Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp.iii-xxxv. Introduction
Newly translated from the Syriac and edited with an
Notes & Appendices
G. R. DRIVER, M.A.
LEONARD HODGSON, M.A.
Fellows of Magdalen College., Oxford.
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
Oxford University Press
London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen New York Toronto Melbourne Cape Town Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai
Humphrey Milford Publisher to the UNIVERSITY
PRINTED IN ENGLAND
The present volume is the result of collaboration between two colleagues, the one a student of the Semitic languages, the other of Christian doctrine. After the former had prepared an English translation of the whole work, the manuscript was handed over to the latter, who read it carefully through; the difficulties were then jointly discussed. The editors hope that by this means they are able to offer a reliable rendering of the original text. The absence of any English edition of a work which has given rise to much theological discussion has, in their opinion, justified them in undertaking the task; but, although their edition is based on an independent study of the Syriac version itself, they desire to acknowledge their indebtedness to MM. Bedjan and Nau, the editors of the Syriac text and of the French translation respectively, their reliance on whom is evident on every page of the translation and in almost every note; indeed, if they had not already covered the ground, it is unlikely that the present work would ever have been accomplished.
We wish to express our gratitude also to those whose encouragement and assistance has enabled us to complete our work: to the President and Fellows of Magdalen College and to the Trustees of the Denyer and Johnson Fund for most generous financial grants; to the staff of the Clarendon Press for their courtesy and care; to the Rev. F. W. Green for reading the proofs, and to him and to Mrs. Margoliouth for |vi many valuable suggestions; to Dr. B. J. Kidd for permission to draw on his History of the Church to A.D. 461 in compiling the historical section of our Introduction; to the editors of the proposed Patristic Lexicon for putting at our disposal for the purpose of Appendix III the material which they had collected, and to the Rev. T. G. Jalland for his help in drawing up that appendix; and to the proprietors of the Journal of Theological Studies for permission to reprint Appendix IV from their pages.
G. R. D.
|ii. The Text||xi|
|iii. Value of the Syriac Translation||xii|
|iv. History of the Controversy||xvii|
|v. The Argument of The Bazaar||xxix|
|The Syriac Translator's Preface||3|
|Book I, Part I||7|
|Book I, Part II||87|
|Book I, Part III||96|
|Book II, Part I||186|
|Book II, Part II||336|
(N.B.----The following are the chief historical sections:
|i. Translation of the Syriac Fragments of Nestorius||382|
|ii. Critical Notes||398|
|iii. The word πρόσωπον||402|
|iv. 'The Metaphysic of Nestorius'||411|
|C = Cambridge.||S = Strassburg.|
|L = London.||V = Van.|
P = Peshitta Syriac Version.
i. History of The Bazaar.
The Council of Ephesus met in June, A.D. 431, and was dissolved in September by the Emperor Theodosius II without the two parties, the Orientals and the followers of Cyril of Alexandria, having come to an agreement. Nestorius was bidden to return to his monastery at Antioch, and Maximian was consecrated Archbishop of Constantinople in his place. In August 435 imperial edicts forbade the meetings of Nestorians and decreed heavy penalties against all who should copy, preserve, or read the writings of their master, which were ordered to be burned. By a rescript of the following year Nestorius himself was banished to Arabia, but he was actually sent to Egypt, where from a reference in Socrates he is known to have been in 439.1 But he was not left in peace in Egypt, for besides being on one occasion made prisoner by Lybian marauders, the ill will of his Egyptian opponents led to his being somewhat harshly treated by the imperial agents responsible for the supervision of his exile.2
In 1825 Augustus Neander, in referring to the citations made by Evagrius 3 from a history of his misfortunes written by Nestorius during his exile, wrote 'That the work bore the title of "Tragedy" is reported by Ebedjesu, a Nestorian metropolitan of the fourteenth century, in his list of Syrian ecclesiastical writers in Assemani bibliotheca orientalis, T. iii, p. i, f. 36. This work of Nestorius has unfortunately not come down to us, unless, perhaps, it may be somewhere found in a Syrian translation.' 4 As a matter of fact, Ebedjesu mentions six works of Nestorius as extant in Syriac in his day, the Tragedy, the Book of Heracleides, a Letter to Cosmos, a Liturgy, a book of Letters, and a book of Homilies and Sermons,5 and Neander's prophetic hope has been fulfilled |x by the discovery, not indeed of the Tragedy, but of The Bazaar of Heracleides.
This work was introduced to English readers by Dr. Bethune-Baker of Cambridge in 1908 in his monograph Nestorius and his Teaching.6 In his preface Dr. Bethune-Baker gives the following account of the work.
The book must have been written by Nestorius in the year 451 or 452, seeing that there are references to the death of Theodosius II in 450, and to the flight of Dioscorus of Alexandria.7 Dioscorus was at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but though formally deposed by the Council in October of that year was not condemned to banishment until the following July. On the other hand, Nestorius, though speaking of the triumph of the orthodox faith of Flavian and Leo, does not seem to be aware of the formal decisions of the Council of Chalcedon. It appears, therefore, that Dioscorus must have fled when the Council decided against him, and that when Nestorius wrote he must have heard of his flight, but not of the formal decision of the Council or of the imperial decree by which sentence of exile was pronounced upon him.
Dr. Bethune-Baker identifies this work with that mentioned by Evagrius. He conjectures that the Syriac translation may have been undertaken at the instance of Maraba, Catholicos of the Eastern Church, between 525 and 533, but no absolute certainty can be attained on this point.8 Apart from the reference to it by Ebedjesu it is not again heard of until the nineteenth century. The original manuscript is at Kotchanes in Kurdistan, and for several years its existence has been known to members of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Mission to Assyrian Christians, some of whom obtained copies of it. It was noticed in the last decade of the nineteenth century by two German scholars,9 and attention was called to it by Dr. Loofs of Halle in his Collection of Nestorian remains published in 1905.10 In 1908 Dr. Bethune-Baker published |xi his monograph, and in 1910 a Syriac text was published in Leipzig by P. Bedjan 11 and a French translation in Paris by F. Nau.12
ii. The Text.
Our translation is based on Bedjan's Syriac text.13 Nestorius himself wrote his defence in Greek; his works were condemned to be burnt and only a few sermons and letters have survived in Greek and Latin.14 Now only the Nestorian liturgy and The Bazaar of Heracleides are known.
The Syriac translation of the latter work was made about 535 under the patriarch Paul, according to Bedjan 15; of this there is extant only one mutilated manuscript, which is preserved in the library of the Nestorian patriarch at Kotchanes, in Kurdistan. This manuscript has suffered considerable damage, chiefly at the hands of the Kurds on the occasion of the massacre of Nestorian Christians by the Kurdish chief Bedr Khan Bey in 1843.16 Of this manuscript Bedjan 17 says: 'According to the blank pages in the manuscripts which I have had in my hands, and according to certain brief notes of the copyists, I have reckoned that at page 146 of my edition [i. e. Syr., p. 146, as given at the top of each page in our translation] there are very nearly 55 pages which have |xii disappeared; at page 161, 42 pages are missing; at page 209, 36 pages have been lost. One can only make this calculation approximately. Further, there are passages where some lines have been left blank; other places of no considerable length have been obliterated by age.'
There are four copies of this manuscript, the first made in 1889 for the library of the American mission at Urmiyah. From this two other copies were made: one for the University of Cambridge, and the other for that of Strassburg. In addition to these, Bedjan had a copy, written partly at Van and partly at Kotchanes, from the original in the possession of the Nestorian patriarch. Of these manuscripts only the last mentioned, which is the archetype of all the others, is of any value for the text; Bedjan himself confesses that, where his text differs from that, the variations are errors or conjectural emendations of an original which was not accessible to him.
iii. Value of the Syriac Translation.
That the Syriac text is a translation is definitely stated by the writer of the 'Translator's Preface'.18 Fortunately, although the Greek original has been lost, we are in a position to estimate the value of this translation, since the Greek of certain passages has been preserved in the Fathers. In the first place, Bedjan 19 is undoubtedly right in seeing in the title 'the Bazaar of Heracleides' a mistake; the original Greek word seems to have been πραγματεία which connotes both 'business' and 'treatise', which the Syriac translator rendered by te'gurta 'merchandise'! There are, however, very few bad blunders in that part of the Syriac text which can be checked by a reference to the original Greek, as the following list shows, while in many cases the cause of the error can be detected:
[Omitted from the online text]
Besides these obvious blunders, there is at least one instance of error through homoeoteleuton,20 and one where an imperative is translated as if it were an optative.21
Secondly, there are a few errors for which no palaeographical explanation can be found:
[Omitted from the online text]
No reason also can be assigned either for the fact that in the phrase 'he who begins and grows and is perfected is not God, although he is so called on account of the gradual growth' the translator always substitutes 'revelation' or 'manifestation' for 'growth' (Gk. αὔξησις),22 or for the fact that the name Aethericus regularly appears as Atticus in his version.23
Seeing then that a certain number of errors can be charged to the account of the Syriac translator and proved against him, it is not too bold to assume in a few passages similar mistakes.
Finally, three other passages where the Greek and Syriac texts diverge may be mentioned.
[Omitted from the online text]
There seem also to be two passages where the double negative οὐ μή in Greek has led the translator into error. On p. 259, for the Syriac 'For I have not denied that Christ is not God', the context requires 'For I have not denied that Christ is God' ...; on p. 324, for the Syriac 'how do they escape from saying that the human attributes do not belong to the ousia of God the Word?', the context requires 'how then do they escape from saying that the human attributes belong to the ousia of God the Word?' ... Another Greek |xv construction over which the translator seems to have blundered is that of the double accusative. ...
[Omitted from the online text]
Against these errors there can be set a few passages where the Syriac version is clearly superior to the Greek original, and several others where it can be used to decide between alternative readings. In the first class come such passages as that on p. 234, where for the Greek ὑπόστασις the Syriac substitutes πρόσωπον in conformity with the regular usage of Nestorius; again, the Syriac rightly assigns the quotation on p. 244 to St. Luke, where the Greek has St. John.
In the second category fall the following passages:
[Omitted from the online text]
The Syriac translation may therefore be accounted good after its kind. Though occasionally pedantically accurate, as when the see of Beroea of the original text is called by the translator that of Aleppo,24 it aims generally rather at representing the sense of the original than at reproducing the Greek word for word; for the retention of the Greek redundant negative even against the sense in a few passages is due rather to the tendency of the Syriac language to model itself on Greek, regardless of the requirements of Semitic idiom, than to the slavish fidelity of the translator to his original. This is proved not only by the loose rendering of individual words and phrases----for example, of αἰδέσιμοι by 'beloved' (on p. 103)----but also by a certain laxity in regard to the translation of technical or semi-technical terms, due largely to the relative poverty of the Syriac language in comparison with the Greek; ... Against this, the translator accurately renders ἐκκαπηλεύειν, 'to adulterate' (on pp. 323-4), according to its peculiar usage in the Cyrillian writings.
The present editors, therefore, mindful of the fact that they are translating into a third language a translation----and that one which possesses no grace of style or elegance of diction----of a lost work, whose meaning depends solely on the precise value assigned to a number of technical terms, have frequently sacrificed the English to an endeavour to render faithfully the Syriac version, keeping as far as possible the same English word for the corresponding Syriac even at the cost of a certain harshness or awkwardness in many passages; for they have regarded it as their aim not so much to present the reader with their view of what Nestorius said as to enable him to form his own opinion from a careful and accurate version of the Syriac text. |xvii
iv. History of the Controversy.25
|Refs. in The Bazaar.
|428. April||Nestorius becomes bishop of Constantinople||274-5|
|November||Anastasius preaches against Theotokos.|
|Christmas||Nestorius begins a course of sermons||131|
|Day||Protest of Eusebius (afterwards bishop of Dorylaeum)||338|
|429. Lady Day||Proclus' sermon, replied to by Nestorius. Eastertide Nestorius preaches three sermons in reply to Proclus.|
|Cyril sends his encyclical Ad Monachos Aegypti. Photius replies to it.|
|Cyril stirs up accusers against Nestorius.|
|Caelestine of Rome makes inquiries.|
|Letters from Nestorius reach Caelestine||132|
|June||Cyril Ad Nestorium I||103 ff.|
|Nestorius replies peacefully; his diocese is disturbed and he is not ready for war.|
|Nestorius is approached by the Pelagian exiles, Julian and Caelestius.|
|Basil and his monks petition Theodosius II against Nestorius, and ask for an Oecumenical Council||102|
|430.||Cyril Ad Nestorium II and Ad Clericos Constantinopolitanos|| 101 ff., 143-4,
149 ff., 218,
226, 243, 263
|Lent||Nestorius replies to Cyril, this time more pugnaciously||141-2, 162, 257|
|Cyril De Recta Fide, (1) Ad Theodosium, (2) Ad Arcadiam et Marinam, (3) Ad Pulcheriam et Eudoxiam.|
|April||Cyril Ad Caelestinum, sent by Poseidonius, with other documents enclosed||131-2|
|Cyril Ad Acadian (of Beroea) ----a fruitless effort to win over 'the East'.|
|August||Nestorius is condemned at a Council at Rome. Caelestine writes to Cyril instructing him to carry out the sentence, and to Nestorius bidding him to submit and to renounce his 'novel doctrines' on pain of excommunication. |xviii|
|Cyril writes to John of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem.|
|John writes to Nestorius begging him to submit and accept the term Theotokos.|
|November||Nestorius Ad Caelestinum III.|
|Theodosius II and Valentinian III summon a General Council to meet at Ephesus at Pentecost 431.|
|A Council held at Alexandria.|
|Cyril Ad Nestorium III (Synodical Letter), with the XII Anathematisms appended||268-9, 287-93, 325|
|December 7||Nestorius receives Cyril's 'synodical' letter and Caelestine's sentence of excommunication, which cannot be put into force owing to the Imperial Letter summoning the Council of Ephesus.|
|Dec. 13 & 14||Nestorius preaches two sermons (xiii and xiv) and sends them to Cyril with counter anathematisms. He also replies to John of Antioch, and with the aid of Cyril's anathematisms wins him over.|
|430-1.||Cassian De incarnatione Domini contra Nestorianos, written at the invitation of Caelestine.|
|431.||Marius Mercator Nestorii blasphemiarum capitula, based on Nestorius' December sermons.|
|John of Antioch enlists Andrew of Samosata and Theodoret of Cyrus on the side of Nestorius.|
|Cyril Apologia contra Orientales, in reply to Andrew, and Apologia contra Theodoretum pro XII capitibus, and Adversus Nestorii blasphemias libri V.|
|Cyril writes to Caelestine asking what is to be done if Nestorius recants.|
|431. May 7||Caelestine replies that 'God willeth not the death of a sinner', and Cyril is to do what he can to win Nestorius back.|
|June 12||By 12th June there are assembled at Ephesus:|
|(1) Nestorius with ten bishops.|
|(2) Counts Irenaeus and Candidianus, the latter |xix representing the Emperor, who had given him a letter of instructions.|
|(3) Cyril with fifty bishops.|
|(4) Juvenal of Jerusalem with the bishops of Palestine.|
|(5) Flavian of Philippi with the bishops of Macedonia.|
|(6) Besulas, a deacon, representing the African Church.|
|Memnon closes the churches of Ephesus to the Nestorians||267,269|
|Conversations between Nestorius and (a) Acacius of Melitene, (b) Theodotus of Ancyra||136-141|
|June 21||Cyril receives a letter from John of Antioch saying that he hopes to arrive in five or six days. Alexander of Apamea and Alexander of Hierapolis bring a message from him, that the Council should not wait for him if he is delayed on his journey.|
|Nestorius and Candidianus wish to wait for John||106-108, 269|
|But Cyril and Memnon, with the support of their followers and the populace of Ephesus, have Nestorius summoned, and proceed without delay||134, 312|
|June 22||Candidianus protests, reads his Imperial instructions, utters his contestatio, and on being overruled withdraws||106, 108-16|
|The Gospels are placed on the throne, as representing the presence of Christ||119-21|
Cyril presides, claiming to do so in virtue of Caelestine's letter of August 430; but the force of his claim is doubtful since the imperial summons to a General Council had superseded Caelestine's commission to Cyril to deal with Nestorius, and Caelestine had himself sent legates to the Council.
|June 22||Session I. Nestorius refuses to attend. The following are read:|
|(1) The Creed of Nicaea||141|
|(2) Cyril Ad Nest. II----received with acclamation |xx||143-4. 149 ff.|
|(3) Nestorius Ad Cyrillum II----rejected with anathemas||141 ff., 162|
|(4) Caelestine's Letter to Nestorius of August 430.|
|(5) Cyril Ad Nest. III with the Anathematisms ----received in silence||151, 268, 269|
|(6) Testimonies of various bishops concerning conversations with Nestorius||136-41|
|(7) Passages from certain Fathers, including Athanasius, Theophilus, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa||191-2, 223-265|
|(8) Extracts from the writings of Nestorius||188-263|
|(9) The letter of Capreolus, Primate of Africa.|
|Nestorius is deposed and excommunicated||265|
|Cyril, Nestorius, and Candidianus all write to Emperor||268|
|June 26||Arrival of John of Antioch and the Easterns||267|
|John immediately holds a Council. Forty-three bishops are present, and Candidianus. They depose Cyril and Memnon, and excommunicate all their adherents who will not repudiate Cyril's XII Anathematisms||267-9, 286-7|
|Candidianus sends reports to the Emperor||117, 124|
|June 29||An Imperial Rescript arrives in which Cyril is rebuked for his haste, and the bishops are commanded to await the arrival of an Imperial Commissioner in Ephesus||117-18, 128|
|July 10||Caelestine's Legates arrive----the bishops Arcadius and Projectus and the priest Philip||126|
|In accordance with Caelestine's instructions they give their support to Cyril.|
|Session II. Cyril presides. Caelestine's Letter to the Synod, written on 8th May, is read.|
|July 11||Session III. The minutes of Session I are read. Philip announces Caelestine's assent to the sentence passed on Nestorius. Letters are sent to the Emperor and to the Church of Constantinople.|
Session IV. John of Antioch and his supporters are summoned, but refuse to attend.
|Session V. John sends a message refusing to have anything more to do with the Cyrillians. |xxi They excommunicate him and his adherents, and send reports to the Emperor and to Caelestine.|
|Events in Constantinople in July.|
|The Cyrillians cannot get their messages through to the Emperor owing to the activities of Candidianus and Nestorian agents. At last a beggar carries in a cane a letter from Cyril to the bishops and monks at Constantinople. With the aid of the abbot Dalmatius they enlist Theodosius' sympathies for Cyril||272-8|
|Theodosius then gives hearing to Cyril's envoys, Theopemptus and Daniel.|
|Nestorius' letters, and his friend, Count Irenaeus, put the case for the other side, and Theodosius orders Cyril's deposition.|
|The arrival of John, Cyril's chaplain and physician, turns the scale. Theodosius decides to treat Cyril, Memnon, and Nestorius as all deposed, and to send a new commissioner to Ephesus||279|
|July 21 & 31||Sessions VI and VII are not directly concerned with the Nestorian controversy.|
|August||Count John, the imperial commissioner, arrives at Ephesus||279, 280|
|He announces the deposition of Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon, puts them all under arrest, and reports the fact to the Emperor.|
|The Orientals write to the Emperor, to Antioch, and to Acacius of Beroea.|
|The Cyrillians send two professedly Synodical letters to the Emperor. Count John tries to persuade them to confer with the Orientals. They will not, but the Orientals draw up as a basis of reconciliation, and send to the Emperor, a letter including the formulary which is later known as the Formulary of Reunion. The Cyrillians ask to be allowed either to lay their case before the Emperor at Constantinople, or to go home. Their appeals stir up again the clergy of Constantinople and Dalmatius. |xxii|
|431. August||Cyril writes from prison his Explicatio XII Capitum.|
|September 11||Theodosius receives at Chalcedon eight delegates from each side||284, 287-8|
|No agreement is reached, and Theodosius, despairing of a solution, dissolves the Council, sending Nestorius back to his monastery at Antioch, and ordering the consecration of a new bishop of Constantinople (Maximian)||281, 285|
|The rival parties go home, the Orientals accusing Cyril of having won his case by bribery||279-82, 286|
|October 30||Cyril arrives in triumph at Alexandria||281|
|Maximian deposes Nestorian bishops; the Orientals renew their condemnation of Cyril, and treat Nestorius as unjustly deposed.|
|432. January 27||Caelestine dies, and is succeeded by Sixtus III||375|
|Rabbula of Edessa and Andrew of Samosata show signs of going over to the Cyrillian side.|
|Cyril writes to Maximian, and sends the Emperor his Apologeticus ad Theodosium, which placates him.|
|April||The Emperor suggests as a basis of reconciliation that the Orientals should give up Nestorius and Cyril his XII Anathematisms. He sends letters to this effect to John of Antioch, Acacius of Beroea, and St. Simeon Stylites. The letters and the negotiations are entrusted to the notary Aristolaus||289, 329|
|John, Acacius, Alexander of Hierapolis, Andrew of Samosata and Theodoret of Cyrus hold a Synod at Antioch to consider Aristolaus' proposals. They demand the dropping of Cyril's Anathematisms, but are willing to make peace on the basis of the Nicene Creed as explained by Athanasius. These proposals are embodied in a letter from Acacius to Cyril, and taken to Alexandria by Aristolaus. No mention is made of abandoning Nestorius.|
|Cyril replies that if the Orientals will accept the |xxiii deposition of Nestorius there need be no trouble about the Anathematisms||286|
|John and Acacius wish to agree on this basis||290-1|
|Theodoret agrees on the doctrinal question, but dislikes the abandoning of Nestorius. Andrew wavers and Alexander stands out.|
|Autumn||John and Acacius determine to go forward, ignoring the opposition of Alexander. They send Paul of Emesa as their envoy to Alexandria||318|
|Meanwhile Cyril has been working hard to win over the Court at Constantinople. The clergy and monks of Constantinople, including Maximian, Dalmatius, and Eutyches, have approached the Empress Pulcheria, while Cyril has heavily bribed her maids of honour, important eunuchs, and the Grand Chamberlain Chrysoretes.|
|Winter||Paul of Emesa arrives at Alexandria, bringing (i) The Propositions of the Synod at Antioch, (ii) The Formulary of Reunion, and (iii) A Letter of Introduction from John to Cyril, cordial but containing no mention of the deposition of Nestorius. When pressed, Paul agrees to accept that deposition together with the deposition by Maximian of four Nestorianizing bishops.|
|December 18||Paul is received into communion at Alexandria.|
|Christmas Day||Paul is admitted to preach in Alexandria as an orthodox bishop.|
|433||Aristolaus and Paul return to Antioch, and persuade John to agree||290-1|
|John announces his decision in a Circular Letter to Sixtus III of Rome, Maximian, and Cyril, and also sends two private letters to Cyril. Cyril replies with a letter (Ep. xxxix) afterwards given oecumenical authority at Chalcedon. The question of the XII Anathematisms is left unmentioned by both sides||291-2|
|Synod of Zeugma. Theodoret, Andrew, and John of Germanicia acknowledge the |xxiv orthodoxy of Cyril, but refuse to accept the deposition of Nestorius.|
|Alexander and some Cilician bishops renounce both Alexandria and Antioch.|
|434.||Death of Maximian. Proclus becomes bishop of Constantinople.|
|An Imperial Rescript orders the bishops of 'The East' to abandon their resistance to John and Cyril. Theodoret, Andrew, and others obey||292-3, 328-30, 338|
|435.||The Tome of Proclus is approved by both Cyril and John.|
|April||Alexander and seventeen other irreconcileables are deposed and banished to the Egyptian mines.|
|Some Cyrillians begin to think that Cyril has compromised the faith by admitting 'two natures'. Acacius of Melitene writes to Cyril of the general uneasiness, and receives letters composed to reassure him||180, 293-318, 323, 325, 329|
|August||Edict of Theodosius proscribing the writings of Nestorius and meetings of his followers||374|
|Aristolaus is charged to carry it out.|
|436.||Nestorius is banished to Arabia, but actually sent to Upper Egypt. Count Irenaeus is also sent into exile||117|
|Nestorianism begins to spread in the East outside the Empire, e. g. in Persia.|
|437.||John of Antioch writes to Proclus to say that all have now accepted the deposition of Nestorius, and that peace is restored.|
|438.||Proclus has the relics of Chrysostom restored to Constantinople.|
|439.||The Empress Eudocia returns from her pilgrimage to Palestine.|
|440.||John of Antioch dies, and is succeeded by his nephew Domnus. Sixtus III of Rome dies, and is succeeded by Leo. The abbot Dalmatius dies, and is succeeded by Eutyches.|
Eutyches' godson, the eunuch Chrysaphius, |xxv gains an ascendancy over Theodosius, and Pulcheria's influence declines
|444.||Cyril dies, and is succeeded by Dioscorus.|
|The Empress Eudocia is suspected of unfaithfulness and banished||379|
|446.||Proclus dies, and is succeeded by Flavian, who neglects to placate Chrysaphius with 'golden eulogies'||336|
|447.||Count Irenaeus is recalled from banishment and consecrated bishop of Tyre. Theodoret Eranistes seu Polymorphus.|
|448. February||An Imperial Rescript proscribes the works of Porphyry and Nestorius, and orders the deposition of Irenaeus.|
|Dioscorus complains both to Theodoret and to Domnus of the former's unorthodoxy. Theodoret replies and protests to Flavian and others, but Theodosius orders him to be confined within his own diocese.|
|May||Eutyches writes to Leo to say that Nestorianism is on the increase.|
|June||Leo replies cautiously, asking for more detailed information.|
|September||Photius is consecrated bishop of Tyre in place of Irenaeus.|
|November||Synod of Constantinople. Eusebius of Dorylaeum accuses Eutyches before Flavian||340|
|Eutyches is summoned, but does not appear till Session VIII, when after being examined he is condemned. He immediately writes in protest to Leo, and Chrysaphius procures a letter from Theodosius to Leo on his behalf||340|
|Eutyches also writes to Peter Chrysologus, archbishop of Ravenna.|
|Flavian writes to Leo, giving his account of the trial, and asking the West to recognize Eutyches' condemnation.|
|449.||Leo, receiving first the letters of Eutyches and Theodosius, writes to Theodosius and Flavian complaining that he has had no report from the latter, and asking for one.|
|Eutyches invites Dioscorus to take his part||340|
|Chrysaphius promises his aid, and that of |xxvi Eudocia. Dioscorus admits Eutyches to communion, and asks the Emperor for a General Council.|
|March||Theodosius summons a General Council to meet at Ephesus in August||342|
|April||Eutyches persuades Theodosius to have the Minutes of the Synod of Constantinople verified, and to order Flavian to produce a written statement of his faith||343|
|The Minutes are verified, and Flavian produces his statement.|
|The Eutychians procure the condemnation of Ibas of Edessa.|
|May||Leo acknowledges the receipt of Flavian's letter.|
Theodosius summons the abbot Barsumas to represent the abbots of the East at Ephesus, and tells Dioscorus that Barsumas is to be allowed to sit and vote.
|Dioscorus is appointed to preside, Counts Elphidius and Eulogius to keep order||345|
|Theodosius' summons to the Council reaches Rome. Leo promises Flavian his support.|
|June||Leo appoints Julius, bishop of Puteoli, the presbyter Renatus, the deacon Hilary, and the notary Dulcitius to represent him at Ephesus||345|
|They take with them letters to Pulcheria, the archimandrites of Constantinople, the Council, and Julian of Cos, and The Tome for Flavian.|
|The Council meets, charged by Theodosius to put an end to Nestorianism and the trouble stirred up by Flavian.|
|Dioscorus presides. Of Leo's legates, Renatus has died and the others, since they sit apart from one another and do not understand Greek, have little influence||345, 351|
|Session I. Dioscorus refuses to allow bishops who had taken part in the deposition of Eutyches at Constantinople to take part in this Council||352|
|He has the letters of Theodosius read, but prevents the reading of Leo's Tome||345-6|
|The Minutes of the Council of Constantinople are read |xxvii||353|
|Eusebius of Dorylaeum is refused a hearing||352|
|Eutyches and his followers are absolved and restored to their lost positions. Flavian and Eusebius are condemned, a protest being met by Dioscorus calling in the Counts and the soldiery, and obtaining the verdict by military compulsion||347, 354-5, 358-61, 369|
|Dioscorus sends in his report to Theodosius.|
|Session II, a fortnight later. Flavian has died from the violence of Barsumas and his monks||343, 362, 376|
|Eusebius, Domnus, and Leo's legates are not present.|
|Ibas, Irenaeus, Theodoret, and Domnus are all deposed||348-9|
|Cyril's XII Anathematisms are solemnly ratified.|
|September||While a Synod is sitting on other matters in Rome, letters are received from Theodoret and Eusebius protesting against the Ephesian decisions, and Hilary brings his account of the Council.|
|October||In the name of the Roman Synod, Leo writes to Theodosius and Pulcheria protesting against the proceedings at Ephesus. He also writes to various Eastern bishops, bidding them stand fast.|
|The Eutychians Anatolius and Maximus hold the sees of Constantinople and Antioch.|
|450. February||The Western Court visits Rome, and Leo persuades Valentinian III, his mother, Galla Placidia, and his wife, Eudoxia, to write to their Eastern kinsfolk, but it is all in vain. Theodosius confirms all that was done at Ephesus, and informs the West that all is well in the East.|
|July||Leo offers to recognize Anatolius if he will accept Cyril Ad Nest. II and his own Tome. There is no response.|
|Theodosius dies from a fall from his horse||369|
|He is succeeded by his sister, Pulcheria, who puts Chrysaphius to death and marries the senator Marcian. |xxviii|
|Eutyches is put under restraint, and Flavian's body buried with honour in Constantinople.|
|Theodoret and others are recalled from exile, and many of the bishops who supported Dioscorus at Ephesus explain that they did so under compulsion.|
|November to June 451||Correspondence between Pulcheria, Marcian, Anatolius, and Leo. Leo says the trouble is due to Dioscorus and Juvenal of Jerusalem, and can easily be settled without a Council, which would be difficult to arrange owing to the invasion of the Huns. Nevertheless, Pulcheria and Marcian summon a Council to meet at Nicaea in September.|
|Leo appoints legates. Bishops assemble at Nicaea.|
|Eutyches excommunicates Leo.|
|Marcian cannot go so far as Nicaea for fear of Huns in Illyricum, and orders the bishops to move to Chalcedon.|
|Strong measures are taken to exclude monks and laymen, and to keep order.|
|451. October 8||Session I. Dioscorus is treated as defendant and accused by Eusebius of Dorylaeum. Theodoret is admitted as a bishop.|
|The Minutes of the Latrocinium and of the Synod of Constantinople are read.|
|Flavian's memory is vindicated, Dioscorus and his supporters are deposed, and the assembly bursts into singing the Trisagion----the first occasion on which it is known to have been used||Cp. 365 ff.|
|October 10||Session II---- mainly occupied with the discussion of Leo's Tome.|
|October 13||Session III. Dioscorus is formally deprived of his episcopal dignity||Cp. 375|
|October 17||Session IV. The Council accepts 'The Rule of Faith as contained in the Creed of Nicaea, confirmed by the Council of Constantinople, expounded at Ephesus under Cyril, and set forth in the Letter of Pope Leo when he |xxix condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches'.|
|October 22||Session V. The Definition of Chalcedon, under Roman and Imperial pressure, is amended so as definitely to exclude Eutychianism, and as adopted includes the following words: 'Following therefore the holy Fathers, we all teach, with one accord, one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, . . . who for us men and for our salvation, according to the manhood, was born of the Virgin Mary the God-bearer,26 one and the same Christ, Son, Lord----only-begotten, confessed in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division or separation. The difference of the natures is in no way denied by reason of their union; on the other hand the peculiarity of each nature is preserved, and both concur in one Prosopon and one Hypostasis.'|
|October 25||Session VI. Marcian and Pulcheria attend in state. The Definition receives civil sanction, and is promulgated.|
v. The Argument of The Bazaar.
Nestorius' apologia contains two lines of defence, historical and doctrinal. Although the one shades off into the other, as the doctrinal issues are called to his mind by the memory of the wrongs he has suffered, and vice versa, yet on the whole three sections of The Bazaar may be distinguished as historical sections27 in contrast to the remainder of the book which is mainly occupied with theological discussion.
The references to the text in the Historical Summary above provide almost all the introduction needed for Nestorius' historical sections. His argument is twofold. He claims to show, first, that his own condemnation at Ephesus was unjust, and secondly, that the vindication of Flavian, who had suffered from the same causes and for the same faith as |xxx himself, was the vindication of all that he had stood for. To this end he gives a detailed account of the two Ephesian Councils of 431 and 449, showing how at the first Cyril by violence and bribery won imperial and episcopal assent to a verdict which was no genuine verdict of a council constitutionally assembled, while at the second Flavian had suffered in similar fashion at the hands of Dioscorus. But there was this difference. The injustice done to Flavian had been recognized by the Church and redressed, while that done to himself had not. So he claims that he never had a fair hearing, but was condemned untried for defending the faith which was ultimately accepted by the Church.28
But though he is not lacking in a lively sense of the wrongs he has suffered, Nestorius realizes that the triumph of the truth is of more importance than his own fate. Indeed, in a notable passage he asserts his determination not to press his claim to have been vindicated in the vindication of Flavian lest the odium of his name should delay the complete victory of the true faith.29 It is that victory for which he chiefly cares, and hence the main bulk of The Bazaar is occupied with the doctrinal discussion of the Christian faith in the Incarnation.
In Book I, Part I, Nestorius sets forth his views in contrast to those which he holds to be erroneous. The section, which is divided into ninety-three numbered sub-sections, to which titles have been added by the Syriac translator, is cast in the form of a dialogue with one Sophronius. Here Nestorius sets forth as it were the theme of his thesis, and the remaining doctrinal discussions are little more than variations on it. He begins by a brief review of errors. The heathen, the Jews, the Manichaeans, the followers of Paul of Samosata, of Photinus, and of Arius are described, and their doctrines criticized. The theories which deny either the true godhead or the true manhood of Christ, or which involve the changing of one into the other, or the production of a third nature by the combination of divine nature with human, are pilloried. In the fifty-fourth sub-section,30 in passing over to the positive assertion of his own christological beliefs, he directly denies that he teaches |xxxi that there were 'Two Sons' in Christ, and the remaining sub-sections are mainly occupied with a statement of his own position, though the last five are again devoted to criticisms of other views already mentioned. Similar criticisms compose the short Part II of Book I. Having thus laid down his doctrinal position, in Part III Nestorius begins his historical review of the controversy between himself and Cyril. The remaining doctrinal discussions, lengthy as they are, do not carry us farther. They are concerned with contrasting his own views with those of Cyril and his followers, and repeat over and over again two points. On the one hand his own doctrines are shown to be consistent with the Scriptures,31 the faith of Nicaea,32 and the writings of accepted Fathers of the Church;33 on the other hand the teaching of Cyril is exhibited as self-contradictory 34 and, on the points at issue between Cyril and himself, as having affinities not with orthodoxy 35 but with the heretics described in the opening section of the book.36 The place of that opening section in the plan of the book can therefore clearly be seen. In it Nestorius describes the general doctrinal issues in the field of Christology, and sets the stage for the discussion of the particular points of the controversy between himself and Cyril.
What precisely did Nestorius teach? This is the question over which controversy has raged since the discovery of The Bazaar. It is not the object of the present volume to enter upon the discussion of this problem, but to provide English-speaking theologians with the necessary material to study it for themselves.37 The following summary of undisputed facts may, however, be given without entrenching upon the questionable ground. It will be well first to state what Nestorius denies, and what he assert? |xxxii
(i) He denies that the unity of Christ is a 'natural composition' in which two elements are combined by the will of some external 'creator'.38
(ii) He denies that the Incarnation was effected by changing godhead into manhood or vice versa, or by forming a tertium quid from those two ousiai.39
(iii) He denies that God was in Christ in the same way as in the saints.40
(iv) He denies that either the godhead or the manhood of Christ are 'fictitious' or 'phantasmal', and not real.41
(v) He denies that the Incarnation involved any change in the godhead, or any suffering on the part of the Divine Logos who, as divine, is by nature impassible.42
(vi) He denies that the union of two natures in one Christ involves any duality of sonship.43
(vii) He asserts that the union is a voluntary union of godhead and manhood.44
(viii) He asserts that the principle of union is to be found in the prosopa of the godhead and the manhood; these two prosdpa coalesced in one prosopon of Christ incarnate.45
(ix) He asserts that this view alone provides for a real Incarnation, makes possible faith in a real atonement,46 and provides a rationale of the sacramentalism of the Church.47
It is clear that the crux of the question is to be found in the eighth of these points, and that the difficulty arises from the difficulty of determining the sense in which Nestorius used the word prosopon. His own theory can be stated almost in a dozen words. It is this: Christ is the union of the eternal Logos and the Son of Mary, the principle of the union being |xxxiii that the πρόσωπον of each has been taken by the other, so that there is one πρόσωπον of the two in the union. Did one know precisely what Nestorius meant by the word πρόσωπον, one would know precisely how he thought of the Incarnation, and would be able to decide whether the logical implications of his teaching are those of Nestorianism or of orthodoxy. It is certain that he himself did not wish to teach what is known as 'Nestorianism'. His denunciations of Paul of Samosata and his followers show that he had no sympathy with those who think of the Incarnation on adoptionist lines, and when accused of 'Nestorianism', as on pages 19 and 47, he indignantly repudiates any such views. The intention of his doctrine is accurately summed up in the heading inserted by the Syriac translator to the fifty-fourth section of the first part of The Bazaar----'Concerning this: that God the Word became incarnate and there were not two sons but one by a union.' 48
Nestorius, then, accepted as a matter of religious belief the faith of the Church in a Christ who was truly God and truly man and truly one, and through reflection on this he produced a theological theory which he thought adequately related this belief to the knowledge of the universe gained by metaphysical investigation. The positive teaching of The Bazaar of Heracleides is simply an elaboration of this theory of a prosopic union. With wearisome iteration it is put forward again and again, and is shown to be satisfactory when tested by reference to the teaching of Scripture, the doctrine of the Fathers, the needs of religion, and the demands of the intellect.49 In contrast to this the 'hypostatic union' of Cyril is shown to be unscriptural, unorthodox, destructive of true religion, and unintelligible----unscriptural because it ignores the scriptural distinction between the use of the words 'Logos' and 'Christ';50 unorthodox since it involves if not Arianism, then docetism or Apollinarianism;51 destructive of true religion in that it abolishes the work of Christ as High Priest of the human race, undermines the doctrine of the Eucharist, and |xxxiv empties the Atonement of its meaning;52 and unintelligible to such an extent that sometimes one is simply baffled by the contradictions in his teaching,53 and sometimes forced to conclude that he has confused the essential distinction between godhead and manhood, thus undermining the true humanity of Christ and dishonouring his divinity.54
It seems possible that in this last point lies the solution of the vexed problem of what was at issue doctrinally between Cyril and Nestorius. Perhaps the most difficult task for Christian philosophy is the thinking out of its doctrine of creation, in which it is essential that man be conceived both as owing his existence to God and 'made of nothing' other than God, and yet also as in a real sense distinct from and other than God. If sometimes we are tempted to abandon the quest as hopeless, it is well to remember that even if we give up our Christianity we do not thereby remove our difficulty. The relation of the temporal to the eternal is no less difficult a problem for the secular philosopher than for the religious. Now in the fifth century the implications of the doctrine of creation do not seem to have been thought out. In the struggle with Arianism the Church had been forced, it seems for the first time, openly to face the question whether or no God could create directly and not only through some intermediate being, and the assertion that the Logos 'through whom all things were made' is 'of one substance with the Father' denies the impossibility of direct creation by God Himself. Before the implications of this assertion had time to be fully assimilated, the Church was stirred by the Christological controversies. In these all parties seem to have assumed a conception of the relations between godhead and manhood which made impossible any union of the two in Christ such as the Christian religion demanded. It was not noticed that it would also have made impossible any such direct creation by God as the Fathers at Nicaea had asserted, and was, in fact, a conception belonging to certain strains of ante-Nicene thought which ought to have been abandoned |xxxv through being found to require an Arian rather than an Athanasian Logos. But Apollinarius provoked reply too soon.
It is the heretics, Apollinarius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, who are the logically consistent upholders of this outworn conception of the relation between godhead and manhood. Cyril's teaching, no doubt without his realizing the fact, was inconsistent, for he had not consciously abandoned this ante-Nicene position, with the result that his positive teaching on the Incarnation, while consistent with the Nicene doctrine of Creation, demanded a revision of his conception of godhead and manhood, a fact which he does not seem to have realized. But, as has happened so often in the history of thought, the inconsistency of a thinker great enough to recognize truth at the cost of his system won for his thought a place in posterity far above that of the barren coherence of his rival.
Nestorius has been called a confused thinker, but careful study of The Bazaar of Heracleides makes it clear that, whatever he was, he was certainly not that. His few points are repeated again and again with monotonous consistency. His trouble was rather that that confusion in the apparent nature of things which is the challenge to thought was too many-sided for so narrow and precise a thinker as he. The Bazaar may be long, and full of needless repetition, but it never contradicts itself, and were it not for two facts might well be studied in an abbreviated edition. Only, first, when a man has been for centuries condemned unheard, it is hardly fair to enforce a closure on the time allotted to him for his defence; and, secondly, when there is difficulty in determining precisely what he is trying to say, it is possible that in the course of often repeating an argument some little variation of detail may give a clue to the meaning of the whole.
[Most of the footnotes have been reproduced here, but renumbered]
1. 1 Socrates, Hist. Eccl. VII. xxxiv.
2. 2 Cp. Evagrius, I. vii.
3. 3 Id. ib.
4. 4 Neander, Church History (Eng. Tr., T. and T. Clark, 1855), vol. iv, p. 207.
5. 5 See p. xi, n. 4.
6. 1 Cambridge University Press.
7. 2 See below, pp. xxviii, 369, 375.
8. 3 See p. xi, and especially n. 5.
9. 4 H. Goussen, Martyrius Sahdona's Leben und Werke (Leipzig, 1897), and Braun, Das Buch der Synhodos (Stuttgart, 1900).
10. 5 Loofs, Nestoriana (Halle, 1905).
11. 1 Nestorius, Le Livre d'Heraclide de Damas, édite par Paul Bedjan, P.D. L. M. (Lazariste), avec plusieurs appendices (Leipzig and Paris, 1910).
12. 2 Nestorius, Le Livre d' Heraclide de Damas, traduit en francais par F. Nau (Paris 1910).
13. 3 See Bedjan, op. cit., pp. viii-xi, whence our account of the text is drawn.
14. 4 At the end of the thirteenth century it is clear from the catalogue of the Bishop of Nisibis that most of Nestorius' works in Greek and Latin had disappeared; only a Syriac version of his Tragoedia, his Letter to Cosmos, his Liturgy, a volume of letters and another of sermons, besides The Bazaar of Heracleides, survived at that time (op. cit., pp. vii-viii).
15. 5 This date, however, seems to be at variance with the fact that the translator calls the Bishop of Beroea 'Bishop of Aleppo'; now if, as Nau states on this passage, the name of the see was changed from Beroea to Aleppo in a. d. 638, the translation must have been made after that date, provided that the original Syriac manuscript also has Aleppo (see p. 330, n. 1). The new (Eastern) name, however, may have been current long before the name of the see was officially changed.
16. 6 See p. 192.
17. 7 Op. cit., pp. viii-ix.
18. 1 See p. 3.
19. 2 Op. cit., p. viii, n. 2.
20. 2 See pp. 241-2, and crit. n. on p. 400.
21. 3 See pp. 302-3.
22. 2 See p. 200, n. 1.
23. 3 See p. 355, n. 3.
24. 1 See p. 330, n. 1.
25. 1 This summary is compiled from B. J. Kidd; A History of the Church to A.D. 461 (Oxford University Press, 1922), vol. iii, chs. xi-xvi.
26. 1 τῆς θεοτόκου.
27. 2 pp. 96-142, 265-93, 329-80.
28. 1 See pp. 176, 374.
29. 2 P. 378, cp. p. 370.
30. 3 P. 47.
31. 1 Pp. 46-55, 64-70, 164-7, 188, 192-203, 207, 228-30, 256-9.
32. 2 Pp. 143-6, 168-71,181-2, 263-5
33. 3 Pp. 168, 191-203, 214 -17, 220-2, 223-5, 261-3, 316.
34. 4 Pp. 150-6, 161, 169, 170, 303, 316-17, 322-3.
35. 5 Pp. 142-3, 146-50, 173-5.
36. 6 Pp. 129, 162, 176-81, 210-11, 240-1.
37. 7 A contribution to the discussion by one of the two editors is reprinted as Appendix IV, and it has not been possible entirely to keep his views out of the notes on the text, though this has been done as far as could be.
38. 1 Pp. 9, 36-43, 84-6, 161, 179, 294, 300-1, 303-4, 314.
39. 2 Pp. 14-18, 24-8,33-7, 80, 182.
40. 3 P. 52.
41. 4 Pp. 15, 80, 172-3, 182, 195, 208.
42. 5 Pp. 39-41, 92, 93, 178-9,181, 184, 210-12.
43. 6 Pp. 47-50, 146, 160, 189-91, 196, 209-10, 215, 225, 227, 237-8, 295-302, 314- 317.
44. 7 Pp. 37, 179, 181, 182.
45. 8 Pp. 23, 53-62, 81, 89, 156-9, 163-4, 172, 182, 207, 218-19, 227, 231-3, 245-8, 260-1.
46. 9 Pp. 62-76, 205, 212-14, 253.
47. 10 Pp. 32, 55, 254-6.
48. 1 P. 47.
49. 2 E.g., pp. 188 sq., 263. 33 and 213, 308-10.
50. 3 E.g., pp. 188 sq.
51. 4 E.g., pp. 150, 304.
52. 1 E.g., pp. 248 sq., 212.
53. 2 E.g., pp. 257, 297, 303.
54. 3 E. g., pp. 232, 238-40, 250, 294.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, Ipswich, UK, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
|Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts|