Living Between Two Worlds II

Now let us turn to the religious aspects of the fifth-century history of Armenia and look at them more closely in order to appreciate the religious atmosphere of the time with which we are primarily concerned here.

The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church, by Karekin Sarkissian

Sarkissian divides this examination of the fifth century religious situation into three periods: the three decades before the Council of Ephesus, the time between Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon, and the several decades after Chalcedon.  But to set this up, he first examines the first four centuries of the Church in Armenia.

Tradition has it that St. Thaddeus and St. Bartholemew brought Christianity to Armenia, but these accounts are from later periods.  There is circumstantial evidence, however, that could support such an origin narrative.

There is clear and early evidence of the early spread of Christianity both to the northwest and southwest of Armenia in the first century.  In I Peter we read a letter to the exiles in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.  The first country east of such regions was Armenia, and Armenia had a pre-Christian relationship with some of these regions.

Armenian Christianity had both a Greek influence, from its northwest, and a Syriac influence, from its southwest.  From all evidence, until at least the beginning of the fourth century, it appears the Syriac influence was more pronounced.  However, this two-fold influence – Greek and Syriac – would play a key role in the century at hand – the fifth century, to include Chalcedon.

St. Gregory the Illuminator is credited as the saint who converted the king of Armenia in 301.  He was from Cappadocia, and educated in Caesarea.  From Sebastia, he brought many Greek monks with him to Armenia, giving them charges as priests.  Even after his death, the relationship with Cappadocia continued for many years. 

Hence, both the political and religious orientation of the country was toward Constantinople, notwithstanding the continued strong ties to the Syriac Church.  Syriac bishops and missionaries were treated as collaborators, not opponents.  For example, both Greek and Syriac languages and culture were taught in the schools for clergy.  The two traditions would coexist throughout the fourth century.

The stage is now set for the fifth century.  The first period to be examined is that before the Council of Ephesus in 431.  The most outstanding event in the period was the invention of the Armenian alphabet.  Like early Christian history in Armenia, this story remains a bit obscure. 

This is where the political history comes together with the religious history.  Keeping in mind, by the fifth century, Armenia was divided, between Byzantium and Persia.  For the Persian portion – the far larger and more pronounced – the Byzantine influence in the Armenian Church was seen as a threat. 

The invention of the alphabet is credited to St. Mesrob.  The relevant factor here is his relationship to cities in east Syria.  He was told of an Armenian alphabet in the possession of a Syrian Bishop Daniel.  While he found this alphabet insufficient, he stayed in Edessa and Samosata – both of Syriac tradition – to complete his work, also including a translation of the book of Proverbs.

The important point: despite the stronger Greek influence in Armenia – both politically and religiously – Mesrob went to the Syrian regions for this fundamentally important work of inventing an alphabet.  A second point: the Syriac tradition had as its basis the Antiochene School, whereas the Greek tradition looked more to Constantinople and Alexandria. 

Keeping in mind, we are still in the period before Ephesus: Armenia held both schools and both traditions in its Christian faith.  While the Greek influence was the stronger, the rule by Persia was a pressure against this influence and leaned toward the Syriac.

This raises a key question: did the relationship with the Syriac / Antiochene school influence the Armenian rejection of Chalcedon?  Sarkissian attempts to answer this question.  While Armenian documents on this question are restrained, there are other external sources that can shed light.

There is the testimony of Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century.  He writes of a relationship between Mesrob and Theodore of Mopsuestia.  We came across this Theodore earlier in Sarkissian’s work.  He was an advocate of Nestorian Christology, condemned at Ephesus. 

The works of Theodore of Mopsuestia were translated into Armenian and spread in Armenia to such an extent that immediately after the Council of Ephesus, Rabboula of Edessa and Acacius of Melitene, the followers of St. Cyril and the holders of the Ephesian orthodoxy in the neighboring regions of Armenia, became alarmed and gave urgent warnings to the Armenians.

It should be kept in mind that the Armenian Church accepted and affirmed the decisions at Ephesus. 

Further, it is possible that Mesrob knew Ibas of Edessa personally.  Ibas was accepted at the Council of Chalcedon, along with Theodoret of Cyrus – both advocates of Nestorian Christology.  While this is less certain, it seems quite likely that many of Mesrob’s disciples who had studied in Edessa would know Ibas as Ibas was the most prominent figure in the School of Edessa in the first quarter of the fifth century.

On the one hand, once could conclude from this that the Armenians held to something akin to Nestorianism given these influences.  Yet, they did accept Ephesus.  Sarkissian will walk through his understanding of the issues and the times.

Keeping in mind that while the Armenian Church had a close relationship with the Syrian – therefore Antiochene – school, it was not an exclusive relationship.  There was strong influence from the Greek, even from the time of formal recognition of Christianity as the state religion.  The earliest relationship was Greek, from Caesarea – in the region of Cappadocia. 

Further, Sahak was Catholicos of all Armenians during the first four decades of the fifth century.  He played perhaps the leading role in balancing relations with both Persia and Byzantium, as mentor to the princes and kings – all while the majority of Armenian land was under Persian rule.  He also was the highest authority to which an Armenian feudal lord could appeal in case of conflict with the king (predating similar relationships in Europe by perhaps five hundred years).

Sahak was a Hellenophile, the last descendant of St. Gregory to hold the seat of Catholicos.  His father was educated in Caesarea, and it is likely that Sahak also followed.  At one point, Sahak was asked by Armenian princes who were favorable to Persia to support them in bringing charges against the Armenian king.  Sahak replied that they must wait and bear patience with the king for his mistakes until they find a way out of the situation with the help of the Byzantine emperor Theodosius.

Further, keeping in mind that the underlying character of the Armenian alphabet was Syriac, Sahak sent Mesrob to Constantinople to get permission from the emperor to use the alphabet. This visit was a decisive moment in the history of Armenian doctrinal orientation.  A clear signal that Armenia would not get pulled solely in the direction of Syria and Persia and Antiochene doctrine. 

On this journey, Mesrob took a great number of disciples with him, and left them with Acacius, bishop of Melitene.  Acacius was a well-known supporter of Cyril of Alexandria – a determined opponent of Nestorius, taking part in the latter’s condemnation at Ephesus.  These students would play a critical role in Armenia when the Nestorian controversy raged over the eastern provinces of the Byzantine empire.

Such actions stand in the face of the idea that Mesrob was beholden to Theodore of Mopsuestia and his Nestorian Christology.  If he was, why would he entrust his students to perhaps the most strident opponent of the Antiochene position?

This journey to Constantinople happened just before the Council of Ephesus.  It re-established the connection of Armenia to Byzantium.  More Armenians would follow, and this relationship played a determining role in the doctrinal orientation of the Armenian Church toward the Ephesian Christology.

Conclusion

How to summarize this chapter?  Even until the first quarter of the fifth century, Armenia was not committed to one particular school of Christian theology, remaining connected to both Greek and Syriac schools.  In fact, such was the position even in the broader Church until the early decades of the fifth century; to be connected to one did not mean that one had to divorce from the other.

The remainder of the fifth century is marked by conflict between the two schools, both in Armenia and in the broader Church – as witness by the reality that Chalcedon really didn’t settle the controversies.

By the third decade of the century, Armenia’s ties to Constantinople grew stronger, and this just before the time of Ephesus.  This played a vital role in their stand against Nestorianism, and, as we have seen (and will be developed further in detail), this played a decisive role in how the Armenian Church understood Chalcedon.