Studia graeco-arabica 11/1 _______ 2021 Editorial Board Mohammad Ali Amir Moezzi, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris Carmela Baffioni, Istituto Universitario Orientale, Napoli Sebastian Brock, Oriental Institute, Oxford Charles Burnett, The Warburg Institute, London Hans Daiber, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a. M. Cristina D’Ancona, Università di Pisa Thérèse-Anne Druart, The Catholic University of America, Washington Gerhard Endress, Ruhr-Universität Bochum Richard Goulet, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris Steven Harvey, Bar-Ilan University, Jerusalem Henri Hugonnard-Roche, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris Remke Kruk, Universiteit Leiden Concetta Luna, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa Alain-Philippe Segonds (†) Richard C. Taylor, Marquette University, Milwaukee (WI) Staff Elisa Coda (Executive Editor), Cristina D’Ancona, Maria Fasciano, Issam Marjani, Cecilia Martini Bonadeo Submissions Submissions are invited in every area of the studies on the trasmission of philosophical and scientific texts from Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and early modern times. Papers in English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish are published. Prospective authors are invited to check the Guidelines on the website of the journal, and to address their proposals to the Editor in Chief. Peer Review Criteria Studia graeco-arabica follows a double-blind peer review process. Authors should avoid putting their names in headers or footers or refer to themselves in the body or notes of the article; the title and abstract alone should appear on the first page of the submitted article. All submitted articles are read by the editorial staff. Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review to at least one reviewer. Studia graeco-arabica does not release referees’ identities to authors or to other reviewers. The journal is committed to rapid editorial decisions. Subscription orders Information on subscription rates for the print edition of Volume 11/1 and 11/2 (2021), claims and customer service: press@unipi.it. Web site: http://learningroads.cfs.unipi.it/sga Service Provider: Università di Pisa, ICT - Servizi di Rete Ateneo ISSN 2281-2687 / ISSN 2239-012X (Online) ISBN 978-88-3339-614-9 / ISBN 978-88-3339-615-6 (Online) Registration at the law court of Pisa, 18/12, November 23, 2012. Editor in Chief: Cristina D’Ancona (cristina.dancona@unipi.it) Mailing address: Dipartimento di Civiltà e Forme del Sapere, via Pasquale Paoli 15, 56126 Pisa, Italia. Italian Scientific Journals Ranking: A (ANVUR, Classe A) Indexing and Abstracting; ERIH PLUS (SCH ESF); Index Islamicus (Brill Bibliographies); Scopus (Elsevier) © Copyright 2021 by Pisa University Press Polo editoriale - Centro per l’innovazione e la diffusione della cultura Università di Pisa Piazza Torricelli 4 - 56126 Pisa P. IVA 00286820501 · Codice Fiscale 80003670504 Tel.+39 050 2212056 · Fax +39 050 2212945 E-mail press@unipi.it · PEC cidic@pec.unipi.it www.pisauniversitypress.it Studia graeco-arabica. Vol. 1 (2011)- . - Pisa : Pacini editore, 2011- . – Annuale. Dal 2021: Pisa : Pisa university press. 180.05 (23.) 1. Filosofia araba - Periodici 2. Filosofia greca - Periodici CIP a cura del Sistema bibliotecario dell’Università di Pisa All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the Publisher. The Publisher remains at the disposal of the rightholders, and is ready to make up for unintentional omissions. Studia graeco-arabica cannot be held responsible for the scientific opinions of the authors publishing in it. Cover Mašhad, Kitābḫāna-i Āsitān-i Quds-i Raḍawī 300, f. 1v; Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, grec 1853, f. 186v Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism: A Study and Analysis of the Trinitarian Florilegium in MS British Library Add. 14532 Bishara Ebeid* Abstract This paper aims to study and analyse the Trinitarian doctrine of a Syriac Patristic florilegium of Trinitarian content found in MS London, British Library, Add. 14532, in an attempt to understand the reasons that led to its composition. It will include an analysis of the development of Miaphysite metaphysics during the sixth and the seventh centuries, when the Miaphysites had to deal with various internal controversies, and an analytical presentation of the florilegium and of its contents, with an identification of the patristic quotations used by the compiler. The study of the theology and metaphysics of this florilegium will go on to demonstrate that the Miaphysites, starting from their Christology and the problems it created in their Trinitarian doctrine, formulated a metaphysical system based on a new comprehension of “substance”, “hypostasis”, “property” and “monarchy” and developed what I call “Miaphysite Trinitarian doctrine”. Introduction The paradox of the Christian faith is to believe in one God and to affirm that this one God is Triune. In Eastern Christianity, Trinitarian doctrine was a main topic of discussion in three moments: 1) during the first four centuries and with a culmination in the fourth century, when the Trinitarian dogma was first formulated; 2) in the sixth and early seventh centuries, during the Christological controversies, when the question of Tritheism emerged among Miaphysites, and 3) under Islamic rule, when Christians had to explain again that their doctrine of Trinity is not tantamount to Tritheism. Whole libraries have been written on all these topics. With this paper, however, I aim to highlight the long-term consequences of Tritheism in the Miaphysite church, which, for reasons that still have to be determined, was still composing dogmatic patristic florilegia against Tritheism under Abbasid rule. The present paper aims to study and analyse the Trinitarian doctrine of a florilegium of Trinitarian content found in MS BL Add. 14532 and in a number of other places, in an attempt to understand the theological reasons behind its composition. This florilegium, like others, was composed and copied after the second moment of Trinitarian debates mentioned above and used by Syriac and Arabic Christian authors during the third phase. I shall start by summarizing some major and well-known points of the early development of Trinitarian dogma, based mainly on the Trinitarian doctrine of the Cappadocian fathers. * This article resulted from research funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (GA No 758732 – FLOS. Florilegia Syriaca). Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 – ISSN 2281-2687 – ISSN 2239-012X (Online) © Copyright 2021 Pisa University Press Polo editoriale CIDIC – doi: 10.12871/97888333961493 84 Bishara Ebeid This summary is necessary to understand the subsequent developments during the following phases of the Trinitarian controversies and will help the reader better understand the solutions offered. Then, after a presentation of the florilegium and of its content, including an identification of the patristic quotations used by the compiler, I shall analyse the theology and metaphysics of the florilegium in relation to the Trinitarian discussions of the sixth and seventh centuries. I shall demonstrate that the Trinitarian content of this florilegium has Miaphysite Christology as its starting point and could therefore be called a Miaphysite Trinitarian doctrine. In addition, it will be shown that this florilegium offers a new formulation and synthesis of the metaphysical terms and concepts used by Miaphysites in their Christological and Trinitarian doctrine. As such, it was used as a major building block of Miaphysite works against Chalcedonians and Nestorians written during the eighth and ninth centuries, in Syriac and Arabic. At the same time, the content of this florilegium should be seen as an important reference for Miaphysite apologetic writings produced during the third phase of Trinitarian debates, that is, with Muslim scholars. 1. The Cappadocians and the Establishment of the Trinitarian Dogma: A Short Summary On the eve of Nicaea, Christian theologians sought to use metaphysical concepts to explain the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.1 The Council of Nicaea established that the Son is true God (from) begotten of true God; generated by the Father; of the same substance (consubstantial) as the Father “ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί”; and that he is Creator. However, the Council did not clarify the difference between the metaphysical terms “substance” (οὐσία) and “hypostasis” (ὑπόστασις), nor did it sufficiently explain what consubstantiality means.2 The Cappadocian Fathers, Basil the Great (d. 379), Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 390) and Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394), contributed a great deal to the clarification of the metaphysical terminology (substance/οὐσία, nature/φύσις,3 hypostasis/ὑπόστασις, person/πρόσωπον and consubstantial/ὁμοούσιον) in response to the challenges of Arians, Eunomians, Sabellians, Pneumatomachians (Macedonians)4 and Apollinarists,5 who understood the same metaphysical 1 See M. Simonetti, La crisi Ariana nel IV secolo, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, Roma 1975 (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 11); B. Lonergan, The Way to Nicaea. The dialectical development of trinitarian theology, Darton, Longman and Todd, London 1976. 2 See B. Studer, Dio Salvatore nei Padri della Chiesa. Trinità-Cristologia-Soteriologia, Borla, Roma 1986 (Cultura Cristiana Antica, Studi, 6), pp. 150-5 and 158-9. For more on the doctrine of the Council see L. Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy. An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, Oxford U.P., Oxford 2004. 3 It must be noted that the term nature “φύσις” was not as frequently used by the Cappadocians as was the term substance “ουσία”; both terms are used interchangeably in the work of the Cappadocian Amphilochius of Iconium, see Studer, Dio Salvatore (above, n. 2), p. 205. 4 On all these heresies and their doctrines see M. Simonetti, Studi di Cristologia postnicena, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, Roma 2006 (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 98); F. Dünzl, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church, T&T Clark, New York 2007; H. Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene OR 1996. 5 The Trinitarian doctrine of Apollinaris of Laodicea was characterized by a radical subordination in the Trinity. On his Trinitarian doctrine see E. Mühlenberg, Apollinaris von Laodicea, Vandenhoek&Ruprecht, Göttingen 1968 (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, Band 23), pp. 230-7; on the accusations against him see B. Ebeid, La Tunica di al-Masīḥ. La Cristologia delle grandi confessioni cristiane dell’Oriente nel X e XI secolo, Valore Italiano-Edizione Orientalia Christiana, Roma 20192, pp. 250-5. Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 85 terms in different ways.6 By resorting to the Aristotelian distinction7 between second and first substance,8 and having as background Stoic interpretations of the Aristotelian categories,9 the Cappadocians distinguished between the general or common, the “κοινόν”, and the particular or specific, the “ἴδιον”. In this way the substance, an abstract reality, is the common and general, and is not identified with the particular and singular, which is the hypostasis, the concrete realization of the abstract.10 An analogy from the created world helped Basil clarify his thought: the “common” element of all human beings is their nature, which is equal in each one; the individuals belonging to this same common nature, however, are distinguished from one another: each individual is the specific, or the particular of the same common nature.11 Participating in, and belonging to, the same nature and substance means consubstantiality.12 As a result, by applying this line of reasoning to his Trinitarian doctrine, Basil, with the other Cappadocians, arrived at the formula “God is one substance (in) three hypostases”.13 It must be noted that as far as created and material substances are concerned, each hypostasis is considered as an individual, a single substance with its specific and determined qualities. In the case of the uncreated God, however, and since the divine substance is simple and immaterial, the divine hypostases cannot be considered as individuals, even if according to Cappadocian thought hypostases are concrete substances. This was, as it were, one of the main weak points of their metaphysical system. If this doctrine was developed by Cappadocians in their response to the doctrines of Arians, and especially Eunomians who did not accept that the Father and the Son participate in the same substance, in defining orthodoxy against the challenge of Sabellians they had to clarify the relationship between the terms hypostasis and person. In order to define the Trinity against the doctrine of the Sabellians, Basil used the term πρόσωπον, but did not understand it in the classical meaning of mask, used by Sabellius himself and his followers; 6 See Ph. Kariatlis, “St Basil’s Contribution to the Trinitarian Doctrine. A Synthesis of Greek Paideia and the Scriptural Worldview”, Phronema 25 (2010), pp. 57-83, here p. 59. 7 On the topic of distinctions in Basil and its relation to Aristotelian philosophy see A. Radde-Gallwitz, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of Divine Simplicity, Oxford U.P., New York - Oxford 2009 (Oxford Early Christian Studies), pp. 122-42, where the author speaks of five kinds of distinctions in Basil which are keys for understanding his thought: 1) ‘knowing that’ vs ‘knowing what’; 2) ‘knowing how’ vs ‘knowing what’; 3) absolute vs relative terms; 4) common vs particular; and 5) positive vs negative terms. 8 It was Gregory of Nyssa who developed this Aristotelian distinction, see L. Turcescu, Gregory of Nyssa and the Concept of Divine Persons, Oxford U.P.s, Oxford - New York 2005 (American Academy of Religion, Academy Series); Studer, Dio Salvatore (above, n. 2), p. 204. 9 See S. Hildebrand, The Trinitarian Theology of Basil of Caesarea. A Synthesis of Greek Thought and Biblical Truth, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2007, pp. 45-56; There is still a discussion among scholars as to whether Basil used Stoicism more than Aristotle in his Trinitarian definitions, see N. Jacobs, “On ‘Not Three Gods’-again: Can a Primary-Secondary Substance Reading of Ousia and Hypostasis Avoid Tritheism?”, Modern Theology 24 (2008), pp. 331-58, here pp. 332-5. 10 See Kariatlis, “St Basil’s Contribution” (above, n. 6), p. 63; Radde-Gallwitz, Basil of Caesarea (above, n. 7), pp. 132-7. On the abstract and concrete see Hildebrand, The Trinitarian Theology (above, n. 9), pp. 58-9. 11 See Kariatlis, “St Basil’s Contribution” (above, n. 6), pp. 63-4. 12 See Hildebrand, The Trinitarian Theology (above, n. 9), pp. 45-56, 67-74 and 76-82; Ch. A. Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God. In Your Light We Shall See Light, Oxford U.P., Oxford - New York 2008 (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology), pp. 220-4. It must be noted that for the Cappadocians consubstantiality must be always seen with the monarchy of the Father; we will come back to this last topic in a while. 13 See Studer, Dio Salvatore (above, n. 2), pp. 203-4; Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus (above, n. 12), p. 222. Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 86 Bishara Ebeid he rather identified it with the term hypostasis.14 In this case the ὑπόστασις gives essence to the general nature and manifests it perfectly in a particular and concrete nature; the πρόσωπον personalizes the general nature and makes it determined, so that these two terms acquired almost the same meaning and metaphysical function.15 It was also necessary to explain the relationship of the hypostases with the common substance, and of the hypostases with one another. These questions were the result of the reflection on how the three hypostases should not be considered as three deities. In fact, for the Cappadocians the affirmation of one common nature in God and of three consubstantial hypostases was not enough to demonstrate that Trinity is not tantamount to Tritheism. Therefore, the three divine hypostases had to have one and unique cause “αἰτία”, principle “ἀρχή” and source “πηγή”, not in a chronological, but in an ontological sense. For them, this cause is the same Father. In this way, the Father, as hypostasis and essence,16 is the one who maintains the uniqueness in the Trinity.17 He is the eternal cause of the eternal generation of the Son; he is also the eternal cause of the eternal procession of the Spirit. The Father, then, is the cause of the Trinity being a hypostasis and essence without being identified with the general substance, common to the three divine hypostases. He, unlike the other two hypostases, is uncaused. He gives existence to the other two divine hypostases, which are co-eternal to him, participate in the same divine general substance, however, they are caused. For the Cappadocians, and especially for Gregory of Nazianzus, the monarchy of the Father is, on the one hand, the cause and root of the unity of the divine essence, and on the other, the reason for the distinct identities of the three hypostases.18 Therefore, consubstantiality cannot be understood without the monarchy of the Father. In fact, it is the Father who fully conveys his divinity to the Son and the Spirit.19 To explain the relationship between substance and hypostasis, Basil develops the concept of property “ἰδιότης” and idiom “ἰδίωμα”. The hypostasis of the unbegotten Father results from the joining of the general divine substance to the property of unbegottenness; the hypostasis of the Son, eternally begotten by the Father, results from the adding of the idiom of the eternal begottenness to the same general substance; while the hypostasis of the Spirit, eternally proceeding from the Father, results from the joining of the idiom and property of the procession to the divine substance. Thus, the idiom has a metaphysical role distinct from that of the hypostasis, but through it the hypostasis is recognized and distinct from the other hypostases of the same common substance. In other words, idiom and property are related to the hypostasis, while the hypostasis is related to the substance.20 This distinction was essential in the polemic against the Eunomians, who identified the property with the substance and hypostasis and affirmed that knowing that the property of the Father is different from that of the Son reveals that their substances are different. In fact, Basil and the other Cappadocians See Hildebrand, The Trinitarian Theology (above, n. 9), pp. 82-92. See Kariatlis, “St Basil’s Contribution” (above, n. 6), pp. 62-6; L. Turcescu, “Prosōpon and Hypostasis in Basil of Caesarea’s ‘Against Eunomius’ and the Epistles”, Vigiliae Christianae 51 (1997), pp. 374-95. 16 See Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus (above, n. 12), p. 212. 17 See Kariatlis, “St Basil’s Contribution” (above, n. 6), pp. 66-7. 18 See Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus (above, n. 12), pp. 201-17; Hildebrand, The Trinitarian Theology (above, n. 9), pp. 67-74 and especially 96-8. 19 See Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus (above, n. 12), p. 206. 20 See S. Hildebrand, The Trinitarian Theology (above, n. 9), p. 92. 14 15 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 87 also intended to highlight that the divine substance remains unknown and incomprehensible.21 In order to explain the relationship between the hypostases themselves as between cause and caused, that is, the relationship between the monarchy of the Father, the co-eternity of the hypostases and their consubstantiality, the Cappadocians developed the concept of “relationship”, σχέσις.22 Thus, the Son, being begotten by the Father, is in relationship with the Father, and this relationship is called “filiation”. The Spirit, proceeding from the Father, is in relationship with him, and this relationship is called “procession”. As a consequence, the Father is in relationship with the Son and the Spirit through his “paternity”. The relationship is the distinctive character of the hypostasis (χαρακτήρ της ὑποστάσεως) or the ἰδίωμα of each hypostasis, or also the mode of existence, τρόπος της ὑπάρξεως or ὑποστάσεως.23 Thus, the Cappadocians established a Christian metaphysical system, called by some scholars like J. Zachhuber “Patristic Philosophy”, a system that can be summarized in the following points, without, however, entering into detail on the differences between the singles Cappadocians:24 1) substance, if conceived as a common and universal reality, cannot exist without its instantiations; only the concrete realities are real, since they have their existence through the hypostasis, or in other words the substance, which is an immanent reality, is instantiated in its hypostases;25 2) the hypostases of the same substance are consubstantial since they share the same substance and perfectly manifest the properties predicated of their common substance; 3) each hypostasis has its own property and idiom that distinguishes it from the other hypostases of the same substance; 4) a hypostasis can be considered as a single substance, since it manifests the general and common substance concretely and perfectly, but cannot be identified with the general substance; 5) in created and material beings hypostases are individuals, while in uncreated beings, i.e. in the Godhead, and since divine substance is immaterial and spiritual, hypostases are not seen as individuals; therefore 6) in Trinitarian doctrine it is better to avoid calling the hypostases “single/particular substances”;26 7) the 21 On this topic see Radde-Gallwitz, Basil of Caesarea (above, n. 7); T. Stepien – K. Kochańczyk-Bonińska, Unknown God, Known in His Activities. Incomprehensibility of God during the Trinitarian Controversy of the 4th Century, Peter Lang, Berlin 2018 (European studies in theology, philosophy and history of religions, 18). 22 See Kariatlis, “St Basil’s Contribution” (above, n. 6), pp. 67-8. 23 See Hildebrand, The Trinitarian Theology (above, n. 9), pp. 59-67; Studer, Dio Salvatore (above, n. 2), p. 203. 24 For a detailed analysis of the Cappadocian metaphysics, the differences between the single Fathers etc. see J. Zachhuber, The Rise of Christian Theology and the End of Ancient Metaphysics: Patristic Philosophy from the Cappadocian Fathers to John of Damascus, Oxford U.P., Oxford - New York 2020. 25 One must mention that Gregory of Nyssa’s position is quite different from his brother Basil since he, in his highlighting the oneness of the substance, accepts, in some way, the existence of the common substance (realism) refuting, in this manner, the risk of considering it as simple concept in mind (nominalism), for more details see C. Erismann, L’ homme commun. La genèse du réalisme ontologique durant le haut Moyen Age, J. Vrin, Paris, 2011, pp. 149-85, and J. Zachhuber, “Universals in the Greek Church Fathers”, in R. Chiaradonna – G. Galluzzo (eds.), Universals in Ancient Philosophy, Edizioni della Normale, Pisa, 2013, pp. 425-70, especially pp. 436-47. See also D. Krausmüller, “A Conceptualist Turn: The Ontological Status of Created Species in Late Greek Patristic Theology”, Scrinium 16 (2020), pp. 233-52. 26 On these topics in the thought of Gregory of Nyssa, especially concerning the relationship between, from one hand, the substance as universal and common and, from the other, the hypostases as particular substances, calling them as such, as well as concerning whether there is a distinction between substance and nature, see J. Zachhuber, Human Nature in Gregory of Nyssa: Philosophical Background and Theological Significance, Brill, Leiden 2000 (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 46); J. Zachhuber, “Once again: Gregory of Nyssa on Universals”, Journal of Theological Studies 56 (2005), pp. 75-98; R. Cross, “Gregory of Nyssa Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 88 Bishara Ebeid oneness of the divine substance, the monarchy of the Father, the consubstantiality of the hypostases and the simplicity and immateriality of the divinity is what ensures unity in the Godhead, which for the Cappadocians is the correct way to understand Monotheism;27 and finally 8) on the one hand, substance and nature have the same meaning, and on the other hand, hypostasis and person are identified as metaphysical principles. 2. Christological Controversies and Metaphysical Developments among the Miaphysites This metaphysical system became part of their heritage for all Christians who accepted the first two ecumenical councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. However, it created a problem during the Christological controversies, when Christians tried to apply it to the explanation of how humanity and divinity were united in Christ as one single subject.28 on Universals”, Vigiliae Christianae 56 (2002), pp. 372-410. See also D. Biriukov, “Gregory of Nyssa’s Teaching on Indivisible Monad and its Philosophical Context”, in M. Knezevic (ed.), Aristotle in Byzantium, Sebastian Press, Alhambra, California 2020, pp. 87-100. 27 On the understating of Monotheism by the Cappadocian fathers see Jacobs, “On ‘Not Three Gods’” (above, n. 9), pp. 342-51. 28 The second and third parts of Zachhuber, The Rise (above, n. 24) are to be considered an analysis of how the Cappadocian system became a problem during the Christological controversies. In addition, the work of Grillmeier and Hainthaler gives the reader a very good overview of the Christological controversies and their historical context, see A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. 1: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), A. R. Mowbray, London 19752; A. Grillmeier – Th. Hainthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. II/I From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590-604). Reception and Contradiction, The Development of the Discussion about Chalcedon from 451 to the Beginning of the Reign of Justinian, A. R. Mowbray, London 1987; A. Grillmeier – Th. Hainthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. II/II From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590-604). The Church of Constantinople in the Sixth Century, A. R. Mowbray, London 1995, A. Grillmeier – Th. Hainthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. II/III From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590-604).The Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch from 451 to 600, Oxford U.P., Oxford 2013; A. Grillmeier – Th. Hainthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. II/IV From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590-604). The Churches of Alexandria with Nubia and Ethiopia after 451, A. R. Mowbray, London 1996. One might also see the following references to have a wider picture and idea: R.V. Sellers, Two Ancient Christologies. A study in the Christological Thought of the Schools of Alexandria and Antioch in the Early History of Christian Doctrine, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London 1954; M. Simonetti, Studi di Cristologia postnicena, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, Rome 2006 (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 98); L. Scipioni, Nestorio e il Concilio di Efeso: storia, dogma e critica, Vita e pensiero, Milan 1974 (Studia Patristica Mediolanensia, 1); J. McGucking, St. Cyril of Alexandria. The Christological Controversy, its History, Theology and Texts, Brill, Leiden-New York 1994; S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy: The Making of a Saint and of a Heretic, Oxford U.P., Oxford 2004 (Oxford Early Christian Studies); A. Munitiz – L. van Rompay (eds.), After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History Offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for His Seventieth Birthday, Peeters, Leuven 1985 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 18); W.H. C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries, Cambridge U.P., Cambridge 1972; W.A. Wigram, The Separation of the Monophysites, The Faith Press, London 1923; W. Witakowski, “Syrian Monophysite Propaganda in the Fifth to Seventh Centuries”, in L. Rydén – J. O. Rosenqvist (eds.), Aspects of Late Antiquity and Early Byzantium. Papers read at the Colloquium held at the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul 31 May 5 June 1992, Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, Istanbul-Stockholm 1993 (Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, Transactions, 4), pp. 57-66; E. Hardy (ed.), Christology of the Later Fathers, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville 2006; M.R. Pecorara Maggi, Il processo a Calcedonia. Storia e interpretazione, Glossa, Milan 2006; R. Price – M. Whitby (eds.), Chalcedon in Context. Church Councils, 400-700, Liverpool U.P., Liverpool 2009 (Translated Texts for Historians, Contexts, 1); W. Baum – D. Winkler, The Church of the East. A Concise History, Routledge, London - New York 2003. Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 89 Indeed, if one applies this system, and affirms that in Christ two natures are united, and since these two natures are not abstract and universal realities, one implies that they are concrete natures, that is, hypostases. In this case, Christ would be two hypostases, i.e. a duality of persons, which destroys the oneness of the subject of Christ. As a result, the Cappadocian system had to be modified. Chalcedonians, Miaphysites, and Nestorians29 developed different metaphysical systems to solve the Christological question: Chalcedonians affirmed that Christ is two substances/natures united in one hypostasis and one person;30 Miaphysites taught that Christ is one substance/nature and one hypostasis/person and this unique substance/nature is from (or composed of) two substances/natures;31 Nestorians, instead, said that Christ is two substances/ As I said elsewhere, see B. Ebeid, “Christology and Deification in the Church of the East. Mar Gewargis I, His Synod and His Letter to Mina as a Polemic against Martyrius-Sahdona”, Cristianesimo nella Storia (Studies in History, Theology and Exegesis) 38 (2017), pp. 729-84, here pp. 731-2, when I use the term “Nestorian Church” I mean the Church of the East after 612, i.e. after applying the doctrine of the two hypostases (qnōmē) in its Christology. We cannot say, in fact, that this Church had accepted a “Nestorian” Christology before the year 612. It is clear, however, that such doctrine was not real Nestorianism, i.e. teaching two Christs and two Sons, but the texts of this Church (like the document of the synod of 612), and some of its theologians (like Elias of Nisibis and ʿAbdīshōʿ bar Brīkhā), adopted this title for themselves, making it a synonym of orthodoxy, and for this reason I use the term in this paper. It must be said that there is a tendency today among scholars not to call this Church or its doctrine “Nestorian” due to the negative connotation this term had over the centuries. For the Miaphysites, I accept the distinction scholars make between Miaphysites, i.e. the Severians and moderate Monophysites, and the radical one, calling the latter Monophysites. It must be noted, however, that the texts of the Chalcedonian and Nestorian Churches did not distinguish clearly between them as two different groups, always calling them by one technical term “Monophysites”. 30 With its doctrine the council of Chalcedon tried to reconcile the Christology of the Antiochians with that of the Alexandrians, therefore as basis one might find Fathers from both traditions. On the Chalcedonian Christology and its development one might read the following: R. Price – M. Gaddis (eds.), The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 3 vols., Liverpool U.P., Liverpool 2005 (Translated Texts for Historians 45); Price–Whitby (ed.), Chalcedon in Context (above, n. 28); Pecorara Maggi, Il processo a Calcedonia (above, n. 28); P. Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East, 451–553, Brill, Leiden 1979 (Studies in History of Christian Thought, 20); C. dell’Osso, Il calcedonismo. Leonzio di Bisanzio, Edizioni “Vivere in”, Rome 2003 (Tradizione e vita, 13); B.E. Daley, ““A Richer Union”. Leontius of Byzantium and the Relationship of the Human and Divine in Christ”, Studia Patristica 24 (1939), pp. 239-65; D. Krausmüller, “Making Sense of the Formula of Chalcedon. The Cappadocians and Aristotle in Leontius of Byzantium’s Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos”, Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011), pp. 484-513; D. Krausmüller, “Divine Self Invention. Leontius of Jerusalem’s Reinterpretation of the Patristic Model of the Christian God”, Journal of Theological Studies 57 (2006), pp. 527-45; D. Krausmüller, “Leontius of Jerusalem. A Theologian of the Seventh Century”, Journal of Theological Studies 52 (2001), pp. 637-57; C. Hovorun, Will, Action and Freedom. Christological Controversies in the Seventh Century, Brill, Leiden-Boston 2008 (The Medieval Mediterranean Peoples, Economies and Cultures, 400-1500, 77); H.U. von Balthasar, Massimo il Confessore. Liturgia Cosmica, Jaca Book, Milan 2001 (Già e non ancora, 378); A. Louth, “John of Damascus and the Making of the Byzantine Theological Synthesis”, in J. Patrich (ed.), The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present, Peeters and Department Oosterse Studies, Leuven 2001 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 98), pp. 301-4; A. Louth, St John Damascene: Tradition and Originality in Byzantine Theology, Oxford U.P., Oxford 2002 (Oxford Early Christian Studies). 31 The Miaphysite Christology is based on the most important Miaphysite theologians, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, Philoxenus of Mabbug, and Jacob of Sarug; on such Christology one might read: R. Chesnut, Three Monophysite Christologies. Severus of Antioch, Philoxenus of Mabbug and Jacob of Sarug, Oxford U.P., Oxford 1976 (Oxford Theological Monographs); A. de Halleux, Philoxéne de Mabbog. sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie, Imprimerie orientaliste, Leuven 1963; H. Manoir de Juaye, Dogme et spiritualité chez Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie, Vrin, Paris 1944 (Études de theéologie et d’histoire de la spiritualité, 2); M.A. Mathai, “The Concept of ‘Becoming’ in the Christology of Philoxenos of Mabbug”, The Harp 2 (1989), pp. 71-7; S. McKinion, Words, Imagery, and Maystery of Christ. A Reconstruction of Cyril of Alexandria’s Christology, Brill, Leiden-Boston-Cologne 2000 (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 55); B. Meunier, Le Christ de Cyrille d’Alexandrie. L’Humanité, le salut et la 29 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 90 Bishara Ebeid natures, two hypostases and one person.32 It must be noted that some scholars today avoid translating the Syriac term qnūmō (‫)ܩܢܘܡܐ‬, used by Syrians to translate the Greek ὑπόστασις,33 as “hypostasis”, leaving it transliterated.34 Even if such method is acceptable, I prefer to use question monophysite, Beauchesne, Paris 1997 (Théologie Historique, 104); D. Michelson, The Practical Christology of Philoxenos of Mabbug, Oxford U.P., Oxford 2014 (Oxford Early Christian Studies); L. Perrone, “Il “Dialogo contro gli aftartodoceti” di Leonzio di Bisanzio e Severo di Antiochia”, Cristianesimo nella storia 1 (1980), pp. 41142; A.A. Luce, Monophysitism, Past and Present. A Study in Christology, Macmillan, London 1920; Ph.M. Forness, Preaching Christology in the Roman Near East: A Study of Jacob of Serugh, Oxford U.P., Oxford 2018 (Oxford Early Christian Studies); D. Michelson, “Philoxenos of Mabbug: A Cappadocian Theologian on the Banks of the Euphrates?”, in J. Kreiner – H. Reimitz (eds.), Motions of Late Antiquity: Essays on Religion, Politics, and Society in Honour of Peter Brown, Brepols, Turnhout 2016 (Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, 20), pp. 151-74; I.R. Torrance, Christology after Chalcedon. Severus of Antioch and Sergius the Monophysite, The Canterbury Press, Norfolk 1988; V. C. Samuel, “Τhe Christology of Severus of Antioch”, Abba Salama 4 (1973), pp. 126-90. 32 The Nestorian Christology is based on the doctrine of the theologians of Antioch, such as Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius and some other Syriac theologians such as Narsai and Babai the Great; on their Christological doctrine see C. Hay, “Antiochene Exegesis and Christology”, Australian Biblical Review 12 (1964), pp. 10-23; J. Siemens, The Christology of Theodore of Tarsus. The Laterculus Malalianus and the Person and Work of Christ, Brepols, Turnhout 2010 (Studia Traditionis Theologiae, 6); M. Anastos, “Nestorius was orthodox”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16 (1962), pp. 119-40; R. Chesnut, “The two Prosopa in Nestorius’ Bazaar of Heraclidis”, Journal of Theological Studies 29 (1978), pp. 392-409; J. Dewart – E. McWilliam, “The Notion of ‘Person’ Underlying the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia”, Studia Patristica 12 (1975), pp. 199-207; R.A. Greer, “The Antiochene Christology of Diodore of Tarsus”, Journal of Theological Studies. New Series 17 (1966), pp. 327-41; R.A. Greer, “The Image of God and the Prosopic Union in Nestorius’ Bazaar of Heraclides”, in R. A. Norris (ed.), Lux in Luminae. Essays in Honor of W.N. Pittenger, Seabury, New York 1966, pp. 46-61; L. Hodgson, “The Metaphysic of Nestorius”, Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1917), pp. 46-55; H. Hovhannisyan, “On the Christological Teaching of Nestorius”, Etchmiadzin 2 (2015), pp. 15-28; F. McLeod, The Roles of Christ’s Humanity in Salvation. Insights from Theodore of Mopsuestia, The Catholic Univ. of America Press, Washington 2005; F. McLeod, “Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Understanding of Two Hypostaseis and Two Prosōpa Coinciding in One Common Prosōpon”, Journal of Early Christian Studies 18 (2010), pp. 393-424; L. Scipioni, Ricerche sulla cristologia del “Libro di Eraclide” di Nestorio. La formula teologica e il suo contesto filosofico, Edizioni Universitarie, Freiburg 1957 (Paradosis, 11); B. Soro, “The Person and Teachings of Nestorius of Constantinople with a Special Reference to his Condemnation at the Council of Ephesus”, Syriac Dialogue, vol. III, Pro Oriente, Vienna 1998, pp. 67-91; A.R. Vine, An Approach to Christology: An Interpretation and Development of Some Elements in the Metaphysic and Christology of Nestorius, Independent Press, London 1948. However one must note that the Church of the East adopted a Nestorian Christology just at AD 612, see B. Ebeid, “The Christology of the Church of the East. An Analysis of the Christological Statements and Professions of Faith of the Official Synods of the Church of the East before A.D. 612”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 82 (2016), pp. 353402; Ebeid, “Christology and Deification” (above, n. 29); S. Brock, “The Christology of the Church of the East”, in D. Afinogenov – A. Muraviev (eds.), Traditions and Heritage of the Christian East, Izdatelstvo, Moscow 1996, pp. 159-79; S. Brock, “The Christology of the Church of East in the Synods of the Fifth to Early Seventh Centuries: Preliminary Considerations and Materials”, in G.D. Dragas – N.A. Nissiotis (eds.), Aksum-Thyateira: A Festschrift for Archbishop Methodius of Thyateira and Great Britain, Thyateria House, Athens 1985, pp. 125-42; Y.P. Patros, “La cristologia della Chiesa d’Oriente”, in E. Vergani – S. Chialà (eds.), Storia, Cristologia e tradizioni della Chiesa Siroorientale. Atti del 3° Incontro sull’Oriente Cristiano di tradizione siriaca Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 14 maggio 2004, Centro Ambrosiano, Milano 2006, pp. 27-42; L. Abramowski, “Ein nestorianiscer Traktat bei Leontius von Jerusalem”, in R. Lavenant (ed.), III Symposium Syriacum, Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, Roma 1983 (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 221), pp. 43-55. 33 See Y.P. Patros, “La cristologia della Chiesa d’Oriente”, in E. Vergani – S. Chialà (eds.), Storia, Cristologia e tradizioni della Chiesa Siro-orientale. Atti del 3° Incontro sull’Oriente Cristiano di tradizione siriaca Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 14 maggio 2004, Centro Ambrosiano, Milano 2006, pp. 27-42, here pp. 29-31. 34 See Brock, “The Christology of the Church of East in the Synods of the Fifth to Early Seventh Centuries” (above, n. 32), p. 131; Baum and Winkler, The Church of the East (above, n. 28), p. 39. Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 91 the English translation “hypostasis” also for the Syriac qnūmō (‫)ܩܢܘܡܐ‬, highlighting that hypostasis, either in Greek as ὑπόστασις or in Syriac as ‫( ܩܢܘܡܐ‬qnūmō) or even in Arabic as ‫( أقنوم‬uqnūm), was used as a technical term by all Christian confessions of the East with different metaphysical meanings, especially in Christological doctrine.35 What is important for us in this paper is to outline the specificity of the metaphysical development that occurred in the Miaphysite field, in order to understand the reasons for the appearance of new Trinitarian controversies among them in the sixth and seventh centuries. As mentioned above, the Miaphysites affirmed that Christ is one substance/nature and one hypostasis/person, and that this unique substance/nature is from two substances/natures and realities, divine and human; therefore, the one subject is also called composite substance/ nature. According to the metaphysics of the Cappadocians, an abstract substance cannot exist, and only a concrete substance exists, i.e. the hypostasis. Christ really existed, he was one subject and not two; he, however, was not just divine nor just human, but both realities together, and therefore he was called the incarnate Logos of God. For Miaphysites, then, it was vital that Christ be affirmed as one concrete substance/nature that really existed, that is, a hypostasis/person. In this way they highlighted the oneness of subject. In addition, this one substance/nature was special insofar as it was composed of two substances/natures, divine and human. With the doctrine of the composition, Miaphysites highlighted and saved the duality of the two components from which Christ derived. The Cappadocians had distinguished between substance/nature and hypostasis/person as between general-common and particular-singular, and in their Trinitarian doctrine they had avoided considering the three hypostases as three single substances, i.e. as three individuals. Miaphysite Christology, however, did not make any clear distinction between substance/ nature and hypostasis/person; instead, it considered these two metaphysical categories as almost synonymous.36 Once transposed back to the Trinitarian level, such a development gave rise to two questions: 1) was the whole substance of the Trinity incarnated? 2) are the three divine hypostases three substances? 3. Miaphysite Christology and the Controversy concerning Tritheism Indeed, a new Trinitarian controversy did occur in the second half of the 6th century among the Miaphysites in Syria. A group which relied on the works of the Alexandrian Miaphysite John Philoponus (d. 570), who was considered by his opponents as the ‘heresiarch of the Tritheists’,37 applied the metaphysical innovation discussed above, i.e. the identification of See Ebeid, “Christology and Deification” (above, n. 29), p. 732. According to Erismann, Miaphysites to avoid a duality of subjects in Christ, i.e. two hypostases/individuals, had highlighted the principle according to which ‘hypostasis’ is comprehended a ‘particular substance/nature’ and from this perspective one shall understand the identification they made between hypostasis and nature, see C. Erismann, “Non Est Natura Sine Persona: The Issue of Uninstantiated Universals from Late Antiquity to the Early Ages”, in M. Cameron – J. Marenbon, (eds.), Methods and Methodologies: Aristotelian Logic East and West, 5001500, Brill, Leiden 2011, pp. 75-91, here pp. 81-2. 37 On John Philoponus see the following: G. Couvalis, “John Philoponus: Closeted Christian or Radical Intellectual?”, Modern Greek Studies 15 (2011), pp. 207-19; C. Erismann, “The Trinity, Universals, and Particular Substances: Philoponus and Roscelin”, Traditio 53 (2008), pp. 277-305; T. Hainthaler, “John Philoponos, Philosopher and Theologian in Alexandria”, in Grillmeier-Hainthaler (eds.), Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. II/IV (above, n. 28), pp. 107-46; M.U. Lang, John Philoponus and the Controversies Over Chalcedon in the Sixth Century: A Study 35 36 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 92 Bishara Ebeid hypostasis/person and substance/nature, to the Trinitarian doctrine, with the result that the three hypostases/persons38 were considered as three divine substances/natures. Therefore, their opponents called them Tritheists. Tritheism began to spread not just in Syria, but also in Constantinople and Alexandria, and the works of John Philoponus started to circulate in Greek and in Syriac translation; all attempts at a reconciliation between the supporters and the adversaries of the doctrine of the three substances failed.39 Thus, the controversy resulted in a division between the Tritheists and the other Miaphysites. Van Roey argues that the starting point of the Tritheists was purely philosophical and that only later did they add patristic arguments.40 According to scholars such as van Roey,41 Grillmeier,42 Hainthaler,43 and Lang,44 the Tritheists based their doctrine on certain metaphysical and logical principles. Following the metaphysical system of the Cappadocians as well as some Neoplatonic doctrines, they 1) considered the hypostasis as an individual concrete substance/nature, and since Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three hypostases, they are consequently three concrete individual substances/natures; 2) the general substance is and Translation of the Arbiter, Peeters, Leuven 2001 (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 47); J. Zachhuber, “Christology after Chalcedon and the Transformation of the Philosophical Tradition. Reflections on a Neglected Topic”, in M. Knezevic (ed.), The Ways of Byzantine Philosophy, Sebastian Press, Alhambra CA 2015, pp. 103-27 (Contemporary Christian Thought Series, 32); J. Zachhuber, “Personhood in Miaphysitism. Severus of Antioch and John Philoponus”, in A. Torrance – S. Paschalides (eds.), Personhood in the Byzantine Christian Tradition: Early, Medieval, and Modern Perspectives, Routledge, New York 2018, pp. 29-43; H. Martin, “Jean Philopon et la controverse trithéite du VIe siècle”, Studia Patristica 5 (1962), pp. 519-25; A. van Roey, “Les fragments trithéites de Jean Philopon”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 11 (1980), pp. 135-63; Zachhuber, The Rise (above, n. 24), pp. 145-69. 38 It must be mentioned, as van Roey notes, that sometimes, for John Philoponus and his followers, hypostasis does not mean just the common nature realized in an individual, but also the special properties that belong to an individual, see R.Y. Ebied – A. van Roey – L.R. Wickham (eds.), Peter of Callinicum. Anti-Tritheist Dossier, Departement Oriëntalistiek, Leuven 1981 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 10), p. 27; see also the note by Hainthaler who underlines that for Philoponus person (πρόσωπον) is sometimes distinguished by hypostasis acquiring the meaning of relationship (σχέσις) of some to one another, see Hainthaler, “John Philoponos” (above, n. 37), p. 120. 39 This controversy had three main phases: 1) it started in Syria with a certain John, a Miaphysite theologian and a native of Apamea; 2) then John’s doctrine was endorsed by two bishops, Conon of Tarsus and Eugenius of Isauria, and finally 3) it spread among Miaphysites in Syria, Egypt and even Constantinople. On Tritheisim see the following: A. Grillmeier, “The Tritheist Controversy in the Sixth Century and its Importance in Syriac Christology”, in Grillmeier-Hainthaler (eds.), Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. II/III (above, n. 28), pp. 268-80; H. Martin, La controverse trithéite dans l’Empire byzantin au VIe siècle, UCL, Leuven 1960; Ebied-van Roey-Wickham (eds.), Peter of Callinicum (above, n. 38), pp. 20-33; A. van Roey, “La controverse trithéite depuis la condemnation de Conon et Eugène jusqu’à la conversion de l’évêque Elie”, in W.C. Delsman – J.T. Nelis – J.R.T.M. Peters – W.H.Ph. Römer – S.A.S. van der Woude (eds.), Von Kanaan bis Kerala: Festschrift für Prof. Mag. Dr. J.P.M. van der Ploeg O.P. zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 4. Juli 1979 überreicht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern, Neukirchener Verlag, Kevelaer 1982 (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 211), pp. 487-97; A. van Roey, “La controverse trithéite jusqu’à l’excommunication de Conon et d’Eugène (557-569)”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 16 (1985), pp. 141-65. 40 See Ebied-van Roey-Wickham (eds.), Peter of Callinicum (above, n. 38), p. 25. One must also mention the opinion of U. M. Lang who maintains that Tritheists’ argumentations were based first on patristic material and then on philosophical principles, see U.M. Lang, “Patristic Argument and the Use of Philosophy in the Tritheist Controversy of the Sixth Century”, in D. Vincent Twomey – L. Ayres (eds.), The Mystery of the Holy Trinity in the Fathers of the Church. Proceedings of the Fourth International Patristic Conference, Maynooth, 1999, Four Courts Press, Dublin 2007 (Irish Theological Quarterly Monograph Series), pp. 79-99. 41 See Ebied-van Roey-Wickham (eds.), Peter of Callinicum (above, n. 38), pp. 25-33. 42 See Grillmeier, “The Tritheist Controversy” (above, n. 39), pp. 276-80. 43 See Hainthaler, “John Philoponos” (above, n. 37), on his Christology pp. 112-31, on his Trinitarian doctrine pp. 131-8. 44 See Lang, “Patristic Argument” (above, n. 40). Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 93 an abstract reality, it has no real existence and exists only in the mind;45 3) being supporters of the Miaphysite Christological formula, i.e. of one nature from two, they considered the one composite nature and hypostasis of Christ as different from those of the Father and the Spirit; 4) therefore, it is not the whole Trinity that was incarnated, but only the Son, in his individual nature, i.e. hypostasis; 5) with their doctrine they could avoid Sabellianism, but they sacrificed the unity and oneness of the divine substance by introducing division; 6) therefore, for them, the unity in the Godhead is seen only in mental abstraction, i.e. at the level of the general substance, which, however, has no real existence; 7) the three divine hypostases and natures are three consubstantial divinities 8) since each of them is a concrete “copy”46 of the general substance,47 each is “God in a different way”;48 9) consubstantiality, then, occurs between individual substances, without taking into consideration the properties of each substance-hypostasis;49 10) each concrete “copy” of the general substance differs from the other “copy” on account of its own characteristics, i.e. idioms and properties; and finally 11) the different species or “copies” of this general divine substance are designated through the addition of ‘Father’, ‘Son’ and ‘Holy Spirit’, i.e. the idioms and properties.50 4. The Miaphysite reactions against Tritheism Tritheists were attacked and anathematized by the other Miaphysites from the outset.51 The most important reactions were those of Theodosius of Alexandria on the one hand and of Damian of Alexandria and Peter of Callinicum on the other, the latter two in turn being engaged in reciprocal controversy. 4.1. The reaction of Theodosius of Alexandria During the first phase of the controversy, the patriarch Theodosius of Alexandria (d. 567), who was in exile in Constantinople, disagreed with the doctrine of the first Tritheists, but did not regard it as a heresy. Although he believed that the point at stake was a disagreement about words and concepts, he wrote a long treatise on the question known as De Trinitate.52 In his work Theodosius 45 On the universals in John Philoponos see Zachhuber, “Universals” (above, n. 25), pp. 463-5. The idea of a concrete “copy” of the general substance is developed by John in his Diaitetes seu Arbiter. John, it seems, did not use a technical term that corresponds to “copy”; the latter term was used by Hainthaler, “John Philoponos” (above, n. 37), p. 134. In chapters 16, 22, 23 and 24 of the Diaitetes one can find this idea eẍ ‫ܗܝ ܕܝܢ ܕܟܕ ܐܝܬ ܠܟܝܢܐ ܕܟܠ ܚܕ ܚܕ ܡܢ‬ pressed in other terms, especially in the conclusion of chapter 24: “‫ܒܢܝܢܫܐ‬ ̇ ”, “For the nature of each single one of the human beings has the common ‫ܡܠܬܐ ܓܘܢܝܬܐ ܕܟܝܢܐ ܒܗ ܒܕܡܘܬܐ‬ ̣ concept of the nature [ὁ τῆς φύσις λόγος κοινός] in the same way”, Iohannis Philoponi, Opuscula Monophysitica, ed. A. Sanda, Beirut 1930, Syriac text p. 23. English translation is mine. 47 See Hainthaler, “John Philoponos” (above, n. 37), p. 134. 48 Ebied, van Roey and Wickham, Peter of Callinicum (above, n. 38), p. 29. See also Lang, “Patristic Argument” (above, n. 40), pp. 91-99. 49 As mentioned above for John Philoponus and his followers, hypostasis sometimes differs from the individual nature, which is a concrete copy of the general abstract reality without its special properties, therefore hypostasis is considered an individual nature with proper characteristics, idioms and properties. This, in fact, is the reason why, for Tritheists, consubstantiality can be between individual and concrete substances and not between hypostases. For more details see Ebied-van Roey-Wickham (eds.), Peter of Callinicum (above, n. 38), pp. 27-31. 50 See also the chapter dedicated on Philoponus’ doctrine in Zachhuber, The Rise (above, n. 24), pp. 145-69, esp. pp. 155-67. 51 See Grillmeier, “The Tritheist Controversy” (above, n. 39), pp. 268-276; Ebied-van Roey-Wickham (eds.), Peter of Callinicum (above, n. 38), pp. 20-1. 52 This work is preserved only in Syriac translation, see J.B. Chabot (ed.), Documenta ad origines monophysi46 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 94 Bishara Ebeid maintained that each divine hypostasis, when considered individually, is a certain substance and nature.53 This statement kindled the opposition of a group known as the Condobaudites, who affirmed that none of the three hypostases of the Trinity, if seen individually, can be considered as a substance, and therefore it was the common divine nature and substance that was incarnated.54 Although this doctrine and that of Tritheism were condemned, Miaphysites continued to look for reconciliation,55 but no agreement was reached and the Tritheists established their own hierarchy.56 Very soon, however, they were divided into two groups, one following the doctrine of John Philoponus on Resurrection, and the other, known as Cononites, rejecting it.57 Theodosius’ arguments against Tritheism were patristic and not philosophical, as Tritheist arguments and principles were.58 Such a patristic approach proved insufficient and in the second stage of the controversy, Peter and Damian had to formulate their arguments in a rational way, even though the patristic material remained an important support. 4.2. The Reaction of Peter of Callinicum and Damian of Alexandria The second important reaction against Tritheism came from two important Miaphysite figures of the second half of the sixth century, namely Peter of Callinicum, the patriarch of Antioch (d. 591), and Damian of Alexandria (d. 605), two friends who became enemies because of the different Trinitarian doctrines they espoused in opposition to Tritheism. This is not the place to mention the context of their reaction, and the development of the controversy, which have already been studied in depth.59 What interests me here is to present how each of them tried to respond to Tritheism and why they disagreed. tarum illustrandas, Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, Leuven 1907,1933 (CSCO 17, 103, Syr. 17, 52); A. van Roey – P. Allen, (eds.), Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century, Peeters, Leuven 1994 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 56). 53 See Grillmeier, “The Tritheist Controversy” (above, n. 39), pp. 270-1. 54 See Grillmeier, “The Tritheist Controversy” (above, n. 39), p. 271; Lang, “Patristic Argument” (above, n. 40), pp. 86-8. 55 See Grillmeier, “The Tritheist Controversy” (above, n. 39), pp. 272-4; Ebied-van Roey-Wickham (eds.), Peter of Callinicum (above, n. 38), pp. 20-5. 56 See Grillmeier, “The Tritheist Controversy” (above, n. 39), pp. 274-5; Ebied-van Roey-Wickham (eds.), Peter of Callinicum (above, n. 38), p. 22. 57 See Ebied-van Roey-Wickham (eds.), Peter of Callinicum (above, n. 38), pp. 22-3. 58 See Ebied-van Roey-Wickham (eds.), Peter of Callinicum (above, n. 38), p. 33. 59 See Ebied-van Roey-Wickham (eds.), Peter of Callinicum (above, n. 38), pp. 1-19, 34-43; R Y. Ebied – A. van Roey – L.R. Wickham, “Introduction” to Petri Callinicensis Patriarchae Antiocheni, Tractatus contra Damianum, ed. R.Y. Ebied – A. van Roey – L.R. Wickham, Vol. 1 , Leuven U.P., Turnhout - Leuven 1994 (Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca, 29), pp. vi-xxvi; R.Y. Ebied, “Peter of Antioch and Damian of Alexandria. The End of a Friendship”, in R.H. Fischer (ed.), A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus. Studies in Early Christian Literature and Its Environment, Primarily in the Syrian East, The Lutherian School of Theology, Chicago 1977, pp. 277-82; R.Y. Ebied, “Peter of Callinicum and Damian of Alexandria: The Tritheist Controversy of the Sixth Century”, Colloquium 15 (1982), pp. 17-22; Id., “Peter of Callinicus and Damian of Alexandria. The Tritheist Controversy of the Sixth Century”, Parole de l’Orient 35 (2010), pp. 181-91; P. Allen, “Religious Conflict between Antioch and Alexandria c. 565630 CE”, in W. Mayer – B. Neil (eds.), Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to the Rise of Islam, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin - New York 2013 (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 121), pp. 187-99. See also Th. Hainthaler, “The Christological Controversy on Proba and John Barbur”, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 56 (2004), pp. 155-70; A. van Roey, “Une controverse christologique sous le patriarcat de Pierre de Callinique”, in F. Graffin – A. Guillaumont (eds.), Symposium Syriacum, 1976: célebré du 13 au 17 septembre 1976 au Centre Culturel “Les Fontaines” de Chantilly (France), Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, Rome 1978 (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 205), pp. 349-57; Zachhuber, The Rise (above, n. 24), pp. 170-83. Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 95 During the negotiations for a reconciliation between Miaphysites and Tritheists, Damian wrote a work, known as Adversus Tritheitas, against certain chapters composed by some Tritheists, which summarized their doctrine. Damian sent this work to his friend Peter and asked for his opinion. Peter, however, found its doctrinal basis to be quite similar to Sabellianism. He conveyed this to Damian, who in turn accused him of being an Eunomian and a Tritheist. The controversy began and eventually led to a schism between Antioch and Alexandria that ended years after the death of both patriarchs, in 616, when Damian’s teachings were rejected by all Miaphysite churches. The works written by Peter against Damian have survived only in Syriac translation and unfortunately in partial form,60 while Damian’s work against the Tritheists and his letters to Peter have not survived. What we have today are just those quotations that Peter culled from them in his major three-volume work against the patriarch of Alexandria, known as Contra Damianum. An analysis of these quotations and of other indirect sources helped scholars reconstruct Damian’s doctrine. Through this work of reconstruction scholars such as van Roey,61 Krausmüller62, and Zachhuber63 presented the main metaphysical principles of Damian’s doctrine as follows: 1) clear distinction between substance and hypostasis; 2) substance is the common and constituent element of being and 3) it exists concretely and not only in the mind; 4) hypostases are identified with the characteristic (also called hypostatic) properties; as a consequence, 5) there is no distinction between “name” and “things”; 6) hypostases are distinct and incommunicable, but 7) each becomes substantial through participation in the substance, i.e. the common and constituent element of being, and 8) it consequently gains a substantial component; therefore, 9) it is not an abstract reality. In conclusion, Damian’s metaphysics works on two levels: that of the substance and that of the hypostases-properties, where the hypostases, as substantial properties, have their ontological origin in the substance as the ‘true’ one. Applying these principles to the Trinitarian doctrine implies that 1) oneness in God is seen in the oneness of the divine substance as an entity distinct from the three divine hypostases, which are identified with three properties: 2) the hypostasis of the Father is the divine unbegottenness-fatherhood, the hypostasis of the Son is the divine begottenness-sonship and the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is the divine procession; thus, 3) the distinction between hypostasis and substance and the identification of hypostasis and hypostatic property allow Damian to avoid multiplying the constituent element of the Trinity, i.e. the substance. 4) Even if hypostasis is distinct from substance, however, in reality it exists only insofar as it For his letters and some other documents see R Ebied, van Roey and Wickham, Peter of Callinicum (above, n. 38); while for his main work against Damian see Petri Callinicensis Patriarchae Antiocheni, Tractatus Contra Damianum, ed. R.Y. Ebied – A. van Roey – L.R. Wickham, 4 Vols., Leuven U.., Turnhout - Leuven 1994, 1996, 1998, 2003 (Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca, 29, 32, 35 and 54). See also R.Y. Ebied – L.R. Wickham, “The Discourse of Mar Peter Callinicus on the Crucifixion”, Journal of Theological Studies. New Series 26 (1975), pp. 23-37. 61 See A. van Roey, “Le traité contre les Trithéites (CPG 7245) de Damien d’Alexandrie”, in A. Schoors – P. van Deun (eds.), Philohistôr: Miscellanea in Honorem Caroli Laga Septuagenarii, Peeters, Leuven 1994 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 60), pp. 229-50; Ebied-van Roey-Wickham (eds.), Peter of Callinicum (above, n. 38), pp. 3443; Ebied-van Roey-Wickham, “Introduction” (above, n. 59), pp. xxii-xxvi. 62 See D. Krausmüller, “Properties Participating in Substance: the Trinitarian Theology of Severus of Antioch and Damian of Alexandria”, Journal for Late Antique Religion and Culture 12 (2018), pp. 15-29. 63 See Zachhuber, The Rise (above, n. 24), pp. 171-9. 60 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 96 Bishara Ebeid participates in the substance, so that in the Trinity there are not two different constituent elements; thus, 5) consubstantiality is interpreted in the light of the latter statement. Damian supported his doctrine with patristic quotations, especially from Severus of Antioch and Gregory of Nazianzus.64 In fact, as Krausmüller notes, Damian especially based himself upon Severus of Antioch’s Trinitarian reflections as expressed in the Contra Grammaticum.65 Unfortunately, having no more than fragments from the work of Damian, we cannot know how much he used the fathers, and how exactly he read and interpreted them. On the contrary we know that Peter abundantly quoted the fathers, such as the Cappadocians, and those Miaphysite authors who had developed the Miaphysite metaphysics in relation to Christology, such as Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, and Theodosius of Alexandria. Peter used these authorities in support of his doctrine, accusing Damian of incorrect reading of the fathers.66 Although we do not yet have a systematic study of Peter’s thought and Trinitarian doctrine we can present his metaphysical system as follows:67 1) substance is the sum of all hypostases belonging to its species; 2) each hypostasis participates in the sum of all hypostases, i.e. the common substance; 3) the hypostases of the same common substance share the same attributes of the substance, therefore they are consubstantial; 4) the substance, then, is participated and shared while the hypostasis is the participant and sharer; 5) each hypostasis, however, has its own characteristic property; 6) the characteristic property is the specific mode of being of each hypostasis; 7) through its characteristic property, or hypostatic property, each hypostasis is distinct from the other hypostases of the same common substance; therefore, 8) hypostasis is not the substance itself nor the characteristic properties themselves; it is the individual, which includes both aspects; and finally, 9) each hypostasis taken individually is considered as a particular substance and nature, which manifests its consubstantiality through the attributes it shares with the other hypostases of the same substance and species, while it manifests its particularity through its own characteristic properties. Differently from Damian’s metaphysics, then, Peter’s solution distinguishes three metaphysical levels: the substance, the hypostasis, and the property. This tripartition allowed Peter to demonstrate that: 1) God is one in word and reality; 2) oneness means that there is only one divine substance; 3) the divine substance is the sum of the three divine hypostases; 3) these three hypostases are consubstantial since each shares in the totality of the substance and Godhead; 4) each hypostasis differs from the others through the characteristic property of the hypostasis or hypostatic property, i.e. unbegottennesfatherhood, begottenness-sonship and procession, which manifests the way each hypostasis exists; 5) each hypostasis seen individually is a concrete substance with its own characteristic property; therefore, 6) Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three complete and existing realities; and finally, 7) it is God the Word alone who was incarnated, not the whole Trinity. As Ebied notes, the disagreement between Damian and Peter was a real dilemma, and resorting to patristic heritage on Trinity, used by both in a “genuinely puzzling way”, could not solve See Krausmüller, “Properties Participating in Substance” (above, n. 62), p. 26. In fact, the whole of Dirk Krausmüller’s paper “Properties Participating in Substance” (above, n. 62) sets out to demonstrate this relationship between the Trinitarian doctrine of Severus and Damian. 66 On the use of the fathers by Peter see the following: R.Y. Ebied, “Quotations from the Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria in Peter of Callinicus᾽ magnum opus Contra Damianum”, Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 13 (2016), pp. 33-94; R.Y. Ebied, “Quotations from the Works of St. Severus of Antioch in Peter of Callinicus’ magnum opus Contra Damianum”, in J. D’Alton – Y.N. Youssef (eds.), Severus of Antioch: His Life and Times, Brill, Leiden - Boston 2016 (Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity, 7), pp. 65-123. 67 See also Zachhuber, The Rise (above, n. 24), pp. 179-81. 64 65 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 97 the problem.68 As mentioned above, the disagreement turned into a schism between the two Miaphysite sees of Alexandria and Antioch, and although reconciliation was achieved after the rejection of Damian’s doctrine, this does not mean that Damian’s metaphysical system, i.e. his distinction between hypostasis and substance on the one hand and the identification between hypostasis and property on the other, nor his particular reading of the patristic Trinitarian doctrine, disappeared among Miaphysites.69 5. Tritheism, Damian’s Trinitarian Doctrine and other Christian Confessions The Cappadocian metaphysical system was not the exclusive heritage of the Miaphysite Church; it was a common tradition shared with the other Christian confessions, namely Chalcedonians and East Syrians, who also applied it to Christology with analogous problems and looked for solutions, as I have already explained. Chalcedonians distinguished between substance/nature and hypostasis/person; they also distinguished between natural characteristics and attributes, common to all hypostases of the same nature/substance, and hypostatic properties and characteristics, proper to each hypostasis. Such distinction, for example, was underlined, as Hainthaler pointed out, by the Chalcedonian patriarch of Constantinople Eutychius in his polemical treatise against Tritheists written between 568 and 577.70 The Chalcedonians’ starting point was also Christological. In another text of the 8th century, the Epistula Apologetica written by the Miaphysite Eliya to Leo, the syncellus of the Chalcedonian bishop of Harran, the Miaphysite author accuses the Chalcedonians of identifying the hypostasis with its characteristic property.71 In fact, this view of the Chalcedonian doctrine reflects the metaphysical developments that occurred among Chalcedonians after Chalcedon, i.e. so-called neo-Chalcedonianism, especially those authors who tried to give a metaphysical answer to the challenge of John Philoponus.72 It can be argued that Miaphysites saw a similarity between the doctrine of Damian and the metaphysical developments of the Chalcedonian doctrine. In addition, some East Syrian theologians such as Babai the Great (d. 628) had a metaphysical background similar to that of John Philoponus. I mentioned above that Tritheists made no See Ebied, “Peter of Antioch and Damian of Alexandria” (above, n. 59), p. 282. It is interesting to mention that many Christian theologians, Miaphysites and others, used Damian’s identification between hypostasis and property in their Trinitarian doctrine expressed and developed in response to Islamic accusations of Tritheism, see R. Haddad, La Trinité divine chez les théologiens arabes 750-1050, Beauchesne, Paris 1985 (Beauchesne Religions, 15); the part on Elias of Nisibis’ Trinitarian doctrine in Ebeid, La Tunica di al-Masīḥ (above, n. 5); see also the introduction in Elias of Nisibis, Commentary on the Creed, ed. B. Ebeid, UCOPress CNERU-Èditiones de l’USJ CEDRAC, Cordova - Beirut 2018 (Series Syro-Arabica, 9). 70 See Hainthaler, “John Philoponos” (above, n. 37), pp. 135-8. 71 See A. van Roey, “La lettre apologétique d’Élie à Léon, syncelle de l’évêque chalcédonien de Harran; une apologie monophysite du VIIIe-IXe siècle”, Le Museon 57 (1944), pp. 1-52, here pp. 22-35; for more details on this work, its author and its contents see U. Possekel, “Christological Debates in Eighth Century Harran. The Correspondence of Leo of Harran and Eliya”, in M. Doerfler – E. Fiano – K. Smith, (eds.), Syriac Encounters. Papers from the Sixth North American Syriac Symposium, Duke University, 26-29 June 2011, Peeters, Leuven - Paris - Bristol 2015, pp. 345-66. 72 See D. Krausmüller, “Under the Spell of John Philoponus: How Chalcedonian Theologians of the Late Patristic Period Attempted to Safeguard the Oneness of God”, The Journal of Theological Studies 68 (2017), pp. 625-49; while on the thought of neo-Chalcedonian authors and doctrines except the given references on Chalcedon see B. Gleede, The Development of the Term ἐνυπόστατος from Origen to John of Damascus, Brill, Leiden - Boston 2012 (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and Language, 113); see also C. dell’Osso, Cristo e Logos. Il Calcedonismo del VI secolo in Oriente, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, Roma 2010 (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 118). 68 69 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 98 Bishara Ebeid distinction between substance and hypostasis; however, they also affirmed that abstract reality, i.e., the common and universal substance, exists only in the mind, while the existing reality is the concrete copy of abstract reality. It was also noted that Tritheists sometimes called hypostases the copy of abstract reality with its characteristic property. One might suppose that the approach of John Philoponus and the Tritheists was not purely Aristotelian, but closer to that of some Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle who developed the doctrine on the three states of substance,73 and applied it into their Trinitarian and Christological doctrines.74 I think then, that one might find some common points with the doctrine of the Nestorian Babai the Great, who distinguishes between abstract reality, which he calls nature (‫ܟܝܢܐ‬, kyānā), concrete reality without characteristic properties, which he calls hypostasis (‫ܩܢܘܡܐ‬, qnōmā), and concrete and individualized reality, i.e. hypostasis with its characteristic properties, which he called person (‫ܦܪܨܘܦܐ‬, parṣōpā).75 It can be argued, then, that Miaphysites could see a similarity between the doctrine of Nestorians with that of John of Philoponus and his followers, thing that Chalcedonians, like Leontius of Jerusalem, who also polemicized Tritheism and its followers, have also noted.76 I am not affirming a direct relationship or influence between Damian and the Chalcedonians or between Tritheism and Babai’s thought. What I am trying to say is that according to the Miaphysite metaphysical system such doctrines share common points, and to polemicize them one might use the works written by Miaphysite tradition during the controversy against Tritheism and against Damian. Even if Tritheism and Damian’s doctrine did not completely disappear77 in the following century, i.e. before the advent of Islam,78 the main concern for Miaphysites under Islam was not the divisions within their own confession, but the debate with Chalcedonians and Nestorians. 73 We mean the distinction between general substance, partial substance, and particular substance, for more details, see L. Benakis, “The Problem of General Concepts in Neoplatonism and Byzantine Thoughts”, in D.J. O’Meara (ed.), Neoplatonism and Christian Thought, International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, Norfolk 1982, pp. 75-86. 74 Already Hainthaler compared in one point John Philoponus and Leontius of Byzantium concerning their use of this doctrine, see Hainthaler, “John Philoponos” (above, n. 37), p. 125. It must, however, be, mentioned that Leontius of Byzantium followed this doctrine on substance and applied it also in his Christology, see Krausmüller, “Making Sense” (above, n. 30). For the reception of the theory on the three states of the universal in Byzantium, see C. Erismann, “The Trinity, Universals, and the Particular Substances: Philoponus and Rescelin”, Traditio 53 (2008), pp. 277-305, here 277-85. 75 For the metaphysical doctrine of Babai the Great and his trinitarian doctrine see B. Ebeid, “The Trinitarian doctrine of Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib. An interpretation of Babai the Great’s metaphysical system in the world of Islam”, Parole de l’Orient 44 (2018), pp. 93-131, here pp. 97-107. For more on Babai’s doctrine see L. Abramowski, “Babai der Grosse. Christologische Probleme und ihre Lösungen”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 41(1975), pp. 289-343; L. Abramowski, “Die Christologie Babais des Grossen”, in Symposium Syriacum I, Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, Rome 1972 (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 197), pp. 219-44. 76 In fact, Krausmüller had noted that also for the Chalcedonian Leontius of Jerusalem there is a similarity between both Nestorians’ and Philoponos’ Trinitarian doctrines, see Krausmüller, “Under the Spell” (above, n. 72), pp. 639-41. 77 See J. Block, “Philoponian Monophysitism in South Arabia at the Advent of Islam with Implications for the English Translation of ‘Thalātha’ in Qur’ān 4.171 and 5.73”, Journal of Islamic Studies 23 (2012), pp. 50-75. One also might mention the doctrine of an anti-Tritheist Trinitarian florilegium, copied centuries after the controversy between Damian and Peter, which understands the common divine substance as Aristotle’s first substance and identifies the hypostases with the properties, see G. Furlani, “Un florilegio antitriteistico in lingua siriaca”, Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti IX, 8[83] (1924), pp. 661-77. 78 As Penn has demonstrated, the first writings of Syriac Christians on Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries do not consider it new religion. They also reveal that their knowledge of Islamic doctrine was not deep, see M.Ph. Penn, Envisioning Islam. Syriac Christians and Early Muslim World, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia 2015 (Divinations: Reading Late Ancient Religion). Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 99 6. Composing and Copying Miaphysite Trinitarian Florilegia During the first centuries of Islamic rule in the East, the Miaphysites started to compose and copy different dogmatic florilegia on the Trinity and Christology based on patristic quotations categorized in thematic order, divided in groups where each group has a specific title. Such florilegia were probably used for the theological formation of West Syrian Christians. The Trinitarian Florilegium on which the present paper focuses was composed neither to oppose Tritheists nor against Damian’s doctrine. As mentioned above, and since it treats mainly metaphysical topics, this and other florilegia were also important to prepare good theologians that could debate with Chalcedonians and Nestorians. The fact that these florilegia were copied during the first centuries of Islamic rule confirms that Miaphysites in that period still saw Chalcedonians and Nestorians as their main adversaries. In addition, one might note that the Miaphysite writings against Chalcedonians and Nestorians composed in that period, firstly in Syriac and then in Arabic, made a direct and indirect use of these florilegia.79 When Islam began to be felt as a real intellectual and religious threat, however, such florilegia started also to be useful for Miaphysites in their apologetic works against Muslims who saw the Christian Trinity as an expression of Tritheism and could not accept God’s incarnation. Though the Church fathers were quoted directly in Miaphysite writings against Chalcedonians and Nestorians, since all three of them shared a respect for the fathers as foundational authorities, the florilegia were used indirectly and without mentioning the fathers in the Miaphysite Arabic writings against Islam.80 6.1. The Trinitarian Florilegium in BL Add. 14532 One of these dogmatic florilegia, which is Trinitarian in content, is found in the following manuscripts of the British Library: Add. 14532, ff. 94vb-133va; Add.14533, ff. 73r-89r; with some additions at the end in Add. 14538, ff.119v-133v; and with other additions at the beginning and the end in Add.12155, ff. 2va-32va.81 A critical digital edition of this florilegium, with other florilegia, will soon be available online.82 In this paper I shall study the florilegium according to Add. 1453283 and I shall present 1) the titles given for each group of patristic quotations; 2) the fathers mentioned in each group, their quoted works and an identification of these quotations; and 3) the main topics treated in these patristic quotations. After this presentation I shall provide an analysis of the Trinitarian doctrine of this florilegium and study the new understanding of the metaphysical terms and concepts that emerges from their juxtaposition. 79 See my forthcoming papers on Abū Rāʾiṭah al-Takrītī’s use of these patristic florilegia: “Miaphysite Syriac Patristic Florilegia and Theopaschisim: Abū Rāʾiṭah’s Defence of the Christological Trisagion Hymn”, Annali di Scienze Religiose 14 (2021); “Patristic Tradition, Trinitarian Doctrine, and Metaphysics in Abū Rāʾiṭah al-Takrītīs Polemics against the Melkites”, in Proceedings of the Colloquium Florilegia Syriaca, Brill, Leiden 2022. 80 I am preparing a paper on Abū Rāʾiṭah al-Takrītī’s use of the content of such florilegia in his writings in relation with Islam, esp. on his understanding of the concept “hypostasis” and whether it can be identified with attribute or property. 81 See also A. van Roey, “Un florilège trinitaire syriaque tiré du Contra Damianum de Pierre de Callinique”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 23 (1992), pp. 189-203. 82 See the website of the ERC-project FLOS, at https://www.unive.it/pag/40548/. 83 I have already checked the florilegium in the four given manuscripts; it is identical in Add. 14533 (with just one small addition); in Add. 12155, however, this florilegium is found in ff. 13ra-23va, while the rest of the folios, i.e. ff. 2ra-13ra and 23va-32va, contain additions that are not copied in Add. 14532 and 14533. I have noted that the copyist of Add. 12155 follows another order for the patristic groups, and that in ff.13ra-32va there are some groups that are not copied in the other manuscripts. It must be mentioned too that in Add. 14532 there is a missing folio and I completed it through Add. 14533 and Add. 14538. Finally, it is worthy of note that the opinion of Wright, followed by Furlani, according to which the Trinitarian florilegium in BL Add. 14532 is copied in ff. 94v-186r, is wrong, see Furlani, “Un florilegio” (above, n. 77), p. 661 and footnote 3 on the same page. Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 100 Bishara Ebeid Syriac title ̈ ̈ ‫ܕܐܒܗܬܐ‬ ‫ܬܚܘܝܬܐ‬ ̇ ̈ 1 ‫ܕܡܠܦܝܢ܆‬ ‫ܩܕܝܫܐ‬ ( 9 4 v b - ‫ܘܟܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܘܣܝܐ‬ 97vb)84 ‫ܕܬܠܝܬܝܘܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܟܝܬ ܐܠܗܘܬܐ܆‬ ̈ ‫ܬܠܬܐ‬ ‫ܩܢܘܡܐ ܕܐܒܐ‬ ‫ܘܕܒܪܐ ܘܕܪܘܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܐܝܬܝܗ܆ ܘܠܘ ܡܕܡ‬ ‫ܐܚܪܢܐ ܐܘܣܝܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܟܝܬ ܐܠܗܘܬܐ܇ ܘܡܕܡ‬ ̈ ‫ܩܢܘܡܐ‬ ‫ܐܚܪܢܐ‬ English translation Demonstrations of the holy fathers who teach that the substance and the nature of the Holy Trinity, which is the Godhead, is the three hypostases of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that the substance is not one thing, which is the Godhead, and the hypostases are another thing Fathers and their works Bas. Caesar., De Fide85 Greg. Naz., In sanct. pascha et in tardit.(or. 1)86 Greg. Naz., De Pace I (or. 6)87 Greg. Naz., In theophan. (or. 38)88 Greg. Naz., De Spir. sancto (or. 31) 89 Greg. Naz., In Seipsum (or. 26)90 Greg. Naz., In Sancta lumina (or. 39)91 (Ps.) Athan. Alex., De Incarn. et contra Arianos92 (Ps.) Greg. Thaumaturgus (=Apollinarius Laodicenus), De Fide kata meros93 (Ps.) Ioh. Chrysost., De Sancta trinitate seu de fide94 Epiph. Const., Panarion95 Cyril. Alex., De Adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate 96 Sev. Antioch., Hom. cathedr. 4297 Sev. Antioch., Ep. ad Euprax.98 Sev. Antioch., Ep. ad Isid. com.99 Main topics Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the uncreated nature, one Godhead, one God, one power. Trinity is one God. The one Godhead is the three and the three are the one Godhead. The oneness is according to the concept (λόγος) of the substance or Godhead. The three are one, by identity of substance and divinity. One substance and Godhead in three hypostases. The hypostases are distinguished: no confusion between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the Godhead is united on account of the identity of the substance. 84858687888990919293949596979899100 84 It must be noted that BL Add. 14532 and BL Add. 12155 follow a different numeration that depends on the general numeration of the patristic quotations of all the florilegia that each manuscript contains, while BL Add. 14533 in this florilegium does not follow any numeration. BL Add. 14538 follows the same numeration we find in BL Add. 14532 and probably it is a copy of it. Thus, the numeration followed here is mine. 85 PG 31, 465.22-42. 86 Two quotations: PG 35, 400.39-40 and PG 35, 401.1-7. 87 PG 35, 740.1-5. 88 PG 36, 320.18-28. 89 Section 33.12-17, Gregor von Nazianz. Die fünf theologischen Reden, ed. J. Barbel, Patmos-Verlag, Düsseldorf 1963. 90 PG 35, 1252.29-40. 91 Two quotations: PG 36, 345.39-49 and PG 36, 348.37-38. 92 Two quotations: PG 26, 1000.17-25 and PG 26, 1001.28-29. 93 Two quotations: Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule. Texte und Untersuchungen, ed. H. Lietzmann, J.C.B. Mohr, Tübingen 1904, p. 176.13-18 and p. 184.23-27. 94 PG 60. 767.34-768.2. 95 Two quotations: Epiphanius, Ancoratus und Panarion, ed. K. Holl, Vols. 3, Hinrichs, Leipzig 1933 (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, 37), p. 346.17-23 and p. 405.7-11. 96 PG 68, 412.42-55. 97 PO 36, 34.25-28. 98 Two quotations: PO 14, 12 and 14,13-14. 99 PO 12, 214. 100 Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century, ed. A. van Roey – P. Allen, Peeters, Leuven 1994 (Orientalia Lova- Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 101 2 ‫ܕܗܘ ܟܕ‬ ‫ ܥܠ ̇ܗܝ‬On the fact that ̣ ( 9 7 v b - ‫ܚܢܢ‬ ‫ ̣ܗܘ ܐܡܪܝܢ‬we say that the 99rb) ‫ܕܡܚܝܕ‬ ‫ ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬united one and ‫ܘܬܠܬܐ‬ ‫ ܘܡܦܪܫ܁‬the separated one ‫ ܘܚܕ‬.‫ܒܐܠܗܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܚܕ‬is the same, and ̣ ̈ ‫ ܬܠܬܐ ܒܕܝܠܝܬܐ܁ ܘܕܚܕ‬that the three are one according ‫ܘܗܘ‬ ̣ ‫ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܘܠܘ ܚܕ܆‬ ̣ ̇ to Godhead and ‫ܡܢܐ ܘܥܪܩ‬ ̣ ‫ܡܬ‬ ̣ ‫ܟܕ ̣ܗܘ‬ the one is three ‫ܡܢ ܡܢܝܢܐ‬ according to properties and that He is one and not one, and that the same is numbered and escapes from number Bas. Caesar. (Greg. Nys.), Ep. 38101 Greg. Naz., De Spir. sancto (or. 31)102 Greg. Naz., De Pace III (or. 23)103 Greg. Naz., In laudem Heronis philosophi (or. 25)104 Greg. Nys., Refutatio confessionis Eunomii105 Greg. Nys., Oratio catechetica magna106 Sev. Antioch., Hom. cathedr. 70107 Sev. Antioch., Ep. ad presbyteros et archimandritas Iohannem et Iohannem et alios108 ̇ 3 Sev. Antioch., Contra On the fact that one ‫ܥܠ ܗܝ ܕܚܕ ܩܢܘܡܐ‬ ̇ ( 9 9 r a - ‫ܟܠܗ ܐܘܣܝܐ‬ impium Grammaticum109 hypostasis is not the ‫ܠܘ‬ 99rb) whole substance and ‫ܘܐܠܗܘܬܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬ Godhead ‫ܐܘܣܝܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܟܠܗ‬ 4 ‫ ܕ ܐ ܠܗ ܘ ܬ ܐ ܆‬The whole substance Sev. Antioch., Contra ( 9 9 r b - ‫ ܬܠܝܬܝܘܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ‬of the Godhead is impium Gramm.110 99vb) Greg. Naz., In sanctum ‫ ܐܝܬܝܗ‬the Holy Trinity baptisma (or. 40)111 God paradoxically has in himself both union and division. For, as far as the concept (λόγος) of substance is concerned, God is one, but inasmuch as the properties indicative of hypostases are concerned He is divided into Father, Son and Holy Spirit: inseparably divided and unconfusedly united. The same thing (God) is both numbered and avoids number. The Trinity is numerable with regard to the hypostases but it is outside number because it is one and the same substance. Each hypostasis participates perfectly in the common substance but is not the whole substance. Christ is one of the three divine hypostases comprehended in the substance of the Godhead. He is not the whole Godhead and substance, which comprehends the three hypostases. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the one Godhead. The whole substance of the Godhead, which is the Holy Trinity, is not incarnate. 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108109 110 111 niensia Analecta, 56), p. 178.208-215; p. 208.179-186. 101 Two quotations: sections 4.87-91 and 5.5-7, Saint Basile, Lettres, ed. Y. Courtonne, I-III, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1957-1967. 102 Section 9.12-16, ed. Barbel. 103 PG 35, 1160.30-38. 104 PG 35, 1221.43-46. 105 Two quotations: sections 5.8-6.6 and 12.1-13.1, Gregorii Nysseni Opera, ed. W. Jaeger, Vol. 2.2, Brill, Leiden 1960. 106 Section 3.5-10, Grégoire de Nysse, Discours Catéchétique, ed. E. Mühlenberg, Cerf, Paris 2000 (Sources chrétiennes, 453). 107 PO 12, 18.9-19.11. 108 Two quotations: PO 12, 215 and 215-216. 109 Three quotations: Severi Antiocheni Liber contra impium grammaticum, oratio prima et secunda, ed. J. Lebon, Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, Leuven 1938 (CSCO 111, Syr. 58), p. 163.1-5; p. 162.15-18 and p. 167.20-23. 110 Four quotations: ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58), p. 172.20-22; p. 174.19-29; p. 212.15-21 and Severi Antiocheni Liber contra impium grammaticum, orationes pars prior, ed. J. Lebon, Secrétariat du CSCO, Leuven 1929 (CSCO 93, Syr. 45), p. 8.7-10. 111 PG 36,424.3-7. Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 102 Bishara Ebeid 5 (99vb100rb) ‫ܕܡܫܘܬܦ‬ ‫ܕܠܘ ܕܡܛܠ‬ ̣ ̈ ‫ܩܢܘܡܐ‬ ‫ܟܠ ܚܕ ܡܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܟܠܗ‬ ‫ܒܐܘܣܝܐ܇‬ ‫ܐܘܣܝܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬ Antioch., The fact that each Sev. impium of the hypostases Contra participates in the Grammaticum112 substance does not mean it is the whole substance 6 (100ra100rb) ‫ܕܡܫܬܘܬܦ‬ ̣ .‫ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܬܦܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܫ‬ ̣ ̇ ‫ܕܗܘ‬ ‫ܩܢܘܡܐ‬ ‫̇ܗܝ ܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܐܘܣܝܐ‬ Antioch., What participates is Sev. impium the hypostasis, what Contra is participated is the Grammaticum113 substance ‫ ܥܠ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܐܒܐ܆‬On the fact that God 7 (100rb- ‫ ܘܐܠܗܐ ܒܪܐ ܘܡܠܬܐ‬the Father and God ‫ܐܝܬܘܗܝ܆‬ ‫ ܩܢܘܡܐ‬the Son and Word 101rb) ̇ ‫ ܘܠܘ‬are hypostases, and ‫ܕܡܫܘܬܦ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘܡܫܬܘܬܦ‬not the participated and the participant Bas. Caesar., Adv. Eunomium114 Cyril. Alex., Commentarii in Joannem115 Sev. Antioch., Ep. ad Constantinum e p i s c o p u m Seleuciae Isauria116 Sev. Antioch., Contra impium Grammaticum117 Sev. Antioch., Ep. ad Maronem118 Each hypostasis, although it participates fully in the substance, is not the whole substance which collectively comprises all the hypostases. God the Word is a hypostasis and not a substance in the sense of the common substance, even if He possesses the Godhead’s substance. The common substance is the participated, which holds all the hypostases participating in it. Even if each of the hypostases participates in the substance it is not called a substance in the sense of a common substance, but a hypostasis. The participant (sharer) is not identified with the participated (shared). The hypostasis of the Son is distinguished from the hypostasis of the Father and of the Spirit. The Father and Son and Spirit are equal in divinity and Godhead. Neither the Father, nor the Son nor the Spirit are identified with the common substance. Even if the Son is begotten by the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, the latter is not the common shared substance. The hypostasis of the Son, who is one of the three divine hypostases, was incarnated; this means that He was united to flesh with a rational soul. 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 Two quotations: pp. 164.28-165.2 and p. 203.12-19, ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58). Ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58), pp. 191.21-192.1. 114 PG 29, 621.23-31. 115 Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini In D. Joannis evangelium, ed. P.E. Pusey, I-III, E Typ. Clarendoniano, Oxford 1872, vol. 1, p. 72.9-22. 116 The Sixth Book of the Selected Letters of Severus Patriarch of Antioch, ed. E.W Brooks, vol. I/p.1, London 1903, p. 6.2-9 117 Five quotations: p. 56.4-6; p. 56.13-16; pp. 147.27-148.6; p. 148.9-12 and p. 203.12-14, ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58). 118 PO 12, 198.5-6. 112 113 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 103 ‫ ܥܠ ܕܐܘܢܡܝܘܣ܆‬On the fact 8 ̈ ‫ܐܠܘܣܝܣ‬ (101rb- ‫ܗܠܝܢ‬ that Eunomius ̇ ‫ܗܘܐ܆‬ ‫ ܕܐܡܪ‬believed 102ra) what ̈ ̇ ‫ܡܣܬܟܠ‬ ‫ܩܢܘܡܐ‬ he called ‫ “ ܗܘܐ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܝܢ‬s u b s t a n c e s ” were hypostases Greg. Nys., Contra Eunomium119 Greg. Nys., Ad Eust. de sancta trinitate120 Eunomius Cyz., quoted in Bas. Caesar., Adv. Eunomium121 Bas. Caesar., Adv. Eunomium122 Sev. Antioch., Contra impium Grammaticum123 Dam. Alex., Ep. prolixa seu Apologia prima124 ‫ ܥܠ ܕܠܟܝܢܐ ܕܐܒܐ‬On the fact that 9 (102ra- ‫ ܐܘ ܕܒܪܐ܆ ܚܠܦ‬it sometimes 102vb) ‫ ܩܢܘܡܐ ܕܐܒܐ ܐܘ‬happens that ‫ ܕܒܪܐ܇ ܐܝܬ ܐܡܬܝ‬the holy fathers ̇ interchange the ̈ ‫ܐܒܗܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܢܣܒܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܩܕܝܫܐ‬ nature of the Father or of the Son with the hypostasis of the Father or the Son Cyril. Alex., Comm. in Joannem125 Cyril. Alex., Quod unus sit Christus126 Theod. Alex., De Trinitate127 Cyril. Alex., Apologia xii anathematismorum contra Theodoretum128 Sev. Antioch., Contra impium Grammaticum129 Eunomius said that “begottenness” is the name of the substance of the Son. Consequently, he affirmed three different substances for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They are, however, not three substances, but three hypostases. Hypostasis is a substance, but not according the meaning and definition of the “common substance”. Severus proves it through Basil, who says that the “substance of the Son” means the “hypostasis of the Son”, differently from Eunomius’ understanding. Damian refuses to consider the hypostases as substances, considering such doctrine as Eunomian. Cyril says that the Son is from the “nature and the substance of the Father” while Severus affirms that the Son is from the “hypostasis of the Father”. Theodosius quotes Gregory of Nazianzus to show that Gregory calls the Father and the Son natures and substances, and that the three are one Godhead and nature. 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 119 Two quotations: Book 3, chapter 1, section 70.8-11 and section 68.1-3, Gregorii Nysseni Opera, ed. W. Jaeger, voll. 1.1-2.2, Brill, Leiden 1960. 120 Section 6.11-15, Gregorii Nysseni Opera dogmatica minora, ed. F. Müller, vol. 1, Brill, Leiden 1958. 121 PG 29, 584.4-8. 122 Two quotations: PG 29, 588.17-26 and 589.8-11. 123 Cfr. p. 82.9-1, ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58), 5. 124 Lost in the Greek original. 125 Not identified in the original Greek. 126 Cyrille d’Alexandrie, Deux dialogues christologiques, ed. G.-M. de Durand, Cerf, Paris 1964 (Sources chrétiennes, 97), p. 764.12-13. 127 Cfr. p. 168.26-23, ed. van Roey-Allen. 128 Two quotations: First quotation: Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, tome I, vol.1, part 6, ed. E. Schwartz, De Gruyter Berlin-Leipzig 1960 (Collectio Vaticana 165-172), pp. 115.9-15; The second quotation is not identified. 129 Cfr. p. 63. 3-10, ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58). Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 104 Bishara Ebeid 10 the fact ‫ ܥܠ ܕܟܠ ܚܕ ܡܢ‬On ̈ (102vb- ‫ܩܢܘܡܐ ܡܐ ܕܡܢܗ‬ that each of the 104ra) :‫ܡܬܚܙܝܐ‬ ‫ ܘܠܗ‬hypostases, of the ‫ܘܕܒܪܐ‬ ‫ ܕܐܒܐ‬Father, of the Son, .‫ܩܕܝܫܐ‬ ‫ ܘܕܪܘܚܐ‬and of the Holy ̣ ‫ܘܐܘܣܝܐ‬ ‫ ܐܠܗܐ‬Spirit, when it is ̣ ‫ ܘܟܝܢܐ ܡܬܬܘܕܐ ܡܢ‬seen by itself and ̈ ‫ܐܒܗܬܐ‬ ̈ for itself (that is ‫ܩܕܝܫܐ‬ regarded on its own), is confessed by the holy fathers as God, substance, and nature Theod. Alex., De Trin.130 Bas. Caesar., Adv. Eunomium131 Ioh. Chrysost., Hom. in Joannem132 Theod. Alex., De Trin.133 Greg. Naz., De Spir. sancto (or. 31)134 Theod. Alex., De Trin.135 11 (104ra)136 Bas. Caesar., Adv. Eunomium137 Cyril. Alex., Thesaurus de sancta consub. trinit.138 Theod. Alex., De Trin.139 Bas.Caesar.,Adv..Eunomium140 Bas. Caesar., Contra Sabellianos etAriumetAnomoeos141 Bas.Caesar.,Adv.Eunomi.142 (Ps.) Bas. Caesar., Contra Anomoeos143 Greg. Nyss., Contra Eunomium.144 Greg.Naz.,DeFilioI(or.29)145 ̇ ‫ܐܝܬܝܗ ܐܠ‬ ‫ ܕܐܠ‬On the fact that 12 ‫“ ܐܝܠܝܕܘܬܐ‬unbegottenness” (104vb- ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ ܐܝܠܝܕܘܬܐ ܐܘܣܝܐ܇‬or “begottenness” 106ra) ‫ ܐܘ ܐܠܗܐ‬are not substance or God The three hypostases are God because of the monarchy, and each of the three, if taken separately, is also God because of their consubstantiality. The Word is a hypostatic (‫ܩܢܘܡܝܬܐ‬ / ἐνυπόστατος) substance. The hypostasis of the Word is called substance by the holy fathers. Each hypostasis is substance because the substance is not un-hypostatic and hypostasis is not empty of substance and is an existing thing – otherwise it would be an accident. A substance is acknowledged to each of the divine hypostases. This substance manifests separately whatever is predicated of the one Godhead as common substance. Affirming that the substance or God is “unbegottennes” and “begottenness” means different substances, which destroys the consubstantiality and introduces polytheism. Since “unbegottennes” is opposite to “begottenness”, considering them as two substances is tantamount to teaching two opposite gods, that is, Manicheism. 130 131 132 133 134 135136 137 138 139140141142143144145 Cfr. p. 172.39-50; p. 202.9-19, ed. van Roey-Allen. Two quotations: PG 29, 524.43-525.9 and 605.21-28. 132 PG 59, 47.31-34. 133 Cfr. p. 162.75-81; p. 197.73-80, ed. van Roey-Allen. 134 Two quotations: sections 6.3-6 and 6.12-13, ed. Barbel. 135 Two quotations: p. 165.156-164; p. 200.154-161 and p. 166.198-167; p. 201.194-203, ed. van Roey-Allen. 136 In BL Add. 14532 the copyist gives a numeration without a title for this group of patristic quotations; however, in both BL Add. 14533 and BL Add. 12155 there is no numeration or a given title and these patristic quotations belong to the ̇ previous group, i.e. no. 10 in our list. BL Add. 14538 gives it a number and title: “‫ܩܕܝܫܐ ܟܝܢܐ ܡܫܬܡܗ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܕܐܦ ܪܘܚܐ‬ ̣ ̈ ” that is “That also the Holy Spirit is called nature by the doctors of the Church”, see folio ‫ܕܥܕܬܐ‬ ‫ܠܦܢܐ‬ ‫ܡ‬ 123r. ̣ 137 Two quotations: PG 29, 649.45-652.4 and 728.42-729.3. 138 PG 75, 592.37-43. 139 Cfr. p. 168.26-32 and p. 163.109-112; p, 198.108-111, ed. van Roey-Allen. 140 PG 29,512.15-22. 141 PG 31,605.43-52. 142 Two quotations: PG 29,520.23-28 and 29,520.40-521.5. 143 A. van Roey, “Une Homélie inédite contre les Anoméens attribuée à saint Basile de Césarée”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 28 (1997), 179-191, here pp. 189(149ra.32)-190(149rb.28). 144 Three quotations: book 1, sections 510.1-6; 512.1-8 and 514.3-515.1, ed. Jaeger. 145 Section 12.7-13, ed. Barbel.. 130 131 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 105 ̈ ‫ܡܐ‬ ‫ܩܢܘ‬ ‫ ܕ‬On the fact that 13 ( 1 0 6 r a - ‫ ܕ ܬ ܠܝܬ ܝܘ ܬ ܐ‬the hypostases ‫ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܡܢܗܘܢ‬ 107rb) of the Holy ̣ ‫ ܘܠܗܘܢ ܡܩ ̣ܝܡܝܢ‬Trinity subsist by themselves and for themselves (i.e. καθ’ ἑαυτὰ) The names are indicative of the realities; the realities have full proper being; so Father, Son and Holy Spirit are existing realities. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are subsistent (ἐνυπόστατον, literally “having a hypostasis” ‫)ܩܢܘܡܝܐ‬. Each hypostasis subsists in itself. ̈ ‫ܕܕܝܠܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܥܠ‬ 14 ̈ ‫ܡܝܩܢܢܝܬ‬ (106vb- ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܠ‬ ‫ܕܩܢܘܡܐ܆‬ 107rb) ‘Begottenness’ and ‘unbegottenness’ are not things existing individually and hypostatically, they are indicative names (indicating properties) of the hypostases. They do not subsist on their own but take up concrete existence only in the subsisting hypostases to which they pertain. “Theunbegotten”and“thebegotten” do not mean “unbegottenness” and “begottenness”. “The unbegotten” and “the begotten” are properties subsisting in individualized form, i.e. as hypostases. ̈ ‫ܡܢܗܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܡܩܝܡܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܠܗܝܢ‬ Bas. Caes., Ep. 210146 Epiph. Constant., Ancoratus147 Greg. Nys., Contra Eunomium148 Sev. Antioch., Ep. ad Sergium Grammaticum149 Sev. Antioch., Ep. ad presb. et archimandritas Iohannem et Iohannem et alios150 Sev. Antioch., Ep. ad Simum Scriniarium151 On the fact that Cyril. Alex., De sancta the properties of trin. dialogi I-VII152 the hypostasis are characteristics that do not subsist by themselves and for themselves (i.e. καθ’ ἑαυτὰ) ‫̈ܙܢܝܐ‬ ‫ ܕܒܬܠܬܐ‬On the fact 15 ̈ ̇ ‫ܝܕܥܝܢ‬ (1 0 7 rb- ‫ܐܒܗܬܐ‬ that the fathers ̈ recognize ‫ܕܝܠܝܬܐ‬ 108ra) the properties in three ways Greg. Naz., Contra Arianos et de seipso (or. 33)153 Greg. Naz., De Filio I (or. 29)154 Cyril. Alex., De Sancta trinitate dialogi I-VII155 Greg. Naz., De Filio I (or. 29)156 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 Section 4.20-28, ed. Courtonne. Chap. 6, sections 4-6, Epiphanius, Ancoratus und Panarion, ed. K. Holl, vol. 1, Leipzig 1915 (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 25). 148 Book 3, chapter 1, section 94.1-9, ed. Jaeger. 149 Severi Antiocheni Orationes ad Nephalium, Eiusdem ac Sergii Grammatici, Epistulae mutuae, ed. J. Lebon, Secrétariat du CSCO, Leuven 1949 (CSCO 119, Syr. 64), p. 125.27-31. 150 PO 12, 216.1-7. 151 PO 12, 195.3-5. 152 Three quotations: Cyrille d'Alexandrie, Dialogues sur la Trinité, ed. G.-M. de Durand, I-III., Cerf, Paris 1976-1978 (Sources chrétiennes 231, 237, 246), pp. 433.40-434.5; 434.37-39 and 421.25-36. 153 PG 36, 236.3-9. 154 Section 10.9-17, ed. Barbel. 155 Two quotations: 434.2-9 and 434.37-39, ed. de Durand. 156 Section 10.17-18, ed. Barbel. 146 147 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 106 Bishara Ebeid ‫ ܥܠ ̇ܗܝ ܕܒܩܢܘܡܐ‬On the fact that 16 ( 1 0 8 r a - :‫ ܡܟܢܐ ܕܝܠܝܬܐ‬the property ‫ ܘܠܘܬܗ ܦܪܝܫܐ‬is innate in the 110ra) ‫ ܘ ܥܠܘ ܗ ܝ‬hypostasis (i.e. ‫ ܡܬܚܙܝܐ܇ ܘܠܗ‬gets its name ‫ܘܠܗ‬ ‫ ܢܩܝܦܐ܇‬through the ‫ ܡܙ ܘ ܓܐ ܇‬h y p o s t a s i s ) , ‫ ܘ ܠܘ ܬ ܗ‬and for it (for ‫ ܡܬܬܘܣܦܐ‬the hypostasis), the property is set aside, is seen in it (in the hypostasis), follows it (the hypostasis), is mixed with it (i.e. is joined to the hypostasis), and is added to it (i.e. is adjunct to the hypostasis) Cyril. Alex., De sancta trinitate dialogi I-VII157 Sev. Antioch., Contra additiones Juliani158 Sev. Antioch., Ep. ad Sergium Grammaticum159 Sev. Antioch., Contra impium Grammaticum160 Bas. Caesar., Ep. 210161 Bas. Caesar. (Greg. Nys.), Ep. 38162 Greg. Nys., Adv. Eunomium163 Bas. Caes., Adv. Eunomium164 Sev. Antioch., Hom. cathed. 109165 Greg. Nys., Adv. Eunomium166 Cyril. Alex., De Sancta trin. dialogi I-VII167 “Unbegottenness” is to be reckoned as something existing in the concept of the hypostasis of God the Father. It belongs to Him. Property is not the hypostasis itself, but an indicative name of the hypostasis. There are properties for the whole Godhead (common to all hypostases) such as invisibility, impalpability and infinity. Distinction between hypostasis and property. Property is innate and present in each hypostasis. The hypostasis gets its name through the property: fatherhood in the Father, sonship in the Son, procession in the Spirit. Even if the hypostases share the same common substance, each hypostasis is distinguished through a specific property: the Father remains Father and not Son or Spirit, the Son remains Son and not Father or Spirit, and the Holy Spirit remains Holy Spirit and not Son or Father. Property follows its hypostasis externally, i.e. from outside: unbegottenness follows God externally; what is outside God is not His substance. Property is seen in the hypostasis: when we say “this one is begotten” or “this one is not begotten”, by the subject of the sentence we mean the substrate, while by the predicate we mean what is viewed as pertaining to the substrate. Property is mixed with the hypostasis: it is inseparable from it. Property is added to the hypostasis: distinction between the common characteristics of the substance-substrate and the added and innate property of each hypostasis. 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166167 Cfr. p. 434.30-37, ed. de Durand. Sévère d’Antioche, La Polémique Antijulianiste, II, A: Le Contra Additiones Juliani, ed. R. Hespel, Secrétariat du CSCO, Leuven 1968 (CSCO 295, Syr. 124), p. 84.1-6. 159 Cfr. pp. 86.24-87.1, ed. Lebon (CSCO 119, Syr. 64). 160 Two quotations: p. 170.9-12 and p. 64. 7-16, ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58). 161 Section 5.28-34, ed. Courtonne. 162 Section 4.38-43, ed. Courtonne. 163 Three quotations: the first two are not identified; the thrid quotations: Book 3, chapter 5, section 56.7-12, ed. Jaeger. 164 Three quotations: PG 29, 640.23-27; 517.27-38 and 520.14-23. 165 PO 25, 747.6-748.5 166 Book 3, chapter 8, section 25.1-12, ed. Jaeger. 167 Cfr. p. 641.6-14, ed. de Durand. 157 158 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 107 ‫ܥܠ ܕܟܠ ܩܢܘܡܐ‬ 17 On the fact that ‫ܕܝܠܝܬܗ‬ ‫ ܥܡ‬every (110rahypostasis ‫ ܘܕܟܠ‬.‫ ܡܬܝܕܥ‬is known with its 110rb) ‫ ܩܢܘܡܐ ܒܐܘܣܝܐ‬property, and every ‫ ܕ ܐ ܠܗ ܘ ܬ ܐ‬hypostasis exists ‫ܥܡ‬ ‫ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬ ̣ in the substance ‫ ܫܘܘܕܥܐ ܕܝܠܗ‬of the Godhead with its distinctive [character] ‫ ܡܛܠ‬On the fact that 18 ( 1 1 0 r b - ‫ ܕ ܡܠܘ ܬ ܘ ܬ ܐ‬union, mixture, ‫ ܘ ܡܙ ܘ ܓܘ ܬ ܐ‬and 110vb) connection ‫ ܘ ܢܩܝܦܘ ܬ ܐ ܆‬are understood in ̈ ̈ ‫ܡܫܚܠܦܐ‬ ‫ܒܙܢܝܐ‬ different ways ‫̈ܡܫܬܩܠܝܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܥܠ‬ 19 ‫ܐܝܬ‬ ( 1 1 0 v b - ‫ܐܡܬܝ܆‬ ̇ ‫ܕܚܠܦ ܐܘܣܝܐ‬ 112rb) ‫ܡܢ‬ ‫ܡܫܬܩܐܠ‬ ̣ ̈ ‫ܐܒܗܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܩܕܝܫܐ܆‬ ‫ܐܝܬ ܕܝܢ ܐܡܬ ̣ܝ‬ ‫ܕܚܠܦ ܚܕ ܩܢܘܡܐ‬ On the fact that sometimes “existence” (ὕπαρξίς) is understood by the holy fathers as “substance” and sometimes as “one hypostasis” Greg. Naz., De Dogmate Each hypostasis exists along et constitut. episcop. (or. with its property in the 20) 168 substance of the Godhead. Sev. Antioch., Contra impium Grammaticum.169 Bas. Caesar., Adv. The meanings of union, Eunomium170 mixture, and connection are Bas. Caesar., In Principio different. erat Verbum171 (Ps.) Athan. Alex., De Salutari adventu Jesu Christi et adversus Apollinarium172 Athan. Alex., Ep. I ad Serapionem173 Sev. Antioch., Contra impium Grammaticum174 Sev. Antioch., Ep. ad Simum Scriniarium175 Sev. Antioch., Contra impium Grammaticum176 Bas. Caesar., In Principio erat Verbum177 Cyril. Alex., Comm. in Joannem178 The word “being” (essence) can indicate the general and common substance when it is said without determination, while with determination and conjoined with a particular distinction, it indicates a hypostasis, that is, a particular being. 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 PG 35, 1072.42-45. Cfr. p. 169.13-16, ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58). 170 Six quotations: PG 29, 588.33-44; 600.15-16; 600.24-27; 601.36-42; 605.30-39 and 625.7-10. 171 PG 31, 476.18-20. 172 PG 26, 1149.25-27. 173 PG 26, 596.15-21. 174 Three quotations: pp., 61.20-62.11; pp. 73.28-74.10 and p. 73.5-11 ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58). 175 PO 12, 194.6-195.5. 176 Cfr. p. 76.24-27, ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58). 177 PG 31, 477.42-46. 178 Cfr. p. 261. 14-17, ed. Pusey, vol. 2. 168 169 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 108 Bishara Ebeid ‫ܥܠ ܕܩܢܘܡܐ ̇ܗܘ‬ 20 On the fact that ‫ ܕܣܝܡ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ܆‬the (112rbhypostasis ̈ ‫ܡܬܚܙܝܢ ܥܠܘܗܝ‬ ‫ ܟܕ‬is 113ra) substrate ̈ ‫ܕܝܠܝܬܗ‬ (ὑποκείμενον) if its properties are seen on it Bas. Caesar. (Greg. Nys.), Ep. 38179 Bas. Caesar., Ep. 210180 Greg. Naz., De Dogmate et constitutione episcoporum (or. 20)181 Greg. Naz., De filio I (or. 29)182 Greg. Nys., Contra Eunomium183 ‫ܐܚܪܢܐ‬ ‫ ܕܡܕܡ‬On the fact that 21 ̇ ( 1 1 3 r a - ‫ ܐܝܬܝܗ ܐܘܣܝܐ܆‬the substance is ‫ܐܚܪܢܐ‬ ‫ ܘܡܕܡ‬one thing and 113va) ‫ ܩܢܘܡܐ‬the hypostasis is another thing Sev. Antioch.s, Contra impium Grammaticum184 Bas. Caesar., Ep. 236185 quoted in Sev. Antioch., Contra impium Grammaticum186 Cyrillus Alexandrinus, De Sancta trin. dialogi I-VII187 ̈ ‫ܕܟܠ ܚܕ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܩܢܘܡܐ‬ 22 On the fact ( 1 1 3 v a - ‫ܡܫܘܬܦ ܒܡܠܬܐ‬ that each of ̣ ‫ ܕܐܘܣܝܐ܆ ܘܒܓܘܐ‬the 113vb) hypostases ‫ ܕܐܘܣܝܐ‬participates in the concept (λόγος) of the substance and in the common [concept] of the substance Sev. Antioch., Contra impium Grammaticum188 Bas. Caesar., Ep. 214189 Sev. Antioch., Contra impium Grammaticum190 Thinking of the hypostasis does not mean thinking of the substance indefinitely, but delimiting the common substance within a precise reality, by means of the properties appearing on it. Hypostasis is a substrate, i.e. a concretely existing reality, with particular properties that distinguish it from other hypostases: how could the Father be distinguished from the Son without the particular property of fatherhood or of sonship? The meaning of substance is common and general (κοινὸν), while the meaning of hypostasis is particular (καθ’ ἕκαστον). The difference between substance and hypostasis is that substance is comprehensive (περιεκτική) of each hypostasis belonging to it. Each hypostasis participates in the concept (λόγος) of the substance, that is, manifests the common characteristics of the substance to which it belongs, and in addition it manifests its particular properties. 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 Section 3.1-12, ed. Courtonne. Section 5.25-34, ed. Courtonne. 181 PG 35,1072.42-45. 182 Section 10.12-14, ed. Barbel. 183 Two quotations: book 3, chapter 5, section 56.7-12 and section 58.1-9, ed Jaeger. 184 Two quotations: pp. 210.23-211.2 and 211.22-212.10 ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58). 185 Section 6.1-3, ed. Courtonne. 186 Cfr. p. 67.7-10, ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58). 187 Cfr. p. 408.31-33, ed. de Durand. 188 Cfr. pp. 160.17-18, ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58). 189 Section 4.9-15, ed. Courtonne. 190 Cfr. p. 162.15-18, ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58). 179 180 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 109 ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܡܠܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ Greg. Nys., Contra Eunomium.191 Greg. Naz., In Sancta lumina (or. 39)192 Greg. Nys., Refutatio confessionis Eunomii193 On those things whose Greg. Nys., Ad concept (λόγος) is other and Eust. de sancta trinitate194 whose nature is different Bas. Caesar. (Greg. Nys.), Ep. 38195 On what the division of the Sev. Antioch.s, substance is Contra impium Grammaticum196 23 On the fact that those ‫ܕܐܘܣܝܐ ܚܕ‬ ̣ (113vb[hypostases] that have [and ‫ ܐ ܝܬ ܝܗ ܘܢ‬participate in] the concept 114rb) ̈ ‫ܫܘܝܝ ܒܐܘܣܝܐ‬ (λόγος) of the one substance are equal in substance (i.e. consubstantial) ‫ܕ ̇ܗ ܢܘ ܢ‬ 24 ( 1 1 4 r b - ‫ܕܐܚܪܬܐ ܗܝ‬ ‫ܡܠܬ ܗ ܘܢ ܆‬ 114va) ‫ܢ‬ ̣ ‫ܘ ܟܝܢܗ ܘ‬ ‫ܡܫܚܠܦܐ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܡܢܐ‬ 25 ‫ܦܘ‬ ( 1 1 4 v a - ‫ܠܓܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܘܣܝܐ‬ 114vb) ‫ ܕܗܕܐ ܗܝ ̇ܗܝ‬That this is “not dividing and 26 ̇ ‫ ܕܐܠ‬not cutting the substance”: ( 1 1 4 v b - ‫ܢܦܠܓ‬ ‫ ܘܐܠ ܢܦܣܘܩ‬understanding 115ra) and ‫ ܐܠܘܣܝܐ܆ ̇ܗܝ‬predicating the hypostases ̇ ‫ܕܢܬܪܥܐ ܘܢܐܡܪ‬ as not different in all [their ̈ ‫ ܠܩܢܘܡܐ ܐܠ‬natural properties] ̈ ‫ܡܫܚܠܦܐ‬ ‫ܒܟܠܗܝܢ‬ ‫ܥܠ ̇ܗܝ ܕܡܬܚܙܐ‬ 27 ( 1 1 5 r a - ‫ܐܠܗܐ ܒܚܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ ܣܝܐ‬ 115va) ‫ܘ ܐ ܠܗ ܘ ܬ ܐ ܇‬ ‫ܒܬܠܬܐ ܕܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܕܟܠ‬.‫ܩܢܘܡܐ‬ ‫ܦܐ‬ ‫ܦܪ ܨ ܘ‬ ̣ ‫ܡܐ‬ ‫ܒܩܢܘ‬ ‫ܫܪ ܝܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬ On the fact that God is seen in one substance and [one] Godhead, but in three hypostases, and that each person exists in a true hypostasis The hypostases that participate in the same concept (λόγος) of substance have the same natural characteristics in common but are differentiated through their particular properties. If two things belong to different substances, and thus manifest different concepts (λόγοι) of substance, this means that they are different as to their nature. Hypostases do not divide the substance. Even if each divine hypostasis, taken separately, is called God, this does not mean that the Godhead is divided. Sev. Antioch., We can affirm that the hypostases Contra impium do not divide the substance only Grammaticum197 when they belong to the same substance and manifest the same concept (λόγος) of substance (i.e., common natural properties). Sev. Antioch., Hom. cathed. 123198 Theod. Alex., De Trin.199 Bas. Caesar., Ep. 210199 God is one, exists and is known in one substance and three unconfused hypostases. Each of the three divine persons exists in true hypostases. Even if there are three hypostases, God is one in substance and divinity (i.e., in the concept of substance). In the Trinity there is one beginning, the Father, from whom the Son and the Holy Spirit come. 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 Book 3, chapter 1, section 74.8-75.3, ed. Jaeger. PG 36, 345.39-45. 193 Sections 5.8-6.2, ed. Jaeger. 194 Section 14.12-16, ed. Müller. 195 Section 3.26-30, ed. Courtonne. 196 Two quotations: p. 156.21-30 and p. 159.6-11, ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58). 197 Cfr. p. 217.13-23, ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58). 198 PO 29, 148.12-22. 199 Two quotations: pp. 152.126-153.130; p. 188.131-135 and p. 159.319-321; pp. 194.320-195.322, ed. van Roey-Allen. 200 Section 5.35-36, ed. Courtonne. 191 192 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 110 Bishara Ebeid 28 (115va) ‫ܥܠ ̇ܗܝ ܕܬܠܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܩܢܘܡܐ ܒܐܒܐ‬ ‫ܘܒܒܪܐ ܘܒܪܘܚܐ‬ ‫ܩܕܝܫܐ ܡܬܚܙܝܢ‬ Antioch., On the fact that three Sev. impium hypostases are seen in Contra the Father, the Son, Grammaticum201 and the Holy Spirit ‫ ܕ ܬ ܠܝܬ ܝܘ ܬ ܐ‬That the Holy 29 (115vab) ‫ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܒܐܒܐ‬Trinity is known in ‫ ܡܬ ܝܕ ܥܐ‬the Father, in the ‫ܘܒܒܪܐ ܘܒܪܘܚܐ‬ Son, and in the Holy ̣ ‫ ܩܕܝܫܐ‬Spirit ‫ ܕ ܡܬ ܐ ܡ̈ܪ ܝܢ‬That “Father” and 30 ‫“ ܐܒܐ‬Son” are called “two (115vb- ‫ܘܒܪܐ‬ ‫ ܬ̈ܪܝܢ ܣܘܥ̈ܪܢܐ‬things” (πράγματα) 116ra) Cyril. Comm. Joannem202 Alex., in Alex. Alex., Hom. festalis 7203 Greg. Nys., Contra Eunomium204 31 (116ra) ‫ ܕ ܡܬ ܐ ܡ̈ܪ ܝܢ‬That “Father” and Greg. Nys., Contra ‫ܘܒܪܐ‬ ‫“ ܐܒܐ‬Son” are called Eunomium205 ‫“ ܬ̈ܪܝܢ ܕܣ ̣ܝܡܝܢ‬two substrates” 32 (116ra) ‫ܕܡܬܐܡ̈ܪܝܢ ܐܒܐ‬ ‫ܘܒܪܐ ܘܪܘܚܐ‬ ‫ܕܩܘܕܫܐ ܬܠܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܕܣ ̣ܝܡܝܢ‬ (ὑποκείμένα) That “Father”, Sev. Antioch., “Son”, and “Holy C o n t r a Spirit” are called Felicissimum206 three substrates (ὑποκειμένα) ‫ ܕܐܠ ܡܬܐܡܪ ܚܕ‬That “one substrate” 33 (116rb- ‫( ܕܣܝܡ ܡܛܠ ܐܒܐ‬ὑποκειμένον) is not ‫ ܘܒܪܐ ܘܪܘܚܐ‬predicated of the 116va) ‫ ܩܕܝܫܐ‬Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit 34 (116va) ‫ܕܐܠ ܐܡܪܝܢܢ ܚܕ‬ ‫ܣܘܥܪܢܐ ܐܠܒܐ‬ ‫ܘܠܒܪܐ ܘܠܪܘܚܐ‬ ‫ܩܕܝܫܐ‬ Bas. Caesar., Ep. 214207 Bas. Caesar., In Principio erat Verbum208 That we do not say the Bas. Caesar., Ep. Father and the Son and 210209 the Holy Spirit “one thing” (πρᾶγμα) There is one common substance of the Godhead and three hypostases particularly, which are seen as definite and unconfused in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Spirt. There is one Holy Trinity known in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God is not divided; He is simple, even if the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are numbered. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are called things and names. The Father is the cause of the Son. Time cannot be applied to the eternal and uncreated divine substance. The Father and the Son are two substrates and they are united as to nature. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three hypostases and three substrates. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit exist in three separate and unconfused hypostases. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three hypostases and three persons, therefore they are three substrates and not one substrate. This does not mean that they are dissimilar with regard to substance (ἀνόμοια). Affirming that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one thing, that is one hypostasis, means rejecting the economy of salvation realized by the Son and the role of the Spirit in it. 201 202 203 204 205 206207208209 Cfr. p. 66.9-18, ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58). Not identified in the original Greek. 203 Analecta Sacra Patrum Antenicaenorum ex Codicibus Orientalibus: Syriac and Armenian Fragments of AnteNicene Writings, ed. J.-P.-P. Martin, Ex Publico Galliarum Typographeo, Paris 1983, p. 199. 204 Book 1, section 377.1-8, ed. Jaeger. 205 Book 1, section 498.1-2, ed. Jaeger. 206 Preserved just in Syriac in Petri Callinicensis Contra Damianum, Vol. 2, Chapter IX, 284-290, ed. Ebied-van Roey -Wickham. 207 Two quotations: sections 3.14-18 and 3.29-33, ed. Courtonne. 208 PG 31, 479.32-39. 209 Section 3.15-21, ed. Courtonne. 201 202 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 111 35 (116vab) ̇ ̈ ‫ܕܒܙܒܢܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܗܝ‬ On what is often Bas. Caesar., De Sometimes in Scripture the preposition ‫ ̈ܣܓܝܐܢ ܣ ̣ܝܡܐ‬posited instead of Spiritu sancto210 ἐν is used instead of μετὰ and sometimes ̇ ‫ ܚܠܦ ܗܝ ܕܥܡ‬the [preposition] instead of σύν. 36 (116vb) ‫ܕܡܩܝܡܐ ܐܘܣܝܐ‬ Antioch., Godhead is one substance that consists The substance Sev. ̣ ̈ ‫ܒܬܠܬܐ‬ ‫ܩܢܘܡܐ‬ consists in three Ep. ad Isidorum in three hypostases. “with” (σύν) ‫ܕܢܘܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܙܕܩ‬ 37 ( 1 1 6 v b - ‫ܠܬ ܠܝܬ ܝܘ ܬ ܐ‬ ‫ܚܕܐ‬ ‫ܩܕܝܫܬܐ‬ 117ra) ‫ܐܘܣܝܐ ܒܡܠܬܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܒܣܘܥܪܢܐ‬ 38 (117rab) ̈ ‫ܐܒܗܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܘܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܚܕ ܐܠܗܐ ܘܚܕܐ‬ ‫ܐܠܗܘܬܐ ܘܚܕܐ‬ ‫ܐܘܣܝܐ ܡܪܢܐܝܬ‬ ‫ܠܬ ܠܝܬ ܝܘ ܬ ܐ‬ ‫ܩܕܝܫܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܫܡܐ ܕܐܘܣܝܐ‬ 39 ( 1 1 7 r b - ‫ܡܪܢܐܝܬ ܡܚܘܝܢܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܕܫܘܘܕܥܐ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ 117va) ‫ܓܘܢܝܐ‬ 40 (117vab) ‫ܕ ܡܪ ܢܐ ܝܬ‬ ‫ܒܪܐ‬ ‫ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܐܠܗܐ܁ ܝܕܝܥܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܒܐ ܘܪܘܚܐ‬ ‫ܕܝܢ‬ ̣ ‫ܕܩܕܝܫܐ‬ hypostases It is necessary to confess the Holy Trinity as one substance in word and reality Comitem211 (Ps.) Athan. Alex., De Fide212 Cyril. Alex., De Sancta trin. dialogi I-VII213 The substance of the Holy Trinity is acknowledged as one both in thought and reality. It is one substance because of the unity of nature and of being identical in every natural aspect. Therefore, the Son is acknowledged to be consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Greg. Nys. , Ad The divine nature is one, therefore the That the fathers confess the Ablabium quod non Trinity is one God and one Godhead. Holy Trinity sint tres dii214 eminently as one God and one Godhead and one substance Antioch., The Fathers sometimes interchange the That the name Sev. impium terms hypostasis and substance. of substance Contra In this case, and especially in Christological is mainly an Grammaticum215 contexts, “substance” does not indicate indicator of the general meaning comprehending a the common plurality of hypostases but the individual meaning meaning of a concretely existing thing. That the Son is Greg. Naz., De Filio I Whatever shares in a concept is called by the same name. God in a proper (or. 29)216 The Son shares the concept of Godhead sense; but this is (the common meaning of the substance) evident for the with the Father therefore He is called Father and the God, not by homonymity and sheer Holy Spirit, too participation in an appellation, but in a proper sense and in reality. 210 211 212 213 214 215216 Chapter 25, section 58.5-14, Basile de Césaré, Sur le Saint-Esprit, ed. B. Pruche, Cerf, Paris 1968 (Sources chrétiennes,17 bis.). 211 PO 12, 213.6-8. 212 Not preserved in the original Greek. 213 Cfr. p. 641.6-11, ed. de Durand. 214 Section 57.8-13, ed. Müller. 215 Cfr. p. 218.11-24, ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58). 216 Sections 13.12-14.5, ed. Barbel. 210 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 112 Bishara Ebeid ̈ ‫ܡܚܘܝܢܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܙܢܝܐ‬ 41 That the indicative ‫ ܕ ܕ ܝܠܝܘ ܬ ܐ ܆‬modes of the (118ra‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܠܡܠܬ‬property 118va) will ‫ܕܦܫܝܛܘܬܐ ܐܠ‬ ̣ not damage the ̇ ‫ ܘܕܠܒܪ‬.‫ܡܣܓܦܝܢ‬ condition of ‫ܐܘܣܝܐ‬ ‫ ܡܢ‬simplicity [of ̈ ̈ ‫ܡܬܢܣܒܢ‬ ‫ܕܝܠܝܬܐ‬ God] and that ̈ ‫ ܡܝܩܢܢܝܬܐ‬the characteristic properties are understood outside of the substance ‫ܝܠܝܕܘܬܐ ܐܠ‬ ‫ ܕܐܠ‬That the “Not42 ̣ ̇ (118vab) ‫ ܣܟ ܡܢ ܐܘܣܝܐ‬begottenness” is not the ‫ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܐܒܐ܆‬substance of God the ‫ ܐܐܠ ܒܪܬ ܩܐܠ‬Father at all, but only a ‫ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܕܡܫܘܕܥܐ‬predicate that means, for ‫ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܫܡܥ ̣ܝܢ‬those who hear, that the ‫ܐܬܝܠܕ ܐܒܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܕܐܠ‬Father was not begotten ‫ ܕܠܘ ̣ܗܢܘܢ ܟܕ‬That those which 43 ̈ ‫ ̇ܗܢܘܢ‬are indicators and (118vb- ‫ܠܚܕܕܐ‬ 119va)220 ‫ ܐ ܝܬ ܝܗ ܘ ܢ‬those which are ‫ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܫܘܕܥܝܢ‬indicated, and ‫ ܘ ܡܫܬ ܘ ܕ ܥܝܢ ܇‬those which are ‫ ܘ ܕ ܡܝܩܝܢܝܢ‬depicted and those ‫ ܘ ܡܬ ܝܩܝܢܢ ܇‬which depict, and ‫ ܘ ܡܘ ܕ ܥܝܢ‬those which enable ‫ ܘܡܬܝܕܥܝܢ‬to be known and those which are known, are not the same things Bas. Caesar., Adv. The characteristics and properties with Eunomium217 which God is described, like light, Petrus Callinic., Contra goodness etc., are understood outside of the substance; therefore, God is simple Damian.218 and not composite. The same is applied to the properties of the hypostases, but not to the hypostases themselves. Therefore, those who acknowledge the characteristic properties of the hypostases as hypostases must say that the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit are not light, life or goodness at all, but merely accompany the light, being understood outside of the substance Cyril . Alex., De Sancta Unbegottenness does not indicate the trin. dialogi I-VII219 Father’s substance; it is a word that indicates His not having been begotten as an appropriate concept and property concerning God the Father, not the substance itself of God. Bas. Caesar., Adv. Eunom.221 Bas. Caesar. (Greg.Nys.), Ep. 38 222 Bas. Caesar., Ep. 210 223 Greg. Naz., In Sancta lumina (or. 39 224 Greg.Nys.,ContraEunom.225 Greg.Nys.,Ref.conf.Eunom.226 Cyril. Alex., Thesaurus de sancta consubst.trin.227 Sev. Antioch., Hom. cath. 21228 Theod. Alex., De Trin.229 Names are indicative of substances and are not themselves substance. Amongst the names of God, some are indicative of what belongs to Him and others of what does not belong to Him. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have the same nature and share in the one Godhead; therefore, they share the name “God” that indicates the divine reality. They have, however, different proper names, which indicate different definite and complete realities. 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 PG 29, 640.18-641.2. Vol. 1, Chapter VI. 364-372, ed. Ebied – van Roey – Wickham. 219 Cfr. p. 433.20-28, ed. de Durand. 220 Because of a missing folio in BL Add. 14532 this group of quotations is integrated through the other manuscripts, precisely BL Add. 14533, f. 83rv; BL Add. 14538, f. 128rv and BL Add. 12155, f. 17v. 221 Two quotations: PG 29, 681.40-41 and 533.40-45. 222 Two quotations: sections 3.2-8 and 3.17-22, ed. Courtonne. 223 Section 4.20-31, ed. Courtonne. 224 PG 36, 348.7-19. 225 Book 3, chapter 1, section 87.3-88.4, ed. Jaeger. 226 Section 14.6-13, ed. Jaeger. 227 Four quotations: PG 75, 28.23-24; 36.27-31; 321.22-30 and 609.8-13. 228 PO 37, 70.32-72.2. 229 Cfr. pp. 152.116-153.129; p. 188.122-135, ed. van Roey-Allen. 217 218 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 113 ‫̣ܡܬܪܢܐ‬ 44 ‫ܥܠ‬ (119vab) ‫ ܕܐܠ‬That no accident is to be Cyr. Alex., De Accidents or things naturally present in ‫ ܓܕܫܐ‬thought of in God Sancta trinitate the substances of certain things, are not ‫ܐܠܗܐ‬ dialogi I-VII230 conceived as existing on their own as distinct and individual beings but they are rather seen as belonging to the substances of existent things, or in them. No accident is to be thought of in God. Cyr. Alex., De The Father is not God because of His That the Father is not God insofar as He is Father; it is Sancta trinitate being Father and the Son is not God evident that this is not so for dialogi I-VII231 because of His being Son. His Son either ̇ ‫ܕܐܒܐ ܠܘ‬ ‫ܒܗܝ‬ ̣ ‫ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܕܐܒܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܝܕܝܥܐ‬ ‫ܐܠܗܐ܁‬ ̣ ‫ܒܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܦܐܠ‬ ‫ܕܝܠܗ‬ ‫̇ܢܛܪܝܢܢ‬ ‫ ܕܐܝܟܢ‬On how we preserve the 46 (12 0 rb- ‫ ܬ ܘ ܕ ܝܬ ܐ‬confession of one God ‫ܐܠܗܐ‬ ‫ ܕܚܕ‬and of three hypostases 121va) ‫ܘ ܕ ܬ ܠܬ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܩܢܘܡܐ‬ 45 (119vb120rb) ̇ ‫ܡܣܬܟܠ‬ ‫ܕܐܝܟܢ‬ 47 ‫ܒܣܝܠܝܘ‬ (12 1 v a - ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܠܓܘܐ ܕܐܘܣܝܐ‬ 122b) ‫ܕܟܠ ܚܕ ܡܢ‬ 48 ̈ (12 2 rb- ‫ܩܢܘܡܐ ܐܝܬ ܠܗ‬ ̇ ‫ܒܗ ܗܝ ܕܓܘܐ‬ 122vb) ̇ ‫ܘܗܝ ܕܡܢ ܓܘܐ܆‬ ‫ܘܡܢ ܐܘܣܝܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܒܗ܆‬ ‫ܕܡܟܢܐ‬ ‫ܙܕܩ‬ ‫ܘܕܐܝܟܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܢܣ ̣ܬܟܠܢ‬ Greg. Naz., De Dogmate et const. episcop. (or. 20)232 Theod. Alex., De Trin.233 Bas. Caesar., Ep. 236234 Bas. Caesar., Adv. Eunomium235 On how Basil conceives Bas. Caesar., Adv. of the community of the Eunomium236 substance (τὸ κοινὸν τῆς οὐσίας) Antioch., That each of the Sev. hypostases has in itself Contra impium the community and Grammaticum237 that which is from the community and from the substance by which it is denominated, and on how they must be conceived of Distinction between substance and hypostasis. One substance and three hypostases are professed in the Godhead. The hypostases are unconfused, they differ through the properties of fatherhood, sonship and procession. Unity in God is maintained because of the one common and shared substance. Unity in God is not divided through the hypostases. The three divine hypostases share the same substance; therefore, the characteristics of the divine nature, such as light, goodness etc. can be said of all three. Even if it possesses its particular properties, each hypostasis manifests the common substance to which belongs. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three hypostases of the Godhead. They manifest the common divine substance, so that each is called God. Each one in its specificity, however, is not identified with the substance that includes all the divine hypostases. 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 Cfr. p. 421.13-25, ed. de Durand. Cfr. p. 640.10-30, ed. de Durand. 232 PG 35, 1072.42-1073.15. 233 Cfr. p. 154.163-170; pp. 189.165-190.171, ed. van Roey-Allen. 234 Section 6.1-22, ed. Courtonne. 235 PG 29, 637.21-44. 236 Two quotations: PG 29, 556.1-30 and 629.12-30. 237 Two quotations: p. 157.17-30 and pp. 165.22-166.1, ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58). 230 231 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 114 Bishara Ebeid ‫ ܥܠ ̇ܗܝ ܕܐܝܬ‬On the fact that Sev. Antioch., 49 impium (122vb- ‫ ܐܝܟܐ ܕܠܫܘܘܕܥܐ‬sometimes substance Contra ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܐ‬and Godhead receive Grammaticum238 123ra) ‫ܣܝܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܐܠܗܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܢܣܒܝܢ‬ a meaning ‫ܠܡ‬ ‫ ܕܐܠܘ‬If the difference is 50 ̇ (123rab) ‫ ܫܘܚܠܦܐ ܗܘ ܕܡܢ‬not placed from ‫ ܠܒܪ ܐܠ ܣܝܡ܆ ܐܠ‬outside, the nature ‫ܟܝܢܐ‬ ‫ ̇ܡܬܦܠܓ‬is not divided into a ‫ ܠܬܪܝܢܘܬܐ ܕܐܒܐ‬duality of Father and ‫ܘܕܗܘ‬ ‫ ܘܕܒܪܐ܁‬Son, and the nature ̣ ‫ ܟܝܢܐ ܡ݀ܬܪܘܚ‬is expanding [by the properties of the hypostases] Cyril. Alex., Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate239 Cyril. Alex., De Sancta trinitate dialogi I-VII240 ‫̣ܡܨܝܐ‬ ‫ ܕܐܠ‬It is not possible to Bas. Caesar., Adv. 51 ‫ܣܘ‬ ‫ ܕ‬understand the proper Eunomium241 (123rb- ‫ܟܐܠ‬ ‫ ܕܝܠܢܝܐ‬concept of “Father” 123va) ‫ܕܐܒܐ‬ ‫̣ܢ ̇ܣܒ܇‬ ‫ ܘܕܒܪܐ‬and of “Son” without ‫ ܕܐܠ ܬܘܣܦܬܐ‬addition of properties ̈ ‫ܕܕܝܠܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܒܐ‬ ‫ ܕܐܠܗܘܬܗ‬That the divinity of Athan. Alex., Oratio I ̣ 52 ܿ ‫ܐܝܬܝܗ‬ ‫ ܕܒܪܐ‬the Father is that of contra Arianos242 (123va124r) the Son Athan. Alexa., Oratio III contra Arianos243 Bas. Caesar., Contra Sabellianos et Arium et Anomoeos244 ‫ ܕܚܕܐ ̇ܗܝ ܐܠܗܘܬܐ‬That the divinity of the Cyril. Alex., Comm. 53 ‫ ܕܐܒܐ ܘܒܪܐ‬Father and of the Son is one in Joannem245 (124ra) The hypostases are based in the substance and are included in the general meaning; therefore, they share to the same degree what is perceived to be within the common meaning of substance. The substance and the general meaning are inclusive of the hypostases. In God, the substance and general meaning is the Godhead. The divine nature is simple and not composite, and is expanded by the properties and the distinction of persons and names. Each hypostasis shares the same nature; the difference between hypostases is not in nature but outside of nature, therefore the nature is not divided into a duality of Father and Son. The concepts of “Father” and “Son” can be real only through the addition of the property of “unbgottenness” and “begottenness” to the substance. The Father is God and the Son is God, but they are not two gods because they are not dissimilar with regard to substance. The Father and the Son share in the same divinity. One and the same divinity is in the Father and in the Son. 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 Five quotations: p. 160.12-17; p. 162.15-18; p. 156.11-14; p. 157.5-8 and p. 162.24-30, ed. Lebon (CSCO 111, Syr. 58). PG 75, 141.29-36. 240 Cfr. p. 641.6-14, ed. de Durand. 241 PG 29, 640.11-17. 242 Section 60, subsection 5.5-section 61, subsection 1.1-6, Athanasius, Werke, Band I. Die dogmatischen Schriften, Erster Teil, 2. Lieferung, ed. K. Metzler – K. Savvidis, De Gruyter, Berlin - New York 1998. 243 Section 23, subsection 5, Athanasius, Werke, Band I. Die dogmatischen Schriften, Erster Teil, 3. Lieferung, ed. K. Metzler – K. Savvidis, De Gruyter, Berlin - New York 2000. 244 Two quotations: PG 31, 605.10-17 and 605.40-44. 245 Not identified in the original Greek. 238 239 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 115 ‫ܡܣܐܠ‬ ‫ ܕ‬That ̣ 54 Eunomius (124ra- ‫ ܐ ܘ ܢܡܝܘ ܣ‬repudiated the ‫ ܠܓܘ ܢܝܘ ܬ ܐ‬community 124va) of ‫ ܕܐܘܣܝܐ ܕܐܒܐ‬substance of Father ‫ ܘܕܒܪܐ‬and Son ̇ ‫ܕܙܕܩ ܕܠܟܠ ܚܕ‬ 55 It is necessary to ̈ ‫ ܡܢ‬confess each one of (124va- ‫ܩܢܘܡܐ‬ ‫ ܕ ܬ ܠܝܬ ܝܘ ܬ ܐ‬the hypostases of 125rb) ‫̣ܐ‬ ‫ܝܫܬ‬ ‫ ܩܕ‬the Holy Trinity ‫ ܐܘܣܝܝܐ܁ ܢܘܕܐ‬as substantial (ἐνούσιος) ‫ ܕܒܟܝܢܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬That each of the 56 ̈ (125ra- ‫ ܟܠ ܚܕ ܡܢ ܩܢܘܡܐ‬hypostases of the ‫ ܕ ܬ ܠܝܬ ܝܘ ܬ ܐ‬Holy Trinity is God 125vb) ‫ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܐܠܗܐ܆‬by nature, and not by .‫ ܘܠܘ ܒܫܘܬܦܘܬܐ‬participation. Indeed, ‫ܓܝܪ‬ ‫ ܗܕܐ‬the latter thing is said ̣ ‫ܒ̈ܪܝܬܐ‬ ‫ ܥܠ‬of the creatures ‫ܡܬܐܡܪܐ‬ Greg. Nys., Contra Teaching that “unbegottenness” Eunomium246 and “begottenness” indicate the Dam. Alex., Adv. substance means that there are different substances in God, one for Tritheitas247 the Father and another for the Son, and still another for the Holy Spirit. Affirming different substances is tantamount to polytheism. Only by affirming the community of substance of the three hypostases does one destroy polytheism. Bas. Caesar., Adv. ‘Unsubstantial’ (ἀνούσιος, ‫ܐܠ‬ Eunom.248 ‫ )ܐܘܣܝܝܐ‬and ‘non-subsistent’ ̇ ‫ )ܐܠ‬mean a Athan. Alex., Tomus ad (ἀνυπόστατος, ‫ܡܩܝܡܐ‬ non-existent nature. Antiochenos249 Cyril. Alex., ‘Substantial’ (ἐνούσιος, ‫)ܐܘܣܝܝܐ‬ Commentarii in and ‘subsistent’ (ἐνυπόστατος, Joannem250 ‫ )ܩܢܘܡܝܐ‬mean an existing hypostasis. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit truly exist, therefore they are subsistent and substantial. Insofar as the Son is consubstantial with the Father, he has his being in the Father and with the Father. Athan. Alex., Ep. ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae251 Theoph. Alex., Ep. festalis prima252 Cyril. Alex., Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali trinitate253 Christ is God by nature and not by participation. The Holy Spirit is holy by nature. Rational creatures can have holiness by participation. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God by nature and not by participation. 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 Two quotations: book 1, sections 479.1-7 and 483.6-484.2, ed. Jaeger. Preserved in Syriac in Petri Callinicensis Contra Damianum, vol. 3, chapter XXX, 328-335, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham. 248 Two quotations: PG 29, 749.16-22 and 713.24-31. 249 Section 5, subsection 4.1-9, Athanasius: Werke, Zweiter Band. Die “Apologien”, 8. Lieferung, ed. H. C. Brennecke – U. Heil – A. von Stockhausen, De Gruyter, Berlin - New York 2006. 250 Cfr. vol. II, pp. 47.24-48.8, ed. Pusey. 251 Section 13, subsection 3, ed. Hansen-Metzler-Savvidis. 252 Two quotations: Not preserved in the original Greek. 253 Three quotations: PG 75, 137.22-25; 137.27-32 and 528.33-39. 246 247 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 116 Bishara Ebeid ̇ ‫ܕܗܝ‬ ‫ܡܟܣܢܘܬܐ‬ ̣ 57 ‫ܕܡܝܢܐ܇‬ ‫ܕܐܡܪ‬ ̣ (125vb- ‫ܕܐܠ ̇ܥ̈ܪܩܝܢ ܡܢ‬ ̈ 127va) ‫ܕܬܠܝܬܝ‬ ‫̈ܪܫܝܢܐ‬ ̈ ‫̇ܗܢܘܢ‬ .‫ܐܠܗܐ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ ܐܠܗܐ ܠܟܠ‬ ̣ ̈ ‫ܩܢܘܡܐ‬ ‫ܚܕ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܐܡܪܝܢ‬ Refutation of what Damian said, that those who say that each of the hypostases is God do not escape from the accusation of being Tritheists ‫ ܥܠ ̇ܗܝܕܠܐܠܝܠܝܕܘܬܐ‬On the fact that Damian 58 (127va- ‫ ܟܕ ܡܫܘܬܦ ܠܡ‬confesses the “non128rb) ‫ ܒܐܘܣܝܐ܆ ܐܘܣܝܐ‬begottenness”, since it ‫ܘܟܝܢܐ ܘܐܠܗܐ‬ ̣ participates in the substance, as ̇ ‫̇ܡܘܕܐ ܕܡܝܢܐ܁‬ ‫ܒܗ‬ substance, nature and God, and ‫ܒܕܡܘܬܐܘܠܝܠܝܕܘܬܐ‬ similarlythe“begottenness”and ‫ܘܠܢܦܘܩܘܬܐ‬ the“procession” ‫ ܕ ܠܕ ̈ܝܠܝܬ ܐ‬That Damian confesses 59 ̈ (128rb- ‫ܡܝܩܝܢܝܬܐ ܗܢܘ‬ the characteristic ‫ ܕܝܢ‬properties, 128vb) ‫ܐܒܗܘܬܐ‬ i.e. ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ “ ܘܒܪܘܬܐ܇‬f a t h e r h o o d ” , ‫ܝܠܝܕܘܬܐ‬ ‫“ ܐܠ‬sonship”, or ‫ “ ܘ ܝܠܝܕ ܘ ܬ ܐ‬u n b e g o t t e n n e s s ” ‫ ܘ ܢܦܘ ܩܘ ܬ ܐ‬and “begottenness” ‫ܕܡܝܢܐ‬ ‫ ̇ܡܘܕܐ‬and “procession”, as ̈ ‫ܡܐ‬ ‫ܩܢܘ‬ hypostases of the Holy ‫ ܕ ܬ ܠܝܬ ܝܘ ܬ ܐ‬Trinity ‫ܩܕܝܫܬܐ‬ Greg. Naz., De Spiritu sancto (or. 31)254 Epiph.Constant.,Panarion255 Cyril.Alex.,Comm.inJoan.256 Cyril. Alex., Contra DiodorumetTheodorum257 Cyril. Alex., Thesaurus de sancta consubst. trin.258 Sev.Antioch.,Hom.cath.259 Sev.Antioch.,Ep.adVictor.260 Petr. Callinic. Contra Dam.261 Dam. Alex., Adv. Tritheitas262 Dam. Alex., Ep. prolixa seu Apologia prima263 Dam. Alex., Adversus Tritheitas264 Dam. Alex., Ep. prolixa seu Apologia prima265 The Spirit is God, since He is called Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ etc. The Spirit is God since it proceeds from the Father. Christ is God by nature. He is God from God and became flesh. Christ is called the likeness of God. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are truly God, Life and Light by nature and not metaphorically or by grace or participation. “Property” is called “hypostasis” when ̇ it subsists (‫ܡܩܝܡܐ‬ ) in the substance. Properties are not natures but belong to the nature, i.e. they participate fully in the substance. However, each propertyhypostasis is named “nature” because it participates fully in the nature. “Properties”, if seen in the common substance, are called “hypostases” and are considered as realities. The Father, being the Father and not the Son or the Holy Spirit, has the unique characteristic of the fatherhood which is called his “hypostasis” or “property”; the same is applied to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. Property is a hypostasis ̇ when it subsists (‫ܡܩܝܡܐ‬ ) in the substance and has reality in the common. Property is substantial (‫ )ܐܘܣܝܝܬܐ‬since it fully participates in the substance and is not an aggregate of substance and property. 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 Section 29.12-14, ed. Barbel. Cfr. p. 518.23-26, ed. Holl, vol. 3. 256 Two quotations: the first one not identified in the original Greek; the second: pp.700.24-701.3, ed. Pusey. 257 Cfr. p. 498, ed. Pusey. 258 PG 75, 609.50-612.2. 259 PO 8, 353.1-8. 260 PO 14, 120. 261 Petri Callinic., Contra Dam., vol. 4, chapter XXXVIII. 153-160, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham. 262 Three quotations: preserved in Syriac in Petri Callinic., Contra Dam., vol. 4, Chap. XXXIX.31-37; 38-43 and 44-49, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham. 263 Three quotations: preserved in Syriac in Petri Callinic., Contra Dam., vol. 4, Chap. XXXIX.50-59; 59-66 and 67-72, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham. 264 Preserved in Syriac in Petri Callinic., Contra Dam., vol. 2, Chap. I.44-50, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham. 265 Three quotations: preserved in Syriac in Petri Callinic., Contra Dam., vol. 2, Chap. I.116-123; 125-130 and 130137, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham. 254 255 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 117 ‫ܥܠ ̇ܗܝ ܕܡܕܡ‬ 60 On the fact ‫ ܐ ܚܪ ܢܐ‬that (128vbDamian ‫ ܡܘܕܐ ܕܡܝܢܐ‬confesses 129va) the ‫ ܐܠ ܘ ܣܝܐ‬substance of the ‫ ܕ ܐ ܠܗ ܘ ܬ ܐ ܆‬Godhead to be ‫ ܘܡܕܡ ܐܚܪܢܐ‬something, and ̈ ‫ ܗ ̣ܢܘ‬.‫ܠܩܢܘܡܐ‬ the hypostases ‫ܐܠܒܐ‬ ‫ ܕܝܢ‬something else, ‫ܘܠܒܪܐ ܘܠܪܘܚܐ‬ ̣ i.e. Father, Son, ‫ ܩܕܝܫܐ‬and Holy Spirit ‫ ܥܠ ܕܩܢܘܡܐ‬On the fact that 61 (129va- ‫ ܐܝܟ ܫܘܘܕܥܐ‬the hypostasis as 130vb) ‫ ܕܝܠܗ ܐܘ ܟܝܬ‬to its signification ‫( ܐܝܟ ܡܠܬܗ܆‬meaning), i.e. its ‫ ܐܠ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬concept, is not at ‫ܐܝܟ‬ ‫ ܣܟ‬all substance or ̇ nature or God, ‫ܕܨܒܐ ܪܘܫܥܐ‬ : ‫ ܕ ܕ ܡܝܢܐ‬as Damian’s ‫ ܐܘܣܝܐ ܐܘ‬impiety wants ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܟܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܐܠܗܐ‬ Dam. Alex., Adv.Tritheitas266 Dam. Alex., Ep. prolixa seu Apologia prima267 Dam. Alex., Adv.Tritheitas268 Dam. Alex., Ep. prolixa seu Apologia prima269 Petr. Callinic., Contra Dam.270 The fact that the divine nature is “seen in three persons” and that the three properties “subsist in the divine substance” implies that the concept of “property” or “person” is one thing and “nature” or “substance” another thing. The characteristic properties, when seen in the substance, subsist as three perfect persons and ̈ three hypostases; they are substantial (‫)ܐܘܣܝܝܐ‬ but not substances, otherwise the three hypostases would be three gods. Damian’s doctrine Each hypostasis is named, and is, substance not by its own signification but because it participates in the common nature. Distinction between what “substance and nature in the full sense” is, and what has been called “nature in a metaphorical sense”. “Father” and “Son” are names that do not indicate the substance but are exclusively indicative of properties. However, since the substance of the Godhead in the full sense belongs to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each of them is in the full sense both God and substance, as being truly substantial(‫)ܐܘܣܝܝܐ‬. Peter’s doctrine Unbegottenness, begottenness or procession are neither called ‘substance’ or ‘God’ nor are substance and God by participating in the substance and Godhead. If “hypostasis” is identified with “property” it cannot be considered substance or nature. The fact that Damian teaches that the properties, recognized as hypostases, are one thing in their own concept (λόγος) and the substance of Godhead is another thing; and that he also teaches that each of the properties is not God or substance or nature in its own concept, means that he does not truly think of the three hypostases as ‘God’, ‘substance’ or ‘nature’. 266 267 268 269 270 Two quotations: preserved in Syriac in Petri Callinic., Contra Dam., vol. 4, Chap. XL.30-37 and 39-53, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham. 267 Two quotations: preserved in Syriac in Petri Callinic., Contra Dam., vol. 4, Chap. XL.55-62 and 75-87, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham 268 Two quotations: preserved in Syriac in Petri Callinic., Contra Dam., vol. 4, Chap. XLI.61-75 and 77-81, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham 269 Preserved in Syriac in Petri Callinic., Contra Dam., vol. 4, Chap. XLI.84-97, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham. 270 Petri Callinic., Contra Dam., vol. 4, Chap. XLVI.51-78, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham. 266 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 118 Bishara Ebeid ‫ܙܕܩ‬ ‫ܕܐܝܟܢ‬ 62 ̇ How it is necessary ̇ ‫ܠܗܝ‬ ‫ܕܢܣܬܟܠ‬ (130vbto understand what ‫ܕܐܡܪ ܕܡܝܢܐ‬ ̣ 131ra) Damian said regarding ‫ ܡܛܘܠ ܐܘܣܝܐ‬the substance, that ‫ܐܚܪܝܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܕܡ‬it is something ̇ ‫ܐܝܬܝܗ ܒܡܠܬܐ‬ different in its concept; ̇ ‫ܕܝܠܗ܇ ܐܘ ܡܛܘܠ‬ or regarding the ‫ ܩܢܘܡܐ ܕܠܝܬܘܗܝ‬hypostasis, that it is not ‫ ܐܘܣܝܐ‬substance ‫ܕܐܠܗܐ‬ ‫ ܥܠ‬On the fact that 63 ‫ ܐܒܐ܆‬Damian does not (131rb- ‫ܠܘ‬ 131va) ‫ ܩܢܘܡܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ‬understand God ̇ ‫ܡܣܬܟܠ ܕܡܝܢܐ‬ the Father only as hypostasis P e t r u s Callinic., C o n t r a Dam.271 ‫ ܕ ܐܠ ܒܗ ܘ ܬ ܐ‬That 64 Damian ̇ ‫ ܕ‬celebrates (131va- ‫ܡܟܢܐ‬ the 132va) ‫ “ ܒܐ ܠܗ ܘ ܬ ܐ ܆‬f a t h e r h o o d ” , ‫ ܐܠܗܐ ܐܒܐ‬that is named in ̇ the Godhead, as ‫ܡܫܒܚ ܕܡܝܢܐ‬ God the Father Dam. Alex., Apologia secunda273 Dam. Alex., Ep. per Gerontium allata274 Petr. Callinic., C o n t r a Dam.275 Dam. Alex., Ep. prolixa seu Apologia prima272 Damian’s doctrine Distinction between “the concept (λόγος) of nature or substance” that indicates the natures and substances in themselves, and “the concept of hypostasis” that indicates the hypostases themselves. Peter’s doctrine If the hypostasis does not indicate the substance in its own concept, it cannot be indicative of substance either in full sense or metaphorically. “God the Father” means the common joined to the property, it is not a simple hypostasis but a substantial (‫ )ܐܘܣܝܝܐ‬hypostasis: saying “God” indicates the substance and the common; the denomination “Father” indicates the hypostasis and the property of the prosopon. The substance is never unhypostastic (‫)ܐܠ ̇ܡܩܝܡܬܐ‬, nor is the hypostasis unsubstantial (‫)ܐܠ ܐܘܣܝܝܐ‬. God the Father is both participant and participated, i.e. He is a substantial hypostasis and not simply the characterstic of a hypostasis. Therefore, one must distinguish the meanings of substance and hypostasis in the full sense that is, one must separate hypostasis from substance and maintain their meanings unconfused. Damian’s doctrine “Fatherhood” or “unbegottenness” are not separated from the Godhead, i.e. do not subsist on their own apart from the substance. “Fatherhood” is substantial in the Godhead since it is joined to the substance. “Fatherhood” indicates the property-hypostasis; “God the Father” indicates the substantial property-hypostasis existing in the Godhead. Hypostasis is the participant; substance is the participated “God the Father” is a substantial hypostasis and not simply a hypostasis. Peter’s doctrine Rejection of the identification of property and hypostasis made by Damian. 271 272 273 274 275 271 Three quotations: preserved in Syriac in Petri Callinic., Contra Dam., vol. 4, Chap. XXXVI.207-212; 213-223 and 231-240, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham. Two quotations: preserved in Syriac in Petri Callinic., Contra Dam., vol. 3, Chap. XXXII.21-30 and 31-36, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham. 273 Two quotations: preserved in Syriac in Petri Callinic., Contra Dam., vol. 3, Chap. XXXII.152-156 and 157163, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham. The Apologia secunda is a letter sent to Peter of Callinicum through Zachariah at Paralos (Epistula per Zachariam allata): Peter was waiting to meet Damian. 274 Preserved in Syriac in Petri Callinic., Contra Dam., vol. 3, chapter XXXII.166-170, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham. 275 Two quotations in Petri Callinic., Contra Dam., vol. 2, chapter I.138-166 and 166-173, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham. 272 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 119 65 (132va) ‫ܙܕܩ‬ ‫ܕܐܝܟܢ‬ ‫ܟܠ‬ ‫ܢܣܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܡܐܠ ܕܩܕܝܫܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ ܣܛܬ ܝܣ‬ ‫ܐܦܣܩܦܐ ܘܡܛܠ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܓܘܢܝܐ‬ ‫ܫܡܗܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܕܝܠܢܝܐ ܕܩܢܘܡܐ‬ ‫ܕܬܠܝܬܝܘܬܐ‬ How it is necessary to understand the words of Saint Eustathius the Bishop regarding the common and particular names of the hypostases of the Trinity E u s t . Antioch., Adv. Photinum276 Petr. Callinic., Contra Dam.277 Eustathius’ doctrine The person is one thing and the nature is another thing. If the name ‘God’ were indicative of the person, saying “three persons” would mean “three Gods”. Properties belong to natures and indicate natures but are not natures, therefore, one cannot say “three gods” or “three natures”, but “one nature of three persons”. “Father”, “Son” and “Holy Spirit” indicate the persons and not the common nature, otherwise the persons would be confused. “God” indicates the common nature and not the persons, otherwise one would affirm “three gods”. Peter’s understanding/interpretation Eustathius does not define the Godhead as one thing and the hypostases of the Godhead as another thing (as Damian and others do). Eustathius says that the name ‘God’ is not indicative of a distinct person. Some of the names are common, some proper: the common ones show the invariableness of the substance, the proper ones characterize the properties of the hypostases. “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Spirt” are proper to each hypostasis, whereas ‘God’ and ‘Lord’ are common. 276 277 6.2. Analysis of the Content of the Florilegium An examination of the titles shows that the florilegium deals with the following main metaphysical topics, related to the Trinitarian doctrine: 1) the relationship between substance and hypostasis; 2) the relationship between hypostasis and property; and 3) the relationship between substance, hypostasis, and property. That the compiler of the florilegium had to deal once again with these topics was, I believe, the consequence of the metaphysical dilemma created during the controversy between Damian and Peter, which had not been resolved with the reconciliation after the schism between Alexandria and Antioch. This dilemma can be seen as a predictable consequence of Severus of Antioch’s Trinitarian reflections in his Contra Grammaticum. One might note that both Peter and Damian considered the Contra Grammaticum as a basic work for their polemic. In that work, Severus tried to resolve the two above-mentioned questions that Miaphysite Christology had elicited, namely, 1) Was the whole substance of Trinity incarnated? 2) Are the three divine hypostases three substances? 276 277 Two quotations: Not preserved in the original Greek. Petri Callinic., Contra Dam., vol. 4, Chap. XL.187-234, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham. Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 120 Bishara Ebeid Severus, as Krausmüller notes,278 1) rejects the notion of immanent universal; 2) he makes no clear distinction between the intensional and the extensional meaning of substance, that is, “common (λόγος) concept” and “sum total of all hypostases”; 3) he defines substance just as the sum total of all hypostases; 4) he considers the hypostases as equated with the properties; 5) for him, properties gain their substantial component through participation in a common substance; 6) this common substance, finally, is located above the hypostases and thus different from them.279 This system was rather unclear. In fact, as Zachhuber notes, Severus was dangerously close from one hand, to suggest that the substance is quantitatively divided between its hypostases, and from the other, to assert that the hypostases are only subsisting properties.280 Both Miaphysite patriarchs, Damian and Peter, tried to modify Severus’ system so that it could be useful for their anti-Tritheistic polemics, each of them, taking and developing a different part of Severus’ system. In fact, they had divergent understandings of Severus’ system, even if it seems that on some points they agree. Damian, as again Krausmüller notes,281 affirmed the reality and concreteness of the common substance. It seems that, to polemicize against the Tritheists’ consideration of the non-existence of the universals, in his doctrine there is no mention of the idea that the particular substance is the concreteness of the abstract reality. He, then, did not take into consideration Severus’ concept of substance as the sum total of hypostases. He identified property with hypostasis and affirmed that properties gain their substantial component through participation in a common substance. Peter, by contrast, considered the common substance as the sum total of all hypostases; he could therefore affirm that since the substance is what each hypostasis shares and has in common, the hypostases participate in this sum total of all hypostases and thus gain their substantial component. In addition, although he affirmed that each hypostasis is a particular substance, he was not interested in clarifying whether the substances in the hypostases could be counted or not.282 This florilegium, then, tries to resolve this metaphysical dilemma, adopting a clear position against Damian and, as mentioned above, rejecting his doctrine. Even so, we cannot affirm that the compiler of this florilegium totally shared Peter’s position, since he tried to modify it, resolving the questions that Peter’s system had left open. In order to do this, the compiler read Peters’ Contra Damianum and Severus’ Contra Grammaticum283 with a critical eye and made a new synthesis based on patristic doctrine and authority. Now let us analyze the metaphysical system underlying the Trinitarian doctrine of this florilegium. See Krausmüller, “Properties Participating in Substance” (above, n. 62), p. 29. For the relationship between substance as common and hypostasis as particular in Severus’ thought, see also Zachhuber, “Universals” (above, n. 25), pp. 458-62. 280 See Zachhuber, The Rise (above, n. 24), pp. 133-9. 281 See Krausmüller, “Properties Participating in Substance” (above, n. 62), p. 29. 282 See Krausmüller, “Properties Participating in Substance” (above, n. 62), p. 27. See also Zachhuber, The Rise (above, n. 24), p. 181. 283 I think that the main source of this florilegium is Peter’s Contra Damianum. However, some material, especially from a doctrinal point of view, come, at least indirectly, from Severus’ Contra Grammaticum. I aim to prepare a study on the relationship between the patristic quotations in the Trinitarian florilegium and those in Peter’s Contra Damianum, affirming and continuing what already van Roey had sustained, see van Roey, “Un florilège” (above, n. 81). 278 279 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 121 Relationship between substance and hypostasis For the relationship between substance and hypostasis the compiler mainly follows the Cappadocian distinction between common and particular (cfr. nos. 21 and 47 where the name of Basil appears in the title): the substance coincides with what is common and participated (cfr. nos. 6, 39, 47, 52, 53); it is an abstract reality, i.e. it does not exist in itself; therefore, it is not considered as a substrate or a thing (cfr. nos. 33, 34); it consists of and exists in hypostases (cfr. no. 36). Consequently, the hypostases are the concrete substances; each is subsistent, i.e. exists in itself and for itself (cfr. nos. 10, 13); they are considered substrates (cfr. nos. 20, 31, 32) and things (cfr. no. 30). Since the hypostases share in the same common substance, they are called consubstantial (cfr. no. 6 where the compiler mainly follows Basil’s understanding of consubstantiality, and nos. 47, 52, 53, 22, 23). As a result, substance is also considered the sum total of all hypostases (cfr. nos. 1, 4), and from this point of view it is one and escapes from number while the numbered are the hypostases themselves (cfr. no. 2). Even if the hypostases are numbered this does not mean that their being numbered divides the substance (cfr. nos. 25, 26). This means that the substance is identified with the sum total of its hypostases; therefore, it could not be affirmed, on the one hand, that the substance is one thing and its hypostases are another (cfr. nos. 1, 4), while on the other hand one hypostasis is not the whole substance, i.e. the sum total of the hypostases (cfr. nos. 3, 5).284 However, a hypostasis, if seen individually, is a concrete substance, and since it participates in the common substance, is from it and of it, it is called by the name of its general substance and is characterized through its natural characters and attributes (cfr. nos. 9, 10, 13, 19, 40, 48). This does not mean that each hypostasis is denominated with the name of its substance by participation, but by nature, that is, since it is really and concretely substance (cfr. no. 56). As a consequence, one can understand why some fathers interchanged nature, essence, or substance on the one hand, and hypostasis on the other (cfr. nos. 9, 19). In fact, hypostasis is not empty of substance but substantial, that is, it participates in and shares the common substance and through this participation gains its substantial component – it possesses all the characteristics of the concept (λόγος) of the substance to which it belongs (cfr. nos. 55, 56). The substantiality of the hypostases, finally, is the basis of their consubstantiality, since they share and manifest the same concept (λόγος) of the substance (cfr. nos. 23, 55). It is clear that the florilegium has as basis the Neoplatonic doctrine of collective universal, where species gets two meanings, a predicable concept (universal concept) and an extramental collection of particulars, for the Neoplatonic doctrine see. Cross, “Gregory of Nyssa” (above, n. 26), pp. 374-80. Note that the florilegium, explaining the relationship between substance and hypostasis, as will be cleared through my analysis, cannot accept the idea that the substance, being collective, is divided into its particulars (like the Neoplatonic doctrine), since as common and participated remains indivisible. Such doctrine is seen, in some way, in Gregory of Nyssa’s teaching, in regards see, Zachhuber, Human Nature (above, n. 26), pp. pp. 61-118, especially pp. 64-70; Zachhuber, “Once again” (above, n. 26), pp. 75-98; Zachhuber, “Universals” (above, n. 25), pp. 444-5, 447. See also H. Cherniss, “The Platonism of Gregory of Nyssa”, University of California Publications in Classical Philology 11 (1930), pp. 1-92, here p. 33; R.M. Hubner, Die Einheit des Leibes Christi bei Gregor von Nyssa: Untersuchungen zum Ursprung der ‘physischen’ Erlosungslehre, Brill, Leiden 1974, pp. 83-7; D. Balàs, “Plenitudo humanitatis: The Unity of Human Nature in the Theology of Gregory of Nyssa”, in D. F. Winslow (ed.), Disciplina Nostra: Essays in Memory of Robert F. Evans, Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, Cambridge 1979 (Patristic monograph series, 6), pp. 115-31, here p. 119-21. This opinion, however, was rejected by Cross, “Gregory of Nyssa” (above, n. 26), pp. 372-410. Personally, I agree with the opinion of Zachhuber which I find more articulated. 284 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 122 Bishara Ebeid Relationship between hypostasis and property Also, for the relationship between hypostasis and property the compiler relied on the Cappadocian doctrine on idiomata, which affirms that without the property added to the substance, a hypostasis cannot be recognized as distinct and particular (cfr. no. 51 where the compiler quotes only Basil as reference). However, our florilegium puts more emphasis, on the one hand, on the distinction between property and hypostasis and on the fact that they cannot be identified, since predicator and predicated are different things (cfr. nos. 15, 42, 43, 59, 64); on the other hand, it emphasizes the fact that hypostasis and property are united and cannot be separated (cfr. no. 16), since a hypostasis without property does not exist and is not a substrate, and a hypostasis gets its particular name precisely through its property (cfr. nos. 16, 20). Property, then, is the distinctive character of each hypostasis (cfr. no. 17); it belongs to the hypostasis, is united and mixed with it, but without any confusion (cfr. nos. 18, 35 where the compiler tries to show that union and mixture do not mean confusion). Finally, if the hypostasis subsists, property exists only in the hypostasis, and is then not subsistent in itself (cfr. n. 14). Relationship between substance, hypostasis and property As for the relationship between substance, hypostasis and property, the compiler is very careful to highlight that for each hypostasis to have its own property does not imply that the property is mixed with the substance itself, i.e. with the substantial component. Even if it belongs to the hypostasis, property should be understood and seen outside of the substance, i.e. outside of the constituent element (cfr. no. 41). Property does not define the substance but the hypostasis, and the hypostasis is not the substance because of the property (cfr. nos. 45, 58). Therefore, the hypostasis gets its particular name through its property, and its substantial name, i.e. its natural name, through its substance (cfr. no. 65). Other metaphysical principles Differently from Severus, the compiler of the florilegium makes a clear distinction between the intensional and the extensional meaning of substance. Indeed, this is clear in the title of group no. 22: “On the fact that each one of the hypostases participates in the concept (λόγος) of the substance and in the common [concept (λόγος)] of the substance”. Here the compiler quotes from Severus’ Contra Grammaticum and Basil’s Epistula 214. One can then maintain that the concept of the substance (melltō d-ʾūsīya, ‫ )ܡܠܬܐ ܕܐܘܣܝܐ‬is the sum total of the hypostases, as already theorized by Severus, which is elsewhere called “the whole substance” ̇ ) (cfr. nos. 3,4,5); while the common concept of the substance (ὁ τῆς (kūllōh ʾūsīya, ‫ܟܠܗ ܐܘܣܝܐ‬ οὐσίας λόγος κοινός, melltō d-ʾūsīya gawōnītō, ‫ܕܐܘܣܝܐ ܓܘܢܝܬܐ‬ ‫)ܡܠܬܐ‬, an expression that ̣ comes from Basil, is the substantial component, i.e. the natural properties that are manifested equally in each hypostasis belonging to a certain substance, or, in other words, the constituent element of the substance. In this case, the compiler agrees with Severus’ and not with Peter’s position, making the distinction between the two meanings of substance clearer. In addition, it is clear that the compiler rejects Damian’s doctrine on the concreteness and reality of the common substance, supporting, instead, Peter’s understanding of abstract and concrete realities, clearly expressed in groups nos. 57-64. The key-concepts one should highlight in these groups are the following: substantial (ἐνούσιος, ʾūsīyōyō, ‫)ܐܘܣܝܝܐ‬, un-substantial (ἀνούσιος, lō ʾūsīyōyō, ‫)ܐܠ ܐܘܣܝܝܐ‬, hypostatic/subsistent, i.e. existent Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 123 (ἐνυπόστατος, mqaymō, ‫ ̇ܡܩܝܡܐ‬, qnūmōyō, ‫ )ܩܢܘܡܝܐ‬and un-hypostatic/un-subsistent (inexistent) (ἀνυπόστατος, lō mqaymō, ‫)ܐܠ ̇ܡܩܝܡܐ‬.285 An existing, real, and concrete substance must be ἐνυπόστατος,286 which means that it must exist in a hypostasis (cfr. 29, 36) otherwise it is inexistent (ἀνυπόστατος, lō mqaymō, ‫)ܐܠ ̇ܡܩܝܡܐ‬, that is, without hypostasis and existence. It is notable that both adjectives can describe substances, and that both Syriac terms, qnūmōyō (‫ )ܩܢܘܡܝܐ‬and mqaymō (‫)ܡܩܝܡܐ‬, are considered here as synonymous. A hypostatic, qnūmōyō (‫)ܩܢܘܡܝܐ‬, substance means an existent and subsistent substance, mqaymō (‫)ܡܩܝܡܐ‬, that is, ἐνυπόστατος or existing in a hypostasis. Therefore, a hypostasis cannot be empty of substance, it can be only substantial (ἐνούσιος, ʾūsīyōyō, ‫)ܐܘܣܝܝܐ‬, that is, it possesses the substantial component. Consequently, an un-substantial (ἀνούσιος, lō ʾūsīyōyō, ‫ )ܐܠ ܐܘܣܝܝܐ‬hypostasis cannot exist. Both terms, substantial and un-substantial, are adjectives for hypostases. As in the case of ἐνυπόστατος and ἀνυπόστατος, the prefixes ἐν- and ἀν- in ἐνούσιος and ἀνούσιος must be understood as “within” and “without” respectively. The Syriac uses the adjective formulated from the substantive (i.e. with the addition yō, ‫ )ܝܐ‬to translate the Greek ἐν, while to express the Greek ἀν, it uses the negation with “non” (lō, ‫ )ܐܠ‬added to the same adjective. Just in the case of hypostatic and subsistent the Syriac used another term as synonymous to qnūmōyō (‫)ܩܢܘܡܝܐ‬, the participle mqaymō (‫)ܡܩܝܡܐ‬, to express the idea of existing. The concept of participation (μετοχή, šawtōpūtō, ‫ )ܫܘܬܦܘܬܐ‬in our florilegium must also be discussed. Although it comes from the Cappadocian doctrine, we cannot affirm that it is used in the same sense as by the Cappadocians, since substance has both an intensional and an extensional meaning. Our compiler, following Peter of Callinicum, affirms that each hypostasis participates in the substance as a common concept (λόγος) and as the sum total of the hypostases; this does not mean that each hypostasis is the whole substance (cfr. no. 22). I think, however, that the compiler understands the meaning of participation differently from Peter. Since each substance exists perfectly in each hypostasis, this implies that the hypostasis is substance by nature, possessing all the natural characteristics of the common substance. Participation, in this case, means a perfect and equal share in the same common substance with the other hypostases: i.e., the hypostases possess and manifest the common natural characteristics of the substance perfectly and equally to each other. Therefore, the substance is all its hypostases together (sum total), it exists perfectly in each of its hypostases, while the hypostasis is by nature the substance (i.e., the common substance exists within it being its constituent element), but it is not the whole substance (which is the sum total of That these Syriac terms translate the Greek ones can be evinced from the comparison between the Syriac translation of some quotations from the Greek fathers in our florilegium and their original Greek text (when it exists). Compare for example the Greek original text of Basil’s Adversus Eunomium (PG 29, 749.16-22) in chapter n. 55 of the florilegium and its Syriac translation: “Πάλιν ἀγέννητον ἀνούσιον νοοῦμεν τὸ μηδαμῆ 285 μηδαμῶς ὄν. Εἶπέ τις ἀνούσιον, ὑπόστασιν ἀνεῖλε καὶ οὐσίας ὕπαρξιν. Ἀνούσιον, καὶ ἀνυπόστατον, τὴν μὴ ὑπάρχουσαν μήτε οὖσαν ὅλως σημαίνει φύσιν. Τὸ δὲ ἐνούσιον καὶ ἐνυπόστατον λέγων τις, τὴν ἐνυπάρχουσαν ̇ ‫ܬܘܒ ܐܠ ܝܠܝܕܐ ܐܠ ܐܘܣܝܝܐ‬ οὐσίαν ἐδήλωσε”, ‫ܐܡܪ ܐܢܫ‬ .‫ ̇ܗܘ ܕܣܟ ܠܓܡܪ ܐܠ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬.‫ܡܣܬܟܠܝܢܢ‬ ̣ ̇ ̇ ‫ܡܩܝܡܐ܆ ܟܝܢܐ ܕܐܠ ܫܟܝܚ܇‬ ‫ܘܠܝܬܐ ܕܐܘܣܝܐ܁ ܐܠ ܐܘܣܝܝܐ ܕܝܢ ܘܐܠ‬ ‫ܥܩ ̣ܪ‬ ̣ ̇ ‫ܐܠ ܐܘܣܝܝܐ܁ ܠܩܢܘܡܐ‬ ̇ ̇ ̇ ̇ ‫ ܐܘܣܝܝܐ ܕܝܢ ܘܡܩܝܡܐ ܟܕ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܫ܆ ܠܩܢܘܡܐ ܗܘ ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܫܘܕܥ‬.‫ܡܫܘܕܥ‬ ‫ܘܕܐܠ ܠܓܡܪ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬ For their meaning in some Chalcedonian authors see C. Erismann, “A World of Hypostases: John of Damascus’ Rethinking of Aristotle’s Categorical Ontology”, Studia Patristica 50 (2011), pp. 269-87. 286 On this term and its use in Christian authors see Gleede, The Development (above, n. 72). Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 124 Bishara Ebeid the hypostases), and it is by participation that it shares the same common substance (i.e., the common constituent element) with the other hypostases. Thus, one can now understand why, for our florilegium, the common substance is called “shared/participated” (mšawtap, ‫ܡܫܘܬܦ‬ ̣ ) and the hypostasis “sharer/participant” (meštawtap, ‫ ;)ܡܫܬܘܬܦ‬and secondly, it is now clear how the concept of participation is related to substantiality, that is, to the hypostases gaining the substantial component, and to consubstantiality, that is, to the hypostases sharing and manifesting the same common substance perfectly and equally. Finally, it is evident that, if one follows this line of thought, affirming that each hypostasis is a substance does not imply a multiplication of the constituent element of the substance, which remains one according to its λόγος or concept. This is the reason why the compiler, following Peter, rejects Damian’s affirmation according to which property is substantial. Such a rejection is a consequence of the refusal to identify property with hypostasis, a doctrine affirmed by Damian, who to some extent follows Severus’ ideas on this matter. Indeed, a careful reading of the titles of groups nos. 61, 62 and 63 leads to recognition that the intention of the compiler is to underline that Damian’s understanding of these concepts is wrong. In addition, it is worth noting the use of the terms “substrate” (ὑποκείμενον, sīmō, ‫)ܣܝܡܐ‬ and “thing” (πρᾶγμα, sūʿrōnō, ‫ )ܣܘܥܪܢܐ‬as synonyms for “hypostasis” in our florilegium (cfr. nos. 30, 31, 32). These terms were used in the Cappadocian Trinitarian doctrine (cfr. the Cappadocian quotations in the same groups nos. 30, 31, 32, 33), probably through a Stoic influence: a substrate was considered the substance with its particular property, that is, hypostatic and subsistent, or, in other words, a qualified substrate.287 However, they used the term “substrate” also, under Aristotelian influence and Stoic understanding, to indicate the common substance in the sense of an unqualified substrate (qualitiless substrate), that is, the constituent element of the substance, which cannot be comprehended or described.288 Basil applied this meaning to Christ, calling him one in substrate and one substance, thus indicating his divinity as a simple and incomposite nature.289 Our florilegium, however, refuses to use the term substrate for the common substance, preferring to understand it only as a qualified single substance, that is, as a subsistent hypostasis, an existing concrete nature (cfr. no. 33), following Peter’s polemic against Damian’s understanding of substrate as the common substance.290 Finally, I would like to highlight one important consequence of these innovations in the understanding of the Trinitarian doctrine: in our florilegium there is no mention of the relationship between the hypostases of the Trinity. For the Cappadocians, as mentioned above, the doctrine on the monarchy of the Father was essential. In fact, besides the oneness of the divine substance, the consideration of the Father as the unique cause of the Trinity, See Hildebrand, The Trinitarian Theology (above, n. 9), p. 47 and pp. 49-50. See Jacobs, “on ‘Not Three Gods’” (above, n. 9), p. 334. See also D. Biriukov, “The Principle of Individuation in Contra Eunomium 2, 4 by Basil of Caesarea and its Philosophical and Theological Context”, Scrinium 12 (2016), pp. 215-43, here pp. 228-34; to be mentioned that Biriukov does not see in Basil the Stoic use of substrate as the singular and qualified substance, cfr. p. 239. 289 See for example Basil’s use of the term substrate which is different from the later use during the Christological controversies. In fact, his use of the term substrate is linked with his understanding of substance and hypostasis related to his anti-Eunomian polemic, see M. Delcogliano, Basil of Caesarea’s Anti-Eunomian Theory of Names. Christian Theology and Late-Antique Philosophy in the Fourth Century Trinitarian Controversy, Brill, LeidenBoston 2010 (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 103), p. 141. 290 See chapter 10 of Book 2, see Petri Callinic., Contra Dam., vol. 2, chapter X, ed. Ebied-van Roey-Wickham. 287 288 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 125 and of the Son and the Holy Spirit as co-eternally caused, was the basis of the Cappadocian understanding of monotheism. Our florilegium does not simply avoid mentioning this doctrine, but as other Miaphysite anti-Tritheistic texts,291 rejects it. Indeed, in group no. 7, it is affirmed that the relationship between Father and Son is not that between a cause and a caused effect (participated/shared and participant/sharer). Such a statement must be understood in light of the meaning taken up in the florilegium by the terms substance (common concept and sum total), participation, substantiality and consubstantiality. One substantial hypostasis, in our case the Father, cannot be considered as the cause of the other two, since they share in the same substance (common meaning=consubstantiality) and are all together the same substance (sum total), otherwise, the cause would be considered another substance, and the Trinity would become “Tetrade”, a doctrine which some Chalcedonians, like Anastasius of Sinai, proposed into their attempt to challenge John Philoponus’ Tritheism.292 Application of these principles to the Trinitarian doctrine With this in mind, we can now summarize the Trinitarian doctrine of this florilegium as follows: 1) The Holy Trinity is one God, one substance and one Godhead in word and reality; 2) God is the three hypostases; 3) the Godhead exists in three hypostases; 4) God is seen and recognized in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 5) The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God, three substantial divine hypostases, equal in substance, that is, consubstantial; therefore 6) the divinity of the Father is the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, all three share the same divinity. 7) Each hypostasis, taken individually, is considered as substance, substrate and thing; therefore 8) each is called God in the full sense; 9) this does not mean division within the Godhead, since the substance, i.e. the constituent element in the Trinity is one and the same in the three hypostases; 10) thus, affirming three hypostases, and each one as a substance, does not imply Tritheism. 11) The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not divine because of the property joined to each, namely fatherhood, sonship, and procession, but because they share in the same Godhead; 12) without these characteristic properties each hypostasis cannot be recognized as a distinct and particular reality. 13) The properties in the Godhead, even if they can be conceived outside of the substance, and although they belong to, and exist in, the hypostases, cannot be considered as accidents. 14) The oneness of the Trinity is to be found in the common substance, the one constituent element, not in the cause identified with the Father; in other words, we have here a “monarchy of the substance”.293 The florilegium as a metaphysical position against Chalcedonians and Nestorians The importance of this florilegium lies not only in its Trinitarian doctrine, but also in its reformulation of the metaphysical principles used to express the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas. One of the main aims of this florilegium was to create a metaphysical system through which Miaphysites could answer the accusations of Chalcedonians and Nestorians, by resolving some metaphysical weaknesses. 291 Some texts, written after the anti-Tritheistic work of Theodosius of Alexandria and probably before the compilation of our florilegium, edited and translated by G. Furlani, reject to understand the relationship between the divine hypostases as cause and caused, see PO 14, pp. 716-17, 748. 292 See Krausmüller, “Under the Spell” (above, n. 72), pp. 641-3. 293 The same idea one might find in the Syriac anti-Tritheistic texts in PO 14, pp. 673-766 (above, n. 291). Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 126 Bishara Ebeid What leads me to this conclusion is the mention, in the titles of the florilegium, of the names of two “heresiarchs”, namely, Damian and Eunomius. Why mention them? Were there, at the time when the florilegium was composed, followers of their doctrines? There is no historical evidence for their existence; I am rather inclined to think that behind the mention of the names of Damian and Eunomius one might recognize a link between their doctrines and those of Chalcedonians and Nestorians, as I shall explain in the following paragraphs. As I said above, Miaphysites had probably seen a Chalcedonian influence in the doctrine of Damian, at least on the metaphysical level. Behind the polemic against Damian in this florilegium one may therefore read an anti-Chalcedonian polemic. Such a hypothesis helps us to better understand the accusations made against Damian, of whose work we possess only a small number of fragments. Indeed, Chalcedonians made a metaphysical distinction between nature-substance and hypostasis-person; they developed a new understanding of the concept of hypostasis, which was quite different from that of the Cappadocians. Therefore, the polemics in groups nos. 1, 2 60, and 61, for instance, could be understood as antiChalcedonian. Miaphysites rejected the Chalcedonian understanding of hypostasis, accusing them of identifying it with the characteristic property. Such an accusation can be read behind all polemics of the florilegium concerning this topic, as for example in nos. 42, 43, 58, 59. In addition, the appearance of the term ἐνυπόστατος in more than one title (cfr. nos. 13, 14), and not just in patristic quotations, may be another proof of this hypothesis. Such term, with all the other technical terms explained above (an-hypostatic, substantial etc.), was a key concept in the metaphysical development of neo-Chalcedonianism, through which Chalcedonians had tried to resolve the Christological question regarding the existence of two natures in one hypostasis. For neo-Chalcedonians, this term was not understood according to its Trinitarian use by previous generations, but according to their new understanding of hypostasis.294 Our florilegium, then, although it treats the Trinitarian dogma, basically deals with metaphysics, and offers a new understanding of the term “hypostatic/subsistent” (ἐνυπόστατος). While using it mainly in Trinitarian doctrine, the compiler presupposes its application to Miaphysite Christology: the one composite nature from two is one subsistent reality, one hypostasis, having divinity and humanity as its substantial components. These components, however, are not two subsistent realities: through the new understanding of participation, substantiality, and consubstantiality, this one subsistent reality of Christ is consubstantial with humanity since it participates in the common human substance, and at the same time it is not all the hypostases of humanity; while through the participation in the common divine nature, it is consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, without affirming that all the Trinity was incarnated. For the same reason, the florilegium understands the term substrate (ὑποκείμενον, sīmō, ‫ )ܣܝܡܐ‬only as the hypostasis with its property, that is, as a qualified single substance, and not as the unqualified common substance. Affirming that the three hypostases are three substrates, and, on the other hand, that Christ is one substrate, means that it is not the common substance that was incarnated, and that divinity and humanity in Christ are not two substances or substrates. Consequently, one might say that this Trinitarian florilegium 294 See the references given on neo-Chalcedonism above in footnotes 30 and 72; for the use of the term ἐνυπόστατος and its relation to other technical terms among (neo-)Chalcedonians, see Gleede, The Development (above, n. 72), pp. 45-181 and especially Erismann, “A World of Hypostases” (above, n. 285). Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 Metaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism 127 was essential to resolve the open questions Miaphyiste Christology had raised, without causing, at least from a Miaphysite perspective, troubles in the Trinitarian doctrine. The same can be said of the polemics against Eunomius. He was accused, as mentioned above, of having taught three different substances in the Godhead, affirming that the property was indicative of the substance, and that therefore the three hypostases, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, were three different substances. Eunomians were also accused of being Tritheists.295 In fact, one of the arguments Damian had put forward in his anti-Tritheistic polemic was that Tritheism is Eunomianism (cfr. the quotation from Damian in group no. 8). Damian, as we saw above, also accused Peter of being Eunomian and Tritheist, since Peter considered each hypostasis, individually taken, as a substance. Why, then, does the compiler of the florilegium mention Eunomius twice in his titles (cfr. nos. 8, 54)? I do not think that he is defending Peter from the accusations of Damian. It is likelier that the name of Eunomius hides the Nestorian doctrine. As already mentioned, Miaphysites could easily see a similarity between Nestorianism and Tritheism. Nestorians, in fact, were accused of being Tritheists because they put considerable stress on the individuality of the hypostases.296 Their metaphysical system, at least that of Babai and his followers, was understood as divisive. Here one should note the role played in our florilegium by the polemic against teachings that introduce divisions into the Godhead or claim that the three hypostases divide the divine substance (cfr. nos. 25, 26). Such teachings call consubstantiality into question, another typical polemical motif against Eunomius’ doctrine (cfr. no. 54), which might be also read in an anti-Nestorian key. Another important element that can demonstrate how the compiler takes a stance against the Nestorian doctrine, especially of Babai, is the title of no. 27: “On the fact that God is seen in one substance and [one] Godhead, but in three hypostases, and that each person exists in a true hypostasis”. The term “person” (parṣūpō, ‫)ܦܪܨܘܦܐ‬, even if it recurs in many patristic quotations in the florilegium, appears in no other title. It must be noted, firstly, that the statement “each person exists in a true hypostasis” comes from the quotation of Basil’s Epistle 210 in the same group, no. 27. As already noted by Turcescu, in this letter, contrasting Sabellius’ understanding of the term person (πρόσωπον) as mask, Basil underlines that if one wants to call the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit “persons” (πρόσωπα), one needs to clarify that these persons really exist (ἐν ὑποστάσει ἀληθινῇ ὑπάρχον). Consequently, in this letter Basil understands hypostasis as a subsistent reality.297 The compiler, I would argue, uses Basil’s quotation and doctrine to contrast the Nestorian position regarding the term “person”. In fact, for Babai each hypostasis is distinguished through its “person” (parṣōpā, ‫)ܦܪܨܘܦܐ‬. In this case, “person” is identified with the particular property, and distinguished from the hypostasis, which is a single nature without particular properties. Moreover, according to Babai’s doctrine persons belong to hypostases, but can be given and received.298 Our compiler, then, is taking an opposite stance here. Although he also identifies the person (parṣōpā, ‫ )ܦܪܨܘܦܐ‬with the particular property, or with the name See A. Kazhdan, “Tritheism”, in AA. VV., The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 3, Oxford U.P., New York-Oxford 1991, p. 2121. 296 See Kazhdan, “Tritheism” (above, n. 295), p. 2121. 297 See Turcescu, “Prosōpon and Hypostasis” (above, n. 15), p. 391. 298 See Ebeid, “The Trinitarian doctrine” (above, n. 75), pp. 98-107. 295 Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021 128 Bishara Ebeid of the hypostasis, for him the person exists in and within the hypostasis, and as property it is united to the hypostasis, but without being confused with the substance, i.e. with the constituent element. This means that persons cannot be given or received, as Babai affirms, otherwise they could be understood as masks, and thus reminiscent of the Sabellian understanding of person. What, finally, confirms this my hypothesis is the version of the florilegium in BL Add. 12155. In fact, the last chapter (fol. 32va) has the title On the anxiety of the Romans and the Easterners concerning the name of “substance” and [the names] of ‘hypostases’ and ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܕܡܕܢܚܝܐ܇ ܡܛܠ ܫܡܐ ܕܐܘܣܝܐ‬ ‘persons’ (‫ܘܕܩܢܘܡܐ‬ ‫ܡܛܠ ܦܘܫܟܐ ܕܠܘܬ ̈ܚܕܕܐ ܕ̈ܪܗܘܡܝܐ‬ ‫)ܘܕܦ̈ܪܨܘܦܐ‬.This title, then, demonstrates that the main opponents for this florilegium are the Chalcedonians and the Nestorians because of their errant use and understanding of the metaphysical concepts of “substance”, “hypostasis”, and “person”. Conclusion With this paper I have tried to understand the theological reasons that led Syriac Miaphysites to produce Trinitarian florilegia and to copy them during the first centuries of Islamic rule in the Middle East. It has been noted that the Cappadocian metaphysical system could not function perfectly when applied to the Miaphysite Christological doctrine. Miaphysites, affirming that Christ is one nature and hypostasis, had identified these two metaphysical categories with one another. Such identification resulted into two essential Christological questions: was the whole substance of Trinity incarnated? Are the three divine hypostases three substances? Severus of Antioch had already started reflecting on the understanding of the terms “substance” and “hypostasis” in Christology and Trinitarian doctrine; however, he did not provide a final answer. The same metaphysical innovation, once applied to Trinitarian doctrine, created other problems to the Miaphysite church. It was the reason behind the Tritheistic controversy among Miaphysites during the sixth century. The attempts of some anti-Tritheistic figures, especially Damian of Alexandria and Peter of Callinicum, evidenced a dilemma on how to understand and use the metaphysical terms which were at stake, not only in the anti-Tritheistic controversy but also in the Christological polemics against Nestorians and Chalcedonians. To respond to these new challenges, Miaphysites had to develop a unified metaphysical system to be used in their Christology and in their Trinitarian doctrine, so that the latter could not be understood as Tritheism. It is in this light that we have to understand the composition of the Trinitarian florilegium, based on the patristic tradition of the Miaphyiste Church: the Cappadocians, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, Theodosius of Alexandria, and Peter of Callinicum. The florilegium tries to make a new metaphysical synthesis between Severus of Antioch’s reflections in his Contra Grammaticum and Peter of Callinicum’s Contra Damianum. Even though it is Trinitarian in content, the main aim of the florilegium is metaphysical. In fact, the reformulation of the Trinitarian doctrine has its starting point in the Miaphysite Christology: therefore, it does not represent the traditional Cappadocian Trinitarian teaching, but a “Miaphysite Trinitarian doctrine”. Such a synthesis was an instrument to prove that the Miaphysite Christology implied no risk for Trinitarian dogma. Studia graeco-arabica 11.1 / 2021