ACOE Fathers

Tag: Christian

  • Mary, The Ark Of The New Covenant

    As Christians, we believe and confess with our hearts in what we call the deposit of faith, which includes core doctrines such as the Holy Trinity, the duality of natures in Christ, the Resurrection, and many more important and essential things, one of them being the annunciation and the character of the Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, Mother of our Lord Christ. This topic, we will be exploring the biblical connection between the Old and New Testament of the Blessed Mother, and her importance in the tradition of the Church of The East, which is commonly described as not showing enough reverence to her. We will be demonstrating that the Church of The East upholds the Blessed Mother, as the highest above all creation, as according to the Bible, the Takhsa of the Raza (Rite of Liturgy), and of the Saints themselves. This will be broken down into a 4 part study in which we will examine what she means to us as being the Ark of The New Covenant. 

    What is the Ark Of The Covenant?

    The Ark of the Covenant, is mentioned in the Old Testament of the Bible as being a Holy Sanctuary to exist in Israel. In Exodus 25, we find the construction of the Ark, and it being a place for God to dwell in, and for Moses to go and speak to God. We see it mentioned a few times more throughout the bible, but when we come across Hebrews 9, we get a more deeper description of the Ark, that was believed to be passed down by oral tradition of the jews, since we do not find the items that were placed in the Ark in the Old Testament.

    This Ark was thus meant to not only serve as a sanctuary for God to dwell in, and be among his people, but also a place that represented as a promise, or “Covenant” between God and his people. This is important to understand for the later parts of the study, and to know what the Old Covenant vs New Covenant was and is. 

    Specifically in Hebrews 9:4, there are 3 things that were mentioned as being inside the Ark, and these are important to understand what they are and why the author of Hebrews decided to note this. One of them was the Stone Tablets of the Law, the Golden pot of Manna, and the Budded Aarons Rod. Here is what each of those items are and their representation:

    The Significance of the Ark

    Aaron’s Rod – In the Old Testament of Numbers 17, there was a rebellion which led to the Israelites questioning the authority of Moses and Aaron. God then commanded that each of the 12 tribes of Israel produce a rod, in which Aaron would represent the Levites. The rods were each placed in the tabernacle and then the next morning, only Aaron’s rod, which was dead wood, produced buds, and almonds, which showed then that life comes from death, and that the true priesthood was divinely selected by God.

    Stone Tablets of the Law – These were two stone slabs of the 10 commandments in Exodus 31-34 that were written by the hand of God himself when Moses spoke with God on Mount Sinai. This was set to be the foundation of God’s laws and thus a covenant between them that would be a promise to follow the laws of God. In other words, it is quite literally the Word of God dwelling amongst his people.

    Golden Jar of Manna – In Exodus 16, God commands Moses to have Aaron fill a jar with manna, which is the bread that descended from heaven to sustain the Israelites for 40 days in the wilderness , and was preserved miraculously and never rotting. It is thus to show heavenly nourishment, and God sustaining his people.

    Old vs New Covenant Parallels

    After going through the Old Testament description of what the Ark was, we can now draw the connections between the person of the Blessed Mother, and how the Ark was a typological foreshadowing of her. It goes as the following:

    Ark – The dwelling place of God, to be among his people

    Mary – The dwelling place of Christ who is God, to be among his people as stated in Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23

    Ark – Made with incorruptible wood and with Gold

    Mary – The incorruptible person and sinless vessel to carry God The Word

    This would then foreshadow what Mary would carry in her womb being that she is the Ark, it would be Christ.

    Ark – 1 Samuel 5 and 6 explains the story of David going to retrieve the Ark from the Philistines, Uzzah gets killed by touching it, and David says “How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?”

    Mary – Visits Elizabeth in Luke 1 in which Elizabeth proclaims to her “Why is this granted to me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?

    The words of both Mary and King David are echoed as being replicas of each other, foreshadowing once again what is to come.

    The Stone Tablets of the Law – God the Word (Christ), The Law is written on Stone and The Lawgiver of God becomes flesh 

    The Manna from Heaven – Christ in the flesh as the Eucharistic Bread (John 6). The Old Bread preserves life temporally, The Eternal Bread from heaven grants eternal life.

    Aarons Budded Rod – Christ as the Eternal High Priest as according to the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 7). Aaron’s Rod grew life from dead wood. The True High Priest raises himself from the dead and on the cross which shows life sprouts from the death on the cross.

    The Takhsa of Dukhrana D’Mart Mariam

    “O, Reader, do not blame me, for calling her the Heaven; and, as I expect (anticipate) from Heaven, (for She is the) virtuous, high and exalted one. Our Lord who was hidden in Heaven, for six thousand years, and humankind was not saved, till She became unto Him a dwelling place. The Staff of Aaron gives witness to her that she has a Son and no husband; and Moses, by his rod confesses to Her, and the Rock with the Water gives witness to Her The Staff of Aaron bore the Almond Flower, while it was placed into the Ark (of the Covenant), even though it was not planted into the earth; it stayed for a time, and it withered. The Womb of Mary which gave birth, was revealed through the Rod of David; and it extended over all nations; and was stronger than iron; by it all nations were ruled, and under it were brought all the ends of the earth; and, by it were yoked-together, (bound) our necks and unto Him glorify all tongues. This is the Fleece not of wool, the Holy Spirit dwelt in Her, like that fleece of Gideon which received the rain; for Gideon had placed fleece on the threshing floor and tempted God by saying to God, the people of the world, thus said ‘If this night rain falls upon this place and if we find this fleece dried which we place here’. ‘I will believe that there is still redemption by the hands of this Israelite;’ and, as He said when He spoke in times past; thus, too, He speaks as in other times. If there is dryness on all (of) in this section, and this fleece which I place here, will squeeze or forth water from it. All earth was dry round about, and the fleece which I have placed here, wrings out water from it. All the earth was dry, and the fleece wrings out sediment; this is Mary who is more virtuous than fleece. As the fleece was dry, thus was Mary pure; and, never was seduced by lust, and was not wet by sin And, as the fleece received rain, while the earth was dry, thus dwelt in Mary the Spirit and was sanctifying all.

    • Anthem of The Deceased, Evening prayer for The Feast of Saint Mary

    “O Christ who established Mary His begetter to intercede in behalf of all believers; and, to pray and beseech of Him for all the sheep of His flock: we beseech You * O Christ who has accepted the prayers of His begetter, while she was here on earth, and now always accepts and visits all those who take refuge in her, and through her intercession, call upon Him; we beseech You * O Christ who responds to His worshipers by the prayers of His begetter and answers the petitions of His servants who celebrate the commemoration of the upbringer of His manhood; we beseech You”

    • The Karozoutha of the Evening Prayer of The Feast of Saint Mary

    “we supplicate and beseech from You O God, that by the mediation of the glorified Sanctuary which You have established for Your dwelling place; in the Temple of the body of the Blessed Mary, You have made salvation for all creation, thus, O my Lord, also, this congregation which has gathered today to celebrate diligently the Feast of Her Commemoration,”

    • Prayer by Mar Shalita of the Evening Prayer of The Feast of Saint Mary

    “full of grace; the Holy One, the source of divine holiness; pure and splendid, and the ark of the Spiritual Mysteries; famous in the virtues of sanctifying triumph; the treasurer of the grace and the storehouse of Heavenly riches; O our Lady, Mary the exalted one, who is higher than other named heavenly ranks; the Temple of the Holy Spirit and the Mother of the Son of God; she who knit in her hidden members the rational image without seed and physical contact; and, carried within her pure womb; and, reared upon her holy knees;”

    • The Litany Prayer for the Dukhrana of Mary in August

    From the Takhsa of the ACOE, we can see that not only is she referred to as the Ark, but as the New Heaven, the Exalted one, The Temple and even more that we did not go over today in the large hymns and prayers we have dedicated to her. She is someone who we have and should maintain a deep reverence for, being that she is the mother of our Lord, and that she is a testimony to all believers as according to our prayers of the Church, and as well as the bible. By doing so, we rightly give her the status as being the most exalted of all creation.

    The Church Fathers on Mary

    Saint Athanasius has a beautiful quote in regards to his reverence of the Blessed Mother:

    ‘O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all. O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. Should I compare you to the fertile earth and its fruits? You surpass them, for it is written: “The earth is my footstool” (Is 66:1). But you carry within you the feet, the head, and the entire body of the perfect God.

    If I say that heaven is exalted, yet it does not equal you, for it is written: “Heaven is my throne” (ibid.), while you are God’s place of repose. If I say that the angels and archangels are great—but you are greater than them all, for the angels and archangels serve with trembling the One who dwells in your womb, and they dare not speak in his presence, while you speak to him freely.

    If we say that the cherubim are great, you are greater than they, for the cherubim carry the throne of God (cf. Ps 80:1; 99:1), while you hold God in your hands. If we say that the seraphim are great, you are greater than them all, for the seraphim cover their faces with their wings (cf. Is 6:2), unable to look upon the perfect glory, while you not only gaze upon his face but caress it and offer your breasts to his holy mouth….

    As for Eve, she is the mother of the dead, “for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22). Eve took from the tree and made her husband eat of it along with her. And so they ate of that tree of which God had told them: “The day you eat of it, you shall die” (Gen 2:17). Eve took from it, ate some of it, and gave some to her husband with her. He ate of it, and he died.

    In you, instead, O wise Virgin, dwells the Son of God: he, that is, who is the tree of life. Truly he has given us his body, and we have eaten of it. That is how life came to all, and all have come to life by the mercy of God, your beloved Son. That is why your spirit is full of joy in God your Savior!

    • St. Athanasius, Fourth Century Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, ed. T. Lefort, in Le Muséon 71 (1958): 216-217.

    What Saint Athanasius is saying in this quote, is highlighting the idea of Saint Mary being above all creation, since she bore that which was Uncreated, aka GOD. This is why he essentially says that there is no other creature that she can be compared to, and also identifies her as being the Ark of the Covenant as discussed in the Old and New testament typology we went over. 

    “Owing to Joseph the workmen came to the Son of Joseph. Blessed be Thy Nativity, Thou Head of Workmen, the impress of which the ark bore, fashioned after which was the Tabernacle of the congregation‘ that was for a time only! Our craft praiseth Thee, Who art our glory.”

    • Rhythm the 6th Saint Ephrem

    Here we have Saint Ephrem making the same connection, as Jesus being the one born of the nativity of the Virgin Mary, is the same one who was in the Ark, being Mary, matching the typological connections that other fathers such as Athanasius makes.

    Summary

    Mary is called the New Ark of the Covenant because as we went over in the Old Testament, the Old Ark carried the presence of God, while Mary carried within her womb, Christ who is the incarnate Word and fulfillment of the covenant itself. The Ark contained the manna from heaven, Aaron’s priestly rod, and the tablets of the Law, while Mary bore Christ, who is the true Bread sent down from Heaven, the eternal High Priest according to the order of Melchizdek, and the Word of God as the Word was written on the Stone. The Ark was overshadowed by the glorious cloud of God’s presence, and likewise Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation (Luke 1:35). Both David and Elizabeth respond to the Ark and to Mary with almost identical words of awe, and both the Ark and Mary remain for three months in the country of Judah. The Early Christians saw these parallels as intentional biblical typology, along with the tradition of our Liturgical Breviary (Khudra) showing that Mary is the living sanctuary and holy dwelling place through whom God came to dwell among humanity in the Incarnation. It would be absolutely wrong for us to not have the utmost and highest reverence for the one that is called the most blessed amongst all women, the highest of all creatures, the exalted one, and more importantly the one whose intercession is accepted before God as a testimony of faith.

  • The Triadology of Mar Babai The Great

    In my most recent blog post, I had written an article talking about a general introduction to the Christology of the Church of The East and had promised that I will later do a dedicated post in regards to Triadology as well. With that being said, this article will be dedicated to now explaining the Holy Trinity, and having a continuation of the prior topics in regards to our formulations and terms that we use to describe these Divine Realities, such as the Incarnation, but now with the Trinity. It was important to separate these into different posts because as I reiterated in the past, the way we use terms such as Kyana, Qnoma, and Parsopa, will differentiate according to different topics and it is important not to conflate categories with each other and end up falling into a heretical view. Let us now examine the Triadology of the Church of The East according to a very important theologian and Saint of our Church, Mar Babai The Great, who is writing his treatises on the faith in the mid 6th century.

    The Theological Framework of The Trinity

    To understand our Triadology, we must begin by examining how our Saint’s use the terms we went over prior – that being Kyana, Qnoma, and Parsopa, in regards to The Holy Trinity.

    Kyana – refers to the divine essence — the one, indivisible reality of God. For Babai, there is only one kyana in the Trinity. This is the foundation of divine unity. God is not composed of parts, nor divided into multiple beings; rather, the divine essence is singular, simple, and infinite.

    “So too, he is named “Spirit”, a designation [which] indicates to us—to the exalted likeness of his nature—his infinitude, and that he is present to all but is above all in his Being, and from him and in him is the breath and subsistence of all, and his power is indomitable, and the infinitude of his nature is incomprehensible. So too “Light”, for he is named “Light” because of the sublimity of his nature, for there is nothing in the visible realm which is more exalted, resplendent, and glorious than light, and it “lightens” all. So too God enlightens all with his knowledge and is resplendent in his Being, and all things belonging to him are glorious and exalted. He is above all and not divided into parts, and he is not cut off from his infinitude by those in whom he dwells and makes his habitation impalpably.”

    Book of Union – Treatise 1.13

    Qnoma – The term qnoma is more complex. In Babai’s usage, a qnoma is simply something that exists concretely but is not necessarily identical to the modern notion of “person” as used in us creatures. Instead In the Trinity, we can say that the Qnome are Persons that are ontological and exist concretely and are distinguished by their relations of oppositions, being that there are three qnome: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

    However, these are not three separate beings. Each qnoma fully possesses the one kyana. Thus, the plurality of qnome does not compromise the unity of essence as everything within the Holy Trinity is identical to the One Divine Essence, thus preserving the notion of Absolute Divine Simplicity that God is not composed of parts, and that these 3 Divine Persons Subsist in the 1 Divine Essence. So for Babai, the Qnome are not instantiations or particulars of the Divine Essence, rather he says they ARE, not they HAVE.

    But if God were not as the Cause and Giver of all excellent things, but as the “titles” by which he is called, the concepts of him would impress the mind in the same way as [those] concerning the rest of the created things, and that he exists as a composite of such things. It would seem to everyone that God is composed of parts, as in the thinking of the Naturalists and heathen wise men who foolishly [claimed] that God is the | cosmos, compounded of parts into one body from being, life, and light, and other things such as these, and that there is nothing else except the cosmos, and that it returns to itself and gives birth and is born, and the rest of the pagan impieties. But God forbid that we should think such things concerning God the Creator and Cause of all, for he is higher in his worshipful Being than all creatures and the names which refer to them. He is invisible and not divisible into parts, and he has no end and is not composite. A rod?? is simple, and its essence is not something else, or its life something else, or its light something else, although [such things] are said about it according to the human fashion—that it “possesses” and “has” [them] in its qnoma as though it were “something other” that “possessed” them. But how is it? He is called “Being” but not that he “has” being??, and he is called “Life” but not that he “has” life, and he is called “Light”, but not that he has” light, and “God is Spirit’, but not that he “has” spirit. For he is true Being, and he is true Life, and he is the Light lighting all, and he is infinite Spirit, and moves all, and is present to all, and is above all. He is not the whole of them as though a whole in parts, and they are not the whole of him as though parts in a whole, but he is one in a singular way—ineffable, unsearchable, and indivisible. He it is who created such things as in their being are fore-ordained. The same gives life to those who live, and the same gives knowledge to the knowing
    Book of Union – Treatise 1.14

    Parsopa – refers to the identifiable expression or manifestation of a qnoma by their relation of oppositions. In the Trinity, each qnoma is also a distinct parsopa. Thus, Babai affirms three persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. Thus he would formulate the Trinity as being:

    Father – Unbegotten

    Son – Filiation

    Holy Spirit – Proceeding / Procession

    So also, after his resurrection, while he was teaching his disciples to preach in all the world and to turn the nations from a multitude of gods to the true knowledge of the one God who is known in a Trinity of qnome—that as he created and brought all into being from nothing, the same renews all by the power of his eternal Trinity—he said this to them: “Go forth and disciple all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”? that is, the one Essence. And if you say “nature”, and it is infinite and the Cause of all, which in three infinite qnome is differentiated by way of their parsopic properties, in this way too is manhood the Son, in union with the eternal Son, one Son. But the eternal qnome are one infinite nature, for while they are distinguished, they are united in Essence, and while they are infinitely united, they are distinguished in their qnome eternally, without confusion, infinitely, invisibly. Among them one does not precede another in its qnoma, as also one does not follow in its parsopa, the Father being the Father alone, the Son being utterly singular in a different way which is unsearchable— the Simple from the Simple—and in his property being singular, and there is no other. The Father exists eternally | and for ever and not by stages as with us, nor with another Son, but remains eternally the Father—the Father alone of the Son alone, a whole natural Son of a whole natural Father in a distinct, incomprehensible way and with a singular property. Again there is no other Son consubstantial with the Father, eternally Son and eternally Father. The Son did not begin in [his] Sonship, as the Father did not begin in [his] Fatherhood. The Father is not able to be the Son, nor is the Son able to be the Father, and never do these properties change into one another, but the Father remains eternally and for ever, and the Son remains eternally and for ever. And the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son, but eternally, perpetually proceeds from the Father. He did not “begin” in his procession, as neither did the Father in his Fatherhood nor the Son in his Sonship. The proceeding remains eternally and for ever, and there is no other Holy Spirit going forth from the Father in the manner of a procession, as there is no other begotten in the manner of “the begetting of the Father”. The Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father alone, is not “later” just as the Father does not precede the Son who is eternally begotten from him. In the same way the Holy Spirit is not after the Son, as he is not after the Father, for the Father does not leave his eternal Fatherhood, nor the Son his eternal Sonship, nor the Holy Spirit his eternal procession. They did not end or begin: eternally the Father, eternally the Son, and eternally the proceeding Holy Spirit remain in one united and sole nature of eternal Being.
    Book of Union – Treatise 1.37

    The Unity of God

    After going over some of the quotes from Mar Babai, we can see that the overall framework in his formulation of the Trinity is that:

    • God is singular, ineffable, and indivisible, ultimately 1 in Essence, which is in regards to the very being of God.
    • The 3 Qnome in which are enumerated are modes of subsistence, and exist concretely, distinctly, and are really identical to the one Divine Essence, meaning nothing pertaining to them in regards to natural properties are distinct rather only their modes of subsistence is distinct, in other words their “relation of oppositions”
    • The 3 Qnome which are enumerated and exist concretely are identified according to their Parsopa, which is how we know that The Father is The Father, The Son is The Son, and The Holy Spirit is The Holy Spirit, as the Parsopa is what manifests that which ontologically exists as a real identity and expression of what exists.
    • These 3 Qnome are not thus not “parts” of God, as God IS being, IS existence, and IS will and power and operation. This is why all 3 Qnome are identical to the One Divine Essence because if they weren’t, then it would follow that they are distinct in Essence as well and thus 3 Gods which is precisely what Mar Babai rejects.

    Three are the adorable hypostases (qnomé) of the eternal Trinity identical in everything: in one glorious essence (ithuta), cause of all creatures. However, if you want to distinguish through reason the one [hypostasis] from the other, you cannot [do it], except through the property of their persons (parsopé). The name ‘Father’ is, in fact, the person (parsopa) of his hypostasis [qnoma]: He is unbegotten; from whom the Son, already since eternity, was begotten. And [the Son] is distinct through the person (parsopa) of his hypostasis, so He is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, but the begotten from the Father before the ages. And so we distinguish the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit through its singular person (parsopa) that He possesses, for He is from the Father since eternity, that is, from the nature of Him through the way of the procession, so He is neither the Father nor the Son. This means that these [hypostases] are distinct through the distinct persons (parsopé) they own through their properties. These adorable persons (parsopé) can be given and received; the hypostases (qnomé), on the contrary, can neither be given nor received. Because of the fact that this hypostasis (qnoma) cannot be received, to become one hypostasis with another [different] hypostasis is impossible. But what inheres permanently in one hypostasis (qnoma) is the thing by which it is distinguished, so that is not another hypostasis, i.e., the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. These names, as they are persons, not in the [domain of hypostases, can be given and received. The hypostasis (qnoma), however, shows only that this is this and not that. [For example], when two men come forward us, it is known that they are two hypostases, but it is not yet known who is the one and who is the other, i.e., yet the property of the hypostasis (qnoma) is not manifested as person (parsopa)”.
    Babai The Great “Liber De Union” (Book Of Union)

    What is most important here to note, is that for Babai, Parsopa and Qnoma have different metaphysical concepts as I stated earlier in the section on Qnoma. We see Babai using Parsopa in a way that is a manifestation of the personal properties of a singular Qnoma, such as in regards to the Father being Unbegotten and the Fountainhead of the Trinity, meaning that from him is the Eternal Cause of the Son and Spirit. We can explain it by saying that the person (parsopa) is called “Son” since His Qnoma received the property of Sonship, i.e., being generated from the Father, and that by this we understand that Person is an identity in which we can distinguish one Qnoma from another as being distinct modes of subsistence, and not that Parsopa is just a property, but instead an expression that indicates the Qnoma.

    Relations of Opposition

    When we speak about relations of opposition, I would just like to clarify that what we mean is: the way divine persons are distinguished by being relationally opposed to one another. To make it more easier to understand, I will provide a general summary of how we can understand the Holy Trinity, along with an image from a book I linked earlier.

    The Father = Divine Essence as subsisting in Paternity.
    The Son = Divine Essence as subsisting in Filiation.
    The Spirit = Divine Essence as subsisting in Procession.

    This would be why:
    Father ≠ Son Because begetting is opposed to being begotten
    Spirator ≠ Proceeding one
    And is ultimately why we can speak of 3 persons within the Trinity and it not being 3 Gods, because it would only imply Tritheism if these 3 persons were subsisting in something other than the 1 Divine Essence.

    Conclusion

    The triadology of Mar Babai the Great represents an extremely detailed and expressive comprehension of Trinitarian theology in the Church of The East. As I demonstrated in this blog post, kyana, qnoma, and parsopa, are used distinctly when speaking about the Holy Trinity, compared to when we use these terms in regards to creatures or even in the Incarnation of our Lord Christ. Babai’s articulation ultimately demonstrates an understanding of the Trinity as being Absolutely Simple, hence the name Absolute Divine Simplicity, that God is One and not composed of parts, which I may or may not do a separate blog post later in regards to it.

    His theology avoids collapsing the Trinity into modalism and tritheism, by grounding the distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in eternal relations of origin while affirming the absolute unity of the divine essence. With this article, I believe that Mar Babai does an excellent job demonstrating the Trinitarian position on his own, which is why the majority of this post is quotes from him.

    Thank you all, and for any questions in regards to the topic or any of my previous blog posts, or if you have any questions that need to be clarified more, feel free to submit a question down below and I can possibly make another blog post dedicated to answering it. God bless and all Glory to the One True God.

  • The Assyrian Fathers: Mar Narsai Kinara D’rukha (Saint Narsai the Harp of The Spirit)

    The next figure I would like to focus on is who Mar Narsai was and his significance in the early Church of the East history. After my recent blog post about Saint Ephrem, it is only right that Narsai is next to talk about, being that he is the result of two great Saints in our Church, of both Saint Ephrem, and Saint Theodore of Mopsuestia, where he harmonized both the spiritual aspect of poetry, hymns, and literature of Ephrem, and the exegetical and theological skills of Theodore. When you take these two saints and combine them, you have the product of Narsai.

    Who is Mar Narsai?

    Narsai (c. 399–502) holds the title “Harp of The Spirit” along with Saint Ephrem due to their profound writings of hymns in the form of poetry, or as how we would say in Syriac “memre” which I explained a bit what they are in my recent blog post on Saint Ephrem. We would call them Harps of The Spirit because when they speak through their hymns, the beauty in it would be so rich, as if it is music being played through a harp, and conveying the messages of the Holy Spirit which is an active force that guides us in our daily lives.

    According to Fr. Andrew Younan, in his book titled “Narsai: Selected Sermons” the introduction attributes Narsai as growing up in the Persian territory of Northern Iraq, and later moved and spent some decades studying in the Roman Empire controlled city of Edessa at the School Of Edessa, which we previously also talked about in regards to Saint Ephrem and the schools establishment. This school later was shut down during Narsai’s time there under Emperor Zeno, after the theological controversies of the mid 5th century, on accusations of teaching Dyophysitism which the emperor saw as being heterodox. This forced Narsai to retreat back to Nisibis and was a major area that was controlled under the Sassanians in the Persian Empire. Him and along with the bishop of Nisibis at the time, then founded the school of Nisibis where Narsai flourished as the head exegete of the School, and became the new most prominent Christian School of Mesopotamia. He served here until his death in 503 and most of his works that we have surviving today were compiled in Edessa and Nisibis in our traditional Syriac tongue.

    The Scholarly Reception of Narsai

    According to Mar Abdisho Of Nisibis in a book titled “The Catalogue of Books of Abdisho Bar Brikha“, the works that are attributed to Narsai are as follows:

    Out of all of the works of Narsai that we have today, all his prose works on biblical commentary are unfortunately lost, and of the 360 homilies or “Memre” that he composed, only 82 survive to this day, which are listed in the footnote:

    Scholars such as Sebastian Brock and Aaron Butts, along with Assemani and Dom R.H. Connolly are some of the scholars who worked in history to preserve the manuscripts that we have of his works and translating them to english. The screenshots of Abdisho’s Catalogue of Books come from Assemani’s collection of Church of The East manuscripts under the title “Bibliotheca” of his first volume. Alphonse Mingana, another well known Syriac scholar compiled a two volume work of Narsai’s homilies which is briefly mentioned in a book by Frederick G. McLeod titled “Narsai’s Metrical Homilies” which you can read a few of his works in english, namely 5 memre according to about 17 different manuscripts. For homilies 1-79 that we have of Narsai available, the scholarly reception of them is mentioned in another book titled “Clavis to the Metrical Homilies of Narsai” by Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron M. Butts, and Kristian S. Heal where they also include the first screenshot of Abdisho citing Narsai’s works. This book however does not include the english translations of the works, rather only the manuscripts that they can be found in where you can read the Syriac for yourself. And finally, if you wish to read his liturgical memre, there is a book called “Liturgical Homilies of Narsai” where you can read 4 homilies in english in which he comments on the liturgy, priesthood, baptism, and the sacraments. This now concludes the scholarly reception portion of the blog post and we will now move on to examine some of these hymns and Narsai’s style of writing.

    The Memre of Narsai

    The way that Narsai structures his memre is similar to the style of Saint Ephrem, which we can see how strong he takes after of him, as they mostly are composed of 12-syllable metre’s, and a few in 7-syllable metre’s, which was the style that Saint Ephrem took on. So for Narsai, he essentially was influenced by the poetic style of Ephrem which we can see as being due to a factor that they both studied at the School of Edessa, and took on that same style and employed his own touch to it, which he then reciprocates at the School of Nisibis later on. If you remember the last blog post we did on Saint Ephrem and the hymn I shared of his, I will share another one of Saint Narsai, that is actually recited literally right after that one for Sunday Morning Prayers. See the screenshots down below:

    And again as always for those who do not read Syriac, I have the english translation as well:

    For those who do read Syriac though, if you can quite literally count the syllables of that hymn, you will see that they are structured in a specific way where they all match the same syllabic structure. These hymns by Narsai focus mainly on exegetical interpretations of the Bible, expressions of Theology, and of course a liturgical aspect of the Divine Liturgy that is performed. We can see this in the example above, which is titled as the “Praise of Narsai” where he references biblical passages such as the Parable of The Lost Sheep (Matthew 18 and Luke 15), the heir of the Son being a reference to Hebrews 1:2, and the washing way of iniquity in Psalm 51. These are just a few references to biblical passages in that one hymn where we see Narsai employ these topics in a poetic manner.

    Narsai‘s Christology

    Earlier in the post we talked about how Narsai harmonized the theology and exegetical prowess of Saint Theodore of Mopsuestia, along with the poetic genius-ness of Saint Ephrem. Since we have now established that Narsai takes after Ephrem, and expresses the faith similarly to him, let us now then see the incorporation of Theodore in his writings.

    According to McLeod in the “Metrical Homilies of Narsai”, which covers the major Christological homilies, he gives a reader insight to the works of Theodore, by acting as sort of a lens that we can see through to get an understanding of how these Christological doctrines were received into the Church and overall upheld as being a continuation of the faith. His homilies are centered under an apologetical framework, being that he was a Saint who lived through some of the major first early church controversies, such as Ephesus 431, Chalcedon 451, and the robber synod of Ephesus 449. So with that, it is right to say that his works are a reflection of these disputes, which can also relate to Ephrem who was writing in a time where he was arguing against many early heretics such as in the followers of Arius, Bardaisan, Mani, and Marcion.

    What differs with Narsai however, is his Christological framework is alot stricter and is seen as more defined compared to Ephrem, and that is partly due to these schisms that occurred. Because you now had factions in the Churches that were claiming that Christ was either in two natures (Chalcedonians), or of two natures (Miaphysites) and in one composite nature, Narsai had to make it very clear what it was he was trying to express on behalf of the Church of The East faith. Ephrem on the other hand was dealing with a completely different form of heresies that he had to deal with which is why his expression of Christology is more loosely seen and ambiguous. What Ephrem was dealing with was more so on the Gnosticism of Bardaisan, and Mani, and the Di-Theism of Marcion. Since Narsai was dealing with the formulation of Christology, it would only logically follow that he too would give his framework, being that he and the rest of the Church of The East confess, that Christ is One Person (Parsopa) in 2 Natures (Kyaneh) and 2 Qnome. You can see the screenshot below in reference to the Liturgical Homilies book I mentioned earlier where he says this explicitly:

    Narsai and Theodore

    This then leads us into Narsai and the influence of Theodore in his writings, which when reading the top screenshot, you can actually see him give credit to whom we know as the Three Greek Doctors (Malphaneh Yawnayeh) of the Church of The East, one of them of course being Theodore.

    Based on my personal readings, it is almost a universally accepted fact amongst scholastics that Theodore was the main authority of Narsai which is why he is seen as such a huge influence to him. We can see this in the emphasis that Narsai draws in regards to the human nature of Christ, which was something very typical on behalf of the antiochian school and its followers, that emphasized more on the humanity of Christ. This was due to the fact that their main opponents were Appolinaris and his followers, who believed that Christ was simply just God the Word “enfleshed” and that humanity was more so an empty garment, and thus not a real rational humanity. For example, in Fr. Andrew Younan’s book on Narsai, he references the Memra on the forming of Adam and Even where Narsai says “The Creator wanted to instruct rational beings through his image, Adam.”

    Fr. Andrew Younan also notes this in his book as referring to Memra 81 as being a Memra dedicated to refuting those who deny the rationality of the humanity in Christ. The central core of Narsai’s Christology would be none other than the verse John 1:14 from the Bible which states “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. For Narsai, the question of how exactly the Word becoming flesh, is where he gets his Christology from. He rejects that it becomes flesh naturally, which mean a two nature formula becoming one is automatically ruled out, and the only logical solution for Narsai is to maintain a proper distinction between the natures and their qnome, to fully preserve the integrity of each. This is where his two nature and two qnome Christology come from along with the Greek Doctors who believed the same.

    This now concludes the article on Narsai, and one day God willing we will do a deep dive into the exact Theology/Christology of Narsai. God Bless.

  • The Assyrian Fathers: Mar Ephrem Raba (Saint Ephrem the Great)

    There are many things to be proud of when it comes to being part of the Church of The East, but I believe one thing that makes us so unique, and such a beautiful Church full of richness in history and tradition, has to be the liturgical aspect. We have had some of the greatest theologians and authors of various historical works, along with ascetism, such as in Mar Abdisho, Metropolitan of Nisibis and Armenia, Saint Isaac of Nineveh the renowned monk and bishop, Youkhanan Bar Zo’bi, Elias of Nisibis, Babai The Great, the great doctors and theologians of the Church, and many more which are not named. I mean, just look at this description of Mar Abdisho and what he did during his life:

    Who is Saint Ephrem?

    One particular Saint who is revered deeply by not just our Church, but as a universally venerated Saint, is Mar Ephrem Raba, or Saint Ephrem the Syrian (Syrian being the word Suraya in the classic Syriac language). He is arguably known as the most notable hymnographer across the entirety of Christianity, and he has left a powerful impact on the daily liturgical use in the Church as his Hymns, and Qaleh (Tunes), are still in use today, in which I will later link an example of a hymn that is sang every Sunday Morning for Sloota D’Sapra (Morning Prayer) to get an insight on the poetic genius-ness that he was. (For those who follow my instagram page or are clerics in the Church, you might already be familiar with this one).

    Saint Ephrem was born around the year 306 A.D in the city of Nisibis and grew up to eventually become a Deacon in the Church, which is why most of our Clerics usually refer to him as being the Patron Saint of Deacons, and why we have a small seminary here in Chicago named after him which is dedicated to raising up Deacons in the Church. He was also believed to be apart of a Proto-Monastic Syriac group of the Church called the “Sons of The Covenant” or in Syriac we would say “Bnay Qyama” (ܒܢܝ ܩܝܡܐ). This was mostly developed as a counter to Marcionism and Manichaeism which we can also find Saint Ephrem as being one of the biggest writers who wrote against their heresies, especially in the form of his madrasheh, which are essentially a type of poetry that is written in stanzas with syllabic verses which again will be demonstrated later with a hymn from him. You can read more from Saint Ephrem the way he structures his poetry in an excerpt titled “Songs and Prayers Like Incense: The Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian” by J. Barrington Bates who talks about this.

    He is also very notable and credited as being the one who founded the School of Nisibis, however others also credit it to being founded by Saint Jacob of Nisibis, either way at the very least they both were considered to be the heads of the School. Later very important Syriac Saints such as Mar Narsai of Nisibis grew up and learned, and adopted a similar style of writing as Saint Ephrem, in this very school and as well became the head of the school. One day by the Grace of God I will also make a separate post about Mar Narsai and go into depth of him. This eventually became the learning center of the entire Church of The East where Theology, History, Language, Philosophy, and even Medicine were all taught. Think of it as like an early religious college/university that our forefathers would have attended.

    The Hymns of Saint Ephrem

    According to Kathleen McVey in which Bates cites in his book, there are hundreds of hymns surviving till this day with some being lost in history. He wrote on numerous topics such as:

    • Hymns on Faith
    • Hymns on Nativity
    • Hymns on Paradise
    • Hymns on Lent

    And many more aside from this, as he was a very prolific writer, all aside from his commentaries on the Diatessaron, a 2nd Century Syriac Gospel Harmony written by Tatian the Assyrian (who later fell into heresy). An article titled “Ephraem’s ‘On Repentance’” written by T.S. Pattie cites a historian by the name of Sozomen who credits him to have written over 3 million verses. If that isn’t considered prolific than I dont know what is. I think honestly the funniest and yet coolest thing about Saint Ephrem aside from all his literature, has to be the entire motive behind this all which all stems from his opponents Bardaisan and Mani. Bates in his book cites this:

    “He set his own texts to the tunes of Bardesanes,
    whose metrical psalms were popular in Ephrem’s time, and still
    sung until the first half of the fifth century. Bardesanes (properly
    “Bar-Daisan,” 154-222 C.E.), whose Gnostic doctrine Ephrem
    “strongly denounced,” earned the title of Father of Syrian
    Poetry through his metrical psalms. What little is known of Bardesanes’s theology was learned mostly from its refutation in
    Ephrem’s work. In retribution for Bardesanes’s heresies,
    Ephrem, one historian tells us, composed new psalms based on
    the same meter and with the same verse and stanza structure. In
    spite of this retributive borrowing, most of Ephrem’s melodies
    were, in fact, original to him, discrediting the medieval tradition
    that early Christian hymn writers frequently used “secular or
    pagan melodies in order to win the hearts of the people.”

    So Saint Ephrem quite literally took the style of writing in which the heretic Bardaisan would write in, used it AGAINST him as a form of refutation, and on top of that I would argue even did it better lol. Imagine you come up with a style of art and someone basically steals it and uses it against you, that is essentially what Saint Ephrem did.

    Now lets actually examine some hymns of his and see what it is exactly that made him so great, after all it is best to see for yourself. Here is a hymn titled “The Praise of Mar Ephrem” which I mentioned is sung every Sunday morning for prayer prior to the start of the Divine Liturgy:

    Screenshot
    Screenshot

    The above images are taken from one of our liturgical books titled “The Book of Before and After” or in Syriac would be “Daqdam Wadwathar” (ܟܬܒܐ ܕܩܕܡ ܘܕܒܬܪ) The link is embedded above and for those who can not read syriac, do not worry for I have an english translation as well down below:

    Screenshot
    Screenshot

    The above screenshots can be found in the book titled “East Syrian Daily Offices” By Arthur John Maclean which is also embedded as a link to page 167 of the translation.

    For those who do or do not read or write assyrian, notice the red letters in the Syriac that I provided in the first screenshots. What Ephrem is doing is using those letters as the first letters to the first word of every first verse in this hymn, almost as if he is subtly trying to spell something out. It goes as follows:

    ܝ – (yodh)
    ܐ – (alap)
    ܫ – (sheen)
    ܘ – (wow)
    ܥ – (ain)

    ܡ – (meem)
    ܫ – (sheen)
    ܝ – (yodh)
    ܚ – (khet)
    ܐ (alap)

    Which gives us the words ܝܐܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ does this sound familiar?

    The above screenshots can be found on http://www.sargonsays.com/

    The emphasis that I put on this as an example of the deep literature and liturgical tradition that we have in the Assyrian Church of The East is that the central form of worship is prayer itself. Writers like Saint Ephrem are perfect examples of this and how beautiful it is to be able to be apart of this Church, and pray how Saint Ephrem and the rest of the Early Syriac Fathers did. These hymns are meant to offer praise up to God, and have been carefully styled in a way so sophisticated, with tunes that accompany them, where you feel really spiritually connected to God himself. With that I will conclude this as being the first part of my series on the Assyrian Fathers of the Church of The East. God bless you all.