A theological aim historical assessment of the Christology of Nestorius in the context of his times

Abstract

The Patriarch Nestorius was condemned as an heretic at the Councils of Ephosus and Chalcedon. During the last century, following the rediscovery of many of his writings, several important scholars have examined his case. Their conclusions have varied considerably; on the whole they have been too kind to him. This thesis begins by examining the life of Nestorius to put the controversies in context. In particular, the question of whether he was still alive at the time of Chalcedon is examined; also the length of tine he spent in exile. Certainly he was alive until shortly before the Council met, but that is all we can say with certainly. Following this discussion, the historical reasons for the condemnation of Nestorius are treated. The political and sociological controversies between Alexandria, Constantinople, Rome, Antioch and Jerusalem are examined, together with the differences between the Antiochene and Alexandrian schools of theology. Personality and group conflicts no doubt played their part, but could not have led to Nestorius' condemnation on their own. A major section of the thesis is concerred with the Christology of the main theological schools. Their concepts are examined and the variations among individual representatives of the Antiochene school particularly are examined. All this helps to set Nestorius' work in context. After a short critical chapter on the literary Mstory of Nestorius' writings, including references to Abramowski's recent work on a dual-authorship hypothesis of the Book of Heracleides, we turn to Nestorius' own thought and vocabulary. The conclusion reached suggests that although Nestorius' intentions were good, and that he rendered good service by safeguarding the humanity of Christ, be ended up in a cul-de-sac, when it came to establishing the unity of Christ's person in the Prosopon. We also conclude that the Book of Heracleides did little or nothing to help his case.