The Case of Nestorius: Ecclesiastical Politics in the East, 428‒451 CESyriaca.org: The Syriac Reference PortalThe National Endowment for the HumanitiesThe International Balzan Prize FoundationDavid A. Michelsoncbsc_adminRecord added to Zotero bycbsc_adminSyriaca.org: The Syriac Reference Portalhttp://syriaca.org/cbss/6KBR3LNE/tei
Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
2024-08-15-04:00
Born digital.
CREATED: This bibl record was autogenerated from a Zotero record.George A.BevanThe Case of Nestorius: Ecclesiastical Politics in the East, 428‒451 CEhttp://syriaca.org/cbss/6KBR3LNEhttps://www.zotero.org/groups/a_comprehensive_bibliography_on_syriac_studies/items/6KBR3LNEhttps://www.zotero.org/groups/4861694/items/6KBR3LNE2005The present study addresses itself to the paradox at the centre of ecclesiastical politics from the years 428 to 451CE: the case of Nestorius. From the year of his accession, Nestorius brought the esoteric, dyophysite teaching of the Antiochene School, particularly of Theodore of Mopsuestia, to the wider attention of the Roman world and quickly ran afoul of popular piety, as well as of the bishops of both Rome and Alexandria. Although deposed at the Council of Ephesus in 431 and officially exiled in 435, Nestorius cast a long shadow over ecclesiastical politics well after he had ceased to play an active role; although his personal case seemed a lost cause, his doctrine found a vigorous defender in Theodoret of Cyrrhus. The substance of Nestorius' teaching was kept alive through the so-called Symbol of Reunion of 433, a compromise imprudently and hastily agreed to by Cyril of Alexandria before he fully grasped its full import. In 451, a combination of factors, foremost among which was the death of Theodosius II and the need of his successor Marcian to gain western recognition, converged to bring about the Council of Chalcedon, at which an almost unprecedented level of direct imperial involvement ensured that most of the main features of Nestorius' position condemned 20 years earlier were vindicated. It is further argued that the architects of this new council planned not just to ensconce the "two natures" of Christ as official orthodoxy, but to rehabilitate Nestorius personally, much as Constantine had attempted to do with Arius at the Council of Constantinople in 336. With Nestonus' death in Egypt before the official opening of the council, his rehabilitation was no longer possible and almost all evidence of the exiled bishop's involvement with the council was suppressed. Instead, the emperor engineered a council that awkwardly imposed a definition of Christ as "in two natures" on a church that largely considered it tantamount to the heresy of Nestorius condemned in 431.
Bevan, George A. “The Case of Nestorius: Ecclesiastical Politics in the East, 428‒451 CE.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 2005.
George A. Bevan, The Case of Nestorius: Ecclesiastical Politics in the East, 428‒451 CE (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 2005).ChristologyCouncil of Ephesus I (431)IV-VII CENestoriusV CE