paul s. russell - ephraem and athanasius on the knowledge of christ. two anti-arian treatments of...

8/9/2019 Paul S. Russell - Ephraem and Athanasius on the Knowledge of Christ. Two anti-Arian Treatments of "Mark" 13:32.

1/30

Gregorianum 85, 3 (2004) 445-474

Ephraem and Athanasiuson the Knowledge of Christ.

Two anti-Arian Treatments of Mark 13:32

A large portion of the literature that survives from the ArianControversy is composed of argument over the meaning of Scripture: notonly over the content of particular verses, but over the proper manner inwhich the sacred text should be approached. The interest these argumentshold for those who seek to understand this formative Christian theologicalstruggle can hardly be exaggerated. In the course of them, we can seedisplayed the deepest convictions of those on ali sides of this complicatedquarrel: both in their exposition of the texts and in the presuppositionsaccording to which they approach that exposition. This paper is an attemptto learn from a closer look at two anti-Arian1 forays into polemical exegesis: in this case, of Mark 13:32/Matthew 24:36.2

The choice of these two figures gives this essay special usefulness.Each of them is a founding figure in his own Christian language tradition,so their approach to a centrai exegetical crux of this kind is instructiveabout how a large group of patristic authors who were weaned on their wri

tings learned to treat christologically problematic verses, as well asshowing what members of those different language traditions would haveshared in their theological formation. We can understand some of theunspoken assumptions of Nicene thinking in the Fourth Century if we lookat how these two figures worked out their positions at difficult points. Morethan that, it has often been argued that Syriac-speaking Christianity was a

1Since the two arguments examined here are both adversarial replies to anti-Nicene exe

getical discussions, I think they are best described as anti-Arian rather than pro-Nicene.Anti-anti-Nicene I have rejected as unwieldy, though more accurate.

2These verses form a very dose parallel pair. Their wording differs very slightly but themeaning is not affected by the Variation. For the sake of ease and clarity, the verse will be desi

gnated by its Markan citation throughout this paper. The Greek as it appears in Athanasius'citations agrees exactly with neither gospel and seems to prefer neither.


2/30

446 PAUL S. RUSSELL

sideshow in the life of the early Church, concerned with its own difficulties

and not fully integrated into the life of the wider Church until its traditionbecame subsumed into the whole through the influence of the larger Greektradition. While some modem scholars have argued against this idea, it isstili current and affects how Syriac authors are studied (and, sometimes,even, if they are studied at all).31 hope that this essay, by looking at a particular case in detail, will form an argument that the Syriac-speakingChurch, in the person of its most influential author, was fully engaged inthe same theological concerns that rent the Church farther to the West andshared the same instincts and thought patterns of its Nicene brethren. A

large point, such as the coherence of Nicene Christianity as a theologicalPosition in the Fourth Century, can only be made by citing specific cases indetail. I hope that this instance will show some of what I have seen whenreading through Fourth Century Nicene Christian works.

This verse is an appropriate choice for the consideration of exegeticalmethod during the controversy because those arguing against the theological position of the Nicene Creed4 thought it provided ammunition fortheir attempt to illustrate their less-than-equal view of the Son from thepages of Scripture. Mark 13:32 reads:5

But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor theSon, but only the Father.

Much of the force of this text was feit to come from the fact that itaddresses specifically the area of knowledge, the particular province of anomniscient God, and does so while grouping the Son in His ignorance withall the rest of ignorant Creation in contrast to the knowledge of the Father.A more direct challenge to the supporters of a Son equal in Divinity to theFather could scarce be imagined. Ephraem the Syrian evidently feit theweight of this challenge, for he wrote at least three hymns to counter this

3See Sidney H. Griffith, Ephraem, the deacon of Edessa, and the Church of the Empire,25-52 in T.P. Halton and J.E Williamson (eds.), Diakonia: Studies in Honour of Robert T. Meyer,Washington, DC, 1986 for a counter to this dismissive idea.

' I mean this group to include all those who argued for a view of the Son as less thanequal in Divinity to the Father. They would not all properly be called Arians, and they werenot only active after the Council at Nicea. Indeed, as Stead has shown in Divine Substance OUP1977, they need not all have feit compelled to argue against the Nicene Creed, at least on thebasis of the text alone rather than its later polemical use by proponents of a Trinity of equallydivine hypostases (or whatever term might have been used). However, I can think of no easier

term to use for them than anti-Nicene, so I will proceed with that, for now. We must alsoalways recali that there were people whose Christology agreed with that of the proponents ofNicea but who rejected that council's creed because of its use of non-scriptural language.These, also, cannot be considered Arian.

5 The New American Bible including the Revised New Testament OUP 1990. All Scripturecitations will be taken from this translation.


3/30

EPHRAEM ANDATHANASIUS 447

anti-Nicene use of Mark 13:32, those which survive numbered 77, 78 and

79 in the collection of his hymns called Hymns On Faith. Because of hisextended interest in the difficulties raised by the verse he can provide auseful point of entry into an anti-Arian position on these matters. The factthat his work is generally less well known than those of the time writing inGreek or Latin is an added reason for an examination of these hymns now.We may hope that this study will add breadth as well as depth to our knowledge of Fourth Century Christian christological exegesis.

Ephraem's Hymns on Mark 13:32

We do not know the dates or particular circumstances of most ofEphraem's surviving work. The hymns in this collection fall into that category.6 While it is generally agreed that the hymns in this collection aremainly addressed against the sorts of arguments modem scholars associate with neo-Arians, we can only conclude this about each of them individually from internai evidence. The three hymns this paper will examinegive every indication of being involved in this struggle and of being veryforcibly designed to form a progressive argument. The refrains of thehymns have been set as headings for the respective sections expoundingtheir content as one way to begin to clarify that progression. I am satisfied,for the moment, that the evidence makes reasonable the conclusion thatthey were produced in the order they now have in the collection: first 77,then 78, with 79 standing as the conclusion of the string (at least as it survives for us to read);7 this paper will continue with that as a workinghypothesis. If the following discussion proves convincing, readers ofEphraem might decide to consider these three hymns, provisionally, as ajoint work, or at least as part of one. It is also interesting to note that thetreatment of Mark 13:32 found in these hymns has a number of similarities

with the way that verse is approached by Athanasius in his Third Orationagainst the Arians. Some points of interest are thrown into high relief bythat congruence. We will examine sections 26 and 42-50 of that third oration as another example of anti-Arian exegesis in the hope that it may shedlight both on Ephraem's approach to this task as well as on the common

6For a discussion of the difficulties involved in trying to trace the dates and occasions ofthe various pieces of the collections of Ephraem's hymns we now have, and why we would do

well to accept that this knowledge has been lost to us, see Paul S. Russell, St. Ephraem theSyrian and St. Gregory the Theologian confront the Arians, SEERI, Kottayam (India), 1994,Chapter 1, esp. Note 5, page 8 and the works cited there.

7The partial nature of our knowledge can never be stressed too much. We must alwayskeep in mind that we may not have ali the originai pieces to the puzzle we are engaged in exa

mining.


4/30

448 PAULS. RUSSELL

convictions of two articulate Fourth Century supporters of Nicene

Christology.8

HYMN771 The simple9 weigh [the verse] He does not know that hour10 against the Son

as if it were greaterRefrain: Blessed is Your knowledge2 For if the First-Born knows the Father, what is there greater than the Father

so that He" does not know it?3 No one knows that hour except the First-Born, because He alone knows

the Father.4 If, as they think, He does not know it because He is a creature, behold, they

are making Him [a creature] by their investigations5 Come, wonder whether our Lord, on account of His being a creature, Did

not know that hour.6 These people, who were created by His hand, dare to inquire into the Lord of

Hours instead of that hour7 Let them, indeed, support their statement so that everything which is a crea

ture may keep silence before the Creator.8 By the same knowledge by which He knows the Father is that hour also

contained for Him in His knowledge.9 If [the Father] should grant to [the Son] to know His12 glory and hide from

Him an hour of time, [the hour] would be greater than He13 is10 Set the hour He does not know beside the Father which He does know and

weigh [them] and see which is greater.11 It is the Son alone Who knows the Father.14 He knows Him entirely; He

lacks none of Him.12 Because the root is true, the fruit that it produced knows it truly.13 What fruit knows [only] a lite of its root? It is entirely mingled together

with all of it14 If it should fall short of its tree with regard to knowledge of it, it would also

fall short [of it] with regard to its name because it would not be its fruit.15 If the fruit corresponds to the root in its name, it would also correspond to

it in knowledge.

"The author's translation of the three hymns of Ephraem under examination is provided,since not many students of early Christian thought have access to the earlier translation ofMorris (J.B. Morris, Select Works ofS. Ephrem the Syrian translated out of the originai Syriac,London, 1847, 348-359) or are able to read the originai.8Uterally childish It refers to the Arians.

10Cf. Mark 13:32

"The Son12The Father's13The Father" Cf. Matthew 11:27 N.B. the use of another Scriptural passage to rebut the Arian inter

pretation. As so often among the pro-Nicene writers, Ephraem argues implicitly that only thefull Nicene position can make sense of ali of Scripture together.


5/30


16 The sweetness in them both is one; the knowledge in them both is one,

because they are mingled together.17 The fruit s mingled in the midst of its tree and its root is also in the midst

of the fruit. Who can separate [them]?18They cannot be divided with regard to that sweetness. They also cannot be

divided with regard to knowledge of the whole truth.19 The love of the fruit s in the midst of its root and in the midst of the fruit s

also [the love] of its tree. Who can divide [them]?20 The names Father, Son, and Spirit agree and are in concord because

of [Their] descent at Baptism.21 The names are in concord. The series [of them] is in concord because [They

have] one will, just as They bear one yoke and go [forward together];22 just as when They agree about the descent at Baptism, so do They agree alsoin [Their] concord.

23 The fruit bent down and put on a body and put on with it the weak namesof the sons of its race.

24 But, when He put on our human nature, He also, on account of us, put onour [level of] knowledge.

25 He Who Knows All became un-knowing. He asked questions and listened

[to the answers] just like a human being on account of human being[s],26 If the feeble inquired into Being, would He Who is the Son not also be capa

ble of comprehending the hour?

27 Indeed, either let them be still [about] whether He knows [the hour], but ifthey do inquire, let them confess that the Son knows everything.

28 If they do inquire, ([that is], although this insolence is not permitted, or, ifit is permitted, [it is] as a gift):

29 He Who grants to the dust to investigate [Hirn], how would He forbid HisSon to know an hour of time?

30 He does not know that hour. The cause of this lack of knowledge is the

body He put on.(The End)

HYMN78

1 You would never want to say that the Son does not know that hour,15because He knows it.

Refrain: Blessed is HeWho Knows Everything2 He knows that hour which is [decided] by reckoning, because ali numbers

were devised by Him.3 If it is [an hour] of a year, He would knowit, because the months of the year

were devised by Him like limbs.4 If it is [an hour] of a month, He would know it, because the days of the

months were devised by Him like nerves.16

15Cf. Mark 13:3216Or veins.


6/30

450 PAUL S. RUSSELL

5 If it is [an hour] of days, He would not mistake it, because the hours and

Sabbaths were also divided by Him like weeks.6 If it is [an hour] of the sun, He would know it, because He is the One Whotreads out the paths of Winter and the steps of Summer.

7 If it is [an hour] of the moon, He would also knowit, because Heis the OneWho made the times of the full moons along with the new moon.

8 On high and in the depths, if something exists, it is in the palm [of] His[hand]. All creatures hang17 on His finger.

9 Compare the hour which He does not know to that Holy Spirit Which Hedoes know: which is greater?

10 Come, explain to us the cause: how and why did It18 conceal from Him the

hour of Its procession?11 If It concealed [it] from Him [it was] for this: so that He19 would be smallerthan He20 [was], lest He21 slip away [and] become like Himself.

12 That scheme is very weak. See how it would be: It could end it with one

word.2213 For when that hour was revealed and the horn blew and the procession

occurred, it was fnished.14 Therefore, He23 was on the same level with It and discord became concord

according to Their word.15 One of[these] two [possibilities must be the solution]: if He is small in that

He does not know it, [then] He would be on the same level when He doesperceive it.

16 And if, when He does perceive it, He is great - behold, for He knows it butHe is stili small

17 For Satan is also able to know that hour, but when [it] is revealed24 he willbe consumed by it.

18 Therefore, great [is] the hour which He concealed from His Beloved thateven Satan could know

17Or depend.18The Syriac refers to the Holy Spirit in this passage as He, but in order to more closely

approximate common English idiom, and to avoid confusion, I have referred to the Holy Spiritas It.

19The Son incarnate as Jesus Christ20The Son as He is in the Godhead21Jesus Christ or the Son.22

Ephraem holds that the ignorance of the incarnate Son about the Spirit's processionmust be one that is falsely assumed. If the Spirit should speak a word to the incarnate Son outof turn, the incarnate Son would become like Himself and again enjoy the fullness of Divineknowledge. Ephraem objects here to any scheme that would falsify the experience of the

Incarnation, making it one of appearance rather than of reality. By doing this, he denies himself an easy way around the paradox inherent in the created existence of the Divine Son. Hissolution is to proclaim the Son's continuing equality with the Spirit in stanza 14, which israther a declaration of the difficulty than a solution of it.

22The Son24I.e. When it comes to pass or when it arrives.


7/30

EPHRAEM AND ATHANASIUS 451

19Come, hear the cause of His glory, because He is the Lord ofAllWho is grea

ter than all and everything depends on Him.20 For the cause of the glory of God which is with us is His goodness, which iseverlasting;

21 and the cause ofHis glory which is with His Offspring [is] His Fatherhood,which also is always and everlasting.

22 O, [you] holy causes, which never finish with the creatures and the FirstBorn

23 But [Creation] is an hour of time, and the cause of time, and the fullness oftime, and, along with time, its time passes.25

24 [It is] the great necessity of Making that a made thing can never be as great

as its Maker.25 [It is] the great necessity of Fatherhood that His offspring can never become like the Begetter.

26 Indeed, [there is] another argument regarding that hour. Let us go and seekit out, since that earlier one has been explained.

27 Confess and reveal what has been deduced: that our Redeemer did alsoknow that hour,

28 since Hewhispered to us as by a symbol: Strifeput together [and] spoke it26so that it might prevail through it.

29 Strife is guilty and Truth has won. Disputation has passed away and thecrown has come to the victor.

(The End)

HYMN 79

1 My Son, which is [more] glorious in comparison and which also is preeminent in weight: that He does not know the hour or that He knows thatFather Who is great beyond comparison? Show that He does not know.Show that He does not try to inquire into the hour in order to restrain [us]

by the hour so that the hour might also rebuke you, lest you inquire intothe Lord of All Hours.

Refrain: Glory be to You, anointed Son,27 Who Knows All2 Know in yourself that He knows. Behold, He anticipated and bound your

knowledge because your freedom [of will] is a defiled handmaid whichplunders its Lord's treasures for the sake of its wine. He prepared chainsand got bonds ready for it. Behold, the hedges bound it and, behold,bulwarks encompassed it. And if they did not keep it, ts frenzy would beknown because of them.

25This stanza is awkward in this position. It seems to stress the transitory nature of

Creation and created things in contrast to the changeless eternity of the Divine. That contrastsits well before stanzas 24+25, which proclaim the gulf between God and the world, and Godthe Father and ali else, but its expression is jarring.

26I.e. the Arian argument that the reference to the Son not knowing the hour was a proofof His less-than-fully-divine status.

27Or Son, Messiah.


8/30

452 PAUL S. RUSSELL

3 He knew that races and tongues and the Greeks who contemplate hidden

things, were prepared to come for His Instruction, for this is the netwhich gathered ali races.28 His leaven29 led and brought the wild asses toHis teaching and, so that they would not be upset in their paths by theone yoke of Truth, He used to teach one path of concord.

4 He did not give a place to the swift for him to run separately on his own. Hedid not give a place to the inquirer for him to be freed from the yoke offaith. The learned and the idiots,30 the subtle and the innocent: on ali ofthem [lies]one yoke of equality. May the chariot's yoke persuade the divided to gain concord by it 31

5 That we should eat and drink and sleep and rise: this power dwells in free

dom [of the will], But horses also possess this freedom concerning whatthey want and how much they want. Taskmasters, therefore, are notunder the yoke which Love put on for them, [which] Truth girded on forthem. They did not turn aside nor turn [others] aside, because they areobedient to the will of the driver.

6 If, where there is no freedom, [that is] in the race of animals, (and, behold -there is [a kind of freedom there] ): how, then, will it be found in its ownhouse: the human being - a vessel [with] impulses in its soul?32 Bound byTruth and freed in manner of life, he transgresses against the good thingsthrough variations from [his] true state. If he slips to error, he will be

dragged down.7 For He keeps watch and sleeps, and when he sleeps the wage for his wat

ching is [stili] kept for him. He also fasts and eats in his time but the fastdoes not really vanish for him in the eating. For, tasting and fasting areboth pure and seemly. Truth is unitary33 and its neighbor is error, and if

you creep away from it [as] a little ray34 that little will be like a gulf.8 There are diverse desires in one gathering but they will never be blamed for

being divided. But they are blameworthy for one thing by which they aredivided: because they rebel against the yoke of Faith. If horses [can] agreetogether in one yoke, [and] David wrote about His own [nature] that:Human

beingsare likened to animals.35

O, may theybe likened to a

marvel36 which is not also like them

28Cf. Matthew 13:47-48.29Cf. Matthew 13:33.30The Greek word is used.31That is, by submitdng themselves to be hitched to it together.32If animals can go astray without even enjoying real freedom of will, what will be the

fate of humans who fully enjoy this power to err or go straight?33Literally single or sole.33God, as so often in Ephraem's hymns, is seen as the sun, and the wandering human as

a little ray that goes off on its own and is separated from the source of all light.35Psalm 49:20.36The marvel of dumb animals pulling together in concord.


9/30


9 Behold, the courses are confused in the midst of the gatherings and the desi

res are wounded by the inhabitants [of the gatherings], Questions aredivided in the churches and minds are sick in the congregations.Therefore, whose is the woe, which [makes] a raging in the midst of thesea and turmoil on the dry and? They inquired into the Creator byWhosehand they were established. Behold, His creatures are upset by [their]inquiry into Him.

10 Therefore, behold, the house of the Lord is set37 up as an example for theinstruction of His servants. His Creation and its number are arguing thatit cannot be concealed from the Creator. When they carne to inquire intoHim they saw Him in that hour when it depicted His humiliation so that

they were quickly ashamed and were restrained by the type of His lowliness from [inquiring into] His powerful generation.11 Look at these things with the eye of consideration: at all creatures, at

everything, because they are put together like a body by the One WhoEstablishes All, and cannot be hidden from their Creator. My brothers,how could its parts38 conceal an image from its Artificer when it is beingdepicted? That hour cannot be hidden from the knowledge of its Creator

12 My brothers, look at number which is composed like a body by the OneWho Knows All.His computations are in the type of its limbs and the seasons and times are like its constructions. The hours are like its features,the

yearsare like its forms. That hidden hour is a

typeof His

thoughtand

similarly [with] the rest of its limbs: behold, its months, also, its Sabbathsand its days [are types of His thought],

13 Who, indeed, would go astray or be changed and destroy his thoughts andbecome like drunkards who destroy their own minds to the point that thefool would now think that the picture, which was embellished by the trueFather through the finger of His beloved, should [provide] a means forthat glorious hour to conceal itself from the finger of the One WhoFashions All?

14 Therefore, if it should be impossible for His foreknowledge to err, and Healso prepared a place in which it39 might be established, at which time it

might come from being hidden to being manifest; although it was not

possible, it was possible for its Lord.40 Now, behold, it41 is kept in the trea

sury of His knowledge. [Even]if ts root is hidden, the fruit which is in itsbosom is not hidden.(The End)

37Literally nailed.38Or limbs.

39God's providential plan.I.e. Creation's Lord or the Lord of God's Foreknowledge, which would be a periphrasis for God Himself. God, as Lord of All, was able to give up or make quiescent His foreknowledge. Ephraem wishes to emphasize that God's lordship, or power of control, has thestrength to over-rule His usuai relation to the created order.

" God's providential pian.


10/30

454 PAUL S.RUSSELL

An Analysis ofEphraem's Hymns on Mark 13:32

Hymn 77: Blessed isyour Knowledge

The argument of this hymn centers on the following points:1) The Arians have a faulty approach to Scripture, shown in the fact

that they give this isolateci text undue weight42 - Ephraem points out thatthe Scriptures say elsewhere that the Son knows the Father,43 how, then,can this one statement, in isolation, be considered to describe fully thelevel of the Son's knowledge?

2) The Arians misunderstand the import of the Incarnation. This is

shown in the fact that they view evidence of the weakness of the IncarnateSon as evidence of His nature being less-than-fully-Divine, rather than asevidence of the astonishing degree of humility evinced by His taking onhuman nature44 - the First-Born knows the Father, Ephraem says,45making an implicit contrast of the First Born (the Son as He in theGodhead) with the Son (the Son as Incarnate). An intelligent appraisal ofthe knowledge possessed by the incarnate Son must reckon with thisdistinction as well as with ali the scriptural information given us on thistopic.

3) The Arians misunderstand how toapply

the fact thatknowledge

ofsomething carries with it, for the holder of the knowledge, power or ontologica precedence over the thing known46 - a comparison of the hour tothe Father will leave no doubt as to which is greater. Are we to assume thatthe same Son both knows something as great as the Father and is unable toknow something as paltry as an hour? Where on the scale of being woulda Son like thatbe found?, is the implied question. Where would that meanwe should place the hour that is beyond the Son's knowledge?

4) The use of a simile based on the fruit and the root of a tree is introduced as an example of connected realities that enjoy a deep organic con

nection with each other but also have real independence:47Because the root is true, the fruit that it produced knows it truly. What fruitknows [onlv] a little of its root? It [the fruit] s entirely mingled together withali of it [the root] (12+13)

The fruit and the root are of entirely different natures but are alsobound together indissolubly by their mutually dependent naturai existen

42Stanzas 1-2.43Having in mind, for example, John 8:54-55.

44This is shown in the contrast between stanza 1 and the two following it.45Stanzas 2+3.46Stanzas 8-10.47Stanzas 12-19.


11/30


ces. They could not be bound together if they did not share the deepestkind of likeness, and they could not be different parts of the same plant ifthey were not entirely distinct in form and function, one of them being thesource and the other that which is produced by the source.

5) The Arians show a lack of understanding for the soteriologicalnecessity of the Son's putting on of human nature in order to heal it.

He Who Knows All became un-knowing. He asked questions and listened [tothe answers] just like a human being on account of human being[s] (25)."He does not know that hour". The cause of this lack of knowledge is the bodyHe put on (30).

The level of knowledge described in the verse comes from the fact ofHe Who Knows Allbeing incarnate in a body. An ability to act on a humanlevel was necessary if the Son were to operate as a human, but Ephraemwams against being misled into thinking that these actions exhaust or correctly represent the true nature of the Being performing them. They arerevelatory of the manner of the Incarnation and its working out of salvation rather than of the true nature of the One Who is incarnate.

The theme of the hymn is made clear in the refrain, addressed to Godthe Son, with which this section is headed: the knowledge of the Son isblessed and remarked upon, because the knowledge of the Son was whatenabled Hirn to perform the actions necessary to save us. The Incarnationwas not an experience undertaken in ignorance by an ignorant being, butwas a celebration and vindication of the knowledge of the Son Incarnate,according to Ephraem.

The logie of the hymn may be expressed as follows:Reason argues for the fact that a thing which knows something eise

has power over it, that knowledge and power being exemplified by theknowledge and power enjoyed by the Son over the created world He autho

red. This rules out the possibility that the Son might be ignorant of somepart of that world.

Scripture itself argues elsewhere against granting too much weight tothis verse because it also says things directly opposed to the obvious meaning of this verse, taken alone. This proves that, in order to understand theRevelation correctly, we must balance this verse with others and understand it in the context of the whole Scriptures.

Soteriological considerations require that the Son identify Himselfwith Creation and still preserve His own real nature. Without both of these

conditions being met, the healing of the one by the Other could not takeplace.

A tool is offered to the listener to aid him in the comprehension of thismystery of two distinct realities in one living being: the connection anddistinetion between the fruit and root of a tree.


12/30

456 PAUL S. RUSSELL

The hymn presents philosophical, scriptural and theological reaso

ning to support Ephraem's desired reading of the text, and then, so wemight not be cast without hope into a sea of imponderables of which wecan make no sense, we are offered a naturai simile that ali the hearers canunderstand and appreciate. Most likely, many of the listeners carried awayin their minds nothing more than the refrain and this simile, if they wereleft with even that much.

Hymn 78: Blessed is He who knowseverything

The argument of the second hymn in the series centers on the following points:

1) the import of the Son's role as the Creator48 - numbers, months,hours and Sabbaths, Winter and Summer, the times of the full moons,indeed, all creatures were made by Him and

[It is] the great necessity of Making that a made thing can never be asgreat as its Maker (24).

The naturai control of an artificer over his handiwork is a sure proof ofthe Son's real control of ali parts of the created world. The possibility that

one small piece of that world, the hour in question, would escape Hisknowledge is ludicrous on its face.

2) the Son's knowledge of the procession of the Holy Spirit, taking intoaccount the comparative ontological ranks of the Holy Spirit and thehour that the Son is said not to know,49also makes clear how odd it wouldbe to conclude from this single verse that the Son could be in full command of knowledge about the Spirit but ignorant of something so muchbaser in its nature.

3) the dose, dependent connection of the Son to the Father, which is

accompanied byan insistence that the Incarnation is real, not

just apparent.50For the cause of the glory of God which is with us is His goodness, which iseverlasting; and the cause of His glory which is with His Offspring [is] HisFatherhood, which also is always and everlasting (20+21).

The Father and Son are bound up together in the deepest levels ofTheir natures: the Fatherhood, which comes, by definition, along with theexistence of the Son, was ope of the most remarkable and characteristicemphases of Jesus in His preaching. The prominence of it in the Christianconsciousness isassured by its appearance in the first phrase of the Lord's

48Esp. Stanzas 2-8 and 23-25.48Esp. Stanzas 9-15.50Esp. Stanzas 20-21.


13/30


Prayer. Ephraem wishes to make clear that this central Christian insightabout God is an expression of the Father's relationship with the Son, aboveall else. The Son incarnate in Jesus Christ is not only the revealer of God theFather, but is one element of what makes Hirn what He is.

The congruence of these arguments with those of the previous hymnis clear to see: dwelling on the role of the Son as the Creator allowsEphraem to stress His ontological priority over (and control of) the entirecreated realm, the Son's knowledge of the procession of the Spirit (utilizingthe assumption present in Hymn 77 that power over something accompanies knowledge of it), together with the explicit comparison of the Spirit to

the hour mentioned in Mark 13:32, allows for an even stronger reiteration of the same point, and the closeness of the Son to the Father, coupledwith the reality of the Incarnation, provides the chance to emphasize thata Being of such exalted rank was actually present as Jesus Christ and wasbeing described in this Gospel verse. The arguments of the earlier hymnare presented again with greater force in Hymn 78 and the hymn closes onan air of triumphant finality:

Strife is guilty and Truth has won. Disputation has passed away and thecrown has come to the victor (29).

The logie of the argument of this hymn can be presented in this way:Reason argues that a Creator must have full knowledge of His work,

since it all issues from Him. The Son's knowledge of the Holy Spirit (Whichis surely a much greater Being than this hour the verse speaks of) makesclear that He must know everything that is less exalted than the HolySpirit.51The inherent dependence of Christianity on its Soteriology is brought into play by Ephraem's insistence on the reality of the Incarnation, thuspreserving the high rank and nature of the Being under scrutiny, which isemphasized particularly clearly in the connection of the Son to the Father,though it is certainly not absent from the discussion of His creative work orknowledge of the Spirit.

The tone of the last stanza seems to indicate that Ephraem assumed,or at least wished his hearers to think that he assumed, that his argumentswere so telling that he would not need to address the matter again. Truthhas won by putting forward such knock-down arguments that there canbe nothing to be said on the other side, Ephraem concludes. In retrospect,the existence of Hymn 79 makes that satisfaction look premature.

51The fact that the Son has the rank and power to enjoy knowledge of the procession ofthe Holy Spirt locates His nature at a certain point on the ontologica scale. Anything equal to,or lower than, the Holy Spirit on the ontological scale must, by the logie of the supposition,also fall under the Son's knowledge and power.


14/30

458 PAUL S.RUSSELL

Hymn 79: Glory be to you, anointed son,5:

The argument of Hymn 79 centers on some of the same points wehave seen in the two previous ones, but introduces some interesting newpoints to the discussion that give us indications of the working ofEphraem's mind. The need to balance the witness of Scripture and to avoidgiving undue weight to one isolated verse reappears in a prominent Position54 and the importance of the Son's role as the Creator is given a fullairing.55 Accompanying these two familiar points, however, we find twonew additions to Ephraem's arsenali a statement of the need for us to control our use of the freedom that is given us by God at our creation,56 and adeclaration of our need to learn from the present state of the Church wherethe boundaries of good membership lie. This last point seems particularlyheart-felt:

Behold, the courses are confused in the midst of the gatherings and the desi

res are wounded by the inhabitants [of the gatherings], Questions are dividedin the churches and minds are sick in the congregations. Therefore, whose is

the woe, which [makes] a raging in the midst of the sea and turmoil on the dryland? They inquired into the Creator by Whose hand they were established.

Behold, His creatures are upset by [their] inquiry into Him (9).

Ephraem's theological convictions have not changed, but he seems tohave been led by his experience of extended conflict to move beyond thepurely theological realm to find support for his position in the practicalrealm. With this enlarging of the scope of the debate on his part, Ephraemhas adopted a very different stance: he has begun to argue that the courseof the argument itself can reveal its own solution. The corporate experience of the Church during this long conflict has been so disruptive that it canstand beside theological and philosophical convictions as further witnessto the destructive nature of the controversy spawned by his opponents,

Ephraem's willingness to advance to an entirely different sphere of debatemakes vividly clear the fact that his argument has not, in his mind, beenaimed at scoring merely intellectual victory. He considers himself to beengaged in the care and nurture of the Church; while before he had addressed himself to its mind and soul, now its body has also become an object

52Or Son, Messiah.53This hymn is written in a different meter than the first two we have looked at. Whether

this is a sign of Ephraem composing in a different mood than he had before or whether itshould be taken as an indication of a greater temporal gap between the last hymn and the firsttwo, I cannot say. A reasonable conclusion would bethat both of these factors were involved.

54Stanza 1.55Stanzas 11-14.56Stanzas 2-6.


15/30


of concern. This aspect of his thought must always be kept in mind if we

are to weigh properly the purpose and relative weight of his arguments inhis own eyes. Ephraem considers himself an apologist for the best interests of the Church, his opponents being, in his eyes, destructive of both proper teaching and proper Order in the Church. They are, we note, viewed asopponents within the Church rather than opponents from without.

What do we see when we look at these three hymns as a unified whole?All of them make the connection between knowledge of something

and power over that thing. This must be a basic presumption of Ephraem'sthought with respect to the meaning of knowledge.

All argue that other information found elsewhere in Scripture is needed to make proper sense of this verse. The general tenor or trend ofScripture is presumed to be the dependable guide for understanding difficult or obscure passages.

None of the hymns attempts to argue that the verse does not say whatthe Arians claim it says; the discussion is over the proper conclusion todraw from the meaning. This indicates, I think, an honest and seriousengagement with the theological issue raised by the verse. The validity ofthe discussion is granted and the need for careful interpretation of thisverse is assumed.

Two of the hymns (77+78) make use of a conviction of the reality of theIncarnation to add soteriological concerns to their cases. This is a commonand effective technique on the part of pro-Nicene writers.57 By placing salvation in question if the opponents' argument is accepted, Ephraem seeksto call to his aid the aim of the Christian life: the hope of salvation at theend. If this connection is granted by the listener, how could he hold outagainst Ephraem's argument?

The last hymn introduces the topic of the proper use of the freedomwith which human beings are created. This addition shows a change in

how Ephraem views this argument.The development evident in the refrains:Blessed is Yourknowledge (77)Blessed is He Who KnowsEverything (78)Glory be to You, Anointed Son, Who Knows All(79)is a sign of the rising tension in the debate and of Ephraem's rising

level of frustration. As his opponents continue to resist him, he asserts the

57The most famous, and the most effective, example of this form of argumentation is certainly Gregory Nazianzus' phrase the unassumed is the unhealed, sec. 32 of his letter 101 toCledonius. For a more sceptical response to the conclusiveness of this pronouncement thanEphraem would surely have felt see The Unassumed is the Unhealed, Maurice WilesReligious Studies 4 (1968) pp. 47-56 reprinted in Working Papers in Doctrine, London, 1976,108-121.


16/30

460 PAUL S. RUSSELL

truth of his cause more and more bluntly in these refrains. As the know

ledge of the Son and His right to be considered fully Divine continue to beattacked by his opponents, Ephraem claims them more and more openly,in an increasingly confrontational way. We should notice also, that therefrains begin by using the familiar form of direct address, then advance tothe more formai third person, and conclude with a refrain that expresslygrants the title of Son and reinforces it by adding the mention of anointing, which serves to emphasize that it is the Christ of the Gospels Whoserank is in question. Even as Ephraem claims more for the Son, his mode ofaddress changes to emphasize the more exalted assertions. These refrains,

designed to be the lines of the hymn that stay with the congregation afterthey depart, represent what the composer wanted to drill into the heads ofhis listeners and so can provide an important guide to his state of mind ashe wrote. Their centrai place in the performance of the hymns makes certain that they were carefully constructed.

We should also notice that the simile (the root and fruit of a tree) offered as an aid to understanding this mystery in the first hymn, gives way inthe second to a theological deduction from the dose connection betweenthe Father and the Son (that They are of the same nature because They areinterdependent [20-21]), and is replaced in the last by a warning to hisopponents about the damage their arguing is causing to the fabric of theChurch. While noticing that Ephraem gives no sign of expecting or desiringuniformity in the Church, we should remark that he does move from offering his opponents an aid to comprehension, to providing a lesson in proper Theology, and then closes with a disciplinary admonition. The openness and collegiality he exhibited in the first of the hymns has grown morestrained and then finally disappeared before the series is completed.

The reappearance of the simile in the last sentence of 79:

[Even]if ts root is hidden, the fruit which is in its bosom is not hidden.

serves to cast the listener's mind back to the use of that image in 77. Itdoes not add anything distinct to the argument of 79 but helps to form aframe to make a more coherent unit of the three hymn sequence. Itsappearance at the end of 79 without its previous development in 77 wouldbe obscure and disconcerting. Ephraem's ability and care as a stylist mustmake it extremely improbable that he would inject an image into a work ofhis so abruptly without preparing the audience for it. I take this appearance of the fruit/root image as a strong piece of evidence for the coherence of

these three hymns as a set.58

51It might also be taken as an argument for these hymns being produced and performedin rather quick succession, since this image could otherwise be lost on the listeners. The rea


17/30


The dates of these three pieces remain unrecoverable. We might be

tempted to propose a date for them as early in the controversy as seemsreasonable in order to picture the sequence against a backdrop of thegrowth and persistence of Ephrem's opponents, but we have no way ofknowing just what triggered the composition of Hymn 77. It might havebeen the arrivai of some Arians in Ephraem's community59 or a particularincident involving a discussion of Mark 13:32 with members of an Ariangroup already present, or, of course, a discussion within the congregationto which Ephraem himself belonged (whether spurred by exposure tothese theological questions encountered elsewhere or their being put

forward by members of the group). It would be an odd mistake, in our owntimes that are so ecclesiologically and theologically jumbled, to assumethat congregations in the ancient period were neatly sorted out by theological conviction and ecclesial loyalty. We might be tempted to propose adate for them dose to the end of Ephraem's life, in order to think of himbeing exposed to new theological opponents after his move from Nisibis toEdessa in 363, or some time thereafter. We might like to think of Ephraempuzzling over this theological conundrum for some time before beingspurred to address it in a full and explicit treatment. The paucity of ourinformation allows us the

luxuryof

imagininga

progressin

Ephraem'sexposure to the controversy leading to his appreciation of the importanceof the disagreement over this verse, or leading to his desire to lay out a clearstatement of his own idea of the best understanding of the issue. However,pausing to consider again where our knowledge of Ephraem's life and hisinvolvement in particular debates actually begins and ends, we realizethat, even if we have proposed the correct order for these three hymns andeven if there are none missing from this set that we do not now possess, (orthat stili survive elsewhere in Ephraem's surviving works in any of themany languages in which they presently exist but have not yet been seento be linked to these three) we cannot discover how much time separatedtheir composition or when the first one was produced, and so have no wayto guess what might have occurred after one to spark the next. We mustacknowledge that we have found nothing in them, as far as I can see, thatwill allow us to locate them in Ephraem's life or in the life of the Church ofthat time as we know it. These hymns provide us with a good idea of someof Ephraem's own understanding of Mark 13:32 and the issues it raises, but

der must balance that possibility against the fact of the different meter and tune of the third

hymn as opposed to the first two in the set, which, we have noted above, might serve to arguefor a gap in time before the third hymn.

53Nisibis, Edessa, or somewhere else he was residing after 363 before he settled inEdessa.


18/30

462 PAUL S. RUSSELL

of the background to these particular hymns and the circumstances in

which this developing discussion occurred we remain completely ignorant. The hymns, for now, must stand on their own as one contribution toa Church-wide debate.

Athanasius' Discussion o/Mark, 13:32

Mark 13:32 had been a bone of contention for some time beforeEphraem addressed it. Athanasius, for example, had thought it worth treating at length in his centrai theological contribution to the ArianControversy: his Three Orations against the Arians.60 The comparison of theContents of their writings on the subject and their approaches to the defense of their understanding of this verse will be interesting as evidence ofactivity in different cultural milieux on the same side of the theologicalfence. We may hope to understand the range of pro-Nicene readings of thisverse better after we have seen the work of two such different exegetes.

Athanasius addresses the verse first in Book III, sec. 26 (as part of a listof texts adduced by his opponents as evidence of the Son's nature beingless exalted than the Father's) and then directly, in an extended fashion, insections 42-50.61

The Arians are quoted (or paraphrased - this ambiguity is a Constanttrial for the modem student attempting to reconstruct this debate) byAthanasius as saying that if the Son truly were eternally existing with theFather, He could not have been ignorant of the day or have displayed anyof the weaknesses or inabilities they catalogue. The Nicene view of the Son isheld by Athanasius' opponents to be mied out of court by the verses they putforward. Athanasius' reply with regard to Mark 13:32 begins at section 42.

60These are dated as early as 340 by Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius. Theology andPolitics in the Constantinian Empire, Cambridge (Mass.), 1993, p. xi. It seems likely that anyscholar would place them before the earliest reasonable possibility for Ephraem's hymns.Specialists agree that this work of Athanasius was not translated into Syriac. E.g. R.P. Casey, A

Syriac Corpus of Athanasian Writings in JTS 35 (1934) 66-67; R.W. Thomson, A Syriac Corpusof Athanasiana in Studia Patristica, voi III, pt. 1, 142-145; R.W. Thomson, Athanasia Syriaca,part 1, (CSCO 257) Louvain, 1965 says at Preface, p. I, The historical and apologetic works ofSt. Athanasius were not translated into Syriac. We may be confident that we are listening totwo independent examples of anti-Arian christological exegesis. Nevertheless, setting asidethe question of direct influence, the existence of this treatment alongside Ephraem's shows abreadth of engagement with this verse by pro-Nicene writers, both geographically and tem

porally, that should lead us to recognize the seriousness with which this text was regarded.61The text of the Athanasian contribution is too long to be given in its entirety. It is rea

dily available in English translation in NPNF sec. ser. voi IV: St. Athanasius: Select Works andLetters, ed. Archibald Robertson. The section which includes the orations is a reworking ofthe earlier edition of John Henry Newman. The English translation is found on pages 408 and416-421 of that edition. The Greek text is found in PG xxvi cols. 377-380 and 412-429.


19/30


Athanasius begins with the statement that is it the Creator of all thingsWho is being questioned about His ignorance of a day: what could be moreabsurd? (This is an example of the same assumption of the connectionbetween knowledge and power we saw so prominently in Ephraem.) Hepoints out that this verse comes in Mark's gospel in the context of JesusChrist prophesying about the troubles to come for His Disciples (the chapter is often referred to as the little Apocalypse bymodern readers of theGospel): how could He know those things but not the day? The broadertrend of Scripture is being called into action to serve as an aid to understanding the verse at hand.

In section 43 he says that these Statements of deficiency made duringthe Incarnation were spoken as a human being by reason of the flesh.62Athanasius again calls on the wider witness of Scripture to support thiscontention, because, he says, before the Incarnation, the Word does notspeak this way. He also refers to John 17:1

When Jesus had said this, he raised his eyes to heaven and said, "Father, thehour has come. Give glory to your son, so that your son may glorify you"

as an example of a place in Scripture that shows a combination of theSon's Divine

knowledge(of the hour, no less) while incarnate with a

request by the Divine Nature for the Father to take care for the humannature of Jesus Christ.63 This verse would show, according to Athanasius'reading of it, that the Divine nature of the Son, as incarnate, was privy toall the knowledge appropriate to its fully-Divine status. Its concern for thehuman nature in which It had become incarnate as Jesus Christ would bea further example of the fact that the Divine nature was prepared to adjustIts actions in order to benefit the human nature. In John 17:1, the actiontaken is prayer to the Father; in Mark 13:32, the action taken is a declaration of ignorance. The section closes with a contrast of the Son, Who is

ignorant, with the Son of God, Who is not spoken of in that way:64And therefore He said not, "no, not the Son of God knows", lest the Godheadshould seem ignorant, but simply, "no, not the Son", that the ignorance mightbe the Son's as born from among men.

Athanasius reads the text with great delicacy and attention to detailand finds in this distinction of Son from Son of God a solution to this

62i tt]v aov.a wg fivOpomog is the Greek (PG xxvi col. 413).63 This is a remarkable, seemingly dyophysite, reading of this verse to hear from

Athanasius. Fortunately, we need not evaluate how well it fits into hls developed Christologicalthought to appreciate the extremely lofty picture of the knowledge of the incarnate Son it presents.

84P.G. xxvi col. 416 The translation is found on page 417 of the volume cited.


20/30

464 PAUL S. RUSSELL

puzzle, which is offered as a further scriptural argument for the validity of

the distinction between the incarnate Son and the Son in se.In section 44 Athanasius makes mention of the fact that the Son is

described elsewhere in Scripture as knowing the Father.65 The Son framedthe universe and knows how the Father ordained it.66 Taking another tack,Athanasius declares that, if the Son is in the Father and the Father inthe Son, then the Son must know what the Father knows. The closeness ofrelationship requires identity of nature. Ephraem had made the same argument at 78.19-21, there hanging it on the source of the Father's glory beingin the Son and the Son's being in the Father. Athanasius accuses his oppo

nents of giving Creation precedence over the Father, since the Son is clearlysaid by Scripture to know the Father but they are not Willing to allow Himknowledge of Creation. This, also, we saw in Ephraem's hymn 77.8-11. TheArians are placed at the pinnacle of irrationality by accusing them ofvaluing a part of Creation more highly than the Creator.

Section 45 reiterates his assertion that the profession of ignorance inMark 13:32 was an assumption by the Son of a characteristic proper to theflesh that the Son had put on.67As a bolster to that distinction of the WordIncarnate and the Word in se, Athanasius points out that the Word is said tohave known future times and days during the

recountingof the

storyof

Noah and the Flood.68 Inhis eyes, the Old Testament story provides a glimpse of the nature of the Divine Son without the distracting filter of Christ'shuman nature. This is another example of Athanasius' desire to expand thefield of focus to the whole Bible in order to be able to bring in ali the textshe considers relevant and to try to make coherent sense of the whole scriptural Revelation. It also shows how firmly he considers both testaments tobe revelatory of the same Son.

Section 46 contains a comparison of ignorance to other humanactions of the Son during the Incarnation such as hungering, thirsting and

suffering: the hermeneutical guideline is that, while Eie may outwardly actin accordance with His human appearance, Divinely, He maintains HisDivine properties. Athanasius instructs the reader that the actions andwords of Christ are often the means of offering Revelation and instruction

65E.g.John 10:15.

66This is a more explicitly Binitarian pitture of Creation than the one presented byEphraem, who focuses more on the Son. This aspect of his description may be intended as

another way to stress the Son's equality with the Father, though the description is not unusualamong the writers of the period.

67oaQxixQ is the Greek word used for the manner in which the Son professes ignorance(PG xxvi col. 417). The translation is found on page 418 of the volume cited.68E.g. Genesis 7:4a: Seven days from now I will bring rain down on the earth for fortydays and forty nights.


21/30


to the beholder. This is an implicit statement of the principle that Christ, in

His whole person, is the revelation of God, a position which accords verywell with Claims of a full divinity for God the Son incarnate.

Section 47 proposes a parallel between Mark 13:32 and 2 Corinthians12:2,69taking Paul's profession of ignorance of the true circumstances ofthe vision there as a rhetorical and paedagogical device.70 Paul really knewhow his experience had taken place but said he did not for the sake of successful teaching. So, too, does Christ profess ignorance in Mark 13:32, eventhough, in His Divine Nature, He is not ignorant. The acquiescence ofElisha to the fruitless search for Elijah after he had been carried up to hea

ven71 is also suggested as an example of someone in Scripture with trueknowledge holding silent in the face of ignorance. The point is clear: thewhole Situation must be considered for the value of the words to be understood. The spoken words alone do not always hold all the truth.

Section 48 declares that this profession of ignorance from Mark wasmade for our benefit, according to the paedagogical pattern described overthe previous two sections. Athanasius is careful to mention that this does notlead to the Word being revealed as untruthful, since, humanly, He was, in fact,ignorant.72 This insistence on the reality of the human nature is followed by acontrast of the ignorance professed in Mark 13:32 with the Ascension sceneat the start of Acts73where Christ declares the inappropriateness of theDisciples knowing the times or seasons but makes no disclaimer of knowledge with regard to Himself. Whereas, in section 45, Athanasius had contrasted the Word's knowledge before the Incarnation with His ignorance in thehuman nature during it, here he contrasts that ignorance with His restoredknowledge afterwards. This complete sequence of a movement from knowledge to ignorance to knowledge clearly highlights Athanasius' understanding of how the knowledge of Christ should be understood with respect to Hisincarnation. Athanasius has followed his logie ali the way to the end and

displays to the reader his suggested solution of this exegetical crux.

69I know someone in Christ who, fourteen years ago, (whether in the body or out of the

body I do not know, God knows), was caught up to the third heaven.70That verse from 2 Corinthians clearly does not, in itself, require the conclusion that

Paul is the person referred to, let alone that his ignorance was feigned. The usefulness for the

argument of Athanasius' Suggestion depends upon how the reader understands the verse from2 Corinthians.

712 Kings 2.

720v0Q)jtivcS yQelrav cu; fivOpcono? is the way the thought is expressed this time. op. cit.col. 425. The translation is found on page 420 of the volume cited. This makes clear thatAthanasius intends a reality in the human nature beyond that of being a purely passive maskthat the Divine Nature assumes, but we must leave more extended consideration of this vexedaspect of his thought to another time.

731:6-12, esp. v. 7.


22/30

466 PAUL S. RUSSELL

Section 49 lays out the practical religious benefits this profession of

ignorance by the Son offers us: we will now know not to believe demonswho might come to us in the form of angels claiming to know the future,because we have been warned by the fact that even the incarnate Son ofGod professes ignorance in that area. We will also be able to keep ourselvesfrom becoming negligent and putting off repentance and reformation oflife in order to revel until closer to the time when the hour is coming. Thisis the same reason why we are not given to know the hour of our death: sothat we might be spurred to early amendment of life and thus might livegodly lives as long as possible. Even this seemingly abstruse theological

verse, Athanasius maintains, has important implications for Christian spiritual life.Section 50 offers further examples of questions asked by God in other

parts of Scripture for reasons other than ignorance, with the obviousinstances of the questions to Adam and ve in the Garden in the story ofthe Fall and to Cain when his brother Abel is missing, appearing at thehead of the list. If God elsewhere asks questions without actually beingignorant of the answers to them, by what logie are we required to conclude that the incarnate Son is truly ignorant and so not fully divine, merelybecause He professes ignorance at one place? With that rhetorical question, and that final reiteration of his equation of God, as seen in the OldTestament, with the Son Who is incarnate in Jesus Christ, Athanasius endshis treatment of the verse.

The Two Anti-Arian Writers Compared

Keeping Athanasius' approach to the difficulties of this verse in ourminds, we should now consider how his treatment of the problems raisedby this verse compares to that offered by Ephraem.

Athanasiusdisplays

a muchstronger dependence

onScripture

inmaking his argument than did Ephraem. This is a well known Athanasiancharacteristic.74 While Ephraem constructs his hymns along theologicallines, making use of deductions and conclusions drawn from the Church'stradition of theological reflection, Athanasius prefers to produce an argument that can fairly be called exegetical in its nature. Each of his pointsjuxtaposes other verses of Scripture to Mark 13:32 in order to provide himwith counter-arguments to his opponents' position. He does not seek tolead the discussion away from the scriptural ground to suggest otherapproaches to the problem, but rather endeavors to outweigh the witnessof the verse in question by opposing it with a raft of citations supporting

74E.g. cf. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 11-12.


23/30


his own conclusion. There is clearly a theological rudder guiding his thou

ght, but each of Athanasius' steps is planted firmly on a scriptural base.Before we evaluate this difference, however, I should say that some of

this divergence in approach must be due to the literary media chosen bythe authors. Ephraem, writing shorter pieces to be performed to musicbefore a congregation, was prevented from developing arguments of greater length and subtlety than could be assimilated by people attending aworship service. It is difficult for audiences to follow oral arguments filledwith much detail, and the careful comparison undertaken by Athanasius ofvarious Scripture passages drawn from all through the Bible would have

been a certain failure. Every successful preacher of every age learns thelimits. It may well be that Athanasius, if he had to respond to his opponentswithout the leisure and luxury of reflecting and writing at length, mighthave been able to approach the discussion more along Ephraem's lines hadhis circumstances required. The differences between the two authors maybe even more interesting and illuminating because of this divergence ofliterary form which offers us two kinds of argument aiming at the samegoal. The aspects that are common to both pieces are thus more certainlycentral to these writers' thoughts, or they would not have been preservedin two such diverse settings.

Athanasius makes use of pastoral arguments, as Ephraem did, butthey have a very different content. Ephraem's concern is that turmoil in theChurch is wounding the Body of Christ: Athanasius is thinking of the threatof spiritual slackness. This is an interesting contrast, since one might haveexpected the bishop Athanasius to be concerned for the Church and theSon of the Covenant75 Ephraem to be taken up with the struggle to maintain spiritual vibrancy. We have seen above that it is reasonable to conclude that Ephraem's argument with the Arians had been continuing for sometime before he composed Hymn 79, in which these concerns over the fate

of the Church are voiced. His worry would make perfect sense as a reactionto an extended experience of strife in his own city and congregation. It isnot overly fanciful to see behind these complaints the pain of a member ofa Christian community that had once enjoyed a certain pride in its ownidentity who later found his locai church rending itself over theologicaldisagreements. Athanasius' focus on the spiritual life, on the other hand,would fit in well with his interest in Christian asceticism and spiritualdevelopment evidenced in his writing The Life of Antony. His concerns over

75For an insight into ascetic life among the Syrian Christians of this period, see Sidney H.Griffith, "Singles" in God's Service. Thoughts on the Ihidaye from the works of Aphrahat andEphraem the Syrian, 145-159 in The Harp. A Review ofSyriac and Orientai Studies, voi IV no.1,2,3, July 1991, SEERI, Kottayam, Kerala (India).


24/30

468 PAUL S. RUSSELL

demonio temptation make prominent, famous appearances in that work,

which provides interesting background to his words on the subject in section 49.

Athanasius makes mention also of the fact that the verse in questionrefers to the Son while incarnate, when different rules apply and a differentreality is being described, rather than in the portions of Scripture whichrelate to the Divine as It is in se. This is the centrai theological, as opposedto exegetical, point he makes during his treatment of the verse.76 It is areflection of his interest in the effect of the economy of the Incarnation onthe behavior of the incarnate Son, various ways of discussing which have

been provided in footnotes as the review of his thoughts progressed. SinceAthanasius holds so firmly to the full divinity of the Son incarnate as JesusChrist, his centrai theological difficulty would naturally be the search for acoherent way to describe the functioning of that Person, particularly withregard to a verse like Mark 13:32 which might be taken as a refutation of hisChristological picture. Athanasius' interest in the verse Springs not onlyfrom the fact that it was used to support theological conclusions he considered beyond the pale, it also sparks his interest because it cuts so dose tothis center of his thought. Ephraem does not display the same depth of

personalinterest in this

puzzle,to

my ear,at least. He is determined to

defeat the arguments that are endeavoring to downgrade the Church's picture of Christ, but I hear no tone that indicates the same sense of a blowstriking home that I seem to hear in Athanasius. Ephraem's frustration atthe dose of 78 and throughout 79 is that of someone who thinks he hasargued well enough to win but whose opponents have not acknowledgedthat fact. Athanasius' tone seems to me that of a religious thinker whosehope of heaven is being affronted. This would explain why Athanasiusintroduces the next argument we will consider.

Athanasius is careful to put forward his conviction that the declaration of ignorance by Christ in Mark 13:32, like the Incarnation itself, takesplace for our benefit. While the Arians strive to read this verse on its surface as a bald statement of fact, Athanasius sees in it an example of the economy by which the Son offers us salvation through ali the means laid opento Him by His incarnation. Just as, in other places in Scripture, God acts inways that are chosen for their ability to serve us as teaching tools, in thesame way His declaration of ignorance is best understood in this light.

76These two can never really be separateci, least of all in a writer like Athanasius, but thedistinction between drawing information from the scriptural page, and reasoning on the basisof that information, should be drawn. When Athanasius maps out his idea of the attributes ofthe Son before, during, and after His incarnate life on earth, he is reasoning to form a coherenttheological picture.


25/30


Readers of all of Athanasius' works, beginning with his On the Incarnation71

know how strongly his understanding of the accomplishment of salvationdepends on the physical entry of God into the created world. Because ofthat basic conviction, any attempt to argue that the incarnate Son was lessthan fully Divine strikes Athanasius as a denial of salvation. This soteriological element is shot through all his writings. It would be remarkable if itwere not to appear here. In the discussion of this verse, as always withAthanasius, Soteriology is a driving force in his thought. This identificationof the Son in se with the Son incarnate is, of course, not absent fromEphraem's writings. It is emphasized a number of times in this same col

lection of hymns.78 It makes an appearance in 77, stanzas 23-25, but it doesnot take the same central place in Ephraem's contribution to the discussion of this verse. We know that this conviction of the Son's personal entryinto Creation in the Incarnation was shared by Ephraem, but it is not focused on in this context. This serves to delineate for us one way in whichthese two writers, while holding parallel theological convictions, reacted indifferent ways to the same challenge. Though both object to their opponents for the same reason, different chords are struck in their minds by thechallenge and so different emphases emerge in their responses.

Athanasius,along

withEphraem,

makes use of the role of the Son asthe Creator as a peg on which to hang his declaration that considering Himto be ignorant of part of the Creation is prima facie absurd. This, togetherwith his more explicit treatment of other evidence of the extent of the Son'sknowledge: e.g., that He knows the Father (sec. 44), demonstrates thatAthanasius also holds the view that power over something accompaniesknowledge of it, and vice versa. Not only does this basic assumption provide arguments for both these writers to use against their opponents, but italso makes it absolutely necessary that they engage anti-Nicene polemics atthis point. If they were to allow this verse to be put forward as normative forthe proper understanding of the extent of the Son's knowledge, they wouldalso be acquiescing in its placing the Son's power and ontological value ona level lower than that of the Father. Mark 13:32 occupies a cruciai place inthe theological struggle between those who wish to rank the Son with theFather and those who wish to rank Him below the Father. All involved in thedebate agree that knowledge, power and ontological rank are intertwined.

Ephraem and Athanasius on Christ's Knowledge

Atlast,

after a review of the content of thesewritings

and of the con

7Especially sec. 44

8See Russell, St. Ephraem, 164 ff. for some representatve quotatons and discussion of them.


26/30

470 PAUL S. RUSSELL

gruences and divergences between them, we are now able to address the

question at hand: what did Ephraem and Athanasius grant to Christ in theway of knowledge and what meaning did they give to that knowledge?What Christological portraits result from these conclusions?

Ephraem begins 77 by making the point (2+3) that the Son is clearlydescribed as knowing the Father. This must be the grounding of any consideration of the meaning of Mark 13:32. He insists on this point for 22 stanzas before he thinks it has been adequately treated. Stanzas 24+25 encapsulate much of what Ephraem wishes to express: the identity of the incarnate Son with the Son before incarnation and, yet, the reality and impor

tance of that putting on of human nature.HeWho Knows Alibecame un-knowing (25)

is more than a clever catch-phrase, I think. Ali Christological writingruns the danger of misleading the reader into seeing a confusion of thehuman and divine natures or a Separation between them. Ephraem's use ofclothing language, much noted by modem scholars,79 is a means by whichhe can underline his conviction that the One putting on the human nature is the same One Who is the source of human actions and enjoys humancharacteristics. Read in this light,

He answered and listened [to the answers] just like a human being onaccount of human being[s] (25)

sounds less like a Docetic position and more like an attempt toemphasize the reality of the Incarnation, especially when other treatmentsof the problem elsewhere in Ephraem's writings are considered. An ambiguity remains in these lines, e.g., what is the meaning of Just like a humanbeing but it may be a difficulty inherent in attempting to express a paradox in comprehensible language. I think the two statements: He put on

our human nature (24) and He asked questions and listened [to theanswers] just like a human being (25) are meant to provide a balance ofthe weight placed on the real presence of the Son in Jesus Christ and of thereal human character of His conduct there.80 This understanding of theposition put forward in 77 is buttressed by the great stress, as 78 opens, on

79E.g. S.P. Brock, Clothing metaphors as a means of theological expression in Syriac tra

dition in M. Scmidt (ed.), Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den stlichen Vtern und ihrenParallelen im Mittelalter, Eichstatt, 1982, 11-40 (reprinted as XI in Sebastian Brock, Studies in

Syriac Christianity, Great Yarmouth [Norfolk] 1992).Of course, any responsible evaluation of Ephraem's Christological intent must bebased on all his surviving writings, but this is not the time or place for that monograph. Anestimation of his position based on the hymns in this collection can be found at Russell, St.Ephraem, ChapterVI, esp. pp. 159 ff.. The justification for the assessment in this paper is basedlargely on the reading of this cycle of hymns.


27/30


the Son's role as Creator and the knowledge and power that that requiresHe have over ali aspects of the created world.

The first 8 stanzas of this hymn are given over to this exposition, whichemphasizes Ephraem's conviction that it is important for the interpretationof Mark 13:32. Ephraem takes the identity of the divine nature incarnate inJesus Christ with God the Son as his point of departure in 78. Stanzas 9-16then appear as a sometimes awkward and often elliptical attempt to arguethat this Divine Son cannot be thought to be both bereft of this divineknowledge and in possession of it at the same time. The identity and unityof the incarnate Son must be upheld in ali its aspects. The closeness of Son

to Father is then again dwelt on (19-21), as it was in 77 in the metaphor ofthe fruit and the root, but the distinction of Son from Father is even morefirmly declared: It is the great necessity of Fatherhood that His offspringcan never become like the Begetter. (25)

While Hymn 77 had attempted to balance the reality of the Divinity ofthe Son with that of the human nature He took on, Hymn 78 balances theDivinity of the Son with His distinction from the Father. Each link in thistheological picture can serve as an illuminating connection or an inappropriate source of confusion, depending on the writer's skill and clarity ofthought. It is to achieve the former while avoiding the latter that Ephraemmoves from one pan of the balance to the other.

Hymn 79 is more a meditation on human nature and the human condition than a Christological piece. The weight of the argument, as itaddresses Christ, is plced on the fact that He is the One Who FashionsAli (13) and so must have knowledge of ali. Beyond that reiteration of thelink between power and knowledge, Ephraem adds little to his picture ofChrist in the third hymn of the series, which may be another sign of hisexasperation. He has already spoken his piece in 77 and 78 but is forced tospeak again, which captures as much of his attention as the argument at

hand.So, like many other anti-Arian authors, Ephraem chooses to put

forward his position by insisting on the full value of both Divine andhuman in Jesus Christ. The added energy invested in defending the fulldivine rank of the nature of the incarnate Son may be a sign that Ephraemviews that aspect of Christ as more centrai than the human nature (arguably, that instinct is inherent in any Christological position dose to andincluding the one[s] of Nicea and Chalcedon) or it may be no more thanthe naturai result of the fact that his adversaries attack him at that point.

These three hymns, considered alone as a group, do not provide enoughinformation for us to resolve that ambiguity.It is significant, I think, that Athanasius begins his contribution by

referring to questioning the knowledge of Christ as questioning the knowledge of the Creator about part of His Creation. No identification of the Son


28/30

472 PAUL S. RUSSELL

of God in se with the incarnate Word could be stated more clearly than that.

This opening salvo sets his course throughout the rest of the passage.Since Athanasius takes as his primary datum the full Divinity of the

Son incarnate as Jesus Christ, his principal Christological difficulty is themanner in which he will be able to explain how this Divine Being couldspeak these words without allowing either the downgrading of His Divinityor the conclusion that He spoke less than the truth. The various phrasesdescribing Christ's manner of speaking in Mark 13:32 are instructive:

As a human being by reason of the flesh (43)Fleshily (45)He spoke humanly, as a human being (48)

Readers of Athanasius are not surprised to see that the subject in eachcase is the Son, incarnate. The flesh assumed is a modifier applied to theSon as an adjective colors a noun without changing its essential referent. Awhite house is a particular sort of house or a house in a particular state;likewise, for Athanasius, the Son incarnate seems to be the Son in a particular state. The combination of section 45 with section 48 shows this relationship between the Son in se and the Son incarnate very clearly. By hisdouble contrast of the Son's knowledge before the Incarnation with His

knowledge during it, in 45, and then of the Son's knowledge during it withHis knowledge after it, in section 48, Athanasius highlights the importanceof this process of the Son passing through the Incarnation and then arriving out the other side of His earthly human experience as a tool for hisunderstanding of what he is attempting to describe. His focus is always onthe Son, so he thinks of Christ's knowledge as a phase in the progression ofthe Son's knowledge through the history of salvation. The reasonsAthanasius puts forward for this incarnation taking place (to provide goodinstruction for us and to spur us to a vigorous spiritual life) do not affect

the Christological content of the passage.The Coherence of Anti-Arian Christologyacross Linguistic Boundares

Having considered these two writers both from the angle of what theyseek to deny their opponents as well as what picture of Jesus Christ theyattempt to expound, we may, at last, approach the task of summing upwhat this verse has brought forth from them that might shed some light onthe anti-Arian thought of the mid-fourth Century.

The core of their Christological positions: the identity of the Son ofGod with the Son incarnate, serves each as the engine of his thought. Thisexplains the prominence of discussions of Creation and the Son's role in it,as well as the frequent mentioning of the dose relation of the Son to theFather.


29/30


The verso of their insistence on the identity of the Son in se with the

Son incarnate is their conviction that this verse is being granted too muchweight in the forming of Christology. Ephraem, who wishes to depict hisidea of Christ by a double insistence on the Divinity and the human nature assumed by It, views Mark 13:32 as one in a catalogue of texts referringprimarily to the human nature. Athanasius, who wishes to see the Son asthe agent of ali Christ's actions, would apply this verse to that actor as amodifier, thinking it to be true, but descriptive of the manner of the Son'saction rather than definitive with regard to His substance.81

Each writer has an exegetical approach with sufficient breadth of

scope to allow the introduction of other scriptural texts, and each has aChristological position allowing for a variety of attributes to be predicatedof Christ without the integrity of the structure being threatened. As withmany opponents of the Arians, the willingness to apply both lowly as wellas lofty texts to Christ gives these writers the ability to face a potentiallydisastrous text, like Mark 13:32, and receive it as another stone in the edifce they are constructing, rather than as a battering ram that might knockdown their whole building.

The last point to be mentioned is that, while the emphases differ andthe

secondaryconcerns

vary,the two writers we

have studiedshow a

greatdeal of common ground in their approaches and basic convictions.Because of their geographic, linguistic and cultural Separation from eachother, this congruence must be thought to arise spontaneously rather thanfrom contact. I must conclude that these two early Christian thinkers sharebasic Christological and exegetical assumptions which may spring fromthe internai logie of their beliefs. While it may be true that Arianism is afalse construct put together by those who have opposed it, the theologicalpositions of these opponents of Arianism seem to have shared an internal dynamic. This is an important point, for it supports a picture of NiceneChristianity as a coherent thought system with an effective inner dynamic.It appears, in this comparison, as a positive rather than a negative presence. In other words, it exists to support a certain theological vision ratherthan to attack a certain theological position.

Thus, we have seen that Ephraem, in a very different cultural andecclesiastical circumstance, places himself alongside Athanasius in thisdiscussion. There is no reason, as far as we now know, to think that his

811 think this is a fair characterization of his thought as a whole in this passage, but I mustadmit that it does not adequately explain his insistence on the reality of Christ's ignorance insection 48.1 cannot assimilate that into his argument as a whole regarding this verse. Realizingthat scholars far more expert than I in Athanasian matters disagree about what he really intended to propose in his Christological writings, I leave the point to others to consider.


30/30

474 PAULS. RUSSELL

thoughts were influenced by exposure to Athanasius' work, but the logieand aim of the two authors, in this particular small confrontation, seem torun in close parallel. These two defenses of the Son's equality with theFather stand as evidence of the internai logie shared by some anti-Arianwriters of the mid 4th Century. They, at least, seem to have agreed aboutwhat was at stake in the argument.

Mount St. Mary's CollegeEmmitsburg, Maryland, USA

Paul S. Russell

SOMMARIO

I dibattiti teologici che travagliarono la cristianit nel IV secolo hanno alungo affascinato gli studiosi pi recenti della storia della Chiesa. Questo periododi formazione nello sviluppo del pensiero cristiano non stato tuttavia sempre ben

ripagato da tale intenso interesse, in quanto gli studi sulla Chiesa primitiva tendo

no ad essere sezionati seguendo i confini degli ambiti accademici moderni. Coloroche studiano i materiali pervenuti in una lingua spesso ignorano ci che presente in altre parti dei testi. L'articolo intende porre l'attenzione circa i dibattiti sul

l'interpretazione della Scrittura accesi dalla controversia ariana attraverso linee

linguistiche. Un esame dei tre inni di Efrem il Siro che trattano dell'interpretazionedi Me 13,32 (e paralleli), Inni sulla fede 77-79, allorch comparati con la trattazionedi Attanasio della medesima crux cristologica, nel terzo libro delle sue orazionicontro gli ariani, rivela che ci sono ragioni per ritenere che la posizione anti-arianadel IV secolo abbia una reale, interna coerenza di pensiero, anche attraverso i confini linguistici che cos spesso impediscono la nostra visione del passato.

paul s. russell - ephraem and athanasius on the knowledge of christ. two anti-arian treatments of...

Documents