Valentin Vesa, Knowledge and Experience in the Writings of St. Isaac of Nineveh
(Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2018)
Robert
Kitchen
Saskatchewan, Canada
TEI XML encoding by
James E. Walters
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2022
Volume 25.1
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv25n1prkitchen
Robert Kitchen
Valentin Vesa, Knowledge and Experience in the Writings of St. Isaac of Nineveh
(Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2018)
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol25/HV25N1PRKitchen.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2022
vol 25
issue 1
pp 305-309
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal
dedicated to the study of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in
January and July) by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998,
Hugoye seeks to offer the best scholarship available in the field of Syriac
studies.
File created by James E. Walters
Valentin Vesa, Knowledge and Experience in the Writings of St. Isaac of Nineveh
(Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2018). Pp. XIV + 331; $114.95.
This monograph issues from the doctoral dissertation of Valentin Vesa at the
University of Padova, Italy, under the supervision of Paolo Bettiolo. Vesa examines
the concepts of knowledge and experience in the writings of the late seventh-century
East Syriac author Isaac of Nineveh. Since 2020, Benedict-Valentin Vesa has been
bishop-vicar of the Archdiocese of Vad, Feleac and Cluj, of the Romanian Orthodox
Church.
While the importance and originality of Isaac’s mystical theology has long been
recognized—his works were translated and utilized more than those of any other
Syriac writer, notably in the Greek and Slavonic collections of the Philokalia—he is
still understudied. Recent publications by Sebastian Brock, Sabino Chiala, Hilarion
Alfeyev, Patrick Hagman, Jason Scully, Serafim Seppala, as well as an international
colloquium in Moscow, have yielded fruitful explorations of this prolific but
enigmatic author.
Beginning with an excellent survey of what is known about Isaac’s life and writings,
Vesa focuses on his unique ideas regarding salvation and grace for mere human beings
in God’s providence. Instructive as well is Vesa’s description and analysis of the
christological controversies in the East Syriac church during the sixth and seventh
centuries. Vesa initially focuses on Sahdona (Martyrius) who defined the nature of
Christ as one person in a manner that bordered on both Chalcedonian and Miaphysite
tendencies. The Church of the East resisted allowing its unique dyophysite character
to be compromised, which created considerable theological conflict. This culminated
in Patriarch Ishoʿyahb III’s dismissal of Sahdona as bishop of Mahoze d’Arewan.
Vesa surveys the controversy in the seventh to ninth centuries in the Church of the
East surrounding the views held by three spiritual theologians—John of Dalyatha,
Joseph Ḥazzaya, and John the Solitary of Apamea—regarding the possibility of humans
“seeing God,” and explains that it involved a misunderstanding of mystical language
and theology. The mystics did not pretend to be able to see God’s essence; merely,
if that is the expression, God’s glory and light. Isaac of Nineveh too speaks of the
vision of God (theoria) as part of the climactic state of the ascetic’s being.
Vesa’s book probes in detail Isaac of Nineveh’s process of knowledge—how does one
think and know, in particular an ascetic-monastic person of faith? Vesa terms
Isaac’s approach as “theanthropic”: it begins with the material world and its
thought, and then progresses and matures to the ultimate state of seeing the glory
of God when all movement ceases in order for the ascetic to dwell in it.
Vesa offers significant citations from Isaac’s corpus and from other scholarly
interpretations. Numerous citations in this English monograph are presented in
Italian and French, which impedes and slows down the reader.
The three major influences upon Isaac’s ascetical theology are Evagrius Ponticus (d.
399), John the Solitary of Apamea (fl. 450), and Pseudo-Dionysius (ca. 500). Along
with other spiritual writers, these three adopted a three-level-system on which the
monk progressively ascends. Isaac adapts and develops their configurations. Evagrius
posits the three stages of praktikos, gnostikos, and theologikos. Dionysius
describes the stages of purification, illumination, and unification. John the
Solitary, with whom Isaac has the closest affinity, has pagrana, naphshana, and
ruḥana (bodily, of the soul, spiritual). Abba Isaiah (early 5th c.), another Greek
ascetical writer whose Asceticon was translated early into Syriac and was the
subject of a commentary by Dadishoʿ Qatraya, a contemporary and fellow countryman of
Isaac, also describes the path of solitaries as that of bodily labours, the mode of
life of the mind, and spiritual contemplation (theoria).
While Isaac’s system may have originated and intertwined with these earlier writers,
he developed a more complex series of movements, totaling six. For Isaac, Vesa
emphasizes, the goal is the Ultimate Truth, that is, God’s Truth, which is knowledge
or understanding (ܝܕܥܬܐ).
The heart of the matter begins with knowledge and faith, as Isaac insists that
knowledge is a gift, not the result of any ascetic struggle, but the consequence of
the divine intervention (p. 235). As the monk progresses, faith swallows knowledge
and gives the foretaste of the reality of the future life. Vesa cites Isaac’s
observation that the inner senses now have received “intelligible resurrection”
(ܩܝܡܬܐ ܡܬܝܕܥܢܝܬܐ) in “the order of things which will be in the state of immortality
and incorruptibility.” ( p.236) This is faith beyond dogmatic creeds or doctrines,
and is now an experiential dimension participating in the divine mysteries by means
of grace. Knowledge, as a collection of facts, no longer exists and is subsumed by
faith which limpidly or clearly “sees.” One ascends to the heights of faith, as if
on a ladder, but at the top, one no longer needs the ladder (p. 240).
The transition has now taken place to what Isaac terms un-knowledge (ܠܐ ܝܕܥܬܐ). This
does refer in a preliminary sense to the transcendence and incomprehensibility of
God to human beings engaged passionately. No one is able to understand the thoughts
of God without being crushed under the burden of the revelation. Vesa guides the
reader through Isaac’s explication of this reality, but then moves to the higher
level of un-knowledge—in which Vesa perceives Theodore of Mopsuestia’s concept of
two ages influencing Isaac. Un-knowledge marks the entry in the second
stage/post-Incarnation. Yet at the spiritual level, in one’s ascetic mind, one may
mysteriously participate partially in divine knowledge. Nevertheless, the
possibility of knowledge remains limited.
Isaac relies heavily upon Evagrius, citing him, “Blessed is he who has reached during
prayer unconsciousness (ܠܐ ܝܕܥܬܐ) which is not to be surpassed” (p. 244). The
ascetic “gazes in ecstasy (ܚܘܪܐ ܕܒܬܡܗܐ) at the unattainable things which do not
belong to the world of mortals… this is the ignorance, the unknowledge (ܠܐ ܝܕܥܬܐ)”
(pp. 244–45). Vesa summarizes this mode of “knowledge beyond knowledge” to be
“achieved in the grace of God, without any ascetic work, spontaneously and directly
directed by God’s will” (p. 245).
Returning to the controversy that posthumously beset Isaac and other East Syriac
mystical writers, Vesa reviews the condemnation by Timothy I in 787 of those who
declare that the human nature of Christ can see his divinity, as well as those
claiming that other created human beings are able to see the divine nature. But even
Patriarch Timothy had to recognize that the event at Tabor demonstrates the
possibility of knowing the royalty of Christ by means of the vision of the glory of
God. John of Dalyatha is closest to expressing the possibility of Christ’s humanity
seeing his divinity, understanding Christ as the icon and the knowledge of the
Father, not only in his divinity, but in his humanity as well. John of Dalyatha,
however, persistently notes that the divine vision occurs in “obscure light,” so
that the difference between the nature or essence of God and divine glory are subtly
distinguished.
Isaac of Nineveh draws a similar distinction between Creator and creation. Isaac uses
three concepts—stirring, stupor or wonder, and vision—to express the spiritual stage
in which the end result or knowledge will be the clothing of people in God’s light,
effected by faith as the melding or mingling of active participation and divine
intervention. Theoria is also called “the vision of God”, when the intellect is
moved without senses by the spiritual powers, and therefore, an experience of wonder
as the highest cognitive order. It is the concept of revelation that most closely
approximates his idea of divine vision, which remains essentially an analogous way
of knowing. Isaac defines divine sight as “non-perceptible mental revelation” (ܓܠܝܢܐ
ܠܐ ܡܬܪܓܫܢܐ ܕܗܘܢܐ). Revelation is silence of the intellect, so that knowledge is not
an achievement of any mental or sense activity, but is generated out of the direct
intervention of the Holy Spirit by the means of revelation.
“Revelation is different from truth and knowledge in so far as revelation is not the
exact truth, but only shows inclinations and signs corresponding to human strengths”
(p. 270). Isaac suggests that revelation should not be called knowledge, but rather
“overshadowing” (ܡܓܢܢܘܬܐ) caused by the direct intervention of the Spirit (pp.
271–73).
Bishop Benedict-Valentin Vesa has steered the reader well through a complex web which
the contemplative mind of the monk must navigate on the way to the attainment and
participation in the reality of the divine ultimate truth. Admitting the difficulty
of Isaac’s theology, Vesa has been able to systematically extract and contextualize
Isaac of Nineveh’s steps along the way.