus’ vehement opposition
to the horos of Chalcedon.
Hymns of Severus of Antioch and the Coptic
Theotokia
Introduction
Severus of Antioch has a special veneration in the Coptic Church.1 In previous

studies, we highlighted the role of Severus of Antioch in the Coptic Theotokia,2
especially the homilies 14 and 67 which commemorate a local tradition of the
visit of the Virgin Mary to Elisabeth. These homilies were translated from Greek
into Syriac3 and Coptic.4 The homilies 2 and 4 were delivered by Severus of
Antioch in the advent of the first year of his ordination.5
While the liturgical6 context of the homilies is known, the context of the
hymns by contrast,7 as well as their content, has not been analysed. Their
authorship remains questionable as the title of the book is Hymns of Severus
and others.
In this paper, we will compare the hymns with the homilies, and highlight
the importance of the hymns of Severus as a source of the Coptic Theotokia
and later in relation to the Ethiopic Marian literature.
1 Youhanna Nessim Youssef, “Notes on the cult of Severus of Antioch in Egypt,” Ephemerides
Liturgicae 115 (2001/1): 101–107.
2 Youhanna Nessim Youssef, “Severus of Antioch in the Coptic Theotokia,” in B. Neil, G. Dunn
and L. Cross (eds), Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church: Liturgy and life, Volume 3
(Sydney: St Paul’s, 2003), 93–108. Id., “The Coptic Marian homilies of Severus of Antioch,”
Bulletin de la Société d’ Archéologie Copte 43 (2004): 127–140.
3 M. Brière, F. Graffin, C. Lash, J.-M. Sauget, Les Homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche, i–
xvii, (Patrologia Orientalis 38/2), (Turnhout: Brepols, 1972), 400–414.
4 E. Porcher, “Un discours sur la sainte Vierge par Sévère d’ Antioche,”Revue de l’Orient Chrétien
20 (1915–1917): 416–423. E. Lucchesi, “Notice touchant l’ homélie xiv de Sévère d’Antioche,”
Vigiliae Christianae 33, (1979): 291–293. Id., “L’homélie xiv de Sévère d’Antioche: un second
témoin copte,” Aegyptus 86 (2006): 199–205.
5 F. Alpi, La route royale: Sévère d’Antioche et les Églises d’Orient (512–518), (Bibliothèque Ar-
chéologique et Historique 188 vol. 1), (Beyrouth: Institut Français du Proche Orient, 2009), 139.
6 G.J. Cuming, “The Liturgy of Antioch in the Time of Severus (513–518),” in J.N. Alexander (ed.),
Time and Community: In Honor of Thomas J. Talley (Washington, dc: The Pastoral Press, 1990),
83–103.
7 For the hymns of Severus cf. E. Lucchesi, “Hymnes de Sévère et sur Sévère,” Aegyptus 88 (2008):
165–198.

184 youssef
The Hymns of Severus
As the book bears the title Hymns of Severus and Others, it is not an easy task
to determine what belongs really to Severus and what belongs to others but we
may assume that Severus of Antioch composed hymns for each subject that is
treated in his homilies. We have a similar situation in the Ethiopic Synaxarium
where after each event commemorated we find what is called the “Salam”
(Praise).
The table below compares the topics treated in the hymns and the homilies.
Subject Homily8 Hymn9
Nativity 7, 36, 63, 101, 115 1–14/228

Epiphany 10, 38, 66, 85, 103, 117 15–25/211/255
Lent 15/16, 39, 68, 87, 105, 120 26–34
8
Homilies po nº pp
M. Brière, F. Graffin 1–17 38/2–1976 175 246–470

M. Brière, F. Graffin 18–25 37/1 1975 171 1–180
M. Brière, F. Graffin, C. Lash 32–39 36/3 1972 169 391–535
R. Duval 52–57 4/1 1906 15 1–94
M. Brière 58–69 8/2 1911 37 209–396
M. Brière 70–76 12/1 1915 57 1–164
M.A. Kugener, E. Triffaux 77 16/5 1924 81 761–865
M. Brière 78–83 20/2 1927 97 271–434
M. Brière 84–90 23/1 1931 112 1–176
M. Brière 91–98 25/1 1935 121 1–174
I. Guidi 99–103 22/2 1930 108 201–312
M. Brière 104–112 25/4 1943 124 619–816
M. Brière 113–119 26/3 1940 127 259–450
M. Brière 120–125 29/1 1960 138 1–262
9 E. Brooks, The Hymns of Severus of Antioch and Others, Patrologia Orientalis 6 fasc. 1 (Paris:
Firmin-Didot, 1910), Id. Patrologia Orientalis 7 fasc. 5, (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1911).
hymns of severus of antioch and the coptic theotokia 185
Subject Homily Hymn
On the preparation for entering to 40, 69, 88, 106, 121 90–91
the Baptistery
Palm Sunday 22 51–57
On the robber 20 65
On persons baptized 21, 42, 70, 90, 109, 123 92–101/229
On the Holy mid-Pentecost 46, 92, 102
On the Ascension of our Lord 24, 47, 71 103–107/230
On the Genuflexion/ Pentecost 25, 48; 74, 92 108–114
On the holy God Bearer 14, 67 117–122/217/231
On John the Baptist 32, 61 123–126
On holy Stephen the martyr 7 127–128
The Apostles 129
On the Apostle Thomas 28 134
Sergius and Bacchus 57 143–144/145
On Saint Thecla the Martyr 97 160
Thalleliaos 110
Leontius the Martyr 27, 50 138
On St Babylas the Martyr 11 141–142
Simon the Stylite 30 147
St Antony the Great 12, 86 148
On the holy Maccabee martyrs 52 149–150
On the xl martyrs 18, 41 155–159
On Saint Drosis the martyr 5, 100, 114 161–162
On Saint Athanasius 91 183
On ss Basil and Gregory 9, 37, 65, 84, 102, 116 182, 184
On drought 19 252–254/256
On earthquake 31 257–262
On Vitalian the Tyrant 34 263
When he returned from visiting 61 272
monasteries
Of admonition and on theatres 26 274–293
and dancing
186 youssef
The Coptic Theotokia
The Theotokia are part of the Psalmodia service. According to Abu al-Barakat
ibn Kabar10 (priest of the hanging church—Old Cairo) (+1324ad) in his ency-
clopedia The Lamp of Darkness for the Explanation of the Service,11 Manuscript
Paris Arabe12 fol. 202v
‫ﰒ ﺑﻌﺪ ذكل ﯾﻘﺎل اﻟﺜﺎوﺿﻮﻛﯿﺎت وﱔ ﻣﻌﺮوﻓﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﻘﺒﻂ اﳌﴫﯾﲔ ﯾﺘﺪاوﻟﻮﳖﺎ ﰲ ﻛﻨﺎﯾﺲ ﻣﴫ واﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮة‬
‫ واﻣﺎ اﻫﻞ اﻟﺼﻌﯿﺪ ﻓﻼ ﺗﻘﻮﻟﻮن ﲠﺎ وﻻ ﺗﺴـﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﰲ ﺑﻼدﱒ الا اندرًا ﰲ اﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻣﻦ‬.‫واﻟﻮﺟﺔ اﻟﺒﺤﺮي‬
.‫ﻛﻨﺎﯾﺲ اﻟﺼﻌﯿﺪ الادان‬
‫ـ‬‫ﺸ‬ ‫ﻣ‬
‫وﻫﺬﻩ اﻟﺜﺎوﺿﻮﻛﯿﺎت ﻣﺪاﱖ ﻟﻠﺴـﯿﺪة اﻟﻌﺬرا ﳣةل ﻋﲆ اتوﯾﻞ رﻣﻮز اﻟﻌﺘﯿﻘﺔ وﺗﲋﯾﻞ ﻧﺒﻮات الاﻧﺒﯿﺎ‬
‫ﻋﲆ الاﺣﻮال اﻟﺴـﯿﺪة اﻟﻌﺬرا والاﺳـﺘﺪﻻل ﲠﺎ ﻋﲆ ﺣﺒﻠﻬﺎ وﱔ ﻋﺬرا ووﻟﻮد رب اجملﺪ ﻣﺘﺠﺴﺪًا ﻣﳯﺎ‬
‫اﱃ ﻏﲑ ذكل ﻣﻦ اﳌﻌﺎﱐ‬
‫وﯾﻨﺴﺐ اﱃ اﻟﺒﻄﺮﯾﺮك اﺛﻨﺎﺳـﯿﻮس اﻟﺮﺳﻮﱄ رزﻗﻨﺎ ﷲ ﺑﺮﰷﺗﻪ ﻧﺴـﺒﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺴـﻨﺪة وﻗﯿﻞ ان ﴯﺼًﺎ‬
… ‫ﻼ ﰷن ﻗﺮﻣﻮﺿﯿﺎ وﺗﺮﻫﺐ ﺑﱪﯾﺔ ﺷﻬﯿﺎت رﺗﺐ اﳊﺎﳖﺎ‬ ً ‫ﻗﺪﯾﺴﺎ ﻓﺎﺿ‬
After that the Theotokia are recited. These are known to the Copts as Masriyin
(= those of Old-Cairo) and were passed to the churches of Misr (Old-Cairo),
Cairo and Lower Egypt. As for the people of Upper Egypt (Saʿid), they (the
Theotokia) are not used in their countries except on rare occasions in some
churches of the closer Saʿid (Middle-Egypt).
These Theotokia are praises for the Lady Virgin Mary including the interpre-
tations of the symbols of the Old Testament and the revelation of the prophe-
cies of the prophets concerning her conception while being Virgin, and the
birth of the Lord of Glory incarnated from her and other things relating to these
meanings.
They (the Theotokia) are attributed to the Patriarch Athanasius the Apos-
tolic, may God grant us his blessing. This attribution is not supported. It is said
that a holy virtuous person who was a potter and became a monk in the desert
of Scetis composed their melodies.
10 Samir Khalil, “Un manuscrit arabe d’ Alep reconnu, le Sbath 11253,” Le Muséon 91 (1978):
179–188. Id., “L’encyclopedie Liturgique d’ Ibn Kabar (+ 1324) et son apologie d’usages
Coptes,” in H.-J. Feulner, E. Velkouska and R. Taft (eds), Crossroad of Cultures. Studies in
Liturgy and Patristics in Honor of Gabriele Winkler, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 260
(Rome: Edizioni Orientalia Christiana, 2000), 629–655.
11 L. Villecourt, “Les observances Liturgiques et la discipline du jeûne dans l’Église Copte,”
Le Muséon 37 (1924): 201–280, especially 229.
12 G. Troupeau, Catalogue des Manuscrits Arabes—première partie manuscrits Chrétiens,
tome 1 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1972), 171–172.
Ibn Kabar talked about the Theotokia stricto sensu, hence the quotations
of the Theotokia that occur in the Antiphonarion of Upper Egypt13 are not
regarded as the text of the Theotokia.
According to Ibn Kabar the recitation of Theotokia started first in Old
Cairo,14 and from there extended to the other churches of Old Cairo, Cairo,
Lower Egypt and Middle Egypt. It is worth mentioning that the church of
Misr (Old Cairo) is related to a tradition of Severus of Antioch as, accord-
ing to the Garshuni manuscript Sachau 43 of Berlin, he visited the Hang-
ing Church of Old Cairo,15 while this event according to the Coptic Synaxar-
ium,16 the Book of Glorification17 is placed in Scetis. We may expect that
Ibn Kabar as a priest of the Hanging Church in Old Cairo preferred to sup-
port his local church, while the visit of Severus of Antioch to Scetis is well
attested.18
Some modern scholars such as Giamberardini19 and Muyser20 identified the
quotations of the Theotokia from the homilies of Cyril of Alexandria during the
Council of Ephesus and the Coptic Theotokia.
The Theotokia in fact contains not only extracts from the Cyrillian hom-
ilies but also from those of Proclus of Cyzicus and Theodotus of Ancyra, such
13 Cf. M. Cramer and M. Krause, Das koptische Antiphonar, Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum
12 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2008).
14 The translation of Villecourt is misleading as he rendered the word Masryin as Egyptian,
while in the early fourteenth century this word means those of Old Cairo.
15 M.A. Kugener, Textes relatives à la vie de Sévère patriarche d’Antioche, deuxième Patrie, Vie
de Sévère par Jean supérieur du monastère de Beith-Aphthonia, Patrologia Orientalis 2 fasc.
3 (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1904), 399 [315]-400[316].
16 R. Basset, Le Synaxaire Arabe Jacobite, Patrologia Orientalis 1 fasc. 3 (Paris Firmin-
Didot, 1907), 313–314; O.H.E. Burmester, “The Liturgy Coram Patriarcha aut Episcopo in
the Coptic Church,” Le Muséon 49 (1936): 79–84.
17 For this book cf. Youhanna Nessim Youssef, “Un témoin méconnu de la littérature copte,”
Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte 32 (1993): 139–147; Youhanna Nessim Youssef,
“Une relecture des glorifications coptes,” Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte 34
(1995): 77–83. Attala Arsenios al-Muharraqi, ⲡⲓϫⲱⲙ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉ ⲛⲓϫⲓⲛϯⲱⲟⲩ ⲉ︦ⲑ︦ⲩ︦ ⲛ̀ϯⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲛⲓⲁⲅⲅⲉ-
ⲗⲟⲥ ⲛⲓⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲛⲓ⳥ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛⲏⲉ︦ⲑ︦ⲩ︦ [The book of the holy glorifications for the Virgin, the Angels,
the Apostles, the Martyrs and the Saints], (Cairo: n.p., 1972), 350–351.
18 It is not clear who is this potter, however there is a tradition linking Severus with Scetis cf.
Youhanna Nessim Youssef, “Severus of Antioch in Scetis,” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 43
(2006): 141–162.
19 G. Giamberardini, Il culto Mariano in Egitto, Pubblicazioni dello Studium Biblicum Fran-
ciscanum Analecta 7 (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1974), 197–212.
20 J. Muyser, Maria’s heerlijkheid in Egypte: Een studie der koptische Maria-literatuur, 1st part,
(Louvain—Utrecht: Sint Alfonsusdrukkerij, 1935), 60–74 and especially 72–74.
188 youssef
as comparing the Virgin with the burning bush that Moses saw in the des-
ert.21
The Theotokia can be dated between the sixth and the eighth centuries
as we will explain later in detail. Briefly we can say that the first manuscript
containing some quotations of the Theotokia (the Sahidic Difnar) is dated from
the ninth century, and there are similarities with the homilies 14 and 67 of
Severus of Antioch which are dated between 512–514 ad (see below).
In this paper we will compare the two Marian hymns of Severus with the
Theotokia of Sunday and the direct quotations in the Theotokia of Tuesday.
Theotokia of Sunday 119 The Hymn of the Virgin22
Because the Lord took

pleasure in Zion and chose it
to himself for a habitation
ⲥⲉⲙⲟⲩϯ ⲉⲣⲟ ⲇⲓⲕⲉⲱⲥ ⲱ You are truly called, O blessed

ⲑⲏⲉⲧⲥⲙⲁⲣⲱⲟⲩⲧ ϧⲉⲛ ⲛⲓϩⲓⲟⲙⲓ ϫⲉ one among women the
the God-bearer and Virgin one
ϯⲙⲁϩⲥⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲛⲥⲕⲏⲛⲏ23 Second tabernacle
might very justly compare
and one might call thee the
ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉⲑⲛⲁϣⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲙⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟ Who can speak of the honour
tent of witness, which was
ⲛϯⲥⲕⲏⲛⲏ ⲉⲧⲁ ⲙⲱⲩⲥⲏⲥ ⲑⲁⲙⲓⲟⲥ of the tabernacle which Moses
hidden within the second
ϩⲓϫⲉⲛ ⲡⲧⲱⲟⲩ ⲛⲥⲓⲛⲁ had made on Mount Sinai
curtain which is called the
holy of holies. For after the
ⲁϥⲑⲁⲙⲓⲟⲥ ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲱⲟⲩ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ He made it with glory, as
same model Emmanuel abode
ⲡⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲙⲡ⳪ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲛⲓⲧⲩⲡⲟⲥ commanded by the Lord,
and dwelt in thee
ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲁϥⲧⲁⲙⲟϥ ⲉⲣⲱⲟⲩ according to the model shown
unto him.
ⲁⲩⲧⲉⲛⲑⲱⲛⲓ ⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ They likened it to you,

ϯⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ϯⲥⲕⲏⲛⲏ ⲙⲙⲏⲓ ⲉⲣⲉ ⲫϯ O Virgin Mary, the true
ⲥⲁϧⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ24 tabernacle wherein dwelt God
21 Youhanna Nessim Youssef, “Une relecture des Théotokies Coptes,” Bulletin de la Société
d’ Archéologie Copte 36 (1997): 153–170.
22 E.W. Brooks, The Hymns of Severus and others in the Syriac Version of Paul of Edessa as
revised by James of Edessa (Patrologia Orientalis 6/1), (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1911), 158–159.
23 Nahdat al-Kanais, ⲡⲓϫⲱⲙ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲯⲁⲗⲙⲟⲧⲓⲁ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ, 101–102. Theotokia part 1a.
24 Nahdat al-Kanais, ⲡⲓϫⲱⲙ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲯⲁⲗⲙⲟⲧⲓⲁ, 103–104. Theotokia part 1b.
Theotokia of Sunday 119 The Hymn of the Virgin
Ϯⲕⲓⲃⲱⲧⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟϣϫ ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲃ ⲛⲥⲁⲥⲁ The Ark overlaid roundabout

ⲛⲓⲃⲉⲛ ⲑⲏⲉⲧⲁⲩⲑⲁⲙⲓⲟⲥ ϧⲉⲛ ϩⲁⲛϣⲉ with gold that was made with
ⲛⲁⲧⲉⲣϩⲟⲗⲓ wood that would not decay
ⲁⲥⲉⲣϣⲟⲣⲡ ⲛϯⲙⲏⲓⲛⲓ ⲙⲫϯ ⲡⲓⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ It foretold the sign, O God

ⲫⲏⲉⲧⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲓ ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲓ ϧⲉⲛ the Word, who became man
ⲟⲩⲙⲉⲧⲁⲧⲫⲱⲣϫ without separation
ⲟⲩⲁⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϧⲉⲛ ⲃ︦ One (nature) out of two, a

ⲟⲩⲙⲉⲑⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲉⲥⲧⲟⲩⲃⲏⲟⲩⲧ Holy Divinity, consubstantial
ⲉⲥⲟⲓ`ⲛⲁⲧⲧⲁⲕⲟ`ⲛⲟⲙⲟⲟⲩⲥⲓⲟⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ with the Father, and
who like the ark all-pure
ⲫⲓⲱⲧ incorruptible
Godhead and of the
manhood which is pure and
ⲛⲉⲙ ⲟⲩⲙⲉⲧⲣⲱⲙⲓ ⲉ︦ⲑ︦ⲩ︦ ⲭⲱⲣⲓⲥ A holy humanity, begotten
uncorrupted and without seed
ⲥⲩⲛⲟⲩⲥⲓⲁ ⲛⲟⲙⲟⲟⲩⲥⲓⲟⲥ ⲛⲉⲙⲁⲛ without seed consubstantial
ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ϯⲟⲓⲕⲟⲛⲟⲙⲓⲁ with us according to the
economy
ⲑⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲁϥϭⲓⲧⲥ ⲛϧⲏϯ ⲱ This which He has taken, from

ϯⲁⲧⲑⲱⲗⲉⲃ ⲉⲁϥϩⲱⲧⲡ ⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ you O undefiled, He made one
ⲟⲩϩⲩⲡⲟⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ25 with Him as a hypostasis
25 Nahdat al-Kanais, ⲡⲓϫⲱⲙ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲯⲁⲗⲙⲟⲧⲓⲁ, 104–105. Theotokia part 2a.

190 youssef
(cont.)
ⲡⲓⲓⲗⲁⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲟⲩϩⲱⲃⲥ The mercy-seat was

ⲙⲙⲟϥϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ⲛⲓⲭⲉⲣⲟⲩⲃⲓⲙ ⲉⲩⲟⲓ overshadowed by the
ⲛϩⲓⲕⲱⲛ Cherubim being as an image
ⲉⲧⲉ ⲫϯ ⲡⲓⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲁϥϭⲓⲥⲁⲣⲝ Who was God who was

ⲛϧⲏϯ ⲱ ϯⲁⲧⲁϭⲛⲓ ϧⲉⲛ incarnated of you without
ⲟⲩⲙⲉⲧⲁⲧϣⲓⲃϯ change, O undefiled one.
ⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲓ ⲛⲧⲟⲩⲃⲟ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲛⲉⲛⲛⲟⲃⲓ He became the purification of

ⲛⲉⲙ ⲟⲩⲣⲉϥⲭⲱ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛⲧⲉ our sins, and the forgiveness of
ⲛⲉⲛⲁⲛⲟⲙⲓⲁ26 our transgressions. he resembles the model of
the mercy-seat which was
ⲭⲉⲣⲟⲩⲃⲓⲙ ⲃ︦ ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲃ ⲉⲩⲟⲓ ⲛϩⲓⲕⲱⲛ The two golden Cherubim, overshadowed by the wings of
ⲉⲩϩⲱⲃⲥ ⲙⲡⲓⲓⲗⲁⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ ϧⲉⲛ being image28, covered the holy Cherubim, because of
ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉⲛϩ ⲛⲥⲏⲟⲩ ⲛⲓⲃⲉⲛ continuously the mercy-seat the invisibility of the Godhead
with their wings
ⲉⲩⲉⲣϧⲏⲓⲃⲓ ⲉϩⲣⲏⲓ ϩⲓϫⲉⲛ ⲡⲓⲙⲁ ⲉ︦ⲑ︦ⲩ︦ Overshadowing the place of

ⲛⲧⲉ ⲛⲏⲉ︦ⲑ︦ⲩ︦ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲛⲏⲉ︦ⲑ︦ⲩ︦ ϧⲉⲛ Holy of the Holies in the
ϯⲥⲕⲏⲛⲏ ⲙⲙⲁϩⲥⲛⲟⲩϯ second tabernacle
ⲉⲩϩⲱⲥ ⲉⲡⲟⲩⲣⲉϥⲥⲱⲛⲧ ⲉϥⲭⲏ ϧⲉⲛ Praising their creator, who

ⲧⲉⲛⲉϫⲓ ⲫⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲁϥϭⲓ ⲙⲡⲉⲛⲓⲛⲓ was in your womb, and took
ⲭⲱⲣⲓⲥ ⲛⲟⲃⲓ ϩⲓ ϣⲓⲃϯ27 our likeness without sin or
alteration
26 Nahdat al-Kanais, ⲡⲓϫⲱⲙ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲯⲁⲗⲙⲟⲧⲓⲁ, 107–108. Theotokia part 3a.

27 Nahdat al-Kanais, ⲡⲓϫⲱⲙ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲯⲁⲗⲙⲟⲧⲓⲁ, 108. Theotokia part 3b.
28 The use of the singular “image” here is because the author is using it as a technical term,
in parallel with two stanzas later where ‘their creator … took our likeness’.
ⲛⲑⲟ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲓⲥⲧⲁⲙⲛⲟⲥ ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲃ You are the pot, made of the

ⲧⲧⲟⲩⲃⲏⲟⲩⲧ ⲉⲣⲉ ⲡⲓⲙⲁⲛⲛⲁ ϩⲏⲡ pure gold, wherein was hidden and is as the bread that come
ⲛϩⲣⲏⲓ ϧⲉⲛ ⲧⲉϥⲙⲏϯ the true manna down from heaven which was
prefigured in the vessel of gold
ⲡⲓⲱⲓⲕ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲱⲛϧ ⲉⲧⲁϥⲓ ⲉⲡⲉⲥⲏⲧ The bread of Life which came and in the manna that was in
ⲉⲃⲟⲗϧⲉⲛ ⲧⲫⲉ ⲁϥϯ ⲙⲡⲱⲛϧ from heaven and gave life unto it.
ⲙⲡⲓⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ29 the world
ⲡⲓϣⲃⲟⲧ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲁⲁⲣⲱⲛ ⲉⲧⲁϥⲫⲓⲣⲓ The rod of Aaron, which

ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲭⲱⲣⲓⲥ ϭⲟ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲧⲥⲟ ϥⲟⲓ blossomed without planting or
So also be imitated moreover
ⲛⲧⲩⲡⲟⲥ ⲛⲉ watering, resembles you.
the rod of Aaron, which after
had withered, budded and put
ⲱ ⲑⲏⲉⲧⲁⲙⲉⲥ ⲡⲭ︦ⲥ︦ ⲡⲉⲛⲛⲟⲩϯ ϧⲉⲛ O [you] who gave birth to
forth fruit by means of his
ⲟⲩⲙⲉⲑⲙⲏⲓ ⲁϭⲛⲉ ⲥⲡⲉⲣⲙⲁ ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲓ Christ our True God, without
humanization
ⲉⲥⲟⲓ ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ.30 the seed of man and remained
a Virgin
The Theotokia of Tuesday
While the comparison of the Virgin with the mount of Sinai was treated first by
Cyril of Alexandria,31 the text mentioned above is nearly identical to the hymn
of Severus. It is known that Severus was an admirer of Cyril of Alexandria and
a defender of his theology.32
The Theotokia of Tuesday as it is chanted contains some noticeable differ-
ences–the compiler made a few changes in the text of the hymn.
These changes could be categorized as follows:
29 Nahdat al-Kanais, ⲡⲓϫⲱⲙ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲯⲁⲗⲙⲟⲧⲓⲁ, 109. Theotokia part 4a.

30 Nahdat al-Kanais, ⲡⲓϫⲱⲙ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲯⲁⲗⲙⲟⲧⲓⲁ, 117. Theotokia part 7.
31 A.J. Festugière. Ephèse et Chalcédoine, actes des conciles, Textes dossier documents (Paris:
Beauchesne, 1982), 304 document 77.
32 P. Allen and C.T.R. Hayward, Severus of Antioch (The Early Church Fathers) (London:
Routledge, 2004), 33–36.
192 youssef
1 Embellishment by adding a few words.

2 Summarizing.
3 Changing some words.
In order to facilitate the comparison for the reader, we will add the following
symbols to highlight the differences:
a Words between * * are word/s of embellishment.

b The words underlined are the summarizations.
c The words changed will be put between / /.
Theotokia of Tuesday33 120 The Hymn of the Virgin34

God hath sent forth his grace
truth
ⲁⲣⲉϣⲁⲛⲟⲩⲁⲓ ϯⲛⲓⲁⲧϥ`ⲙⲙⲟ ⲱ If someone contemplates you, When a man looks toward

ϯⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲉ︦ⲑ︦ⲩ︦ ⲟⲩⲟϩ`ⲙⲙⲁⲥⲛⲟⲩϯ *O holy* Virgin and Mother of thee, God-bearer and Virgin
God
ⲛⲉⲙ ⲡⲓⲙⲩⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲟⲓ`ⲛϣⲫⲏⲣⲓ And about the mystery, *full of And at the divine mystery
ⲉⲧⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲓ ⲛϧⲏϯ ⲉⲑⲃⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ wonder,* which became in you which was by a miracle
*for our salvation* wrought in thee
ϥⲁⲛⲭⲁⲣⲱϥ ⲙⲉⲛ ⲉⲑⲃⲉ He would keep silent, for he He is silent because of the
ϯⲙⲉⲧⲁⲧⲥⲁϫⲓ`ⲙⲙⲟϥ cannot utter he would make ineffability, and wondering is
ϥⲛⲁⲧⲟⲩⲛⲟⲥⲧⲉⲛ ⲉⲡϣⲱⲓ us, *rise up* for praise stirred to utter praise
ⲉⲟⲩϫⲓⲛⲉⲣϩⲩⲙⲛⲟⲥ
ⲉⲑⲃⲉ ϯⲙⲉⲧⲛⲓϣϯ`ⲛⲧⲉ ⲫⲏⲉ- Because of greatness of the Because of the greatness of

ⲧⲟⲓ`ⲛϣⲫⲏⲣⲓ`ⲛⲣⲉϥⲉⲣⲡⲉⲑⲛⲁⲛⲉϥ wonderful, *Maker of all him who helped as so much.
ⲉⲧⲟⲓ`ⲛⲑⲟ`ⲛⲣⲏϯ different good things*
ⲡⲓⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲉⲧⲟⲛϧ`ⲛⲧⲉ ⲫϯ For the *Living* Word, of God The Word of God himself who
ⲫⲓⲱⲧ ⲉⲧⲁϥ̀ⲓ ⲉⲡⲉⲥⲏⲧ ⲉϯⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ *the Father,* came down /to came down upon the high
ϩⲓϫⲉⲛ ⲡⲧⲱⲟⲩ `ⲛⲥⲓⲛⲁ give the Law,/ on the Mount of mountain of Sinai to lay down
Sinai the Law
33 Nahdat al-Kanais, ⲡⲓϫⲱⲙ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲯⲁⲗⲙⲟⲧⲓⲁ, 173–176. Theotokia part 4.

34 E.W. Brooks, The Hymns of Severus, 159–160.
ⲁϥϩⲱⲃⲥ`ⲛⲧⲁⲫⲉ ⲙⲡⲓⲧⲱⲟⲩ ϧⲉⲛ *He covered* the peak of for the people and hid that
ⲟⲩⲭⲣⲉⲙⲧⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲟⲩⲭⲁⲕⲓ ⲛⲉⲙ the mountain, with smoke peak with smoke and gloom
ⲟⲩⲥⲁⲣⲁⲑⲏⲟⲩ darkness and mist and with and with darkness and mist
storms and by the flashing of the
terrible mighty lightning
ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ϯⲥⲙⲏ`ⲛⲧⲉ Through the sound of the And by the sound of trumpets
ϩⲁⲛⲥⲁⲗⲡⲓⲅⲅⲟⲥ ⲛⲁϥϯⲥⲃⲱ ϧⲉⲛ trumpets, He was teaching, the [he] caused those who were
ⲟⲩϩⲟϯ ⲛ̀ⲛⲏⲉⲧⲟϩⲓ ⲉⲣⲁⲧⲟⲩ people standing with fear standing round to marvel, and
taught them through such fear
and terrors
ⲛⲑⲟϥ ⲟⲛ ⲁϥ̀ⲓ ⲉⲡⲉⲥⲏⲧ ⲉϫⲱ He also descended on you, O came down upon thee, Mary
ϧⲁ ⲡⲓⲧⲱⲟⲩ`ⲛⲗⲟⲅⲓⲕⲟⲛ intellectual mountain that the rational mountain
ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲣⲁⲩϣ ⲛⲉⲙ spoke with humility and love peacefully and gently and
ⲟⲩⲙⲉⲧⲙⲁⲓⲣⲱⲙⲓ of mankind mercifully in that he blessed
this and hallowed it by the
descent of the Holy Spirit
ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲟⲛ ⲙⲡⲁⲓⲣⲏϯ ⲁϥϭⲓⲥⲁⲣⲝ And likewise, He took flesh And so became incarnate of
`ⲛϧⲏϯ ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲙⲉⲧⲁⲧϣⲓⲃϯ from You without alteration her without variation in flesh
`ⲛⲟⲩⲥⲁⲣⲝ`ⲛⲗⲟⲅⲓⲕⲏ /an intellectual body/ which is of /our nature/
`ⲛⲟⲙⲟⲟⲩⲥⲓⲟⲥ ⲛⲉⲙⲁⲛ ⲉⲥϫⲏⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Consubstantial with us and endowed with a living rational
ⲉⲟⲩⲟⲛ`ⲛⲧⲁⲥ`ⲛⲟⲩⲯⲩⲭⲏ`ⲛⲟⲏⲣⲁ perfect and also has *a intelligent soul and became
rational soul* perfectly man
ⲁϥⲟϩⲓ ⲉϥⲟⲓ`ⲛⲛⲟⲩϯ ϧⲉⲛ He remained God, *as He is While he remained what he is

ⲫⲏⲉⲛⲁϥⲟⲓ`ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ and became a perfect man* God
ⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲓ`ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲓ`ⲛⲧⲉⲗⲓⲟⲥ
ϩⲓⲛⲁ`ⲛⲧⲉϥⲃⲱⲗ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ So as to abolish the iniquity of In order to do away the

`ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲁⲡⲧⲱⲙⲁ`ⲛⲁⲇⲁⲙ Adam and that *He might save offence of our father Adam
ⲟⲩⲟϩ`ⲛⲧⲉϥⲥⲱϯ`ⲙⲫⲏⲉⲧⲁϥⲧⲁⲕⲟ those who perished * and deliver
`ⲛⲧⲉϥⲁⲓϥ`ⲙⲡⲟⲗⲓⲧⲏⲥ`ⲛϩⲣⲏⲓ ϧⲉⲛ /And to make him a citizen, and restore the lost one
ⲛⲓⲫⲏⲟⲩⲓ`ⲛⲧⲉϥⲧⲁⲥⲑⲟϥ ⲉⲧⲉϥⲁⲣⲭⲏ of heaven and restore/ his according to the riches of his
ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲡⲉⲕⲛⲓϣϯ`ⲛⲛⲁⲓ leadership according to His great mercy.
great mercy
194 youssef
Commentary
The table shows clearly that the embellishments are the most numerous while
the summarization occurs only a few times. It is noticeable, however, that
the word “nature”35 which was so dear to Severus of Antioch is omitted and
replaced by /an intellectual body/. The reason for this change is not clear.
It could be that the compiling of the Theotokia took place after the Arab
conquest and the term “nature” lost its importance in view of the mystery of
the incarnation(?).
It is worth mentioning that this hymn was translated later36 into Ethiopic
with some variations, and we will give the text here in full.37
7. O Virgin, O Saint, O Bearer of God, since thou didst bring forth the
King, a marvellous mystery dwelt upon thee for our salvation. We will hold
our peace, for we are unable to search into the matter completely, as the
greatness thereof requireth, and will describe that Doer of good things,
through the exceedingly great wonder of the manifestation. So then
8. He was the Living Word of the Father Who came down on Mount
Sinai, and gave the Law to Moses (Exodus xix, 16 ff.) whilst the top of the
35 For the theological meaning of the word “nature” in the theology of Severus of Antioch see
J. Lebon, “La Christologie du monophysisme syrien,” in A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht (eds),
Das Konzil von Chalkedon Geschichte und Gegenwart, Band 1, Der Glaube von Chalkedon,
(Wurzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1951), 419–580.
36 It seems that this translation took place under the Abun Salama ii (+ 1388) who was the
successor of Abuna Yaʿqob and served as metropolitan during the reigns of Negus Sayfa
Arʿad (1344–1372), Negus Newaya Maryam (1372–1382), and Negus Dawit i (1382–1412).
The Liber Axumae indicates that he arrived in Ethiopia in 1341 of the Ethiopian calendar
(a.d. 1348–1349) and died in 1380 (a.d. 1387–1388). According to the Ethiopian Synaxarion,
he died on 20 Nahasé (1380) (a.d. 13 August 1388). Salama ii occupies an important place
in the history of Ethiopian Christian Literature, having been the promoter of a vast literary
movement based on the translation from Arabic into Ethiopic (Geʿez) of a considerable
number of texts derived from the religious literature of the Copts. Cf. Ge. Haile, “Ethiopian
Prelates, (continued),” Coptic Encyclopedia, A.S. Atiya (ed.), volume 4 (New York: MacMil-
lan, 1991), 1005–1044. L. Ricci, “Ethiopian Literature”, Coptic Encyclopedia, A.S. Atiya (ed.),
volume 3 (New York: MacMillan 1991), 975–979. C. Chaillot, Vie et spiritualité des Églises
orthodoxes orientales des traditions, syriaque, arménienne, copte et éthiopienne, Patrimoine
orthodoxie (Paris: Cerf, 2011), 339.
37 E.A. Wallis Budge, Legends of our Lady Mary the Perpetual Virgin and her Mother Hannâ
Translated from the Ethiopic Manuscripts …, (London, Liverpool and Boston: Medici Soci-
ety, 1922), 284.
mountain was covered with mist, and with smoke, and with darkness, and
with storm, and with the terrifying blasts of trumpets. He admonished
those who were standing there in fear. So then
9. It was He Who came down to thee, O rational mountain, in the
humility of the Lover of men. Without any change He became incarnate
of thee, and took a perfect body, endowed with reason and like unto
ourselves, through the spirit of wisdom. God took up His abode in her and
became perfect man so that He might deliver Adam, and forgive him his
sin, and make him to dwell in heaven, and bring him back to his former
state in His abundant compassion and mercy.
When was the translation done? The date of the translation from the Greek to
Coptic is not known, but as part of the Theotokia are included in the Sahidic
Coptic38 Antiphonarion39 which can be dated from the ninth-tenth century,40
the translation must have been done before this date.
As we mentioned, the context of the composition of the hymn by Severus
is not known. Euringer41 identifies the author of the Theotokia as the deacon
Simon the potter (+514) and contemporary to James of Sarûg.
Where was the translation done from Greek (Syriac) to Coptic? If the date is
situated between the sixth and ninth centuries, a study of the Syriac centres in
Egypt would help to localize the translation:
1 The monastery of Enaton42 where Thomas of Heraclia bishop of Mabbug

made his revision of the translation of the New Testament at the end of the
sixth century.43
38 For the Sahidic liturgy (or the liturgy of Upper Egypt), U. Zanetti, “Liturgy in the White
Monastery,” Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt, Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla
(eds) Volume 1, A Saint Mark Foundation, (Cairo and New York: The American University
in Cairo Press, 2008), 201–210.
39 Cramer and Krause, Das koptische Antiphonar, 182, 184, 194, 198–212.
40 Cramer and Krause, Das koptische Antiphonar, 15.
41 Villecourt, “Les observances Liturgiques …” (1924), 229 note 3.
42 R-G. Coquin, M. Martin, “Monasteries in and around Alexandria,” Coptic Encyclopedia,
A.S. Atiya (ed.), volume 5 (New York: MacMillan, 1991), 1654–1646; J. Gascou, “Enaton,
the,” Coptic Encyclopedia, A.S. Atiya (ed.), volume 3 (New York: MacMillan, 1991), 954–
958.
43 J.M. Fiey, “Coptes et Syriaques, contacts et échanges” Studia Orientalia Christiana Col-
lectanea 15 (1972–1973), 295–366 and especially 317.
196 youssef
2 According to the legend the Monastery of Surian (Scetis) was bought in the
ninth century.44
3 There was a church for the Syriac speakers named after Saint John in Fustat
in the ninth century.45
4 The last two places. i.e. Scetis and Old-Cairo (= Fustat) are mentioned in the
quotations of Ibn Kabar.
Hence it is plausible that the place where the translation was completed was
the monastery of Enaton or Wadi al-Natrûn (Scetis). Why are the Coptic and
the Syriac texts not identical?
This phenomenon could be explained by the way that the Theotokia are
chanted, where some words may be added to assist with the rhyme and rhythm.
In fact, the Coptic texts are not usually identical to the Syriac, as seen for
example in Severus’ homily on Leontius,46 or the homily 14.47
Conclusion
We have demonstrated that most of the hymns treat the same subjects as the
homilies that were composed either by Severus himself or at least one of his
disciples. These hymns were used in the same way as the two Marian hymns of
Severus—to be included in the Coptic Theotokia.
The tables containing the comparison between the hymns of Severus and
Theotokia demonstrate clearly that parts of the Coptic Theotokia are inspired
by (if not taken from) the hymns of Severus on the Virgin Mary. Thus it can be
said that the legacy of Severus of Antioch in Egypt is not only his presence but
also his liturgical contribution.48
44 This legend was proved wrong with the discoveries of new wall paintings cf. K.C. Innemée,
“Recent discoveries of Wall-Paintings in Deir al-Surian,” Hugoye, Journal of Syriac Studies,
vol. 1 nr 2 (1998); K.C. Innemée and L. Van Rompay, “Deir al-Surian (Egypt) new discoveries
of 2001–2002,” in Hugoye, Journal of Syriac Studies vol. 5 nr 2 (2002) http://syrcom.cua.edu/
hugoye.
45 Fiey, “Coptes et Syriaques,” 327.
46 G. Garitte, “Textes Hagiographiques Orientaux relatifs à Saint Léonce de Tripoli ii,
L’ homélie de Sévère d’ Antioche,” Le Muséon 79, (1966), 335–386.
47 Cf. above.
48 W.E. Crum, “Sévère d’ Antioche en Egypte,” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 23 (1922–1923), 92–
104; De Lacy O’Leary, “Severus of Antioch in Egypt,” Aegyptus 32 (1952), 425–436; van der
Meer, “Het verbijf van Severus van Antiochie in Egypte” Het Christelijk Oosten 48 (1996),
49–72.
The introduction of the Theotokias to the Coptic rite took place between
the seventh and eighth centuries. The translation was made probably in the
monastery of Enaton or Wadi al-Natrûn where bilingual communities lived.
The text was later translated into Ethiopic around the fourteenth century. This
similarity is not a unique fact, as we have noticed a similarity between the
hymn praising Severus in the Antiphonarion49 and the Syriac hymn praising
Severus.50
We may say in conclusion that the study of Coptic liturgical texts relating to
Severus of Antioch51 is still in its infancy. There are still texts to be discovered.
49 M. Krause, “Das koptische Antiphonar aus dem Handschriften von Hamuli,” in Ägypten–
Münster: Kulturwissenschaftliche Studien zu Ägypten, dem Vorderen Orient und verwandten
Gebieten, A.I. Blöbaum et al, (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 2003), 167–185; M. Cramer
and M. Krause, Das koptische Antiphonar, 244–255.
50 Youhanna Nessim Youssef, “A contribution to the Coptic Biography of Severus of Antioch,”
in Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium: Proceedings of the Seventh Inter-
national Congress of Coptic Studies—Leiden, August 27-September 2, 2000, M. Immerzeel
and J. Van der Vliet (eds), (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 133) (Leuven-Paris-Dudley, ma:
Peeters, 2004), 413–426.
51 Youhanna Nessim Youssef, “Severus of Antioch in the Coptic Liturgical books,” Journal of
Coptic Studies 6 (2004): 141–150.
Index
2Maccabees 163 Chrysostom, John 3n14, 4n17, 5n21, 10n54,

153
Acacian schism 127 Church
Acephaloi 146 politicisation 126, 127
Adversus Eunomium 71, 108 unity 128, 158
Agathon, archdeacon 154, 155 communicatio idiomatum 168, 177
agon communication, between Greek- and Syriac-
centrality of 56 speakers 33
agona 48, 49n11, 56, 59 Constantine i, Pope 155
akribeia 4 Constantine the Great 124, 140
Alexandria 3, 5, 5n20, 9, 11, 32, 65, 160 Constantine v, emperor 156, 157
Anastasius i, emperor 7, 8, 125, 127, 130 Constantinople ii 139
Anastasius ii, emperor 156 Contra Damianum 65
Andrew of Crete 155 Council of Ephesus 142
Anthimos of Constantinople 132, 133, 135 Cyril of Alexandria 1, 2, 4, 5, 5n20, 6–11, 68,
Antioch 1, 1n1, 2, 2n4, 2n5, 4–7, 7n35, 8, 8n36, 176, 187
9, 9n49, 11, 14, 22, 65, 128, 160, 170
Antiochene exegesis 11 Damian of Alexandria 65
apatheia 59, 60 De Principiis 175
Aphrahat 56 Diodore of Tarsus 22, 132
Aphrodite 150 Diodorus 176
Arianism 3 Dyophysites 39
Arius 134 Dyophysitism 128
Ark of the Covenant 169
ascetic 5–7 Egypt 1, 128
ascetical 5, 6 Egyptian monasticism 6
asceticism 7, 38, 56, 59, 63 Endemousa 126
imagery of 47, 50, 57 Enkyklion 126
askesis 49, 60 Ephrem 56
ataraxia 60 Ephrem of Amida 134
Athanasius 2, 3, 3n8, 4, 7, 68, 175 Eusebius of Caesarea 14
athletes 51 Eustathius of Antioch 68
athletes 58 Eutyches 104, 108, 113, 129
Eutychius, patriarch 141, 155
Basil the Great 2, 3, 12, 25, 41, 47, 51, 52, 107,
131, 171, 179 fasting 5, 6
Basiliskos 126
Beatitudes 174 Germanus, patriarch 139, 155
Beirut 5, 178 Gregory 41
Gregory of Nazianzus 2, 3, 25, 26, 65, 68, 171
Caesar 175 Gregory of Nyssa 47, 51, 53, 62, 68, 174, 175
Chalcedon 4n19, 7, 10, 41, 47, 65, 113, 125, 127, Grillmeier 1n1, 4, 11
133, 138, 177
Christ Henotikon 126, 128, 130, 147
asceticism 49 hesychia 61
suffering 40–42 Hiereia, Council of 139, 157
200 index
Holy Spirit Menas, Patriarch of Constantinople 126

as dove 153 Miaphysitism 42, 127, 176
Hormisdas 125, 127 exiled bishops 132
Hypatius, bishop of Ephesus 145, 146 versus Byzantine imperial power 124
hypostasis 75, 77, 79, 92 Michael of Thessaloniki 153
monk 58
icon of Edessa 141 monks 38
iconoclasm 138 opposition to Chalcedon 129, 130
Ignatius 2 Monenergism/Monoenergist 145, 157
Isaac the Syrian 56, 58 Monothelitism 138, 155
Isaiah 163 Moses 171
Jacob Baradaeus 135, 136 Nestorius 4, 10, 11, 22, 104, 129
Jerusalem 22 Nicaea ii 139, 143, 151
Job 3 Nouthesia 139
John 166 Novatus 104
John iii Scholasticus 141, 155
John Beth Aphthonia 17, 145, 149 Origen 175
John Chrysostom 1–4, 6–11, 68, 130, 153, 175,
180 Palestine 1, 5
John Diakrinomenos 151 Palladius 147
John of Damascus 139, 147, 156 Papinianus 179
John of Ephesus 136, 140 Paul 14, 24, 49, 51
John of Tella 135, 136 Paul of Edessa 2, 5
John Scholasticus 155 Paul the Silentiary 150
John the Baptist 152, 153, 169 Peter 14
John, bishop of Gabala 143 Peter of Callinicus 65
Jonah 163, 164 Peter the Iberian 6, 144
Julian of Halicarnassus 9, 33, 38, 39, 40, 109 Peter Knapheus (the Fuller) of Antioch 128,
Julian, abbot of the monastery of Beth Mar 146, 147, 151
Bassos 33 Peter Mongos, Patriarch of Alexandria 128
Justin, emperor 125, 127 Philippikos Bardanes, emperor 154, 155
Justinian, emperor 124, 126, 134, 140, 162 Philoxenos of Mabbug 130, 151, 152
Pisidia 1, 5
Leo of Rome 129, 132, 177 Porphyry 134, 140
Leo iii, emperor 156, 157 prosopon 92
Letter to Eupraxias 95 Ps-Macarius 56, 57
Letter to Terentius 93 Ps-Dionysius/Dionysius the Areopagite 144,
Libanius 5 148, 149
libellus 127
Luke 164, 165 Ravenna 144
Romanos 174
Maïouma monastery 14 Romanos, bishop of Rhossos 41
Marcus Aurelius 57, 60
martyrs 48, 54, 61, 163 Sabellianism 66
Mary 169 Severus 1, 2, 2n5, 3, 3n13, 4, 5, 5n21, 6, 7, 7n32,
immortality 33, 39 7n35, 8, 8n36, 9–11, 65
Matthew 164, 165 asceticism 47, 61, 63, 150
Menas 3 Church unity 124, 131
index 201
education 1, 5, 178 Theodore of Mopsuestia 22, 132, 142, 177

exegesis 6, 8, 9, 160 Theodore the Stoudite 147
Henotikon of Zeno 130 Theodoret of Cyrus 57, 168, 175
homilies 183 Theodosios of Alexandria 132, 135
iconoclasm 138, 139 Theodosius ii, emperor 140
letters 10, 32, 47, 160 Theophanes the Confessor 151, 155
monk 1, 1n1, 5–7 theophanies 170
New Testament exegesis 164 Theophylact Simocatta 141
Old Testament exegesis 162 theoria 171, 177
reputation 38, 124, 161 Theotokia 186–188
rhetoric 49 Timothy Ailouros, Patriarch of Alexandria
sermons 21, 47, 150, 161 128
successors of 136 Tome of Leo 41
theoria 165 tranquillity 56, 57, 61, 62
Song of Songs 163 Tritheism 66
St. Drosis 150 two natures 41
Stephen the Younger 156
Stoicism 47, 55, 59 Vigilius, Pope 142
Succensus 4
Zacharias Scholasticus 174
testimonia 168, 174 Zeno, emperor 125, 128
Theodore 176

(Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity 7) Youhanna Youssef - John D'Alton (Eds.) - Severus of Antioch - His Life and Times-Brill (2016)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity 7) Youhanna Youssef - John D'Alton (Eds.) - Severus of Antioch - His Life and Times-Brill (2016)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Severus of Antioch

Texts and Studies in

Ken Parry (Macquarie University)

Alessandro Bausi (University of Hamburg) – Monica Blanchard

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/tsec

Names: D'Alton, John (Priest), editor.

Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Severus of Antioch: Heir of Saint John Chrysostom? 1

Se glorifier de sa ville et de son siège? La grandeur d’ Antioche et le mépris

A Letter from the Orthodox Monasteries of the Orient Sent to Alexandria,

The Asceticism of Severus: An Analysis of Struggle in His Homily 18 on the

Quotations from the Works of St. Severus of Antioch in Peter of Callinicus’

Severus of Antioch and Changing Miaphysite Attitudes toward

The Doves of Antioch: Severus, Chalcedonians, Monothelites, and

Severus of Antioch at the Crossroad of the Antiochene and Alexandrian

Hymns of Severus of Antioch and the Coptic Theotokia 183

What is the Status of St. Severus of Antioch in the Coptic Orthodox

1 He mentions this twice in his Third Letter to Sergius: em p. 158.6–7; p. 176.14–17.

made an unsuccessful attempt to reconvince him. This action resulted in his

Why is St. Severus Important for the Coptic Orthodox Church?

The name of Severus became widespread in Egyptian monasteries and intellec-

Christology of St. Severus of Antioch

St. Ephraim’s Cathedral, Sydney, April 2015

Youhanna Nessim Youssef

Severus is central to the ongoing reappraisal of the events post-Chalcedon and

John D’Alton and Youhanna Youssef

In this paper I seek to redress the situation of interpreting Severus as a second

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/9789004307995_002

Athanasius (d. 373), described in the hymn as “illustrious champion and

8 In general on Athanasius see Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theol-

ops, like holy John of Constantinople.15 As a young man Severus immersed

Comparison of Backgrounds and Career Paths

Whereas there is no extant biography of Cyril of Alexandria against which to

26 Zachariah, 52; trans. Brock and Fitzgerald, 61.

soon we see him travelling to Constantinople with a large group of Palestinian

Immediately he expelled from there [Antioch] those kitchen servants

Now I am going to argue that it is predominantly in the area of exegesis that we

36 Darling Young, The Patriarchate of Severus of Antioch, 46.

New Testament texts.43 Occasionally, continues Roux, Severus’ explanation of

43 Roux, L’ Exégèse biblique, 106–107.

reminiscent of Alexandrian theologians, and for this reason some modern

In his letters Severus frequently refers to Chrysostom without necessarily quot-

responsible for interpreting him against the proponents of Chalcedon. On the

The Quotes from sl and cl Referred to above

Le 18 novembre 512, Sévère de Sozopolis, supérieur d’ un monastère à Maïouma,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/9789004307995_003

Lorsque Sévère accède donc au trône patriarcal, il est conscient qu’ il se

Antioche, grandeur d’une ville apostolique et fidèle

4 M. Brière et F. Graffin, Les Homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche, traduction syriaque de

10 Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales lviii–lxix, 260 [146], Hom. 61.

dans son Histoire ecclésiastique considère qu’Ignace avait obtenu, au second

19 Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire Ecclésiastique, ch. iii, 36.

Dans le même sens, il dira dans sa 9e homélie prononcée le jour de l’ an qu’ il

Comment en viendrons-nous au même état, moi et Ignace le Théophore,

Connaissant son indignité à s’asseoir sur ce siège ignacien, Sévère signera

Antioche, berceau du nouveau nom de chrétiens

Lorsque Sévère se tenait devant la foule enthousiaste des fidèles à Antioche,

27 Kugener, Vie de Sévère d’Antioche, Jean de Beth-Aphtonia, 240 [156].

peuple fidèle et lui rappelait incessamment ses racines chrétiennes et apos-

il y a d’abord le fait que nous soyons nommés chrétiens beaucoup d’ an-

Conservation pratique du dépôt apostolique

37 Brière, Les Homiliae cathedrales cxxi–cxxv, 99 [603], Hom. 121.