The term of K'numeh, Parsopa, etc

Shlama,

Dear Akhi Paul,

I would like to know the meaning of the term
"K'NUMEH", "PARSOPA", "HYPOSTASES", "PROSOPON",
"PERSONAS", "SUBSTANTIA" before and after fourth
centuries.

As far as I know after "maj'ma" in Alexandria 362 C.E the Fathers of the Church used equal terminology such as:

Hypostasis means Persona.
Prosopon means Substantia.

Thank you in advance

Rudolf A. Luhukay

In reply to message #0
 
Shlama Akhi Rudolf,

In the Church of the East, there is no more credible source for understanding the Christology of the Church than Mar Bawai the Great's 'Book of the Union.'

In his Fourth Memra (17th chapter) Mar Bawai defines these terms for us. First let us consider his definition of qnoma:

"A singular essence is called a `qnoma'. It stands alone, one in number, that is, one as distinct from the many. A qnoma is invariable in its natural state and is bound to a species and nature, being one among a number of like qnome. It is distinctive among its fellow qnome by reason of any unique property or characteristic which it possesses in its `parsopa'. With rational creatures this may consist of various accidents, such as excellent or evil character, or knowledge or ignorance, and with irrational creatures the combination of various contrasting features. Gabriel is not Michael, and Paul is not Peter. However, in each qnoma of any given nature the entire common nature is known, and intellectually one recognizes what that nature, which encompasses all its qnome, consists of. A qnoma does not encompass the nature as a whole ."

Here Mar Bawai sets forth his understanding of qnoma as being a representative exemplar of a general species. It is the essence of a given nature in concrete, realized form. It is the essential substratum upon which a parsopa is based. It is nature undifferentiated in any way from exemplary qnome of the same nature except for number, but differentiated both in number and essence from exemplary qnome of other natures.

This substratum of nature is further individualized only by the addition of accidents, phenomena which are not of the essence of a given nature, but which make it possible to distinguish one qnoma from another. Nature is general and descriptive: qnoma is specific and exemplary. When Bawai speaks of Christ as "God and man", he insists on specificity: a divine qnoma (not the Holy Trinity) and a human qnoma (not mankind in general).

On the subject of parsopa Mar Bawai has this to say:

"Again, `parsopa' is the collective characteristics of a qnoma which distinguish it from other . The qnoma of Paul is not that of Peter, even though the nature and qnoma is the same. Each of them possesses a body and soul and is living, rational, and fleshly , yet through their parsope they are distinguished from one another by that which is unique to each of them-stature, for instance, or form, or temperament, or wisdom, or authority, or fatherhood, or sonship, or masculinity, or femininity, or in whatever way. A unique characteristic distinguishes and indicates that this is not that , and that is not this , even if this and that are of the same nature. Because of the unique property which a certain qnoma possesses, one is not the other one."

Here that which is not of the essence of an exemplary nature but a property possessed by it which distinguishes it from others of its kind, in combination with other such characteristics, comprises the parsopa of a given nature. Here Paul becomes Paul and not just "man" and is distinguished from Peter, whose qnoma does not otherwise differ from Paul's except in numerical distinction. Paul not only looks different from Peter (hair color, height, weight, complexion, etc.) but acts differently, reflecting underlying differences in abilities, talents, interests, etc.-the characteristics of his parsopa. Paul becomes a subject of interest on his own, not just as a specimen of "manhood". And the integrity of his identity is bound up in the fact that his parsopa is uniquely his and not another's, whereas the integrity of his qnoma lies in its faithful reflection, in exemplary form, of the exact nature of any other ordinary man.

Who then for the eastern commentators is the "subject" of the parsopa of Jesus Christ? Who is the one to whom one may refer the various accidents that set him apart from those who are consubstantial with him? Is he a he and not a they?

It is a consistent teaching of the Church of the East, whether before or after 612, that the manhood which was fashioned by the Holy Spirit from the material of the Virgin's womb was for the express and only purpose of receiving the Incarnation of the Word and at no time possessed an independent existence. According to Bawai, speaking of our Lord's humanity,

"With the beginning of its fashioning was its taking its anointing, which was for the union, and the image of the Invisible was received, and God the Word dwelt in it for ever-not as the impiety of those wicked men of old who said, `It came to pass and then was anointed,' nor as those of the company of the accursed Paul who claimed that at the baptism, nor as their colleagues who said that after the resurrection it acquired the honor of Sonship."

Again, not allowing for any interval between the fashioning and the "taking", he says,

"Thus it is incumbent upon us to understand that with the voice of the angel, who said, `The Holy Spirit shall come, and the power of the Most High shall rest upon you,' immediately, with the sound, at that moment was the taking."

The "reason for being" of the hypostatized manhood of Christ was to serve as the vehicle of God's redemptive acts through voluntary obedience. It has no existence apart from its union with God the Word, which took place "that God the Word might be revealed in it, and fulfill all his dispensation in it, and show through it the beginning of the new age, and in it be worshipped for ever." God the Word is the possessor of the fashioning and the subject of its qnoma. It is his own flesh and blood which he took, not another's, his own "temple", his own "dwelling-place", and his very own humanity. Here Bawai does not stray far-if at all- from the confession of Is�o`yahb:

". . . the Son of God, God the Word, Light from Light, descended and became incarnate, and became man by way of economy, beyond alteration or change. Our Lord God, Jesus Christ, who was born of the Father before all worlds in his Godhead, was born in the flesh from the ever-virgin Mary in the last times, the same , yet not in the same ."

There are not plural subjects in the mind of Bawai or in those of his fellow "Nestorians". There is one Son of God who takes his own flesh, not another's, from the Blessed Virgin. The double consubstantiality and double birth of "the Son of God, God the Word, Light from Light," with the Father, from whom he was begotten naturally, and with Mary, from whom he was begotten in the flesh of our humanity, is thus affirmed. Therefore Bawai is able to concede the communicatio idiomatum, though preferring a more broadly indicative title inclusive of Godhead and manhood:

"God the Word is consubstantial with the Father, and because of the union the blessed Mary is called Mother of God and Mother of Man-Mother of Man according to her own nature, but Mother of God because of the union which he had with his humanity, which was his temple at the beginning of its fashioning and was begotten in union. Because the name `Christ' is indicative of both natures in the hypostatic state of his Godhead and his humanity, the Scriptures say that the blessed Mary bore `Christ'-not simply God in a disunited way, and not simply man untaken by God the Word."

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Mr. Younan,

Thank you for the explanation on this topic. Maybe you could give me more specific on these:

"a divine qnoma (not the Holy Trinity) and a human qnoma (not mankind in general)."

Does it mean that the Holy Trinity above isn't a valid terminology?

On Christology by Mar Bawai on his book is it available in online library of the Church of the East?

And then Is the term of Parsopa/Qnoma itself influenced by Greek on Logos or the originally Aramaic terminology?

Thank you in advance.

Posh b'Shlama,

Rudolf

In reply to message #2
 
Shlama Akhi Rudolf,

>"a divine qnoma (not the Holy
>Trinity) and a human qnoma
>(not mankind in general)."
>
>Does it mean that the Holy
>Trinity above isn't a valid
>terminology?

The Holy Trinity is valid terminology, and surely the CoE is a Trinitarian Church (just like all the ancient churches.)

What Mar Bawai is saying is that Christ took one Qnoma from the Holy Trinity (that of the "Son") and not all three Qnomas of the Holy Trinity.

When Mar Bawai says that Christ took one Qnoma from the Humanity, he means not all of humanity (including you and I), but one Qnoma of humanity - His own.

>On Christology by Mar Bawai on
>his book is it available
>in online library of the
>Church of the East?

Unfortunately no. And as far as I know, it exists only in the original Aramaic. I will ask Dr. Kiraz if he knows of an English translation that is generally available.

>And then Is the term of
>Parsopa/Qnoma itself influenced by Greek
>on Logos or the originally
>Aramaic terminology?
>

This is Aramaic terminology.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #3
 
Shlama Dr. Younan,

When I read some books its explain is Tertullianus (160-207) is the first man who create the term like ousia (dzat,jawhar) and hypostasis (uqnum, shifat) and then the Church used these name on Trinity. In Arabic langguage:
"Allahu wahid wa huwa tsalatsatu aqanim mutasawiyyat fi al- jawhar".

source:
-Toni Lane, Runtut Pijar Sejarah Pemikiran Kristiani,Jakarta, BPK. Gunung Mulia, 1990, p.12.
-Buthros 'Abd al-Malik, Qamus al-Kitab al-Muqaddas,Beirut,Jami' al-Kana'is fi al Syariq al-Adniy, 1981,the article of "Thabi'at Allah" p.108

in "La ilaha illa'l-lah" Bambang Noorsena, the third Dialogue of Thelogical Forum, 22 October 1998.

My question is:
1. Is it right that Ousia equal with dzat/jawhar?
hypostasis equal with uqnum/shifat?
2. if then how if say all of these in the english I mean in the correct position of these term
3. if not, would you explain to me why is it?

Thank you Dr. Younan.

In Christ,

Rudolf A. Luhukay

>>"a divine qnoma (not the Holy
>>Trinity) and a human qnoma
>>(not mankind in general)."
>>
>>Does it mean that the Holy
>>Trinity above isn't a valid
>>terminology?
>
>The Holy Trinity is valid terminology,
>and surely the CoE is
>a Trinitarian Church (just like
>all the ancient churches.)
>
>What Mar Bawai is saying is
>that Christ took one Qnoma
>from the Holy Trinity (that
>of the "Son") and not
>all three Qnomas of the
>Holy Trinity.
>
>When Mar Bawai says that Christ
>took one Qnoma from the
>Humanity, he means not all
>of humanity (including you and
>I), but one Qnoma of
>humanity - His own.
>
>>On Christology by Mar Bawai on
>>his book is it available
>>in online library of the
>>Church of the East?
>
>Unfortunately no. And as far
>as I know, it exists
>only in the original Aramaic.
> I will ask Dr.
>Kiraz if he knows of
>an English translation that is
>generally available.
>
>
>>And then Is the term of
>>Parsopa/Qnoma itself influenced by Greek
>>on Logos or the originally
>>Aramaic terminology?
>>
>
>This is Aramaic terminology.
>
>Fk^rwbw 0ml4
>
> Peshitta.org

In reply to message #4
 
Shlama Akhi Rudolf,

My apologies for the delayed response. I haven't had much time recently to check messages on this forum - but I will always (eventually) respond.

The questions you have asked are complicated and require an approach that I don't really recommend. To explain this problem a little better, I need to go into a lot of history here.
The problems with answering your questions in the context you gave are the same problems we encountered 1,500 years ago during the Christological debates of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

Now for the history part: Back during that time, shortly after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman/Byzantine realm - Aramaic Christianity became divided into two camps. One camp was within the realm of the Christian Roman/Byzantine realm, while the other was in Pagan (Zoroastrian) Persia.

The Aramaic-speaking church within the Western empire was a minority within a Greek-speaking majority - whereas the Aramaic-speaking church within Persia was a minority but without a Greek-speaking "orthodox" church governing or persecuting it. The Church of the East, as it later came to be called, was always independent and had very little exposure to Hellenism - as this was non-existent in Persia/Parthia at the time.

Before, during and after the Christological wars that tore the Latin/Byzantine church apart - this Aramaic-speaking church of the West had more and more begun to employ Greek terms and to equate Aramaic theological terminology with Greek terminology. This later was carried over into Arabic when the majority of the Western Aramaic-speaking church started to replace Aramaic with Arabic (as is now the case with the Maronites, the Melkites and in large part the Jacobites.)

When this equation of Aramaic and Greek terms started to take hold in the Western Aramaic church, the Eastern Aramaic church began to become more and more isolated in its theological position - in that, it retained the archaic usage of terms and was not influenced by the Hellenistic "orthodoxy" of the West. The Eastern church was more isolated then than ever.

I said all that to say this: if we attempt to understand Aramaic orthodoxy as expressed within the tradition of the Eastern (Assyrian/Persian/CoE) church while wearing Greek glasses, then we will fail to understand it, and miserably. We will find ourselves talking two different languages (literally) and we will repeat the mistakes of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

The best way to understand Aramaic theological terms as understood and employed by the tradition of the Church of the East is to understand them in their native setting without reference to the Greek language of the "orthodoxy" of the Hellenists.

The Greek, Arabic and Aramaic terms you have equated in your question are valid terminology as used by the churches of that Western tradition. They are not used at all in the Eastern tradition (at least, the Aramaic has not been equated with Greek and Arabic terms.)

I understand your dilemma in that it would be much easier to discuss these Aramaic terms in a frame of reference that would include comparing them to supposed cognates in other languages, but that is always a dangerous approach.

Qnoma means only Qnoma, and not Ouasia/Hypostasis in Greek or dzat/jawhar in Arabic.

For a good source of the debate and the problems with it as listed above, look for the 'Syriac Dialogue' books, which are a series of debates and discussions hosted by Pro Oriente, a Roman Catholic group, which included representatives from all the major churches of the 'Syriac/Aramaic' tradition. These are excellent books to have. Here is the link:

https://www.pro-oriente.at/Home2Startseite_en.htm

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #5
 
Sshlama Akhi Younan,

>The questions you have asked are
>complicated and require an approach
>that I don't really recommend.
> To explain this problem
>a little better, I need
>to go into a lot
>of history here.

Fforgive me about my question and makes you busy oon it.

I
>The Greek, Arabic and Aramaic terms
>you have equated in your
>question are valid terminology as
>used by the churches of
>that Western tradition. They
>are not used at all
>in the Eastern tradition (at
>least, the Aramaic has not
>been equated with Greek and
>Arabic terms.

>
>I understand your dilemma in that
>it would be much easier
>to discuss these Aramaic terms
>in a frame of reference
>that would include comparing them
>to supposed cognates in other
>languages, but that is always
>a dangerous approach.

But shouldn't we do to compare of these term in other lagguages so another people will understand the message of Yeshu'a haMashiah. I believe if we write it in bilingual such as Aramaic - other langguages (i.e. English,etc)will be benefit for the future of Christianity?

I take this from positif thinking but I agree with you that there is a negative side (a dangerous approach)of this. So we have to endeavor to make positif side rather than negative side.

Anyway, this information very usefull.

Thank you in advance.

In Christ,

Rudolf A. Luhukay

In reply to message #6
 
Shlama Akhi Rudolf,

Yes indeed, we must use every possible means to try and understand the Aramaic better - even if it means referring or comparing to other languages.

The reason why I hesitated to equate the Aramaic 'Qnoma' with 'Hypostasis' or 'Ousia' is because this very same approach caused all of the headaches at Ephesus and it tore the Church apart - with these very same terms.

It's crucial to understand that, at best, these terms are comparable only. When we allow ourselves to say that Qnoma in Aramaic is the same thing that 'Ousia' is in Greek or other terms in Arabic we begin to confine the Aramaic term to the usage of terms in a different (and foreign) language with a totally different mentality.

If you read the books and debates from Pro Oriente that I mentioned, you will have a clearer picture of what the problem was back then and why I don't wish to repeat the same mistakes of 1,500 years ago.

Also, today, if you ask what Qnoma means from 3 different Aramaic churches each one will tell you something different. The confusion is a product of the theological wars back in Ephesus and Chalcedon.

By the way - your questions are always welcome and I enjoy them, I will always get back to everyone (just sometimes not right away.)

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #6
 
Shlama Akhi Rudolf,

Here is the official creed of the Church of the East regarding Christology, composed by Mar Bawai in the 6th century in his 'Book of the Union:'

0hl0d 0rb 0xy4m wh dx
(One is Mshikha, the Son of God)
Nynyk Nyrtb fk Nm dygs
(Woshipped by all in two Natures Nynyk)
0b0 Nm dyly htwhl0bd
(In His Godhead begotten of the Father)
0nbz Nm L9l 0yrw4 fd
(Without beginning, before all time)
Myrm Nm dyly htw4n0bd
(In His humanity, born of Maryam)
0dyxm 0rgpb 0nbz Mlw4b
(In the fullness of time, in a body united)
0m0 Nyk Nm htwhl0 f
(Neither His Godhead <was> from the nature Nyk of the mother)
0b0 Nyk Nm htw4n0 fw
(Nor His humanity <was> from the nature Nyk of the Father)
Jwhymwnqb 0n^yk Nyry=n
(Preserved <are> the Natures 0n^yk in their own Qnumeh Jwhymwnq)
Fwrb 0dxd 0pwcrp dxb
(In one Person 0pwcrp of one Sonship)
Fwhl0 hyty0d Nky0w
(And as the Godhead is)
Fwty0 0dx 0m^wnq Flt
(Three Qnumeh 0m^wnq, One Essence Fwty0)
0rbd htwrb hyty0 Nkh
(Likewise the Sonship of the Son)
0pwcrp dx Nynyk Nyrtb
(Is in two Natures Nynyk one Person 0pwcrp)

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #8
 
Shlama Dr. Younan,

Thank you for the information. I think all of these information are very usefull. I'll try to understand it.

w'Marya Yeshu'a B'Mskhikha,

Rudolf