Person and Face: Points of Union

Now that we know that a kyana is a universal nature and a qnuma is the instance of a nature, we can move on to two new terms—person and face. In the Assyrian Church of the East, they confess a divine kyana and qnuma in Christ and a human kyana and qnuma in Christ. But where is there unity in Christ? We need parsupa and apay to understand the language on “oneness in Christ”.

Here the vocabulary of unity in the person of Christ: parsupa (person) and apay (face). Prosopon-person according to the post-Chalcedon Greek definition is the appearance of a hypostasis-person. It is the face and external appearance. Again, the Church of the East uses a different definition.

In the Church of the East, the parsupa (person or prosopon) is the ontological whole of the being - the Syriac word “apay” (face) describes the outward appearance. Hence, when the Greek of II Cor 4.6 is translated: “For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the prosopon of Jesus Christ”, it is understood  as “face of Jesus Christ”. But from the  Peshitta’s Syriac, which has parsupa exactly where the Greek has prosopon, it is understood as “person of Jesus Christ”.

Here are some quick definitions which will be supported by the quotes that follow.

Parsupa (Person; Syriac version of Prosopon): a person fully enfleshed. The complex reality of an individual as an expression of his qnuma-nature.

Apay (Face): the outward appearance of a person. The face and manifestation of the person.

For our definition of parsupa and apay, let us reference Mar Yokhannan Bar Zo’by’s The Book of Harmonious Texture. The section I quote from is titled “On the difference between Kyana and Qnuma: and Qnuma from Parsupa: and Parsupa from Apay.”  The title already lends itself to an understanding of these four words, but Mar Yokhannan has more to offer (translation mine):

Now on person, that person is different from qnuma. Parsopa is different from qnuma in that it possesses qualities, such as beauty, hatefulness, ugliness or darkness. But qnuma has only one attribute because it is singular [ie, a particular instance of a general nature]. But a person has many [attributes or qualities] because it is a multitude of charicteristics such as being the son of so and so, beautiful or ugly. These things pertain to parsopa, which is the formation or type (yuqna) of the qnuma.” (ܡܪܓܢܝܬܼܐ ܕܥܠ ܫܪܪܐ ܕܟܪܣܛܝܢܘܬܐ.ܩܫ ܝܘܣܦ ܒܝܬ ܩܠܝܛܐ ܡܘܨܠ ܡܛܒܥܬܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܬܐ 1924 pg 99)

Then, to complete our new Syriac terms, Mar Yokhannan gives us the difference between parsopa-person and apay-face: “Now on person, that person is different than face in that it does not present the concrete image to the mind. The face is the appearance, but the person is not the concrete outer form.”( ܡܪܓܢܝܬܼܐ  pg 99)

To summarize: qnuma is only the reality of a nature, but when we want to speak of characteristics or expressions that come from the qnuma, then we move into speaking of a parsupa. Parsupa is very much what we think of as a person or individual, except that in Syriac, we distinguish the outer form with a different word: apay or face. For example, I am an instance of human kyana, so I have a human qnuma (simply human nature vis-à-vis a body, soul and spirit) which is evident in that it expresses a parsopa-person which is depicted in my apay-appearance.

Kyana and Qnuma: The Nature of Natures

My hope with this entry is to provide a simple guide to the Syriac terms as they are understood by the Church of the East. This understanding is very important because words are only worth what someone, or a whole group of people, mean by them. The beautiful thing is that the Syriac fathers gave us great definitions of the terms both before and after the controversy about how those terms were used to describe Christ. We will not use a dictionary as a source. Dictionaries are very flawed because they tell you one man’s view of what a word means and while that may be accurate to his sources, chances are he did not account for everyone’s meaning and you might be speaking to someone who understands the term differently from how the dictionary does—this is especially true of words used during a centuries-long argument.

Syriac fathers borrowed philosophical terminology from the Greeks, especially Aristotle. They also had their native sense about philosophy going back centuries to the ancient thinkers of their land. Therefore, it is important to study how the early Syriac Fathers used the terms the Church uses to describe nature and person as in “two natures in one person in Christ”.
Saint Ephraim the Great in On the Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, writes regarding the trinity, but defining the same words later used to speak of Christ (my translation):

You have heard of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These three gain their respective names due to their qnume (hypostasis). It is not that the names are mingled and shared appellations of one entity, but that the three—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—are mingled in unity [they can be spoken of as one]. If you confess that these three names are true, but you do not confess their qnume, then you are just confessing an empty name and are an unbeliever. Anything which you name which does not have a qnuma is just a meaningless name, empty of reality. Anything that does not have a qnuma is just an empty name. A qnuma is what is required to minimally assert that something exists in reality.. (ܡܪܓܢܝܬܼܐ ܕܥܠ ܫܪܪܐ ܕܟܪܣܛܝܢܘܬܐ.ܩܫ ܝܘܣܦ ܒܝܬ ܩܠܝܛܐ ܡܘܨܠ ܡܛܒܥܬܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܬܐ1924   pg 114)

For Saint Ephraim, qnuma, which we call hypostasis, is the reality of a nature. However If one speaks in abstract of human nature, kyana is appropriate. Kyana describes humanity as a whole. But if I speak of something as being human, it must have a qnuma, or it does not exist. Here is another quote from Saint Ephraim: “For where there is no qnuma, namely, hypostasis, (or the underlying substance of nature) its appellation is null and void, for that which has no qnuma, its name is also void.” (The Book of Marganita. Mar Eshai Shimun XXIII, Kerela 1965, pg 81)

Almost a thousand years later, Mar Yokhannan Bar Zo’by wrote a treatise on “Nature as separate from Hypostasis and Hypostasis from Prosopon and Prosopon from Appearance”. The English translation of the Syriac title that this treatise appears in is The Book of Harmonious Tapestry (translation mine).

For kyana (nature) is different in its essence from qnuma (hypostasis). Kyana is universal, but qnuma is specific. When kyana is divided, it constitutes its various [instances] and qnume. But when qnuma is divided, it is corrupted and destroyed because if you divide qnume…it will lose its natural qualities. (ܡܪܓܢܝܬܐ 98)

Mar Yokhannan and the Church of the East follow Saint Ephraim and the ancient Syriac Fathers in their definitions, which are more Aristotelian than Platonic—this will be further addressed in another entry.

Note the vital difference between the platonic definitions we have used since the Council of Ephesus and the Syriac definitions. Hypostasis – qnuma – for the Church of the East is nature when we are speaking of a specific instance such as you, me, the Second Person of the Trinity or the Human Nature taken from the Theotokos. All of these qnume are instances of the universal human nature, or in the case of the Second Person of the Trinity, the divine nature.

When Chalcedonian Orthodox use the corresponding term, Hypostasis, we mean a person. Such as the person of Jesus Christ, in whom we speak of two separate natures—divine and human. Nature to use is one word used to speak of the universal as well as the instance of a nature.

Therefore, when the Church of the East says two kyane and two qnume it corresponds to Orthodoxy’s two natures and not as saying two persons. Simply, the Church of the East is distinguishing between universal nature and the instance of a nature and uses the same word we use for person to refer to the instance of a nature. However, that leaves us with a clear way to speak of two in Christ—Divine and Human—but how will we speak of one in Christ? The next entry will be on the terms used to speak of Christ as one.

St Isaac of Nineveh

Saint Mar Isaac of Nineveh “the Syrian” represents one of the last explicit points of mutual recognition shared by the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Church of the East, and indeed his person summarizes much of the point of this blog. Unlike the schisms with the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Roman Patriarchate which were explicit mutual excommunications levied at the same time as charges of heresy and theological dispute, the rupture with the Church of the East was more subtle. We are dealing with two Churches—Eastern Orthodox and Church of the East--who have fallen out of communion over a long period of increasingly strained communication that has resulted in more of a mutual isolation from each other than an explicit mutual excommunication. Saint Isaac is the tender and iconic emblem of one of the last moments when we communicated in a meaningful way. Mar Isaac of Nineveh poses the question: was he a member of the Church and if so does that mean that the church of which he was part was Orthodox in AD 700, when he reposed?

From the Synaxarion of the Orthodox Church, a life of Mar Isaac:

The great luminary of the life of stillness, Saint Isaac, was born in the early seventh century in Eastern Arabia, the present-day Qatar on the Persian Gulf. He became a monk at a young age, and at some time left Arabia to dwell with monks in Persia. He was consecrated Bishop of Nineveh (and is therefore sometimes called "Saint Isaac of Nineveh"), but after five months received permission to return to solitude; he spent many years far south of Nineveh in the mountainous regions of Beit Huzaye, and lastly at the Monastery of Rabban Shabur. He wrote his renowned and God-inspired Ascetical Homilies toward the end of his long life of monastic struggle, about the end of the seventh century. The fame of his Homilies grew quickly, and about one hundred years after their composition they were translated from Syriac into Greek by two monks of the Monastery of Mar Sabbas in Palestine, from which they spread throughout the monasteries of the Roman Empire and became a guide to the hesychasts of all generations thereafter. (http://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints_view?contentid=1950)

He is an unquestionable father of ascetics and visionary of the grace of God, venerated from East to West. When we venerate someone as a saint and icon of salvation in the Church, it is clear that we express our trust that the person proved faithful to the Christ through his Body, the Church. Do we acknowledge that the Church of Saint Isaac was indeed part of the Church Universal when we pray “Holy Venerable Father Isaac pray for, a sinner?” If he can be spoken of as clearly and undoubtedly one who has found the well-spring of life, can he possibly do so outside of the Church? Perhaps, his veneration is a sign that in AD 700 the Church of the East was indeed considered Orthodox.

When we consider Mar Isaac within the scope and aim of this blog his person and how we venerate him in Orthodoxy and the Church of the East poses a striking question: Where do we, as Orthodox Christians, put the chronological dividing line between the saints we venerate and those we do not venerate of those who come from the Church of the East? If Saint Isaac is a saint of the Orthodox Church are all those recognized as saints by the Church of the East prior to him, also saints? If we apply the logic we use to recognize western saints such as St Genevieve of Paris or St Edward the Martyr-King, then might we also accept as holy fathers of the Church: Mar Narsai, Mar Bawai, Mar Awa the Great, and Mar Abraham the Great of Kashkar?

Saint Isaac leaves us wondering when did the heretical period begin? Well, there is nothing after AD 700 to mark a radical change in the beliefs of the Church of the East that would conflict with Orthodoxy. He just marks the last time we were clearly in some level of mutual recognition as “The Church”.

Simply, there was a period of ever strained communication from the fifth century through the seventh. Add to this that during this period Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East were all cementing their Christological language (how we describe Christ) and their impressions of what the other groups believed. Next time, let us get Saint Ephraim and some other Syrians to help us define our terms so we can endeavor to answer some of the questions Saint Isaac’s place in history makes us ask.

For a great read on Saint Isaac of Nineveh check out The Spiritual World of Saint Isaac the Syrian, written by Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev: http://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-World-Syrian-Cistercian-Studies/dp/0879077751/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1343898666&sr=8-2&keywords=st+isaac+the+syrian 

Or, just read him in his own words: http://www.bostonmonks.com/product_info.php/products_id/635

Last Communion

In AD 628 Shiroye (Kavad II) took the Persian Throne but died soon after and his wife, Queen Boran succeeded him. Both were favorable to the Persian Christians of the Church of the East. Either Shiroye or Boran called upon the patriarch, Mar Isho-yahbh II, to select a group of fellow prelates to accompany him on a voyage to the Roman (Byzantine) Emperor, Heraclius. The purpose was to solidify the peace forged between the two empires. This was the first time since the Persian Patriarch, Mar Aqaq (Acacius) made a similar voyage to the Roman Empire and served upon the altar of Hagia Sophia in 485-486 (this account shall be treated in a latter blog-post). In the turbulent years between Mar Aqaq's embassy to Constantinople and that of Mar Isho-yahbh II much confusion had developed between the "Western Church" of the five patriarchs and the Church of the East, especially regarding Christology. Here's the story of the last time the two local churches really met and what transpired during that meeting. Let's start from The Book of Governors by Mar Thomas, Bishop of Marga, written in the 9th century:

When Sheroe rose in the kingdom, he desired and wished to live in his kingdom in peace...and by command and permission of his pacific majesty there was rest to all the churches that were under the dominion of the Persians. And [when] Mar Isho-yahbh from Beth-Arbhaye was appointed Patriarch, King Sheroe persuaded the Catholicus to select from the dominion of the East certain Metropolitans and bishops, that they might go up to the territory of the Byzantine Greeks...bearing his letters and greetings...Mar Isho-yahbh being obedient to the command of the good King Sheroe, gathered together Mar Cyriacus, the Metropolitan of Nisibis, and Mar Paul, Metropolitan of Adiabene, and Mar Gabriel of Karkha dhe Beth Selokh (Kerkuk) and certain other Bishops...and with them were also our holy Isho-yahbh of Nineveh and Sahadona. And thus through Christ our Lord, the Lord of the worlds and Governor and Guardian of the two countries and of the whole world gave these shepherds mercy in the sight of the Greeks, and they received their assembly and their petition as if they had been the angels of God. (Budge, E. A. Wallis. The book of governors: the Historia monastica of Thomas, bishop of Marga, A.D. 840, edited from Syriac manuscripts in the British museum and other libraries. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1893.(123-127))

The tale of the voyage gets more interesting when we turn to the same episode in history as recorded in the Chronique de Seert (my translation):

Isho-yahbh presented the proposal of Boran...also he presented him the gifts they had brought with them. Heraclius was surprised to learn that a woman had gained the crown. He was also amazed at the high bearing of the Catholicos, of his intelligence, and of his clear-sighted and scientific nature. The claimant [of the Roman Throne], interrogated [Isho-yahbh] about his faith, which he presented and described to him publicly, declaring that his profession of the faith is the same as that of the 318 [Fathers of Nicea]. [Isho-yahbh] also wrote for him the profession of faith of saint Mar Nestorius. The emperor favorably accepted the purpose of the embassy...he bestowed upon him all he desired, and commanded him [Isho-yahbh] to celebrate the liturgy en his presence that he may receive communion from [Isho-yahbh]. This he did.(Scher, Addai. Histoire nestorienne inédite: Chronique de Séert. Seconde partie. Patrologia Orientalis, 13.4 (1919) (557-558)).

The three sources for this account are uniform in describing a warm reception of the patriarch of the Church of the East, the exchange of gifts, a discussion of theology, the Persian Patriarch's writing and presentation of a statement of faith and the emperor's consequent request that Mar Isho-yahbh II serve the liturgy that the emperor receive communion at his hands. Note that "the profession of faith of Mar Nestorius" means the christological statement written out by Mar Isho-yahbh, which he takes to be the same as that of Nestorius. Belief in two natures in one person was seen as a Nestorian stance by the writers of the Church of the East in this period (more on this in latter posts). The details of how the theological discussion went and why it ended with Orthodoxy and the Church of the East in communion is found in the Chronique de Seert as well as De patriarchis nestorianorum by Mar Mari ibn Suleiman [11th century]. The Chronique de Seert provides the following bit of dialogue (my translation):

Why, said [Heraclius], you go astray of the clearest manner in which to describe a thing, and instead of saying: Mary who bore God [Theotokos], you say: Mary who bore Christ who is God and man? We do not rule out the truth, replied the Catholicos, or the clear proof of it. By saying that Mary bore Christ, we imply that birth belongs to Christ, in which humanity is reunited to the eternal Word, who came down and lived in it. But if we say: Mary bore God, we reduce the name of humanity, by overtaking its nature. (Scher 559)

Then the emperor accepted the written profession of faith of Mar Isho-yahbh II and presented it to his "learned hierarchs" who approved the faith of the Church of the East and affirmed that there was no type of obstacle (Chronique 559). Now we turn to Mari ibn Sulaiman's De patriarchis nestorianorum for a final sense of where our two churches left off the last time we met. The emperor requested a libeleus of the faith of the Church of the East, which the patriarch provided. The emperor demanded that the bishops serve liturgies across the land, starting with a liturgy immediately celebrated there that Heraclius may commune from the hand of Isho-yahbh II. This happened, but first the patriarch needed to resolve the issue of the commemoration of Nestorius. The Emperor uttered these salient words (my translation):

If Nestorius had believed as you wrote the faith, he is by no means excommunicated, but if [he believed] another [faith] he is surely anathemized. It does not matter whether you commemorate him: we are yours and you are ours. (Maris, Amri et Slibae De patriarchis nestorianorum commentaria. Romae: De Luigi, 1896. (50))

Practically, the two resolved to not commemorate Nestorius and other controversial figures (Chronique de Seert 559). It is interesting to note, as the Chronique de Seert testifies, that not only did Heraclius study and approve the confession of faith produced by Mar Isho-yahbh II but also many "learned hierarchs". This was a group of the Church of the East's most learned meeting with divines and emperor of Rome. The startling question that is left by the facts of the embassy of Mar Isho-yahbh II is what transpired since then that leaves us out of communion? The answer to this question will come in time, but first we must understand the politics of the century that follows. Next time, we'll deal with the great Saint of Christianity, venerated in every apostolic church, Mar Isaac of Nineveh (St Isaac the Syrian) who, having reposed around AD 700, marks a hagiographical point of union 72 years after the Mar Isho-yahbh II's journey.

What East Meets East is about

My purpose in creating this blog is to explore the history of Christianity that developed East of the ancient Roman world and which is called today The Holy Apostolic Assyrian Catholic Church of the East. The church is in no way a member of the Roman Catholic Church but has the term Catholic in much the same way that Orthodox use the term to indicate the Catholicity of the Church in each diocese. It has also been called the Assyrian Church of the East, The Church of the East, The Persian Church or, unofficially and somewhat in a derogatory manner, the Nestorian Church.


In this blog I prefer the term: The Church of the East. Here is my attempt at a succinct definition of what the Church of the East is in short paragraph. Christianity developed throughout the Roman Empire and by the forth century crystallized as the pentarchy of the patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At the same time, the Gospel was preached and received in Mesopotamia and went out across the Persian Sassanian Empire (although it may have begun during the late Parthian period). This Church of the East structured around the bishop, later Catholicos Patriarch, in the capital of the Persian Empire, Ctesiphon, and she missioned across Asia through Afghanistan, India and across to China and Mongolia. The Church of the East is Christianity as developed East of the traditional and ancient Eastern Orthodox world, sharing much theologically and philosophically with Greek speaking Christianity and yet remaining in practice and polity independent.


Originally, the purpose of this blog was to understand why Eastern Orthodox do not share a communion with the Church of the East. This exploration was meant as a study of a ancient Eastern Christian Church that developed wholly within a pagan (later Islamic) world, which was ambivalent at best and genocidal at worst to the name of Christ. I enter this discussion in the midst of a world increasingly pagan and anti-Christian and I seek to find some sense of how and by what means the two great worlds of Eastern Christianity split at the cusp of Islam's advent.


Next week, I shall post about the last time these two churches shared a Eucharist. From there, we will have a good vantage point to begin to see where the two Christian worlds where in relation to each other and what was the substance of their separation.