The rise of Islam in light of the christological debates and power struggles is a fascinating topic to me, and I am glad the discovery of this Maronite document sheds more light on this.
It records the death of the last Sasanian king, Yazdegerd, in 651 AD and notes that the "Persian kingdom was completely destroyed" and its people became "slaves paying tribute to the Arabs." It describes the Romans being driven out of Syria and Egypt, noting that "no foreign people had inhabited it" since the time of Christ until now.
At the same time, there were fierce theological debates about the nature of Jesus Christ. He was seen as a human, a rabbi, a prophet, and God incarnate—but how could one reconcile these different views into a consistent christology? The document lists a few positions:
Severus of Antioch, the preeminent Miaphysite theologian, was called a "leader of sectarianism". Theodoret of Cyrus was mentioned as a Greek teacher and a defender of the 2-nature Christology, but was often accused of Nestorianism by his enemies.
The Romans (and by that century fellow Christians) condemned the Maronite-specific theology of Monothelitism. The Chalcedonians (Rome/Byzantium) said Christ had 2 natures (Divine and human), while the Miaphysites (Egypt/Syria) said he had one united nature. In the 630s Emperor Heraclius and Patriarch Sergius proposed a middle ground: "Christ has 2 natures, but he only has one single divine Will.
The Western Church (Rome) and later Byzantine emperors eventually decided this view was a heresy, arguing:
If Christ doesn't have a human will, he isn't fully human.
If he isn't fully human, he couldn't have truly suffered or saved humanity.
Therefore, Christ must have two wills (Divine and Human) perfectly in sync.
At the 3rd Council of Constantinople (680-681 AD), the 2 wills (dyothelitism) view was made official. Monothelitism was banned and its leaders were "excommunicated, deposed, and banished," including Pope Honorius of Rome, Sergius of Constantinople, and Macarius of Antioch. Sympathy for these people and Theodore of Pharan highlights the Maronite origins of the chronicle, as the Maronites originally held to the Monothelite view and resisted the 681 AD council.
The Arabs, the new rulers, offered a form of stability but demanded tribute. In section [148b], the author describes the Roman defeat at the Battle of Jabiya as a "wondrous sign... revealing the wrath that would befall the land."
In section [154a], after describing the Council of 681, the author notes a great military defeat and says: "This great calamity befell them because they had corrupted and defiled the sacred trust they were supposed to uphold." Furthermore, in section [149a], the text claims that King Heraclius sought peace with the Arabs to stop the bloodshed, but they did not respond because they were "the very embodiment of justice" (if this is the correct translation).
In his work, Gabriel Reynolds discusses the influence of the Church of the East (the Nestorian Church) as a major presence in the 7th-century Near East and a key part of the Quran's original audience.
Reynolds notes that some critical scholars find the East Syrian (Nestorian) Christology congenial to a docetic view of the crucifixion - the idea that Christ only appeared to suffer. See "The Muslim Jesus, Dead or Alive" (2009): https://web.archive.org/web/20220925142210/https://www3.nd.e...)
6 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 19.6 ms ] threadIt records the death of the last Sasanian king, Yazdegerd, in 651 AD and notes that the "Persian kingdom was completely destroyed" and its people became "slaves paying tribute to the Arabs." It describes the Romans being driven out of Syria and Egypt, noting that "no foreign people had inhabited it" since the time of Christ until now.
At the same time, there were fierce theological debates about the nature of Jesus Christ. He was seen as a human, a rabbi, a prophet, and God incarnate—but how could one reconcile these different views into a consistent christology? The document lists a few positions:
Chalcedonian: 2 natures, 2 wills (Marcian, Pulcheria). Deemed positive.
Miaphysite: 1 united nature (Dioscorus, Severus). Deemed tyranny.
Monothelite: 2 natures, 1 will (Macarius, Theodore of Pharan). Deemed sympathetic.
Eutychian: 1 divine nature (Eutyches). Deemed misguided.
Severus of Antioch, the preeminent Miaphysite theologian, was called a "leader of sectarianism". Theodoret of Cyrus was mentioned as a Greek teacher and a defender of the 2-nature Christology, but was often accused of Nestorianism by his enemies.
The Romans (and by that century fellow Christians) condemned the Maronite-specific theology of Monothelitism. The Chalcedonians (Rome/Byzantium) said Christ had 2 natures (Divine and human), while the Miaphysites (Egypt/Syria) said he had one united nature. In the 630s Emperor Heraclius and Patriarch Sergius proposed a middle ground: "Christ has 2 natures, but he only has one single divine Will.
The Western Church (Rome) and later Byzantine emperors eventually decided this view was a heresy, arguing:
If Christ doesn't have a human will, he isn't fully human. If he isn't fully human, he couldn't have truly suffered or saved humanity. Therefore, Christ must have two wills (Divine and Human) perfectly in sync.
At the 3rd Council of Constantinople (680-681 AD), the 2 wills (dyothelitism) view was made official. Monothelitism was banned and its leaders were "excommunicated, deposed, and banished," including Pope Honorius of Rome, Sergius of Constantinople, and Macarius of Antioch. Sympathy for these people and Theodore of Pharan highlights the Maronite origins of the chronicle, as the Maronites originally held to the Monothelite view and resisted the 681 AD council.
The Arabs, the new rulers, offered a form of stability but demanded tribute. In section [148b], the author describes the Roman defeat at the Battle of Jabiya as a "wondrous sign... revealing the wrath that would befall the land."
In section [154a], after describing the Council of 681, the author notes a great military defeat and says: "This great calamity befell them because they had corrupted and defiled the sacred trust they were supposed to uphold." Furthermore, in section [149a], the text claims that King Heraclius sought peace with the Arabs to stop the bloodshed, but they did not respond because they were "the very embodiment of justice" (if this is the correct translation).
In his work, Gabriel Reynolds discusses the influence of the Church of the East (the Nestorian Church) as a major presence in the 7th-century Near East and a key part of the Quran's original audience.
Reynolds notes that some critical scholars find the East Syrian (Nestorian) Christology congenial to a docetic view of the crucifixion - the idea that Christ only appeared to suffer. See "The Muslim Jesus, Dead or Alive" (2009): https://web.archive.org/web/20220925142210/https://www3.nd.e...)
Classical Muslim ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c707kx2nk7go