[St. Pachomius Library]

This document is copyrighted.
© 1998 Jeffrey Macdonald; all rights reserved.

St. Emperor Justinian:
DIALOGUE WITH PAUL OF NISIBIS

FOOTNOTES by Jeffrey Macdonald.

NOTES TO INTRODUCTION:

  1. Br. Lib. Syriac Add. 14535, in Scritti teologice ed ecclesiastici di Giustiniano, ed. M. Amelotti and L. Zingale, Legum Iustiniani Imperatoris Vocabularium, subsidia III, (Milan: Dott. A. Giuffre Editore, 1977) 180-187. Sebastian Brock, "A Monothelite Florilegium in Syriac", in After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History, (Leuven: 1985), 35-45.

  2. Histoire Nestorienne, (Chronique de Seert), PO vol. 7.2 ed. A. Scher, (Paris: 1950), 95-96.

  3. Georges Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, tr. J. Hussey, (Rutgers University Press, 1969), 71.

  4. Arthur Voobus, History of the School of Nisibis by CSCO vol. 266, subsidia vol. 26, (Louvain: 1965), 153. Histoire Nestorienne, (Chronique de Seert), PO vol. 7.2 ed. A. Scher, (Paris: 1950): 96. The History of Msiha-Zkha ed. Mingan, 156, says Paul was ordained Bishop in 551 by Patriarch Abraham after his return from Huzistan.

  5. See J. Macdonald, The Christological Works of Justinian, (PhD Diss.) Wahington DC, 1995, 179-188, 250-253.

  6. See synod of 612 in S. Brock, "The Christology of the Church of the East in the synods of the fifth to early seventh centuries: preliminary considerations and materials", Aksum-Thyateira: a Festschrift for Archbishop Methodius of Thyateira and Great Britain, (Athens: 1985): 140-142.

  7. See Geevarghese Chediath, The Christology of Mar Babai the Great, (Kottayam: Oriental Institute of Religious Studies vol. 49, 1982) 89. Sebastian Brock, "The Christology of the Church of the East", 130.

  8. See Karl-Heinz Uthemann, "Der Neuchalkedonismus als Vorbereitung des Monotheltismus."

NOTES TO TEXT:

  1. Justinian, Letter to the Alexandrian Monks, (tr. K. Weshe in On the Person of Christ, Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1991) 49, 104. On the Right Faith, 165, 173.

  2. Justinian, Letter to the Alexandrian Monks, 77. On the Right Faith, 166, 178-179. Leontius of Jerusalem, Against the Nestorians bk. II.14, PG 86.2, 1565D15-1568A6. "But because the humanity of the Lord did not therefore exist independently, that is, not distinguished from the hypostasis of the Word, we know no hypostasis of His [humanity] alone. For we say that the humanity of the Savior from the beginning did not exist in its own [hypostasis], but existed in the hypostasis of the Logos."

  3. Justinian, On the Right Faith, 179. Leontius of Jerusalem, Against the Nestorians, I.6 1544C3-4,15-D7. [Nestorian objection] "Explain what you mean by natures when you speak of God and man...when you say one nature you signify either universal man, or a particular man and not all of humanity. Explain therefore what distinguishes a particular man and all of humanity. Is it not clear that it is only a hypostasis and a prosopon? How therefore do you not say two hypostases and two prosopons when you say two natures in order to indicate God the Word and a particular man?"

  4. Justinian, On the Right Faith, 166, 178.

  5. Justinian, On the Right Faith, 179. Leontius of Jerusalem, Against the Nestorians, II.7, 1549D8-14. "The distinction and union of similar and dissimilar natures is not by principle but by the number of natures, since the number is defined by their similarity and dissimilarity. The hypostasis reveals the composition of those things which exist of dissimilar natures and the distinction of those which are of similar natures." 1552A8-15 "Just as [Christ's] hypostasis is apart from all other men who exist apart from him, natures are able to be united unconfusedly in a hypostasis without the destruction of their proper definitions. For it is not the definition of nature to be distinctly and separately apart from every nature as are hypostases."

  6. Leontius of Jerusalem, Against the Nestorians, II.10 1556A4-7. "Therefore we are not trying to show that the Lord's humanity has no hypostasis, God forbid, but that it does not have its own hypostasis apart from the Logos."

  7. Leontius of Jerusalem, Against the Nestorians II.9., 1553C1-4. [Nestorian:] "If you say that the humanity from us subsists in God the Word, how is it able to subsist in Him, without having a hypostasis which subsists? We say that the humanity has subsisted in the Word rather than you [because we allow the humanity to have a hypostasis]".

  8. (following A. Guillaumont's emendation of qoma to qnoma). Justinian, On the Right Faith, 179. Leontius of Jerusalem, Against the Nestorians bk. II.14, 1565D15-1568A6. "But because the humanity of the Lord did not therefore exist independently, that is, not distinguished from the hypostasis of the Word, we know no hypostasis of His [humanity] alone. For we say that the humanity of the Savior from the beginning did not exist in its own [hypostasis], but existed in the hypostasis of the Logos."

  9. Justinian, Letter to the Alexandrian Monks, 48-49, 92. On the Right Faith, 178. Leontius of Jerusalem, Against the Nestorians II.7, 1549D13-15, 1552A15-B7. "For how would the human nature not be free to be united to the nature of God the Word, when the nature remains as it is and what is natural is seen in the union? For hypostasis is not able to be united to a hypostasis with both hypostases being preserved, since they are things which stand apart, and this separation from others itself is the most particular property of individuals."

  10. Leontius of Jerusalem, Against the Nestorians II.7, 1549D1-7. [Nestorian:] "Since the humanity [in Christ] does not have its own hypostasis, if it subsists in God the Word, how does the humanity have its own nature if it exists as a nature in Him? And if the humanity possesses its own nature, how does it not also have its own hypostasis?"

  11. Justinian, On the Right Faith, 173-174.

  12. Justinian, On the Right Faith, 169, 179.

  13. Justinian, Letter to the Alexandrian Monks, 83, On the Right Faith, 178.

  14. Leontius of Jerusalem, Against the Nestorians II.14, 1566D15-1568A6. "Even if we know that there is one hypostasis for each man, and that the natures are defined for every other hypostasis, yet the humanity of the Lord never existed alone, nor was distinct from the hypostasis of the Word. For we say the the humanity of the Savior subsisted in the hypostasis of the Word from the beginning, and never subsisted on its own."

  15. Ephrem of Antioch, Defense of Chalcedon to Domnus and John, (in Photius' Bibliothèque, ed. R. Henry, Vol. 4, Paris: Belles Lettres, 1965) 264a: "And again they spring upon the words of the man [Leo] in which he says 'for each form works with the communion of the other that which is proper to it: the Word accomplishes that which is of the Word and the body completes that which is of the body'. You say, 'behold he has spoken of two persons and preached two proper activities.' But neither the reading nor the context demands such an understanding. For where does he say each form works as apart from the other? Or where does he omit that it is in the union of natures, each in communion of the other?" In Leontius of Jerusalem's Against the Nestorians II.16, 1573B12-C12 the Nestorian uses the two operations and wills in Christ to argue for two prosopons. Unfortunately Leontius' response does not address the problem of wills or activities in Christ.