Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ in Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’[1] in  Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia

Introduction

In this text, witnesses of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s and Diodore of Tarsus’ eschatological ‘universalist’ views, are reported.  As shall we see (pages 2-10 in this document), the attestations of Diodore’s endorsement of a form of apokatastasis are always accompanied by an attestation of his disciple, Theodore, endorsing the same view. All these common testimonies are from Syriac sources, both Eastern-Syriac - Isaac of Nineveh (fl. 7^th century in his Second Part, 39.7-14; for Theodore only in his Second Part, 3.3.94), Solomon of Basra (fl. 13^th century in his book of the Bee, 60), Theodore bar Konai (fl. 8^th century in his Liber Scholiorum 2.63) - and Western-Syriac - John of Dara (fl. 9^th century in his On the Resurrection of Human Bodies 4.21). At page 8 there is a brief comparison of a passage in Isaac’s Third Part (discourse 6) about eschatological punishments and the content of one fragment of Diodore quoted by Isaac himself in the Second Part.

In the case of Theodore, however, we have additional sources (pages.11-21): the Greek theologian Photius of Constaninople (fl. 9^th century), who mentions that he endorsed the idea of a limited duration of punishments and a final restoration, and the Patrologia Latina (perhaps by the Latin writer Marius Mercator in the 5^th century)  which provides at least a fragment that seems to suggest the same idea. Another East Syriac witness, Joseph Hazzaya (fl. 8^th century) who himself supported a qualified form of apokatastasis, is said to cite Theodore in support for a form of apokatastasis and to refer to a fragment from a lost work on Priesthood that seems to endorse the same view. Also, Isaac of Nineveh himself, in another section of the second Part, quotes Theodore’s work On Priesthood where Theodore seems to say that punishments will have an end.  The last witness I’ll cite is the harsh critic of Theodore, the Greek Leontius of Byzantium (fl. 6^th century) who accused Theodore of considering the threat of eschatological punishments as a mere threat.

Finally, I’ll cite a fragment of Theodore preserved in Isaac of Nineveh Third Part which doesn’t seem to directly assert an universalist view but echoes one fragment that does and is included in the context of a seemingly universalist passage of Isaac.

I suggest the reader to read also the footnotes that provide, in my opinion, interesting information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common witnesses about Diodore of Tarus and Theodore of Mospuestia views on eschatology

Isaac of Nineveh[2] (fl. 7^th  century) in the Second Part, discourse 39:7-14 (II.39.7-14) quotes Diodore and Theodore as supporters of this position[3] and gives the strongest evidence for this among what we will discuss here:

“ 7 Lest any of those who zealously imagine that they are being zealous for the cause of truth should imagine that we are introducing something novel of our own accord, things of which our former orthodox fathers never spoke, as though we were bursting out with an opinion which did not accord with truth, anyone who likes can turn to the writing of the blessed Interpreter[4], a man who had sufficient fill of the gifts of grace, who was entrusted with the hidden mysteries of the scriptures, (enabling him) to instruct on the path to truth the whole community of the Church; who above all has illumined us orientals with wisdom - nor is our mind's vision capable enough (to bear) the brilliancy of his compositions inspired by the divine Spirit.

For we are not rejecting his words - far from it! Rather, we accept (him) like one of the apostles, and anyone who opposes his words introduces doubt into his interpretations, or shows hesitation at his words, (such a person) we hold to be alien to the community of the Church and someone who is erring from the truth. Therefore, although we could demonstrate (our point) from many passages in a great number of his volumes, nevertheless he makes the point especially clear at the end of the first volume which he composed against those who say that sin is present by nature[5].

8. From the blessed Theodore, the Interpreter[6]. After other luminous statements, he says:

"In the world to come those who have chosen here what is good will receive the felicity of good things along with praise; whereas the wicked who all their life have turned aside to evil deeds once they have been set in order in their minds by punishment and the fear of them, choose the good, having come to learn how much they have sinned and that they have persevered in doing evil things and not good; by means of all this they receive a knowledge of religion's excellent teaching and are educated so as to hold on to it with a good will (and so eventually) they are held worthy of the felicity of divine munificence. For (Christ) would never have said ‘Until you pay the last farthing,’[7] unless it has been possible for us to be freed from our sins once we had recompensed for them through punishments. Nor would he have said ‘He will be beaten with many stripes’ and ‘he will be beaten with few stripes’[8] if it were not (the case) that the punishments measured out in correspondence to the sins were finally going to have an end.”

 9. These words and others similar to them are what the blessed Theodore has handed down in his books, clearly and without concealment, openly using straightforward words that are not obscure for (the benefit) of the understanding and instruction of lovers of truth, (showing) what opinions it is appropriate that we should hold concerning God the Creator of all and concerning his chastisements and concerning the judgment to come.

10. Since, according to our Lord's (own) words, the testimony[9] of two men is true and especially so in the case of people who are wondrously and divinely illumined let us confirm that what we have said with the help of another witness who was trustworthy like (our) first witness, (someone) from whose fountain the clear-sounding Theodore himself drank a person of high intelligence (namely) Diodore[10] the great teacher of the church.

11 By the holy Diodore Bishop of Tarsus. The blessed Diodore, wonderful among teachers and instructor of (Theodore), concurs with (this) opinion and he sets it out in an authoritative way in discourse 5 of his book on providence saying as follows[11]: "A reward for labours is reserved for the good, one that is worthy of the righteousness of the Maker, but stripes for the wicked are not for eternity. Thus, not even in their case is the future condition of immortality of no profit: if they are tormented as they deserve just for a short time commensurate with their evil and their wickedness, receiving reward in accordance with the measure of their actions experiencing suffering during a short while, nevertheless (for them) delight in immortality is forever”.

He comes back to what he is saying (here) with greater precision as follows: “If the reward for labours is so great, how much greater is the time of immortality than the time of contests that is this world; whereas the punishments are (far) less than the magnitude and number of sins. The resurrection from the dead should not be considered as belonging[12] only to the good but it also takes place for the wicked as well. For[13] God's goodness is greatly to be held in honour. It chastises sparingly.”

12 These are the words and the opinion of the blessed Diodore[14]. But later on he also says in discourse 6 as follows: “For God, by means of good rewards, conceals the measure of labours; but in the greatness of grace, He diminishes the punishment of those who are chastised, and he shortens its length. But He does not let the torment go on for as much time as the time of wrongdoings warrants. Although He requires them with less than they deserve - just as with the good He extends their felicity beyond (its due) measure in time ,seeing that the reward has no end - it cannot be known as I have already said if God's goodness will always endure retaining the evil's consequent on guiltiness and causing hurt to those of fault.[15]”

13 Then reiterating his words he says[16]: "The decree of judgment and of torment is not to the same extent as the felicity of the kingdom which will obtain then." And (he has) other similar words with the same opinion and expressing the same views. He also introduces into discussion the case of the demons and their great inclination to evil saying: “that not even their immense wickedness can overcome the measure of God's goodness”.

14 These and similar astonishing insights and opinions leading (us) on to love of, and wonder at, the Creator, belong to these very pillars of the church dealing with (God's) dispensation and the divine judgment to come, they concern the immensity of God's mercy, which is in its abundance passes beyond and overcomes the evils done by created beings. Such opinions will cast out from our way of thinking the childish opinion of God expressed by those who introduce evil and passibility into His nature saying that He is changed by circumstances and times. At the same time these opinions of (Theodore and Diodore) will teach us about (the nature of) His chastisements and punishments, whether here or there, (instructing us) concerning what sort of compassionate intentions and purpose he has and allowing (these) to come upon us, what are the excellent outcomes resulting from them, how it is not a matter of our being destroyed by them[17] or enduring the same for eternity, how He allows them to come in a fatherly way and not vengefully - which would be a sign of hatred. (Their purpose was) that, by thinking in this way we might (come to) know about God, and wonder at Him would draw us on to love of him, and as a result of that (love) we might feel ashamed at ourselves and set a right the conduct of our lives here.” (Isaac of Nineveh, Second Part, discourse 39.7-14, translated by Sebastian Brock, pp. 165-169)

Solomon of Basra (fl. 13^th century), Book of the Bee, ch. 60 (link: https://sacred-texts.com/chr/bb/bb60.htm ). While it first quotes a certain ‘book of Memorials’ and Isaac of Nineveh, I believe it is worth quoting in full:

“SOME of the Fathers terrify us beyond our strength and throw us into despair; and their opinion is well adapted to the simple-minded and trangressors of the law. Others of them encourage us and bid us rely upon Divine mercy; and their opinions are suitable and adapted to the perfect and those of settled minds and the pious.[18] 

In the 'Book of Memorials'[19] it is thus written: 'This world is the world of repentance, but the world which is to come is the world of retribution. As in this world repentance saves until the last breath, so in the world to come justice exacts to the uttermost farthing[20]. And as it is impossible to see here strict justice unmingled with mercy, so it is impossible to find there strict justice mingled with mercy.' 

Mâr Isaac says thus: 'Those who are to be scourged in Gehenna will be tortured with stripes of love; they who feel that they have sinned against love will suffer harder and more severe pangs from love than the pain that springs from fear.' Again he says: 'The recompense of sinners will be this: the resurrection itself will be their recompense instead of the recompense of justice; and at the last He will clothe those bodies which have trodden down His laws with the glory of perfection. This act of grace to us after we have sinned is greater than that which, when we were not, brought our nature into being.' Again he says: 'In the world which is to come grace will be the judge and not justice.'

Mâr Theodore the Expositor says[21]: 'Those who have here chosen fair things will receive in the world to come the pleasure of good things with praises; but the wicked who have turned aside to evil things all their life, when they are become ordered in their minds by penalties and the fear that springs from them, and choose good things, and learn how much they have sinned by having persevered in evil things and not in good things, and by means of these things receive the knowledge of the highest doctrine of the fear of God[22], and become instructed to lay hold of it with a good will, will be deemed worthy of the happiness of the Divine liberality. For He would never have said, "Until thou payest the uttermost farthing," unless it had been possible for us to be freed from our sins through having atoned for them by paying the penalty; neither would He have said, "he shall be beaten with many stripes," or "he shall be beaten with few stripes," unless it were that the penalties, being meted out according to the sins, should finally come to an end.'These things the Expositor has handed down in his books clearly and distinctly[23].

   So also the blessed Diodorus, who says in the 'Book of the Dispensation: [24]' 'A lasting reward, which is worthy of the justice of the Giver, is laid up for the good, in return for their labours; and torment for sinners, but not everlasting, that the immortality which is prepared for them may not be worthless. They must however be tormented for a short time, as they deserve, in proportion to the measure of their iniquity and wickedness, according to the amount of the wickedness of their deeds. This they will have to bear, that they suffer for a short time; but immortal and unending happiness is prepared for them. If it be then that the rewards of good deeds are as great (in proportion to them) as the times of the immortality which are prepared for them are longer than the times of the limited contests which take place in this world, the torments for many and great sins must be very much less than the greatness of mercy. So then it is not for the good only that the grace of the resurrection from the dead is intended, but also for the wicked; for the grace of God greatly honours the good, but chastises the wicked sparingly.'

   Again he says[25]:[26] 'God pours out the wages of reward beyond the measure of the labours (wrought), and in the abundance of His goodness He lessens and diminishes the penalty of those who are to be tormented, and in His mercy He shortens and reduces the length of the time. But even thus He does not punish the whole time according to (the length of) the time of folly, seeing that He requites them far less than they deserve, just as He does the good beyond the measure and period (of their deserts); for the reward is everlasting. It has not been revealed whether the goodness of God wishes to punish without ceasing the blameworthy who have been found guilty of evil deeds (or not), as we have already said before.         *         *         *         *         *         *         *         *         *         *         *         *         *         *[27] But if punishment is to be weighed out according to sin, not even so would punishment be endless. For as regards that which is said in the Gospel, 'These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal;'[28] this word 'eternal' (le-`âlam) is not definite: for if it be not so, how did Peter say to our Lord, 'Thou shalt never wash my feet,'[29] and yet He washed him? And of Babylon He said, 'No man shall dwell therein for ever and ever,'[30] and behold many generations dwell therein. In the 'Book of Memorials' he says: 'I hold what the most celebrated of the holy Fathers say, that He cuts off a little from much. The penalty of Gehenna is a man's mind; for the punishment there is of two kinds, that of the body and that of the mind. That of the body is perhaps in proportion to the degree of sin, and He lessens and diminishes its duration; but that of the mind is for ever, and the judgment is for ever.' But in the New Testament le-`âlam is not without end. To Him be glory and dominion and praise and exaltation and honour for ever and ever. Amen and Amen.”

Brief note on Isaac of Nineveh, Diodore of Tarsus and Solomon of Basra

In the quoted chapter of the ‘Book of the Bee’, the third quotation of Isaac is: “In the world which is to come grace will be the judge and not justice”. This quote apparently taken from discourse 6 of the Third Part[31] of Isaac of Nineveh:

“This is the grace with strengthens the righteous, preserving them by its being near and removing their faults. It is also near to those who have perished, reducing their torments and in their punishment deals with compassion. In the world to come, indeed grace will be the judge, not justice. God reduces the length of time of sufferings, and by means of His grace, makes all worthy of His Kingdom. For there is no one even among the righteous who is able to conform his way of life to the Kingdom.” (source: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2017/06/30/one-is-redeemed-by-grace-and-not-by-works-and-by-faith-one-is-justified-not-by-ones-way-of-life/ )

I believe that Isaac here is alluding to Diodore’s teaching, quoted in discourse 39 of the Second Part, that punishments will be shortened by God in the world to come:

“But later on he [Diodore] also says in discourse 6 as follows: “For God, by means of good rewards, conceals the measure of labours; but in the greatness of grace, He diminishes the punishment of those who are chastised, and he shortens its length. …” (Isaac of Nineveh, II.39.12, quoting Diodore of Tarsus’ book on Providence)

The same fragment of Diodore corresponds to the second fragment quoted by Solomon.

Theodore bar Konai (8^th century century) and John of Dara (9^th century century)

From Ilaria Ramelli’s book “A Larger Hope”, the author mentions also the the East Syrian (i.e. belonging to the Church of the East) Theodore bar Konai (or Koni) and West Syrian (i.e. Syriac Orthodox) John of Dara as also confirming that Diodore and Theodore endorsed a form of apokatastasis:

“… John of Dara confirms that “Diodore of Tarsus, in the book that he wrote on the salvific economy, and Theodore, a disciple of his and the teacher of Nestorius, in many passages claim that damnation will come to an end” (On the Resurrection of Human Bodies 4:21). Diodore’s lost work on the salvific economy is the same as quoted by Solomon of Basra. It may well have disappeared precisely on account of the doctrine of universal salvation it defended, which came to be regarded by the church with great suspicion. Theodore Bar Konai, while discussing the question whether those who are in Gehenna can be made worthy of the kingdom, says:

“Some among the wise and learned, such as Saint Diodore and the blessed Exegete [Theodore of Mopsuestia], have alluded to this in an enigmatic way, by adducing that God is not only just, but also merciful, and that it becomes the One who judges with justice to have sinners suffer in a measure that is proportional to their sins and then make them worthy of blessedness.295”” (Ramelli, Ilaria L. E. . A Larger Hope?, Volume 1: Universal Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Julian of Norwich (English Edition) (pp.141-142). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Edizione del Kindle.)

Note 295: “295. Liber Scholiorum, 2:63.” (Ramelli, Ilaria L. E. . A Larger Hope?, Volume 1: Universal Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Julian of Norwich (English Edition) (p.146). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Edizione del Kindle.”)

For Theodore Bar Konai (or Theodore bar Koni), I found also a French translation of his book Liber Scholiorum, here: https://archive.org/details/csco_432_syr_188_theodore_bar_koni_livre_de_scolies/csco_431_syr_187_theodore_bar_koni_livre_de_scolies/page/102/mode/2up (it is possible to also download the book in a pdf file) From the first volume, second chapter, at page 102 (110 of the pdf file), it is found this French translation of the relevant paragraph:

“63. Est-Il possible que ceux qui (sont) dans la Gehenne soient favorisés du Royaume?

Certains docteurs l’ont énigmatiquement signifié, tels Mar Diodore et le bienheureux Interpréte, vu que Dieu n’est pas seulement juste, mais miséricordieux aussi et qu’il serait beau que, après avoir supplicié les pécheurs à proportion de leurs péchés, celui qui juge justement les favorise da la joissance. Et il en est qui disent que leur supplice reste sans rémission et que, de meme que  les verteux ne seront pas mutés vers la Gèhenne, les pécheurs non plus ne le seront pas vers le Royaume. Pourtant, que les deux (opinions) soient remises à la sagesse de ce Trésor de tous les biens, car il est clément et miséricordieux.”

An English translation from Google Translate (as I do not know French) gives:

“63. Is it possible that those who are in Gehenna will be favored with the Kingdom?

Some doctors have enigmatically signified it, such as Mar Diodorus and the blessed Interpreter, seeing that God is not only just, but also merciful and that it would be beautiful if, after having tortured sinners in proportion to their sins, he who judges justly favors them with joy. And there are those who say that their punishment remains without remission and that, just as the virtuous will not be transferred to Gehenna, neither will the sinners be transferred to the Kingdom. Yet let both (opinions) be left to the wisdom of this Treasury of all goods, for He is merciful and gracious.”

The translation is different from Ramelli’s but the meaning seems to be the same. Theodore bar Konai seems to allow both the ‘universalist’ and the ‘infernalist’ interpretations (the ‘blessed Interpreter’ is an appellative that was given to Theodore of Mopsuestia in the East-Syrian tradition, so it seems that Theodore bar Konai referred also to him).

I have yet to find an online resource for the statement of John of Dara. However, from the English translation and edition of Aho Shemunkasho, we find that, indeed, John recognized the doctrine of temporary hell and apokatastasis in Diodore, Theodore, Stephen bar Sudayli (a Syriac mystic of the sixth century) and Gregory of Nyssa:

“[1] Diodore of Tarsus wrote in his book On Providence, and his disciple Theodore [of Mopsuestia] who is Nestorius’ teacher, states in many passages that there is an end to judgment. The same interpretation is also taken in the Book of Hierotheus (ܣܘܐܬܘܪܝܐܕ), which is not authentically his, but someone else composed it in his name, and he is Stephen bar Sudayle.

[2] Likewise, also, Gregory of Nyssa, in his homily On Exhortation ( ܘܗ ܐܪܡܐܡܒ

ܐܢܝܬܪܡ), and in his [writing] to his sister Macrina, and in other writings, presents the dogma of apokatastasis ( ܣܝܣܐܛܣܐܛܩܘܦܐ, ἀποκατάστασις), i.e. restoration (ܫ ܝܪܕܢܡܕ ܐܝܢܘܦ), and states that there is an end to the torture to come.

[3] Apart from this saint, all the doctors of the Church[32], both Greeks and Syrians, commonly say that there is no end to the torture. This [teaching] is well presented by the holy saint Severus in the Letter to Cesaria the Hypatissa that starts with when I read the writing of the love of God, of your excellent rational elegance. …” (John of Dara, On the Resurrection of Human Bodies, 4:21:1-3, edited and translated by Aho Shemunkasho)

 

Other Witnesses of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s universalism

In the case of Theodore of Mopsuestia, there are more testimonies:

Photius of Constantinople (9^th century):

“As for our Theodore, he repulses them with reason and sometimes it is in the best manner and with vigour that he blames the absurd and blasphemous character of their opinions; and, in returning to the words of Scripture that the others interpret against their correct meaning, he demonstrates their ignorance perfectly ¹.  On the other hand, this is not always the case, but he seems to us, in many places, entangled in the Nestorian heresy and echoes that of Origen, at least in that which concerns the end of punishment.” (https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_copyright/photius_04bibliotheca.htm#177 , the book he comments on is Theodore’s “Against those who say that men sin by nature and not by intention”, the same work quoted by Isaac in II.39.8)

Also, another probable attestation by Photius:

“Read three short treatises by Theodore ¹ On Persian Magic and wherein it differs from Christianity,² dedicated to Mastubius, an Armenian and suffragan bishop. In the first book the accursed doctrine of the Persians, introduced by Zarades,³ concerning Zuruam,⁴ whom he makes the beginning of all things and calls Fortune, is expounded; how that, having offered a libation to beget Hormisdas,⁵ he begot both him and Satan. Of the mixing of blood.⁶ Having set forth this impious and disgraceful doctrine in plain words he refutes it in the first book. In the other two books he discusses the Christian faith, beginning from the creation of the world and at the same time rapidly going down to the law of grace.⁷

This Theodore is believed to be Theodore of Mopsuestia, since he mentions with approval the heresy of Nestorius, especially in the third book. He also foolishly talks of the restoration of sinners to their former condition.” (https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_03bibliotheca.htm#81 ; The existence of a book of Theodore written against the Persian Magic is also attested in the East-Syriac tradition and was quoted by Dadisho' Qatraya: https://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?url=article&id=525799&journal_code=MUS )

Patrologia latina

There are Latin fragments form the same work of Theodore quoted by Isaac and commented on by Photius in the patrologia Latina (the Latin title reads: “Contra defensores Peccati originalis” - Here one can find the Latin text of all the seven fragments:  https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragmenta_(Theodorus_Mopsuestenus) . The last one is:

“In the extracts of the Collectio_Palatina there are other important statements… And again: “Who is so mad that he would believe to be so great a good that material of endless torment is being prepared for those who arise, for whom it would be more useful not to rise at all, than to endure, after the resurrection, the experience of such great evils of such kind, in endless pains?/ “Quis ita demens ut tantum bonum credat materiam fieri resurgentibus infiniti supplicii, quibus utilius erat omnino non surgere quam tantorum et talium malorum post resurrectionem sub inifinitis poenis experentiam sustinere”, Schwartz, 176.” (source: Malavasi thesis “The involvement of Theodore of Mopsuestia in the Pelagian Controversy”, https://www.academia.edu/35123005/The_Involvement_of_Theodore_of_Mopsuestia_in_the_Pelagian_Controversy_A_Study_of_Theodore_s_Treatise_Against_Those_who_Say_that_Men_Sin_by_Nature_and_not_by_Will )

The fragment quoted above apparently uses the same argument used by Diodore of Tarsus in his Book on Providence mentioned by Isaac and Solomon of Basra: if punishments will be endless in the age to come, for those who experience them the resurrection will not be a good. In fact, Theodore’s fragment argues that it would be better for them to not being resurrected at all. This to me echoes one fragment of Diodore provided by Isaac of Nineveh (II.39.11):

"A reward for labours is reserved for the good, one that is worthy of the righteousness of the Maker, but stripes for the wicked are not for eternity. Thus, not even in their case is the future condition of immortality of no profit: if they are tormented as they deserve just for a short time commensurate with their evil and their wickedness, receiving reward in accordance with the measure of their actions experiencing suffering during a short while, nevertheless (for them) delight in immortality is forever”.  (Diodore of Tarsus, “On Providence, 5”, quoted by Isaac of Nineveh, Second Part, 39.10, S. Brock translation)

 

Isaac of Nineveh again in his Second Part, 3.3.94 (II.3.3.94), provides another testimony of Theodore, from a lost work “On Priesthood” (unfortunately, there are no online sources for this part):

“3.94 Chastisement is not an aim with God, nor is there vengeance on those who have transgressed; rather, ‹his aim› is the setting aright of those who are subject to judgment, and for the restraint of others. And where the use of these is not ‹effective›, ‹use is made› of chastisements and punishments. Nor does God cause pain to anyone with anything like this in anticipation of events. For it is not in chastising that he takes pleasure, but in bringing benefit. Because of fear of deviation, chastisements are of use. Where fear of the former is not present, then neither are the latter. The blessed Interpreter testifies in the Book on Priesthood54 when he says, “God uses punishments with regard to us because of our own need”—that is, they give birth to fear in each soul. “And what is the use of fear, Father?” “Fear,” he says, “is useful to make us wary.” A demonstration of this is that in the world to come fear is removed: only love has control. “And when he is going to remove sin, he will also remove punishment.”[33] Now when punishments are removed, fear is also removed from there.” (St Isaac of Nineveh. Headings on Spiritual Knowledge: The Second Part, Chapters 1-3 (English Edition) (pp.182-183). Saint Vladimirs Seminary Press. Edizione del Kindle.)

“54 Theodore of Mopsuestia’s treatise on the priesthood is lost apart from a few quotations.” (St Isaac of Nineveh. Headings on Spiritual Knowledge: The Second Part, Chapters 1-3 (English Edition) (p.186). Saint Vladimirs Seminary Press. Edizione del Kindle.)

Also, apparently, Joseph Hazzaya (eight century) quotes that fragment from ‘On Priesthood’ as attested in a review by A. Pirtea (see the underlined part) on Nestor Kavvadas edition of ‘On Providence’, a work where Joseph Hazzaya apparently endorses a qualified form of apokatastasis[34]:

“Firstly, in what is perhaps his last work, Joseph apparently feels compelled to respond to criticisms raised against his theological views. As the original title of OP states, Joseph insists that he “does not depart from the way of the Interpreter,” even when upholding some controversial claims with respect to eschatology. Kavvadas makes the strong case that for Joseph (as e.g. for Theodore of Mopsuestia and Isaac of Nineveh) the entire history of creation is a “school” meant to prepare all rational beings for eternal life. Consequently, even the most dramatic instances of divine punishment described in Genesis (the Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.) have an exclusively pedagogical role and do not express God’s wrath or vengeance. Kavvadas further stresses the parallels between Joseph’s exegesis and that of other East Syriac writers, such as Narsai and Theodore bar Kōnī (see pp. 19-27). Joseph’s “maximalist” interpretation of God’s providential care for rational beings leads, as Kavvadas argues, to the inescapable conclusion that the chastisements of hell, which have the same pedagogical function, will necessarily come to an end. This endorsement of a form of apokatastasis is expressed by Joseph also in other writings, where the mystic refers to a key passage from Theodore of Mopsuestia’s On priesthood seemingly supporting his view(p.10-11)”(source: https://www.academia.edu/36185589/Joseph_Hazzaya_On_Providence_ed_N_Kavvadas_Book_Review_Semitica_and_Classica_10_2017_264_267; underline mine. Maybe the ‘key passage’ is the same quoted by Isaac of Nineveh in II.3.3.94 )

Leontius of Byzantium (6^th century)

Ilaria Ramelli reports another testimony, Leontius of Byzantium

“And another Greek testimony confirms these fragments: Leontius of Byzantium (who in turn was a crypto-Origenist) accused Theodore of supporting universal restoration, deeming eternal damnation a mere threat, and thinking that Christ will give mercy to everybody. 301 Here Leontius seems to have misunderstood the teaching in question, for neither Diodore nor Theodore thought that sinners will not be punished. They rather thought that punishments will not be eternal, in that they will be therapeutic and commensurate with sins.”

(Ramelli, Ilaria L. E. . A Larger Hope?, Volume 1: Universal Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Julian of Norwich (English Edition) (p.144). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition)

“ 301. Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos 3; on Leontius see now the important work by Brian Daley, Leontius of Byzantium: Complete Works.”

(Ramelli, Ilaria L. E. . A Larger Hope?, Volume 1: Universal Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Julian of Norwich (English Edition) (p.146). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition)

Here, Leontius seems to accuse him of a sort of ‘ultra-universalism’ in which there will be simply no punishments. As Ramelli says, here Leontius seems to have misunderstood or misrepresented Theodore’s position, which endorses a temporary hell. However, maybe Leontius meant that Theodore believed that eternal hell is ‘a mere threat’, that is a threat that can be good as a threat for pedagogical reasons (as Origen of Alexandria believed).

 

Theodore fragment in discourse 6 of Isaac of Nineveh’s Third Part

Near the end of discourse 6 of the Third Part, Isaac of Nineveh quotes another fragment of Theodore, which is admittedly unclear on the question of ‘universal salvation’ but, at the same time, it echoes the fragment quoted in II.39.8 and it is quoted in a context that seems to support the doctrine of apokatastasis. I’ll provide an English translation of the Italian translation of the text:

“Let us therefore be diligent in all these [occupations], because here is [contained] all the compassion of God displayed for the whole [human race]. Moreover, let not the being the object of such [compassion] be a cause for our carelessness, but rather [a cause] for our commitment to righteousness, so that we are not blamed by [God] because [our] behavior contradicts [such mercy].

As that wonderful saint, Theodore the Interpreter, said in his Commentary on the Letter to the Romans: “The compassion of God must not be a reason for relaxation for those who are the objects of this great mercy, but on the contrary [they] must show great diligence; and we who are evil must be ashamed in the presence of one who is entirely good and who, [in short] takes care [to achieve] all these good things so that our being may be honored. Certainly we will be able to benefit from the resurrection from the dead, without having to submit to the test of the decreed judgment, reserved for all those who in this transitory world have entirely given themselves over to evil. However,” he says, “while the promise of [our] entry into rest is assured, let it not happen that one of us distances himself from the things above.”

Moreover, this too is not foreign to paternal love: although we behave in this world as rational creatures and are concerned with all that we ought, we, in reality, live [all] irrationally, because we do not care in the least to perceive the life to which we are led: [a life] in which [God] does not consent to punish for eternity, but [in which we], learning what evils we are guilty of, receive in ourselves [only] a taste of what [would be due to us].

How great indeed is ignorance! [God] then carries out [his] work according to his eternal intelligence, which accords with his great love. From here [man] scrutinizes what is the ultimate purpose of the will of that [intelligence], from the beginning, discerning what [God] indicates to him in each of the Economies [realized] by him in every generation. And from this we will then be awakened, [we] sinners who at that moment will be punished especially by the sting of love for [God] that follows [our] exodus from here below. For it is said: He to whom much has been forgiven, loves much. Then will be fulfilled the word that is written: God will be all in all.

To him be the glory for his wise dispensations, which surpass [all our] investigation, forever and ever. Amen.”

The sentence “…without having to submit to the test of the decreed judgment, reserved for all those who in this transitory world have entirely given themselves over to evil” clearly mirrors the words “…whereas the wicked who all their life have turned aside to evil deeds…” of Theodore’s fragment quoted by Isaac in his Second Part, discourse 39, paragraph 8. This perhaps strengthens the attribution to Theodore of both fragments, in my opinion. To itself, the fragment of Theodore quoted here in discourse 6 of the Third Part is unclear on who are the ‘us’ referred in “while the promise of [our] entry into rest is assured”. Read in light of other evidence and in the context of Isaac’s discourse, an ‘universalist’ interpretation of this passage is reasonable but there is, admittedly, not enough evidence that in this fragment Theodore is actually making a general point.

The Italian translation reads:

 “Siamo dunque solleciti in tutte queste [occupazioni], perché qui è [racchiusa] tutta la compassione di Dio dispiegata a favore dell’intero genere [umano]. L’essere, poi, oggetto di una tale [compassione] non sia per noi causa di noncuranza, ma sia piuttosto [causa] di impegno nella giustizia, affinché non siamo da [Dio] biasimati perché i [nostri] comportamenti contraddicono [una tale misericordia].

Come ha detto il mirabile tra i santi, Teodoro l’Interprete nel [Commentario alla Lettera] ai Romani: “La compassione di Dio non dev’essere occasione di rilassatezza per coloro che sono oggetto di questa grande misericordia, ma al contrario [costoro] devono mostrare grande diligenza; e dobbiamo vergognarci noi che siamo cattivi davanti a uno che è interamente buono e che, [per dirla] in breve, si preoccupa [di realizzare] tutti questi beni perché il nostro essere possa essere onorato. Certo noi potremo beneficiare della resurrezione dai morti, senza dover sottostare alla prova del giudizio decretato, riservato a tutti coloro che in questo mondo transitorio si sono interamente consegnati al male. Però – egli dice – mentre la promessa del [nostro] ingresso nel riposo è assicurata, non accada che uno di noi si allontani dalle cose dell’alto.”

Inoltre, neppure questo è estraneo all’amore paterno: pur comportandoci noi in questo mondo da creature razionali e preoccupandoci di tutto ciò che dobbiamo, noi, in realtà viviamo [tutto] ciò irrazionalmente, perché non ci preoccupiamo minimamente di percepire la vita verso cui siamo condotti: [vita] in cui [Dio] non acconsente a punire per l’eternità, ma [in cui noi], apprendendo di quali mali siamo colpevoli, riceviamo in noi stessi [solo] un saggio di ciò [che ci sarebbe dovuto].

Quanto è grande infatti l’ignoranza! [Dio] allora realizza la [sua] opera secondo la propria intelligenza eterna, che si accorda con il suo grande amore. A partire da qui [l’uomo] scruta quale sia il fine ultimo della volontà di quell’[intelligenza], fin dal principio, discernendo ciò che [Dio gli] indica in ciascuna delle Economie da lui [realizzate] in ogni generazione. E da ciò saremo allora svegliati, [noi] peccatori che in quel momento saremo castigati soprattutto dell’aculeo dell’amore per [Dio] che segue il [nostro] esodo da quaggiù. È detto, infatti: Colui cui molto è stato perdonato, ama molto. Allora si realizzerà la parola che è scritta: Dio sarà tutto in tutti.

A lui è la gloria per le sue sapienti dispensazioni, che sorpassano [ogni nostra] investigazione, per i secoli dei secoli. Amen.”(Isacco di Ninive, Discorsi Ascetici, Terza Collezione, trad. Sabino Chialà p. 102-103)

 

Conclusion

This investigation, in my view, gives us enough evidence to conclude that the Christian thinker and exegete Diodore and Tarsus (fl. 4^th century) and his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia (fl. 4^th-5^th century) were both supporters of the view that eschatological punishments will be finite and corrective and will lead, eventually, to the salvation of all. Despite the fact that much of their original works have been lost, the testimonies reported here strongly suggest that they held these views and they were the main inspirations of Isaac of Nineveh’s own ‘universalist’ views.

In particular, we have seen that four ancient and medieval writers attested the presence of these doctrines in Diodore and Theodore: Isaac of Nineveh (in his Second Part 39.7-14; for Theodore only Second Part 3.3.94), Theodore bar Konai (in his Liber Scholiorum 2.63), Solomon of Basra (in his Book of the Bee, ch.60) – who all belonged to the East-Syrian Tradition (i.e. ‘Church of the East’) – and John of Dara (in his On the Resurrection of Human Bodies 4.21)  – who belonged to the West-Syrian Tradition (i.e. ‘Syrian Orthodox Church’). Additional ancient and medieval sources - Leontius of Byzantium, Marius Mercator, Joseph Hazzaya and Photius of Constantinople - seem also to support the idea that Theodore did believe in these doctrines.  

The great respect in which Diodore and, especially, Theodore were held in the East-Syrian tradition might be part of the reason why Isaac of Nineveh’s writings were he supports a form of ‘universalism’ were preserved. I believe that this research also helps to understand the

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] By ‘universalism’, I mean the view that all human beings will be, ultimately, saved (or, equivalently, that no human being shall be lost for ever).

[2] It should be mentioned that Isaac of Nineveh is considered a saint even in Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches, despite being a very explicit universalist and revering Theodore of Mopsuestia who was condemned in the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 (see https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum05.htm , anathema 12). Perhaps, Isaac never heard of the council being a bishop and hermit of the Church of the East and living in a region where he was probably unfamiliar with what was happening in the Roman Empire. While in this discourse Isaac mentions Diodore and Theodore as his main influences, it has been suggested that, perhaps, he also was also inspired by the writings attributed to Evagrius Ponticus (4^th century) where the universalist views are supported. See e.g.: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/374137005-apocatastasis-in-the-syrian-christian-tradition-evagrius-and-isaac.pdf

[3] Unfortunately, there is no online resource that quotes the entirety of that part of the homily. Thankfully, there is a audiobook published in the youtube channel ‘Athonite Audio’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqnvnhWiLEg (4:50:37-4:58:05). A large part of this discourse – excluding the discussion about Theodore and Diodore can be found here: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/sebastian-brock-on-the-universalism-of-isaac-the-syrian.pdf

[4] A title used to refer to Theodore of Mopsuestia in the Church of the East

[5] This work has been attested also by Photius who confirms Theodore’s support of a form of ‘apokatastasis’ (see later) and reported the title: “Against those who say that men sin by nature and not by intention”. Specifically, Photius asserts that Theodore appears to follow Origen in the thesis of an end to punishments. As mentioned later, it seems to be attested also by Marius Mercator under the title “Contra defensores peccati originalis”, where a seemingly rhetorical question attributed to Thedore is quoted, which seems to argue an ending to punishments since, if punishments are endless, it would be better for those who endure them to be never resurrected (for these other sources on Theodore, see later). This echoes the first fragment of Diodore, provided by Isaac, in which Diodore says that precisely because the stripes for the wicked are not for eternity, not even in their case the immortality is of ‘no profit’.

[6] S. Brock: “The passage is also cited by Solomon of Basra, Book of the Bee (ed. Budge), ch.60; Solomon has evidently quoted the passage from Isaac, since he also quotes Isaac’s ensuing words at the beginning of XXXIX.9.” (p.166). This fragment is also viable online here (without the paranthesis) in the blog of A. Kimel: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2021/08/23/the-triumph-of-the-kingdom-over-gehenna/ . There is a small difference between this version and the one quoted by Solomon, however. In particular the expression “fear of God” after “religion’s excellent teaching” is missing. Perhaps Solomon had a slightly different version of this passage, but I agree with Brock that Isaac is the source.

[7] Mt 5:26; Lk 12:59

[8] Lk 12:47-48

[9] John 8:17

[10] Diodore of Tarsus was the teacher of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Isaac shows he was well aware of this here and noticed a continuity in their teachings. Interestingly, Isaac seems to use their teacher-student relation as corroborating evidence for the validity of their opinion.

[11] S. Brock’s note: “The passage is freely quoted by Solomon of Bosra, Book of the Bee, ch.60. … It is now clear from the passage in Isaac that Solomon has paraphrased the passages from Diodore (Budge’s translation is unsatisfactory). The same passage from Diodore is evidently also quoted disapprovingly (without attribution and from a different Syriac translation) by George of the Arabs…” (p. 167). Despite this, the meaning of the quote is the same. Brock also doesn’t explain why Budge’s translation is unsatisfactory: is it because Budge made errors or because Solomon (or someone else) paraphrased and altered somewhat the text?

[12] Budge’s translation of Solomon’s Book of the Bee has ‘a grace’.

[13] Budge’s translation of Solomon’s Book of the Bee here is wildly different.

[14] S. Brock: “Discourse VI: Solomon of Bosra again paraphrases  the passage.” (p.168)

[15] S. Brock: “The Syriac is obscure here”. (p.168) Budge’s translation of the Book of the Bee is not helpful.

[16] S.Brock: “…again paraphrased by Solomon of Basra: since Solomon appears to continue the quotation from Diodore a little further this means that the must have derived the passages from another source, not Isaac (in contrast to the passage from Diodore).” (p.168). I find this quite curious: why would Solomon quote Isaac for the Thedore’s fragment and another source for Diodore’s? Also, the quotes of Diodore, unlike the previous, in paragraph 13 do not find an analogue in Budge’s translation of Solomon of Basra’s book of the Bee.

[17] “[H]ow it is not a matter of our being destroyed by them”. This seems to be an oblique reference to the view of annihilationism, the view that for the wicked the punishment is annihilation.

[18] Interestingly, this paragraph suggests that the teaching that the punishments of hell will be of finite duration was shared only with those who were considered ‘advanced’ in spiritual progress. While it is beyond the scope of this text, it is worth noting that the most famous ancient Christian ‘universalist’ Origen of Alexandria suggested a similar approach (Contra Celsus, 6.26; source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04166.htm ). And, also, an East-Syrian Christian writer, Hanun ibn-al Salt reported that Isaac’s teachings on this topic weren’t shared to the undeveloped (source: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/875106/summary ).

[19] I do not know any reference to this work outside the Book of the Bee.

[20] I find interesting that the author of the ‘Book of the Bee’ notices a parallel between the ‘last breath’ of this life and the ‘uttermost farthing’ (Mt 5:26; Lk 12:59) of the debt sinners are supposed to ‘repay’. While the author most likely supported the teaching of everlasting damnation, this kind of parallel doesn’t exclude a teaching of temporary punishment. Tentatively, I believe that this parallel is based on James 2:13 which refers to ‘judgment without mercy’ shown to the unmerciful. 

[21] Hanson (1899) provided an excessively liberal translation of this fragment (except the first sentence) quoting as a source Joseph Assemani’s Bibliotheca Orientalis (III, p. 323). The translation reads as follows: “"The wicked who have committed evil the whole period of their lives shall be punished till they learn that, by continuing in sin, they only continue in misery. And when, by this means, they shall have been brought to fear God, and to regard him with good will, they shall obtain the enjoyment of his grace. For he never would have said, 'until thou hast paid the uttermost farthing,' unless we can be released from suffering after having suffered adequately for sin; nor would he have said, 'he shall be beaten with many stripes,' and again, 'he shall be beaten with few stripes,' unless the punishment to be endured for sin will have an end."” (source: https://www.tentmaker.org/books/prevailing/upd16.html )

[22] Isaac’s version of the fragment doesn’t seem to have a reference to the ‘fear of God’. Despite this, the passage is otherwise identical.

[23] Here Solomon is quoting from Isaac’s II.39.9

[24] Solomon seems to have ‘merged’ the first two quotes present in Isaac. A different, but incomplete, translation of this fragment is provided by Hanson (1899), citing Joseph Assemani’s Bibliotheca Orientalis (III, p.324) as source: “"For the wicked there are punishments, not perpetual, however, lest the immortality prepared for them should be a disadvantage, but they are to be purified for a brief period according to the amount of malice in their works. They shall therefore suffer punishment for a short space, but immortal blessedness having no end awaits them the penalties to be inflicted for their many and grave sins are very far surpassed by the magnitude of the mercy to be showed them. The resurrection, therefore, is regarded as a blessing not only to the good, but also to the evil."” (source: https://www.tentmaker.org/books/prevailing/upd18.html )

[25] This is roughly the quote from discourse VI that Isaac quotes.

[26] Unfortunately, it is not clear where this second quote from Diodore ends from Budge’s translation. Ilaria Ramelli in her book a “Larger Hope, vol 1” ends the quote just before the phrase “to Him be glory…”. She perhaps has good reasons to do that. Isaac’s version of the quote seems to end at the word ‘before’.

[27] The translator E.A. Budge mentions that there is here a phrase, but that is untranslatable

[28] Mt 25:46. This verse has been quoted in support for the traditional view of ‘eternal torment’ since antiquity, e.g. the quote from St. Basil Rules for monks found here: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/02/07/committing-theological-fraud-st-basil-the-great-and-david-bentley-hart/ . Notice that the quote testifies that some, like Theodore, mentioned Lk 12:47-48 as a ‘proof text’ for the view that damnation has an end. This part also testifies that in the thirteenth century, Mt 25:46 wasn’t seen as a ‘proof’ of eternal torment or a final condemnation. Ilaria Ramelli includes this part in Diodore’s second fragment.

[29] Jn 13:8

[30] Isa 13:20

[31] Source: the Italian translation of the ‘Third Part’: Isacco di Ninive, Discorsi Ascetici, Terza Collezione (translated by Sabino Chialà). The Italian translation of the same passage reads: “Questa è la grazia che fortifica i giusti, [li] custodisce con la sua vicinanza e rimette le loro mancanze. Essa è vicina anche a coloro che sono già morti: allevia le loro torture, e nella sentenza del loro giudizio agisce con compassione. Nel mondo futuro, infatti, sarà la grazia a fare da giudice e non la giustizia. [Dio] abbrevia la durata delle sofferenze e, in forza della sua grazia, rende tutti degni del suo regno, poiché non c’è tra i giusti chi possa conformare la propria condotta alle [esigenze di] quel regno.” (p.90-91)

[32] He is referring to the West-Syrian Church (the Syrian Orthodox Church). Interestingly, the Church venerates as saints Didymus the Blind and Evagrius Ponticus, 4^th century Christian fathers that are generally assumed to be faithful followers of the universalist Origen of Alexandria.  It should be noted that in this Church at least Evagrius was often read as not supporting universalist views. See, e.g.:  https://www.academia.edu/129664834/Origenism_and_the_Memory_of_Evagrius_Ponticus_during_the_Syriac_Renaissance_Dionysius_bar_%E1%B9%A2al%C4%ABb%C4%AB_s_Commentary_on_the_Chapters_on_Knowledge . The article also mentions that this was true also for some of Evagrius’ interpreters of the Church of the East. It is unclear if Isaac of Nineveh had access of texts attributed to Evagrius where the latter endorses a form of apokatasatasis or not.

[33] This sentence is consistent with the other fragment that Isaac quoted in II.39.8: punishments will end once sins are removed.

[34] ‘Qualified’ because Joseph seems to say that all human beings will be saved, except the ‘Lost One’ (the Antichrist) who will be annihilated. In his ‘On Providence’ he writes: “Now, when the blessed Elijah will have converted all captives within the aforementioned [number of] days, then, at the resurrection [day], on the first of Nisan, our Lord’s revelation from the sky shall occur. The veil of the firmament shall dissipate from before the face of our Lord and the splendor of His glory; and His voice shall cry on the earth, and all Adam’s progeny shall rise and be enrobed with the glory of resurrection. And before the eyes of all angels, humans and rebellious demons, our Lord shall breathe out on the Lost one and annihilate him by the breath of His mouth, while all rational [beings] shall be looking at Him. Then, all [of them], having seen how the Lost one was annihilated, body and soul, shall all cry [loud] giving glory to God for His so rich, abundant mercies—because they saw the annihilation of the Lost one and the glory of the resurrection, and then they understood that all sinners and righteous ones are justified freely by grace. For when the righteous see the glory with which they are enrobed, they will not think that it was by virtue of their labours that they were deemed worthy of that ineffable glory, but that it was given to them freely by grace.” (Joseph Hazzaya, On Providence, 151, transl. Nestor Kavvadas p. 166-167).