INFORMATION TO USERS

This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or “ target" fo r pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the

copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part o f the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4 . The m ajority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction, could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title , author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

University Microfilms300 North Zeeb RoadAnn Arbor, Michigan 48106

A Xerox Education Company

72 - 32 ,589

STEWARDSON, Jerry Leo, 1937- THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THEODORET OF CYRUS ACCORDING TO HIS ERANISTES.Northwestern University, Ph.D., 1972 Religion

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan

0 1972

JERRY LEO STEWARDSON

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THEODORET OF CYRUS

ACCORDING TO HIS ERANISTES

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

f o r the degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Field of Religion

By

JERRY LEO STEWARDSON

Evanston, I l l in o is

June 1972

PLEASE NOTE:

Some pages may have

i n d i s t i n c t p r i n t .

F ilm ed as r e c e iv e d .

U n iv e r s i t y M ic r o f i lm s , A Xerox E d u c a tio n Company

PREFACE

The purpose o f this dissertation is to explicate the Christology

of Theodoret of Cyrus' work Eranistes seu Pol.ymorphus and to determine

its main principles in relation to the context of his theology. In

order to understand properly his Christological position, i t w ill be

necessary to consider a t the same time the h istorica l milieu which

influenced its formation.

Since Theodoret was the ch ief protagonist of Antiochene

theology^ in the Christological controversies between the Council

of Ephesus (431 A.D.) and the Council of Chalcedon (451 A .D .), his

teaching has already been the subject of scholarly investigation.

Most of the accounts of his Christology are, however, only summaries

such as one finds in histories o f doctrine. Many are in the form

of periodical a r t ic le s , most of which deal only with certain of hisO

works or certain aspects of his thought.

R. V. Sellers includes Theodoret's contribution in a lengthy

account of Antiochene Christology, but his Christology is lumped

together with that o f other Antiochene theologians rather than

examined by i ts e lf . There are, however, three monographs dealing •

specifica lly with the Christology of Theodoret. Late in the las t

century, A. Bertram attempted to make a complete presentation of

Theodoret's Christology by taking into consideration most of the

theological writings attributed to him at the ti'me.^ However,

Bertram's work has been outdated by the advances in p a tr is tic research

since the nineteenth century. Since that time several important works

have been restored to Theodoret as well as to his fellow Antiochene

theologians—Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius. The immense amount

of scholarship o f th is century in the form of c r it ic a l editions and

studies has not only increased our knowledge of Antiochene theology

but has also resulted in a generally more favorable opinion o f i t .

Mazzarino's La dottrina di Teodoreto di Ciro s u l l1 unione

ipostatica delle due nature in Cristo deals with Theodoret's Chris­

tology from only one vantage point, as the t i t l e im plies.5 This

orientation res tric ts the author's comprehension of Theodoret's

entire Christological system to narrowly-conceived issues. The most

recent book devoted to our topic of in te res t is Montalverne's, which

deals almost exclusively with the Christology of Theodoret's early

period, that is , before the Council of Ephesus (431 A .D .).5 While

this study does not take the period of the Eranistes into account,

i t constitutes a valuable contribution to our understanding o f his

early theology.

Except fo r some valuable a rt ic le s , there has been lacking a

study devoted to the theology of the main Christological work of

Theodoret, his Eranistes seu Pol.ymorphus. The importance of this

work lie s in the fac t that i t is representative o f his mature thought

and is the la s t systematic development o f Christology which we have

from him. This trea tise in the form o f a dialogue is also one o f the

la s t great Christological works from the Antiochene point of view.

Much of the Roman Catholic scholarship on the Christology of

the Bishop of Cyrus has been determined by dogmatic presuppositions.

Since he was a champion of what Catholic tra d itio n has considered

to be a heretical point of view, his Christology has been approached

with the over-rid ing concern fo r establishing its orthodoxy or unortho­

doxy in re la tio n to the Church's teaching. Involved in this undertaking

is the question o f how he could be condemned by one ecumenical council

(Ephesus, 431 A.D.) but exonerated by another at a la te r date (Chal-

cedon, 451 A .D .).

This preoccupation has led to some valuable studies of Theodoret's

thought;** however, i t is irre levan t to a s c ie n tific approach to his

theology. The aim of this dissertation is to understand the Christol­

ogy contained in Eranistes rather than to judge its legitimacy by a

predetermined doctrinal standard.

^The term "Antiochene theology" is used to indicate the type of theology, especially its Christological aspects, that became predominant in Antioch from the fourth century through the period under consideration in this dissertation . The main representatives of this school of thought were Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Nestorius, and Theodoret of Cyrus.For a more detailed discussion o f this and sim ilar terms, see Appendix A.

2See Bibliography.

^R. V. S e lle rs , Two Ancient Christologies (London: S.P.C.K.,1954) pp. 107-201. See also S e llers ' The Council of Chalcedon: A Historical and Doctrinal Survey (London-] S .P.C .K ., 1953) p. 361 f f . for a b r ie fe r treatment.

• ^A. Bertram, Theodoreti episcopi C.yrensis doctrina christologica (Hildesheim, 1883) pp. 178.

^Constantino da Mazzarino, La dottrina de Teodoreto di Ciro s u l l1 unione ipostatica delle due nature in Cristo (Roma: L ibreriaP o ntific ia Federico Pustet, 1941) pp. 183.

^Ioseph Montalverne, Theodoreti C.yrensis doctrina antiquior de Verbo 'inhumanato' . Studia Antoni ana I (Romae: Ponti f i cumAthenaeum Antonianum, 1948) pp. x l i +228. For the period c. 423-435.

?The Eranistes seu Polymorphus was w ritten in 447 or 448 A.D.Johannes Quasten, Patrology, Vol. I l l (Westminster, Maryland: Nev/manPress, 1960) pp. 547-548; 6. Bardy, "Theodoret," PTC, Vol. XV, col. 306; Pierre Canivet, "Theodoretos," LTK, cols. 33-34; Marcel Richard, "Proclus de Constantinople e t le t'hdopaschisme," RHE_, XXXVIII (1942) 327. The other great work of th is period is Nestorius1 The Bazaar of Heracleides, trans. and ed. by G. R. Driver and Leonard Hodgson(Oxford": Clarendon Press, 1925).

%ee Appendix B.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

I . THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR THEODORET'SCHRISTOLOGY .............................................................................. 1

I I . AN INTERPRETATION OF THEODORET'S CAREERIN RELATION TO ERANISTES...........................................................170

I I I . A GENERAL ANALYSIS OF THE WORK ERANISTES...........................214

IV . THEODORET'S DOCTRINES OF GOD AND MAN...................................249

• V. THE DOCTRINE OF TWO NATURES IN CHRIST.......................... 289

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................335

. Appendix

A. Antiochene Theology ............................................................... 338

B. Judgments of Scholars RegardingTheodoret's Christology ...................................................... 346

C. Alexandrian Christology and P o litics .............................. 356

D. Terminology............................................................................... 374

BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................385

v i

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACO Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum.

ACW Ancient Christian W riters.

AnGreg Analecta Gregoriana.

BKV Bibliothek der Kirchenvater.

Byzn Byzantion.

BZ Byzantinische Z e its c h r ift .

BZNW Beihefte zur Z e its c h rift fur die neutesta-mentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren Kirche.

CGG Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Geschichte undGegenwart.

CH Church H istory.

Concord Concordia Theological Monthly.

CQR Church Quarterly Review.

CSCO Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium .

DCB Dictionary o f Christian Biography.

DomStud Dominican Studies.

OOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers.

DTC Dictionnaire de thdologie catholique.

EO Echos d ‘O rient.

EtFran Ftudes Franciscaines.

ETL Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses.

FF La France Franciscaine.

FLDG Forschungen zur christlichen L ite ra tu r-und Dogmenqeschichte.

FrStud Franciscan Studies

vi i

GAA Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen.

GAL Geschichte der a ltk irchlichen L itte ra tu r .

GCS Die Griechischen Christlichen S c h rifts te lle rder ersten Jahrhunderte.

Greg Gregorianum.

GrOrthThR Greek Orthodox Theological Review.

HThR Harvard Theological Review.

HZ Historische Z e its c h r ift .

ITQ Irish Theological Quarterly.

JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.

JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical H istory.

JTS Journal of Theological Studies.

KAU Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen undUntersuchungen.— -

LCC Library of Christian Classics.

LFC Library of the Fathers of the Holy CatholicChurch.

LNPF A Select Library of iiicene and Post-MiceneFathers.

LTK Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche.

LXX Septuaginta.

MSHT MUnchener Studien zur historischen Theologie.

MSR Melanges de science re lig ieuse.

MTS MUnchener Theologische Studien.

OrChr Oriens Christianus.

OrChrAn O rientalia Christiana Analecta.

OrSyr L1Orient Syrien.

OrChrP O rientalia Christiana Periodica.

v i i i

FG J .-P . Migne, Patrologia Graeca.

PL J .-P . Migne, Patrologia Latina.

PWK PauTy-Wissowa-Kroll, Realencyklopadie derklassischen ATtertumswissenschaft.

RBen Revue bdnddictine.

RBib Revue b ib lique.

REB Revue des etudes b.yzantines.

RechSR Recherches de science re lig ieuse.

REG Revue des etudes grecques.

RevSR Revue des sciences relig ieuses.

RHE Revue d 'h is to ire ecclesiastique.

RM Revue mabiTlon.

RSPT Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques

RT Revue Thomists.

SbBAW Sitzungsberichte der Ba.yerischen Akademie derWissenschaften.

SC Sources Chrdtiennes.

Schol Scholastik.

SP Studia P a tr is tic a .

SWGS Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaftin Strassburg.

ThGl Theologie und Glaube.

ThLZ Theologische L itteraturzeitung .

ThQ Theologische Q uarta lschrift.

ThRu Theologische Rundschau.

Tr T ra d itio .

TSt Texts and Studies.

TS Theological Studies.

TU Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte dera ltchris tlichen L ite ra tu r.

TWNT Theologisches VJo'rterbuch zum Neuen Testament.

TZ Theologische Z e its c h r ift .

VC V ig ilia e Christianae.

ZKG Z e its c h rift fa r Kirchengeschichte.

ZKTh Z e its c h rift fur katholische Theologie.

ZNTW Z e its c h rift fur neutestament!iche Wissenschaft.

x

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THEODORET OF CYRUS ACCORDING TO HIS ERANISTES

OUTLINE

I . The h istorica l context for Theodoret's ChristologyA. The Period before the outbreak o f the Nestorian Controversy

1. Theodoret's early l i f e2. Theodoret's works

B. The Christological controversies between 428 A.D. and 451 A.D.1. C y ril's Anathemas and the Council of Ephesus (451 A.D.)

a. The prelude to Ephesusb. The Councilc. The deputation to Chalcedon

2. The Formula of Union (433 A.D.)3. The controversy over Diodore and Theodore (438 A.D.)4. The immediate h is to rica l context for the Eranistes

seu Pol.ymorphosa. The t r ia l of Eutychesb. The Latrocinium

5. The Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.)a. The reh ab ilita tio n o f Theodoretb. The doctrinal formula

I I . An in terpretation of Theodoret's career in re lation to EranistesA. The question o f consistencyB. The question o f motivation

I I I . A general analysis of the work EranistesA. Structure of the work

1. Basic description2. H istorical origin

a. Sources: florileg ium of 431b. Purpose

B. The opponent1. His general theological position

. a. Nameb. Errors

2. His id en titya. Specific h is to rica l p o ss ib ilitiesb. Composite id e n tity : a representative o f a

general position

IV . Theodoret's doctrines o f God and manA. The basic d istinc tion between Creator and createdB. His concept o f God

1. Nicene formula (Cappadocian)2. Divine attributes

C. His concept o f man1. Soul and body2. Sin and free w ill

V. The doctrine o f two natures in ChristA. "Word-man" Christology: the anti-A rian foundationB. The exegetical basis

1. Mew Testament passages2. Old Testament passages

C. The concept o f union1. Basic terminology2. Analogies fo r the union3. The subject or bearer of attributes4. Communication of idioms

D. The resurrection-body o f Christ1. Characteristics2. Problems

E. The Eucharist

x i i

CHAPTER I

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR THEODORET'S CHRISTOLOGY

In order to understand fu lly the Christology of Theodoret, i t is

necessary for one to consider f i r s t the h istorica l context which gave

rise to his thought. His theology did not develop in detachment from

historica l events and experiences but was both heir to a certain theo­

logical tra d itio n and response to particu lar situations which he faced.

Most of his works were w ritten to meet specific needs that arose during

his career. Therefore, i t is most illum inating to see his theology

as i t is intim ately connected with the events of his l i f e .

This introduction w ill attempt to present the h istorica l back­

ground o f Theodoret's l i f e as the occasion for his l ite ra ry production

and developing theology.

The Period Before th-e-Outbreak of the. Nestorian Controversyin c. 428 A.D.

The early period of Theodoret's l i f e between the time of his

b irth and the succession o f Nestorius to the patriarchal throne in

Constantinople (428 A.D.) provides us with the least amount of

historica l information. Nevertheless, some important facts emerge

which give us at least a basic sketch of the formative events in

his early career. Most o f th is information is provided by Theodoret

himself and may be pieced together from various remarks scattered

throughout his works—especially in his le tte rs .

Information about his career beginning with the Nestorian

Controversy is more p le n tifu l due to his leading role in the important

Christological debates disturbing the Eastern Church until the Council

of Chalcedon. Here we are not just dependent upon his own witness

in order to determine his h istorica l ro le: there are the important

witnesses of his own contemporaries who had dealings with the Bishop

of Cyrus and reported on his a c tiv it ie s .

Although the date o f Theodoret's b irth has not been d e fin ite ly

established, i t is clear that he was born in Antioch near the end of

the fourth century. Most modern scholars would ten ta tive ly place

his b irth in the year 393 A.d J His few autobiographical statements

indicate that he was the only child of wealthy and pious ChristianO

parents. His early l i f e was passed under the influence o f certain

monks liv in g in the v ic in ity of Antioch who were highly esteemed by

his fam ily . In his Histori a re lig io sa , a history of Syrian asceticism,

Theodoret gives us a glimpse into the religious atmosphere of his

early surroundings. I t was the ascetic Macedonius who promised one

son to Theodoret's long childless parents and who warded o ff his

mother's threatened miscarriage.^ His grateful parents promised

to dedicate th e ir son to God even before his b ir th , therefore, he

was brought up in the fold of the church.^ The f i r s t service that

he rendered to the church as a youth was in the capacity o f "lector"

or reader.^

Other than the few statements about his early relig ious

upbringing that have been mentioned, Theodoret gives us p ractica lly

no d irect information about the course of his early l i f e and those

3

experiences that were most in flu en tia l on him. The formative stages

of his l i f e before he le f t Antioch at age 23 to become a monk were

a ll spent in his home c ity , yet he does not t e l l us about his social

m ilieu in Antioch, his acquaintances, or his education.® This is

the very information that would be most illum inating for the in te lle c ­

tual and sp ec ifica lly theological roots of our author. Most of our

knowledge about the nature of his education must be inferred from

the knowledge he represents in his writings or deduced from our

knowledge about the nature of society and culture in Antioch at

that time.

In the la s t decades of the fourth century, Antioch was one of

the great centers of Hellenic culture, even r iv a llin g Athens in the

opinion o f the famous sophist of Antioch, Libanius. This was also

a time of greatness for the church in Antioch. P. Canivet says that

the span of time between 380 and 430 A.D. was the "most beautiful

period" of the history of the Antiochene church.®

The society of Antioch featured a fascinating blend o f languages

and cultures. Although Syriac was in common use, Greek was the

language of high culture, and Latin was spoken by the many imperial

functionaries in the c ity .9 There was also a large Jewish community

in the c ity which was not confined to a ghetto. The Diaspora Jews

of this community exercised an important influence on both pagans

and Christians in AntiochJ® Theodoret himself shared in that blend

of cultures so typical of Antioch. He was fluent in both Syriac

and Greek, although there is no evidence that he ever composed works

4

in Syriac. I t has been suggested that he learned Syriac as his

mother tongue but used exclusively Greek as his l ite ra ry language.^

The cosmopolitan character of Antioch may also be observed in

the relationships of pagans with Christians. Though each constituted

a faction—Christians being more numerous, but pagans more in fluentia l —

cordial relationships between the two were possible. All evidence

points to the fact that Theodoret like other Christian youths attended

the schools of pagan teachers in order to receive the usual Greek

classical education. I t is possible that he was the pupil of a

sophist educated by Libanius himself. Whether his school master

was a pagan or a Christian is uncertain. Canivet has shown that

his apologetic work Graecarum affectionum curatio exhibits the know­

ledge of subjects taught in the ordinary secular schools. There were

no Christian schools in existence which took the place of th is tra d i­

tional education. There was no on-going school of theology in Antioch

in the sense o f a regular in s titu tio n of lea rn in g .^

In one important le t te r , Theodoret expresses his profound

respect for Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia and

refers to them as "teachers".^ Even i f his statement could be

translated to mean that they were his teachers, his meaning would

seem to be that he was heir in d irec tly to th e ir teaching, which was

highly regarded in the Antiochene Church. The context of the

statement indicates that he speaks of Diodore and Theodore as

"teachers" in order to put them in the same category with the other

orthodox "teachers", of the church he has ju s t mentioned as authori­

t ie s . This would not mean that they had actually taught him as a

• i 14 pupil.

5

I t is obvious by his own admission and by his theological

expression that he appropriated the characteristic thought of the

Antiochene school represented by Diodore and Theodore. With regard

to his theological development, i t is important to ask whether or

not he was the recipient of a d e fin ite philosophic framework that

could have determined his theological emphases. I t has become

commonplace to designate the Antiochene theologians including

Theodoret as "Aristotelian" in th e ir point of v iew J5 Just what

"Aristotelian" means d iffe rs from one author to another. Whatever

may have been the case with other Antiochene Fathers, Theodoret was

not the proponent o f any philosophical school. Canivet has made this

abundantly clear in his study of the early work Graecarum affectionum1 C

curatio . Rather than representing a particu lar philosopher or

philosophic tra d itio n , Theodoret was eclectic with regard to philosophy,

following the common practice of apologists who chose ideas that were

most compatible with Christian d o c trin es .^

Theodoret's residence in Antioch came to an end a fte r the death

of his parents when he was twenty-three years old. At this time he1 ftgave away his inheritance and became a monk. He entered the

monastery o f N icerte, a v illag e some three miles from Apamea and

seventy-five miles from Antioch. Here he spent seven years until

he was consecrated bishop against his w ill (in 423 A.D.) J 9 I t is

most l ik e ly that his important apology Graecarum affectionum curatio

was w ritten during th is time (419-423 A .D .). Much o f his energy

would have been devoted to the study of the scriptures and the

apologetic works of Clement and Eusebius of Caesarea.^0

6

Upon his elevation to the episcopacy, he embarked upon the

active l i f e of a churchman. The rest of his career was spent as

bishop of the diocese of Cyrus, the chief c ity of the d is tr ic t

Cyrrhestica in the Syrian province o f Euphratensis. This was a

diocese o f 800 parishes under the ju risd ic tio n o f the Metropolitan

of Hierapolis (Mabbug).2^

The proximity of Cyrus to Antioch allowed Theodoret to v is it

his home c ity on occasion. He was highly regarded for his preaching

and fo r th is reason was invited to Antioch and other c i t ie s .22 Two

le tte rs w ritten in the years 448 and 449 A.D. reveal some interesting

facts about his accomplishments as bishop o f Cyrus up to that tim e.25

He speaks of having fu lf i l le d his pastoral duty to the 800 parishes

in his diocese and of having w ritten many works on various subjects

w ith re lation to the Faith. Casting himself in the role of a s tr ic t

guardian o f the orthodox fa ith , Theodoret waged war successfully

against the various heretical groups under his ju risd ic tio n such as

Marcionites, Arians, and Eunomians. Eight villages o f Marcionites—

more than 1000 souls—were brought into the orthodox fold along with

many more from the Arian and Eunomian factions, and 200 copies of

Tatian's Diatessaron were burned at his instiga tion . These campaigns

fo r the fa ith were undertaken with danger and sometimes with serious

in ju ry to Theodoret.2 But ecclesiastical a ffa irs were not the sole

preoccupation o f the Bishop o f Cyrus. He used ecclesiastical revenues

fo r the improvement of his c ity by erecting public porticoes, bridges,

and an aqueduct and by maintaining the public baths.25

7

The year 431 A.D. marks the turning point in Theodoret's

career. 0 This is the crucial time when he became embroiled in the

Nestorian Controversy. From this time until 451 A.D ., he was a chief

protagonist in the Christological disputes rending the unity of the

Eastern Church. From 431 A.D. on, i t is his career as controver­

s ia l is t and spokesman for the Antiochene party that w ill a ttrac t

our attention . His a c tiv ity and lite ra ry production during this

period forms the basic information fo r a study o f his Christology:

i t has also given him a role of central importance in the history

of C h ris tian ity of the f i f t h century.

However, even before the Christological controversies, Theodoret

had begun to earn a reputation for himself as an apologist and theo­

logian. Several of his works may be assigned to this period. As

has already been indicated, the Graecarum affectionum curatio was

probably a product o f Theodoret's monastic period. The terminus

ad quern for this work is 426 A.D., according to Canivet's calcu­

la t io n .^ In recent years, several "lost" works have been attributed

to our author and have been assigned to the period before the Nestor­

ian a f fa ir . A. Ehrhard demonstrated by a study of the theology of

the work De incarnatione Domini that i t was probably w ritten by

Theodoret rather than Cyril of Alexandria. E. Schwartz and J. Lebon

supplied external evidence to make the a ttr ib u tio n of this and aOO

companion work De sancta et v iv if ic a T rin ita te to Theodoret certain.

M. Richard, following Schwartz, argues that these two works were

w ritten before the Council o f Ephesus but adds that the la te r

chapters were retouched a fte r the beginning o f the controversy.29

8

In addition to these works, scholars have suggested that

Theodoret may be the author o f several Pseudo-Justin w ritings.

I t has been established beyond apy doubt that Theodoret is indeedon

the author o f Expositio rectae f id e i . Harnack argued that several

other writings which go under Justin's name were w ritten by the same

author whom he id en tifie d with Diodore of Tarsus: Quaestiones et

responsiones ad orthodoxos, Quaestiones Gentilium ad Christianos,

Quaestiones Christianorum ad G entiles, Confutatio dogmatum Aristo-

t e l i s .*^ However, Harnack's theory has not found wide acceptance.

Since Theodoret rather than Diodore has been proven to be the author

of the Expositio, i t is possible that he. may be the author of the

other four Pseudo-Justin works as w e ll. Nevertheless, the evidence

that Harnack adduced for a common authorship seems a t best incon­

clusive. Some scholars regard only one work of the four, the

Quaestiones e t Responsiones ad orthodoxos as a product of Theodoret's

pen, but even this a ttrib u tio n cannot be regarded as established

beyond a doubt.

I t is important to determine the period in which the Expositio

was composed, fo r as a dogmatic work dealing with Christology i t w ill

be referred to by way of comparison with certain ideas in the Eranistes

and with Theodoret's Christology in general. I t now appears lik e ly■S'S

that i t was w ritten before the Nestorian Controversy.

In addition to the works already assigned to the period before

the Nestorian Controversy, i t is l ik e ly that Theodoret wrote several

other works during this time which are n o u /lo s t.^ Thus, before the

Council of Ephesus, his reputation as a theologian rested upon an

9

impressive number of works which Richard ten tative ly l is ts as:

Graecarum affectionum curatio , Opus adversus indaeos, Expositio rectae confessionis (or 1f id e i ' ) , Adversus Arianos et Eunonnanos,Adversus Macedonianos or De S p iritu Sancto,Contra Marcionitas, De sancta et v iv ific a t r in ita te e t De incarnations Domini, and Reprehensio X II anathematismorum C.yrilli which was occasioned in 431 A.D. by the Nestorian Controversy.35

Although he was not in any way responsible for the beginning of the

Nestorian Controversy, his high reputation among the "Easterners"3®

caused him to become involved in i t , once the theological issue

became sharpened. I t is therefore necessary to sketch the course

of the Nestorian a f fa ir and to indicate at what points Theodoret

became active in i t . I f one considers the entire period o f time

between 428 and 451 A .D ., the controversy in it ia te d by Nestorius

is only the in i t ia l stage in a series of dramatic confrontations

between the followers o f the Antiochene and Alexandrian Christo­

logical traditions which culminated at the Council o f Chalcedon.3?

Since Theodoret took part in each of these stages and contributed

to th e ir outcome at Chalcedon, this period requires special consider­

ation in order to adequately comprehend his thought.

The Christological Controversies Between 428 and 451 A.D.

Nestorius became the center of controversy almost immediately

upon his elevation to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople. In

his inaugural sermon of April 10, 428 A .D ., he declared war on the

heretical and schismatic groups under his ju ris d ic tio n , and in doing

so broke with the policy o f easy to leration o f his predecessors.33

10

The imperial court had chosen this austere monk for his oratorical

g ifts , but lik e his great Antiochene predecessor of an e a rlie r

generation, John Chrysostom, he showed himself lacking in the diplo­

matic s k ill so necessary to a patriarch of Constantinople. His work

was rendered even more d if f ic u lt by the fact that he was regarded as

an outsider who had won out over the local opposition--Proclus of

Cyzicus and Philip Sidetes. This meant that there were factions in

the c ity which opposed him from the b e g i n n i n g . I n t o this hostile

and intrigue-ridden cap ita l, Nestorius brought his lack of tac t and

uncompromising doctrinal stringency.

Since his security in o ffice was completely dependent upon the

emperor's w i l l , i t was absolutely necessary that he retain the

emperor's favor as he acquired new and powerful enemies. In fact the

imperial support may be considered the fulcrum for his existence as

patriarch .40 His doom was sealed, once the emperor's (Theodosius I I )

support was dislodged from his chosen patriarch. This fact of p o litica l

existence had also been true fo r John Chrysostom. In fa c t, the deposi­

tion of Nestorius followed the same pattern as did that of his fellow -

countryman (Antiochene) who was so much lik e him. The h istorica l

paralle l between the fate of the two patriarchs is so close that i t

appears uncanny: even the details of th e ir stories appear a like as

our short account w ill show. This h istorica l repetition was possible

because the same p o lit ic a l forces were operative in the year 401-40441

A.D. as in the years 428-431 A.D.

I t should begin to become apparent that there are at least two

major dimensions of the Nestorian Controversy—the p o lit ic a l and the

n

relig ious. Perhaps at no time in the history of the church have

p o litic a l and religious factors been so intertwined. Although there

had been dissatisfaction with the new patriarch, the controversy

actually began on the religious level when a Syrian deacon of Nestorius

attacked the popular use of the term Theotokos ("God-bearer") for the

mother of Christ. Nestorius publicly upheld the position of his

deacon, suggesting that the term Christotokos ("Christ-bearer") be

used in place o f Theotokos in order to properly express the humanity42as well as the d iv in ity o f Christ. The co n flic t which ensued over

the legitimacy of this t i t l e set the theological battle lin e on the

question of the nature o f Christ. However, as Schwartz has pointed

out, i t was not purely a theological issue that was involved: the

extremely passionate reaction against Nestorius' proclamations in d i­

cated that the term Theotokos was a cherished cult-expression ofA'l

popular piety.

The flame of controversy was fanned by the then unsuccessful

candidate to the patriarchal throne, Proclus, who preached a counter­

sermon exalting the Theotokos. Then a major protest which was to

have wide-spread consequences was launched by Eusebius o f Dorylaeum

in the form of a poster which compared the teaching of Nestorius

with that of the heretic Paul of Samosata.44 This zealous heresy

hunter went so fa r as to send excerpts o f Nestorius' sermons to Rome

and Alexandria, denouncing them as heretical (near the end o f 428).45

This was the f i r s t fa te fu l step which led Rome and Alexandria to

assume major roles in determining the outcome of the controversy.

The dating of a l l the le tte rs in the subsequent correspondence

12

between Nestorius and his colleagues in Rome and Alexandria is not

exact. However, i t appears that the correspondence of Nestorius with

Cyril and Pope Celestine began during the year 429 A.D.^6

Some time before Easter in 429 A.D. , Cyril o f Alexandria sent

his yearly Easter Epistle to the Egyptian churches including negative

remarks about some of Nestorius' ideas, but without naming him as

th e ir author. Early in the same year, he sent a c ircu lar le t te r to

the Egyptian monks, also intending i t fo r Constantinople. This

ep is tle warned the readers against the poison of Constantinople.

Nestorius learned about this ind irect attack and preached against

i t . 47 At th is point, Cyril wrote his f i r s t le t te r to Nestorius blaming

him for the trouble in Constantinople and informing him that his

homilies were considered unfavorably at Rome. Cyril also exhorted

his riva l to stop attacking the Theotokos

Perhaps in the interval between C y ril's f i r s t and second le tte rs

to Nestorius, seme Alexandrian priests brought complaints against th e ir

patriarch to Nestorius, who, according to Schwartz, may have considered

examining the complaints before a synod.^ Cyril referred to these

charges in his second le t te r to Nestorius of February 430 A.D. and

attempted to discredit both the charges and those who made them. The

bulk of this le t te r was devoted to stating his own theological position

in opposition to that o f N esto rius .^ A le t te r to his agents from

about the same time indicates C y ril's awareness that he might be tried

before a council but shows his conscious p o lit ic a l strategy o f turning51the situation to his own advantage.

13

Sometime during the early stages of the controversy occasioned

by Nestorius' c ritic ism of the Theotokos t i t l e , Nestorius in it ia te d

a correspondence with Rome.^

Having heard that Rome was displeased with the disturbance in

Constantinople that he had helped prec ip ita te , Nestorius wrote to Pope

Celestine informing him about the a f fa ir from his cwn point of view.

In the same le t te r , he requested information from Celestine about

some exiled Pelagian bishops from the West who had appealed to him

for refuge. This group included two o f the foremost Pelagian heretics,

Celestius and Julian of Eclanum.^

Pope Celestine, who had already received unfavorable reports

about Nestorius from Eusebius, reacted very negatively to this le t te r .

In the f i r s t place, his counterpart in Constantinople wrote to him as

a colleague rather than as one granting the customary deference to

the bishop o f Rome. More importantly, Celestine saw Nestorius' request

fo r information about the Pelagians as a veiled partisanship on th e ir

behalf, fo r he assumed that the condemnation o f these heretics by the

West was known and accepted by the whole catholic church. Further

evidence which confirmed Celestine's suspicion about Nestorius'

position was the apparent s im ila r ity between his Christo!ogy (espe>-

c ia lly as i t had been caricatured by his enemies) and the recent

Christological heresy (a form o f adoptionism) o f Leporius, a G allic

Pelagian.54 When Celestine fa ile d to answer his f i r s t le t te r ,

Nestorius wrote another le t te r with substantially the same content.

Then, sometime before the summer of 430 A.D., Nestorius sent several

14

sermons to I ta ly in order to counteract any misrepresentations ofcc

his work.

The Roman archdeacon Leo (subsequently Pope) took the a f fa ir

in hand by engaging his friend John Cassian of Marseilles to w rite

a refutation of Nestorius. He supplied him with excerpts from

Nestorius1 sermons and Nestorius' f i r s t le t te r to C e les tin e .^

Both Schwartz and Haller emphasize the importance o f Leo's

role behind the scenes in the campaign against Nestorius. His

ambition to seek to determine the outcome o f p o litic a l a ffa irs in

the Eastern Church fo r the Roman see led him to a policy o f involve­

ment in the a ffa irs o f the Eastern Church which he la te r pursued as

Pope in the a f fa ir of Eutyches and at the Council of Chalcedon. H a ller

says: "Seinern Selbstgefiihl und Herrscherwillen wird es zuzuschreiben

sein, dass die Gelegenheit, Konstantinopel grund1ich zu schlagen...

diesmal nicht unbenutzt b l ie b ." ^ perhaps Leo even influenced

Cassian's judgement upon Nestorius.

Cassian begins his work against Nestorius by connecting i t v/ith

the heresy o f Leporius. Even though he v/as in s u ffic ie n tly informed

to prepare a d e fin itiv e judgement on Nestorius' Christology, he was

largely responsible for establishing an o f f ic ia l in terpretation and

condemnation that held sway in the West u n til modern times. Although

there was a superfic ia l s im ila r ity between the positions of Nestorius

and Leporius, Cassian ascribed theses of Leporius to Nestorius which

the la t te r would never have countenanced. Leporius had espoused the

clear-cu t tenets o f adoptionism: Christ was only Christ from the time

of his baptism on; only a fte r the resurrection did he become God. This

type o f heretical b e lie f was foisted onto N estorius.^

15

In r e a l ity , there are strik ing s im ila r itie s between the Antiochene

Christology espoused by Nestorius and the trad itiona l Western Christo l-

ogy a t Rome.^ Certainly the Christology of Cassian himself is more

lik e that o f Nestorius than that of Cyril--even though Cyril and Rome

became united p o lit ic a lly in th e ir opposition to Nestorius. According

to Amann, "si Vdveque d'Alexandrie ava it eu entre les mains le De

incarnatione de Cassien, i l n 'eut pas hesite a le classer parmi les

productions de 1 'esp rit 'nestorien.

Up to this point, Rome and Alexandria had developed th e ir oppo­

s itio n to Nestorius independently from each other. Now by uniting««/

in the common purpose o f overthrowing him, they unleash^the forces

that led to his downfall a t the Council of Ephesus and its aftermath.

While Cyril was engaged in epistolary skirmishing with Nestorius,

he was kept informed by his agents about Rome's reactions to Nestorius'CO

overtures. Cyril had been aware of Rome's d issatisfaction with

Constantinople since the end o f 429 A.D. or the beginning of 430 A .D .,

but did not make his position known to Celestine. He f in a lly decided

that i t was the opportune time to a c t .6 In early summer of 430,

C y ril's messenger Posidonius arrived in Rome with a sheaf of docu­

ments: a personal le t te r from Cyril to Celestine, a collection of

orthodox excerpts on the incarnation together with selected passages

from Nestorius' sermons, and C yril's le tte rs to Nestorius. C y ril's

le tte r contained an account o f his altercation with Nestorius, but

with some changes in chronology. He dated his f i r s t le t te r to

Nestorius and Nestorius' attempts to bring an accusation against

him before his le t te r to the Egyptian monks, which had actually

16

in it ia te d the controversy between them. In his approach to

Celestine, he in g ra tia tin g ly requested Celestine's advice on how

he should proceed against Nestorius, stating that he did not want

to serve notice to Nestorius without f i r s t hearing the opinion of

the Roman Pope.®^ Celestine convened a Roman council in order to

reach a decision about this matter. The decision which was fo rth ­

coming on August 10, 430 A.D. could not have been better suited to

C y ril's purposes. I t is reflected in the four le tte rs of August 11

sent from Rome to the East apprising th e ir recipients about the

nature of the council's decision: to Nestorius, to the clergy of

Constantinople, to John of Antioch and a few other bishops, and to

C y r il.65 ^ost s ign ifican t are the le tte rs to Nestorius and C y ril.

The le tte r to Nestorius was in e ffec t an ultimatum. Nestorius was

exhorted to recant his impious teachings w ithin ten days a fte r the

reception o f the le t te r and to conform his teaching on Christ to

that o f Rome and Alexandria or be excommunicated.®® The le tte r to

Cyril gave him the fu l l authority to proceed against Nestorius as

the representative o f both Rome and Alexandria in carrying out the

council's decision. Celestine did not specify what doctrinal formu­

lations were acceptable or blameworthy. Thus, Cyril held a free

re in to formulate a doctrinal statement according to his own dictatesC"7

and to attack Nestorius a t whatever point he wished.

Upon receiving the mandate from Celestine to proceed against

the Archbishop of Constantinople, Cyril called together a synod in

Alexandria which in e ffec t approved his own le t te r (an ultimatum) to

Nestorius. To th is , his famous "Third Letter to Nestorius," was

17

appended twelve anathemas (referred to in Greek as the "Twelve Chapters")

to which Nestorius' adherence was demanded.68

Since the Roman p o n tiff had not specified the nature of the

Christology to which Nestorius should profess allegiance, Cyril took

i t upon himself to spell i t out in his anathemas. These tv/elve theo­

logical propositions represent an extreme type of Christology accept­

able in Alexandria but unacceptable in other areas of the Church and

absolutely odious to the Syrians loyal to the Antiochene trad itio n .

Schwartz regards these anathemas as "eine Ungeheuerlichkeit" (a mon­

s tro s ity ).*^ Rather than contributing to a peaceful conclusion to

the controversy, they are largely responsible for escalating the

battle to a new stage of in te n s ity .^

The importance of these anathemas for the rest o f the Nestorian

Controversy and the career of Theodoret of Cyrus cannot be overesti­

mated. The overall e ffec t of them was to unify the leaders of the

Antiochene patriarchate in an uncompromising stand against them. John

of Antioch, who up to this time had played the role of peacemaker,

ra llie d the bishops of his see in opposition to what he regarded as71the Apollinarian Christology in the anathemas.

I t is at this important juncture of history that Theodoret of

Cyrus was drawn into the thick of the controversy. Being greatly

shocked by the Christology o f the anathemas, John commissioned two

of his outstanding theologians to refute Cyri1—Theodoret and Andreas

o f Samosata.^

The highly polemical nature o f Theodoret's "Refutation" of the

anathemas marks a new stage in his Christological development. His

18

"Refutation" furnishes the basis for his la te r doctrinal exposition

which we w ill examine in d e ta il, although there are some changes in

his theological expression over the course of his career from 430

to 451 A.D.73

Another s ign ifican t development during November o f 430 A.D.

was reflected in a le tte r from the emperor (dated November 19) to

the Metropolitans of the Eastern empire summoning them to appear

with small delegations at an oecumenical conference in Ephesus

a fte r Easter in the following year.^4 Although the hasty way in

which the council was planned would work to the disadvantage of

Nestorius, i t was actually intended to examine C y ril's conduct.

That the emperor's sympathy was with Nestorius a t th is early stage

is c learly indicated in a harsh imperial le t te r to C y ril, which

accused him of being responsible for fomenting dissension in the

churches of the capital and for attempting to cause dissension in

the imperial household.

The date on which the forthcoming council in Ephesus was to

be held was Pentecost, June 7, 431 A.D. Between the time of the

imperial summons and the meeting of the council, the refutations of

the anathemas by Theodoret and Andreas of Samosata were published.

These sharp attacks in turn e lic ite d replies from C y r il .7^

The h o s tilit ie s between the two parties in the controversy

which had already appeared found expression as soon as the dele­

gations began to arrive in Ephesus before the council convened.

Nestorius was one of the f i r s t partisans to arrive in Ephesus

several days before Pentecost. He brought with him a delegation

19

of supporters including the in flu e n tia l Count Irenaeus and the

emperor's representative Count Candidian. He soon experienced the

inhospitabi 1 i ty — indeed h o s ti li ty --o f the church o ffic ia ls in Ephesus.

The archbishop, Memnon, banned Nestorius' partisans from the churches

in Ephesus. This h o s tility grew out o f a long-standing power struggle

between the bishops of Ephesus and Constantinople fo r control of the

churches of Asia which had not come under one (higher) authority.

Chrysostom had aroused b it te r opposition in his time by involving

himself in the a ffa irs of these churches. I t may be that Nestorius'

previous intervention against the Macedonians and Quartodecimanians

had kindled th is h o s tility against him anew. At any ra te , Memnon,

Archbishop of Ephesus and a substantial number of the area clergy77were the natural accomplices o f Cyril in carrying out his designs.

Although the imperial summons had directed each Metropolitan

to bring a small number o f delegates, C yril arrived four or five70

days before Pentecost with a large group of followers. 0

On June 12, Juvenal o f Jerusalem arrived with his delegation,

which added support to C y ril's position. At th is time, Juvenal

was beginning to further his p o lit ic a l ambitions. I t was natural

fo r him to side with C yril against Nestorius and Nestorius1 natural

a l ly , John o f Antioch, fo r he was attempting to take over part of

the area belonging to the Antiochene patriarchate in order to

increase his own status to that o f patriarch.^9

The meeting of the council was delayed due to the absence of

the Syrian delegation led by John of Antioch. I t had made a la te

s ta r t and was delayed along the way. Before its a r r iv a l, Theodoret

20

and his metropolitan Alexander o f Hierapolis arrived in Ephesus.

Theodoret applied his e ffo rts in attempting to convince the church­

men in Ephesus to wait until John's arriva l before convening the•n 80council.

Growing impatient at the delay, Cyril decided to convene the

council himself even though Nestorius, Nestorius' followers, and

Candidian the emperor's representative opposed such an action.

This council was convened on June 22, 431 A .D .^ C y ril's action

is very understandable under the circumstances. He was aware that

John's delegation would strengthen Nestorius' power against him and

that his opponents would most certa in ly demand that he recant or

rad ica lly revise his twelve anathemas. Therefore, he took the most

expedient course o f action in attempting to condemn the opposition82before i t had a chance to muster its forces.

At the f i r s t session o f the council, Count Candidian implored

the assembly not to meet in the absence of the Easterners. His plea

was echoed by some o f Nestorius' representatives, but they and the

imperial representative were evicted from the proceedings. Next,

the council summoned Nestorius three times, as though he were an

accused person, to appear before.the council. Naturally he refused

83to appear.

The f i r s t session of C y ril's council dealt d irec tly with the

theological issue a t hand. The Nicene Creed was read followed by

C y ril's Second Letter to Nestorius which was acclaimed by the

participants to be in accord with the Nicene fa ith . Nestorius'

le t te r o f reply was rejected unanimously as h ere tica l. Then

21

Celestine's le tte r of ultimatum to Nestorius and C y ril's Third

Letter to Nestorius with the Twelve Anathemas were read before the

assembly. C y ril's le t te r was heard without comment from the bishops.^

A fter considering some statements of Nestorius and comparing

them with statements from some orthodox Fathers, Nestorius waso r

pronounced deposed and excommunicated.

On June 26, the Easterners arrived in Ephesus, and immediately

John convoked a council meeting of his partisans which deposed Cyril

and Memnon and excommunicated a ll th e ir followers i f they would notQC

repudiate the Twelve Anathemas. On June 29 an imperial rescript

arrived in Ephesus ordering a ll prelates to remain in the c ity and

announcing the impending a rr iv a l of an imperial commissioner. On

July 10 the Roman legates f in a lly arrived and followed th e ir instruc­

tions to jo in forces with C y ril. Immediately, a second session of

C y ril's council was held in which Cyril claimed to act as proxy for

Celestine. Celestine's le t te r to the council was read to the assembly,

and then the legates were informed about the decisions of the f i r s t

meeting. In the th ird session of the council, the Reman legates,

speaking for the Pope, formally assented to Nestorius' deposition.

The fourth and f i f th sessions of the council (June 16-17) were

occupied with summoning John of Antioch who upon his refusal to

appear was excommunicated along with 35 of his partisans.®^ The

fin a l two sessions of th is council held on July 22 and 31 were

devoted to two issues peripherally related to the "Nestorian issue."

The f i r s t of them dealt with the question o f the legitimacy of using

22

an Antiochene creed in the diocese o f Philadelphia. I t was decided

that no creed d iffe re n t from the Nicene Creed should be composed or

used .88 The las t session was used to grant the churches of Cyprus

autonomy from the ju risd ic tio n of the see of Antioch and thereby toon

deal a sharp blow to John's power and prestige.

Two le tte rs from this period of time preserved in the collection

of Theodoret's le tte rs give us a valuable first-hand impression of the

s itu a tion from an Antiochene point of view.^8 These le tte rs complain

that Cyril has unlawfully ursurped authority not belonging to him

and has committed a ll kinds of i l le g a l i ty . Letter 157 complains of

being "in supreme danger" from the "Ephesian mob," and Letter 158

speaks of being chased and stoned upon attempting to enter a church.

Both close with urgent requests that the emperor intervene to restore

order. One complaint pressed in both le tte rs , however, deserves our

special a tten tion , that is the charge made against the Twelve Anathemas

that they are pure Apollinarianism redivivus. These propositions form

the focus of the Antiochene attack. The "impiety" of them is abso­

lu te ly in to lerab le to C y ril's opponents.^

F ina lly early in August, the new imperial delegate Count John

arrived in Ephesus. He delivered a le tte r declaring that the emperor

had accepted the deposition of Nestorius, C y ril, and Memnon and asked

them to make peace before returning home. The attempted reconcil­

ia tio n was abortive, so the emperor's delegate placed the threeno

bishops under arrest.

About th is time, the Syrians went so fa r as to d raft a compro­

mise doctrinal statement which they were w illin g to use as the basis

23

for reconciliation with C y ril. I t was to become famous only la te r

(in 433 A.D.) as the "Formula of Reunion" or "Formula of Union"

mutually accepted by Alexandria and Antioch. I t is most lik e ly

that Theodoret o f Cyrus was the author of this confession, a mild

statement of Antiochene Christo logy.^

In spite o f the drafting o f the Formula of Union, neither side

was w illin g to make the in i t ia l step toward a reconciliation . The

Egyptians and th e ir supporters show only an unshakeable intransigence.

After a l l , Cyril had not yet gained his desired end, i .e . the deposition

of Nestorius. I t had become increasingly apparent that only a firm

intervention on the part o f the emperor could bring order out of

chaos. The claims and complaints of both parties had already been

lodged a t court. Now that the deliberations at Ephesus had completely

disintegrated, the only means to break the deadlock lay in the

emperor's hands. At this point, a l l the s ign ifican t a c tiv ity shifted

to the imperial court. Now the dispute is reduced to a struggle for

influence at court. In this kind o f a b a ttle , Cyril knew no peer.

He launched a powerful campaign to win the emperor's favor for his

cause a t any co s t.94 The Antiochenes already had access to the

emperor due to his nominal support of his patriarch, Nestorius. Count

Irenaeus presented th e ir claims to Theodosius I I , but at this time

C y ril's "diplomacy"—or more accurately termed "in trigue"—began to

take e ffe c t. His influence was brought to bear through o ffic ia ls close

enough to the emperor to influence his decision and through the monks

and clergy of Constantinople. Even as Irenaeus was presenting his

claims to the emperor, C y ril's physician—one John—was winning over

24

o ffic ia ls by a ll manner of means including b r ib e s .^ The in flu ­

ential Dalmatius, abbott of the Monastery of Isaac, was enlisted in

C y ril's cause. This revered ascetic who had not appeared in public

for 46 years new led a huge throng of monks to the palace in order

to win him over to C y ril's "orthodox" cause. He was to bring his

influence to bear on Theodosius again before Cyril accomplished

his purpose.

As a la s t attempt to s e ttle the dispute, the emperor requested

that each faction send a delegation o f eight to the palace in Chal-

cedon so that he could hear firsthand both points of v ie w .^ This

series of conferences represents an important stage in the Nestorian

Controversy and in the career of Theodoret of Cyrus as w e ll. At this

point, Theodoret comes to the forefront of the action as the chief

theologian and spokesman for the "Oriental" delegation. Some of the

most vivid firsthand reports about the events in Chalcedon come from

him.

His Letters 165-170 were w ritten during his stay at Chalcedon

and deal prim arily with the problems his delegation faced there.

Epistles 166, 167, and 168 are appeals addressed to the emperor him­

s e lf . F irs t of a l l , Theodoret complains that the opposition refuses

to discuss the Twelve Anathemas which are the main obstacle to a

reunion. He makes i t clear that there is no way that his party can

be reconciled to the theology in them .^ In Ep. 170 addressed to

Bishop Rufus, Theodoret mentions the five fu t i le sessions that have

been held with the emperor.

25

They have continued to fig h t for this impious heresy, and pay no attention to the counsels of the very pious emperor.On five separate occasions he has met us, and ordered them e ith er to re jec t the Chapters o f Cyril as contrary to the Faith, or to be w illin g to do battle in th e ir behalf. . . . "

Theodoret did present his party's point of view with some degree of

success as he indicates in Ep. 1 6 9 .^ His antagonist, a hard-line

exponent of C y rillin e Christology, was Acacius of Melitene, whom he

believed to have bested in d is p u ta t io n .^

Another complaint recurring in these le tte rs has to do with the

open h o s tility of the local clergy and especially of the monks which

was directed against Theodoret's party. This h o s tility was expressed

in various forms from exclusion from the churches to physical v io - 102lence. S t i l l another charge against the opposition is that C y ril's

103agents were bribing people to win th e ir allegiance. I t is useless

to mention the name of Nestorius, Theodoret complains to his metro­

politan; he is u tte rly hated by the people at c o u rtJ 0^

Perhaps the most s trik ing note in the le tte rs is the intimate

p o rtra it of the emperor which confirms what is generally known about105him—i . e . , that he was p o lit ic a lly incompetent and powerless.

Theodosius I I was never strong w illed enough to exercise independent

judgement: he was continually subject to the influence of those

around him. His commands to the Egyptian party to discuss the

Anathemas with Theodoret's party were flag ran tly disobeyed—without

recrim inationsJ06 i n gp< i 66, Theodoret alludes to the advisors

who have monopolized the emperor's attention and have forbidden

26

others an access to himJ97 When the emperor f in a lly te lls the

Easterners that they may return home, Theodoret is forward enough

to reply: "But you are not only th e ir emperor; you are ours1 nfttoo." The most revealing information about the emperor's

va c illa tio n is his report of a personal conversation with Theo­

dosius in Ep. 169, "To Alexander o f H ierapolis."

The very pious emperor knew that the mob was gathered against me and coming up to me alone he said, ' I know that you are assembling improperly.1 Then said I , 'As you have allowed me to speak hear me with favour. Is i t fa ir fo r excommunicated heretics to be doing duty in churches, while I , who am fighting for the Faith and am therefore excluded by others from communion, am not allowed to enter a church?'He replied 'What am I to do?' I said, 'What your comes largitionum did a t Ephesus. When he found that some were assembling, but that we were not assembling, he stopped them saying,' I f you are not peaceful I w ill allow neither party to assemble.' I t would have become your piety also to have given directions to the bishop here to forbid both the opposite party and ourselves to assemble before our meeting together to make known your righteous sentence to a l l . ' To this he r e p l ie d , ' ' I t is not for me to order the bishop'; and I answered 'Neither shall you command us and we w il l take a church, and assemble. Your piety w ill find that there are many more on our side than on the irs . . . . ' So he approved and made no further p ro h ib itio n sJ09

The fin a l blow came to the party of John and Theodoret when

the court moved from Chalcedon back to Constantinople in order to

consecrate a new bishop in place o f Nestorius. The opposing party

was invited to take part in the ordination, but no member o f the

Eastern delegation was inv ited . On October 25 Maximian was conse­

crated archbishop o f C o n s ta n t in o p le N e s to r iu s had already been

27

sent back to his monastery near Antioch. C y ril's purpose had been

accomplished: his troublesome riva l had been vanquished. Obviously,

the weak-kneed Theodosius I I had given in to the powerful influences

brought to bear upon him by C y ril's people. Nevertheless, this

in i t ia l defeat fo r the Easterners did not mean "that the emperor

had decided in favor of C y ril's Council against John's." In fa c t,

about th is time he stated e x p lic it ly that he had no reason to

condemn thern.m

The next step was fo r the emperor to disband the assemblies

in Ephesus and to send the delegates and th e ir representatives in

Chalcedon home—even though the dispute was fa r from being settled .

Apparently he saw no sign of an impending reconcilia tion that would

warrant a continuation o f the discussions. Cyril and Memnon were

ordered to remain under detention in Ephesus, but Cyril escaped and

returned to Egypt before the imperial rescrip t arrived . Since i t

would have been extremely d i f f ic u lt to have arrested C yril in his

Egyptian stronghold, the emperor decided to accept the f a i t accompli11?by giving o ff ic ia l permission for his return to Egypt. “ •

Thus, this stage o f the controversy in it ia te d by Nestorius

ended in a double defeat fo r the Easterners. Not only had th e ir

a lly Nestorius been deposed rather than Cyril but also they had

not been able to achieve the condemnation of the Twelve Anathemas.

Convinced o f having been unjustly treated, they returned home in a

spi r i t o f bi tterness J ^

However, one of the most important facets of the meeting at

Chalcedon fo r th is present study has not yet been mentioned, that

28

is , the creation of an anthology (or florileg ium ) of quotations

from the Church Fathers that were used to uphold the Antiochene

dyophysite Christology.

This florileg ium is p articu la rly pertinent to this disser­

tation since i t was la te r included in Theodoret's main work on

Christology, his Eranistes seu Polymorphus, which is the main

subject o f th is study. L. S a lte t has accounted fo r the stages in

the development of this anthology of quotations in a careful

studyJ ^

S a lte t's a r t ic le is one of the most important works on

Eranistes, although i t is devoted to only one facet of the work—

namely, the collection of p a tr is tic texts which Theodoret uses to

buttress the theses of the three dialogues (div isions) of Eranistes.

Although the florileg ium of Eranistes as we now have i t is a

product of a long development, the core ( in i t ia l collection of quotes

from the Fathers) dates from the period under discussion, i .e . the

period at the end o f the "Council of Ephesus" which led to the

conference with the emperor at Chalcedon in the fa l l o f 431 A.D.

I t was in i t ia l l y prepared as a series of "proof-texts" for the

Antiochene position by one or more members o f the deputation to

Chalcedon. Thus, i t re flec ts the arguments against the Twelve

Anathemas (the main concern of the Antiochene patriarchate) and

the general strategy fo r the expected confrontation with C y ril's

forces. Sa ltet has found the decisive reference to this "dossier

patristique" in a le t te r from the Oriental delegation to Arch­

bishop Rufus of Thessalonica

29

The findings of this a r t ic le w ill be dealt with in detail in

the introductory discussion of the Eranistes.

The return home o f the opposing parties was only an occasion

fo r protracted warfare, this time at long range. The next eighteen

months (from October 431 to April 433 A.D.) witnessed a f lu rry of

a c t iv ity —-the production o f more controversial l ite ra tu re , synodal

meetings, p o lit ic a l maneuvering, and negotiations leading f in a lly

to a settlement in April of 433 A . D . ^

Once safe in his Egyptian stronghold, Cyril produced his

Apologeticus ad Theodosium, a ju s t if ic a tio n of his ro le in the

controversy up to that p o in tJ ^ In Syria, Theodoret was also

active on the lite ra ry fro n t. He composed the work en titled

Pentalogos or the Five Books against Cyril and the Council of

Ephesus. Only fragments of this work remain which was la te r118condemned a t the F ifth Ecumenical Council of 553 A.D.

Although very l i t t l e is known about th is lost work, two

la te r w riters who knew the work mentioned that the fourth book119of the Pentalogos contained quotations from the Church Fathers.

Richar.d suggests that these quotations are preserved p a rt ia lly or

completely in a previously-mentioned work, the De duabus naturis

of Pope Gelasius, but in a Latin translation of Theodoret's Greek.

Louis S a lte t had suggested e a r lie r that the immediate source for

Gelasius' florileg ium was the Antiochene collection prepared for

Chalcedon in 431 A.D. But Richard follows Schwartz's suggestion

that i t is more lik e ly that Gelasius would have used a work lik e

Pentalogos than a florileg ium which was unpublished. Yet when one

30

considers tha t the Pentalogos had the purpose o f substituting for

the conference with the opposition for which the Antiochenes

in i t ia l ly prepared th e ir florileg ium but which was never held,

i t is only natural that th is florilegium would be included in i t .

According to Richard's hypothesis: "The fourth book of the Penta­

logos would be then in some manner the edition probably augmented

by the florileg ium of 431." This conclusion does not undermine

S a lte t's work but rather only modifies i t s lig h tly by way of addi-*] on

tion . The ultimate orig in of the source is s t i l l the same.

Richard, who attempts to locate a change in Theodoret's

theological vocabulary during the course o f his career, points out

that the fragments of Pentalogos indicate that Theodoret's Christo l­

ogy at th is time is in keeping w ith that of his e a r lie r works. Twenty

of the quotations from the flo r ilig iu m are devoted to the assumption121of the man Jesus by the divine Word o f God.

Another work from th is period--!ate 431 or winter of 432 A.D.—

demands our attention. This is Theodoret's le t te r "To the Monks in

Euphratesia, Osrohoene, Syria, Phoenicia, and C ilic ia " numbered 15112?inM igne's co llection . This le t te r is in re a lity a small but

complete Christological trea tise which is an excellent summary of

Theodoret's position in the early 430's . Here again his ChristologyI po

is consonant with that o f his early period. J

The year 432 A.D. was a year o f much a c tiv ity in the form of

council meetings and negotiations. The imperial court began to seek

a solution to the schism a fte r the emperor's fa ilu re to bring peace

31

at Chalcedon. The strategy which i t f in a lly settled upon was to

induce the Antiochenes to accept the condemnation of Nestorius and

C yril to accept the condemnation of his Anathemas. This intent was

communicated to the parties involved byway o f imperial le tte rs

carried by the tribune A r i s t o l a u s

As a result of this overture by the government, John of Antioch,

who was vis ited by Aristolaus f i r s t , convened a council somewhere in

Syria with the purpose o f finding a basis for peace. Six propositions

were issued which were probably the work of Theodoret. The f i r s t of

these, which is s t i l l preserved, maintains that the Nicene Creed

should be accepted by a l l parties as the sole authority and that

Athanasius' " le tte r to Epictetus" against the Apollinarians be

accepted as the only legitim ate explanation of the Nicene fa ith .

This la tte r provision stipulates that there be no addition of

le tters or chapters--obviously a reference to C y ril's Anathemas.

The question of Nestorius' deposition seems to have been passed

o v e rJ 2^

Cyril became deeply involved on two fronts at the same time—

negotiations with the opposition and p o litic a l maneuverings a t court.

Here again his p o litic a l shrewdness—or lack of moral scruple— is

amply demonstrated. The prevailing opinion a t court favored the

plan which called fo r a sacrifice of C y ril's Anathemas as well as

the deposition of Nestorius. Even Maximian, the successor of

Nestorius in Constantinople, who was obviously against Nestorius,

supported this plan. With opposition to his Anathemas mounting,126C yril was in danger of having to recant them.

32

The patriarch of Alexandria was not one to admit defeat. There­

fore he mounted an a ll-o u t campaign to convince important people in

Constantinople to see things his way. He brought a ll of his resources

to bear in order to save his notorious lite ra ry production. The

revered monks Dalmatius and Eutyches and others were commissioned

by Cyril to influence the empress Pulcheria d ire c tly and in d irec tly

through her maids o f honor.

They received handsome eulogiae or bribes; and so did important eunuchs; above a l l , the Grand Chamberlain, Chrysoretes. He was devoted to the cause of the O rientals, but 'th a t he may cease to attack us,' Cyril directed that he should be bought with 's ix large Turkey-carpets and four of moderate s ize; four large carpets; eight couches; six tab le-c loths; large curtains; six carpets; six curtains of moderate size; six bench-covers; twelve cushions; four large tapes­tr ie s ; four benches, in ivory; s ix , in leather; four large pictures; six ostriches; and, i f he does as instructed by the Most Magnificent Aristolaus and assists us, through the good offices of Claudian, two hundred pounds in gold.' Cyril was a masterful man and stuck at nothing; he ran the church of Alexandria into debt to the amount o f 60,000 pounds in order to support his c o r r u p t io n .27

This bribery was instrumental in winning safe passage fo r his

Anathemas. But he also had to deal with the opposition from Syria

which was demanding a rejection o f them. His reply to th e ir pro­

posal in a le tte r to Acacius o f Beroea was "firm" but "conciliatory."

From his point of view, the fa ith of Nicea interpreted by Athanasius'

"Letter to Epictetus" was not s u ffic ie n t to clear up a ll possible

errors, fo r Nestorius had corrputed this very Nicene fa ith . Fur­

thermore, he would continue to regard Nestorius as r ig h tfu lly deposed.

33

However, Cyril declared that he was w illin g to overlook the personal

malice that had been displayed in the controversy, and, most impor­

ta n tly , he was w illin g to leave the Anathemas out of consideration

since they had only been aimed at Nestorius and his theology. He

ventured to explain the Anathemas and to defend himself against the '

charges made against him because of th em J^

This le t te r furthered the progress toward a settlement. Several

of the Syrian leaders such as Acacius of Beroea, Theodoret, and John

realized that Cyril v/as making an important concession by ignoring

the A n a t h e m a s T h e o d o r e t himself was firm ly convinced that C y ril's

le t te r represented the orthodox fa ith and actually amounted to a

retraction o f the hated Twelve Chapters—which he s t i l l regarded

as h e re tic a l.^ ® Nevertheless, he was not w illin g to accept the

condemnation and deposition of Nestorius.

Not a ll of his compatriots, however, agreed with him. Three

main parties developed among the Easterners with respect to the terms

of reunion. F irs t, there was the peace-seeking group led by John of

Antioch which was ready to agree to C y ril's compromise. Then, there

was the small radical group led by Alexander of Hierapolis (Theodoret's

metropolitan), Helladius o f Tarsus, Eutherius of Tyana, Maximin of

Anazarbus, and Himerius of Nicomedia which was unwilling to make

any compromise with a "heretic ." This group gathered its support

especially from the area in the v ic in ity of C ilic ia where Theodore

of Mopsuestia's influence was greatest. The th ird party led by

Theodoret and Andreas of Samosata was a mediating party which was

w illin g to recognize the v a lid ity of C y ril's "new" theological

34

stance but absolutely unwilling to acquiesce in the condemnation of

Nestorius. This position put Theodoret in c o n flic t with his comradesl "31in both o f the other groups.

In addition to the e ffo rts of Aristolaus to bring about an

acceptable agreement, John of Antioch commissioned Paul o f Emesa

as his agent to negotiate d irec tly with C y ril. Paul arrived in Egypt

in the winter of 432 A.D. He brought a le t te r from John with several

documents to be submitted fo r C y ril's perusal. These included six

propositions from the recent Synod in Antioch and a doctrinal state­

ment which Theodoret had drafted in Ephesus fo r presentation to the

e m p e r o r Cyril accepted this statement o f fa ith which settled

the doctrinal issue and eventually became the "Formula of Reunion."

In order to s e ttle the personal issue of Nestorius' deposition, Paul

(speaking fo r his constituency) agreed to recognize both the deposi-1 33tion of Nestorius and the ordination of Maximian as leg itim ate .

In December o f 432 A.D. , Paul was admitted to communion with

the church of Alexandria. On three occasions (December 18, 25, and

January 1, 433 A.D.) he preached and was received enthusiastically

as an orthodox te a c h e r .^ This was the f i r s t major movement toward

concluding peace. When Paul and Aristolaus returned to Antioch

accompanied by two Alexandrian representatives, i t was John's

opportunity to endorse the agreement. He agreed to the doctrinal

formulation and f in a lly under pressure from Aristolaus agreed to

recognize the condemnation of Nestorius and his teaching and the

rig h tfu l ordination o f M a x i m i a n Paul carried John's le t te r of

35

acceptation to Alexandria, and on April 23, 433, Cyril replied to

John with the le t te r Lfletentur c o e li, "Let the heavens re jo ice . .

(Ep. 39). C y ril's le t te r contains a c la r if ic a tio n of his position

and the "Formula of Reunion" exactly as John had included i t in his

le t te r to C y r i l . T h e text of the formula is as follows:

7 / s f c / s T y f & o T o * o u 77X^7 cP X /o V 07TooS /C^c <p?£oyo(M<fy

72? T<? T f>o7T oo T y S £ y y y / ^ c o ? 7 yC7 £oo j 7~°^sOcoo'oy’T y o y s c/coo ToO {p£ou a c ;* d y 77^7 0 7 -

/O rf^ S C , * J y TTyjy^O ( fO /c lts S c /tC U/S oCyo4&yf<t £ £ 7*74 £?fCcoy y /y ^ Y o y £4: 7~£ T y s 77*4£74 /o O ~ £oJf T o lyoCfCoo J/ 7 7^ 7 -7 fu /v 77yfTc<Ay??°T£S ecrffix 's& fi/s / /6pyY<r&o4 <£ /CoQsUSy j ats/si/ To* < 7(74o lo \/ 77’/4 o e frt'7 0 y 7 £ s r 's i SI cC / S S) /Tyc <4 - /7 0 0 4 7T^TT/ooy too 4 &(/ /Yctroche £KT£ Tyrrcrv r77/ 7 7 7 r c l's ery*p4ro7£s 7T/oos A jy-pfcc/& ? evcrspsYofS yyoocrry a v I y r ly y s o Y r y fr s /r ^ s T ry /r o jo ju s

ot77o/">pp i/ f r s . T /o u /to s y cfz, o y Aryr</ToA<ciooyTfS T ^ yc77£(p?C/cTooi/j dsAAl TfpC <7A40)iOy(<7( TyS OC/CSC'CS Iccrtfe't/TCUSo'770 4:A ec 0 4 r s s tocs J77c<f?y<r<7 YZcc fio u A o^cc/y#cs J y ocs t J6777~£f /y c Y /o O T a 4 </so<<7Ar£77T0-<X£(Py. c ^

Qje/aAioYOUM£y T o c ^ y /o v y fru fcoy -yMooy TycroOy

)((?«novj Toy clco\/ Toy & £ o u T o y o y o y ^ ^ 9? ■> <^7oy TsAtcoy /ru i %t/<£y>6*'77ov T e l 7coy i f : /o /y s / ‘ioycTcvs /truA vcobras, 77&A Jfooyooy yocly i f : T o 7 7 7 jtp o s vsiry*pc/£4T4 A rd rl T y y

y 7 4 * . * \ s / n I ' f c a ' •> - . \Theory7A , £T7 ecr/o rey as Twy y/Cifyooy Toy otvTov

Zr* vp<odAs Tfyc /c l t v y y/oceTsfcyt/ cry/Ty/cy y «fV /% ^ /« / Tys 7Tyy> & v o u / r y r j T y y It v f f y 00770 T*pry > oycaoyycoy^T u t 77c/ry>( T o y /c /r o y T c y r i T*?y tP s o tv to tcxc Jyjo^oocrtcyY?^<ry tsutA T y y 77^0477o T y ry . //& y y f (P v rs o y y £ yoJycj y iy o y c y * d r * o Zoo o t fo y , Xy<t A rc f coy

iy C c o A o y o O ^ s y . /T u r l T y 0 7 y y r y y r y s y < rv y )(J T o u

iyoy<feoo: /y o o c u y 0 /u o A oyo 0 4 7 *4 T y y yyco y 77<yp c /i4 0 4

f le o r o x o v / c l t o T o y d ? £o y l o y o v T y ^ y ro o /^ y y y c / h d J y ~

y y /fe o y T T y c ry c k % ‘ cc i/T ys t v s ve /A A yp p eo o s J y coerce c o o t use

36

s j ciWrfs 7*07- 77 S </<f Sc/oiff£^(/f»iS

/f*Y x *77o<rro/l(*4S 777(97s Too /rv fto u <y>c</yls *7777*77 700's(Psa^oyous Zsiz/f'tS 7ZS <67*7 (70( 007707 aOoTOS u/S 77p‘

&1/0S 77(9o < 7 o j7 7 0 o>j y p s J s ( f r o r p o u o r u s 60S e fW J o o

<pO(7£tAj7, Aot? 7 0 S ,6(£l/ 7^7077^777777 77777 7'*?7 {PfoTVTU

you J fp c rro u , ru s J e 709777 oPs 777 70 7 0 )7 b i/sfooorzSzyry^ 0 7 7 6 u j 7 7 0 ^ j7 c fa 7 T 0 S . /37

There are d iffe rin g estimations of the meaning and importance

of this formula. Although i t is impossible to survey the many in te r ­

pretations ava ilab le , i t is necessary to give a concise commentary of

i t , for i t governs not only one's understanding o f the theology of the

time but also his assessment of the h istorica l motives of the protag­

onists. The formula is obviously a compromise statement, but the

controversial issue is : Which side has made the main concession? In

other words, scholars d if fe r most sharply over which theology the

formula re fle c ts —that of Alexandria or that o f Antioch.

A cursory examination reveals characteristics of both schools

of thought. At the very beginning, the controversial t i t l e Theotokos

is recognized as legitim ate. This clears up the issue which sparked

the clash between Nestorius and Cyril in the f i r s t place. Nestorius'

opposition to this cult-word reflected a general suspicion about i t

among Antiochene theologians. Generally, they insisted upon qua li­

fying i t with the para lle l use of the term Anthropotokos. Thus, the

acceptance of the t i t l e here is c learly a concession to C y ril. How­

ever, i t should not appear as a capitulation foreign to Antiochene

thought. One may recall th a t Nestorius was w illin g to accept the

37

t i t l e , provided that i t was correctly understood: the same may be

said fo r Theodoret and others.

In the f i r s t sentence of the confession's core there occurs a

typical Antiochene phrase— T fX e e o V AV< T fA f fo 'S

"perfect (in the sense of 'complete') God and perfect man." Cyril

was fond of more abstract terms for the humanity of C h ris tJ 38 The

qualifying phrase "from a rational soul and body" is an a n ti-A p o lli-

narian catch-phrase insisted upon by John's party and previously

admitted by Cyril by way o f self-defense J 3^

The p ara lle l structure of Christ's person which runs through

the entire confession is a chief characteristic of Antiochene theology.

Though a s im ilar wording might be found on occasion in C y ril's w rit­

ings, he generally avoids such a d ivision. The God-man is said here

to be "begotten from the Father according to the d iv in ity" and "from

Mary the Virgin according to the humanity." He is “ Ox/oou<r(oi/ withc '

the Father according to d iv in ity" and " o m o o UccoV with us accord­

ing to the humanity."

The next statement to the e ffe c t that the two natures ( ( f u o

(pyjeuJV ) became a unity ( <flf l i r t s ) -js couched in neutral terms.

I t affirms the Antiochene insistence upon two natures in Christ,\ S

thereby avoiding C y ril's shibboleth M t * . Yet, i t speaksc/

in terms of an / ( /oStrt’S - -a strong term for the oneness in Christ—/

rather than the (TUVxtySCj. which Nestorius had used. Lest this

appear as an unila tera l Antiochene concession, i t must be remembered

that Theodoret used the term gv<*J<r(S regularly to describe the

38

unity o f God and man in C h ris t.^ ® The issue of precisely whether

the union was £K (out o f) or <£V(in) two natures—so important at

the Council of Chalcedon—is avoided.

The next sentence hammers home a predominantly Egyptian pre­

occupation—the oneness of Christ. Yet, this statement would not

have been denied by an Antiochene. Reading fu rth e r, we find a com­

bination o f theological motifs: the Theotokos so necessary toj , . r * /

Alexandria and the unconfused union T i/y j^uToU z\/i*S(rs«ss )

so crucial to Antiochene theology. I t may be that the term

£Vdi' 6fy<*s7r-tj(r<>iC ("became man" or more fre e ly , "lived as Man"

according to Bindley) reflec ts an Antiochene concern to qualify the

term ("became flesh") le s t this la t te r term be

understood to mean human nature without a rational soul.

The phrase j v r y s M a y , that is ,

"the temple taken from her" (the Virgin) contains two trad itiona l

Christological terms: V°ic?S (temple) and a form of the verb

(tak e ). The word "temple" remained a popular term

fo r the humanity of Christ among Antiochene theologians. Because

of its exegetical basis, i t had a widespread usage. Cyril had used

i t in his early writings but jettisoned i t a fte r the clash with

N e s to riu s .^ The other word in this phrase, "taken," is absolutely

indispensable to Antiochene Christology. I t occurs again and again

whenever the incarnation o f the Word is spoken o f. Exegetically, i t

is an attempt to explain John 1:14 by Philippians 2:7. Theologically,

i t is a way of avoiding a confusion of d iv in ity and humanity in

Christ—the spectre o f Apollinarianism that the Antiochenes saw

39

lurking in C y ril's Anathemas. This important verb is not absolutely

foreign to C y ril's works, but i t does not represent his characteristic

understanding of the incarnational p r o c e s s . ^

The las t sentence o f our formula is a pure excerpt from Antiochene

theology. I t exemplifies the practice of a ttrib u tin g some sayings of

Jesus to the united person and dividing others between the two natures,

divine and human, which continue to subsist in the one T T p o c u /r ro x /

of Jesus Christ. The sublime sayings are predicated of the divine\

nature, and the "lowly" or "humble" ones ( 7U77Z(\/etS ) are predi­

cated o f the human nature. This double predication is a denial of

a s t r ic t communicatio idiomatum to which Cyril is elsewhere committed.

For him, there is one subject, one nature in Christ to which a ll

properties are predicated equally The other hallmark o f Antiochene

theology to be found in the la s t sentence is the word 7TpO cTM 77'o v

the main term for the "person" o f Christ among a ll Antiochene theo­ry

logians. C y ril, on the contrary, is inclined to speak o f a Z i/w v c s

(/77’0O7hfa'(i/ or o f <* (pv<rcs in C h r is t .^

In summary, having analyzed the Formula of Reunion, i t is

apparent that i t reflects compromises made by both sides, but i t

contains nothing contrary to the mainline o f Antioch's theology,

even to that of N e s to r iu s .^ However, while exhibiting C y ril's

in terests , i t d irec tly contradicts the basic presuppositions of his

Christology as i t is expressed elsewhere. Although i t is common

fo r some scholars to tre a t the formula summarily and simply as a

genuine compromise, other scholars are divided over the issue of

which theology is dominant in the formula—in other words, over which

40

party has conceded the most t h e o l o g i c a l l y . ^ Harnack and Seeberg

strongly support our judgement that Cyril made substantial concessions

while the theologians on the other side did n o t . ^ Other scholars

tend to defend Cyril against the charge of retracting his previous

theology in accepting the formula or to maximize the concessions of

the Antiochenes.148

The d if f ic u lty in making a judgement about the nature o f the

Formula o f Reunion and its implications is ch ie fly due to the

ambiguity in C y ril's theology. I t becomes extremely d i f f ic u lt to

say exactly what his position was. Is the radical theology o f the

Twelve Anathemas the keystone of his theological ed ific e , or does

his more iren ic formulation stand in this position? Cyril is admittedly

a complex and inconsistent figure in many ways. I t is not too much

to say that he has le f t a troublesome riddle for theologians and

historians to understand, from the f i f th century un til today. Accord­

ing to Bindley, "There were, in fa c t, two C y rils , one who spoke in

inform al, a t times in unguarded, language, as in the Anathemas, which

never received oecumenical sanction, and another in diplomatic lan­

guage as in the Ep istle . . ." (to John of Antioch) Which is the

real Cyril theologically? Looking a t his entire l i te ra ry and ecclesi­

astical career, i t appears that his more conservative theology—that

ins isting upon the unity o f C h ris t--is most characteristic of him.^O

I t seems clear that he was forced to make the compromise of 433 A.D.

in order to protect his own in terests—even i f he had to contradict

himself. His radical followers were quick to conclude that he had

sold-out his theological convictions by accepting the fo rm u la .^

41

This is the conviction that sparked the attempt o f C y ril's successor

Dioscuros to stamp out the Antiochene leaders at the Latrocinium of

449 A.D.

Thus, i t appears correct to conclude that the Formula of Reunion

represents, on the theological level a t le a s t, a modest Antiochene

victory . However, the theological issue under discussion here is not

a ll that was at stake. In fa c t, the conciliatory action of Cyril is

understandable only as a p o lit ic a l maneuver. The theological agree­

ment was only part of the bargain that led to peace. On the whole,

C yril was eminently successful in gaining what he re a lly wanted: the

condemnation and removal of his dangerous r iv a l from Constantinople

(guaranteed by the recognition of Maximian as his legitim ate replace­

ment) and the rescue of his Twelve Anathemas from a threatened con­

demnation.

As has been previously mentioned, Cyril was motivated above a ll

to preserve his power and prestige and that of his patriarchal throne.

He had conceded only what was necessary a t the moment. He had spared

himself the humiliation o f ou trigh tly repudiating his theology and1 C O

had preserved his p o lit ic a l dominance in the East. When a conser­

vative Catholic scholar such as Camelot declares th a t C y ril's "good

wi l l " and "conciliatoriness" helped lead to the union o f 433, he

has allowed the brightness o f "Saint" Cyr i l ' s halo to blind his

h istorica l judgement.^ 3

Theodoret himself played an important role in the negotiations

of 432-433. Several of his le tte rs convey very c learly his estimation

of the agreement and at the same time lend support to our interpretation

42

of the reunion. He declares unequivocally that he is in agreement

with the theological formulation and that he now regards Cyril as

orthodox. He is conscious of no change in his own theology but is

convinced that Cyril has contradicted the teaching of the Twelve

Anathemas. In his Ep. 171, "To John of Antioch, a fte r the recon­

c ilia t io n ," he says: "We have assembled together and read the

Egyptian Letter; we have care fu lly examined its purport, and we

have discovered that its contents are quite in accordance with

our own statements, and en tire ly opposed to the Tv/elve Chapters.

In a le t te r to the staunch Antiochene, Himerius of Nicomedia w ritten

about the same time, he states his position again:

We wish to acquaint your holiness that onreading and frequently discussing the le tte r brought from Egypt we find i t in harmony with the doctrine of the Church. Of the Twelve Chapters, we have proved the contrary, and up to the present time we continue to oppose them. . . . You ought to communicate with the Egyptians and Constantinopolitans and others who have fought with them against us, because they have professed to hold our fa ith . . . . but not to give your consent to the alleged condemnation of the very holy and venerableN e s t o r i u s J 5 5

In another, even more important le t te r from the same period of

time, Theodoret ju s t if ie s his action to Nestorius. He is anxious to

point out that he is not acting upon an opportunistic motive.

Let no one therefore persuade your holiness that I have accepted the Egyptian writings as orthodox, w ith my eyes shut, because I covet any see. For re a lly , to speak the tru th , a fte r frequently reading and care­fu lly examining them, I have discovered that they are free from a ll heretical

ta in t , and I have hesitated to put any stress upon them, though I certa in ly have no love for th e ir author, who was the orig inator of the disturbances which have agitated the w o rld J55

By endorsing the Formula o f Union in this manner, Theodoret "was

v ir tu a lly the instrument of bringing about the long-desired peace

between the two contending sections of the church.1 , 1 Nevertheless,

at the same time, he refused adamantly to agree to the condemnation

of Nestorius, with the resu lt that he was not a party to the agreement

of 433. He and a group of like-minded prelates became alienated

from John who was wi l l ing to make peace even at the price of sacri­

fic ing Nestorius. In two le tte rs to his metropolitan, Alexander

of Hierapolis, Theodoret assures this irreconcilable foe of Cyril

that he w ill neither condemn Nestorius nor communicate with those

who do.150 The most s trik ing testimony o f his loya lty to Nestorius

is in the previously cited Ep. 172 to Nestorius: "But to what has

been done unjustly and i l le g a l ly against your holiness, not even i f

one were to cut o f f both my hands would I ever assent, God's grace

helping me and supporting my in firm ity ."160 This statement takes

on a certain poignancy in l ig h t of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.

when Theodoret was f in a lly coerced into condemning his friend . His

attempt to avoid d irec tly anathematizing Nestorius may be fore­

shadowed in another le t te r to Alexander o f Hierapolis from the time

of reunion in 433. A fter learning that John had anathematized

Nestorius' views in his le t te r to C y ril, Theodoret takes comfort

in the fact that John has not anathematized Nestorius unequivocally.

He had not done i t "in wide general terms, but with some q u a lif i ­

cation ."160

44

Thus, Theodoret persisted in regarding C y ril 's doctrinal

position reflected in his acceptance o f the Formula of Reunion as

orthodox, yet in refusing to jo in in the reunion of John and C y ril,

since i t required countenancing Nestorius1 deposition. This is the

position that he and others of the province of Syria Euphratensis

had formalized a t the Synod of Zeugma. Their attempt to come to

some kind o f agreement with the more extreme Nestorians led by

Alexander of Hierapolis was in vain. Alexander not only refused to

appear at the synod but also spurned such a half-way policy that

Theodoret espoused. Theodoret1s effo rts to m ollify the viewpoint

of his metropolitan did not keep him from renouncing communion withI C I

John. Banding together with the Nestorian zealots of the province

C ilic ia I I , Alexander took part in a synod at Anazarbus with such

leaders of the reactionary Antiochenes as Maximin o f that c ity ,

Helladius of Tarsus and Eutherius of Tyana. They stated th a t they

regarded Cyril as condemned and excommunicated and that they would

have no communion with those who had agreed to commune with him.

They also demanded that Cyril anathematize his Chapters and confess

the Nicene fa ith with no omissions or additions. Two of the radicals,

Helladius and Eutherius, went so fa r as to w rite Pope Sixtus I I I fo r

s u p p o r t .^

Since there was no sign that his dissident bishops would return

to the fo ld , John of Antioch f in a lly appealed to the government for

negative sanctions against them. Threatening le tte rs were sent to

the leaders o f the opposition stating that a ll the bishops had to

45

enter into communion with John or be expelled from th e ir sees. This

was in March 'or April of 434.^ The reca lc itran t prelates began to

return to communion with th e ir patriarch one by one, beginning with

Andrew of Samosata. However, Theodoret and the bishops of his province

became further alienated when John intruded into Alexander's province

to ordain bishops uncanonically and to choose unworthy candidatesJ^4

About this time (spring of 434) a synodical le t te r arrived

from the newly-consecrated archbishop of Constantinople, Proclus.

According to Devreesse, i t appears th a t this le tte r probably con­

tained an acceptance of communion with John and C y ril, a carefu lly

worded statement o f fa ith acceptable to the O rientals, and "a formal

in v ita tio n , given in the name of the emperor, to y ie ld ." As a resu lt,

Theodoret, Helladius, and Eutherius declared that they were w illin g

to look into the possible means o f bringing about a reconciliation .

Shortly th erea fte r, an imperial tribune delivered a le tte r to

Theodoret from Count Titus with the ultimatum: make peace with

John of Antioch or be deposed.165

Another, more subtle type o f pressure was also brought to bear

on Theodoret by the government. Several of the most eminent monks

of the Antiochene patriarchate—Jacob, Baradotos, and Symeon S ty lite s —

were enlisted to persuade the bishop of Cyrus to enter into communion

with John. This strategy was well conceived, for Theodoret held them

in very high regard. He found i t hard to withstand th e ir influence.

The combined pressures upon him led him to consent to an interview

with his patriarch, a t f i r s t to be held at Gindar but la te r changed

to A n tio ch J ^

46

The result o f this meeting was a complete reconciliation

between the two parties . Theodoret recognized the acceptability

of John's doctrine and his sincere desire for peace. He also found

John's guarded anathema against Nestorius' unapostolic teaching more

acceptable than an out-and-out anathema against him. On the other

hand, John did not demand that Theodoret accept the deposition of

Nestori us J67

Eventually, a ll but a few of the diehards came to terms with

John. Theodoret did his best to convince Alexander o f Hierapolis

to jo in with the m ajority—using varied arguments in a series

o f le tte rs . However, the old man would not give in . He and the

stalw art Meletius of Mopsuestia were removed fo rc ib ly by the

authorities and sent into ex ile in the spring of 435. ° Nestorius

himself had been residing a t his former monastery in Antioch since

September of 431. Since his presence was a threat to the hard-won

peace, John o f Antioch requested his banishment. Along with his

partisans Count Irenaeus and the priest Photius, he was sent to

Petra in Arabia. Soon a fte r , he was sent to the Great Oasis o f the

Libyan desert. At the time o f his in it ia l departure, his works were

banned and his followers were stigmatized with the name "Simonians"

because lik e Simon Magus, they had abandoned God J 69

With the expulsion of the Nestorians in the year 435 and the

return of a l l bishops to communion with John, i t appeared that the

controversy unleashed over Nestorius and his theology had subsided.

Yet, the repercussions from the conflicts previously discussed were

by no means over. In that same year, the government decided to make

47

absolutely sure that the troublesome a f fa ir was over. In order to

be sure that there were no hold-outs, the o ffic ia ls demanded the

w ritten submission from each of the Easterners. The imperial tribune,

Aristolaus, who had been instrumental in bringing about peace in 433

was entrusted with the mission o f obtaining the signatures o f the

Eastern bishops. ^ 0

There were several important provisions in this statement of

submission demanded o f the Easterners—not the least o f which was

the express condemnation o f Nestorian doctrine and the recognition

o f Nestorius' deposition. Aristolaus was successful in receiving

the signatures of the bishops in the province C ilic ia I and of

John and his suffragans in Antioch."*^ Devreesse dates this "toward

the end of the year 436 and the beginning of 437." Schwartz dates117the beginning of A risto laus ' t r ip in 436.

For the fanatical anti-Nestorians, these actions were not

enough. One of the agents o f both Proclus and C yril stationed in

Antioch informed Cyril that Nestorianism s t i l l persisted in the

East. Cyril was also informed that Theodoret had only appeared to

submit to the condemnation of Nestorius while actually s t i l l holding

the same views that he had previously held.^ 3 viith the pressure

mounting from his extreme partisans, C yril decided to send a supple­

mentary profession of fa ith to Aristolaus and to Antioch. He asked

Aristolaus to have the Antiochenes sign his additional doctrinal

statement, but a t th is point, John, who had become weary of the

ins istent pressures and demands made o f him and his fellow bishops,

48

refused to sign. He claimed in a le t te r to Proclus that they

had already done what was necessary by signing the statement of

Aristolaus

I t appears uncertain as to whether Theodoret actually

affixed his signature to the required statement brought by A risto­

laus during his mission of 436-437. This statement.contained two

measures that Theodoret had refused to agree to the year before—

Nestorius1 deposition and the condemnation of his doctrine.

Some scholars have said that he did not consent to the con­

demnation o f Nestorius and his opinions until the Council of175Chalcedon (451) when he was coerced to do so. Other authori­

ties assume that he actually did take the step in 436-437 that

he had tr ie d previously to avoid. Admitting the lack of source

material about the second v is i t of Aristolaus to Antioch, M.

Richard reasons that Theodoret must have signed the agreement,

otherwise he would have been expelled from his diocese. This

scholar also finds an indication in his Ep. 83, "To Dioscorus" of

the fact that he had signed "tomes" concerning Nestorius on two

occasions. Richard takes th is statement to indicate that he

signed John's synodal le t te r to Proclus concerning the terms of175A risto laus1 v is i t and a copy of the same sent to the emperor.

Duchesne says with l i t t l e q u a lific a tio n , "Theodoret—i t would have

been d i f f ic u lt fo r i t to have been otherwise—was now obliged to

resign himself and drink the b it te r c u p ." ^ Montalverne

propounds a s lig h tly d iffe ren t theory from that of Richard and

49

Duchesne. According to this scholar, Cyril had asked the Eastern

bishops to subscribe some Christo!ogical propositions already in

434. He considers i t probable that the bishop of Cyrus also agreed

to these propositions and condemned Nestorius, fo r Aristolaus was

demanding this throughout the "Orient" by 4 3 5 .^ 8 However, Devreesse,

Venables, and Kidd speak of Cyril as having been disturbed by the

rumor that Theodoret was s t i l l a Nestorian and had not anathematized

Nestorius a fte r the second v is i t o f Aristolaus when the signatures

had been g iv e n J '79 This could imply that Theodoret had not signed

Aristolaus' statement. I t seems from th e ir accounts, that Duchesne

and Richard date C y ril's le t te r expressing concern about Theodoret's

position ju s t before Aristolaus' mission. Thus, part o f the compli­

cation in determining the true course of events lies in the d iffe ren t

dating of the documents collected in the Synodicon; the other part is

due to a lack of c lear-cut e v id e n c e .^ Nevertheless, Richard and

Duchesne who agree with Montalverne that Theodoret must have condemned

Nestorius' s ta te—against Montal verne—and with most scholars that181C y ril's suggested propositions were rejected by the Easterners.

Thus, a review of the pertinent lite ra tu re on the subject

leads to an inconclusiveness as to whether Theodoret o f f ic ia l ly

condemned Nestorius between 435 and 437 or avoided doing so. I t

would seem strange perhaps i f Theodoret had already condemned

Nestorius that he would try so hard at Chalcedon to avoid d irec tly

anathematizing him again. As to the epistolary evidence cited by

Richard, i t is not absolutely clear exactly what agreements Theodoret

signed twice.

50

Another issue surfaced in 435 which also tended to perpetuate

h o s tility between the Easterners on the one hand and Proclus, C y ril,

and th e ir conservative supporters on the other.

According to Devreesse, from the very beginning o f his episco­

pate begun in the spring o f 434, Proclus and Cyril devised a scheme

by which they would keep an eye on Antioch, so to speak, and to

intervene in the a ffa irs of that patriarchate i f they decided i t

necessary for th e ir purposes. In th is policy of p o litic a l in trigue,

they were aided ch ie fly by a few fanatical agents. One of the

chief o f these was the Archimandrite Maximus, who in 434 arrived

in Antioch and continued to s t ir up trouble fo r the opposition

during the next few years and to provide Cyril with information

about the state of a ffa irs in Antioch Such p o litic a l machina­

tions help explain the episodes of the next three years or more.

The issue that rekindled the dying flame of controversy once

again involved the legitimacy of the Antiochene trad itio n of Chris­

to! ogy. This time the center of attention shifted to the writings

of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore o f Tarsus—two of the highly

revered teachers of the Antiochene school of thought.

The course of the controversy over Theodore and Diodore is

somewhat unclear due to the paucity of evidence and to the uncertain

dating of the few sources that have come down to us. Several promi­

nent scholars have tried to reconstruct the h istorica l progress of

this short period o f time, however, without complete agreement upon

the actual order o f events. Relying upon th e ir work, we w ill attempt

51

to give an account of the main events concerning Theodore and

Diodore which ultim ately led Theodoret to compose a defense for

them. 183

The name of Theodore was f i r s t brought into the Nestorian

Controversy a fte r the Council of Ephesus in 431 by Rabboula, the

b'ishop of Edessa, a turncoat from the Eastern party who masked his

sudden change to C y ril's party with an attack upon the former bishop

of Mopsuestia. This e lic ite d a counter-attack upon Rabboula by one

of his p riests , Ibas, who was a zealous partisan of the Antiochene

tra d itio n . At that time, John of Antioch sent a synodal le t te r to

the bishops of Edessa's province commanding them to withhold communion

from Rabboula un til he ju s t if ie d himself to his patriarch. In turn,

Rabboula requested help from Cyril who consoled him as one perse-*1 oa

cuted in the cause o f tru th .

With the reunion o f 433, Rabboula was restored to fellowship

with his former associates; therefore, he could not with safety

continue his attacks upon Theodore w ithin John's sphere o f power.

Instead, he wrote to Acacius o f Melitene (metropolitan of the province

of Armenia I I in Lesser Armenia) and to the bishops of Armenia in

order to warn them against the writings of Theodore. This action

raised a protest from a group of C ilic ian bishops who were s t i l l

loyal to Nestorius. 188

The apparent cause o f the protest raised by Rabboula was the

fact that Nestorian sympathizers had translated and circulated someTOC

of the works o f Diodore and Theodore.

52

Kidd, following Liberatus, speaks of this propagation of

Theodore's and Diodore's work in Armenia as a reaction to the ban

against Nestorius1 works; that is , his followers were attempting to

disseminate the same doctrine under a d iffe ren t cloak, for these two

theologians were the main sources fo r Nestorius' th e o lo g y .^ Never­

theless, according to Amann, the real cause o f the dissemination

of Antiochene lite ra tu re in Armenia was not the imperial res tric tio n

against Nestorius' work but rather the concern of a certain Mesrob

to make Greek Christian lite ra tu re available in Armenian translation:

i t was only natural fo r him to include the works of Theodore andI 00

Diodore without a particu lar doctrinal axe to grind . ' 00

In the year 435 the altercation over Theodore and Diodore broke

into the open when a delegation from Armenia arrived in Constantinople

to confer with Proclus. The leaders of the delegation, two presbyters

by the name o f Leontius and Abel, claimed to represent the Armenian

episcopate. They brought a le t te r complaining that the Orientals had

translated into Armenian a book o f Theodore's which had been given to

them by Rabboula and Acacius and stigmatized as heretical by these

two men. To the consternation o f the Armenians, the C ilicians defended

Theodore against Acacius and Rabboula. Being confused about the

matter, the Armenians requested guidance from the archbishop of

the cap ita l. This was the occasion fo r his famous "Tome to the

Armenians. " ^ 89

Many scholars have regarded the le t te r brought by the Armenian

delegation as a genuine le tte r from the entire Armenian episcopate.^98

53

However, Marcel Richard has made a strong case against th is tra d i­

tional view. He has adduced evidence which makes i t very lik e ly

that the request was not an o ff ic ia l le t te r from the bishops of

Armenia but rather one representing the views o f a small group of

churchmen inclined to C y ril's views. In other words, i t was a case

of an embassy masquerading under false p re te n c e s .^ Richard's

conclusions are based upon a study o f an Armenian collection of

documents called The Book of L e tters , a collection containing

Proclus' "Tome," the response of Sahak, the Catholicus o f Armenia

to Proclus, a le tte r of Acacius of Melitene to Sahak, Sahak's*] q p

response to this le t te r , and a le t te r of Acacius to the Armenians.

The le t te r of Acacius to Sahak was an attack upon the Antiochene

party which denounced Theodore and warned the Armenians against him.

I t also gave vent to Acacius' complaint of having been chastised by

the Orientals over a theological issue at the emperor's meeting in

Chalcedon (431). This le t te r was w ritten before Proclus' "Tome" in

435. 193

The careful reply from Sahak expressed gratitude fo r Acacius'

concern to inform him and his colleagues about a matter o f which he

was ignorant. He spoke of the "innovators" mentioned by Acacius

as having some attachment to Judaism and remarked about the error

of confessing two Sons or two Lords. Other than these vague, non­

committal statements, he said nothing else about theology. He had

taken note of the warning and was prepared to stop the heresy i f i t

were to invade his country. "The conclusion reassures Acacius about

54

the state o f the fa ith in Armenia: 'At quod scrips is ti sectam esse

abhorrendum, ad tempus per gratiam Dei, n ih il huiusmodi sectae adhuc

evenit. '"T94

A few years la te r , a t the instiga tion of the Armenian presbyters,

Proclus was to w rite his "Tome to the Armenians." The reply of Sahak

to him is s tr ik in g , to say the le a s t, for i t is couched in the very

same words o f his e a r lie r le t te r to Acacius. By comparing the two

le t te rs , i t is evident that Sahak took up his e a r lie r le t te r and

added a b rie f doctrinal exposition together with a more lengthy

conclusion. 196 The importance o f th is correspondence lie s in the

implications of its relationship w ith the le t te r conveyed by the

Armenian embassy to Proclus in 435. As Richard has pointed out,

the correspondence of Sahak and Acacius does not harmonize with

the le t te r presented to Proclus as a missive from the Armenian

episcopate. As fo r Acacius1 le t te r , i f Theodore's work on the incar­

nation had re a lly been circulated in Armenia, he would have probably

been more d irec t as he was la te r in a le t te r to the Armenian people

concerning the works of Diodore and Theodore. As for Sahak's response,

i t did not express a very strong curiosity about the alleged danger

at hand. 196

These observations are not weighty in themselves, but taken

with some discrepancies in the claim o f Leontius and Abel lead to

some s ign ifican t conclusions. Although th e ir le t te r to Proclus

requested some c la r if ic a tio n on doctrinal matters, i t was in

re a lity a demand that the archbishop condemn Theodore's theology

55

and at the same time intervene in order to lead the C ilic ians back

to orthodoxy. In keeping with th e ir true purposes, they presented

a co llection of excerpts from Theodore's works which was in re a lity

not 'un dossier im partial mais un veritab le acte d 'a c c u s a tio n ."^

Moreover, i f the le t te r o f request which they brought was actually

sent under the auspices they claimed for i t , one would expect i t to

be drafted "in the name o f the representative bishops in the form

o f a synodal le t te r ." But instead of th is , the le tte r appears under

the names of Leontius and Abel as though they were responsible for1 Qfiits composition.

A fin a l observation based upon Sahak's le tte rs substantiates

Richard's conclusion that the two Armenian priests practiced

deception when they passed themselves o ff as representatives of

a ll the Armenian bishops. The conclusion o f Sahak's le t te r to

Proclus contains th is statement: "Mais en ce qui concerne les

disciples de Theodore de Mopsueste, nous n'en avons i c i , jusqu' a

cette heure, par la grace de Dieu, decouvert aucun." This sentence

including the conclusion in which i t is embodied is not an exact

copy but a paraphrase of the conclusion to Sahak's previous le tte r

to Acacius. Other than the addition of Theodore's name, l i t t l e is

changed. I f Sahak had been responsible fo r preparing the texts

from Theodore and a t least p a r t ia lly responsible for inspiring the

mission to Proclus, he surely would not have replied to Proclus in

this fashion—merely referring to a possible danger. Thus, the

a rriv a l o f the unsolicited "Tome" was a surprise to him. He found

himself in the same s ituation he was in when he received the le t te r

56

from Acacius, therefore, he naturally used the same response a

second time with a few doctrinal additions in response to the

“Tome. " 199

The la s t le t te r in the Armenian collection called The Book of

Letters throws more lig h t upon the situation in Armenia. This comes

from the pen o f Acacius o f Melitene and is addressed to the people

of Armenia. The occasion for its composition was the v is it by three

Armenian priests complaining to Acacius about the circu lation of

works w ritten by Diodore of Tarsus. This v is i t— like that of Leontius

and Abel--was not an o ff ic ia l v is i t from the Armenian episcopate, but

one undertaken on private in it ia t iv e . I t is necessary to question why

these priests brought th e ir problem to the bishop of Melitene rather

than to th e ir own bishops. They may well have avoided th e ir superiors

on this matter because they were not assured a sympathetic hearing.

Such an assumption would help explain in turn why Acacius directed

his le t te r to the people of Armenia rather than to the h ie ra rc h y .^

This second appearance o f anti-Antiochene leaders from Armenia

indicates that the C y rillia n m ilieu in that country was encouraged

by its p artia l success in 435 to s trike another blow against the

opposition by way of attacking another of i ts leaders. The radical

Acacius was more lik e ly to espouse th e ir cause openly than the

cautious Proclus.^01

I t is not certain exactly when Diodore was f i r s t e x p lic it ly made

an object of attack. Cyril wrote his trea tise against Diodore and

Theodore in 438, but he had already spoken disapprovingly of Diodore

57

in his f i r s t le tte r to Succensus. I t is d i f f ic u lt , however, to date

this ep istle : Richard locates i t sometime between April 433 and

August 433. The le t te r of Acacius is also not dated with certainty.

There are two p o ss ib ilities : C y ril's Contra Diodorum et Theodorum

could have provoked the agitation in the Armenian c irc le s , but on

the other hand, th is a c tiv ity could have preceded his stand against

Diodore. Richard considers this la t te r hypothesis "more probable,"

for i f Acacius1 le tte rs were drafted in 433 or (more lik e ly ) a fte r

438, one could not explain very well why he mentioned Nestorius and

Diodore, but not Theodore .^

The meeting of the Armenians with Proclus was important for

bringing the question of the orthodoxy of Diodore and Theodore to

the public eye. Its immediate result was to lead Proclus to compose

his famous "Tome to the Armenians." According to Schwartz, the

"Tome" is a profession of fa ith which represents the theological

trad itio n of Cyril against that of Theodore, but without mentioning

the le t te r or quoting from h im .^ Nevertheless, i f the theology,

of the "Tome" is predominantly C y rillin e in character, i t is generally

regarded as a compromising form of that type of theology. By setting

i t as a complete antithesis to Antiochene theology, perhaps Schwartz

has neglected the equivocal nature of the "Tome" which commended i t

to the Easterners as orthodox. The importance of the "Tome" lies

in the very fact that i t is a compromise which helped to prepare the

way fo r the theological compromise of the Chalcedonian defin ition of

fa ith in 451.204

58

The center of in te rest in this defin ition of fa ith is the

"For as I know and have taught with piety one son, I confess that

one is the hypostatis of God the Word who has become flesh ." The

parentage fo r this formula is most probably the theology of Cyril

expresses the same thought underlying C yril's second, th ird and

The greatest variance between scholars' accounts of the contro­

versy over Theodore and Diodore is found with respect to the period

following the production o f Proclus' "Tome to the Armenians" (c . 435-

this controversy, i t is impossible to evaluate them c r it ic a l ly on

the basis of how they use the documentary evidence availab le , for

such an evaluation would require a s im ilarly minute study of the

primary sources which would go fa r beyond the bounds of this

dissertation . Therefore, our procedure w ill be to try to u t il iz e

the artic les of Schwartz, Richard, Devreesse, and Abramowski

together, indicating at which points there are discrepancies.

In this synthesized account, the order of events w ill be traced

statement: JPyob y J y atv) J 'c e fti)((P c (f S ve rtfiu /sM u v VMp/ioyu' T v v 7"°^ <7htpKu>/Pedros f l to v Jioyou urrotrr^a’tv •

as i t is expressed in his th ird l e t t e r to Nestorius: T O fy jy o v i/

7/yo<nPrrc^> 7c/f «fV 7&CJ £v<*yys\cocs 77P<r-(s u t/e i (PeTfov

£ 77o e rr*& £ ( ^ ( 2 y o u A o y o u <7E<r^y>/rw>c<e</^ . This

fourth anathemas.205 Another version of the statement is C yril's

438 A .D .). In u t il iz in g the previously-mentioned works concerning

59

prim arily from the works of Schwartz and Richard, for Richard has

followed Schwartz's ou tline , making some additions and corrections

to i t . Devreesse's independent account varies from those given by

these two scholars on several important points which w ill be in d i­

cated. Abramowski's a r t ic le adds some valuable comments on the

conclusions of a ll three men.

The death of Rabboula in August of 438 removed the ch ief

instiga to r of the campaign against Diodore and Theodore from the

scene. Nevertheless, the movement had already gained su ffic ien ton 7

momentum—and leaders—to continue. '

One such leader, the Archimandrite Basil of Constantinople

vis ited Alexandria with the "Tome" of Proclus and the le tte r of

the Armenians, hoping fo r support from Cyril who at the moment

would not risk engaging in a public clash over Theodore. Schwartz

assumes that the dogmatic formulas which he (C y ril) tried to fo is t

onto the Orientals through the agency of Aristolaus a t this time

were in re a lity aimed at Theodore. Returning to Constantinople,

Basil received an evasive answer to his request of Proclus that

the la t te r take action against Theodore. Proclus referred him

to his "Tome" as a su ffic ien t answer. Thereupon, the Archimandrite

turned to the court fo r support in his venture, however, without

success.208

. A fter an uncertain length of time, another C y rillia n began

the attack upon Theodore again. This v/as the deacon o f Antioch,

Maximus, who began agitation against him in Constantinople. The

60

time was ripe fo r some o ff ic ia l action to be taken from Proclus'

viewpoint, for he had received the complaint that Ibas of Edessa

had translated the texts which had been appended to his Tome to

the Armenians into Syriac and proclaimed them orthodox. This took

place in 435 A.D. 209

Since Ibas was under the authority of the patriarch of Antioch,

Proclus1 f i r s t move was to send his Tome to John o f Antioch asking

him to demand that Ibas sign the Tome and condemn in w riting the

excerpts from Theodore's works which were also sent--though without

Theodore's name being attached to them. Schwartz thinks that Proclus

also asked the entire Oriental episcopate to sign the Tome at this

time, but Richard thinks that th is request of the whole episcopate

was made in another le t te r sent sometime thereafte r. According to

the French scholar, i t was a fte r Proclus' f i r s t le t te r concerning

Ibas that John “had decided to convene a synod in the coming August.

The accusers of Ibas led by one Theodotus seized this occasion to

trave l to the East in order to arouse opposition to John's forces.

The monophysite faction in Antioch led by the deacon Maximus f e l t .

that i ts time for victory had come. Thereupon, he le f t fo r Con­

stantinople in order to inform Proclus about the opposition that

had been organized in Antioch. I t could have been a t this moment,

according to Richard, that Proclus ventured to demand from a ll

the eastern bishops what he had o rig in a lly demanded only o f Ibas .2^9

The synod which met in Antioch on August 1, 438 judged the

Tome of Proclus to be perfectly orthodox and agreed to sign i t .

However, the Eastern bishops refused to condemn the excerpts from

Theodore, fo r they were well aware o f whose name was masked behind

the anonymity. Three synodal le tte rs were sent which show the mind

of the bishops: these were addressed to Proclus, C y r il , and the

211emperor. 11

Expressing th e ir indignation a t being asked to sign another

agreement, they take pains to defend Theodore's theology against

attack. Each of the le tte rs contains the same basic lin e o f argument

together with comments appropriate to each recip ient. Some of the

excerpts (cap itu la ) are said to be in perfect agreement with the

"Tome": Others are said to have been torn from the contexts so as

to give a false impression of th e ir true meaning. I f some of the

theological terms used by Theodore are d i f f ic u l t , the Eastern bishops

remind th e ir recipients that he could not always use moderate lan­

guage in his constant ba ttle against heresy. Some of his other

terms of an archaic nature may be found in the works of many of

the great Church Fathers, who are named. In addition to these

defenses of Theodore's theology, the bishops declare that i t is

not r ig h t to condemn a dead man: to do so would be to s ta rt a

bad precedent. This succession of arguments concludes with an

affirm ation of the fa ith of Nicea, the concord of 433, and the

renewal of i t in c. 4 3 7 .^2

The le t te r of the Eastern bishops to Proclus carries a strong

insistence upon th e ir loyalty to his "Tome," yet a complaint against

the vagabond monks of dubious orthodoxy who are spreading slanders

62

in the cap ita l. The le t te r to the emperor reminds him of the

preeminent status of Theodore of Mopsuestia—the admiration of

Theodosius I for him, his association with Flavian of Antioch

(a prelate of recognized orthodoxy), and his friendship with John

Chrysostom. At the same time, a complaint is issued against

"irresponsible elements" who are allowed the freedom to attack 213whomever they want.

The le t te r to Cyril also makes a strong complaint against

the agitators in Constantinople who are destroying the peace: the

reference is to Maximus and his partisans, though they are unnamed.

The Easterners end this ep istle with a plea to Cyril that he ask

Proclus to stop the intrigues for the sake of peace. The le tte r

avoids accusing Proclus of responsib ility fo r the trouble: the

monks remain the focus of the c h a rg e .^

At the time of the synod in Antioch, Cyril was in Jerusalem

where he received a complaint from Antioch stating that while the

Easterners had condemned Nestorius, they now adhered to the heresy

of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Cyril had been prevailed upon previously

by his extremist disciples to take up the sword against Theodore,

but up to this time had resisted. Now he switched to a hard-line

p o s it io n .*^ Thus, his reply to the synodal le t te r hardly met

th e ir request. Rather than seeking to restore peace, he eulogizes

the Tome of Proclus and then attacks the views of Diodore and Theodore.

Moreover, John is exhorted to examine the covert heretics under his

ju risd ic tio n by ecclesiastical trib u n a l; i f th is measure proves

63

unsuccessful, John is told to bring the offenders before the secular

power fo r punishment. ^ 6

Schwartz and Richard order other events subsequent to the August

synod into somewhat d iffe ren t sequences and a ttrib u te to them d if fe r ­

ent causal connections. For the sake of lucid narrative , we w ill

follow Richard's sequence which places Proclus1 le t te r of s e lf -

defense (concerning his request made of the Easterners) immediately

a fte r he received the synodal le t te r rather than la te r , a fte r C y ril'spi 7

adoption of a more pacific policy, as Schwartz suggests.

Two of Proclus' le tte rs w ritten a fte r the receipt of the

Antiochene synodal show how upset he was by i t . In w riting to

John, he claimed that he neither demanded thatTheodore be anathe­

matized nor gave his deacon and emissary Theodotus authority to

make such a demand. To his agent Maximus, he writes that he had

no intention of disturbing the peace of the church with his le tte r

to John: he had only asked fo r a subscription to the Tome and a

rejection o f the anonymous capitula joined to i t . Furthermore,

he asks how i t happened that the names of Theodore and others were

designated fo r condemnation when they are already dead. Then he

directs Maximus not to demand more, but to allow John the authority

and freedom to act as he w i l l . "But a fte r the subscription to the

Tome and the rejection of the cap itu la , the author o f which I do

not know, prepare immediately the return o f the deacon Theodotus to

the capital so that the very holy churches might not be everywhere

f i l le d with tempest and d i s o r d e r . T h e s e le tte rs o f Proclus

64

express his embarrassment a t finding the terns of his request made

to John distorted. However, Proclus has not yet changed his position

with regard to the condemnation of the e x c e rp ts .^ One's signature

to the Tome was at the same time a re jection of the excerpts which

accompanied i t .

In spite of Proclus' claim that the excerpts were intended

to be anonymous and his protestations that he had not intended

that Theodore be anathematized, i t was common knowledge that the

excerpts were taken from Theodore's works. The archbishop of

Constantinople had been caught in an act of deception. Richard220remarks, "Sa position d ta it pourtant bien fausse." A clear

proof o f th is is seen in a c ircu lar le tte r sent by Cyril to three

of his followers—Acacius of Melitene, Theodotus of Ancyra, and Firmus

of Caesarea—in which he e x p lic it ly id en tifies the :capitula as

Theodore's, informing them that Proclus had requested that the

Easterners anathematize th e rn .^

Shortly a fte r Cyril had arrived home from Jerusalem, the

deacon Maximus arrived from Antioch with a report on the situation

there. From his point of view, i t was abominable: the people

were zealous in th e ir support of Theodore with cries of "Long live

the fa ith o f Theodore!" and "As Theodore believes, we believe!"

To oppose him was to run the risk o f being stoned. Furthermore,

the bishops were fa lse ly interpreting the Nicene Creed. Therefore,

Maximus and his colleagues demanded that Cyril w rite a refutation .

Cyril responded by hastily w riting the trea tise Contra Diodorum

et Theodorum. ^ The speed with which he composed this work may be

accounted for by the fact that he u tilize d an already existing

florilegium of quotes from some works of Theodore and Diodore--a

collection of Apollinarian orig in . Although there are only frag­

mentary remains o f C y ril's work, Richard's investigations have led

to the conclusion that the Apollinarian authors of the florilegium

distorted the meaning of the texts they borrowed, giving them an

heretical import. At least part o f C yril's book dealt with the

argument based on the authority of p a tris tic trad itio n in an attempt

to disprove the Easterners' allegation of August 438 that there were

textual paralle ls between the works of Theodore and those of some of

the revered church fathers such as Athanasius, Basil, the two

Gregories, and Amphilochius of Iconium. Cyril cited some proof-

texts fo r his own position that he had used previously in other

works to bolster his point of v i e w . ^ 3

The e ffec t of this work was to strengthen the resistance of

the Eastern party. When John saw i t , he commissioned Theodoret to

write a defense, whereupon Theodoret composed the treatise entitled

Pro Diodoro e t Theodoro. Both C y ril's and Theodoret's works concern­

ing these two theologians are lo s t, but there are some fragments

remaining—those of Theodoret's apology having been preserved in

the acts of the la te r councils. Enough has been preserved to

indicate something of the nature of Theodoret's defense. As we have

indicated, i t would have developed the argument from p a tr is tic

trad itio n . I t also most certa in ly contained an uncompromising

66

statement o f trad itiona l Antiochene theology. With respect to

the human nature in Christ, Theodoret defended the use o f concrete

expressions such as "the man who was assumed (taken) by God."

According to Richard, this is the la s t known work of Theodoret's

to use this uncompromisingly Antiochene term inology.*^

The tense relations existing between the Orientals and the

patriarchs o f Alexandria and Constantinople approached closer to

a rupture when John received news that the Archimandrite Maximus

and his a llie s were fomenting new intrigues in the cap ita l. This

report appears to have led John to convene a new council. Letters

to Proclus and Cyril express the Easterners' indignation at the

trouble caused by',these individuals. John's bishops would rather

be burned a live than approve of the condemnation of th e ir two

beloved church fathers. The hard-won peace o f 433 was in imminent

danger of being dissolved in schism. ^ -

C y ril's reaction to this uncompromising epistle was surprising!

He conceded to what the Easterners had requested of him previously:

he wrote to Proclus in the interests o f peace. In his le t te r , he

dissociates himself from the Orientals by expressing a severe

judgement against Theodore's w ritings. Yet, he deems i t unnecessary

to condemn him, for such action would kindle the flames of discord

in the churches. Besides, a creed of Theodore's composition has

already been condemned a t Ephesus, and the condemnation of Nestorius'

blasphemies contained the kindred errors of Theodore by way of

im plication. F in a lly , Cyril suggests that Proclus do what is

67

necessary to secure peace: this means obviously to shackle

Maximus.227

C y ril's le t te r is a subtle defense of his policy. He himself

had never demanded a personal condemnation o f Theodore; an expose

of his errors was s u ffic ie n t in his eyes. In this le t te r , he remains

convinced o f Theodore's heresy, yet unwilling to take o ff ic ia l action

in face o f the opposition by John's party. At the same time, he is

s ile n t about the scheme o f Proclus to procure a condemnation of

Theodore under the guise of the anonymity of the capitula extracted

from his works. He had made i t known before that i t was no secret

who the author of the extracts was. His silence at this moment may

be interpreted as a sign to Proclus not to persist in his attempt

to exact a condemnation form John and his bishops. Cyril had indeed

beaten a hasty "Riickzug" (Schwartz), but one which amounted to a

tac tica l withdrawal. He had upheld his course of action yet had

shrunk from following i t onto dangerous ground. "Sa le ttre de

retractation est un p e t it chef-d'oeuvre de fausse candeur.... Mais228C y rille n 'e ta it pas homme a fa ire son mea culpa devant 1'univers."

His le t te r of response to the Easterners disclaims any responsi­

b i l i t y for the trouble s tirre d up by Maximus and his cronies. Indeed,

he regards i t as inexcusable to in s u lt already deceased bishops. In

this manner, he sacrifices Maximus who had become an embarrassment to

him. "In der Antwort auf das antiochenische Synodalschreiben.. .

s p ie lt er keck und frech die Rolle des Wolfes, der kein Wassercheni

getrtibt hat, und lasst Maximus als heterodoxen Intriganten fa lle n -----

63

However, le s t he appear to have been completely wrong in his

opposition to Diodore and Theodore, Cyril now exhorts the Easterners

about the great responsib ility of those who w rite and teach. In this

connection, he cites the passage from his le t te r to Proclus which

mentions the creed condemned at Ephesus (Theodore's). Thus, C y ril's

le t te r responds to the O rientals' request fo r him to quash the move­

ment to condemn the Antiochene teachers yet ju s tif ie s his part in

i t by claiming the necessity of condemning heresy .*^

Soon a fte r Cyril had w ritten to Proclus, an imperial rescrip t

was sent to the Antiochene synod at Proclus' request. This communi­

cation expressed the intention of maintaining peace by offering to

support John in his opposition to the monophysites. I t commanded

the synod to remain with the whole church and not to decide against

those who had died in peace with the church. According to Schwartz,

the cunning Proclus had apparently given the impression to the

emperor as though the synod in Antioch had been responsible fo r

the confusion about Diodore and Theodore in the f i r s t place.231

Now that this campaign against Antiochene theology had

e ffe c tiv e ly ended, the question remains: why did Cyril and Proclus

abandon i t , even before the appearance o f the imperial order? Two

p o s s ib ilitie s have been suggested. Schwartz believes that Cyril

was the f i r s t to abandon this strategy due to pressure from the

court--especially from the emperor's s is te r , Pulcheria, who s t i l l

retained her dominant influence over her brother. I t was she who

had previously backed him against Nestorius in 431 out of her

69

d is lik e fo r the la t te r . She did not v/ant the precious ecclesi­

astical unity to be destroyed again, and a t this point John must

have appeared a be tte r guarantee of harmony than Cyril or Proclus.

She was la te r (in 451) to be responsible fo r the settlement at

Chalcedon. From C y ril's viewpoint, i t must have appeared too

risky to pursue the question o f Diodore and Theodore any further.

The opposition was too great, and there was the chance of jeopar­

dizing his e a r lie r victories against the patriarchate o f Antioch.^32

Richard considers this theory "peu vraisemblable." According

to him, the a c tiv it ie s of Cyril and Acacius—especially th e ir

public id e n tific a tio n of the author of the cap itu la—had "rendered

the position o f Proclus perfectly untenable," for he had feigned

ignorance of th e ir authorship. Thus, Richard conjectures that

Proclus with the support of the court instigated C y ril's reply

to the Easterners, ju s t as he had been in d ire c tly responsible for

the imperial le t t e r . ^

Once the stalemate had been reached over the teaching of

Diodore and Theodore, a condition of re la tive peace settled over

the Eastern Church. Theodoret even entered into a po lite corre­

spondence with Cyril of Alexandria and remained on decent terms

with him until the la t te r 's d e a th .^ However, th is one cordial

note together with the absence o f open co n flic t did not mean that

the h o s tility had been extinguished. Indeed, i t is most accurate

to say that the controversy begun by Nestorius and Cyril c . 429 A.D.

established a f ir e o f h o s tility which a t times appeared to die out

70

but which was fanned into open conflagration by new sets of

h istorica l circumstances.»

The short interval of peace lasted from 438 until the mid-

440's during which time the older generation o f church leaders

passed from the scene. John o f Antioch died in 442 A.D ., CyrilpOC

in 444, and Proclus in 446. The change in circumstances caused

by the emergence of new leaders and the alignment of new p o litic a l

forces soon caused the smoldering h o s tility to break out once again

into what was to become in the la te 440's the most violent episode

in the controversy between the Antiochene and Alexandrian schools

of theology.

In this las t outbreak before the Council of Chalcedon,

Theodoret of Cyrus played an even more central role than he had

previously enjoyed. With the death of the powerful John and the

succession of his lackluster nephew Domnus to the patriarchal throne

of Antioch, Theodoret became the theological and p o lit ic a l leader

of the Antiochene.party. Domnus appears to have accepted his word

as advisor without question. His status in the Eastern Church and

his importance fo r the Christological debate between 447 and 451

are amply attested to. According to Kidd, "Theodoret, since the

death of C y ril, was fa c ile princeps among theologians of the

Eastern Empire."^® Duchesne's words summarize more eloquently

the overall significance o f Theodoret fo r this era: "Theodoret,

especially since the death of C y ril, was the greatest authority

in theology in the Greek Orient. . . . Such a man represented

71

merely in himself an ecclesiastical power: he was, for the Orient,

a kind of Augustine.

The significance o f Theodoret w ill become apparent in the

account to follow . In discussing this period, we w ill give attention

to the h istorica l events in which he was involved and to his lite ra ry

production—-in addition to the Eranistes—-which help explain his

motives and theology. Fortunately, much of his epistolary production

from this time has been preserved. I t w ill provide us with some

key items to be used in the in terpretation of his work.

Several writings are generally to be assigned to this period,

although th e ir dates o f publication cannot be determined precisely.

One of these works, De providentia orationes decern may have been

w ritten in the early or la te 430's; scholars d if fe r as to the exact

time of c o m p o s i t i o n . 238 Richard and Brok date this series of ora­

tions a fte r 435. According to the former, the tenth of thesepoq

orations is doctrinally akin to a work of 447, the Eranistes.

Most o f the exegetical work o f the bishop o f Cyrus may be

assigned ten tative ly to the period of his l i f e a fte r 435 A.D. The

greater share o f his B ib lical commentaries- on Old Testament books

also belongs to a period between 435 and 449 A.D.— the commentaries

on the Song o f Songs, Daniel, Ezekiel, the Twelve Prophets, Psalms,

Isaiah, and J e r e m i a h . A very general chronological sequence has

been established for these works. I t appears that the books on the

Song of Songs, Daniel, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Prophets were written

before the Commentary on the Psalms. Isaiah was the next book to be

72

treated followed by the la s t of this sequence, the Commentary on

Jeremiah which contains a reference to the work on Is a ia h .^ A

somewhat more d e fin ite dating may be assigned to some of these

works. The Commentary on the Psalter belongs to the years 441-

449.242 impressive Commentary on Isaiah which came to lig h t

in recent times appears to have been w ritten in the mid-440's.

Since the date o f composition of this work is close to that of

Eranistes and since its important Christology has become the

subject of a careful study, i t w ill be used la te r by way of

comparison with the main work of our s tu d y .^ Of these exegetical

works, the Commentary on Jeremiah would occupy a time nearest to

the year 449 A.D. This terminus ad quern for these works is estab­

lished by Ep. 82, "To Eusebius, Bishop of Ancyra" which mentions

a ll of these works in December 448 (Azema) or 449. In addition,

th is le t te r mentions Theodoret's works on the Pauline ep is tles ,

which must have been completed at some uncertain date a fte r the

Old Testament commentaries ju s t mentioned.244

Turning from exegetical works to other writings in this

f ru it fu l l ite ra ry period, we find the H istoria relig iosa or "History

of the Monks"—a credulous panegyric to the monks of Syria. This

is dated in c. 440 or c. 444 A. D.245 short treatise en titled

Peri Agapes ("Concerning Love") which is appended to this work

was w ritten sometime la te r—about 449 A.D. I t re flects the theme

also found in Theodoret's le tte rs between 447 and 451—that of

sharing the suffering of Christ. This expresses his own experience

of being persecuted during this tim e.246

73

The main trea tise under examination in this d issertation also

belongs to this period of lite ra ry a c t iv ity . Most scholars assign

i t to the year 447, although, some indicate that i t was not finished

until 448 A.D. Others would date i t e a r l ie r , that is , approximately

4 4 6 -4 4 7 .^ As most scholars ind icate, the date o f the Eranistes seu

Polymorphos is approximate. The specific time when a work is actually

begun and completed is often d i f f ic u lt to determine. However, we w ill

use the year 447 as the most l ik e ly date for this work.

The las t major work from Theodoret's pen before the Council of

Chalcedon is the well-known Church History ( His tori a Ecclesiastica)

which was completed during Theodoret's exile in his monastery at

Apamea, i .e . 449-450.

An attempt w ill be made to integrate some of these works with

a to ta l in terpretation of Theodoret's theological and p o litic a l

a c tiv ity in the period leading up to 451 and the Council of Chalcedon.

Several of these works w ill be examined more thoroughly at those

points where they contribute to our main in te res t. Nevertheless,

many of these writings — especially the commentaries—must be largely

passed over. A study o f them would take us fa r beyond the scope

of this dissertation .

Turning from Theodoret's l ite ra ry achievements between the la te

430‘s and the Council of Chalcedon, le t us examine the change in

historica l circumstances that prompted another outbreak o f con flic t

between the two main ecclesiastical parties in the East. With the

passing of the powerful leaders John, C y ril, and Proclus, the way

74

was open fo r a new alignment of p o lit ic a l forces in the situation

which th e ir successors inherited.

During his la te r years, Cyril had followed a pac ific course

of action out of necessity and kept his radical disciples under

control. Previously, during the years of his aggressive tactics

against the Easterners, his radical followers who possessed less

p o lit ic a l savo ir-fa ire insisted upon more drastic measures against

them. A fter his death in 444 A .D ., these forces began to advance

unchecked. C y ril's successor Dioscorus was a ruthless exponent

of C y ril's most reactionary tendencies yet devoid o f his p o litic a l

realism. I t was he who len t momentum to this burgeoning movement.2^

The forces o f the Alexandrian party v/ere greatly augmented by

the support of two forceful p o litic a l personalities who had attained

an ascendant position in Constantinople during the 440's: Eutyches,

the archimandrite o f the Monastery of Job in Constantinople and the

Eunuch Chrysaphius Zstommas who was the Grand Chamberlain to the

emperor. At the death of the monk Dalmatius (c . 440), who had been

an ardent opponent o f Nestorius, Eutyches became the most prestig­

ious monastic leader in Constantinople. His authority went far

beyond his functional leadership of the 300 monks in his monastery.

His person represented the unique charismatic authority of the monk

prized so highly by his contemporaries. His p o litic a l contacts could

not have been b e tte r. As a presbyter in the clergy of Constantinople,

he was a moving force in the ecclesiastical p o litics of the capital

c ity . Most important, however, is the fact that he was the godfather

75

of Chrysaphius, the all-powerful advisor to the emperor. During

the Nestorian Controversy, he had been a loyal supporter of C y ril,

and he continued piously to champion the conservative "monophysite"

form of C y ril's theology represented by D i o s c o r u s . ^ 0

The key figure in th is winning coalition was Chrysaphius,

who eventually became the most powerful o f f ic ia l in the Eastern

Empire. A fter the fa l l o f Cyrus (the Praetorian Prefect o f the

East and Prefect of the cap ita l) in la te 441 A .D ., Chrysaphius

began to exercise "a predominant influence" over the emperor

Theodosius I I . ^ His strategy involved removing a ll those from

the court who competed fo r the attention o f the emperor. He was

successful in s t ir r in g up the jealousy of the emperor's wife

Eudocia against her in flu en tia l s is te r-in -law Pulcheria. A fter

fa ilin g to persuade the emperor to force Pulcheria into marriage,

she intrigued—a t Chrysaphius' in s tig a tio n —to have her consecrated

a deaconness since she had already taken a vow of v irg in ity . In

order to avoid an open clash with Eudocia, she re tired into obscurity

in the palace o f the Hebdomon and did not regain p o litic a l power

until her brother's death in 450 A . D . ^ Eudocia herself was the

next to be removed from the court due to the suspicion that she

was carrying on an adulterous a f fa ir with one Paulinus, a friend

o f the emperor. In 443 A.D. she obtained permission to travel

to Jerusalem where she spent the la s t sixteen years of her l i f e .

Although there is no proof that the Grand Chamberlain was also

responsible fo r the circumstances of Eudocia's downfall, i t is

l ik e ly that he was involved in some way.333 with the removal of

these personal influences from Theodosius' l i f e , Chrysaphius alone

dominated the feeble emperor to the extent that he completely

controlled governmental policy. " I t is stated . . . that Theodosius

at th is time was in the habit of signing state papers without reading

them." This ascendancy over the emperor lasted un til shortly before

the emperor's death in 450 when Chrysaphius lo s t the emperor's favor

and Pulcheria once again exercised her influence successfully.33^

With such leaders as Chrysaphius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus

securely esconced in positions of power, the "monophysite" party

began to become more aggressive. Soon its in tent became apparent,

namely, to destroy the power of the Antiochene party.

As we have indicated, the Antiochene party had reached the

height o f its power under John o f Antioch. Although i t had not

by any means broken the power of Alexandria, i t had seriously

checked its effectiveness in 433 and p artic u la rly in 438. These

lim itations to its free operation constituted a considerable

achievement. Even though this achievement was largely of a

defensive nature, i t stymied the w ills of the diehard conservative

Alexandrians in such a way that they harbored a b it te r resentment

against Antioch—a resentment which burst out when the new Constan-

tinople-Alexandria coa lition gave i t free re in .

In the previously-mentioned turnover o f leadership in the mid-

440's, the Antiochene patriarchate came out decidedly on the losing

side o f the p o litic a l spectrum. Schwartz characterizes John's

77

successor Domnus as a "characterless weakling." This patriarch

attempted to follow the p o lit ic a l strategy of his predecessor but

was to be frustrated in his attempt. Theodoret aided his party's

cause ch ie fly by his prestige and l ite ra ry achievements, but he was

not the canny p o litic ia n which f i f th century church p o litics required.

Opitz aptly remarks that Theodoret became involved in po litics too

much fo r his own good: he saw only the theological aspects of the

controversy.255

The balance of power in Constantinople was even less in the

Antiochenes' favor than i t had been under John—especially now that

Pulcheria could no longer check the ambitions of the Alexandrian

patriarch. The new archbishop Flavian was not well thought of by

Dioscorus and his cohorts, and his position was not secure enough

that he could risk opposing the Alexandrian coalition or even

modestly supporting the A n tiochenes.^ That Theodoret and his

partisans were rapidly fa llin g into a vulnerable position to

th e ir adversaries was not a t once obvious to them, fo r Theodoret

and Domnus worked to place strong champions o f the Antiochene

tra d itio n in vacant episcopal sees such as Antarados, Emesa and

T y r e . ^ The most controversial o f these appointments was Theodoret's

consecration of the former Count Irenaeus as Bishop of Tyre. He had

been one o f the most tenacious supporters o f Nestorius and had ju s t

returned a fte r twelve years of exile in 446. Even though he had

such a dubious background to the eyes of some contemporaries and

had been married tw ice, he was recognized by the bishops of Syria

73

and pontus and even by Proclus himself shortly before the la tte r 's

death.^ 8 These appointments served to further arouse the Egyptian

party. In 446, the f i r s t move in the Alexandrian camp began when

Dioscorus objected to Domnus1 approval of Proclus1 c ita tio n of the

th ird canon of the Council of Constantinople which established the

precedence of the patriarchate of the capital c ity in the East. He

understood this as an attack upon the perogative of his own see.

However, this fr ic tio n did not escalate into a fu ll-fledged war.259

Schwartz places the beginning of the A n g riffsp o litik of the

Alexandrian coalition in 447, however, the p o litic a l sanctions

against Antioch did not begin until the following year. I t is

d if f ic u lt to determine the causal sequence in the action of the two

sides in th is ensuing controversy; that is , did a particu lar move

in it ia te d by one side cause a reaction by the other party? There

is no doubt but that the Alexandrian party was hostile toward the

Easterners at the outset and that i t sought a pretext fo r an attack.

Surely the signs o f power shown in Antiochene po litics must have

helped e l ic i t a vio lent reaction. Surely Theodoret's Eranistes,

which sp e c ifica lly refuted the kind o f Christology that was being

trumpeted by Eutyches and others in the Alexandrian camp, added

more fuel to the flame. Since i t appeared in 447 or early 443,

i t was most certa in ly a factor contributing to the legal action

against Theodoret and his friends.251 Even though this work

does not name an opponent, the opposing party would probably

rea lize i ts general application to th e ir t h e o l o g y . 252 one might

79

say that the composition o f the Eranistes was a daring gesture in

view of the mounting opposition yet a cautious and only uninten­

tio n a lly provocative gesture in view of the fac t that i t attacked

no specific person. Theodoret did not cherish the p o litica l arena

but was w illin g to take a risk for the cause of orthodoxy. He

entertained no doubts about the rectitude of his own o p in io n s .^

Domnus was less circumspect in a synodal le tte r addressed

to the emperor toward the beginning of 448 in which he e x p lic itly

accused Eutyches of Apollinarianism. A reaction was to appear

soon .^

On April 18 of 448 an imperial decree against Nestorius and

his followers was published. This was much more e x p lic it than the

one o f 436: i t specified that a ll writings not in agreement with

Nicaea and Ephesus (implying Theodoret's works against C yril) were

to be burned, and i t ordered Irenaeus of Tyre to leave his bishopric

and to return to his home town. Theodoret was in Antioch when this

decree arrived. When he returned to Cyrus, he received a command

from the magister militurn of the East not to leave his c ity on the

charge of having held synods in Antioch and confused the " o r t h o d o x . "265

On the basis o f the April 18 rescrip t, Dioscorus next attempted

to procure an ecclesiastical condemnation of Irenaeus and Theodoret.

Writing to Domnus, he requested that Theodoret be silenced and that

a new bishop be consecrated for Tyre. Domnus1 reply refers to his

e a r lie r le t te r to Dioscorus in which he had defended his theology

by an appeal to the agreements of Ephesus and Nicaea, the le tte r

80

of Cyril to John, Athanasius' le t te r to Epictetus, and the Formula

of Union (433).266

In order to egg Dioscorus on to further action, a group of

monks from Antioch appeared in Alexandria and incited the v o la tile

Egyptian monks. As a resu lt o f th e ir ag ita tio n , the local monks

mustered a demonstration during which they asked Dioscorus to take

action against the "Antiochene heretics ."26? Not wishing to disappoint

his supporters, Dioscorus wrote once again to Domnus in uncompromising

terms demanding the removal of Theodoret and probably the recognition

of the Twelve Chapters. Domnus1 reply asks Dioscorus to be satis fied

with the Formula of U n i o n . 268

At this time, Theodoret wrote a le t te r of self-defense to the

Alexandrian patriarch which mentions the agents' fallacious reports

about him and Dioscorus' hostile le tte rs to Domnus. The charge in

question is the time-worn Alexandrian accusation that Theodoret was

dividing the Christ into two Sons. This very compromising and

iren ic le t te r attempts to reassure Dioscorus o f Theodoret's

essential orthodoxy. The urgent attempt to convince in the le t te r

indicates that Theodoret now realized c learly the immensity o f the

danger that confronted him.269

Upon receiving this le t te r , Dioscorus read i t to his horcfes of

monks who screamed, "Anathema Theodoretl Anathema Domnus!" The

next step of this patriarch was to send some churchmen to Constan­

tinople in order to in c ite more opposition to Theodoret and Domnus.

Theodoret complains about this action and the hostile reply of

81

Dioscorus in a le t te r of September 448: "But the very godly bishop

Dioscorus has w ritten us a le t te r such as never ought to have been

w ritten by one who has learned from the God of a l l not to lis ten

to vain words."270

In order to counteract the influence of the Alexandrians in

the ca p ita l, Domnus—probably at the instigation o f Theodoret—sent

some of his bishops there to present th e ir position. They took several

of Theodoret's le tte rs of appeal to important persons (Eps. 92-96,

99-101, 103, 104, 106). Understandably, they fa iled to stem the

t id e .2^ : The requisite legal support from the court for the

Alexandrians' strategy was forthcoming. Dioscorus and his friends

did not deem i t s u ffic ie n t merely to check the power of the oppo­

s ition : they aimed a t nothing less than the complete removal of

the opposing leaders from positions o f influence. One by one they979f e l l before the Alexandrian scythe. A command from the emperor

forced Domnus to choose a successor for Irenaeus in Tyre, thus

assuring that Irenaeus would remain out o f c ircu la tion . On271September 9, 448, a presbyter of that c ity was ordained bishop.

The next to fa l l was Ibas of Edessa, although this did not

f in a lly take place until the following year. A long history of

trouble lay behind his deposition. He as a staunch Antiochene had

succeeded the C y ril!ian Rabboula in 435 and had been in constant

c o n flic t w ith the C y rillia n party in his church since that time.

The co n flic t became so b it te r that Domnus invited Ibas and four

representatives of Edessa‘s opposition party to appear before a

82

synod in Antioch shortly before Easter o f 448. When the emperor's

edict against the Nestorian sympathizers arrived, two o f his repre­

sentatives fled to Constantinople where they denounced the bishops

of Antioch and Cyrus as rebels and heretics. The synod judged

against them in favor of Ibas.^74 However, the party opposing Ibas

found ready audience in Constantinople where an imperial commission

was appointed to hear the case. A fter an inconclusive session early

in 449, the o ff ic ia ls met in Tyre where Ibas was acquitted of charges

against him, and a superfic ia l reconciliation of Ibas and his detractors

took place. Nevertheless, a fte r he had returned to Edessa, an imperial

order renewed the attack by appointing the president of the province

of Osrhoene as the judge over a new t r i a l . As a resu lt, Ibas was

deposed on April 18. Eutyches helped complete the coup by in s t i ­

gating Chrysaphius to have him banished. On June 27, 449, he was

o f f ic ia l ly deposed by imperial order.^75

Before Ibas met his fa te in this manner, a completely unexpected

event took place in Constantinople which u ltim ately played into the

hands of Dioscorus' party. On November 8 , 448, the Home Synod of

Constantinople met to examine a dispute between the Metropolitan of

Sardis and two o f his s u ffra g a n s .^ A fter th is business had been

taken care o f, Eusebius of Dorylaeum unexpectedly presented a

lib e llu s requesting that a heresy t r ia l be opened against Eutyches.

Such a challenge to the party in power was what Flavian had wanted

to avoid a t a l l costs. Only a reckless heresy-hunter such as

Eusebius would have risked such a confrontation. Once the charge

had been made, there was no avoiding the issue.

83

At the second session of the council, Eusebius repeated his

accusation, and the members agreed upon the accepted authorities

for th e ir fa ith : C y ril's second le t te r to Nestorius and his le tte r

to John. Next Flavian made a confession concerning the Christ "of

two natures" which borrows with some alterations the language of

the formula of Reunion. The bishops agreed to this formulation,

except for two bishops who preferred the phrase confessing Christ 711"in two natures."

There were seven sessions of th is synod altogether, the las t

of which took place on November 22, 448. The verdict was prolonged

by the fact that Eutyches made a varie ty of excuses in answer to

the three summons brought to him. The lenient Flavian s t i l l allowed

him a postponement beyond the time usually a llo tted in t r ia ls a fte r 278the th ird summons. The old monk f in a lly appeared at the seventh

session accompanied by an impressive escort of soldiers, monks, and

imperial o fficers who refused to allow him to enter the bishop's

palace until the synod promised to release him unharmed. As a

check on the procedures, the emperor appointed the prefect Florentius

to partic ipate in the p ro ceed ings .^

During the course of the examination, Eutyches f i r s t tried

to elude the questions of his examiners and then when forced to

answer spoke in contradictory terms. I t is d i f f ic u lt to establish

a coherent picture of his theology. Some of his statements are

consistent with orthodox teaching; others are n o t . ^ His point

of view may be best understood as an example o f the monastic piety

34

that went so well with C y ril's conservative theology and saw in the

Formula of Union a denial of its concept of redemption. This type of

piety was sa tis fied with the paradox of the incarnation and did not

set a high price on theological consistency.281 Eutyches goes so

fa r as to claim that "the Fathers" never espoused the idea that Christ

came into being out of two natures, but even i f there are some

instances in which they did speak in these terms, Eutyches refused

to accept the idea, making his appeal to the higher authority of

Scripture.282

His eventual condemnation at the end of the session is based

upon two fundamental assertions. The f i r s t has to do with the idea

of two natures. "I confess that our Lord has come into being frcm

two natures before the union, but a fte r the union I recognize only

one nature"— O m 0*) o y Q (puGfusv yZ 'f£V7}(T& ( Tov

KupibV -jrtuuv 7Tp0 TVS '/vsru 6s TVS £W<T(V

J /foU / (pu><?(v 0 M o)\oyuJ . 283 This statement hearkens back to the

"One nature a fte r the union" formula o f Cyril which he in turn

borrowed from an Apollinarian (Pseudo-Athanasian) source. I t is

d if f ic u lt to determine exactly what Eutyches meant by this statement.

This kind of "monophysite" thinking obviously raises the problem

of maintaining true humanity and true d iv in ity in Christ. However,

modern scholars o f a conservative persuasion often consider Eutyches1

use o f the phrase to be unorthodox but C y ril's use of i t to be

miraculously orthodox; that is , Eutyches and Apollinaris meant

something wrong by i t , but Cyril rea lly intended to use i t r i g h t l y . 2 8 4

85

The second statement of Eutyches which assured his condemnation was

his denial of Christ's consubstantiality with us {o & o e v o to T -y & rv

A^7V £?f>K/7rSr->?r*< ) ,2^ In reply to Flavian's question,

"Do you confess that the one and only Son our Lord Jesus Christ is

consubstantial with his Father according to his d iv in ity and consub-

stan tia l with his mother as to his humanity," he rep lied , "Until this

day, I have not permitted n^yself these kinds of speculations . . . .

Up to th is time, I have not said that the body of the Lord, our God

was consubstantial with us, but I confess that the holy Virgin is

consubstantial with us." Although he was forced to admit the consub­

s ta n tia lity o f Christ w ith other men, he qualified his admission by

saying: "Until now,-I say, I have not used this expression 'consub­

s ta n t ia l, ' because I confess that the body of Christ is the body

of God; the body of God I have not wanted to call the body of man,

but this body is human" b v f y & r e u r &

cfs TO O'u'-Mct ) . 2 6

By taking these two fundamental theological assertions together

(the one nature and nonconsubstantiality of Christ with us), there is

the strong implication that Eutyches believed that the human nature

of Christ was absorbed into or abridged by the divine nature.2*^

The sentence of deposition pronounced by the synod upon the old

archimandrite accused him of the errors o f Valentinus and ApolTi-

naris . 2^

To a casual observer, the condemnation and deposition of Eutyches

would appear as a decisive defeat for the Alexandrian coa lition . Yet

86

Eutyches knew how to make the most out of th is reversal. During the

t r ia l he played up the role of the pious and righteous sufferer for

the sake of tru th who had been victimized by his enemies, but in

re a lity he was a p artic u la rly shrewd p o litic ia n . With the backing

of Chrysaphius, he was s t i l l in control of the situation .

I t is d i f f ic u lt to in te rp re t the role of Florentius during the

t r i a l . Duchesne portrays him as one who earnestly tried to convince

Eutyches to accept the position o f his accusers with regard to the

two n a tu re s .^ On the other hand, Schwartz believes that the con­

demnation was actually planned by Eutyches, Florentius, and th e ir

party. "So ostentativ Eutyches die Rolle des a!ten, kranken, zur

Unterwerfung bereiten Klausners s p ie lte , in Wahrheit war er von

Anfang an der Angreifer, der mit den zur Ladung delegierten K lerikern,

m it dem Klager und m it dem Prozessleiter sein Spiel t r ie b .“^ 0

However calculated or uncalculated the outcome of the t r ia l may

have been, the condemnation in fact sparked the action that led to

the utter rout of his enemies.

The actions of Florentius at the t r ia l appear so contradictory

as to belie a preconceived partisan strategy. On the one hand, he

raised the question of whether Eutyches agreed with the Formula of

Union—a question that would appear to be embarrassing. Yet, he

also asked what Eutyches had previously taught and why. This

occasioned a subtle s h ift in the t r ia l procedure from that of an

accusation to a hearing. This was more advantageous to Eutyches

in that he did not have to deny his previous theology.291 Then

87

were F lorentius1 acts o f intervention those of a neutral p a r t ic i­

pant? Schwartz is convinced that he wanted to give Eutyches the

chance to question the orthodoxy o f the Formula of Union. In

other words the question was intended to subvert the position of

the synod rather than that of Eutyches. Thus, i t appears that

Florentius was in league with Eutyches and the Alexandrian party

and.that th e ir goal was actually to win the condemnation rather

than the acquittal o f the Archimandrite.

. . .d ie Vermutung drangt si.ch auf, dass er (Florentius) mit seinen Fragen dem schlauen Monch die Gelegenheit geben w o llte ...z u behaupten, dass die Unionsformel der Lehre der Vater widerspreche. Der Beamte steckte also mit im Komplott, so paradox eine Collusion m it dem Beklagten sein mag, die sich nicht dessen Freisprechung, sondern die Verurteilung zum Ziel setzte.292

Even in defeat, Eutyches was assured o f the unflinching support

of the Alexandrian patriarch who passionately shared his devotion to

the "one nature" formula and hated the Formula of Union. Due to the

backing of the Alexandrian patriarch and Chrysaphius, the negative

verd ict was only a momentary tac tica l defeat which prepared the

way for th e ir victory over the opposition. Indeed, the results of

the t r ia l became a pretext for Dioscorus to f in is h -o ff a ll o f his

theological and p o lit ic a l r i v a l s . ^

Eutyches' p o lit ic a l shrewdness was amply demonstrated a fte r

his t r i a l . He wasted no time in having placards put up a l l over

the c ity which contained the charge that he had been fa lse ly

condemned.^ j n addition, he wrote to Pope Leo and several other

88

in flu e n tia l bishops that he had been unjustly abused. Obviously,

he was counting upon the trad itiona l support of Rome fo r Alexandrian

causes. Dioscorus himself refused to recognize the verdict of the

synod. The substance of Eutyches1 request fo r support was his

claim that a w ritten appeal by him to the synod had not been

accepted by Flavian and that therefore the t r ia l procedure was

i l le g a l . The emperor len t his voice to the support of the archi-OQ C

mandrite in his own le t te r w ritten about the same time. Soon

he took the further step of trying to persuade Flavian to accept

Eutyches into communion only on the basis o f his signing the creed

of Nicea confirmed a t Ephesus (431). Flavian rejected the r e q u e s t . 296

In the spring of 449, Eutyches trie d a strategem sim ilar to

his previous one: in a lib e llu s to the emperor, he claimed that

the acts o f the synod had been fa ls if ie d . However, at an o f f ic ia l

discussion held on April 13, 449, this charge was proved fa lse .

Fourteen days la te r a new petition from Eutyches occasioned the

emperor to summon an o ff ic ia l who had taken part in the synod who

declared that Flavian had shown him the w ritten condemnation before

the la s t session o f the t r i a l . A commission was appointed by the

emperor to look into this matter, but Flavian's procedure was valid

on any ground, for Eutyches had not appeared upon request and was

therefore liable.^®?

The support of the emperor in a ll these undertakings pointed

to the sure hand of Chrysaphius behind the scenes. I t has been

pointed out that Chrysaphius' involvement resulted quite naturally

89

from his close personal relationship with Eutyches. However, there

was another important factor which made his unqualified support

necessary: this was the unique p o lit ic a l dilemma posed for

Chrysaphius from other quarters. In the year 448 A .D ., when the

government o f the East was being beleagured by At+'jla the Hun for

tribu te money, Chrysaphius bribed one of A t t i la 's envoys Edeco to

murder his master. Instead of carrying out the plan, Edeco

revealed the plot to A t t i la who demanded that the eunuch be delivered

up to him. Certain o ff ic ia ls at court also demanded that he be

removed from o ffice and executed. A t t i la 's wrath was soon placated

by the intervention of two imperial o f f ic ia ls so that he no longer

demanded the punishment o f Chrysaphius. Nevertheless, this faux

pas had seriously undermined the authority o f the eunuch at court.

He needed a decisive v ictory which would restore his position of

unquestioned authority. In the jungle of Byzantine in trig u e , he

could not stand another defeat. He must appease the faction of

Eutyches and ward o ff the hostile forces led by Flavian. “Ces

disputes thdologiques pouvaient apparaitre a 1 'eunuque comme

un heureux d e r iv a t if a 1 'impopularite que lu i ava it valu 1‘echec

de sa politique envers A t t i la . Une v ic to ire theologique compens-

e ra it utilement sa defaite po litique . S 'i l abandonnait Eutyches,

i l e ta it perdu."298 The ta c tic o f procuring the support of the

Alexandrian patriarch against his counterpart in Constantinople

was of course already w ell-established accepted procedure. Again

the coffers o f Alexandria contributed to the jo in t campaign against

the enemy.^9

90

At the beginning o f 449, Dioscorus and Eutyches began to

request an ecumenical council fo r se ttlin g the dispute. On March 30,

the emperor publicly proclaimed that the council would meet on

August 1 in Ephesus.300 Goubert regards Chrysaphius as the chief

source o f inspiration and organization behind this council.30^

Both Flavian and Eutyches had w ritten to Pope Leo o f Rome

shortly a fte r the conclusion of the Home Synod. On February 18

of 449, Leo replied to both Flavian's copy of the synod's judgement

and the emperor who had w ritten in behalf o f Eutyches. In his

le t te r to Flavian, he intimated that the archbishop should have

consulted with Rome before condemning Eutyches and that an in ­

ju s tice had been committed. In reply to Theodosius, he complains

about the silence of Flavian and declares that he expects a fu ll

report of the a f fa ir . These epistles give the strong impression

that Leo was siding with Alexandria against Constantinople as Rome

was accustomed to doing.302 Flavian replied by sending a le t te r

with the acts of the council asking Leo to agree with the council's

decision and accusing Eutyches of propagating the errors of

Valentinus and A pollinaris . At about the same time, the emperor's

in v ita tio n to the forthcoming council arrived in Rome, Leo acknow­

ledged Flavian's le t te r in his own le t te r o f May 21, and on June 13

he sent his famous "Tome to Flavian." This w riting represented a

complete change of p o lit ic a l position for Leo from being a supporter

of Eutyches to being a supporter o f Flavian. "Der Tomus. . .bedeutete

eine ungeheure Wendung in der Kirchengeschichte, nicht nur dadurch,

91

dass er die tradMwnelle Verbindung zwischen dem romischen und alexand-

rinischen Stuhl zerbrach.. .sondern nocli viel mehr insofern Rom zum

ersten Mai in die griechische Dogmatik e in g r i f f .3 0 3

Before Leo declared his fina l position in his "Tome," i t had

become increasingly apparent to the opponents of the Alexandrian

coalition that this party was planning to go a ll-o u t for a complete

vic to ry . In the emperor's summons to the forthcoming general

council which he addressed to Dioscorus (March 30, 449), he e x p li­

c i t ly prohibited Theodoret from entering the council. Another

imperial le t te r of late spring or early summer repeats the prohi­

b ition against Theodoret to Dioscorus saying, "We abhor him . . .

because o f his opposition to Cyril o f blessed memory . . . and lest

effo rts should be made to get him admitted to the Synod, we appoint

you to supreme control thereof . . . ."304 fheodoret's reaction may

be seen in .h is correspondence from th is time. In his Ep. 112 "To

Domnus" w ritten in la te spring of 449 (May-June), he speaks o f the

poison in C y ril's Twelve Anathemas with the suspicion that Dioscorus

"is I think adopting every means to confirm them in a second s y n o d . " 3 0 5

A le t te r to Bishop Irenaeus ends with the words: "And now know well

that I await my fa te . And I think that i t is drawing near, for so the

plots against me indicate.

The forebodings o f the Bishop o f Cyrus were soon realized when

the imperial council met in Ephesus on August 8. Dioscorus presided

over the gathering of 130 bishops with the assistance of Juvenal of

Jerusalem and Thalassius o f Caesarea (in Cappadocia). Most o f the

92

participants were a llie s of Dioscorus. Three Roman legates repre­

sented Pope Leo and the West, but were to have no e ffe c t upon the

proceedings. The o f f ic ia l le tte rs they carried bore an adverse

judgement against Eutyches, but th e ir requests to read the le tters

publicly a t the beginning of the council were evaded.

Two of the chief purposes o f the council were undertaken in

the f i r s t session without delay. F irs t, the confession o f Eutyches

was read and declared orthodox unanimously, and his position as

pries t and archimandrite was restored. Secondly, Flavian and Eusebius

of Dorylaeum were deposed on the grounds that they had violated the

agreement made at the Council o f Ephesus in 431 that no new creed

would be allowed other than that of Nicea.^® When Flavian and the

Roman deacon Hilary protested and others of th e ir party approached

Dioscorus begging him to desist, he called in the guards to restore

order on the pretext that he was being threatened. A tumult resulted

involving Dioscorus' opposition, the guards, and a group of fanatical

monks brought by the prestigious monk Barsumas. Some in juries

resulted, and some signatures such as that of Domnus of Antioch were

obtained by in t im id a t io n .^

On August 22 the council met once again, this time to take

up its business with the Antiochene patriarchate. Both Ibas ofo t n

Edessa and Irenaeus o f Tyre were formally deposed. IU Next, the

attention of the council focused upon Theodoret. His importance

to the purpose of th is synod is amply indicated in its a c ts .*^

At the beginning of the record, there is the re ite ra tio n of the

93

emperor's command that Theodoret not attend th is synod—a command that

appears designed to dispel any attempt by some representatives to

request his presence.3^3

The condemnation recorded in the last session is preceded

by a lengthy accusation by a presbyter from Antioch named Pelagius.

This statement begins with a personal attack upon Theodoret, "an

adversary of God." Then the grounds o f the charge are specified.

F irs t, Theodoret along with Domnus are condemned for drawing up

a creed (presumably the Formula of Reunion, 433?) without regard

for the Council of Ephesus (431) "which has c learly forbidden

anyone to presume to w rite , expound, or compose any Formula of

Faith other than that o f the Holy and Blessed Fathers."3^3 Next,

several of Theodoret's works were singled out as evidence against

him. His le t te r to the monks of Euphratesia, Osrohene, Syria,

Phoenicia, and C ilic ia was read aloud and condemned, fo r i t had

attacked Cyril and the Council of Ephesus.3^ Then his Apologia

pro Diodoro et Theodoro was cited with the council's comment:

"That alone suffices fo r his Deposition, for which the Great

Emperor has already given orders, so th a t, i f anything were said

re la tive to Theodoret against his deposition, i t would be possible

fo r even Nestorius to find an ab e tte r."3^ F inally some extracts

from "a book of Theodoret‘s" which had been quoted by Cyril in

De eo quod unus Christus contra Theodorum were read to the assembly.

Dioscorus' condemnation followed: "Theodoret . . . who . . . has

ventured to hold tenets and write in opposition to those Positions

94

which have been la id down by our very Blessed Father and Bishop

C y r i lm u s t be (estranged) removed from the whole Function o f the

Priesthood and its Honour and Rank, and be also interdicted Communion

with the L a ity . . . A fter several other bishops denounce the

Bishop o f Cyrus, "The Holy Synod said: 'That is a just sentence-

cast out the Heretic. We a ll declare for th is —a ll of us agree to

the deposition of Theodoret.' "3^3 Domnus was no tified of the

assembly's decision, to which he weakly assented. However, he in

turn was deposed. F in a lly , the session ended, quite f i t t in g ly ,

with the formal acceptance of C y ril's Twelve Anathemas.3^

During the council, the Roman legates had been unable to

express Rome's viewpoint or to a ffe c t the decisions o f the council.

However, they did refuse to give th e ir signatures o f approval.

For th is reason, they were detained under guard u n til the deacon

H ilary managed to escape and return to Rome. With news of th is

basic defeat fo r his policy and the abuse that his representatives

had endured, Leo became the center o f opposition to Dioscorus.3 3

Soon he had received appeals for support from those who had been

victim ized by the "Robber Council," as i t came to be called—from

Flavian, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, and Theodoret. Theodoret's le t te r

to Leo (Ep. 113) is one of several from his pen addressed to

in flu e n tia l people a fte r the council ( la te 449). In this le t te r

he praises Leo's teaching on the incarnation saying, "we have

marvelled at the exactness of your expressions." Protesting the

in jus tice of his condemnation without a real t r i a l , he speaks of

95

his l i te ra ry accomplishments and his years of service to the

church in some revealing autobiographical passages. He asks Leo's

advice as to what course of action he should take: "Above a l l ,

I implore you to t e l l me whether I ought to put up with this

unrighteous deposition or not; for I await your decision. I f you

bid me abide by the sentence o f condemnation, I abide."3 9 Theodoret's

le t te r to the Roman presbyter Renatus (Ep. 116) has a sim ilar content

with a request that he be judged by a council of Leo's.333 Again,

in his le t te r to "Anatolius the patrician" (Ep. 119), Theodoret

protests the i l le g a l i ty of the t r ia l procedure, i . e . , he was

condemned in absentia and the testimony o f the witnesses was not

examined. But the main purpose of his le t te r is to make a request:

"I implore your excellency to ask as a favour from the victorious

sovereign that I may go to the West, and there plead my cause before

the very godly and holy bishops ............ I f he w ill not grant you

th is request, le t him at least command me to inhabit my monastery,

which is a hundred and twenty miles away from Cyrus, seventy-five

from Antioch, and lie s three miles from Apamea." In making this

request, the bishop anticipates an attempt by his enemies to ex ile

him from his parish .32^

Writing to John, Bishop o f Germanicia in late 449 or early 450,

Theodoret complains of his unjust treatment at the hands of his

enemies. This le t te r (Ep. 147 in PG) is one o f his most candid

statements about the "Robbers' Council."

About the present state o f a f fa irs , i t isimpossible to entertain any good hope. I

96

apprehend that this is the beginning of the general apostasy. For when we see that those who lament what was done as they say, by vio­lence, a t Ephesus, show no signs o f repentance, but abide by th e ir unlawful deeds are building up a superstructure at once of in jus tice and of impiety; when we see that the rest take no concerted action to deny th e ir deeds and do not refuse to hold communion with men who abide by th e ir unlawful action, what hope of good is i t possible fo r us to entertain? . . . i f , as they say, they are lamenting what has been done and stating i t to have been done by force and violence, why in the world do they not repudiate what has been unlawfully done? Why is the present which lasts fo r such a l i t t l etime, preferred before what is sure to cometo pass? Why in the world do they openly l ie and deny that any innovation has been in tro ­duced into doctrine? . . . they rejected me as the head and front of the heresy and expel led others for the same reason.

This passage gives us a clear appraisal of the extent to which

Dioscorus and his a llie s had cowed a l l opposition in the East. But

i t was not only the neutral parties which had capitulated without a

word of resistance; i t was even Easterners o f Theodoret's own party:

Let'- the chapters be denied which they have often repudiated, and now at Ephesus have sanctioned. Do not le t them tr ic k your holiness by th e ir l ie s . They used to praise my utterances at Antioch, being brethern, and

• when made readers, and ordained deacons, pres­byters and bishops; and at the end of my discourse they used to embrace me and kiss me, on head, on breast, on hands; and some of them would cling to my knees, ca lling my doctrine aposto lic ,— the very doctrine that they have now condemned, and anathematized.They used to call me luminary, not only of the East, but of the whole world, and now

■ I forsooth have been proscribed and, so fa r as lie s in th e ir power, I have not even bread to eat. They have anathematized even a l l who converse with me.

97

But the man whom but a l i t t l e while ago they deposed and called Valentinian and Apollinarian they have honoured as a martyr of the fa ith , fa llin g a t his fe e t, asking his pardon and calling him sp iritu a l father. Do even wood lic e change th e ir colour to match the stones or chameleons th e ir skin to su it the leaves, as these men do th e ir mind to match the times?I give up to them see, d ign ity , rank, and a ll the luxury of th is l i f e . On the side of the apostolic doctrines I await the evils which they deem te r r ib le , finding su ffic ien t conso­la tio n in the thought of the judgment of the Lord. . . . Deign, S ir , to pray for me. At this time I am sorely in want of that help that I may hold out against a l l that is being devised against me.

The passage, which re flec ts so well Theodoret's predicament and that

o f the en tire Eastern church, is doubly important, fo r i t includes

one of the few clear references to Eutyches in a ll o f Theodoret's

works, however, without using his name. Eutyches is obviously the

person described as "the man whom . . . they deposed and called

Valentinian and Apollinarian they have honoured as a martyr. . . . “332

This characteristic reticence to name his enemies during this period

w ill be explained la te r .

As he must have anticipated when he made the request through

Anatolius, he would not be allowed to travel to the West for help,

but he was allowed to re t ire to his monastery at Nicerte near

Apamea. This ex ile began near the end of 449 or the beginning of

the year 450.333

During the f i r s t part of the ensuing year, Theodoret devoted

himself to composing his well-known H istoria ecclesiastica which he

probably completed before the emperor's untimely death on July 28,

4 5 0 . ^ The in terval of time covered by th is history is from the

98

end of the period covered by Eusebius' Church History (c. 324 A.D.)

until the death of Theodore of Mopsuestia in 429 A.D.325 Although

this work is valuable for the la te fourth and early f i f t h century

sources i t contains, from a modern h istorical point of view, i t

suffers from one of the same shortcomings of Eusebius' Church History;

that is , i t is essentially a work of Christian apologetics.326

In this respect Theodoret's Church History is lik e the works of

two contemporary church historians o f Constantinople, Socrates

Scholasticus and Sozomen which he u tiliz e d . These two authors

began th e ir h istorica l coverage at the point where Eusebius termi­

nated h is , but they closed the time-span of th e ir h istories a t the

year 439 (eleven years a fte r the formal terminus of Theodoret's

work). Eusebius' influence may be seen in the philosophy of history

of a ll three of these "synoptic" historians. According to R. L. P.

Milburn, three main viewpoints characterize th is philosophy. F irs t,

each w rite r tends to portray the events of history with God and

Devil as protagonists. In this connection, each tends to look back

to a time of prim itive purity in the church before heretics corrupted

the divine doctrines. Secondly, a ru le r 's fortune or misfortune is

seen to depend upon his piety or obedience to God's w i l l . Th ird ly ,

the cause of h istorical events is not examined but simply ascribed

to the w ill o f God by a ll three historians. "Their style o f narra­

tive smacks o f colourless reporting rather than o f any joy in

a r t is t ic creation, while the characters have a stiffness and lack

of in d iv id u a lity that make them resemble a row o f Byzantine por­

t ra its . painted by men who knew nothing of perspective."32^

99

Theodoret's "apologetic" preoccupation may be seen concretely

in his habit of portraying the enemies of the Church and of true

doctrine in the darkest colors. A ll heretics--especially the Arian

leaders—and a ll unorthodox emperors o f the fourth century are regarded

as criminals. At the same time, our author covers up many faults of

the orthodox.333

Nowhere is this tendency more apparent than in his treatment of

the story of Chrysostom's downfall. Although he surely knew the

episode as well as i f not better than anyone of his time, he leaves

much of the story in the dark. By glaring contrast, Socrates te lls

the shoddy story candidly and in detail without sparing the reputa­

tions of Theophilus and others who were responsible for his downfall

Theodoret's entire treatment of the Chrysostom a f fa ir is extremely

cautious and su p erfic ia l, as these quotes indicate:

At this point o f my history I know not what sentiments to enterta in ; wishful as I am to re la te the wrong in flic te d upon Chrysostom,I yet regard in other respects the high character of those who wronged him. I shall therefore do my best to conceal even th e ir names. These persons had d iffe ren t reasons fo r th e ir h o s ti li ty , and were unwilling to contemplate his b r i l l ia n t v irtue . They found certain wretches who accused him. . . . The emperor, who had confidence in the clergy, ordered himto be banished.330

Among other things-in this account, Theodoret leaves out John's

second offense against Eudoxia (over the dedication o f her statue)

and her part in the conspiracy against him. Theophilus' key role

is also glossed over, and the emperor's role is only su p erfic ia lly

TOO

expressed. Theophilus, the infamous archbishop of Alexandria,

who appears in a ll his grossness in Socrates' Church H istory,

is referred to as "a man of sound wisdom and o f a lo fty courage.

By him Alexandria was set free from the error o f id o la try ." And

toward the end of the report on the Chrysostom a f fa ir he says,

"I think i t needful to curta il these hideous d e ta ils , and to

throw a ve il over the ill.d e ed of men o f the same fa ith as our

own."331

Why has Theodoret glossed over re a lity in such a manner?

As Scheidweiler suggests, perhaps he was motivated by the concern

to preserve the reputations of the "orthodox" opponents of Chrysostom—

p artic u la rly when some of these persons such as Acacius of Beroea and

Porphyry o f Antioch were Theodoret's fellow Orientals and f r i e n d s . ^ 3 2

I t appears to this w rite r that Scheidweiler's suggestion does not

completely explain Theodoret's extreme reticence in the Church

History. Other evidence in this work begs fo r a more adequate

explanation. One need only compare Theodoret's bare reference to

his arch-enemy Cyril by name with Socrates' description of C y ril's

reign and the questionable happenings during i t (Bk. V I I , chs.

7 , 13-15).333 chapter 36 also requires an explanation in lig h t

of the foregoing evidence. In th is chapter Theodoret relates how

the re lic s of Chrysostom were brought to Constantinople in 438 A.D.

Although this la te r episode may belong thematically w ith the story

of Chrysostom's l i f e , i t is the only episode in the Church History

which takes place a fte r (ten years a fte r ! ) the formal chronological

101

terminus of the work (428 A .D .). This account contains numerous

references to Theodosius I I who played a conspicuous ro le in the

transferral of the re lic s . Whereas in a le t te r to Domnus (Ep. 112)

of May-June 449, Theodoret referred to this man as small-minded,

here he speaks of him in f la tte r in g terms.

The precious possession was brought into Constantinople by the present emperor, who received the name of his grandfather and preserved his piety undefiled. A fter f i r s t gazing upon the bier he la id his head against i t , and prayed for his parents and fo r pardon on them who had ignorantly sinned, fo r his parents had long ago been dead, leaving him an orphan in extreme youth, but the God of his fathers and of his forefathers permitted him not to suffer t r ia l from his orphanhood, but provided for his nurture in p ie ty , protected his empire from the assaults of sedition, and bridled rebellious hearts. Ever mindful of these blessings he honours his benefactors with hymns of praise. Associated with him in this divine worship are his s is ters , who have maintained v irg in ity throughout th e ir lives .The emperor was adorned by many graces, and not least by his kindness and clemency, an unruffled calm of soul and a fa ith as undefiled as i t is notorious.

Following this account are several vignettes which illu s tra te the

emperor's piety and v i r t u e . ^

How does one explain this panegyric to one who had discriminated

against him and was indeed responsible fo r his present exile? One

might p a rt ia lly explain i t by the fact that Theodoret was part of

Byzantine culture and that in such an environment one simply did

not c r it ic iz e the emperor. But one is s t i l l faced with the question:

Why did he not simply omit this episode since i t did not f i t into

the chronological lim its of his history?

102

Another s ta rtl ing fact about Theodoret's Church History aligns

i t s e l f very well with the extreme circumspection seen elsewhere in the

work and with the story of the emperor's pious acceptance of Chrysostom's

re l ic s , and thus enables us to form a more adequate conception of

Theodoret's motives. This fact is: our author completely avoids

mentioning any aspect of the Nestorian Controversy. Even the

elevation of Nestorius as patriarch in 428 goes unmentioned. Surely

he would have been better equipped to te l l about the controversy

than any liv ing man. Why did he not do so?

This collection of facts brings us to the conclusion that

Theodoret was profoundly moved by po lit ica l considerations v/hen he

wrote the history. He was at the time in an extremely vulnerable

position as a condemned and deposed bishop in a monastery. Surely

there were those who would have liked to see him meet a more cruel

fa te . Therefore he did not t e l l the whole story of Chrysostom which

reflected badly upon the Alexandrian patriarchate. Nor would he

dare—with the ruthless Dioscorus firmly in power—speak unfavorably

of Theophilus and C y ri l . I f anything, he needed to curry the

emperor's favor—thus, the f la t te r in g portrayal of the godly

emperor. I t would also have been perilous to have related the

events in the Nestorian Controversy from even a mild partisan

view since they were a l l intimately related to the Latrocinum of

449.

One must also interpret Theodoret's irenic Ep. 83 to Dioscorus

in l ig h t of his motive of self-defense. In 448 when the le t te r was

103

w ritten , i ts author had become aware of the potential danger in

Dioscorus' i l l - w i l l , thus, he speaks in uncharacteristically strong

terms about the unity of Christ and the Virgin Mary as Theotokos.

This is as near as he could come to Alexandrian Christology without

giving up his own theological tenets. Theodoret's concern to avoid

destruction at the hands of his enemies is also a crucial factor in

answering the question of Theodoret's alleged change in theology.

In reaching a d e f in it ive answer to this question related to his

la te r career, we w il l need to consider his reluctance in the

Eranistes to name his opponents. This issue w il l be dealt with at

the conclusion of our study o f his c a r e e r . ^

During the time that Theodoret was writing his Church History

in the seclusion of his monastery, Pope Leo was in the process of

executing his p o lit ic a l plans v is-a-v is the East. He had hardly

needed le tte rs of appeal from the victims of the "Latrocinium"

at Ephesus as a pretext for proceeding against the controlling

forces in the Eastern church. He began his po lit ica l campaign in

October of 449 with a series of his own letters to important people

in the Eastern cap ita l, such as Pulcheria aid certain imperial

o f f ic ia ls . In two le tte rs to the emperor, he requested an ecumeni­

cal council to be held in I ta ly . Early in the next year, he made

the same request of the Western court when i t visited Rome from

Ravenna. He was successful in persuading Galla Placidia (the

mother of Valentinian I I ) to write to Pulcheria for support. In

March, he learned that Pulcheria was indeed opposed to the party

}

104

in power and its doctrinal position. However, Theodosius I I

remained convinced that the second synod of Ephesus was a fu l ly

acceptable settlement of the Christological issue.

An opportunity for the pope arose when Anatolius was conse­

crated archbishop of Constantinople in March or April of 450.

When Leo was asked fo r a formal recognition of the new patriarch,

he responded with a request that he be informed of Anatolius'

doctrinal position. Then Leo sent a delegation to Constantinople

with a collection of excerpts from the Church Fathers in order to

determine the orthodoxy or unorthodoxy of Anatolius. These repre­

sentatives were at the same time to obtain support from Pulcheria

for the proposed Western synod. Letters to both Pulcheria and the

emperor Theodosius dated July 16, 450 informing them of Leo's

wishes were sent with the delegation.^ 7 But when they arrived

in Constantinople, they learned that Theodosius had died on July 23

of injuries incurred when he was thrown from his horse a few days

e a r l ie r . This s ta rt l in g turn of events brought the empress

Pulcheria to the throne who with l i t t l e delay contracted a mar­

riage of po lit ica l convenience with the general Marcian. This

sudden change in rulers brought about a radical change in the

p o lit ic a l scene which would have momentous consequences for the

entire history of the Byzantine Empire. One of the f i r s t orders of

Pulcheria upon coming into power was for the execution of the Grand

Chamberlain Chrysaphius. This spelled the downfall of the Alexandrian

coa lition . Now the way was paved for an alliance between the govern-338ment of the East and the Western Church represented by Pope Leo.

/

105

Evidently having learned about the Roman delegation to

Constantinople, Theodoret wrote a le t te r to one of its most

prestigious members, Abundius, Bishop of Como (Ep. 181). Again

he appeals to the West for support, making clear that his only

hope l ies in this direction:

Of old, a f te r the flood, i t came to pass that Noah and his sons were l e f t for seed of the human race. Just so in our own day are reserved the fathers of the West, that by them the holy churches of the East may be able to preserve that true religion which has been threatened with devastation and destruction by a new and impious heresy. . . .

In another important passage from this le t t e r , he praises the

doctrine in Leo's Tome and gives us a valuable summary of its main

import from his Antiochene point of view:

Now we acknowledge the presence of our Saviour in a human body, and one Son of God, His perfect Godhead, and His perfect manhood. We do not divide our one Lord Jesus Christ into two sons for He is one; but we recognize the distinction between God and man; we know that one is of the Father, the other of the seed of David and Abraham according to the divine Scriptures, and that the divine nature is free from passion, the body which was before subject to passion being now i t s e l f too free from passion;for a fte r the resurrection i t is plainly delivered from a l l passion. This we have learnt from the le t te r of the very holy and religious Archbishop our lord Leo.For we have read what he wrote to Flavianus. . . .To this le t te r I have given my adhesion. . . .339

Here Theodoret expresses the time-worn fundamentals of Antiochene

Christo!ogy which may be found in a l l o f his works from early to

106

la te periods of his career. Another le t te r of great doctrinal

import from the time of his ex ile expresses in more detail his

characteristic Christological n o t io n s .^ In Theodoret's letters

to Leo and Abundius, we see the ground-work being la id for the

doctrinal synthesis at the Council of Chalcedon.

Soon the sentence against Theodoret was l i f te d , and he was

accepted into the new emperor's favor. Very early in the year

451 A.D., Theodoret wrote to three high o f f ic ia ls of state

expressing his thanks to them for intervening with the emperor

and empress on his behalf. Furthermore, he asked that they request

the royal couple to summon a new council which would establish the

apostolic fa i th and bring peace to the church. To the o f f ic ia l

Anatolius, he protested against the thought of opportunism on his

part saying:

I make this request to your excellency, not because I long to see Cyrus again, for yourlordship knows what a so lita ry town i t is ,and how I have somehow managed to conceali ts ugliness by my great expenditure on all kinds of buildings, but to the end that whatI preach may be shown to be in agreement withapostolic doctrines while the inventions of my opponents are counterfeit and base.341

Even though he was in the good graces of the royal couple and

Pope Leo and was free to go as he l iked , sometime early in 451 he

wrote to John the Oeconomus that he had blocked the door to his

monastery and refused to see anyone. In this and another le t te r , he

speaks boldly against his enemies and engages in a lengthy theological

discussion.342

107

The movement for a new ecumenical council was being promoted

from several quarters. However, with the accession of Pulcheria to

the throne, a ll was going much more to Leo's desires than i t had

when he had o r ig in a lly requested a council. His Tome had been

formally accepted by Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople and by

Maximus, patriarch of Antioch. Of the main leaders in the East

only Dioscorus had refused to accept i t . The exiles of the synod

at Ephesus had a l l been recalled. Eutyches had been banned to a

place a t a distance from the cap ita l, and the body of Flavian had

been returned to the capital with great pomp.343

Since Leo had achieved the recognition from the East that he

desired and the defeat of the opposition, he began to argue that

an ecumenical council was no longer necessary. He now recognized

the fact that a new council would probably not be held in I ta ly

where he could have a dominant influence over i t . Since the council

would most l ik e ly be held in the East according to the wishes of the

new sovereigns, his prerogatives could be endangered.^ Nevertheless,

he was in no position to oppose the emperor's w il l when the summons to

the new council was issued on May 17. The plan was for the council

to begin on September 1, 451 at Nicea. The Pope chose two legates

to represent him—Paschasinus of Lilybaeum (Marsala) and a Roman

priest Boniface. Julian of Cos was sent as a special advisor. 0

Five hundred twenty bishops arrived at Nicea fo r the meeting:

a ll were from the East except for the Roman legates and two repre­

sentatives from Africa. In order to assure a peaceful council,

108

monks were banned from the proceedings. Due to the campaign against

the Huns in n iyricum , Marcian was forced to move the meeting place

of the council from Nicea to Chalcedon so that he could simultan­

eously oversee the war and the council from the cap ita l. About a

month passed before the synod began on October 3.^46

Due to the limited scope o f this study, i t is necessary to

treat the Council of Chalcedon in a cursory way, indicating the

nature o f the theological formula adopted and Theodoret's p a r t ic i ­

pation in the proceedings.

At the f i r s t session of the council, the imperial commissioners

formally admitted Theodoret to the council amidst cheers and denun­

c i a t i o n s . ^ when the acts of the Council of Ephesus (449) were

cited, some who had been leaders at this council made apologies for

the ir conduct there. Then Flavian's declaration of fa ith from the

Home Synod was presented and accepted by the assembly. At this

point, now that the course of the council had been set, most of

Dioscorus' former a l l ie s deserted by crossing from the l e f t side

of the church where they had been seated over to the opposite side.

Nevertheless, Dioscorus and the main leaders of the previous council

were formally deposed for th e ir misdeeds at that council. This

group consisted of Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea,

and three others.348

At the second session on October 10, the theological issue

was taken up. Several formulations were accepted: the creeds of

Nicea and Constantinople, C yril 's second le t te r to Nestorius, C yril 's

le t te r to John, and Leo's Tome together with a florilegium of quotes

109

from the Fathers. However, there was some difference of opinion

among the delegates about the adequacy of the Tome. Some delegates

found some of Leo's assertions close to Nestorianism; others noted

the absence of C y r i l 's conservative language of the anathemas.

The session terminated a f te r the commissioners appointed a committee

under the chairmanship of Anatolius to prepare a doctrinal state­

ment.

At the third session on October 13, the case of Dioscorus was

discussed again. But when he refused to answer the summons to appear,

he was sentenced for contumacy as well as his other crimes. At a

la te r session, certain participants of the council d iffered concerning

the grounds of his condemnation: some claimed that the final depo­

sition was due to his refusal to communicate with Pope Leo (He had

excommunicated the pope before the council began.) and his refusal

to appear a fte r three summons.^

At the fourth session of the council, Anatolius' committee

reported on its doctrinal deliberation, and a fte r discussion, Leo's

Tome was accepted unanimously as harmonious with the other doctrinal

standards mentioned p re v io u s ly .^

The most d i f f i c u l t task of the Council of Chalcedon came up

a t the f i f t h and most important session on October 22. This had to

do with an o f f ic ia l declaration of fa ith which the government desired.

A confession which had been prepared by Anatolius' committee was read

to the assembly.35 Although the f i r s t d ra ft of what was to become

the D efin it io Fidei of Chalcedon was not recorded for posterity in

no

the council's minutes, one can deduce from the la te r discussions

that two ideas were in a l l probability included: (1) the Virgin

Mary was not referred to as Theotokos, and (2) the defin it ion

included the words "out of two natures" {& K (fv o (p u P S M V )

rather than the a lternative phrase "in two natures" ( ZV S u o

(P<JCT£<r(V) .353 When the statement was read to the council, one of

the Easterners, John of Germanicia declared that i t should be revised.

Presumably the "out of two natures" phrase troubled his Antiochene

sensib ilit ies .' However, the majority of those present shouted th e ir

approval and declared that anyone who thought otherwise was a heretic.

At this point, the papal legates who were supporting the teaching of

"two natures" in Leo's Tome added th e ir voice to the opposition.

They went so fa r as to say that i f the formula were not brought into

agreement with Leo's Tome, they would return to the West and hold a

synod there.

The imperial commissioners, who wanted to avoid a schism at

a l l costs, interjected the suggestion that a committee on doctrine

representative of a l l delegations present be set up in order to

reach a mutually acceptable conclusion. This was vigorously opposed

by the majority o f bishops who shouted against John of Germanicia

when he tr ied to speak.354 i n order to f u l f i l l the emperor's

desire fo r a unified church and empire, the Romans had to be

pacified. Therefore, the commissioners indicated that even

Dioscorus could accept the words "out of two natures" and had '

condemned Flavian for speaking simply of "two natures." Any idea

Ill

of a confusion o f natures would be avoided i f the council used the

"two natures" clause o f Flavian's confession which had already been

deemed orthodox by the council. Anatolius, however, claimed that

Dioscorus had not been condemned o f f ic ia l ly for his doctrine but

rather for his excommunication of Leo and refusal to appear at the

council.355

When th e ir f i r s t attempt was rebuffed, the emperor's repre­

sentatives argued that i f the council accepted Leo's Tome--as they

had declared--then they should include i ts substance in the ir

doctrinal formula. This suggestion was also rejected, for the

proposed d e f in it io was considered su ff ic ien t; in addition, i t was

said to affirm Leo's and Cyril 's theologies which were in alleged

agreement.356

-In order to cope with this deadlock, the commissioners

procured orders from the emperor to set up a committee for framing

an agreeable defin ition and i f this proposal were unsuccessful to

e l i c i t a written statement of b e l ie f from each .bishop. I f the

council were to s t i l l refuse to produce a clear confession ofOC7

fa ith , the council would be disbanded and reconvened in the West.

In1 face of many objections to this proposed course of action, the

emperor's men asked the assembly d irectly : "Whom do you follow--

Leo, or Dioscorus who accepts 'out of two natures' but rejects (Leo's)

'two natures'?" The reply was: "As Leo believes, so do we; those

who contradict his doctrine are followers o f Eutyches; Leo has

offered a true exposition of the fa ith ." At th is , the commissioners

112

required the bishops to state in this defin ition that "two natures

are united without change, and without division, and without con­

fusion in Christ." A committee was appointed to draft the state­

ment.358 After some time the committee returned with the Chalcedonian

Definition of Faith. -The heart of the formula is contained in these

words:

TO?S Jfffocs£7A / f d cf-uTov 0M o£oy£?v urov t o / fruproz

yAiizz ‘J^crauz ^ c o ro v & czas <pun/c*/s cS/7a- z t ?s

£cf<'<fjO~ArOMZ.\/ J T f AsCoV /’"tfV cAUTOV & ]/ fP foT^Tf /?Sf T^A 7fOV 7~0V C* UTC V <£\J U y £Pf)«/77oT'?rfj X z o z <a / ) d?Ss /r^ r a t / sP ^ca/ t? oif P A ^ fPSs 7*<?V cAuTov Fsr (/'<^Xvs £[o][cSerfs (Tuzo/ u t s ,GAS00(AcreO'/ 7~u/ 77A 7p i /TAT* tXzaTrjTAS ’/A 0 0 *0 0 t/<Tf £>V ‘TjAAW 7~0V OLZTOZ /fS-TA 7 ■*?/

(k /(X (i> 0 /7 7 'O 7 ''f7 r A J /fA T U 7 7 A A rA OO/O ff> V -yftA?!/

)(ufp?S oi A* A p r/A S t a f U /V u / / 0 * £ l / ^

y v d TzA Tp is y"Z\/s/z} & / T A /S a rs 7 V I /

£77* <£cryJru/V C& TW I/ 'rjA<£g?u/\/ 7~0\7 aoToz Sc' vy tAs /& i X d t A}\/ ?j^<£r£(9oi z ac a ry ^ za z

£/C r y s 77<Af> /P £ /0V T**?'s 7?£0T0/7c?v 7/A 7a

7 ’y\7 olA^oA/T'OT'yTA; <fU/. //u r roV a 0 7 0 /

K^arrov v d v S'CAffoV st fewysvrf ) £' \/ <fcso q?c/CT£crf\7

<A(TUyXtJTMS <AT(p?77T“7S aJ/ACpSTU/S c 7 Y tJ ffC rr^ S

^ V u l^ C jo M £ /O V j 0 £></</Asf OU T^JS 7 ^ / <po<T£t*/l/

(f(<A pop £s o ti/rjrpT jM fi/rjs c fd 7 V 7 <£.707(7//,

Crix/fjoofzz-rjs S i oca A A ov 7 *)S fcfcoTr?T0S££U7€?as (p versus //</£ £cs a a 7rpScrc</7rav

/£</-£ O ifo il/ f/770(7TA<TfS Ci7 77(0 f / f # <£<77S > Ot//C

113

) / / / * J ^[cs Suo 7r(?o<rc</7TA Jo/S-Clfov -yj ^

(f(<t(nouAAi\/ov> U \y k ri/JL X * i7 tv + b r*z ^/t*o \/o yzv'-ij (^ £ o V A o y o Z /K vf>(°Z r?<rou\/

/ 0 « t t o Vj t t r w & r <*< 7 7 (? o 4 > jru (r v j / \ i j \ c /\ i-x a77'£ ( (XUTOU fai( oiUTes y]M.cis /->?a-ovS fo«rTOS £$£ 7 7 c * / & va*!/ T ^ Z/ry cS7~£g)uj]/ 7 7 ~ * < ^ o td(*/X'£ cru^^oAoz*

The sources from which the language of this formula was derived

were: C yril 's moderate theology as i t appears in his second le t te r

to John of Antioch, the Formula of Reunion of 433, Proclus1 Tome, and 360Leo's Tome. Although i t would be impossible to analyze the

terminology of this famous confession and to indicate i ts origins in

the limited scope of this study, a few cursory comments are in order.

In the f i r s t place, the Defin itio is a compromise statement. I t uses

the theological language of three trad itions— of Antioch, Alexandria

and the West—in such a restrained way that they do not con flic t.

Thus, i t was not the defin it ive answer to the Christological problem

that was hoped for. I t was rather a statement of the Christological

issue which skirted the danger implied in each of the Eastern t r a ­

d itions—either that of a confusion of the two natures in Alexandrian

thought or of a separation of them in Antiochene thought. The general

concern of each school is expressed in the wording of the heart of

the defin it ion: £V cfuo cpo>(T£d'(Z cXGruy^t/Tu/s o/7~^£77"7'ujs

a i^ n /^ fc r r u js . The f i r s t two adverbs meaning "unconfusedly" and

114

"unchangeably" guard the requirements of the Antiochene tradition

and the second two adverbs meaning "indivisibly" and "inseparably"

maintain the emphases of the Alexandrian trad it ion . Likewise, in

the phrase £CS £V 7T(?o<ru>Tro\/ / f u r y o r r u / i/7 7 c x rT u c rn /

each of the terms for the unified Christ is characteristic of one of

these traditions: 7Tf>0<T“ J77'0 V for Antioch and (/7To<rTu<T(S for

Alexandria. This choice of terminology, especially in the case of

the four adverbs, sets down the lim its beyond which statements of

unity or separation may not be expressed, but i t does not amount to

a constructive theological statement. In other words, i t does not

completely synthesize the two opposing Christological traditions.

I t juxtaposes them, bringing out the ir emphases but not the ir entire

conceptual frameworks which are a n t ith e t ic a l . Such is the nature of

this c o m p r o m i s e . 361 We can agree with Sellers that the doctrine of

Chalcedon has a positive as well as a negative purpose; that is , i t

expresses some essential notions about Christ in Christian trad ition

as well as indicates what he is not. However, Sellers's idea that

two positive principles of "Christological confession" and "Christo­

logical inquiry" are found in a l l three traditions represented at

Chalcedon is no basis for a unity that can overcome the differences

between Alexandrian and Antiochene Christologies when they are

spelled out.2^2

Traditional interpreters of the Chalcedonian Definition have

given us a to ta l ly d iffe ren t estimation of i ts meaning. An example

of such an interpretation is that of F. Ferr ier , who claims that

115

i t states the "Catholic fa ith precisely and p la in ly ." "This

formula . . . l e f t nothing unconsidered nor hanging vaguely in the

a i r . I t gave a precise and d efin ite answer to a l l the d i f f ic u lt ie s

which had been raised during the past th ir ty years. . . . "363 our

opinion, there are many flaws in such an understanding of the Chalce-

donian Defin ition. Suffice i t to say that the theological confusion

and disagreement spawned by the Definition belies "a precise and

defin ite answer to a ll the d i f f ic u l t ie s ."

According to Kidd, the Definition"struck no compromise but

boldly comprehended in one exposition what either side severally

held dear." However, this author contradicts himself when he says

on the following page that the majority a t the council were forced

to capitulate to an alliance between Leo and the emperor: " i t was

a formula in i ts origin Western—in this case, papal—that the Council

had to adopt" ( i . e . , "in_ two natures" rather than "from two natures").

This is tantamount to saying that there was some compromise in v o lv e d .^

I t is s t i l l a controversial issue as to which of the traditions

was dominant at Chalcedon. As we have indicated, the views of all

three were incorporated in the confession of fa i th . Nevertheless,

the winning alliance was between Antiochene and Western trad itions.

During the debate at the council over the wording of the formula,

we witness the Roman legates and Antiochene spokesmen joining forces

against those espousing the C yri l l in e phrase £K < fvo cp£/cr£wV. I t

would become apparent a f te r the council that not even force could

reconcile the conservative expounders of C yril 's doctrine ( i . e .

Monophysites) to the D e f in it io n .365

116

We have already seen the agreement between Roman and Antiochene

traditions foreshadowed in Theodoret's highly favorable response to

Leo's Tome (in Ep. 113). Likewise, he had no great d i f f ic u l ty

accepting the Chalcedonian Defin ition . Indeed, one can find

practica lly every concept in the Definition in Theodoret's works.

He always insisted upon keeping the divine and human natures Christ

d is t in c t from each other, but he insisted in his own way upc ..he

ind iv is ib le unity of Christ. He had no d i f f ic u l ty using the term

Theotokos, and on occasion was w il l ing to use i t alone and unquali­

fied by another term. The only note in the Definition that is unchar­

a c te r is t ic of his Christology is found in the phrase <fv 7rft><r“ '7ToV

/ f t } yC/CJ-Y U7To7T^<r(V in which the word urrocrr+ tris is used for

the person of Christ. Theodoret consistently used /rp o tn ^ r ro v

rather than vffo trrucrts when referring to the subject of Jesus

Christ. However, i t is clear from fragments of Theodoret's last

l e t t e r that a f te r Chalcedon he understood urrJ<rr*<r($ and TTfo<rumoV

to be synonymous in the Defin ition . For him, the f i r s t of these

terms had come to mean the same as the la t te r according to i ts use

in the classical T r in ita r ian dogma. He continued to re ject the

iden tif ica tion of vrrZ<?7'eC(r(s and (pvtrcs that both Apollinaris

and Cyril had espoused. Since the council also separated the two

terms but l e f t them undefined, the way was open for his interpre-. . . 366tation .

Further evidence for the basic compatibility of the Roman and

Antiochene traditions with each other and with the f ina l Defin ition

of Chalcedon lies in the fact that when Nestorius read Leo's Tome

117

he declared himself in agreement with i t . Moreover, in his las t work,

The Bazaar o f Heracleides, he also "welcomed the proceedings of the

Council of Chalcedon as a final triumph for the Faith for which he

had contended." Unfortunately, he did not l ive to review the acts

of the council. I t is an interesting speculation as to whether

Nestorius would have accepted the Chalcedonian confession of Faith

had he lived longer. Some scholars l ike Seeberg have claimed without

hesitation that he could have done so. Others such as Amann have

claimed that he could not have done so, noting that his theology is

more or less out of step with that of the D e fin it io n .868 In one

basic respect, the Council of Chalcedon expresses the fundamental

doctrine that Nestorius and the other Antiochene theologians insisted

upon—namely, d.yophysitism. At the same time, i t rejects unequivo­

ca lly the incipient Monophysitism in C yril 's more radical works.

His valuable insistence upon the unity of Christ is maintained, but

his understanding of the unity is dropped.

Although there is no room in this study to explain the theology

of Leo's Tome and to show i ts essential compatibility with Antiochene

thought, our examination of i t has only confirmed this judgment given

by other s c h o l a r s . T h u s , the burden of the evidence adduced above

ju s t i f ie s our claim that the Antiochene and Roman traditions domi­

nated both p o l i t ic a l ly and theologically a t Chalcedon. Whether or

not "the Church o f the East had been deprived of i ts fa ith" as Harnack

suggested, i t is a fact "that the great majority of the bishops who

held the same views as Cyril and Dioscorus f in a l ly allowed a formula

118

to be forced upon them which was that of strangers, of the emperor and

the pope, and which did not correspond to the ir b e l i e f . " ^ Such

an in terpretation of Chalcedon is not an innovation of modern libera l

scholarship. The traditional Monophysite interpretation of Chalcedon

has been that this council amounted to a se ll-ou t to the West. I t

was indeed "chiefly a triumph of Western, Latin, Christology" over

the Eastern theologians who were reluctant to accept "the apparently

'Nestorianizing1 terminology of Leo." According to this Monophysite

point o f view, those who could support the Chalcedonian Definition

without reinterpretation were the theologians of the Antiochene

tra d it io n , 3?1

Probably most scholars have supported the o f f ic ia l view that

the council proposed for i ts own Definition; namely, that Leo and

Cyril were in basic agreement and that the theology o f both had been

in fa l l ib ly represented in the Defin ition. This view has become

trad itional in the "orthodox" trad ition of the Catholic Church. I t

has also included the idea that the Council of Ephesus (431) and the

Council of Chalcedon are in complete agreement. The basic assumption

in this trad itional view is that there is an uninterrupted unity37?of fa i th v/hich contains no disharmonious or contradictory elements.

Unless one assumes a priori that the trad ition of the Church

is one unvarying unity, the evidence shows a p lu ra l ity of views

expressed a t Ephesus and Chalcedon. Orthodox theology seen from

this vantage point combines elements from conflicting trad itions—

Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Thus, "orthodoxy" is a broad stream

119

containing many views that are in tension i f not ultimately incom­

patible. 373 The f ic t i t io u s viewpoint propounded by the "directors"

of the Council of Chalcedon that the ir statement of fa ith was a

unified theological formula of a unified church made i t d i f f ic u l t

for subsequent theologians to deal honestly with the contradictions.

The f i f t h ecumenical council under Justinian (553 A.D.) was one of

the main attempts to take away the "Nestorian" ' stigma attached to

the Council o f Chalcedon and to reconcile the Monophysite forces

of the East.37 This vain attempt to gain unity belies the concept

of a homogeneous conciliar trad it ion .

Now that we have interpreted the Chalcedonian Definition in

relation to the Christology of Theodoret, we turn to the remaining

acts of the council that are relevant to our study.

The f i f t h session of the council ended with the acceptance of

this Defin ition of Faith. When i t was read to the assembly, the

bishops responded with shouts of acclamation: "This is the fa ith

of the Fathers and the Apostles; we a l l consent to this; thus we

a l l think." All who were present signed the document.375 The

o f f ic ia l promulgation of the Definition followed at the sixth

session of the council on October 25 in the presence of the emperor

Marcian. After his address to the council and the public reading of

the Definition again, the bishops acclaimed and signed i t (again).376

The most important business of the Council of Chalcedon had

now been o f f ic ia l ly taken care of. Nevertheless, there were several

administrative and personal matters l e f t for consideration. We

120

w ill relate only one matter that Is relevant to this study—namely,

the rehab ilitation of Theodoret a t the eighth session on October 2 6 .^ 7

The account of his acceptance in the acts of the council records an

extremely important episode in the l i f e of the Bishop of Cyrus, and

the terms of his acceptance naturally have an important bearing upon

our interpretation of his la te r career. The following o f f ic ia l version

• captures the intriguing interchange between him and the council:

The most pious bishops cried: Let Theodoretnow give his anathema.

When the most pious bishop Theodoret came into the middle, he said: I have given petitionsto the most divine and pious emperor and have given le tters to the devout bishops who manage the place of the pious Archbishop Leo, and i f i t seems good to you, le t them be read in your presence and learn how I think.

The bishops: We do not desire anything to be read. Now anathematize Nestorius.

Theodoret: By the grace of God I was raised with the orthodox, was taught in an orthodox fashion, and I have preached in an orthodox way; and not only Nestorius and Eutyches but also every man who does not think in an orthodox way I abhor and consider a stranger.

The bishops: Say clearly anathema to Nestoriusand to his opinions; anathema to Nestorius and his friends.

Theodoret: In truth I do not speak i f I do notconsider i t pleasing to God. F irs t , I w ill per­suade you that I do not care about (my) c i ty , nor do I have need of honor, nor did I come here on account of th is , but since I was fa lsely accused, I came to confirm that I am orthodox and that I anathematize Nestorius and Eutyches and every man who speaks of two sons.

The bishops: Say c learly , anathema to Nes­torius and to those who think as he.does.

Theodoret: Unless I exhibit how I believeI do not speak, but I believe. . . .

The bishops: This is a heretic! This is aNestorian! Throw the heretic out!

121

Theodoret: Anathema to Nestorius and towhoever does not say that the holy Virgin Mary is Theotokos and to whoever divides the one only-begotten son into two sons.But I have also signed the defin ition of fa i th and the le t te r of the most worthy Archbishop Leo, and this I believe. And a fte r a l l th is , be greeted.

The magistrates: Every doubt remainingabout the most divinely-favored Theodoret is dismissed. For he anathematized Nestorius in our presence, and he was accepted by the most holy and divinely-favored Archbishop Leo of the ancient Rome, and he readily received the defin ition of fa ith given by your worship of God, and with th is , moreover, he has undersigned the le t te r of the most devout Leo who has been mentioned. The only thing remaining is for the vote to be carried by your p iety, so the church w il l receive him,just as the most worthy Arch­bishop Leo ju s t if ie d him.

The bishops: Theodoret is worthy of his throne. The orthodox (one) to (his) church.May the church receive i ts pastor. May the church receive i ts orthodox teacher. Theodoret is worthy of his throne. Many years to the Archbishop Leo. Leo judged with the help of God. May the people receive the orthodox one.Worthy of the throne. May his church be re­stored to Theodoret the bishop.J/d

The ambivalence of Theodoret's statements in this discussion

is quite apparent. I t is clear that he is trying to escape.laying

an anathema upon Nestorius. In his f i r s t reply to the bishops'

request, he refers them to his doctrinal stance in his petitions

to the emperor and in his le t te r to Leo, implying that these state­

ments should be considered adequate. The bishops seem to sense,

that he is hedging from th e ir demand, therefore, they re ject the

appeal to his written statements and demand a clear condemnation.

Maintaining his orthodox background and teaching, he rejects a l l

122

men who are not orthodox--even i f Nestorius happens to be included

in this category. In th is manner, he blunts his condemnation of

Nestorius. The bishops recognize the ambiguity in this statement

and demand that he "clearly" anathematize Nestorius, his opinions,

and his friends. Thereupon, Theodoret defends himself against any

implication of opportunism in his presence at the council, claims

to be orthodox, and anathematizes Nestorius and Eutyches along

with "every man who speaks of two sons." The bishops then re itera te

th e ir demand for an unequivocal condemnation of Nestorius. In his

reply, Theodoret does not mention Nestorius but claims the right to

state his b e l ie f in his own terms and to be judged upon that basis.

At this evasion, the bishops explode with cries o f heresy and

Nestorianism and demand his expulsion. Only when he is confronted

with this e ither-or ultimatum does Theodoret u tter a more direct

anathema against Nestorius. Again, however, the anathema is given

not just to Nestorius alone but to "Nestorius and to whoever does

not say that the Holy Virgin Mary is Theotokos and to whoever

divides the one only-begotten Son into two sons." These specific

errors were those popularly attributed to Nestorius. Of course,

Theodoret was well aware that they did not adequately describe

Nestorius1 position. The statement is made less pointed by his

protestation that he has accepted the council's defin ition of fa ith

and Leo's le t te r to Flavian (with the Tome). From his point of view,

this apparently should be grounds for his acceptance. ^ After this

123

speech, the magistrates take the in i t ia t iv e by proclaiming Theodoret's

statement adequate. Thereupon, the bishops follow suit with an

unqualified endorsement of the bishop as an orthodox teacher and

bishop of his church in good standing. One could raise the question

whether there was any subtle coercion in the magistrates' intervention,

but there is no way to determine this for sure. Although the last

anathema against Nestorius is more direct than previous ones, i t is

not as unequivocal as i t would be i f Theodoret had had no reserva­

tions. Duchesne astutely remarks about the ambiguity of this last

statement: "Theodoret was well aware that Nestorius did not censure

absolutely the term 'Mother of God' and that he had never taught the •

'two Sons.' His anathema carries with i t , I think, a certain admix­

ture of i r o n y . T h u s , the f ina l anathema of Theodoret against his

fellow Antiochene avoids strik ing the true theology of the man. '

At the end of the council, the bishops sent an allocutio to the

emperor which asked him "to defend the ir acceptance o f the Tome as

an explanation of fa i th ." Scholars regard this to be a composition

of Theodoret's. The burden of the allocutio was that Leo had made

no doctrinal innovations and had passed on the teaching of the Fathers.

A florilegium which is now found in the second dialogue of Eranistes

was included with this statement. The allocutio seems to have a n t ic i ­

pated the future charge that would be levelled against the council as

a "Nestorian" council.382

The account of Theodoret's partic ipation at Chalcedon is the

las t public appearance that we have any knowledge of. No le tte rs in

124

the collection of his correspondence date from the period a fte r the

council. During this period, he received one warm le t te r from Pope

Leo with reference to the council and i ts decisions: "On the return

of our brothers and fellow-priests, whom the See of the Blessed Peter

sent to the holy council, we ascertained, beloved, the victory you

and we together had won by assistance from on high over the blasphemy

of Nestorius as well as over the madness of Eutyches."383

There are fragments preserved of one le t te r from the post-

Chalcedon period which explains his understanding of the Definition

of Fa ith .38 Other than this v ita l information, there is very l i t t l e

that we know about this last period in Theodoret's l i f e . I t is

uncertain whether or not he returned to his diocese or to his

monastery. Since he was given o f f ic ia l permission to resume his

bishopric, one could assume that he did so.383 Wherever he may

have been, he was again actively engaged in w riting . Some of his

works on the Old Testament were penned a fte r 453: Quaestiones in

Octateuchem and Quaestiones in libros Regnorum et Paraliponenon.

Canivet has found an allusion in his dedication to the Commentary

on Genesis which would indicate that his health was poor at this

time. The most interesting of his works written a fte r Chalcedon

from a dogmatic standpoint is the Haereticarum fabularum compendium

(c . 453), a summary of the major heresies which the church had con­

fronted. Much of this work consists of material borrowed from older

heresiologies, but Book Four contains information about heresies

from his own time—specifica lly those of Nestorius and Eutyches.

125

Chapter twelve of this book which attacks Nestorius is particu larly

relevant to our study. This polemical chapter also occurs word for

word in the le t te r entitled Contra Nestorium ad Sporacium, which -

scholars regard as unauthenic.387 Although these scholars f l a t l y

state that this le t te r is spurious, they do not, as one might expect,

question the authenticity of the chapter against Nestorius in the

Compendium. Quasten says merely that even though the chapter has also

been considered spurious, there is insuffic ient reason for not

attr ibuting i t to Theodoret. I t appears to us that i f the same text

is called into question in the le t te r , i t must out of consistency

also be questioned in the Compendium. Bonwetsch's arguments against

the authenticity of this chapter against Nestorius are convincing

to us. He points out that some of the text has been borrowed word,

for word from Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil. More significant

is his observation that nowhere in Theodoret's other works did

he make such attacks against Nestorius—even at the Council of

Chalcedon when he had' occasion to do so. Therefore, Bonwetsch is

led to the conclusion that the unknown author of the Li be 11 us ad

Sporacium inserted this text into Theodoret's Compendium.888 Our

examination of the text supports the conclusion that the chapter

is indeed spurious. I t de f in ite ly lacks the doctrinal precision

and characteristic ideas of Theodoret. I ts massive use of ad

hominem arguments also does not f i t the usual pattern followed by

our author. One would certainly expect more exact information from

126

a fellow Antiochene than the typ ica lly t r i t e charges in this

writing . Bardy highlights the value of the Compendium's chapters

on Nestorius and Eutyches because of Theodoret's personal knowledge

of these contemporaries. But, this is exactly what we do not find

in this common v i l i f ic a t io n of Nestorius! Therefore, v/e conclude

that chapter twelve and the Li bell us te l l us nothing about Theodoret's

theological viewpoint.

Other than the fact that Theodoret spent some of his la te r

years in w rit ing , the rest of his ac t iv it ies remain in the dark.

I t is not even certain when he died. He was almost certainly alive

in 453 when Leo wrote to him. On the basis of the indefinite infor­

mation provided by the sources, scholars have assigned his death to

various dates. Gennadi us provides the general but unsubstantiated

information that he died during the reign of the Emperor Leo I

(457-474). Following this lead, some scholars have specified a

date very early during his r e i g n . ^ The statement of Marcellinus

Comes (d. about 534) in his Chronicle that Theodoret died in the

year 466 has been regarded by scholars as unreliable. However,

Honigmann makes a plausible case that this date could be accurate.

F irs t , he points to the general accuracy of his Chronicle, and

then singles out a reference to a le t te r of Theodoret to Bishop

Suras of Germanicia, a reference preserved in a fragment of the

Church History by John Diacrinomenus (c. 512-518). Since "Suras

was . . . hardly consecrated bishop before 460," the deduction

is that Theodoret lived past the year 460. Honigmann concludes

127

that " . . . the statement that Theodoret died under Leo a f te r 460

and probably in 466 seems much less unlikely than i t is generally

considered. . . . I f Theodoret was born about 393, he would have

reached in 466 the age of about 73 years.

128

Edmund Venables, "Theodoretus," A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Vol. IV, ed. by W ill i an Smith and Henry Wace (London:John Murray, 1887), p. 905. Otto Bardenhewer, Geschichte der a l t - kirchlichen L ite ra tu r , Bd. IV, erste u. zweite Auflage (Freiburg, i . B . , 1924), p. 222. Pierre Canivet, "Theodoretos," LTK, Vol. X (1965) col. 32. These authors follow the dating given by Tillemont. Other writers have suggested a somewhat e a r l ie r date.

Ep. 81, "Au Consul Nomus," in Y. Azdnia, Correspondance, T. I I , SC, XCVIII (Paris: Les editions du cerf , 1964) 192-199. B. Jackson,trans., Theodoret: Letters , Vol. I l l in LNPF, Sec. Ser. (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1953) 276-277. Ep. 113, "A Leon, eveque de Rome,"in Azema, Correspondance, T. I l l , pp. 56-57. Jackson, Theodoret: Letters , pp. 293-295. See E. Venables, "Theodoretus," DCB, Vol. IV, pp. 904-919 for an ample account of Theodoret's l i f e . Hereafter, references to Theodoret's le tters in Azdma's c r i t ic a l edition and in Jackson's English translation w il l be to "Azema" and "Jackson."

3I<onstantin Gutberlet, trans ., Des Bischofs Theodoret von Cyrus Monchsgeschi elite, Bd. L in BKV (Milnchen: J. Kosel und F.Pustet, n.d.) pp. 113-115; see also pp. 89-97.

4Ep. 81, Azema, T. I I , pp. 192-199; Jackson, pp. 276-277.

^Venables, "Theodoretus," DCB, p. 906.

^Pierre Canive't, Histoire d'une entreprise apologetique au Ve si eele (Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1958), p. 21.

7Ibi_d., pp. 21-22.

8Ib id . , p. 22.

8Ib id . , p. 24. Theodoret de Cyr, Therapeutique des maladies he!leniques, texte c r i t . , in t r o . , traduction et notes par Pierre Canivet, Vol. I , SC, LVII (Paris: Les editions du cerf, 1958) 10-11.

^Canivet, H istoire- d'une entreprise apologetique, pp. 29-31.

^ I b i d . , pp. 24-26. Canivet's suggestion is based on three observations: 1 .) the purity and correctness of Theodoret's Greeksty le—a possible indication of a conscious exercise of an acquired s k i l l ; 2.) the fact that his family would have had to speak Syriac with such monks as Macedonius who knew no Greek; 3.) the fact that Theodoret would have found i t necessary to speak Syriac in order to administer his diocese. His commentaries show that he used both Syriac and Hebrew in his exegesis, but i t is doubtful that he knew any Latin.

129

1 ? Ib id . , pp. 34-37. Libanius numbered such outstanding church men as Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Maximus of Seleucia, and perhaps Theodore of Mopsuestia among his students. He handed his work over to his pupils in 393 A.D. Theodoret shares a knowledge of certain classical authors such as Demosthenes with Chrysostom--a possible indication that they were taught by masters of the same school. Theodoret always remained sympathetic to classical culture and kept in contact with certain pagans a fte r his departure from Antioch.See Appendix A, "Antiochene Theology" for a discussion of educa­tional institutions at the time and the meaning of "Antiochene School." See also H. I . Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity , trans. by George Lamb (New York: New American Library, 1964) p. 434Tf.There is no evidence that there was any Christian school in existence at this time. Religious tra ining would have come from catechetical teaching and private informal study. Against Bardenhev/er, GAL, Bd. IV,p. 222.

^Ep. 16, "A 1'eveque Irenee," Azema, T. I I , pp. 58-61.

I ^ Ib id . , p. 60. The phrase here is f r f f c Tovs J rfa rr/ru A o u s a reference to Diodore and Theodore without a possessive pronoun. Jackson translates this phrase "my teachers," p. 256, but i t does not seem to require the personal reference. Canivet seems to trans­la te the statement the same way (Therapeutique, Vol. I , p. 13). Nevertheless, Azema translates the phrase more exactly—"envers ces maitres" (p. 61). Even i f Theodoret were claiming these two Antiochene Fathers as his teachers, Canivet claims that neither Diodore nor Theodore was actually his teacher ( Histolre d'une entreprise aoolo- getique, p. 37). Scholars agree that Diodore could not have been his teacher since he died about the time of Theodoret's b ir th , and that i t is unlikely (but remotely possible) that Theodore functioned in this capacity. N. Bonwetsch, "Theodoret," Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, Bd. XIX, p. 610 and H. G. Opitz, "Theodoretus," PWK, Neue Bearb., Zweite Reihe, Bd. V, col. 1792. Theodore was consecrated the bishop of Mopsuestia in 392 A.D.(Johannes Quasten, Patrology. Vol. I l l , p. 401). This would appear to have removed him from Theodoret's locale.

15/\dolf Harnack, Diodor von Tarsus: vier pseudojustinischs 'Schriften als Eigentum Diodors nachgewiesen, TU, N .F ., Bd. V I, 4 Heft (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1901) pp. 34-35,46, 67-68, 232-233, 240-241. What Harnack says about Diodore is applicable to Theodoret since at least one of the works discussed has been successfully attributed to Theodoret. R. V. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon (London: S.P.C.K., 1953) p. 166. See sim ilarstatements in Se ller 's Two Ancient Christologies (London: S.P.C.K.,1954). I . von Ivanka, Hellenisches und Christliches im friihbyzan- tinischen Geistesleben (Wien: Herder, 1948), ch. 7. Many otherscholars could be cited who have described Antiochene theology as Aristote lian . This issue w il l have to be dealt with more fu l ly la te r in a d ifferent context.

130

^ C an ivet, Histoire d'une entreprise apologetique, p. 332: "Theodoret.. .n ‘a jamais dtudid scientifiquement la philosophie...A Antioche.. .Theodoret, selon toutes vraisemblances, ne pouvait pasrecevoir d'enseignement philosophiaue proprement d i t " " . . . le secoles dispensent une culture plutot l i t t e r a i r e que philosophique. Theodoret n 'est done pas predispose a aborder la christologie d'un point de vue metaphysique" (p. 336). The usual subjects taught in school were "grammar, rhetoric , d ia lec t ic , arithmetic, music, geometry and astronomy" (Canivet, Therapeutique, Vol. I , p. 14).

^Canivet, Therapeutique, Vol. I , pp. 55-57. "Theodoret accorde-t-il une preference a certains auteurs, se r e fe r e - t - i l plus volontiers a un systeme donne? I I ne semble pas" (p. 55).When Theodoret chose the elements he desired from this source or tha t , he sometimes showed an appreciation for Plato and Socrates and such Neo-Platonists as Numenius, Plotinus, and Porphyry, but a marked distaste for A r is to tle . "Quant a la pensee d 'A r is to tle , mieux vaut n'en pas parler." (pp. 56-59). There are numerous places in the Graecarum affectionum curatio where he praises Plato and the Neoplatonists, others where he sharply c r it ic izes them.(Vol. I , 3k. I I , pp. 157-158, 161-162, 169-170) I t seems misleading to speak unqualifiedly about schools of classical Greek philosophy such as Aristote lian philosophy being in existence at this time, for the Peripatetic philosophers had become extremely eclectic by the fourth century A.D.—in fac t, so eclectic that they "can hardly be called Peripatetics—certainly not without qualifications: to a l l intents and purposes the School was absorbed in Neo- Platonism . . . ." Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy,Vol. I , Greece and Rome, rev. ed. (Westminster, Maryland: NewmanPress, 1966) p. 427. See also P. Merlan's similar description of the la te Peripatetic School in Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, ed. by A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge: University Press, 1967) p. 122.

^Ep. 113, "A Leon, eveque de Rome," Azema, T. I l l , pp. 67-68; Jackson, p. 294; Canivet, Histoire d'une entreprise apologetique, p. 21.

^Ep . 81, "Au consul Nomus," Azema, T. I I , pp. 196-197; Ep. 119, "Au patrice Anatole," Azema, T. I l l , pp. 80-81; Jackson pp. 276-277, 297; Venables, "Theodoret," DCB, p. 906.

20canivet, Histoire d'une entreprise apologetique, pp. 20, 40- 41; idem., Thdrapeutique, pp. 14-15'.

^E p . 113, Azema, T. I l l , pp. 52-63; Jackson, p. 294; Venables, "Theodoretus," DCB, Vol. IV, pp. 906-907; Bardenhewer, GAL, Bd. IV, p. 222.

131

22venab1es, p. 907; Ep. 82, Azema, T. I I , pp. 200-201,Ep. 83, pp. 208-209; Ep. 147, "To John, Bishop of Germanicia,"PG, LXXXIII, col. 1410-1412; Jackson, pp. 323-324.

23£p. 81, Ep. 113: these often-cited le tters of self-defensecontain much valuable autobiographical information.

24Ep. 81, "Au consul Nomus," Azema, T. I I , pp. 196-199; Ep. 113, Azema, T. I l l , p d . 62-65; Haereticarum fabularum compendium,PG, LXXXIII, col. 372A.

25ep. 81.

26/\lthough the Nestorian Controversy may be said to have begun in 428 A.D., Theodoret was not engaged in i t until la te 430 or early 431 A.D. In late 430 A.D., a fte r Pope Celestine's l e t t e r to Nestorius and C yril 's Second Letter, John of Antioch wrote to Nestorius with the approval o f Theodoret and others advising him to moderate his stand. B. J. Kidd, The History of the Church to A.D. 461, Vol. I l l (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922)pp. 225-226. This seems to be the f i r s t instance of any involvement on Theodoret's part. He did not become actively engaged in the controversy until early 431 A.D. when John of Antioch asked him to refute Cyril 's Twelve Anathemas. Marcel Richard, "Notes sur 1 'evolution doctrinale de Theodoret," RSPT, XXV (1936) 463.

27canivet, Histoire d'une entreprise apologetique, p. 20.

28Albert Ehrhard, "Die Cyril! v. Alexandrien zugeschriebene Schrift peri tes tou koifiou enanthropeseos, ein Werk Theodorets v. Cyrus," JQ., LXX (1888) 179-243, 406-450, 623-653; Eduard Schwartz, "Zur S chrif ts te lle re i Theodorets," pp. 38-39; Joseph Lebon, "Restitutions a Theodoret de Cyr," RHE, XXVI (34) pp.524-533. Lebon found this work referred to as Theodoret's in the Contra Grammaticum of Severus of Antioch.

29f-iarcel Richard, "L 'ac t iv ite l i t t e r a i r e de Theodoret avant le concile d'£phese," RSPT, XXIV (1935) 83-106. Richard bases his judgment largely upon the type of theological argumentation used and the presence or absence o f polemic.

30j. Lebon, "Restitutions a Theodoret de Cyr," RHE, XXVI pp. 536-550. This scholar has disproved Harnack's attempt to attr ibu te this work to Diodore of Tarsus. Harnack considered this to be a "probable" but not certain attr ibution: AdolfHarnack, Diodor von Tarsus: v ier pseudo-justinische Schriften alsEigentum Diodors nachgewesen, TL), N .F ., Bd. V I, Heft 4 (Leipzig:J. C. Hinrichs’she Buchhandlung, 1901) pp. 242-248. The decisive

132

evidence for Lebon is found in ch. 5 of the Contra Grammaticum where Severus of Antioch uses the t i t l e , in c ip i t , and quotes from this work, specifica lly ascribing i t to Theodoret. cither scholars have added to Lebon's preliminary observation about the s im ila r ity of language between the Expositio and other works of Theodoret. F. L. Cross ["Pseudo-Justin's Expositio Rectae Fidei," JT_S, XLVII (1946) 57-58] regards the ascription of authorship as certain.

^Harnack, Diodor von Tarsus, pp. 52-55, 245-247.

32Harnack's study is not su ff ic ien t ly thorough either to establish that a l l four works were written by Diodore or to prove that they were composed by one and the same author. Lebon ( op. c l t .) has indicated that the s im ila r it ies between the Expositio and the Quaestiones et responsiones are not as marked as Harnack claimed. Harnack argued that Diodore was the author of these works on the assumption that the internal evidence favored an Antiochene theo­logian of the fourth century. The content of the Expositio reveals that the authors Christological doctrine is closely connected with his T rin ita r ian doctrine and that i t does not re f lec t any Christo­logical controversy such as the Nestorian Controversy: both ofthese observations led Harnack to assume a fourth century author. However, they do not rule out an author of the early f i f t h century writing before the Nestorian Controversy (Harnack, op. c i t . , pp. 242- 248; Lebon, op. c i t . , p. 541.

Lebon, following Funk, considers the attr ibution of a l l four* treatises (the three Quaestiones and the Confutatio) to Diodore to be very uncertain ("Restitutions," p. 540j] G. Bardy w il l only say that they were written in Syria in the f i f t h century [G. Bardy, "La l i t te ra tu re patristique des Quaestiones et responsiones sur 1 ‘Ecriture sainte," RevBib, XLII (1933) 211-212]~ Being skeptical of Harnack's conclusions, C. Baur is certain only that the four works came from the Antiochene c irc le of theologians [John Chrysostom and His Time,Vol. I , Antioch (London: Sands & C o . ,H 960) p. 101j .

Referring only to the Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos, Bardenhewer assigns i t to some representative of the Antiochene School in the f i f t h century, but not to Theodoret. (Bardenhewer, GAL, Bd. IV, p. 2 3 5 ff .) Others are more positive with regard to Theodoret's authorship. Montalverne considers the Quaestiones et responsiones to be Theodoret's and regards the ascription of the other three writings to him as probable. ( I . Montalverne, Theodoreti c.yrensis doctrina antiquior, p. 57.) Quasten thinks that this work is from the same pen as the Expositio. ( Patrolog.y, Vol. I l l , pp. 548-549.) Canivet concurs in d e f in ite ly ascribing the Quaestiones et responsiones to Theodoret ("Theodoretos," LTK, col. 34.) Another scholar notes that a Constantinople manuscript of this work bears Theodoret's name, but some of the exegetical^conclusions do not agree with Theodoret's. [Pierre de Labrio lle , La Reaction paienne (Paris: L'artisan du l iv r e ,1948) pp. 500-501.]

133

33f.iarcel Richard, "L'Activite l i t t e r a i r e de Theodoret avant le Concile d'Ephese," RSPT, XXIV (1935) 34-89. Richard confirms the ‘conclusion of Harnack and Lebon that the Expositio was written before 428 A.D. The decisive evidence for him is that Theodoret's theologi­cal expression is more refined in works written a fte r the Council of Ephesus than in those written during the period before the controversy. He points to specific problems dealt with and analogies used in the Expositio which had to be altered in the l ig h t of criticism.

In a la te r a r t ic le which amazingly takes no account of the work ofLebon and Richard, R. V. Sellers argues to establish Theodoret as the author of the Expositio and to assign the work to a la te r stage of Theodoret's l i f e when he wrote the Eranistes (c. 447 A .D .) : ["Pseudo-Justin's Expositio Rectae Fidei: a Work of Theodoret ofCyrus," JTS_, XLVI (1945) 156-157,153-159]. Sellers believes that the work is addressed to a group of Christians at Edessa in order to solve a Christological dispute current in the 440's. He finds other evidence for this la te date in a le t te r to Timothy of Doliche (c. 448 A.D.) which mentions a "brief instruction" he has recently written which Sellers identif ies with the Expositio. The decisive internal evidence for Sellers is found in a reference to something Theodoret had previously w ritten—a "refutation of Jews and Greeks" (which Sellers takes as a reference to the refutation of opposite Christological errors in the Eranistes, c. 447 A.D.)and in the "d istinct agreements in vocabulary and thought" between the Expositio and the Eranistes.

Richard had better accounted for the reference to a "refutation of Jews and Greek?." by identifying i t with two early works--Against the Jews (los t) and the Graecarum affectionum curatio ( op. c i t . , pp. 89-91). The epistolary references of 448 A.D. to a recently- written "brie f instruction" has been more probably identified with the Demonstrations b.y Syllogisms, a summary appended to the Eranistes. [M. Richard, "Un e c r it de Theodoret sur 1 'unite du Christ apres 1 ‘ incar- nation," RevSR, XIV (1934) 54-55 and M. F. A. Brok, "The Date of Theodoret's Expositio rectae f id e i ," JTS, N.S. 2 (1951) 179.] As to the agreement of language and thought between Eranistes and theExpositio, there is , as w ill be seen, an agreement of language andthought between a l l of Theodoret's works. Yet, as Richard has shown, there is a perceptible change in expression from the early period of the Expositio to the la te r period of the Eranistes ("L 'A ctiv itel i t t e r a i r e , " pp. 89, 91-92). See also "Notes sur 1 'evolutiondoctrinale de Theodoret," RSPT, XXV (1936) 459-481. Brok adds to the argument for an early date against Sellers by pointing out that there is no polemic against Eutychianism in the Expositio such as one would expect in 447 A.D. ( Ib id . , 178-179).

34These are mentioned in letters 82, 113, 146 (Azema 145 in P£ LXXXIII) written in 448, 449 and 451 A.D. respectively. The most e x p lic i t reference is contained in Ep. 82 (Azema, T. I I , pp. 202-203)

134

where he speaks of having written "formerly" or "long ago" against Arians, Macedonians, Apollinaris , and Marcion. In this statement, he speaks of his writings in two categories--those written before the Council of Ephesus and those written a f te r i t twelve years ago, but he does not say e x p lic i t ly which works belong in each period. Following the judgment of e a r l ie r scholars, Brok is right when he states that these enumerations of his works v/ere not intended to be exact or exhaustive chronological accounts of the dates of the ir publication, non were the writings intended to correspond to the time-divisions of pre-Ephesus^or post-Ephesus [M. Brok, "Touchant la date sur le Psautier de Theodoret de Cyr," RHE, XLIV (1949) 552].In a l1 Theodoret claims to have written th ir ty - f iv e works (Ep. 146, Azema). Richard considers i t l ik e ly that Contra Arianos et Eunomianos, Contra Macedonianos, and Contra Marcionitas were written when Theodoret combatted these heresies soon a fte r bedoming bishop, but there is not enough information to say whether they were written before of a fte r the Council of Ephesus. I t is not l ik e ly that our bishop would have had time to compose them during the Nestorian Controversy; thus, a date before 431 A.D. seems l ik e ly (Richard, "L 'Activ ite l i t t e r a i r e de Theodoret," 101-103).

33Richard, ib id . , pp. 102-103.

^The terms "Easterners" or "Orientals" are synonymous for the churchmen from the Syrian provinces and C i l ic ia who were under the jurisd iction and influence of the Patriarchate of Antioch.

37a1though the Council of Chalcedon marks a climax in this development, i t was i t s e l f a forced compromise o f hostile t ra d i ­tions which triggered la te r controversies and even a permanent schism in Eastern Christendom.

S^Louis Duchesne, Early History of the Christian Church, Vol.I l l , The Fifth Century trans. by Claude Jenkins (London: JohnMurray, 1960) p. 220.

39I b id . , pp. 219-220.

4°Eduard Schwartz, "Uber die Reichskonzilien von Theodosius bis Justinian" in Zur Geschichte der a!ten Kirche und ihres Rechts, Gesammelte Schriften, Bd. IV (Berlin: Halter DeGruyter, 1960) pp.123-124.

41j. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, Vol. I (New York: Dover, 1958) pp. 142-157. Chrysostomus Baur, John Chrysostomand His Time, Vol. I I , Constantinople, trans. by M. Gonzaga (London: Sands & Co., 1960) pp. 165-168, 207-298, 453 and 457 concerning Nestorius. Norman H. Baynes, "Alexandria and Constantinople: AStudy in Ecclesiastical Diplomacy" in Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London: Athlone Press, 1955) pp. 107-112: a r t ic le o r ig i ­nally published in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, X I I (1926) 145- 156.

135

^Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, trans. by A. C. Zenos, NPNF, Second Series (Grand—Rapids: Ee'rdmans, 1952)Bk. V I I , ch. 32, pp. 170-171. Nestorius feared the Apollinarian implications of this term. Eduard Schwartz, "Zur Vorgeschichte des ephesinischen Konzils," HZ_, CXII (1914) 249. Louis Duchesne, Earl.y History of the Christian Church, Vol. I l l , pp. 227-228. Duchesne suggests that there had already been disputes in Constanti­nople about the implications of this Marian t i t l e . However, previous patriarchs had been too p o l i t ic a l ly astute to become embroiled in a doctrinal dispute.

43schwartz, "Vorgeschichte des ephesinischen Konzils," pp. 248-249. This author indicates how deeply embedded this t i t l e was in monastic p ie ty , especially in Egypt, and in the piety ex­pressed in Apollinarianism. Scholars d i f fe r with regard to the extent to which this t i t l e was used in the church of the fourth and f i f t h centuries. Liebaert says that the t i t l e was used "by most- of the theologians of the fourth century" [ Handbuch der Dogmenge- schichte, Bd. I l l , Christologie: Faszikel la (Herder: Freiburg,1955) p. 107] Another Roman Catholic scholar Pierre-Thomas Camelot, says without qua lification: "und dennoch war dieseBezeichnung Theotokos schon lange im christlichen Sprachgebrauch ublich" [ Ephesus und Chalcedon, Bd. I I in Geschichte der okumen- ischen Konzilien, hrsg. v. G. Dumeige u. H. Bacht (Mainz: Matthias-Grunewald, 1953) pp. 15-16]. Duchesne, however, lim its the usage of this term to the Eastern Church ( Early History of the Christian Church, Vol. I l l , pp. 227-228). Protestant scholars such as Miegge and Seeberg question how common and widespread the use of this term was. G. Miegge does not believe that i t was widely diffused outside of Egypt [ The Virgin Mary, trans. by Waldo Smith (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955) pp. 53-55]. Theattitude of Nestorius to the t i t l e was consonant with the Antiochene trad ition expressed by Theodore of Mopsuestia and John Chrysostom.See also C. Baur's John Chrysostom: His L ife and Times, pp. 359-360.R. Seeberg takes Nestorius' protest as indicative of the fact that the term did not play a substantial role in theology or cult (presumably in the whole church). [ Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte,Bd. I I , Die Dogmenbildung in der Alten Kirche, 6 Auflage (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1965} p . 214.]

Amann, "Nestorius," PTC, Vol. X I , cols. 92-93;Duchesne, Vol. I l l , p. 228.

45schwartz, "Vorgeschichte," HZ, CXII (1914) 250.

^ S c h w a r t z , ib id . , pp. 250-251 ; E. Schwartz, Konzilstudien," I . Cassian und Nestorius" in Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Strassbourg, 20 Heft (Strasburg: K. J. Trubner,1914] pp. 4-5; Duchesne, Vol. I l l , pp. 229, 232.

136

47Duchesne, Vol. I l l , p. 232; Schwartz, "Vorgeschichte,"pp. 250-251. Amann dates this le t te r shortly a f te r Easter("Nestorius," PTC, Vol. X I , p. 95).

^Duchesne, Vol. I l l , p. 232; Schwartz, Konzilstudien," I . Cassian und Nestorius," p. 3.

49Schwartz, "Vorgeschichte," pp. 250-251; Duchesne, p. 233. Schwartz and Baynes suggest that the charges against Cyril had already been launched before C y r i l 's f i r s t le t te r to Nestorius, which may contain some references to them., Baynes, "Alexandria and Constantinople," Byzantine Studies and Other Essays, pp. 107- 108; Schwartz, p. 250.

50t . Herbert Bindley, ed., The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith , 4th ed., rev. by F. W. Green (London: Methuen, 1950) pp.95, 209-211; Amann, "Nestorius," PTC, Vol. X I, p. 96.

^Duchesne, p. 233; Baynes, p. 108: "There is no need foralarm: councils sometimes, everyone knows, turn out otherwise thanmen expect. . . . Let not Nestorius, poor man, think that I shall submit to be judged by him. . . . The roles w il l be reversed: Ishall decline his competence to judge me, and I shall know how to force him to defend himself. (Ep. 4 ) ." With this quotation, Baynes makes a convincing case that Cyril was consciously following the precedented strategy that his predecessor and uncle, Theophilus, had used against John Chrysostom at the Synod of the Oak.

A contemporary of C y r i l 's , Isidor of Pelusium, pointed out the para lle l of C yril 's action with that o f Theophilus: Amann, "Nestorius," PTC, Vol. X I, p. 95. See also P. Andreas Schmid,Die Christologie Isidors von Pelusium, Nr. 11 in Parados is (Freiburg, i . S. : Paulusverlag, 1948) pp. 93-96.

52ihose scholars who have reconstructed the chronology of this period have not attached an exact date to this f i r s t le t te r . See Schwartz's Konzilstudien, " I . Cassian und Nestorius," pp. 4-6 and Appendix C.

^Duchesne, Vol. I l l , p. 229: from Nestorius' point of viewhis opponents were espousing the tenets of Arianism and Apollinarian- ism. Schwartz, "Vorgeschichte," p. 252.

54schwartz, "Vorgeschichte," p. 253.

55Schwartz, Konzilstudien, " I . Cassian und Nestorius," pp. 5-7.

^Schwartz, "Vorgeschichte," p. 253: in this a r t ic le theauthor iden tif ies the excerpts used by Cassian for his De Incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium as those sent to Rome by Eusebius of Dorylaeum.

137

In " I . Cassian und Nestorius," he mentions that Nestorius sent some sermons to Rome a fte r his two le tte rs were unanswered and that Cassian quoted from the same sermons which Eusebius had excerpted in addition to using Nestorius' f i r s t le t te r (pp. 5-7, 16-17). Owen Chadwick indicates that the sermon extracts available in Rome before summer of 430 A.D. came from Marius Mercator and an unnamed other source. Cassian used only the f i r s t le t te r to Nestorius and "certain extracts" from his sermons [ John Cassian, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: University Press, 1968) pp. 140-142j. Whatever source or sources for the sermon excerpts that Cassian may have been using, he had only this previously mentioned material at his disposal. Therefore, scholars agree that he wrote his work against Nestorius before the arrival of C yril 's envoy Posidonius with more anti-Nestorian material and before the meeting o f the Roman council of August 10, 430 which condemned Nestorius.

^ H a l le r , Das Papsttum: Idee und W irk lichkeit , Bd. I , pp.110-111; Schwartz, "Vorgeschichte," pp. 253-254. Both scholars point out that a r iv a lry between Rome and Constantinople over the control of I l l y r i a already existed (H a lle r , p. 107; Schwartz, p.255). The patriarchate of Constantinople was an upstart power which posed a threat to both Alexandria and Rome.

580. Chadwick, John Cassian, p. 142.

^ S c h w a r t z , "Vorgeschichte," p. 253 and " I . Cassian und Nestorius," pp. 14-17. The influence of Eusebius of Dorylaeum is apparent in his work. Not only does he quote from the same sermons which Eusebius had taken excerpts from, he also used the baptismal creed o f Antioch as an example to re fu te Nestorius—the procedure used i n i t i a l l y by Eusebius. See also Amann‘ s judgment in "Nestorius,"PTC, p. 101.

600. Chadwick, John Cassian, p. 146. For the same judgment see Schwartz's "Vorgeschichte," p. 252, where the only difference cited is "der harte, spitzfindige Rationalismus" of Nestorius which made the Romans d is tru s tfu l .

^Amann, "Nestorius," PTC, p. 100. This Catholic scholar points to the great resemblance between key concepts in both Christologies. The same s im ila r it ies are abundantly apparent in a comparison of Leo's Tome and the Antiochene Christological formulas.

62Schwartz, "Vorgeschichte," p. 254.

63Ib id . , p. 252.

^ Ib id . , pp. 254-255. The material sent by Cyril had been previously translated into Latin, whereas Nestorius had sent his material in Greek, a language with which few Romans were familiar-.

133

65Amann, "Nestorius," PTC, p. 101-102.

66schwartz, "Vorgeschichte," p. 256.

67lbi_d., pp. 256-257; Amann, "Nestorius," PTC, pp. 102-103; Ouchesne, pp. 234-235. Cyril received the le t te r from Rome and forwarded i t with some of his own comments to John of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem. Soon afterwards, John wrote to Nestorius with the approval of Theodoret of Cyrus and other Syrian leaders advising him to accede to the Pope's demands and to stop opposing the Theotokos t i t l e . In his reply, Nestorius was w illing to admit the t i t l e Theotokos as legitimate. B. J. Kidd, The History of the Church to A.P. 461, Vol. I l l (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922) pp.225-226 and Ouchesne, pp. 237-238.

^^Schwartz ("Vorgeschichte," pp. 261-262) and Amann ("Nestor­ius," PTC, p. 103-105) date the delivery of this le t te r with i ts anathemas to Nestorius on November 30, 430 A.O. and Nestorius1 f i r s t reply in a sermon on Oecember 6. Schwartz indicates that in the two sermons of December 6 and 7, Nestorius was w illing to allow the use of the Theotokos t i t l e as long as i t were not mis­used, i . e . , in an Apollinarian sense. (The Alexandrian synod had met some time e a r l ie r in November.) Ouchesne (Vol. I l l , p.237) offers the date o f December 6 as 'the time of the le t te r 's arrival in the capita l. Kidd (Vol. I l l , p. 229-230) gives the date of December 5 as the time of arrival and December 13 as the * date of Nestorius' reply via sermon.

^ S c h w a r t z , ib id . , p. 257; Duchesne, p. 237.

70Duchesne conjectures that the theological quarrel was on i ts way to a peaceful settlement until the infamous "Twelve Anathemas" appeared (pp. 237-239). This raises a question as to what C yril 's motive was in introducing them (Kidd, p. 228). He must have calcu­lated that they would e l i c i t a passionate reaction from the Antiochene patriarchate; therefore, i t is highly unlikely that conciliation was a motive.

71 Duchesne, ib id . , pp. 238-239; Kidd, ib id . , p. 228.

72ouchesne, ib id . , pp. 238-239; Richard, "Notes sur 1'evolution doctrinale de Theodoret," RSPT, p. 463. John requested the refutation at the beginning of 431.

73r ichard, ib id . , pp. 459-481.

74schwartz, "Vorgeschichte," p. 258.

139

7jAmann, "Nestorius," PTC, pp. 106-107 and Duchesne, p. 236. Cyril had written separate le tters to persons in the imperial court with the intent of turning them against Nestorius. The emperor seemed particu larly angry because of his suspicion that Cyril was attempting to sow discord between him and his in fluen tia l s is ter, Pulcheria.

^Theodoret's work, Reprehensio Duodecim capitum seu anathe­ma tismo rum C .y r i l l i , is preserved in C yril 's Epistola ad Euoptium (adversus impugnationem duodecim capitum a Theodoreto editam) in PG, LXXVI, 385-452 and in the c r i t ic a l edition of Eduard Schwartz, A(T0, I , 6 , 107-146. See Quasten's Patrology, Vol. I l l , pp. 546, 126-127. C yril 's major work from this time is Adversus Nestorii blasphemias. A re liab le translation of Theodoret's "Counter- Anathemas" is available in NPNF, Sec. S e r . , Vol. I l l , Theodoret, et a l . , pp. 26-31. The so-called "Counter-Anathemas" attributed to Nestorius are not of his composition, but rather belong to an ■ anonymous Nestorian partisan of a la te r time. E. Schwartz, "Die sogenannten Gegenanathematismen des Nestorius," SBAW, 1922, pp.3-4, 28-29.

77Kidd, pp. 237-239; Duchesne, pp. 241-242.

78Duchesne estimates C yril 's party at considerably more than f i f t y . Duchesne, pp. 240-241 and Kidd, pp. 238-239.

79Ernest Honigmann, "Juvenal of Jerusalem," POP, No. 5 (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1950) pp. 211-214, 217-218. Sincethe Council of Nicaea, the see of Jerusalem stood in the subordinate position of suffragan to the metropolitan of Caesarea. Juvenal f in a l ly succeeded in grasping three Antiochene provinces as booty from the "Robber Council" of Ephesus (449 A .D .), but he had to restore them a fte r the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. (pp. 238, 244-245). The opportunism of this prelate is simply amazing. See also Kidd, pp. 238-239.

8°G. Bardy, "Theodoret," PTC, Vol. XV, col. 300; Kidd, pp. 239-240.

81 Kidd, pp. 239-240.

^Here again, Cyril must have had the procedure of his uncle Theophilus in mind who had led the Synod of the Oak to condemn Cyrysostom in absentia. As Duchesne says, "to avoid being in the position of the accused, he (Cyril) boldly assumed the role of judge" (Duchesne, p. 243). This is a reference to C yril 's own expressed intention referred to by Norman Baynes (pp. 108-109).See also B. J. Kidd, pp. 239-240 for corroboration. Kidd is more

140

favorable to Cyril than is Duchesne. Kidd accepts uncrit ica lly C yril 's attempt to ju s t i fy his action by claiming that Alexander of Hierapolis and Alexander of Apamea (both of whom had arrived before the other Syrians) had brought a message from John of Antioch saying that i f his delegation were further detained they should begin the council without him (pp. 239-240). Duchesne adduces the following evidence to indicate that the message v/as fa lsely reported or fa lsely understood:

(1) a le t te r from John to Cyril composed at five or six days' distance from Ephesus (with no reference to such a message)

(2) a formal protest of 68 bishops against C yril 's actions in which the two Alexanders' signatures are included

(3) the la te r attitude of the "Easterners." Duchesne, pp. 246-247.

83Duchesne, p. 244 and Kidd, pp. 239-240. The course of events unrolls basically according to Cyril 's pre-battle plan.

84as Kidd points out, C yril 's Third Letter (with Anathemas) was neither voted upon nor formally acclaimed: " I t is a moot point,therefore, how much of oecumenical approval v/as then bestowed upon the Twelve Anathematisms" (p. 242). See also Duchesne, p. 245 for accounts of the council's proceedings. The question of the author­i ty of the Anathemas has been a controversial one. According to Paul G altier, these twelve propositions were de f in ite ly not given ‘ oecumenical sanction even though la te r in the history of the church the trad ition grew up that they represented the authentic teaching of the Council of Ephesus: "Les anatnematisniesde Saint Cyrille etle Concile de Chalcddoine," RechSR, XX III (1933) 45-57. Galtier points out that the "synodical le tte rs addressed by him (Cyril) to Nestorius and the Orientals" which were accepted as authoritative at Chalcedon did not include the Third Letter with the Anathemas, but only the le t te r / w w </<*pouvci/ to Nestorius (his Second Letter) and the le t te r to John of Antioch about the Formula of Union (pp. 46-47, 56-57). Pope V ig ilius ' b e l ie f that the Anathemas were among the documents regarded at Chalcedon as representing the authentic teaching of Ephesus v/as based upon a misunderstanding (pp. 55-57).

85Kidd, pp. 242-243; Duchesne, pp. 245-246.

86I b id . , pp. 243-244.

8?Ib id . , pp. 244-246. Duchesne explains this action of the council to mean that the authority of John and his followers to condemn Cyril and Memnon and to support Nestorius v/as not recognized (pp. 248-249).

141

88jhe creed in question was one of a "Nestorian" type attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia (Duchesne, pp. 250-251 and Kidd, p. 247).

89The question of Antiochene jurisd iction in Cyprus was a complicated one with no clear-cut historical precedent. See Kidd, pp. 248-249.

90ep. 157 (PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1451-1453) and Ep. 153 (col. 1453- 1456); Jackson, pp. 334-335. These letters are identif ied as xoming from the "Eastern synod" (No. 157) and the "Easterners" (No. 153) and are both addressed to the emperor. Both were sent through the agency of Count Irenaeus, an in fluentia l backer of Nestorius at court. I t would appear that these were penned sometime after June 26 when the Easterners' synod deposed Cyril and Memnon. Without examining these letters with regard to style and grammar, i t appears to me that they very well could have been by Theodoret himself.Other letters of his represent the same concerns expressed in similar ways. As perhaps the chief l i te ra ry figure among the Syrians, i t is l ik e ly that the composition would have been entrusted to him.

9TPG, LXXXIII, ib id . , see especially col. 1452B, D and col.1456B for the references to the Chapters. Ep. 152 which appears to have been written by John of Antioch is similar in content: thefollowers of Cyril and Memnon are pronounced excommunicated until they reject the Twelve Chapters (Jackson, p. 333). In 449 A.D., when the Anathemas are being heralded by Cyril 's fanatical suc­cessors, Theodoret passionately renounces the "poison" in them:Ep. 112, "To Domnus, Bishop of Antioch" (Azema, T. I l l , pp. 46-57;PG, cols. 1309-1312; Jackson, p. 292).

92Duchesne, pp. 250-251.

93The Formula of Reunion "was the work, or was issued with the approval of Theodoret. The document may rank as a moderate statement of a n t i-C y r il l in e orthodoxy; and i t became, when pro­posed by John, and accepted by C y ri l , the Formulary of Reunion":Kidd, p. 250. Bardy affirms the commonly accepted view that " i1 est viaisemblable q u 'il avait &t€ lui'meme 1 'auteur du symbole accepte par les deux partis ," (PTC, Vol. XV, col. 300). See also Duchesne, p. 263 and J. Montalverne, Theodoreti C.yrensis doctrina antiquior de Verbo inhumanato (Rome: 1948) p. 43 for the same ’point of view. However, H. M. Diepen denies that Theodoret wrote this confession: "Non, ce texte n'est pas redige par Theodoret,comme on le d i t souvent, i l n 'e ta i t guere de son gout. Alexandre d'Hierapolis le nomine, i l est v r a i , parmi les signataires: earn(Epistolam) quae tunc a vestra re lig io s ita te conscripta es t , mais

142

cel a ne s ign ifie nullement qu ‘el f a i l l e a ttr ibuer la redaction du symbole d'Ephese a Theodoret." [ niepen, Les Trois Chapitres au Concile de Chalcedoine (Oosterhout: Editions de Saint Michel.1953} p. 35.J

M. Richard has sharply c r it ic ized Diepen's argument--and indeed his entire book. "Traduire 'epistolam conscribere' par 'signer une le t t r e ' est un dnorme contresens et nous sommes surpris qu1 une te l le bevue a i t pu passer inapercue aux examinateurs." [Richard,"A propos d'un ouvrage recent sur le Concile de Chalcedoine," MSR,XI (1954) p. 90.] Richard explains Diepen's motive for denying Theodoret the authorship of this work—a motive that also became apparent to this reader. Diepen represents a conservative (C yril! ine) interpretation of the defin it ion of fa ith at Chalcedon s t r ic t ly in accord with the Fifth Ecumenical Council which condemned Theodoret's polemics against C yri l . Since the definition o f Chalcedon u t il ized as authoritative two documents which include the Formula of Reunion accepted in 433 A.D., this would indicate that the ostensible author Theodoret, who was the arch-enemy of C yri l , contributed to the orthodox defin it ion of fa ith , which then is more Antiochene—and less C y r i l l in e —than Deipen would like to admit. Diepen's further arguments on p. 36 are so inconclusive as not to be worth reviewing here. A passage in Theodoret's Letter 112 appears to indicate either that Theodoret wrote the Formula or was involved with others in the drafting of i t : y fa f 'iycf y 77’/\t(o v ’c*v ci/S Z tv/ s ,

($eL(U/<rJ( \ZTwVj <*• i t / ’U pS C Tu/j OU 77'f07r<Z£oV

i / :o ( ] /o o \ /^ c r u M s y ' t <? T J v ra i y ^ y ? 01 <P°T( j TO(Sp i / / £ t / 0 J j & & *!(/> t * > /o / < / t / 7 0 ( S c//d"^<7-7r^ V t /

0><T£\/J O U cfS 'od ttV 7 ‘i* /)/ g /C £ /t /(^ \/

i/ P S *7

Azema, T. I l l , pp. 50-51. Translation: "For when, as i t happened,many had already confirmed them (the Anathemas), we opposed them in Ephesus, and we did not f i r s t enter into communion with him who wrote them until he agreed to the things set forth by us, and put his teaching in accord with ours, making no mention of those chapters." Whether or not Theodoret is the sole author depends upon whether he is using the f i r s t person plural here as a p o lite reference to him­s e lf or as a reference to several men who collaborated on the Formula. Jackson's translation (p. 292) d iffers from my own (given above) and Azema's French in.,his rendering of the "we" references by the f i r s t person singular " I." I f Jackson's rendering is what Theodoret actually intended, we have a further proof that he himself is solely responsible for writing the Formula of Union. However, i t seems more accurate to translate the f i r s t person plural forms here as "we"—as I have done. Nevertheless, even i f we concede the ambiguity in the passage, there is enough evidence to indicate that Theodoret had some say in deter­mining the Formula (against Diepen). There was no one among the

143

Easterners who had a higher reputation as a theologian at the time and, therefore, no one to whom they were more l ik e ly to turn.

94|<idd, p. 246; Duchesne, pp. 252-253.

95)<idd, p. 246; Duchesne, pp. 251-252.

96|<idd, p. 246. Heinrich Bacht, "Die Rolle des orientalischen Mdnchturns in den kirchenpolitischen Auseinandersetzungen un Chalkedon (451-519)," CGG, Bd. I I , p. 197. The monks begin to play an important p o lit ica l role in the doctrinal controversies of the f i f t h centuryas partisans for both sides (p. 195). Certainly Mariology andMonophysitism were closely linked with ascetic piety. See Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary, pp. 58-59 and N. H. Baynes, "Alexandria and Constantinople: a Study in Ecclesiastical Diplomacy," pp. 102-103.Duchesne points out that Eutyches, who would play an important role in the Christological controversies before the Council of Chalcedon, also made an appearance in support of Cyril (p. 252).

9?Kidd, p. 2 52 ff . ; Duchesne, pp. 252-253. Schwartz gives the number as seven: "Ober die Reichskonzilien von Theodosius bisJustinian," in Gesammelte Schriften, Bd. IV, p. 131.

98Ep. 165, addressed to some Eastern bishops, in Jackson, p.337 and PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1465-1466. Ep. 169, "To Alexander of Hierapolis," Jackson, p. 341 (PG_, LXXXIII, cols. 1473-1476): "Ihave even stated to our pious emperor with an oath that i t is per­fec tly impossible for Cyril and Memnon to be reconciled with me, and that we can never communicate with any one who has not previously repudiated the heretical chapters." Ep. 165 takes an even stronger l ine: even i f Cyril were to deny the Anathemas, Theodoret wouldnot enter into communion with him. Ep. 167, "Second Petition to the Emperor," Jackson, p. 339(PG_, LXXXIII, cols. 1469-1471) contains the same complaint.

99Ep. 170, Jackson, pp. 342-343 (PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1475-1481) also Venables, DCB, Vol. IV, p. 909. See ACO, T. I , Vol. I , 1, 7 for a portion of a homily delivered at this time.

^ 8Ep. 169, Jackson, p. 341: "On the fourth occasion I spokeat length about the fa ith and they listened with such delight that they did not go away t i l l the seventh hour but held out even t i l l the mid-day heat. An enormous crowd v/as gathered in a great court, with four verandahs, and I preached from above from a platform near the roof. All the clergy with the excellent monks are on the contrary u tte r ly opposed to me, so that when we came back from the Rufinianum, a fte r the v is i t of the very pious emperor, stone- throwing began and many of my companions were wounded by the people and false monks."

144

^Duchesne, p. 254. Richard points out the utter lack of sophistication in Acacius1 theology: Marcel Richard, "Acace de Melitene, Proclus de Constantinople, et la Grande Armenie" in Memorial Louis P e tit (Paris: 1948) 402-403.

l ° 2 Ep. 167, Jackson, p. 339. In Ep. 169 ( J a c k s o n , p. 342) he speaks of being in danger daily .

103£p 167, Jackson, p. 337: "the partisans of Cyril havedeceived everyone by domineering, cheating, and bribing."

104Ep. 169, Jackson, p. 341 and Ep. 165, Jackson, p. 337.

105J. B. Bury, History o f the Later Roman Empire, Vol. I (New York: Dover, 1958) pp. 214-215.

106Ep. 170, Jackson, pp. 342-343.

^ Jackson , p. 338.

^ 3Ep. 168, "Third Petition to the Emperor," Jackson, pp. 340-341.

^ E p . 169, Jackson, pp. 341-342. This may have been written between the fourth and f i f th sessions--at least before the proceed­ings appeared completely f ru it le ss .

” ° In Ep. 167 (Jackson, pp. 339-340), Theodoret complains of being excluded yet not being allowed to return home and begs the emperor not to ordain a replacement for Nestorius before a theo­logical settlement has been made.

mDuchesne, p. 255. He had excluded them from participation in the ordination of Maximian because of the ir h o s t i l i ty to the other party involved and to the idea of replacing Nestorius and because of the h o s t i l i ty of the local clergy against them.

^Duchesne, p. 255; Ep. 168, Jackson, pp. 340-341 ; PG., LXXXIII, col. 1472A-B.

^ 3Duchesne, pp. 258-259: On th e ir journey home, they were maltreated by many churchmen through whose te r r i to ry they passed.They, in turn, held council to condemn the ir enemies. At Tarsus they deposed Cyril and his representatives.

"I^Louis S a lte t , "Les sources de I'Eranistes de Theodoret,"RHE, VI (1905) 289-303, 512-536, 741-754. The conclusions of this a r t ic le w il l be dealt with in detail in Chapter I I I .

145

Ib jA - > pp. 514-515. This le t te r is No. 170 among the correspondence of Theodoret. PG, LXXXIII, col. 1475-1481;Jackson, pp. 342-344.

l l 6 Xidd, pp. 254, 261.

117Ib id . , p. 256. Quasten, Vol. I l l , p. 127.

^Q uasten , Vol. I l l , p. 546. See references to these fragments in Eduard Schwartz, "Zur Schrifts te l lerei Theodorets," SB A'//, Philoso.- p h ilo l. u. h is t . Klasse, 1922, zweite Abhandlung, pp. 30-40 and Marcel Richard, "Les citations de Theodoret conservees dans la chaine de Nicetas sur 1'Evangile selon Luc," RB_, XL I I I (1934) 88-96. The fragments are preserved in E. Schwartz, ed., ACO, T. I , Vol. V, pp. 165-170 and PL_, XLVIII, col. 1067-1076. The Pentalogos must have been written toward the end of 431. G. Bardy, "Theodoret," PTC, Vol. XV, cols. 303-304; P. Canivet, "Theodoretos," LTK, cols. 33-34.

Richard, "Notes sur 1 'evolution doctrinale de Theodoret," RSPT, XXV (1936) 465 .."'■These writers are Photius and the anonymous editor of the Col lectio palatina (in ACO, T. I , Vol. V,p. 168).

12QIb id . , pp. 465-466.

T ^ Ib id . , p. 466.

122PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1416B-1440D; Jackson, pp. 325-332.A. D'Ales, "La le t t re de Theodoret aux moines d 'o r ien t," p. 414.

^22Richard, "Notes sur 1 'evolution doctrinale de Theodoret," p. 465.

Duchesne, p. 259 and Kidd, p. 256. These le tte rs were written in April but delivered in person la te r .

■j o rVenables locates the synod "in Beroea or in some other

c ity of Syria"(DCB, p. 910) while Kidd speaks of i t as having been held in Antioch (p. 256). The terms of agreement were sent to Cyril in a le t te r from Acacius of Beroea who was commissioned to convince Cyril of the fe a s ib i l i ty of a compromise. (Kidd, p. 257.) According to d'Alfes' summary, the six propositions (unavailable to Venables who did not have Schwartz's edition of the ACO) explicate the same basic idea—that only Nicea with Athanasius' explanation are to be received with no new additions to the accepted teaching of the Fathers. A. d'Ales, Le Dogme d'£phese, 2nd ed. (Paris:Gabriel Beauchesne, 1931) pp. 199-200.

1 ^Duchesne, p. 260.

146

^ K i d d , pp. 258-259; quoting a document preserved in B iblio- theca Casinensis, I , i i , 47. See also Duchesne, pp. 260-261 and N. Baynes, "Alexandria and Constantinople" in Byzantine Studies and Other Essays, p. 110. Baynes quotes P. B a tif fo l 's 1911 estimate of C y r i l ’s expenditure as over a m illion francs.

128jtobert Devreesse, "Apres le Concile d'^phese: le retour des Orientaux a 1 'unite (433-437)," E0_ (1931) pp. 272-273; Kidd, p. 257; Duchesne, p. 261; Venables, col. 910.

T29"Pour eux, le voir releguer au second plan les anathdmatismes d ta it une preuve evidente de ses bonnes dispositions," Devreesse, ib id . , p. 273. "All that i t was desired to obtain from them was that, despite the Anathemas, they should consent to recognize that Cyril was not heretical. That they should accept his explanations as giving the true sense of the disputed document or as a retraction of this production, was a fte r a l l a secondary matter," Duchesne, p. 261.

^Oyenables, p. 910; Duchesne, p. 261; Kidd, p. 257.

^ V en ab les , p. 910; Duchesne, p. 261; Kidd, p. 257: thisauthor speaks o f a fourth party represented by Andreas of Samosata, but his position is p ractica lly identical with that of Theodoret.

T32DUchesne} p. 262; Venables, p. 911,and Kidd, pp. 259- 260,indicate that this e a r l ie r statement had been amended in order to be less offensive to Cyril: i t contained in i ts altered forman introduction and creed which became in the next year the"Formula of Reunion," the theological basis of the agreement. ForTheodoret's contribution, see footnote 93.

p. 260. Duchesne adds that i t was agreed to allow the issue of the Anathemas to be dropped since Cyril had already explained them.

^ K i d d , pp. 260-261. Paul's New Year's sermon emphasized the two natures of Christ characteristic of Antiochene teaching.

^ K i d d , p. 261; Duchesne, pp. 263-264. Kidd speaks of John's abandoning Nestorius, but Duchesne points to some modification in terminology by John: John's le t te r to the emperor was "very,vague." " I t is not said either in what Nestorius had been heretical or even that he had been so." The text of John's le t te r to Cyril contains the words: "and we anathematize his (N e s to r iu s ') t r iv i-a l i t ie s and profane babblings. . . ." E. Schwartz, ed., ACO, T. I , Vol. I , 4, Collectio Vaticana, 123, p. 9. This wording may in d i­cate some equivocation on John's part. This became an issue la te r .See Venables, "Theodoret," DCB, p. 911.

147

l^ K id d , pp. 261-262; Duchesne, pp. 263-264.

^ " L e t t e r of C yril , Bishop of Alexandria, to John” In Schv/artz, ed., ACO, T. I . Vol. I , 4, collectio Vaticana, 127, p. 17. This le t t e r was la te r regarded as an authoritative document by the Council of Chalcedon. This formula also occurs v/ord for word in John's le t t e r to Cyril which preceded Cyril 's le t te r ( Ioannis Epistula ad C yrillum) ACO, T. I , Vol. I , 4, Collectio Vaticana, 123, pp. 3-9.

For an interpretation of this formula see T. Herbert Bindley, ed., The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith , 4th ed., rev. by F. W. Green (London: Methuen, 1950) p. 221. Other writers refer to the section beginning with the v/ord £)m o Xo y » £ as the "Formula of Reunion." Reinhold Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmenbildung in der a!ten Kirche (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1965) pp. 239-240; R. V. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon, pp. 17-18, 130. The f i r s t paragraph belongs to the formula as an introduction to the doctrinal statement which follows.

^ A l b e r t Ehrhard, "Die Cyrill_ von Alexandrien zugeschriebene Schrift Peri Tes Tou Kuriou Enanthropeseos, ein Werk Theodorets von Cyrus," TQ, LXX (1888) 210-211; Jacques Liebaert, La doctrine christologique de Saint C.yrille d'Alexandrie avant la querelle Hestorienne ( L i l le l Facultes Catholiques, 1951) p p . '170-171 , 182.

139Cyril of Alexandria, The Scholia on the Incarnation in Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, trans. by members of the English Church (Oxford: James Parker & Co., 1881)pp. 212-215.

^^loseph Montalverne, Theodoreti doctrina antiquior de Verbo 'Inhumanato' (A. c irc i te r 423-435) (Romael Pontificium Athenaeum Antonianum, 1948) pp. 84-85. This usage is seen even in a polemic such as the third counter-anathema in the Reprehensio. ACO, T. I ,Vol. I , 6, p. 117. An early example is in the Expositio rectae f id e i , J. C. T. Otto, ed., Corpus apologetarum christianorum saeculi secundi, Vol. IV, Iustin i philosophi e t martyris opera.T. I l l , Pars I , Opera Iustin i subditica, Ed. t e r t ia , (Ienae,1880), para. 10, pp. 34-36.

^ l / \ typical example of the Antiochene use of "temple" is in Theodoret's f i r s t counter-anathema (ACO, T. I , Vol. I , 6, p. 109).For i ts previous use by Theodore of Mopsuestia, see Ehrhard, "Die C yril! von Alexandrien zugeschriebene Schrift ," T ., LXX (1888) 434. Liebaert has shov/n that Cyril used the term often before i t became iden tif ied with the opposition: La doctrine Christologique deSaint Cyrille d'Alexandrie avant la querelle Nestorienne, p. 200.But by the time he wrote his reply to Theodoret's f i r s t counter­anathema, he has become c r i t ic a l of its application to Christ (ACO, T. I , Vol. I , 6, p. 113).

^2£hrhard, pp. 205, 442-444; Liebaert, p. 181.

148

143Elirhard, pp. 416-418, 236. One of C yril 's most extreme statements in this regard is his infamous twelfth anathema: "theWord of God suffered in the flesh, and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh. . ACO, T. I , Vol. I , 6, p. 144. Elsewhere, he makes such bold declarations as "God suffered" and "God died," thus attr ibuting the lowest predicate of human nature to the Word o f God incarnate. Nevertheless, a t the same time in a contradictory fashion, he wishes to safeguard the impassibility and unchangeability of the Logos in i ts own nature. He attempts to resolve the contradiction with the paradoxical formula, "He (God) suffered impassibly, presumably meaning that the Logos suffered in i ts incarnate state but not in i ts own nature.R. V. Se llers , Two Ancient Christologies (London: S.P.C.K., 1954),pp. 88-89. Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Bd. I I , p. 232.J. Mahe, "Les anathematismes de S. C yril le d'Alexandrie et les eveques orientaux du patriarchat d'Antioche," RHE, V II (1906) 542.

144Seeberg, pp. 228-230.

145[_oofs, Leitfaden zum Studien der Dogmengeschichte, p. 233.

146Kelly, for example, treats the concessions of both sides as more or less equally balanced ( Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 329- 330). The Catholic scholar Mahd indicates that the concessions made by both sides avoided points of difference, but nevertheless they were not inconsistent with th e ir underlying theological principles. "Les anathematismes de S. C yril le d'Alexandrie," RHE, V II (1906) 542. See also Herbert M. Relton, A Study in Christo! og.y (London: S.P.C.K., 1917) pp. 60-61.

147Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol. IV, p. 189; Seeberg, p. 240.

148/(t d'Ales, Le Dogme d'Ephese, p. 2 1 5 ff .; P.-T. Camelot, Ephesus und Chalcedon, p. 80; H.-M. Diepen, Les Trois Chapitres, pp. 36-40. These arguments proceed more by implication and innuendo rather than clear exposition. I t is hard to know in which group of scholars to place C. da Mazzarino for his opinion expressed in La dottrina di Teodoreto di Ciro s u l l ' unione ipostatica delle due nature in Cristo (Roma, 1941), pp. 130-132. According to him both Cyril and Theodoret made compromises in accepting the formula, but while i ts language is more favorable to Theodoret, i ts doctrine (or real substance) is more favorable to Cyril . Theodoret only "seems" to be the v ic tor, for he concedes the identity o f Christ with the Son of God and allows the term Theotokos. C y ri l 's idea of m m cp<i<r(s is actually expressed in the formula in the iden tity of Christ with the Son of God. Mazzarino's distinction between the language and the doctrine or theology of the formula is^a meaningless one. There is , in fact, no concept o f a ^ 2 *(pivercs expressed in the formula i t s e l f : such an idea must be

read into the formula from a preconception.

149

^ ^ B in d le y , ed., The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith, p. 137. For exactly the same judgment, see Kidd, p. 283 and Duchesne, pp. 281 - 282.

^O u eb aert , La Doctrine Christologique de S. C yril le d'Alex- andrie, pp. 237-240.

^ K i d d , pp. 264-265; Ehrhard, "Die C yril! von Alexandrien zugeschriebene S chrif t ," p. 237. This partisan critic ism is decisive testimony for our interpretation.

^E du ard Schwartz's statement about the agreement of 433 A.D. applies to both Cyril and John: "Es war ein Frieden, wie ihn Kirchen-p o l it ik e r schliessen, denen ihre hierarchischen Zwecke wichtiger sind als eine konsequente prinzipientreue Dogmatik." John recognized the deposition of Nestorius as legal even though i t could not be ju s t if ie d on the basis of the Formula of Union. "Uber die Reichskonzilien von Theodosius bis Justinian," in Gesanimelte Schriften, Bd. IV, p. 132.See also Harnack's judgment in History of Dogma, Vol. IV, p. 188.

^ Ephesus und Chalcedon, p. 79.

154jackson, p. 344; PG, LXXXIII, col. 1484A. This and the following le tters of the same purport seem to have been written a fte r the Synod o f Zeugma--a conference of Syrian prelates which met to decide how to respond to the agreement of John and C yril . Venables, p. 911 and Kidd, p. 263. See Ep. 112 in footnote 93.

155£p. 174; "To Himerius, bishop of Nicomedia" in Jackson, p. 345. PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1487C-1488A. There is the added quali­fication that Himerius should not commune with the opposition until his church is restored. He was one of the few deprived of his bishopric by Constantinople.

156Ep. 172, Jackson, pp. 344-345; PG, LXXXIII, col. 1485B-C.See also the important Ep. 112, "To Domnus, bishop of Antioch," written in May or June of 449 A.D. for the same point: Cyril hadagreed with Theodoret and his friends and has le f t the Anathemas out of consideration. Jackson, pp. 291-292; Azema, T. I l l , pp. 46-57; PG, LXXXIII, col. 1309-1312. See previous discussion of this le t te r in footnote 93.

^ V en ab les , p. 910.

158Ep. 175 and Ep. 178; Jackson, pp. 345-346; PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1488, 1940; Richard, "Notes sur 1 'evolution doctrinale de Theodoret," p. 467.

150

159Jackson, p. 345; PG, LXXXIII, col. 1485B-C.

I^OEp. 176; "For he has not said 'we anathematize his doctr ine ,1 but 'whatever he has e ither said or held other than is warranted by the doctrine o f the apostles.'" Jackson, pp. 345-346; PG, LXXXIII, col. 1488C-1489A. ~

^ K i d d , p. 263; Devreesse, "Apres le concile d'£phese," p. 278; Venables, p. 911.

162oevreesse, "Apres le concile d'£phese," p. 280; Kidd, p. 263.

16%idd, P- 264. Devreesse speaks of John's persuading Theodosius to take legal action as a rumor ("Apres le concile d'iiphese," p. 281).

^D evreesse, p. 279, 282; Venables, p. 911. This charge was stated in a le t te r of the bishops of Euphratensis to the princesses Pulcheria and Eudoxia.

^D evreesse, "Apres le concile d'iiphese," pp. 282-283 and Essai sur Theodore de Mopsueste (Vatican: Biblioteca ApostolicaVaticana, 1948) p. 132; Kidd, p. 264; Venables, p. 911.

166Qevreesse} "Apres le concile d'£phese," p. 283; M. Richard, "Theodoret, Jean d'Antioche et les moines d 'Orient," MSR, I I I (1946) 148; Heinrich Bacht, "Die Rolle des orientalischen Monchtums in den kirchenpolitischen Auseinandersetzungen urn Chalkedon," CGG, I I , pp. 199-200. For his la te r panegyric to these monks as well as to others see his Historia Religiosa (PG, LXXXII, cols. 1283-1496); K. Gutberlet, trans ., Des Bischofs Theodoret von Cyrus Monchsgeschichte (MUnchen: Kosel u. Pustet, n .d .) pp. 130-146, 156-172; P. Canivet,"Theodoret et le monachisme syrien avant le concile de Chalcedoine," in Theologie de la vie monastique (Liguge: Aubier, 1961) p. 243.

"^Devreesse, ib id . , p. 284; Richard, ib id . , pp. 151-152; Venables, p. 911.

^ 8Devreesse, ib id . , pp. 283-289. In a l l , seventeen prelates were exiled to the Egyptian mines. Kidd, p. 264.

T69xhe dates for the banishment from Antioch are variously given. Devreesse, 435 A.D. (p. 289); Kidd, 436 A.D. (p. 267). See also Duchesne, p. 267.

UOoevreesse, Essai sur Theodore de Mopsueste, pp. 133-134 and "Aprfes le concile d'Ephese," pp. 289-290.

151

l^The stipulations in addition to those mentioned were: recognition of the Council of Ephesus, the union with Xystus (Sixtus)of Rome, Proclus, C yri l , and John; and the anathematizing of Nestoriusand the Nestorians (according to the imperial ordinance of August,435 against a l l of a Nestorian persuasion). Devreesse, "Apres le concile d'Ephese," pp. 289-290.

l ^Essai > 134; Eduard Schwartz, "Uber die echte und unechteSchriften des Bischofs Proklos von Konstantinopel," Konzilstudien,SWGS, Heft 20 (Strassburg: K. J. Triibner, 1914) pp. 21-22.

173oevreesse, Essai, pp. 133-134 and "Apr&s le conciled'Ephese," p. 290.

^ 4 jb id . , Essai, pp. 135-136 and "Apres le concile d'Ephese," pp. 291-292. See also Duchesne:, p. 268. Schwartz speaks of only one request for signatures from Antioch regarding Nestorius' con­demnation (against Devreesse's two, the la te r of which included C yril 's formula). The signatures were given in 437 at a synod in Antioch. C.vril had previously attempted to fo is t his doctrinal findings into the request, but Aristolaus' instructions were to require no more than the condemnation of Aristolaus had been super­fluously requested the second time. Schwartz, pp. 21-22. Both Devreesse and Schwartz agree that the Easterners did not sign C yril 's formula. See also Luise Abramowski, "Der S tre i t urn Diodor und Theodore zwischen den beiden ephesinischen Konzilien," * ZKG, LXVII (1955-56) 261-262.

^ V e n a b l e s , p p . 9 1 1 - 9 1 2 ; G. Bardy, "Theodoret," PTC, Vol. XV, col. 302. Other scholars merely make no mention of a condemnation prior to 451 A.D.: Canivet, "Theodoretos," LTK, cols. 32-33;Bonwetsch, "Theodoret," Realencyklopadie fiir protestantische Theologie und Kirche, Vol. XIX, pp. 610-611; Opitz, "Theodoretos,"PWK, Vol. V, col. 1792.

^ R ic h a r d , "Theodoret, Jean d'Antioche e t les moines d'Orient," p. 153; Ep. 83, "A Dioscore, eveque d'Alexandrie," (d.' 449 A.D.) Azema, Vol. I I , p. 218.

^Duchesne, p. 268.

^78j. Montalverne, Theodoreti c.yrensis doctrina antiquior de Verbo 'inhumanato, ' pp. 55-56.

179Devreesse, Essai, pp. 133-134; "Apres le concile d'Ephfese," pp. 290-291; Venables, p. 911, Kidd, p. 275.

152

^ T h e S.ynodicon is a collection of documents about the history of this period made by the Nestorian e x i le , Irenaeus of Tyre. I t is the main source used by scholars to reconstruct this obscure period. Duchesne, p. 270.

^ T h e le t te r with the propositions is then generally dated afte r Aristolaus had gathered the signatures, in opposition to Montalverne.

I ^ D e v r e e s s e , gssa1- } pp_ 132-133. There is some question asto whether there was one agent in Antioch by the name of Maximus ( Devreesse's view) or two agents by that name--a deacon and an Archimandrite (Schwartz and Richard). Abramowski, "Der S tre i t urn Diodor und Theodore," p. 277.

88E. Schwartz, "CJber echte und unechte Schriften des Bischofs Proklos von Konstantinopel," Konzilstudien in SWGS, 20 Heft (Strassburg: K. J. Trubner, 1914) pp. 18-53. M. Richard, "Procl us de Constantinople et le theopaschisme," RHE, XXXVIII (1942) 303-331 ; "Acace de Melitene, in Memorial Louis Pdtit (Paris: 1948) pp. 293-412; R. Devreesse,Essai sur Theodore de Mopsueste, pp. 132-152; Luise Abramowski, "Der S tre i t urn Diodor und Theodor zwischen den beiden ephesinischen Kon- z i l ie n ," ZKG, pp. 252-287. This las t a r t ic le surveys the previous works and attempts to add some contributions.

184schwartz, Konzilstudien, pp. 23-24. According to Ibas in ' his le t t e r to Maris, Rabboula had never forgiven Theodore for one time having reproved him in public: Devreesse, Essai. pp. 125-127.

185Schwartz, ib id . , p. 25. C i l ic ia was a stronghold ofAntiochene theology.

^Duchesne, pp. 268-269.

187Kidd, pp. 268, 273.

^Amann, "Nestorius," PTC, col. 130.

^ S c h w a r tz , Konzilstudien, p. 25; Devreesse, Essai, pp. 136-139; Richard, "Acace de Melitene, Proclus de Constantinople e t laGrande Armenie," pp. 407-408.

^^The works o f Schwartz, Devreesse, and Duchesne s t i l l express this viewpoint. See also Abramowski‘s remarks about the basic assump­tion shared by these scholars ("Der S tre i t urn Diodor und Theodor zwischen den beiden ephesinischen Konzilien," p. 265).

^ R ic h a r d , "Acace de Mdlitene, Proclus de Constantinople et la Grande Armenie," pp. 408-409.

153

l92 Ib id . , p. 393.

^98Ib id . a pp. 401-405.

9^Ib id . , p. 406. The complete Latin text of the le t te r is found on pp. 396-398. Richard regards this reply as surprising in the l ig h t of the Nestorian Controversy. Even i f i t had not yet caused any substantial repercussions in Greater Armenia, surely the notoriety of Theodore had spread beyond the border by this time.

^98Ib id . a pp. 406-407.

196Ib id . , p. 408.

197Ib id . , p. 408.

198Ib id . , p. 409.

199Ib id . , pp. 409-410.

200Ib id . , p. 410.

201 Ib id . , p. 411.

292Ib id . , p. 411. See also Richard's, “Les travcds de Cyrille d'Alexandrie contre Diodore et Theodore et les fragments dogmatique's de Diodore de Tarse," Melanges dedies a la memoire de Felix Grat (Paris: Mme Pecqueur-Grat, 1946) pp. 112-113; "Proclus de Constanti- nople et le theopaschisme," p. 317.

292Schwartz, Konzilstudien, p. 26.

2°4M. Richard, "L‘ introduction du mot 'hypostase' dans la theologie de 1 ' incarnation," MSR, I I (1945) 260-264; A. Grillmeier, "Die theologische und sprachliche Vorbereitung der christologischen Forme! von Chalkedon," CGG, Vol. I , pp. 193-195; Kidd, pp. 273-274.

^ R ic h a r d , ib id . , p. 262; Bindley, Oecumenical Documents of the Faith , p. 112.

298Seeberg, Dogmengeschichte, pp. 228-229.

297Schwartz, Konzilstudien, p. 26.

298Ib id . , pp. 26-27.

299Ibi_d., pp. 27-28; Richard, "Proclus de Constantinople et theopaschisme," pp. 303-304.

154

210Schwartz, ib id . , pp. 23-29; Richard, ib id . , pp. 304-305; Abramowski, "Der S tre i t uni Diodor und Theodore," pp. 255-255.Devreesse reasons that the Tome was sent to Antioch twice—once in 435 immediately a f te r i t was written and again in 438. ( Essai, pp. 139-140) Richard rejects this hypothesis (p. 305).

211 Schwartz, ib id . , p. 29; Richard, ib id . , p. 305; Devreesse, ib id . , pp. 145-148.

^ 2Schwartz, ib id . , p. 29; Richard, ib id . , pp. 307-308; Devreesse, ib id . , pp. T46-148.

^ R ic h a r d , ib id . , p. 308.

214r ichard, ib id . , p. 309; Schwartz, ib id . , p. 29; Devreesse, ib id . , p. 148.

2^Richard, ib id . , pp. 313-314; Schwartz, ib id . , p. 30.

216Richard, ib id . , p. 315; Schwartz, ib id . , p. 30; Devreesse, ib id . , pp. 150-151.

2^Richard, ib id . , pp. 310-312, 318-322; Schwartz, ib id . , pp. 32-36. Schwartz not only gives Proclus1 response a la te r date but also a d ifferen t causal relationship: C y ri l , by his willingnessto drop the attempt to secure the condemnation o f Theodore, influenced Proclus to retract his demand made of the Orientals. On the other hand, Richard places Proclus1 response at this early date assuming that i t was Proclus who influenced Cyril to change his course of action rather than vice-versa.

^Synopsis and quotation taken from Richard's translation in "Proclus de Constantinople," pp. 311-312. See Schwartz, p. 34 for a synopsis of the contents.

219This is one reason that Richard dates the le t te r e a r l ie r than does Schwartz, who sees in i t an evidence of an about-face.The other reason for Richard's position is that the le tters are direct replies to the synodal le t te r of August, 438. Richard, ib id . , p. 313.

22®Ibid_., p. 313.

221 ib id . , p. 315.

222Ib id . , pp. 315-316.

155

223^ Richard, "Les tra ites de Cyrille d'Alexandrie contre Diodore et Theodore," pp. 102-103, 110-115. Richard's judgment on this work is harsh. "Redige trop v ite avec de mauvais materiaux, ce n 'e ta i t pas du bien bon ouvrage. L'dveque d'Alexandrie, cette fois encore, a ete victime de son manque d'erudition, defaut bien sur-prenant chez un des premiers promoteurs de 1 'argument patr is tique___La riposte de Theodoret a dfl porter un rude coup & ce mediocre tra va il" (pp. 115-116). Nevertheless, the importance of Cyril 's Contra Diodorum et Theodorum does not l ie in i ts in tr ins ic value but rather in its historical use by Justinian's theologians in the Three Chapters Controversy (F if th Ecumenical Council).

224ib id . » p. 116. Also Richard, "Notes sur 1 'evolution doctrinale de Theodoret," p. 468. L. Abramowski, "Reste von Theodoret's Apologie fur Diodor und Theodor bei Facundus,"Studia P a tr is t ica , Vol. I , ed. by K. Aland and F. L. Cross (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1957) pp. 61-69.

^ R ic h a rd , "Notes sur 1 'evolution doctrinale," pp. 468-470.

226Richard, "Proclus de Constantinople," pp. 318-319. Schwartz regards Cyril 's apology against Theodore and Diodore as the cause of the council ( Konzilstudien, pp. 32-33).

227r ichard, ib id . , pp. 319-320; Schwartz, ib id . , pp. 33-34.I t is at this point in time that Schwartz places Proclus' le t te r to Maximus, indicating that C yril 's le t te r caused him to write i t .

^ R ic h a rd , ib id . , pp. 320-321 ; Schwartz, ib id . , pp. 33-34.

229schwartz, ib id . , p. 34; Richard, ib id . , p. 321.

230Richard, ib id . , p. 322. Schwartz, p. 34: Justinian'stheologians who used Cyril 's works against Theodore in the Three Chapter Controversy claimed that this le t te r was a forgery because of i ts inconsistency with what he said elsewhere.

231schwartz, ib id . , p. 35; Richard, ib id . , pp. 322-333.

232schwartz, ib id . , pp. 35-36.

233R-jchard, ib id . , p. 322. As we have previously indicated, the question of what the primal cause of this "retreat" was is tied up with the dating of the correspondence in question. Richard understands Proclus' le t te r to be a reply to the synod made before C yril 's expression of change, thus making Proclus responsible for the f i r s t step. Schwartz understands Proclus' le t te r to Maximus as a result of C yril 's le t te r to him—making Cyril i n i t i a l l y responsible, a lb e it with the prior pressure of the court.

156

234xheoc|oret5 Ep. 83, "To Dioscorus, Archbishop of Alexandria," Azema, T. I I , pp. 216-217; Jackson, p. 280; M. Richard, "Theodoret, Jean d'Antioche et les moines d'Orient," MSR, I I I (1946) 154-155; "Proclus de Constantinople et le theopaschisme," RHE, XXXVIII (1942) 322-323. Other than this le t te r , there is l i t t l e information av a il ­able about the relations of Cyril and the Easterners until a f te r Cyril 's death. He should not assume from what Theodoret says here that his relationship with the opposition suddenly became ideal. Because o f Dioscorus1 th re a t against him a t the time, he was con­strained to make the most of the few cordial contacts he had had with C yril . See below.

235Eduard Schwartz, "Der Prozess des Eutyches," SbBAH, p. 53.

236|<idd, p. 281; R. V. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon, pp.34, 44,

237Duchesne, pp. 273-274.

238Quasten, Vol. I l l , pp. 544-545.

239Richard, "Notes sur 1 'evolution doctrinale de Theodoret," pp. 470-471; M. Brok, "Touchant la date sur le Psautier de Theodoret de Cyr," RHE, XLIV (1949) 553; Thomas Patrick Halton, Studies in the De Providentia^of Theodoret of Cyrus. (PhD. d iss ., The Catholic University of America, 1963) pp. 16-18.

240Brok, ib id . , pp. 553-554; Richard, "L 'ac t iv ite l i t t e r a i r e de Theodoret avant le concile d'Ephese, p. 105. Brok affirms the general chronological determinations which Richard had taken over from Bertram.

241Brok, ib id . , pp. 553-556; Richard, "Notes sur 1 'evolution doctrinale de Thdodoret," pp. 461-471.

^ ^ B ro k , ib id . , pp. 553-554. Internal evidence gives the terminus post quern of 441, and Theodoret's Ep. 82 of late 448 or early 449 gives us the terminus ante quern.

243August Mdhle, Hrsg., Theodoret von K.yros: Kommentar zuJesaia, Bd. V in Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens der GeseiTschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen- (Berlin: WeidmannscheBuchhandlung, 1932) i-xxv. Klaudius Jussen, "Die Christologie des Theodoret von Cyrus nach seinern neuveroffentlichten Isaiaskommentar," Theologie und Glaube, XXVII (1935) 439.

244 f o i)s TTPofyTdS Tog>«\7i)0(o\/ k u t T *Y fl/rotrToXov. Azema, T. I I , pp. 202-203 and PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1264-1265. Jackson's translation is misleading:

157

"For by God's grace I interpreted a l l the Prophets and the Psalms and the Apostles." (Jackson, p. 278.) The reference is to "the Apostle" Pau1--presumab1y, though not certainly to the commentaries on a ll his le tte rs . See also Quasten, Patrology, Vol. I l l , p. 542.

^ R ic h a rd ("Evolution doctrinale," pp. 469-470) and C. Baur ("Einleitung zur Monchsgeschichte," ed. by K. Gutberlet, p. 4) support the e a r l ie r date while P. Canivet (Therapeutique, p. 25) suggests 444 (or perhaps la te r as in "Theodoretos," LTK, col. 34). For a description of this work, see P. Canivet "Theodoret et le monachisme syrien avant le concile de Chalcedoine," Theologie de la vie Monastique (Liguage: Aubier, 1961) pp. 241-282.

246pierre Canivet, "Le 77kp< /lyJvys de Theodoret de Cyr postface de I 'H is to ire Philothde," Studia P atr is tica , Vol. V I I , ed. F. C. Cross (TU 92) pp. 150-151.

247()nly a sample of the scholarly opinion w il l be given here.Those favoring 447 as the year of composition are: Duchesne, p. 278;Devreesse, Essai sur Theodore de Mopsueste, p. 166; S a lte t , "Les sources de 1 'Eranistes," p. 290; Quasten, Patrology, p. 547; Honigmann, Patr is tic Studies (Studi e Testi 173), pp. 175-176. Canivet and Richard fluctuate between the dates 447 and 447-448: "Theodoretos,"LTK, col. 34 and'Therapeutique, Vol. I , pp. 22-23; "Notes sur 1 ‘ evolution doctrinale," p. 470. Bardy ( PTC, Vol. XV, col. 306) and 0. Bardenhewer (GAL, pp. 229-230) specify that the work begun e a r l ie r but finished in the year 448 A.D. Kidd (History of the Church to A.D. 461, p. 287) and Venables ( DCB, p. 913) date our treatise c. 446-447.

248canivet, LTK, col. 34; Quasten, Patrology, Vol. I l l , p. 551. Perhaps i t was begun before Theodoret went into exile as Richard suggests (c. 448-449): "Evolution doctrinale," pp. 469-470.

249Kidd, pp. 284-285.

250Emest Honigmann, "Juvenal of Jerusalem," POP, no. 5 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950) p. 230; Duchesne, pp.276-278; Kidd, pp. 284-285; M. Jugie, "Eutyches et Eutychianisme,"PTC, cols. 1582-1583. On the authority of the monk among the masses in the f i f t h century and his consequent po lit ica l power, see Karl Ho 11, "Ueber das grieschische Monchtum," in Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Kirchengeschichte, Bd. I I , Der Osten (Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgeselIschaft, 1964) p. 274; Heimrich Bacht, "Die Rolle des orientalischen Mdnchtums in den Kirchenpolitischen Auseinander- setzungen urn Chalkedon (431-519," CGG, Bd. I I , pp. 195-19 6 f f .;Philip Rousseau, "The Sp iritua l Authority of the 'Monk-Bishop':Eastern Elements in Some Western Hagiography of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries," JTS, N.S., 22 (1971) esp. pp. 386-387.

158

^ P a u l Goubert, "Le role de Sainte Pulcherie et de 1 'eunuque Chrysaphios," CGG, Bd. I , p. 306. For the previous importance of Cyrus, see Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, Vol. I , pp. 227-228.

^ G o u b e r t , ib id , pp. 306-307; Bury, ib id . , p. 229.

253[3Ury 5 ib id . , pp. 229-231 ; Goubert, ib id . , p. 307. Both Bury and Goubert indicate that Eudocia v/as involved in the departure of Pulcheria before her own departure to Jerusalem in 443 A.D.However, Schwartz—who attributes Pulcheria's misfortune exclusively to Chrysaphius—states that i t appears that she retreated to a "monastery" in Hebdomon soon a fte r the ordination of Flavian (in 446 A .D .); "Der Prozess des Eutyches," pp. 55-56.

254Bury, ib id . , p. 235. Goubert, however, does not believe that Theodosius rejected Eutyches and the views he stood for (CGG,Bd. I , p. 315).

^ S c h w a rtz , "Der Prozess des Eutyches," pp. 53, 57; Opitz, "Theodoretos," Pauly-Hissowa-Kroll, col. 1794.

2^6Duchesne, p. 275; Schwartz, ib id . , pp. 64-65.

257schwartz, ib id . , p. 57; Opitz, "Theodoretos," col. 1793.

^ T h e o d o r e t defends his action in th is instance in Ep. 110:"To Domnus," Azema, T. I l l , pp. 38-43; Jackson, p. 290. Gunther believes Domnus performed the ordination and Theodoret was probably present: Theodoret von Cyrus und die Kampfe in der orientalischenKirche (Aschaffenburg: Werbrun, 1913) pp. 27-28. Kidd, pp. 281-282; Duchesne, p. 275; Opitz, col. 1793.

259schwartz, "Prozess des Eutyches," p. 57. k possible reference to this is in Ep. 86, "To Flavianus" (Azema, T. I I , pp. 226-233; Jackson, pp. 281-282).

260i b i d . s pp. 56-57.

26lMevertheless, lest one ascribe too much po lit ica l s ig n i f i ­cance to this work, i t should be pointed out that la te r when Theodoret was condemned a t the "Latrocinium" of 449, the Eranistes was not one of the works singled out in the accusation against him. His e a r l ie r works against Cyril and the Twelve Anathemas were more distasteful to the opposition because of th e ir uncompromising theology and th e ir e x p lic i t personal references to the opposition.

159

O C p

Bacht, "Die Rolle des orientalischen Monchtums," pp. 204- 205; Kidd, pp. 286-288. See below the more detailed introductory discussion to the Eranistes.

^ S e e Ep. 83; Ep. 119, Azema, T. I l l , pp. 76-83 and Jackson, pp. 296-297; Ep. 138 in PG which is no. 139 in Azema, pp. 142-147 and Jackson, pp. 142-147.

264^, Jugie, "Eutyches et 1 ‘Eutychianisme," PTC, Vol. V, col. 1534; Duchesne, p. 278. Schwartz does not mention this le t te r .

265schwartz, p. 58. Theodoret gives a quotation from the decree in Ep. 80, "To the prefect Eutrechius" (Azema, T. I I , pp. 188-191; Jackson, p. 275): "Since so and so the bishop of thisc ity is continually assembling synods and this is a cause of trouble to the orthodox, take heed with proper diligence and wisdom that he resides at Cyrus and does not depart from i t to another c ity ." In this le t te r he expresses a complaint about unfair treatment and some doubt about the authenticity of the command, and in Ep. 79, "To Anatolius the Patrician," he requests a confirmation of and an explanation for the order (Azema, T. I I , pp. 182-189; Jackson, p. 275). Ep. 81, "To the Consul Nomos" con- tains a defense against the charge; namely, he had been to Antioch only f ive or six times by request (Azema, pp. 192-199; Jackson, pp. 266-267). These le tte rs were probably written in April of 448.

266schwartz, pp. 58-59. Theodoret's Ep. 86, "To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople" refers to a synodical le t te r with this message that he had sent to Dioscorus (Azema, T. I I , pp. 226- 233; Jackson, pp. 281-283).

267schwartz, ib id . , p. 59; Bacht, "Rolle des orientalischen Monchtums," p. 205.

268schwartz, ib id . , pp. 59-60. The fu l l text o f the le t te r has not survived. Schwartz thinks that the request for recognition of the Anathemas was made with the prior calculation that Domnus would re ject i t .

^ E p . 83, "To Dioscorus," (Azema, T. I I , pp. 204-280;Jackson, pp. 278-280). We w il l have occasion to -re fe r to this le t te r again. I t is an important document for the question of how much his theological position was affected by po lit ica l considerations.

270Ep. 86, "To Flavianus," (Azema, T. I I , pp. 226-233; Jackson, pp. 281-282). See also Ep. 85 (Azema, T. I I , pp. 222-225; Jackson, p. 281). Schwartz, "Prozess," p. 60.

160

271 Schwartz, ib id . , p. 60.

272Ib id . , p. 63.

273Ib id . , p. 60.

274ib id . , p. 61.

273Kidd, p. 290. This sentence was confirmed at the Council of Ephesus on August 22 at the second session.

278The CTuvoSos was a traditional council composedof the bishops who happened to be in Constantinople and presided over by the archbishop of the c i ty . M. Jugie, "Eutyches et 1 'Eutychianisme," col. 1585. Schwartz, "Prozess," p. 65.

277Kidd, pp. 294-295.

278The third summons could be disobeyed only on pain of depo­sition from his o ff ice . Schwartz, "Prozess," pp. 71-72. In this a r t ic le , Schwartz points out that the form of ecclesiastical t r ia ls was patterned a fte r c iv il t r ia ls . Kidd, pp. 295-296; Jugie, "Euty­ches," col. 1586.

279Schwartz, p. 79; Kidd, p. 296.

230jugie points out the orthodox nature of many of Eutyches1 statements ("Eutyches," cols. 1589-1590). Schwartz, ib id . , pp.8 2 f f .

^S ch w artz , pp. 77-78.

888Ib id . , p. 77.

888Jugie, coi . 1590.

2^ F o r examples of scholars who make this amazing distinction, see Thomas Camelot, "De Nestorius a Eutyches," CGG, I , pp. 238-240 and Kidd's Church History, p. 297. H. F. von Campenhausen's cogent remark about traditional Catholic views about Cyril could also apply to Kidd's "Anglican orthodox" viewpoint: "Man erkennt hier diedoketisierende Schwache dieser Christologie ebenso klar wie ihr . apollinaristisch-monophysitisches Gefalle, das durch die bei katholischen Theologen iibliche Versicherung, der heilige Kyrill habe aber alles sehr fromm und rechtglaubig gemeint, naturlich nicht aus der Welt geschafft is t , " Griechische Kirchenvater und Verwandes," TR, XXII (1954) 347-348.

285Schwartz, p. 83; Jugie, col. 1590.

161OQfi

Jugie, cols. 1590-1591. See also Maurice Wiles, "JTS, XVI (1965) 454-461.

287Kidd, p. 277.

28SjUgie> col. 1586.

289Duchesne, p. 280.

290schwartz, p. 79.

291lb id ., pp. 80-81, 85.

292Ib id . , p. 86 . Bacht disagrees that the condemnation was planned by Eutyches ('Rolle des orientalischen Monchtums," p. 216).

298ib id . , pp. 85-86.

294ib id ., p. 87.

295ib id . , pp. 87-88. The emperor's involvement was occasioned by Chrysaphius: Kidd, p. 299.

296Jygie , cols. 1586-1587.

297jugie, cols. 1586-1587; Schwartz, pp. 89-90. Later at the Council of Ephesus (449) Eutyches1 claim about the fa ls if ic a t io n of the minutes of the synod was upheld. At this council, Flavian claimed that Eutyches' charge that he had been prematurely con­demned was a l i e . Schwartz regards Flavian's statement as probably true.

298Paul Goubert, "Sainte Pulcherie et Chrysaphios," CGG, Bd. I , pp. 308-309. Bury gives an account of the A t t i la a f fa i r , though without connecting the outcome of i t with Chrysaphius' role in the Chris to!ogical controversy (History of the Later Roman Empire, Vol. I , pp. 275-276).

299jb jd . , p. 309.

300jugie, ib id . , col. 1587.

301Goubert, p. 311.

333Johannes Haller, Das Papsttum, Idee und W irk lichkeit, Bd. I , p. 129; Schwartz, pp. 90-91; Jugie, col. 1587; Kidd, p. 299.

162

303schwartz, p. 91. See also Kidd (p. 303) for the precise dates of the correspondence. According to Haller (pp. 129-130), i t is a riddle why Leo changed his position so quickly.

304Kidd, pp. 302-303.

305Az6ma, T. I l l , pp. 48-51; Jackson, p. 292.

30SEp. 16, "To Bishop Irenaeus," Azema, T. I I , pp. 61-63; Jackson, p. 256.

^Duchesne, PP* 287-288; Kidd, p. 305; Honigmann, "Juvenal of Jerusalem," POP, No. 5, pp. 231-232.

308ouchesne, p. 289; Kidd, p. 306.

309Duchesne, pp. 289-290; Kidd, p. 306; Bacht, "Rolle des orientalischen Monchtums," p. 228. Later trad ition recorded that Flavian died as a result of in juries sustained in this uproar, but this report may be an exaggeration. See H. Chadwick's examination of this issue in "The Exile and Death of Flavian of Constantinople:A Prologue to the Council of Chalcedon," JTS, N.S. VI (1955) 17-34.

"^Duchesne, p. 291; Kidd, p. 307.

3"^While Venables agrees that the synod met in order to reverse the judgment of Flavian's synod against Eutyches, he goes so far as to say: "Theodoret's condemnation was the chief object aimed at insummoning this infamous synod" ("Theodoret," DCB, p. 913).

3^3S. G. F. Perry, ed ., The Second Synod of Ephesus (Dartford: Orient Press, 1881) p. 7. The o f f ic ia l acts of the synod are pre­served in Syriac manuscripts (except for a few Greek fragments of the f i r s t session) which have been translated into several editions: Perry's English edition mentioned above; Johannes Flemming, Hrsg., Akten der ephesinischen S.ynode vom Jahre 449, S.yrisch mit Georg Hoffmanns deutscher iibersetzung und seinen Annierkungen, AGWG, phi 1 . -h is t . K1. , N .F ., Bd. XV, Nr. 1 (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buch-handlung, 1917); Paulin Martin, Actes du Brigandage d ‘£phese (Amiens: Emile Glorieux, 1874). References w il l be given to bothPerry's and Flemming's editions.

313perry 9 pp. 211-212; Flemming, pp. 86-87.

314perry, pp. 218-240; Flemming, pp. 90-91; Ep. 151, PG cols. 1416-1441.

315perry} p. 241; Flemming, pp. 104-105.

163

316perry, pp. 251-252, 258; Flemming, pp. 108-109, 112-113.

317Duchesne, p. 291; Kidd, p. 307. Theodoret says the reason for Domnus' deposition is that he would consent to the Twelve Chapters. (Ep. 147, PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1409-1412.)

318ouchesne, p. 292; Kidd, p. 307; H a lle r , Das Papsttum, Bd. I , p. 133.

3T9Ep. 113, "To Leo, Bishop of Rome," Azema, T. I l l , pp. 56-67; Jackson, pp. 293-295.

320Azema,.T. I l l , pp. 68-73; Jackson, pp. 295-296. Evidently hewas not aware that Renatus had died en route to Ephesus.

321/\zema, T. I l l , pp. 76-83; Jackson, pp. 296-297. Severalother le tters in this numerical sequence are appeals for support:Eps. 117, 118, 120, 121.

322£p. 147a "To John, Bishop of Germanicia," PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1409-1912; Jackson, pp. 323-324. Azema's new edition of the corres­pondence includes the Migne collection only up through Ep. 146 which is renumbered by Azema as Ep. 147. See also the la te r le tte rs , nos. 138, 139, 140 (139, 140, 141 in Azema).

323Kidd, p. 308. For the date see Azema, T. I l l , pp. 68 , 80-^81 and Quasten, Patrology, Vol. I l l , pp. 550-551.

324Bardenhewer, GAL, Bd. IV, p. 2 3 5 f f . ; Canivet, "Theodoretos," LTK, col. 34. In Bk. 5, ch. 36, he speaks o f "the present emperor" who had taken part in the ceremony of transferring Chrysostom's relics to the capital in 438 A.D. Leon Parmentier, Hrsg., Theodoret Kirchengeschichte, zweite A u f l . , bearb. von Felix Scheidweiler. GCS (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1954) pp. xxv-xxvi and Bd. V, Ch. 36, 1-5 (pp. 338-339). This edition w ill be abbreviated, "Theodoret, H.E."

325-rheodore-t9 h .E, Bd. I , ch. 1 (p. 4) and Bk. V, ch. 40 (pp. 347-348). Blomfield Jackson, trans ., The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret in Vol. I l l of LNPF, Sec. Ser. , ed. by P.Schaff and H. Wace (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1953) pp. 33,159.

326Theodoret, H.E. (Einleitung) pp. xxv i-xxv ii; Franz Overbeck, Uber die Anfange der Kirchengeschichtsschreibung (Darmstadt: Wissen-schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Nachdruck 1892)_ pp. 63-64.

3 27r . l . P. Milburn, Early Christian Interpretations of History (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1954), pp. 145-147.

164

333Theodoret, h .E. See the editors' introduction for specific examples of Theodoret's treatment of heretics and "ungodly" emperors. In addition, see his treatment of the Messalians in Bk. IV, ch. 10 and of Apollinaris in Bd. V, ch. 3.

329a . C. Zenos and Chester D. Hartranft, trans., Socrates, Sozonenus: Church Histories, Vol. I I in LNPF, Sec. S e r . , ed. byPhilip Schaff and Henry Wace (Grand Rapids: Wm. P. Eerdmans,1952) esp. Bk. VI, chs. 5-21. Cp. Theodoret, Bk. V, chs. 22-34.

333Theodoret, H,E. , Bk. V, ch. 34, 2-4 (p. 334); Jackson's trans. LNPF, p. 153.

33lTheodoret, H .E., Bk. V, ch. 22, 1-2 (p. 320) and ch. 34, 9 (p. 336); Jackson's trans. LNPF, pp. 147, 154.

333Theodoret, H.E. , p. xxv ii .

333Ib id . , ch. 35; Jackson's trans ., LNPF, pp. 154-155.

334 lb id ., Bk. V, ch. 36, 1-5 (pp. 338-339); Jackson, trans ., LNPF, pp. 155-156.

333See Appendix B.

336Sel le rs , The Council of Chalcedon, pp. 89-94; Haller, Papsttuni, pp. 133-134; Kidd, pp. 309-310.

33?sel1 ers, ib id . , pp. 95-96. The collection of excerpts carried by the embassy was to be included in a second edition of the Eranistes.

333Se llers , Council of Chalcedon, p. 97; Duchesne, p. 295. Albert C. Outler, "Theodosius' Horse: Reflections on the Predicamentof the Church Historian," CH, XXXIV (1965) 251-252.

339Ep. 181, PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1492-1494; Jackson, pp. 347-348.

340Ep. 130 in PG, no. 131 in Azema, "To Bishop Timotheus"(of Doliche), T. I l l , pp. 110-123 (Azema's ed .); Jackson, pp. 301-303.

3 1 Ep. 138 in PG_, no. 139 in Azema, T. I l l , "To Anatolius the patr ic ian ," pp. 142-147; Ep. 139 in PG_, no. 140 in Azema, T. I l l , pp. 148-150. Ep. 140 in PG, no. 141 in Azema, "To the Master Vincomalus," pp. 150-151; Jackson, pp. 307-309.

165

'342Ep, 146 -in pq5 n0% 147 in Azema, T. I l l , "To John the Oeconomus," pp. 200-2'3‘3; Jackson, pp. 316-323. The other le t te r is c r i t ic a l of an unnamed person who is probably to be identif ied with Eutyches: Ep. 145 in PG_, no. 146 in Azema, T. I l l , "To theMonks of Constantinople," pp. 172-200; Jackson, pp. 312-316. Venables, "Theodoretus," DCB, p. 915.

343]<idd, pp. 311-312; Duchesne, pp. 396-397; Bacht, "Rolle des orientalischen Mdnchtums," pp. 236-237.

344r. v. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon, pp. 99-100;Kidd, pp. 311-312; Haller, Papsttum, Bd. I , p. 137.

345Haller, pp. 137-138; Kidd, pp. 313-314.

S m a l l e r , p. 138; Kidd, pp. 314-315.

347Kidd, p. 316.

348j<idd, pp. 316-317; Duchesne, p. 301; Honigmann, "Juvenal of Jerusalem," POP, No. 5, pp. 236, 241-243.

349Kidd, pp. 318-319.

350ouchesne, p. 306; Kidd, pp. 320-321; Honigmann, "Juvenal of Jerusalem," p. 236.

351 Kidd, pp. 321-323.

352Kidd, p. 324.

353sellers, Council o f Chalcedon, p. 118; Kidd, p. 324.

354sellers, p. 118.

355Sellers, p. 119; A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602, Vol. I (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1964),pp. 219-220; Eduard Schwartz, "Die Kaiserin Pulcheria auf der Synode von Chalkedon," in Festgabe fur Adolf Julicher zum 70 Geburtstag (Tubingen: J.C.B.Mohr-Paul Siebeck, 1927), pp. 203,206, 211- 212.

356Sei le rs , p. 119. The f ic t io n had to be perpetuated by the council that Leo and Cyril were saying the same thing. This has become part of the traditional Roman Catholic position that the Christologies of Nestorius and Eutyches were opposite he re t ica l_ extremes and that Cyril and Leo together constitute the via media of tru th . In 431 Rome had already contributed to this interpretation by i ts erroneous interpretation of Nestorius.

166

357Sel le rs , p. 119. Schwartz sees the hand of Pulcheria behind the scenes controlling the council: "Die Kaiserin Pulcheria auf demSynode von Chalkedon," p. 206.

358Sellers, p. 120.

359AC0, T. I I , Vol. I , pars a lte ra , pp. 129-130. I t was once a debatable question among scholars as to which was the original reading in the D e f in it io - - £K <£6o cpurtuv or i / £6o <puaz<r(v .But Schwartz's work on the defin it ive edition of the text has deter­mined that the original form was the la t te r phrase.

360|<idd, p. 326.

361"Das Problem der Christologie hat das Chalcedonense aufrecht erhalten, nicht hat es dasselbe gelost. Man kann es einem Bauplan vergleichen, nicht dem Bau selbst. Es hat die Aufgabe geste lIt Gottheit und Menschheit in Christus real und dacn als Einheit zu fassen, aber es nicht gelehrt, diese Einheit der Vorstellung und dem Denken nahe zu bringen." R. Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmenge- schichte, Bd. I I , p. 266.

362sellers, Council of Chalcedon, pp. x i i i - x v , 343-350.

363Ralph J. Tapia, ed., The Theology of Christ: Commentary(New York: Bruce Publishing Co., 1971) p. 163.

364Kidd, pp. 326-327.

365ibid.. s p. 327.

366jv]arcel Richard, "L1 introduction du mot 'hypostase' dans la theologie de 1 'incarnation," MSR, I I (1945) 263-269 and "La le t t re de Theodoret a Jean I'Egees," RSPT, I I (1941-42) 415-417. According to Seeberg, hypostasis is merely a pleonasm: Dogmengsschichte, p. 262.

367j. p. Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and His Teaching (Cambridge: University Press, 1908) pp. 190-191; Amann, "Nestorius," PTC, cols. 134-135.

368seeberg, Dogmengeschichte, p. 265. Amann is more charitable toward Nestorius than many Catholic authors, regarding his viewpoint as irreconcilable with the C yril line view of hypostasis in the Defin itio but compatible with "the distinction of natures and the re a l i ty of the ir operations." (col. 155). But would he have had to understand hypostasis in this context as Cyrilline?

167

369For the text and translations see 3indley and Green, eds.,The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith , pp. 163-180, 224-231; Duchesne, p. 286; Richard, "Notes sur revo lu tion doctrinale de Theodoret," pp. 473-474;_J. Lidbaert, "Christologie. Von der Apostolischen Zeit bis zum Konzil von Chalcedon," in Bd. I l l von Handbuch der Dogmen- geschichte, ed. Schmaus u. Grillm eier, pp. 122, 126-127.

370Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol. IV, pp. 216, 222.

37lKarekin Sarkissian, The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church (London: S.P.C.K., 1965) pp. 29-34, 50-56.

372such is the viewpoint of P.-T. Camelot, Ephesus und Chalcedon, pp. 164-169 and H.-M. Diepen, Les Trois Chapitres au Concile de Chalcedoine, pp. 73-75. Diepen can claim an agreement between Leo and Cyril upon the unity of Christ, but Leo's unitatem personae in utraque natura is not the same as Cyril 's "hypostatic" or "physical" union. Nor does Leo a ttr ibute suffering d irectly to the d iv in ity as Cyril does, in spite of what Diepen says (pp. 83-84). Leo's Tome is strongly dyophysite! Bindley and Green, eds., Oecumenical Documents of the Fa ith , pp. 159-180, 225-231. For the meaning of persona, see Siegmund Schlossmann, Persona und Prosopon irn Recht und im Christ!ichen Dogma (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell-schaft, 1968) pp. 15-29 and Maurice Nedoncelle, "Prosopon et persona dans 1 'antiquite classique," RevSR, XXII (1948) 298-299.

373some Catholic theologians have been w illing to affirm a strong diversity in unity. See the artic les by Marcel Richard and Paul G a lt ie r , "Saint C y ril le d'Alexandrie et Saint Leon le Grand a Chalcddoine," CGG, I , pp. 345-387.

374j, b . Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, VoV. I I , pp. 384-393; Eduard Schwartz, "(Jber die Reichskonzilien von Theo­dosius bis Justinian," pp. 150-158 and "Zur Kirchenpolitik Justineans," pp. 276-320 in Zur Geschichte der alten Kirche und inres Rechts, Bd. IV in Gesammelte Aufsatze (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1960); F. X. Murphy,"Three Chapters," New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV (New York:McGraw H i l l , 1967) pp. 144-145.

375AC0, T. I I , Vol. I , pars a lte ra , Actio V, p. 130; Sellers, Council of Chalcedon, p. 123.

376sellers, p. 123; Kidd, pp. 326-327. In spite of Kidd's statement that Pulcheria attended, according to E. Schwartz she did not—even though she was actually the directing force behind the commissioners. "Es duldet keinen Zweifel: Pulcheria hatte essich nicht nehmen lassen, personlich auf dem Konzil zu erscheinen,

163

mit deni sie die durch die Schwache ihres Bruders zerrissene Einheit der Kirche wiedcrherzustellen glaubte. Aber es muss Anstoss erregt haben, dass eine Frau gerade der fe ierlichsten, wichtigsten Sitzung des Konzils beigewohnt hatte, in der die Glaubensdefinition unter- zeichet war." "Die Kaiserin Pulcheria auf der Synode von Chalkedon," in Festgabe fUr Adolf JUlicher, p. 211.

377Kidd, pp. 329-330. Additional sessions of the council were held until the end of the month.

378/\cq, T. I I , Vol. I , pars. 3, pp. 9-10. The above is our translation of the complete tex t, except for omitting the verbose designation of the speakers in each instance; for example, "the most pious bishop Theodoret said," etc.

379see for example these recent works on Nestorius1 theology: Aloys Grillmeier, "Das Scandal urn oecumenicum des Nestorius in Kirch- lichdogmatischer und theologiegeschichtlicher Sicht," Scholastik, XXXVI (1961) 321-356; Amann, "Nestorius," PTC, Vol. X I, cols. 76- 156; Milton Anastos, "Nestorius Was Orthodox," POP, No. 16 (1962) pp. 119-140.

380[)uchesne, p. 309.

381ihe arch-conservative Diepen, who interprets the Council of Chalcedon as a clear-cut victory for Cyri11ian Christology consistent with the Council of Ephesus of 431, believes that the council only accepted Theodoret a f te r being certain that he expressed the per­fection of his fa ith in Jesus Christ, i . e . , in a manner consistent with Cyril 's thought. In other words, Theodoret changed from his e a r l ie r heretical theology: this took place no e a r l ie r than 449when he approved the doctrine of Leo's Tome. However, Diepen strains the evidence to make i t f i t the untenable hypothesis that the Council of Chalcedon was 100% Cyril 1ian and that Leo's theology was in complete accord with i t . Les Trois Chapitres, pp. 84, 89. Camelot seems to miss the point when he tries to explain Theodoret's evasion in the acts: "Gewiss war der Glaube des Theodoret untadelig, aberals Mensch konnte er sich nicht dazu durchdringen, uber einen ungliickseligen Freund den Bann auszusprechen." Ephesus und Chal­cedon, pp. 172-173.

382Sei le rs , Council of Chalcedon, pp. 125-126; Duchesne, pp. 310-311.

38 3 ^ , 120 in C. L. Feltoe, trans., Leo the Great, Vol. X II in LNPF, Sec. Ser., p. 87. The date of this epistle is June 11, 453.

169

3847^2 content of this le t te r has been referred to in our interpretation of the Definition: i t w ill be dealt with againin assessing the significance of Theodoret's career. Richard,"L'introduction du mot 'hypostase,'" pp. 263-269 and "La le t t re de Theodoret a Jean d'Egees," pp. 415-417.

385\/enables, " T h e o d o re tu s DCB, p. 915; Bardy, "Thdodoret," col. 302.

386Quasten, Patrology, Vol. I l l , pp. 539-540; Bardenhewer,GAL, Bd. IV, p. 235; Canivet, Therapeutique, Vol. I , pp. 22-23.

88?Haereticarum fabularum compendium, PG, LXXXIII, cols. 432-436; Contra Nestori urn ad Sporacium, PG~, LXXXIII, cols. 1153-1157. Canivet, "Theodoretos," LTK, col. 34; Bardy, "Theodoret," PTC, Vol. XV, cols. 305-306; Quasten, Patrology, Vol. I l l , p. 552.

388Bonwetsch, "Theodoret," Realenc.yklopadie, Bd. XIX, p. 611.

389yenabies, "Theodoretus," p. 916; Bardenhewer, GAL, Bd. IV, pp. 224-225; perhaps Bardy, "Theodoret," col. 302 and others.

390Ernest Honigmann, "Theodoret of Cyrus and Basil of Seleucia (the Time of th e ir Death)" in Patr is tic Studies, Studi e Testi 173 (C itta del Vaticano: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1953) pp. 174-180 (quote on 179-180). For the other l i te ra tu re see Quasten, Patrology, Vol. I l l , pp. 537-588.

CHAPTER I I

AN INTERPRETATION OF THEODORET'S CAREER IN RELATION TO ERANISTES

The Question of Consistency

Now that Theodoret's l i f e and work are in fu l l view, i t is

necessary to answer the question as to whether his thought underwent

some change or development during his career. Scholars' opinions

on the nature and extent of his doctrinal development have been

reviewed in Appendix B. Now i t becomes necessary to explain a l l

of the evidence from Theodoret‘s works which may imply some kind

of development in his thinking. I f the supposition of a change

can be supported, then the nature and extent of i t must also be

determined. In this connection, the motives for his actions must

be tentatively revealed.

Such a synoptic portrayal of the important aspects of Theod-

oret's l i f e and thought is necessary i f a defin ite pattern of his

l i f e and thought is to be determined. Host of the attempts to

trace patterns of development have unfortunately been restricted

to selected types of evidence that have an exclusive bearing upon

doctrinal orthodoxy. Thus, most interpretations have to do with

theological formulations wrenched from the Sitz im Leben in

170

171

Theodoret's career and therefore do not pin down the reasons he

wrote and acted as he did in various circumstances. The various

types of evidence reviewed in this study—doctrina l, epistolary,

concilia r , and h is to r ic a l—must be taken into consideration in

arriving at a contextual interpretation of his thought and motives.

Only as this inclusive interpretation is established can the

Eranistes be properly understood in the context of his l i f e and

thought. The basic question must be answered: Does this doctrinal

treatise stand as a typical expression of his thought and concern,

or is i t to be regarded as an a-typical theological product suited

only to one stage in his l ife?

According to Theodoret's own judgment in his le tte rs prior

to the Council of Chalcedon, he had never changed his theological

position. We w il l adduce evidence to prove this point.

In a le t te r to Eusebius of Ancyra dated in December 448, he

responds to the Alexandrians' charge that he was teaching two Sons

with a strong denial and then continues, saying: "And lest anyone

should suppose that I am speaking as I do through fear, l e t any one

who likes get hold of my ancient writings written before the Council

of Ephesus, and those written a fte r i t twelve years ago."^ In his

le tters requesting support from Renatus and Leo, he defends his

orthodox in te g r ity on ths basis of his past career. To Renatus:

Confident in your justice I shall accept your decisions, whatever they may be, and shall claim to be judged by my writings. More than th ir ty books have I written . . . I have followed in the

172

steps of the apostles, proclaiming . . . that the Godhead of the Lord Jesus Christ was perfect, per­fect the manhood taken for our salvation. . . .I do not know one Son of man and another Son of God, but one and the same, Son of God and God begotten of God, and Son of man through the form of the servant. . . . These and like doctrines I continue to teach. . . .2

To Leo he writes: "I have in my possession what I wrote tv/enty years

ago; what I wrote eighteen, f i f te e n , twelve, years ago. . . . From

these i t is not d i f f i c u l t to ascertain whether I have adhered to the

r ight rule of fa i th . . . ."2 Both of these le tte rs come from the

la t t e r part of 449. In other le tters written during the la te 440's

when he had occasion to look back upon his past career, he speaks of

his teaching over the years as a consistent un ity .4

Marcel Richard takes seriously this profession of consistency

on Theodoret's part--against other Catholic scholars who posit a •

thorough-going change in Theodoret's theology at some point in his

career a f te r the Council of Ephesus.^ As we have indicated in our

review of scholarship on Theodoret's theology, Richard has demon­

strated—conclusively, in our opinion—that a change occurred in

some of Theodoret's expressions for the two natures in Christ. Prior

to the year 432, Theodoret regularly used concrete terms for the two

natures, but in works written a f te r this date they no longer occur:

the one work which is an exception to this rule is the Apologia pro

Diodoro e t Theodoro written in 438. This scholar theorizes on the

basis of Oratio X of De Providentia written between 433 and 437 that

Theodoret had decided to forego such concrete expressions sometime

173

before 437.6 Although the exact location of this terminological

change in time is d i f f i c u l t to determine, a superficial comparison

of the works written before the Council of Ephesus in 431 and those

written during the 440's such as Eranistes substantiates his hypothe­

sis. 7

As to the nature of this change in Richard's estimation, i t

amounts to a change in terminology or style but not to "a profound

modification" of his thought.8 Montalverne supports this conclusion

when he points out that before the union of 433 Theodoret used both

concrete and abstract terms indiscriminately for Christ's human and

divine natures. He concludes that even the concrete terms are used

in an abstract sense.8 This judgment underscores the viewpoint that

the change in his mode of expression did not affect the substance of

his thought. By employing concrete terms, he never intended a division

of "Sons" in Christ. I t appears that he did not conceive the idea of

Christ's human nature in an absolutely clear manner: i t indicated

forh im an individual man yet humanity too. The individual was in

no sense independent from the divine nature.

Aside from this and a la te r more minor terminological s h i f t ,

Theodoret's works exemplify an amazing consistency of theological

principle. This is excellently demonstrated in an a r t ic le by Sellers

which mistakenly attempted to prove that the Expositio rectae f ide i

(pre 428 A.D.) was contemporary with the Eranistes (c. 447). One

of his arguments is that there are d is tinc t agreements in thought

and vocabulary between the two writings.^8

174

As we have seen in the account of Theodoret's career, his

f i r s t compromise was the Formula of Union in 433 for which he was

largely responsible. Our interpretation of the formula has already

made i t clear that i t represents no about-face in his theology. I t

is a carefully worded statement of Antiochene Christo!ogy. The fact

is that C yril 's acceptance and explanation of i t prove that he agreed

with Theodoret's position rather than vice-versa. Even to Nestorius,

Theodoret could write:

Let no one therefore persuade your holiness that I have accepted the Egyptian writings as orthodox, with my eyes shut. . . . For rea lly . . . a f te r frequently reading and carefully examining them, I have discovered that they are free from a l l heretical ta in t . . . though I certainly have no love for th e ir author.11

His le tte rs to other a l l ie s at the same time (c. 432-433) contain the

same conviction, i . e . , that now the Egyptians' theology is in accord

with theirs and therefore opposed to the Twelve Anathemas.12 Through­

out this time of rapprochement with Cyril 's forces, Theodoret remained

adamantly opposed to the Tv/elve Chapters. His consistency on this

point may be seen in the fact that as la te as 449-450 A.D. he spoke

against them. Writing to Domnus shortly before the Council at Ephesus

in 449, he said:

The men of the other dioceses do not know the poison which lies in the Twelve Chapters; having regard to the celebrity of the w riter of them, they suspect no mischief, and his successor in the see is I think adopting every meansto confirm them in a second synod. . . . Forwhen, as i t happened, many had already con­firmed them (the Anathemas), we opposed them

175

in Ephesus, and we did not f i r s t enter into communion with him who wrote them until he agreed to the things set forth by us, and put his teaching in accord with ours, making no mention of those chapters.13

This unbending opposition to the "Twelve Chapters" is maintained in

the le t te r to John of Germanicia a f te r Theodoret's condemnation at

the Latrocinium. 14

In order to render a clear-cut verdict about Theodoret's theo­

logical consistency throughout his career, one must examine the

additional evidence about his attitudes toward the original protago­

nists in the f i f t h century Christo!ogical controversies—Cyril and

Nestorius.

After the b i t te r controversy over Theodore and Diodore in 438,

we hear of no more hostile ac t iv ity between Theodoret and C yril . He

had written to Nestorius in 432-433 that he had no love for Cyril

even as he admitted the orthodoxy of some of his statements prior

to the union. However, in a le t te r to Dioscorus of 448, he speaks

of a t least a peaceful relationship with Cyril in the years before

C yril 's death:

I think your excellency is well aware that Cyril of blessed memory often wrote to me, and when he sent his books against Julian to Antioch, and in l ike manner his book on the scapegoat, he asked the blessed John, bishop of Antioch, to shew them to the great teachers o f the East. . . . I read them with admiration, and I wrote to Cyril of blessed memory; and he wrote back to me praising my exactitude and kindness. This le t te r I have preserved.15

176

Nevertheless, one should not go so fa r as to deduce from this

statement that the relationship between the two antagonists became

miraculously cordial, for this le t te r reflects a defin ite attempt

on Theodoret's part to placate the Alexandrian archbishop's wrath

, against him. We detect in this epistle a sense of urgency to show

the a f f in i t ie s between th e ir theological positions. In order to

dispel the typical Alexandrian charges against him, he approximates

as closely as possible to the opposing viewpoint. The peaceful

relationship that f in a l ly prevailed between Cyril and Theodoret

did not mean that e ither love or theological accord were established

between themJ6

Richard conjectures that the terminological s h if t in our

author's writings was due to the fac t that he read C yril 's theology.17

This is a defin ite possib ility but by no means a demonstrable con­

tention. In the course of the controversy, Theodoret could have come

to a realization of the d ivisive nature of his Christological formu­

lations for various reasons. I f C yril 's critic ism made him modify

his concrete language, the influence is only of a negative sort:

he did not borrow from his opponent. In the rough and tumble of

theological controversy he only became aware of certain misappre­

hensions that his language caused and tr ied to remedy them.

Just as Theodoret's consistency is expressed by the fact

that he never embraced C yril 's position, i t is equally expressed

in his controversial allegiance to Nestorius. As we have observed,

he declared himself unwilling to give up his support of the : •

177

unfortunate patriarch in 433. One need only recall his statement

to Nestorius: "But what has been done unjustly and i l le g a l ly

against your holiness, not even i f one were to cut o f f both my

hands would I ever assent, God's grace helping me and supporting

my in f i r m ity ."12 Did Theodoret remain intractable on this issue

before 451? Our foregoing study indicates that i t is uncertain

whether or not he ever f in a l ly submitted to the condemnation of

Nestorius in c. 435 and signed an agreement. I f he had unequi­

vocally condemned Nestorius, i t is d i f f i c u l t to understand why he

tr ied to avoid saying the anathema against him at Chalcedon. There

are at least two le tters from the years 432 or 433 that in our

opinion d e f in ite ly anticipate Theodoret's action at Chalcedon. As

fa r as we know, the connection has never been made before. Having .

experienced o f f ic ia l pressure to sign the condemnation against

Nestorius, he shows in the le tte rs that he has already arrived

at a strategem to avoid contradicting his principles. A fter hearing

that John of Antioch had anathematized Nestorius, he writes to his

metropolitan Alexander of Hierapolis:

When I read the le t te r addressed to the emperor, I was much distressed, because I know perfectly well that the w rite r o f the l e t t e r , being of the same opinions, has un­wisely and impiously condemned one who has never held or taught anything contrary to sound doctrine. But the form of the anathema, though i t be more l ik e ly than his assent to the condemnation to grieve a reader, never­theless has given me some ground of comfort in that i t is la id down not in wide general

178

terms, but with some qua lification . For he has not said, 'We anathematize his doctrine1 but 'whatever he has e ither said or held other than is warranted by the doctrine of the apostles.

John's cagey anathema referred to here becomes the model for Theodoret's

anathema at Chalcedon! That the "qualified anathema" idea was not

a momentary notion is proved by his le t te r to his companion in arms,

Andreas of Samosata:

He (C yril) required further subscription to the condemnation which has been passed, and that the doctrine of the holy bishop Nestorius be anathematized. Your holiness well knows that i f anyone anathematizes, without d is tinc tion , the doctrine of that most holy and venerable bishop, i t is just the same as though he seemed to anathe­matize true re lig ion. We must then i f we are compelled anathematize those who call Christ mere man, or who divide our one Lord Jesus Christ into two sons and deny His d iv in ity . . . .20

Here, he has made the contingency plan of how to avoid an unequivocal

condemnation in the case that an anathema were required of him. The

question occurs to us: did he do something of this sort in 435—

that is , did he formally f u l f i l l the imperial demand while not

conceding the point at issue? That he did so seems a plausible

conjecture. This could explain why he was not deposed in c. 435 and

yet why he equivocated la te r a t Chalcedon, not wanting to d irectly

anathematize Nestorius for the f i r s t time.

In his very "po lit ica l" le t te r to Dioscorus of 488 which

contains the reference to his having "twice subscribed the writings

179

of John of Blessed memory concerning Nestorius," he hints at a

possible ambiguity in his position on Nestorius: "this is the

kind of thing whispered about me by men who try to conceal their

own unsoundness by calumniating me." This le t te r includes an

"anathema" somewhat akin to the others mentioned:

I f any one refuses to confess the holy Virgin to be 'Theotokos,1 or calls our Lord Jesus Christ bare man, or divides into two Sons Him who is one only begotten and f i r s t born of every creature, I pray that he may fa l l from hope in Christ, and le t a l l the people say amen, amen.21

One of the chief motives for Theodoret's compromising is

beginning to become increasingly evident, namely, his concern to

defend himself by po lit ica l bargaining.

No single work of the Bishop of Cyrus shows his constancy in .

theological matters better than the Eranistes seu Pol.ymorphus.

Although this work w il l be discussed in detail la te r , several of

i ts facets which have a bearing on our thesis of a basic uniformity

in thought must be touched on here. These facets are: (1) the

florilegium of pa tr is t ic quotes in the work, (2) the anonymity

of the heretical opponent in the dialogues, (3) the use of quotes

from opponents and omission of material from a l l ie s , and (4) the

use of certain language uncharacteristic of e a r l ie r works.

F irs t , le t us consider the florilegium of the Eranistes

which is found in four sections divided between the three dialogues

in the work. The f i r s t dialogue contains two parts of the florilegium;

180

the other two contain one part apiece. The quotes are used as proof-

texts for the position advanced in each section. The excellent work

of Louis Sa ltet has proved that the core of this anthology was o r ig i ­

nally prepared by Antiochene theologians toward the end of the Council

of Ephesus in 431 for use in disputation at the imperial court in

Chalcedon in the fa l l of that year. The plan or structure of the

Eranistes is based upon the threefold topical arrangement of the 431

florilegium: the meaning o f "the Word became flesh," the unconfused

union of the two natures, and the impassibility of the divine nature.

To the f i r s t theme which is found in the f i r s t of Eranistes1 d ia­

logues, Theodoret has added his own topic and prooftexts concerning

the immutability of the divine nature.. Thus, the basic conception

for the plan of the work goes back to Theodoret's early career when

he and his compatriots were developing arguments ex p lic it ly designed

to disprove C yril 's Anathemas.22 As he fought against the resurgent

"Monophysitism" in 447 in which he saw the same error as that of

C yril 's Anathemas, he saw f i t to use the same plan of argumentation.

This organic relationship between his early and late career further

substantiates the notion of a basic consistency in his Christology

throughout his l i f e .

The second and third facets o f the Eranistes with a bearing

upon its author's consistency are matters relating to persons. I t

is s trik ing that our author names no specific historical opponent

in this work. Eutyches, Dioscorus, and other prominent leaders

181

were speaking in terms unacceptable to Theodoret, but he never

mentions them by name. Even the references to Eutyches in his

le tte rs contain no mention of his name. As we w il l argue la te r ,

he probably refrains from mentioning a specific opponent or opponents

because he has in view a general Christological position espoused

by an entire group of people. But i t is also true that at this

time he is taking care not to overly offend someone in the p o l it ic a l ly

potent opposing faction. This observation along with his t ra d i­

tional theology in the dialogues indicate that his reluctance for

controversy is not based upon a theological rapprochement with

his opponents but rather upon a concern about his own welfare.

This same concern coupled with the desire to convince his

opponents is evidenced in his practice of using supportive quotes

from the theologians he most disagrees with. According to good

debate technique, prooftexts for his doctrines are gleaned from

both Cyril and A p o l l i n a r i s . 2 3 At the same time, he sees f i t to

eliminate the quotes from Diodore and Theodore due to the.fact

that they are not accepted as authorities by his opponents. ^

In a le t te r to Irenaeus of Tyre, he must defend himself against the

reproach of having accommodated to the enemy in fa i l in g to quote

Diodore and Theodore as authorities:

But since you find fa u lt with me for having l e f t out the holy and blessed fathers Diodorus and Theodorus in my l i s t of authorities, I have thought i t necessary to add a few words on this point. In the f i r s t place, my dear

132

friend, I have omitted many others both famous and i l lu s tr io u s . Secondly,. . . the accused party is bound to produce unimpeachable witnesses, whose testimony even his accusers cannot impugn. But i f the defendant were to call into court authorities accused by the prosecutors, even the judge himself would not consent to receive them. I f I had omitted these holy men in compiling an eulogy of the Fathers, I should, I own, have been wrong, and should have proved ungrateful to my teachers. . . . How I reverence these writers is su ff ic ien t ly shown by my own book in th e ir behalf, in which I have refuted the indictment la id against them, without fear of the influence of the ir accusers or even of the secret attack upon myself.25

I t is not absolutely certain which work of Theodoret's that Irenaeus

was c r i t ic iz in g . Garnier argued that the description of Irenaeus'

criticisms f i t the Eranistes. However, more recently Richard has

made a very strong case that the work in question was not this one

but another one, namely, the tra c t appended to Ep. 151 entitled

"That a fte r the Incarnation our Lord Jesus Christ is One Son."^

A comparison of the l is ts of Fathers quoted in works of the same

period of Theodoret's l i f e —Eranistes, the aforementioned tra c t ,

and Ep. 145, "To the Monks of Constantinople"—shows that he le f t

out the names of his controversial Antiochene forebears.'; in a ll

three compositions.2? At the time of the ir composition, the

Alexandrian "monophysite" party was in power, and the theologians

of this group despised the names of Diodore and Theodore. There­

fore, Theodoret took into consideration the biases of his opponents

183

in order to make his theological argumentation more convincing. This

is the essence of his own statement of self-defense to Irenaeus.

The fourth facet of the Eranistes bearing upon the question of

a possible change in Theodoret's point of view is that of theological

terminology. Richard has already pointed out that this tre a tise—

with the exception of the florilegium —lacks the concrete terminology

with respect to the natures (especially the human nature) in Christ.

There are some other terms, however, which at f i r s t sight may appear

to indicate some innovations in his theology. The f i r s t of these

is the possible use of the term hypostasis as the equivalent for

prosopon.

In Theodoret's early career, he had understood the term

hypostasis in Christology to mean the same as physis. When he wrote

the Reprehensio ( Counter-Anathemas), he rejected C yril 's idea of a

union K z < T ( z as implying a f r f f e s s u t fiz o rr jro s

in Christ. This suspicion was intensified by the fact that in his

th ird anathema Cyril had spoken of a £Z<*>cr(V cpu<ra^nz .28 However

Proclus1 use of the term hypostasis in his Tome had prepared the

way for the eventual acceptance of the term in the Chalcedonian

Definition. Proclus had recast C yril 's phrase from his third

le t te r to Nestorius Iv c ... u rro a -T ^o s f 777 to o 0 ^ 0 u .•■

< 3 ~ £ 6 d i / p into the form of z z r& s t& s& o1

\,o y o v UTroo-TcKTfZ . The significance of this change is two-fold.

F irs t , C yril 's alternate phrase sccrz. . . .

134

is omitted. Secondly, the verb "incarnated" is not applied to the

hypostasis of the Word synthesized from humanity and d iv in ity but

d irec tly to the divine Word i t s e l f . This la t te r change is minor,

but i t gives less an impression of a confusion of the natures. ^

According to Richard, when the Orientals accepted Proclus1

Tome, they probably did not find the use of hypostasis ideal.

"Nous pouvons croire que, si e l le ne les a pas seduits :;ur le

champ, e l le a laisse dans leur esprit une seme nee qui germera

plus tard et les preparera a accepter de bon coeur la defin ition

de Chalcedoine."30 This scholar has found a certain evolution of

terminology in a passage from the third dialogue of the Eranistes.

Here Theodoret appears to use hypostasis and prosopon as equiva­

lent terms in Christo!ogy. The passage in question is an expla­

nation of the story of Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac: Isaac

and the s a c r if ic ia l ram are regarded as types for the two natures

in Christ. The point is brought out that the Old Testament image is

not identical with the New Testament archetype.

0 y j p ATM o / r f f h , TO ^

J p c fo p o v T & v < p (f< T £*v , 77? £ < tro v t ,

/ u r J cfs TO cfT 'rjfO riM 's i/o T

U7rog-rJ(T£^; ooK i r e . (P s e r - jrc s/TJC U i/ P p«/77oT'>?ToS u T y i / AP^yp>UTToMfi/

z l'u x r a / , P s £ i / t / t o r i s p u 7Tp>ocr^7T£/i/

o ic f r< / ( p s ro v • •• 31

185

livid enment Thdodoret a employd ic i le mot. v /tS o ~ 7 U < rpares q u 'il ne pouvait pas inettre 7rpo<r»fTfe>v et est revenu a ce dernier d&s q u 'i l a pu le fa ire . Mais sa phrase n 'aura it aucun sens s ' i l n 'ava it admis imp!icitement une certaine equivalence des deux mots, meme s ' i l n 'osait encore, peutetre pour des raisons d'opportunity, confesser explicitement une hypostase du C hrist.32

I t appears to us that Richard has overstated his case when on

the basis of this passage he claims an equivalence of the two wordsC / C /

in question. The word £/7/0G‘T9t<r{S occurs in the plural

as a parallel with cfv< r£w \/ in the foregoing phrase, whilo. 7?rpo<re*//7ovc. /

remains singular referring to the unified Christ. The word U7f’*< rr 't< ftw

refers not to the one person but to the two natures divine and human

which constitute the person of Christ. Therefore, the term here is

most l ik e ly a synonym for cputrcs , according to i ts ancient usage

which Theodoret had always accepted.33 I t is possible, however, more

in l ine with Richard's in terpretation , that the word in its plural/

form here may refer to the TTfoauJTrj. of both natures--in this case

implying the outer aspect of the natures. But there is no way of

ascertaining exactly what our author had in mind when he used the

word in this isolated context. At any rate , this passage does not

prove that Theodoret at this time had begun to use hypostasis as an

"equivalent" for prosopon in designating the person of Christ; on the

contrary, i t seems to bear out our thesis regarding his consistency.3

Shortly a f te r the composition o f Eranistes, the word hypostasis

achieved a greater legitimacy in the Christo!ogical context through

186

Flavian's profession of fa ith from the t r ia l of Eutyches. The

statement reflects the influence of the Formula of Union of 433 and

of Proclus1 Tome. Its new contribution to the compromising terminology

that would appear in the Chalcedonian Definition lies in the phrase:

c fu o (p v c re u s z o z s o jo y o u / u s z T o Z <ff z z ( /t*£ T o i

T ^ Z £ t /Z \ / (? f2 u /7r *? c r fZ > { /77o < rr^ < J £ (ivc 7Tpo<ru//Too> 3S

We have already noted in our discussion of the Chalcedonian

Definition that Theodoret had no d i f f ic u l ty accepting i t but thattf / /»

he understood the term (//Tzcrrzo'cs as a synonym for zrpocrc^j77,?/

in the phrase £cs £ Z 77(?oz“ Z77oz /zzc z ^ tz -z c/77o<TTZafZ . This

crucial information is provided by Syriac fragments from Theodoret1s

le t te r to the Nestorian John of Aegeae—the las t epistolary evidence

from him. In this le t te r he responds to John's charge that the

Chalcedonian Definition meant a natural or substantial union of

humanity and d iv in ity with i ts concomitant confusion of the two.

John had evidently assumed that in this defin ition hypostasis =

physis. In reply, Theodoret pointed out that the confession did

not say that the one hypostasis was "from two natures," but "in

two natures," nor did i t speak of a composite hypostasis in the

sense of "person" as Nestorius had understood i t . This la t te r

point is reiterated several times so that there can be no doubt as

to its meaning. This much of the le t te r is preserved in an anonymous

Monophysite t ra c t which was probably indebted to the great Monophysite

theologian Severus of Antioch who discussed Theodoret's le t te r in a

187

lost section of his Contra Grammaticum. Severus attests to Theodoret's

appeal to Nestorius1 theology and reports that he also supported his

argument from the Epistle to Cledonius of Gregory of Nazianzus (from

Severus' Philalethes).

Complementary information on the le t te r to John of Aegeae is

found in a work by John Philopon preserved in the Chronicle of Michael

the Syrian. From this report we learn that Theodoret appealed to the

use of hypostasis in Scripture to refer to "those who are several in

number." "The apostle himself, in f a c t , • (indeed) uses this word for

d iffe ren t things, natures and persons and especially of Christ." John

Philopon's report continues with a reference to Theodoret's words:

"Those who were reunited a t Chalcedon take the word hypostasis, 'he

says,' in the place of person, in the sense of mutual proximity.

Indeed, hypostasis is used several times also of several individuals,

who form together a simple c o lle c t iv i ty ." These words are followed

by several prooftexts which i l lu s tra te one of the Biblical meanings

for the word hypostasis-- that of c o l le c t iv i t y .^

Richard considers these fragments to be authentic reports about

the contents of Theodoret's l e t te r , except for parts of John Philopon's

report which do not conform to the ideas in Theodoret's other writings.

In this report Theodoret appears more extreme ("Nestorian") in his

outlook than we would expect. The phrases about the "mutual proximity"

implied in his use of hypostasis and the following sentence about the

use of hypostasis to mean several individuals which form a co llec t iv ity

give us this impression. Richard's study indicates that Philopon

133

probably juxtaposed two texts here which were orig ina lly separate.

The second was or ig ina lly used as a preface to the Biblical proof-

texts, not as an explanation of the Chalcedonian Definition but as

a refutation of John of Aegeae's understanding of hypostasis. The

f i r s t phrase conveying the "mutual proximity" is probably a resume

of the second fragment cited by the anonymous Monophysite and

Severus' Philalethes. Although i t is most l ik e ly Theodoret's

expression, i t would have been situated d iffe ren tly in i ts context--

farther from the phrase that Philopon puts with i t . According to

Richard's reasoning, Severus would most l ik e ly have cited the

other text also, i f i t had been offensive in i ts context, for he

was an indefatigable enemy of Antiochene Christo!ogy. John Philopon

has probably distorted the sense of Theodoret's words in a "Nestorian"

(dichotomous) direction by placing them together.33

I t is s ignificant that Theodoret appealed to Nestorius' thought

when he explained the sense of the term hypostasis in the Chalcedonian

Defin ition. This was not merely a clever tactical maneuver to convince

a Nestorian. More s ign ifican tly , i t indicates that he was procuring

his Christological language from the classical Trin itar ian language

espoused by Nestorius and the Cappodocians ( i . e . , the Epistle to

Cledonius of Gregory of Nazianzus). This language identified

hypostasis and prosopon.

. . . confessant en Dieu une nature et trois hypostases, i l e ta i t logique de reconnaitre dans le Christ deux natures et une hypostase.

139

En ceci i l f a i t o ffice de precurseur: cetexte sera, en e f fe t , comme le pivot de la thcologie chalcedonienne a p a r t ir du VIe si ee le .39

This understanding of hypostasis and prosopon as equivalent

terms reflects the increasing influence of t r in i ta r ia n language upon

Christo!ogy. This basic understanding is one of the major character­

is tics of the dyophysite Christology known as "Neo-Chalcedonianism"

which grew up a f te r 451. Theodoret's interpretation in the le t te r

to John of Aegeae has the distinction of being “la premiere explication

theologique connue de la formule de Chalcedoine" and singles him out

as the f i r s t theologian of the “Neo-Chalcedonian" school of thought.^

As we have seen, the use of the t r in i ta r ia n language of Nestorius

and Gregory of Nazianzus represented no new element in Theodoret's

thought. Both Theodoret and Nestorius were deeply indebted to the*

Cappadocian Fathers for th e ir concept of God. I t was only the appli­

cation of the t r in i ta r ia n term hypostasis with the same general

sense of prosopon to the Christo!ogical formula that was new.^

I t has been demonstrated, that although Theodoret had not yet

accepted the term hypostasis as a synonym for prosopon with reference

to Christ in his Eranistes, he f in a l ly interpreted these two terms

in the Chalcedonian Definition as equivalents according to the

manner in which they had been used in t r in i ta r ia n dogma. This means

that the change in usage did not involve an alteration in the fabric

of his thought.

Another terminological question with a bearing upon Theodoret's

theological constancy throughout his career is posed by another unusual

190

passage in the Eranistes. This statement by Orthodoxos, the mouth­

piece of the author, is a reply to a contention of Eranistes, the

heretic:

Eranistes: Whoever contemplates twonatures in the Christ divides the one Only-Begotten into two sons.

Orthodoxos: Therefore, he who also saysthat Paul is of a soul and a body shows that the one is two Pauls.

Eranistes: Th£ example is unfair.Orthodoxos: Q c7<a 'cTi/ tuO f a f / p < fv c rrrr^

?? s'/us<?($ ’ /V r / £ Tou de<rfrorots^ r t r r o S ,

7~4 0<\oV £ ct f Tf j /C Jl\ j (c /p (T c 5 - 7 7 /1 V ! / / & ( Q?0c/t'/r7?j f i / T s Z V / fa

T *}$ £ Zu tpS k/S £>(/C/r/S j o /Z /z p ^ t/ /(££.,&<£!/7 £ £

f 7 T e h / ( f lt /c rS tt /V f y c / ■ ^

On the basis of the phrase 77})+)/xvr (£eztrrzr*?s /i/T -e v fa t v * s

Over VS . . . 5 Seeberg declares that here Theodoret is propounding the

idea of "physische Einheit" between humanity and d iv in ity in Christ.

For this reason, he finds i t necessary to explain how such an idea

can f i t into the context of Theodoret's thought. In his explanation

of Theodoret's Christology, he r ig h tly states that he did not deviate

from the old Antiochene teaching which understood the union in Christ

as a presupposition rather than the product of the interaction of both

natures. By no means is this a "moral" union on the level of ordinary

inspiration. "Und diese von Anfang an gesetzte und daher naturlicheA

Einigung is t der Grund der fortgehenden geistigen Vereinigung " -0

I f this text means what Seeberg says i t means, i t is d i f f ic u l t

to reconcile i t with the rest of our author's Christology. Theodoret

191

always avoided the idea of a natural or physical union in Christ.

As Seeberg interprets the passage quoted above, i t appears as a

foreign body in Theodoret's Eranistes and indeed in a ll o f his

Christological explanations. Although Seeberg has given an excellent

account of Antiochene Christology in his book, he has misunderstood

the passage in question and has tried unconvincingly to blend i t

into the fabric of Theodoret's thought.

The passage quoted must be taken as a whole in order to be

correctly understood. Here, Eranistes objects to distinguishing

two natures in Christ, for to do so is in his opinion to divide

Christ into two Sons. Orthodoxos replies that one naturally makes

such a distinction in an analogous fashion with Paul's soul and

body but that this does not mean that there are two Pauls. When

Eranistes objects that the analogy is inappropriate, Orthodoxos

p a r t ia l ly agrees, saying that "the union of contemporaries, creatures,

and fellow slaves is natural," but that in the case of Christ, the

"whole matter is of approval, love and grace." In other words, the

union in Paul is a union of created re a l i t ie s and therefore "natural,"

but the union in Christ since i t is between God and man is a cate­

gorically d ifferen t kind of union which cannot be termed natural:

i t is grounded, rather, on God's "approval, love, and grace." The

implications of the analogy are c la r if ie d further in the las t

sentence of the quote: "Although the union is natural here ( i . e . ,

with respect to the natural order of things exemplified by Paul,

192

e t c . ) , the properties of the natures have remained in tac t." In

other words, not only in the case of Christ's too natures but even

in the case of the quite d iffe ren t "natural" union of soul and body

in Paul, "the properties of the natures have remained in tac t." The

ambiguity of this la s t sentence of the quotation is dispelled in

the subsequent discussion where the point is made that i f in the

case of the natural union of body and soul, the properties of

each nature remain in ta c t, then surely in the case of the union

of divine and human in Christ, the too natures must remain in tact.

Seeberg has understood the las t sentence in the quote in

isolation from the rest of the passage. To understand i t as the

German scholar does contradicts the main point which Orthodoxos

is trying to make: the union of soul and body may be compared to

the union of God and man in the sense that two sons or too Pauls

are not implied even while the properties remain in ta c t, but the

two unions are ultimately d ifferen t since one is "natural" and the

other according to God's predilection. An identical l ine of

thought referring to the "natural union" of soul and body and the

distinction between this and the union of natures in Christ is

found in the third dialogue of Eranistes. ^

Thus, our examination of certain terminological issues of

the Eranistes indicates that his wording in certain passages

reflects no basic differences from his other works. There is a

fundamental uniformity in his dogmatic writings, and the Eranistes

represents no deviation from i t . With respect to our other findings

193

about the possible indications of change in this work, none of them

indicate a change in his thinking.

In the interval between the composition of this treatise and

the "Robber Council" of Ephesus, our author became acutely aware

of the danger approaching him. This is seen most clearly in the

l e t te r to Dioscorus (Ep. 83) which has been cited several times

already. In this le t te r we see Theodoret trying desperately to

restore himself in Dioscorus1 favor. He not only speaks highly

of Cyril and Theophilus, he also defends his theology as orthodox

in such a way as to please an Alexandrian inquisitor. F irs t , he

appeals to the Hicene Creed, and in the same breath affirms the

Theotokos and condemns those who do not accept i t . Those who

proclaim two sons are also deemed to be in error. With these

assertions, he has favored Alexandrian emphases without conceding

anything he had not been w illing to admit before.

One passage in the English translation of this le t te r

maximizes his concession to Dioscorus by making him say something

very uncharacteristic for him, indeed "monophysite." Speaking of

Thomas' encounter with the risen Christ, he says: "For through

the v is ib le nature he discerned the inv is ib le . So do we know no

difference between the same flesh and the Godhead but we own God

the Word made man to be one Son."^ The translation has given a

to ta l ly opposite meaning to the passage from that of the original

by inserting the word "no," i . e . , "We know [no] difference between

194

the flesh and the Godhead." The Greek text reads:• V / \ C A * i A \C /u rc ^ £ d ( 7~VPS s 6 f£v O /UTOU GTctptoS

X T '/ TVS & £ o 7*? ro s r -y v ef f 0i(/>c>/7UV’J S J O e / r \ l / V I v£77'ccmt#£(y‘<j d£ CCT'XSi/ ¥fo \/ y-ov

£ vd 1/ ${>c*/Tr -viroi vTd (P el 7 /)o yo v ■ ^ 6 The correct translation, "we recognize a difference between the

flesh and the Godhead," is only a typical expression of Antiochene

thought, as is the context which is firmly dyophysite.

H. Diepen, who condemns Theodoret's e a r l ie r Christology as

heretica l, finds in this le t te r as adequate a Christology as he

ever espoused before his le t te r to Leo (Ep. 113) and his reinstate­

ment at Chalcedon. He regards this le t te r as conformable to Cyril 's

Christology and contradictory to his own e a r l ie r opinions. I t

expresses the unity of Christ strongly; i t speaks with veneration

of Cyril; i t states that God is man and vice-versa; and i t affirms

the Theotokos. Its only inadequacy from Diepen's Cyril lian point

of view is i ts lack of a clear affirmation of "theopaschisme" (God's

suffering ).^7 Even though his le t te r to the monks of Constantinople

(Ep. 145 in PG, 146 in Azema) in 451 also contains admirable C yril­

l ia n —or "orthodox" in Diepen's estimation—doctrines, i t also lacks

the- essential idea of the divine passion. "Ce n'est pas dire que

la doctrine christologique de Theodoret, meme sexagenaire, nous

satisfasse pleinement. Un doute plane sur tous ces dcrits . Le ■

silence sur la Passion de Dieu n'est jamais ronipu."48 Even the

fact that Theodoret accepted Leo's Tome to Flavian—which Diepen

alleges to contain an affirmation of divine suffering—does not

195

completely put the stamp of approval on the Bishop of Cyrus. He

was only accepted at Chalcedon when the remaining doubt about his

orthodoxy was dissipated.49

I I reste que Theodoret a souscrit au moins . implicitement a ces formules energicues de

la communication des idiomes, au 'theopaschisme' catholique, en approuvant, comme i l le f i t des 449, la le t t re magistrale de saint Leon.Neanmoins, nous en convenors aisement,1 ‘hesitation pourrait demeurer dans 1 ‘esprit du lecteur au sujet de 1 ' in teg rite de.cette foi christologique.^O

We surmise from this account of Diepen's interpretation of

Theodoret's position that i t constitutes a vexing problem for him.

Indeed, the decision concerning the Bishop of Cyrus poses a great

d i f f ic u l ty for any arch-conservative Catholic position such as

D i e p e n ' s . T h a t Diepen clearly recognizes the crucial importance

of the interpretation of Theodoret's Christology in the history of

dogma is evidenced in his statement: "Notre jugenent d e f in i t i f

sur la christologie du quatrieme concile dependra en partie de

celui que nous aurons forme de la doctrine de Theodoret'.'5^

The problem raised is that of the coherence of dogma estab­

lished at the ecumenical councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. In

e f fe c t , Theodoret drives a wedge between the two councils. This

is the reason that conservative scholars who do not allow for a

p lu ra l ity in orthodox trad ition must posit a considerable change in

his Christology between 431 and 451. For them, orthodoxy by

defin it io n has no contradictions and, therefore, must be con­

s tr ic ted . There must be an absolute uniformity of thought between

196

Cyril and Leo, Ephesus and Chalcedon to the exclusion of Nestorius

and his in te llectua l comrades.

Diepen's deep-seated ambivalence is expressed in his previously-

cited statements affirming Theodoret's change to orthodoxy, yet in

his expressions of doubt about the adequacy of his Christology. This

scholar understands the fundamental difference between Cyril and

Theodoret, yet he must legitim ize the Tatter's theology because of

his acceptability at the Council of Chalcedon. This given presup­

position leads Diepen to attempt to document a thorough-going

change la te in Theodoret's career--such as he has attempted with

the le t te r to Dioscorus. The truth is that Theodoret has said

nothing in his le t te r to Dioscorus that he has not said elsewhere.

Then, how does one account for the irenic nature of this epistle?

In face of the threat from Dioscorus in 448, out of concern for

self-survival he stresses the s im ila r it ies in the Antiochene and

Alexandrian traditions ju s t as he had done in the Formula of Union

of 433. In both cases he did not abrogate his theological principles,

but he was p o l it ic enough not to press the tendency toward a division

in Christ peculiar to the Antiochene trad it ion .

This willingness to compromise drew critic ism from the fervent

iies tori an Irenaeus of Tyre to whom Theodoret replied in Ep. 16. He

have examined the critic ism in this le t te r against Theodoret's

fa ilu re to mention Diodore and Theodore as authorities probably in

a tract appended to Ep. 151--a t ra c t dated in the same period as

197

the le t te r to Dioscorus. In both the le t te r to Dioscorus and the

tra c t , the Bishop of Cyrus used the t i t l e Theotokos for the Virgin

Mary without any q u a l i f i c a t i o n . 53 One of Irenaeus1 criticisms focused

upon this usage. He was doubtless suspicious that Theodoret had

conceded too much in using a t i t l e favored by the Alexandrians but

generally used by Antiochenes with a qualifying phrase. His le t te r

to Irenaeus is a convincing defense of his terminology and theo­

logical consistency:

What does i t matter whether we style the holy Virgin at the same time mother of Man and mother of God, or call her mother and servant of her offspring, with the addition that she is mother of our Lord Jesus Christ as man, but His servant as God, and soat once avoid the term which is the pretextof calumny, and express the same opinion by another phrase? And besides this i t must also be borne in mind that the former of these t i t le s is of general use, and the la t te r peculiar to the V irg in -, and that i t is about this that a ll the controversy has arisen which would God had neverbeen. The majority of the old Fathershave applied the more honourable t i t l e to the Virgin, as your holiness has done in two or three discourses; several of these . . . I have in my own possession, and in these you have not coupled the t i t l e mother of Man with mother of God, but have explained i ts meaning by the use of other words.54

While the Eranistes of 447-448 A.D. is an aggressive work

theologically in i ts destruction of monophysite opinions, i t has

a defensive aspect to i t in that no contemporary enemy is attacked

by name and controversial sources are used with caution. The

conciliatory tone barely hinted at in this work has become more

198

pronounced in Ep. 83 to Dioscorus, several points of which have been

examined, showing that no change occurred in Theodoret's theology.

As we have seen, this defensive, conciliatory note is even more

evident a f te r Theodoret's condemnation at the Latrocinium of Ephesus

in 449. His main l i te ra ry product of the period of ex ile , the Church

History, is an epitome of p o lit ica l caution. All controversy that

would have a bearing upon his time is scrupulously avoided. There is

an extreme reticence about his opponents except for some f la t te r in g

r e m a r k s . 55 Nevertheless, i t is crucial to point out here that none

of these characteristics of the Church History point to a capitulation

to the enemy's theology. The whole theological issue is merely passed

over as though i t did not ex ist. The reason for this omission has

become obvious. In his vulnerable position before the all-powerful

opposition, he was in no position to be belligerent against his

enemies' prerogatives.

The aspect of extreme reserve about his enemies that is

evidenced in works of Theodoret's exile remains until a f te r the

accession of Marcian and Pulcheria. With his return to favor in

the eyes of the new sovereigns, he begins to express himself again

with new c a n d o r . 55 Although the imperial ban against him was l i f t e d ,

he had s t i l l not experienced a res titu tion for the previous condemna­

tion of him and his theological trad it ion . There was a great need

for the wrong that had been committed to be publicly rec t if ied .

Theodoret realized that in order to achieve an o f f ic ia l reh ab il i ­

tation of himself as an orthodox teacher and of his theological

199

trad it ion , an ecclesiastical tribunal was necessary. Under the

favorable p o lit ica l circumstances, he f e l t confident enough to

request a new ecumenical council to settle the theological contro­

versy once and for a l l .

In his le tters to the imperial magistrates Anatolius, Aspar,

and Vincomalus early in 451, he requests these o ff ic ia ls to carry

his request for a new council to the emperor and empress.57 This

council which was f in a l ly held at Chalcedon has always been regarded

as extremely important for the task of interpreting his entire

career. Since i t stands as the culmination of the Cnristological

controversy to which Theodoret had devoted much of his public career,

i t is a main factor to be considered in establishing what his f ina l

theological position was.

As we have indicated in our interpretation of the eighth

session of the council in which Theodoret was o f f ic ia l ly reh ab il i ­

tated, the terms of his acceptance are crucia lly important for

determining whether he altered his position or remained true to

his trad itional convictions. We have demonstrated that he tried

to avoid anathematizing Nestorius and that when f in a l ly compelled

to do so, he avoided giving an unqualified anathema. We have also

indicated that long before the Council of Chalcedon (in c. 435 A.D.)

he had fa llen upon the idea of being as vague as possible in his

condemnation i f he were forced to anathematize his old theological

a l ly . I t has also been pointed out that Theodoret accepted the

Definition of Faith of the council because i t harmonized very well

200

with his own Christology. These observations about his p a r t ic i ­

pation at the council give us no basis for assuming that he

capitulated on substantial theological issues. On the contrary,

they portray a rather remarkable consistency with his previous

teaching.

Nevertheless, i t is necessary to probe more deeply into the

matter of his submission by asking the question: i f he was basking

in the imperial favor, why did he not refuse to give any anathema to

Nestorius? To point up the urgency of the question, one need only

recall the statement in his le t te r to Nestorius (Ep. 172) of 432

or 433: "But to what has been done unjustly and i l le g a l ly against

your holiness, not even i f one were to cut o f f both my hands would

I ever assent. . . ." In l ig h t of this statement, does not his

submission to the w il l of the council indicate a certain lack of

constancy in his position?

In order to answer these questions adequately, several

observations must be linked together to support the contention

that Theodoret was under ir re s is t ib le pressure to concede to

the council’s demand. F irs t of a l l , he had specifica lly requested

that such a council be held. Thus, i t was as much "his" council —

that is , a council for the benefit of his party—as anyone e lse ‘s.

I t was his f ina l chance to achieve a measure of vindication for

what he championed. Secondly, he had no quarrel with the council's

deliberations. I t had deposed his enemies and upheld a Christology

201

which he could accept, even one p a r t ia l ly inspired by his Antiochene

trad it ion . Thirdly, Theodoret was well aware that the majority of

bishops and the rulers were intrenched in the opposition against

Nestorius. This unfortunate man had come to epitomize for them the

classical Christological error of "Nestorianism," that of two Sons

and a purely human Christ. I t made no difference whether or not

he had held such views. The sloganeering of the f i f th century

controversies had-'branded him indelib ly to the public as the worst

of heretics. Therefore, i t was surely evident to Theodoret that

nothing would change th e ir opinions—that the cause of Nestorius

was a lost one.

Surely these factors made i t absolutely clear to the Bishop

of Cyrus that he could hope for nothing better than this council.

Any kind of wholesale legitim ization of Antiochene prerogatives was

out of the question. Therefore, he had no choice other than to

accede to the wishes of the majority. I t would have been insane

to have refused. Such an action would have resulted in his expulsion;

and this would have meant exclusion from the "Church of God.'1 Of

course, he could have taken this alternative by maintaining a stubborn

loyalty to Nestorius. But this would have been the height of fo lly :

i t would have jeopardized a ll the gains he had achieved at this

council. Very s ign ificantly for him, i t would have put a stigma

upon his past works and would have destroyed his "orthodox" influence

upon many people. That he was concerned about his reputation as an

202

orthodox teacher may be seen in a statement protesting his deposition

in his le t te r to Leo:

I care not for honour and glory. I care only for the scandal that has been caused, in that many of the simpler fold, and especially those whom I have rescued from various heresies, cleaving to the authority of my judges and quite unable to understand the exact truth of the doctrine, w il l perhaps suppose me guilty of h e r e s y . 58

When he made his request for an ecumenical council through the agency

of Anatolius the patric ian , lie gave voice to a similar concern:

I make this request to your excellency, not because I long to see Cyrus again. . . but to the end that what I preach may be shown to be in agreement with apostolic doctrines while the inventions of mv opponents are counterfeit and base.59

With this concern to be reinstated in the eyes of the imperial

Christianity of his day, Theodoret compromised to the extent to which

i t was necessary. This involved including a name in his anathema

which in his opinion did not belong there. Yet, this f in a l state­

ment at the council is certainly an equivocal one, for i t refers

to errors that Nestorius and Theodoret never espoused.

The Question of Motivation

In the foregoing study, we have analyzed a l l of the factors in

Theodoret's career that might imply some basic change or develop­

ment in his thought, and we have arrived at the conclusion that there

was no s ignificant change affecting the main lines of his theology

203

from his early to his la te r career. I f one points to certain

terminological modifications, these only amount to a refinement

in his expression. Seen against the background of his whole career,

the treatise Eranistes seu Pol.ymorphus is a mature work typical of

the theological position he always espoused.

How then does one explain Theodoret's tendency to compromise

with his opponents at certain times? What was the underlying

motivation that led him to act in this manner? The total weight

of the evidence examined.leads us to the following conclusions about

his motivation.

I t should have become abundantly clear in the foregoing analysis

of Theodoret's career that he was often motivated by p o lit ic a l concerns.

Many of his conciliatory gestures can only have been determined by,

his concern for survival in his position. At various times he found

himself in vulnerable circumstances which made i t necessary for him

to come to terms with more powerful forces.

To say that he acted according to po lit ica l motives raises

the question of whether or not he might be labelled an opportunist.

In order to explain his s h i f t from concrete to abstract expressions

for Christ's human nature, Richard suggests an element of opportunism,

that is , of p o lit ica l calculation designed to avoid offending Cyril 's

forces (in the mid-430's). 3ut this only accounts for his motivation

at the beginning of his terminological s h i f t . I t does not explain

the consistent absence of concrete terms in his la te r works. This

204

absence can only be explained by a clear rea liza tion on Theodoret's

part of the ambiguity or inadequacy of his previous theological

expressions.SO Of course, such an observation about an opportunistic

element in a terminological variation does not mean that.the same

motivation is necessarily involved in the other compromises of his

career.

Other scholars who have been greatly impressed by the "saint­

liness" of our bishop's character and his devotion to Christian

principle by th e ir a ttitude have tended to rule out any element

of opportunism. Perry's ed ito ria l comment on the Robber Council's

condemnation of Theodoret is representative of this viewpoint:

"Thus we see condemned . . . a man of the purest and most innocent

l i f e , as well as possessed of the grandest virtues that can adorn

humanity, a Bishop whose saintly memory, alone of a l l the Chiefs

tr ied is stainless. . . ."61 E. Venables expressed a similar

sentiment, though qualified by his recognition of certain flaws

in his subject: "there is on the whole no name in ecclesiastical

history which more commands at once our admiration, our respect,

and our affection , than that of 'the Blessed Theodoret.'"62 Even

the critical-minded Harnack could re fer to Theodoret as "the man

who in my opinion was the most truth-loving and the least guided

by consideration of policy of the Fathers of that period" and as

"the brave and indefatigable Theodoret.

In view of these acclamations, i t is necessary to point out

that Theodoret f e l t a need to defend himself more than once against

205

the charge of opportunism. Obviously, his willingness to compromise

was attacked by friends and foes a lik e . Therefore, we find him

claiming at various times that he was not taking a pacific course

of action because i t would bring him success. In the le t te r to

Nestorius, he insists that he did not accept the theological compro­

mise from Egypt because "I covet any see" but because he found i t

acceptable.64 Defending himself to the Consul Nomos (c. April 443),

he cites his unblemished record of selfless service to the church,

indicating that he never accepted g ifts but gave ecclesiastical

revenues for public works projects.65 His le t te r to Pope Leo of

the following year contains a s im ilar self-defense based upon his

maintenance o f poverty since the death of his parents when he gave

away his inheritance.66 Along with his admission that some theo­

logians have made too sharp a distinction in Christ and his denial

that he has taught "two Sons" (in a le t te r of 448), he feels the

need to defend his statement: "And les t anyone should suppose

that I am speaking as I do through fear, l e t any one who likes

get hold of my ancient writings written before the Council of

Ephesus, and those written a f te r i t twelve years ago."67 To

the c r i t ic a l Irenaeus who questioned his concessions he wrote:

I call my conscience to witness that I am not acting as I do through care of material things, nor because I cling to the honour with a ll i ts cares, which I shrink from calling an unhappy one. I should long ago have withdrawn of my own accord, did I not fear the judgment ofGod.68

206

When he requested that a new council be held, he said to Anatolius

the patrician:

I make this request to your excellency, not because I long to see Cyrus again, for your lordship knows what a so litary town i t is , and how I have somehow or other managed to conceal i ts ugliness by my great expenditure on a l l kinds of buildings but to the end that whatI preach may be shown to be in agree­ment with apostolic doctrines. . . .69

Again, the same defense occurs l ik e a l e i t motif at Chalcedon:

"F irs t, I w il l persuade you that I do not care about (my) c i ty ,

nor do I have need of honor, nor did I come here on account of

th is , but since I was fa lse ly accused, I came to affirm that I

am orthodox. . . ."70

Is one to take these disclaimers of self-seeking seriously or.

do these protestations of innocence mask a covert opportunism? In

coming to a re a l is t ic estimation of our author's ruling motivation,

we must admit that he re a l is t ic a l ly compromised at the points in his

career which we have indicated. He must also admit that he had

something to gain by the compromises. However, what he had to

gain did not amount to personal wealth or a position of power.

His goals were rather the establishment of what he believed to be

theological tru th and the condition of peace in the Church. These

are his over-riding concerns expressed in several le tters and at

Chalcedon.

To Irenaeus: My object is not to make mywords and deeds f i t the pleasure of this man or that man, but to edify the church of God, and please her bridegroom and Lo rd .71

207

To Leo: I care not for honour and glory.I care only for the scandal that has been caused, in that many of the simpler fo lk , and especially those who I have rescued from various heresies, cleaving to the authority o f my judges and quite unable to understand the exact truth of doctrine,, w ill perhaps suppose me gu ilty of heresy.72

To Anatolius: I make this request to theend that what I preach may be shown to be in agreement with apostolic doctrines. . . .73

The fina l testimony at Chalcedon: I cameto confirm that I am orthodox.74

Therefore, we should accept as valid the commonly reiterated

defense of his motivations. His actions were not determined by

self-serving motives. His goal of survival as an orthodox teacher,

as an Antiochene theologian acceptable in the eyes of the Church, was

required by his goal of establishing an orthodox theology for the

Church. He does not qualify as an opportunist by any stretch of

the imagination, for he only became conciliatory when he could

s t i l l agree in some measure with the opposition and yet maintain

his own principles. This contention may be further supported by

(1) the fac t that he continued to champion his brand of Christology

in the Eranistes and in his other works in such a way as to arouse

opposition and (2) the fact that he was f in a l ly w il l ing to suffer

for his convictions.75 He could have capitulated by remaining

s i le n t , as did many of his a l l ie s . Surely this is no ecclesiastical

Machiavelli! As a matter of fact, Theodoret had too many scruples

to be b r i l l i a n t ly successful as a po lit ic ian .

He appears to us as a genuinely irenic person, as one to whom

compromise comes naturally because of his sincere concern for peace.

208

His approach to controversy was eminently reasonable: he knew how

to separate the essential from the non-essential. He was not so

foolish as to remain recalc itrant upon an issue unless something

v ita l was a t stake.76

209

1Ep. 82, Azema, T. I I , pp. 198-205; Jackson, pp. 277-278.

2Ep. 116, "To tha Presbyter Renatus," Azema, T. I l l , pp. 68- 73; Jackson, pp. 295-296.

3Ep 113, "To Leo, Bishop of Rome," Azema, T. I l l , pp. 56-67; Jackson, pp. 293-295.

^Ep. 83, "To Dioscorus," Azema, T. I I , pp. 204-217 (early sunnier, 448); Ep. 109, "To Eusebius, Bishop of Ar.cyra:" A : : T.I l l , pp. 34-39; Jackson, p. 289 (Nov. 448); Ep. , ,o.of Constantinople," No. 146 in Azema, T. I I , pp. 172-200; Jackson, pp. 312-313 (Jan.-July, 451).

5$ee Appendix B. Richard, "Notes sur 1 'evolution doctrinale de Theodoret," p. 459.

6 Ib id . , pp. 476-477.

7Cp. Reprehensio in ACO, T. I , Vol. I , pars sexta, pp. 167-169 and Expositio rectae f ide i in J. C. T. Otto, Corpus apologetarun saeculi secundi, Vol. IV, Instin i philosophi et martyris opera, T. I l l , Pars. I , Opera Iustin i subditica, ed. te r t io ( Ie n a e T 1880) pp. 34-36 with Eranistes and Haereticarum fabularum compendium, PG, LXXXIII, cols. 27-556.

^Richard, pp. 475-477. He regards i t as an improvement since i t avoids the implication of a dual subject in Christ.

Stfontalverne, Theodoreti cyrensis doctrina antiqu ior, pp.80-83.

IOr. v. Sellers, "Pseudo-Justin's Exoositlo rectae f i d e i : aHork of Theodoret of Cyrus," JTS, XLVI (1945) 157-159.. See the previous discussion of Theodoret's early career.

H ed . 172, PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1485-1485A; Jackson, pp. 344-345.

12ed. 171, "To John, Bishop of Antioch a f te r the Reconciliation," PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1483-1485; Jackson, p. 344. Ep. 173, "To Andreas, Monk of Constantinople," PG_, LXXXIII, col. 1487; Jackson, p. 345.Ep. 174, "To Himerius, Bishop of Nicomedia," PG_, LXXXIII, col. 1487-1488; Jackson, p. 345.

^ Ep . 112, Azema, T. I l l , pp. 48-51; Jackson, pp. 291-292.

14£p. 147, PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1409-1412; Jackson, pp. 323-324.

"^Ep. 83, Azema, T. I I , pp. 204-219; Jackson, p. 280. This interchange took place before John's death in 441 A.D.

210

1°The notorious Ep. 180 to Domnus (PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1489-1492) on the occasion of C yril 's death is devastatingly c r i t ic a l of the patriarch, but i t is uncertain that he penned this le t te r . Scholars have questioned its authenticity (fo r example, Bardy, "Theodoret,"PTC, Vol. XV, cols. 316-317). The bizarre humor of the le t te r is found nowhere else among Theodoret's writings. In our opinion, i t is uncharacteristic of this serious-minded person.

^"Notes sur 1 'evolution doctrinale," pp. 474-475.

1Sep 172, PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1485-1436A; Jackson, pp. 344-345.

19Ep. 175, PG, LXXXIII, col. 1488; Jackson, pp. 345-346.

20ep. 177, PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1439-1490; Jackson, p. 346.

21Ep. 83; Azema, T. I I , 204-219; Jackson 278-280.

22|_ouis S a lte t , "Les sources de Eranistes de Theodoret," RHE,VI (1905) 290-291, 513, 516, 522-523, 527, 535, 744-745. The fuT] argument w ill be presented in the following section on the Eranistes.

23Eranistes, D ia l. I I , PG, LXXXIII, cols. 212B-213B, 213C- 217D; Dial. I l l , cols. 309B-312A.

24 ib id ., D ial. I , PG, LXXXIII, col. 80C.

25Ep. 16, Azema, T. I I , pp. 58-61; Jackson, p. 256.

26pg, LXXXIII, cols. 1433-1441. Ep. 151 addressed to the monks of the East was written in 431: the tra c t in question is dated in 443 or before the Latrocinium of 449. Marcel Richard, "Un e c r i t de Theodoret sur 1 'unite du Christ apres 1 'incarnation," RevSR, XIV (1934) 40-41, 51-52.

27Richard, ib id . , pp. 46-43. These works f a l l in the period of la te 447-450.

23AC0, T. I , Vol. I , pars sexta, 167-169, p. 114 (second counter-anathema). For a defin ition of these terms, see Appendix D.

2% ichard, "Hypostase," p. 262.

30Ib id . , p. 263.

31PG, LXXXIII, col. 252C.

32Richard, "Hypostase," pp. 263-264. Grillmaier parrots Richard's argument: "Hier is t praktisch 7rp'o'ru'frov und uno'trr-uresgleichgesetzt: "Theologische und sprachliche Vorbereitung,"CGG, I , pp. 184-185.

211

33/\C0_, T. I , Vol. I , pars sexta, pp. 114, 117. Richard, pp. 253-254.

34For a fu l le r discussion of terminology see Appendix D.

35aco_, T. i i } Vol. I , 1, pp. 114, 9. Richard, "Hypostase," p. 254.

36Richard, "La le t t r e de Theodoret a Jean d'Egees," RSPT,I I (1941-42) 415-416. -------

37Ib id . , p. 417.

3Slb id . , p. 422.

39Ib id . , pp. 419-420 and "Hypostase," p. 269: la fortuneanterieure du mot L/rroay^cres dans la theologie t r in i ta i r e explique dans une large mesure la fac ile adoption de 1 'a r t ic le &h 'i\/ kA M u t/ mo7Ts<?(i/ par les Peres de Chalcedoine."

^Charles Moeller, "Un representant de la Christo!ogie fieo- chalcedonienne au debut du sixieme siecle en Orient: Nephaliusd ‘Alexandria," RHE, XL (1944-45) 115-117; Marcel Richard, "Le Neo-chalcedonisme," MS!}, I I I (1946) 156-161.

41Aloys Grillm eier, "Das scandalum oacumenicum des Hestorius' in kirchlichdogmatischer und theologiegeschichtlicher Sicht," Scholastik, LXVI (1961) 335-337, 345, 354-355; Canivet, Theraoeutigue, Vol. I , Bk. I I , pp. 59-64, 155-156. See Theodoret's "Cappadocian" formula in Eranistes, PG, LXXXIII, col. 36A.

42PG, LXXXIII, col. 145A.

43seeberg, Dogmenqeschichte, pp. 245-246.

44PG, LXXXIII, col. 237A. The point that two natures in Paul (man) and in Christ do not .imply a division of persons is common in Theodoret. See for example Ep. 145, no. 145 in Azema, T. I l l , pp. 180-131; Jackson, p. 313.

45Jackson, p. 280.

46Azema, T. I I , p. 214; PG, LXXXIII, col. 1272B-C.

47Diepen ( Les Trois Chaoitres, p. 82) goes so far as to claim that Theodoret in e ffec t rejected his own Counter-Anathemas, even though they are not mentioned or contradicted. As we have shown, Theodoret never accepted the Anathemas in his willingness to compromise with Cyril.

212

4Sibid_., pp. 30, 82-33.

49Ib id . , p. 34. The text quoted from Leo does not speak of God suffering! I t is the persona of both God and man in Christ which suffers. This is much nearer to Antioch than to Cyril.Persona is not hypostasis or physis! Diepen's remark about Richard's a r t ic le is puzzling indeed: "Mahleureusement aucun ouvrage auxrenseignements precis n 'est venu jusqu' a nous, qui so it postdrieur au concile de Chalcedoine. Voir M. Richard, "La le t t re de Theodoret a Jean d'£gees, RSPT, I I (1941-1942)."

SOlb id . , p. 34.

51 See Appendix B. Harnack made a s im ilar observation long ago when Catholicism was more monolithic: "The question of Theodoret‘sorthodoxy is certainly a very troublesome one for a Catholic."History of Dogma, Vol. IV, p. 198. The statement s t i l l holds true for conservative Catholic scholarship but not for more recent libera l Catholic scholarship.

52oiepen, p. 77.

53m. Richard, "Un e c r i t de Theodoret sur 1 'unite du Christ apr5s 1 'incarnation," RevSr, XIV (1934) 43-44.

54Ep. 16, Azema, T. I I , p. 58; Jackson, pp. 255-255.

55see detailed discussion above.

56ed . 145 in PG_, no. 145 in Azema, T. I l l , pp. 172-200;Jackson^ pp. 312-316; Ep. 146 in PG_, no. 147 in Azema, T. I l l , pp. 200|233; Jackson, pp. 316-323.

»5»'Eps. 133, 139, 140 in £G, nos. 139, 140, 141 in Azema,

T. I l l , pp. 142-151; Jackson, pp. 307-309.

53Ep. 113, Azema, T. I l l , pp. 64-67; Jackson, p. 294. I t is in this le t te r that he provides some information about his wars with the heretics in his diocese which he appears to have taken very seriously.

59Ep. 138 in P£, no. 139 in Azema, T. I l l , pp. 145-147;Jackson, pp. 307-308.

SORichard, "Motes sur 1 ‘evolution doctrinale," pp. 472-475.This w rite r believes that the decisive factor in bringing Theodoret to this realization was C yril 's theology. Diepen (Les Trois Chapifres, p. 44) implies a similar view of his in i t ia l motivation: "Etait-ceclairvoyance de 1 ‘homme qu'on d i t si in te ll ig e n t mais qui ne semble redouter aucune contradiction, ou prudence du f in diplomats?"

*^S. G. F. Perry, The Second Synod of Ephesus, p. 253. A more ' sober yet f la t te r in g estimation of his virtues is found in Duchesne,

Early History of the Christian Church, pp. 273-274.

6 2 "T h e o d o re tu s DCB, p. 905.

63,Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol. IV, pp. 197-193.

G4ep. 172, PG, LXXXIII, col. 1485-14SSA; Jackson, pp. 344-345.

65Ep. S I, Azema, T. I I , pp. 192-199; Jackson, pp. 275-277.

66eo. 113, Azema, T. I l l , pp. 55-67; Jackson, p. 294.

67Ep. 32, Azdrna, T. I I , pp. 193-205; Jackson, p. 273.

SSEp. 16, Azema, T. I I , pp. 56-63; Jackson, p. 256.

69Ep. 138, no. 139 in Azdma, T. I l l , pp. 146-147; Jackson, p. 307.

70AC0, T. I I , Vol. I , pars 3, pp. 9-10.

71Ep. 16.

72eP. 113.

7 3 e d . 138, no. 139 in Azema, T. I l l , pp. 142-147; Jackson, p. 307.

74AC0, T. I I , Vol. I , pars 3, pp. 9-10.

75see Eps. 21, 119, 131.

76Azema, T. I , p. 59.

CHAPTER I I I

A GENERAL ANALYSIS OF THE WORK ERANISTES

The Structure of the Work

The work Eranistes seu Polymorphus is a doctrinal treatise

cast in the form of a dialogue. I t consists of three basic sections,

each expounding a d iffe ren t theme: (1) the immutability o f the •

divine nature of Christ, (2) the unconfused union of Godhead and

manhood in Christ, and (3) the impassibility of the d iv in ity of

C h r is t .■ To the end of each section is appended a collection of

quotes from the Church Fathers which substantiates the theme of

each section. At the end of the entire work is a summary of the

major theses presented in the sections of the dialogue which is

entitled Demonstrationes per syllogismosJ

In a short prologue, the author states his intention to

establish his basic Christological tenets and at the same time to

argue against those of the opposition. After stating the major

doctrines which he wishes to prove and those of his enemy which

he wishes to disprove, he introduces the two disputants of the

dialogue--"Orthodoxusil who stands for the apostolic doctrines

(those of Theodoret) and "Eranistes" the "beggar" or "collector"

who has gathered together ideas from many heresies in order to

214

215

produce a motley collection of theological errors. Due to the

"multi-formed," "multi-colored" nature of Eranistes1 theological

position, the work is called Eranistes seu Polymorphus.2

As might be expected, Orthodoxus dominates the argumentation

of the dialogues. In the f i r s t two he in it ia te s the discussion

by choosing the topic and questioning his discussion partner. The

third dialogue begins with Orthodoxus stating the subject for dis­

cussion (the passion of Christ) but with Eranistes taking the

in i t ia t iv e in posing the questions. However, this more aggressive

ploy on Eranistes1 part only gives Orthodoxus the opportunity to

present his views fu l ly . The entire ty of the work follows the

procedure of mutual questioning and answering in which Orthodoxus

always has the upper hand.

Generally the discussion begins with a commonly accepted

theological doctrine, but as the meaning of the doctrine is

analyzed more spec if ica lly , a disagreement inevitably results.

The rest of the dialogue consists of attempts on the part of

Orthodoxus to convince his opponent of the truth o f his theological

position. The method of Theodoret's mouthpiece is to make state­

ments to which Eranistes must agree and then to force him to accept

the logical conclusion of the statements. Such a d ia lectic in e v it ­

ably results in the acceptance of Orthodoxus' theological contention.

During the course of the argument, the occasion often arises for

Orthodoxus to instruct his adversary on various points of doctrine

216

or Scriptural interpretation. The primary authority of Scripture

is apparent not only in the constant appeal to specific passages

at specific junctures in the discussion but also in the basis

and form of the entire argument. Each dialogue ends with

Eranistes1 acceptance of his opponent's main contention, i . e . ,

the central theme of the particular dialogue. F inally , an appeal

is made to Patr is tic authority represented by a collection of

quotes concerning the theme in question taken from some of the

most prestigious Church Fathers.

The construction of the dialogues.gives strong evidence of

a keen dialectical s k i l l on the part of the author. Concepts are

carefully analyzed, and arguments proceed very log ically step by

step to the natural conclusion. These tra its are characteristic

of a cl ear-thinking ra t ion a lis t who refuses to take refuge in

theological mysteries. Indeed, i t is this ra t ion a lis t ic t r a i t

that associates him intimately with the Antiochene School of

theology.

Now to b r ie f ly summarize the content of the three dialogues

or sections of Eranistes. Dialogue I begins with a definition of

classical t r in i ta r ia n language and an affirmation of the immutability

of the three hypostases of the T r in ity . At this point, the central

problem is posed by the text of John 1:14, "the Word became flesh."

The remaining discussion is an interpretation of this passage. The

issue is: how can the assertion that the divine Logos became flesh

217

be reconciled with the immutability of God; that is , how can the

Word be said to become i f He cannot change? A f te r a consideration

of various types of physical unions, the "became" of John 1:14

is explained by Orthodoxus in terms of "taking" human nature

(Hebrews 2:16). Since Eranistes thinks that such a manner of

speaking entails "two Sons," Orthodoxus leads him to consider

the attributes of d iv in ity (especially " in v is ib i l i ty " ) and humanity.

After a consideration of doctrinal implications for the Eucharist,

Orthodoxus appeals to certain Old Testament prophecies which are

said to distinguish between divine and human natures. At length,

the discussion returns to the central cor.sideration--the in te r ­

pretation of John 1:14. I t is f in a l ly agreed that the Word became

flesh by taking flesh according to the sense of the phrase "and

dwelled among us" (John 1:14) and the text of Philippians 2:5-8.

Dialogue I I begins with the mutual acceptance of the idea

that God the Word "assumed" or "took" flesh. Orthodoxus leads

the discussion further by analyzing the meaning of "flesh." He

is anxious to establish that the term implies the entire human

nature of Christ, including both body and soul. When Eranistes

insists upon naming Christ a f te r his nobler (divine) characteristics,

Orthodoxus examines the significance of the term "Mediator" as

applied to Christ. In this connection, Moses and Melchizedek

are used as types or images for Christ's dual nature as Mediator.

Faced with this evidence, Eranistes modifies his in i t i a l contention

to say that the term "man" for Christ is allowable in the "economy

but not a fte r the resurrection. He argues further that there were

two natures before the union but only one nature in Christ a fte r

the union. Orthodoxus replies with an assertion of his two nature

doctrine and a c la r if ic a t io n of which properties may be r igh tly

attributed to each nature in order to avoid confusing them. In

reply, Eranistes reiterates his idea that two natures imply two

Sons. At this juncture, Orthodoxus asks his opponent how with

such a view he is able to avoid the Arian-Eunomian fa ls if ic a t io n

of the doctrine of God, i . e . attr ibuting human weaknesses to the

divine nature in Christ. With this problem before him, Eranistes

is forced to a ttr ibute some aspects of Christ's l i f e to the

"economy" and others to the "theology." Orthodoxus pursues the

issue further by asking what his opponent envisages by his idea

of "one nature" in Christ. When Eranistes likens the union to

the d iv in ity swallowing up the humanity, Orthodoxus points to the

difference between a union of God and creation and a union of

created (physical) things. Some types of creaturely unions are

acknowledged that do not confuse the respective natures involved.

Thereupon, Eranistes claims that according to his own view

of the union, no nature is destroyed, rather, the human element

is changed into d iv in ity . When Orthodoxus points to things in

the l i f e of Christ such as circumcision which cannot be applied

to God, Eranistes again locates the change of the humanity into

219

d iv in ity a f te r the resurrection. Then there follows a long dis­

cussion as to the nature of Christ's resurrection body, Orthodoxus

maintaining that i t remains a body. The implications are drawn

out for the doctrine of the Eucharist with respect to the nature

of the consecrated elements. According to Orthodoxus, they too

remain in the ir original nature and do not change into d iv in ity .

The conclusion of this dialogue is summarized at the beginning

of Dialogue I I I : the union of God and man in Christ was unconfused

or unmixed, each nature remaining in tact.

After the b r ie f summary of the foregoing discussion, Dialogue

I I I launches into the question of whether or not both divine and

human natures in Christ suffered the passion or only the human nature.

Eranistes claims unequivocally that God underwent the passion.

Orthodoxus counters this view with the contention that no immortal

nature can die--even that of a condemned soul. Since this is so,

certainly the uncreated immortal nature (God) cannot experience

death. To th is , Eranistes replies that God, being all-powerful,

can choose voluntarily to suffer and die even though such experiences

do not naturally b e f i t his nature. Orthodoxus points to the weak­

nesses of this position, saying that God w il ls only what He is able

to do. His nature makes certain things impossible for Him, but

this l im ita tion is actually a sign of in f in i te power. Pointing to

the perfect human nature in Christ, Orthodoxus declares that this

nature underwent the passion while the divine nature remained

incapable of suffering. Next, he moves to predicating certain

tra its to the human nature and others to the divine, yet referring

a ll things to the one prosopon of Christ. Eranistes protests that

this amounts to dividing Christ. Thereupon, Orthodoxus makes an

appeal to various scriptural passages in order to buttress his

view of the two pe rfec t natures. Eranistes, who remains uncon­

vinced, appeals to several scriptural passages which he believes

indicate that the whole Christ suffered. Faced with the charge

that he allows Christ's soul immortality but denies i t to his Godhead,

he replies with the paradoxical statement that "He underwent the

passion impassibly." After declaring such an idea to be a "ridiculous

r iddle ," Orthodoxus c la r if ie s the difference between the immortality

of Creator and immortality of the created and indicates that the

soul shares suffering with the body but that the divine cannot do

so. Other examples are used to convince Eranistes that one must

distinguish between the attributes of each nature. In a final

e ffo rt to convince his intractable opponent, Orthodoxus explains

his idea of the union without confusion. The union allows the

"names" of God and man to be applied to the one person, but this

does not result in any confusion of nature. The name "Christ" is

given to the properties of both natures, but they are recognized as

belonging to the ir proper natures. This argument leads to the final

appeal to Patr is tic authority a fte r which Eranistes appears recon­

ciled or at least more positively inclined toward "orthodoxy."

221

Now that we have described the basic nature of the Eranistes,

i t is necessary to consider in detail the sources and historical

circumstances responsible for the plan and structure of the work.

For this part of our study we are indebted chiefly to the indispen­

sable and thorough study of the florilegium in Eranistes by Louis

Saltet. Although this study is primarily concerned with that part

of the work which Theodoret borrowed, i ts conclusions greatly

enrich our understanding of the entire work. We have already

util ize d some of the basic findings of Sa lte t 's study in the in te r ­

pretation of Theodoret's career. As we indicated there, this

information takes us to a much e a r l ie r stage (c. 431) than the

immediate occasion for which Theodoret wrote the work in 447 A.D.

Saltet has demonstrated that the Eranistes contains material

from d ifferent times and sources. The collection of patr is tic

texts in i ts four-part anthology comes from three main sources:

(1) “from the pa tr is t ic treatise (memoire) by which St. Leo completed

in 450 his dogmatic le t te r to Flavian, (2) the pa tr is t ic memoire

that the episcopate of Antioch desired to set against St. Cyril

at the end of the Council of Ephesus (September-October 431),

(3) some personal researches of Theodoret."3 Sa ltet's a rt ic le

is devoted to explaining how Eranistes—especial ly the florilegium

came into being and to reconstituting one o f its sources, the

"memoire patristique" of 431. The collection of texts from Pope

Leo is the last series of texts to have been added to the Eranistes.

222

This las t borrowing did not tj<e place until a f te r the Council of

Chalcedon, therefore, our pr . ent edition of Eranistes is a second

edition of a work o rig ina lly published about 447 A.D. Leo's

anthology accompanied his le t te r to Flavian sent after the

Latrocinium of Ephesus—sometime in 450 A.D.4

I t has been pointed out very carefully that many of the

Greek texts used by Theodoret are not cited in the Greek originals

but rather from Greek translations from Leo's Latin versions.

However, the Greek texts from the Scholia of Cyril of Alexandria

are cited according to the original Greek text rather than from

a translation of a translation, as in the case of texts from

Chrysostom and Gregory of Nazianzus. Cyril had sent certain v/orks

of his to Rome on at least two occasions, and since i t was his

custom to send his texts and a Latin translation of them, Leo

would have had access to the original which Theodoret borrowed

along with the translated Greek texts .5

Since Theodoret u til ized Leo's "dossier," the publication

date of the second edition of Eranistes must have been sometime

a fte r the second h a lf of 450 A.D. I t is most l ike ly that i t was

written a f te r the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., for the council

borrowed sixteen texts from the Eranistes1 florilegium but none

of the texts added to the second edition. Additional confirmation

comes from the fact that some of the texts are cited only in part

by the Chalcedonian dossier, while they are complete in Theodoret.5

According to Saltet, the addition of Leo's florilegium to his own

may be ascribed to Theodoret himself. Richard attributes the

223

addition to a la te r copyist, but Honigmann questions Richard's

categorical exclusion of Theodoret from any responsibility for

the addition, since he finds no motive for anyone else.?

Having considered the las t addition of material (from Pope

Leo's collection) to the florilegium of Eranistes and the date

of i ts final ed ition , the focus of our interest moves to the

main object of Saltet's study. The principal source of the

Eranistes is the "memoire doctrinale" which the Antiochene delega­

tion to Chalcedon used against Cyril 's Anathemas in the fa l l of

431 A.D. Although this document has been lost, Saltet has

reconstructed i t on the basis of two works that are dependent

upon i t : the florilegium at the end of Pope Gel asius' treatise

De duabus naturis in Christo and Theodoret's Eranistes.3

We hear about the florilegium of 431 A.D. in a le t te r sent

by the eight Antiochene "deputies" from Chalcedon to Archbishop

Rufus of Thessalonica.^ Saltet quotes the Latin translation of

the Greek Text (1478C-D):

Etenim quintum jam nos et ipsos affatus, i l l i s quidem mandavit, ut vel capita C y r i l l i tanquam cum fide pregnantia re j ic ia n t , vel certe suscepto in eorum defensiorum certamine, sanctorum Patrum confessioni consentanea esse pari am faciant. In promptu enim argumenta habemus, per quae ostensuri eramus, quod orthodoxae fidei doctoribus manifesto adversantur, plurimumque haereticorum doctrinae consentiunt.

The Greek text corresponding to the la s t sentence of this quote

(1944D) reads:

224

C ro 'fM tss y jp £ ^ o m £>/ yJM M S To(/S

c ffJ e&v l'7 rs '^ £ £ j^ ^ £ y &1/J u t /T t '/r fu s ^ /< rVTors T-ys a p & c /o fe s cfr</avAr<u/\c>rs . • •

This le t te r relays the crucia lly important information about

the situation that led to the composition of the florilegium and

the unique structure of this work. Both parties—-the Antiochenes

and C yril l ians—had been invited to present and defend the ir points

of view before the emperor and particu larly to demonstrate how

the ir teaching was in harmony with that of the Fathers of the

Church. In the expectation of confronting the opposition in

debate, one or more of the Antiochenes- collected a series of

texts from the Fathers in order to bolster th e ir theological

position and at the same time to disprove the doctrine of C y r i l ’s

Anathemas J 1

Furthermore, the le t te r to Rufus indicates that the

p a tr is t ic anthology was divided into three parts, each with its

own theme or dominant idea: "(1) the unio inconfusa of the two

natures; (2) the meaning of the verse £t Verbum caro factum e s t;

(3) the impassibility of the divine nature in Christ.

The nature of the Antiochene document of 431 A.D. becomes

clearer through a comparative study of the two works dependent

upon i t — the anthologies of GeIasi us and Theodoret. Upon exami­

nation of the anthology in Gelasius’ work, the same t r i - p a r t i t e

structure based upon identical themes is evident. This observation

225

leads to the probability that Gelasius has u t il ized the Antiochene

“dossier" (referred to by Saltet as A ) . ^ I t is certain also that

"Theodoret knew A . . . . Perhaps he even worked to compose i t .

In any case, i t is probable that he had u t il ized i t . " ^

This reasonable deduction based upon Theodoret's involvement

with the Antiochene defense at Chalcedon leads to the conclusion

of Saltet that, "The plan of T ( Eranistes) is connected with that

of A." This supposition is borne out in the following d i s c u s s i o n . ^

The four sections of the florilegium in Eranistes which

p a rt ia l ly correspond to the three themes of A are entitled as

follows: T1, Et Verbum caro factum es t; T2, Immutabilis; T3,

Inconfusus; T4, Im patib il is . T1 and T2 are both situated in the

f i r s t of the three dialogues. By comparing the three main works in

question—the dossier of 431, Gelasius1, and Theodoret's--we find

these paralle ls :

T1 corresponds to A2 and G2T3 corresponds to A1 and G1T4 corresponds to A3 and G3T2 has no equivalent in A or G.

Thus, both Gelasius' work and Eranistes are dependent upon A, the

Antiochene collection of 431.

By carefully comparing T (the florilegium of Eranistes) and G

(Gelasius' f lo r ileg ium ), Saltet is able to reconstitute p a r t ia l ly

the original.contents of A (the document of 431). In addition to

the basic agreement between the three due to the dependence of T

and G upon A, there are some discrepancies between them that

indicate some of the specific characteristics of each anthology.

226

The collection of Gelasius is found to be an abridgement or

an extract of A. This conclusion is reached on the basis of the

fact that "all of the texts of G are found in A and in the same

order."'*'7 In order to support this finding, Sa ltet has compared

T1 and G2 and found that with one exception a ll the texts of G2 are

found in T1 in the same order. ( I t w ill be remembered that these

texts correspond to A2.) On the basis of this observation, he

considers i t probable that a l l the texts o f G1 and G3 were in A1

and A3. That is , i f Gelasius added nothing new to A2, there is12a good chance that he did the same with the other parts of A.

Further evidence for his l ine of reasoning is the fact that

all the authors cited in G (with the exception of Eusebius of

Caesarea) are found in T. Of specific works cited, eighteen works

included in G are also in T. However, a problem arises for this

presumed consensus when six works represented by nine citations

are found in G but not in T. Three of these works representing

six citations are taken from Antiochus of Ptolemais. To explain

this omission, i t appears that Theodoret has purposefully shortened

the number of quotations to one, which is cut from four lines to one.

The remaining three quotations in this group of nine could have been

interpolated in the A collection by G, but Saltet considers i t more

l ik e ly that Theodoret has omitted three texts that were orig ina lly

in A. These quotations are from Eusebius whose orthodoxy Theodoret

would have had reason to question.^

I l l

Further, by way or a complete comparison, T possesses twenty-

six of the sixty-one texts of G—that is , Theodoret has l e f t out

of his dossier th ir ty - f iv e texts of G. The omission of nine texts

of Eusebius and Antiochus has been accounted for. An additional

seventeen omissions may be explained by Theodoret's method of work.

These are quotes from one work of Eustathius and two works of

Athanasius. Theodoret has used these works in his own way inde­

pendently of document A. There are, f in a l ly , nine other texts

found in G that Theodoret has omitted from Eranistes.20

A consideration of additional texts in G and T (see table

on p. 531 of Sa ltet 's a rt ic le ) brings out the fact that the

Eranistes contains more texts of some writers than G. These

additional texts in T come from three sources: (1) Theodoret's

f u l le r use of A than G had made of i t ; (2) works which he cited

according to two d ifferent types of teaching—according to A and

according to the original text or perhaps another source; (3)

three works to which he ascribes a special importance—one belonging

to Eustathius, two belonging to Athanasius. For these three works,

Theodoret has neglected to use A and has made his own choice of

texts. G has given us seventeen quotes from them while Theodoret

has given us t h i r t y . ^

In a l l , Eranistes provides us with six authors not found

in A: Apollinaris, Eusebius of Ernes a, Cyril of Alexandria, Irenaeus,

Methodius, Atticus. "The idea of citing the f i r s t three belongs

228

certainly to Theodoret. For the last two, one could have doubt

because they are cited only one time. Theodoret borrowed this

unique cita tion e ither from document A or from another pa tr is t ic

col lection.

Now that the nature of A has been p a r t ia l ly determined by

way of a comparison of the two anthologies derived from i t , i t

is necessary to draw some conclusions with regard to the Eranistes.

I t is the document of 431 which suggested to Theodoret the plan for

his work Eranistes. I t furnished him with the argument from tradition

in the form of proof-texts from the Fathers to which he conceived of

adding a theological exposition. The Antiochene collection also

furnished him with the idea of a work in three parts .23 Theodoret

used the part referred to as A2, which was devoted to the theme

Et Verbum caro factum e s t , as "une sorte de prologue patristique"

to begin the collection of quotes in the f i r s t dialogue. However,

the f i r s t part (or dialogue) as a whole was dedicated to the theme

of divine immutability with a series of texts (T2) to support i t .

This theme ( /)Tp£7fT0S ) constitutes Theodoret's unique contri­

bution to the plan and content of Eranistes; that is , he did not

borrow i t from the source of 431. According to S a lte t , this

addition gave a balance to the plan of Eranistes such as a l i te ra ry

man would desire. Thus, A2 became in Theodoret's work T1 (a

prologue to texts on the incarnation based on John 1:14); the

new addition by Theodoret, Immutabilis became T2; A1, Inconfusus

229

( /^ (T U f^ T O S ) became T3; and A3, Impatibi 1 is ( )

became T4, the las t formal section of the work (excluding of

course the Demonstrations by Syllogisms). 2^

This demonstration of Theodoret's indebtedness to the Antiochene

document of 431 A.D. for the structure of his own work bears important

implications for the Eranistes. F irs t, with respect to i ts lack of

o rig in a li ty : " I I cesser de constituer une oeuvre originale; i l devient

une adaptation d'une idde anterieure."2® The work exhibits a complete

theological development, in some sense foreshadowing the remedy

required by the Eutychian Controversy of c. 448. However, i t has

been formed in the in i t ia l stages by the controversies centered about

the Council of Ephesus of 431 A.D.2®

In spite of this insistence by Saltet that the Eranistes is

not the f r u i t of an original idea of Theodoret's, one must consider

the possib ility that the Antiochene document A could have been

orig ina lly his brain-child already in 431. Either one person in

the Antiochene delegation or the group working together was

responsible for the "dossier patristique." Sa ltet allows that

i t is possible that Theodoret resumed his own work of 431 when he

composed the Eranistes in 447, but he considers i t improbable that

Theodoret was responsible for this work in the f i r s t place because

i t appears that he corrected the original collection (A) when he

included i t in his Eranistes. He omitted the t i t l e of the bishop

of Arabia and a pseudepigraphic text of Chrysostom. But most

230

significant for Sa lte t , he reduced the seven quotes of Antiochus

of Ptolemais to only a single one .^

On the basis of this las t a lte ra tion , Saltet forms the

hypothesis that another member o f the Antiochene delegation,

Helladius of Ptolemais, was responsible for including the propor­

tionately large number o f citations from Antiochus. I t is

Helladius who would presumably have had the motive for including

these texts from a re la t ive ly obscure church leader: this would

have been a way of honoring his predecessor on the throne of

Ptolemais. Thus, since Helladius was presumably responsible for

the inclusion of these texts, Saltet suggests that he was thepo

author of the original Antiochene florilegium of 431 A.D.

In our judgment, Saltet has mustered insuffic ient evidence

to establish the hypothesis of Helladius' authorship. Even i f

Helladius were responsible for including the texts from his

predecessor, i t does not necessarily follow that he was the

author of the entire florilegium of 431. The alterations in

this collection which are apparent in Eranistes are rea lly not

substantial enough to rule out Theodoret as the author of the

original work. Might the omissions of the Antiochus citations

in Eranistes1 florilegium be explained by the fact that a man

may change his own work? Another possib ility should be posed

on the basis o f the available evidence: might a jo in t authorship

be a plausible hypothesis? This would appear very l ik e ly in the

231

case of an anthology. The Antiochene deputation to Chalcedon

seems to have been conceived as a team-effort. Theodoret himself

emerges as the spokesman for his own group and not as one speaking

his own individual point of view. However, as the most capable

and prestigious theologian of the group, i t is most l ik e ly that

he had the dominant influence upon the form of the florilegium.

A plausible conjecture is that Helladius prevailed upon Theodoret

or the whole group to include some of his favorite quotations.

Of course, Saltet is w il l ing to grant in passing that Theodoret

might have authored the document A and that the idea of Helladius'

authorship is only a hypothesis. However, on the basis of such a

tenuous hypothesis, he draws the unqualified conclusion that the

conception and plan of the work Eranistes are not original with

Theodoret.29

As we have previously stated, the evidence is too inconclusive

to exclude the possib ility that Theodoret was the moving s p i r i t

behind the document o f 431. In other words, in 447 A.D. he may have

edited his own work from an e a r l ie r period. This could mean that

by the time he wrote Eranistes, the idea and plan for the dialogue

were not new, but that they may have been original with him. Thus,

i t appears safer to leave the question of o r ig in a li ty open, since

we are uncertain about the authorship of the original dossier.30

Having traced the origin of Theodoret's main source of

p a tr is t ic quotations in the Eranistes to his delegation's planned

232

confrontation with the CyriIlians at Chalcedon in the fa l l of 431 A.D.,

Saltet indicates further the important role of C yril 's Anathemas in

determining the form of the Easterners' counter-arguments. The

Antiochene dossier of authorities was planned as a d irect refutation

of C yril 's arguments. The three parts of the florilegium v/ere drawn

up in opposition to C yril 's three main anathemas and to the three

collections o f texts in his Apologeticus pro X II capitibus contra

Orientales. Section A1 of the Antiochene document is a response to

the fourth anathema concerning the communicatio idiomatum, section

A2 is a response to the f i r s t anathema with respect to the birth

of Christ and the tex t Et Verbum caro factum e s t ; section A3 is a

response to the notorious twelfth anathema with respect to the

impassibility or pass ib il ity of the Word of God.^

The foregoing conclusions drawn from S a lte t 's study of the

sources o f Eranistes have an important bearing upon our interpre­

tation of this dialogue. They w il l contribute to the judgments we

make regarding several issues.

The Opponent

One o f these issues is the question of the iden tity of

Theodoret's opponent Eranistes and the particular theological

position he represents. I t is necessary to come to an under­

standing of this antagonist, for Theodoret's Christology m s

spec if ica lly conceived as a denial of his point of view. In order

to understand the fu l l meaning of Theodoret's theological emphases,

233

one must see clearly what he was trying to refute . A further

consideration dictates that this matter be explored—namely,

scholars have disagreed about the identity of Eranistes.

We have explained only b r ie f ly the meaning of the name

Eranistes and the significance of the work's t i t l e . Let us Took

more specifica lly a t the meaning which this characterization of> /

the enemy conveys. Liddell-Scott defines the term / « r r ^ s

as "a member or contributor to an " which was a meal,

feast, or “a permanent association apparently religious in character."32

The basic sense o f the verb z p e L t /c jM is "to co llect by way of

contribution" (Liddell-Scott) or "to collect for oneself" (Lampe)

and to gather, acquire, earn, beg, or borrow.33 These shades of

verbal meaning c la r ify the possible connotations of the nounj /

o’T ’ s . Lampe defines the term as i t is used in the

context of Theodoret's prologue simply as "co llec to r."34 The image

that Theodoret wishes to convey is that of a person who collects

doctrines from this and that heresy and assembles them into a

heterogeneous—indeed inconsistent—theological position. However,

his understanding of Eranistes is somewhat more disparaging than

the word "collector" would imply. I t seems to bear the sense of

"beggar" according to one passage in which the meaning of the name

is explained: "we are accustomed to name 7T(?0<f1 /

("beggar") the one who is fed by many in p ity , and

("business man" or "money-getter") the one who is able to collect

m o n e y . "35 Thus, Eranistes is so named both according to his beggarly

234

willingness to take scraps and left-overs and according to his

practice of collecting this material from many d ifferent contri­

butors.

In explaining the dual name of the work Eranistes seu

Polymorphus, Theodoret says: "The basic principle was very simply

like the garments joined together from d iffe ren t patches by

b e g g a r s . " 3 6 The resultant heresy from this random collection of

Eranistes may be likened to a patchwork exhibiting many forms

( polymorphus) and many c o l o r s . 37 in an e a r l ie r le t te r (Ep. 151)

from 431-432 A.D., Theodoret characterized the heresy he faced

in the same way. I t was a 7F~<?A vvJfzJ 'y • • • *

("a manifold blasphemy"), and the 77'aAA'r? 77 ' o t / r ( • • •

vy ("the manifold and varied or many-colored e r r o r " ) . 33

This image of the heretic as an unoriginal eclectic borrower from

many unworthy sources is not new to Theodoret. Hippolytus used

sim ilar language in his Refutation of All Heresies to express

the same idea. Speaking of the Sethi an Gnostics, he says:

purloining the ir theories from the wise men among the Greeks, they have patched together th e ir own system out of shreds of opinion taken from Musaeus, Linus, and Orpheus. . . . For from philosophers the heresiarchs deriving starting points, (and) l ik e cobblers patching together, according to th e ir own particular in terpretation , the blunders of the ancients, have advanced them as novelties to those that are capable of being deceived. . . .39

Theodoret's trad itional description o f heresy may have exercised

an influence upon la te r w riters. A description of the Monophysite

235

theology of Severus of Antioch from the works of one Eustathius

characterizes i t with the terms 7r o A a o q /t*

and 7ro / \u M o p < p o s .40

We may determine more precisely the theological content of

Eranistes1 heresy by examining Theodoret's account of the sources

which in his opinion contributed to this theological enterprise.

Firs t of a l l , from the Gnostics Simon and Cerdo and from Marcion

and others l ik e them came Eranistes1 idea that the Lord Christ is

God alone. Secondly, the idea that the birth of Christ was a

T r o i f o J fK * ? (a "channeling" or "passage") and that the divine

Word took nothing from the Virgin was stolen from Valentinus and

Bardesanes. Thirdly, the concept of one nature of Christ consti­

tuted of d iv in ity and humanity was taken from Apollinaris1 heresy.

Fourthly, Arius and Eunomius supplied the idea of connecting the

passion with the d iv in ity of C hris t .41

Theodoret's characterization of this heresy raises the

question of whether or not Eranistes is a pseudonym for a specific

historical person. A few historical figures have been suggested

as possible models for the "heretic"—in the dialogue. I t is most

common to find scholars identifying Eranistes with Eutyches.

Such an identif ication would re f lec t the historical circumstances

in which Theodoret composed the Eranistes, for Eutyches was one

of the main leaders of Theodoret's opposition at this time. From

the vantage point of historical proximity, Eutyches would be a

236

logical choice. Only Dioscorus could be a rival candidate on this

basis. In l ig h t of our previous discussion of the Sitz im Leben

o f Eranistes in Theodoret's career, i t is understandable why he

would not have attacked Eutyches d irectly by name in this work,

assuming that he had envisaged him under the guise of Eranistes.

I t would have been p o l i t ic a l ly d a n g e r o u s . ^3 In addition to the

fact that Eutyches was an h is torica l opponent during the composition

o f Eranistes, the theology of Eranistes has certain a f f in i t ie s with

that of Eutyches. Like Eutyches, Eranistes insists upon one nature

in Christ. The desire of Eranistes to speak of Christ only according

to his "higher" (divine) nature also seems close to the viewpoint of

Eutyches. Eutyches1 teaching that Christ's body was not consub-

stantia l with the bodies o f other men but was the body of God

(not the body of a man but "human") implies some kind of absorption

of the humanity of Christ such as we read in Eranistes1 statement:

"I say that the d iv in ity remained but that the humanity was

swallowed up by i t . "44 All of this evidence points to the possib ility

that Eutyches is the real opponent of Theodoret's work. However, i t

is also possible that he had in mind Dioscorus, the other prominent

leader o f the opposition. Although la te r Monophysites distinguished

sharply between the theologies of Eutyches and Dioscorus regarding

Eutyches' as unacceptable and Dioscorus' as acceptable, there were

obviously some a f f in i t ie s between them. As proponents of C yril 's

conservative theology, both were fanatica lly committed to the

237

doctrine of one nature in Christ. Even i f Dioscorus would not

have compromised the humanity of Christ as Eutyches did, Theodoret

would have understood him as having done so. Thus, Dioscorus

could possibly f i t the image of Eranistes devised by Theodoret.

In addition to Eutyches and Dioscorus, one other person

has been suggested as the h is torica l model for Theodoret's

adversary in the dialogue. Mazzarino argues that Cyril of

Alexandria is the true opponent in the Eranistes. This scholar

points out r ightly that Theodoret displays an "an ti-C yril l ian

mentality" not only in his attack upon the anathemas early in

his career but also much la te r in his Eranistes; in fac t , the same

arguments in the Reprehensio are found in this work. The fact that

our author quotes Cyril as an authority in the second part of the

dialogue does not indicate an agreement with the Alexandrian: i t

may be understood as an attempt to convince C yril 's part isans.^

The specific points of s im ila r ity between the Reprehensio and the

Eranistes are indeed s tr ik ing , as Mazzarino points out. In the

former work, Theodoret had charged that Cyril denied the immuta­

b i l i t y of the divine Word. The same charge against the opponent

occurs in Eranistes. Likewise, the charge that Cyril denied the

assumption of a human soul in Christ together with the duality

of natures is also levelled at Eranistes. In both works, Theodoret

argues against attr ibuting suffering to the nature which cannot

suffer. Consistently Theodoret suspects his opponents--whether

238

Cyril or Eranistes--of ApoHinarianism. In summary, the same

argumentation, plan, and presuppositions of Eranistes are found

in the e a r l ie r polemic against Cyril of the Reprehensio^6

Mazzarino finds additional evidence to support his identif ica tion

of Eranistes with Cyril in the la t te r 's reply to Theodoret's

Reprehensio. The contention of Cyril that i t is i l leg it im ate to

in terpret the phrase "the word was made flesh" in the sense of

"took flesh" is also used by Theodoret's adversary in the dialogue.

At the same point early in the dialogue where John 1:14 is

discussed the adversary speaks of the Word of God undergoing a

change into flesh, however, since he does not want to affirm

the mutation of God in unqualified terms, in his perplexity he

takes refuge in the Scriptural phrase "he became flesh." In

Cyril 's e a r l ie r response to the counter-anathemas, he used a

phrase identical to Eranistes' expression concerning the change

of the divine Word and appealed to the Scripture in a sim ilar way

saying that the Word became flesh in an ineffable fashion.

Like C y ri l , the opponent of the dialogue readily accepts the

idea that the incarnation involved the assumption of both a

human body and a rational soul. Mazzarino continues his comparison

by pointing out that the adversary in Eranistes uses C yril 's pet

phrases M M q?t/<rcs and €/C (p v o 'f tM , but that

he does not intend to say that Christ is one nature. Likewise,

Cyril who emphasizes the divine nature in Christ by using these

phrases does not want to teach that there was one nature in

Christ or that the two natures were mixed.48 Furthermore, both

Cyril and Eranistes object to the Antiochene practice o f d is t in ­

guishing between the properties of the natures of Christ on the

grounds that i t divides Christ into two Sons.49 F ina lly , Mazzarino

indicates that Cyril and the opponent of the dialogue use the same

language in a ttr ibuting suffering to the divine Word "by means of

the flesh." Thus, in view of a l l of these s im ila r it ie s , he con­

cludes that i t is not improbable that Theodoret wrote his dialogue

in order to combat this ideal adversary who is actually C y r i l .5^

I t would be possible to add to Mazzarino's collection o f parallels

between C yril 's theology and that of Eranistes. Suffice i t to

mention only one that strengthens his final point concerning the

suffering of the divine nature: Eranistes uses the strik ing

C yril lian phrase "he suffered impassibly.

Of the three possible historical models for the heretic

Eranistes— Eutyches, Dioscorus, and C y r i l—which is the most l ik e ly

candidate? The a f f in i t ie s between his theology and that of any one

of these three men are substantial. Mazzarino has made this

especially clear with respect to C yril 's theology. However, i t

must be remembered that Theodoret had ceased to war with Cyril

a fte r the a f fa i r over Diodore and Theodore in 438, and most

importantly that Cyril had been dead several years when the

Eranistes was composed. I t is more l ik e ly that he had a contemporary

figure in mind, especially when an entire faction of theologians was

240

increasing i ts power and mounting attacks upon him. Such an enemy

would f i t the immediate circumstances which occasioned this work.

Nevertheless, i t is doubtful that Theodoret had one specific

historical individual in mind when he conceived his opponent

Eranistes. Some of the previously cited scholars who associated

this individual with "Eutychianism" have not precisely identified

him with the heresiarch in person. Several other scholars have

spoken of Theodoret's opponent as a "monophysite" or as a repre­

sentative of "monophysitism." Bardenhewer, who speaks in these

terms, characterizes as "at least inexact" the idea that Theodoretr o

wrote Eranistes against Eutyches and Dioscorus.

I t appears to us that these scholars who identify the opponent

of Eranistes with a general theological camp rather than with a

specific individual have the most tenable position. In our judgment,

i t is most l ik e ly that Theodoret had an entire heretical position

in mind rather than one historical person when he created the

beggarly heretic of the dialogue. Eranistes is a spokesman for

a general theological persuasion of a monophysite type. Thus,

Eranistes might be said to have a composite id en tity , as his name

implies: he stands for the conservative theology of Cyril 's

Twelve Anathemas and the very sim ilar theologies of Eutyches,

Dioscorus, and many others who shared the ir piety and b e l ie f .

In other words, Eranistes is an idealized type of the Christology

which Theodoret opposed throughout his c a r e e r . 5 ^ According to

241

Theodoret's most profound convictions, the Christological errors

he had fought in 431 were the same as those he f e l t called upon to

refute in 447-448. This accounts for the a f f in i t ie s between Cyril 's

and Eranistes' theologies and the great homogeneity of Theodoret's

arguments against them in both early and late parts of his career.

From his perspective, the same errors deserved the same answers.

Although the evidence already reviewed lends support to our

characterization of Eranistes and his theology, additional evidence

tends to confirm this interpretation. At this point, Sa ltet's

study is particularly relevant. The fact that Theodoret followed

the basic structure of the Antiochene florilegium of 431 v/hen he

wrote Eranistes sixteen years la te r is positive proof that this

time he saw a recurrence of the same heretical ideas espoused by

d ifferent people. The express purpose for the creation of the

florilegium to begin with was the refutation of the Twelve Anathemas

which remained for Theodoret the epitome of heretical Chris to!ogy

and the font for the errors circulating in the la te 440's.

Another observation supports our thesis of the composite

identity of Theodoret's adversary; namely, the errors of Theodoret's

enemies in both 431 and 447 are attributed to the same sources.

In la te 431 or early 432 Theodoret addressed his lengthy Ep. 151 to

the monks of Euphratesia, Osroene, Syria, Phoenicia, and C i l ic ia - -

a le t te r which was condemned at the Robber Council in 449. In this

sharp critic ism of the Twelve Anathemas, he likens the errors

contained in them to those o f Apollinaris , Arius, Eunomius,

Valentinus, Marcion and Mani. Later on in the le t te r , Bardesanes

is also mentioned. As we have previously noted with regard to

this le t te r , i ts author describes the heresy of the Twelve Anathemas

as a manifold and varied phenomenon just as he was to charge against

Eranistes'heresy. Furthermore, the Anathemas are attacked for ideas

approximating those which Theodoret rejects in the prologue of

E r a n i s t e s . T h e names of Apollinaris, Arius, and Eunomius also

occur in his Reprehensio against the Twelve Anathemas, specifica lly

in reply to the fourth anathema (Arius and Eunomius) and to the

eleventh (A p o l l in a r is ) .^ Turning to the prologue of Eranistes,

we find the names of heretical sources mentioned in the e a r l ie r

polemical works, along with a few additions: Marcion, Valentinus,

Apollinaris , Arius, Eunomius, Simon (added), Cerdo (added), and

Bardesanes.^ In other passages from Eranistes, the names of

Valentinus and Marcion occur again along with the name of Mani.

Likewise, the errors of Arius and Eunomius come up for discussion

several times.57 in l ig h t of these common attributions of his

opponents' theological errors to a heterogeneous group of heretics,

the nature of the figure called Eranistes as a composite of theo­

logical errors is underscored.

One fina l piece of evidence which supports our view that the

opponent of the dialogues is a representative of the Christological

heresies which Theodoret fought is found in the wording of the

prologue of this work. Here, Theodoret uses the plural "they"

243

again and again when referring to the heresy which he is opposing.58

Thus, we exclude the idea that a specific historical person was the

model for Eranistes. He is rather a representative for the same

erroneous Chris to!ogy espoused by a l l in what was la ter called the

"Monophysite" camp—the conservative side of C y ri l , Eutyches,

Dioscorus and the ir many partisans.

244

^The entire work including the Demonstrationes is found in PG, LXXXIII, 27A-336B.

2PG, LXXXIII, 28B-30D.

3Louis S a lte t , "Les sources de 1 'ERANISTES de Theodoret," RHE, VI (1905) 290.

4The le t te r was o r ig in a lly sent on June 13, 449 A.D. , but without the dossier of texts. Ib id . , pp. 290-291 , 298.

Slb id . , pp. 294-297. M. Richard, "Le Pape St. Leon et les Scholia de Incarnatione Unigeniti de Saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie," RechSR, XXXIX (1951-52): Mdlanges Jules Lebreton I , pp. 116-120.Richard demonstrates that one of the, three fragments from Cyril has been modified—intentionally , according to him.

^Saltet, p. 298. Only one fragment from this dossier is not found in Theodoret's collection—namely, a cita tion from Proclus.

^Richard, "Le Pape St. Leon le Grand," pp. 116-117 and "Les f lorileges diphysites du Ve et du VIe si eele," CGG, I , pp. 725-726. Richard indicates that Pope Leo was also the author of a second edition of the florilegium which appeared in 458. E. Honigmann, Patr is tic Studies, Studi e Tes ti, 173 (C itta del Vaticano: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1953) pp. 175-176. I f Theodoret ' lived possibly as la te as 466 A.D. as Honigmann theorizes, he would have had ample time to have added this material himself.

^Saltet, p. 513.

9lb id . , p. 514. This le t te r is included in the collection of Theodoret's le tte rs in Migne: Ep. 170, PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1476- 1482.

10lt may be that Ep. 167 (PG, LXXXIII, 1469B-1471C) in the collection of Theodoret's le tte rs refers to the same florilegium from 431 A.D. The wording in the Latin remains of this le t te r in 1470B corresponds to that of Ep. 170 cited above: "Kabeamus enim in promptu hereticorum capitulorum^argumenta." Here argumentum would be the Latin equivalent of z A z y f a z . Although Saltet has not u til ized this additional epistolary evidence for his argument, Ep. 167 may very well refer to the florilegium of 431 A.D. However, i t could possibly refer to the Counter-Anathemas written by Theodoret and Andreas. Jackson, p. 339.

^ S a l te t , pp. 515-516.

245

12Ib id . , p . 516 .

13lb id . , p. 522.

14lb id . a pp. 522-523.

T5lb id . , pp. 522-523.

16 Ib id . , pp. 524-525.

17 lb id ., pp. 528-529.

IS lb id . , pp. 528-529.

TSlb id . , pp. 528-530.

20lbi_d., pp. 530-532.

21 Ib id .. , p. 532.

22ib id . , pp. 534-535.

23"De la , chez Theodoret, I ' id e e d'un ouvrage qui reunit des textes patristiques et un expose doctrinal; c 'est la premiere origine de 1 ‘ £ p < *v s trrtfs . Au dossier de 431 Theodoret a emprunte ensuite I ' i dee d'un plan en tro is parties." Ib id . , p. 526.

24ibi_d., p. 526. "Whereas T2, T3, T4 present a free combination of A1 and~A3 with the personal researches of Theodoret, T1, appears to be exclusively an extract of A2 without mixture of the personal researches of Theodoret." (p. 533)

25i b id . , p. 527.

26ib id . , p. 535: "Cette dtude reduit beaucoup 1 'o r ig in a l i tydu dialogue de Theodoret. Ni I ' id e e , ni le plan de 1 ‘oeuvre n' appartienment entierement a 1 'auteur."

27ib id . , p. 535.

28ib id . , p. 536. "Ne s e r a i t - i l pas 1 'auteur du document patristique de 431? Ainsi s ‘expliquerait la l ib e rte avec laquelle Theodoret a u t i l is e et corrige 1 'oeuvre d'un autre."

29Ib id . , pp. 522-523, 527, 535.

30in this qualification of Sa ltet 's conclusion (the most tenuous part of his work), we are not claiming that Theodoret was in the f i r s t instance an original theologian. He was heir to an already formulated trad it io n , as we w il l indicate la te r . We are

246

only claiming that the plan and construction o f the florilegium of 431 A.D. may be due wholly or in part to his inspiration.

31 Ib id . , pp. 744-745. Five of the authors cited in A2 attempt to reconcile the John 1:14 passage with the verse Christus factus est pro nobis maledictio (p. 746).

32a Greek-Enqlish Lexicon, p. 680.

33ib id . , p. 680; Lampe, G. W. H ., ed. , A P a tr is tic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961f f .) p. 544.

34i_ampe, p. 544.

35pg, LXXXIII, 29B-C; Liddell-Scott, p. 2005.

36PG, LXXXIII, 29A.

37 770c/zc?iov• ■■ 7/0^1/44f if c fo v - • •("a multi-colored, multiform presumption"), P£, LXXXIII, 28B-C.

38£G, LXXXIII, 1424A.

39cieveland A. Coxe, ed. , Hippol.ytus, et a l . , Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V, ed. by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957) Bk. V, ch. 1. p. 47. See also ch. 26, p. 138 for • a statement of the same idea. The difference in this estimation of heresy is that Hippolytus attributes i t to pagan philosophy, while Theodoret, writing at a la te r time, attributes i t to previous heresies.

40PG, LXJ(XVI, 913B, 917D, cited by Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz,p. 58.

41 PG, LXXXIII, 28B-C-29A.

42Bardy, "Theodoret," PTC, col. 306; Devreesse, Essai sur_ Theodore de Mopsueste, p. 167; Jugie, "Eutyches et le Eutychianisme," PTC, cols. 1594-1595; Honigmann, Studia P a tr is t ic a , p. 176; Richard, "l)n e c r i t de Theodoret sur 1 'unite du Christ," p. 38 and "Hypostase," p. 263; Venables, "Theodoretus," DCB, p. 917. These scholars do not express this identif ication in uniform terms. While Devreesse speaks of Eranistes as "Eutyches in person," Jugie says that such an id en ti­f ication "has been supposed." Bardy and Venables indicate that he represents "Eutychianism"--a less precise h istorical iden tif ica tion . Richard speaks of Eutyches' propaganda as occasioning Theodoret's dialogue. Honigmann indicates that the work was written against both Eutyches and Dioscorus.

247

4^See our previous discussion of Theodoret's career and our interpretation of i t in connection with Eranistes.

44PG, LXXXIII, col. 137 A-B (one nature), cols. 109C-D,117D (naming according to higher nature), cols. 153C-D (quoted), 157A-C. See also the previously-quoted summary of errors in the prologue, cols. 28B-C, 29A.

^Constantino de Mazzarino, La dottrina di Teodoreto di Ciro s u l l1 unione ipostatica delle due nature in Cris to , pp. 133-134.

46Ib id . , p. 134.

4? Ib id . , p. 135. The passage from Eranistes referred to here (37A-B) offers a more strik ing parallel than Mazzarino indicates, for Eranistes, l ike C yri l , has recourse to mystery when he says "he became flesh not according to change but as he himself knows."

48lbid_. , p. 135. I t is d i f f i c u l t to grasp Mazzarino's distinction between the fact that Cyril used the phrases in question and the contention that he did not teach "one nature" in Christ, unless he is expressing the inconsistency between the language in C yril 's Twelve Anathemas and his la te r defense of them. Eranistes affirms quite clearly that Christ had "one nature a f te r the union" (col. 148C, also 137A-B and elsewhere). This would re f le c t the language of the Anathemas and s t i l l prove Mazzarino's basic contention that Eranistes1 heretic and Cyril are a like .

49lb id . , p. 137. See the long discussion about distinguishing the properties in cols. 141-148 with the stock objection in 145A.

50lb id . , pp. 138-139. See cols. 261C-D, 264A-C, 258B-C.

51P£, LXXXIII, col. 268A; Se llers , Two Ancient Christologies,p. 88.

52Bardenhewer, GAL, Bd. IV, pp. 229-230; Bonwetsch, "Theodoret," p. 611; Canivet, "Theodoretos," LTK, col. 34; Sa lte t , "Les sources de 1 ' Eranistes," p. 303.

53jhis interpretation of Eranistes' heretic implies of course that his theology may not completely f i t that of Cyril or his successor Dioscorus. I t could be drawn p a r t ia l ly from them and p a r t ia l ly from his cruder disciples. I t is hard to imagine the subtle Cyril saying that the d iv in ity of Christ swallowed up his humanity, as Eranistes boldly states (col. 153C-D).

248

54PG, LXXXIII, cols. 1417A-D, 1424A-C; Jackson, pp. 325-327.

S^ACO, T. I , Vol. 1, pars sexta, pp. 120-122, 142-143.

5SPG, LXXXIII, cols. 28-29; The heretical idea that the b irth of Christ was l ik e a TTei-poff*'*? is paralleled in Ep. 151, col. 1424B where i t is spoken of as a crojA-nv' (a channel or pipe).

5?PG, LXXXIII, cols. 57D-60A, 117B (also a reference to "Manichaeanism" in 153C-D); for a reference to Arius and Eunomius, cols. 148D-149A.

58Cols. 28B-29A.

CHAPTER IV

THEODORET'S DOCTRINES OF GOD AND MAN

The Basic Distinction Between Creator and Created

The most basic principle in Theodoret's theology is the idea

that the Creator and His creation are ontologically d is tinc t from

each other. God and world are categorically d ifferent in nature.

Kierkegaard's statement about the " in f in ite qualita tive distinction"

between God and man is an accurate description of Theodoret's under­

standing of God and the entire created order (both material and

s p ir i tu a l ) . Speaking of God and man, our author says in a striking

phrase: "the difference is boundless and is such as of a gnat to

the whole v is ib le and invis ib le creation . . . for this very thing

is more and greater by fa r-- th e difference between the nature of

the flesh and divinity."^ Although this analogy conveys graphically

the idea of an absolute difference between the divine nature and

human nature, Theodoret is aware that such a quantitative comparison

s t i l l does not capture the qualita tive distinction that he wishes

to convey. This keen awareness of the inadequacy of physical

analogies when applied to God and creation is brought out elsewhere

in Eranistes? The same idea with respect to God and man is expressed

in another context, this time echoing chapter forty of the Book of

249

250

Isaiah: "For He is God, and they are men. And the distance between

God and man is the greatest. For the mortal and perishable (ones)

are compared to grass and the flower. But he is om nipotent."3

This fundamental Antiochene understanding of God and creation

uhdergirds his entire system of Christology. His Christology along

with that of the other teachers in the Antiochene School is best

characterized as "dyophysite," for i t categorizes re a l ity into two

permanently d ifferent natures. All that Theodoret says may be

understood as an attempt to maintain the ontological separation

between God and man (or creation). From this presupposition, there

can never be a substantial union o f these two irreducible natures

of Christ into one. Such a union would erode the distinguishing

characteristics of both d iv in ity and humanity; in other words,

God would become less than God, and man would become other than man.

Therefore, Theodoret must construct a unique union of the two natures

in Christ on a d ifferen t basis. Likewise, he must understand the

redemption of man by Christ in terms other than the theory of

deification espoused by the Alexandrian School. In the process of

being transformed, man must remain human.^ Werner E lert 's defin ition

of the fundamental premiss in Antiochene Christology as finitum non

capax in f in i t i ("the f in i t e has no capacity for the in f in i te " )

expresses what we have said about Theodoret's viewpoint. Such a

phrase points to the admissible d i f f ic u l ty of establishing a true

unity of human and divine in Christ. However, i t should not be

251

understood so as to rule out any unity in Christ whatsoever. E lert

implies that the Antiochene starting point necessitated a total

alienation or dualism of the natures, calling the idea of incarnation

into question, but this can only be maintained from a Cyril 1ian

viewpoint.5

I t is important for our theological analysis to determine the

re la tive significance o f concepts within the framework of Theodoret's

Christology. We have accounted for the basic starting point in his

system. Now i t is necessary to examine both sides of his ontological

dichotomy—his understanding of God and of man.

I t has often been implied or stated categorically by scholars

that the concept of true manhood in Christ was the pivotal doctrine

in Antiochene Christology. Sellers speaks of the theologians of

this school as "realists" rather than idealists in the sense that

they took "the historical and empirical" as the basis for the ir

thought. In Prestige's terms, "The real theological bond between

a l l the Antiochenes was th e ir clear perception of the fu l l and

genuine human experience which the incarnate Son h is to r ica lly

underwent."5 This concern with the historical Jesus is not to be

denied unless i t is misconstrued as a modern libera l in terest in

the personality o f Jesus. The modern preoccupation with the human

psychology of Jesus is simply not present in the trad ition of

P atr is tic Christology which most insisted upon the complete

humanity of C hris t-even in the Christology of Nestorius which

is often considered the most extreme form of this trad ition .^

252

Whatever the significance of anthropology may be for Theodoret's

Antiochene forerunners, Theodoret's Christology does not grow out of

his empirical estimate of human nature; that is , the concept of man

is not the prime focus of his Christology. In our judgment, i t is

false to state that his central motive was to preserve the humanity

of Christ in tact. I t is his starting point of ontological duality

that gives him the basis for maintaining an h is to r ica l, empirical

view of human nature (in Christ). Though human nature can be

transformed by the redemptive process, i t cannot become d iv in ity .

Thus, the concern with the complete manhood of Christ is dictated

by his metaphysics. The concern with maintaining God's nature

unalloyed by the natural process is likewise dictated by his in i t ia l

metaphysical premise. Each side of the ontological spectrum implies

i ts opposite. Both categories—humanity and d iv in ity —became the

objects of special concern in the development of his system of

thought. However, i t is at the point of maintaining the divine

nature in tac t that Theodoret places his greatest emphasis. This

conclusion represents one of our most important findings. The

overwhelming consensus of evidence in Eranistes emphatically

spells out that Theodoret was most concerned with the doctrine

of God. He asserts over and over that God cannot change.

At this point Sa lte t 's findings greatly illumine our under­

standing o f the entire work of Eranistes. As Sa ltet has pointed

out, Theodoret took over the e a r l ie r theme of God's impassibility

253

found in the florilegium of 431 and used i t for the third section

of Eranistes. The theme of section one drawn from John 1:14

centers around the same general idea that God did not change in

becoming incarnate. In spite of this concentration upon the

doctrine of God's immutability and impassibility drawn from the

e a r l ie r work, Theodoret saw f i t to add even another part to the

scheme of the florilegium of 431 when he wrote Eranistes: this

was the theme of immutability inserted in the f i r s t part of the

work. Had the structure of the florilegium not already put

su ff ic ien t emphasis upon this idea? One may explain this addition

p a rt ia l ly on the basis of a concern with l i te ra ry form and balance.

But the fac t that he added the theme of immutability to a scheme

which already repeatedly drove home the in v io la b i l i ty of the nature

of God indicates an obsession with the doctrine of God—namely,

Theodoret's obsession to show that in the incarnation God remained

God and did not turn into human nature or a tertium quid. The

theme of section two of Eranistes--"unconfused"—brings out the

same point but with the concomitant emphasis that the human nature

also be kept in tac t.

His Concept of God

Let us now consider specif ica lly how Theodoret defines his

doctrine of God. The f i r s t dialogue begins with a discussion of

the "divine names," i . e . , the defin ition of terms applied to God.

As we have indicated e a r l ie r , Theodoret expounds the orthodox

t r in i ta r ia n dogma. The Holy T r in ity is <pi/cr£$ which means

254

\ » / c sTO o v . According to "external wisdom," c/77e>VT,i<rcs is a

j /synonym for (PUTioi. , but according to the teaching of the Fathers

c / i fabout the divine nature, C/7/oTTei<r£S differs from ou<?(*( as

T o (< f (o v (the particular) d iffers from T o / r e c i / o \ / (the

general or common) and T o £C (foS (species) or T o c ^ T o ^ fo v 'i ✓

(individual) d iffers from T o y s t / o s (genus). After giving

examples of how the terms are used with respect to "animal" and

species of animal and to "man" and specific individual men, our

author gives an admirable summary of the classic t r in i ta r ia n

definition:

Therefore, whatever is said concerning the divine nature is common to the Father, to the Son and to the Holy S p ir i t—such as 'God,' 'Lord ,1 'c re a to r ,1 'almighty,' and ones that resemble these. . . . Whatever is indicative of the hypostases is not ata l l common to the Holy T r in ity , but is ofthis hypostasis to which i t is appropriate.Such names as Father and Unbegotten arecharacteristic of the Father, and again the names Son, Only-Begotten, and God the Word do not indicate the Father or the Holy S p ir i t , but the Son. And the Holy S p ir i t , and the Paraclete are indicative of the hypostasis of the S p ir i t . 8

This discussion presents the occasion for Orthodoxus to raise the

main issue of the f i r s t dialogue: "Since then we say that certain

terms are common to the Holy T r in ity and that certain terms are

characteristic of each hypostasis, do we say that the term

'immutable' ( <&Tp£iTTO v ) is common to the essence or

peculiar to a certain hypostasis?" Both disputants agree that

"immutability" ( TO < ^ T ^ £ 77'T o \ / ) -js COmmon to the T r in ity

(a ll hypostases), and Orthodoxus adds the synonym oCo j t o T . 8

255

The attributes of God are spelled out in several passages.

He is above a l l and i t i / o t ^ X o c w r o S JO ne

is also c$ o p j r o s ( in v is ib le ) , U 7 7£ f f Y y o t r 7 r<»S or

><Z77‘£pC yyPeipoS (uncircumscribed), k / f d T z J t j f t t o S

(incomprehensible)., k r r s p c z o v j r o s (inconceivable),

(unmixed), o<7Tot(P-*ps (impassible), <Pu i/o(T‘os (immortal),

U.pei(P&S (good), (righteous), ( t ru e ) ,

k t/£ '< p (frT 0 S (unattainable or incomprehensible), <* C a f f e s

or Z t w z t a s (e te rn a l) , cZA7 7 '<’(7 T0 S (uncreated), and & 7 7 £f(?0 S

(endless).^ Some of these attributes such as "uncircumscribed"

and "immortal" occur practica lly as often as the central ideas of

"immutability" and "impassibility" in Eranistes. A sim ilar l i s t

of attributes is concentrated in a passage from his early work

Graecarum affectionum curatio . c7i/o/y?){ov y^y? X v / (P o iyfT aV

XW * k & Z J T O Z X V / <A 77Z tp o V X V ? ck l / U ' J s d P fW

k o y ? o i7 o \ / 7~£ X V ? k i / t t c f t o V ATZ? k v / y ^ t u T C c r T o Z

k77£p<Yy><Z( f o z T S X V r A<77£p( ^ 7 7 T o y X W/ . A

U l/£ C P (£ 7 ’OV X V X V M £ 7 . "For we call God without

beginning, incorruptible, immortal, in f in i te , indestructible,

inv is ib le , without form and shape, uncircumscribed, incompre­

hensible, and unatta inab le ."^ Since the created order—especially

human nature—is defined in antithetical terms, we find the opposite

attributes assigned to i t such as 7 ^ Z 7 7 T 0 6 3 & A / } o t c Z T o s j

77*< p0S J y P k i/J T O S , s C T t< r r# S .13

256

As we have indicated, the two major attributes of immutability

and impassibility are singled out for thorough treatment in the f i r s t

and third sections of Eranistes. These occupy the forefront of

Christological discussion because of Theodoret's concern to maintain

the in tegrity of the divine nature by refuting the implication of

change in the phrase "the Word became flesh" and by attributing the

suffering and death of Christ only to his human nature. Several of

the other attributes are synonyms or corollaries of these two main

attr ibutes. Another of the attr ibutes, that of " in v is ib i l i ty " is

discussed at length primarily because of certain problems posed by

scriptural texts. Although both Orthodoxus and Eranistes agree

that God is ipdeed inv is ib le , the la t te r finds exceptions to this

rule in various Biblical texts: "Did not the angels see God before

the manifestation of the Savior?" To this Orthodoxus replies with

a reference to I Timothy 3:16: "The Apostle says that he who was

manifested in the flesh was seen by angels"—that is , only the

incarnate Lord was v is ib le . 1 As a rebuttal, Erar.istes quotes

Matthew 18:10 which mentions the angels seeing the face of God

and several Old Testament texts which speak of certain human beings

having seen God: Genesis 18:1 (LXX), Isaiah 6:1, Exodus 33:11.

Orthodoxus replies with quotes from John 6:45, Exodus 33:11, and

John 1:18 ("No one has ever seen God.") Since Orthodoxus is

forced to explain how some Biblical figures could claim to have

seen God and yet be tru th fu l , he says "they saw what i t was

possible for them to see." When Eranistes asks for an explanation

257

of this cryptic statement, Orthodoxus replies:

Relying on reverent reason and believing in the divine utterances that say clearly 'No one has seen God,1 we say that they did not see the divine nature, but certain visions conformed to the ir capability ( otte rs

r t f cra>£j{/<Tl)MMLTpovS ) .

So then le t us also understand about the angels, hearing that 'day by day they see the face of your fa th e r . ' For they do not see the divine essence, the uncircumscribed, the incomprehensible, the inconceivable which comprehends a ll things, but a certainglory commensurate with the ir naturecfo ju v y tvo t a tu ru /v tpuosc U'UMM CTpouM £V-T)\/ ) .

However, when one is speaking specifica lly of Christ, i t is no

longer a matter of "a certain glory commensurate with the ir nature"

but of using his flesh as a kind of "curtain" ( /’T*'f > o t 7 T ^ )

through which the divine is manifested to men. This imagery is taken

from the Letter to the Hebrews in which Christ's flesh is likened

to the curtain of the Holy of Holies in the tempie--that is , Christ's

flesh is considered in analagous fashion to be an entry-way to the

heavenly sanctuary.^ The point upon which Orthodoxus insists is

that God is not d irec tly v is ib le . As we w il l indicate more fu l ly

la te r , this claim is made not only with respect to the earthly

Christ but with respect to the resurrected Christ. I t is not the

divine nature of the risen Christ which is seen but his transfigured

body. When Stephen saw "the Son of man standing at the right hand

of God" at the time o f his martyrdom (Acts 7:56, he saw T * ) y

0 ^ t*>M J 0 V 7~-r)v ^ O p u T o V c p v trc v , 17

258

Thus, Theodoret consistently maintains the a ttr ibute of God's

" in v is ib i l i ty " jus t as he maintains the other attr ibutes.

During the course of the discussion about God's impassibility ,

Eranistes asserts that the divine nature participated in death "in"

or "by means of" the flesh. His scandalized opponent replies that

i f even the human soul which is both created and sinful cannot die,

i t is absolutely inadmissible to say that the divine nature shared

in d ea th .^ Eranistes agrees that i t would be wrong to say that

God unwillingly endured the passion. However, i t is correct in

his opinion to say that God partook of suffering and death as long -

as He did so voluntarily . The fact that God chose to undergo these

experiences is an expression of the "excessiveness of his love for

mankind."^9

This statement concerning the nature of the divine w ill raises

the question of whether or not God may be regarded as lim ited in

any sense. Orthodoxus states his position concisely in this

fashion: "As i t appears, you are to ta l ly ignorant of the divine

nature. For the Lord God brought forth nothing which he does not

w i l l , but He w il ls a l l such things that he is able (to do). And

he w il ls what is suitable and f i t t in g to his own nature."^9

Eranistes replies with an attr ibution of unqualified omnipotence

to God: "We have learned that a l l things are possible to God."

I f this is so, counters Orthodoxus, one must say that sin and evil

are possible for God. Of course, his opponent is unwilling to

accept the conclusion of his premise. Orthodoxus continues, pointing

259

out that God cannot become what He is not. He cannot become darkness,

v is ib le , comprehensible, atta inable, non-being, begotten, subject to

time, created, terminated, or any sim ilar a t t r ib u te .^ Having reduced

his opponent's argument to shambles by this display of logic, he

summarizes his position in these words: "Then we have found many

things which are impossible to the all-powerful God. . . . But not

being able to do a certain one of these is a sign of boundless power,

not of weakness. But being able is certainly a sign of impotence,

not of power."22 F ina lly , our author reveals the source of his concept

that God must be limited in the sense that he cannot contradict his

own nature. The concept is rooted in his fundamental doctrine of the

divine mutability which Orthodoxus expresses admirably. Referring

to the fact that the previously-cited attributes "proclaim(s) the

immutability and unchangeability of God," he continues:

For the impossibility of good becoming evil indicates the excess of goodness; and that he who is righteousness does not become unrighteous, nor he who is true a l i a r shows the steadfastness and certainty in truth and righteousness. Thus, the true l ig h t may not become darkness, nor he who is (become) he who is not. For to be is lasting , and the l ig h t is unchangeable. Thus . . . you w il l find that not being able is indicative of highestpower.23

Various scholars have attempted to identify a dominant source

for Antiochene theology. Since many misleading generalizations have

been made, i t is incumbent upon us to avoid trying to solve the

problem of sources with an over-simplified theory. Throughout our

260

discussion of Theodoret's theology, we w il l identify the philosophic

sources for certain concepts. With regard to his doctrine of God,

which is our immediate concern here, we see a strong influence of

the Biblical notion of God as One who is always d istinct from His

creation. This Biblical transcendence keeps our author from fa ll in g

into any form of pantheism. However, his attributes for God also

re f lec t a strong Neo-Platonic influence. E lert 's statement dismisses

any Biblical view at a l l in favor of philosophy. "Aber dass sie

(die Antiochene*:) durch ihre Schriftexegese auch auf das Axiom

finitum non capax in f in i t i gekommen waren, das kann wohl niemand

im Ernst behaupten. Das war theologia natural is vom reinstem W a s s e r . " ^

One must ask the decisive question of E lert: Why did Theodoret and

his Antiochene comrades champion th e ir concept of God's transcendence,

when they could have chosen an immanental system from Stoicism or

even from Neo-Platonism? Obviously, they would have had d i f f ic u l ty

squaring i t with the Biblical concept of a God who is not part of

creation. The problem of sources is not so simply solved as E lert

would l ik e . Theodoret's view of God and world l ik e that of his

entire trad ition is an inextricable blend of Biblical and Hellenistic

concepts. I t is a true synthesis that was begun much e a r l ie r in

H ellen istic Judaism and in the New Testament; therefore, i t is

impossible to a ttr ibute i t simply to one source. P atr is tic theologians

such as Theodoret took over certain philosophic concepts generally

because they enforced or blended in well with central Biblical ideas.

261

Often th e ir purposes were strongly apologetic in nature. Many i f

not most theologians of early Christianity were eclectic in their

philosophical borrowings.25 This is particu larly true of Theodoret,

as Canivet has shown so well in his analysis of the early work

Graecarum affectionum curatio . Here i t is pointed out that Theodoret

had only a fragmentary knowledge of both Platonism and Stoicism

which he had gleaned from apologists and f lo r i le g ia . "Mais i l est

evident que Theodoret, meme s ' i l a reussi tres souvent a grouper

remarquablement des textes, ne possede aucune vue synthdtique

qui autorisera it a parler de son 'platonisme' on de son 'stoicisme.'"26

In his work De Providentia, he brings the Stoic idea of

providence into harmony with the Biblical concept of God's rule of

the world. Yet, he rejects the Stoic notions of pantheism and

determinism. ^ His a f f in i t ie s with Neo-Platonism are evident in

the Graecarum affectionum curatio both in his terminology for God

and in his willingness to admit certain s im ila r it ies between Neo-

Platonic philosophy and Christian doctrine. Of course, he repeats

the old adage that the Greeks stole th e ir valuable ideas from the

Scriptures. Nevertheless, speaking about the T r in ity , he finds

some of Plato's statements "praiseworthy." The three eternal

principles spoken o f by Plotinus and Numenius have a likeness to

Christian doctrine, even i f Theodoret must add the statement, " i t

is from the philosophy of the Hebrews, from the ir theology that

this doctrine has been taken." Likewise, "Plutarch and Plotinus. . .

have heard the voice of the divine Gospels."^

262

I t has been customary for some scholars to speak of the

Antiochene trad ition o f theology as "Aristotelian" over against

the Platonic mysticism o f the Alexandrian trad it ion . This alleged

"Aristotelianism" has been characterized in quite d ifferen t ways.29

However plausible some of the theories of Aristote lian influence

may be, Theodoret seems to be less attached to Aristotle than to

other philosophers. In fac t , when he mentions Aristotle in

Graecarum affectionum curatio , he generally attacks him quite

vehemently.20 This fact does not mean that there are no Aristotelian

elements in Theodoret's thought (as we shall see), but i t should

keep us from attempting to explain his entire theology on the basis

of Aristotelian premises. He considered himself f i r s t and foremost

a Biblical theologian rooted in the traditions of the church.

His Concept of Man

Turning to Theodoret's doctrine of human nature, we find that

he understands man as a composite ( ctuv& s t &j ) being consisting

of body and soul.21 In the union of body and soul, both natures

remain d is t inc t. This means, for example, that the soul does not

require food, rest, and other physical needs as the body does.

The body derives i ts "v ita l force" ( 7 ''y? y < fu v * M r v )\ \ ^

or "v ita l energy" ( 7 ' n7 l/' ^ u / 7 ~ t Y ) fnom

the soul in order to desire what i t needs to maintain i t s e l f . Without

the v i ta l force of the soul present, the body fa l ls into corruption.

263

This does not mean, as Eranistes concludes, that the needs of the

body—th irs t , hunger, etc.--belong to the soul, for i t is obvious

that the soul has no need of these things a fte r i t has been released

from the body in death.

The properties of body and soul are d is tinc tive ly d ifferent.S I / ,

Those that belong to the soul are T o T ' o V j '7" °

0/ 7TA o u v J T O of i/o f T & V j TO oJ o ^ o i T o \ / (the ra t io n a l,

the simplex, the immortal, the in v is ib le ) . Those peculiar to the

body are T O < T uV { P z t o v j T o o p ? o /T O V j T O

(the compound, the v is ib le , the mortal).32 Nevertheless, since

man is constituted of both body and soul, a l l of these properties

refer equally to him. He is spoken of as both a rational and a

mortal being. By maintaining the distinction between the two sets

of properties, Theodoret does not intend to separate the soul from

the body or to destroy the natural union between them. He d is tin ­

guishes between the properties of soul and body "by the reason

alone" ( sM O V u? ),33 s concept of a theo­

re tica l or conceptual d istinction between two en tit ies rather than

an actual separation is found in a le t te r (preserved only in Syriac)

from Theodoret's early comrade in arms, Andreas of Samosata to

Rabboula of Edessa. According to Abramowski, Andreas took over

the idea from the work of the Aristotle-commentator Alexander of

Aphrodisias entitled De Anima. In this work Alexander speaks of

a theoretical distinction between both form and matter and body

and soul.34 Theodoret's understanding of soul and body as two

264

unconfused en tit ies making up one individual occurs within a

Christological context in Eranistes. The purpose of talking about

anthropology is to build a model for the nature of the divine-

human union in Christ. "Just as we do not then divide { J ( u c ^ o u m £V ) ,

but call the same one both rational and mortal, thus also i t is

f i t t in g to do with Christ and to apply him both the d iv in ity

and humanity."35

Theodoret is led to examine the nature of the relation of

body and soul in more detail in connection with the question of

suffering. Although the soul does not share a ll the faculties of

the body, "the body by receiving the v ita l power, has the sensation

of sufferings by means of the soul." Thus, one can say that "the

soul shares in suffering with the body." With respect to Christ's

soul, " I t shared the suffering, receiving the pains as l ik e ly

(or probable) through the body." Here an allusion is made to

John 12:27--"Now is my soul troubled." S t i l l , the soul, being

immortal, cannot share the death of the body.36 Theodoret phrases

this thought in a more precise technical manner in a le t te r from

early 451 A.D.: "For even i f souls are immortal, nevertheless,

they are not immutable, for they undergo many and frequent

c h a n g e s . "37 One could wish for a further c la r if ic a t io n of

Theodoret's anthropology part icu larly in regard to the question

of interaction between soul and body, but i t must be remembered

that his anthropology is developed only in relation to his Chris­

to! ogy.

265

A sim ilar understanding of the union of body and soul is found

in the lengthy treatise written e a r l ie r by a fellow Antiochene

theologian, Nemesius of Emesa. Like Theodoret, Nemesius insists that

the "soul is united to the body and yet remains d is tinc t from i t . "

A n 'in te ll ig ib le" such as the soul cannot change in the process of

uniting with something. "Surely then," he says, "the soul suffers

no change, as the result of union with body." However, Nemesius

s t i l l insists that the soul is intimately enough united with

the body to share i ts experiences, especially suffering: "For

the soul, being one of the things in process of completion, and

because of i ts propriety to body, seems even in some v/ay to suffer

with i t , sometimes mastering i t , and sometimes being mastered by

i t . "38 Like Theodoret, Nemesius uses the union of body and soul

as an analogy for the union of God and man in Christ and l ik e the

Bishop of Cyrus, he qualifies the analogy by insisting that the

divine Logos "suffers no alteration" due to i ts relationship with

the body.39

Both Te lfe r and Arnou have illuminated the philosophical

sources of this anthropology. Te lfe r locates Nemesius1 position

mid-way between Plato and A risto tle and points out his rejection

of the trichotomist anthropology of Apollinaris which Nemesius

traces back to Plotinus.40 Arnou speaks in very similar terms

when he says that Nemesius is neither a disciple of Plato nor of

A ris to tle . He does not follow Plato's idea that man is not so

266

much a tru ly composite being as a soul which uses a body and is

clothed in i t as in a garment. Nor does he agree with A ris to tle 's "

idea that the soul is the form or entelechy of the body, in other

words, practica lly a quality of the body in a m ater ia lis tic sense:

for Nemesius, the essence of the soul must be independent from

matter. Nemesius1 insistence upon the in te llec tua l soul leads

him to re ject the trichotomist view which Apollinaris took from

Plotinus. Nevertheless, Arnou finds the source of Nemesius1

anthropology in Neo-Platonism.41 Nemesius has taken over the

basic Neo-Platonic doctrine concerning the relationship of

in te l l ig ib le and material r e a l i t ie s . The distinction between

the two was always r ig id ly maintained. As Porphyry and Plotinus

taught, the material world of bodies is characterized by spatial

location, division, and juxtaposition o f objects; that is , a l l

bodies are exterior to each other. But in the in te l l ig ib le world,

re a l i t ie s such as inte lligences, souls, and the One are not

located by place. In Plotinus' phrase, "each has a l l in i t s e l f

and sees a ll in each other. All is everywhere. All is a l l .

Each is a l l . " The sole distinction between in te l l ig ib le s is

that one is not the other. I t is possible however to say that

they mutually penetrate each other. All re a l i t ie s that belong

to this sphere of re a l i ty are sharply d ifferentia ted from material

objects in that they cannot change at a l l , even in union with other

re a l i t ie s . Material objects undergo a transformation when they are

267

united, but in te l l ig ib le substances remain without confusion and

corruption as beings which are only juxtaposed. The relation of

the soul to the body is such a u n i o n . ^ 2

As this relationship is further c la r i f ie d , the s im ila r ity

with Theodoret's anthropology becomes more apparent. Following

the Neoplatonists, Nemesius speaks of the soul as a transforming

presence which penetrates the body. I t animates the body without

becoming confused with i t . At this point, Nemesius uses an analogy

for this union from Plotinus that is also found in Theodoret's

early Expositio rectae f id e i - -namely, that o f the l ig h t o f the

sun diffusing through the a i r but not becoming confused with i t . ^ 3

I t is a d ifferen t problem, however, to define precisely the nature

of this relationship between spatial and non-spatial re a l i t ie s .

How can one correctly speak of the soul being localized in a

body? Such language can only be thought of as metaphorical.

Borrowing his terminology d irec tly from Porphyry, Nemesius says

that to speak of a soul in a body means that i t is "in relation"

( L V ) to i t . The nature of the union of soul and\ / ' c ^body is spoken of as a (jj\£<r<S (re la t io n ) , a po77'y7 ( in c l i ­

nation), or a J ( J & £ c r ( S (disposition): i t is neither physical

nor local in nature . ^ According to Arnou, this basic Neoplatonic

framework for understanding the relation of body and soul has

influenced not only Nemesius but also his fellow Antiochenes

Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius. The next step was to

apply i t to the re lation of divine and human natures in Christ.

268

Here we find the common rejection of any confusion or alteration

of the natures by a ll three Antiochenes. Although Nemesius does

not accept the idea of a union in Christ based upon God's "good

pleasure" ( S is J o /r/A ) propounded by Theodore and Nestorius,

a l l three re ject the idea of a localized p r e s e n c e . 45 The idea

of a Christological union which is a "relation of w i l l" (cT){£<r(S

' ' ^/ t v T<* T 71 / ) is basic to the theologies of

Theodore and Nestorius.46

We have indicated the s im ila r ity of Theodoret's description

of the union of soul and body to that of Nemesius and his Neoplatonic

forerunners. The same general ideas seem to have been current in

la te r Antiochene theology. However, i t is imperative to note that

in his Eranistes Theodoret does not use the Neoplatonic terms such

as cry/cr/S to describe the union between God and man in Christ.

This is one of the most strik ing differences between his Chris­

to! ogy and that of Theodore and Nestorius.

In order to maintain his idea of man as a composite of soul

and body, Theodoret follows his Antiochene forebears in rejecting

Apollinaris ' trichotomist anthropology which stood at the basis of

his heretical Christology. According to Apollinaris , "man is

composed of three parts—a body, the v ita l soul (A 1 ^ '

) , and again of the rational ( A o Y ^ ^ S ) soul, which

he calls mind ( V o u v ) . " ^ Theodoret rejects this understanding

of man on the basis that the Scripture teaches that man has only

269

one soul. After quoting several Biblical passages to support his

view, he denies that the divine Logos could have taken a human

flesh ( ) . Such a human nature would be deprived of its

essential rational faculty and therefore incomplete. One must

We have seen that Theodoret distinguishes between body and

soul in man refusing to allow any kind of obliteration of one by

the other, but that he did not push this distinction to the point

of an actual separation. The separation of soul and body occur

at death. This major a lteration o f the human state is intimately

tied-up with the basic human predicament, sin. According to our

author, death is the punishment for man's sin.^®

When the f i r s t man was created, he possessed dominion over

a ll things and immortality, but these g ifts he lost by his disobe­

d ience .^ As a resu lt , the human race inherited death as a punishment

for sin. I t is m ortality , then, that is transmitted from Adam to

subsequent generations, not sin i t s e l f . There is in Theodoret's

theology no place for the idea of original or inherited sin such

as one finds in Augustine's theology. Indeed, many Eastern

theologians—from Cyril to Theodoret—found the concept odious.

I t smacked of Manicheanism. Therefore, we find Theodoret saying

bluntly: /V OU T ^ S cpU creurs

T ^ 5 /T c S fy s 7 r f > 0 c L / { v £ a ("For sin is

not o f nature but of evil cho ice .")^

nature consisting of only a non-rational ( ^ ^ o y o v ) soul and/

maintain that the Logos took a "complete human nature" (

) with body and rational soul.42

270

In his Commentary on Romans, Theodoret develops his idea of

hereditary mortality as the source of personal sin. The numerous

needs and cares of this mortal l i f e provoke excessive passions which

in turn provoke sin. "Because of" Adam, then, a l l men are led to

sin. In Meyendorff's rephrasing of the idea, "the struggle for

existence creates in i ts turn egoism, then sin;.and f in a l ly these

personal sins find a just outcome in death."52 Therefore, Theodoret

can say, "For death came to a l l men because a ll men sinned. For i t

is not on account of the sin of the forefather but on account of

one's own that each one receives the l im i t of d e a t h . I n this

fashion, man's personal responsibility for his own sin is maintained.54

The idea that sin belongs to neither the human body nor the

soul is r ig id ly maintained by Theodoret. Gross remarks quite

r ightly that this concept f i t s in well with his entire Christology,

for God can unite Himself with a complete human being without

taking over s i n . ^ The chief reason that Apollinaris posited a

humanity devoid of human mind was the idea that a tru ly human mind

is necessarily sinful.56 Eranistes appears to espouse a kind of

dualistic interpretation of human nature when he puts the blame

for man's punishment on the body alone. Only the body was

punished, "For i t looked at the tree e v i l ly and stretched out

i ts hands and stripped o f f the forbidden f r u i t . " Eranistes

continues with a very physical description of how the food was

digested and how i t f in a l ly pervaded the entire body. Orthodoxus

271

replies contemptuously that his opponent has given an interesting

disquistion on the digestive process. Pressed to defend his

position, Eranistes says:

The body partakes of l i f e from the soul on the one hand, but on the other hand furnishes to the soul the penal possession of sin. . . . Through the eyes i t makes i t see e v i l ly , through the ears i t makes i t hear unprofitable sounds, and through the tongue u tte r injurious words, and through a l l the other parts act i l l . 57

In some excellently-worded passages Orthodoxus expresses Theodoret's

to ta l ly d ifferent view of human nature. The body, he says, can

accomplish none of the things mentioned by Eranistes without the

aid of the soul. Without the soul, the body

lies breathless, voiceless, motionless.And the eye sees neither wrongly or r ig h t ly , nor do the ears receive the sound of voices. The hands do not move nor do the feet walk. But i t is l ike an instrument deprived of music. How then could you say that only the body sinned, since i t is not able to breathe a t a ll without the soul.53

But why now, 0 most wise one, did you remember the blameworthy aspects conducive to the body but neglect the praiseworthy ones. For i t is possible to look in a kind and friendly way and to wipe away a tear of bewilderment, and to hear divine oracles, and to incline one's ear to the needy, and to praise the creator with one's tongue and to teach the neighbor what one should, and to move one's hands in mercy, and to say i t in short, to use the parts of the body for every acquisition of v ir tu e .59

272

The conclusion to which these eloquent statements lead is , of

course, that soul and body are both responsible for obedience or

transgression. In fact, from Orthodoxus1 viewpoint, the soul

actually in it ia te s an action due to i ts power of reason before

the body acts:

the mind sketches the virtue or the vice, then i t gives form to i t . . . . I f then i t sins with the body, or rather in it ia te s the s in -- fo r i t was entrusted with driving and guiding the animal (nature)--why then when i t shares in sin does i t not share in the punishment?60

After this rhetorical question, the nature of the punishment is

stated. While the mortal body is punished by death, the immortal

soul "will be delivered with the body to Gehenna." I t w ill suffer

not by dying but "by being punished in l i f e " (the l i f e to come).^

However, there is quite a d ifferent destiny in store for

Christian believers. For them, human existence does not end with

the dissolution of the body-soul union in death. Although the

Christian's body succumbs to death, he is not ultimately subject

to death and eternal punishment. There w il l be a resurrection of

his body and a reunification of i t with the immortal soul. "But

the body does not obtain the resurrection without the soul, but

being renewed by the divine w il l and joined with i ts yoke-fellow,

i t receives l i f e . Or did not the Lord thus raise L a z a r u s ? " ^

Theodoret cites Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones

(Ezekiel 3 7 :7 f f . ) as a confirmation of this assertion: the body

is reconstituted and reanimated by God's order that the souls

return to the ir bodies.

273

The resurrection of the Christian w il l be patterned a fte r

that of Christ. As Orthodoxus leads Eranistes to state: "For

this reason the only-begotten Son of God became man and suffered

and took the t r i a l of death--in order that he might destroy death.

Therefore, having risen, he proclaims by his own resurrection the

resurrection o f a l l m e n . "63 p0r this reason, Theodoret describes

Christ's resurrection in St. Paul's terminology as the " f i r s t -

fru its" ( 0 i 7T*<{>)('?? ) o f the resurrection of the fa ith fu l .64

The difference between Christ's resurrection and that of Christians

is that Christ's body did not undergo corruption ( )

but remaining undefiled ( k / t-y ^ o iT o v ) , i t recovered i ts soul

a f te r three days.66

At this point in our exposition, i t is necessary to consider

b r ie f ly the nature of the resurrection body? To what extent is i t

d iffe ren t from the empirical body? Can i t s t i l l be described as

human in any sense? Speaking of Christ's resurrection body in the

f i r s t instance but also of the resurrection bodies of other men,

Theodoret insists that "the nature of the body remained a fte r the

resurrection and was not changed into another substance."66 He

rejects categorically Eranistes' assertion that Christ's body

changed into d iv in ity a f te r the resurrec tion .^ The lim itations ./

( ) of the body remain a f te r the resurrection.

The body retains the "boundaries of i ts nature" ( T M '/

T V S ) 5 i ts "circumscribed nature" ( 7r7 ~ £ fs y £ ~

Y f & M M Z ' / r j V ip u w i ' ) . 6 8 As proof, our author appeals to the

274

description of Christ's resurrected body in the Gospels; here, i t

is described as tangible and v is ib le as i t was before death. ^

I t also continues to be "composite and divided into many parts.

. . . the body was not changed into sp iri.t , for i t was flesh and

bones and hands and feet. Therefore, also a f te r the resurrection

the body remained b o d y . "70 what then is the nature of the change

that takes place in the resurrection body of Christ and his followers?

Their bodies become "incorruptible" ( f lo ifT c t ) and "immortal"

( l i tP c ti/u re i ).71 i n the same contexts, Orthodoxus describes

Christ's body with the added term "impassible" ( ) .72

The f i r s t two of these terms appear to have been taken from the

Biblical text quoted--I Corinthians 15:53--concerning the common

resurrection. The term "impassibility" probably was not applied to

everyone's resurrection here because i t did not occur in the

Biblical proof-text. In an important le t te r written a few years

a fte r Eranistes was published, this term is applied to other men

as well as to Christ. "But a fte r the resurrection our bodies

enjoy immortality and in c o rru p t ib i l i ty ( ot f t / <r

It(P (P oi(H T(U S ) and our souls impassibility and immutability

( LiTToi (P z tc ts M t t r ^ f 7 r r ^ T V T ^ S )."73 In this

same le t te r , additional characteristics are ascribed to resur-

rection-bodies of men. When they are released from the ir earthly

nature, they become "light" ( /fouipoL ) and "airy" ( &£Tctpcr(c* )

and find i t easy to travel through the a ir . Their transformed

275

nature is compared to the unique nature of the risen Christ

which enabled him to penetrate locked doors. This entire

discussion is based not only upon the Gospel accounts of the

resurrection but particu larly upon St. Paul's teaching about the

resurrection-body in I Corinthians 15:43-44 and I Thessalonians

1:17, both of which passages are quoted.^ The exegetical basis

for his description of the resurrection-body is usually evident

in most of the passages where he deals with the subject. Turning

to another passage from Eranistes, we see once again the influence

of St. Paul. Here another a ttr ibu te is assigned to the resurrection-

body—that of "glory" ( / / jv ) . After quoting Philippians 3:20-21

in which Paul spoke of the lowly bodies of the Christians being

made l ike Christ's body of glory, Theodoret says: " I t [Christ's •

body] was therefore not changed into another nature, but remained

a body, yet f i l l e d with divine glory, sending o f f rays of l ig h t .

The bodies of the saints w il l become conformed to that one ."^

When Eranistes asks whether the bodies of the saints are equal

to Christ's risen body, Orthodoxus (Theodoret) replies: "They

w il l partake on the one hand of its incorruption and certainly of

its immortality. On the other hand they w il l share i ts glory, as

the Apostle says, ' I f indeed we suffer with him in order that .

we may also be g lo r if ied ( ) with him'"

(Romans 8 : 1 7 ) .^ This passage and those cited previously with

regard to the nature of the resurrected l i f e point to a basic

276

s im ila r ity between the resurrected nature of Christ and the nature

of believers, they share many of the same t ra i ts : immortality,

in co rru p tib i l i ty , impassibility , immutability, lightness, ethereal

qua lity , and g lo r y .N e v e r t h e le s s , Eranistes1 question as to

whether a ll resurrection bodies are equal leads Orthodoxus to the

point of making an interesting distinction between Christ's body

and other bodies:

But in quantity ( 77? 7T o < ro T *)T r ) the difference to be found is great, and i t is as great as (the difference) between the sun and the stars, or rather between master and slaves, and between the one giving l ig h t and the one receiving l ig h t .Nevertheless, he has given a share of his own names to his servants, and since he is called l ig h t , he called the saints 'l igh t*. . . [quote from Matthew 5:14] . . .Therefore, according to quality (or kind) and not according to quantity^ ( AurZ to r ro c o ^ t c x v u v , o u / tu ru 7~o 77"oo~oi/ ) 5 the bodies of the saints

w il l be conformed to the Lord's body."78

I t is d i f f ic u l t to determine exactly what Theodoret is trying to

say in this passage. However, the idea that Christ's body and

other bodies are quantitatively but not qua lita tive ly alike seems

to mean that they are of basically the same nature as created

rea lit ies and not qua lita tive ly or ontologically d ifferent as

God and His creation are d iffe ren t from each other. Christ's

body seems to possess a kind of preeminence among resurrected

bodies. I t is greatest among resurrected bodies by virtue of

the fact that i t f u l f i l l s the role of master ( (f£0 'TToT-r/ps

2 77

a uniquely Antiochene expression for Christ) and gives illumination

to other bodies. I t is d i f f ic u l t to guess what other ideas might

be implied in the concept of "quantitative" difference.

Once in Ep. 145 (146 Azema)» Theodoret goes so far as to

speak of Christ's g lo r if ied body as "divine" ( ) j yet

this does not mean divine in the s t r ic t sense, for several lines

below, he rejects adamantly the idea that the body was changed

into the divine nature.79

A further distinction is made between the body of the risen

Christ and the bodies of the saints by way of explaining the Gospel

narratives. Since resurrection-bodies are immortal, incorruptible,

e tc . , they are not plagued with the ordinary physical weaknesses,

needs, and blemishes of earthly bodies. However, the resurrected

body of Christ bore the signs of his earthly suffering and engaged

in normal physical ac t iv it ies such as eating. Then is the risen

body of Christ in fe r io r to other risen bodies? Alluding to the

story of Christ eating food a fte r the ressurection, Eranistes

poses the problem in this manner: "But one of the alternatives

« must be accepted; e ither he partook because he needed, or else,

needing not, He seemed to eat, and did not rea lly partake of

the food."80 Orthodoxus replies: "He did not have need of

food, since his body had become immortal." I f so, then the

question must be answered, why did he bother to eat anything at

a ll? He did so, says Orthodoxus, to prove that the resurrection

273

was real. "For since eating is a property of those liv ing during

this l i f e , the Lord necessarily taught the resurrection of the

flesh by eating and drinking to those who do not recognize that

i t is r e a l . "81 Continuing to pursue the logical implications of

such a view, Eranistes raises the question of whether other resur­

rection bodies also partake of food. Orthodoxus replies: "These

things which were accomplished by the Savior through a certain > /

plan ( O t / f o v ) are not a rule and standard of nature,

since he also managed ( u S f o v o t / ) other things which

w ill not a ll happen to those brought back to l i f e . "82 Even though

Christ's risen body bore certain signs of his earthly l i f e , risen

bodies are not lame, blind, or disfigured in any way.83 Thus,

according to Theodoret's teaching, a l l resurrected bodies share .

the same fundamental nature or essence, Christ's body d iffering

only in degree from others' and expressing certain unique tra its

according to i ts function in the plan of salvation.

Eranistes' reaction to Theodoret's basic characterization

of the resurrection-body as incorruptible, impassible, and immortal

is quite astute: " I f i t is incorruptible, impassible, and immortal,

i t has been changed into another nature."84 In this manner, he

has raised one of the most d i f f i c u l t problems, for Theodoret's

theology. Orthodoxus must in s is t that the nature remains even

as i ts co rru p tib il ity is changed into in co rru p tib i l ity and i ts

mortality into immortality. His reply is couched in a well-chosen

279

analogy: "The body that is sick and the body that is healthy we

call body in the same way."85 In other words, a l l bodies partake

of the same essence, whether they are sick or healthy. The basic

distinction is that the body is considered to be "essence" orj /

"substance" ( Oc/CCA ) but sickness and health are considered

to be "accident" or "contingent attribute" ( ) .

In Theodoret's own words: "Therefore, both c o rru p t ib il i ty and

mortality are called accident, not of the essence, for they happen

and cease to be."85 To complete this thought with an idea discussed

e a r l ie r , man's sin does not l i e in what he is but rather in the

wrong use of his free w i l l . From his abuse of freedom mortality

and co rru p tib il i ty re s u lt .8? The redemption won by Christ frees

man from this predicament. Christ provides the medicine necessary

to heal man’s sickness.88

We have discussed Theodoret's basic theological motive of

keeping the divine and human natures d is tinc t from each other and

then analyzed his concepts of both God and man. Now we must ask:

Does Theodoret maintain the distinction between divine re a l i ty

and human reality? He continually attempts to do so, but his

treatment of the resurrection-body raises some d i f f ic u l ty for

his consistency. I t is a t this point in his entire theology that

he comes closest to compromising his fundamental premise. Eranistes1

remark that the body had been changed to the point of becoming

another nature poses the key question for Theodoret's consistency

in the Eranistes. Of course, the soul possesses by nature certain

230

t ra i ts in common with God such as ra t io n a li ty , s im plic ity , immortality,

and in v is ib i l i t y . But the fact is that Theodoret has assigned addi­

tional attributes to the risen human nature that properly belong to

God. The resurrected nature takes on immutability, im passibility ,

in c o rru p t ib i l i ty , and glory. Has i t then actually changed into

the Divine? Theodoret consistently answers this question with an

emphatic "no!" I t by no means shares a ll the divine attr ibutes.

Human nature is s t i l l a created re a l i ty and circumscribed in many

ways, while God is uncreated, inconceivable, and uncircumscribed.

An additional Concept c la r if ie s Theodoret's distinction between

resurrected natures and the divine nature.

God is decisively immortal. For he is immortal by nature, not by partic ipation ( o u t r e y < X p « '(9<&V'*tos > o u mctputr'fj, ) .For he does not have the resurrection as having received i t from another. But to the angels and the others of whom you have ju s t spoken, he has given immortality.89

With respect to such an a ttr ibu te as immortality which is referred

to both God and man, this important distinction must be made:

immortality belongs to God by nature but to men by "participation"

( s i4 £ T 0 U c r f * ) . In other words, men receive this a ttr ibute

from God the source of immortality as a g i f t . 90

231

IPG, LXXXIII, col. 40A-B.

2Col. 237A.

3Col. 260C-D.

4jules Gross, La divinisation du Chretien d'apres les P£res Grecs (Paris: Gabalda, 1938) pp. 273-276.

owerner E le rt , Per Ausgang der ftltkirchlichen Christologie (Berlin: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1957) pp. 52-58. E lert r igh tlypoints out that Theodoret saw a "qualitative" distinction between God and man, recognizing the lim itation of physical analogies for the Christo!ogical union.

^Sellers, Two Ancient Christo!ogies, p. 109; Prestige, Fathers and Heretics, p. 133".

^Schwartz's judgment is worth quoting: "Auch Nestorius undseine Vorganger haben kein Interesse an dem menschlichen Individuum Jesus, sondern daran, dass der Logos von alien menschlichen Ingred- ienzien rein gehalten wird. Erst ind irek t, weil a lles Menschliche aus dem Gottmenschen Christus ausgesondert wird, kommt der Hensch Jesus heraus, und zwar als Typ der Vollkommenheit, nicht als ind i- viauelle Personlichkeit ini modernen Sinne." ("Zur Vorgeschichte des ephesinischen Konzils," pp. 245-246). For a s im ilar judgment- with respect to Chrysostom's Christo!ogy, see Camillus Hay, "St.John Chrysostom and the In tegrity of the Human Nature in Christ," FrStud, XIX (1959) 316-317.

3Cols. 33A-D, 36A-D (quoted). The same view is found in the early work Expositio rectae f id e i : R. V. Sellers, "Pseudo-Justin'sExpositio rectae f i d e i , a Work of Theodoret of Cyrus," JTS, XLVI (1945) 143-149. Canivet has found a discrepancy between the t r in i ta r ia n formulations o f Theodoret and Cyril in e a r l ie r works: "Theodoret accused Cyril o f Apollinarianism for having maintained that the Holy S p ir i t is the property of the Son." (Cf. PG_, LXXVI, col. 353) Therapeutique, Vol. I , p. 168. We have found an identical reference in Ep. 151: Cyril " . . . blasphemes against the HolyGhost, denying that i t proceeds from the Father . . . but maintaining that I t has I ts origin of the Son. Here we have the f r u i t of the Apollinarian seed." (PG, LXXXIII, col. 1417C-D; Jackson, p. 326).No such charge is made in Eranistes.

9Col. 36C-D.

lOCol. 37B-C. In this passage several Old Testament passages are quoted as authority: Jeremiah 10:16, Psalm 101:28, Malachi 3:6.

282

n Cols. 45C, 49D-52A, 220C, 221B-C, 229C-D, 232A-233A.

^Cam'vet, ed., Therapeutique des maladies hellenigues, Vol. I , Bk. 2, pp. 165-166.

T3ib id . , pp. 165-166; PG, LXXXIII, cols. 161B-C, 261D, 264A.

T4PG, LXXXIII, cols. 48B-D—49C.

IScols. 49C-D--52A. See also 164C for the same interpretation of Isaiah's vision in the temple.

^ C o l . 52A-C. For the same terminology see cols. 53D-56A-B.The term in Hebrews 6:19 and 10:20 is A&Tef77irot<rx<«-

17Col. 164C-D.

ISCols. 225C-D, 228C.

19Col. 228C-D.

20col. 228C-D.

21Cols. 229C-D, 232A-B.

22col. 232A-B.

23Col. 232B. See 0. K. Mozley, The Impassibility of God (Cambridge: University Press, 1926) pp. 89-98.

^ E l e r t , Ausgang der altkirchlichen Christologie, p. 54.

25As we have indicated in our discussion of Theodoret's early career, even philosophic schools were extremely eclectic by the f i f t h century so that i t is impossible to speak of pure Platonic or Stoic or Aristote lian philosophical schools in the sense of the classical schools of thought.

26p. Canivet, Histoire d'une Entreprise Apologetique au ye si ee le , p. 314 (see entire section entitled “Culture philosophique," pp. 303-315).

27T . p. Halton, "Studies in the De Providentia of Theodoret of Cyrus," pp. 4-7 , 18. Halton points out that this o rig ina lly Stoic idea became a chief doctrine of Neo-Platonism as well.Canivet, ib id . , p. 311.

23Canivet, Therapeutique des maladies hellenigues, Vol. I ,Bk. 2, pp. 157-163. Amelios, Porphyry, Plato, and Socrates are also spoken of with some favor, even i f they have mixed truth with error.

283

29sel lers finds traces of Aristotelianism in North Syrian Chris­t ia n ity in general. Malchion the Sophist adhered to the Aristotelian idea of "primary ousia" in the third century. The rationalism of the Lucianic school in the fourth century may possibly be attributed to the same source. But i t is particu larly among the theologians of the classical Antiochene School that Aristotelianism may be found; indeed, these theologians may be dubbed "Christian Aristo­te lians ." "Their rationalism, seen particu larly in their mode of Scriptural exegesis, the ir ethical in te rest, and, above a l l , their in terest in man as a free agent--in these ways is th e ir standpoint akin to the Peripatetics. . . . " (Two Ancient Christologies, p. 109) In his study of Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos (which was probably written by Theodoret) and three related pseudo-Justin tracts , Harnack identif ies as Aristotelian the author's (or authors') dialectica l method and rational approach to the world. However, this identif ication does not exclude Platonic influence on the doctrines of God and the world; nor does i t mean that the author was completely in accord with A ris to tle . These works .contain some vehement attacks upon A risto tle ( Diodor von Tarsus, pp. 34-35, 46, 67-68, 232-233, 237-239, 240-241)"] Schweizer finds some Aristote lian influence upon the exegetical method of Diodor of Tarsus which influenced the subsequent Antiochene theologians. This method of interpretation was, however, mediated through Neoplatonism or Neo-Aristotelianism. Eduard Schweizer, Diodor von Tarsus als Exeget (Berlin: Topelmann, 1943) pp. 64-72.

Ivanka's characterization of Antiochene theology as ch ie f ly an expression of Greek in te llectual l i f e including strong influences of Aristotelian and Stoic philosophy is one of the most ambitious and thorough-going attempts to find the in te llectual sources for this theology. He attributes the two main Christological heresies — that of Antioch (represented particu larly by Nestorius and Theodore) and that of Alexandria (Monophysitism)—to the two dominant trends or options in the Greek world of thought. The theologians of Antioch express the Greek ideal of apotheosis (man attaining God), while the Monophysite theologians express the Greek ideal of epiphany (God manifesting himself in human nature). This thought- provoking schematization is spelled-out for the Antiochenes on the basis of the thought of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Theodore represents the Aristote lian idea of man (Christ) attaining or earning by his own efforts d iv in ity defined as the perfection of his human nature (Aristotelian apotheosis) . He also represents in his Christology the Stoic idea that "ethical.perfection consists in the perfect agreement of ethical intention with the w il l of God." For historical proof of Aristotelian influence upon the Antiochene milieu, Ivanka assumes that the philological schools of Pergamon, Alexandria, and especially of Rhodes exercised some kind of influence. However, he finds decisive proof for his theory in the fact that the late

284

Nestorian School of Edessa translated the works o f Aristotle (Endre Ivanka, Hellenisches und Christ!iches im frLihb.yzantinischen Geistesleben (Wien”: Verlag Herder, 1948) pp. 73-94. We mustmention b r ie f ly several serious and decisive objections against Ivanka's theory. F irs t of a l l , his description of Theodore's Christology is a complete caricature. See R. A. Norris, Manhood and Christ, A Study in the Christo!og.y of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963) chapters 14, 15, 15. I t does notrepresent a one-hundred per cent takeover from either of the philosophies mentioned. Secondly, no direct historical link is made with the Antiochene theologians and the philological schools mentioned. Thirdly , the translations o f Aristotle done by the School at Edessa are from the f i f t h century and la te r and in themselves explain nothing about the principles of the Antiochene School.

^OCanivet, ed., Therapeutique des maladies helldnigues,Vol. I , pp. 56-57, 134-T35T

31 Col. 109C-D.

32Cols. 145B-C and 109C-D.

33col. 237A.

34i_uise Abramowski, "Peripatetisches bei spaten AntiochenerYi ZK6, LXXIX (1958) 358-360. This scholar believes that Alexander's term w r * k fft ts o c * is an accurate rendition of Andreas' corresponding term in Syriac. Of course, Andreas rejects the corresponding idea o f the e tern ity of the world and of bodies found in the Aristote lian 's discussion.

35Col. 145C-D.

36Cols. 268C-D—259A. See an e a r l ie r statement of the immortality of the soul in 265C-D.

37Ep. 145, no. 145 in Azema, "To the monks of Constantinople," T. I l l , p. 184; Jackson, p. 314.

33WiIlian T e lfe r , ed ., Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa, LCC, Vol. IV (London: SCM Press, 1955) pp. 295, 298, 300.This work is dated between 390 and 400 A.D.

39lb id . , pp. 300-301 . Nemesius' independence from the other Antiochenes may be seen, however, in his rejection of the idea that the Christological union is based on "divine favor" ( )in favor o f the idea that i t is "grounded in nature" (p. 303).

235

40lbid., pp. 224-227.41r . Arnou, "Nestorian'isme et Neoplatonisme, 1 'unite du

Christ et Tunion des ' In t e l l ig ib le s , '" Greg, XVII (1936) 113-119.

42ib id ., pp. 119-120. Arnou quotes Plotinus, Enn. V, l ib .V I I I , c. 4.

43lb id . , pp. 120-121: Richard, "L 'ac t iv ite l i t t e r a i r e de Theodoret," p. 87. Richard points out that Theodoret used this as an analogy ("un peu gauche") for the relation of divine and human in Christ but that i t is not used again a fte r the Council of Ephesus in 431.

44Arnou, ib id . , p. 122.

45ib id . , p. 127. Nemesius favors a union "grounded in nature," but he remains insistent upon his opposition to Apollinaris and any idea of confusion. According to Arnou, his idea of a union based on nature means only that God's nature is the cause for the kind of union that took place in Christ. The text is in T e lfe r , C.yri 1 of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa, p. 303.

4 6 lb id ., pp. 127-130.

47PG, LXXXIII, col. 108A-C.

48Col. 102B-D; 233B. This understanding of Christ's humanityw il l be discussed in more detail in the las t chapter. "Flesh" in Biblical terminology refers to the entire human being, body and soul (col. 105D-108A).

49Cols. 221C-D, 224A-B.

^Montmasson specifies the ideas involved in Theodoret'sidea of man as the image of God. The image of^God reflected inman's soul is seen in that: (1) he is a resume of creation;(2) he is a sovereign and free being with respect to other created beings; (3) he possesses inte lligence; (4) he has a diversity of faculties ( l ik e the T r in i ty ) ; (5) he possesses creative power; (6) he possesses holiness. However, in his concern to avoid anthropomorphism, Theodoret does not see a likeness to God in the human body. E. Montmasson, "L'homme cree £ 1 'image de Dieu d'aprks Theodoret de Cyr et Procope de Gaza," EO, XIV (1911) 334-339;-XV (1912) 154-152. Walter J. Burghardt’s study indicates that Theodoret's view is not so simple as Montmasson indicates: "Theodoret denies that theimage is to be sought e ither in the soul's in v is ib i l i t y or in

236

the human body; man is God's image because he sums up creation, dominates the earth, rules, and judges. Nevertheless, he does discover an intimate imitation o f the divine in the rational faculty of the human soul." The Image of God in Man According to Cyril of Alexandria. Catholic University of America Studies in Christian Antiquity, No. 14 (Washington: Catholic Univ. Press,1957), p. IS.

51 Col. 325A-B. Here Hebrews 4:15 is quoted. Julius Gross, Entwicklungsgeschichte des Erbsundendoginas, Bd. I I (Basel: ErnstReinhardt, 1963) pp. 184-188; Jean Meyendorff, "Eph h5 (Rom. 5:12) chez C yril le d'Alexandrie et Theodoret," Studia P a tr is t ica , IV (1961) p. 158. As Gross indicates, Theodoret's idea of death as a punishment deviates from Theodore of Mopsuestia's understanding of death as a "natural" thing.

52Meyendorff, ib id . , p. 160.

53pg, LXXXII, col. 100B.

S^Gross finds some inconsistency in Theodoret's view of sin when he implies that some of Adam's descendants were not sinners. ( Entwicklungsgeschichte des Erbsundendoqmas, pp. 135-186).

551 b id . , p. 188.

56charles E. Raven, ApoHinarianism (Cambridge: UniversityPress, 1923) pp. 182-183. There is also an Aristotelian under­standing of the soul and body as mover and moved which underlies Apollinaris' thinking. The premise is that there cannot be two movers in Christ "without the loss to one of them of i ts funda­mental character."

57col. 224A-D.

58Col. 2243-C.

59col. 224C-D. In 237B-C Theodoret objects strenuously to Eranistes' b e l i t t l in g the body of Christ.

68Col. 225A.. In cols. 109C-D—112A-C, our author argues that the term "flesh" (c^ p ? ) in Scripture refers to human nature as a whole and bears no negative connotations, i . e . , is not in fe r io r to "soul."

61Col. 225B-C.

237

f i i ? Col. 273A-B. Elsewhere he says "the entire nature of men" w il l be resurrected, 243A-8.

63Col. 260B-C. See also 273B-C.

^C o ls . 72A-B, 261A-B. I Corinthians 15:20, 23. This term was used to refer to the f i r s t - f r u i t s of the harvest or flock which were offered to God. Walter Bauer, William-F. Arndt, and Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian L ite ra tu re , 4th rev, ed. (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1957) p. 80. Thus, the term signifies metaphorically "what is f i r s t , best, or representative; 1. of Christ (a) as united to and so representative of the whole of humanity . . . (b) esp. re f . Christ's resurrection . . . " Lampe, A P a tr is tic Greek Lexicon, p. 177.

65col. 273B-C.

6SCol. 161B-C.

S7Col. 164A-B.

68Cols. 164B-C, 323B-C.

^C o ls . 161B-C, 323B-C. This explains Theodoret's insistence that i t was the human not the divine nature that men saw a fte r the resurrection.

70col. 328B-D.

71 Cols. 161C, 164A.

72Cols. 161B-C, 164A-B.

73Ep. 145, "To the monks of Constantinople," no. 146 in Azema,T. I l l , p. 184; Jackson, p. 314. Dated in early 451 A.D.

7^Azema, ib id . , pp. 194-197; Jackson, p. 316.

75PG, LXXXIII, col. 165A-B.

78Col. 165B. See Christine Mohrmann, litudes sur le Latin des Chretiens, T. I : Le Latin des Chretiens, 2nd ed. (Roma: Edizionidi Storiae Letteratura, 1961) pp. 278-284 ("Note sur Doxa").

77I t is not clear whether or not Theodoret would have assignedthe attributes of impassibility and immutability to the body as well as the soul since we do not have an entire philosophy expressed in Ep. 145 (146 Azema).

238

Col. 165B-C. . L iddell-Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon,pp. 1431 , 1453\ s j i ? , 1>i/ c - o f a certain nature, kind, orquality ; 7TereT '->?s,-77osJ ->? = quality ; 7To<rSs , ~7 , o v =a certain quantity or magnitude; / r a c r e T is j *?7 -0 S , ^ -quantity.

79Az£ma, T. I l l , pp. 190-194; Jackson, p. 315. The word "divine" seems to express what he means by "glory" here.

88Col. 160B-C; Jackson's translation ( LNPF) , p. 193.

SI Col. 160B-C. The stories of the raising of Jairus'daughter and of Lazarus are cited as examples, for both individualspartook of food.

82Col. 161A.

83Col. 161A; Ep. 145, 146 Azema, T. I l l , pp. 192-195.

• S^Col. 161B-C.

83Col. 1S1C.

88Col. 161C-D. Liddell-Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 1674; David Ross, A ris to tle (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1964} pp. 164-165.The distinction of substance and accident is Aristote lian . For another reference to sin understood as sickness, see col. 261A-B.

S^Col. 325B: "For sin is not of nature but of evil choice."

88Cols. 245B-D, 248A-249D.

89Col. 268A-B. The same idea is stated again in col. 332C:"God the Word is immortal by nature, but the flesh is mortal by nature. But a f te r the passion i t became immortal by participation with the Word."

"G iinter Koch finds this same idea of participation in the theology of Theodore of Mopsuestia which he identifies as a kind of moderated Platonism. I t is not a complete representation of the Platonic concept of partic ipation due to the fact that in Theodore's thought the in te l l ig ib le archetype is not substantially present in i ts image: Die Heilsverwirklichung bei Theodor vonMopsuestia, Munchener Theologische Studien, Bd. XXXI (MCinchen:Max Hueber Verlag, 1965) p. 222.

CHAPTER V

THE DOCTRINE OF TWO NATURES IN CHRIST

"Word-man" Christolog.y: the Anti-Arian Foundation

In the las t chapter we demonstrated how Theodoret strives to

maintain the difference between God and human nature in every facet

of his theology. I t is in Theodoret's firmly-maintained definition

of God and man as ontologically d is t inc t entities that we find the

basis for his dyophysite or "two-natures" scheme of Christology.

The themes of the three sections of Eranistes are expressions of

this fundamental theological principle particu larly in relation

to Christ. The d iv in ity of Christ is said to be both immutable

(Dialogue I ) and impassible (Dialogue I I I ) , and the union of God

and man in Christ is said to be without confusion or mixture.

(Dialogue I I ) On the other hand, the heretical theses which he

combats are concepts which subvert his basic assumption. The f i r s t

two which he assigns to Gnostic heresiarchs obliterate the true

human nature of Christ. The third thesis, Apollinaris' doctrine

of one nature in Christ, leads to the confusion and therefore

the abridgement of both natures. The fourth thesis mentioned

is the Arian-Eunomian a ttr ibution of suffering to the d iv in ity

of ChristJ

289

290

In keeping with this anti-Arian thesis and Theodoret's

preoccupation with the purity of the divine nature, i t should

be recognized that a l l of his revered predecessors in the Antiochene

School forged the ir Christology in opposition to Arian theology.^

The fourth-century debate with Arianism at f i r s t focused on the

doctrine of God (the nature of the Logos), but i t soon broadened

to include the Christological issue. In order to support his idea

of the Logos (Son) as a "creature" rather than as a being of the

same substance with the Father, Arius championed a "Word-flesh"

Christology. In this system of thought, a quasi-divine Logos took

the place of the human soul in Christ. By attr ibuting the human

weaknesses of Christ d irectly to the Logos-subject, Arius could

prove that the Logos was less than God. Thus, i t was not the

Nicene doctrine of the divine Logos in and of i t s e l f that created

the d i f f ic u l ty of maintaining a tru ly human Christ-- in spite of

well-worn dictums to that e ffect.^

The Antiochene Fathers (with the possible exception of Diodore)

developed the ir "Word-man" type of Christology in the process of

refuting the Arians, insisting that the Logos was tru ly God dwelling

in a complete human being constituted of body and soul. In this

enterprise, they understood themselves as the true upholders ofe /

the Nicene view o f God. The incarnate Logos remains o ^ o o u c io s

with the Father and thereby retains its essential nature of immut­

a b i l i t y and impassibility. But in order to retain its nature, i t

must be kept d is t inc t from Christ's human n a tu re .4

291

Theodoret's Christology in the Eranistes reflects this

traditional anti-Arian sentiment of his Antiochene trad ition .

He not only states an in i t ia l anti-Arian thesis in the prologue;

he hearkens back to i t from time to time during the course of

his work. Indeed, his entire Christology presupposes a Nicene

doctrine of God which in his mind rules out the Arian notion that

the Logos can suffer. Dialogue I begins, s ignificantly enough,

with a statement of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan doctrine of

the T r in ity with the implied exclusion of Arianism. God is

unchangeable even in the incarnate s ta te d In his summary of

Dialogue I in the Demonstrationes, he argues that God the Word

could not be changed into flesh by becoming incarnate, for he

would cease to be o & o o u f to s with the One who begot him.

"But i f we allow this (change), we w il l be completely betrayed

into the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius. For they say that

the Son is another substance ( £ T £ p o o 6 < rco V ) ."6 Theodoret's

insistence that the term "flesh" in John 1:14 means a complete or

perfect human nature with body and soul is also directed against

the Arian foe.'7 Toward the end of Dialogue I I I , Orthodoxus makes

a f ina l appeal to the Creed of Nicjpa in order to convince his

reca lc itrant foe that suffering cannot be attributed to the divine

•nature of Christ.. The intent of the argument is to lead Eranistes

to predicate human qualities of the human nature and divine

qualities of the divine. After an entire dialogue of argumentation

292

in which Eranistes has given ground, he says: "the teaching

of the fa ith which was agreed upon by the Fathers in Niqjaa says

the Only-begotten himself, the true God, of the same substance

with the Father, suffered and was crucified."® Orthodoxus'

reply is that the Fathers at Ni^ea said "became flesh" and

"became man" before they added "suffered" and "was crucified,"

with the intention of referring the element of suffering back

to the nature that was capable of suffering. This does not mean

that there is more than one person in Christ. To drive home his

point, Orthodoxus asks Eranistes whether he would attribute the

phrase "from the (same) substance of the Father" to the d iv in ity

or "to the nature from the seed of David." Eranistes replies

predictably—"to the d iv in ity ." Then, he adds a sim ilar question

with respect to the phrase "true God from true God." Eranistes

is forced to ascribe this phrase also to the d iv in ity . Thereupon,

Orthodoxus summarizes his interpretation of the Nicene Creed:

Thus, when we hear about the passion and the cross, i t is necessary to recognize the nature which received the passion and not to connect i t (the passion) with the impassible but with that one which was assumed for the sake of this (passion). That the most worthy Fathers con­fessed the divine nature to be impassible but joined the passion with the f lesh, the end of the fa ith (the creed) witnesses. And i t runs l ike th is : 'And those who say, thereonce was when he was not, and before he v/as begotten, he was not and that he came into being [ i y £ \ / £ T o ) from non-being, or who suppose that the Son of God is from a certain other hypostasis or essence, mutable or

293

changeable, these the holy catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.1 See then what penalties they threatened against those who jo in the passion to the divine nature.9

The foregoing discussion i l lu s tra tes very well the basic disagree­

ment between Theodoret and his opponents over the implications of

Nicene theology fo r Christology. The crucial importance of this

issue for Theodoret's entire Christological system is seen in

the context in which i t occurs. His appeal to Nicene theology

is his ultimate attempt to annihilate his opponent's "theopaschism."

I t is the capstone of his argument. This is not to say that

Eranistes champions an Arian doctrine o f God. Like Cyril and

Apollinaris he wants to maintain an absolutely unified divine

subject in Christ to which a l l is predicated and yet somehow say

that i t remains impassible. However, by a ttr ibuting human

weaknesses to the Godhead, he is log ica lly driven to a contradiction

of impassibility and immutability. Aside from his formal recog­

nition elsewhere of God's impassible and unchangeable nature, he is

in the position o f supporting the idea of an incarnate "God" who

is less than God, in Arian fashion. From Theodoret's point of

view, the only way to avoid this dilemma is to follow the practice

of "double predication," i . e . , to recognize that some tra its of

Christ belong to his d iv in ity and others to his humanity. Eranistes

is reluctant to capitulate to this practice, for to him i t seems

tantamount to dividing the person of Christ into two "sons."

294

Another passage in Eranistes brings out this concern together

with Orthodoxus1 anti-Arian preoccupation.

For to me i t is equally unholy to divide the one son into two and to deny the duality of the natures. Te ll me the truth. I f someone of the parties of Arius or Eunomius would attempt to b e l i t t le the Son when conversing with you and to describe him as less than and in fe r io r to the Father, saying those things which they are accustomed to saying and quoting from the Holy Scripture:‘ Father, i f i t is possible, le t this cup pass from me,1 and 'Now my soul is troub led ,1 and other such passages. How would you solve his problems? And would you show that theSon is not diminished by these e x p r e s s i o n s ?

Eranistes answers that he would avoid the Arian problem by showing

how the Scriptures speak sometimes "theologically" and other times(inversely)

"economically," that is,^ how the Son of God expressed the weaknesses

of'the flesh at one time but the greatness of the d iv in ity at

another.^ Orthodoxus presses the questioning further: "But i f

he (the Arian or Eunomian) were to say in answer: 'And he did not

take a soul but only a body, and the d iv in ity united with the body

instead of a soul and took on a ll the things (properties) of the

soul,' with what words would you put an end to his opposition?"

Eranistes appeals to the Scriptures for the idea that the Logos

took both a body and a human soul and refutes a hypothetical

Apollinarian with the affirmation that the soul was rational. .

The soul must be rational i f one is to understand the Gospel

passages in Luke 2:40 and 2:52: "And the child grew and became

strong, f i l l e d with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him";

295

"And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God

and m a n . "12 After Eranistes has mustered these anti-Arian and anti-

Apollinarian arguments to Orthodoxus1 satisfaction , the la tte r

delivers the coup de grace.

But that union and notorious mixture and confusion, you have broken apart mentally not only into two but into three (parts).And you have shown not only the difference of the d iv in ity and the humanity, but have divided the same humanity in two. You show that the soul is one thing and the body another, so no longer two natures (according to your statement) but three natures of our Savior Jesus Christ are to be recognized.!3

This passage is not only an excellent example of reductio ad

absurdum which displays Theodoret's d ia lectica l s k i l l ; i t is also

proof of his theological conviction that in l ig h t of the Arian

threat, one must absolutely distinguish consistently between the *

natures and those aspects o f Christ's l i f e that are in keeping

with them. Eranistes' fa i lu re to do so endangers the very nature

o f God Himself. At the same time, Theodoret is proving to the

opposition that a recognition of two natures does not mean

dividing Christ into two sons any more than Eranistes' distinctions

means that there are three separate natures in Christ.

The Exegetical Basis

As one of the great exegetes of the Antiochene tradition and

indeed of the whole P atr is tic church, Theodoret takes care to base

his Christology upon a firm exegetical foundation. His major

296

concepts are consistently drawn from Holy S crip tu re .^ At no point

in the development of his Christology are Biblical ideas out o f

si ght.

The f i r s t dialogue of Eranistes provides the in i t ia l

Scriptural foundation for the whole work. This dialogue is p racti­

cally a running commentary upon the phrase from Joiv; / j o fOS

£ y£ \ / € 7 ~ 0 --which few Christological texts rival

in importance for p a tr is t ic theology. I t w il l be remembered that

this theme was part of the plan of the original flori.legium of 431

which has been incorporated into Eranistes. How does one properly

understand the phrase "the Word became flesh?" We have already

remarked as to how Theodoret explains the meaning of "flesh"; that is ,

i t includes the entire human nature as in common Biblical usage. But

how should one understand the term "became" in this phrase? Does i t

mean "became" in the sense of "changed into" flesh? By no means!

says Theodoret. The divine nature cannot undergo change.

Therefore, early in Dialogue I , he presents Eranistes with two

options for the interpretation of this passage--one right and one

wrong: "How do you understand 'became f le s h '— 'took flesh' or

'was changed into flesh' ( 7~c> o/od. \o t.^Z C V '‘j T o £(S

T jP o tT T V M f \ )?15 Eranistes had just previously explained

that the Word became flesh "not according to change but as he himself

knows." Now, however, he replies somewhat d ifferen tly : "He who

underwent the change into flesh became flesh, and as I already said,

as he knows. And we know that with him a l l things are possib le ."^

As examples of miraculous change, he mentions several supernatural

acts such as the change of the Nile into blood, the change of sea

into dry land at creation, and f i l l i n g the desert with water.

Orthodoxus replies: " I f he became flesh by mutation, he did not

remain just as he was before." Continuing, he points out the basic

flaw in the analogies of physical change and adds some examples

of his own. With a change of nature goes a change of name; that

is , i f God has tru ly changed into flesh, He cannot be called God

anymore.^ Again Eranistes takes refuge in paradox: "I have said

many times that he became flesh not according to change, but

remaining what he was, he became what he was not." Dissatisfied

with this unbelievably confusing statement, Orthodoxus offers

what to him is the only option for a clear understanding of John 1:14

"For unless he became flesh by taking flesh, he became flesh by

change" ( £lc ,

C7" ^ / ) . ^ Since Eranistes hangs on

stubbornly to the l i te ra l wording of the text and rejects the notion

of "taking" as Orthodoxus1 own invention, the la t te r launches into

a Scriptural ju s t if ic a tio n of his interpretation.

The essence of Theodoret's interpretation of the phrase

"the Word became flesh" is to understand i t in the sense of the

Word "took" flesh. Such an interpretation is based upon a

unitive exegesis of John 1:14, Hebrews 2:16, and Philippians 2:7.

298

He begins his explanation v/ith the quote from Hebrews: "For tru ly

he did not take ( €77 ($£.{/e rat ( ) from angels, but he took

( £ 7 r r s i u A i ( ) from the seed of Abraham."^ A long

discussion ensues about the meaning of "the seed of Abraham" as

a term for Christ's complete humanity, a fte r which Orthodoxus

u til izes his favorite terminology once again: "the Word took

( ) f le s h ."20 Shortly thereafter, the other key

Christological passage of Philippians 2:7 is brought in relation

to the Johannine passage: "he emptied himself taking ( X otfjuJI/ )

the form of a s e r v a n t . F r o m the passages in Hebrews and Ph ilip ­

pians, our author has found a key term for his incarnational

1 anguage--that of God taking the human Jesus into relationship

with Himself. Again and again some form of the verb Xu m Qu v m

occurs when Theodoret speaks of the incarnation. God is often

described as the one who assumed or took and the humanity is the

one who was assumed or taken.22

Another related idea grows out of John 1:14 and Theodoret's

practice of blending other texts with i t . This, is the traditional

Antiochene idea of God dwelling in the manhood of Christ. The

Johannine text provides the starting point for this idea with the> /

phrase "dwelled or tabernacled among (or in) us" ( £0J£'O V iajVZVj c / \

£ V )• From this vantage point, our author links up

sim ilar words in other passages to f i l l - o u t the implications of

the metaphor: (ten t or tabernacle), V°t o sC /

(temple), and the related ideas of c f f ld (sanctuary) and

299

r r £ r</crM u. (curtain or screen). According to Theodoret's

understanding of the Gospel of John and Hebrews, the humanity of

Christ is symbolized as a temple or tabernacle in which the Divine

resides. This conceptual framework helps Theodoret maintain his

cherished distinction between divine and human natures.

That which dwells in a tabernacle is other than the tabernacle which is dwelled in.But the evangelist called his flesh the tabernacle ( (TK’n v - j z ) and said that God the Word dwelled in i t ( v k i ) .'For the Word,' he says 'became flesh and dwelled in us.' But indeed, we have been taught that he dwelled in flesh. For the evangelist himself in another place called his body a temple ( zz.oz ).23

With this conception of the incarnation as a dwelling in human nature,

the phrase £ z of John 1:14 is naturally understood as

"in us," that is , in human nature. The passage alluded-', to in our/

quotation is John 2:19 and 21: "Destroy this temple (VetoZ )

and in three days I w il l raise i t up. . . . he spoke of the temple

of his body ( T o u V<zou <j u m z .Tos ) . " From a passage in his

Commentary on Hebrews, we see c learly that he has identif ied the

term CKnqv'Z) (generally used in chapters eight and nine of

Hebrews for the tabernacle o f Israel and the heavenly tabernacle)> s

with £< 7zr7V W £Z in John 1:14. Commenting on the meaning of

in 9:11, he says: z f v 7 *< v c r / r ^ y ^ x /

& ^O770f-r?7<?V 7 7 V Cpv<7(\/ ^0~£l/

777 @ £ 7 & / } £(777o 7 ^ S )({> (< 7 T °S • In the

Scriptural te x t , the exact implication is somewhat unclear, but

the term may allude to Christ's body.24 The concept of God

300

dwelling in the "temple" or "tabernacle" of man or manhood is

a common image for the incarnation among Antiochene theologians.25

In one passage, Theodoret admirably combines the ideas of "taking"

and "dwelling in" in order to explain the debated phrase "the Word

became flesh." Here he follows the practical exegetical consider­

ation of understanding the parts of the text together. "For a fte r

he said, 'The Word became f lesh ,' he continued, ‘ and dwelled among

us: that is , using the flesh taken from us as a kind of temple,

he is said to have become flesh. And teaching that he remained

unchanged. . . . "26

Theodoret's unitive exegesis of texts from John, Paul, and

Hebrews bears further f r u i t for his Christology. Another image

growing out of this complex of interrelated ideas as expressed in

the Letter to the Hebrews is that o f the "curtain" of the heavenly/

sanctuary (Hebrews 10:19-21). Theodoret's term is/

rather than the term used in the Biblical te x t , A//V/7'<5'7V<7>s<'»<’ .

U t i l iz in g his high-priest imagery to the fu l le s t , the author of

Hebrews speaks f igura tive ly of the curtain o f the sanctuary or

"holy of holies" as Christ's flesh. This leads Theodoret to speak

of Christ's v is ib le nature (his humanity) as a curtain which

maintains God's inv is ib le nature but through which God manifests

Himself.2^

This imagery leads him to use another traditional figure of

speech for the incarnation—namely, that of God clothing or

investing Himself with human nature. Thus, human nature is spoken

301

of as a "robe" or "garment"—terms which Theodoret gleans from

Old Testament prophecies.2 on a few other occasions he uses the

same imagery of the divine nature being clad with human nature—

for example, U < p t / < r f * s .29

course, such language had been used with a strong docetic meaning,

and one must admit that i t lends i t s e l f very well to a "Word-flesh"

type of Christology from which the human soul is excluded. However,

this is clearly not Theodoret's intention, for he never ceases to

say that "flesh" or human nature includes body and a rational s o u l .^

Another of Theodoret's descriptive terms for the incarnation

grows d irectly out of his exegesis of John 1:14. This is the idea

of the divine glory ( c ) expressed in the earthly Christ. The

origin of the idea is clear in this text.

For a f te r he said, 'The Word became f le s h ,' he continued, 'and dwelled among us': thatis , using the flesh taken from us as a kind of temple, he is to have become flesh. And teaching that he remained unchanged, he continued: 'And we beheld his glory, gloryas of the only-begotten from the Father, fu l l of grace and t ru th . ' For also having been invested with flesh, he showed his A paternal n o b il ity , and sent out rays {Uk tim s ) of d iv in jtv , and discharged the splendor ( 7 w o i i ' fA ' iv ) of the Lordly power, revealing the hidden nature by his wonderful works.31

As we pointed out in the la s t chapter, is one of the attributes

of resurrection bodies—Christ's and believers! We w il l have occasion

to speak of this again la te r with respect to the risen Christ. This

raises the question of whether Theodoret has fa llen into the p i t fa l l

302

of docetism which he detested so much. This de fin ite ly was not the

case. When he speaks of the resurrection bodies, he is drawing

exegetically upon the Pauline passages which speak of the g lo r if ied

resurrection body.32 When he is speaking of the glory of the

earthly Christ, he is drawing exclusively upon the imagery of the

prologue of John, as our quote indicates. The glory is the l ig h t

shining in the darkness of the world. The same interpretation of

John 1:14 in the context of the prologue is found in the early work

Graecarum affectionum curatio . In both this work and Eranistes

our author makes i t abundantly clear that there is no docetism

implied in his terminology. In fa c t , we find the repetitious

assertion of the fact that the two natures in Christ remain

dis tinc t.

'We beheld,1 he says, 'his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, fu llof grace and t ru th . ' For the covering offlesh did not dim the rays of his d iv in ity , but also by putting this on, i t was clear who he was and from whom he received his radiance.33

For when he said, 'The Word became flesh and dwelled in us,' he added immediately,'And we beheld his glory. . . ' But i f , according to the ignorant, he underwent a change into flesh, he did not remain what he was. But i f when he was concealed in the flesh, he sent out rays of his Father's n o b il ity , he has the nature which is certainly immutable, and i t shines also in the body and sends out flashings of the inv is ib le nature. . . . For the l ig h t shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome i t . . . . when he dwelled in us he did not dim the glory of his nature . . . But i f having become flesh, i t was clear who he was, then he remained just who he was, and did not undergo the change into f les h .34

303

In a ll of Theodoret's Scriptural exegesis, he is concerned

to maintain both the true humanity of Christ and the inviolable

nature of the incarnate Word. When interpreting the important

passage in Philippians 2:5-8, Orthodoxus is quick to remove any

possib ility of a docetic inference from the phrases “born in the

likeness of men," and "the form of a servant," and "the form of

God." "That which was taken was not the likeness of man but the

nature o f wan. For the form of a servant is the nature of a

servant just as the form of God is considered the nature of G o d . "35

The Letter to the Hebrews was very popular with Theodoret,

as indeed i t was with his Antiochene forerunners. Greer has shown

how much Diodore, Theodore, and Chrysostom were re lian t upon this

le t te r and how i t entered into the Nestorian debate. I t was used

as a common source by both sides in this controversy, but i t seems

particu larly harmonious with the Antiochene double predication.

In Greer's words, "in Hebrews perhaps more than anywhere else

in the New Testament, we are given a double judgment concerning

Christ's person. He is the reflection of God's glory, yet he

was made l ik e his brothers in a l l things."36 In Eranistes

Theodoret appeals to this le t te r particularly when he is developing

the concept of redemption. Christ is pictured as one who tru ly

shares the weaknesses of his fellow human beings with the exception

of sin. Yet, God who remains impassible gains man's redemption

through this human nature.3^

304

Theodoret's interest in the Old Testament is almost exclusively

from a Christological point of view. He takes over the New Testament

w riters ' concern to establish a relationship between Jesus and the

history of Israel in the Old Testament. Beginning with New Testament

statements concerning Jesus' ancestry, he examines the prophecies

and typological anticipations of Christ in the Old Testament. I t

soon becomes apparent that he is using this material to lend

authoritative confirmation to his own distinctive Christology.

One of the f i r s t texts cited that hearkens back to the Old

Testament is the passage from Hebrews mentioned previously which

speaks of Christ's human nature being taken "from the seed of

Abraham" (Hebrews 2 : 1 6 ) . We w il l find that much of his Old

Testament interpretation f i t s the typological method of Hebrews.

In this particular text we find an argument for the true humanity

of Christ which is re-echoed in practica lly all of the comments

on Old Testament passages. But i f this side of Theodoret's Chris­

tological dualism finds a natural confirmation in these texts, the

element of God's immutable nature is also never lost sight of.

After appealing to' the nature of Christ taken from the seed

of Abraham, our author moves into a consideration of the prophecy

of Micah 5:2:

Out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel (the prophet adds) whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting.39

Eranistes comments in characteristic fashion: "the prophet . . .

shows i t was God who was born in Bethlehem." Orthodoxus corrects

305

his opponent: "Not only God but also man. On the one hand, man

as having come forth from Judah according to the flesh and having

been born in Bethlehem, on the other, God as existing before the

ages."^ Such a dualistic way of reading the Biblical text is

typical of his handling of prophecies. That Theodoret regarded

these interpretations as important is indicated by the amount of

space devoted to them. We w il l select the texts which appear most

typical and which best i l lu s t ra te his Christology. His interpre­

tation of the Messianic text from Isaiah 11 proceeds along the same

lines. The king who is prophesied to come from the Davidic line

is described with a long l i s t of ideal characteristics. Very

typ ica lly , Theodoret divides them according to both natures of

C h ris t .^ Against Eranistes' stereotyped claim that "God is

prophesied" in the passage, Orthodoxus emphasizes the coming

Messiah's earthly ancestry. 42

Moving to typological interpretations, we notice the same

attempt to find dual meaning in each tex t, although in a more

fanciful manner. Beginning with a discussion of the term "Mediator"

( M Z tf tT i jS ) for Christ in Dialogue I I , Orthodoxus explains

how the term includes both d iv in ity and humanity. When reminded that

Moses who was a mere man was also called a Mediator, Orthodoxus

explains that Moses was a "type" ( Tu7Tos ) for Christ and therefore

did not possess all the characteristics of the truth. In other words,

he is a type for Christ's human nature. However, Moses is referred

306

to as God in Exodus 7:1, in order that he might formally qualify as

a type.

That one (Moses) was a type of the truth.And the type does not have a l l such (qualit ies) that the truth (has). On account of th is , that one (Moses) was not God by nature, but s t i l l he was named God in order that he might f u l f i l l the type.43

The true archetype ( ) ( z r u 7 7 o v ) must be equally God and man.

Since Eranistes questions whether something can qualify as a type

i f i t does not clearly possess the characteristics of the archetype,

Orthodoxus, leads his foe to accept the fact that the imperial

images are tru ly images of the emperor. Although he has shifted/ > /

his terminology from to £ (£ w v , the same idea is

expressed: an image does not possess the v ita l and rational

t ra its of the emperor himself.44 in order to further i l lu s t ra te •

his idea that Old Testament types substantiate a dyophysite

Christology even when they do not correlate perfectly with such

an understanding, Orthodoxus moves next to the strange figure

Melchizedek who is used as a type for Christ's high-priesthood

in the Letter to the Hebrews. Following the description in Hebrews,

he poses the contradiction in the type himself. Although Melchizedek

was "begotten" as a human being, his lack of parents a l l ie s him with

the divine nature which has no parentage or point of beginning.

"The Lord Christ is the archetype of Melchizedek in those things

exceeding the human nature"; therefore, the question is , how can

Melchizedek be a legitimate type of Christ's d iv in ity , i f he is

307

not tru ly divine himself?^ Again we are presented with the

explanation:

I f he was tru ly without father and without mother, he was not the image but the truth.But since he does not have things by nature but according to the economy of Holy Scripture, he shows the type of t ru th .46

Even in the case of the image of God in man, there is a great

disparity between the image and the archetypal reality-God.47

In spite of these repetitive examples of how Old Testament

types legitim ately uphold our author's Christology, we find s t i l l

another one in Dialogue I I I . This is the famous story of Abraham's

near-sacrifice of Isaac. The discussion between Orthodoxus and

Eranistes about the typological significance of this story expresses

the opposition between the two theologies very w ell. Surely this

type of argument based upon typological interpretation played an

important role in the f ifth -century Christo!ogical controversies,

even though i t may not appear a worthwhile kind of argument to a

modern mind. Eranistes argues that Isaac is the type for the death

and resurrection of "God the Word." I t was the divine voice which

brought him back to l i f e . 48 The alternative explanation by Orthodoxus

brings out his own theological emphases.

But a ram was seen hanging from a tree and showing the image of the cross, i t underwent the sacrifice instead of the boy. But i f this is a type of the tru th , and in the type the only-begotten son did not undergo the sacrif ice , but a ram was substituted and la id on the a l ta r , and i t fu l f i l l e d the mystery of the sacrif ice , why then do you not once assign the passion to the flesh and declare the impassibility of the di vi ni ty?49

303

The conclusion of this interpretation (discussed already in chapter

two) embodies the idea that the distinction between natures implied

in the Old Testament type (or image) does not correspond exactly to

the natures o f Christ which remain d iffe ren t but not separate. "For

we proclaim such a union of d iv in ity and humanity as to understand

one undivided person and to know the same .(to be) God and man. . . ."50

As i f to ward o f f the charge of separating Christ into two Sons by

his typological exegesis, the las t example of typology in Eranistes

also u til izes the discrepancy between type and archetype: this type

consists of the s a c r if ic ia l practice in the Old Testament of sacri­

f ic ing one goat and releasing the other. Of course, the two goats

express the two natures o f Christ, one of which suffers, the other

which remains impassible. Theodoret points out that to base the 1

type on one goat would endanger the distinction between the natures.

But this paralle l should not be understood to imply two

in Christ.51

Whatever the value of the various exegetical arguments used

by Theodoret may be, they constitute in his mind the necessary

foundation for his type of Christology. For him, there is ultimately

no distinction between his Christological system and his exegesis.

Consistently and repetitiously his interpretation of various Biblical

texts re f lec t his basic theological assumptions.

309

The Concept of Union in Christ

We have seen that Theodoret takes over several New Testament

concepts of the union of God and man in Christ. Part icu lar ly , the

union is thought of in terms of God "taking" human nature and dwelling

w i t ly i t . When the verbs <ft' 0( 1/ or ( f jp / z o u ) are

used, they are understood in this sense. There must be no thought

of a fusion between the natures which would result in an essential

change of e ither one. The common term which Theodoret uses forf /

this union in Eranistes is <fi/t</<r< s ; in fact he varies his termi-cs

nology so l i t t l e that one could say that £vu/<rcs is practica lly

his exclusive term in this work. This term was also employed widely

in his e a r l ie r works, although other terms were also u s e d . 52 As to

the common Nestorian terms for the union— (Tuwcpefu. and

he does not appear to part icu larly favor the former term or to use

the la t te r term, as fa r as we know.

. There is no question of when the union of God and man took

place for Theodoret. The adoptionism of Paul of Samosata does not

enter into the picture at a l l . I t is assumed throughout the dialogues

that the union took place at conception as a result of God’s love for

man. This assumption is expressed more e x p lic i t ly in a few texts

from Eranistes.53 The question of the legitimacy of the term .

Theotokos for the Virgin Mary is no longer an issue. As we pointed

out in the chapters concerning Theodoret's career, he recognized the

v a lid ity o f this term in the early 430‘s. I t expressed his fa ith

that the divine-human union came at the time of Christ's conception.

310

. Theodoret c la r if ie s his understanding of the union implied

in the phrase "the Word became flesh" by examining several possible

analogies for i t from nature. In one category there are changes of

substances which result in a change of "name." The f i r s t example

of this kind of change is that of sand v/hich is heated until i t

becomes glass. I t is at the end of the process no longer recognized

by i ts former name. Secondly, when grapes are pressed to make wine,

they no longer are called grapes but wine. When the wine changes

i ts state with age, i t is no longer called wine but vinegar. Thirdly,

rock that is burned and broken up is no longer rock but is called

lime or gypsum.54 /\ change of this type cannot be involved in the union

of manhood and d iv in ity in Christ, for the re a l it ies involved would

no longer possess th e ir former constitutions. One could no longer

speak of God or of man, "For the change of name goes with the change

of na tu re ."^ In the case of physical changes such as those mentioned,

in spite of the change in name, there remains a certain kinship to the

previous state of being. But in the case of God undergoing a mutation

into flesh--since the difference between d iv in ity and flesh is bound­

less—-He cannot be called God at a l l . The change is too great for

any kinship with His previous state of being to remain.56

In another category of analogies for the union in Christ,

Theodoret examines certain types of natural unions. This consider­

ation is sparked by Eranistes' claim that in Christ, "the d iv in ity

remained but that the humanity was swallowed up by i t . " Questioned

311

as to exactly how the "simple and uncompounded" nature of d iv in ity

could accomplish this fea t, Eranistes replies--"Like the sea

receiving a drop of honey. For this drop is soon gone, being

mixed with the water of the sea."57 Orthodoxus pinpoints the

weakness of such an analogy in a statement which reveals his

central concept of the qualita tive difference between God and

creation.

The sea and a drop of honey d i f fe r in quantity and are one (a like) in quality .For the one is greatest, the other least.The one is sweet, the other s a lt . But in other respects there is to be found the greatest kinship. For both have the f lu id , wet, and liquid nature.They are l ike each other being created, and they are likewise common being inani­mate, yet each one is called a body. There­fore, i t is not unreasonable that the closely- related natures undergo mixture, and that one disappears by means of the other. But here the difference is boundless and such that no figure of the rea l ity is to be f o u n d . 58

Having disposed of Eranistes' analogy, Orthodoxus offers some

analogies of unions or mixtures in which the d ifferent substances

remain d is tinc t. F irs t , there is the example of the diffusion of

l ig h t through the atmosphere. After the l igh t departs at darkness,

•the atmosphere remains alone. Secondly, there is the example of

iron that is put in f i r e so that in Theodoret's terms the f i r e

becomes diffused through i t . 59 This second analogy may obviously

be understood in two d ifferent ways. I t could be used by both

Alexandrian and Antiochene traditions. According to Eranistes,

312

the iron "changes completely. For i t is no longer considered to

be iron, but f i r e . " But Orthodoxus reminds him that surely the

blacksmith continues to regard i t as iron and to trea t i t as such

on his anv il. Here again we find Theodoret interpreting physical

analogies according to his presuppositions just as he interprets

Old Testament types to f i t his predilections.®®

Then the conjunction with the f i r e did not spoil the nature of the iron. I f then there is an unconfused mixture to be found in bodies, then i t is clearly madness to conceive a con­fusion in the unmixed and unchangeable nature, and a disappearance of the nature which was assumed.*^

The same kind of treatment is applied to Theodoret's favorite

analogy for the Christo!ogical union—namely, the union of body and

soul in man. The very same key idea is brought out again.62 The

union of body and soul is a "natural" union in that i t involves

created natures. This distinguishes i t from the union of divine

and human natures in Christ which are qua lita tive ly or categorically

diffe ren t. Nevertheless, the union of body and soul is the prime

example of a union on the natural level in which the constituents

remain in tact while being firm ly uni ted.63 in the case of Orthodoxus1

analogy of f i r e and iron, the emphasis was upon the distinction

between the natures in order to counteract Eranistes' example of

a drop of honey in the sea. When he develops the body-soul

analogy in the context of Dialogue I I , Theodoret's spokesman

must convince Eranistes that the distinction between the natures

313

does not imply a disjunction o f the natures joined together. This

monophysite expresses his suspicion of any implied duality in Christ

when he says, "Whoever contemplates two natures in Christ, divides

the one Only-begotten into two sons." Orthodoxus* rejoinder is an

attempt at reductioad absurdum: "Therefore, he who also says that

Paul is of a soul and a body declares that the one is two Pauls."

When Eranistes replies that the example is unfa ir , Orthodoxus

admits, as he does elsewhere, the element of inapp licab ili ty of

his analogy. The natural union of body and soul in Paul is d ifferent

from the union of qua lita tive ly d ifferen t divine and human natures\ ‘ / i

in Christ which is based upon approval, love and grace: 7 0 o a o v

£u<fo/c(oLs M r )^J(prTos , 54

Nevertheless, the valid point o f s im ila r i ly in the analogy holds

true: in both unions the natures remain intact and unconfused.

Throughout Theodoret's discussion o f analogies for the union

in Christ, we find the double intention of guarding the in tegrity

of the divine and human natures and yet maintaining the union

between them. Surely his preference for the body-soul analogy is

understandable. I t is clearly superior to the image of a drop

of honey in the sea and preferable to the time-worn image of

heated iron. However, the analogy of body-soul unity also has

serious lim itations. As Marcel Richard has pointed out, i t was

particu larly suited to a "Word-flesh" Christological scheme such

as that of A p o ll in a r is .^ In fa c t , the b ip a rt ite scheme of body

314

e(isrf{*\t+!y/<jand soul f i t s better in a Christology where the y\ . element, the re a l

soul, is lacking. Another lim itation may be drawn from our discussion

of Theodoret's anthropology: the soul suffers, but the d iv in ity does

not. The modern theologian Karl Barth completely rejects the body-

soul analogy as an inadequate expression for a union that can only

be described as sui generis. Among other flaws, Barth notes that

this analogy does not bring out the predominance of the d iv in ity

and the dependence of the humanity upon i t . 65 This criticism is

sim ilar to Grillm eier's judgment that Theodoret's Christology is

"zu symmetrisch gebaut und nicht eindeutig auf die Hypostase des

Logos hin a u s g e r ic h te t .N e v e r th e le s s there is no question in

Theodoret's mind that the divine nature is predominant in the sense

that the union is created by His love and grace. Granting the

weakness in a paralle l or "symmetrical" Christo!ogical union, the

strength of such a Christology is that Christ remains a tru ly human

being and God does not become part of the world. Although Theodoret

does not spell-out a l l of the flaws in his analogies, he is keenly

aware that in the la s t analysis, each one does not apply completely

to the unique union of God and man in Christ. Why then does he use

them? He does so because of his "apologetic" interest in convincing

his opponents of the truth of his theology. In this undertaking,

the previously discussed analogies are u s e f u l . 63

We turn now to a consideration of the subject which results

from the union of God and man in Christ. The characteristic term

315

employed consistently for the person of Christ in Eranistes and

other works is 77'(?ocrc*>s7'ov .69 jh is term means a "person"

as viewed from the outside--that is , "person" in the sense of

a concrete historical i n d i v i d u a l .70 Theodoret understands this

person of Christ to be the bearer of both divine and human a t t r i ­

butes. He refuses steadfastly to call this person "one nature"

or to name him simply "God" according to his higher nature as

Eranistes prefers.

In addition to the term prosopon, he prefers to use the

term "Christ" for Jesus, for i t comprises the to ta l i ty of his

significance.

a f te r the incarnation, God the Word is called Christ. Therefore, this name re­ceives everything, a l l the properties of the d iv in ity and a ll the properties of the humanity. But we recognize certain properties of this nature and certain properties of that nature.72

The name 'Christ' in the case of our Lord and Savior indicates the Word which became man. The (name) 'Emmanuel, God with us,' indicates God and man. But the name'God the Word,1 thus spoken, signifies the simple nature before the world, beyond time, incor­poreal .73

Other terms that embrace the whole Christ are the "Lord" the "one

Son" and the "Mediator."74 I t should be apparent that the under­

standing of the person or subject of Christ implied in Theodoret's

terminology does not involve an analysis of the psychological

unity of Christ. Theodoret simply does not raise the question

316

of how the two natures operate together in the mind of Christ.

He has l e f t this matter open, which is rea lly more of a modern

preoccupation than a Patr is tic one. Perhaps his concern to avoid

a substantial or natural type of union helps keep him from probing

into the in te r io r of Christ's mind.

However, having said th is , i t is necessary to pursue his

thought further to the consideration of divine and human attr ibutes.

We have reiterated that our author refers to each of the two

re a l it ie s - -d iv in e and human--that constitute Christ as a nature/ / V(<pu<f(S)% The terms which identify the natures often occur together

in parallel structures. The divine and human natures are sometimes

referred to simply as (P?oS and P yP (?ut77oS Quite often

they are referred to as P * a n d p yP ^u f7 ro 7 *? ro S P

In another passage the divine and human aspects of Christ are called

J~U (P e c * and T * oC 1/ P ^ to T T e y * .77 i n s t i l l other

passages we find such expressions in context as T *7 ^ ( P P * y

and W y and (in separate passages) T '^ y

(P ? £ fo iy and q?P<r(V p y u / y y r r y z 7~<£decyz .73/ _

Often the Biblical designation for human nature— —is taken

over, particu larly when there is a reference to Scriptural passages

containing the te rm .^

We have had occasion to point out e a r l ie r in the dissertation

that by the time Theodoret wrote Eranistes he had eliminated from

his theological vocabulary what Richard calls "concrete terms" for

Christ's humanity. In his early works written before 432 A.D., he

317

had regularly used such terms as "the assumed man," "the visible

man," and "the man taken from the race of David." Such terms give

a stronger implication of a humanity in Christ separated from the

d iv in ity . I t w ill be noticed that the terms used in Eranistes

are more abstract in n a tu r e .H o w e v e r , Montalverne has shown that

both abstract and concrete terms were used indiscriminately in the

early v/orks. Therefore, he concludes that a ll the terms were

intended in an abstract sense.^ In our opinion, this does not

mean that one must posit an abstract idea of humanity in Theodoret's

Christology to the exclusion of an individual human being. I t means

simply that his thought is expressed primarily in the categories

of natures and essences.

Since the union in Christ does not confound the two natures,

they retain the ir peculiar characteristics. Therefore, Theodoret

habitually assigns the appropriate attributes to each nature; that

i s , the specifica lly human characteristics in Christ's l i f e are

restricted to his humanity, and the divine characteristics are

restricted to the d iv in ity . This is the meaning of the so-called

"double predication" in Antiochene theology. Two categorically

d ifferen t sets of characteristics are predicated of the one Christ.

In this way, Theodoret can maintain God's unique impassible nature

and bring out the fullness of Christ's human qua lities . The

perusal of a few passages w il l make this "double predication"

clear. Speaking of Christ, he says:

318

At one time he honors his mother as the one who bore him, at another time he rebukes her as Lord. At one time, he approves those who call him Son of David, at another, he teaches those who do not know that he is not only son but Lord of David. On the one hand, he calls Nazareth and Capernaum his native country.On the other hand again, he cries: 'BeforeAbraham was, I am.1 And you w ill find the divine Scripture fu l l of many of these things. And these things are not of one nature, but very clearly of two.82

Dialogue I I I which is devoted to preserving the impassibility of

God is a running argument over which nature should have the suffering

of Christ assigned to i t . In order to refute Eranistes1 claim that

God the Word suffered in the flesh, Orthodoxus ascribes a l l of the

experiences of suffering and lim itation to Christ's human nature.

I t was not God who was weary of traveling, for God has no spatial

l im ita t ion—nor does He lack anything. I t was Christ's human body

that became weary (John 6:6).83 when Christ was nailed to the cross,

i t was the human nature which f e l t the nails , not the d iv in ity .84

That this practice of dividing the attributes must be followed is

also seen in the question concerning Jesus' brother: Was he a

brother of the eternal God or of the humanity? Obviously of the

la t te r . Most of a l l , of course, the death of Christ must be

attributed to the human nature alone, for the divine nature cannot

d ie .85 That the corpse of Jesus was called by the Lord's name, does

not mean that God tasted death, for i t is the common practice to

refer to a dead body by the whole person's n a m e . 85 The nearest

that Theodoret ever comes to associating the passion of Christ

319

with God is his statement: "the body which suffered happened to

be his body."^

Although the attributes of both natures are generally spelled

out in paralle l fashion due to the fact that each t r a i t implies its

opposite, several passages bring out the human tra its in a vivid

fashion.

We have learned that the Savior Christ hungered and thirsted and we believe that this tru ly happened and did not seem to happen.But these are properties not of a bodiless nature but of a body. Then, the Lord Christ had a body, which received the sufferings of the nature before the resurrection and the divine apostle bears witness to these things.'For we do not have,1 he says, 'a high-priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in a l l ways in the same way, without s in . ' For sin is not of nature but of evil choice.28

I t is important to note that the human tra its are not confined to

the body as was the tendency in "Word-flesh" Christology.^ The

human soul of Christ also enters into the picture. According to

Scripture, says Theodoret, Christ told Paul not to be afraid

(Acts 23:11, 27:24), yet Christ himself was afraid (Luke 22:44).

Although these two assertions seem to co n fl ic t , they actually do not.

For he is by nature both God and man. And as God he encourages those who need courage.But as man, he receives encouragement by an angel, although the D iv in ity and the S p ir i t were present as an anointing. But neither the D iv in ity which was joined together with them nor the a ll-ho ly S p ir i t at that time supported body or soul, but this service was committed to an angel in order that they might show the weakness of the soul and body. . . .90

320

In a passage following this quote, he asks the rhetorical question

of those who want to fuse the attributes into one nature: "how

did the properties of the natures remain unimpaired, and (how) did

the soul struggle, and (how) did the body sweat, so as to secrete

blood-like drops from the excess of fear?"91 But i t is not fears

and struggles alone that are predicated of the soul. Schulte has

shown that Theodoret could also a ttr ibu te ignorance to the human

soul.92

As we have indicated, Theodoret habitually divides the charac­

te r is t ics applicable to Christ between the two natures. Does this

mean that he in re a l i ty sp lits the union in Christ into two separate

beings? The answer to this question is clearly negative. When

our author assigns d iffe ren t properties to d iffe ren t natures, he

distinguishes "by the reason alone" ( T ty A /o v td ).93

He does not rea lly divide the natures any more than he does when

he distinguishes conceptually between soul and body in man.94 i t

is a mental or rational act that is involved. "We do not, good

fellow, divide the union, but we contemplate the properties of the

natures" (

7>?V £VC*S(7'fI / ; ^ T ^ V

(p v< f£ w v ).95 A form of the same verb used here—

—occurs in a sim ilar te x t .95

All of the properties belong r ig h tly to one nature or another,

but a l l are referred to the one Christ:

321

i t is f i t t in g . . . talking about the natures, to apply to each what suits i t and to recognize certain properties of the d iv in ity and certain ones of the humanity. But when we ta lk about the person, i t is necessary to make the pro­perties of the natures common, and to f i t the former and la t te r (properties) to the Savior Christ, and to call the same one both God and man. Son of God and son of man, and son of David and Lord of David, and seed of Abraham and Maker of Abraham, and many others in l ike m a n n e r . 97

In Theodoret's language, "the union makes the names common," and

"the properties (V<fc «< ) o f the natures became common (properties)

of the p e r s o n . "98 The name "Christ" receives a l l the character­

is tics of both natures. However, one s t i l l must specify to which

nature a particular characteristic property belongs. By being

unified under the t i t l e of "Christ," they are not joined substan­

t i a l l y . ^

I t has been a controversial matter among scholars as to

whether Theodoret agreed with the traditional orthodox doctrine

of communicatio idiomatum in Christ. Some scholars have said

that his Christology reflects this id e a J 0 Others have said

that he never accepted the communicatio idiomatum. ^ I t appears

to us that the idea of the "communication of idioms" in Christ is

not understood in the same way by a l l theologians. In the s t r ic t

sense, i t means that one can attr ibute a ll characteristics of

one nature to another in Christ. Then one cannot rea lly distinguish 1 C\9between them. Theodoret de f in ite ly did not adhere to this idea

of the "communication of idioms." He referred a ll properties to

322

Christ, fo r Christ was constituted of the two natures. But

Theodoret refused to interchange the properties of the natures.

He would never say that God suffered and died. Nor would he say

that the humanity preexisted. From his point of view, this could

only be affirmed i f there were a substantial union which confused

the natures to the point that one could no longer speak of "God"

and "man." In Christ only the names have become common, not the

substance. Some scholars such as McNamara and Mazzarino have

c r it ic ized Theodoret's Christology for not having a tru ly unified

person or subject in C h r i s t J 03 Although such a judgment often

proceeds from a C y ri l l in e type of orthodoxy which has i ts own

profound inadequacies, Theodoret does lack a strong concept of

the union in Christ. I t is obviously an inseparable union, but

the in te r io r nature of i t is not defined.

The Resurrection Body of Christ

In l ig h t of Theodoret's persistent distinction of properties

in Christ, i t is necessary to return to a topic discussed in the

previous chapter in connection with human nature, namely, the

resurrection-body of Christ. Theodoret appears to be loyal to his

fundamental theological principles when he insists upon the idea

that Christ's body de f in ite ly remains a body a f te r the resurrection.

I t is not de if ied , as Eranistes would prefer to have i t . I t is

preeminent among risen natures, but i t maintains the attributes

of v is ib i l i t y and ta n g ib i l i ty . I t also retains i ts former

323

lim itations or circumscriptionJ04 Furthermore, i t bears t ra its

of i ts earthly l i f e which are to ta l ly absent from other bodies.

Drawing upon the Gospel accounts of the risen Christ, in a very

l i t e r a l fashion, Theodoret describes his g lo rif ied body as s t i l l

possessing the marks of his passion and being able to ea t- -

though not actually needing food. The purpose of these particular

t ra i ts is to prove that the resurrection is r e a l . ^ 5

However, in spite of this continuity in nature between earthly

and heavenly bodies, the risen body of Christ has taken on new

attr ibu tes . I t is incorruptible, impassible, and immortal. ^ 6

As he adds in a la te le t te r , Christ's body has certain- unique

a b i l i t ie s such as appearing in a locked room J^ In developing

his doctrine of the risen body of Christ in Eranistes and in two

le tte rs from his la te correspondence, Theodoret u t il ize s thoroughly

the Pauline texts which speak of the g lo r if ied body. Thus, "glory"

becomes an essential manifestation of the risen Christ. His body

"remained a body, yet f i l l e d with divine glory, sending o f f rays

of l i g h t . " ^ 8 Theodoret goes so far in one passage to say that

the Lord's glorious body is worshipped by the heavenly powers.

We must raise the same question with respect to this view of

Christ's body that we raised in the las t chapter about the risen

body of man. Does this doctrine of Christ's risen body contradict

his fundamental theological principle of the categorical distinction

between God and man? I t appears to us that he comes much closer to

324

undermining this principle with his view of Christ's risen body

than with his view of the general resurrection body. When he

ascribes immutability and impassibility to Christ's body in

particu lar, he appears to have forgotten what he so consistently

argued for in Dialogue I I I o f Eranistes and so doggedly supported

in the rest of his theological writings. When he says that the

heavenly body of Christ is worshipped by angels, he has uncovered

a gigantic theological problem. I f the risen body can be l e g i t i ­

mately worshipped, is i t not divine as Eranistes claims? I f i t is

not fu l ly divine, then to worship i t in the s t r ic t sense is idolatry!

I t appears from the attributes he assigns to i t that one could

almost refer to Christ's risen body as "quasi-divine." I f there

is a state between God and man which partakes in both, the principle

that Theodoret upholds everywhere else is subverted. I t is at

this point in his theology that he at least approaches an Alexandrian

mode of thought. Grillmeier has shown that Theodoret's idea of

doxa is peculiar to him among the Antiochenes and that i t a l l ie s him

uncharacteristically with the Alexandrian t r a d i t i o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s ,

Theodoret consistently claims that the risen body of Christ is s t i l l

a created re a l i ty , which has i ts immortality by way of partic ipation

(not essence), and a nature that is circumscribed. God, on the other

hand, is uncreated, inconceivable, and uncircumscribed. Granted, i t

remains a problem that the two natures share some essential a ttr ibutes,

but Theodoret claims that even risen bodies are bodies and not

325

d i v i n i t y . ^ Lest one be too harsh in finding flaws in his argument,

i t should be remembered that this problem of the resurrected body

is extremely d i f f i c u l t for any theologian.

The Eucharist

Elsewhere in his theology, he remains true to his starting

point. In the related issue of the eucharist which comes up for

discussion in Eranistes, Theodoret shows his consistency against

Eranistes1 claim that a f te r the eucharistic consecration the bread

and wine are "changed into the divine e s s e n c e . Orthodoxus

replies characteristically that no change takes place in the nature

of bread and wine:

For a f te r the consecration the mystical symbols are not deprived of the ir own nature. For they remain in th e ir f i r s t essence and shape and form, and they are seen and touched as they were before.But they are considered as what they became, and believed and worshipped as those things which are what they are b e l i e v e d . ” 3

In Eranistes1 eucharistic theology we see a crude example of

eucharistic realism that was represented in Alexandrian Christology.

Henry Chadwick has demonstrated that the doctrine of the eucharist

was intimately bound-up with the Nestorian Controversy. He identif ies

the eucharist or eucharistic redemption as the heart of Cyril 's fa i th .

For C y r i l , "Every eucharist is a reincarnation of the Logos who is

there f fJ tA c v <?V a w ^ c tT C , and whose ( J ( a ( f j i $

is given to the c o m m u n i c a n t . " ^ Theodoret had combatted this type

326

of theology in his attack upon C yril 's eleventh anathema which

claimed that the flesh o f Christ was " life -g iv ing" ( J*u/o77o(o\/

Once again in Eranistes ( Demonstrationes) he voices his objection to

such an idea on the basis of his fundamental theological convictions:

Those who call the flesh of the Lord 1i f e -giving ( J wt>rrocov ) render l i f e i t s e l f mortal by this expression. But they should have understood that i t was l i fe -g iv in g through the l i f e united with i t . But i f . . . the l i f e was mortal, how could the flesh which is by nature mortal and which became l i fe -g iv in g through l i f e remain being a l i f e - g i v e r J 16

Just as in the case o f Christ's two natures, there can be no

substantial change in the eucharistic elements. The change must

be of a d ifferent type, namely, of "grace": OU Y W (pc/< r( 1/

fid A Zjy/j X 'f™ T?7 ‘Pt'crSfrT (? 0 <YYS (PsCY-U/S

In summary, we re ite ra te that Theodoret carries out the

implications of his basic doctrine of the qua lita tive distinction

between the Creator and the created in a very consistent manner

throughout his theology. With respect to his Christology, he

maintains a sharp distinction between the divine and human natures.

Yet at the same time, he insists upon an inseparable union of the

two in Christ.

327

££ ’ LXXXIII, cols. 28-29. On the implications of the one- nature doctrine see 137A-B and 140A-B. However, in the florilegium of the third dialogue (cols. 309-312), Theodoret quotes Apollinaris as a source for the divine impassibility . There seems to be a basic contradiction in Apollinaris1 Christology: Liebaert, "Chris-tologie," Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Bd. I l l , pp. 79-83; Grillm eier, "Der Gottessohn im Totenreich," pp. 44-45.

^This does not mean that th e ir Christologies were identical. Grillmeier, "Die Theol. u. sprachl. Vorbereitung," pp. 127-144 (on Eustathius, Diodore, and Theodore); Liebaert, "Christologie," pp. 87-88.

^Karl Ho 11, Amphilochius von Ikonium in seinem Verhaltnis zu den grossen Kappadoziern (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1904) pp. 253-254;Samuel Laeuchli, The Serpent and the Dove (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), pp. 89-92. See Appendix C.

^For Alexandrian theologians such as Cyril who also claimed to represent Nicene theology, this practice of distinguishing between the two natures put in jeopardy another Nicene idea--namely, the immediate a v a i la b i l i ty of God for human redemption.

5Col. 36A-D.

6Col. 317C-320A.

TCols. 108C-D ( 7 V V / ‘f 'V V ' • • • 7 ' :7 V 7 ~c> < /ouJlou M o p p ' I V 7*7^ cp6<rc7 ) , 320A-B. Arius and Eunomius

are mentioned by name in 105D-108A.

8Col. 280B-C.

^Col. 281A-C (quote in B-C). See Bindley, Oecumenical Documents of the Faith , p. 27 for variations in the creedal formula.

TOCols. 148D-149A.

TlCol. 149A-D.

12Col. 152B-D. In 333B-C the Arian interpretation of the passage "Father, into your hands I commit my s p ir it" is rejected. Arians and Eunomians claimed that the "sp ir it" here was the "d iv in ity ," but Theodoret claims that i t refers to the human soul.See Grillmeier, "Der Gottessohn im Totenreich," pp. 36-37, 45-46.

13Cols. 152D-153A.

328

cannot deal with the complex hermeneutical problem of whether his pre-understanding or his Biblical authority is most decisive.

l 5Col. 37A-B.

T6col. 37A-B.

17cols. 37C-D, 40A-B.

1SCol. 40B.

19Col. 40D.

20Col. 69D-72A.

21 Col. 72D-73A.

22See for example cols. 144B-C, 320A-B, 324A-B. This termi­nology may be documented countless times from Theodoret's works.For early examples, see the Reprehensio in ACO, T. I , Vol. I , pars sexta, 167-169, pp. 108-110. See Montalverne, Theodoreti Cyrensis doctrina antiquior de Verbo‘inhumanato,1 p. 96. This interpretation is traditional in Antiochene thought. Sellers, Two Ancient Chris-

' to logies, pp. 182-183.

22Col. 320B-C. See 72C for the juxtaposition of crxyvous and Vuos and 321A-B for the idea o f indwelling human nature.

24pg, LXXXII, col. 741B. See also the identif ica tion of V with r * Uytoi in 740B (comment on v. 2 ) . The loci

in Hebrews are 8:2 , 9:2, 9:6, 9:9-11.

25Greer, "The Antiochene Exegesis of Hebrews," pp. 142-143 (Diodore), 152-153 (Theodore); Martin Tetz, Hrsg., Eine Antilogie des Eutherios von Tyana. Patristische Texte und Studien, Bd. I ^Berlin: de Gruyter, 1964) pp. 7-9.

26col. 72C.

27Col. 52A-C.

28col. 52B-C.

29cols. 72C-D--73A. Here the author uses forms of the verbs • uj and . For the same expression

and sim ilar ones used in a work from the same time in his career, see Klaudius Jiissen, "Die Christologie des Theodoret v. Cyrus nach seinem neuverb'ffentlichten Isaias-Kommentar," ThGI, XXXVII (1937) 448-450.

329

30Col. 57D-60A.

31 Col. 72C.

32cols. 160-165. See also Ep. 145 (146 Azema). Romans 3:17, 30; I Cor. 15:40-43; Phil. 3:21.

33can iv e t , ed ., Therapeutique, Vol. I , Bk. I I , 90 (p. 163).

34cols. 320C-D—321A-B.

• . 35col. 73B-C.

"^Greer, "Antiochene Exegesis of Hebrews," p. 343, also 52-55, 142-143, 152-153, etc. This author raises the intriguing question as to whether this le t te r is the source of the Antiochene viewpoint or whether i t merely confirms the ir point of view.

3?Cols. 244A-245A, 325A-B. In these passages,^the author quotes Hebrews 2:11-13 and 4:15. See Jean-Claude Dhotel, "La 'sanctification ' du Christ d'apres Hebreux 2:11. Interpretations des peres et des scolastiques medievaux," RechSR, XLVII (1959)515-543; XLVIII (1960) 420-452. The f i r s t part of this work is applicable to the Nestorian Controversy.

33col. 40D.

39Cols. 44C-D—45A. Jackson's translation, LNPF, p. 165.The prophecy is addressed to Bethlehem.

40Col. 45A.

41Cols. 65B-D—68A.

43Col. 68B-C. See also the comment on Isaiah 43:10 in Mohle, Hrsg., Theodoret von Kyros: Kommentar zu Jesaia, p. 171.

43col. 121B-C.

44col. 121B-C.

^45coK 124C-125B-C. Jackson's^translation of the phrase.C /7 r/f T<oi/ "concerning the

human nature" reverses the sense of the passage ( LNPF, p. 188).

46Col. 125D.

47col . 128A.

330

4sCol. 252B-C.

49Col. 252B.

SOCol. 252C.

STCols. 253A-D—256A.

52For only a few examples of the use of this word in Eranistes, see 140A-D and 324C. Montalverne adds other terms used in the early works such as crvr<k c/>cc<* and £vot/:v<?(S . ( Theodoreti C.yrensisdoctrina antiqu ior, pp. 94-95) In the Reprehensio Theodoret c r it ic izes C yril 's attack upon Nestorius' use of ( rw k c p ttu , yet he uses Zv^crcs often. (ACO, T. I , Vol. I , pars sexta, pp. 115-117) Hisccharacter- i s t ic expression in the Expositio rectae f ide i also uses ( 1/ £voJ<rv/ ) (Sellers , "Pseudo-Justin's Expositiorectae f id e i - -a Work of Theodoret o f Cyrus," pp. 152, 156.) The^ Commentary on Isaiah of the 440's s t i l l u t i l izes a form of_ c ru v u r r r■*/ (from trus/Ucpsf't. T in describing the union (Jiissen, "Christologie des Theodoret n. Isaias-Kommentar," pp. 450-451).

53cols. 321C-D, 324C.

54Cols. 37C-D—40A.

55Col . 40A.

56Col. 40A-B.

57Col. 153C-D.

58Col. 156A.

83col. 156B-D. For categories of mixtures from classical philosophy see Harry A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, 2nd ed., Vol. I , Faith, T r in ity , Incarnation (Cambridge:Harvard U. Press, 1964) pp. 372-386. Both of these analogies are common in Patr is tic theology.

50Col. 156B-D.

61Col. 157A.

62See the discussion of the following passage in chapter two and the discussion of Theodoret's anthropology in the las t chapter.

63Col. 145A-C.

001 UsJ 1

6 4 c o l . 145A.

65Richard, "L1 introduction du mot'hypostase,'" p. 262.

66Karl Barth, Die kirchliche Donmatik, Bd. IV, T. 2, Die Lehre von der VerstShnung (Zol1ikon-ZUrich: EVZ Verlag, 1955)'" pp. 56-58 (also 53-64). Of course, this criticism reflects Barth's repudiation of natural theology, part icu larly the analogy o f being and a Christology which stands much closer to that of Theodoret's enemy, Cyril.

67 Gri1 Imeier, "Theologische u. sprachl. Vorbereitung," p. 189.

®%very Christian theologian must grapple with the same element of discontinuity in a l l analogies.

^ F o r just a few examples of the use of this term see cols.148A-B, 257C-D—260A-B, 277D.

70See Appendix D for a discussion of this terminology.-

71Cols. 109C-D, 137A-B.

72Col. 281 A.

72Col. 264B. Here Theodoret speaks of a common "name" for two natures. Previously in our discussion, he claimed that a change of nature required a change of name. In 256B-C, he says * one calls a part of a person by the name of the whole.

74cols. 273B-C, 328B, 121A-B. The terms "one prosopon,""one Son," and "Christ" appear in a cluster in the third counter­anathema of 431 A.D. ACO, T. I , Vol. I , pars sexta, p. 117.

75Cols. 233B, 252C, 261B-C, 324C-D, 333D. In the f i r s t twoand last of these passages, Christ is said to have suffered urs but not 6 s . For the shades in meaning

in the word 'od/Pptu/ros see Gerhard K itte l u. .Gerhard Friedrich,Hrsg. Theologisches Horterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Bd. I ' (S tu ttg a r t : Kohlhammer, 1933-66) pp. 365-367 and Lampe, A Patr is tic Greek Lexicon, . pp. 141-142.

76Cols. 148A-B, 236D, 240D-241A, 252C, 328B-C, 329A. Lampe, Patr is tic Greek Lexicon, pp. 143-144.

77Col. 144C-D.

78cols. 280B (the f i r s t pair of terms), 280A and 233B (the last two terms).

332

79Col. 324C (fo r only one example).

SORichard, "Notes sur 1 'evolution doctrinale de Theodoret," pp. 459-467. There are instances, of course, of borrowed concrete terms in the florilegium of Eranistes. Some of the same "abstract" terms are found in the Commentary on Isaiah (Jussen, "Die Chris- tologie des Theodoret von Cyrus n. Isaiaskommentar," pp. 444, 443).

81 Montalverne, Theodoreti C.yrensis doctrina antiquior, pp. 80-83.

82Cols. 144D-145A.

83Col. 237C-240C-D, 325C-D.

84cols. 261A-B, 280A.

85col. 26SB-C.

88Col. 256B-C—257C-D.

87col. 233C-D.

88col. 325A-B. See also the vivid anti-docetic description in 324C: "how was the flesh seen to possess nothing new a fte rthe b ir th , but showed the human character, preserved the pro­portions of the unborn ch ild , was wrapped in swaddling clothes, and sucked the mother's nipple?"

89see Appendix C.

90cols. 325D-328A.

91 Col. 3283.

92schulte, Entwicklung der Lehre von rnanschlichen Wissen C h ris t i , pp. 78-81. However, according to this scholar the growth in knowledge is not purely a natural growth: i t also involves God imparting knowledge to the human soul.

93col. 237A. The verb is / ( u y c y v ^ c r x o O —to discern, distinguish. The same term occurs in an early work—Sellers, . "Pseudo-Justin's Expositio rectae f id e i ," p. 153.

94Col. 237A.

95col. 237B-C.

333

^ C o l . 141C. See also 160A-B. In the Reprehensio he had used the term / ( j r a s u J . ACO, T. I , Vol. I , pars sexta, pp. 117-113. r

97Col. 148A-B

9SCol. 277B-D

"C o ls . 231A, 277D.

^"See Appendix B. Marcel Richard, "Proclus de Constantinople et le theopashisme," pp. 327-330; L 'ac t iv ite l i t td r a i r e de Thdodoret avant le concile d'Eph&se," pp. 90-91. See also Montalverne, Theodoreti C.yrensis doctrina antiqu ior, pp. xv -xv ii . Of course, many Catholic scholars have said that his thought evolved to this point.

101 P. Canivet, "Theodoretos," cols. 32-33; Therapeutique des maladies hellenigues, Vol. I , p. 24. Mazzarino, La dottrina di Teodoreto, - pp. 170^172. See also Montalverne's summary and Appendix B. McNamara appears to share this idea, although he has not expressed i t in terms of the communicatio idiomatum.Kevin McNamara, "Theodoret o f Cyrus and the Unity of Person in Christ," ITQ., XXII (1955) 321-328.

^"Mazzarino, p. 171. This idea goes with the idea of an hypostatic union.

"^McNamara, ib id . , pp. 321-328; Mazzarino, pp. 170-172.

TO^Cols. 165A-C, 1S1B-C, 164A-B, 328B-C.

105Cols. 160A-D—161A.

l" C o ls . 161B-C, 1S4A-B, 328B-C.

T07Ep. 145, no. 146 Azema, T. I l l , pp. 194-197; Jackson, p. 316.

108Col. 165A-B. See Ep. 145 (no. 146 Azema) and Ep. 146, "To John the Oeconomus," no. 147 in Azema, I . I l l , pp. 228-230. Both le tte rs contain practica lly the same wording as the Eranistes quote together with the common citation of Philippians 3:20. Although this language is sim ilar to that used for the earthly body in some previously-cited passages, the glory and l ig h t of the earthly body is drawn from the metaphor in the prologue of John's Gospel rather than from Paul's teaching about the resurrection body. God's glory shines forth even when enveloped in flesh (col. 321). See the discussion of this idea in Theodoret in Aloys Grillm eier, Der Logos am Kreuz (Munchen: Max Hueber, 1956), pp. 103-105.

334

1Q9Col. 164A-B.

110Per Logos am Kreuz, pp. 103-107.

lllB arr ing certain inconsistencies, McCall urn's statement is s t i l l basically true: "The Antiochenes viewed the attainmentof immortality as within the created order of existence and never as the acquiring of God's own being or nature. For there could be no divinization ( theosis) of human nature through a merging or uniting with the divine nature, since this would destroy the fundamental d istinction between God and creation." James Malcolm McCallum, "Salvation in Christ in Later Antiochene Theology, According to Theodore, Nestorius, and Theodoret: a Study ofAntiochene Christology in Relation to Soteriology" (ThD. diss.: Pacific School of Religion, 1965), p. 251.

T ^ c d . 168B. A sim ilar expression is in 168D and 56D.

113Col. 1S33-C.

I^Henry Chadwick, "Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy," JTS, N.S. I I (1951) 155. Thus, the focus of Cyril 's theology is not a concern with the unity of Christ's person in the modern sense; in fac t , the soul of Christ is not needed in this eucharistic redemption (pp. 153, 155). Gross' term expresses this element of Cyril 's thought: " i1 s 'a g it d'une deification parcontact." Jules Gross, La divinisation du chretien d'apres les P&res Grecs, p. 283.

TISACO, T. I , Vol. I , pars sexta, pp. 141-142.

l ^ c o l . 332B-C.

H 7co l. 56B.

CONCLUSION

Theodoret of Cyrus exhibits a remarkable theological

consistency throughout his career. The only changes that occured

in his thought were incidental to his main concepts. The compro­

mises which he had to make for p o lit ica l reasons do not indicate

a substantive a lteration of his thought.

The work Eranistes seu Pol.ymorphus represents a point of

view that is harmonious with the rest o f his theological expression

during his career. However, i t may be said that this dialogue is

a product of his most mature thinking about the nature of Christ.

This work is directed against an eclectic monophysite type of

heresy which Theodoret faced in 431 and in 447 A.D. Against the

same errors that were expressed both times, he developed the same

arguments. Theodoret's Christology has a l l of the characteristics

of an already well-established trad ition of thought. The basic

concepts have already been worked-out in a consistent form and

are expressed in well-worn, repetitious terminology. His point

of view reflects the traditional concerns associated with his

Antiochene school of thought. One such motif that plays an

important role in Eranistes is the well-developed anti-Arian

polemic.

335

335

The Christo! ogy of Eranistes is o f a consistent dyophysite

type which is grounded in Theodoret's fundamental concept of God

and His creation as two ontologically or q ua lita tive ly d ifferent

natures. This basic theological principle is applied throughout

his Christology. I t leads him to always in s is t that there was

no substantial union or fusion of divine and human natures in

Christ. These natures must be recognized as d is tinc t from each

other. Yet at the same time, Theodoret insists upon the re a l i ty

of the union in one person or one Christ. All analogies and

interpretations of B iblical passages seek to establish both

the in teg rity of the union and the in v io la b i l i ty of the two

natures. Theodoret's faithfulness to his in i t ia l doctrine

concerning God and creation allows him to maintain the unique­

ness of God and the tru ly human aspects of Christ's existence.

However, this same doctrine is at least p a r t ia l ly responsible

for his fa i lu re to construct an inner unity of subject in Christ.

The only point at which he comes near to compromising his distinction

between God and man is his concept of the resurrection-body, and

particu larly the resurrection-body of Christ. The risen body of

Christ remains a body, but i t has taken on some divine attr ibutes.

Nevertheless, in spite of this transference, Theodoret insists

that resurrected bodies are not rea lly divine. They do not by

any means possess a ll the attributes of God. I f there is an

element of inconsistency here, Theodoret exhibits his usual

337

impeccable consistency in his understanding of the eucharist

which maintains the d istinctive nature of both God and created

re a l i t ie s .

APPENDIX A

Antiochene Theology

Some scholars would trace the early stages of "Antiochene

theology" back to a much e a r l ie r date and thereby include other

theologians in the l i s t of i ts adherents. I t is generally agreed,

however, that Diodore, Theodore, Chrysostom, Nestorius, and Theodoret

are the main representatives of the "Antiochene school" of Biblical

interpretation and theology.

The term "Antiochene school", l ike "Antiochene theology" is also

somewhat ambiguous and requires a careful definition i f i t is not to

be misleading. There are those who consider this "school" to have

been a regularly-constituted academic institu tion which existed for a

long period of time and which included other notable Antiochene

theologians than those previously mentioned.

Glanville Downey conceives of Theophilus of Antioch as a fore­

runner of the school, of Paul of Samosata as linked with i t , and of

Lucian of Antioch (Samosata) as the actual founder of the school.^

J. M. McCallum assumes the existence of a Christian school in Antioch

at the time of Theophilus (d. 180) and sees s im ila r it ies between his

thought and that of Theodore and Theodoret. He also suggests that

Lucian stood in the Antiochene trad ition and that he "put new system2

and discipline into the School of Antioch."

Downey and McCallum have both given an erroneous portrayal of

338

339

the so-called "Antiochene school" which cannot be maintained in face of

the evidence. They present i t as though i t were an academic ins titu tion

with a homogeneous point of view, originating at the time of Lucian or

e a r l ie r . Therefore, they attempt to include in i t various teachers of

widely-diverging points of view.

For example, Theophilus is included on the basis of very super­

f ic ia l s im ila r it ies to aspects of la te r ("classical") Antiochene3

thought, which are not i ts d istinctive characteristics. Although the

Christology of Paul of Samosata foreshadows the Christology of the la te r

Antiochene fathers and exhibits some a f f in i t ie s with i t , i t was soundly 4

rejected by them. Both Downey and McCallum give Lucian an important

position in the so-called "School of Antioch". However, i t is a w ell-

known fact that Lucian was the revered teacher of the main Arian

leaders, whose Christology was vehemently opposed by the dyophysite

Christology of la te r Antiochene fathers. McCallum includes Lucian in

the "Antiochene School" since he was allegedly not condemned as unortho­

dox by la te r Antiochene trad it ion . From this evidence, he argues that

Lucian could not have shared the Arian Christology which denied a human5

soul to Christ. This kind of argument based on ignorance is not con­

vincing. Lucian is too closely tied to the Arian point of view to be

included in the opposite camp. Besides, other factors such as Lucian's

martyrdom and his resultant lack of personal involvement in the Arian

Controversy could have spared him the judgment of la te r theologians.

Certainly a common geography does not mean a uniform thought milieu.

The ear l ies t church father who may be accurately included in the

Antiochene school of thought is Eustathius. His theology and exegesis

340

show the emergence of the d istinctive characteristics of this school.^

I t is important to realize that Antioch possessed a p lu ra l is t ic

in te llectua l environment throughout i ts history which represented

sharply divergent points of view such as those of Theophilus and Tati an,

Malchion and Paul of Samosata, Lucian and Eustathius, and Apollinaris

and Diodore. In the la te f i f t h century, Monophysitism became rampant

in the one-time haven of Diodore and Theodore.

I t is equally important to realize that the "Antiochene School"

was not a school in the sense of an organized academic ins titu tion . I t

was a "school" only in the sense of a school of thought or a common tra ­

d ition . In the fourth and f i f t h centuries there were no advanced

schools of Christian theology such as the e a r l ie r school of Alexandria

which ceased to exist when Origen le f t .^ Whereas catechetical instruc­

tion and preaching were the only available modes of learning for the

l a i t y , the clergy learned by personal study with individual learned

ecclesiastics rather than in schools. An example of this la t te r type of

education by individual private lessons is Jerome's study in the EastO

with Apollinaris , Didymus, and Gregory of Nazianzus.

We may regard C. Baur's remarks about the "Antiochene School" as

an accurate description of i t . He describes Lucian as "the f i r s t

teacher o f a sort of theological school in Antioch," and c la r if ies what

he means by saying further, we may scarcely venture to consider this

Antiochene school an ecclesiastically endowed and regulated school, as

may have been the case, at least temporarily, with the one of Alexan­

dria . . . i t resembled in some ways the private schools of the sophists,

except that these Christian 'sophists' read and expounded the Holy

341

Scriptures instead of Homer and Plato. Whenever a teacher appeared,

pupils gathered around him and a new school came into existence. An

unbroken historical connection between the 'school' of Lucian and thatg

of Diodorus cannot be established." In other words, the "Antiochene

School" was a common theological trad ition passed on by certain in d iv i­

dual teachers of the fourth and f i f t h centuries who have already been

mentioned.

As we consider the term "Antiochene theology" to represent a

unified e n t ity , i t goes without saying that there are many significant

differences between the theologies of various exponents of th is t ra d i­

tion. Of course, i t would be impossible to enumerate them here. Suffice

i t to say that the basic characteristics shared by a ll representatives

of this trad ition are: a l i t e r a l method of Biblical in terpretation, a

ra t io n a lis t ic theological methodology, and most important for this

dissertation, a dua lis tic but non-adoptionist Christology.^

The more modern category of "Word-Man" (Logos-Anthropos)

Christology has been helpful in describing Antiochene Christology in

distinction from the "Word-Flesh (Logos-Sarx) type of Christology

characteristic of Alexandrian theology and represented by the Arians,

Apollinaris , Athanasius and C yril . However, A. Grillmeier and J.

Liebaert following him do not believe that a "Word-Man" type of

Christology can be ascribed to a l l of the Antiochene theologians. I t

is applicable to the Christology of Eustathius, but not to that of

Diodore who is heir to the "Word-Flesh" Christology of Eusebius ofI I

Emesa. Although not denying the influence of Diodore upon Theodore,

the la t te r is said to have the Word-Man Christo!ogical scheme rather

342

12than that of his master, Diodore. These two forms of dyophysite

Christology based on d ifferent thought-schemes were represented in the

fourth century church factions in Antioch: The Paulinians espoused the

"Word-Man" Christology of Eustathius, but the Melitians fostered the

"Word-Flesh" Christology of Diodore.^

Liebaert goes even farther in asserting the differences among our

so-called Antiochene theologians on Christological matters. He thinks

that John Chrysostom cannot be considered an exponent of the Christologi­

cal dualism of Antioch. And he would seem to call in question our use of

the term Antiochene theology (or Christology) as we have defined i t : "Es

i s t unmoglich, Theologen so vers chiedener Richtung wie Eustathius, Dio-

dor, Johannes, Chrysostomus and Theodor in dieselbe Schule einzureihen

und durch eine wenn auch noch so abgeschachte geistige Abhangigkeit

miteinander zu verbinden Tatsache is t , dass bis zu Theodor von

Mopsuestia die sogennante antiochenische Schule (im Sinn einer Tradition,

die durch ihre 'Wort-Mensch'-Theologie und ihren christologischen

Dualismus charakterisiert is t ) sich auf Eustathius and die eustathianis-

che Gruppe des Paulinus beschranken la s s t ." ^

With regard to Chrysostom, even though his homiletical theology

lacks the exact formulation of that of his colleagues, his Christology15is basically dualis tic in a mild way. Liebaert's assertion about

Chrysostom cannot be sustained especially in the face of Greer's care­

ful w ork.^

When Liebaert calls into question the term "Antiochene Christolo­

gy", he does so because he operates with an extremely narrow definition

of i t ; that is , he has already defined i t as "Word-Man" type. He has

343

also accentuated the differences among i ts exponents.

I t seems to us that the term is useful as we have defined i t in a

general way, i . e . , as a dualistic or dyophysite Christology shared by

a ll the fathers belonging to the Antiochene school of thought, despite

the differences in th e ir individual formulations. "Antiochene

Christology" remains a su ff ic ien tly exact expression for the Christology

of theologians who share a basic Christological outlook which separates

them from other theologians in th e ir time.

344

^Glanville Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton U. Press, 1 9 6 1 * 7 7

pp. 301-302, 311, 338-340.

2J. M. McCallum, Salvation in Christ in Later Antiochene Theology

According to Theodore. Nestorius. and Theodoret Diss. Pacific Schoolof Religion (Berkley, 1965), pp. 32-37.

2Ib id . , pp. 32-34. Downey, A History of Antioch, pp. 301-^302.

4R. V. Se llers , Eustathius of Antioch and His Place in the Early

History of Christian Doctrine (Cambridqe: University Press, 1928), dd .114-117.

5McCallum, Salvation in Christ, pp. 35-37.

^R. V. Sellers, Eustathius, pp. 97-98, 100-105, 115-118.

^H. I . Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity. Trans, byGeorge Lamb (New York! New American Library, 1964) p p . 434-437. Marrou finds "a d is tinc t retrogression" in the teaching establishments from the third to the^fourth century. See also P. Canivet, Histoire d'une entre- prise apologetique au Ve s ie c le , In Bibliotheque de 1 'histoire de I 1 eglise (Paris: Bloud and Gay, 1957) pp. 34-35, for the time in whichTheodoret lived.

^Ib id . , Marrow, p. 437.

gChrysostomus Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, Vol. I , Antioch.

Trans, by M. Gonzaga (Londohl Sands & Co. L td . , 1959), pp. 90-91.

^Eduard Schwartz, Zur Geschichte der a!ten Kirche und ihres Rechts, Bd. IV in Gesammelte Schriften (a r t . "Uber die Reichs Konzilien von Theodosius bis Justinian") (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1960), p .121.

^Aloys Grillm eier, "Die theologische und sprachliche Vorbereitung der christologischen Forme! von Chalkedon," CGG, Bd. I , pp. 120, ISO- 141 . Jacques Liebaert, "Christologie. Von der apostolischen Zeit bis zum Konzil von Chalcedon (451)": Faszikel 1 a von Bd. I l l in Handbuchder Doqmengeschichte, hrsq. von Michael Schmaus und A. Grillmeier (Fre i­burg: Herder, 1965) pp. 65-67, 84-85, 87-88, 92-95, 102.

^2Ibi_d., Grillm eier, p. 138, Liebaert, pp. 92-93.

^2Ib id . , G rillm eier, pp. 138-140. Liebaert, pp. 84-85, 87-88.

345

^L idbaert, pp. 100, 102.

^Baur, John Chrysostom, Vol. I , pp. 357-358.

l^Rowan A. Greer, I I I , The Antiochene Exegesis of Hebrews. (Diss. Yale University, 1965), pp. 39-40, 48, 50-51, 54-55, 58-59, 72-73. C. Hay points out some marks of Chrysostom's Christology which would set i t apart from that of Eustathius, but they do not exclude i t from the dualism of Antiochene Christology: "St. JohnChrysostom and the In tegrity of the Human Nature in Christ," FS_, XIX (1959) 298-317.

APPENDIX B

Judgments of Scholars Regarding Theodoret's Christology

The monographs of Bertram and Montalverne contain helpful surveys

of scholarly interpretation and evaluation of Theodoret's Christology.

Of course, Bertram only includes works written prior to 1883 (including

the judgments of various Patr is tic authors), while Hontalverne includes

more recent scholarship. Both categorize authors according to the ir

opinions o f Theodoret's Christology. The following review of scholar­

ship w il l u t i l iz e both of the ir surveys to some degree but w il l neither

take into account a ll of the older and outdated scholarship l is ted

there nor follow the same categorization as Montalverene. Only the main

contributions w il l be included: there w il l be no attempt to catalog

every recent opinion on Theodoret's Christology.

The positions of scholars with regard to the Christology of

Theodoret may be placed in three categories. F irs t , there are those who

maintain that Theodoret began with a heretical point of view which he

never discarded. This opinion reflects a generally negative attitude

toward Antiochene Christology as a whole. Those who represent this

viewpoint generally use Cyril 's Christology and the Councils of Ephesus

(431) and Constantinople (553) as the touchstones of orthodoxy. Chalce-

don is considered to represent the identical trad it ion . The orthodox

trad ition is conceived of as a completely unified , harmonious percep­

tion of tru th. In this f i r s t group we include the works of Garnier,

346

347

Diepen, and Mazzarino.

Gamier emphasizes the Nestorian character of Theodoret's

Christology and claims that he did not change his point of view over

the course of his career. The positions of the Reprehensio duodecim

capitum seu anathematismorum C.yrilli (431 A.D.) and of the Eranistes

seu Polymorphus (447-448 A.D.) are essentially the same in rejecting

the "Catholic" notions of the hypostatic union and the doctrine of the

communicatio idiomatumJ

In more recent times, Mazzarino has concurred in the essential

aspects of Garnier's conservative viewpoint. He holds that Theodoret

"abandoned the use of Nestorian terminology" including his previous2

understanding of Theotokos a fte r the Formula of Union in 433 A.D.o

Nevertheless, Mazzarino judges his Christology to be "incomplete".

His doctrine was not Nestorian, but i t represented "una mentalita non

perfettamente c a t t o l ic a " / He concludes his argument by saying:

"Theodoret, up to the end of his l i f e , does not indicate having arrived

at having a clear and exact idea of the hypostatic union and probably

never the very idea of the hypostatic union of the two natures of

Christ."5r

H.-M. Diepen deviates from this point of view s l ig h tly . In one

respect his viewpoint is s im ilar to the judgment of some scholars who

say that Theodoret's thought evolved during the course of his life tim e

from a less acceptable to a’more acceptable form. The e a r l ie r

Christology of Theodoret such as that expressed in his Reprehensio

anathematismorum (431 A.D.) was Nestorian, but his thought slowly

evolved to the point where he could accept the communication of idioms

343

7(a mark of orthodoxy). Letter no. 151 "To the Monks of the Orient" (PG.

83, cols. 1429-1432) from the year 431 or 432 A.D. s t i l l expresses a

Nestorian concept of the Theotokos.

Diepen follows M. Richard in admitting that Theodoret renounced

the use of the suspect term Assumptus homo a fte r 432 A.D. but questions

the meaning of the absence of this word — that is , he questionsO

Theodoret's motivation. Theodoret's Apologia pro Diodoro et Theodoro

(438 A.D.) indicates a departure from the habit of not using this contro­

versial expression, which indicates a continuing sympathy with Nestorian- g

ism. The dialogue Eranistes of c. 447 A.D. "has marked a notable pro­

gress in his conception of the re a l i ty of Christ," but his refusal to

attr ibute passion to the Godhead shows his distance from Catholic doc­

trine and the Christology of C y r i l . ^ The "Letter to Dioscorus" of 448

A.D. (no. 83) is acclaimed as evidence that Theodoret f in a l ly achieved

an orthodox Christology, and the "Letter to the Monks of Constantinople"

of 451 A.D. (no. 145 in Migne, no. 146 in Azema's ed.) contains a doc­

trine o f Christ that is "perfectly C yril l ian" . But here Diepen quali­

fies his judgment again in a manner very typical of him: "Ce n' est pas

dire que la doctrine christologique de Theodoret, meme sexagenaire, nous

satisfasse pleinement. Un doute plane sur tous ces ecr its . Le silence

sur la Passion-de Dieu n' est jamais rompu."^

From the same period, Diepen cites Theodoret's subscription to

Leo's "Tome" and thereby "implicitement" to the formulas of communica­

tion of idioms and " 'theopaschisme' catholique". But again, he qualifies

this judgment by saying: "Neanmoins, nous en convenons aisement, Vhes-

ita t io n pourrait demeurer dans 1 'esprit du lecteur au sujet de

349

in teg rite de cette foi christologique . 11 He even feels i t necessary to

add a footnote against the positive view toward Theodoret's Christology:

" I I nous semble que ceux qui ne prejugent pas par sympathie, devront

reconnaitre 1 'imperfection de la christologie des ecrits de Theodoret12qui nous restent, sauf peut-etre la le t t r e a Dioscore. The Council

of Chalcedon was w il l in g to reinstate Theodoret only at that time when1 3the uncertainty about the perfection of his fa ith was dispelled.

Despite some favorable evaluations of some of Theodoret's work,

Diepen does not give his Christology as a whole unqualified acceptance.

Diepen's admission of some changes in Theodoret's doctrinal formulations

a llies him with the next position regarding his Christology - - namely;

Theodoret's thought underwent a sincere and thorough-going change from

heresy to orthodoxy. However, fo r Diepen, these alterations in the

fabric of his Christology do not amount to a complete rehab ilita tion of

i t . I t is s t i l l regarded as deficient and under the suspicion o f hid­

ing an unorthodox mentality.

The second category of evaluations of the Christology of our

author is more favorable. Scholars of this opinion agree that while

his Christology was heretical or at least seriously deficient early in

his career, he la te r at some time altered his thinking to the point

where he could f in a l ly be legitim ately declared orthodox without reser­

vation at the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) There are differences as

to exactly when he changed his mind. Many Roman Catholic scholars have

shared this point of view.

A. Bertram espoused this position in the last century, and many

succeeding scholars have followed his in terpretation . According to

him, Theodoret's early work Reprehensio anathematismorum expresses a. . 14

Nestorian (heretical) point of view. His reasoning follows this

pattern: I f Theodoret's Christology was considered heretical in 430 A.D.

but orthodox in 451 A.D., he must have changed his mind some time during

the intervening twenty years. At the time of the Council of Ephesus or15immediately following i t , he could not have changed his mind. The

change took place gradually a fte r the Antiochene reunion with Cyril and

the settling of the controversy over Theodore of Mopsuestia, that is ,

in a period of peace in the Oriental churches which lasted about ten

years. During this period, Theodoret studied the Scriptures and the1 r

Fathers and corrected his doctrinal errors.

Since Bertram does not a f f ix any dates to this period of time,

i t is d i f f ic u l t to establish an accurate chronology fo r i t . A. Seider

takes him to mean that a fte r the union with Cyril in 433 A.D., Theodor­

et's doctrine may be judged free from e r r o r .^ Mazzarino understands

Bertram in the same manner; that is , the change took place a fte r the*] O

peace with Cyril — presumably in 433 A.D. But Montalverne under­

stands him to mean that Theodoret became orthodox sometime a fte r the

year 435 A.D. when there was a final agreement with Cyril to certain

19propositions. However, Bertram mentions the reconciliation of 433

A.D ., the expulsion of the dissident bishops (c. 435), and the contro­

versy over Diodore and Theodore which resulted in Theodoret's Apologia

pro Diodoro et Theodoro (shortly a fte r 438 A.D.) - - a work which20Bertram does not believe to express Catholic doctrine. I t is now

known that the controversy over Diodore and Theodore did not simmer21down until 438.A.D. or sometime thereafter. Therefore, the beginning

351

of the period in which Theodoret allegedly became orthodox ( a f t e r this

controversy) would have been several years la te r than 433 or 435 A.D.

Nevertheless, from what Bertram says elsewhere, one wonders whether per­

haps he thought that these events happened in closer proximity to the 22year 433 A.D. At any rate, he gives an ambiguous impression of the

limits of this span of time in which Theodorets' viewpoint allegedly

changed. The works which he attributes to this period are not a ll

dated, but the e a r l ie s t , Graecarum affectionum curatio, is dated some­

time before 438 A.D. and the la te s t , Eranistes, in 447 A .D .^

Bardenhewer also posits a change in Theodoret's Christology but

not at the time of the establishment of peace between Theodoret, John,

and Cyril (c. 434). He by no means acquitted himself of Nestorianism

then, but only a fte r 447 A.D. (the beginning of his struggles against24the Monophysites) does he give proof of a change of mind.

A. Seider takes Bertram's position on Theodoret to be "sicher zu

gunstig g eu rte ilt ," but misrepresents i t to mean that Theodoret under­

went a change to orthodoxy in the year 433 A.D. rather than over a

period of time beginning about 433 A.D. Seider sees in Theodoret's

writings a fte r the Union of 433 A.D. "a better tone and a more careful

language" which abandons some Nestorian expressions. However, Nestorian

t ra its s t i l l remain in 447 A.D. in Eranistes and in 449 A.D. in his

le t te r to Domnus. The Tome of Leo (449) had a salutary influence upon

Theodoret's thought, but he remained a "gemassigter Nestorianer" until

approximately the Council of Chalcedon, when he slowly completed his25change of orthodoxy.

A. d'Ales sees our theologian in 431-432.A.D. as "catholic at

352

heart, without doubt, but in fact prisoner of a 'theologie trop

courte', which in a ll sincerity he identif ied with the catholic fa ith ."

"Under the pressure of circumstances, Theodoret f in a l ly finished by re­

jecting * 1es bandelettes' of Antiochene theology and by admitting without

equivocation that which he at f i r s t admitted only with a ll sorts of pre­

cautions and restric tions." These restrictions are no longer present inO C

the le tters to Dioscorus and Pope Leo (449 A.D.).

In his study of Theodoret's Interpretatio in IsaianijK. Jussen in ­

clines towards Bertram's judgment upon Theodoret's early Christology as

unorthodox, but proclaims the Christology of this commentary to be per­

fectly orthodox. In this work, Theodoret has cast o f f his Nestorian

idea of the person o f Christ by the use of an impersonal designation

for his humanity and the rejection of the formula, "the one and the 27other." Thus, he concludes that "Theodoret at the latest until the

mid-440's A.D. returned to an orthodox Chris to!ogical opinion - - in the

event that he rea lly had transgressed the lim its o f the orthodox

Faith ."28

In more recent works of a general nature, A. Grillmeier and P.

Camelot agree to a change or development in Theodoret's Christology,

although Camelot does not spe ll out what he means by a "wider develop- 29ment." Grillmeier thinks that Theodoret's doctrine of the person of

Christ is "zu symmetrisch gebaut und nicht eindeutig genug auf die30Hypostase des Logos hin ausgerichtet." However, he does not think

that this form of Christology was the las t stage in his development.

In his two le tters of 449 A.D. numbered 145 and 145 (PG 83, 1389 A:

1393 B. Azema, S.C., nos. 145 and 147), he has arrived at a deeper

353

31understanding of the unity of subject in Christ. His concern was the

same as Cyril 's — to avoid e ither a mixture or a division of the two

natures: the ir differences are partly terminological and partly

ideological.

Of a l l the works attempting to prove that a change occurred in

Theodoret's Christology, Marcel Richard's a r t ic le "Notes sur 1 ‘evolution32doctrinale de Theodoret" is the most s ignificant. In this account of

our author's doctrinal development, Richard departs from the viewpoint

of his predecessors with regard to assumptions, methodology, and conclu­

sions. Since he lays down new groundwork, his contribution could be put

in a separate category from those which claim a complete change in

Theodoret's Christology — a change that appears to constitute a capitu­

la tion to his opposition.

He correctly points out at the outset that Theodoret was never

aware of any change in his Christology from his early to his la te r 00

works. Thus by taking seriously Theodoret's understanding of his own

Christo!ogical stance, he conducts his inquiry on d ifferent lines than

those la id down by Bertram. Rather than assuming a change from unortho­

doxy to orthodoxy, he proceeds by examining some of the key terms used

by Theodoret to designate the human nature of Christ — terms such as

"the assumed man", "the visib le man", "the.man taken from the race of

David", e t c . ^

After a careful study of the dogmatic works, Richard concludes

that Theodoret habitually used concrete terms (such as "the assumed

man") when designating the human nature of Christ in works written be-35fore the end of 432 A.D. But in subsequent works — with one except-

354

ion, - - such concrete expressions do not appear. The one exception to

this rule is the Apologia pro Diodoro et Theodoro, written about 438

A.D. After this date the use of concrete terms for the humanity ofn r

Christ defin ite ly never occurs. On the basis of this evidence,

Richard claims that Theodoret at some time decided that i t was not

f i t t in g to use these formulas. He does not believe that 438 A.D. was

the terminus a quo for the change of mind, even though the Anolom'a nro37Diodoro et Theodoro was published then (or shortly thereafter). Since

a few of his works which were probably written from 433 to 437 A.D.

have no trace of these concrete terms, Richard assumes that Theodoret38probably made his decision sometime before 437 A.D. This is an impor­

tant change, for nothing more than concrete formulas gave the picture of39an exaggerated distinction between the two natures in Christ. Never­

theless, Richard does not take this change to indicate a profound modi-40fication in Theodoret's thought. I t is ra ther a terminological matter.

I t is s ignificant for Richard's interpretation that even in the

period prior to 432 A.D. Theodoret used abstract more than concrete41terms for Christ's humanity. This fact does not help sustain the

assumption of a radical about-face. Thus, i t becomes clear why Theodo­

ret could honestly claim that he had never changed his theological

stance.

Richard ventures to deal with the question of the motive behind

Theodoret's change of vocabulary. Surely his writings became more

iren ic in order to maintain peace with Cyril 's faction, but this kind42of opportunism does not suffice to completely explain the change. The

43influence of Cyril 's writings may be considered a main factor.

355

I t should be noted in this summary of Richard's a r t ic le that his

position does not rest on the value judgment of orthodoxy or unortho- 44doxy. G. Bardy follows the same type of argument and proclaims that

45Theodoret's Christology was sincerely orthodox. J. Liebaert a pupil

o f Richard's, expounds the position of his teacher.^®

K. McNamara adopts Richard's idea of a partia l change in Theodoret's

Christological formulation over against Bertram's idea of a radical

and essential change at the heart of his thought.

Theodoret's thought, in the course of his theological career, underwent a certain development which removed him some degrees further from the most dangerous of the positions adopted by Theodore and Nestorius.Whether or not that development freed him - - i f he needed to be freed - - from the fundamental weakness of the Antiochene position, is something that remains to be determined."47

That the development of Theodoret's language did not indicate a funda­

mental change in his position is supported not only by the denial of

Theodoret himself and the abandoning of concrete terms but also "by the

fact that even in his la te r works we s t i l l find independent predication

with regard to the human nature." The most decisive support, however,

is the fact that his attitude toward the communication of idioms re- 48mained unchanged. I t could be that in the course of time Theodoret

arrived at a clearer vision of the communication of idioms, but "such a

vis ion...can only have been fleeting and uncertain, for Theodoret's

problem, as fa r as available evidence goes, remained with him to the 49end" - - despite indications of development. Since Theodoret did not

iden tify the subject of Christ with the Logos, his Christology "never

came to i ts due perfection." A defect in his trad ition kept him from at

least assuring "the metaphysical dependence of the human nature on the

356 ■

W ord."50

Although McNamara accepts Richard's findings,-he uses them along

with his own conclusions to arrive at a negative judgment of Theodoret's

Christology - - in contrast to Richard's intention. Theodoret's Christo­

logy remained what i t always was - - defective, because i t did not bear

the hallmarks of “Catholic" theology. "One cannot then, i t seems,

recognize any deep line of division between Theodoret and Nestorius on

the subject of the unity o f person in Christ.

I t remains to consider the th ird category of judgments about

Theodoret's Christology. This comprises the group of scholars who

claim not only that Theodoret's Christology always remained the same

but that i t was always perfectly orthodox and acceptable. There have

been men of this opinion since the sixth century. Among the scholars

since the sixteenth century who have championed this point of view,52Tillemont has been the most in f lu e n t ia l .

The most recent exponent of this point of view is Montalverne,

who claims that Theodoret agreed with Cyril not because he changed his

mind but because he was convinced that Cyril agreed with him. The Fifth

Ecumenical Council did not condemn a ll his works but only his statements

against Cyril of Alexandria. His only mistakes were that he did not53understand the theology of Cyril and the Council of Ephesus. His

thought concerning the matter of the communication of idioms may be54"incomplete", but certainly not heretical.

Another present-day authority can refer to Theodoret's Christology

in general as "incomplete", but adduce in his favor his la te r contribu­

tion to the rapproachement o f T r in ita r ian and Christological language

357

55and his vindication as an orthodox teacher at Chalcedon. This impor­

tant study of the Graecarum affectionum curatio , however, does not emerge

with a clear-cut judgment on Theodoret's dogmatic career.

Although R. Seeberg does not consider the question of Theodoret's

supposed change in d e ta i l , he regards Theodoret as "ein Mann von56untadliger Orthodoxie". Needless to say, Seeberg gives a positive

evaluation of Antiochene Christology as a whole. Opitz vindicates

Theodoret's Christology too, but he does so by divorcing i t from that57of the more radical Antiochenes such as Theodore and Nestorius.

There are a number of scholars who evaluate Theodoret's Christolo­

gy positively as a whole without dealing with the question of develop­

ment at a l l . They consider the Christologies of the opposing schools

of thought represented by Cyril and Theodoret to be basically the same

— that is , to represent the same underlying truth. The differences

between them are semantic differences which do not affect the substance

of doctrine. They may indicate weaknesses or imperfections but never

fundamental errors. Scholars of this persuasion take a broad inclusive

view of the history of dogma which sees these two theologies as comple­

mentary aspects of one tru th . This "synthetic" type of interpretation

is represented by R. V. Sellers and J. Mahe.^ The instances of posi­

t ive verdicts about the whole Antiochene theological trad ition could

easily be m ultiplied. As we have seen, some scholars who argue for a

development in Theodoret's thought could vindicate the theology of his

entire career, while recognizing some kind of improvement.

The various judgments of scholars with regard to Theodoret's

Christology lend support to Harnack's statement: "The question of

358

Theodoret's orthodoxy is certainly a very troublesome one fo r a 59Catholic." This remark was more true of Harnack's time than of the

present time, which has seen a revolution in Catholic theology and

P atr is t ic scholarship. In many c irc les , the conservative condemnation

of Antiochene Christology has given way to a favorable attitude toward

i t . Nevertheless, Theodoret's stance in the 5th century controversies

s t i l l poses a problem for scholars who believe in the authority of the

ecumenical counci I s . ^

The question involved here is that of the oneness of the Faith of

the Catholic Church. The presupposition that the truth of the Church's

tradition is one has influenced the judgment of many of the previously-

mentioned scholars. To such a doctrinal outlook, Theodoret is indeed

in an ambivalent position. At one point during his l i f e , he was con­

demned as a Nestorian and as the intractable arch-enemy of the Catholic

Faith taught by Cyril and his Council of Ephesus. In addition, he re­

mained under suspicion until the Council of Chalcedon. In 553 A.D. his

works against Cyril of Alexandria were condemned by the f i f t h ecumenical

council. On the other hand, there are facts that re f lec t very favor­

ably on him. Most important is the fact that he was vindicated as an

orthodox teacher at the Council of Chalcedon a fte r anathematizing

Nestorius. His agreement with Cyril on theological matters in 433 A.D.

was an important prelude to the Chalcedonian Defin ition. Theodoret's

impressive contributions to the Church have also made scholars reluctant

to condemn him. There are many testimonies to his personal in tegrity

which sets him above many of the unscrupulous ecclesiastics of his

t im e .^

359

How does one reconcile these apparently irreconcilable estimates

of Theodoret's Christology and maintain the unity of Catholic truth?

The ways of overcoming this contradiction correspond to the categories

of scholarly judgments about i t . F irs t, there are those who maintain

the unity and in tegrity of Catholic Faith by excluding Theodoret's

Christology along with a ll elements that do not harmonize well with the

t ra d it io n . ' Secondly, there are those who uphold Catholic tradition by

positing a development in Theodoret's career; i . e . , by condemning his

teaching in the early period and declearing his la te r teaching to have

become orthodox. The third possib ility is to trea t Catholic tradition

as very broad and then to minimize the contradictions within i t . Those

of this persuasion attr ibute sharp differences to choice of words rather

than to the substance of the matter. Usually as in the case of Mahe,

Sellers, and others, the two opposing Christo!ogies are considered to

be complementary; that i s , in the synthesis, the antithesis is overcome.

I t is useful to consider those factors that have led some

scholars to th e ir conclusions. However our recognition that certain

presuppositions are present does not mean that they completely determine

the outcome of every scholar's research. I t is s t i l l possible to do

research on a more objective or "scientific" basis, subordinating one's

theological principles. Nevertheless, since Roman Catholic scholars

have done most of the work on Theodoret's l i f e and works, i t is

necessary to be aware of their presuppositions which have at times

dictated the format and conclusions of th e ir works. This is not to

say that Protestants do not have th e ir own Vorverstandnis which may be

more d i f f ic u l t to expose. I f they do, i t may be a less persistent

360

authority, since the Councils and the Fathers do not necessarily command

th e ir allegiance. The most effective works are those in which the de­

sire to understand is predominant rather than the desire to pass judg­

ment .

361

1 j . Garnier, "Dissertatio I I I , de fide Theodoreti," PG, LXXXIV, cols. 409C-411B. J. Montalverne, Theodoreti episcopi C.yrensis doctrina antiquior de Verbo 'inhumanto, 1 p p . xv-xvi.

2c. da Mazzarino, La dottrina di Teodoreto di Ciro sull'unione ipostatica delle due nature in Cristo , pp. 169-170.

3Ib id . , p. 175.

4Ib id . , pp. 173-147.

5 Ib id . , p. 179.

°H.-M. Diepen, Les Trois Chapitres au Concile de Chalcedoine: b'ne etude de la christologie de 1 ‘Anatolie ancienne (Costerhound Paysbas): Editions de Saint Michel, 1953), pp. 30-45, 75-90. Thesame argument p ractiac lly verbatim is also in the a r t ic le "L'Assumptus Homo a Chalcedoine," RT, LI (1951) 589-608. See the important reviews of Diepen‘s book: Marcel Richard, "A propos d'un ouvrage recent surle concile de Chalcedoine," MSR, XI (1954) 89-92 and Jean Danielou, "Histoire des origines chretiennes ( I I I . Autour de Chalcedoine)," RechSR, X L III (1955) 589-598. Also, Diepen's defense and a reply by Danielou--H.-M. Diepen, "Theodoret et le dogme d'Ephese (avec response par Jean Danielou)," RechSR, XLIV (1956) 243-248.

?Ib id . , Les Trois Chapitres, p. 42.

8Ib id . , p. 44 "£ta it-ce clairvoyance de I'homme qu'on a i t si in te l l ig e n t mais qui ne semble redouter aucune contradiction, ou prudence du f in dip!ornate?"

9lb id . , p. 76.

1QIb id . , p. 78.

11 Ib id.-» PP- 80» 83-

12lb id . , p. 84.

13 Ib id . , p . 89.

^Bertram, p. 93: "Doctrinam christologicam, quam Cyrens.isepiscopus in Reprehensione anathematismorum exponit, a Nestorianismo cognovimus absolvi non posse." At the time in which Bertram wrote,

362

some early dogmatic works had not been attributed to Theodoret: Expositio rectae f id e i , Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxus, De Incarnatione.

15Ib id . , p. 94.

1 g

Ib id . , p. 105. "Communione cum s. Cyrillo in i t i a et controversia de Theodoro Mopsuesteno composita, orientales ecclesiae per decem c irc i - te r annos quiete ac pace tranquil!a fruebantur. Hoc tempore Theodoretus in studium sacrae scripturae et sanctorum patrum libros egregia diligen- t ia incubuit et suae doctrinae errores correxit."

^Andreas Seider, "Allgemeine Einleitung zu Theodoret," Des Bischofs Theodoret von Cyrus Monchsgeschichte, Bd. L;: in BKV (Munchen: Jos. Kosel u. Fried. Pustet, 1916) p. Lxxii.

1 OMazzarino, p. 153.

^Montalverne, pp. x iv , 192. I t is not clear which agreement with Cyril Montalverne is alluding to , unless i t would be the common accept­ance with the Antiochenes of Proclus1 le t te r .

20Bertram, pp. 103-105.

21Eduard Schwartz,"Konzilstudien". ( I I . "Uber echte und unechte Schriften des Bischofs Proklos von Konstantinopel") in SWGS, Heft 20 Strassburg: Karl J. Trubner, 1914) pp. 28-36. Robert Devreesse,Essai sur Theodore de Mopsueste. Studi e T e s t i . 141 (C itta del Vati- cano: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1948) pp. 145-151. M. Richard, "Notes sur 1 'evolution doctrinale de Theodoret," RSPT.XXV (1936) 469-470.

22 Bertram, pp. 110, 151. The chronology of the 430's has been determined more d e f in ite ly in recent times.

23Bertram, p. 106.

24Otto Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen L it te ra tu r . Bd.IV. Zweite Auflage. (Freiburg: B.: Herdersche Verlagschandlung, 1924) p. 223.

25Seider, pp. Lxxii-Lxxix: "Und was so, wie w ir glauben, die epistola dogmatica des Papstes begonnen, hat das Konzil von Chalcedon vollendet" (p. Lxxix).

^ A . d'Ales, "La le t t r e de Theodoret aux moines d'Qrient," ETL, VI11 (1931) 421 .

363

27.Klaudius Jussen, "Die Christologie des Theodoret von Cyrus nach seinem neu-veroffentlichen Isaias-Kommentar," ThGI, XXVI.T (1935) .451-452.

28Ib id . , p. 452.

29Pierre-Thomas Camelot, Ephesus und Chalcedon. Ubers. von K. H. Mottausch. Bd. I I in Geschichte der okumenischen Konzilien, hrsg. von G. Dumeige u. H. Bacht (Mainz: Matthias-Griinewald-Verlag, 1963) pp. 95-96.

30Aloys Grillnieier, "Die theologische und sprachliche Vorbereitung der christologischen Formel von Chalkedon," CGG, Bd. I , p. 189.

31Ib id . , p. 190.

32 ' 'Marcel Richard, "Notes sur 1 ‘evolution doctrinale de Theodoretde Cyr," £S£I, 25 (1936) 459-481.

33Ib id . , p. 459. Cf. Ep. 62, 104, 109, 113 (££83 , cols. 1265 A 4; 1297 B7; 1304 A2; 1317 A2).

34Ib id . , pp. 459-460.

35Ib id . , p. 467. In this l i s t of works, Richard includes Expositio rectae f id e i , De Incarnatione Domini, Reprehensio XII anathematismorum, the Pentalogos, and le t te r no. 151 "To the Monks of the Orient".

36Ib id . , pp. 469-470. The only possible exceptions are found in quotations from the Fathers; fo r example, those in the f lo r i le g ia of Pentalogos and Eranistes.

37Ib id . , pp. 476-477. Whatever his view about the concrete formulas so dear to Diodore and Theodore may have been, he f e l t i t necessary to defend them.

38 Ib id . , pp. 477-478. " I I permet de penser que, tres probablement desavant 437, Theodoret avait allege son vocabulaire theologique de ces formules concretes."

39Ib id . , p. 476.

364

40 Ib id . , pp. 475-476. "Le changement que nous etudions porte done essentielTenient nur une question de vocabulaire et n'implique pas necessairement une modification profonde de la pensee de l'eveque de Cyr, n i , a plus forte raison de sa fo i ." Also pp. 476-477: "On^nouspardonnera de croire que son style theologique y a beaucoup gagne."

41Ib id . , p. 475.

42Ib id . , pp. 472-475.

43Ib id . , pp. 474-475. " I I faut admettre qu^a un moment quelconque l'eveque de Cyr s 'es t rendu compte de 1'ambiguite de ces formules, et cela, sans aucun doute, a la lecture des ecrits de saint C yril le ."

44 -Richard's artic les "La le t t re de Theodoret a Jean d'Egees,"RSPT, I I (1941-42) 415-423 and "Le introduction du mot 'hypostase' dans la theologie de 1 'incarnation," MSR, I I (1945.) 269, add valuable in ­sights into Theodoret's terminology a fte r Chalcedon. From the witness of the fragments of one le t te r , i t appears that he accepted the term one hypostasis in the Chalcedonian defin ition as the equivalent to one PXQsopon.

4 6Gustave Bardy, "Theodoret," PTC, Vol. XV, cols. 320-321. He

does not answer d irectly the question about his early Christology, but does not condemn i t .

46Jacques Liebaert, "Christologie. Von der apostolischen Zeit bis zum Konzil von Chalcedon (451)," Faszikel 1 a von Bd. I l l in Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, hrsg. von M. Schmaus u A. Grillm eier (Freiburg i . B7i Herder, 1965) p. 114.

47Kevin McNamara, "Theodoret of Cyrus and the Unity of Person in Christ," ITQ_,XXII(1955) p. 318.

48Ib id . , pp. 322-323.

49Ib id . , p. 327.

5QIb id . , p. 328.

51Ib id . , p. 328. McNamara makes this qualification: "That there

were at a l l times important points of difference between them is never­theless true; i t is even possible that by the time of the Council of Chalcedon a fa i r ly wide divergence had developed."

365

^Bertram, p. 14. Quoting from Tillemont: "Theodoretus nunquama fide ecclesiae secessit." See also pp. 11-18 and Montalverne, pp. x v i i -x v i i i for other scholars of this persuasion.

53Montalverne, pp. 192-194. See also Henry Chadwick, "Review of Theodoreti Cyrensis doctrina antiquior de Verbo 1Inhumanato1" by Ioseph Montalverne, JTS, N.S. I (1950) 109-110.

54lb id . , p. 116.

55pierre Canivet, Histoire d'une entreprise apologetique au Ve si~bcle (Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1958) p. 343.

5°Reinhold Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmenqeschichte. Bd. I I , Die DogmenbiIdung in der alten Kirche (Darmstadt: HissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft, 1965) p. 243.

57h . G. Opitz, "Theodoretos," PWK, Bd. V, col. 1794. "Ein Konsequenter Verfechter der antiochenischen Theologie is t T. nie gewesen "

58r. v. Sellers, Two Ancient Christologies (London: S.P.C.K.,1940) pp. 202-259. Joseph Mahe, "Les anathematismes de S. Cyril le d'Alexandrie et les eveques orientaux du patriarchat d'Antioche," RHE, VII (1906) p. 542.

^Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma, Trans, by Neil Buchanan.Vol. IV (New'York: Dover, 1961) p. 198. Despite Ehrhard's denial:Albert Ehrhard, "Die Cyril! von Alexandrien zugeschriebene Schrift Peri Tes Tou Kuriou enanthropeseos ein Werk Theodorets von Cyrus,"ThQ, LXX (1888) 653 Most of the works considered are by Catholic authors.

^^The conservative Diepen has seen this very clearly: "Notrejugement d e f in i t i f sur la christologie du quatrieme concile dependra en partie de celui que nous aurons forme de la doctrine de Theodoret." Diepen, Les Trois Chapitres, p. 77.

SlEdmund Venables, "Theodoretus (2 ) ," A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Vol. IV, ed. by W. Smith and H. Wace (London: John Murray,1887) pp. 904-905. Harnack (History of Dogma, Vol. IV, p. 197) calls Theodoret "the man who in my opinion was the most truth-loving and the least guided by considerations of policy of the Fathers of that period." Cf. Louis Duchesne, Early History of the Christian Church. Trans, by Claude Jenkins, Vol. I l l (London: John Murray, 1960)pp. 273-274.

APPENDIX C

Alexandrian Christology and Politics

C yril 's actions are understandable only in the context of the

power struggle between the patriarchies of Alexandria and Constan­

tinople. The Alexandrian patriarchs established a policy of opposing

the patriarchs of Constantinople or of attempting to control them by

the time of Gregory of Nazianzus, the f i r s t patriarch to fa l l victim

to Alexandrian intrigue. The r iv a lry became more keen a fte r the

Second Oecumenical Council of 331 A.D. When the patriarchate of

Constantinople was promoted to the status of having authority only

second to that of Rome, this deprived the Alexandrian patriarchy

of its position of supremacy in the EastJ The Alexandrian

patriarchs habitually used their influence to establish malleable

colleagues in Constantinople whom they could control. Those whom

they could neither cause to be chosen nor control once they were

in power--such as Chrysostom and Nestorius—were deposed through

the ir machinations. They were w il ling to use any means whatsoever,

regardless o f its morality to preserve their power and destroy their

enemies. Schwartz's estimation is only too true: "Nie hat die Welt

so riicksichtslose Hierarchen gesehen wie die Manner, die in den

anderthalb Jahrhunderten von der grossen Verfolgung bis zum chalke-

donischen Konzil auf dem Thron des heiligen Markus sassen."^

366

367

Modern scholarship such as that of Schwartz and Duchesne

has emphasized the p o lit ica l motives behind Cyril 's attack upon

Nestorius. Even Schwartz, who effective ly portrays the Nestorian

Controversy as a "Machtkampfbrings out clearly the theological

and religious (c u lt ic ) differences between the two part ies .3 Never­

theless, religious and theological factors do not alone suffice to

account for the causes of the controversy, which could not have

happened without the po lit ica l aims and methods of the Alexandrian

patriarch.

In spite of the overwhelming weight of modern scholarship,

P. T. Camelot in a recent work has completely discounted the

possib ility of p o lit ica l motives having anything to do with the

fate of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus. This scholar boldly

states that there is nothing in the events and texts of the Council

that could indicate a r iv a lry between Alexandria and Constantinople

which would have had the goal of attaining greater po lit ica l power.

Camelot goes on to say: "Ebensowenig kann von kirchenpolitischen

Machenschaften die Rede sein, wie fiinfundzwanzig Jahre vorher zur

Zeit von Theophilus und Johannes." That is , Nestorius was condemned

on the basis of theological reasons ("aus lehrhaften Griinden")

rather than po lit ica l ones.^ Camelot's judgment here is a complete

distortion of the available historical evidence, which he should

be fam ilia r w ith, and a deviation from the findings of modern

scholarship. That his dogmatic bias has determined his outlook

368

is apparent. One can only consider his interpretation to be an

anachronism.

In addition to a unified po lit ica l aim, the Alexandrian

patriarchate represented a unified Christological trad ition since

the time of Athanasius. Although Athanasius was preoccupied with

the doctrine of the divine Logos for most of his career rather

than with the Christological problem as such, his general Chris­

tological position greatly influenced the thought o f his la te r

successor Cyril .

Athanasius represented a type of Christo!ogy referred to by

modern writers as a "Word-flesh" Christology; that i s , he understood

the incarnation primarily as the union of the Logos with human flesh

or bodily nature. Although he did not deny e x p lic i t ly that Christ

possessed a human soul, he had no place or function for i t in his

system of thought.^ Although he was led to formally affirm the

presence o f a soul in Christ at the Synod of Alexandria in 362 A.D.

by the insistence o f the Paul ini an group from Antioch, his thought

did not rea lly change.0 In spite of his intractable opposition

against the Arian doctrine of God, his understanding of the human

nature of Christ is basically the same as that of the Arians and

Apollinarians. In unison with these heretical factions, Athanasius

understands the incarnation as a union between the Logos and human

flesh without the presence of a human soul. Grillmeier i l lus tra tes

the presence of this idea in Athanasius' concept of the death of

369

Christ, For Athanasius, the death of Christ was caused by the

separation of the Logos (not the soul) from the body. I t v/as the

Logos also that descended into hell to preach to the sp ir its in

prison.^

When we examine the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, we

find the same basic "Word-flesh" scheme. As Liebaert has demon­

strated, Cyril took the basic lines of his thought from Athanasius.®

Although he affirmed the existence of a human soul in Christ more

clearly that Athanasius had done, i t has no place in his system;

that is , one does not need a human soul in order to affirm that

the incarnate Word was man. Cyril never used the idea of a

human soul in Christ to answer Arian objections.^ That this

understanding of C yril 's Christology is basically correct is

substantiated by further examination of his thought. Cyril has

generally been given credit by "orthodox" theologians for his

insistence upon the idea that the Logos was the actual subject

in ChristJ® I t was his consistent practice to ascribe a l l of

Christ's experiences d irec tly to the Logos as the sub jec t in

Christ (not to a human soul)."*"* The practical implications of this

theory appear when Cyril speaks of Christ's growth in wisdom and

his expressions of human ignorance. The growth in wisdom was not

a normal human process but rather a process in which the Logos

transfigured or deified the human nature. I t was a matter of

"the gradual manifestation of the divine Wisdom in the body

370

assumed by i t " (Liebaert). Only in this sense could one speak of

progress in w i s d o m . ^ Christ's expressions of ignorance only

amounted to an apparent ignorance. The Logos-subject of Christ

was tru ly omniscient, but i t gave the impression that Christ was

ignorant in a human fashion. Since Christ was playing the role of

a man, he spoke in a way that was f i t t in g to his human nature. He

expressed ignorance about the time of the Last Day for the practical

reason that he did not want to urge the disciples on by his silence.

For this reason he spoke "in human f a s h i o n . "13 in re a l i ty , only

the body underwent human experiences and suffering.

Cyril! ' anerkennt die Realitat des korper- lichen Wachstums, der Miihen, der Leiden, usw., aber er w ill nur eine scheinbare Vermehrung des Wissens und der Weisheit zulassen: das fleischgewordene Wort hatniemals etwas nicht wissen konnen: es hatden Schein des Nichtwissens wegen seiner Menschennatur zugelassen, oder auch es hat die Offenbarung seines Wissens zu seinem A lter in Verhaltnis gesetzt.14

The foregoing interpretation of the orthodox Alexandrian

theologians as proponents of a Word-flesh Christology highlights

the real weakness of this view--namely, the lack of a tru ly

human Christ. This more c r i t ic a l estimation by modern scholars

represents a sh if t away from older Catholic interpretations such

as Weigl's which e ither idealized the orthodox Alexandrian Chris­

tology of Cyril and Athanasius or found i t completely adequate.

According to Weigl, "Die Alexandrinische Christologie is t eine

Christologie der M it te Sie is t zu letzt die bedeutendste

Vertreterin der Orthodoxie im Entscheidungskampfe mit dem

A n t i o c h e n i s m u s . " ^ Weigl claimed that C yril 's idea of sarx

rea lly stood for the entire human nature of Christ and that there

was an inner progress in Christ in addition to the progress

perceptible only to others A more recent Catholic scholar has

taken exception to Liebaert's thesis, claiming that Cyril under­

stood sarx in the Scriptural sense of human nature, inclusive

of both body and soul. However, he must agree with Liebaert

and others that Cyril did not draw the consequences of the idea

of a human soul in his ChristologyJ7 i n defense of Liebaert's

thesis, the fact that Cyril spoke of Christ's flesh as e x p lic i t ly

including body and soul when he was attacked by Theodoret does

not mean that the soul possessed any significance for him. One

had to dissociate himself from Apol 1inarianism and Arianism for

the sake of respectability. The evidence of modern scholarship

indicates that Alexandrian Christology in the fourth and f i f t h

centuries was not "eine Christologie der Mitte" which equally

avoided the p i t fa l ls on the theological " le ft" and "right."

I t leaned decisively in a monophysite direction.

372

Claris Lictzmann, The Era of the Church Fathers, Vol. IV in A History of the Early Church. Trans, by Bertram Lee Woolf (London: Lutterworth Press, 1958) p. 45; Amann, “Nestorius," PTC, col. 95.

2e . Schwartz, "Uber die Reichskonzilien von Theodosius bis' Justinian," in Bd. IV Gesammelte Schriften, p. 119. This would obviously include the powerful Athanasius of an e a r l ie r generation.The church historian Socrates provides ample information about how Theophilus misused his authority in order to quell any opposition (Book VI, chs. 7-17), and about the scandlous riots between Jews and Christians and the death of Hypatia which took place during the reign of Cyril and tarnished his reputation (Book V I I , chs. 13-15): Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I I in LNPF, Second Series.

3Schwartz, "Vorgeschichte," pp. 240-248, and Uber die Reichs­konzilien von Theodosius bis Justinian" in Bd. iy of Gesammelte Aufsatze (Zur Geschielite der a!ten Kirche und ihres Rechts) , p. 127 where Schwartz points to the primacy of Cyril 's ambition for power which led him to use a theological issue to achieve his purpose.That the theological consideration was not the main issue at stake but rather a convenient pretext for destroying a rival is also clearly stated by J. Haller in Das Papsttum: Idee und l l i rk l ic h k e it ,Bd. I , Die Grundlagen, p. 110. Additional information from the historical background of this dissertation w il l lend additional support to this conclusion.

4pierre-Thoinas Camelot, Ephesus und Chalcedon, Bd. I I in Geschi elite der okumenischen Ko'nzilien, hrsg. von Dumeige u. Bacht (Mainz: Matthias-Grunewald Verlag, 1963) pp. 71-72. In line withthis conservative Roman Catholic position, Cyril is alleged to have been moved by only the purest of motivations: "Welche CharakterziigeC yril! auch gehabt haben mag, es le ite ten ihn nur die Sorge urn die Wahrheit und der E ifer fur den Glauben. Nichts in den Texten recht- fe r t ig t wohl den Vorwurf eines herrschsiichtigen Wesens, nirgends zeigt sich die Absicht, Alexandrien die Vorherrschaft uber Konstan- tinopel zu verschaffen, seinen Gegner zu Liberwaltigen und zu vernichten." (p. 40)

5Marcel Richard, "Saint Athanase et la psychologie du Christ selon les Ariens," MSR, IV (1947) 37, 53-54; Grillm aier, ';Theo- logische und sprachliche Vorbereitung," pp. 96-102; J. Liebaert, Christologie," Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Bd. I l l , pp. 71-75.

^Richard, ib id . , pp. 50-53. The formal profession of a human soul was equivocal enough to be accepted by the Apollinarians present. For the same view, see J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 288-289. Grillmeier makes a distinction between Athanasius' early writings in which he tended to exclude the

373

human soul from Christ altogether (as "a theological quantity") and his statements in 362 A.D. in which he "possibly" recognized a human soul in Christ as "a physical quantity." ("Theologische und sprachliche Vorbereitung," pp. 98-99)

^Alois Grillmeier, "Der Gottessohn im Totenreich," ZKT,LXXI (1949) 40, 43-46. Apollinaris likewise understood Christ's death in terms of a separation of the d iv in ity from flesh. One sees here the Alexandrian idea of the Logos as an animating force in the world. Jules Gross, La divinisation du chretien d'apres les p&res grecs, pp. 278-279.

^Jacques Liebaert, La doctrine christologique de Saint Cyril le d'Alexandrie avant la querelle nestorienne, pp. 88-89, 143-145.

9lb id . , pp. 179, 237, 239. Liebaert draws his conclusion on the basis of Cyril 's works before 428, but asserts that Cyril never changed his mind. Grillmeier, "Theologische und sprachliche Vorbereitung," pp. 166-167.

^For example, H. M. Re!ton, A Study in Christology. Preface by A. C. Head!am (London: S.P.C.K., 1917) pp. xix-xx.

^A . Ehrhard, "Die Cyril! von Alexandrien zugeschriebene Schrift ," pp. 224, 228, 418.

I^Eieazar Schulte, Die Entwicklung der Lehre votn menschlichen Hissen Christi bis zum Geginneder Scholastik, FLDG, Bd. X I I , Heft 2. (Paderborn: F. Schoningh, 1914) pp. 82-84; Liebaert, La doctrinechristologique de S. C y r i l le , p. 144.

"^Schulte, ib id . , pp. S4-85; Liebaert, ib id . , pp. 88-89.The same understanding of Christ's ignorance is found in Athanasius. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 286-288.

I^Schulte, ib id . , p. 95.

" ^ E d u a r d Weigl, Christologie vom Tode Athanasius bis zum Ausbruch des nestorianischen Streites (373-429) , Miinchener Studien zur historischen Theologie, Heft 4 (Munchen: Kosel und Pustet, 1925),p. v.

IS lb id . , pp. 137, 186.

17g. Jouassard, "Un probleme d'anthropologie et de christologie chez saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie," RechSR, XLII (1S55) 371; "Saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie et le schema de 11 Incarnation Verbe-Chair," RechSR, XLIV (1956) 234-239.

APPENDIX D

Termi no logy

/ _The use of the term 77~po0'“ / 7To</ for Christ is common to the

Antiochene School. Having developed from its original meaning in

classical antiquity of "face," "visage," or "countenance" to that of

dramatic "mask" or "role," i t evolved to the point where it.expressed

one's role or function in l i f e and eventually came to mean "individual"

or "person."1 As Prestige says, in Christian theology the term "comes

to express the external being or individual se lf as presented to an

onlooker, and of things, the expression or substance."2 Or, as Sellers

puts i t , prosopon expresses the idea of " 'in d iv id u a lity ' as seen . . .

not from an abstract, but from a concrete point of view."^ Some of

the sense of the original meaning "visage" is s t i l l reflected in the

use of Theodoret (and his comrades), for he uses the term to refer to

Christ (inclusive of divine and human natures) seen as an h is to r ica l,

empirical en t ity , that is , viewed from without. In his theology

prosopon refers to "die sichtbarplastische Darstellung der gott-

menschlichen Einheit in Christus."^ The dominant sense of the

term in Nestorius' theology is basically the same; that is , one

prosopon refers to "the undivided appearance of the historic Jesus

C h r i s t . I n contrast to Nestorius, Theodoret did not develop a

systematic analysis of the term as the mutual exchange of prosopa

within the unity of one prosopon.6C /

The evolution in meaning of the term (/7fo<TT^tr(S is much more

374

complex than that of f f ^ o v u / r r o v , and as a resu lt, the definitions

are more varied. Evolving from the basic sense of the word as "that

which underlies, or that which gives support," i t comes to mean "content7

or substance in general." Down to the time of the Trin itar ian contro­

versy in the la te fourth century, hypostasis meant the same as ousia

(essence). "Both indicated, to take the inevitable physical metaphor,

the part icu lar slab of material s tu ff which constitutes a given objectQ

. . . " Both terms may be translated by the word "substance" since they

express the essential substratum of something, that i s , "the vehicle of g

all q u a lit ies ." Although Origen tr ied to make some distinction between

ousi a and hypostasis, these terms remained basically synonymous during

the period of the Council of N icea .^ The key term for the unity of di-£ /

vine Logos and Godhead in the Nicene Creed {OA/oovaios) 0f course, is a> /

form of the word ou<fcu . Although the two terms in question are

generally interchangeable, Prestige points to a subtle discrimination

that could be expressed in th e ir meanings: "Ousia means a single object

of which the ind iv iduality is disclosed by means of internal analysis,

an object abstractly and philosophically a unit. But in the sense of

hypostasis. . .the emphasis lay not on content, but on extremely concrete

independence; ob jec t iv ity , that is to say, in relation to other ob­

je c ts ." ^

Such a distinction was spelled-out in the classical Eastern doc­

tr ine of the T r in ity through the work of the Cappadocian Fathers in the \late fourth century. At this time the two terms are redefined in re la­

tion to each other. When God is spoken of as one ousi a in three h.ypo-

staseis (Father, Son, Holy S p i r i t ) , the sense o f this formula is : "God,

376

regarded from the point of view of internal analysis, is one object; but

tha t , regarded from the point of view of external presentation, He is 12three objects."

The new meaning which these words took on in Trin itar ian theology

must be defined more precisely. According to Basil the Great, ov<rc*< /

has the same relation to vrroeTJ-rcs as the common has to the particu­

la r ." In other words, each hypostasis whether of Fatherhood, of Sonship,

or of S p ir i t is a "special property" or "particular mode of existence"13of the one inclusive ousia. In this new sense, hypostasis becomes a

synonym for prosopon, and C tf(o jr )S or . The la t te r two

terms mean "identifying peculiarity" or "particularizing characteristic,"

bringing out clearly the idea of the particu lar properties or express-14ions of the general essence. According to Harnack, this Cappadocian

understanding of hypostasis l ies "halfway between 'Person' and ' a t t r i ­

bu te ', (Accident, M o d a l ity ) ."^

To certain Western theologians such as Jerome the varied use of

the term hypostasis was baff ling . They were accustomed to the early de­

f in i t io n of the term, therefore, the new defin ition with respect to the

T rin ity appeared contradictory. Since hypostasis was translated into

Latin as substantia, i t was understood in i ts ea r l ie s t sense of ousi a or

as a synonym for physis (natura) . Therefore, i f the Cappadocian t r in i ty

made sense at a l l , i t appeared to espouse three primary substances or

gods. Jerome's statement is a classic expression of the confusion caused

by this term in the West: "The entire school of secular l ite ra tu re

recognizes hypostasis as no d iffe ren t than ousia. And w il l anyone, I

ask, declare with sacreligious mouth that there are three substances?

377

[in God]. . .inasmuch as .. . th e one divine essence consists of three per­

sons, that which tru ly is is one nature. And whosoever says that there

are three - - that is , three hypostases - - attempts under the name of1 r

piety to assert that there are three natures."

The meaning of hypostasis became even more ambiguous during the

Nestorian Controversy when Cyril applied i t to the person of Christ.

This ambiguity has made i t very d i f f i c u l t fo r scholars to determine ex­

actly the meaning of the term. There was, f i r s t of a l l , a basic

difference in the way hypostasis was used in the two rival schools of

theology.

Let us f i r s t consider the Antiochene defin ition of hypostasis,

for i t is by fa r the most consistent defin ition in the Christological

controversy. For the Antiochene theologians, hypostasis was v ir tu a lly

a synonym for both ousi a and physis. These la t te r two terms indicated

very simply "that which exists," and hypostasis meant "underlying exis­

tence" in the same sense in which Western theologians defined substant-

i a . Thus, a ll three Greek words meant "being" or "subsistence"

( T o o V , TO (/(POtTToS ) } 7 This is consistent with the early

meaning of hypostasis. As we have indicated in the main body of this

dissertation, Theodoret f i r s t instituted a change in the understanding

of hypostasis for his trad ition a f te r the Council of Chalcedon. His

interpretation of the Defin itio regarded this word as a synonym for

prosopon, according to the example of Trin itar ian language. In this

instance, then, i t could not mean "substance" or i ts equivalent. What­

ever the intended meaning of the compromising Defin itio may have been,

the words prosopon and hypostasis cannot be thought of s t r ic t ly accord­

378

ing to th e ir original significance or they would be in absolute contra­

d ic t io n .^

Turning to the Alexandrian definition of hypostasis, particularly

in Cyril 's theology, we find a lack of consistency. " C y r i l . . . is not so

defin ite in his usage of e ither of the terms hypostasis and 'nature',

that we can say at once, exactly what he meant by any composite phrase19in which either of them occurs." According to Loofs, "the term

ih’io /irTu<r<s must be understood as essentially synonymous with o u r t *

for both Nestorius and C yril . But he goes on to spell out some varia­

tion between the meanings of the two terms as applied to Christ. "The

term o v v c * could also be used in a generic sense and then receivedc /

a meaning s im ilar to kind or nature, but {/Pi><rTct<rts means only that

which OucrcA could mean in addition to i ts other meaning, viz, a20single and rea lly existing being, whether material or immaterial."

In keeping with this understanding of the terms, Loofs thinks thatc/ / _ < /

Cyril 's two phrases — £/k/<rss (pw txi? and fw <r(s v r? o < rr« t/r—

may be taken "in the sense of substantial rather than in the sense of

personal oneness" (quoting from Bethune-Baker). This would be a

d ifferent understanding of hypostasis than that found in the Chalcedon- 21lan Definition.

Other scholars find more d is tinc tly d ifferen t variations in the

way this word could be defined. According to Sellers, i t could mean

either the basic s tu ff of which something consists or "particular ob­

jects of individuals." Thus, i t might be understood in the sense of

substantia or physis on the one hand or in the.sense of prosopon on the

other. Accordingly, Seeberg defines hypostasis to mean "concrete

379

rea lity" or "nature" as well as "personal existence." Cyril 's phrase < /

fz tu a -n vrrorrJd-a/ means "a real concrete unity which is at the22same time a union of the natural constituents (Bastand)."

The ambiguity of hypostasis in C yril line theology must also be

extended to the term physis which was used interchangeably with i t . As

the equivalent of ousia, physis "could refer e ither to the particular

or to the general." Like hypostasis, i t could have the sense of "an

individual existence" or a "generic sense"; that is , i t was used for

the specific "one incarnate nature of the divine Logos" or for the23general "the divine nature" and "human nature." Loofs supports

Sellers' basic definition by pointing out that Cyril used hypostasis/

and physis indiscriminately so that each could be used for the /cotzoz

24of the nature or for "the individualized nature." Kelly's statement

expresses admirably the two possible meanings of physis: "In Antiochene/

circles the key-word (fz<r(S , or 'nature ,1 connoted the humanity or

the d iv in ity conceived of as a concrete assemblage of characteristics

or attributes. Cyril himself accepted this sense of the word In

his normal. usage, however, he p referred .. .concrete individual, or in ­

dependent existent. In this sense phusis approximated to , without25being actually synonymous with, hupostasis."

Grillmeier apparently regards this second meaning of physis as

dominant in C yril . The Apollinarian formula which he inherited caused

him "to narrow the conceptual content of physis and use i t in the sense

of "individual, existent substance." Physis d iffers from the idea of

simple being in that physis contains the idea of "operation" (Hirken)

and " v i ta l i ty " (Lebenstatigkeit). In accordance with Kelly, hypostasis

330

arid physis are not so much synonymous as coordinated (zugeordnet) with

26each other.

By way of comparison, the basic differences and s im ila r it ies be­

tween the terms prosopon, hypostasis, and physis become re la tive ly

clear - - even though hypostasis is a plastic term in the hands of some­

one like Cyril. Prosopon in Antiochene usage refers to the person of

Jesus as an empirical en t ity , viewed from the exterior and leaves un­

touched the question of exactly how the deeper unity is established

metaphysically. In the consistent use of the term, there is the

assumption that a union of prosopon does not mean a substantial union

of divine and human natures. However, one cannot conclude from th is ,

that the union is a "moral" or accidental one. Hypostasis applied to

Christ by Cyril and others represents an attempt to assert a real sub­

stantial or natural union of the divine and human on "the deepest level;

that i s , i t is an attempt to define the nature of the union from within

Physis expresses the same idea. As Sellers and others have indicated,

both terms refer to an individual existence rather than to a nature in

general. I t appears to us, however, that i t is misleading to state

that this individualized sense of hypostasis and physis is the "equiva­

lent of" prosopon, as Sellers has done. As this scholar himself says,27the term prosopon is a "non-metaphysical term." But the other two

terms cannot be emptied of the ir metaphysical significance. To speak

of either is to raise the question of substance or nature. Hypostasis,

physis, prosopon may each refer to the unified "person" of Christ and

in this sense may be used the same way, but this does not mean that

they are s t r ic t ly "equivalents."

381

Often Cyril 's word hypostasis applied to Christ is translated as

"person." Accordingly, some scholars speak of the "hypostatic union" in

Christ as a "personal unity." Often this is done to rescue "St. Cyril"28from the charge of Monophysitism. But i t is highly unlikely that when

Cyril used hypostasis he meant what we mean by "person" today. Much more

was implied metaphysically in his term. As Loofs has said, Cyril 's cate-29gories are physical rather than personal. Therefore, i t is grossly

misleading and inaccurate to translate his term simply as "person" with­

out some qua lification . The same may be said for his "hypostatic union,"

which is most certainly saying something more than "personal union." I t

seems much more advisable to use the Greek terminology as i t is than to

translate i t into a modern concept which i t does not f i t . This might

also be said for prosopon even though this term is perhaps closer to, the

general use of "person". The warning of Bindley and Green is most

apropos at this point: "We must.. .beware of applying to the doctrine of

the Person of Christ in the p a tr is t ic period modern notions about30personality which we have learned to use since the time of Locke."

382

M. Nedoncelle, "Prosopon e t persona dans 1 'antiquite classique," RevSR, 22 (1948) pp. 281-282. For another varying account of the historical development of this term, see Sigmund Schlossmann, Persona und prosopon im Recht und'im west!ichen Dogma (Darmstadt: Wissenschaft- liche BuchgeselIschaft, 1965).

2G. L. Prestige, God in P a tr is t ic Thought (London: S.P.C .K ., 1959) p. 157.

°R. V. Sellers, Two Ancient Christologies (London: S.P.C.K., 1954)p. 158.

AA. Grillm eier, "Vorbereitung der christol. Forme! von Chalkedon,"

CGG, I , p. 187. J. frontalverene, Theodoreti Cyrensis Doctrina Antiquior de Verbo 1Inhumanato1, p. 103.

5Friedrich Loofs, Nestorius and His Place in the History of

Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: University Press, 1914), p. 79. See alsoMilton Anastos, "Nestorius was Orthodox," POP, No. 15, pp. 129-130. Hodgson's a r t ic le deals with the more d i f f ic u l t question of the theologi­cal implications of the term for Christology: Nestorius, The Bazaar ofHeracleides, trans. and ed. by G. R. Driver and Leonard Hodgson (Oxford: Clarednon Press, 1925) pp. 411-412.

®Aloys Grillm eier, "Das Scandalum oecumenicum des Nestorius in kirchlichdogmatischer und theologiegeschichtlicher Sicht," Scholastik,36 (1961) pp. 345-346. See PG 82, 401 B.

^Prestige, God in P a tr is t ic Thought, p. 163.

8Ibi_d. , p. 168.

J. F. Bethune-Baker, The Meaning of Homoousios in the ‘ Constanti- nopolitan1 Creed. Vol. 3, no. 1 in Texts amTstudies, ed. by~TT Armitage Robinson (Cambridge: University Press, 1901), p. 76; F. Loofs, Nestorius, pp. 70-71: another synonym from A ris to tle 's philosophy isvttox£<*\c</ov ("the bearer o f a ll the attributes which are called the nature of a th in g .. . " ) .

^Bethune-Baker, p. 78.

^P res tige , pp. 168-169. For other shades of meaning see pp. 170- 174. .................................

12Ib id . , p. 169.

383

13Bethune-Baker, Meaning of Homoousios, p. 81. M. Richard, "L 'in - troduction du mot hypostase," p. 18.

14 .......................J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctn nes, p. 265; R. V. Se llers ,

Two Ancient Christoloqies, p. 158. Such is Theodoret's understanding expressed in Eranistes (PG, LXXXIII, col. 36A).

15History of Dogma, Vol. 4, p. 85.

^Mierow, Charles C. and Lawler, Thomas C., eds., The Letters of St. Jerome, Vol. I . In ACM, No. 33, ed. by J. Quasten and W. J.Burghardt (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1963) Ep. 15, p. 72.

^ S e l le rs , Two Ancient Christoloqies, pp. 280-281. Richard's theory that Theodore of Mopsuestia used the term hypostasis for the unified person in Christ is extremely tenuous. Richard, "L'introduction du mot 'hypostase' dans la theologie de 1 'incarnation," MSR, 2 (1945) pp. 26-27. Moeller r ightly raises the question as to why the term occurs only in some Syriac fragments of De Incarnatione but not in works we possess in entire ty . Charles Moeller, "Nephalius I'A lexandrie," p. 114. In addi­tion, we would raise the d i f f ic u l t question of why no subsequent Antio­chene theologian tolerated the term for Christ.

18According to the e a r l ie r defin it ion of hypostasis by Nestorius and Theodoret, each nature in Christ must of necessity have i ts own hypostasis; in fac t , both physis and hypostasis were applied to both the divine and human re a l i t ie s . Loofs, Nestori us, pp.71-72.

^ J . F. Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and His Teaching (Cambridge: University Press, 1908) pp. 172 and 53.

20Loofs, Nes tori us , p. 71.

21 Ib id . , pp. 70, 72. Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and His Teaching,P- 174. See also Friedrich Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz und die gleich- naniigen S c h r if ts e lle r der qriechishen Kirche. T. U . , Bd. 3, Heft_T-"2. (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1887) p. 48: "Der ethische Begriff der Personli-chkeit fe h lt ; Cyril! hat nur physische Kategorien.. .zur Beschreibung der Einheit in Christo."

22Sellers , Two Ancient Christoloqies, p. 47; Seeberg, Dogmenges- chichte, pp. 228-229..

2 3 Sellers, pp. 48-49., This scholar regards the particu lar sense of "an individual existence" as the equivalent of prosopon" and ind i­cates that ousi a could be used "in the sense of a particu lar existence,

384

an individual" — that is , in the sense of prosopon.

24 .Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz, p. 43.

25Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 318. Note the variation in meaning in classical l i te ra tu re in H. G’. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek- English Lexicon, 9th ed.. rev. by Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick Me Kenzi'e (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961) pp. 1964-1965.

^ A . Grillm eier, "Die theo l. u. sprachl. VorbereitungCGG, I ,pp. 179-180.

27Se llers , Two Ancient Christoloqies, pp. 46-49.

O Q

For example, Karl Adam, The Christ of Faith , Trans, by Joyce Crick (New York: New American Library, 1962) pp. 235-237, 241-243; F. Ferrier, "The Chalcedonian Faith and Its Further C larifications," in The Theology of Christ: Commentary, ed. by Ralph Tapia (New York: Bruce,1971) p. 159; Prestige, Fathers and Heretics,p. 157.

29Leontius von B.yzanz, p. 48.

30T. H. Bindley and F. W. Green, eds. The Oecumenical Documents of the Fa ith , p. 123.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I . Patrologies and Bibliographies

Altaner, Berthold. Patrology. Translated by Hilda C. Graef.New York: Herder & Herder, 1960.

Bardenhewer, Otto. Geschichte der altkirchlichen L it te ra tu r .5 vols. Zweite Auflage. Freiburg im 3reisgau: Herdersche Verlagshandlung, 1913-1932.

Beck, Hans-Georg. Kirche und theologische L iteratur im byzan- tinischen Reich. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft X I I : Byzantinisches 2, I . Miinchen: Beck, 1959.

Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, Hrsg. Bibliographia P a tr is tica . Vols. I (1956)-IX (1964) f f . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1959-67 f f .

Stewardson, Jerry L. A Bibliography of Bibliographies on P a tr is t ics . Evanston, I l l in o is : Garrett Theological Seminary Library,1967.

I I . Lexica, Word Studies, and Grammars

Bauer, Walter, Arndt, William F . , and Gingrich, F. Wilbur. A Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian L ite ra ture . 4th rev. ed. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1957.

Bethune-Baker, J. F. The Meaning of Homoousios in the ' Constant!no- politan' Creed. Vol. I l l , No. 1 in Texts and Studies, ed. by J. Armitage Robinson. Cambridge: University Press, 1901.

Blass, Friedrich and Debrunner, Albert. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian L itera ture . Trans, and rev. by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1962.

Dana, H. E. and Mantey, Julius R. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1959.

K i t te l , Gerhard und Friedrich, Gerhard, Hrsg. Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 7 Bande. Stuttgart:W. Kohlhammer, 1933-1966.

385

Lampe, G. W. H. A Patr is tic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1961 f f .

L iddell, Henry George and Scott, Robert. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9til ed. rev. by Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961.

________ . A Greek-English Lexicon, Abridged. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1963.

Nddoncelle, M. "Prosopon et persona dans I 'a n t iq u ite classique," RevSR, XXII (1943)' 277-2~99.

Richard, Marcel. “L'introduction du mot 'hypostase' dans latheologie de 1 'incarnation," MSR, 1:1(1945) 5-32, 243-270.

Schlossmann, Sigmund. Persona und prosopon im Recht und im westlichen Dogma. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch- geselIschaft, 1965.

Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Rev. by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966.

Sophocles, ' E. A. Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (From B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100). 2 Vols. New York: FrederickUngar Publishing Co., 1887.

I I I . General Primary Sources

Bindley, T. Herbert, ed. The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith: the Creed of Nicaea, the Epistles of C yril , the Toms of Leo, the Chalcedonian Defin ition . 4th ed. revised with Introduction and Notes by F. W. Green. London: Methuen & Co., 1950.

C yril , S t . , Archbishop of Alexandria. Five Tomes Against Nestorius; .Scholia on the Incarnation; Christ is One; Fragments Against Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Synousiasts. Trans, by members of the English Church, in A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church. Oxford: James Parker& Co., 1881.

Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Deux Dialogues Christologiques. Introduction, texte c r it ique , traduction et notes par G. M. de Durand. SC_, XCVII. Paris: Les editions du cerf, 1964.

fe lto e , Charles Lett and Barrnby, James, translators. Leo the Great and Gregory the Great. V o l.X II in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian.Church, Second Series. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1956.

337

Flemming, Johannes, Hrsg. Akten der ephesinischcn S.ynode vomJahre 449, Syrisch mit Georg Hoffmanns deutscner Uberse'tzung und seinen Anmerkungen. Abhandlungen dor KOniglichen Gesell- schaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, N.F. Bd. XV, Nr. 1. Berlin: Heidmannsche Buchhandlung,1917.

Hardy, E. R. and Richardson, Cyril C., eds. Christo! ogy of the Later Fathers. Vol. I l l in Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954.

Hoffmann, Georg. Festschrift Justus Olshousen: Verhandlungen derKirchenversa'mmlung zu Ephesus am 22. August 449 aus einer syrischen Handschrift vom Jahre 535. Kiel: C. F. .Mohr, 1373.

Lietzmann, Hans. Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule. TU 1. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1904.

Loofs, Friederich. Nes tori ana: Die Fragmente des lies tori us. MitBeitrHgen von Stanley A. Cook und George Kampffmeyer. Halle a. S.: M. Niemeyer, 1905.

Martin, Paul in . Actes du Brigandage a'Ephese. Amiens: EmileGlorieux et C6 , 1874.

Mierow, Charles C. and Lawler, Thomas C., eds. The Letters of St. Jerome. Vol. 1, No. 33 in Ancient Christian Writers. Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1963.

Migne, J . -P . , ed. Patrologia cursus completus: series Latina.221 vols. Paris: 1844-64 f f .

Migne, J . -P . , ed. Patrologia cursus completus: series Graeca.161 vols. Paris: 1857-1387.

Mingana, Alphonse, trans. Commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestiaon the Nicene Creed. Woodbrooke Studies, Vol. V. Cambridge:W. Heffer & Sons, 1932.

Mingana, Alphonse, trans. Commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Lord's Prayer and on the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. Woodbrooke Studies, Vol. VI. Cambridge:W. Heffer & Sons, 1933.

Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides. Translated and edited byG. R. Driver and Leonard Hodgson. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1925.

Novum Testamantum Graece. Ed. Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle,Kurt Aland. 23 ed. Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Bibel-anstalt , 1957.

Percival, Henry R. The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the UndividedChurch, th e ir Canons and Dogmatic Decrees. LNPF, Second Series, Vol. XIV. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Vim. B. Eerdmans, n.d.

Perry, S. G. F . , ed. The Second Synod of Ephesus. Dartford: OrientPress, 1881.

Plotinus. The Enneads. Trans, by Stephen MacXenna. 3rd ed., rev. by Paul Henry. New York: Pantheon Books, n.d.

Rahlfs,"Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. Editio septima, 2 vols. Stuttgart: Wurttembergische B ibelanstalt, 1962.

Rouet de Journel, M. J . , ed. Enchiridion Patristicum. Editio vicesima secunda. Barcinone: Herder, 1962.

Schwartz, Eduardus, ed. Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. Tom I ,Concilium universale Ephesenum. Tom I I , Concilium universale Chalcedonense. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1922-1938.

Staab, Karl. Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. Neu- testamentliche Abhandlungen, 15. Munster, 1933.

Stevenson, J . , ed. Creeds, Councils and Controversies: DocumentsI l lu s t ra t iv e of the History of the Church, A.D. 337-461.New York: Seabury Press, 1966.

Swete, H. B. Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Minor Epistles ofSt. Paul. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1880.

T e lfe r , William, ed. Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Ernesa.The Library of Christian Classics, Vol. IV. Philadelphia:The Westminster Press, 1955.

Tetz, Martin, Hrsg. Eine Antilogie des Eutherios von Tyana. Bd. I in Patristische Texte und Studien, hrsg. von K. Aland und W. Schneemelcher. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1964.

.Zenos, A. C. and Hartranft, Chester D ., trans. Socrates, Sozomenus: Church H istories. Vol. I I in A Select. Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Sec. Ser. ed. by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.Eerdmans, 1952.

389

IV. Theodoret of Cyrus

A. Primary sources

Cyril!us Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus. De sancta et v iv if ic a T r in ita te , De incarnatione Unigeniti. In Patrologia cursus completus. -Series graeca, T. LXXV. Ed. J .-P . Migne. Paris: 1859.

H a r n a c k , Adolf. Diodor von Tarsus: v ier pseuao-justinischeSchriften als Eigentum Diodors nachgewiesen. TU, N. F. ,Bd. V I, Heft 4. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung,1901.

Jackson, Blomfield, trans. The Ecclesiastical History, Dialogues, and Letters of Theodoret. LNPF, Second Series, Vol. I I I .Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1953.

MChle, August, Hrsg. Theodoret von K.yros, Kommentar zu Jesaia.Mittcilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Bd. V. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1932.

Otto, J. C. T . , ed. Corpus apologetarum christianorum saeculi secundi, Vols. IV-V. Ius t in i philosoohi et mart.yris opera. Torni 111,- Pars I - I I . Opera Iustin i subditic ia. Editio t e r t ia . Ienae: Sumptibus Gust. Fischer, 1880-81.

Parmentier, Ldon, Hrsg. Theodoret Kirchengeschichte. Zweite A u fl . bearb. von Felix Scheidweiler. GCS, XLIV (19). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1954.

Schwartz, Eduardus, ed. Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. T. I ,Vol. I , pars sexta, 167-169, pp. 107-146.

________ , ed. Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. T. I I , Vol. I , parste r t ia , actio 8, pp. 9-10.

Thdodoret de Cyr. Correspondance. Introduction, texte c r it ique ,traduction et notes par Yvan Azdma. 3 vols. Nos. 40, 98, 111 in Sources Chrdtiennes. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1955-1965.

Thdodoret de Cyr. Thdrapeutique des maladies helldniques. 2 vols. Texte crit ique , introduction, traduction et notes de Pierre Canivet. Sources Chrdt.iennes 57. Paris: Les editions ducerf, 1958.

Theodoret. Monchsgeschichte. Ubersetzt von Konstantin Gutberlet. "Allgemeine Einleitung zu Theodoret" von Andreas Seider.

Bd. L. Munchen: Jos. Kosel u. Fried. Pustet, 1916.

390

Theodoretus Cyrensis episcopus. Opera Omnia. Post recensionem Jacobi Sirmondi, ed. Joan. Ludov. Schulze. T. LXXX-LXXXIV in Patrolooia.cursi.is completus. Series Graeca. Ed. J.-P. Migne. Paris: 1859-1864.

B. Secondary sources

Abramowski, Luise, "Reste von Theodorets Apologie fur Diodor und Theodor bei Facundus," Studia P a tr is t ica , I . (XU 63).Berlin: 1957 pp. 61-62.

Albs, A. d ‘ , "La le t t re de Thdodoret aux moines d'Orient," ETL,V I I I (1931) 413-421.

Bardy, Gustave, "La l i t te ra tu re patristique des Quaestiones et responsiones sur I '^ c r i tu re sainte," RBib, XLII (1933) 14-30T”2l'l -229, 328-352.

________ , "Theodoret," DTC, Vol. XV, cols. 299-325.

Bertram, A. Theodoreti episcopi Cyrensis doctrina christologica. Hildesheim, 1883.

Bonwetsch, N., "Theodoret," Realenc.yklopadie fur protestantische ‘ Theoloeie und Kirche. hrsg. von Albert Hauck, d r i t te Auflage, Bd. XIX (1907) 609-617.

Brok, M. "Touchant la date sur le Psautier de Thdodoret de Cyr," RHE, XLIV (1949) 552-556.

, "The Date of Theodoret's Expositio rectae f id e i ," JTS, M.S., I I (1951) 178-183.

, "Le l iv re contre les mages de Thdodoret de Cyr," MSR, 10 (1953) 181-194.

Canivet, Pierre. Histoire d'une entreprise apologdtique au Ve si ee le . Paris: Bloud et Gay, 195S.

, "Theodoret et le monachisme syrien avant le concile deChalcedoine," Theoloaie de la vie monastiaue. Paris: Aubier,1961. pp. 241-282.

, "Le 7T£?( de Thdodoret de Cyr postface de 1 1Hi'stoire Philothee," Studia P a tr is t ic a , Vol. V II (ILL 92). Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1966. pp. 143-158.

, "TheodoretosLTK, hrsg. von Josef Hofer u. Karl Rahner,cols. 32-35.

391

Chadwick, Henry, Review of Theodoroti Cyrensis Doctrina antiquior de Verbo ' Inhumanato1, by Ioseph Montal verne, JTS, N.S.', I IT! 950) 109-110.

Cross, F. L . , "Pseudo-Justin's Expositio rectae f id e i ," JTS,XLVII (1946) 57-58.

Devreesse, Robert, "Anciens commentateurs grecs de 1 ‘Octateuaue," RBib, XLIV (1935) 167-170.

Diepen, H. M. "Theodoret e t le dogme d'Ephese (avec reponse par Jean Danielou)," RechSR, XLIV (1956) 243-248.

Ehrhard, Albert. "Die Cyril! von Alexandrien zugeschriebene Schrift Peri tes tou kuriou enanthropeseos ein Werk Theodorets von Cyrus," ThQ, LXX (7888) 179-243, 406-50, 623-53.

Funk, F. X. "Pseudo-Justin und Diodor von Tarsus," KAU, I I I (1907) 323-350.

Garnier, J. "Dissertatio I I I , de fide Theodoreti," PG, LXXXIV, cols. 393A-456C.

Gunther, Karl.' Theodoret von Cyrus und die KSmpfe in der orientalischen Kirche vom Tode Cyril Is bis zur Einberufung des sogen. RSuber- Konzils. Aschaffenburg: Buchdruckerei Dr. Gotz Werbrun, 1913.

Hal ton, Thomas Patrick. Studies in the'Da Providentia of Theodoret of Cyrus. Ph.D. diss. Catholic University of America, 1963.

Jussen, Klaudius. "Die Christologie des Theodoret von Cyrus nachseinem neu-veroffentlichen Isaias-Kommentar," ThGl, XXVII (1935) 438-452.

Lebon, J. "Restitutions a Theodoret de Cyr," RHE, XXVI (1930)523-550.

Mazzarino, Constantino da. La dottrina di Teodoreto di Cirosull'unione ipostatica delle due nature in Cristo. Roma: Libreria Pontific ia Federico Pustet, 1941.

McNamara, Kevin, "Theodoret o f Cyrus and the Unity of Person in Christ," XXII (1955) 313-328.

Meyendorff, J. "Eph ho (Rom. 5.12) chez Cyril le d'Alexandrie et Thdodoret," Studia P a tr is t ica , IV ed. by F. L. Cross (TU 79) Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1961, pp. 157-161.

392

Montalverne, loseph. Theodoreti Cyrensis doctrina antiquior de . Verbo 'inhumanato'. Studia Antoni ana, Romae: Pontificum

Athenaeum Antonianum, 1948.

Montmasson, E., "L‘Homme cree a 1 'image de Dieu d'apres Theodoret de Cyr et Procope de Gaza," EO, XIV (1911) 334-39; XV (1912) 154-62. —

Nautin, Pierre. "La valeur des lemmes dans I'Eranistes de Theodoret," RHE, XLVI (1951) 681-83.

Opitz, H. G., " T h e o d o re to s Realenc.yclopaedie der klassischen A1tertumswissenschaft, hrsg. von Pauly, Wissowa, K ro l l , series I I , Vol. V, cols. 1791-1801.

Richard, Marcel, "Les citations de Theodoret conservees dans la chaine de Nicetas sur 1'Evangile selon Saint Luc," RBib,X L II I (1934) 88-96.

________ , "Un e c r i t de Theodoret sur 1 'unite du Christ apres1 'Incarnation," RevSR, XIV (1934) 34-61.

________ , "L 'ac tiv ite l i t t e r a i r e de Theodoret avant le conciled'Ephese," RSPT, XXIV (1935) 83-106.

, "Notes sur 1 'evolution doctrinale de Theodoret de Cyr," 1 RSPT, XXV (1936) 459-481.

, "La le ttre de Theodoret a Jean d'Egees," RSPT, I I (T941-42) 415-430.

______ , "Theodoret, Jean d'Antioche et les rnoines d'Orient,"MSR, I I I (1946) 145-156.

Sa lte t, L . , "Les sources de I'Eranistes de Theodoret," RHE, VI (1905) 289-303, 513-536, 741-754.

Schulte, Joseph. Theodoret von Cyrus als Apologet. Theologische Studien der Leo-Gesellschaft, Nr. 10. Wien: Verlag vonMayer, 1904.

Schwartz, Eduard, "Zur S chrifts te lle re i Theodorets," SbBAW,phi 1 os. -phi 1o1. und hist. Klasse, Jahrgang 1922, 1 Abhandlung, pp. 30-40.

Sellers, R. V ., "Pseudo-Justin's ExDOsitio rectae f id e i: a Workof Theodoret of Cyrus," JTS, XLVI (1945) 145-160.

393

Seider, Andreas, "Allgemeine Einleitung zu Theodoret," Des Bischofs Theodoret von C.vrus MUnchsgcsch ichte, Dd. L, BKV. MUnchen:Jos. Kosel u. Fried. Pustet, 1915.

Specht, A. Der exegetlsche Standpunkt des Theodor von Moosuestia und Theodoret von K.yros in der Auslegung messianischer Weissagungen aus ihren Kommentaren zu den kleinen Propheten d arg e s te lI t . Gekrdnte Preisschriftf] MUnchen, 1871.

Wagner, Monica, "A Chapter in Byzantine Epistolography, the Lettersof Theodoret," POP, No. 4. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress, 1948.

V. Antiochene Tradition

Abramowski, Luise, "Zur Theologie Theodors von Mopsuestia," ZKG, LXXII (1951) 263-293.

________ , Review of Manhood and Christ: a Study in the Christologyof Theodore of Mopsuestia by R. A. Norris, ZKG, LXXIX (1968) 244-245.

, "Peripatetisches bei spaten Antiochenern," ZKG, LXXIX ( T 9 6 8 ) 3 5 8 - 3 6 2 .

Amann, £ . , "Nestorius," PTC, Vol. XI (1931), cols. 76-156.

________ , "Theodore de Mopsueste," PTC, XV (1943), cols. 235-279.

Anastos, Milton V ., "The Immutability of Christ and Justinian's Condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia," POP, No. 6 (1951) 123-160.

________ , "Nestorius Was Orthodox," POP, No. 16 (1962) 119-140.

Arnou, R., "Nestorianisme et Neoplatonisme, 1 'unite du Christ et 1'union des 1 In te l ! ig ib !e s , 1" Greg, XVII (1936) 116-131'.

Baur, Chrysostomus, "Drei unedierte Festpredigten aus der Ze it der nestorianischen S tre itigkeiten ," Tr, IX (1953) 101-126. .

________ . John Chrysostom and His Time. Trans, by M. Gonzaga.2 vols. London: Sands & Co., 1959.

Bethune-Baker, J. F. Nestorius and His Teaching. Cambridge: University Press, 1908.

Braaten, C. E ., "Modern Interpretations of Nestorius," CH_, XXXII (1963) 251-267.

394

Burk itt, F. C., "Two Notes on the ‘Bazaar of lleracleides, 1" JTS, XXVII (1926)177-179.

Devreesse, Robert. Le Patriarcat d'Antioche depuis la paix de 1'Eglise jusqu'a la conquete Arabe. Paris: J. Gabalda,1945.

Downey, G lanville . A History of Antioch in Syria from Selecusto the Arab Conquest. Princeton, N. J .: Princeton U. Press,1961.

Ermoni, V ., "Antioche, ecole theologique," DTC, Vol. I , cols. 1435- 1439.

Festugiere, A. J. Antioche paienne et chretienne: Libanius,Chrysostome et les moines de Syrie. Paris: De Boccard,1959.

G altier , P ., "La vraie christologie de Theodore de Mopsueste,"RechSR, XLV (1957) 161-186, 338-360.

Greer, Rowan A. Theodore of Mopsuestia Exegete and Theologian. Westminster, England: The Faith Press, 1961.

________ ,"The Antiochene Exegesis of Hebrews." Ph.D. diss.,Yale University, 1965.

Grillmeier, A., "Das Scandal uni oecumenicum des Nestorius inkirchlichdogmatischer und theologiegeschichtlicher S icht,"Schol, XXXVI (1961) 321-56.

Gross, Julius, "Theodor von Mopsuestia, ein Gegner der Erbsiinden- lehre," ZKG, LXV (1953-54) 1-15.

Hay, Camillus, "John Chrysostom and the In tegrity of the Human Nature of Christ," FrStud, XIX (1959) 298-317.

Hayes, E. R. L'Ecole D'Edesse. Paris: Les Presses Modernes,1930.

Headlam, A. D . , "Nestorius and Orthodoxy," CQR, LXXX (1915)456-464.

Hodgson, Leonard, "The Metaphysic of Nestorius," JTS, XIX (1918) 46-55.

Honigmann, Ernest, "The Patriarchate of Antioch," Tr, V (1947) 135-161.

Kihn, Heinrich. Die Bedeutung der antiochenischen Schule auf dem exegetischen Gebiete. Weissenburg: Carl F. Meyer, 1856.

395

Koch, GiJnter. Die HeiIsverwirklichung bei Theodor von Mopsuestia.MTS, Bd. XXXI. Munchen: Max Hueber Verlag, 1955.

Lebreton, J . , "Le dogme de la transsubstantiation et la theologie antiochienne au Ve siecle ," Etudes, CXVII (1908) 477-497.

Lebon, J . , Compte rendu de Essai sur Thdodore de Mopsueste (Studie T e s t i , 141), par Robert Devreesse, RHE. XLIV (1949) 600-605.

Loofs, Friedrich. Nestorius and His Place in the History of Christian Doctrine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914.

McCallum, J. M.,"Salvation in Christ in Later Antiochene Theology According to Theodore, Nestorius, and Theodoret," Diss.Pacific School of Religion, Berkley, 1965.

McKenzie, John L . , "The Commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:46-51," TS, XIV (1953) 73-84.

, "Annotations on the. Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia," TS, XIX (1958) 345-373.

McNamara, Kevin, "Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Nestorian Heresy," ITQ, XX (1953) 172-19 1.

Murphy, Francis X., Review of Die Heilsverwirklichung bei Theodor • von Mopsuestia, by GUnter Koch, TS, XXXVIII (1967) 148-49.

Norris, R. A ., Jr. Manhood and Christ. A Study in the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia! Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953.

Reine, Francis J. The Eucharistic Doctrine and Liturgy of theMystagogical Catecheses of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1942.

Relton, H. M., "Nestorius the Nestorian," CQR, LXXII (1912)296-335.

Richard, Marcel, "La trad ition des fragments du t ra i te Peri tes enanthropeseos de Theodore de Mopsueste," Museon, LVI ‘0943) 55-75.

________ , "Les tra ites de C yril le d'Alexandrie contre Diodore etTheodore et les fragments dogmatiques de Diodore de Tarse," Melanges dedies a la memoire de Felix- Grat, T. I (Paris 1946) 99-116.

Scipioni, L. I . Ricerche sulla cristologia del Libro di Eraclide. Paradosis, TD Freiburg (Schweiz): Paulusverlag, 1956.

396

Schweizer, Eduard. Diodor von Tarsus als Exeqet. Berlin: Alfred Topelmann Verlag, 1943.

Se llers , Robert Victor. Eustathius of Antioch and His Place in the Earl.y History of Christian Doctrine. Cambridge, England: University Press, 1928.

Spanneut, M., "La position theologique d'Eustathe d'Antioche,"JTS, N.S., V (1954) 220-224.

Sullivan, Francis A ., "Some Reactions to Devreesse's New Study of Theodore of Mopsuestia," TS, X II (1951) 179-207.

_______ . The Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Rome: ApudAedes Universitatis Gregoriannae, 1956.

, "Further Notes on Theodore of Mopsuestia," TS, XX (1959) 254-279.

Turner, H. E. W., Review of Manhood and Christ: a Study in theChristology of Theodore of Mopsuestia, by R. H. Norris,JTS, N.S. V (1964) 168-170.

Vine, Aubrey Russel. An Approach to Christology. London: Inde­pendent Press, 1948.

Voobus, A ., "Regarding the Theological Anthropology of Theodore of Mopsuestia," CH_, XXXIII (1964) 115-124.

Vries, Wilhelm de. Sakramententheologie bei den Nsstorianern. OrCnrAn, No. 133. Roma: Pont. Institutum OrientaliumStudiorum, 1947.

_______ , "Die syrischnestorianische Haltung zu Chalkedon," C6G,I , pp. 603-635.

Wickert, U1 ri ch. Studien zu den Pauluskomrnentaren Theodors von . Mopsuestia. BZNW, XXVII. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Topelmann,

1962.

VI. Alexandrian Tradition

Burghardt, Walter J. The Image of God in Man According to Cyril of Alexandria. Washington: Catholic University of AmericaPress, 1957.

Campenhausen, Hans Frhr. von, "Griechische Kirchenvater und Verwandtes," ThRu, XXII (1954) 315-354.

397

C yrille d'Alexandrie. Deux Dialogues Christo!ogiques. Introduction, texte critique , traduction et notes par 6. M. de Durand. S£, XCVII. Paris: Les editions du cerf, 1964.

Diepen, Herman. Aux Origenes de 1 'anthropologic de Saint Cyrille d 'Alexandria Bruges: Descle'e de Brouwer, 1957.

_______ . Douze Dialogues de Christologie Ancienne. Roma: Herder,1960.

Dries, Joseph van den.^ The Formula of Saint Cyril of Alexandria 0u<rcj Tov (9to $ A oyo u a a at Piss. Ponti fical

“Gregorian University, Rome, 1939.

Ebied, R. Y. and Wickham, L. R . , "An Unknown Letter of Cyril of Alexandria in Syriac," JTS, M.S.-, XXII (1971) 420-427.

G a lt ie r , Paul, "Saint Cyril le d'Alexandrie et saint Leon le Grand a Chalcedoine," CGG, I , pp. 345-387.

, "Saint Athanase et 1'ame humaine du Christ," Greg, XXXVI ( T 9 5 5 ) 5 5 3 - 5 8 9 .

Grillm eier, Aloys, "Der Gottesohn im Totenreich," ZKTh, LXXI (1949) 23-53, 184-203.

Jouassard, George, "L 'ac t iv ite l i t t e r a i r e de saint Cyril le d'Alexandrie jusqu' a 428: Essai de chronologie et de syntnese,"Melanges E. Podechard, 1947, pp. 159-174.

________ , "Une in tu it ion fondamentale de Saint Cyrille d'Alexandrieen christologie dans les premieres anndes de son dpiscopat,"REB (Melanges Martin Jugie), XI (1953) 175-186.

________ , "Une probleme d'anthropologie et de christologie chezsaint C yril le d'Alexandrie," RechSr, X L II I (1955) 361-378.

________ , "Un probleme d'anthropologie et de christologie chezsaint C yril le d'Alexandrie," RechSR, XLII (1955) 361-378.

, "Saint C yril le d'Alexandrie et le schema de 1 ‘ Incarnation Verbe-Chair," RechSR, XLIV (1956) 234-242.

________ , " ' Impassibi1i t e ' du logos et ' impossibi1i t e ‘ de 1'amehumaine chez saint C yril le d'Alexandrie," RechSR, XLV (1957) 209-224.

________ , "Saint C yril le d'Alexandrie aux prises avec la ‘ communi­cation des idiomes' avant 428 dans ses ouvrages antiariens," Studia P atr is tica , Vol. V I, Part 4 (1962) 112-121.

398

Karmiris, Johannes N., "The Problem of the Unification of the Non-Chalcedonian Churches of the East with the Orthodox on the Basis of Cyril 's Formula: Mia ph.ysis tou theou logou sesarkomene," GrOrthThR, X (1964-65) 61-74".

Liebaert, Jacques. La Doctrine Christo!ogique de Saint Cyrilled'Alexandrie avant la Querelle Nestorienne. L i l le : FacultdsCatholiques, 19517

Mahe, J . , "Les anathematismes de Saint C yril le d'Alexandrie,"RHE, V I I (1906) 505-542.

________ , "L'Eucharistie d'apres saint C yril le d'Alexandrie,"RHE, V I I I ( 1907) 677-696.

Raven, Charles E. Apollinarianism. Cambridge, Eng.: The UniversityPress, 1923.

Richard, Marcel, "Saint Athanase et la psychologie du Christ selon les Ariens," MSR, IV (1947) 5-54.

________ , Deux le ttres perdues de C yril le d'Alexandrie," StudiaP a tr is t ica , Vol. V I I , TU 92. (Berlin , 1966) pp. 274-277.

________ , "Le Pape Saint Leon le Grand et les Scholia de incar-natione unigeniti de Saint C yril le d'Alexandrie," RechSR (Melanges Jules Lebreton, I I ) , XL ( 1952) 116-128.

Riedmatten, Henri de, "Some Neglected Aspects of Apollinarist Christology," DomStud, I (1948) 239-60.

, "Les fragments d'Apollinaire a 1 ' ‘Eranistes, '" CGG,I , pp. 203-212.

, "Sur les notions doctrinales opposees a Apollinaire,"RT, LI (1951) 553-572.

Romanides, John S ., "St. C yril 's ‘One Physis or Hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate' and Chalcedon," GrOrthThR, X (1964-65) 82-102.

Samuel, V. C., "One Incarnate Nature of God the Word," GrOrthThR,X (1964-65) 37-53.

Weigl, E. Die Heilslehre des heiligen Cyril! von Alexandrien.FLDG, Bd. V, Heft 2 /3 . Mainz, 1905.

. Untersuchungen zur Christologie des heiligen Athanasius.FLDG, X I I . Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoningh, 1914.

399

V II . Historical and Theological Aspects of the Christological Disputes

A. Books

Adam, Alfred. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Bd. I , Die Zeit der Alten Kirche. Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1965.

Adam, Karl. The Christ of Faith. New York: New American Library,1962.

Ales, A. d‘ . Le dogme d'Ephese. Deuxieme dd. Paris: G. Beauchesne,1931.

Armstrong, A. H. An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy. London: Methuen & Co., 1947.

________ , ed. The Cambridge History of Later Greek and EarlyMedieval Philosophy. Cambridge: University Press, 1967.

B a i l l ie , D. M. God Has in Christ. New York: Charles Scribner'sSons, 1948.

Balthasar, Hans Urs von. Kosmische Liturgie: das Heltbild Maximus'des Bekenners. Einsiedeln: Johannes-Verlag, 1961.

Barth, Karl.- Die Kirch!iche Dogmatik. Bd. 4 /2 , Die Lehre von der Versdhnung. Zurich: EVZ, 1955.

Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John. London: S.P.C.K.,1960.

Baus, Karl. From the Apostolic Community to Constantine. With aGeneral Introduction to Church History by Hubert Jedin. Hand­book of Church History. Vol. I . New York: Herder & Herder,1965.

Baynes, Normal H. Byzantine Studies and Other Essays. London: Athlone Press, 1955.

Beck, Edmund. Die Theologie des h i. Ephraem in seinen HymenLiber den Glauben. Studia Anselmiana, Fasc. XXI. C itta del

.Vaticano: Libreria Vaticana, 1949.

Betz, Johannes. Die Eucharistie in der Zeit der griechischen Vater. Bd. 1/1. Freiburg: Herder, 1955.

Bowman, Thorleif. Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek. Trans, by Jules L. Moreau"! Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

400

Burnaby, John. The Belief of Christendom: a Commentary on theNicene Creed. London: S.P.O.K., 1960.

Bury, J. B., et a l . , eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols.New York: Macmillan Co., 1923-39.

________ . History of the Later Roman Empire. 2 vols. New York:Dover Publications, 1958.

Camelot, Pierre-Thomas. Ephesus und Chalcedon. Aus dem Franzosischen ubersetzt von K. H. Mottausch. Bd. I I in Geschichte der okumen-ischen Konzilien, hrsg. von G. Dumeige u. H. Bacht. Mainz:Matthias-Grunewald-Verlag, 1963.

Caspar, Erich. Geschichte des Papsttums. 2 Bande. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1930-33^

Campenhausen, Hans von. The Fathers of the Greek Church. Trans, by Stanley Godman. New York': Pantheon, 1959.

Chadwick, Owen. John Cassian. 2nd ed. Cambridge: University Press,1968.

Copies ton, Frederick. A History of Philosophy. Vol. I , Rev. ed.Greece and Rome. Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1966.

Coxe, Cleveland A ., ed. Hippol.ytus, et a l . Ante-Nicene Fathers,Vol. V, ed. by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.

Creed, J. M. The Divinity of Jesus Christ. London: Collins, 1964.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Trans, by Shirley C. Guthrie and C. A. M. H a ll. Philadelphia: West­minster Press, 1959.

Danielou, Jean and Marrou, Henri. The F irs t Six Hundred Years.Vol. I in The Christian Centuries. Trans, by Vincent Cronin.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1964.

Dawe, Donald G. The Form of a Servant. Philadelphia: Westminster press, 1963.

DornePjj. A. History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ. 5 vols. Trans, by W. L. Alexander.Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1861-1866.

E le rt , Werner. Der Ausgang der altkirchlichen Christologie. Hrsg. von W. Maurer u. E. Bergstrasser. B erlin : LutherischesVerlagshaus, 1957.

Feibleman, James K. Religious Platonism. London: Allen & Unwin,1959.

401

Forsyth, P. T. The Person and Place of Jesus Christ. London: Independent Press, 1909.

Friedlander, Paul. Plato. Translated by Hans Meyerhoff. BollingenSeries LIX. New York: Pantheon Books, 1958.

Gi1g, Arno1d. Weg und Bedeutung der altk irchlichen Chrlstologie . Theologische Bucherei, Bd! TT. Munchen: Chr. Kaiser, I9T1.

Grillm eier, Aloys. Christ in Christian Tradition from the ApostolicAge to Chalcedon (451 ) . Trans, by J. S. Bowden. London: A. R.Mowbray, 1955.

________ . Der Logos am Kreuz. Munchen: Max Hueber, 1955.

und Bacht, Heinrich, Hrsg. Das Konzil von Chalkedon:Geschichte und Gegenwart. 3 vols. Wurzburg: Echter Verlag,1951-54.

Gross, Jules. La Divinisation du Chretien d'apres les Peres Grecs. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1938.

Gross, Julius. Entstehungsgeschichte des Erbsiindendogmas. 2 Bde.Munchen: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag, 1960, 1953.

Gwatkin, H. M. Studies of Arianism. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell ‘and Sons, 1882.

. The Arian Controversy. London: Longmans, Green & Co.,1914.

Hadot, Pierre und Brenke, Ursula, eds. Christlicher Platonismus:Die theologischen Schriften des Marius Victorinus. In Die Bibliothek der alten Welt, hrsg. von Carl Andresen.Zurich: Artemis Verlag, 1967.

Haller , Johannes. Das Papsttum: Idee und W irk lichkeit, Bd. I ,Die Grundlageru Munchen: Rowohlt, 1965.

Harnack, Adolph. History of Dogma. Translated by Neil Buchanan.7 vols. New York: Dover Publications, In c . , 1961.

Hefeie, Karl Joseph von. A History of the Councils of the Church from the Original Documents. Translated and ed. by W. R.Clark, H. N. Oxenham, E. H. Plumptre. 5 vols. Edinburgh:T. 2. T. Clark, 1872-96.

Hering, Jean. L'Epitre aux Hebreux. Commentaire^du Nouveau Testa­ment, XIIT Neuch2tel: Delachaux et N iestle , 1954.

402

H o ll , Karl. Ampin'lochi us von Ikonium in seinem Verbaltnis zu denqrossen- Kappadozieren. Tubingen: J T c . B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1904.

________ . Gesamnielte Aufsatze zur Kirchengescnichte. Bd. I I , PerOsten. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964.

Ivdnka, Endre. Hellenisches und Christliches im frUhbyzantinischen Geistesleben. Wien: Herder, 1943.

________ . Plato Christianus: Ubernahme und Umgestaltung desPlatonismus durch die Vater. Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlag,1964!

Jones, A. H. M. The Later Roman Empire 284-602. 2 vols. Norman:University of Oklahoma, 1964.

________ . Were Ancient Heresies Disguised Social Movements?Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. New York: Harper &Brothers, 1960.

Kidd, B. J. A History of the Church to A.D. 461. Vol. I l l , A.D. 408- 461. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922.

Knox, John. The Humanity and D iv in ity of Chris t. Cambridge: University Press, 196/.

Labrio lle , Pierre de. La Reaction paienne: Etude sur la polemigueantichretienne du I e r ~au VIe siecle~! Paris: L‘Artisan duLivre, 1943.

________ , et a l . De'la mort de Theodose a 1 'election de Gregoirele Grand. Vol. 4 dans Histoire de 1 ‘Eglise publiee sous la direction de Augustin Fliche et Victor Martin. Paris: Bloudet Gay, 1948.

Laeuchli, Samuel. The Serpent and the Dove. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966.

Lietzmann, Hans. A History of the Early Church. 4 vols. Translated by Bertram Lee Woolf. London: Lutterworth Press, 1958.

Loofs , Friedrich. Leontius von B.yzanz und die gleichnamigen Schrift- s te l le r der griechischen Kirche. TU, I I I , 1-2. Leipzig: Hinricns, 1887.

________ . Leitfaden zum Stuaium der Dogmengeschichte. Sechstedurchgesehene A u fl . hrsg. von Kurt Aland. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1959.

403

Loss ky, VIadimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church.Trans, by members of Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Serguis. London: James Clarke, 1957.

Luce, A. A. Monophysitism Past and Present. London: S.P.C.K.,1920.

McIntyre, John. The Shape of Christology. London: SCM Press,1966.

Mackintosh, H. R. The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956.

MacNeill, Harris Lachlan. The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1914.

Marrou, H. I . A History of Education in Antiquity. Trans, by George Lamb. New York: New American Library, 1964.

Martin, Paul in . Le Pseudo-Synode connu dans I 'h is to ire sous lenom de Brigandage d'Ephese. Paris: Maisonneuve et Ce , 1875.

Mersch, Emile. The Whole Christ. Trans, by John R. Kelly. Trans, by John R. Kelly. London: Dennis Dobson, 1962.

Miegge, Giovanni. The Virgin Mary. Trans, by Waldo Smith. Phi 1 a.- delphia: Westminster Press, 1955.

Milburn, R. L. P. Early Christian Interpretations of History.The Bampton Lectures of 1952. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1954.

Mohrmann, Christine. Etudes sur le Latin des Chretiens. Tome I :Le Latin des Chretiens. 2nd ed. Roma: Edizioni di Storiae Letteratura, 1951.

Momigliano, Arnaldo, ed. The Conflict between Paganism andCh ris t ia n ity in the Fourth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1963.

Mozley, J. K. The Impassibility of God. Cambridge: University Press,1926.

Oberman, Heiko Augustinus. The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism. Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press, 1963.

Ortiz de Urbina, Ignacio. NizSa und Konstantinopel. Ubers. von K. Bergner. Bd. I in Geschichte der okumenischen Konzilien, hrsg. von G. Dumeige u. H. Bacht. Mainz: Matthias-Griinewald-Verlag, 1964.

404

Ostrogorsky, George. History of the Byzantine State. Trans, by Joan Hussey. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1956.

Overbeck, Franz. Uber die AnfSnge der Kirchengeschichtsschreibung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche 3uchgesellschaft, (Nachdruck)1S92.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Grundziiga der Christologie. Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1964.

Pittenger, W. Norman. The Word Incarnate: A Study of the Doctrineof the Person of Christ. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959.

Pohlenz, Max. Vom Zorne Gottes. Heft 12 Forschungen zur Religion und Litera tur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, hrsg. von Wilhelm Bousset u. Hermann Gunkel. Gottingen: Vandenhoeckund Ruprecht, 1909.

Prestige, G. L. God in Patr is tic Thought. London: S.P.C.K.,1952.

. Fathers and Heretics. Bampton Lectures for 1940. London: S.P.C.K., 1954.

Relton, Herbert M. A Study in Christology. With preface by A. C. Head!am. London: S.P.C.K., 1917.

Ross, W. D. A r is to tle . 5th ed. revised. London: Methuen & Co.,1949.

Runciman, Steven. Byzantine C iv i l iz a t io n . Cleveland: WorldPublishing Co., 1961.

Sarkissian, Karekin. The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church. London: S.P.C.K., 1965.

Scheffczyk, Leo, Hrsg. Der Mensch als Bi 1 d Gottes, Wege der Forschung, Bd. CXXIV. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,1969.

Schmid, Andreas. Die Christologie Isidors von Pelusium. Para- dosis, Nr. 11. Freiburg i . S.: Paulusverlag,. 1948.

Schnitzler, Theodor. Im Kampfe urn Chalcedon. Geschichte und Inhalt des Codex Encyclius von 458. AnGreg, Vol. XVI.Romae: Apud Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1938.

405

Schulte, E. Entwicklung der Lehre von menschlichen Wissen Christibis zum Beginne Scholastik. FLDG,'Vol . X I I . Paderborn: T9l4.

Schwartz, Eduard. Konzilstudien. I . Cassian und Nestorius. I I . Uber echte und unechte Schriften des Oischofs Proklos vo~Konstanti- nopel. SWGS, lleft 20. Strassburg: Karl J. Triibner, 1914.

________ . K.yrillos von Sk.ythopolis. ILLXLIX, Heft 2. Leipzig:J. C. Hinrichs, 1939.

________ . Zur Geschichte der alten Kirche und ihres Rechts. Gesam-melte Schriften, Bd. FT. BerlTn: W. de Gruyter, i960.

Seeberg, Reinhold. Text Book of the History of Doctrines. Trans, by Charles E. Hay. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1956.

________ . Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Die Dogmenbildung inder alten Kirche, Bd. I I . Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft, 1965.

Seeck, Otto. Geschichte des Untergangs der anti ken Welt. Bd. VI. Stuttgart! J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1920.

Sellers, R. V. The Council of Chalcedon: A Historical and Doctrinal Survey. London: S.P.C.K., 1953.

Singh, S u r j i t . Christology and Personality. Philadelphia: West­minster Press, 1961.

Spicq, C. L 'lip itre aux Hebreux. 2 vols. Paris: J. Gabalda etCie, 1952-53.

Stein, Ernest. Histoire du Bas-Empire. £d. francaise par Jean- Remy Palanque. 2 vols. Bruxelles: Desclee de Brouwer,1959 and 1949.

Tapia, Ralph J. The Theology of Christ: Commentary. New York:Bruce Publishing Co., 1971.

Taylor, Vincent. The Person of Christ in Mew Testament Teaching.London: Macmillan, 1959.

Thunberg, Lars. Microcosm and Mediator: the Theological Anthro- pology of Maximus the Confessor. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup,1965.

Turner, H. E. W. The Pattern of Christian Truth. London: A. R. Mowbray, 1954.

Ueberweg, Friedrich. History of Philosophy. Trans, by G. S.Morris. 4th ed. New York: Scribner and Armstrong, 1874.

-406

Voobus, Arthur. History of Asceticism in the Christian Orient. Louvain: Secretariat du Corpus SCO, 1953.

Wallace-Hadrill, D. S. Eusebius of Caesarea. London: A. R.Mowbray, 1960.

Weigl, Eduard. Christologie vom Tode Athanasius bis zum Ausbruchdes nestor'ianischen Streites (373-429). HSHT, Heft 4. Munchen: Verlag Josef Kosel & Friedrich Pustet, 1925.

Wiles, Maurice. The Making of Christian Doctrine: A Study in thePrinciples of Early Doctrinal Development. Cambri dge: Uni -versity Press, 1967.

Wolfson, Harry Austryn. Religious Philosophy: A Group of Essays.Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1961.

________ . The Philosophy of the Church Fathers. Vol. I , 2nd ed.,rev. Faith, T r in ity , Incarnation. Cambridge: Harvard Univer­s ity Press, 1964.

B. Articles

Abramowski, L . , "Der S tre i t um Diodor und Theodor zwischen den beiden ephesinischen Konzilien," ZKG, LXVII (1955-56) 252- 287.

Amann, E.,"Trois Chapitres (A ffa ire des)," PTC, IV, 2 (1950) col. 1868-1924.

Bacht, Heinrich, "Die Rolle des orientalischen Monchturns in den kirchenpolitischen Auseinandersetzungen um Chalkedon (431 - 519)," CGG, I I , pp. 193-314.

Bardy, G. "Acace de Beree et son role dans la controverse nestorienne," RevSR, XVIII (1938) 20-44.

Basly, D. de, "Inoperantes offensives contre 1' 'Assumptus homo,1" FF, XVII (1934) 419-473; XV III (1935) 33-104.

Baynes, N. H., "Alexandria and Constantinople: A Study in Eccles­iastica l Diplomacy," JEA, X II (1926) 145-156.

Camelot, Thomas, "De Nestorius a Eutyches: Vopposition de deuxchristologies," CGG, I , pp. 213-242.

407

Chadwick, Henry, "Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy," JTS, N.S., I I (1951) 145-164.

, Book Review of The Council of Chalcedon by R. V. Sellers, Theology, LVI (1953')"'468-47CL

________ , "The Exile and Death of Flavian of Constantinople: APrologue to the Council of Chalcedon," JTS, N.S. VI (1955) 17-34.

Constantelos, D. J . , "Justinian and the Three Chapters Controversy," GrOrThRev, V I I I (1962-63) 71-94.

Danielou, Jean, "Histoire des origines chretiennes ( I I I . Autour de Chalcedoi ne)," RechSR, XL III (1955) 539-593.

________ , "Reponse a Dom Diepen," RechSR, XLIV (1955) 247-248.

Devreesse, Robert, "Les Actes du concile d'Ephese," RSPT, XVIII(1929) 223-242, 408-431.

________ , "Apres le concile d'Ephese. Le retour des Orientaux a1'unite (433-437)," EO (1931) 271-292.

Dhotel, Jean-Claude, "La 'sanctification ' du Christ d'apresHebreux 2:11. Interpretations des plres et des scolastioues' niedievaux," RechSR, XLVII (1959) 515-543; XLVIII (1960) 420- 452.

Diepen, H., "L'Assumptus Homo a Chalcedoine," RT, LI (1951) 573- 608.

Dorries, Hermann, Review of Acta concilorum oecumenicorum, T. I ,Vols. I -V , ed. von Eduard Schwartz, GAA, 192 Jahrgang, Nr. 11(1930) 377-408.

Dvornik, F ., "The Circus Parties in Byzantium, the ir Evolution and th e ir Suppression," B.yzantina-Metabyzantina, I , Pt. 1 (1946) 119-133.

Fortin, E. L . , "The Defin itio Fidei of Chalcedon and i ts Philosophical Sources," Studia P a tr is t ica , V, pp. 439-498.

G altier , P., "Les anathematismes de saint C yril le et le concile Chalcedoine," RechSR, XXIII (1933) 45-57.

Gaudel, A., "Chronique de theologie dogmatique: la theologie de1' 'Assumptus Homo1 histoire et valeur doctrinate," RevSR,XVII (1937) 64-90, 214-234; XVIII (1938) 45-71, 201-217.

403

Goubert, Paul, "Le rble de Sainte Pulcherie et de 1'eunuaue C h ry s a p h io s CGG, Bd. I , pp. 303-321.

Grillmeier, Aloys, "Die theologische und sprachliche Vorbereitung der christologischen Forme! von Chalkedon," CGG, Bd. I , pp. 5-202.

Honigmann, Ernest, "Juvenal of Jerusalem," POP, No. 5. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950.

Jarry, J . , "H§r6sies et factions I Constantinople du 5e au 7e siecle ," S yria , XXXVII (1960) 343-371.

Jouassard, G ., "L'Abandon du Christ en croix dans la tradition grecque des IVe et Ve siecles," RevSR, V (1925) 609-533.

Jugie, M ., "Eutyches et Eutychianisme," PTC, Vol. V, cols. 1582-' 1610.

Kesich, V ., "The Antiocheans and the Temptation Story," Studia P a tr is t ic a , Vol. V I I , HJ 92 (1966) 496-502.

Kitzinger, Ernst, "The Cult of Images in the Age Before Iconoclasm," POP, No. 8 (1954) 83-150.

Ladner, Gerhart B ., "The Concept of the Image in the Greek Fathers and the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy," POP. No.' 7 (1953) 1-34.

Lebon, J . , "Autour de la defin ition de la foi au concile d'Ephese (431)," H I , V I I I (1931) 393-412.

Lebon, Joseph, "La christologie du monophysisme syrien," CGG. I . pp. 425-580.

Liebaert, Jacques, "Christologie von der Apostolischen Ze it bis zum Konzil von Chalcedon (451)." Faszikel 1 a von Bd. I l l in Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, hrsg. von Michael Schmaus und Aloys Grillmeier. Freiburg: Herder, 1965.

Meyendorff, Jean, "Chalcedonians and Monophysites a f te r Chalcedon," GrOrthThR, X (1964-65) 16-36.

Moeller, Charles, "Un representant de la Christologie Neochalce- donienne au debut du sixierne siecle en Orient: Neohaliusd'Alexandrie," RHE,XL (1944-45) 73-140.

________ , "Le chalcedonisme et le neo-chalcedonisme en Orient de45l a la f in du VIe siecle ," CGG, I , pp. 637-720.

Murphy, Francis X ., "The Dogmatic Definition at Chalcedon," TS_,X II (1951) 505-519.

409

Ortiz de Urbina, Ignacio, "Das Glaubenssymbol von Chalkedon — sein Text, sein Werden, seine dogmatische Bedeutung,"CGG, I , pp. 339-413.

Outler, Albert C., "Theodosius' Horse: Reflections on the Predica­ment of the Church Historian," CH_, XXXIV (1965).

Richard, M., "Proclus de Constantinople et le thdopaschisme," RHE, XXXVIII (1942) 303-331.

Richard, Marcel, "Le Neo-chalcedonisme," MSR, I I I (1946) 156-161.

________ , "Acace de Melitene, Proclus de Constantinople et laGrande Armdnie," Memorial Louis P e tit . Paris, 1948, pp. 393-412.

________ , "Notes sur les f lorileges dogmatiques du Ve et du VIes iec le ," in Actes du Congres d1Etudes Byzantines. Paris,1948, 307-318.

, "Les florildges diphysites du Ve et du V Ie sibcle,"CGG, I , pp. 721-748.

________ , "A propos d'un ouvrage recent sur le concile de Chalce­doine [Diepen, Le tro is chapitres au Concile de Chalcedoine]," MSR, XI (1954) 89-92.

Rousseau, Ph il ip , "The Spiritual Authority of the 'Monk-Bishop: Eastern Elements in Some Western Hagiography of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries," JTS, NS, XXII (1971) 380-419.

Schlink, Edmund, "La christologie de Chalcddoine dans le dialogue oecumenique," Verbum Caro, X II (1958) 23-30.

Schwalm, R. P ., "Les controverses des Peres grecs sur la science du Christ," RT, X II (1904) 12-47.

Schv/artz, Eduard, "Zur Vorgeschichte des ephesinischen Konzils,"HZ, CXII (1914) 237-263.

, "Das Nicaenum und das Constantinopolitanum auf der Synode von Chalkedon," ZNTW, XXV (1926) 38-83.

________ , "Die Kaiserin Pulcheria auf der Synode von Chalkedon,"Festgabe fur Adolf Jlilicher zutn 70. Geburtstag. Tubingen:J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1927, pp. 203-212.

, "Der Prozess des Eutyches," SbBAW, phi 1 . -h is t . K1. ,Heft 5 (1929) 53-93.

410

Schwartz, Eduard, "Zur Kirchenpolitik Justinians" in Zur Geschichte der alten Kirche und ihres Rechts, Bd. IV. Berlin: Walterde Gruyter, 1960.

Vries, W. de, "Theologie des sacrements chez les Syriens Monophysites," OrS.yr, V I I I (1963) 261-288.

Wiles, Maurice, " cQ ^o o (/a ‘(os ," JTS, XVI (1965) 454-461.

VITA

Jerry Leo Stewardson was born in Bloomington, I l l in o is on

August 11, 1937. He received the B.A. degree from I l l in o is Wesleyan

University in 1959 and the B.D. degree from Garrett Theological

Seminary in 1962. He studied at the University of Gottingen,

Germany in 1964-65 and at the University of Basel, Switzerland

in 1965-66. His publications include the co-authored a r t ic le

"Reflections on the Mithraic Liturgy" in Mithraism in O stia ,

edited by Samuel Laeuchli (Evanston: Northwestern University

Press, 1967) and A Bibliography of Bibliographies on Patristics

(Evanston: Garrett Theological Seminary Library, 1967).