What are Kyana and Qnume?

[Nathaniel Red]

I also asked about this on the Oriental Orthodox page and haven't had any replies yet. I have heard that some Syriac Oriental Orthodox use the terms "Kyana" and "Qnume" rather than Greek terms like hypostasis, physis, ousia, and prosopon. But I have also heard that the Church of the East uses these same terms in their theology. Is there anyone here who can explain in depth what the words mean, and how the OO view of the terms is different from the CotEs view of the terms? Both in Triadology and Christology? And how they are different from the Eastern Orthodox view of God?

 

[The Liturgist]

I also asked about this on the Oriental Orthodox page and haven't had any replies yet. I have heard that some Syriac Oriental Orthodox use the terms "Kyana" and "Qnume" rather than Greek terms like hypostasis, physis, ousia, and prosopon. But I have also heard that the Church of the East uses these same terms in their theology. Is there anyone here who can explain in depth what the words mean, and how the OO view of the terms is different from the CotEs view of the terms? Both in Triadology and Christology? And how they are different from the Eastern Orthodox view of God?

Not so much the Syriac Orthodox, but the Assyrians and the Chaldean Catholics. Indeed the word Kyana is an East Syriac word (the West Syriac accent of Classical Syriac and the West Syriac dialects tend to replace a with o, for example, Mar becomes Mor, Qurbana Qadisha becomes Qurbono Qadisho, and so on). That said you do raise an interesting point and that is CF.com lacks a forum for discussing the Assyrian Church of the East. I used to know what these terms meant in the context of Assyrian Christology, when I studied the psuedo-Chalcedonian Christology of Mar Babai which displaced their earlier Nestorian Christology, but I can’t remember off the top of my head.

However, this is technically off topic for The Ancient Way - if you ask the mods to move this thread to Traditional Theology I will look this up for you.

 

[Nathaniel Red]

Not so much the Syriac Orthodox, but the Assyrians and the Chaldean Catholics. Indeed the word Kyana is an East Syriac word (the West Syriac accent of Classical Syriac and the West Syriac dialects tend to replace a with o, for example, Mar becomes Mor, Qurbana Qadisha becomes Qurbono Qadisho, and so on). That said you do raise an interesting point and that is CF.com lacks a forum for discussing the Assyrian Church of the East. I used to know what these terms meant in the context of Assyrian Christology, when I studied the psuedo-Chalcedonian Christology of Mar Babai which displaced their earlier Nestorian Christology, but I can’t remember off the top of my head.

However, this is technically off topic for The Ancient Way - if you ask the mods to move this thread to Traditional Theology I will look this up for you.

Well I think it could still technically be on topic if the terms were compared to the Eastern Orthodox view and explained how they differ from eachother, and how it is seen as right/wrong from the Orthodox perspective. I'm not really sure how to contact the mods. I don't use this forum often, I mostly just lurk and read what other people are saying.

I mentioned that Syriac Orthodox use the term because i saw this mentioned by an Oriental Orthodox on a different site, although they didn't give an explanation as to how they were used or how common it is. But it's really difficult to find any materials on the Church of the Easts theology, or on specific theological views unique to different Orthodox jurisdictions. Mostly just due to language barriers.

I've tried looking up "kyana" and "Qnume" before and all I could find was a vague explanation. I was basically told that the CotE gets the explanation of why the Trinity is both three yet one better, because the three persons are actually the same exact reality, except when considered in number. Almost like they are different instantiations of one reality, but not in a modalistic way where they are just modes of one nature, but in a more separate way. I'm not sure how accurate this actually is to their official view, but it seemed to make some sense, although Saint Maximus says that the Trinity is not simply counted numerically, so maybe not. But then hearing that Syriac Orthodox might use the terms as well confuses me, since I'm certain they would say that they don't have the view of the Church of the East on anything.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well I think it could still technically be on topic if the terms were compared to the Eastern Orthodox view and explained how they differ from eachother, and how it is seen as right/wrong from the Orthodox perspective. I'm not really sure how to contact the mods. I don't use this forum often, I mostly just lurk and read what other people are saying.

I mentioned that Syriac Orthodox use the term because i saw this mentioned by an Oriental Orthodox on a different site, although they didn't give an explanation as to how they were used or how common it is. But it's really difficult to find any materials on the Church of the Easts theology, or on specific theological views unique to different Orthodox jurisdictions. Mostly just due to language barriers.

I've tried looking up "kyana" and "Qnume" before and all I could find was a vague explanation. I was basically told that the CotE gets the explanation of why the Trinity is both three yet one better, because the three persons are actually the same exact reality, except when considered in number. Almost like they are different instantiations of one reality, but not in a modalistic way where they are just modes of one nature, but in a more separate way. I'm not sure how accurate this actually is to their official view, but it seemed to make some sense, although Saint Maximus says that the Trinity is not simply counted numerically, so maybe not. But then hearing that Syriac Orthodox might use the terms as well confuses me, since I'm certain they would say that they don't have the view of the Church of the East on anything.

The thing is, if you ask for this to be moved to Traditional Theology, the whole point of that forum is for discussing issues relating to the liturgical churches like the Assyrian Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church, which do not relate to just one of them but cross denominational boundaries, whereas this forum is purely for Eastern Orthodox discussions. Traditional Theology is also the default forum for those liturgical churches like the Assyrian Church of the East where we don’t have a denomination-specific forum.

 

[Andrewn]

I also asked about this on the Oriental Orthodox page and haven't had any replies yet. I have heard that some Syriac Oriental Orthodox use the terms "Kyana" and "Qnume" rather than Greek terms like hypostasis, physis, ousia, and prosopon. But I have also heard that the Church of the East uses these same terms in their theology. Is there anyone here who can explain in depth what the words mean, and how the OO view of the terms is different from the CotEs view of the terms? Both in Triadology and Christology? And how they are different from the Eastern Orthodox view of God?

Kyana = ousia.

Qnume = hypostasis. But definitely not "person" in the modern sense.

 

[Nathaniel Red]

The thing is, if you ask for this to be moved to Traditional Theology, the whole point of that forum is for discussing issues relating to the liturgical churches like the Assyrian Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church, which do not relate to just one of them but cross denominational boundaries, whereas this forum is purely for Eastern Orthodox discussions. Traditional Theology is also the default forum for those liturgical churches like the Assyrian Church of the East where we don’t have a denomination-specific forum.

Alright, I figured it out and got it moved.

Kyana = ousia.

Qnume = hypostasis. But definitely not "person" in the modern sense.

Aren't these somewhat different from ousia and hypostasis though? I've been told they are. And I would still like to know how the terms "kyana" and "Qnume" differ between how the Church of the East uses it, and how Syriac Orthodox use it.

 

[The Liturgist]

Aren't these somewhat different from ousia and hypostasis though? I've been told they are. And I would still like to know how the terms "kyana" and "Qnume" differ between how the Church of the East uses it, and how Syriac Orthodox use it.

The Assyrians definitely interpret them differently than the Syriac or Eastern Orthodox.

 

[The Liturgist]

Later tonight I shall try and paste some material on this subject. I just have to remember where it is…

 

[Andrewn]

Aren't these somewhat different from ousia and hypostasis though? I've been told they are. And I would still like to know how the terms "kyana" and "Qnume" differ between how the Church of the East uses it, and how Syriac Orthodox use it.

In Christology, the formula of Chalcedon is two physes in one hypostasis. According to the Church of the East, it is two Qnume in one Parsopa. This led to the accusation that Church of the East believes that, in Christ there are two persons. But their defense is that Qnume does not mean person.

 

[The Liturgist]

In Christology, the formula of Chalcedon is two physes in one hypostasis. According to the Church of the East, it is two Qnume in one Parsopa. This led to the accusation that Church of the East believes that, in Christ there are two persons. But their defense is that Qnume does not mean person.

That’s true. Although its a bit more complicated. However, Catholicos Mar Dinkha IV, memory eternal, when he was elected in 1974 after the assassination of Mar Shimun XXIII, issued statements repudiating Nestorianism, and the Ancient Church of the East, which separated from the Assyrian Church of the East in the 1960s when Mar Shimun unilaterally changed the calendar to the Gregorian, and also because one of their bishops discovered that the hereditary system whereby the Catholicos would be the younger son of the uncle of the previous Catholicos, was a violation of ancient canon law (indeed, all the ancient churches prohibited bishops selecting their successors or inheriting it; an ancient nomocanon, or compendium of canons, that was written in the Church of the East and was specific to it, was also found which led both to the schism of the Ancient Church of the East and the end of the hereditary patriarchate after Mar Shimun XXIII was assasinated.

Indeed the hereditary patriarchate had emerged during the period of confusion following the genocide against the Church of the East perpetrated by the Muslim warlord Tamerlane and his sons (which killed off all of its members in China, Tibet, Mongolia, Central Asia and Yemen, and anywhere else outside the Fertile Crescent and the Malabar Coast of India) as an ethnarch who represented the Assyrians to the Ottomans (although they were not numerous enough to constitute their own millet, or officially recognized ethnic group, unlike the Greeks and the Armenians; Assyrians also lived in Persia). This same genocide resulted in the end of Assyrian monasteries, although they continued having celibate bishops. It also left them in a state where they were impoverished and lacked much in the way of scholars of theology, so their understanding of their historic beliefs became compromised. They also stopped using icons, not due to being iconoclastic, but because of constant Muslim desceration of them. However, now they are struggling to reintroduce icons, since their people associate icons with the Chaldean Catholics who separated from them and are unused to seeing them in church, and some have come to erroneously believe the church is iconoclastic, when in fact its canon law requires the presence of an icon of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ in the center of the altar.