Chapter III -- 45
11 Anathemas of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod
The Fifteen Canons of the Holy 165 Fathers of the Holy Fifth Synod in
1 If anyone advocates the mythical pre-existence of souls and the monstrous Restoration which follows it, let him be anathema.
This first Anathema hits the nail on the head. The pre-existence of souls—which, it is clear from the subsequent Anathemas, the Synod understood to include the whole apparatus that we have just seen in the Kephalaia Gnostica of the contemplation of the Unity, the negligence, the Movement, the First Judgement and so on—and the Restoration—which, it is equally clear from the subsequent Anathemas, the Synod understood to include the whole apparatus of Evagrian eschatology—are at the root of the whole heresy of Evagrius.
We would like to remark here that when we prepared our presentation of the Kephalaia Gnostica, we had not read the Anathemas in depth. We were struck, after having finished our presentation of the Kephalaia Gnostica, by how closely the Anathemas followed the content of the Kephalaia Gnostica. The reader in doubt about fine points, for example, of the Evagrian doctrine of the Restoration can consult the Anathemas which follow as a guide to the plain meaning of the Kephalaia Gnostica! There are certainly places where the Kephalaia Gnostica and the Anathemas diverge; for the most part, however, they are very close. We do not think the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod were biased. They seemed to have grasped a very difficult system quite well indeed.
2 If anyone says the creation of all the reasonable beings (logikon) to have occurred [in such a way that all the reasonable beings were] bodiless and immaterial minds (noas) without any number or name, so that there occurred an henad (enas) of all of these in the identity of substance, power and operation, and in both the union and the gnosis [of these minds] towards the Word of God; these [minds (noas)] to have taken their satiety of the divine contemplation and to have turned towards the worse according to the proportion in each of its inclination towards the worse; and [these minds (noas)] to have taken bodies more subtle or more gross and to have been allotted a name, on account of the fact that the differences in the bodies of the powers on high are just as the differences in their names; and, hence, [these minds (noas)] both to have become and to have been named some Cherubim, others Seraphim, others Principalities, Powers, Dominions, Thrones, Angels and as many heavenly orders as exist, let him be anathema.
This is clearly a presentation of the Evagrian doctrine of the condition of the minds (noes) in the contemplation of the Unity prior to the Movement, the negligence, the Movement, the First Judgement, and the giving of bodies and worlds to the angelic powers. We did not see in the Kephalaia Gnostica such a clear presentation of the doctrine that the minds (noes) before the Movement existed in the state of the henad that Evagrius clearly teaches that they are to have at the Restoration. This seems to be one place where either the Kephalaia Gnostica is relatively silent or obscure. The Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod would have been dealing with the doctrines of the Origenists as they encountered them in practice and the doctrine may have been more clearly stated in the movement’s oral teaching. The Fathers were there. The Fathers present what Evagrius calls the negligence of the minds (noes) as the inclination of the minds (noes) towards the worse after they had taken their fill of the divine contemplation. It is interesting that the Fathers view the contemplation that the minds (noes) engaged in to be ‘the union and the gnosis towards the Word of God’. We have already remarked that where Evagrius himself emphasizes the gnosis of the Unity, calling it the Word of God, the Fathers emphasize the Word of God, largely but not entirely ignoring the concept of the gnosis of the Unity. Moreover, the Fathers ignore the question whether in the Origenist system the Christ was somehow distinguished from the other minds (noes) by being united to the Word of God in a special way, or whether his lack of negligence in the Movement was a matter of chance. However, they do emphasize their understanding of the condition of the minds (noes) in the henad as including ‘the identity of substance, power and operation’ among the minds (noes).
Chapters of the Kephalaia Gnostica which contain doctrines relative to this Anathema include: III, 22; I, 49; I, 50; III, 45; VI, 75; II, 66; II, 76; II, 14; VI, 78; VI, 80; I, 63.
3 If anyone says the sun, the moon and the stars, themselves also being a part of the same henad (enas) of reasonable beings, to have become whatever they are from their deviation towards the worse, let him be anathema.
This is a clear condemnation of the doctrine based on Origen that we saw in the Kephalaia Gnostica of the intelligent nature of the stars, that the stars—here also including the sun and moon—are an order of angels.
Chapters of the Kephalaia Gnostica which are relevant to this Anathema include: I, 63; VI, 88; III, 37; III, 84, IV 29, III 62.
4 If anyone says the reasonable beings which had cooled from the divine love to have been clothed in grosser bodies of the type we have and to have been named men; those, however, which had come to the extreme of evil to have been clothed in cold and dark bodies, and both to be and to be called demons, or spirits (pneumatika) of evil, let him be anathema.
This is a clear presentation of the rest of the First Judgement after the Movement, and of the granting of bodies and worlds, that we have seen in the Kephalaia Gnostica, this time for men and demons.
Chapters of the Kephalaia Gnostica which are relevant to this Anathema include: I, 63; VI, 25.
5 If anyone says the soul (psuchike) state to come from the angelic and the archangelic states; from the soul (psuches) [i.e. from the soul state], then, to come the demonic and the human states; from the human state, then, again to come angels and demons; and each order of the heavenly powers to be constituted either entirely from those below or [entirely] from those above, or from those above and those below, let him be anathema.
The first part of this Anathema is the first part of KG V, 11 verbatim; the second part is KG II, 78 verbatim.[1]
Here we see an important aspect of the relations among Evagrius, Origen and the Anathemas of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod. The Anathemas quote the version intégrale (S2) of the Kephalaia Gnostica verbatim. Since that version is on the one hand in Syriac and on the other hand corroborated in its readings by the fragments of the Greek original of the Kephalaia Gnostica preserved in independent Greek authors, it cannot be thought to be a fabrication. Hence, the Anathemas can be construed to refer directly to Origen’s writings only if we assume that Evagrius was making direct quotations from those writings. But the tone of the Kephalaia Gnostica is different from that of Peri Archon—as it has come down to us, surely—: Origen nowhere in Peri Archon descends to the level of detail that we find in the Kephalaia Gnostica. Nor do we think that it is typical of Evagrius to make direct quotations from other authors. However, the basic outline of the cosmological doctrines of the Kephalaia Gnostica is to be found in Peri Archon.
We want to say this: The Anathemas quote the Kephalaia Gnostica, which is itself based indirectly on Peri Archon. That is, since the Anathemas are shown not to be fabricated out of whole cloth by their extremely close fit with the Kephalaia Gnostica, they are speaking about the real teachings of a real movement. We do not accept the assertion that the Anathemas were due to the diktat of a despotic Byzantine emperor that the cowed Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod were powerless to resist. We dismiss the notion that Evagrius was speaking metaphorically throughout the Kephalaia Gnostica and then misinterpreted by his naïve followers; there is no evidence for such a theory. However, we do find the doctrines of the Kephalaia Gnostica and perforce of the Anathemas in less-developed form in Rufinus’ translation of Peri Archon. Now while it might be thought that heretics had indeed tampered with Origen’s original text of Peri Archon, and that the heretical passages which remained in Rufinus’ translation had merely eluded Rufinus’ attention—and that all the negative testimonies of St Jerome, the Emperor Justinian, St Epiphanios and others are fabrications or exaggerations—, still that does not explain why the movement was called ‘Origenist’ and not ‘Evagrian’ or even, since Didymus the Blind was Evagrius’ teacher, ‘Didyman’. Was Origen’s name so great that there was anything to be gained by hiding behind it? The most that exonerating Origen can do is create the following question: where did Evagrius Pontikos get the cosmological doctrines that he espouses in the Kephalaia Gnostica? Moreover, if Origen’s original text of Peri Archon had been tampered with, would not someone other than Rufinus have pointed that out? For before the Fifth Ecumenical Synod there must have been extant authentic copies of Peri Archon. Surely the Fathers in Palestine were not so naïve as not to have picked up an authentic copy of the work and studied it!
Chapters of the Kephalaia Gnostica which are relevant to this Anathema include: V, 11; II, 78; VI, 77; I, 11.
6 If anyone says the species of demons to be called double, being gathered together from human souls and from superior [i.e. angelic] spirits which have fallen into this state; a single mind (nous) out of the whole supposed henad (enas) of reasonable beings to remain motionless in regard to the divine love and contemplation; that mind (nous), having become Christ and king of all the reasonable beings, to produce the whole corporeal nature, the heaven and the earth and all that is in between; and that the world, having subsistent elements more ancient than its own existence, the dry, the wet, the hot and the cold, and the form according to which it was modelled, thus has come to be; and that not the All-Holy and Consubstantial Trinity created the world—and on account of that [creation by the Trinity] the world is created—but the mind (nous), whom they say, demiurge (demiourgikos) existing before the world and furnishing being to the world itself, has shown [the world to be] created, let him be anathema.
We did not see in the Kephalaia Gnostica an explicit doctrine that there were two sources of demons, the superior spirits and the human souls, although the doctrine that the minds (noes) which are reduced to the soul state become either men or demons is clearly stated.
We did not see in the Kephalaia Gnostica the pre-existence of elements that the Evagrian Christ used to make the worlds. Possibly this was an oral teaching of the Origenists, one of the matters that Evagrius avoided stating openly in the Kephalaia Gnostica.
It is quite possible, however, that this statement that the Christ is a demiurge who makes the world from previously subsistent elements and from a previously subsistent form in fact refers to what we have seen in the Kephalaia Gnostica: according to Evagrius, the Christ makes use of a certain contemplation in making the bodies and the worlds, just as the Father in the beginning makes use of a certain contemplation in making the reasonable beings, the minds (noes). In other words, the Synod might be interpreting the Evagrian doctrine of the creation of the bodies and the worlds by the Christ by means of the second natural contemplation not as a doctrine of creation ex nihilo by means of a certain contemplation, but as a doctrine of creation by the Christ out of a pre-existing form and elements. The question would arise: was it that the Fathers did not grasp the Evagrian ontology; or had the doctrine evolved among the Origenists that the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod encountered in practice into the form given by the Fathers; or, in fact, is the Synod giving the proper interpretation of the doctrine in the Kephalaia Gnostica of the use by the Christ of the second natural contemplation for the creation of the bodies and the worlds? We do not know. Needless to say, we submit to the judgement of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod. In fact, it seems very likely that the Fathers are presenting the doctrine as it was understood by the Origenists whom they encountered. It seems to us, moreover, that the Evagrian doctrine of the use by the Christ of the second natural contemplation to create the bodies and the worlds cannot itself be considered sound in any event. It certainly is not a doctrine that we have encountered anywhere else.
The Synod again does not address the question of whether the Evagrian Christ was by chance the sole mind (nous) not to have deviated from contemplation of the Unity during the Movement, or whether that mind (nous) which became the Christ was in fact from the genesis of the minds (noes) distinguished in some fashion from the other minds (noes) by its manner of union with the Word of God.
Chapters of the Kephalaia Gnostica which are relevant to this Anathema include: IV, 58; III, 26; IV, 7; V, 11.
7 If anyone says the so-called Christ to exist in the form of God and, having been united to the Word of God before all the Ages, in the last days to empty himself towards the human state, having had pity, as they say, on the multifarious fall which occurred to those who belonged to the same henad (enas); and, wishing to bring them back, to have been through all [the worlds] and to have clothed himself with various bodies and to have been allotted [various] names, having become all things to all, angel among the angels but also Power among the Powers; and in the other orders or kinds of reasonable beings to have been transformed harmoniously to each order or kind; and then in a way similar to us to have participated in flesh and blood and also to have become man for men; and does not confess the Word of God to have emptied himself and to have become man, let him be anathema.
This is a direct condemnation of the Evagrian Christology that we saw in the Kephalaia Gnostica. The Fathers present a clear summary of the rather veiled presentation by Evagrius of the incarnation of the Evagrian Christ into all the orders of bodies that exist after the Movement and the First Judgement. It is clear from the Kephalaia Gnostica, however, that Evagrius understands that the Christ is at the same time an angel to the angels, a Power to the Powers and, after his incarnation into a human body, a man to men. This is what underlies KG VI, 16: despite this multiplicity there is only one Christ. Moreover, here, the Fathers address the central Christological heresy of Evagrius: according to the Kephalaia Gnostica, it is not the Word of God which has incarnated into human flesh, but a certain mind (nous) united from its genesis to the Word of God.
The Fathers refer to the Evagrian doctrine that the Christ is a mind (nous) united to the Word of God ‘before all the Ages’. However, again, they do not address the point whether in the Evagrian system this distinguished the Christ from all the other minds (noes), or whether all the minds (noes) are to be understood as having existed in an equal union, so that in the contemplation of the Unity, the immutability of the Christ in contradistinction to the negligence of the other minds (noes) could be seen as something that happened by chance. In the latter case, it would be conceivable in the Evagrian system that another mind (nous) or minds (noes) might have continued in the contemplation of the Unity just as the Evagrian Christ did, whereas the mind (nous) that became the Evagrian Christ might have participated in the negligence.
Chapters of the Kephalaia Gnostica which are relevant to this Anathema include: II, 24; III, 2; VI, 14; IV, 9; VI, 16; V, 1; VI, 18; V, 48; VI, 79; IV, 41; VI, 77; VI, 56; VI, 57; VI, 33.
8 If anyone does not say that the Word of God, he who is consubstantial to God and to the Father and to the Holy Spirit, he who became flesh and became man, he who is one of the Holy Trinity, is properly the Christ, but in an improper sense on account of the mind (nous) which, as they say, emptied itself as being united to the very Word of God and properly called the Christ; but that that one [i.e. the Word] on account of this one [i.e. the nous] is the Christ, and this one [i.e. the nous] on account of that one [i.e. the Word of God] is God, let him be anathema.
We admit to finding the formulation that Evagrius uses in KG IV, 18 a bit confusing. Here, the Fathers quote that formulation verbatim without simplifying it. It is worthwhile here to quote KG IV, 18:
18 The intelligible unction is the spiritual gnosis of the Holy Unity, and the Christ is he who is united to this gnosis. And if that is so, the Christ is not the Word in the beginning, so that he who has been anointed is not God in the beginning, but that one [i.e. the Word of God] on account of this one [i.e. the Christ] is the Christ, and this one [i.e. the Christ] on account of that one [i.e. the Word of God] is God.
Evagrius here says that the Christ is not the Word of God and therefore not God; but that the Christ is a (created) mind (nous) that is united to the gnosis of the Holy Unity (which gnosis is to be identified with the Word of God); that the Word of God is the Christ on account of the Christ (on account of its union with the Christ); and that the (created) mind (nous) which is the Christ is God on account of the Word of God (on account of its union with the Word of God).
The Christological doctrine that the Anathema is addressing is this: The created mind (nous) which in the Movement remained unmoved in its contemplation of the Unity is the Christ. That created mind (nous), the Christ, is not the Word in the beginning, so it is not God in the beginning. However, that mind (nous) is anointed with (i.e. endued with, united to) the spiritual gnosis of the Unity, which gnosis is to be identified with the Word of God. The Word of God is not properly the Christ, the created mind (nous) we have just spoken of. However, in an improper sense it is the Christ on account of the union between it and the created mind (nous) which is the Christ, which union is constituted from the spiritual gnosis of the Unity that the created mind (nous) called the Christ has. Moreover, in the opposite direction, that anointing, equivalent to the union of that created mind (nous) with the Word of God, makes that created mind in an improper sense God. This is the key doctrine that the Anathema is combating: it is not the Word of God which is properly the Christ, but the created mind (nous) which in the Movement remained unmoved in its contemplation of the Unity; the Word of God, which itself did not incarnate into human flesh, is the Christ in an improper sense on account of the union between it and that created mind (nous) which is properly the Christ and which did incarnate into human flesh.
The phrase in Anathema 8 concerning the mind (nous), ‘the mind (nous) which, as they say, emptied itself as being united to the very Word of God and properly called the Christ’, is to be understood in the same way as Anathema 7; it is a reference to Evagrius’ doctrine of the emptying or kenosis of the created mind (nous) called the Christ in its multi-stage incarnation as outlined in detail in Anathema 7 and referred to again in passing in Anathema 12. It does not refer to a ‘divine “kenotic nous” (kenosanta eauton noun) which effects Christ’s “spiritual anointing”’, as Fr Dysinger would have it.[2] Hence we do not accept Fr Dysinger’s argument: ‘Thus, although anathema 8 of 553 may well contain a citation from the Kephalaia Gnostica, it cannot be regarded as solely, or even as primarily directed against Evagrius, since the majority of the anathema describes a doctrine which Evagrius did not teach.’[3] Fr Dysinger is referring to the ‘divine “kenotic nous” (kenosanta eauton noun) which effects Christ’s “spiritual anointing”’ as the doctrine which is being attacked by the Anathema and which was not taught by Evagrius. The doctrine certainly was not taught by Evagrius, but neither is it the meaning of the Anathema.
Chapters of the Kephalaia Gnostica which are relevant to this Anathema include: IV, 18; VI, 14; IV, 9; VI, 18; V, 48; VI, 79.
9 If anyone says that it is not the Word of God, having become flesh in a flesh ensouled by a reasonable and spiritual soul (psuche logike kai noera), who has descended to Hades and has himself again ascended to Heaven, but the mind (nous) spoken of among them, whom, speaking impiously, they say to be properly the Christ, having been made so by the gnosis of the Unity, let him be anathema.
Here, regarding the Evagrian Christ, the Fathers do refer to the ‘gnosis of the Unity’ rather than to the union with the Word of God. It is interesting and important that they understand that it is the gnosis of the Unity which has made the Christ the Christ.
Concerning the descent into Hades, it is clear that this Anathema is taken directly from KG IV, 80.
Note that ‘reasonable and intelligent soul’ corresponds to ‘psuche logike kai noera’ in the original Greek. This is a phrase we find in St Gregory of Nyssa, St Maximos the Confessor and St John of Damascus.[4] It seems to be a standard technical theological expression for the nature of the human soul and for the nature of Christ’s own soul.
The one chapter of the Kephalaia Gnostica which pertains to this Anathema is IV, 80.
10 If anyone says that the body of the Lord after the Resurrection was ethereal, and spherical in shape; and that of such a kind will also be the bodies of the others [i.e. all men] after the [General] Resurrection; and that, the Lord himself first putting off his very own body, then similarly the nature of the bodies of all [the resurrected] will go towards non-existence, let him be anathema.
We have already seen this doctrine in the Kephalaia Gnostica. This Anathema in fact clarifies the sequence of events in the Evagrian eschatology that we ourselves could not quite disentangle. The General Resurrection and the acquisition of a spiritual body is an intermediate stage, to be followed in the Evagrian system by the putting off of bodies—first by the Christ, a detail we did not discern in the text of the Kephalaia Gnostica—and by the return of the now-naked minds (noes) to the contemplation of the Unity.
It is true, however, that the floor-plan of Evagrius’ eschatology can be found in Peri Archon, so that it cannot automatically be said that on eschatology the Anathemas are following Evagrius. Other proofs have to be adduced, such as the direct quotations from the Kephalaia Gnostica that we have already seen in the Anathemas.
Chapters of the Kephalaia Gnostica which are relevant to this Anathema include: IV, 23; IV, 24; VI, 56; VI, 58; V, 8; II, 77; V, 89; I, 24; I, 26; I, 54; I, 58; I, 90; II, 62; II, 90; III, 9; III, 15; III, 25; III, 40; III, 47; III, 51; III, 66; III, 68; IV, 39; V, 19; VI, 23; VI, 34.
11 If anyone says that the judgement to come signifies the complete destruction of bodies; and that the end of that about which the myth is made is the immaterial nature; and that in the [world] to come there will exist nothing of those things which are material; but that the mind (nous) will be naked, let him be anathema.
We have seen this doctrine clearly expressed in various chapters of the Kephalaia Gnostica.
Chapters of the Kephalaia Gnostica which are relevant to this Anathema include: III, 6; III, 70; I, 7; I, 8; I, 9; I, 15; I, 16; I, 17; I, 20; I, 24; I, 26; I, 52; I, 54; I, 58; II, 50; II, 62; III, 9; III, 15; III, 66; III, 68; VI, 34.
12 If anyone says that the heavenly powers and all men and the Devil and the spirits [pneumatika] of evil will be united to the Word of God in exactly the same way as that very mind (nous) which is by them called the Christ and which exists in the form of God and which, as they say, emptied itself; and that there will be an end of the kingdom of Christ, let him be anathema.
We have seen these doctrines clearly expressed in a number of chapters of the Kephalaia Gnostica.
Chapters of the Kephalaia Gnostica which are relevant to this Anathema include: VI, 57; VI, 27; VI, 33; VI, 89; I, 18; I, 20; II, 26; III, 9; IV, 34; IV, 51.
13 If anyone says that the Christ will have absolutely no difference from any one at all of the reasonable beings, neither in substance, nor in gnosis, nor in power or operations over all, but all will be at the right hand of God, like him who among them is the Christ, in the same way that they happened to be in the pre-existence concerning which they make myths, let him be anathema.
This Anathema addresses yet another aspect of the Restoration, one which we have seen clearly expressed in the Kephalaia Gnostica.
Chapters of the Kephalaia Gnostica which pertain to this Anathema include: VI, 89; I, 7; I, 8; I, 9; I, 20; I, 24; I, 54; IV, 51; VI, 34.
14 If anyone says that all the reasonable beings will be a single henad (enas), the persons (hupostases) and the numbers being destroyed together with the bodies; that to the gnosis concerning the reasonable beings follow the destruction of worlds, the deposition of bodies and the <destruction>
This Anathema discusses yet another aspect of the Restoration that we found in many chapters of the Kephalaia Gnostica. It quotes KG II, 17 verbatim.
Note that the Anathema condemns the doctrine that in the Restoration, in the henad, ‘the persons (hupostases)’ will be destroyed together with the bodies. Anathema 2 does not use that term in reference to the condition of the minds (noes) before the Movement. The Fathers of the Synod clearly understood the doctrine that they were condemning to be that in the Restoration there would be no personal distinctions among the minds (noes). By implication (see Anathema 15), they also understood that this was taught to be the condition of the minds (noes) in the henad before the Movement. These doctrines are not so clearly taught in the Kephalaia Gnostica.
Chapters of the Kephalaia Gnostica which pertain to this Anathema include: II, 17; II, 62; II, 67; III, 66; III, 68; IV, 51; VI, 34; VI, 89; I, 7; I, 8; I, 9; I, 15; I, 16; I, 17; I, 20; I, 24; I, 26; I, 52; I, 54; I, 58; II, 25; II, 49; II, 50.
15 If anyone says that the very comportment of the minds (noes) will be the same as that which they had previously, when they had not yet descended or fallen, so that the beginning is the same as the end and the end is the measure of the beginning, let him be anathema.
This, the final Anathema, completes the Anathemas of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod with yet another aspect of the Restoration that we found in the Kephalaia Gnostica.
Chapters of the Kephalaia Gnostica which pertain to this Anathema include: III, 68; III, 66; VI, 34; I, 40; I, 7; I, 8; I, 9; I, 18; I, 20; I, 24; I, 26.
previous | Table of Contents | next
[1] With allowances for the translation of the Kephalaia Gnostica from the Syriac and French. However, for KG V, 11, see the Greek fragment given in a footnote to the chapter in Appendix 2 of Volume II.
[2] Dysinger Appendix 1, ‘Evagrius’ “Hidden Doctrines”’.
[3] Ibid.
[4] See Chapter V.
[5] The emendations in this Anathema are by the editors of the Greek text of the Anathemas.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home