|

The Undivided Light: The Holy Trinity (Part 5 of 7)

ByJobin

One Nature, Three Persons – The Grammar of Syriac Trinitarian Theology

There is a particular kind of difficulty that comes with translating faith from one language into another, and anyone who has tried to explain the Qurbana to a friend who does not share the tradition will know it well. Some words simply do not move cleanly from one tongue to the next. We can try and offer the nearest equivalent, but something is always left behind in the crossing.

This is true in an ordinary way between English and Malayalam. It is true in a much more theologically consequential way between Greek and Syriac, the two languages in which the doctrine of the Trinity was first hammered out in the fourth and fifth centuries. Greek gave the Church the vocabulary of “ousia” and “hypostasis,” essence and person, the terms that shaped the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds. Syriac, the language of Ephrem, Jacob of Serugh, and Severus of Antioch, received that same Nicene faith but expressed it in its own vocabulary: “kyano,” “qnoma,” and “parsopa.”

This fifth post in The Undivided Light series is about that vocabulary. It is, admittedly, the most technical post in the series so far, and I want to say plainly at the outset that technical does not mean unimportant. The words a tradition uses to confess its faith matter enormously, because the wrong word, however small the difference seems, can quietly distort the faith it is meant to protect. The Syriac fathers knew this, and they were exact and careful people precisely because they understood what was at stake in getting the grammar of the Trinity right. Three voices guide us here: Ephrem the Syrian, whose poetic instinct shaped how later Syriac writers spoke of God; Severus of Antioch, the sixth-century Patriarch of Antioch whose careful theological precision did more than perhaps any other figure to establish the settled Oriental Orthodox vocabulary for nature and person; and Cyril of Alexandria, whose Greek theology stands behind and informs the entire Syriac tradition’s grammar of the Trinity.

Why Words Matter At All

Before we look at the specific terms, it is worth pausing on a question that a thoughtful reader might reasonably ask. Does God really care whether we use one word or another? Surely what matters is the substance of our faith, not the precise vocabulary we use to express it.

There is something right in that instinct, and the Fathers themselves would agree with it up to a point. No word, Greek or Syriac, can fully capture the reality of the Trinity. All theological language is, in the end, an attempt to point toward a mystery that exceeds it. But the Fathers also knew, from hard experience, that some ways of pointing lead the mind toward the truth and some lead it away. A community that confesses the Trinity using careless or ambiguous language will, over a generation or two, find its actual faith drifting away from what it intends to confess. This is exactly what happened with Arius in the fourth century, as we saw in the third post of this series: a small slippage in vocabulary, treating the Son’s relationship to the Father as one of making rather than begetting, opened the door to a Christology that could not save.

The Syriac fathers inherited the Nicene faith and had to find words in their own language that would carry that faith without distortion. This was not a simple matter of translation. Syriac and Greek do not map onto each other word for word, and the vocabulary that developed in Syriac theology has its own history, its own controversies, and its own precision, which deserves to be understood on its own terms rather than treated as a slightly imperfect copy of the Greek.

Kyano: Nature, not simply Essence – Shared by all the Three

The first term is “kyano” (ܟܝܢܐ). It is often glossed in English as “essence” or “nature,” but the more precise equivalent is nature, corresponding to the Greek word “physis” rather than to “ousia.” This distinction matters more than it might first appear.

Imagine a family in which every member shares the same blood, the same inherited traits, the same deep family identity. We can look at the father, the son, and another family member and say with confidence: these three are of the same family. They are distinct people, each with their own name and their own story, and yet there is something they share so fundamentally that separating it from any one of them is unthinkable. That shared reality, in this rough and imperfect illustration, is a little like what the Syriac word “kyano” (ܟܝܢܐ) is pointing toward.

Kyano means nature. Not personality, not role, not rank. Nature, in the sense of what something fundamentally and permanently is. When we say that fire is hot, or that water is wet, we are describing the nature of those things. Their nature is not something they choose or earn. It is simply what they are, at the most basic level of their existence.

When the Syriac tradition speaks of the Trinity, it says that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all share one kyano, one divine nature. This is the same confession that the Greek tradition makes when it says one “ousia,” one divine being or essence. The Father is not more God than the Son. The Son is not slightly less divine than the Father. The Spirit is not a lesser or junior member of the Trinity. All three share the one divine kyano completely, equally, and without any division or diminishment. Ephrem the Syrian uses kyano in precisely this way in his Hymns on Faith, where he speaks of the divine kyano as the living, active reality from which the Father, Son, and Spirit each act, rather than as a static philosophical category standing behind the persons.1

It is also worth knowing that kyano does double duty in Syriac theology. It appears not only in Trinitarian discussions but also in Christological ones, where it refers to the united nature of Christ after the Incarnation. The Oriental Orthodox confession, following Cyril of Alexandria, speaks of “one kyano” in Christ after the union of the divine and human. This can initially confuse young readers who encounter both usages. The important thing to remember is that context tells you which conversation is being had. When the subject is the Trinity, kyano means the single divine nature shared by Father, Son, and Spirit. When the subject is Christ, kyano refers to the single united reality of the person of Christ, in whom divinity and humanity are united without confusion, change, division, or separation.2

Qnoma: the word that caused most trouble

The second term, and by far the most theologically loaded, is “qnoma” (ܩܢܘܡܐ, plural qnome). It is often translated as “person” or “subsistence,” corresponding roughly to the Greek “hypostasis.” In the Trinitarian formula, the Syriac tradition confesses one kyano in three qnome, exactly mirroring the Greek formula of one ousia in three hypostases.

If kyano is the word that holds the Trinity together, then “qnoma” is the word that holds the three persons apart, in the best possible sense. It is the word that says the Father is genuinely the Father and not the Son, the Son is genuinely the Son and not the Spirit, and the Spirit is genuinely the Spirit and not the Father. It is the word that insists the three are not simply three names for the same person wearing different hats at different times.

Think of it this way. If we are in a room and someone says “there are three people here,” we understand immediately that there are three genuinely distinct individuals, each with their own concrete existence. We would not confuse them with each other, and we would not reduce them to one person appearing in three different moods. Qnoma carries something of that sense: it speaks of each of the three persons of the Trinity as genuinely, concretely, and really existing in their own right, truly distinct from the others, truly to be addressed and known individually.

But qnoma does not map onto hypostasis with perfect precision, and this is where the history becomes genuinely interesting, and where Severus of Antioch’s careful theological work becomes essential.

The root meaning of qnoma carries a sense of concrete, individual, self-subsistent existence: something like “a particular instance” of a nature, an individuated reality that truly and actually exists rather than merely being conceived of in the abstract. This is close to what hypostasis means in Greek theology, but the Syriac word carries its own connotations and its own history of controversy.

The problem with qnoma is that it can be misread. If we hear “three qnome” and we think of three separate, independent individuals, each capable of going off and existing on their own, we end up with something that sounds less like one God and more like three gods who happen to be very closely related. This error has a name: tritheism, the belief in three gods. It is not what the tradition intends, but careless use of qnoma can drift toward it.

On the other side, if we are so worried about this drift toward tritheism that we try to say qnoma means nothing more than “three names” or “three ways of appearing,” we end up suggesting that there is really just one divine person who shows up sometimes as Father, sometimes as Son, and sometimes as Spirit, like an actor in three different costumes. This error also has a name: Sabellianism or modalism. It is equally wrong, and equally dangerous for the same reason we saw in earlier posts: if the Son is not genuinely and distinctly the Son, then Who died on the cross and Who raised Him from the dead?3

The controversy arose because the Church of the East, the tradition sometimes called Nestorian or East Syriac, used qnoma language in a way that came to be understood by Severus and his contemporaries as implying two distinct, individuated realities in Christ, a divine qnoma and a human qnoma, joined together in a loose conjunction rather than united in one person. This was seen, by Severus and the broader Cyrillian tradition, as fracturing the unity of Christ and tending toward the error of speaking of two separate subjects rather than one Lord, Jesus Christ, who is both fully God and fully human.4

The controversy arose because the Church of the East, the tradition sometimes called Nestorian or East Syriac, used qnoma language in a way that came to be understood by Severus and his contemporaries as implying two distinct, individuated realities in Christ, a divine qnoma and a human qnoma, joined together in a loose conjunction rather than united in one person. This was seen, by Severus and the broader Cyrillian tradition, as fracturing the unity of Christ and tending toward the error of speaking of two separate subjects rather than one Lord, Jesus Christ, who is both fully God and fully human.

Severus of Antioch worked with great precision to ensure that qnoma language, when used of the Trinity, was disciplined by the framework that Cyril of Alexandria had already established in Greek. In his letters and in his Cathedral Homilies, Severus insists that the three qnome of the Trinity are not three separate, self-standing individuals who happen to share a common nature, the way three human persons share a common human nature while remaining three entirely distinct individuals capable of existing apart from one another. Rather, the three qnome of the Trinity are three modes of the one undivided divine kyano, inseparable from one another, incapable of being thought of as existing independently, distinguished only by their relations of origin: the Father unbegotten, the Son eternally begotten, the Spirit eternally proceeding.5

His answer, put simply, is this: the three qnome of the Trinity are genuinely distinct, genuinely three, and yet they are so completely united in the one kyano that none of them has, or ever could have, any existence separately from the other two. They are not three independent individuals who happened to come together. They are three eternally inseparable modes of the one divine life, each distinct in relationship to the others but never apart from the others, not even for a moment, not even in thought.6

This is a crucial clarification, because it guards against two opposite errors. If qnoma is read too strongly in the direction of independent individual existence, the Trinity collapses into tritheism, three gods loosely associated rather than one God truly Triune. If qnoma is read too weakly, as a mere mode of appearance with no real distinction at all, the Trinity collapses into Sabellianism, one God wearing three masks. Severus’s careful handling of qnoma steers between both errors: the three qnome are genuinely, eternally, and irreducibly distinct, and yet they are so completely united in the one kyano that none of the three has, or could have, any existence apart from the other two.7

A simple image that may help: think of the three primary colours of light, red, green, and blue. Each is genuinely distinct. You can name each one separately and distinguish it from the others. But when they come together in full intensity, they produce white light, a single undivided brightness in which none of the three has disappeared and yet no single colour dominates. They are together in a unity that does not erase the three but holds all three inseparably. The three qnome of the Trinity are something like this, infinitely more so and with none of the limitations of a physical analogy, but the image gives the mind somewhere to begin.

It is worth being honest here, as this series has tried to be throughout, that qnoma remains a genuinely difficult term, and readers who go on to study the Christological councils in more depth will find that its precise meaning was a live and contested question among Syriac-speaking theologians themselves, not a settled matter that the tradition simply received without struggle. Severus’s contribution was to bring discipline and precision to this contested vocabulary, anchoring it firmly within the Nicene and Cyrillian framework so that it could serve, rather than endanger, the Church’s confession of the Trinity.

Parsopa: Face, Person, and the Danger it Guards Against

The third term is “parsopa” (ܦܪܨܘܦܐ), which corresponds to the Greek “prosopon.” It means face, countenance, or person, and it is the term most directly tied to ordinary human experience. When we look at someone’s face, we are encountering that particular person in a way that is direct, personal, and recognisable. We do not encounter an abstract nature. We encounter someone. Parsopa carries that sense of personal, relational, knowable presence.

Parsopa is not, in Syriac Trinitarian usage, simply a third independent term standing alongside kyano and qnoma in a structured trio. It tends to function alongside qnoma, often nearly as a companion term, used to express the personal, relational, recognisable reality of each of the three, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, as ones who can be addressed, who can be known, who stand in genuine relationship with one another and with us.

Think about the difference between knowing facts about someone and actually knowing them. We might know all the biographical details of a historical figure, their dates, their achievements, their writings, without ever truly knowing them as a person. But when we have a real relationship with someone, when we have sat with them and spoken with them and experienced their character directly, we know their face in a deeper sense than photographs and descriptions could ever give us. Parsopa points toward that kind of knowing. It is the word that says the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not abstract theological categories. They are persons with faces, so to speak, persons who can be known, addressed, and genuinely related to.8

There is a reason this word is not used alone in Syriac Trinitarian theology, and a young reader deserves to understand why. In the ancient world, the word prosopon in Greek, from which parsopa derives its sense, originally meant the mask worn by an actor in a theatre. An actor might play three different characters in a play by wearing three different masks, and the same word that means person also carries that theatrical shadow of being merely a role or an appearance rather than a genuine individual reality. If the Trinity were described only in terms of three prosopa, a careful listener might wonder: is this one God wearing three masks, three roles, three outward appearances, without any genuine inner distinction?

This would precisely be the Sabellian error the Church had to guard against.

This is why parsopa in Syriac Trinitarian usage is always accompanied by qnoma. Qnoma provides the solid, ontological assurance that each of the three is a genuine, really-existing, concrete reality and not merely a role or an appearance. Parsopa then adds the relational and personal dimension: these three genuinely-existing realities are not impersonal forces or abstract principles. They are persons, with faces turned toward us, toward each other, and toward the world they have made and are saving. Together, the two terms hold what no single term could hold alone: the Father, Son, and Spirit are truly, concretely, and personally distinct, while remaining one in kyano, one undivided divine nature.9

Together, qnoma and parsopa say everything that needs to be said about the personal reality of the Trinity: the three are genuinely, concretely, and irreducibly real, and they are personally knowable, addressable, and lovable. We are not praying into a void when we pray. We are addressing a face. Three faces, inseparably one.

Severus of Antioch: Precision in the Service of Worship

It is worth lingering a little longer on Severus of Antioch, because his role in establishing this careful vocabulary is foundational for the entire Oriental Orthodox tradition, and his motives for the precision he insisted on were never merely academic.

Severus became Patriarch of Antioch in the early sixth century, at a moment when the Church was deeply divided over the legacy of the Council of Chalcedon and the proper way to speak about the union of divine and human natures in Christ. His theological writing, much of which survives in his letters and in the 125 Cathedral Homilies he delivered during his patriarchate, is marked by an unusual combination of rigorous logical precision and genuine pastoral concern. Severus was not interested in theological precision for its own sake. He believed, with real urgency, that getting the language right was a matter of protecting the faithful from confusion that could endanger their salvation.10

In his correspondence with various bishops and theologians of his time, Severus repeatedly returns to the question of how qnoma should be understood in both Trinitarian and Christological contexts, insisting that the term must always be read within the framework of Cyril of Alexandria’s settled theology rather than allowed to drift toward an understanding that would fracture the unity of God or the unity of Christ. He is, in a sense, the great clarifier of Syriac theological vocabulary, taking terms that had been used with some looseness by earlier generations and disciplining them into a precise and defensible Trinitarian and Christological grammar.11

What is striking, and worth holding onto as we close this rather technical post, is that Severus’s precision was always in service of worship. He develops his careful Trinitarian vocabulary not as an end in itself but because he believed that the Church’s prayer life depended on it. If the faithful are taught to confess the Trinity in confused or careless language, their prayer itself will become confused: they may find themselves unconsciously praying to three separate gods, or to one God wearing different masks, rather than to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit, the one undivided God in three eternally distinct persons. For Severus, theological grammar and the grammar of prayer are not two different things. Getting the words right in the study is in service of getting the worship right at the altar.12

Cyril of Alexandria: the Greek foundation beneath the Syriac vocabulary

Cyril of Alexandria, who appears once more in this post as he has in nearly every post of this series, deserves credit here not for Syriac vocabulary, which he did not write in, but for providing the theological foundation that Severus and the Syriac tradition built upon. Cyril’s Greek formula, “one nature of God the Word incarnate,” and his broader Trinitarian theology of one ousia in three hypostases, distinguished only by their relations of origin and not by any difference of nature, honour, or power, is the bedrock beneath everything Severus later worked out in Syriac.13

Cyril is careful, in his writings against various opponents of Nicene theology, to insist that the distinction between the persons of the Trinity is real but does not introduce any division or inequality into the Godhead. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinguished only by the manner of their existing in relation to one another: the Father as unbegotten source, the Son as eternally begotten, the Spirit as eternally proceeding. Beyond this, there is no distinction whatsoever: not in nature, not in will, not in power, not in glory, not in honour. This is the theological substance that the Syriac terms kyano, qnoma, and parsopa exist to express, each carrying its part of the full confession.14

Putting the grammar together

After working through three technical words one by one, it is natural to feel a little like someone who has just been handed three separate pieces of a puzzle and told they form a picture. So let us set the pieces down side by side and see what the picture actually looks like.

The Syriac tradition confession, put as simply as possible is this: One kyano. Three qnome. Three parsope.

That is the entire grammar. But what does it mean when you say it all together, rather than one term at a time?

Start with an image that most of us can relate to from daily life. Think of the sun on a clear morning. The sun itself is the source of everything that follows from it. It sends out light that travels across the vastness of space and arrives at the earth. And when that light reaches the earth, it produces warmth, the heat you feel on your face when you step outside on a bright day. Three things: the sun, the light, the warmth. And yet no one would say there are three suns. There is one sun, and from that one sun comes both the light and the warmth, inseparably and simultaneously. Take away the sun and there is no light. Take away the light and there is no warmth. The three are genuinely distinct from one another and yet so bound together that none of the three makes sense without the other two.

The Fathers themselves used this image, and they were also the first to say it is not a perfect image, because no image can be. The sun, the light, and the warmth are not three persons who know and love one another. They are physical realities. But as a starting point for understanding what one kyano in three qnome means, the image does useful work. It gives the mind something to hold onto before moving deeper.

Now let us go a little deeper.

The one kyano, the one divine nature, is like the sun in this picture. It is the single divine reality, the one Godhead, in which everything that is God resides completely. It is not divided between the three persons. It is not parcelled out in thirds, a third to the Father, a third to the Son, a third to the Spirit. The whole of the divine kyano belongs to the Father. The whole of it belongs to the Son. The whole of it belongs to the Spirit. Not three portions of one thing, but one thing possessed fully and equally by three.

Think of it this way. If you light one candle from another, you do not halve the light of the first candle. The second candle burns just as brightly as the first, and the first has lost nothing. In an imperfect but suggestive way, this is what the tradition means when it says the Father begets the Son without diminishment, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father without any reduction in the divine life. The one kyano is not diminished by being the shared nature of three. It remains one, whole, and undivided.

The three qnome are the genuinely distinct persons who share that one kyano. They are not three copies of the divine nature, as if the divine life had been photocopied three times and handed to three separate individuals. They are three genuinely distinct, personally real, eternally existing realities within the one undivided divine life. The Father is the Father and no one else. The Son is the Son and no one else. The Spirit is the Spirit and no one else. One cannot mix them up or merge them together, because each is genuinely, irreducibly themselves.

But here is what makes the Trinity different from three human persons sharing a common humanity. Three human beings share a common human nature, but they are capable of being physically separated from each other. They can go to different places, live different lives, exist independently of one another. The three qnome of the Trinity cannot do this, even in principle, even in thought. The Father has never existed without the Son. The Son has never existed without the Spirit. The Spirit has never existed without the Father. They are not three individuals who chose to work together or who happened to find one another. They are three persons whose very existence is bound up with each other so completely that there is no moment, no corner of reality, no imaginable scenario in which any one of them is without the other two.

A young reader might find it helpful to think of it like this. Imagine three musicians who have played together for so long and so completely that their music has become inseparable. We cannot say where one musician’s contribution ends and another’s begins, and yet each one is genuinely themselves: their own instrument, their own voice, their own distinctive presence in the music. Now imagine that this is not just something they have achieved over time, but something that has always been true of them, before time, beyond time, eternally. They have always been making this music together, and the music has always been one music, even though it is genuinely three voices. This is still an imperfect image, because musicians can in principle stop playing and walk away from one another, which the persons of the Trinity never can and never could. But it gestures toward something true about the inseparable unity of three who are genuinely three.

The three parsope add one final dimension to the picture, and it is perhaps the most important dimension for our actual lived experience of prayer. Parsopa means face, and it is the word that says these three are not impersonal forces or abstract principles sitting at an unreachable distance from us. They are persons with faces turned toward us. They can be known. They can be spoken to. They can love and be loved in return.

This matters enormously for how we pray. When we address the Father in prayer, we are not sending a message into a theological category. We are speaking to a face, a genuinely personal reality who knows us and is turned toward us. When we pray in the name of the Son, we are not invoking a title or a concept. We are calling on the genuinely and concretely real person of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son, whose face we will one day see clearly. When we ask the Spirit to come, we are not summoning a spiritual force. We are inviting a person, the third qnoma and the third parsopa, to be present and active in us.

And here is the full grammar held together in a single sentence, as plainly as it can be put:

The God we pray to is one undivided divine nature, kyano, who exists as three genuinely distinct, concretely real, eternally inseparable persons, qnome, each of whom has a face turned toward us in love, parsopa, so that when we address any one of them, we are in contact with all three, and when we receive any one of them, we receive the fullness of the one undivided God.

That is what the Syriac theological tradition is confessing when it uses these three words. It is not a philosophical puzzle constructed by scholars in a library. It is a careful and loving attempt by people who prayed deeply and thought rigorously to give the Church language adequate to what Pentecost disclosed: that the God who made us and saved us is not a solitary absolute but a communion of persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, drawing us by grace into the life they share with one another from before all ages.

The grammar is not the goal. The grammar is in service of the worship. And the worship is in service of the life: the undivided life of God, now and ever and unto the ages of ages.

Why this Grammar Matters For How We Pray

It would be easy, after a post this technical, to conclude that the grammar of the Trinity is a matter for scholars and specialists, with little bearing on the ordinary life of prayer. I want to resist that conclusion directly, because Severus himself would have resisted it.

When we make the sign of the cross, touching our forehead, our chest, and each shoulder while naming the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we are enacting, in a single bodily gesture, the entire grammar this post has tried to unpack. We are confessing three genuinely distinct persons, three real qnome, each truly to be addressed and known. And we are confessing, in the single sweep of the gesture, that these three are not three gods but one undivided kyano, one God, acting upon us and within us as a single divine reality.

When the Qurbana moves from addressing the Father, to recalling the work of the Son, to invoking the descent of the Spirit at the epiclesis, the liturgy is not randomly shifting its address between three different beings. It is moving through the one undivided life of the Trinity, addressing each of the three qnome in turn, trusting that in addressing any one of them, we are in contact with the one kyano they all share.

The grammar matters because confused grammar leads, eventually, to confused worship. And precise grammar, carried not as a burden but as a gift handed down through centuries of careful thought by people like Ephrem, Severus, and Cyril, allows the Church to pray with confidence that the words on its lips actually point toward the God it intends to worship.

A prayer to close

Severus of Antioch closes several of his Cathedral Homilies with a doxological formula that draws together the very vocabulary this post has explored. It seems fitting to close in the same way here.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one kyano undivided, three qnome eternally distinct, three faces turned toward us in love. We confess what our words can only partly hold: that you are one God and yet truly three, that the Father is source, the Son is eternally begotten, and the Spirit eternally proceeds, and that none of you exists apart from the others. Forgive the poverty of our language, and let the truth our words are reaching for become, in your mercy, the life we actually live. Amen.

Next Wednesday: The Trinity and Theosis – Participation in the Undivided Life. We will draw on Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, and Athanasius to ask what it means that the goal of the Christian life is not simply knowledge about the Trinity but genuine participation in the Trinity’s own undivided life.

This series, The Undivided Light, is an observational study, the reflections of someone sitting with these texts and trying to share what he is finding along the way. It is offered in humility, not as finished scholarship. If you are reading this, your prayers for the completion of the series are genuinely asked and gratefully received.

Jobin

Sources and References

  1. Sebastian Brock, “The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem the Syrian.” Brock’s analysis of Ephrem’s use of kyano in the Hymns on Faith shows how the term functions as a description of the living, active divine reality rather than a static philosophical category. ↩︎
  2. Sebastian Brock, “An Introduction to Syriac Studies,” in “Horizons in Semitic Studies”. Brock discusses the dual usage of kyano and the importance of reading the term in its doctrinal context, whether Trinitarian or Christological. ↩︎
  3. Iain R. Torrance, “Christology after Chalcedon: Severus of Antioch and Sergius the Monophysite”. Torrance explains in accessible terms how Severus understood the twin dangers of tritheism and Sabellianism and why the precision of qnoma language was designed to avoid both. ↩︎
  4. Sebastian Brock, “The ‘Nestorian’ Church: A Lamentable Misnomer,” on the historical and terminological background to the Church of the East’s use of qnoma. ↩︎
  5. Pauline Allen and C. T. R. Hayward, “Severus of Antioch,” The Early Church Fathers series, on Severus’s treatment of qnoma in his letters and homilies. ↩︎
  6. Maurice Briere and Francois Graffin, “Les Homiliae Cathedrales de Severe d’Antioche,” Homilies 109 and 125. These two homilies contain Severus’s most direct treatment of qnoma in a Trinitarian context and his insistence that the three are inseparable within the one divine kyano. ↩︎
  7. Iain R. Torrance, “Christology after Chalcedon: Severus of Antioch and Sergius the Monophysite”, on Severus’s navigation between tritheism and Sabellianism in his Trinitarian vocabulary. ↩︎
  8. Robert Murray, “Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition,” on the relationship between qnoma and parsopa in early Syriac theological writing and its connection to the tradition of knowing and addressing the divine persons in prayer. ↩︎
  9. Fr. Baby Varghese, “West Syrian Liturgical Theology” on the combined use of qnoma and parsopa to avoid both tritheistic and Sabellian readings of the Trinity. ↩︎
  10. Pauline Allen and C. T. R. Hayward, “Severus of Antioch,” for a biographical overview of Severus’s patriarchate and the pastoral context of his theological writing. ↩︎
  11. Maurice Briere and Francois Graffin, “Les Homiliae Cathedrales de Severe d’Antioche,” Patrologia Orientalis, multiple volumes, Homilies 109 and 125 in particular, where Severus addresses Trinitarian vocabulary directly. ↩︎
  12. Fr. Baby Varghese, “West Syrian Liturgical Theology,” on Severus’s connection between Trinitarian precision and the structure of the Anaphora. ↩︎
  13. John A. McGuckin, “Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy” on Cyril’s formula “one nature of God the Word incarnate” and its Trinitarian background. ↩︎
  14. Lewis Ayres, “Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology”, on the principle that the three persons are distinguished solely by relations of origin and not by nature, will, or power. ↩︎

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply