The Role of Images and the Veneration of Icons in the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Syrian Orthodox, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian Traditions 3643909853, 9783643909855

Citation preview

Christine Chaillot

Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte

The Role of Images and the Veneration of Icons in the Oriental Orthodox Churches

herausgegeben von

Syrian Orthodox, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian Traditions

Martin Tamcke

Forewords by Dr Sebastian Brock and Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland

Band 55

LIT

LIT

Cover image : Ethiopia n priest censing an icon of Christ and the Virg in in the Church o f Kidana Me he rat ('Allia nce of Mercy ') dedicated to the Virg in in the Ethiopi an mo naste ry of D abra G annat (' Paradi se Mon aste ry ' ), located in the street of the Ethiopi ans in Jerusale m

Translation into Eng lish by Dr Norma n Russell

The Orthodox Church affi rms and teaches that sacred images have ex isted from the beg inn ing of Chri stianity. The Orthodox Church affirms that the icon is a consequence of the divine Incarn atio n, that it is found ed on this incarnation, and that as a result it belongs to the essence of Chri sti anity and is inseparable from it.

Thi s book is printed on acid-free paper. Leonide Ouspensky, La Theolog ie de l 'icone dans l'Eglise orthodoxe, Paris 1980, p. 12

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nati onalbibli othek li sts thi s publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are avail able on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de . . ISBN 978-3-643-90985-5 (pb) ISBN 978-3-643-95985-0 (PDF)

A ©

LIT V ERLAG GmbH &

Co. KG Wie n, Zwe igniede rl ass ung Zurich 201 8 Klosbachstr. I 07 CH-8032 Zuric h Tel. +41 (0) 44-2517505 E-M ail : zue rich @lit-ve rl ag.ch http ://ww w.lit-verl ag.c h Auslieferung: Deutschland: LIT Yerlag, Fresnostr. 2, D-48 159 Mlinster Tel. +49 (0) 2 51 -620 32 22, E-Mail : [email protected] E-Books sind erhaltlich unter www.li twebshop.de

CONTENTS By the same Author:

Towards Unity: The Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches (compilation of texts of the theological Dialogue 1964-1993, with articles), (Geneva, 1998) (( Fidelite et Vulnerabilite des plus anciennes Eglises d 'Orient » in Les Richesses de !'Orient Chretien, ( ed. M. Egger), Fribourg, 2000 Histoire de l 'Eglise orthodoxe en Europe occidentale au (ed. C. Chaillot), Paris, 2005

xxe siecle,

The Ancient Oriental Churches »in The Oxford History of Christian Worship, (eds. G. Wainwright and K. Tucker), Oxford, 2006

«

Histoire de l 'Eglise orthodoxe en Europe orientate au

xxe siecle, (ed.

C. Chaillot), Paris, Le Ce,f, 2009; The Orthodox Church in Eastern

Europe in the Twentieth Century, Oxford, Peter Lang, 2011 Vie et spiritualite des Eglises orthodoxes orientates des traditions syriaque, armenienne, copte et ethiopienne, Paris, Le Ce,f, 2011 Les Coptes d'Egypte. Discriminations et persecutions (]970-20ll), Paris, L'Harmattan, 2014 The Dialogue Between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, Volos, 2016

Foreword by Sebastian Brock, Emeritus Reader in S yriac Studies in the University of Oxford Foreword by the late Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland, Ex-Director of the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Geneva Documents approved by the Joint Committee on Official Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Joint Declarations: Chambesy 23-28 September 1990 and Monastery of St Bishoy (Egypt), 20-24 June 1989) Introduction Chapter 1: Images and Icons in the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch Chapter 2: Brief History of the Use of Images and Icons in the Armenian Church Chapter 3: Coptic Icons Chapter 4: The Use and Veneration of Icons in the Church of Ethiopia Prayers of consecration of icons/images in Oriental Orthodox Churches 1. S yriac Prayer 2. Armenian Prayer 3. Coptic Prayer 4. Ethiopian Prayer Conclusion Postscript Pictures

5

7

9

11 17 21 41 57 75

99 109 118 120 121 127 133

ABBREVIATIONS

FOREWORD by Dr Sebastian Brock

CHG= The Church House of God (Cairo, 1964) CSCO = Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium DACL = Dictionnaire d 'archeologie et de Liturgie DTC = Dictionnaire de theologie catholique GCAL = Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur LMC = Le Monde Copte (5, rue Champollion, 87000 Limoges, France) Mansi = G. D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplisshna collectio, 53 vols (Paris-Leipzig, 1901-27) ms= manuscript Nicee II= Nicee II, douze siecles d'images religieuses: Actes du collogue international tenu au College de France, Paris, Jes 2, 3, 4, octobre 1986, eds. F. Boespflug and N. Lossky (Paris, 1987) OCP = Orientalia Christiana Periodica OS = Ostkirchlichen Studien PG= Patrologiae cursus completus, Series graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne, 161 vols (Paris, 1857-66) PO = Patrologia Orientalis, ed. R. Graffin, vol. 1- (Paris, 1904- )

In the eighth and ninth centuries the Orthodox Church endured two separate periods of iconoclasm, imposed by the Byzantine State; in reaction to this, once the veneration of icons was finally restored in 843, their use hugely increased, and today icons have become something of an identity-marker of the Orthodox Church in the eyes of the non-Orthodox world. Since the Oriental Orthodox Churches never underwent the traumatic experience of iconoclasm, they have never had reason to give to icons any special prominence or emphasis; this has led some outside observers to the erroneous view that these Churches were actually hosti1e to the veneration of icons and the use of images of Christ and his saints. To counter this misconception, Christine Chaillot usefully produced the French original from which the present translation derives; this English edition is all the more welcome, not only because old misconceptions have not gone away, but because, in the intervening years, very large numbers of members of the Oriental Orthodox Church have been forced to leave their original homes in the Middle East and make new homes in Europe, the Americas, and Australia. Since many of the countries to which they have come are Anglophone, there is a particular need for the provision in the various host countries of reliable information about the life and practices of the different Oriental Orthodox Churches. Like her earlier Vie et spiritualite des Eglises orthodoxes (20 I l), Christine Chaillot' s present book admirably responds to this need. Anyone who has a concern for a proper understanding of the position of the Oriental Orthodox Churches in relationship with the other Christian Churches, and in particular with the Orthodox Church, has good reason to be grateful to Christine Chaillot for her many publications in thjs area, all aimed at promoting a better understanding of the Oriental Orthodox Churches: as she and others have emphasized, it is not only offensive, but also misleading and wrong to describe these Churches as 'monophysite'. Dr Sebastian Brock Emeritus Reader in Syriac Studies in the University of Oxford, and Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College, Oxford

6

7

FOREWORD by Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland(+ 2011) At the close of the work of our joint commission on theological dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Chambesy, 23-28 September 1990), I pointed out, as cochairman of this dialogue, the fidelity of our consensus to the authentic Orthodox faith and the spiritual experience of the Church. Indeed, our communion of faith is confirmed by the theological verification of total agreement on the essential points of faith. This is the necessary condition for establishing the sacramental communion and unity of our churches. In addition, I emphasized that the lifting of the anathemas pronounced by both sides against Councils or persons of our Churches is ecclesially necessary and theologically possible. I also expressed our unanimous conviction that the ecclesial acts of the reciprocal lifting of anathemas will clarify the path of mutual enrichment of Orthodox spirituality and strengthen the testimony of Orthodox in the contemporary world. As a theological commission we felt 'the need for a period of intense preparation of our peoples to enable them to participate in the implementation of our recommendations and the restoration of the communion of our churches.' It is in this context that this book, The Role of Images and the Veneration of Icons in the Oriental Orthodox Churches - Syrian Orthodox, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian Traditions - has been prepared by Christine Chaillot, a member of the Swiss diocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which has accompanied by fervent prayer and availability, the work of our theological commission. It is a contribution that tries to confirm what we have said at Chambesy concerning the Seventh Ecumenical Council, namely, that 'in relation to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox accept that the theology and practice of the veneration of the icons taught by this council is in fundamental agreement with the teaching and practice of the Oriental Orthodox since ancient times, well before the convocation of the council, and that in this respect there is no disagreement between us.' I hope that the efforts of Christine Chaillot to give wider publicity to the role of images and the veneration of icons in the tradition of the Oriental Orthodox Churches will be imitated and multiplied in other areas by other members of our Churches, so that all that is humanly possible may be 9

done to accelerate the path leading to unity, that is, to the restoration of perfect communion among Orthodox. Such communion presupposes a thorough mutual knowledge, which will lead us to reciprocal recognition within the legitimate diversity of our traditions. Thus we will enrich the substantial unity of our common faith and inheritance. METROPOLITAN DAMASKINOS OF SWITZERLAND Ex-Director of the Orthodox Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople at Chambesy, Geneva, and Ex-Co-President of the Dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches

DOCUMENTS APPROVED BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE OFFICIAL THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCHES Second Joint Declaration (Chambesy 23-28 September, 1990) 1. · Both families agree in condemning the Eutychian heresy. Both families confess that the Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, only begotten of the Father before the ages and consubstantial with Him, was incarnate and was born from the Virgin Mary Theotokos; fully consubstantial with us, perfect Man with soul, body and mind (nous). He was crucified, died, was buried and rose from the dead on the third day, ascended to the Heavenly Father, where He sits on the right hand of the Father, as Lord of all Creation. At Pentecost, by the coming of the Holy Spirit, He manifested the Church as His Body. We look forward to His Coming again in the fullness of His glory, according to the Scriptures. 2. Both families condemn the Nestorian heresy and the crypto-Nestorianism of Theodoret of Cyrrhus. They agree that it is not sufficient merely to say that Christ is consubstantial both with His Father and with us, by nature God and by nature Man. It is necessary to affirm also that the Logos, Who is by nature God, became by nature Man, by His Incarnation in the fullness of time.

3. Both families agree that the hypostasis of the Logos became composite (synthetos) by uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created human nature, which He assumed at the Incarnation and made His own with its natural will and energy. 4. Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally, without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation, and that they are distinguished in thought alone (te theoria mane). 10

11

5. Both families agree that He who wills and acts is always the one hypostasis of the Logos incarnate. 6. Both families agree in rejecting interpretations of Councils which do not fully agree with the Horos of the Third Ecumenical Council and the letter (433) of Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch. 7. The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of 'one nature of the Logos incarnate' (mia physis tau Theau Lagau sesarkomene), since they acknowledge the double consubstantiality of the Logos which Eutyches denied. The Orthodox also use this terminology. The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is 'in thought alone' (te theoria mane). Cyril interpreted correctly this use in his letter to John of Antioch and his letters to Acacius of Melitene (PG 77, 184-201), to Eulogius (PG 77, 224-228) and to Succensus (PG 77, 228-245). 8. Both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils, which form our common heritage. In relation to the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox state that for them the above points 1-7 are the teaching also of the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, while the Oriental Orthodox consider this statement of the Orthodox as their interpretation. With this understanding, the Oriental Orthodox respond to it positively.

understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they may have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis of our unity and communion. 10. Both families agree that all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which now divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the last obstacle to the full unity and communion of our two families can be removed by the grace and power of God. Both families agree that the lifting of anathemas and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the Councils and Fathers previously anathematized or condemned are not heretical. We therefore recommend to our Churches the following practical steps: A) The Orthodox should lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Oriental Orthodox Councils and Fathers whom they have anathematized or condemned in the past. B) The Oriental Orthodox should at the same time lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Orthodox Councils and Fathers whom they have anathematized or condemned in the past. C) The manner in which the anathemas are to be lifted should be decided by the Churches individually.

In relation to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox agree that the theology and practice of the veneration of icons taught by that Council are in basic agreement with the teaching and practice of the Oriental Orthodox from ancient times, long before the convening of the Council, and that we have no disagreements in this regard. 9. In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology, as well as of the above common affirmations, we have now clearly

Trusting in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, Unity and Love, we submit this Agreed Statement and Recommendations to our venerable Churches for their consideration and action, praying that the same Spirit will lead us to that unity for which our Lord prayed and prays. (The signatures and recommendations on pastoral issues follow. See Episkepsis No. 446, Chambesy, 1 October, 1990)

12

13

Excerpts from the First Joint Declaration Approved at the St Bishoy Monastery (Egypt), 20-24 June, 1989 ... Great indeed is also the ineffable mystery of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ for us and for our salvation. The Logos, eternally consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit in His Divinity, has in these last days become incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin Mary Theotokos, and thus became Man, consubstantial with us in His humanity but without sin. He is true God and true Man at the same time, perfect in his Divinity, perfect in his humanity. Because the one she bore in her womb was at the same time fully God as well as fully human we call the Blessed Virgin Theotokos. When we speak of the one composite (synthetos) hypostasis of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we do not say that in Him a divine hypostasis and a human hypostasis came together. It is that the one eternal hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity has assumed our created human nature in the act uniting it with His own uncreated divine nature to form an inseparably and unconfusedly united real divine-human being, the natures being distinguished from each other in contemplation (theoria) only. The hypostasis of the Logos before the Incarnation, even with His divine nature, is of course not composite. The same hypostasis, as distinct from nature, of the Incarnate Logos is not composite either. The unique theandric person (prosi5pon) of Jesus Christ is one eternal hypostasis who has assumed human nature by the Incarnation. So we call that hypostasis composite, on account of the natures which are united to form one composite unity. It is not the case that our Fathers used physis and hypostasis always interchangeably and confused the one with the other. The term hypostasis can be used to denote both the person as distinct from nature, and also the person with the nature, for a hypostasis never in fact exists without a nature. It is the same hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity, eternally begotten from the Father, who in these last days be14

came a human being and was born of the Blessed Virgin. This is the mystery of the hypostatic union which we confess in humble adoration - the real union of the divine with the human, with all the properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy, inseparably and unconfusedly united with the created human nature with all its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy. It is the Logos Incarnate who is the subject of all the willing and acting of Jesus Christ. We agree in condemning the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies. We neither separate nor divide the human nature in Christ from His divine nature, nor do we think that the former was absorbed in the latter and thus ceased to exist. The four adverbs used to qualify the mystery of the hypostatic union belong to our common tradition - without commingling (or confusion) (asyngchyti5s), without change (atrepti5s), without separation (achi5risti5s) and without division (adiaireti5s). Those among us who speak of two natures in Christ do not thereby deny their inseparable, indivisible union; those among us who speak of one united divine-human nature in Christ do not thereby deny the continuing dynamic presence in Christ of the divine and the human, without change, without confusion. Our mutual agreement is not limited to Christology, but encompasses the whole faith of the one undivided Church of the early centuries. We are agreed also in our understanding of the Person and Work of God the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father alone and is always adored with the Father and the Son. (See Episkepsis No. 422, 1 July, 1989.)

15

INTRODUCTION At a meeting of the Official Dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox Churches (Greek, Russian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, etc.) and the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Syrian Orthodox, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian), held in Chambesy (Geneva) in September 1990, not only was a common Christology recognized, but also a common practice and veneration of icons, a fact which has often been denied as the heritage of those Churches which did not accept the Council of Chalcedon and which for too long have wrongly been called ' monophysite' 1: 1

The Churches which I call here 'Oriental Orthodox' or 'Non-Chalcedonian' (or also 'Pre-Chalcedonian') are those which, because of a misunderstanding of terminology and other reasons, did not recognize the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The Churches do not accept the designation 'Monophysite', for they themselves condemned Eutychian monophysism. This is clearly expressed today in the documents signed at the monastery of St Bis hoy (1989) and at Chambesy (1990); see above. See also the preface to a journal edited by the Syrian Eastern Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, The Syrian Antiochian Perspective (March 1992, 49 Kipp Avenue, Lodi NJ 07644); Arch. M. K. Krikorian, 'Der christologische Konsens', Pro Oriente, Band XIV, Vienna, 1992, p. 436; Patriarch Shenouda III, The Nature of Christ (pamphlet), p. 9 and Episkepsis No. 422, July 1989, p. 6; The Ethiopian Orthodox Church (pamphlet), Addis Ababa, 1970, p. 97. Therefore ifl use the term ' monophysite' here, it is always in quotation marks and understood as meaning non-Chalcedonian. It is not used at all in its theological sense according to formulas too often repeated and badly understood, including in relation to theology and iconography as in the following example: (a) for the strict(= Eutychian) monophysites, who acknowledge a transformation or absorption of the humanity into the divinity (also before,___ __ Resurrection) , it is impossible to represent the humanity of Christ; (b) for H .fo..~ l~ss strict (= ~everian) monoph~sites, pai~t!n? the im~g~ of ~h~·ist wo ~~ s1st of separatmg the humanity from the d1vm1ty and d1stmgu1shmg two na · hence the idea that monophysites rejected images, at least those of Christ, and that the iconoclast heresy is the daughter of monophysism (DTC 7 [1922), 5767, 802). See also Sebastian Brock, « Towards an Understanding of the Christology of the Non-Chalcedonian Churches », in Orthodox Theology in Dialogue, Mitropolia Olteniei Periodic Review (Romania), special iss ue no 2/2016, p. 6874.

17

In relation to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox agree that the theology and practice of the veneration of icons taught by that council are in basic agreement with the teaching and practice of the Oriental Orthodox from ancient times, long before the convening of the Council, and that we have no disagreements in this regard. ' 2 After I had finished preparing two dossiers on the Coptic icon in 1991, 3 and encouraged as I was by the text issued in Chambesy in September 1990, it seemed appropriate to me, and indeed necessary, to introduce at this point a consideration of icons in the other non-Chalcedonian traditions, the Syrian Orthodox, Armenian and Ethiopian: first, by presenting examples of images, icons and their veneration according to testimonies given by texts from different periods in the history of these Churches; then, in an appendix, by giving their respective prayers of consecration of an icon/image. 4 These prayers authenticate the icons and the fact that they may be venerated. It is all the more interesting to discuss this veneration, which has always existed, since these Churches have maintained an 'immemorial' iconographic practice even if it has not been very much expressed dogmatically. This practice undoubtedly dates back to the early Church before the separation of 451 , although the influence of later contacts with the Chalcedonian Churches cannot be excluded, for such was often the case. As regards the function of the icon, is it the same as in the Byzantine Orthodox world? To answer the question it would be necessary to define briefly what is meant by 'icon'. In the Chalcedonian Orthodox world an icon is a representation, an image of Christ, of the Mother of God, of the saints, etc. painted on wood.

One does not adore this wood, but one may venerate the prototype represented after the image has been consecrated by a prayer said, in principle, by the bishop. In the following pages, which are only an introduction to this vast subject, I shall attempt to give some answers to the following questions: Are the Oriental Orthodox iconoclasts? Do they have icons? Do they revere them? What is the function of the icon for them? The purpose of this brief discussion is not, of course, to make an exhaustive or critical study of the question, which I leave to others more qualified than I, including by assembling all the texts referring to the icons in the traditions of the Churches which I deal with here. I have deliberately chosen above all to quote abundantly from theologians or texts belonging to the traditions that concern us, that we might listen to their voices and enter into direct contact with them. The veneration of icons is part of the spiritual life of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. I wish above all to draw the attention of the general public to a matter that is little known. To speak of the icons of Christ is to touch on Christology and is thus another way of speaking about the theological dialogue that has been taking place between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. I should like to express my heartfelt thanks here both to Dr Sebastian Brock for his Foreword and valuable support and to Dr Norman Russell for his translation into English.

2

Episkepsis No. 446, October I 990. Published in LMC 18 (1990): ' L' ic6ne copte a travers les Ages '; LMC 19 (1991), 'L' iconographie copte contemporaine'. 4 I use here the word 'consecration' because it is applied in the texts of the Oriental Orthodox Churches not only to churches and liturgical objects (paten, chalice, etc.), but also to icons; the Syrian Orthodox do not use holy oil (my ron) for blessing the icons/pictures. 3

18

19

Chapter 1 IMAGES AND ICONS CHURCH OF ANTIOCH

IN THE SYRIAN ORTHODOX

The Mandylion. The Syriac Approach to Images The Christian faith very soon reached Edessa, in the kingdom of Osrhoene, the mother of all the churches of Mesopotamia and a leading city of Syriac culture. It was to that city that the mandylion, a sort of prototype of all the icons of Christ, was brought from Jerusalem to King Abgar. 5 The mandylion, moreover, provides the essential argument against those who accuse the S yriac Churches of possessing an iconoclastic mentality. 6 Under Tiberius II (578-82) Anatolius, vice-prefect of Edessa, placed the mandylion, or a copy of it, in his house where the Christians came to see it. 7 Around 700 a well-known 'monophysite', Athanasius bar Goumaye, tutor of the brother of the Omayyad caliph Abd alMalik, had a copy made of the image of Christ sent to King Abgar, which the Edessenians had lent him. He then kept the original and placed it in a baptistery which he built in its honour, so intense, apparently, was his desire to keep the original, which was so venerated and precious, in the bosom of his community at Edessa. 8 In 754 the iconoclasts concealed the manuscripts in 5

According to the Doctrine of Addai which is the final state of the legendary tradition; C. Selis, Les Syriens orthodoxes et catholiques (Tournhout, 1988), 21-2; A. Desreumaux, 'La doctrine d' Adda'i, !'image du Christ et les monophysites', Nicee II (Colloquium at the College de France) (Paris, I 987), 76. See also S. Nicolotti, Dal Mandylion di Edessa alla Sindone di Torino (Alessandria, 2011); English tr. From The Mandylion to the Shroud of Turin (Leiden, 2014). 6 J. Leroy, Les manuscrits syriaques a peintures conserves dans Les bibliotheques d'Europe et d'Orient, vol. l (Paris, 1964), 39. 7 Chronique de Michel le Syrien, ed. J. B. Chabot, vol. 2 (Paris, 1963), 319-20. 8 Chabot, Chronique, vol. 2, 475-7: according to Dionysius of Tel Mahre, who himself repeats the story of his maternal grandfather Daniel, these Edessenians were Chalcedonians. According to J. B. Segal, Edessa the Blessed City (Oxford, 1970), 178, 216, there were probably three portraits at Edessa, in the possession of the Melchites, the Jacobites, and the Nestorians, each community

21

which the mandylion was mentioned, understanding that it undermined their position (Mansi XIII, 169). In 787 the Fathers of the Council more than once cited the image 'not made by human hands' (Mansi XIII, 169, 190, 192), since it proved the legitimacy of the representation of Christ. 9 In 836 the three Melchite patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem addressed a Jetter to the iconoclast emperor Theophilus with a list of icons not made by human hands by which miracles were accomplished; at the head of these was the 'portrait' of Edessa. 10 The Council of Nicaea II, however, considered certain monophysites such as Severns of Antioch, Peter the Fuller, Philoxenus of Mabboug and the acephaloi (Severian monophysites), hostile to images (Mansi XIII 253, 317 I 180D-184C), but there is no direct evidence that would allow us to accuse these nonChalcedonians of being iconoclastic, even apparently in the case of Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbug in about 488 and one of the leaders of the so-called 'monophysite' party. 11 Is there any more that may be said? At least evidence exists in the ancient texts of the attitude of Orthodox non-Chalcedonian Syrian Orthodox to images.

thinking that it had the original. According to Leroy, Les manuscrits, 40, the mandylion was reproduced in multiple copies, which at all events confirms the veneration accorded to it. 9 A. Grabar, La Sainte Face de Laon (Prague, 1931 ), 26. 10 Segal, Edessa, 215 . 11 S. Der Nersessian, 'Une Apologie des images du 7e siecle', Etudes byzantines et armeniennes (Louvain, 1973), 389, 401. According to Sebastian Brock, Philoxenus did not express iconoclast opinions; see Brock, 'Iconoclasm and the monophysites' , in A. Bryer and J. Herrin, (eds.), Iconoclasm (Birmingham, 1977), 54. For A. de Halleux, 'Philoxenus' insistence on the reality of the "becoming" of God's Word prohibits seeking the source of a christological iconoclasm in his monophysitism' , in Ph. de Mabbog , Universitatis Catholicae Lovaniensis Dissertationes, Series III, vol. 8 (Louvain, 1963), 90. 22

The Syrian Orthodox and the Iconoclast Controversy, according to an article by the archbishop of Aleppo, Mor Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim Among the few contemporary studies on images and icons and their veneration in the Syriac tradition are the articles of the archbishop of Aleppo, Mor Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, published under the title The Syrian Orthodox and Iconoclasm. These are articles from which I shall be giving substantial extracts. 12 In the eighth and ninth centuries the iconoclasts in Constantinople rejected the representation of God by matter, but according to Archbishop Ibrahim, this controversy is also connected in a profound way with the vision of the Person of Christ who is both God and Man. According to Archbishop Ibrahim, some iconoclast Byzantine emperors were said to have been influenced by 'monophysite' ideas, for example by emperors such as Leo III, who came from Isauria, a region close to that of the 'Oriental', that is to say, the non-Chalcedonian Fathers. Archbishop Ibrahim challenges this idea, arguing that the Syrian Orthodox Church remained detached from the Byzantine debates from the middle of the fifth century because of the politico-religious problems that took a confessional turn at that time, leading also to a hostility towards the Byzantines who then occupied Syria. His argument seeks to prove the use of images among the Syrian Orthodox since the beginning of Christianity. There are besides some very ancient churches decorated with paintings and mosaics in the territories today called Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Lebanon. The Syrian Orthodox have always accepted images of the Virgin, the martyrs, the apostles and the· saints in order to preserve their memory and follow their example. 13 12

In the Revue patriarcale published by the Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East of the Syrian Orthodox, Damascus, No. 171 (January, I 980), No. 172 (February, 1980), No. 173 (March, 1980), No. 174 (April, 1980) (in Arabic); I thank George Mansour for his French translation. 13 Patriarch of Antioch Mor Ignatius XXXIX Jacob III (1957-80), Histoire de l'Eglise syriaque d'Antioche, vol. 1 (Beirut, 1953), 316. I have verified all the

23

Among the references that Archbishop Ibrahim gives us concerning paintings, images and icons in churches of the Syrian Orthodox rite are the following. First of all he cites the case of the famous 'mandylion' which the town of Edessa boasted of having acquired. An anonymous Syriac historian of the thirteenth century speaks about its transfer to the church of St Cosmas of Edessa in the fourth century. 14 As already noted, the mandylion was recovered by Athanasius bar Goumaye, before being transferred to Constantinople in the tenth century (944), according to Abu Nasser Yahia ben J arir of Tikrit. 15 The Syriac terms sourto (image) and ioukno (icon) are often found in the poems and works of the Syrian Orthodox Fathers both before and after the ninth century.

Works of Syrian Orthodox Fathers before the ninth century The great poet Ephrem the Syrian (d. 373) writes: 'The images of our great King (Christ) are in his churches.' 16 In his funeral homily on St Meletius, Patriarch of Antioch (381), John Chrysostom says that the love of the Antiochian faithful for Meletios had led them to paint pictures of him on the walls of their houses and carve images in seals as a blessing. 17 In 487, to explain the Christian doctrine of salvation to Severns, future Patriarch of Antioch (d. 538), Zacharias the Scholastic showed him a painting of Adam and Eve clothed in tunics of skin after their expulsion from Paradise in the church of the Mother of God in Beirut in the middle of the city right by the port. 18 It is said that when Kavadh I, the Per-

sian king, besieged the city of Amida (Diyarbakir, Turkey) in 502, he entered the treasury of the church of the Forty Martyrs where he saw an image of Christ painted in the form of a Galilean. 19 As for Jacob of Serug (451-521), he sings of the chariot of Ezekiel which he saw painted on the walls of the Church of Batnan Serug. In another hymn he speaks of the beauty of the church, of the prophets, apostles and martyrs who adorn it on one side, and of the Passion of Christ and his Crucifixion on the other. 20 It is known that in 512 the Byzantine emperor Anastasius I sent gold, architects and painters to the monastery of St Gabriel of Qartamin at Tur Abdin. In the sanctuary were represented the symbols of evangelists (a lion, a bull, an eagle, and a man). 21 For John of Ephesus (507-86) Pope Agapetus of Rome (535-36) was a blasphemer because he had ordered that the image of the Mother of God should not be painted anywhere. 22 John also speaks of acertain Euphemia who helped the poor, the sick, orphans and widows and who, during a Chalcedonian persecution, welcomed homeless monks and prepared a large room for them which resembled a martyrion with icons and images and other things proper to a monastery. 23 Ibn al Ibri, better known as Bar Hebraeus, says that the 19

quotations from the works cited here, although not the references of Arabic notes. 14 Chronique anonyme ad annum 1234, CSCO 354, (1953), Scr.Syri 154, 10 l. 15 Ibn al lbri, Brief History of the Nations , vol. 2, (Beirut, 1958), 667 (in Arabic); Fr Isaac Zaka, 'Le Mandylion du Christ', Revue Patriarcale des Syriens orthodoxes, Damascus 1971 , 204 and Revue Patriarcale de Jerusalem, 1935, 3; Segal, Edessa, 76-8. 16 Hymns on Virginity, CSCO 223-4 (1962), 28/2 and 6. 17 Severe Yacoub Thomas, Histoire de l'Eglise, vol. 2 (Beirut, 1953), 328. 18 Life of Severus, PO 2, 48-9.

Chabot, Chronique, vol. 2, 159; see also Severe Yacob Thomas, Histoire, vol. 2, 276. 20 Patriarch Ignatius Jacob III, The Gift of Faith and St Jacob of Serug, bishop of Batnan (Damascus, 1971), 9; This hymn(= shimo = prayers for the week, here on Friday night) is repeated in the prayer 'al eshhim al syriani ', La priere de al Fard, (Jerusalem 1936), 170 (edition of the Syrian monastery of St Ephrem in Holland [7578 PK Glane I Losser, Glanerbrugstr. 33], 1991, 126). Verified in Shimo, Feria VI, 362, ed. Rahmani Charfeh 1902, in P. Hindo, Disciplina antiochena antica Siri, Fanti II I 28 (Vatican, 1943), 303. 21 Ignatius Ephrem I Barsum, L'Histoire de Tur Abdin, 219-21, trans . Bishop Paul Behnam (Jounieh, Lebanon, 1964); verified in A. Grabar, 'Quelques observations sur le decor de l'eglise de Qartamin', L 'Art de la.fin de l'Antiquite et du Mayen-Age, vol. 2 (Paris, 1968), 637-44. 22 John of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, ed. and trans. E.W. Brooks, PO 17, 26-7. 23 PO 17, 176-7; see also. S. Brock and S. Harvey (trans.), Holy Women of the Syrian Orient (London, 1987), 129.

24

25

Maphrian (the Syrian Orthodox title for the Catholicos of the East) Bar Yeshu (669-84) built the church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus in Tikrit (Iraq) and had it decorated with beautiful images. 24

Works of Syrian Orthodox Fathers after the ninth century Here now are some iconographic examples given by Metropolitan Ibrahim relating to the period after the ninth century. Mor Moses bar Kepha (813-903) the future Bishop Severns, born in Balad (Iraq), writes that in order that the pagans should not criticize Christians for venerating a painted image, we must reply that God created man in his image and likeness; and it is for that reason that Christians worship God in his image and likeness.25 In the twelfth century Sabrisho Bar Paulos speaks of an icon of Christ and his Mother seen in a 'Jacobite' [Syrian Orthodox] church bearing the inscription: 'This one is Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world; this one is the Mother of God. ' 26 It is known that the iconography of the whole economy of salvation decorated the church and sanctuary of the monastery of St John Bar Nagare in Bartella near Mosul, built at the request of Ibn al Tori (1282-84) by his disciple, the future bishop Gabriel of Bartella. In 1285 this famous monastery was adorned with images, for advantage was taken of the passage of two artists from Constantinople who had been commission by Princess Mary, illegitimate daughter of Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologos, to decorate the new church of the Greeks at Tabriz. 27

24

Histoire ecclesiastique, 2nd part, cf. Al Mashrak, vol. 22, Beirut, 1924, 3678. In Lamy 's edition (vol. 2, col. 133) it is only said that 'a magnificent church was built' . 25 Cited by Hindo, Disciplina, 315 . 26 Chronique anonyme ad annum 1234, CSCO 354, Ser. Syri 154, p. 207 para. 152. 27 Poem of Bishop Gabriel al Bartaly, ed. Metr. Julius Ci