This volume collects the proceedings of a symposium held in March 2013 at St Athanasius Coptic Orthodox Theological College (SACOTC), University of Divinity, Melbourne. The meeting was one of a number of events held to mark the 1,500th anniversary of the effective patriarchate in Antioch (512–18) of Severus, a theologian and pastor whose authority remains a key reference for both the Coptic and Syrian Orthodox Churches, as underlined in the foreword (pp. vi–vii) by Bishop Suriel and in the preface (pp. ix–x) by M. M. Malki Malki. Mindful of the historical context, nine specialists in Severan studies examine different aspects of Severus’ life, thought and spirituality. The presentation of the papers in the volume roughly follows the alphabetic order of their authors’ names, but here they will be discussed in terms of three major axes which provide an alternative framework for their classification.

Three of the papers take a philological approach. S. Brock provides a critical study of the Syriac text and an English translation of ‘Letter from the orthodox monasteries sent to Alexandria, addressed to Severos’ (pp. 32–46), which is preserved in Cod. Harvard syr. 22 and which he previously documented elsewhere (CPG, 7070 [3]). This precious document is the fifth from the Harvard collection which he has published to date. Signed by Abbot Julian of Beth Mar Bassos in Northern Syria, the letter replies to a missive from Severus, exiled in Egypt (518–38), who was looking for support from the Syrian monks during his dispute with Julian of Hallicarnassus. The exchange provides precious evidence concerning Julianist Mariology and further indicates that the monastery had a translation office permitting the abbot to share with his non-Hellenist monks the contents of Severus’ letter, written in Greek, and his own reply. This supports my own position, that the patriarch was ignorant of the Syriac language and thus relied, for administrative or pastoral purposes, on an efficient network of Eastern translators. R. Ebied publishes an important catalogue of ‘Quotations from the works of Severus of Antioch in Peter of Callinicus’ magnum opus “Contra Damianum”’ (pp. 65–123). Accused of being a tritheist by Damianus, Peter shifts the blame to the Alexandrian patriarch, stating that he was himself a Sabellianist. His demonstration relies on patristic quotations, 107 of them taken from numerous different works (treatises, letters, homilies, etc.) written by Severus. The quotations are given in English and organised under twenty-six headings, one for each source; a twenty-seventh heading introduces five quotations of uncertain origin. At the end of the paper, Ebied lists the wonderful Syriac appellations with which Peter prefaces the name of Severus. The third philological paper, by Y. Youssef, makes use of a Coptic-English synoptic table to draw an instructive parallel between the ‘Hymns of Severus of Antioch and the Coptic Theotokia’ (pp. 183–97). The latter are Marial praises from the Coptic liturgy, partly inspired by, if not taken directly from, Severus’ hymns to the Virgin Mary, which are also considered to be a major source for Marial devotions in Ethiopian Orthodoxy.

Four contributions are more directly concerned with Severus’ thought and spirituality. P. Allen sketches a comparative study of Severus and John Chrysostom, the Antiochian preacher who flourished more than a century earlier and who also became a patriarch, but of the see of Constantinople. In ‘Severus of Antioch: heir of John Chrysostom?’ (pp. 1–13), she notes that both bishops saw themselves as monks and, despite striking differences in their lives, both followed and disseminated rather similar ascetic ideals, a point emphasised by Severus’ hagiographers. Indeed, Severus often quoted John Chrysostom and made use of his works, even the exegetical ones, particularly in relation to the New Testament. Allen lists many such references in Severus’ letters (see pp. 11–12). The Christological controversy during the sixth century gave the anti-Nestorian argumentation of Cyrillus of Alexandria remarkable pertinence and dogmatic priority in the thought of Severus. Nevertheless, the patriarch of Antioch remained in spiritual continuity with John Chrysostom and within his homiletic tradition. R. Akhrass writes in French to address an ecclesiological question: ‘Se Glorifier de sa ville et de son siège? La grandeur d'Antioche et le mépris des titres chez Sévère le Grand’ (pp. 14–31). Bishop of a city that was the apostolic birthplace of Christianity (Acts xi.26), Severus placed himself in the line of SS Peter and Ignatius, guardians of the faith. Though conscious of his personal shortcomings, he identified closely with his Church and with the imperative, shared with Athanasius of Alexandria and the Cappadocian Fathers, Basileus of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus, to make no concessions on orthodoxy. This was the true greatness of the Antiochian see. He thus associated Ignatius, Basileus and Gregory with a common form of worship, taking them as models for his own life. The same insistence on personal sanctity is found in Severus’ ascetic teaching, as shown by J. D'Alton in ‘The ascetism of Severus: an analysis of struggle in his Homily 18 on the Forty Holy Martyrs compared to the Cappadocians and the Syrians’ (pp. 47–64). The theme of the forty martyred soldiers of Sebastia came from the Cappadocian preachers, who characterised combat against the passions as a military or athletic struggle. Perhaps inspired by the Stoic tradition, the Syrian Fathers (such as Aphraates, Isaac, Theodoretus and Ps. Macarius) were more open to the ideal of tranquillity as the reward for victory. Severus’ ascetic theology seems to depend on both traditions, which may be due to his composite monastic education in Palestine. His exegetical method seems composite as well, for R. Roux shows that it lies ‘at the crossroad of the Antiochene and Alexandrian exegetical tradition’, both when Severus tries to explain a specific biblical text (direct exegesis) and when he uses the Scriptures for liturgical or controversial purposes (indirect exegesis). Here too Severus knows how to take advantage of a dual theological background, mixing John Chrysostom or Diodorus, on the one hand, and Athanasius and Cyrillus, on the other (pp. 160–82).

Finally, two papers return Severus’ Christology and its reception to the larger context of dogmatic history. In ‘Severus of Antioch and the changing miaphysite attitudes towards Byzantium’ (pp. 124–37), N. Kavvadas underlines the decisive role played by Pope Hormisdas’ Libellus (515) in radicalising anti-Chalcedonian opposition within the imperial Church. Such was the position of Severus, who fought for an explicit condemnation of the Council of 451, but disapproved of the schismatic ordinations performed by John of Tella and later resumed, after 538, by James Baradeus. K. Parry, in ‘The doves of Antioch: Severus, Chalcedonians, Monothelites, and iconoclasm’ (pp. 138–59), revisits the charges against Severus and Philoxenus of Mabbug, who were accused of iconoclasm in the sixth to eighth centuries. The allegations are unconvincing, since Chalcedonian theology relies neither on the cult of angels nor on their representation (which is the crux of the matter); that being said, eighth-century Byzantine iconoclasts did proclaim themselves to be Chalcedonians.

To conclude, this book is a very useful one, raising important questions judiciously and bringing valuable new information to light.