________________________________________________________________________________________________________ THE LAST DAYS OF NESTORIUS IN THE SYRIAC SOURCES GEORGE A. BEVAN QUEEN’S UNIVERSITY f the theological debates of the first ture”, precisely to exclude the Antiochene half of the fifth century haunt the “two natures”.4 sixth, then the Council of Chalcedon While the doctrine produced at Chal- hangs as a sort of specter over the cedon may differ subtly from Nestorius’ IJustinianic Church. Although Chalcedon own teaching—I refer here to the affirma- was ostensibly a legitimately constituted tion of the one prosopon and one hypostasis general council, the legitimacy of its doc- of Christ—, the core of the council’s doc- trinal decisions were questioned and even trinal pronouncements fundamentally agreed excoriated by many in the East.1 The inter- with the Antiochene tradition. It was within pretation (hermenaia) of the faith imposed this tradition that the bulk of Nestorius’ be- on the assembled bishops by the imperial liefs lay. Nestorius was in full agreement representatives spoke in no uncertain terms with Theodore of Mopsuestia on the need of Christ’s two natures after the incarnation, for a human and divine nature in Christ in and the Tome of Leo I (Ep. 28) clearly ar- order to avoid the danger of an Apollinarian ticulated the independent functioning of “mingling” or “mixture” inherent in the each nature in the single person of Christ.2 “one nature”, although some of Nestorius’ The principle charge made against Chal- speculative flights might well not have met cedon by its opponents was that it revived with Theodore’s approval.5 the heresy of Nestorius, which had been de- Yet Nestorianism was never defined in cisively condemned, so it was believed, at 431 at First Ephesus in terms of natures; the Council of Ephesus in 431. Considerable Nestorius was condemned as the “New Ju- scholarship has been dedicated to disproving das” with no reference at all to the number the Nestorian underpinnings of Chalcedon, of natures of Christ.6 Nestorius’ position and to proving that the formula “in two na- was only caricatured for advancing the “two tures” was cyrillian.3 Suffice it to say that sons” and for rejecting Theotokos as a these attempts have had to work around the proper appellation for Mary. The reality, as fact that the bishop of Alexandria never has been shown in various studies, was quite himself used the formula. In fact, after 433 different: Nestorius accepted Theotokos with Cyril tended strongly to the formulations only a few quibbles, and he adamantly de- “out of two natures” and “one incarnate na- nied that his talk of the two natures and two ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 39 The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ prosopa of Christ entailed the “two sons”, discovered near Lake Van in the early the heresy of Paul of Samosata.7 1880s.10 The work is not, however, without When Cyril, in ignorance of Nestorius’ its problems. First, the language of the trans- theological pedigree, assented to an Antio- lation is often unclear and garbled due to an chene statement of belief in a letter of 433, overly literal rendering that frequently omits Laetentur Caeli, the two natures were given names in favour of pronouns. Second, there the imprimatur of the bishop’s prestige and are sections of the text missing and other authority, recently won by his defeat of Nes- surviving sections that are clearly dislocated torius.8 With the “two natures” now cast as within the manuscript that Paul Bedjan, its superficially cyrillian in the so-called editor, worked from. Third and perhaps “Symbol of Reunion,” it could be used by most worrying is that the unity of the sur- Flavian of Constantinople in 448 to convict viving work, and the authenticity of several the archimandrite Eutyches for teaching the of its sections, has been called into question, “one nature” and that Christ took his body particularly by Luise Abramowski.11 from heaven. When Second Ephesus, the so- Let us begin with what can be gleaned called Latrocinium, convened in the next of Nestorius’ life after the Council of Ephe- year to rehabilitate Eutyches, they put aside sus in 431. The emperor Theodosius permit- Cyril’s Laetentur Caeli and the Antiochene ted the deposed bishop to return to his mon- statement in favour of Cyril’s post-433 writ- astery just outside of Antioch as a free man ings. In 450, when the new emperor in the fall of 431. But an edict of the em- Marcian and his consort Pulcheria con- peror Theodosius II formally condemned ceived of an eastern council to undo the ap- Nestorius and proscribed his writings sev- parent injustices of Second Ephesus, it was eral years later.12 With this imperial order, a to the affirmation of the “two natures” in formal legal category was created for Nes- 448 that they turned. Fortuitously, pope Leo torians, or rather Simonians (after Simon had written a treatise, his Tomus ad Flavi- Magus), to be added to the list of banned anum, that independently and in complete heresies that had accumulated since the time ignorance of eastern developments and of Constantine the Great. By 435 Nestorius Cyril’s work, insisted unequivocally on the and his friend Irenaeus were officially sent independent function of two natures in the into exile and first went to Petra in Arabia.13 person of Christ that most would have re- How long the two remained in Petra is un- garded as very uncyrillian.9 known, but Irenaeus seems to have escaped It was through this circuitous route that from exile and in 446 or thereabouts he re- the essence of Nestorius’ beliefs, without his appears in Tyre as its ordained bishop. name attached to them, came to be affirmed There was no imperial order to recall at the Council of Chalcedon under a cyril- Irenaeus and Theodosius deposed him in lian guise. What is often not discussed with February of 448, when he learned to his sur- respect to Chalcedon is what Nestorius’ own prise that this determined follower of Nesto- views would have been on the decisions of rius had not only returned but become a the council. We are most fortunate in pos- bishop.14 Irenaeus’ illegal return was doubt- sessing a Syriac translation of Nestorius’ less due to the influence of Theodoret of apologia pro vita sua, the Liber Heraclidis, Cyrrhus and Domnus of Antioch. It is tell- ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 40 The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ing that Irenaeus, a man so closely associ- rial authority. But of these events in Egypt, ated with Nestorius, could still find friends Nestorius gives virtually no hint at all in his in Syria as late as 447. apologia. But Nestorius did not so easily escape Nestorius picked up his pen to resume his exile and was moved from Petra to the Liber Heraclidis as early as the year Egypt. Because there is a hiatus of a decade 449. This last section, the second part of between the years 438/9 and 449 in the nar- Book II in Paul Bedjan’s edition, is ap- ration of the Liber Heraclidis, one suspects pended to the other text of the Liber with no that he was moved to isolation in Egypt at evidence that Nestorius went back to revise the former date. Evagrius scholasticus, writ- his earlier writings in light of new develop- ing at the end of the sixth century, is one of ments contained therein. Nestorius says that very few ancient authors who can claim to he was encouraged to begin writing again as have detailed information about Nestorius in he received news of recent events in the East exile. He appears to have consulted at least from his friends.16 Nestorius discusses the two book-length works of Nestorius as well trial of Eutyches in the fall of 448 and the as a collection of letters.15 The excerpts of subsequent persecution and condemnation Nestorius’ letter to the controller of the The- of Flavian of Constantinople for his efforts baid in Egypt show that Nestorius had been against the “one nature”. By his quotations moved to the Oasis in Western Egypt. Now and references, Nestorius demonstrates that known as the Kharga Oasis, Nestorius’ he had access to a copy of the acta of at place of exile lay 100 miles west of the Nile least the first session of Second Ephesus in and encompassed an area about 15 miles 449 and good information about the Home wide and 100 miles long with a concentra- Synod of Constantinople in 448. tion of watered areas. The letters quoted by In the fall of Flavian Nestorius saw a Evagrius also tell us that Nestorius had been distinct parallel for his own plight and yet moved around considerably in the Oasis and further evidence of the wickedness of his had been captured by marauding barbarians, erstwhile supporter, the emperor Theodo- who are identified as “Nobades”. Nestorius sius, towards the orthodox. The section con- was released by his captors in Panopolis on cludes with a prophecy, clearly a vaticinum the Nile, 100 miles to the east. He sought to ex eventu, of the misfortunes that he predicts justify this move to the civil authorities in will befall the empire because of its em- Egypt so as not to be thought a fugitive from peror’s impiety. Among these he includes exile. Later, soldiers moved him to Elephan- the Vandal sack of Rome in 455, the last tine, 200 miles to the south, but the control- datable event in all of the Liber Heraclidis.17 ler of the Thebaid changed his mind yet Yet there is a mystery here.