Nestorius and His Place in the History of Christian Doctrine. Friedrich 1858-1928 Loofs
Nestorian but was perfectly orthodox[51]. This thesis and the Treatise of Heraclides on which it is based are indeed both able to awaken our interest in Nestorius.
And still a third factor capable of arousing our interest besides my Nestoriana and the Treatise of Heraclides must be named. The French translator of the Treatise of Heraclides, F. Nau, has added to his translation four further almost new Nestoriana. He thinks he has discovered the original Greek text of three sermons of Nestorius on the story of the temptation, of which I knew only fragments from the first and third[52]. I had grounds for supposing that more of these sermons existed in manuscripts of Chrysostomus, but I did not succeed in finding such material[53]. The new discovery, I fear, is looked upon in a too optimistic manner by its editor. The new sermons certainly contain actual sections of homilies of Nestorius; but taken as a whole they do not seem to me to be of a really different kind from that Pseudo-Chrysostomus-homily from which I took the fragments of the sermons on the story of the temptation. Hence I cannot believe that the new sermons present the homilies of Nestorius on the temptation in an unaltered and complete form[54].
More interesting, therefore, in my opinion, is the fourth Ineditum which Nau gives in a French translation, after a Syrian British Museum manuscript to which I pointed in my Nestoriana[55]. I refer to a fragment of a letter of Nestorius to the inhabitants of Constantinople, the beginning and end of which were previously known by a quotation made by the Monophysite Philoxenus of Mabug[56]. I did not include this letter in my Nestoriana, because with all other scholars I regarded it as a monophysitic forgery intended to discredit the doctrine of Pope Leo by showing it to be approved by Nestorius. Indeed the letter appears for the first time in monophysitic circles—in the writings of Philoxenus about 520[56] and, what escaped the notice of Nau, about 570 in the so-called anonymous Historia miscellanea[57]. But according to the Syrian translator[58] the Nestorians also, e.g. Simon Bar Tabbahê about 750[59]; acknowledged it as genuine, and since we know from the Treatise of Heraclides the judgment of Nestorius about Flavian and Leo there is no longer a plausible objection which may be raised from this side against the genuineness of the letter. I confess, however, that I am not rid of all doubts. Certainly a definite judgment is not possible till the whole of the letter be brought to light; for now between the beginning quoted by Philoxenus and the fragment of the British Museum a section is missing, the length of which we do not know. Nevertheless the genuineness of the letter seems to me now to be more probable than the contrary[60].
The beginning of the letter refers to the synod of Constantinople, held in 448 by Flavian for the purpose of condemning Eutyches, and the criticism of his doctrine given by Leo in his letter to Flavian. It is my doctrine, so Nestorius declares, which Leo and Flavian are upholding[61]. Then, after the omissions, some assertions corresponding to the doctrine of Nestorius only as described by Cyril, are disproved. Then follow polemics against Cyril, rejecting various quotations from the Fathers which he was in the habit of using in supporting his doctrine, these quotations being for the most part apollinaristic forgeries[62]. Then the letter ends in exhortations. These conclude with the words preserved also by Philoxenus: Believe as our holy comrades in the faith, Leo and Flavian! Pray that a general council be gathered in order that my doctrine, i.e. the doctrine of all orthodox Christians, be confirmed. My hope is, that when the first has taken place, the second, too, will come to pass[63]. Here Nestorius is wooing the interest of his readers for the council of Chalcedon before it was held. Was his doctrine really in harmony with that of this council? Was this heretic a rudely maltreated exponent of orthodoxy?
These questions, you see, are not only raised by Professor Bethune-Baker; but we, too, have to raise them, when we are considering the material we find in the sources.
Hence I hope that, while dealing with these questions, I shall succeed in gaining your further interest during the course of the next three lectures.
In the next lecture we shall see that really to no other heretic has been done such great injustice as to Nestorius. The last two lectures will deal with the doctrine of Nestorius and his position in the history of dogma.
1 ↑ 1 Comp. Socrates, h. e. 7, 32, 6 ed. Gaisford ii, 806; Evagrius, h. e. 1, 7 ed. Bidez and Parmentier, p. 14, 6.
2 ↑ Cod. Theodos. 16, 5, 66; Mansi, v, 413 f.
3 ↑ J. S. Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, iii, 1, p. 35 f.
4 ↑ Comp. Hauck's Real-Encyklopädie, xxiv, 242, 56 ff.
5 ↑ h. e. 1, 7 ed. Bidez and Parmentier, pp. 12 ff.
6 ↑ Ch. Lupus, Ad Ephesinum concilium variorum patrum epistolae, 1682 = Mansi, v, 731–1022.
7 ↑ Bibliotheca Casinensis, i, 49–84.
8 ↑ h. e. 1, 7, pp. 12, 24 f.
9 ↑ We had, it is true, the Anathematisms of Nestorius against Cyril's Anathematisms, and a fragment of his λογίδια; but the Anathematisms probably were attached to a letter, and the λογίδια (short discourses) perhaps belonged to the Book of homilies and sermons.
10 ↑ Nestoriana. Die Fragmente des Nestorius, gesammelt, untersucht und herausgegeben von F. Loofs. Mit Beiträgen von Stanley A. Cook und G. Kampffmeyer, Halle, 1905.
11 ↑ S. Haidacher, Rede des Nestorius über Hebr. 3. 1, überliefert unter dem Nachlass des hl. Chrysostomus (Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, xxix, 1905, pp. 192–195).
12 ↑ Die Christologie des Nestorius, Kempten, 1910.
13 ↑ Comp. Leontius, adversus fraudes Apollinaristarum; Migne, ser. graec. 86, 1947–1976.
14 ↑ Comp. the preceding note and Nestorius' ad Constantinopolitanos (F. Nau, Nestorius, Le Livre d'Héraclide, p. 374).
15 ↑ e.g. R. in Patrologia orientalis, iv, 1, 1906.
16 ↑ The sixth book of the select letters of Severus, Patriarch of Antiochia in the Syriac version etc., 2 vols., London, 1902–1904; Hymns in Patrologia orientalis, vi, 1, 1910.
17 ↑ Comp. Hauck's Real-Encyklopädie, xxiv, 311.
18 ↑ Comp. my Nestoriana, p. 4.
19 ↑ Nestorius, Le Livre d'Héraclide de Damas, ed. P. Bedjan, Paris, 1910; Nestorius, Le Livre d'Héraclide de Damas, traduit en Français par F. Nau, Paris, 1910.
20 ↑ Bedjan, p. 4; Nau, p. 3.
21 ↑ h. e.