| HOMEPAGE |[ CONTENTS ]

In 1932 and 1933 A. Mingana published two newly discovered Syriac versions of Theodore of Mopsuestia's lost Catechetical Orations on the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Mysteries and thereby touched off a lively debate which reached a sort of climax in recent years with scholars still sharply divided. In his comprehensive study entitled "The Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia," A. Sullivan concludes that ` . . . it cannot be denied that Theodore of Mopsuestia; despite his orthodox intentions, was indeed what he has so long been called: the 'Father of Nestorianism.' "<sup>[ 2 ]</sup> In sharp contrast to this no less a Cyrilian scholar than Paul Galtier can claim that "La `conjonction' dont parle Théodore est manifestement la même que celle que Cyrille appellera `Hypostatique.' "^{[ 3 ]}

In 1948 R. Devreesse's "Essai sur Théodore de Mopsueste"^{[ 6 ]} appeared, containing an exhaustive study of the historical vicissitudes of Theodore's theological reputation together with a careful analysis of the political and theological factors which led finally to his condemnation by the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553. Approximately half of the book is devoted to the history of the process leading to the condemnation, and the remainder ta a review of the sources (4-52), to a study of Theodore's exegetical method (53-93), to an exposition of Theodore's doctrinal system (94-124), of which only nine pages (109- 118) are devoted to the Incarnation and Christology, and to a fifteen page review of the extracts from Theodore's writings condemned by Pope Vigilius and the Fifth Ecumenical Council. These fifteen pages compose Chapter IX of a book of ten chapters, and as they are a detailed attempt to prove the complete unreliability of the Conciliar fragments, so many of which are supposed to have been deliberately falsified by the enemies of Theodore, they come as a climax ta more than support the contention of the preceding 117 page historical narrative and documentation of a messy business. Without raising the question of the justice or injustice of Theodore's condemnation one wonders whether Chapter IX should have been included in or just after the discussion of sources. Chapters IV-VIII obviously presuppose Chapter IX. Any reader reacting normally to the historical presentation would by the time he reaches Chapter IX more than welcome evidence of deliberate falsification to round out his indignation.

The work of Devreesse is not only indispensable for the study of Theodore, but also presents an important contribution to the imaginative theory concerning a one-sided emphasis in Eastern Christology on Cyrilian categories, leading finally to the abandonment of strict chalcedonianism for what is by some called the nea-chalcedonianism of the Fifth Ecumenical Council.^{[ 7 ]} The crux of this thesis is the contention that under the pressure of the monophysite schism the Orthodox of the East were forced into a position of diplomatic compromise and, in what amounts to an outright rejection of the chalcedonlan balance between Alexandrian and Antiochene Christolagy, made the theopassianism of Cyril's twelfth anathema the tessera of Orthodoxy. It is this one-sided overthrow of the chalcedonian balance, initiated by the Scythian Monks, which, according to Devreesse, opened up the way to the condemnation of Theodore.

I. Ortiz de Urbina ^{[ 8 ]} seems to be the only one of the early reviewers who challenged Devreesse's thesis concerning the falsification and general unreliability of the condemned fragments. Three years after the appearance of Devreesse's "Essai" A. Sullivan ^{[ 9 ]} published an article strongly contesting Devreesse's manipulation of the texts and rejecting his conclusion of unreliability. Thereupon, in 1953, J. L. McKenzie ^{[ 10 ]} composed an article taking exception to Sullivan. In his introductory remarks he mentions that it is the first time that Sullivan's name appears in scholarly publications and judging from his article one should expect to see it often in the future. Then he proceeds to prove that Theodore's exegesis of John I, 46-51 was in a few instances deliberately and maliciously quoted out of context, thereby making it appear that the Mopsuestian held opinions which he actually attributed to Nathaniel.

While this lively discussion over the textual problem was going on, The Irish Theological Quarterly printed a very instructive article by Kevin McNamara entitled "Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Nestorian Heresy."^{[ 11 ]} McNamara rejects all attempts to discredit the condemned fragments as sources in the study of Theodore's Christology. The first part of his article, in which he takes a definite stand on the reliability of the fragments, appeared before the publication of McKenzie's short study just mentioned and undoubtedly explains his complete confidence in the available sources. McNamara recognizes fully the obvious one-sidedness of the collections made to discredit Theodore, but sees no reason why they cannot be used. "What is beyond all doubt, however and, let us stress it again, it is the essential point - [writes McNamara] is that for Theodore the problem of Christ's unity was the problem of the unity of two subsisting natures, and with this premise it was inevitable that he should set up what was in fact nothing more than an accidental union. His attempt to analyse the manner of the union showed up this fact quite clearly. His failure was a warning to the later Antiochenes against further attempts to speculate on the relation between the union of natures in Christ and other kinds of union. Yet - though we are not here concerned directly with their teaching - it seems clear that Nestorius and Theodoret of Cyrus also failed to approach the problem from the standpoint of the appropriation by the Word of the human nature, and so that human nature was inevitably for them, too, a human person. Aristotelian philosophy with which the Antiochenes, more than other Christian thinkers of their time, were familiar, could not suggest that it was anything else; fór Aristotle the individual substance was, quite understandably, always complete in itself and independent."^{[ 12 ]}

Three years later, in 1956, Sullivan's name appeared in a decisive manner as the author of the major work already mentioned in which he accepts two groups of passages as the only examples of deliberate distortion of the original intent by quoting out of context.

In his insistence on the general unreliability of the hostile fragments Devreesse had found strong support in the works of Marcel Richard, ^{[ l3 ]} who also had concluded categorically that the theology of Theodore can no longer be culled from the condemned dogmatic fragments published in Migne or Swete.^{[ l4 ]} Sullivan devotes 123 pages of his thesis checking and testing the contentions of Richard and Devreesse. While admitting that the fragments present a one-sided view of Theodore's Christology, since those passages were collected which demonstrate the heretical points of his theology, Sullivan claims: "We have now considered all the evidence offered by Richard and Devreesse to prove the thesis that the fragments of Theodore's works preserved in the hostile florilegia are so generally corrupted that they should be ignored in a study of his Christology. We believe we have shown that this thesis is substantiated only to the extent that in a relatively small number of cases, the conciliar extract is so cut from its context as to give a misleading citation. On the other hand, in not a single case does the alleged forgery, interpolation, or textual alteration remain as the only possible, or indeed, as the more probable explanation of textual variants between the hostile fragments, and independent versions of Theodore's work. It should be noticed that there is not a single case where the text of a hostile fragment differs from a reliable Greek citation of the same passage. The case for textual alteration rests entirely on the witness of translations: in particular, Syriac translations. It presumes that these translations are so literally faithful to the original Greek that variations from them would prove a hostile citation to have been maliciously altered."^{[ 15 ]}

In his exposition of Theodore's Christology Sullivan attempts to prove that the Antiochene theology concerning the person of Christ developed out of the Arian controversy. The Arians attributed all the human frailties of Christ to the nature of the Logos and thereby tried to prove His created and inferior status. St. Athanasius attacked the Arians by maintaining on the one hand the traditional attribution of all human properties and activities to the Logos, but on the other hand he made a clear distinction between the Word in His uncreated nature and the Same Word united to humanity by means of His Birth from the Virgin. The Logos is born, lives the life of rzian, suffers, and is resurrected not in His divine nature but in His humanity.

The Antiochene theologians reacted to the Arian argument quite differently. Whereas Eustathius of Antioch attributes human acts to the Logos before the Arian controversy, and even applies the title "Deigenetricem"^{[ 16 ]} to the Virgin, he later changed his mode of speaking and introduced two subjects of attribution. Divine properties and acts belong strictly to God the Word, whereas all things of human nature belong to Him in Whom the Word dwells.

Apollinaris vigorously opposed this position and insisted on the attribution of all things pertaining to the human and divine in Christ to the Logos. The Logos was born from the Virgin without any change or transformation of the divine nature and it was the Logos Who suffered in the flesh. In this respect this was the same position adopted by St. Athanasius, except that Apollinaris went to the extreme of safeguarding the identity of the Logos as the only subject in Christ by insisting that the Logos took the place of the Platonic ''yEovnòv or nvinòv in Christ. Since a complete man is a vov5 sv sapnì, and since Christ is just such a vov5, but the divine vov5 év 6an, Christ is both perfect God and perfect man, One, not two. Therefore, in Christ there is one energy and one composite nature.

Following the general line of Eustathius, Diodore of Tarsus vigorously attacked the Apollinaris position. Sullivan takes note of Grillmeier's contention that in spite of his anti-Apollinarinism Diodore still adheres to the "Logos-flesh" Christology. Diodore did not center his attack on Apollinaris on the question of the human mind in Christ. Diodore was above all concerned with the Apollinaris mixture of Logos and flesh into one nature, and by insisting on the distinction of natures ended up with a distinction of subjects. Sullivan goes to much trouble finding passages in Diodore to demonstrate that he taught the completeness of Christ's human nature and concludes that the "Logos- flesh scheme applied to Diodore by Grillmeier may be misleading.

After a short discussion of M. Jugie's work on Diodore,^{[ l7 ]} wherein the chief error of the bishop of Tarsus is described as his failure to distinguish between nature and person, Sullivan returns to his main argument and demonstrates how Diodore reacted against the Apollinarists. While attacking their mixture of the human and divine in Christ into one nature, Diodore failed to recognize "the true principle which Apollinaris had been trying, though unsuccessfully, to explain and defend. In other words, there was an element of truth in the system of Apollinaris: a recognition of the fact that the Word had truly been born, according to the flesh, of the Virgin Mary, and that Jesus of Nazareth was not another person distinct from the eternal Son of God."^{[ l8 ]} Diodore failed to see this and therefore distinguished between Him Who is the Son of Gad by nature and him who is both by nature the son of David and by grace the son of God.

The description of this theological milieu, within which Theodore was theologically nourished, is a very valuable and well done piece of work which supplies the foundations of Sullivan's exposition of Theodore's Christology. Basically Theodore remained faithful to the theological method of his predecessors. However, he made an important advance aver them by realizing that the lack of unity had been a grave weakness of their Christology and tried to correct it. "The distinction of the two natures in Christ, and their union in one prosopon, is the characteristic of Theodore's Christology at every period of his career. . . . In view of Theodore's consistent stress on the union of the two natures in one person, one may ask how it can be that there is still question of his orthodoxy on this question of the unity of Christ."^{[ l9 ]} Sullivan devotes 105 carefully written pages to a detailed examination of texts in order to determine " (1) Theodore's concept of the `two natures'; (2) his concept of their union: .rcil. the incarnation; (3) his concept of the 'one person' in whom the two natures are united."<sup>[ 20 ]</sup> Since we will mention some of the important points of Sullivan's handling of the material later in this paper we may at present quote his final remarks which will help understand some of the reactions. Sullivan concludes: "The cardinal point of contradiction between Cyril and Nestorius turned precisely on the question whether or not God the Word is the Subject of whom the Creed said: `He was born of the Virgin Mary.' According to Nestorius, this can be said of 'Christ,' of `the Son,' of `the Lord,' - but not of God the Word. In this he showed himself a faithful exponent of the principles of Theodore of Mopsuestia. The decision of the Fathers of Ephesus meant that it was not sufficient to unite the two natures in one prosopon. One did not do justice to the basic fact of Christianity unless one understood that this `one person,' this subject of whom the Creed said both that He was begotten of the Father, and that He was barn of the Virgin Mary - is in fact none other than God the Word. If the failure to recognize this fact is the root-error of Nestorius, then it cannot be denied that Theodore of Mopsuestia, despite his orthodox intentions, was indeed what he has so long been called: the `Father of Nestorianism.' "^{[ 21 ]}

It is interesting to note that Sullivan maintains a balance in his use of the hostile fragments by studying "them in the light of all other evidence." ^{[ 22 ]} In other words the question of the reliability of the hostile fragments does not present one with the key to Sullivan's method of arriving at a synthesis of Theodore's Christology. In this respect Sullivan shows a tendency to subordinate these fragments somewhat by not allowing them an independent authority.

Keeping this in mind one finds it instructive to turn to the article of Paul Galtier entitled "Théodore de Mopsueste: Sa vraie pensée sur 1'Incarnation," published the year after Sullivan's thesis appeared.^{[ 23 ]} While he evidently accepts Sullivan's defense of the reliability of the condemned fragments,^{[ 24 ]} and even adds some arguments to the cause ^{[ 25 ]} he takes strong exception to Sullivan's interpretation of Theodore. As a standard for judging Theodore, Sullivan had followed the suggestion of Grillmeier and used the Nicean Creed as expounded at the Council of Ephesus which accepted the second letter of Cyril to Nestorius as containing the substance of the Church's faith.^{[ 26 ]} Galtier flatly rejects this as illogical and unjust. " . . . est-il juste et logique de juger du langage de Théadore d'après celui de saint Cyrille?"^{[ 27 ]} Cyril can be used as a standard only in the light of St. Leo, and St. Leo can be used only in the light of St. Cyril. Sullivan's way of presenting the issue is actually no different from that of the Monophysites who rejected Leo's Tome to Flavian. Here Galtier is touching upon the very nerve center of the whole discussion concerning the Christology and condemnation of the bishop of Mopsuestia. The basic theological presuppositions of such scholars as Devreesse, Richard and C. Moeller, who either explicitly or implicitly support the theories concerning chalcedonianism and neo-chalcedonianism mentioned above, are quite clear. If the Council of Chalcedon is viewed as a restoration of the Christological balance upset temporarily by the one-sided Cyrilian Council of Ephesus in 431,^{[ 27a ]} and if the Fifth Ecumenical Council is. regarded as a return to the Alexandrian exclusiveness of the Third Council, then the theology of Theodore should be viewed in the light of Chalcedon. The very basis for the condemnation of Theodore at the Fifth Council was the fact that under pressure from the "imperial couple" to adopt a diplomatic theology the Eastern bishops accepted Cyril's exclusiveness to the practical exclusion of Leo's Tome. Theodore cannot be judged, therefore, from this one-sided point of view. In order to maintain this thesis some Roman scholars are prepared to claim that Pope Vigilius did not accept the dogmatic definitions contained in the anathemas of the Fifth Council. This leaves Chalcedon as the only possible standard of orthodox Christology and the only acceptable standard for judging Theodore.

Having this viewpoint in mind it is quite obvious that Sullivan has left himself wide open by using Cyril and Ephesus as his point of departure. McKenzie also charged Sullivan with setting for Theodore an impossible canon of orthodoxy in an article which appeared in 1958.^{[ 28 ]} Judging from the method adopted in his book as well as by his answer to McKenzie it is quite obvious that Sullivan has not fully grasped the fact that he unwittingly side-tracked himself by taking Grillmeier's suggestion seriously, and instead of arguing to the point he has been arguing past it. From an authoritarian viewpoint, which one would ordinarily expect about the early Ecumenical Synods from Roman Catholics, Sullivan's presentation could be considered a self-sufficient study which has definitely proved its point. However, the whole issue is very much complicated by the fact that the scholars in question do not take Ephesus seriously. It is worth noting that they may be quite verbose about Cyril's one-sidedness but they never openly question the Council of Ephesus, which was completely dominated by this same Cyril. They simply insist on Chalcedon and overcome the Council of 553 in the manner mentioned.

With this background in mind one can very much appreciate Galtier's penetrating analysis of Theodore's Christology. Being a specialist in the linguistic variations of patristic theology, he brings his keen insight to bear and attempts to demonstrate that Theodore's theology is quite sound when his language is approached within the geographical setting of his own time. There is no need to take seriously the question of the reliability or unreliability of the hastile fragments, because actually when seen within the time and place in which they were written, and understood within the general context of Theadore's theology, these fragments are quite sound. Although Theodore vas using a different language, he was professing in substance the same doctrine as Cyril. The reason why the fragments in question were condemned by Cyril and the Fifth Council is that they were not fully understood. Galtier attempts to prove that for Theodore, as far Cyril, the prosopon effected by the union of the two natures in Christ is the very prosopon of the Holy Trinity. He rejects as absurd the idea that for Theodore the prosopon effected by the union is a tertium guid. As one of the keys to his argument Galtier takes one of the supposedly most unreliable Greek texts and points out very convincingly that in speaking about each perfect nature as having its own prosopon when considered apart and one prosopon in common when considered in union, Theodore is not saying that there are two prosapa. Therefore, he does not see why the Syriac translation should be considered more faithful and what exactly the Apollinarists gained by doctaring up such a passage as this, as Richard claims.^{[ 29 ]} There are two persons corresponding to the two perfect natures only when one considers each nature abstractly. In reality, however, there can never have been two prosopa since the union was never preceded by any division. "Eoxs sv Eirv5 É áp5 v z n,aiá zv iOav óa?áos iv npò5 avzóv évwoav. ^{[ 30 ]} Theodore's speaking of the prosopon effected by the union then is no different from Cyril's way of speaking abstractly about two vno6zá6si5 or pv6E5 being united, so that "after the union, the separation having been abolished, we believe that the nature of the Son is one, as belonging to one who however has become man and flesh.^{[ 31 ]} According to Galtier, the real difficulty underlying this Theodorean and Cyrilian manner of speaking abstractly about two natures or prosopa before the union and concretely of one prosopon or nature after the union, was the fact that opv65, vnóóza65 and Póswnov were still synonymous and inseparable in the field of Christology at this time. The distinctions already made between cpva5, or ovsí,a on the one hand and vnó6iaa5 or n8ó6wxov on the other for the doctrine of the Trinity had not yet been introduced into Christology, and the Chalcedonian contribution of an áaoóawno5 or ávvóoiaios human cpv65 was yet in the future.

A key passage offered by Galtier to prove his general position is one in which the Logos as subject unites the man to Himself and thereby the Logos Himself becomes the unique prosopon of the union. ^{[ 32 ]} Perhaps the strongest point of Galtier's presentation, at least for one with a critical eye for loopholes, is his insistence that "Theodore never dreamed of defining the nature or the mode of this union. On the contrary, here again is a point on which he is in advance of one mind ivith St. Cyril. In effect both proclaim absolutely its ineffable character. . . . Questioned about the sense of the expression na' vnóazaav, he (Cyril called it `physical,' in opposition to a moral union; but to those who asked what he means by `physical union,' one knows that he always restricted himself to the answer: `real union.' "^{[ 33 ]} However, it is questionable whether Galtier's thesis can srand a stiff test at this very point. Would it have been really possible for Theodore to agree with Cyril's van or na' vó6iasv vwa5 without giving up his basic presuppositions ? Nestorius' reaction to this term was violent and there are good indications that Theodore would have at least had strong hesitations. Although Sullivan did not discuss this aspect, he did devote the first part of his synthesis to the failure of Theodore to distinguish between what could be predicated to the nature of the Word and to the Word as such, and thereby made a very important contribution to a correct approach. This failure of Theodore is very interesting because Sullivan's forefathers in theology were accused of heresy during the Filioque controversy for exactly this same failure.

Before he could acquire a copy of Galtier's article McKenzie had already committed the review of Sullivan's book mentioned above to the press and just managed to include a footnote in which he seems surprised at how Galtier arrived at his conclusions "with few references to falsifications by the compilers of the extracts of Theodore's works."^{[ 34 ]} In this article McKenzie strongly challenges Sullivan's treatment of the reliability of the Syriac versions and his synthesis of Theodore's Christology. McKenzie reviews Sullivan's treatment of two texts and two groups of texts and makes the following strong point: "No doubt Sullivan is right in warning that it would be rash to apply to these three capitula the adage, A no disce oyrcnes, and hence to reject the conciliar extracts en bloc (Sullivan, p. 111 ) . But it is also rash, I think, to affirm that, because a man has been proved a liar in three instances, he is therefore reliable in other instances where no proof has been adduced, particularly when the motive of the lie which has been proved is also operative in the other instances. There is no similar proof which casts doubt on the veracity of the Syriac translators. Sullivan's suspicions may be correct; but even after Sullivan's examination no convincing reason is presented why we should trust the mendacious compilers of the florilegia where they differ from the Syriac translators. To trust the translators is not to afhrm the 'absolute literal accuracy' of their work, nor to deny that they were subject to the human weaknesses of translators. But we do not know that they were deliberately perverting the evidence; we do know that the compilers were. . . . It has been proved, and Sullivan has accepted the proof, that the compilations. exhibit in some instances the compiler's way of putting a thought rather than that of the author; and it has certainly been shown that the compilers did not feel themselves bound to reproduce every phrase, every last word of their prototype. Until the dishonesty and bad faith of the Syriac translators have been equally well demonstrated, it is difficult to see how we can treat the two sources as of equal value. I do not say, indeed, that Sullivan treats them as of equal value; but his insistence that they must be used if one is to form a complete synthesis of Theodore's Christology must be taken with qualification."^{[ 35 ]}

McKenzie is actually defending the conclusions which he had reached in the eleven-page article printed in 1953 already mentioned. As we have seen, Sullivan accepts McKenzie's cantention that the compiler's quoting of Theodore out of context in interpreting John 1:46-51 has deliberately presented him in an unfavorable light. McKenzie does not see, however, why Sullivan does not agree with his conclusions.

Three quarters of a year later Sullivan answered McKenzie in a well written article entitled "Further Notes on Theodore of Mopsuestia."^{[ 36 ]} In his defense of his treatment of the hostile fragments he does not hesitate to call upon Galtier ^{[ 37 ]} for help in regard to the one fragment mentioned. In his discussion concerning "The Value of the Syriac Versions" Sullivan agrees with McKenzie on the question of how much literal accuracy one may expect from the Syriac translations and points out the fact that Richard and Devreesse presupposed extraordinary literal accuracy. When Sullivan is suggesting that in some cases the more likely explanation of a discrepancy is to be sought in the departure of the translator from the original, he does not see why we should be bound to demonstrate the dishonesty and bad faith of the translator as McKenzie demands.^{[ 38 ]} "In the first place the departure may have been indeliberate. In the second place, they can be judged only by the standards that were expected of translators of their own day."^{[ 39 ]}

In the second part of his answer Sullivan defends himself against McKenzie's charge of setting an impossible canon of orthodoxy for Theodore's lifetime. One cannot help but sense that this part is intended also as an answer to Galtier's similar accusation. For the reasons already mentioned Sullivan seems to have missed the point. In the last section of his answer Sullivan seems to successfully defend his thesis against McKenzie's counter-interpretations of certain texts.

There are several other scholars who have dealt with Theodore's theology since the Mingana publications of 1932-33. Some of the defenders of the traditional view of Theodore's Nestorianism are M. Jugie,^{[ 40 ]} W. De Vries,^{[ 41 ]} J. M. Vosté,^{[ 42 ]} M. Anastos,^{[ 43 ]} and H. M. Diepen.^{[ 44 ]} A. Grillmeier^{[ 45 ]} and T. Camelot^{[ 46 ]} recognize the basic elements in Theodore which finally lead to Nestorianism. R. V. Sellers^{[ 47 ]} and J. N. D. Kelly^{[ 48 ]} maintain the basic soundness of Theodore's Christology within the background of the healthy elements of Antiochene Christology generally and at the same time recognize its typical Antiochene weaknesses. Kelly utilizes few of Sullivan's paints and rejects his basic conclusion. "Theodore was no Nestorian, and the doctrine of `two Sons' repelled him."<sup>[ 49 ]</sup> Although Kelly does not seem to have Galtier's work on Theodore in mind, his conclusions are very similar. He writes that Theodore's "true teaching, it would seem, is that the Incarnate is `one prosopon,' and by this he means that He is the `one subject' Who can be addressed now as God and now as man. This comes out in the fact that, while he was constantly alert to distinguish in his exegesis between the two natures, he was also aware that Scripture spoke of the two natures together. The Bible, as he points out, predicates what belongs both to the divinity and to the humanity `as of one alone' (Hom. cat. 6, 6; 8,10; 8, 11 f.) ; it applies different titles to Christ `as to a single prosopon' (Ib. 3, 10). So prosopon in his vocabulary connoted `Person' in the fullest sense of the word. The Godman, he declares, is one prosopon, and he nowhere speaks of there being two prosopa before, or in abstraction from (a disagreement with Galtier) , the union of the natures. Such a doctrine has been attributed to him, but on the basis of texts which have been tampered with by his later detractors.."^{[ 50 ]} Kelly does not specify which texts he is referring to. Actually there is only one Greek text in which such an interpretation and reliability problem was clearly seen ^{[ 50a ]} and it was already mentioned together with Galtier's penetrating analysis of it. For this text there is a Syriac parallel which twice mentions one prosopon and one hypostasis when contemplating the union. Of this text Kelly says, "We are bound to regard the Syriac version with considerable suspicion."^{[ 51 ]} One wonders if Kelly means to throw suspicion on both Greek and Syriac versions of this text.

Of course it is beyond the scope of this paper to take up the question of the hostile fragments in detail. However, there are certain texts which have been singled out for special discussion in the above mentioned debate between Sullivan and McKenzie. We will make some remarks about three of these texts hoping thereby to make some helpful suggestions to a more balanced approach.

The first textual problem we will deal with is McKenzie's alleged proof that the compiler of the hostile fragments deliberately quoted Theodore's interpretation of John 1:46-51 out of context in order to make it appear that Nathaniel's use of the terms `King' and `Son of God' expressed the mind of Theodore. When these passages are read within context it is obvious that Theodore considered Nathaniel's understanding at this time inadequate and carnal. McKenzie thinks, and Sullivan agrees, that this exegesis is perfectly sound, and would be shared by most modern Scripture scholars.

It is quite obvious that both Sullivan and McKenzie failed to realize that the compiler was not a modern Scripture scholar but a man of his own times. It is very possible that the compiler did not agree with Theodore's interpretation of Nathaniel's mind. It is more than probable that the compiler believed that Nathaniel fully understood what he was saying in confessing, "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thau art the king af Israel." In his commentary on this passage St. Cyril takes great care to prove how and why Nathaniel came to realize that Christ is the Only-Begotten Son of God. According to Cyril, Nathaniel knew fully well what he was confessing. ^{[ 52 ]} Origen goes to the trouble to point out that this passage is not referring to "one of many sons, but to the Only-Begotten, being the king of the chosen race."^{[ 53 ]} This interpretation of Nathaniel's mind is diametrically opposed to that of Theodore. There can be no reason to doubt that the Apollinarists were using such an interpretation of Nathaniel's confession to prove that Christ is the natural Son of God. This is clearly reflected in Theodore's insistence in the condemned Capitula 34 that "Certainly (Nathaniel) was saying that he was son of God not according to the birth of divinity, but because he was familiar with God . . . " For those engaged in such a controversy over the interpretation of this confession the insertion of the whole context within which Theodore refers to the obscure and carnal nature of Nathaniel's mind would not serve to clear the bishop of Mopsuestia but only demonstrate further his perverseness. It would be more than normal for the opponents of Theodore to think: "Every pious Christian knows that Nathaniel fully understood that Christ is the natural Son of God begotten of the Father before the ages. Only a heretic could deny this." It is extremely naive to think that the compiler felt that he had to quote deliberately out of context, especially when there are numerous other passages in which Theodore denies that He Who was born of the Virgin is the natural and Only-Begotten Son of God and consubstantial with the Father. The fact that Theodore considers Nathaniel's understanding obscure and carnal at this point does not mean that he elsewhere professes to believe that the natural Son of God became the natural Son of Mary, thus making it necessary for the compiler to deliberately distort and misrepresent the real mind of Theodore. It must also be remembered that the passages under question express clearly Theodore's understanding of the prevailing Jewish ideas about the coming Messiah which most modern students of the Bible would at least tolerate. However, there is every indication to believe that such tolerance was not characteristic of the times under question. Proof of this is the fact that the compiler presented Theodore's understanding of Nathaniel's mind for condemnation.

One may add at this point that the same observations are applicable to the similar case of quoting out of context in regard to Theodore's commentary on the Centurion's faith expressed in Matthew 8:5-13.54 Vigilius is clearly aware that the fragments express the mind of the Centurion and not that of the author. Yet the Pope condemns this inadequate interpretation of the Centurion's faith. Sullivan thinks that Vigilius would have revised his criticism had he seen the whole context. This is certainly an unrealistic attitude since Vigilius is clearly finding fault with Theodore's interpretation of the Centurion's faith and already knows Theodore's faith from so many other passages in which Christ is Son of God not by nature, but by grace. Here again it is clear that the compiler was not interested in the context, but in Theodore's interpretation of the Centurion's faith.

One of the important problems regarding the hostile fragments centers in a text preserved in Greek by Leontius of Byzantium which we already mentioned when discussing Galtier's study of Theodore. As we have seen Galtier fails to see how this passage is supposed to help the Apollinarist cause as Richard seems to think. Theodore here speaks of two prosopa in abstraction only. Concretely there can be only one prosopon effected by the union before which there was no division. "For when we distinguish the natures," writes Theodore, "we eall the nature of God perfect, and (we call) the person perfect also, because it is impossible to speak of an impersonal hypostasis. We call likewise the nature of man perfect, and the person (we call perfect) as well. But when we look toward the conjunction, we then say one person . . . thus when we attempt to distinguish the natures, we call the person of the man perfect, and that of the divinity also perfect. When we contemplate the union, then we proclaim the person to be one, the natures two.''^{[ 56 ]}

There is a Syriac version of this text (cod. 14669) published by Sachau6g and translated literally back into Greek by Richard,^{[ 57 ]} in which the clause "because it is impossible to speak of an impersonal hypostasis," is omitted. On the other hand wherever the Leontius fragment speaks of "one person" the Syriac fragment adds the phrase "one hypostasis." Richard favors the Syriac text because he suspects the extra clause in the Leontius fragment. He points out that the only way this clause makes any sense is when "hypostasis" is taken as being synonymous with "nature." Richard reasons that since "hypostasis" and "nature" had already been distinguished in the doctrine of the Trinity, this phrase could not mean very much to Theodore's readers. Galtier and Sullivan also accept these terms as being synonymous, but argue that the Trinitarian distinction had not yet been introduced into Christology. To these observations one may add a possible explanation of the seemingly sharp differences between the Syriac and Greek texts which does not make it necessary to suspect the honesty of either the compiler or the Syriac translator.

It would have been quite normal for a mild chalcedonian, wishing to see in Theodore an orthodox father, as was actually the case with some, to understand the clause in question as evidence that Theodore taught that in Christ there is one hypostasis after the union. In other wards, Theodore's remark "it is impossible to speak of an impersonal hypostasis" would also mean "it is impossible to speak of an unhypostatic person." Once this is done the whole passage in question would be translated not literally but according to what the translator takes as its real meaning and in post-chalcedonian language. Thus the clause in question disappears from its proper place and reappears in the same passage elsewhere. We now find ` one hypostasis" added to "one person." But in the Syriac text under consideration this is not all. Every time the word "person" exists by itself it is replaced by "hypostasis" in the Syriac. Thus in the Leontius fragment the word "person" is mentioned six times and "hypostasis" appears only once. In the Syriac text "person" appears twice and "hypostasis" is mentioned four times. The application of Eastern Trinitarian terminology to Theodore's Christology by a chalcedonian friend is obvious.

This substitution of the word hypostasis for person in the works of Theodore became a serious problem for the Nestorians for whom hypostasis and nature were still synonymous.5s In the eighth century the Nestorian Joseph Hazzaya complained of such a systematic interpolation in Theodore's De Incarnatione and De Fide. The interpolator had substituted "one hypostasis" wherever Theodore spoke of ` two hypostases." In his study on Joseph Hazzaya, published in 1910, Addai Scher mentioned that he was in possession of a complete Syriac translation of De Incarnationae in which Theodore speaks of "one hypostasis" in Christ everywhere he was dealing with the question of union. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the defenders of Theodore presented any such texts at the time of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. It is possible perhaps that monophysites may have interpolated some of Theodore's texts to show that the chalcedonian formula of "one hypostasis" and "two natures" is Nestorian.

The third and last group of texts to be examined are related to Theodore's interpretation of Rom. 9:5 where St. Paul speaks of the Jews "from whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who being God over all is blessed unto the ages, amen." In two passages, one preserved by Cyril and the other condemned by Pope Vigilius and the Fifth Council, ^{[ 59 ]} Theodore takes great care to paint out that St. Paul "ita dicit . . . non quod ex Judaeis et secundum carnem est, qui super omnia Deus est" ^{[ 60 ]} or "Nemo igitur neque eum, qui secundum carnem ex Judaeis est, dicat deum, nec iterum deum, qui est super amnia, secundum carnem ex Judaeis." ^{[ 61 ]} Both these fragments have parallels in the Syriac version of Theodore's Catechetical Orations, but here they appear slightly altered, e.g., with the word "naturaliter" added. Thus Theodore says not only that he who is from the Jews according to the flesh is not God, but that he is not "by nature" God. "For there is no one who would recognize that 'He who is born from among the Jews according to the flesh' is by nature God, nor that God over all' is by nature from the Jews." ^{[ 62 ]} There is a third passage in the Syriac text where Rom. 9:5 is interpreted and again the word "naturaliter" appears. ^{[ 63 ]} Both Richard and Devreesse accept the Syriac version as authentic and the Latin fragments as the product of corrupt intentions. Sullivan, of course, defends the authenticity of the Latin fragments, but in such a way that McKenzie is not satisfied. Sullivan spends eight pages ^{[ 64 ]} weaving a series of facts and probabilities into an overall probability in favor of the Latin texts.

Perhaps the mast important point of Cyril's attack on Nestorius is his insistence that He Who was born of the Virgin according to the flesh is by nature God and consubstantial with the Father. St. Athanasius had said this clearly before him. But Nestorius repeatedly denies this and persistently claims that He Who was born of the Virgin is not by nature God and therefore the title Theotokos is dangerous and if used should be done so with strict qualifications. It is only when John of Antioch repudiated Nestorius an this point that peace was restored. In his letter to Cyril, John clearly confessed that the Same Who was born of Mary is consubstantial with the Father according to divinity and consubstantial with us according to the humanity.^{[ 65 ]} This for Cyril meant the acceptance of the full significance of the title Theotokos. In his answer to John, Cyril writes, "For it is your absolute duty clearly to understand that well-nigh the whole of our contest for the faith has been waged round our affirmation that the holy Virgin is Theotokos." ^{[ 66 ]} In the light of this fact it is not necessary to make Cyril out to be an ecclesiastical politician to understand why he could accept the Antiochene way of speaking about two unconfused and undivided natures. That the Son of Mary, or that the Son of David is "naturaliter" the Son of God is the most fundamental Christological insight of Cyril and underlies his whole theology concerning the Theotokos. One must not forget also that this is the very foundation of the Apollinarin attack on Diodore and on this question St. Gregory the Theologian clearly sided with Apollinaris. In this respect at least Apollinaris was certainly victorious over his opponents even at the Council of Chalcedon which clearly insisted that He Who was born of the Theotokos is "consubstantial with the Father according to the divinity." ^{[ 67 ]} It is quite clear, therefore, that there can be no conceivable reason why the Apollinarists or Cyril or any adherent to the Council of Ephesus or the union of 433 would drop the term "naturaliter" from Theodore's texts. Judging from the hostile attitude of the compiler one may rest assured that he would have kept the "naturaliter" since it would have better demonstrated an identity of teaching with Nestorius. Rather than postulate corruption on the part of the Latin texts there seems to be little doubt that the Syriac translator introduced the "naturaliter" in order to make the passages more clearly Nestorian and anti-Cyrilian and at the same time to avoid the impression that Theodore is denying the divinity of Christ altogether. He is certainly not God by nature, but He is God by grace, according to Theodore.

The methodological problem in dealing with Theodore's Christology has confronted us in certain ways, especially in regard to the criterion to be used in determining whether or not he can really be considered the "Father of Nestorianism." At the suggestion of Grillmeier, Sullivan had restricted himself to Cyril and Ephesus as the standard for judgment, leaving the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo out of' his theological discussion. He simply examines the possible reasons why the Council did not discuss the question of Theodore. ^{[ 68 ]} However, the basic problem is not the question why Theodore personally was not discussed, but whether the Council accepted a profession of faith in essentials similar to that of Theodore. If, as many believe, the Council accepted as sufficiently orthodox what Theodore had already taught, then he is certainly not the "Father of Nestorianism," unless, of course, one believes that Chalcedon was a vindication of Nestorius.

We have mentioned the fact that in a very important way the profession or definition of faith at Chalcedon represents an Apollinarin victory over Diodore and Theodore. It has already been pointed out that the center of controversy between Apollinaris and Diodore was not over the question of the human soul of Christ, nor over the mixture of natures, but rather over the question of the consubstantiality with the Father of Him Who was born of the Virgin. Apollinaris not only insists on this repeatedly, but also speaks of the Logos becoming consubstantial with man because of His union with the Body. Thus Christ "is consubstantial with God according to the invisible spirit, the flesh also being included in the name, because it is united to him who is consubstantial with God, and again He is consubstantial with men, the divinity being included in the body, because it was united to that which is consubstantial with us. The nature of the body, continues Apollinaris, is not changed in the union with Him Who is consubstantial with God and in the participation of the consubstantial name, neither does the nature of Godhead change in the communion of the human body and in the name of the flesh which is consubstantial with us." ^{[ 69 ]} Elsewhere he writes that Christ "therefore did not become son, but is by nature." ^{[ 70 ]} In a letter to a certain Peter he writes, "We say that the Lord is by nature God and by nature man." ^{[ 71 ]} To Jovianum he claims, "He Who was born from the Virgin Mary is by nature God and true God, and not by grace or participation." ^{[ 72 ]}

As we have already indicated, this basic vision of Apollinaris that Christ is both by nature God and by nature man is clearly expressed in the profession of faith of John of Antioch which brought about the union of 433 and is repeated in the Chalcedonian definition. "Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same consubrtantial with us according to the Manhood . . before the ages begotten of the Father according to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos according to the Manhood . . ." ^{[ 73 ]} In commenting on the Chalcedonian profession of the double consubstantiality of Christ neither Bindley ^{[ 74 ]} nor I. Ortiz de Urbina ^{[ 75 ]} suspect that Apollinaris had said the same. Bindley writes that "the latter half, `co-essential with us as to manhood,' had occurred in Nestorius' Sermon 3, and had no doubt come into partial use before this as a counter-statement to the doctrine of Apollinarius that Christ's Body was consubstantial with the Godhead." ^{[ 76 ]} It is noteworthy that Apollinaris not only insisted on the double consubstantiality of Christ, but also proclaims repeatedly that anyone who says that the flesh of Christ is consubstantial with God is anathema. ^{[ 77 ]}

Nestorius never accepted this teaching concerning the double consubstantiality of Him Who was born of the Theotokos. Whether Diodore and Theodore would have finally accepted it along with Theodoret and Ibas when confronted by an Ecumenical Council we will never know. That they threw everything they could muster at Apollinaris exactly on this issue is beyond any question whatever. This is more than clear from Theodore's Contra Apollinarem. After what seems to have been a long argument Theodore asks, "Therefore how do you . . . claim to acknowledge him who was born of the Virgin to be God from God, consubstantial with the Father, unless by chance you command us to impute his creation to the Holy Spirit? . . . Nevertheless, neither according to your own definition is it at all possible to proclaim him who was born of the Virgin to be God from God, consubstantial with the Father. For if, as you say, he who was born from the Virgin was not an assumed man, but God made flesh, how can he who was born be called God from God and consubstantial with the Father, since the flesh is not able to sustain this name? For it is madness to say that God is born of the Virgin. . . . He Who is consubstantial with the Father was not born from a womb . . . " ^{[ 78 ]} This same attack on the double consubstantiality of Christ is clearly repeated in the Catechetical Homilies.^{[ 78 ]}

If Nestorianism can be defined as a denial of the fact that the One Lord Jesus Christ Who was born of the Virgin is consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity and consubstantial with us according to his humanity, then there can be no doubt that Theodore is on this point in essential agreement with Nestorius and in direct opposition to the Council of Chalcedon. It seems that in his arguments with Apollinaris Theodore simply forgot his doctrine of one prosopon in Christ. Why didn't Theodore speak of the one prosopon effected by the union of two natures in Christ as consubstantial with the Father?' The answer is quite simple. The one person in Christ effected by the union of natures is not the second hypostasis of the Holy Trinity. The divine nature or hypostases cannot themselves be united by nature to any creature. As we shall see, Theodore fully agrees with Nestorius at this point.

Using the inductive method of searching through Theodore's works to see if he can find any indication of predicating the human things of Christ to the Logos in distinction from the divine nature, Sullivan comes to the conclusion that the terms Logos and divine nature are actually interchangeable. Sullivan senses that this lack of distinction explains partially Theodore's inability to predicate all the acts of Christ, both divine and human, to the Logos as to one unique subject. ^{[ 79 ]}

One can go further and point out that Theodore's doctrine of the Trinity on essential points is quite different from that of the Alexandrian and Cappadocian Fathers and it is quite obvious that his presuppositions and arguments against the Arians and Eunomians must have differed considerably from theirs.

In Cappadocian and Alexandrian theology the real distinction between the Logos and the Father is based on the belief in a real incarnation of the second hypostasis of the Trinity. One of the most important reasons why the term homoousios was in the beginning suspect was that it could be interpreted in a Sabellian sense as was actually done by Paul of Samosata. It is only when it was made perfectly clear that this term does not imply that the Son is identical with the essence or hypostasis of the Father or with an unhypostasic energy of God that it was accepted by such Fathers as St. Basil. ' `Those who say that essence and hypostasis are identical," writes St. Basil, "are driven to the necessity of confessing different persons only, and by attempting to get around saying three hypostases, they find themselves unable to escape the evil of Sabellius." For the Cappadocians there is a real distinction between essence and hypostasis not only for the exclusion of Sabellianism, but also as a protection against the attacks of Eunomius. This may seem at first paradoxical, but it is true.

Eunomius was arguing that the word "Father" or "Unbegottenness" was a definition of the very hypostasis or essence of God. From this premise he concluded that the hypostasis which is, therefore, "Son" and "begotten" must be heterosubstantial and so a creature. The Cappadocians argued that the words "Father" and "Unbegottenness" are not definitions of the divine essence, but denote the mode of being or existence of a real hypostasis and its relation to the other hypostases of the Trinity. There can be no name or definition of the nature of God. The essence of God is by its very nature unknown to all creatures and beyond the conceptual powers of man. Even the word God cannot be applied to the nature of God because the essence of God is nameless. Every name is in some sense a definition. However, when applied to God names denote either the acts of God or the mode of existence of the divine Persons, but never the essence.

When one turns to Theodore he cannot help but wonder what kind of arguments he could have used against the Arians and Eunomians. Together with Eustathius of Antioch ^{[ 80 ]} he claims that the word God is a name of the divine nature, ^{[ 81 ]} thus giving the impression that the Three Persons of the Trinity shared in either an Aristotelian "substratal preexisting material" or a Platonic type "superstratal genus." ^{[ 82 ]} God is one not so much because the Father is one unique cause and source, as Apollinaris together with the Cappadocians taught. For Theodore , God is one because the divine essence is one. For Eustathius the word God belongs not to the Divine Persons but to the divine essence. Otherwise, there would be three Gods. ^{[ 83 ]}

Theodore seems to go much further than Eustathius. He claims that the word Father is also the name of the divine nature. ^{[ 84 ]} One is immediately reminded of the fact that the Eunomians would agree with this wholeheartedly since it proves that the Son is another essence unlike that of the Father. What kind of answer could Theodore have given the Eunomians an this point? Simply that the Son also is the divine essence and the Holy Spirit likewise. ^{[ 85 ]} Thus it seems that we have here a doctrine of the Trinity not very different in one respect at least from that which prevailed in the West. Each Person is identical with the divine essence, although not identical with the other persons, and God is one not because the Father is the only cause and source of divinity, but because the underlying essence is one and each Person is this essence.

| HOMEPAGE |[ CONTENTS ]

FOOTNOTES

[ 1 ] For recent bibliography and listing of sources see B. Altaner, Patrology (London 1960), pp. 372-373. [ 2 ] Analecta Gregoriana, vol. LXXXII (Romae 1956), p. 288. [ 3 ] Théodore de Mopsueste, Sa vraie pensée sur 1'incarnation, Rechercher de .rcience religieuse, 45 (1957), p. 339. [ 4 ] Théodore de Mopsueste, in Dictionaire de Théologie Catholique, vol. XV , a, 235-279. Here one can find the bibliographical material available before the Mingana editions.. [ 5 ] Ibid., col. 257. [ 6 ] Studi e Testi, 141, Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolico Vaticana, 1948. [ 7 ] E.g. Charles Moeller, "Le chalcédonisme et le néo-chalcédonismé ' in Das Konzil von Chalkedon, Geschichte und Gegenwart (Würzburg 1951), pp. 637-720. [ 8 ] Orientalia Christiana Periodica, XV (1949) 441. J. M. Vosté had challenged an earlier attempt of Devreesse to prove falsification of certain texts. For a discussian of this controversy see F. A. Sullivan, op, cit., p. 99ff. [ 9 ] Some Reactions to Devreesse's New Study of Theodore of Mopsuestia Theological Studies, XII ( 1951 ) 179-209. [ 10 ] "The Commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on John I, 46-51," Theological Studies, XIV (1953), 73-84. [ 11 ] XIX (1952) 254-274; XX (1953) 172-191. [ 12 ] Op. cit., XX,189-190. [ 13 ] "La tradition des fragments du traité ,περί τής ενανθρωπήσεως de Théodore de Mopsueste," Le Muséon, LVI (1943) 55-75. "Les traités de Cyrille d'Alexandrie contre Diodore et Théodore, et les fragments dogmatiques de Diodore de Tarse,"Mélanges dediés à la mémoire de Felix Grat, I, Paris 1946, p. 113f. [ 14 ] Migne, P.G., 66, 969-993; H. B. Swete, Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Minor Epistles of St. Paul (Cambridge 1882), vol. II, pp. 289-339. [ 15 ] Op. cit., pp. I56-I57. [ l6 ] Ibid., p. 165. [ 17 ] "La doctrine christologique de Diodore de Tarse d'après les fragments de ses oeuvres," Euntes Docete, II (1949) 171-191. [ 18 ] op. cit., pp· 187-188. [ 19 ] Ibid., p. 201. [ 20 ] Ibid., p. 202. [ 21 ] Ibid., p. 288. [ 22 ] Ibid., p. 158. [ 23 ] Recherches de science religieuse, 45 (1957) 161-186, 338-360. [ 24 ] Ibid , p. 162. [ 25 ] E.g. Ibid., p. 167, n. 21. [ 26 ] Op. cit., p. 30f. [ 27 ] Op. cit., p. 164. [ 27a ] It is interesting to note that the Chalcedonian definition states that it accepts the epistles·of Cyril to Nestorius and the Orientals "and to which (epistles) it reasonably adapted the letter of Leo . . ." (επιστολάς . . . αις καί τήν επιστολήν τού. . Λέοντος . . . εικότως συνήρμοσε . . . ). The minutes of the Council nowhere reflect any doubt about Cyril's Orthodoxy whereas Leo's Tome was objected to and finally accepted in the light of Cyril. That the Fathers subordinated the Pope's theology to that of Cysil is also stongly reflected in this quotation from the Conciliar Decree. [ 28 ] "Annotations on the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia," in Theological Studies, 19 (1958) 3, 345-373. [ 29 ] Galtier op. cit. p. 167, n. 21. [ 30 ] Migne, P.G. 66, 976D; Galtier, op. cit., p. 181. However, in the following passage Theodore seems. to presuppose a little more than two abstract prosopa: "Si chacun d'eux était par nature fils et seigneur, on pourrait dire deux fils et deux seigneurs selon le nombre der penronnes (prosopon); mais puisque l' un est par nature fils et seigneur, tandis que l' autre n' est naturellement ni fils ni seigneur, - mais que c'est par sa conjonction exacte avec le (Fils) Unique, Dieu le Verbe, que nous croyons qu'il réçut ces (Titres), - nous confessons qu'unique est le Fils." R. Tonneau, "Les Homélies Catéchetiques de Théodore de Mopsueste, Studi e Testi 145, Città del Vaticano, Bib. Apost. Vat., 1949, p. 209. [ 31 ] Ep, XL, Migne, P.G. LXXVII, 192D-193; Galtier, op. cit., p. 180, n. 53. [ 32 ] Ibid., pp.175-176. [ 33 ] Ibid., pp. 183-184. [ 34 ] Op. cit., p. 373, n. 80. [ 35 ] Op. cit., pp. 353-354. [ 36 ] Theological Studies 20 (1959) 2, pp. 264-279. [ 37 ] Ibid., p. 267. [ 38 ] Ibid., p. 272. [ 39 ] Ibid. [ 40 ] "Le Liber ad baptizandos de Théodore de Mopsueste," Ecboes d'Orient, XXXIV (1935) 257-271. [ 41 ] "Der `Nestorianismus' Theodors von Mopsuestia in seiner Sakramentenlehre," Orientalia Chrirtiana Periodica, VII (1941) 91-148. [ 42 ] "Théodore de Mopsueste sur les Psaulmes," Angelicum, XIX (1942) 179-198. [ 43 ] "The Immutability of Christ and Justinian's Condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, VI (1951), 125-160. [ 44 ] Les Trois Chaptres au Concile de Chalcédoine. Une étude de la christologie de l'Anatolie ancienne (Oosterhout, 1953). [ 45 ] "Die theologishe und sprachliche Varbereitung der christologischen Formel von Chalcedon," in Das Konzil von Chalkedon, Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Grillmeier-Bacht, vol. I, (Würzburg 1951), pp. 5-202. [ 46 ] "De Nestorius à Eutyches. L'opposition de deux christologies," in Das Konzil von Chalkedon, op. cit., pp. 213-242. [ 47 ] The Council of Chalcedon (London 1953). Also Two Ancient Christologies (London 1940). [ 48 ] Early Christian Doctrines (London 1958). [ 49 ] Ibid., p. 308. [ 50 ] Ibid., pp. 306-307. [ 50a ] For another possible text connoting two persons see note 30. [ 51 ] Op, cit., p. 306. [ 52 ] Migne, P.G. 73, 221C-224A. [ 53 ] Commentary on John, frag. XXVI. [ 54 ] See Sullivan, op. cit., pp. 104-106. [ 55 ] Swete, vol. II, pp. 299-300; Sullivan, op. cit., p. 64ff. [ 56 ] Text in Swete, val. II, pp. 299-300. [ 57 ] "La tradition des fragments du traité περί τής εναθρωπήσεως de Théodore de Mopsueste," Le Muséon LVI, 1943, p. 66. [ 58 ] See Sullivan, op. cit., pp. 59-64, for pertinent discussion. [ 59 ] Ibid., pp. 90-91. [ 60 ] St. Cyril, Migne, P.G. 76, 1447. [ 61 ] Act. Conc. and Vig. 31, Swete, p. 327. [ 62 ] Tonneau, op. cit., pp.137-139. Cf. p. 61. [ 63 ] Ibid., p. 201. [ 64 ] Op. Cit., pp· 90-98. [ 65 ] See text in T. H. Bindley, The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith (London 1950), p. 142. [ 66 ] Ibid. [ 67 ] Text in Bindley, op. cit., p. 193, lines 113-114. [ 68 ] Op. cit., p. 8ff. [ 69 ] Hans Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea (Tübingen 1904), p. 188, 9f. [ 70 ] Ibid., p. 243, 7. [ 71 ] Ibid., p. 247,14. [ 72 ] Ibid., p. 251,12-14. [ 73 ] T. H. Bindley, op. cit., p. 193 (trans. pp. 234-235). [ 74 ] Ibid., p. 146. [ 75 ] "Das Symbol von Chalkedon. Sein Text, sein Werden, seine dogmatische Bedeutung," in Das Konzil von Chalcedon, p. 398ff. [ 76 ] Bindley, op. cit., p.146. [ 77 ] H. Lietzmann, op. cit., p. 254, 3f.; 255, llf.; 262-263. [ 78 ] Swete, op. cit., pp. 312-314. This denial of the double consubstantiality of the unique hypostasis in Christ is clearly seen in Theodore' s denial that the titles Only-Begotten and First-Born can be applied to the One and the Same. Tonneau, op. cit., pp. 61-63, 99-101. For the most obvious denial that the One and the Same is both by nature God and by nature man in the Catechetical Homilies see Tonneau, pp. 209-211. [ 79 ] Op. cit., pp. 205-215. [ 80 ] See frag. 83 and 84 in M. Spanneut, Recherches .sur les écrits d' Eustathe d' Antioche (Lille 1948), p.127. [ 81 ] Tonneau, Hom. IX, 6, pp. 223-225. [ 82 ] For a good discussion of these concepts see H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of The Church Fathers (Cambridge, Mass.) 1956, p. 342f. [ 83 ] Op. cit. Compare this with St. Gregory of Nyssa's Letter to Ablabius. [ 84 ] Tonneau, op. cit., pp. 211-213, 221, 223. [ 85 ] Ibid., pp. 57, 211-213. 221-223, 237-239, 267, 281, 365, 369, 393.

[ Part 1 ] - [ Part 2 ]

 

| HOMEPAGE |[ CONTENTS ]

 

© HydroGraphiX.	"Romanity".