Mallpânâ dilan Suryâyâ Ephrem in the Works of Philoxenus of Mabbog: Respect and Distance†
Lucas
Van Rompay
Duke University
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2004
Vol. 7, No. 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/hv7n1vanrompay
Lucas Van Rompay
Mallpânâ dilan Suryâyâ Ephrem in the Works of Philoxenus of Mabbog: Respect and Distance†
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol7/HV7N1VanRompay.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute,
vol 7
issue 1
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 XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
This paper focuses on two theological works
by Philoxenus of Mabbog (d. 523) in which the author considers
Ephrem’s theological views. One is an early work, the
Mêmrê against Habbib (482-484); the other
is the Letter to the monks of Senoun, which may be
dated to 521. In the early work, quotations from Ephrem’s
work occupy a prominent position, but in the later work only a
very few quotations are found and the author criticizes the
imprecision of Ephrem’s language. This change in attitude
between the earlier and the later work is symptomatic of the
transition through which Syriac Christianity passed around the
year 500. Syriac theological thought was reconfigured along the
lines of Greek patristic theology and the legacy of Ephrem,
“our Syrian teacher,” caused some
discomfort.
In memory of André de Halleux
(† 1994) and François Graffin († 2003).
[1] By
expressing their preference for the term
“Miaphysite” to characterize their Christological
teaching, the Oriental Orthodox Churches of the
anti-Chalcedonian tradition emphasize their indebtedness to
Cyril of Alexandria, whose formula “one nature (mia
physis) of God the Word having become flesh” is
indeed the cornerstone of their theological tradition.
For the use of this formula (which was not created
by Cyril), see the references in G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic
Greek Lexicon, Fourth impression (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1976), 1500b-1501b.
[2] It is
well known that Cyril’s works started being translated
into Syriac during, or in the aftermath of, the Nestorian
controversy, in the thirties of the fifth century. The
mainstream Syrian anti-Chalcedonians did not follow
Eutyches’ understanding of the “one nature”
in Christ as overwhelmingly divine, but always interpreted
Cyril’s Christology as doing full justice to both
Christ’s godhead and manhood.
It is for this reason that the term
“Monophysite” was seen as particularly
inappropriate. See, e.g., V.C. Samuel, The Council of
Chalcedon Re-examined. Indian Theological Library 8
(Madras, 1977), xxi and passim.
However, in spite of this
duality, they firmly rejected any idea of division, or conjoint
existence of divinity and humanity in Christ after the union.
The Council of Chalcedon (451), therefore, with its two-nature
formula, was unacceptable to them. They saw it as the betrayal
of Cyril’s ideas and as the resurgence of
Nestorius’ fundamental error, condemned at the Council of
Ephesus (431).
[3]
Philoxenus, since 485 bishop of Mabbog, halfway between Aleppo
and Edessa, belonged to the first generation of Syrian
theologians and church leaders who devoted all their energy to
formulating a response to Dyophysitism of both the Nestorian
and the Chalcedonian types. Elaborating upon Cyril’s
Christology and taking the expression of John 1:14 (“the
Word became flesh”) as his starting-point, he developed a
theology which focuses on “God becoming
man”—becoming, without change in the divine
unchangeability, without losing anything of what He previously
was. If we take the expression “becoming”
seriously, Philoxenus argues, and do not reduce it—as
Nestorius did—to “indwelling,” the outcome of
the process can be one entity only, not two.
[4] This
theological program Philoxenus defended consistently and
relentlessly for more than forty years, between 480 and 523.
Here it is my aim not to study any specific aspect of this
theology, but rather to ask the question to what extent
Philoxenus relates his theology—for himself as well as
for his readers – to the earlier Syriac heritage, in
particular the works of Ephrem. As is well known, both
adherents and opponents of the Council of Chalcedon tried to
strengthen their case by claiming that their teaching was in
full agreement with the established tradition of the
Church.
Compare Marcel Richard, “Les
florilèges diphysites du Ve et du
VIe siècle,” in Das Konzil von
Chalkedon, Geschichte un Gegenwart, A. Grillmeier and H.
Bacht, eds., I (Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1951), 721-748.
Along with other anti-Chalcedonian authors,
writing in Greek or in Syriac, Philoxenus was delving in
earlier works in order to find support for his views and to
underpin his resistance to Chalcedon with authoritative texts
from the Fathers. Who were these Fathers and how prominent was
Ephrem among them?
[5] There
can be no doubt that Philoxenus was intimately familiar with
Ephrem’s works. Ephrem’s ideas had a decisive
influence on his theology; Ephrem’s images and language
resonate in many of his writings.
Edmund Beck, “Philoxenos und
Ephräm,” Oriens Christianus 46 (1962),
61-76; André de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog.
Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Louvain:
Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1963), esp. 318, with note 30; Roberta
C. Chesnut, Three Monophysite Christologies. Severus of
Antioch, Philoxenus of Mabbug, and Jacob of Sarug (London:
Oxford University Press, 1976), 2.
And yet, certain passages in
Philoxenus’ œuvre prove that his relationship to
Ephrem’s heritage was not always an easy one. In the
following, I would like to examine evidence from the very
beginning of Philoxenus’ career, in the early eighties of
the fifth century, and to compare it with data taken from one
of his last writings, datable to 521. This will show us that in
these forty years a remarkable shift took place. Whereas for
the young Philoxenus Ephrem was indeed a much respected
theological authority, in his old age Philoxenus appears to
have become much more critical of him. We will be focusing on
two of Philoxenus’ major writings, the
Mêmrê against Habbib and the Letter to
the monks of Senoun.
The Mêmrê against Habbib
(between 482 and 484)
[6] We first
have to turn to an extensive theological composition, known as
the Mêmrê against Habbib.
Another title under which the work is known since
the day of Assemanus is: “De uno ex Trinitate incarnato
et passo Dissertationes X.”
Like Philoxenus,
Habbib was an influential monk in Mesopotamia, using his pen to
defend his theological views. Philoxenus regards him as a
Nestorian. Habbib was the author of an exposition
(Mamllâ), which largely consisted of a
refutation of an earlier dogmatic letter by Philoxenus, sent to
the monks in Mesopotamia. Philoxenus replied to Habbib’s
Mamllâ first with a short refutation and later
on with a very thorough analysis and refutation in the
above-mentioned Mêmrê, which are ten in
number. The Mêmrê, or
“Treatises,” preserved in two sixth-century
manuscripts, include at the end a number of appendixes—in
all likelihood to be traced back to Philoxenus himself—in
which extracts from the three other works (Philoxenus’
letter, Habbib’s Mamllâ, and
Philoxenus’ short refutation) are incorporated. The main
piece among the appendixes, however, is a Florilegium of two
hundred and twenty-seven patristic quotations, having as its
title: Sahdwâtâ men ktâbê
d-’abâhâtâ, “Testimonies
from the writings of the Fathers.” The
Mêmrê were published in various
installments in Patrologia Orientalis between 1920 and
1982, begun by Maurice Brière
M. Brière, Sancti Philoxeni episcopi
Mabbugensis dissertationes decem de Uno e sancta Trinitate
incorporato et passo. Dissertatio Ia et
IIa
. Patrologia Orientalis 15,4 (Paris, 1920).
and after
Brière’s death continued by François
Graffin,
M. Brière† and F. Graffin, Sancti
Philoxeni episcopi Mabbugensis dissertationes decem de Uno e
sancta Trinitate incorporato et passo, II.
Dissertationes 3a, 4a,
5a
. Patrologia Orientalis 38,3 (Turnhout:
Brepols, 1977); III. Dissertationes 6a,
7a, 8a
. Patrologia Orientalis 39,4
(Turnhout: Brepols, 1979); IV. Dissertationes
9a, 10a
. Patrologia Orientalis 40,2
(Turnhout: Brepols, 1980); V. Appendices: I.
Tractatus; II. Refutatio; III. Epistula
dogmatica; IV. Florilegium. Patrologia Orientalis
41,1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1982).
accompanied first with a Latin and later with a
French translation. The Florilegium is in the 1982 issue.
André de Halleux provided an analysis of the whole work
in his 1963 monograph on Philoxenus,
De Halleux, Philoxène [1963],
225-238. In a later article the same author focused on
Habbib’s treatise: “Le Mamlelâ de
«Habbîb» contre Aksenâyâ. Aspects
textuels d’une polémique christologique dans
l’Église syriaque de la première
génération post-chalcédonienne,” in
After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History
Offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for his Seventieth
Birthday, C. Laga, J.A. Munitiz, and L. Van Rompay, eds.,
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 18 (Louvain: Departement
Oriëntalistiek & Peeters, 1985), 67-82.
while François Graffin
studied the Florilegium in his contribution to the first
Symposium Syriacum, held in Rome in 1972.
François Graffin, “Le
florilège patristique de Philoxène de
Mabbog,” in Symposium Syriacum 1972. Orientalia
Christiana Analecta 197 (Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium
Studiorum, 1974), 267-290.
Sebastian Brock briefly discussed the Florilegium and pointed
out its importance in 1997.
Sebastian Brock, “The Transmission of
Ephrem’s Madrashe in the Syriac Liturgical
Tradition,” in Studia Patristica 23, Elizabeth
A. Livingstone, ed. (Louvain: Peeters, 1997), 490-505.
The Christology of the
Mêmrê was studied in great detail by Luise
Abramowski in a 2002 publication.
Luise Abramowski, “Aus dem Streit um
das „Unus ex trinitate passus“: Der Protest des
Habib gegen die Epistula dogmatica des Philoxenus an die
Mönche,” in Jesus der Christus im Glauben der
Kirche, Band 2/3. Die Kirchen von Jerusalem und
Antiochien nach 451 bis 600, Theresia Hainthaler, ed.
(Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 2002), 570-647. The Florilegium is not
included in this study.
[7] The ten
Mêmrê themselves consist of theological
explanation, mostly in direct reaction to points which Habbib
had made. They only rarely refer to patristic authors, or do so
in a very general way. Heretics are more frequently referred to
by name. Sharing the same Syriac Mesopotamian background, both
Philoxenus and Habbib occasionally accuse each other of being a
follower of Bardaisan or Mani. At one point, Philoxenus reacts
with indignation when Habbib attributes the idea of “the
Most Highest becoming a baby” (hwâ
cEllâyâ culâ) to
Bardaisan and argues that it belongs to “the truthful
teachers” (mallpânê
šarrirê) and above all to the “saintly
and blessed” Ephrem.
M. Brière and F. Graffin, II,
582[112]. For a nuanced analysis of this passage, see
Abramowski, op. cit., 595-596 (compare also 598).
[8] Let us
turn to the Florilegium. This is divided into five thematic
sections, a division which is explained and justified by the
author. The five sections (A to E) as well as the names of the
authors quoted and the number of passages attributed to each of
them are shown in the following overview.
The section headings given below are my own
summaries of the fuller descriptions provided by Philoxenus (or
by the redactor of the whole dossier?) at the end of the
Florilegium (Graffin’s edition, 124[124]-126[126]). For
different summaries, see De Halleux, Philoxène
[1963], 227, and Graffin, “Le florilège,”
269.
“The hypostasis of the Son, one from the Trinity,
God the Word, descended from heaven and hypostatically
dwelled in the Virgin.”
1-27
Ephrem
(27)
28-32
John Chrysostom
(5)
33-44
Eusebius of Emesa
(12)
45-46
Cyril of Alexandria
(2)
“The One who dwelled in the Virgin hypostatically
took his body from her (’etgaššam
mennâh) hypostatically without
change.”
47-54
John Chrysostom
(8)
55-61
Ephrem
(7)
62-65
Eusebius of Emesa
(4)
66
Athanasius of Alexandria
(1)
67
Atticus of Constantinople
(1)
68
Athanasius of Alexandria
(+1)
69-70
Basil of Caesarea
(2)
71-77
Cyril of Alexandria
(7)
“Just as God became body, He also was born. The
Virgin therefore is rightly called ‘Mother of
God’, because she gave birth to the one hypostasis of
God having become body (
had
qnomâ d-’Alâhâ
da-mgaššam).”
78-80
Gregory of Nazianzus
(3)
81-85
John Chrysostom
(5)
86-87
Eusebius of Emesa
(2)
88-89
Athanasius of Alexandria
(2)
90-91
Atticus of Constantinople
(2)
92
Theophilus of Alexandria
(1)
93
Alexander of Alexandria
(1)
94
Basil of Caesarea
(1)
95-101
Ephrem
(7)
102-103
Cyril of Alexandria
(2)
“There is not the one and the other, neither are
there the properties of the one and the properties of the
other. The one hypostasis of God having become man cannot be
counted as two, but He is the one God-Word having become man
without change.”
104-106
Athanasius of Alexandria
(3)
107-109
Basil of Caesarea
(3)
110-132
Ephrem
(23)
133-137
John Chrysostom
(5)
138-142
Eusebius of Emesa
(5)
143-148
Cyril of Alexandria
(6)
149-152
Gregory of Nazianzus
(4)
“The suffering and the death may rightfully be
ascribed to God. Being by nature God and Son, He was exposed
to all human experiences except sin. God suffered and God
died.”
153-193
Ephrem
(41)
194-202
John Chrysostom
(9)
203-211
Eusebius of Emesa
(9)
212
Athanasius of Alexandria
(1)
213-218
Basil of Caesarea
(6)
219
Eusebius of Emesa
(+1)
220-221
Gregory of Nazianzus
(2)
222-227
Cyril of Alexandria
(6)
[9] Of the
authors quoted,
The question whether Philoxenus is solely
responsible for the creation of the Florilegium and whether he
(or the unknown redactor) used preexisting collections of
fragments (see De Halleux, Philoxène [1963],
323-324, with note 28) does not detract from the fact that the
Florilegium as it exists must fully reflect his ideas.
one wrote in Syriac, nine originally wrote in
Greek. But the number of quotations from Ephrem fully
compensates for this imbalance: 105, nearly half of the total
number! Ephrem thus becomes by far the most quoted author, the
first author from whom Philoxenus wanted to find support for
his theological views.
[10] For
a number of quotations Philoxenus provides the title of the
work and exceptionally even the section. Several titles
correspond to the names under which Ephrem’s works are
commonly known and which are still used in modern scholarship.
Thus we find: the Madrâshê on the Church
(a title which also covers our Madrâshê on
Virginity), the Madrâshê on the Nativity,
the Madrâshê on Faith, the
Mêmrê on Nicomedia, the
Mêmrê on Faith,
This quotation (no. 159) had not been
identified by the editor. It consists of Sermon on
Faith III,349-352 and 359-360 (CSCO 212 / Syr. 88, 30).
the volume on the
Nisibene Martyrs (the one quotation attributed to this
work does not figure in the Carmina Nisibena, whereas
three other quotations, given without attribution, are from
this work), the Madrâshê on Julian
Sâbâ. The prose work known to us as “Sermon
on our Lord” is quoted with its beginning words. For
other quotations no title of the work is given. This is true
for quotations from the hymns on the Resurrection, on
Virginity, on the Fast, on Unleavened Bread, and against
Heresies. In addition to these well-known works, most of which
have been edited and fully documented in Beck’s
editions,
For an overview of the editions of
Ephrem’s works, see Sebastian Brock, Saint Ephrem.
Hymns on Paradise (Crestwood, New York: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990), 230-233.
there are fifteen quotations from works which
nowadays are considered dubious and can be found only in the
nineteenth-century edition by Lamy.
Thomas J. Lamy, Sancti Ephraem Syri
Hymni et Sermones, 4 vol. (Malines, 1882-1902).
Moreover, in
Graffin’s edition and translation twenty-seven quotations
remained unidentified. Four of them subsequently were
identified by Sebastian Brock.
Brock, “The Transmission,” 492,
note 6. The first quotation (no. 116 or § 147) is taken
from the Hymns on the Church 13,23 (CSCO 198 / Syr.
84, 34); the second quotation (no. 159 or § 200), from the
third Sermon on Faith, is mentioned in note 16 –
the last two lines, not identified by Brock, are verses
359-360; the third quotation (no. 163 or § 204) is from
Sermo I, iii, 349-352 (CSCO 305 / Syr. 130, 55 –
the last word of this quotation in Graffin’s edition
should be read as l-cln’, i.e.,
l-callânê); the fourth
quotation (no. 173 or § 214) is from the Hymns on
Fast, 5,6, lines 3-6 (CSCO 246 / Syr. 106, 14).
This means that about one
quarter of the quotations remain unaccounted for. A number of
them may belong to works by Ephrem which have not survived. The
four quotations from the Mêmrê on
Nicomedia constitute an interesting case. These
Mêmrê have survived not in the Syriac
original, but in an early Armenian translation. Our four
fragments are among the very few witnesses of the original
text.
See Charles Renoux, Éphrem de
Nisibe. Mêmrê sur Nicomédie. Patrologia
Orientalis 37,2-3 (Turnhout : Brepols, 1975), XIV. The
four fragments are as follows: no. 4 (without title) =
X,153-156 (for the second Syriac form dalli, the
Armenian rather suggests the reading dallyan “He
rescued us”); no. 5 (“From the eleventh
Mêmrâ”) = XI,141-144 and 147-150; no. 157
(“From the Mêmrâ on Nicomedia”) =
I,9-12; no. 158 (without title) = X,369-382.
[11]
Wherever verification is possible, the text of the quotations
in the Florilegium turns out to be identical, or nearly
identical, to the text of Beck’s editions, which are
often based on sixth-century manuscripts. When there are
variant readings, these can occasionally be found in
Beck’s apparatus, and are, thus, well attested in the
Syriac manuscript tradition. To one significant variant I will
turn shortly. There can be no doubt that the quotations were
carefully selected and copied from written texts.
[12] Let
us take a brief look at the other authors. The most unexpected
name is that of Eusebius of Emesa, an author who is extremely
rare in dogmatic Florilegia. He is represented with
thirty-three fragments and therefore is the second most
frequently quoted author! It is difficult to imagine what made
him so attractive in Philoxenus’ eyes. Very little of his
work has survived in Greek or in Syriac and his name was
surrounded with the taint of Arianism. Might it be that one of
the reasons why Philoxenus—who most certainly did not see
him as an Arian!—chose him was that he was a Syrian, born
in Edessa and a contemporary of Ephrem, though writing in
Greek? With the combination of Ephrem and Eusebius we would
have the two faces of Syriac culture, one expressing itself in
Syriac and the other in Greek, joining in the orthodox
faith!
For a first presentation and edition of the
fragments attributed to Eusebius, see É. M. Buytaert,
L’héritage littéraire
d’Eusèbe d’Émèse. Étude
critique et historique. Textes. Bibliothèque du
Muséon 24 (Louvain, 1949), 30-31, 31*-37* (Syriac text),
69*-74* (Latin translation). For a general survey of
Eusebius’ theology, based on the homilies preserved in
Latin as well as on Syriac fragments of the Philoxenian
Florilegium, see M.F. Wiles, “The Theology of Eusebius of
Emesa,” in Papers Presented to the Tenth
International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford
1987, E.A. Livingstone, ed.. Studia Patristica 19
(Louvain: Peeters, 1989), 267-280.
[13] All
the Greek authors in the Florilegium, Eusebius included, are of
course presented in Syriac translation. There is reason to
believe that the redactor of the Florilegium did not produce
the Syriac translations himself, but was relying on existent
translations. This can be proven for the extracts from
Athanasius’ Letter to Epictetus, which fully
conform with the Syriac translation published by R.W.
Thomson.
R.W. Thomson, Athanasiana Syriaca,
I,1. De Incarnatione, 2. Epistula ad
Epictetum. CSCO 257-258 / Syr. 114-115 (Louvain:
Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1965).
In the case of Eusebius of Emesa, the
fragments quoted in the Florilegium are not known from
elsewhere. We do not know anything about their origin and
translation into Syriac, even though there seems to be no
reason to question their authenticity.
[14] All
the quotations were selected as witnesses to Philoxenus’
theology of God’s descent, his becoming man from the
Virgin, of the Virgin’s status as Mother of God, of the
singleness, not the duality of the Son, and of God’s
suffering, crucifixion, and death. In general the point is
clear and convincing, although the sometimes very short
extracts leave one a bit uncertain about the meaning of the
fragment in its broader context. Modern readers cannot escape
the impression that we are reading Ephrem through the lens of
late-fifth century theology, that Ephrem’s texts are
being recontextualized within Philoxenus’ theology.
[15] A
different problem we encounter in fragment no. 19, from
Ephrem’s Hymns on the Resurrection (I,7). The quotation
runs as follows: “The Word of the Father came from his
bosom and became a body in another bosom ….” Now,
“became a body” (wa-hwât
pagrâ) perfectly expresses Philoxenus’ idea of
God becoming man. However, in Ephrem’s text as edited by
Beck, one reads: “clothed itself with a body”
(w-lebšat pagrâ),
Ed. Edmund Beck, Des Heiligen Ephraem
des Syrers Paschahymnen (De Azymis, De Crucifixione, De
Resurrectione). CSCO 248-249 / Syr. 108-109 (Louvain:
Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1964), 79,16-17 (text) and
74,1-2 (German translation).
an expression
which is frequently found in Ephrem and is more problematic
from the viewpoint of Philoxenus’ Christology. We do not
know whether Philoxenus himself changed Ephrem’s
text—there is no evidence for that in any of the other
fragments and in fact there is one other fragment in the
Florilegium which does have the expression lbeš
pagrâ (no. 111, unidentified). However, this case
shows us that Syrian theologians of the end of the fifth
century did occasionally have problems in their attempt to
readjust the earlier heritage to the theological discourse of
the day.
[16]
Philoxenus’ problems with the expression lbeš
pagrâ/besrâ are discussed in another work
which he wrote about twenty years after the
Mêmrê against Habbib, his Commentary on
the prologue of the Gospel of John, written around 505 and
preserved in an early-sixth-century manuscript. Here, on
several occasions, Philoxenus criticizes the imprecision of the
existing Syriac New Testament translation. Focusing on the
Epistle to the Hebrews which in chapter 5, verse 7 has the
expression: “... in the days of his flesh ...”
(, rendered in the Peshitta
as kad besrâ lbiš (h)wâ
“while he was clothed with the flesh”), Philoxenus
writes about the translators:
Ed. André de Halleux,
Philoxène de Mabbog. Commentaire du prologue johannique
(Ms. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,534). CSCO, 380-381 / Syr. 165-166
(Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1977), 53,24-29
(text); 53,10-15 (French translation). See also Sebastian
Brock, “Clothing Metaphors as a Means of Theological
Expression in Syriac Tradition,” in Typus, Symbol,
Allegorie bei den östlichen Vätern und ihren
Parallelen im Mittelalter, Margot Schmidt, ed..,
Eichstätter Beiträge 4 (Regensburg, 1982), 15-18.
And rather than to Paul, they adhered to the
(ideas) of Nestorius, who laid the body upon the Word as a
garment on anyone’s body and in the likeness of purple on
the body of kings, so that it would be thought of as something
foreign, outside the (Word) itself, just as each vestment is
foreign and distinct from the one who wears it.
[17] The
expression “clothing himself with the body, or with the
flesh,” in Philoxenus’ view, suggests Nestorian
duality and therefore can no longer serve to express the
Incarnation. Even if in his commentary on John’s
prologue, he does not explicitly mention Ephrem, he must have
realized that the same expression often occurs in the beloved
Syrian poet.
The Letter to the Monks of Senoun
(521)
[18] When
Philoxenus wrote the commentary on John’s prologue, he
was metropolitan bishop of the city of Mabbog, a position which
he had held since 485. He was instrumental in improving the
situation of the Syrian anti-Chalcedonians under the emperor
Anastasius, and above all, in the deposition of the
Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch, Flavian, in 512 and his
replacement by the anti-Chalcedonian Severus. The triumph of
the anti-Chalcedonians and their control of the patriarchate of
Antioch lasted for six years only. Following the Chalcedonian
restoration under Justin I in 518, most anti-Chalcedonian
bishops were expelled from their sees and went into exile.
Philoxenus ended up in the Thracian city of Philippoupolis
(present-day Plovdiv in Bulgaria). Embittered by the reports of
defection of his former clergy and many laypeople in Syria, he
wrote a treatise in 521, in which he defended his theological
views and attacked the Dyophysites, Nestorians and
Chalcedonians alike, with the same vigor as in his earlier
works. The treatise, preserved in two sixth-century
manuscripts, has the form of a letter of encouragement
addressed to the monks of Senoun, a monastery in the vicinity
of Mabbog, who in these troubled times had remained faithful to
the cause of orthodoxy.
Ed. and French translation: André de
Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog. Lettre aux moines de
Senoun. CSCO 231-232 / Syr. 98-99 (Louvain:
Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1963).
[19] In
the list of heretics,
Ed. De Halleux, 10,23-11,19.
the name of Nestorius is now followed
explicitly by the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. The
views of these Dyophysites are exposed and refuted at length.
Following this negative presentation, the author turns to the
“blessed Fathers” to prove his point that
“the one who was crucified for us” was indeed
God.
Ed. De Halleux, 32,23-26.
From here onwards, the treatise is centered on
a Florilegium. Quoting passages from the Fathers, combining
them and commenting on them, the author unfolds his Miaphysite
understanding of the Incarnation. Formally speaking, this
Florilegium is quite different from the one attached to the
Mêmrê against Habbib, since we have much
more than a pure list of quotations. But the author’s
intention is the same: finding approval and support for his
theology in the earlier Fathers. We may distinguish two
sections here.
[20] The
first section contains the names of Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil
of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Athanasius. Three of these
authors (except Gregory of Nyssa) also occur in the earlier
Florilegium and for each of these three several quotations are
given. Only in one quotation is there overlap with the earlier
Florilegium.
Ed. De Halleux, 33,3-5 = ed. Graffin,
120[120], no. 220. The wording is slightly different.
After these four names, the author turns to
Ephrem with these words:
Ed. De Halleux, 35,24-25.
And next, the blessed Ephrem, our Syrian
teacher (mallpânâ dilan
Suryâyâ), he also understood (it) according to
these (ideas)...
Then follow two quotations from “On
Reprehension” (a work now mostly regarded as spurious).
The two brief quotations also occur in the earlier
Florilegium.
Ed. De Halleux, 35,25-27 and 35,27-36,1 =
ed. Graffin, 108[108], nos. 160 and 161. The demarcation of the
quotations is different so that, even though the wording of the
overlapping parts is identical, the later quotations cannot
simply have been taken from the earlier work.
After these quotations, rather than providing
commentary as he did for the other authors, Philoxenus breaks
off the short Ephrem section with the following laconic
statement.
Ed. De Halleux, 36,1-3.
And since it befits you more than (it befits)
us to remember what has been said by this saint, I leave the
rest to your effort.
What follows is a conclusion not to the Ephrem section, but
to quotations of the five authors taken together, without any
special mention of Ephrem.
[21] This
is indeed a very telling passage! By using the expression
“our Syrian teacher,” Philoxenus creates an
opposition between the previous authors (the two Gregories,
Basil, and Athanasius), all originally writing in Greek, and
the Syrian Ephrem. Ephrem does not take the lead, as he did in
Philoxenus’ earlier Florilegium, but is added at the very
end. In addition, Philoxenus creates an opposition between
himself and the monks, making clear that Ephrem belongs to the
monks. He “leaves the rest to their effort,” i.e.,
the further comments on the Ephrem passages as well as the
search for, and study of, other passages. In short, having
declared that Ephrem indeed is orthodox, he dismissively tells
the monks to look for the evidence themselves!
[22]
Philoxenus then moves to the next section of the treatise, in
which he wants to prove, with the help of the Fathers, that it
is not permitted to speak of two natures after the Incarnation.
The authorities quoted are: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Julius of
Rome (in both cases we are dealing with pseudepigraphical works
belonging to Apollinaris of Laodicea), Athanasius of Alexandria
(again Pseudo-Athanasius), Cyril of Alexandria, Basil of
Caesarea, and again Cyril, “who in every respect walked
on the path of the saintly Fathers, his predecessors, and did
not turn aside from the royal road on which they had traveled,
neither to the right nor to the left.”
Ed. De Halleux, 47,3-6. Compare 45,6-8.
The position of
the Cyril quotations, their number and length, along with
Philoxenus’ elaborate introductions and comments make it
clear that he definitely is the yardstick of
orthodoxy, against whom all the others should be judged.
[23] Now,
for the second time in the treatise, again at the point where a
section is coming to a close, Philoxenus brings Ephrem onto the
stage:
Ed. De Halleux, 49,7-14.
That also Blessed Ephrem—the one whom I
already quoted once at an earlier stage, the one from whose
books, I guess, you possess more than (from those) of the other
Fathers, while you also have the habit of reading in them a
great deal—(that he) agrees with the (opinions) of the
rest of the Fathers, also with regard to the question of one
nature having become man, becomes particularly clear from his
own words. For he somewhere wrote as follows: “One from
the height, and the other from the depth, He mingled the
natures like pigments and the image became God-man
(’Alâh
barnâš).”
On the Nativity, 8,2. Ed. and
German translation: Edmund Beck, Des Heiligen Ephraem des
Syrers Hymnen De Nativitae (Epiphania). CSCO 186-187 /
Syr. 82-83 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1959), 59
(text) and 51 (translation). My translation of the Ephrem
quotation is taken from Kathleen McVey, Ephrem the Syrian.
Hymns. The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York
& Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1989), 119; only at the end I have
translated “and the image became God-man” (McVey:
“and an image came into being: the God-man”),
because I think this translation is more in line with how
Philoxenus interpreted the verse.
Philoxenus observes that “height” stands for the
divinity and “depth” for the humanity and that
there is no question of two natures.
[24] Here
again, Ephrem is quoted only at the end of the list of the
Fathers whom he is allowed to join obediently. The passage in
question does not provide clear support for the Miaphysite
cause and needs quite some laborious explanation.
Cf. De Halleux, Philoxène
[1963], 324, note 30.
One
wonders whether Philoxenus himself selected it or whether
perhaps the monks submitted it to him, wanting to know how
Ephrem’s poetical description of the Incarnation could be
reconciled with the new theology.
[25] As a
matter of fact, Philoxenus explains that Ephrem’s choice
of the verb “He mingled” is infelicitous and does
not exactly express what he believed.
Ed. De Halleux, 51,6-24.
God forbid that
Ephrem would have thought that the natures were mingled like
water and wine, loosing in this process their specific and
distinct characteristics! “He mingled” should be
understood here as “He united.”
In the Mêmrê against
Habbib Philoxenus already discussed the problematic
Christological use of the term “mixture”
(muzzâgâ), which according to him was
found “in all the writings of our Fathers, both in the
Aramaic and in the Greek (writings), except in (the writings
of) a few who were prevented (from using it) by their
conscience or if there are those others who childishly
refrained from (using) it, in order not to give an opportunity
(read macclânutâ instead of
mcallyutâ?) to the heretics.”
Here Philoxenus argues that the term is acceptable, because
mixture may occur without alteration (e.g. the word mingled
with the voice): ed. Brière & Graffin, III,
690[150]-698[158].
The use of the
wrong verb, Philoxenus goes on, is due to the lack of precision
in “our Syriac language,” which—particularly
with regard to the Incarnation—does not have the same
rigor that is found with the Greeks. This is true not only for
the use of the verb “He mingled,” but also for
another odd expression found in the same verse: “(and the
image became) God-man” (’Alâh
barnâš), where expressions using the verbs
“to be incarnated” (’etbassar) and
“to be inhumanized”
(’etbarnaš),
For these Syriac neologisms created by, or
at the instigation of, Philoxenus himself, see A. de Halleux,
“La philoxénienne du symbole,” in
Symposium Syriacum 1976. Orientalia Christiana
Analecta 205 (Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum,
1978), 295-315.
would have been more
appropriate. It is too bad that Ephrem did not use them!
However, his orthodoxy cannot be questioned, for in an obvious
attempt to prevent the reader from making a distinction between
God and man, he wisely omitted the conjunction
“and,” writing “God-man” rather than
“God-and-man.”
Ed. De Halleux, 53,17-22.
[26]
Philoxenus then returns to the imprecision of the language of
the Syriac New Testament
Ed. De Halleux, 54,23-55,11.
—a problem which he already
addressed in the commentary on the prologue of John. The Syriac
translators did not care about preserving the rigor of the
terms used in Greek and wrote down whatever they liked or what
they thought was common in Syriac, thus missing an opportunity
to introduce exact Syriac terms, which subsequently would have
become of common use. Perhaps they believed that it befitted
Syriac always to remain a poor language and not to make
progress through an increase of knowledge. Blessed Ephrem had
this same attitude with regard to the union of the two natures
when he wrote “they were mingled” instead of
“they were united” and again, when he wrote
“and the image became God-man” instead of
“(God) was incarnated and inhumanized.”
Among fifth- and sixth-century writers the
criticism of imprecise language and terminology in the earlier
theologians is not unique. Here, however, this criticism is
coupled to the distinction Greek-Syriac.
[27]
Isn’t this a very strong criticism of the Syrian Church
Father who forty years earlier provided the large majority of
the quotations supporting the Miaphysite theology? He now seems
to have lost his position as a theological mentor. Although his
basic orthodoxy is not questioned, the imprecision of his
language and his alleged carelessness make him unfit to be used
in theological discussions. The monks in the monasteries,
steeped in Ephrem’s works from the liturgy as well as
from their private reading, are now told to turn to Cyril and
to the Greek Fathers for rigorous instruction into the
mysteries of the Incarnation!
The larger context
[28] The
question arises whether this loss of interest in Ephrem as a
spokesman in the Christological controversy may be seen as part
of a broader phenomenon. There can be no doubt that in the
early sixth century Ephrem was extremely popular. The
recipients of Philoxenus’ letter to Senoun may be quoted
as proof! And from roughly the same period—or slightly
earlier—we have Jacob of Serug’s
Mêmrâ on Ephrem, “the great master
of teaching” and “the crown of the entire
Aramaeandom.”
Ed. Joseph Amar, A Metrical Homily on
Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Serugh. Patrologia
Orientalis 47,1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995). The phrases quoted
are on p. 24 (3) and 64 (155). In modern scholarship
Jacob’s Christology is generally seen as closer to Ephrem
than Philoxenus’ Christology is, and above all as more
irenic. See Tanios Bou Mansour, “Die Christologie des
Jakob von Sarug” and “Die Christologie des
Philoxenus von Mabbug,” in Jesus der Christus im
Glauben der Kirche, 2/3, 449-569 – esp. 567:
“Die Theologie des Philoxenus löst sich noch mehr
als die des Jakob von Sarug von der syrischen Tradition mit
ihrem Höhepunkt in Ephraem …”; Theresia
Hainthaler, “Rückblick und Ausblick,”
ibidem, 654-659.
We also should bear in mind that the
sixth century saw the production of a number of important
Ephrem codices, which up to the present day constitute the main
basis for our study of the authentic Ephrem. But what about his
use in theological writings?
[29]
Severus of Antioch, the main anti-Chalcedonian leader and
theologian in the first half of the sixth century hardly ever
mentions Ephrem in his numerous works.
For Severus and Ephrem, see already Graffin,
“Le florilège,” 279-280.
These were
written in Greek, but soon translated into Syriac, and Severus
continuously interacted with the Syriac world, both during his
patriarchate (512-518) and after his expulsion, when from Egypt
he kept in close contact with the Syrian cities and
monasteries, until his death in 538.
[30] One
of Severus’ theological writings is a refutation of a
work by John the Grammarian, written in defense of the Council
of Chalcedon, shortly before 518. Severus responded to this
work in the early years of his exile, exactly the period when
Philoxenus wrote to the monks of Senoun. John’s work must
have included a Florilegium containing one or more quotations
from Ephrem, in Greek translation. In one case Severus
straightforwardly rejects the testimony, because the work in
question, “On the pearl,” he argues, was a forgery.
Severus had searched for it in the Syriac original, in
Mesopotamia and as far as Edessa, where Ephrem had taught, but
it was completely unknown.
Ed. Iosephus Lebon, Severi Antiocheni
Liber contra impium Grammaticum. Orationis tertiae pars
posterior. CSCO 101-102 / Syr. 50-51 (Louvain:
Secrétariat du CorpusSCO 1952), 243,14-26 (text);
179,11-21 (Latin translation). See also Marcel Richard,
Iohannis Caesariensis Presbyteri et Grammatici Opera quae
supersunt. Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 1
(Turnhout: Brepols & Louvain: University Press, 1977),
43-44 (no. 109). The work in question, attributed to Ephrem,
from which John the Grammarian had quoted, appears to exist in
Greek, see Mauritius Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum,
II (Turnhout: Brepols, 1974), no. 3949, and André de
Halleux, “Saint Éphrem le Syrien,” Revue
théologique de Louvain 14 (1983), 339.
[31]
Other quotations—apparently among those that were also
included in the Grammarian’s Florilegium—might be
reliable, but Severus’ reaction again is evasive.
Ed. Lebon, 243,27-244,7 (text); 179,22-29
(Latin translation).
I could have adduced, in order to demonstrate
the truth, many quotations from other
Mêmrê (by Ephrem), which have been
received and circulate in the Greek language. But it seemed to
me audacious and incautious to provide for the demonstration of
the divine teachings (passages from) those (quotations) which
the one who happened to find (them) offered arbitrarily and
haphazardly and differently at different times. For even one
single ill-placed word may turn a correct statement into
blasphemy.
Although Severus does not refer to the imprecision of
Ephrem’s language, he has his own reasons to regard the
Ephrem texts as largely unreliable and of no use in the
Christological discussions. At the same time, he fully agrees
with Philoxenus in accepting Ephrem’s orthodoxy:
“Of course I admit that the saintly Ephrem was a wise
teacher among the Syrians!”
Ed. Lebon, 244,21-22 (text); 180,8-9 (Latin
translation).
and he assumes that Basil
had Ephrem in mind when, in very positive terms, he quoted
“a Syrian man” in his second homily on the
Hexaemeron—a further proof of Ephrem’s
orthodoxy.
Ed. Lebon, 244,23-28 (text); 180,9-13 (Latin
translation). See Lucas Van Rompay, “L’informateur
syrien de Basile de Césarée. À propos de
Genèse 1,2,” Orientalia Christiana
Periodica 58 (1992), 245-251.
[32]
Christological statements in the Life of John of Tella, written
by a certain Elijah shortly after 542,
Ed. and Latin translation: E.W. Brooks,
Vitae virorum apud Monophysitas celeberrimorum, I.
CSCO, 7-8 / Syr. 7-8 (Paris, 1907), 29-95 (text); 21-60
(translation).
are always based
on Cyril of Alexandria. There is never any reference to Ephrem.
The theological writings of the Syrian-Orthodox Church from the
middle and the second half of the sixth century, many of which
are concerned with internal theological controversies, do not
refer to Ephrem. Ephrem’s name also is absent from the
major collection of anti-Dyophysite and anti-Chalcedonian
writings and extracts contained in the mid-sixth-century Syriac
manuscript London, British Library, Add. 12,156.
W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac
Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year
1838, II (London, 1871), 639-649.
[33] We
have to assume, therefore, that different processes were at
work in the sixth century, when Syriac Christianity was on in
its way to creating its own church structures, based on the
rejection of Chalcedon, and eventually leading to an
independent church. On the one hand, the early Syriac heritage,
with Ephrem as its most illustrious representative, continued
to have a decisive role in shaping the Syriac Christian
identity in its liturgical and spiritual dimension. On the
other hand, the theology of Syrian-Orthodox Christianity was
increasingly determined by the writings of the mainstream
theologians of the imperial church: Athanasius, the
Cappadocians, and above all Cyril of Alexandria. Of course,
since the Syriac translations of these authors had been fully
incorporated into Syriac literary tradition, the opposition
between Syriac and Greek had long become neutralized. But, as
we have seen in the writings of Philoxenus of Mabbog, in the
controversy over Nestorianism and Chalcedonianism the
categories and concepts of early Syriac theology gradually
proved insufficient and in need of replacement.
[34]
However, Ephrem’s name did not completely disappear from
the Syrian-Orthodox theological tradition. As a matter of fact,
after his absence—or loss of prominence—in the
sixth century, he seems to re-emerge in the Syrian-Orthodox
theological Florilegia of the seventh century and
beyond.
Some examples of 7th-8th-century manuscripts
containing Florilegia which include Ephrem are: Brit. Libr.
Add. 17,214 (Wright, Catalogue, II, 915-917), Add.
14,529 (ibid., 917-921), Add. 12,155 (ibid.,
921-955), and 14,532 (955-967). For the importance of these
Florilegia for the study of the transmission of Ephrem’s
works, see Brock, “The Transmission,” 494, note 12.
Extracts from his works are now found among
those of the major Greek fathers (Cyril of Alexandria and
Severus of Antioch being most prominent among them) as well as
the Syrians, Philoxenus and Jacob of Sarug. These extracts, not
very numerous nor very substantial, may be seen as evidence of
a certain rehabilitation of Ephrem in the theological canon of
the Syrian-Orthodox Church.
The list of authorities represented in these
Florilegia, comes very close to what Jacob of Edessa, at the
end of the seventh and the beginning of the eighth century, saw
as the assembly of orthodox teachers. See Lucas Van Rompay,
“Past and Present Perceptions of Syriac Literary
Tradition,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
3/1 (January 2000), par. 11-23.
_______
Notes
1 This is a slightly reworked version of a paper
presented at the North American Syriac Symposium IV (Princeton,
NJ, July 9-12, 2003). An earlier draft was read by
Françoise Petit (Louvain-la-Neuve), Joel Marcus (Duke
University), and Bas ter Haar Romeny (Leiden). Their useful
comments and suggestions as well as the observations of the two
anonymous Hugoye reviewers should be gratefully
acknowledged.
_______
Bibliography
Abramowski, Luise. “Aus dem
Streit um das „Unus ex trinitate passus“: Der
Protest des Habib gegen die Epistula dogmatica des Philoxenus
an die Mönche.” In Jesus der Christus im Glauben
der Kirche. Band 2/3. Die Kirchen von Jerusalem und
Antiochien nach 451 bis 600, Theresia Hainthaler, ed.
Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 2002. 570-647.
Amar, Joseph. A Metrical Homily
on Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Serugh. Patrologia
Orientalis 47,1. Turnhout: Brepols, 1995.
Beck, Edmund. Des Heiligen
Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen De Nativitae (Epiphania). CSCO
186-187 / Syr. 82-83. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO,
1959.
— “Philoxenos und
Ephräm.” Oriens Christianus 46 (1962):
61-76.
— Des Heiligen Ephraem des
Syrers Paschahymnen (De Azymis, De Crucifixione, De
Resurrectione). CSCO 248-249 / Syr. 108-109. Louvain:
Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1964.
Bou Manour, Tanios. “Die
Christologie des Jakob von Sarug” and “Die
Christologie des Philoxenus von Mabbug.” In Jesus der
Christus im Glauben der Kirche. Band 2/3. Die Kirchen
von Jerusalem und Antiochien nach 451 bis 600, Theresia
Hainthaler, ed. Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 2002. 449-569.
Brière, M. Sancti
Philoxeni episcopi Mabbugensis dissertationes decem de Uno e
sancta Trinitate incorporato et passo. Dissertatio
Ia et IIa
. Patrologia Orientalis
15,4. Paris, 1920.
Brière, M. and F. Graffin,
Sancti Philoxeni episcopi Mabbugensis dissertationes decem
de Uno e sancta Trinitate incorporato et passo. II.
Dissertationes 3a, 4a,
5a
. Patrologia Orientalis 38,3. Turnhout:
Brepols, 1977. III. Dissertationes 6a,
7a, 8a
. Patrologia Orientalis 39,4.
Turnhout: Brepols, 1979. IV. Dissertationes 9a,
10a
. Patrologia Orientalis 40,2. Turnhout:
Brepols, 1980. V. Appendices: I. Tractatus;
II. Refutatio; III. Epistuladogmatica; IV.
Florilegium. Patrologia Orientalis 41,1. Turnhout:
Brepols, 1982.
Brock, Sebastian. “Clothing
Metaphors as a Means of Theological Expression in Syriac
Tradition.” In Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den
östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im
Mittelalter, Margot Schmidt, ed., Eichstätter
Beiträge 4. Regensburg, 1982. 11-40.
— Saint Ephrem. Hymns on
Paradise. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1990.
— “The Transmission of
Ephrem’s Madrashe in the Syriac Liturgical
Tradition.” In Studia Patristica 23, Elizabeth
A. Livingstone, ed., Louvain: Peeters, 1997. 490-505.
Brooks, E.W. Vitae virorum apud
Monophysitas celeberrimorum, I. CSCO, 7-8 / Syr. 7-8.
Paris, 1907.
Buytaert, É. M.
L’héritage littéraire
d’Eusèbe d’Émèse. Étude
critique et historique. Textes. Bibliothèque du
Muséon 24. Louvain, 1949.
Chesnut, Roberta C. Three
Monophysite Christologies. Severus of Antioch, Philoxenus of
Mabbug, and Jacob of Sarug. London: Oxford University
Press, 1976.
De Halleux, André.
Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits, sa
théologie. Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste,
1963.
— Philoxène de
Mabbog. Lettre aux moines de Senoun. CSCO 231-232 / Syr.
98-99. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1963.
— Philoxène de
Mabbog. Commentaire du prologue johannique (Ms. Brit. Mus. Add.
14,534). CSCO, 380-381 / Syr. 165-166. Louvain:
Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1977.
— “La
philoxénienne du symbole.” In Symposium
Syriacum 1976. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 205. Rome:
Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1978. 295-315.
— “Saint Éphrem
le Syrien.” Revue théologique de Louvain
14 (1983): 328-355.
— “Le
Mamlelâ de «Habbīb» contre
Aksenâyâ. Aspects textuels d’une
polémique christologique dans l’Église
syriaque de la première génération
post-chalcédonienne.” In After Chalcedon.
Studies in Theology and Church History Offered to Professor
Albert Van Roey for his Seventieth Birthday, C. Laga, J.A.
Munitiz, and L. Van Rompay, eds., Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 18. Louvain: Departement Oriëntalistiek &
Peeters, 1985. 67-82.
Geerard, Mauritius. Clavis
Patrum Graecorum. II. Turnhout: Brepols, 1974.
Graffin, François. “Le
florilège patristique de Philoxène de
Mabbog.” In Symposium Syriacum 1972. Orientalia
Christiana Analecta 197. Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium
Studiorum, 1974. 267-290.
Hainthaler, Theresia. Jesus der
Christus im Glauben der Kirche. Band 2/3. Die Kirchen
von Jerusalem und Antiochien nach 451 bis 600. Freiburg
i.B.: Herder, 2002.
Lampe, G.W.H. A Patristic
Greek Lexicon, Fourth impression. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1976.
Lamy, Thomas J. Sancti Ephraem
Syri Hymni et Sermones. 4 vol. Malines, 1882-1902.
Lebon, I. Severi Antiocheni
Liber contra impium Grammaticum. Orationis tertiae pars
posterior. CSCO 101-102 / Syr. 50-51. Louvain:
Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1952.
McVey, Kathleen. Ephrem the
Syrian. Hymns. The Classics of Western Spirituality. New
York & Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1989.
Renoux, Charles. Éphrem
de Nisibe. Mēmrē sur Nicomédie.
Patrologia Orientalis 37,2-3. Turnhout : Brepols,
1975.
Richard, Marcel. “Les
florilèges diphysites du Ve et du
VIe siècle.” In Das Konzil von
Chalkedon, Geschichte un Gegenwart. A. Grillmeier and H.
Bacht, eds. I. Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1951. 721-748.
— Iohannis Caesariensis
Presbyteri et Grammatici Opera quae supersunt. Corpus
Christianorum, Series Graeca 1. Turnhout: Brepols &
Louvain: University Press, 1977).
Samuel, V.C. The Council of
Chalcedon Re-examined. Indian Theological Library 8.
Madras, 1977.
Thomson, R.W. Athanasiana
Syriaca. I,1. De Incarnatione, 2. Epistula ad
Epictetum. CSCO 257-258 / Syr. 114-115. Louvain:
Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1965.
Van Rompay, Lucas.
“L’informateur syrien de Basile de
Césarée. À propos de Genèse
1,2.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992):
245-251.
— “Past and Present
Perceptions of Syriac Literary Tradition.” Hugoye:
Journal of Syriac Studies 3/1 (January 2000) [ http://www.bethmardutho.org/Hugoye/
].
Wiles, M.F. “The Theology of
Eusebius of Emesa.” In Papers Presented to the Tenth
International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford
1987, E.A. Livingstone, ed. Studia Patristica 19. Louvain:
Peeters, 1989. 267-280.
Wright, W. Catalogue of Syriac
Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year
1838. II. London, 1871.