Unveiling the Mystery of Nestorian Crosses
Introduction
In the realm of Chinese Christian relics, one fascinating artifact stands out — the Nestorian Cross. Its historical and cultural significance in the study of Jingjiao and the Nestorian Mongol people is the subject of extensive research and debate. This blog post delves into the exploration of Nestorian Crosses, their connection to the Mongolian Nestorian heritage, and the challenges faced in interpreting their true meaning. By examining the history, and evidence surrounding Nestorianism, we aim to shed light on this intriguing topic and initiate a paradigm shift in its study.
The Church
Nestorianism, a term with two distinct meanings in Christian theology and Church history, encompasses the teachings of theologian Nestorius and later theological doctrines associated with Nestorians.
Nestorius, an influential Christian theologian, taught specific beliefs about the nature of Christ and the role of Mary. He emphasized the difference between the divine and human aspects of Jesus, suggesting that there were two separate persons in him. This theological perspective, called Nestorianism, went against the widely accepted views of the time. Nevertheless, the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon declared Nestorianism as heretical, which had significant effects on its adherents.
Despite its condemnation, Nestorianism found a new home in the Sasanian Empire, where Nestorians relocated and formed the Church of the East. In this group, the term “qnoma” was used to refer to two substances within one aspect of Christ. However, criticisms arose regarding the label’s appropriateness and misleading nature, leading to a gradual reduction of its usage. The Church of the East focused primarily on preserving and propagating the original teachings of Nestorius.
Condemnation and Persecution
Nestorianism faced opposition and rejection from various quarters. The Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorianism as heresy, and both the Armenian Church and the Persian Nestorian Church rejected its teachings. The Armenian Church viewed Nestorianism as a threat to its independence, while Peter the Iberian opposed the Chalcedonian Creed. The Nestorians, believing that the Council of Chalcedon vindicated their faith’s orthodoxy, began persecuting non-Chalcedonian or Miaphysite Syriac Christians.
Despite these challenges, Nestorians continued to expand their influence. Scholars at the School of Nisibis in Persarmenia further developed Nestorius’s teachings. However, their missionary success eventually waned, and by the end of the fourteenth century, Islam and Buddhism emerged as dominant religious forces in Central and East Asia. Nestorianism’s radical ideas set it apart from other theological movements of the time.
The Persian Church and Persecution
The Persian Church, a Christian minority within the Persian Empire, faced persecution from the Zoroastrian majority, who accused them of aligning with the Roman Empire politically. In response, the Church declared its independence in 424 to avoid foreign allegiance allegations. The Church aligned itself with the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and his followers by the end of the fifth century, leading to dissension and a divide between Chalcedonian and Persian currents. Despite internal strife and persecution, the Persian Church grew stronger and expanded its missionary efforts, establishing dioceses in the Arabian Peninsula, India, Egypt, and Central Asia. The Anuradhapura Cross in Sri Lanka suggests a strong presence of Nestorian Christianity in Sri Lanka during the 6th century AD. Nestorian missionaries were established in China during the early Tang dynasty (618–907), and the Jingjiao Documents or Jesus Sutras are connected to Alopen.
Unearthing the Background: Jingjiao and Nestorianism
To understand the context surrounding Nestorian Crosses in the East, we must first understand the concept of Jingjiao, originating from the Church of the East. The Jingjiao Documents are a collection of Chinese texts related to the 7th-century mission of Alopen and the 8th-century monk Adam. They date from 635 to 1000 and reflect varying levels of interaction with Chinese culture, including Buddhist and Taoist terminology. However Emperor Wuzong’s ban in A.D. 845 suppressed the religion to protect the dominance of Daoism and it wasn’t until the modern-day that Jingjiao regained its vitality in the Inner Mongolian Province. Therefore scholars recognize the complexities of grasping the intricate nature of Nestorian remains int he Est and specifically the intercultural encounters between the Church of the East, Chinese and Mongol cultures, and the theological value embedded in the resultant artifacts, including the Nestorian Crosses.
Identifying Nestorian Crosses
The identification of Nestorian Crosses has been a subject of intense scholarly debate. One possibility is the connection between Nestorians and the Church of the East in Eastern Europe, embracing the Western Church’s iconographic tradition but there are problems with this interpretation. Experts such as P. M. Scott, A. C. Moule, Paul Pelliot, Zoltán de Takács, and W. R. Taylor have questioned the mainstream concept, presenting diverse reasons for their skepticism.
Louis Hambis drew parallels between the bronze pieces and Steppe Art. Raffaele Biscione questions the validity of the classical concept altogether. Alternatives to the concept of “Christian appropriation” within the context of Mongolian Nestorian bronzes, has been debated by scholars like Louis Hambis, Raffaele Biscione, and Tjalling H. F. Halbertsma with some authors arguing that cross-shaped bronzes, believed to be Yuanya, might possess distinct Jingjiao/Yelikewen iconographical characteristics. As first-hand information about these bronzes primarily comes from dealers and intermediaries, dating and interpretation of the artifacts complex.
Conclusion
The study of Nestorian Crosses and their significance in the context of Jingjiao and the Nestorian Mongol people is complex and fascinating. The challenges faced in interpreting these artifacts, including the scarcity of historical materials generate much debate. By questioning traditional assumptions a clearer understanding of Jingjiao and its connection to Nestorianism can be achieved.
