Nestorius: Heretic or Harassed?

A Reexamination
of the Evidence in light of the Bazaar of Heracleides
David C. Strobolakos

trewn across the history of the Church lay heretics anathematized

by conciliar pronouncement. From the first ecumenical council of
Nicaea to the second, Church leaders heatedly defined and
defended orthodox theology in attempts to preserve Apostolic kerygma
for future generations. No stranger to the history of these councils is the
theology of the once Bishop of Constantinople: Nestorius. Since the
time of his condemnation at the Council of Ephesus (AD 431) Nestorius
and his namesake heresy Nestorianism have become a beleaguered
ecclesiastical anecdote illustrating the power of conciliar decree.
However, the 19th century discovery of Nestorius work The Bazaar of
Heracleides sparked a renewed interest in this infamous heretic and
subsequent inquiry has cast doubt over the legitimacy of Nestorius
condemnation. 1 Could it be that Nestorius actually never believed or
taught Nestorianism? Could Nestorius claims actually more
authentically reflect the biblical data as opposed to the widely accepted
Alexandrian Christology? Was Nestorius merely the unfortunate
interlocutor for a scheming politician named Cyril?2 In response to the
conventional replies to these questions, another look at the evidence will
prove that Nestorius cannot be substantively accused of postulating a
distinctly Nestorian Christology.
Definitions
For the purposes of this essay, several terms need particular care given to
them. First, and most importantly, is the term . In the Bazaar,
Nestorius uses this term to denote the totality of essential attributes that
compose a nature.3 For example, each individual person has a particular

1
For an overview of 20th scholarship on Nestorius post-discovery of The
Bazaar see: Carl E. Braaten, Modern Interpretations of Nestorius, Church History 32,
no. 3 (September 1963): 251-267.
2
Richard Kyle, Nestorius: The Partial Rehabilitation of a Heretic, Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 32, no. 1 (March 1989): 78.

. Each individual animal has a particular , etc. To

take anything away from this totality of attributes would degrade the
nature in question, leaving the subject lacking essential qualities.
Nestorius understood this term to be fundamentally synonymous with
his opponent Cyrils term . In doing so, he followed the tradition of
Nicaea and the general understanding of the Greek-speaking world.4
The second term needing definition is proswpon. For Nestorius,
proswpon refers to the person as regarded from the outside.5 Situated
in a Christological setting, Nestorius believed Christs proswpon united
the two (divine and human) into one visible countenance,
providing for the interplay between the human and divine. This is
perhaps better understood as the dynamic equivalent of the Alexandrian
communicatio idiomatum. 6 Nestorius was clear that it was only through
positing this common proswpon that both the human and divine
natures of Christ would be preserved unaltered.7
Nestorius Speaks
Nestorius primary opponent at the Council of Ephesus was Cyril of
Alexandria. During council proceedings, Cyril levied twelve anathemas
against Nestorius concerning his Christological construction. 8
Subsequently, Nestorius spends a great deal of time in the Bazaar
responding to Cyrils accusations and attempting to vindicate his
position. His approach centers on the specific point where Cyril takes
issue with his Christology: the nature of the union between the human
and divine elements.
Nestorius has no problem agreeing with Cyril that God and man
were both present in Jesus Christ. Indeed he claims, I have said that the
name Christ is indicative of two natures, of God indeed one nature [and

3
George Kalantzis, Is There Room for Two? Cyrils Single Subjectivity and
the Prosopic Union, St. Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 52, no. 1 (2008): 98.
4
Milton V. Anastos, Nestorius Was Orthodox, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 32
(1962): 125; J.F. Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and His Teaching: A Fresh Examination of the
Evidence (1908; repr., New York: Kraus Reprint Co., 1969), 47.
5
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides, trans. and eds. G. R. Driver and L.
Hodgson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925), 402.
6
Kalantzis, 100.
7
Anastos, 126.
8
John McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy
(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2004), 273-275.

of man one nature].9 Their disagreement arises over the nuances of the
union. Cyril argues that the union occurs in the essentially a
human nature/substance fully intertwined with the Divine
nature/substance. Nestorius, on the other hand, maintains a union
through the proswpon.10 Perhaps a helpful analogy for this is that of a
figure skating team gliding over the ice in perfect rhythm even hardly
distinguishable from one other. They form a singular, dynamic presence
on the ice and work together to accomplish a successful routine.
Although this illustration is not perfect, it serves to illustrate the
underpinnings of Nestorius Christology; namely, two persons appearing
as one. Nestorius prefers this type of Christological construction because
he believes it preserves the orthodox understanding of Christs full
divinity and full humanity.
Nestorius was keenly aware of the danger of reducing the
incarnation to inadequate terms. Subsequently, one of his primary goals
was to circumvent any possible misunderstanding regarding the union of
deity and humanity in Christ. He could not square with Apollinaris who
had denied that Christ possessed a human soul, but he also could not
accept the adoptionistic presuppositions of Paul of Samosata who saw
the incarnation as nothing more than human assumption.11 Conversely,
Nestorius fundamentally believed that the proswpon of Christ
contained two complete and distinct . 12 Most importantly,
each of these retained their essential qualities as they
conjoined in the human/divine union.13
For Nestorius, Cyrils construction of the incarnation, although
attempting to account for the two natures, does absolute injustice to the
reality of two complete elements present in Jesus Christ. 14 He says,
they predicate a change of natures by union, attributing nothing either
to the humanity or to the divinity in making over the things of humanity
to the nature and those of the divinity to the nature. 15 Therefore,
neither the Godhead nor the manhood retains their particular qualities.
In Nestorius mind, this type of union could not help but form a sort of
tertium quid; neither nature any longer exhibiting distinct characteristics.

9
Nestorius, 209.
10
Nestorius, 157.
11
Thomas Weinandy, Does God Change? (Still River, Mass.: St. Bedes
Publications, 1985), 25.
12
Nestorius, 217-218.
13
Nestorius, 145-146.
14
Nestorius, 155-156.
15
Nestorius, 94.

With that being said, Nestorius does not go as far as saying that these two
natures are distant and divided from each other.16 Although they are
distinct natures they operate as one being, united through their common
proswpon.
In making these claims, Nestorius believed he was directly in line
with orthodox theology. He even desperately appeals to widely respected
church fathers Ambrose and Athanasius to ground his claims, arguing
that he says the very same things they do. 17 Needless to say, his
condemnation took him by surprise and he was left wondering exactly
where he went wrong.18 He makes his final petition in the Bazaar of
Heracleides as a last attempt to clear his name and propose his true
thoughts in favor of what he believes to be safely within the bounds of
orthodoxy.
Scholars Speak
Ever since the recent discovery and circulation of the Bazaar of Heraclides,
many scholars have renewed their interest in reexamining what Nestorius
actually taught. Subsequent findings have fallen at various places on the
spectrum of orthodoxy. While some remain committed to the traditional
condemnation of Nestorius, others seek to portray a different picture of
him a more positive picture. A variety of factors play into these
scholars final assessments of Nestorius including an examination of his
metaphysics, prodding his definitions, and questioning the clarity of his
presentation.
Completely Unorthodox
H.A. Wolfson believes a traditional, heretical read of Nestorius to be the
most plausible assessment. Wolfson contends that Nestorius fails to fall
in line with orthodoxy based on his metaphysical understanding of the
incarnation. He understands Nestorius to hold that, prior to the
incarnation, both the Divine and human elements of Christ were two
complete persons.19 As such, they each possessed the complete set of
qualities required to define them as a person; namely, a and a

16
Nestorius, 233.
17
Nestorius, 261.
18
Nestorius, 95; 145.
19
H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, vl. 1 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1956), 454.

proswpon. Subsequently, when these two persons conjoined in the

incarnation, neither of them lost any of their essential attributes.20
With this, Wolfson understands Nestorius to depart from standard
orthodoxy. For the orthodox fathers of the church, the incarnation
consisted of a complete Divine person ( and proswpon)
conjoined only with a human . Otherwise understood as two
natures within one person. Because Wolfson believes that Nestorius
never departs from what appears to be a mere juxtaposition of two
complete persons within Christ, he remains unconvinced that Nestorius
should be properly understood as orthodox.21
Completely Unsure
Nevertheless, there are those who take a more charitable read of
Nestorius in light of the Bazaar. Richard Kyle assesses Nestorius claims
and agrees with some of Wolfsons statements. Nestorius did argue for
the presence of two complete persons in the incarnation. 22 He did
believe their natures to be distinct and in no way compromised in the
Divine/human conjunction.23 However, Kyle denies Wolfsons ultimate
conclusion that Nestorius divides Christ into two persons conjoined only
through juxtaposition. 24 Kyle understands Nestorius to posit a much
more intimate connection between the two persons. In fact, the two
persons are so conjoined that they display themselves to the world
through a single, common proswpon not two separate ones.25 He claims
that Nestorius could not fathom the idea of complete duality in
sonship.26
In light of this, Kyle argues that Nestorius censure came primarily
because of his poor use of language; particularly his use of proswpon.
Because Nestorius was somewhat careless in defining his use of this term,
a cloud of unnecessary confusion arose that might have been
circumvented and avoided his condemnation.27 Ultimately, Kyle believes
that Measured by what he said in the BazaarNestorius was not
Nestorian: He did not split Jesus Christ into two persons, the divine and

20
Wolfson, 455.
21
Wolfson, 462.
22
Kyle, 79.
23
Kyle, 79.
24
Kyle, 81.
25
Kyle, 79.
26
Kyle, 79.
27
Kyle, 80.

the human, loosely connected. 28 Kyle makes it clear that this

assessment, however, does not apply to Nestorius earlier life, where he
may have held to traditional Nestorian tenets, but to his final
Christological understanding as evidenced in the Bazaar. 29 So, while
Nestorius was probably not Nestorian at the end of his life, there is no
absolute way to prove he was not at the beginning of his episcopate.
Completely Orthodox
Additionally, there are scholars who disagree with both Wolfson and
Kyle arguing that Nestorius was actually completely orthodox in
persuasion. J.F. Bethune-Baker stands at the forefront of this group for a
peculiar reason. In fact, Bethune-Baker originally held to the belief that
Nestorius was completely unorthodox.30 However, after reading through
the Bazaar, he changed his mind saying, Nestorius did not hold the
belief commonly attributed to him that in Jesus Christ two persons, the
person of God and the person of man, were mechanically joined
together31 How then does Bethune-Baker assess the same evidence
and arrive at this alternative conclusion?
Bethune-Baker observes Nestorius repeatedly argue for the
singular personhood of Jesus Christ.32 Inherent to that person are two
distinct substances: one of God and one of man. However, in spite of the
union occurring, there was no mixing or comingling of either
substance so that they lost their otherness. 33 Bethune-Baker believes
Nestorius is adamant about this because he thought, any view of the
Incarnation which does not recognize the continued existence of the ousia
[] of the human nature is not a real incarnation.34 In short,
full humanity must be preserved in order for full redemption to occur.
The difficulty arises when Nestorius starts using terms like
conjunction to describe the relationship between the Godhead and the
manhood. With terms like these, it appears that he posits merely a
collaboration of two separate substances in the incarnation without any

28
Kyle, 81.
29
Kyle, 82.
30
See: J. F. Bethune Baker, An Introduction to the Early History of Christian
Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903).
31
Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and His Teaching, 82.
32
Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and His Teaching, 84.
33
Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and His Teaching, 87.
34
Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and His Teaching, 96.

real cohesion of sorts. However, Bethune-Baker argues that this is not

the case. Nestorius actually intends to communicate something more
along the lines of cohesion when using this term. 35 Therefore, the
incarnation consists of two intimately conjoined in the Godman Jesus Christ; a relationship going much further than simple
collaboration.
So, Nestorius posits two complete substances in the incarnation to
retain the elements necessary for redemption and uses specific terms to
rule out any confusion concerning the way these elements combine in
Jesus Christ. With these considerations in mind, Bethune-Baker
concludes, Reading his own words, carefully and consecutively, as we
can read them now, it is impossible to believe that Nestorius was
Nestorian.36
Conclusion
Despite even the best intentions, decisions are made at times with biased
presuppositions and hasty judgments. Given the evidence, it appears that
this may be what happened with the decision against Nestorius at the
Council of Ephesus (AD 431). With careful analysis of Nestorius
theological presuppositions and his use of particular terminology, it
cannot be conclusively determined that he held to an essentially
unorthodox Christological formulation. At best, he can be accused of
speaking unclearly and thereby producing confusion in the minds of the
other bishops who condemned him. Truly, the discovery of The Bazaar of
Heracleides has greatly assisted in the effort to exonerate Nestorius from
false accusations and vindicate his name for further generations. With
this new tool in hand, scholarship presses on to further discover the
nuances of Nestorius argument in order to hear him on his own terms
and judge him accordingly.

35
Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and His Teaching, 90.
36
Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and His Teaching, 198.