New quotes attributed to Isaac of Nineveh and Theodore of Mopsuestia: unofficial translation

 

New quotes attributed to Isaac of Nineveh and Theodore of Mopsuestia: unofficial translation

Almost by chance, I encountered this article on Academia: “Previously Unpublished Quotations from the Treatises of Theodore of Mopsuestia in the Context of Interim Data on Isaac of Nineveh’s «Sixth Collection»  by the scholar Alexander V. Tamrazov (link: https://www.academia.edu/130163240/Previously_Unpublished_Quotations_from_the_Treatises_of_Theodore_of_Mopsuestia_in_the_Context_of_Interim_Data_on_Isaac_of_Nineveh_s_Sixth_Collection_ ).

In the article, written in Russian, are provided quotes that are attributed to Isaac of Nineveh (fl. 7th century) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (fl. 4th-5th centuries). The article provides the Syriac text and the Russian translation of these quotes. Since I do not know neither Syriac nor Russian, I have translated the quotes into English using Google translate (in bolded text I provide, following the paper, the translation of the parts attributed to Theodore whereas in italic the titles of each book of Theodore that appears). The paper mentions that these excerpts are probably from the Fifth[1] and Sixth Collections[2] of Isaac of Nineveh.  Each quote is prefaced by a Latin title that contains the Latin title of Theodore’s work and the reference to the Patrologia Graeca. I added some footnotes that relates the content with previously known texts.

Given the fact that I used Google Translation, the following translation should not be considered definitive and hopefully will be subject to revision pending further reviews. However, what follows seems to be consistent with what is already known of Theodore’s and Isaac’s universalist eschatological views[3].

The English translation of the Russian translation of the quotes (Content preliminary and subject to future revision)

From page 10 of the paper (‘Excerptum 1 ex V, 7, 1 cum Theodori «De perfectione regiminis» (CPG 3855)’)

We know that useful conversation (ʕenyānā) is placed before God as prayer, for even the teacher Theodore in the “Book of the Perfect Life” considers as one of the parts of prayer what a person says about the divine law and hears about it [in response](Isaac of Nineveh, Fifth Part, 7, 1)

From page 11-13 of the paper (‘Excerptum 2 ex V, 7, 6 cum Nestorii «Adversus Apollinarem», Theodori «De incarnatione» fragmento 1 (CPG 3856) et «In epistulam ad Romanos» fragmento 1 (CPG 3846)’)

They, that is, the Blessed [Diodorus?] and the wonderful community of his like-minded people, with a different goal (nī šā) approach [the consideration of] everything that [concerns] God's dispensation: it is precisely to this goal that the path (āzyā) of the words they wrote down, as well as the power of their interpretations, is directed. Thus, in all their understanding (reʕyānā) and in their speech about God’s economy in relation to creation, they look not to the custom of rational, and therefore also created, beings, but to the Divine nature. And they do not completely deprive their instruction of such understanding, even if they happen to examine the Holy Scriptures, and they speak for the benefit of the weak and in proportion to the strength of the disciples, arranging their speech as a warning, about the truth of faith, or about the economy, or about other things that the Lord God orders. Therefore, Blessed Nestorius in his [treatise] “Against Apollinaris and His Like-Minded People,” which he compiled from chapters refuting the co-religionists [of Apollinaris], about the words: “The Word became flesh”37, said this: “It is clear that the Divine existence is immutable, unchangeable and uncomplicated: having accepted these [properties] as the law of Eternal Existence, and interpret this [i.e. John 1:14] in accordance with what is proper to God. Scripture cannot constrain the Self-existent nature, but the Self-existence subordinates Scripture to Itself and interprets its obscure and dark [places]”; you see that Nestorius even teaches that the purpose of the confession of the Church should be understood in relation to the Divine nature, and not to what is said in the Scriptures. So also Blessed Theodore in his treatise on the “Humanity of Our Lord” spoke against them [i.e. Apollinaris and his associates] and their [opinions]: “They cite examples from the Scripture and base their words on them, without realizing that we everywhere perceive the meaning of the words of the Scripture from what surrounds them (bārānāyūhēn)”. He, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, clearly distances himself from this other understanding, which pertains to the created and passionate nature, and clearly teaches about the precise understanding and true purpose of everything that God dispenses in people. [Theodore] says: “Both of these thoughts about God are impious: supposedly He did something in anger contrary to what seems good to Him, and that out of disappointment He acts differently…”” (Isaac of Nineveh, Fifth Part, 7, 6)

From pages 13-14 (‘Excerptum 3 ex VI, 7, 6 cum Theodori fragmento 2 «In epistulam ad Romanos» (CPG 3846)’):

So the Blessed Interpreter in the sixth word of the interpretation of [the Epistle] to the Romans says: “Both of these thoughts about God are impious: supposedly He did something in anger contrary to what He sees as good, and that out of disappointment He acts differently than He previously desired. Therefore, if He had wanted to create us immortal and this had been predetermined by Him as good in relation to us, then He would never have changed His plan in anger, having become disappointed [in us] because of sin.” (Isaac of Nineveh, Sixth Part, 7, 6)

From pages 14-15 (‘Excerptum 4 ex VI, 7, 4 cum Theodori fragmento 1 «In Genesim» (CPG 3827)’):

Where there is completeness [composed] of direct thoughts (uššāē trī ṣē), there is also sound evidence for the perception of the verbal: confidence in this precedes [the citation of] an example from the Scriptures. The conviction that God created the creature in love, [comes] from internal reflections and from rational discernment: He [created] those who did not exist, and no one asked for them, just as there was no one by whose exhortation of will and petition He not only brought them into being from nothing, so that they simply were, but also adorned them with life, feelings, and intelligence, knowledge and all sorts of other benefits for their benefit and joy, the greatest of which is that He shared with them His existence through knowledge - all this could not be accomplished without love. As the wonderful saint Theodore the Interpreter says at the beginning of the first volume of the “Commentary on Genesis”: “Therefore, it is known that in great goodness and abundant love God began to arrange the creation.”(Isaac of Nineveh, Sixth Part, 7, 4)

From pages 16-17 (‘Excerptum 5 ex VI, 7, 2 cum Theodori fragmento 2 «In Genesim» (CPG 3827)’):

“If [God] is perfect (gmīr) in His knowledge (b-ī aʕēh) and does not recognize [anything] anew, like someone who [previously] did not know, then He is also perfect in His will (b-ṣeyānēh), and, therefore, together with His existence, He abides that which pleases Him to do and to desire. Thus spoke the Blessed Interpreter in the first volume of the “Interpretation of Genesis”: “God does not will anything that He has not eternally willed, and He does not conceive of anything that He has not conceived from the beginning, nor does He introduce any correction of the creature that was not in His original plan (b-arʕī ēh). The entire arrangement (tuqqānā) of the creature, the mode of its existence (znāh da-hwayyāh), the number of natures in it, the order of its harmonious existence (quyyāmāh), the [kinds of] dispensation that must be made in it, — all this for each age and each person, both for Adam’s relatives and for others, [God] knows, and therefore all this is pre-prepared and laid down by His plan — predetermined from above and eternally. He knew, as if to say, all the deeds and thoughts of each of the people not only in one age, but [he knew] also those thoughts that are in all rational [creatures], and what must be done in relation to each of them for their common good. From Above and together with His existence He was absolutely certain of everything and knew everything.” (Isaac of Nineveh, Sixth Part, 7, 2)

From page 18 (Excerptum 6 ex V, 4 cum Theodori «In Samuel» (CPG 3832)):

From the diversity of our freedom, the immutability of God in His Providence, which promotes the welfare of rational creatures, is even more recognized, as Blessed Theodore the Interpreter said in the “Interpretation of Samuel”: “He has allowed people to exercise their will in everything they do, and He uses the economy as it should be, while neither the good will of people in any way favors His economy, nor does their evil will help Him to completely dispose (šumlāyā damparnsānūtēh) — He ineffably does everything for the benefit of people, whether they are of good or bad [understanding],” — Thus says Theodore, whose mind is beyond the knowledge of many. (Isaac of Nineveh, Fifth Part, 4)

From page 19 (‘Excerptum 7 ex VI, 5, 2 cum Theodori «Contra defensores peccati originalis» (CPG 3860)[4]):

First, the Blessed Interpreter speaks [about this] in the second volume “Against those who say that sin is embedded in nature”, in the third word it is said thus: "God did not do everything that came from Him in anger, weakness, or disappointment: from the beginning and from eternity He is precisely sure of what He has determined for the things He sees for each of His creatures. However, can this provide great help to one or to all in general, or not? Thus it is said through the prophet: “Even before I sealed (ʔeṣōrā) you in the womb I knew you; before you came forth from the womb I sanctified you.” And the Blessed Paul said: “He who chose me from my mother’s womb and called me by His grace to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him to the Gentiles” — from this it is known that from the beginning and from eternity [God] knew exactly how to dispose not only of all [creature] in general, but also of each of them, He also arranged who is subject to judgment and who is to enjoy the benefits, — for the benefit of all and each,” These are the words of the Interpreter about the eternal determinations of God about everything: they were all made initially. (Isaac of Nineveh, Sixth Part, 5, 2)

From pages 20-21 (Excerptum 8 ex VI, 5, 2 cum Theodori «Contra Magos» (CPG 3861)) [5]:

Listen to what contemplation Blessed Theodore offers you about God, confessing Him. He speaks about the same thing, with the same definition and with the same purpose in the book “Against the Magi,” [written] for his beloved Mastubia: “He does not do anything out of disappointment and does not spend a long time searching for how He can best manage things - from above and from the beginning everything is laid down in His Providence: for those who are created by Him, He establishes order according to His will. For every person is first destined to be conceived by seed in the mother's womb, then to be imprinted in an image, and then to be born. Subsequently, as he gradually grows, [man] attains perfection, and this is originally and eternally predetermined, it is in His precise knowledge and conviction regarding what will happen to each of [people], and what He will use according to His will. We are of those who see what happens gradually - in His Providence everything is laid down from the beginning, as it is said about Jeremiah: “Even before I formed (ʔeblā) you in the womb, I knew you; before you came out from the womb, I have sanctified you”. And Blessed Paul said: “He who chose me from my mother’s womb and called me by His grace desired to reveal His Son in me, so that I might preach Him to the Gentiles” — this was known to God from the beginning, and so He used prophecy to bring into action what had been prepared by His Providence. Obviously, He acts in this way in relation to all people: everything from above and from the beginning has been distributed by Him as His will pleases,” — such are the words [of Theodore] here, however there [i.e. in the previous quotation] he clarifies this even more with examples from [created] nature and from the Scriptures.” (Isaac of Nineveh, Sixth Part, 7, 5 2)

From page 22 (‘Excerptum 9 ex VI, 5, 8 cum Theodori fragmento 3 «In Genesim» (CPG 3827)’):

“[Theodore] the Interpreter in the “Interpretation of Genesis” and in other [of his works] interprets all the time [allocated] to this world as the measure of childhood (mšutā d-alyūā): “Divine Providence guides our childhood” (l-šaan), subordinating it to the angelic dispensation, and at all times we are destined to learn.” (Isaac of Nineveh, Sixth Part, 5,8)

From pages 22-23 (‘Excerptum 10 ex VI, 5, 5 cum Theodori «In Iob» (CPG 3835)’):

As [God] said about Job: “Over his body you have been given power, but keep his soul!” This means that if [God] had given the soul to [the power of Satan], it would have been destroyed by sin, just like the body. “But save his soul” means that He did not allow the destroyer to approach his soul: that is, He did not mean, saying [“save”], that his soul belongs to Satan, but as if He said that [Satan] does not have such power over it as over the body. The Blessed Interpreter also says: “[God] gave in to [Satan] so that he could do whatever he wanted with [Job’s] property, and allowed his body to be wounded, but he did not allow it to come near his soul, for the dominant will is intertwined with it and embedded in it—and He saved it from the attack of Satan.”(Isaac of Nineveh, Sixth Part, 5,5)

From pages 23-24-25 (‘Excerptum 11 ex V, 7 cum Theodori «De Sacerdotio»[6] (CPG 3853)’):

Even Blessed Peter did not realize either the weakness of the nature in which he was clothed, or that all this jealousy that had seized him came from another force.  Before accepting the temptation, he dared to be so self-confident that he contradicted the words of the Lord: “Even if I die with You, I will not deny You!” Then the Lord made him feel what it means for a person to be left without help from above. The Blessed Interpreter Theodore speaks of the same thing in the first word of the book “On the Priesthood”: “Behold, how the Lord, seeing that blessed Peter had become proud of the steadfastness of his mind, made him feel his weakness, in order to teach him that by the will of His soul (b-ṣeyānāhd-nap̄ šēh) He had testified to His readiness, together with other weak [creatures], to experience everything: both pain and suffering; and by His death [the Lord] confirmed the testimony, so that [Peter] would not depart from hislove for Him. Our Lord wanted to have in Himself a sense of human weakness, in order to teach that He is no better than anyone who has been left without Divine care, for as one who is a man, He participates together with [people] in that which they also participate in by nature. [The Lord] said [to Peter]: “Simon! Simon! Behold, Satan has asked to sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail.” So, [the Lord] clearly showed [Peter] that he had already cast aside all his love for Him and given over to Satan’s dominion, if he, like a naked man, was left without Divine care: how will his faith do anything if he is not convinced of help from above? “I prayed,” [the Lord] says, that this would not happen, that is, He seems to say: “The inexhaustibility of your faith is a gift from God, given to you by My hands through My prayer.”- Here, even the Interpreter says so!” (Isaac of Nineveh, Fifth Part, 7)

From pages 25-26 (‘Excerptum 12 ex VI, 5, 6 cum Theodori «In Lucam» (CPG 3842)’):

Therefore, the Blessed Interpreter, explaining how [God] disposed of Christ at the hour of His passion, that is, that He prayed fervently in fear, that His sweat was like drops of blood, that an angel appeared to Him from heaven in order to strengthen Him, and so on, points out that [Christ] is a true man, and also interprets this as having happened for the sake of the economic strengthening of His corporeality. [Theodore] says: [God the Word] became man - and truly, that is, obviously, by contact (naqqī pāʔī ) became a man who endured passion for the sake of the universal salvation. And there is a lesson in this: it is not surprising and beyond doubt that the weaknesses (hālēn da-mī lūā) of human nature strikeeven those who are sound in their thinking - in the same way [God] arranged what happened with our Lord Christ” — this is how Blessed Theodore explains the meaning of what happened to our Lord: it was for the sake of general instruction. ” (Isaac of Nineveh, Sixth Part, 5, 6)

From pages 26-28 (‘Excerptum 13 ex V, 7, 51 cum Theodori fragmento 2 «De incarnatione» (CPG 3856)’):

[God] has perfected through our Lord Christ the example (taā) of hope for every corporeal (gūšmā) [creature]: behold, together with God, created nature triumphs victoriously (mezdayya)! Truly, so it is: He is the Head, and the creature is the members, and although in honor He is distinguished and pre-above all creatures, on behalf of (d-ukkaparṣōpā) God the Word fulfilling everything, but at the same time in Him all creatures are honored: His honor belongs to all creatures in general. Blessed Theodore the Interpreter also says this in the fifteenth word "On the Humanity of Our Lord": “God would have taken man and united him to Himself, having prepared for him the worship of all creation, and would have made it so that the intelligible natures worship him, in vain and without any useful meaning, if what happened to him was not for the benefit of all creation in general, for he is the knot (ʔasrā) of all creation, as we said earlier.  And since he has a strong kinship (ʔayānūā attīāʔī qānē) with all creation, it is necessary that all creation should partake of what has happened with him through the household.”  And after this he said: “This is the virtuous intention (ṣnaʕā) of the wisdom of God - to honor the creature with all honor, so that together with God it receives worship in communion (šāwtāpūā) with [man] received." You see that in honor from worship in it there is the face (parṣōpā) of the whole creation, for [Theodore] says: "The creation together with God receives worship in participation with the received," while the whole creation is beloved by God in the hypostasis (ba-qnōmēh d-māran) of our Lord, that is, His hypostasis is a mirror of the love for the creation hidden in the existence [of God]. (Isaac of Nineveh, Fifth Part, 7)

From pages 28-29 (‘Excerptum 14 ex V, 5, 1 cum Theodori fragmento 3 «In epistulam ad Romanos» (CPG 3846) et «Homiliae catecheticae» (CPG 3852)’):

All skilled teachers and the Blessed Interpreter have a custom: [interpreting] the great Scriptures, which have a secret in them, to put on the surface a word that conceals many of the exalted meanings from those who lack the heights of contemplation, for those unworthy of listening with audacity pounce on the word and hastily interpret it in their own way.
So about the words of the apostle: “He sat at the right hand of God and asks for us”  in the “interpretation of the [Epistle] to the Romans” [Theodore] says: “It is known that it is not superfluous to ask for the sake of those who are worthy” -
so [Theodore] hid the meaning from those who were not ready to listen because of its greatness, for in this there is a universal hope. In another place he offers a different interpretation and says: “He asks for us implies a request not in words: [Christ] labored by deeds to accomplish everything that is useful for our salvation” —Do you see how great the power of interpretation is?! Just as in this place he hid the meaning, so in other great places of Scripture he has the habit of hiding it, and not everyone is able to comprehend the purpose and custom of [Theodore's] interpretations. Explanation: in the “Interpretation of the Mysteries” — about the words “on the right hand” and others — [Theodore] calls petition (bāʕūā) not one that is some kind of verbal request (tašap̄ tā) for our sake, but one that is perfected by deeds (ba-ʕāē). A little earlier he says:
“[God] made our Lord Christ immortal, unchangeable and raised Him up to heaven - from here He bestowed blessings on the whole race: And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will bring everyone to Myself ”[7]”. [The explanation] is complete.” (Isaac of Nineveh, Fifth Part, 7)

 



[1] A ‘Fifth Part/Collection’ seems to have caused controversy even in Isaac of Nineveh’s times, see e.g.: J. Zaleski  “Universal Salvation in Christian and Islamic Thought: The Arabic Reception of Isaac of Nineveh” (link: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/875106 )

[2] Up to Seven ‘Parts’ or ‘Collections’ have been attributed to Isaac of Nineveh. See e.g.: S. Chialà “Two Discourses of the ‘Fifth Part’ of Isaac the Syrian’s Writings: Prolegomena for Apokatastasis?” https://www.academia.edu/36878444/Two_Discourses_of_the_Fifth_Part_of_Isaac_the_Syrian_s_Writings_Prolegomena_for_Apokatastasis_in_M_Kosah_A_Abu_Husayn_S_S_Al_Murikhi_H_Al_Thani_edd_The_Syriac_Writers_of_Qatar_in_the_Seventh_Century_Gorgias_Press_Piscataway_2014_Gorgias_Eastern_Christian_Studies_38_123_131 

[3] For more details about Theodore of Mopsuestia’s (and his mentor Diodore of Tarsus’) views, see : https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/03/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of.html . For a panoramic about the presence of ‘universalist’ beliefs in the East-Syrian tradition see: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/03/on-presence-of-universalism-in-east.html . For Isaac of Nineveh's universalist beliefs, see e.g.: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/sebastian-brock-on-the-universalism-of-isaac-the-syrian.pdf  or this blog post by Fr. Kimel: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2021/08/23/the-triumph-of-the-kingdom-over-gehenna/ (which also quotes Theodore's fragment of the following footnote).

[4] Isaac of Nineveh also quotes this work in Second Part, 39.8 and he quotes the following fragment:

“"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,’  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’  if it were not (the case) that the punishments measured out in correspondence to the sins were finally going to have an end.””.

This work is also attested by Photius in his Bibliotheca (Bibliotheca 177): https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_copyright/photius_04bibliotheca.htm#177 (The title of the work is rendered as: “Against those who say that men sin by nature and not by intention”), who gives a summary. For more details see: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/03/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of.html

[5] Photius attests also this work (Bibliotheca 81):

“Read three short treatises by Theodore On Persian Magic and wherein it differs from Christianity, dedicated to Mastubius, an Armenian and suffragan bishop. In the first book the accursed doctrine of the Persians, introduced by Zarades,concerning Zuruam, whom he makes the beginning of all things and calls Fortune, is expounded; how that, having offered a libation to beget Hormisdas, he begot both him and Satan. Of the mixing of blood. 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.

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.” (source: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_03bibliotheca.htm#81 )

[6] This work, On Priesthood, is also quoted by Isaac of Nineveh in the Second Part 3.3.94. For more details see : https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/03/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of.html

[7] Compare with these two quotes of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary on the Nicene Creed, chapter 5 (source: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/theodore_of_mopsuestia_nicene_02_text.htm ):

“Our blessed Fathers wrote in the Creed something that is in harmony with this. They first taught us about the nature of the Godhead of the Only Begotten, that He is from the Father before all the worlds, that He is born of the nature of the Father and not made, and that He is a true God and consubstantial with God because He is born of His Father. After having taught us these things concerning the divinity of the Only Begotten they proceeded to teach us concerning the Economy of His humanity and said: Who for us children of men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate and became a man like us in order to effect salvation for all the human race. And they taught all those things that happened to the human nature: things through which God wished His Economy to be accomplished on our behalf. And He who was assumed for our salvation bore upon Himself all things affecting mankind, and became worthy of perfection and a source of benefits for us through our communion with Him”

 

“In another passage He said: "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be condemned and cast out, and I when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all (men) unto me."  In the first passage He shows that Satan had not one just cause for bringing death upon Him, and in the second that He had summoned the Rebel to a kind of judgment where he had condemned him and cast him out of his iniquitous power, and that after obtaining these good things He would make all men partakers of His glory.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors

On the presence of universalism in East Syrian tradition