A refutation 🧵:
Our critic has, at last, tried his best from the valid and accepted homilies of St. Proclus (props to him for that) but unfortunately, he failed to prove the slightest of Chalcedonian dogma from these two quotes; here, we will address both quotes.
1/7 🧵.
Our critic has, at last, tried his best from the valid and accepted homilies of St. Proclus (props to him for that) but unfortunately, he failed to prove the slightest of Chalcedonian dogma from these two quotes; here, we will address both quotes.
1/7 🧵.
https://twitter.com/scriptoriump/status/1961653418226774275
Homily 23: Homily 23 doesn't teach “in two natures after the union” as your own citations even lack that; moreover, two natures, created and uncreated, coming to be united under a single hypostasis is not a proof of anything. Per your own prior admissions that would be under a single individual substance (Latin “substantia” as equivalent of the Greek “hypostasis” and not Leo’s “persona”).
Moreover, the Syriac text you are relying on for Homily 23 says one “kyana (physis)”, that is to say, one “substance.” Migne has it as “persona” (the Syriac isn't “parsopa”) if it were one “hypostasis” (which your other texts attest) then he should have rendered it as “qnuma” and not “parsopa”; and in this case, “qnuma” is synonymous with “kyana” on the concrete level/at the level of substantia. Remember the equivalence of “economy,” “physis (kayan),” and “hypostasis (qnuma)” from my previous reply? Yeah.
The Syriac is as follows: “ܚܰܝܕ݂ܰܬ݂ ܬ݁ܪܶܝܢ ܟܝܳܢ̈ܶܐ ܒ݁ܚܰܕ݂ ܟܝܳܢܳܐ (ḥaydaṯ treyn kyone b-ḥad kyono).”
And its translation is as follows: “united two natures in one nature.”
Thus, Homily 23 doesn't prove “two natures after the union” or “in two natures” but “two natures” coming under “a single hypostasis” and in the Syriac under “a single kyana” which is “physis/nature.” This further matches with the prior admission of yours on how “hypostasis” was translated to Latin as “substantia.”
Thus, homily 23 remains a miaphysite homily.
2/7 🧵.
x.com/scriptoriump/s…
Moreover, the Syriac text you are relying on for Homily 23 says one “kyana (physis)”, that is to say, one “substance.” Migne has it as “persona” (the Syriac isn't “parsopa”) if it were one “hypostasis” (which your other texts attest) then he should have rendered it as “qnuma” and not “parsopa”; and in this case, “qnuma” is synonymous with “kyana” on the concrete level/at the level of substantia. Remember the equivalence of “economy,” “physis (kayan),” and “hypostasis (qnuma)” from my previous reply? Yeah.
The Syriac is as follows: “ܚܰܝܕ݂ܰܬ݂ ܬ݁ܪܶܝܢ ܟܝܳܢ̈ܶܐ ܒ݁ܚܰܕ݂ ܟܝܳܢܳܐ (ḥaydaṯ treyn kyone b-ḥad kyono).”
And its translation is as follows: “united two natures in one nature.”
Thus, Homily 23 doesn't prove “two natures after the union” or “in two natures” but “two natures” coming under “a single hypostasis” and in the Syriac under “a single kyana” which is “physis/nature.” This further matches with the prior admission of yours on how “hypostasis” was translated to Latin as “substantia.”
Thus, homily 23 remains a miaphysite homily.
2/7 🧵.
x.com/scriptoriump/s…
Homily 24: The Syriac source (Cod. Vat. Syr. 368) you have appealed to doesn't say “in two” but “two—*of* divinity and humanity.” It then goes further down the line and says Christ is a union “of two” and doesn't say he subsists “in two.” “Of two” is “dṯreyn [ܕܬܪܶܝܢ]” whereas “in two” is “btreyn [ܒܬܪܶܝܢ]”; “Of two (dṯreyn [ܕܬܪܶܝܢ])” is what is used in the Syriac.
Craig himself (props to him for that) had already consulted Subdeacon Daniel Kakish on this (the Syriac text) and corrected himself.
3/7 🧵.
x.com/scriptoriump/s…
Craig himself (props to him for that) had already consulted Subdeacon Daniel Kakish on this (the Syriac text) and corrected himself.
3/7 🧵.
x.com/scriptoriump/s…
Moreover, Cod. Vat. Syr. 368 (A, which is an OO witness) and Or. Brit. 8606 (B, a Chalcedonian witness) both witness to the absence of “in” and even more, both say “two, *of* divinity and humanity” which supports the reading of “of” and not “in.” This can not be a miaphysite doctoring of the text as it is witnessed by a Chalcedonian one.
Thus, Homily 24 likewise remains a miaphysite homily. And the dogma of Chalcedon is not found in either of these two quotes you have quoted from Homilies 23 & 24.
4/7 🧵.
Thus, Homily 24 likewise remains a miaphysite homily. And the dogma of Chalcedon is not found in either of these two quotes you have quoted from Homilies 23 & 24.
4/7 🧵.
The Greek citations of Homily 24:
Regarding the Greek citations, here is what Martin (1941)says: “The Syriac recension of Vatic. Syr. 368 is close to the Greek text of Paris. 1491, and this confirms what M. C. Moss said: that the differences among the Syriac recensions are due, at least in part, to the fact that they are two distinct translations, made from two slightly different Greek codices.” (Martin, 1941, p.22). Thus, the Syriac translations were made from different Greek codices; and also the fact that there were two variants of the Greek codices is indicative of how the variances came to be. And further, he says the following: “The “version” of the Nativity is attested only by Paris. gr. 1491 and must be considered secondary“ (ibid). This is in contrast to the Syriac versions. Now, given that the Greek is relegated to a secondary degree and the Syriac doesn't support you at all, he says the following about the Syriac too: “We have already noted elsewhere the importance of these two Syriac manuscripts, Vatic. Syr. 368 and 369, for the history of ancient Byzantine homiletic collections, for there is no doubt that they are translations of very ancient Greek collections…” (ibid,p.5).
Thus, the Syriac texts are given the primary consideration, and none of them supports you at all.
- Charles Martin (1941), Un florilège grec d'homélies christologiques des IVe et Ve siècles, sur la Nativité.
5/7 🧵.
x.com/scriptoriump/s…
Regarding the Greek citations, here is what Martin (1941)says: “The Syriac recension of Vatic. Syr. 368 is close to the Greek text of Paris. 1491, and this confirms what M. C. Moss said: that the differences among the Syriac recensions are due, at least in part, to the fact that they are two distinct translations, made from two slightly different Greek codices.” (Martin, 1941, p.22). Thus, the Syriac translations were made from different Greek codices; and also the fact that there were two variants of the Greek codices is indicative of how the variances came to be. And further, he says the following: “The “version” of the Nativity is attested only by Paris. gr. 1491 and must be considered secondary“ (ibid). This is in contrast to the Syriac versions. Now, given that the Greek is relegated to a secondary degree and the Syriac doesn't support you at all, he says the following about the Syriac too: “We have already noted elsewhere the importance of these two Syriac manuscripts, Vatic. Syr. 368 and 369, for the history of ancient Byzantine homiletic collections, for there is no doubt that they are translations of very ancient Greek collections…” (ibid,p.5).
Thus, the Syriac texts are given the primary consideration, and none of them supports you at all.
- Charles Martin (1941), Un florilège grec d'homélies christologiques des IVe et Ve siècles, sur la Nativité.
5/7 🧵.
x.com/scriptoriump/s…
To your last inaccurate assertion: Homily 30 has been refuted, 23 likewise, and the same for 24.
The bishops at Chalcedon drafted the creed as “of/out of/from two,” because they knew that was the tradition of the Church. They all said that it satisfies the Church to confess “of two,” but the Roman legates refused. With imperial pressure, culminating in the threat to move the Council to Italy, your bishops gave in and amended the creed from “of two” to “in two.” They were not willing to suffer for their faith as the most Holy Dioscorus did.
And you know what even pushed them to say “in two”? It is in the Acts and it definitely was not a previous tradition of the church, whether 20 or 50 years old. It was to be against St Dioscorus and to follow Leo, not the actual tradition of the Holy Church:
“26. The most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘Dioscorus said, “I accept ‘from two natures’, but I do not accept ‘two’.” But the most holy Archbishop Leo says that there are two natures in Christ, united without confusion, change or separation in the one only-begotten Son our Saviour. So whom do you follow – the most holy Leo, or Dioscorus?’
27. The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘We believe as Leo does. Those who object are Eutychianists. Leo’s teaching was orthodox.’
28. The most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘Then add to the definition in accordance with the decree of our most holy father Leo that there are two natures united without change, division or confusion in Christ.’”
- Price, R. & Gaddis, M. (eds.) (2005) The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Vol. 2, Session 5. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, p. 200.
Your fathers told us they followed Leo; there you have your answer to how they picked up the “in two.”
6/7 🧵.
The bishops at Chalcedon drafted the creed as “of/out of/from two,” because they knew that was the tradition of the Church. They all said that it satisfies the Church to confess “of two,” but the Roman legates refused. With imperial pressure, culminating in the threat to move the Council to Italy, your bishops gave in and amended the creed from “of two” to “in two.” They were not willing to suffer for their faith as the most Holy Dioscorus did.
And you know what even pushed them to say “in two”? It is in the Acts and it definitely was not a previous tradition of the church, whether 20 or 50 years old. It was to be against St Dioscorus and to follow Leo, not the actual tradition of the Holy Church:
“26. The most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘Dioscorus said, “I accept ‘from two natures’, but I do not accept ‘two’.” But the most holy Archbishop Leo says that there are two natures in Christ, united without confusion, change or separation in the one only-begotten Son our Saviour. So whom do you follow – the most holy Leo, or Dioscorus?’
27. The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘We believe as Leo does. Those who object are Eutychianists. Leo’s teaching was orthodox.’
28. The most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘Then add to the definition in accordance with the decree of our most holy father Leo that there are two natures united without change, division or confusion in Christ.’”
- Price, R. & Gaddis, M. (eds.) (2005) The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Vol. 2, Session 5. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, p. 200.
Your fathers told us they followed Leo; there you have your answer to how they picked up the “in two.”
6/7 🧵.
As these have been sufficiently refuted, it is now my turn to ask questions:
“As there can be no unity in [the state of] two different things—for, if that is the case, then there is no unity (but duality)—likewise the one as (in the sense of) perfect accord (union) is not divided into two.”
- St Proclus of Constantinople, Tome to the Armenians, trans. by HH Karekin I
Why does St Proclus say a duality is division and negates unity?
7/7, end thread 🧵.
“As there can be no unity in [the state of] two different things—for, if that is the case, then there is no unity (but duality)—likewise the one as (in the sense of) perfect accord (union) is not divided into two.”
- St Proclus of Constantinople, Tome to the Armenians, trans. by HH Karekin I
Why does St Proclus say a duality is division and negates unity?
7/7, end thread 🧵.
@UnrollHelper
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
