Shalom minasoliman nice to have you back...
Wow...this is quite a loaded post. So many new questions now arise in my mind.
1. Mar Odisho--one will: What did Mar Odisho, or what does the Assyrian Church mean when they say "one will?" Or what does the word "will" mean or entail??
Yes the COE does teach "one will" and apparently so do the Maronites. Though "one" might not mean one in the exclusive singluar sense. The common Aramaic word for "one" is khad which is the cognate of the Hebrew ekhad which can have a compound meaning. So perhaps "one will" should really be understood as two wills which work together as "one" (i.e. in harmony) in the parsopa, but I don't know which Aramaic word Mar Odisho used here. I'll do some more research and ask around then get back to you.
2. hostage/hymara: That is an interesting concept. I never seen the union referred like that. Did Brock talk about other "non-Nestorian" authors that may have used a similar concept? What did he conclude its origins to be?
That quote is Brock's book Fire from Heaven
which I haven't read but google books has it here
, if you wanna check it out. Go to Chapter 4: Christ "The Hostage": A Theme in the East Syriac Liturgical Tradition and it's Origins
. Brock did say that COE understanding of the word hymara corresponds to it's archaic meaning so I'm guessing that the Syrian Orthodox understanding will differ somewhat.
And yes this word hymara occurs in the Peshitta, and the writings of both the East Syrian (Aphrahat & Narsai) and West Syrian (Ephrem & Jacob of Serug) Fathers.
3. Rabban bar Sawma--two persons (kenomin)-one parsopa: This one is new. What is the difference between "kenomin" and "parsopa." The translation here brings them both to persons. Did he really mean two persons in one person?
is a corruption of qnome, so what Rabban bar Sawma really means is 2 qnome in 1 parsopa (person).
4. Mar Yahbh Allaha III--called Jesus God: This is interesting. This is the closest thing to a confession of "Theotokos" I ever got, because he not only called Jesus "our God" but also alluded to "His Mother." But other confessions seem to shun such language.
For those who can read Latin here's the original Latin text:
Confitemur etiam quod in fine saeculorum una persona de tribus divinis, illa scilicet quam assimilavimus radio solari vel Verbo Dei, induit perfectam humanitatem de virgine Maria, propter salutem hominum et ut ostenderet nobis lucem veritatis, et fuit unita divinitas humanitati et humanitas divinitati inseparabiliter et sine fine. Et ista est fides nostra in Dominum nostrum, Jesus Christum, Deum nostrum, qui completus est Deus et completus homo in una persona, totus apud Patrem et totus in Matre. Et ab illa hora qua, per Gabrielem archangelum, ex parte Dei virgini Mariae annunciatio facta de filio nascituro, et dictum est ei: Ave gyatia plena, Dominus tecum, etc. [Luke i. 28] ex tunc. divinitas non dimisit humanitatem, nec in cruce nec in sepulchro: ita tamen quod divinitas pati non potuit, nec mori, nec aliquam poenalitatem sustinere.Source
5. Mar Babai/Mar Narsai--did they believe in the communicato idiomatum: Both of them while may be using "one who" seem to still keep apart the natures of Christ. Did they believe in the communication of idioms? In other words, were the properties of the Godhead shared with humanity and vice versa?
I don't know about them but for the COE, while I can't personally answer this one (I don't have something in writing by them concerning this), I don't see anything in the doctrine of communicato idiomatum that conflicts with their Christology. I doubt that they'll adopt this doctrine for explaining their Christology, but this is not necessarily because they object to it but because they really don't like "prying into Messiah", as Mar Ehpriam puts its. For the Assyrians they are happy to believe that the natures are united but prefer to keep the means of how
they are united in the realm of mystery.