I’m currently reading the book Byzantine Theology by John Meyendorff. I’m doing this because I’m really trying to put myself in the mindset of the Christian world that the early Muslims invaded. One thing that stands out in the Byzantine world at the time was the huge heresy of monophysitism. By the 7th century this heresy was nothing new. It had been an issue in Christendom for centuries and remained an important issue for centuries after.
It started in the early fifth century and was dogmatically condemned in 451 AD at the Council of Chalcedon. However, despite the condemnation this belief remained the majority in Egypt, Syria, and Armenia. The Latin and Greek churches were always firmly Chalcedonian as the West, Anatolia, and Palestine have always taught orthodox Christology.
Today, the vast majority of what calls itself Christian is Chalcedonian. That includes the Catholic, Orthodox and most Protestant churches. Catholic and Orthodox bishops will do ecumenical gatherings with monophysites and say that they believe the same thing and the only difference was language. While I do appreciate the perseverance and how these groups maintained their faith under the yoke of Islam, we shouldn’t just dismiss the issue. We know that this was a serious heresy because many things were done to try to remedy the situation. We have the ambiguous document called the Henoticon and then the second council of Constantinople. We also have several heresies brought up to try and synthesize the two views; these heresies are monoenergism and monothelitism. A lot was done. It wasn’t just something people could debate in a coffee shop, or whatever they drank for leisure in those days.
We know that the author of the Quran didn’t have a firm understanding of Christian theology whether it be Chalcedonian or monophysite. We know this from the utter collapse on the Trinity in Surah 5. Both Chalcedonians and monophysites believed in the Trinity. A theory that I’ve been entertaining is that the Quran was part of an ensemble of polemics against the monophysite issue.
The big Christological issues is regards to interpretation of Scripture and what happened to the nature or natures of Christ on the cross. Something that I’ve been thinking about is the fact that Islam may have been an attempt to solve this Christological issue. Islam makes a feeble attempt to rob Christ of His deity and take away the cross. If this happens, no monophysite or Chalcedonian debates are necessary. If the deity is gone there is no question of the nature of the deity. If the cross is gone there is no question as to how the natures are affected.
This is only a theory that I have. I don’t even know how much weight I put in this theory. It would have been impossible for the early Muslims not to notice this Christological controversy, even when they were still in Arabia. So here is the little theory I’ve been thinking about. The monophysite issue in the 7th century was about as big as the Protestant issue in the 16th century. They were both huge theological wars. Did Islam try to find an easy way out? Feel free to share your opinion below.
Your knowledge of Miaphysitism vs Monophysitism is piss poor at best. You should really consider visiting a Oriental Orthodox parish and ask the father there what they believe in regards to the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ. They’re usually more than happy to clear this common misconception of their christology.
Hello Wilfred,
Thanks for the comment. Believe it or not I actually have 3 Oriental Orthodox churches within walking distance of where I live. It seems that asking them is the only option as not much OO literature is out there, at least in languages that I speak and read.
My question to all OOs is this: If you’re not monophysite, why not simply accept Chalcedon? Let God judge Dioscorus. I know some hardcore OOs say that Pope Leo’s Tome is a compromise with Nestorianism but in my opinion that’s a really weak argument with no foundation. I think that there is a reason why this division existed in the 7th century and even today. It’s because the two groups believed in fundamentally different Christologies.
Thanks again for the comment and God bless.
Allan
If Judgment should be up to God then it was Calcedon that was in the wrong on that issue.
I do take the Calceodnian Position on the Natures of Christ. And if anything I think Nestorianism a more viable alternative then Miaphysitism. However I consider this really technically not at all worth condemning anyone as a Heretic over.
Miaphysites and Claecedonains love to fight over who actually follows Cyril, but to me Cyril was the last person anyone should want to agree with.
–It wasn’t just something people could debate in a coffee shop, or whatever they drank for leisure in those days.–
Funnily enough, I was alerted to this quote by Tom Holland’s book, In The Shadow of the Sword:
“Everywhere, in the public squares, at crossroads, on the streets and lanes, people would stop you and discourse at random about the Trinity. If you asked something of a moneychanger, he would begin discussing the question of the Begotten and the Unbegotten. If you questioned a baker about the price of bread, he would answer that the Father is greater and the Son is subordinate to Him. If you went to take a bath, the Anomoean bath attendant would tell you that in his opinion the Son simply comes from nothing.” – Gregory of Nyssa (in Cappadocia), 335-395AD
One criticism that I’d make about this theory (I also make it about several other theories) is that it alleges too much connection between Christianity and original Islam. The fact that the Qur’an is very ignorant about Christianity indicates rather an “independent birth”. I know that many Muslims today, especially converts from Christianity, view Islam as a sort of antidote or a fix to Christianity. But their view is much more a reflection of their own experience and feelings rather than what the Qur’an or history of Islam indicates.
As far as I know, the Qur’an criticizes (ans sometimes praises) Christianity and Judaism equally. Muhammad was not an ex-Christian.
I have a theory that the Early Muslims were Nestorians of some form. Which would be consistent with them wanting to criticism Miaphysites who based their entire theology on Cyril.
You mean Monotheletism and Monoenergism in an off hand comment. I first found this article because I noticed the beginnings of those controversies were the exact same era as Mohammad’s Prophetic career according to Islamic Tradition, so I was looking to see if any historians have argued for a connection there.