We have seen the rich variety of official positions in the church and considered the construction of a hierarchy as a way to create stakeholders within the Christian community. The higher clergy, especially the bishops, put considerable effort into maintaining their position in matters both secular and religious. However, they exercised that power in part by collecting substantial numbers of lower clergy and non-clerical actors who received official positions within the church. This inclination toward incorporation and the creation of stakeholders extended as well to proselytism and the initiation of new Christians. Through what must have been a range of mechanisms, people encountered Christian ideas, communities, and sources of religious power, such as holy men and healing shrines. These experiences led to the formation of communal ties and relationships. Full initiation into the church, however, went beyond mere participation in community. We have already seen that a key component of the relationship between converts and baptismal sponsors centered on the adoption of Christian moral norms. This acceptance of ethical ideals began the process of forming Christian habits and ways of understanding one’s place in church and society. Now we turn to the most overtly didactic aspects of the process of incorporating new Christians. Following the registration of sponsor and catechumen with the proper authorities of the church, catechesis proper began. As we consider the teaching component of Christian initiation, we must keep the communal backdrop in mind. Sponsors and catechumens came to the church regularly, at least every other day, for the purpose of listening to the teaching of a priest or bishop. Preachers addressed both directly in their sermons and expected the sponsors to assist the catechumens as they learned the creed and struggled with the theology contained in it.

Theodore’s formal preaching of the catechetical homilies began with his teaching on the creed. He devoted ten sermons to his commentary on the creed, which he worked his way through in a straightforward fashion. Homily 1 begins with an introduction to catechesis and the types of things that his catechumens would be exposed to in this teaching. Towards the conclusion of this first sermon, Theodore moves on to discuss God the Father. He continues his teaching on the Father in Homilies 2 and 3. Fully half of the sermons on the creed, numbers 4 through 8, focus on the Son. Homily 9 focuses on the Holy Spirit, while the final sermon on the creed continues Theodore’s presentation of the doctrine of the Spirit and also discusses his theology of the church. These sermons display a method of interpretation and commentary very reminiscent of Theodore’s commentaries on the Bible. Theodore’s commentaries demonstrate a close reading of his source with the intent of isolating the divine message as expressed in the historical narratives contained in the text. [1] Similarly, Theodore’s catechesis moves methodically through the text of the creed. He focuses on a clear presentation of his interpretation of the creed with only minimal embellishments to stress logical connections or provide illustrative examples. As with his commentaries, his catechesis takes particular interest in emphasizing the biblical history behind the teaching of the creed as an argument for its validity.

Given the logical progression of the creed from Father to Son to Holy Spirit to the church, it might appear that Theodore’s straightforward presentation sought merely to orient the catechumens to the distinctive theological features of Nicene Christianity. [2] In one sense, this is precisely what his sermons aimed to do. However, a careful reading of these sermons, one that takes into consideration the pedagogical concerns of the sermons and the place of catechesis within the community, reveals a pedagogical method more concerned with incorporating catechumens into the believing community than with the creation of people thoroughly versed in the intricacies of a philosophically demanding theological system. Theodore clearly held education as a critical task but he also consistently situated his theological lessons within the context of communal participation and the liturgical expression of theology in the recitation of the creed. While the procedure for enrolling catechumens aimed to produce converts in pursuit of the moral norms of the community, the teaching of the creed sought to encourage converts to adopt the outlook of the community. We turn at this point to consider Theodore’s teaching on the creed and his pedagogical approach to this education.

Theodore’s teaching on the creed begins where the creed does, with a discussion of God the Father. His text reads, “I believe in one God, Father Almighty,” and Theodore used this text as a starting point for emphasizing the unity of God. [3] The concern addressed by this teaching was twofold. Theodore wanted to remove what he saw as the errors of polytheism and Arianism. Indeed, Theodore saw these two errors as related in a significant way. Polytheism was a simple enough error to address. While the Hebrew Bible inherited by Christians had stressed the oneness of God, the Greco-Roman tradition generally considered the divine to be manifest in a variety of divine persons. Even pagan monotheists whose philosophical conception of divinity stressed a supreme divine unity still accepted notions of worshipping the divine that acknowledged diversity of manifestation. [4] We hear so much about Christian monotheism that it is important to note the persistent need Christians had to reaffirm a connection to Jewish monotheism. The Christian world of Late Antiquity was full of angels and demons, not to mention holy men and the deceased, but ever-present, saints of the church. [5] A preacher at the end of the fourth century could not take it for granted that his audience held acceptable views on such matters. When uninitiated catechumens comprised the audience, the situation would have been more acute still.

While the nature of the Son was the most pressing issue debated, it was impossible to do this without relating the Son to the nature of divinity. The Nicenes were convinced that the non-Nicene position, which they successfully branded as “Arian,” contained deep theological errors. [6] They often talked in terms of the non-Nicenes diminishing Christ, of the way that they separated him from God by declaring him to be a lesser divinity. The Nicenes simply refused to believe that any created being could possess a divinity worthy of God’s Son. As non-Nicene notions of Sonship entailed a coming into being, it was impossible for Nicenes to accept their repeated claims that they did indeed believe Christ to be divine. The main differences focused on the nature of divinity. [7] When the Nicenes did take at face value the claim that non-Nicenes accepted Christ’s divinity, they usually took the occasion to deride them for dividing God. [8] If Father and Son were as ontologically distinct as the non-Nicenes claimed, and they were both divine, then from the Nicene perspective this required a concept of God that was incompatible with Christian monotheism. Theodore adopted this tradition as he stressed the unity of God against the opponents he labels as Arian and Eunomian. [9] Large numbers of the inhabitants of Antioch in the early 390s would have at some point been a part of a community opposed to the Nicene theology espoused at the Council of Constantinople. Theodore sought to ensure that the candidates for baptism knew the proper definition of the faith.

Following the structure of the creed, Theodore turned to the doctrine of the Son for a full five sermons. He stressed throughout these sermons that Christ had two clearly distinct natures (Syriac kyānā; Greek physis), one divine and one human, dwelling in a single person (Syriac parṣupā; Greek prosōpon). [10] The fact that this language would get Theodore into trouble later as Christological language developed is not particularly relevant for our purposes here. Rather, we must note Theodore’s attempt to articulate for the baptismal candidates an understanding of full humanity and full divinity existing in one Christ. In doing this, Theodore offered Christological themes developed over the preceding decades to counter non-Nicene theology. For example, he insisted that the Fatherhood and Sonship discussed in the New Testament denote eternal relationships and not the normal procreation of humans. [11] Theodore also sought to thwart what he saw as attacks upon the person of Christ by the theology of Apollinaris, who argued that Christ was a man with a divine mind or intellect (nous). [12] Against this, the catechesis focuses strongly on the humanity of Christ. While the creed mentioned only the birth from Mary and the crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, Theodore spoke to the candidates at length about the childhood, life, teaching, and miracles of Christ. [13] For Theodore, if Christ was not fully human, then there was no point in the incarnation. If redemption could be accomplished by the divine mind (nous), then there was no need for God to join himself to human nature at all. [14] Theodore taught the candidates in no uncertain terms that Christology was a matter of soteriology. The baptism, obedience, death, and resurrection of Christ’s humanity made humanity redeemable. [15] If Christ was not fully human, then the incarnation was for naught. [16]

Theodore reserved less time in his catechetical curriculum for the discussion of the Holy Spirit and the Church. The theological issues raised at the Council of Nicaea had focused on the relationship between the Father and the Son. However, the subsequent disagreements over the wording and theology of the creed also took up the issue of the status of the Holy Spirit. Theodore’s arguments here are rather weak. He states plainly that the participants in the council simply added the name of the Holy Spirit because the real disagreement was about Christ. Theodore argued that by mentioning the Holy Spirit along with the Father and the Son, the intent was clearly to apply all the discussion of the Son’s divinity to the Holy Spirit as well. [17] Theodore strengthened this assertion by connecting this piece of theology to Christian baptism. Citing Matthew 28.19, he appealed to the Trinitarian nature of baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as securing the full divinity of the Spirit. [18] Furthermore, if the Spirit were not fully divine, he would not be able to play his role as the one who secures the benefits of baptism. [19]

This baptismal focus ties in directly with Theodore’s rather brief teaching on the church. Following the creed, Theodore linked the church and baptism, essentially defining the church for the candidates as a baptizing community. [20] He stressed in this context that the members of that community should be as closely knit together into one body as the two natures of Christ were in his one person. [21] This body, united in right worship of God, constituted the church of the creed as Theodore presented it to his baptismal students. [22]

This summary outlines the basic theological material Theodore presented from the creed. A number of studies have used these homilies for the purpose of addressing questions related specifically to the subsequent Christological debates with which Theodore and his legacy became entangled during the course of the fifth and sixth centuries. [23] With the canonically questionable nature of the Fifth Council as a backdrop, several scholars have attempted to address the question of whether or not Theodore actually held the views he was accused of holding. [24] Not only is such an inquiry of questionable historical value for an inquiry into Theodore’s catechesis, it also suggests a misleading approach to Theodore’s catechetical curriculum.

An interest in the pedagogy of these homilies does not come from some alien source but rather from the sermons themselves. Throughout the catechesis, Theodore demonstrates a deep concern for the role he assumed as teacher of converts to Christianity. He repeatedly discusses the nature of his instruction and how he has structured his catechesis for maximal impact. He took his charge as catechist seriously; he cared about the effect of his teaching and the lessons that his students would hear and, he hoped, internalize through catechesis. [25]

Recent work on Arianism makes this point very well. A careful look at the debates of the fourth century clearly shows a wide range of opinion on the proper understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son. [26] However, Athanasius and a handful of likeminded theologians launched an active campaign to link together those who failed to accept the Nicene term homoousios. Anything less than acceptance of this notion of an identity between the Father and the Son was equated with the teaching of Arius. In this way, Athanasius and others constructed an Arian theology where one did not actually exist. In reality, however, theologians struggled with the implications of homoousios for myriad reasons, not necessarily because they accepted the theology of Arius.

The Syriac text of Theodore’s catechesis contains a range of terms dealing with teaching and the passing on of information. [27] Prominent among these are words deriving from the roots ylp (ܝܠܦ‎), lmd (ܠܡܕ‎), šlm (ܫܠܡ‎), yd (ܝܕ‎), and ydʿ (ܝܕܥ‎). The root ylp means “to know; to perceive, to be able.” The form employed most often in the catechesis means “to teach, inform, or train” and likely translates Greek didaskō (διδάκσω). [28] Nominal forms derived from ylp, yulpānā (ܝܘܠܦܢܐ‎) and malpānuṭā (ܡܠܦܢܘܬܐ‎), recur as well. They share a similar semantic range including teaching and doctrine. They regularly translate related Greek terms didakē (διδακή) and didaskalia (διδασκάλια). These terms denote the basic material conveyed in the course of the catechetical lectures or some other source, such as a particular biblical text. They can also refer to “doctrine” in a more technical theological sense. In this case, they refer to a systematic statement on a particular theological point, such as the oneness of God or the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Alongside the various forms of ylp, the root ydʿ also occurs. In the form employed, this verb bears the meaning “to make known, show, point out, tell, inform, instruct.” [29] The root often translates Greek gignōskō (γιγνώσκω), “to know,” with the form occurring in the catechesis generally representing gnōrizō (γνωρίζω) and expressing the idea of producing knowledge or causing it to come about in the subject of instruction.

The translator of Theodore’s catechesis often employed forms of the root lmd, meaning “to put together, compile.” However, the verbal form most often employed bears the meaning “to make a disciple, teach the Christian faith, convert” and represents Greek mathēteuō (μαθητεύω). [30] Two nouns deriving from this form also appear often in Theodore’s catechesis. The text regularly employs talmidā (ܬܠܡܝܕܐ‎), the normal Syriac term for a disciple of Jesus, mathētēs (μαθητής). These were the students of Jesus but also his followers in a more intimate sense than the teacher-student relationship might suggest. The catechesis uses this term for both the original twelve disciples and the catechumens who are in the process of converting. Another noun frequently in use also comes from this same root. Talmiduṭā (ܬܠܡܝܕܘܬܐ‎) bears a range of meanings, all of which are relevant to the theme of education and teaching in these sermons. Mingana alternately translates it as “initiation,” “teaching,” or “discipleship.” He prefers these terms, while also noting that it sometimes has the sense of “the ‘catechumenate’ or the state of being a ‘catechumen.’” [31] The semantic range of this term makes it difficult to pinpoint the Greek equivalent. Mathēma (μάθημα) would offer a cognate of mathētēs, but didakē provides an alternative that is just as likely. Regardless, the repeated use of the root lmd nicely highlights the emphasis placed on the educational aspect of catechesis.

The frequent use of two additional terms further develops our understanding of Theodore’s conscious concern for education. The root šlm appears in two forms. The basic meaning of the verb is “to come to an end, be finished, concluded.” The verb appears regularly in a form that has the connotation of committing a lesson or idea to the hearer. [32] Greek paradidōmi (παραδίδωμι) probably lies behind the Syriac here, and the term is best translated with “to commit” or “to hand over.” [33] Another form in which the root šlm occurs is the nominal form mšlmānuṭā (ܡܫܠܡܢܘܬܐ‎). Often rendered by Mingana as “teaching,” mšlmānuṭā has a connotation of tradition. It likely translates paradosis (παράδοσις) and refers to something handed down from Christian forbearers or even from Christ himself. [34] The final critical term to appear in this context is tawdiṭā (ܬܘܕܝܬܐ‎). Given the creedal context of these sermons, this should be expected. The basic meaning of the term is “confession” or “profession,” and it could translate either homologia (ὁμολογία) or eucharistia (εὐχαριστία). Τawdiṭā occasionally means confession or profession in the catechesis, but it also refers by extension to the substance of that profession, the doctrine that makes up the confession. [35]

Theodore did not limit his discussion of pedagogy to the act of catechesis. Rather, he applied the language of education to many different subjects. He presents Christ, [37] the disciples, [38] scripture, [39] and natural law [40] as teachers at various points in the catechesis. For example, in the previous quotation, “The words concerning God” mentioned at the beginning, refer back to the first line of the creed, “I believe in one God.” The subject “they” mentioned throughout the passage refers to the bishops who composed the creed, in Theodore’s language, “the blessed Fathers.” [41] Thus the creed preserves and disseminates the teachings of this group whose esteem Theodore appeals to in the course of his own teaching.

Theodore thus exhorted his audience to learn from the creed by committing it to memory. However, he also used the sparse wording of the creed as an opportunity to fill in much of the life of Jesus, demonstrating his particular interest in historical context and the historicity of the incarnation. He mentions the infancy of Jesus, as well as his baptism. [43] Throughout this presentation of Jesus’ life, Theodore adds numerous references to his divinity and sinless life, drawing heavily on the Pauline corpus in doing so. [44] In this way, Theodore used the teaching of the Fathers as a mnemonic device. He preached a fuller version of Jesus’ life and a theological interpretation of it based on a simple phrase in the creed.

Theodore’s use of the creed as another mnemonic device is only one of the pedagogical strategies he used. In the course of presenting his lessons, Theodore employed a number of techniques to help his students retain the information he presented. He intentionally repeated things for the benefit of the catechumens. In particular, he often began a homily with a summary of the preceding one. Homily 2 begins, “Yesterday we spoke to your love sufficiently, and in the measure granted to us by the grace of God, of faith which is the foundation of the principle of religion. We approached the words of our profession of faith and showed how through faith in one God all the error of the polytheism of the Gentiles vanishes completely.” [45] The first homily had explicated the beginning of the creed, “I believe in one God the Father.” Theodore’s lesson focused on the oneness of God as a refutation of pagan polytheism. This single point summarized that sermon. Theodore began the fourth homily in a similar fashion, saying, “Yesterday we endeavored to interpret to your love, according to our ability and in a succinct manner, the things said by our blessed Fathers concerning the Divinity of the Only Begotten, while we kept the remainder of them for another day.” [46] In this instance as well, Theodore called to mind the subject of his teaching from the prior day while also emphasizing the main point he wanted his listeners to take to heart. This constant repetition of main themes appears throughout Theodore’s catechesis as a mnemonic device.

Theodore often repeated his main points and themes within a single sermon. He sought to simplify the often very intricate implications theologians drew from the creed by fostering this mode of presentation. This habit has not always endeared Theodore to his readers, however. Mingana agrees with Harnack in his introduction to the catechesis that Theodore is “too prosaic and monotonous.” [47] This opinion concurs with that of Photius, whose ninth-century Bibliotheka includes a discussion of several theological works by Theodore. Photius did not know the catechesis, but he criticized the style of several other works by Theodore for their lack of a certain graceful artistry. He writes of Theodore, “There is much use of the oblique cases and participles, with frequent and ill-arranged repetition of the same idea; on returning to a concept one finds it more fully and circumstantially expounded than in the main account, which is utterly unmethodical.” [48]

However one assesses the stylistic merits of Theodore’s language, due effort ought to be expended upon understanding Theodore’s own conception of what he is doing in his homilies. As he addressed his audience, Theodore reflected on the structure of his presentation and included a discussion of his aims. He carefully crafted his use of repetition as an aid for his students’ comprehension. [49] This stated pedagogical aim speaks directly to Theodore’s understanding of the catechesis and the deep pastoral concern he had to instruct the catechumens in their new faith. Throughout his presentation of the creed, Theodore combines repetition with an emphasis on a simplicity that is itself essential to his pedagogical method.

Theodore’s rhetoric of simplicity demonstrates a genuine empathy for his students as they wrestled with the finer points of the theology he taught them. Several times during these homilies, the Syriac translates Theodore with qlil qlil (ܩܠܝܠ ܩܠܝܠ‎), “little by little.” [50] Theodore used this phrase to emphasize that he packaged his teaching into small, hopefully digestible portions. In beginning his seventh sermon, he asserted, “This is the third day I am discoursing on this subject to your love, as I am anxious that you should learn it little by little [qlil qlil] and keep my words in your memory.” [51] Homily 7 contains the third of five sermons on the topic of the Son. This material presents some of Theodore’s most technically demanding of the whole catechesis. Here he reminded the catechumens, some of whom may indeed have struggled to follow along, that he had put considerable effort into breaking down the phrases of the creed and presenting them in manageable portions. He hoped that these smaller portions, repeated often, would stick in the memories of his students.

The most common way for Theodore to employ this qlil qlil was at the end of a sermon. He regularly begged the indulgence of his audience for the difficulty of the subject matter as he brought the homily to a close. [52] In concluding Homily 3, he said:

Recognizing the potential burden presented by these difficult topics, Theodore reminded the catechumens of his efforts to compartmentalize his presentation and to give them manageable amounts to internalize during the course of a single sermon. In doing so, he also articulated his expectation that they would indeed learn and retain what he taught them.

Theodore often emphasized the mnemonic motivation behind his simplification. At the conclusion of his first homily, he said, “It is necessary that we should offer you an oral teaching about everything, little by little [qlil qlil], in order that you may be able to remember the things that are spoken to you, as these are indispensable to those who adhere to what has preceded.” [54] Theodore expected his sermons to reach the catechumens and to have a lasting impact. The rhetoric of simplicity helped package his message into manageable lessons but also reinforced his expectations regarding their retention. At times, he voiced these expectations in the form of an admonition: “In the last days we coherently and sufficiently articulated to your love lessons on the doctrine concerning Christ according to the teaching of our blessed Fathers. Now it is up to you to remember the things spoken to you with such great diligence.” [55] Theodore expected results from the efforts he put into his sermons and did not hesitate to communicate this to the catechumens.

Theodore was particularly sensitive to the idea that he might appear to overstep the bounds of what his hearers could bear. At times he almost apologizes, as in Homily 6, where he says, “I believe, however, that my speech has exceeded the limits as the words (which express) the Economy of the grace of Christ have only been delivered to us (in short terms) as given above.” [56] He feared that he had needlessly complicated things by using so many more words than did the authors of the creed. Then he continued, “In order, therefore, that you may not receive a teaching which is not perfect and that we may not trouble you with many words, let us, by the permission of God, leave off here the things which will follow what has been said, and be satisfied with what has already been spoken to-day …” [57] Theodore developed this theme of simplicity as an aid to the catechumens’ learning.

This pedagogical aspect of simplicity in Theodore also finds a complement in a different rhetoric of simplicity with a long pedigree in Christian thought. This notion of simplicity, which appears in several of the epistles of the Pauline corpus, suggests a distrust of overly sophisticated thought, especially when that sophistication leaned in the direction of philosophical speculation. In Romans 1, Paul acknowledges his debt to Greek wisdom but also argues that the same Greek learning has essentially missed the forest for the trees: “So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.” [58] Thus the wisdom of the Greeks was not effective; it did not bear fruit where it should have. In other words, sophisticated wisdom could not be valued unequivocally.

Paul gives this theme fuller treatment in his first letter to the church in Corinth. He wrote 1 Corinthians when he heard that the church there was plagued with factions. In seeking to remedy this situation, he encouraged the church to simplicity and humility by offering a sustained discussion of the foolishness of the cross of Christ. He insisted that “God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.” [59] But Paul’s notion of foolishness did not only apply to the cross. He insisted that the form and content of the message were alike foolish:

Behind Paul’s declaration of his own simplicity lies the idea that it would have been potentially deceptive if he had used clever speech or sought to woo his audience with sophistication. Humility and simplicity were preferable. Indeed they offered a proof of the truth of Paul’s message.

Later Christians picked up on these themes and developed them within a variety of different contexts. Similar ideas appear repeatedly within the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers, written toward the end of the first century and the beginning of the second. These texts often denounce the arrogance and speculation of doubting or deceptive Christians. A favorite term for critiquing such ideas is dipsychia (διψυχία), double-mindedness. The term occurs several times in 1 and 2 Clement as well as the Didache. In the Shepherd of Hermas it appears over fifty times and constitutes one of the most important themes in the work: “Trust in the Lord, you who are double-minded, because he can do all things; he both turns away from you his wrath, and sends out plagues upon you who are double-minded. Woe to those who hear these words and disobey them; it would have been better for them not to have been born.” [61] Dipsychia can simply refer to one’s lack of faith or a weakness of mind producing a failure to adhere to Christian moral principles. Alongside this, however, the author refers to a double-mindedness that manifests itself in an arrogant sense that one’s will and ideas are superior to God’s. Relying on their own wisdom, the double-minded falter: “Thinking that they can find a better way, they go astray and wander about in misery, trudging through the wastelands.” [62] The Epistle of Barnabas elaborates on this idea even more explicitly in urging that people not “be intimately associated with the lofty, but live with the humble and righteous. Accept as good the things that happen to you, knowing that nothing transpires apart from God. Do not be double-minded or double-tongued.” [63] Simplicity emerges in these texts as a prominent Christian virtue. Properly maintained it should preserve the believer from numerous errors.

These first- and second-century pleas for Christian simplicity resonated with later generations as well. However intellectually rigorous Christian theology became or however well educated the practitioners of the art were, many Christians retained a robust suspicion of the excessively intellectual, especially when it could be characterized as prying into things that had not been revealed. [64] Denunciation of heresy was a prominent theme in Theodore’s catechesis, and he often spoke to the candidates about the deceitful and erroneous theologizing of various heretics. [65] Heretics were often attacked for having overstepped the bounds of divinely ordained thought or worship. The fourth-century attacks on non-Nicene theology that culminated in the Council of Constantinople did just that.

An excellent example of the critique of insistence on theological precision can be found in the case of Eunomius. A fierce opponent of the term homoousios and its theological implications, Eunomius turned his considerable intellectual skills to the refutation of the Nicene doctrine. At times he saw considerable success, but ultimately his theology failed to satisfy even sympathetic non-Nicenes. [66] Eunomius insisted on precision of theological language above all else. [67] His confidence in the ability of humans to know God and in the ability of human language to describe God drove his approach to theological questions. [68] His insistence upon precision (akribeia) would ultimately be the source of his failure. To his opponents, his akribeia suggested an arrogant self-confidence. They found this approach all the more troubling since they believed that Eunomius’ theology diminished Christ’s divinity. [69] Thus Eunomius’ theological method arguably diminished the Son while appearing to elevate Eunomius himself. This gave his critics considerable ammunition to use against him. But even his allies, who were in the process of trying to find an alternative to the formula of Nicaea, found that his relentless drive for akribeia lacked the flexibility necessary for the task. [70] The Cappadocians would ultimately respond to this type of theological argument with a strong insistence that the ontological distance between God and human beings meant that God was essentially unknowable outside his self-revelation. Gregory of Nyssa offers a statement representative of this conviction:

In short, for the Cappadocians, God was not susceptible to human attempts at akribeia. [72] Ephrem the Syrian would take a different approach to the “Arian” theology he confronted. He derided Arian speculation as a grave theological concern. [73] In its place he offered a relentless stream of biblical imagery carefully directed toward upholding Nicene theology. [74] He took the route of poetical image over logical argument and, in doing so, left his unique stamp on the Syriac literary tradition. In the theological battle for hearts and minds, the ostensibly arrogant self-confidence and tireless pursuit of precision that characterized Eunomius’ theology would ultimately fail to capture people’s imagination. This kind of theologian could effectively be labeled a technician (technologos), one with a deft ability for argument but lacking the true Christian spirit necessary for theological understanding. [75]

We have seen Theodore’s appeals to scripture and church tradition as means of legitimating his message. It remains to discuss another way in which Theodore argued for the self-evident nature of his teaching. In conjunction with his appeals to texts, individuals, and traditions that had authority within his Christian community, Theodore consistently asserted that the content of his sermons was true as a matter of necessity. Scores of times throughout his teaching on the creed, terms suggesting the necessary or essential nature of the point Theodore asserts recur. The majority of these terms derive from the roots wlā (ܘܠܐ‎), zdq (ܙܕܩ‎), and špr (ܫܦܪ‎). [76]

The root wlā pertains to what is right or what ought to be the case. [77] The most common form of the term used in the catechesis is the abstract noun wāliṭā (ܘܠܝܬܐ‎). [78] It usually introduces a phrase whose meaning is assumed or which is presented as being necessarily true. The root zdq is used similarly. This root means “it is right, it ought, it is due.” [79] The form appearing in the catechesis means “to justify” or “to declare righteous.” This verb generally occurs in this forensic sense for the purpose of describing one aspect of Christian salvation. [80] The catechesis uses the root in this forensic sense only on occasion. It appears most often to present an assertion as simply right or correct, true as a matter of necessity. Forms of špr also appear. The basic root meaning, “to be beautiful, pleasing,” is rarely the intended one. [81] Rather, the sense it often conveys is that something is right or appropriate. While we do not have the original Greek text of Theodore’s sermons, we can compare similar constructions in extant Greek texts by Theodore. Theodore’s commentaries on the Psalms and Minor Prophets regularly use the Greek terms anagkaiōs (ἀναγκαίως), anagkē (ἀνάγκη), dei (δεῖ), kalos (καλός), dikaios (δίκαιος), dikaiōs (δικαίως), prepon (πρέπον), and eikotōs (εἰκότως) in a similar fashion. We can safely assume that similar constructions lie behind the Syriac we have.

In the context of discussing baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Theodore asserts that, “It was necessary [zaḍeq] for those who had rejected false gods and learned that Divine nature was one, eternal and the cause of everything, which is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to receive through these names the gift of baptism which is bestowed for the sake of a wonderful happiness and is the earnest of the future and ineffable benefits.” [82] Theodore cannot actually provide a proof here. Rather, the necessity is something he simply asserts, expecting his students to adopt the position he puts forward. Similarly, he declares that “He is rightly [bwāliṭā] called the first-born of all the creatures, because He was first renewed, and then He renewed the creatures, while He is higher in honor than all of them.” [83]

Theodore often urged his catechumens to be of good will in religion. [87] He emphasized that simplicity sufficed for the true and willing believer, while the double-minded person, the one who insisted on speculation and prying into mysteries, would never be satisfied. Of course, this was a common tactic in fourth-century theological polemic. In this situation where theological opponents shared a biblical text, they often spoke past one another in interpreting that text. They simply failed to grasp the theological vision that drove the interpretive method of their opponents. Such cases left a palpable sense that those on the other side of the theological divide were under a sinister, demonic influence. Their problem was an evil mind (kakonoia, κακονοία) as opposed to a good mind or will (eunoia, εὐνοία). [88] Eunomius used language very similar to Theodore’s when he responded to the allegations of Basil of Caesarea, exclaiming “But these people really ought to give up! They have neither perceived the difference in the beings with wholesome eyes nor have they shown themselves right-minded judges of the actual objects—Judgment has hidden the truth from them on account of their ill-will.” [89] Theodore introduces this commonplace of theological polemic into his catechetical classroom in order to preempt any abhorrent views from gaining traction among the candidates. This rhetoric was designed to leave the strong perception that those outside the community into which these candidates were about to be baptized were wholly other, not simply Christians of differing opinions but brazen heretics whose minds had been adversely affected by evil.

Theodore’s entire approach to teaching the creed can be understood as an attempt to teach the baptismal candidates how to have this good kind of mind. We have seen how Theodore gave great attention to pedagogical method and placed considerable emphasis on teaching in these sermons, not only his own teaching but also the teaching of Christ, the Fathers, and their creed. He tried to parse the teaching of the creed in a way his students would find manageable. For many his instruction would have been very intellectually abstract material. Even his approach of teaching it “little by little” may well have rendered those not given to abstract reasoning a difficult time, and this in spite of Theodore’s frequent repetition of key themes and language. Nevertheless, these sermons bear every mark of being delivered to a broad cross-section of society, not simply to an educated elite. Theodore does not engage in the heady intellectual discussion that forms the basis of Gregory of Nyssa’s so-called Great Catechism. [90] These sermons were very carefully constructed to avoid extraneous philosophical discussion and tedious use of technical terminology, which would have meant little to the majority of his audience. [91] Instead, we see an attempt to reach the full range of students Augustine had in mind when he wrote to the deacon Deogratias. [92] Theodore sought to produce likeminded members of a Christian community properly orientated toward God. This aim could not be served by the application of rigorous philosophical categories. Rather it called for a simple creed carefully explained.

As we saw in the introduction to the arrangement of Theodore’s teaching on the creed, he concluded his teaching with a communal and liturgical focus. [93] The teaching of the creed led directly to the recitation of the creed preceding baptism. These combined acts would initiate the candidates into full membership in the Christian community. The context of Theodore’s teaching was communal, with baptismal sponsors joining the candidates for these sermons. Theodore sometimes directed his preaching toward the sponsors, whom he hoped would join him in teaching the candidates by helping them to understand and memorize the creed. [94] Theodore thus employed the social ties involved in the process of catechesis to further engage the candidates and draw them more fully into the Christian community. These sponsors would continue to play a role in the process of initiation as the candidates approached baptism and the eucharist. The next chapter will take up Theodore’s teaching on these rites and consider the role they played in making heavenly citizens out of baptismal candidates.