ACOE Fathers

Tag: philosophy

  • 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 Christology of Mar Youkhanan Bar Zo’bi

    Today I will be going over a question I get asked alot, and that is, what exactly is a Kyana, Qnoma, and a Parsopa, what do these mean, and how do we use these terms when formulating our Theology / Christology to properly understand both the Trinity and the Person of Christ through the Incarnation. Since this is such a meaty topic, I am going to split this up into different posts, each addressing different topics. One will be today, which is a general understanding of these terms and how they are defined according to our theologians and their Christology, such as Mar Babai the Great, and Mar Youkhanan Bar Zo’bi. The other posts will be about how we actually formulate these terms to understand the Trinity and the Incarnation. Therefore I will dedicate a post to each of these concepts to give a proper understanding of what exactly we mean.

    The beauty of this particular topic, is that we have all the material and writings given to us in the works of our Saints. All we have to do is read what the Fathers say for themselves. They have laid out all of the information for us and its now just up to us to familiarize ourselves with what it is that makes up the core doctrines of the Church of The East. In fact, much of the controversy of the early Church, particularly the 3rd, 4th, and 5th ecumenical councils (Which we do not accept as being ecumenical or dogmatically binding due to their depart of the orthodox faith) revolves around these formulations specifically in regards to Christology.

    How can we translate these terms?

    To put it very plainly, these words are very hard to give a direct translation into english for the most part. At the end of the day, these are Syriac terms, and we should more so focus on what exactly they mean rather than what they can be translated into, and nobody else can tell us what these words mean to us, especially if our own Saints have already given you the definitions, and to read into these terms through another Christological lens or tradition is being disingenuous and imposing a presupposition on what we mean when we say this. This is exactly why when dialoguing with other christians regarding Christology, we need to clarify what we mean when we use these terms to be absolutely clear about what is being explained and not that we are using them in the same sense, cause we most likely arent. Nonetheless I will still give what most scholars say, was an overall idea of what these words can mean, but I will later in my other post about Christology, break down the differences between the different traditions and our formulations.

    Kyana

    Syriac: Kyana (ܟܝܢܐ) the English would be Nature
    Greek: Ousia (οὐσία) the English would be Essence/Substance (Sometimes interchangeable with Physis/Nature)
    Greek: Physis (φύσις) the English would be Nature

    As you can see already it might be getting confusing, as these terms have been used in various ways, and have different meanings which is why it is important to read the Fathers within their context to understand exactly what they mean when using these terms. For now though we are just gonna focus on our own definitions and not the greek as that will be expounded upon later.

    Qnoma

    Syriac: Qnoma (ܩܢܘܡܐ) the English would be Individual Nature / Concrete Nature or sometimes even in the Greek as Hypostasis
    Greek: Hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) the English would be Concrete / Particular instance of a Nature

    Parsopa

    Syriac: Parsopa (ܦܪܨܘܦܐ) the English would be Person
    Greek: Prosopon (πρόσωπον) the English also would be Person

    To make it a bit easier to read and get the general idea of these terms I made a table down below to help better categorize these terms in comparison to their Greek, Syriac, and English definitions:

    ConceptSyriac TermScriptGreek TermScriptMeaning
    NatureKyānāܟܝܢܐPhysisφύσιςThe nature or kind of being (e.g., divine nature, human nature)
    Individual Nature / Concrete InstanceQnōmāܩܢܘܡܐHypostasisὑπόστασιςA concrete instance of a nature
    PersonParsōpāܦܪܨܘܦܐProsoponπρόσωπονThe personal identity or outward person

    Distinction between Trinity and Christology

    One thing I would like to make very clear about these definitions so far, is that the way they are to be used in regards to Christology, compared to Triadology, will be much more different, which is why I am making 2 separate posts on those topics. The reason being is because, when talking about Christology, you are trying to explain a union where what is Divine, joins that which is Human, compared to the Trinity where we are trying to explain how something that is purely Divine, exists in the manner that it does. The way that we would explain Kyana for the Trinity will not be the same as how we define Kyana in regards to humans, or in the Incarnation of Christ. Its very important not to conflate definitions when doing this because it can result in a view which we do not hold to, and I have seen a lot of people take this sort of approach. That is the goal of this blog post, which is to clarify. This is also why I mentioned reading the Fathers in context of what they are trying to explain because these terms in of themselves can be ambiguous, as Doctrines such as the Incarnation and the Trinity are ultimately mysteries. We have to explain these things only in ways that we can understand them, and make it clear that it is only analogous to philosophical concepts, in which the Syriac tradition does borrow from to explain these things.

    Kyana, Qnoma, Parsopa according to Mar Youkhanan Bar Zo’bi

    The Church of The East has a very great Saint by the name of Youkhanan Bar Zo’bi who in the late 12th and early 13th Century, wrote treatises in regards to Philosophy and Theology in which he harmonizes both through the lens of the ACOE. His work titled Zqorā mlaḥḥmā (‘Well-woven fabric’) will be used for now to conclude a general explanation of these terms. And in my next posts, I will clarify them in regards to Triadology. I highly recommend anyone who is an ACOE faithful, or trying to learn about our Theology, or both, to read this excerpt that is linked and embedded above.

    What is a Kyana and what is a Qnoma for Bar Zo’bi?

    “Nature (Kyana) is distinguishable from hypostasis (Qnoma), by its essential qualities. Nature is universal but hypostasis is specific. When nature is divided it constitutes its species and Nature is distinguishable also its hypostasis. But when hypostasis is divided it is meaningless; because if you were to divide hypostasis into parts, it will be destroyed and rendered meaningless, and it will not retain its natural qualities. Nature is simple, but hypostasis is compounded. Hypostasis is visible to the eyes, but nature is visible to the mind. When you speak of nature, the mind encompasses all, but when you speak of hypostasis, the mind embraces only one. This is the difference O, Father, between the nature and the hypostasis.”

    What Bar Zo’bi is essentially trying to explain here, is that Kyana, is something that is shared amongst many individuals, hence why he defines it as something being universal. Here we can see him borrowing terms from Aristotelian Philosophy to describe what we mean by these words (again being very careful when explaining this as this would simply be analogous, there is no such thing as a universal or particular relationship in the Trinity). For example: Humanity is a nature and it is something shared amongst all human beings, that is why he says that when we speak of Nature, it is something that the mind encompasses all. In other words it exists conceptually as something common.

    He also says that a Qnoma, is something that can be spoken of in the singular, meaning it refers to a specific concrete instance of a Nature. Concrete as in something that we can perceive and not just conceptialize, just as he says, “visible to the eyes”. We would for example be considered our own human qnome, individuals that are a specific instantation of that general human Nature that is shared amongst many individuals. Us as qnome however, are specific and particular, something that is not shared amongst every single other human being but unique to us specifically. What I am as a human qnoma, is something different then that of another person who is also a human qnoma, namely in the characteristics in which we possess, which Mar Babai also says word for word and I will quote later on in his post on Christology. This is why we can conceptually divide a Kyana into many different instances, which in that case we are left with Qnome, meanwhile to divide a Qnoma will be rendered meaningless as then you would have destroyed that Qnoma. A human qnoma can be said to be made up of “parts” as it would be considered a sort of composition between Body and Soul. This however would not apply to the Divine nature and Qnoma of the Godhead as there is no parts or composition in the Divine Essence.

    So to put into simpler terms, Kyana or “nature” for Bar Zo’bi when speaking on Christology, is something general, abstract, or “universal”. I am a human being because I am apart of the human nature, along with other humans. Qnoma is what is specific, concrete, or the “particular” of that universal. It is specific because it is what constitutes us individually, I am known by my Qnoma, because what I possess in my Qnoma, is different from that of someone else. We would call these “accidents” or “accidental” properties in Aristotelian definitions. Accidental properties in regards to the human nature, are things that are not essential to be considered human, such as hair color, height or weight, or other physical traits. Since they are contingent on the person, they do not define humanity as a whole or what makes someone human, rather it is apart of the Qnoma. Compare this to Kyana, a nature would bear the qualities of what we would say, are essential properties. So to be a human, or apart of the human nature, everyone must possess emotions, a human mind and will, being mortal, having hunger, etc. If these properties are now to be removed from the characteristics of what it means to be a human, you no longer have a human being, however someone with brown hair vs black hair, will not change that they are still human. So humanity in Aristotelian philosophy would be a mix between having the necessary essential properties of being a human and its accidents that are specific to each individual.

    Distinction between Parsopa and Qnoma

    “Let us now speak of the difference that exists between person and hypostasis. Person is unlike hypostasis in the qualities which it possesses, namely, such as beautiful, hateful, hideous and black. But in hypostasis there is only one (attribute), for it is one and the same. But in person there are many, because of the many attributes that it possesses. Of qualities I mean, son of so and so, beautiful or ugly. These characteristics appertain to person, that which signifies hypostasis. Hypostasis has been spoken of as a small part of nature. Person has been spoken of as a small part of hypostasis. This is therefore the difference between hypostasis and person.”

    Now this leaves us with the question of, what then is a Parsopa compared to Qnoma if we all are individual Qnome? Parsopa in this case, or “Person” is defined as an actual identity, personality, or basically something in which we identify the exact WHAT of the Qnoma. For example, with me, my name is Yosip Pithyou, I am a Subdeacon, and I am 24 years old. These are all characteristics of who I am as a person, in which we can use to say that I am me, and not someone else. In other words, Qnoma CAN be seen as the ontological reality of a thing, and Parsopa is the way we can recognize that Qnoma, or an expression of that reality, but this usage of Parsopa as well can carry different contexts as used in the past by our Fathers.

    The Usage of Parsopa

    It is important to note about the word Parsopa, that it has been used in a few different ways according to our fathers, namely such as in Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia, and other fathers in different traditions, including ours. There are 2 specific senses in which he uses it, but generally in regards to our usage, we can say that Parsopa, refers to the personal subject, or the “who” that subsists, acts, and is the bearer of the attribution of Kyana and Qnoma, and possesses all that pertains to both. The two ways in which Parsopa can be viewed according to both Bar Zo’bi and Theodore is as follows:

    First, in an ontological sense, Parsopa, signifies the individual Qnoma, what each of us is as a center of rationality and the concrete subject who exists and acts. We can in other words say that this would be a center of agency, the exact subject that subsists, because of its Qnoma in which it possesses, and not just a manifestation of identity. Qnoma and Kyana in of itself does not act, which would not alone be considered a center of agency, rather it is the Parsopa which possesses these that does, making it an ontological view that it is something concrete which Bar Zo’bi says says in the following quotes:

    “Let us now speak on the difference between face and person. Person is different from face in that it does not possess the concrete image of the mind. Face is impressed (concrete), but person is not concrete.”

    “Let us now demonstrate the facts concerning each one of them – nature in the manner of man, hypostasis in the manner of Adam. Of person as beautiful, as of the age of thirty three years. And the face which is concrete impression of this image, is the manifestation of his person.”

    The second sense in which Parsopa is typically used, is in a doxological sense, it refers to the one who is appearing in honor, glory, and worship. In this context, Parsopa can also carry the sense of appearance, or the manifestation of the one that is revealed (Theodore uses Acts 2 as an example for this), which is why at times certain fathers speak of a “human person,” like Saint Jerome and Augustine. So for Bar Zo’bi, he as well uses “Face” to signify the Parsopa as it is apart of the Parsopa, in the sense that it is concrete, to signify its ontological perception, and as well uses it in a doxological sense following Theodore, to mean the actual manifestation of what is revealed.

    “Face denotes person, but he (person) cannot denote the face. Person denotes hypostasis, but hypostasis does not do the same.”

    With that I will conclude this blog post on the understanding of these terms in the ACOE tradition as demonstrated by Bar Zo’bi, until my next posts which I will then be doing an explanation on our use of these terms in regards to Triadology. God bless you all.