This article re-evaluates the historical and theological identity of the East Syriac Church, also called the “Church of the East”—historically known in East Asia as “Jingjiao” (景教: the “Luminous Religion”)—by challenging the conventional and often misleading label of “Nestorianism.” Through an interdisciplinary analysis of Syriac historiography and fragmentary manuscripts from Turfan, the author argues that the term “Nestorian” is an exonym and a pejorative label coined within the Roman Empire, which fails to reflect the agency and intellectual foundations of the “Church of the East.”
The first half of the paper examines the institutional and historiographical independence of the East Syriac Church within the Sasanian Empire. By analyzing the texts of the oriental synods and the works of Barḥadbshabbā, specifically The Cause of the Foundation of the Schools, the study demonstrates that the community’s lineage was constructed not around Nestorius, but around Theodore of Mopsuestia, called “the Interpreter”. This “Theodorian” Teaching brought to the churches in the Persian Territory a theology that focused on historical interpretation of the Bible and progress through the temporal world, and the School of Nisibis inherited this legacy in a subjective and creative manner that was very distinct from the Christological preoccupations of the Roman Churches.
The second half provides some evidence for the transmission of these teachings and their subsequent cultural adaptation in Central Asia. By examining Sogdian and Middle Persian translations of the Psalms discovered in Turfan, the author highlights the replacement of traditional “allegorical” interpretation of Septuagint headings with new “Theodorian” headings that reflect a historical interpretive framework and new “Canons” rooted in a new environment. Furthermore, linguistic analysis of these fragments—such as the use of the Sogdian term əktānī (evoking karmic “deeds”) and the Middle Persian ethical dualism of kirbakkar (“Good-doer”) and bazzakkar (“Evil-doer”)—reveals a sophisticated process of “subjective adaptation.”
The paper concludes that the East Syriac Church/Jingjiao should be understood not as a heretical offshoot of Roman Christianity, but as the culmination of the “Eastern” trajectory: a community that integrated Theodorian teaching into its ancient foundations, fostered internal growth, and resolutely adapted its religious practice to the Persian, Sogdian, and Chinese cultural spheres.