R. Aravackal, The Mystery of the Triple
Gradated Church: A Theological Analysis of the Ktaba d-Massqata (Book of
Steps) with Particular Reference to the Writings of Aphrahat and John the
Solitary
Robert
Kitchen
Sankt Ignatios Theological Academy
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
James E. Walters
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2020
Volume 23.1
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/review/hv23n1prkitchen
Robert Kitchen
R. Aravackal, The Mystery of the Triple
Gradated Church: A Theological Analysis of the Ktaba d-Massqata (Book of
Steps) with Particular Reference to the Writings of Aphrahat and John the
Solitary
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol23/HV23N1PRKitchen.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2020
vol 23
issue 1
pp 209–212
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 Walters
R. Aravackal, The Mystery of the Triple
Gradated Church: A Theological Analysis of the Ktaba d-Massqata (Book of
Steps) with Particular Reference to the Writings of Aphrahat and John the
Solitary. Vadavathoor, Kottayam, India: Oriental Institute of
Religious Studies, 2018. Pp. xvii + 571; €45.
Robert Kitchen, Sankt Ignatios Theological Academy
The Mystery of the Triple Gradated Church issues from the
Ph.D. dissertation at the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome, by Sr. Roselin
Aravackal, a member of the monastic community Mar Toma Sahordarikal (Sisters of
St. Thomas) in Vidyanagar, Kottayam, Kerala. Her dissertation, defended
under her secular name, Sheeba Sebastian, and written under the guidance of
Emidio Vergani, is the most in-depth and thorough study to date of the Liber Graduum/Book of Steps/Ktābā d-Massqātā or KM (as abbreviated throughout the volume), promising to
invigorate and enrich research on this important, yet still enigmatic work.
Aravackal posits that the Book of Steps’ author developed a three-tiered system of the Christian
life and the Church that permeates the entire work: (1) Uprightness (kēnūtā); (2) Perfection (gmīrūtā);
and (3) a level beyond or above Perfection.
Aravackal begins with a detailed review of previous scholarship on the KM, accepting the intentional anonymity of the author who
was situated somewhere within the area of modern-day Iraq, but offering the
plausible hypothesis that the community may have lived on both sides of the
vacillating Roman-Persian border. The spectre of Messalianism attributed to the
KM by some scholars is rejected, especially by the
insistence upon ecclesial and sacramental life (Mēmrā
12), and the denunciation of spiritualization of physical asceticism (Mēmrā 10). Aravackal opts for a late fourth- or early
fifth-century date, based upon the author’s use of several key terms found
during this period – the occurrence of the term krīsṭyana, the absence of the masculine rūḥa
qaddišā, and the absence of terms such as dayrāyā, dayrā that reflect institutionalized
monasticism.
After dealing with these foundational questions, Aravackal dives into an
intensive exegesis of the character of the text, centering not upon the
individual mēmrē and their expositions of various
problems, but assembling the pieces of the KM author’s
theological universe. Aravackal’s footnotes are over-flowing, not only providing
a witness of the Syriac texts, but remarkable also for her comments on an
expanding secondary literature on the KM and related
works. One methodological problem is the periodic citation from studies in
Italian without translation or summary, and several French and German citations
in the same manner. A short summary of their ideas would have clarified how
these citations were being utilised in the exposition.
Aravackal’s analysis of the “Triple Gradation” of the Church and of the
individual Christian, emanating out of Mēmrā 12, “On the
Hidden and Public Ministry of the Church,” is a creative and original
interpretation. While she observes that beyond the categories of visible,
hidden/heart, and heavenly in this mēmrā, little else is
explicitly mentioned along these lines in the KM, the
author does write about "going beyond or above Perfection" (Mēmrā 6: “On Those Who are Made Perfect and Continue to Grow”), which
certainly can function as a “third gradation.” The question is whether this is
indeed a third level, or a more developed description of Perfection.
The KM author, indeed, leaves a great deal unsaid,
perhaps his most significant quality as a spiritual writer. The academic issue
with the KM is that the author mentions neither time nor
place, nor people, except for biblical personalities. Few scholars have
speculated whether the order of the 30 mēmrē is
chronological, but in the last six mēmrē one can sense
dramatic movement and change in the community. The author recognizes that the
Perfect (gmīrē) have become lax in their discipline and
prideful in their status, and that the Upright (kēnē) are
now more faithful and humble – a surprising spiritual development outside his
expectations.
Aravackal’s reconstruction and depiction of the tripartite anthropology is done
with careful precision, presenting the fundamental character of “the religious
person.” The “outer/inner person” needs to be reconciled by the balancing of
symbiotic dichotomies – inner/outer, bodily/spiritual, hidden/visible. The
Perfect exemplify this balance, living on the earth while looking into heaven,
and thus becoming “the meeting of heaven and earth.” The Perfect are still
earthly creatures, but are living in a realized eschatological state, and
several of their failings which the author points out are a result of not
keeping a proper balance.
Aravackal combs the KM for theological images that occur
regularly, but not systematically. The identity and function of “the robe of
glory,” one of the clothing metaphors in early Syriac theology, is described.
The author declares that “the robe” did not originally exist as a physical
entity, but in the mind of Adam and Eve. Only after their disobedience, when
they first put on physical clothes, did they realize that they had been naked.
The concept of “mirror” is thoroughly looked at, not only in the KM, but with analogous citations from Simon Taibuteh and
John of Dalyatha. The mirror is anything that reflects God’s being, particularly
nature. The inner mirror reflects God’s light onto oneself and into others, so
that one sees all others in this divine light. Aravackal illustrates how the
“luminous eye” as the inner “organ” which perceives spiritual reality is
depicted as various kinds of “eyes” in the KM.
Aravackal moves to ascetical categories, parsing msarqūtā –
emptying – as the term for ascetic renunciation, and thus an essential
characteristic of qaddišūtā (holiness, celibacy) and īhīdāyūtā (solitariness). The infamous ascetical goal of
the author to “break one’s mind” receives due attention, as Aravackal
understands the verb and function as one of “stripping oneself” of worldly
attractions and distractions. While Aravackal retains the verb, she does not
perceive the author’s spiritual intention as harshly as the English translation
implies. In similar fashion is her understanding of “baptism by fire and Spirit”
as a system of ascetical practices to reach Perfection. Which ascetical
practices this system entails is not reported, for the KM
has distinguished itself for not requiring or mentioning the extreme ascetical
regimens infamously described in later Syriac hagiography.
Aravackal’s “pedagogical” construction of “the tripartite man” shows insight
into the vision of the KM author, but has a conceptual
problem in the text itself. That is, the Upright and Perfect are amply defined,
frequently in reference to one another, but “the third grade” which is beyond
Perfection per se is not identified or classified
specifically by the author. Aravackal’s construction fits where the KM seems to be heading – the third level of the Church
and the Perfect individual is there – but not in the way the author originally
saw it happening. Aravackal observes several times that the KM is not a work of systematic theology, yet attempting to reconstruct
a triple gradation is an act of systematization. In the earlier mēmrē, the author defines the levels of the kēnē and gmīrē, but the latter mēmrē reveal him discovering the
nature of spiritual life as it evolves in his awareness and in the experience of
his church and disciples. Mention on several occasions, moreover, of those who
have fallen from Uprightness should be seen as an unspoken fourth grade. As the
KM community aged, the author’s theological
experience and comprehension ran ahead of his original construct.
Aravackal compares John the Solitary of Apamea’s fully articulated tripartite
structure of pagrānūtā, napšānūtā,
and rūḥānūtā (the
corporeal, psychical, and spiritual state) to those of the KM, but she appears to want to fit the later three-level system
retroactively onto the KM. John the Solitary approximates
the KM Perfect and Upright in several instances, but then
goes beyond the structure of the KM elsewhere.
The Book of Steps remains a large, complex and intriguing
witness to the emergence of the early Syriac church and theo-logy, to which the
labour of Sr. Roselin Aravackal presents an insightful new configuration of what
this anonymous author was telling his congregation and us about the spiritual
pilgrimage.