Syriac Patrology, Volume 3: The Book of Steps

PREFACE — CHAPTER III. | ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE BOOK OF STEPS — I. ON GOD, ONE AND TRIUNE.

[These texts use] almost the same words that recur in the Doctrine of Addai¹ and in the Acts of Sharbil the Martyr². These words indeed bear some remote similarity to the formula "there was when He was not" original: ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, condemned at the Council of Nicaea, for which reason certain learned men contended that the Doctrine of Addai was later than the Nicaean Council³. It is not expedient to treat this question here; it must be noted, however, that the conclusions of these acclaimed scholars are futile, because the connection of the words: He was with His Father from eternity and from the ages (Book of Steps, Doctr. Add., Act. Sharbil) to the Nicaean formula "there was when He was not" cannot be demonstrated⁴, and since the Book of Steps is entirely independent of both works, namely the Doctrine of Addai and the Acts of Sharbil. If, therefore, the aforementioned words recur in these writings, their allegation is hardly explained otherwise than by supposing that they belonged to some symbol or profession of faith⁵ common among the Western Syrians, provided it is certain that the Doctrine of Addai and the Acts of Sharbil were written in Edessa.

As regards the third person of the Most Holy Trinity, except for the places already cited above, where he confuses the Holy Spirit in a Sabellian manner with the other divine persons, nothing occurs in the entire book from which you could infer that the Author attributed personal subsistence to the Holy Spirit⁶. Indeed, he discourses most often about the Holy Spirit,

not as a person, but as a divine power acting in the human soul and impelling it to do good¹. The names by which he calls the Holy Spirit are: Spirit of God², Holy Spirit of God³, Spirit of the Lord⁴, Spirit of Christ⁵, Spirit the Paraclete⁶, by which he understands the fullness of grace and carefully distinguishes it from the "mixture of the Spirit"⁷.

If one must judge the Trinitarian doctrine of the Book, two things must be weighed primarily.

a) In the whole work, nothing occurs from which you could conclude that the Author had the Arian movements and Christological questions that arose in the 5th century before his eyes. It is indeed true that a certain indifference regarding dogmatic questions is observed in the whole work; however, it can hardly be understood how a Christian man could have neglected the questions agitated with such vehemence at that time during the Arian troubles. Nor, for that matter, does it seem to have been indifferent to the Author what his contemporaries held and thought about the person of the Redeemer. For he very often utters the highest praises for the Savior⁸ and sharply attacks the Gentiles hanpe pagans, who seek wisdom and despise the humility of Christ⁹. Especially singular is the statement of the Author in Sermon XXX, 21, where he deals with the Gentiles who discuss the Lord with excellent praises and, because they do not imitate His humility, despise His sufferings and declare them to be nonsense. These things hardly pertain to the followers of Arius. For the Arians denied the divinity of Christ, but not the soteriological pertaining to salvation momentum of His death and passion; nor, moreover, did the doctrine of the Arians concerning Christ ever seem to the orthodox to be "excellent praise," which was rather the rash sophistry of litigious investigators, against which St. Ephrem inveighs most vehemently.

b) Although it might perhaps seem possible to conclude from the mention of certain Trinitarian terms, such as "indivisible Trinity, perfect Trinity," that the Book of Steps was written at a time later than the Nicaean Council, I do not believe these terms prove the matter with certainty. For the name "Trinity" original: Τριάδος accepted concerning the Most Holy Trinity already occurs in the writings of Theophilus¹⁰ at the end of the 2nd century and is also familiar to Tertullian¹¹. Athenagoras teaches "union" original: ἕνωσιν and "division" original: διαίρεσιν concerning the Trinity¹². Dionysius of Alexandria, as attested by St. Athanasius¹³, calls the Trinity "indivisible" original: ἀδιαίρετον, and St. Gregory

¹ The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle, ed. Phillips. London, 1876, p. 4 and p. 19: He is, who was with His Father from eternity and from the ages.
² Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, ed. Bedjan, vol. I. Paris, 1890, p. 97: For this One, who put on a body, is God, the Son of God, coessential with His Father and consubstantial with His Begetter. For the splendor of His divinity is to be adored, and the beautiful radiance of His majesty, and He was with His Father from eternity and from the ages. The first part of this formula certainly echoes the ideas of the Nicaean symbol: "coessential" original: ܒܲܪ ܟܝܵܢܵܐ? = homoousios of the same substance, as attested by Cod. Add. 14528 fol. 14b, which exhibits a translation of the Nicaean symbol.
³ R. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden. Braunschweig, 1887, t. III, p. 196 sq. Rubens Duval, La littérature Syriaque, ed. II. Paris, 1900, p. 125. — ⁴ Which, moreover, Lipsius himself admits.
⁵ Dem. XVIII, 2 of Aphraates shows that such dogmatic formulas existed among the Syrians even before the Nicaean Council; he, whom all learned men admit was ignorant of the Nicaean decrees, nevertheless mentions among the various titles usually given to Christ by the faithful, "light from light" original: ܢܘܼܗܪܵܐ ܡܸܢ ܢܘܼܗܪܵܐ?, which epithet also recurs in the Epistle of Eusebius of Caesarea to his own church and pertains to those dogmatic formulas that, as Professor Harnack admits, were familiar and common in theological parlance at the end of the 3rd century.
⁶ The doctrine of Aphraates regarding the Holy Spirit is similar, as Labourt learnedly shows in op. c. p. 33 sq.
¹ Serm. III, 11. — ² original: ܪܘܼܚܹܗ ܕܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ? Serm. III, 11. — ³ original: ܪܘܼܚܵܐ ܩܲܕܝܼܫܬܵܐ ܕܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ? Serm. XXVIII, 1.
⁴ original: ܪܘܼܚܹܗ ܕܡܵܪܝܵܐ? Serm. III, 10. — ⁵ original: ܪܘܼܚܹܗ ܕܲܡܫܝܼܚܵܐ? Serm. III, 12.
⁶ original: ܪܘܼܚܵܐ ܦܲܪܲܩܠܹܝܛܵܐ? Serm. III, 10, 12. — ⁷ Serm. III, 10-13; V, 18-19; XXVIII, 2.
⁸ Serm. XVI, 8. — ⁹ Serm. XXX, 21. Cf. XVII, 1; XXIII, 11.
¹⁰ Ad Autolycum II, 15. — ¹¹ Adv. Praxeam III, 11 sq.
¹² Legatio pro Christianis 10: "Who then would not be puzzled to hear them called atheists when they speak of God the Father, and God the Son, and the Holy Spirit, demonstrating their power in union and their division in order?"
¹³ Epistola de sententia Dionysii: "Thus we broaden the monad into the Trinity without division, and conversely, we sum up the Trinity into the monad without reduction."