Timothy's counter to Pope Leo III

Leo III crowned Karl emperor of Rome, and by it claimed the headship of all Christian bishops - as their Papa, they would say now. Naturally the kings in Constantine's City did not like this, deeming themselves as the Empire's heirs. Rome the city could claim that Peter had set them up. Constantinople couldn't claim New Testament sanction, so they went with a theory of the Rhomania.

Nobody over here out West noticed, but the East already had its own Christendom. Under the Mutazila, the "new Jews" at al-Raqqa / Callinicum permitted Christians to state their case more freely than since. The Oriental Church under Timothy issued this letter which we'll look at today.

Timothy states adamantly from the Gospel of Matthew that Mary gave birth to Jesus called the Christ (in his translation). Not to "God"- and not really to a little boy either. Timothy's Christ is something subtly different. Timothy may or may not be lifting from Nestorius, who taught that "Christ" here means a blend; John Chrysostom likely would have agreed, maybe even Jerome. This need not detain a filioque believer.

Timothy accepts four Gospels, but he's really only using one: Matthew. Mark is ignored. Timothy does, yes, make one diversion to the Prodigal Son. This is now found in Luke; it perhaps originated from Peter, but anyway Timothy treats it more as a nod to shared lore than as a prooftext - the Diatesseron would do. John ... I don't see John. Timothy nonetheless claims four and moots a fifth gospel in the message of Paul.

Timothy knows from Matthew (and Mark, and John 21) that Peter matters. This exposes him to the apostolic claims of the various Romes. To them, he lumps them all in as "Rome". He implicitly dismisses the other Petrine sees of Alexandria and Antioch, now under Islam. Timothy as an Aramaean Semite would rather lay claim to Christ. Not for him is Luke-Acts dragging the Spirit to the Seven Hills. Instead he appeals to Abraham's birthplace and to Eden.

That's where Timothy brings the number five - as something of a quincunx with a nexus in the centre. Eden had four rivers, flowing from one source. In Oriental theology Eden was a real place, a now-occulted mountain reaching to heaven. Timothy would have Babylon as the Edenic river, from which all the Petrine churches flow.

As to, what to make of this argument: unfortunately the letter breaks off, so I might have to fill in for this pope.

Like Babylon, Jerusalem can't claim Peter - but it is Jerusalem, so doesn't need to. It may be that the quincunx should be most like a tripod with the Spirit showering from Babylon to Jerusalem, and thence the three Petrines. Also, perhaps, as the Spirit went to Rome in the past, it is now in Babylon.

That's about the only way I can make an argument for Babylon's right to a nonPetrine see. This incidentally tracks Ezekiel's argument, that his flock in Babylon was now superior to the remnant in Zion. Maybe Timothy is going to try it.