John the Solitary on the Soul

237 Pages·2013·2.297 MB·English

by  Mary Hansbury

John the Solitary on the Soul
Texts from Christian Late Antiquity
32
Series Editor
George Anton Kiraz
TeCLA (Texts from Christian Late Antiquity) is a series presenting
ancient Christian texts both in their original languages and with
accompanying contemporary English translations.
John the Solitary on the Soul
Translation and Introduction by
Mary T. Hansbury
9
34
2013
Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA
www.gorgiaspress.com
Copyright © 2 0 1 3 by Gorgias Press LLC
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright
Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the
prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC.
2013 ܓ 9
ISBN 978-1-60724-044-0 ISSN 1935-6846
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication
Data
A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is Available
from the Library of Congress.
Printed in the United States of America
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .................................................................................................... v
Introduction ........................................................................................................... vii
Dialogue on the Soul...................................................................................... x
Stages of the Life of the Soul ...................................................................... xi
Passions ......................................................................................................... xiv
Baptism ........................................................................................................ xvii
Theodore of Mopsuestia .......................................................................... xviii
Divinization ................................................................................................... xx
Eschatology ................................................................................................. xxii
Abbreviations .....................................................................................................xxvii
Text and Translation ............................................................................................... 1
Other observations on the soul and on the explanation of human
passions: of the body, of the soul and of the spirit .......................... 2
Second Discourse Concerning the passions of the soul, how they
differ and on the cause of their stirrings: what sort are those
which are of its nature and which are outside of its nature? ........ 60
Third Discourse ..........................................................................................114
Fourth Discourse ........................................................................................164
Bibliography of Works Cited .............................................................................199

v

INTRODUCTION
May the soul be for you a sign, for those who dispute
about it have stumbled. Indeed one professes that it exists
but another that it does not. One subjects it to death
and another puts it above its power. One considers
that it comes from something, yet another that it is in
fact created out of nothing. Who sees its greatness makes
it a small part of what is Great. While the one who sees
its dissolution considers it as a puff of air. There is one for
whom it is the breath of life whereas another contends that
it is the blood. One sees its fervent zeal and says the soul
is made of fire. Another seeing its spiritual existence is
convinced that it is of the Spirit. According to one it is a
portion of God while another says it is His inspiration.
Some hold it to be one substance and others that it is of many.
Some make it to be just one thing but others a blending of
seven elements. Some magnify and sing the praises of its
nature; others degrade it and regard it lightly... Come let us
marvel at the one who says that the soul does not exist
...that the soul does exist is seen in speech which is its mirror.
...For how can it not exist since it is understood in its ministry;
and while its existence is from its Creator, by its own free will
it perishes.1

It seemed appropriate to begin and end these brief remarks with quotations
on the soul from St. Ephrem and Jacob of Serug, beautiful ones at that.
They serve to indicate the rich tradition of the early Syriac fathers on the
soul and indirectly to provide a better understanding of John the Solitary.

1 My translation of Hymn of Faith 1, E. Beck, CSCO Syr. 154, verses 4–8, 10–13.
vii
viii JOHN THE SOLITARY
Often his work has been considered gnostic2 if not heretical. Now thanks to
the critical edition of Isaac Part II with both diachronic and synchronic ref-
erences, where so many of John the Solitary’s key concepts are seen to be
embedded, it is no longer possible not to consider him as within main-
stream Syriac tradition.3
Of course there has always been a problem of identity, one or three,
perhaps exaggerated because of questions of his orthodoxy. While Stroth-
mann maintains that there is only one John, Hausherr insists on three:4
John of Apamea of Syria, 5th century Monophysite monk author of On
the Soul, according to Hausherr.
John of Apamea, referred to by Theodore bar Koni as a gnostic.
John of Apamea of Mesopotamea, Nestorian monk, condemned by
Timothy I in 786–7.
Actually in the manuscripts, according to Brock, the various works are
attributed to John the Solitary, John of Apamea and John of Lykopolis
(394). John the Solitary and John of Apamea are both early 5th century and
probably the same person5 while John of Lykopolis, also author of works
on spirituality, would be an incorrect association. Brock includes in his dis-
cussion John the Egyptian “whose teaching Philoxenus opposed,” and the
later John of Apamea condemned by Timothy I in 786–7.6 Lavenant agrees
that this latter John is not our author while Strothmann maintains that he

2 John compares and contrasts himself with the teaching of the Valentinians,
see R. Lavenant (tr.), Dialogues et Traités, SC 311 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1984), Syr.
36, p. 79.
3 See S. Brock (ed.), Isaac of Nineveh ‘The Second Part’, CSCO SS 224–25. Not all
of the pertinent references have been cited, only those that were accessible to me.
One could consult the CSCO text with profit for further references which directly
concern John the Solitary.
4 See R. Lavenant, “Le problème de Jean d’Apamée,” OCP 46 (1980), 367–90.
Both views of authorship are outlined in detail. Also included is the text of Theo-
dore Bar Koni which discusses John’s orthodoxy.
5 An entry in a 10th cent Lexicon by Bar Bahlul indicates that his monastery was
near Nikertai in the region of Apamea where Theodoret later lived as a monk, see
S.P.Brock, The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life (Kalamazoo: Cistercian
Publications, 1987), 78.
6 See S. Brock, “A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature,” Môrân ’Eth’ô 9
(Kottayam: SEERI, 1997), 31.
INTRODUCTION ix
is.7 The richness and complexity of John’s writings may have led to a triple
identity.8 Easier to split up authorship than to imagine that one person
could be responsible for all the creativity found in the corpus.9 And in fact
there is a coherency of thought and theological perspective throughout the
corpus which makes the hypothesis of triple authorship seem less relevant.10
Most concur that the texts were written in Syriac, probably mid 5th
century,11 and before Chalcedon as there is no reference to Christological
controversy in the writings.12 Nor is there much evidence of philosophical
speculation. John seems to have known Greek and Greek philosophical
authors but wrote in Syriac and does not dwell on philosophical issues.
There is in fact a great emphasis on Scripture throughout his work.13
Nin reports that the majority of works attributed to John the Solitary
are in 45 manuscripts, mostly from the library of the Monastery of the
Mother of God in Egypt. Two Mss. contain only the works of John. The
others contain works of Ephrem, Book of Steps, Gregory of Nanzianzen,

7 See Lavenant, “Problème,” 384–85.
8 A possibility alluded to but not necessarily maintained by Lavenant in Dia-
logues, 18.
9 Vööbus says John’s writings, based on manuscript evidence, must have been
considered to be “among the most important ascetic and mystical writings in Syri-
ac.” Vööbus also draws interesting conclusions about John’s identity, see
A. Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient vol. 3 (CSCO, Subsidia 81, 1988),
98, 107–109.
10 Beulay notes how Dadisho, while quoting John, refers to him by two differ-
ent names within the same text. See R. Beulay, La Lumière sans Forme (Belgium: Édi-
tions de Chevetogne, 1987), 96–7.
11 See A. de Halleux, “Le Milieu Historique de Jean le Solitaire” III SympSyr
OCA 221 ed. R. Lavenant (Rome, 1983), 299–305. He suggests 430–50 for John’s
literary career. John is sometimes seen as a link between Aphrahat, Ephrem, Book of
Steps and Philoxenus, Isaac the Syrian. De Halleux examines the possiblity of a de-
pendence of Philoxenus (d.523) on John the Solitary, see A. de Halleux , “La Chris-
tologie de Jean le Solitaire,” LM 94 (1981), 5–36.
12 Voobus, History, 109; on John’s Christology particularly in comparison with
Philoxenus, see de Halleux, “Christologie.”
13 See Lavenant, Dialogues, 22–24. Nin also affirms this, see M. Nin, “La sintesi
monastica di Giovanni il Solitario,” Le Chiese sire tra IV e VI secolo. Dibattito dottrinale
e ricerca spirituale, (Milan: Centro Ambrosiano, 2005), 103.