STUDIA PATRISTICA

SUPPLEMENT 4

Thedotus of Ancyra’s Homilies

and the Council of Ephesus (431)

by
LUISE MARION FRENKEL

PEETERS
LEUVEN - PARIS - BRISTOL, CT
2015
STUDIA PATRISTICA
SUPPLEMENTS

edited by

Allen Brent and Markus Vinzent

 © Peeters Publishers — Louvain — Belgium 2015

All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to

reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form.

D/2015/0602/33
ISBN: 978-90-429-3147-3

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Printed in Belgium by Peeters, Leuven

‘quomodo autem ueniet spiritus gratia orantibus eis
quibus interdicta est sacerdotalis oratio?’

John of Antioch (ACO I 4, 80, 16-7).

‘It is with love that one ought to research what concerns the essence,
and without investigation, the meditation on the hidden (nature) is good.
Thus he who aims to study well is not blameworthy,
but he who composes his discourse in order to polemicise (is).’

Narsai, Homily II, 55-8.

 Contents

Preface....eceeeccceesessccessesaecseecneecnsssscerensssscsseceesessaseesesaeesseseneensessseennsecrensiers ix
IMtrOGuctiONn oe. ccessscssecsessseeseseesenseeseeeceassssseseseesessseesesensessseesaanensaens 1

1. Theodotus’ ecclesiastic CONEXC 0.0... eee eeseeeteeeneeeceeetaeneceeetaeensteeenees 17

2. Theodotus in Ephesus... tec seeeccesesseecencenseseccreserecesansaseensaseeeraneaees 41
3. Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies.............. cesses 127

CONCIUSION....0. 0. eee seneeeeteeeseeeeesseseeseesesecesssceaeeessaseeesesensdessanensoaseseasensaeees 201

Appendix. Translation of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies «0.0.00... 209

A note on abbreviations and primary SOUTCES ........ ce cccssscseerseeecsserereeess 247

Bibliography .......... ec ceeesccssscesessseseeccceeseusseeseessseessnseauesseesanconsosesseasonaeesaoees 257
Index lOCOPUIN oe ceeeccecceeeceenseeseeesececeeeceeseececesnessaesciecuaeeseesateuseeeeseeeeinenaesaees 277
Index of Old and New Testament passages..........ccccsesesseecsssereeeeeeeeeeereee 281
Gemreral Index ooo... csecssccsscssscesssccsensessnecesseccesseseesascesnceseavevssesessaassraavenssenes 283
 oivanv

Preface

This book bears witness to the research and study I could undertake in Cam-
bridge, and I thank Dr Thomas Graumann for agreeing to supervise the writing
of the PhD thesis, guiding me on an unexpected enticing path. I am exceedingly
grateful to the vast support he offered especially during the last year of the
degree, and for his friendship since. I was fortunate in having as my doctoral
examiners Prof. Richard Price and Dr Markus Plested, whose acute observa-
tions substantiated alternative perspectives and have led me to incorporate here
significant refinements in the presentation of the arguments. I thank the disin-
terested help of Dr Sophie Lunn-Rockliffe, for reading the manuscript and
offering precise corrections and clear advice. All errors that remain are of my
responsibility, fruit of my undoing and stubbornness.
The generous support of the Gates Cambridge Trust Scholarship occasioned
my research at Cambridge University, and this work incorporates the academic
wishes and endeavours in Patristics and Late Antiquity seen there. I recall
especially the seminars, reading groups, lectures and informal discussions led
by Dr JF Coakley, Prof. John Marenbon and Dr James Aitken. Without the
resources of the University Library, the monograph would never have been
written thus. The collections of the Biblioteca Vaticana and of the Biblioteca
Florestan Fernandes were valuable for its revision, and I thank the British School
at Rome, which welcomed me while member of a BARDA project. I acknowledge
the postdoctoral grant by Fapesp at DLCV/FFLCH-USP, where Profs. Marcos
Martinho dos Santos and Paula da Cunha Corréa offered much support and
valuable advice. Finally, I thank Profs. Markus Vinzent and Allen Brent for their
encouragement to publish the thesis, and Peeters Publishers for accepting it.
 Introduction

Theodotus of Ancyra’s participation in the Council of Ephesus in 431 is

described in the gesta, and the major collections of documents of this council
include between two and four of his homilies. A few other homilies and trea-
tises were also preserved, although in fewer copies. The four texts which
appeared in print in the course of the seventeenth century may have paved his
way into history and Mariology books, yet seldom beyond the mention of his
name. Likewise, the recollection of his conciliar participation may have war-
ranted that he was occasionally remembered as a saint in the orthodox churches,!
yet a hagiography of the Bishop Theodotus does not seem to have ever been
written. In patristic scholarship attention is rarely devoted to him. For the most
part, he is mentioned in short lexicon articles and the occasional aside in the
narratives about major events to which he is linked.
The early church historians seldom mentioned Theodotus and usually
referred to his participation at the Council of Ephesus anonymously.* From a
few references a standardised narrative of the events was built, found in most
dictionaries and scholarly literature about councils or homiletics. Theodotus is
described as a former friend of Nestorius, ardent supporter of Cyril, a promoter
of Marian feasts. The same scarce available information about Theodotus is
found repeatedly throughout recent centuries.? The variant phrasing suggests
a reworking and interpreting with greater or lesser accuracy of prior scholars,
going back to the early editors of Theodotus’ works.’ The entries in the
major twentieth-century dictionaries which care to cite Theodotus,° as well as

' For example, ‘kai 6 av dyioig Oed5otog (AyKbpac obtos EneotathoE)’, Photius Biblio-
theca 231 (287a, 17-8), R. Henry (ed.), Photius. Bibliothéque V (1967), 66. Photius lists Theodo-
tus among the authors of excerpts (ypijo1¢) which were contained in the same volume (tedyos)
of Sophronius of Jerusalem’s synodical letter to Honorius.
2 Socrates Scholasticus, Historia ecclesiastica VII 34, 14; Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus
Historia ecclesiastica XIV, 34, 70.
* Exemplified in Latin by A. Gallandi, Bibliotheca veterum patrum 9 (1773), and in vernacu-
lar by L.E.D. Pin and W. Wotton, The Authors that Flourished in the Latter Part of the Fifth
Century (1693), 46, and the briefer J.L. Mosheim and J. Murdock, ‘Primitive period’ (1832), 394.
* E.g. the editors of the conciliar collections, such as G.D. Mansi, Ab anno CCCCXXXI.
(1761), following the Roman edition of 1608 — on which, see ACO I 1/1, xviii, as well as the
editors of a treatise by Theodotus, first L. Holstenius, Theodoti Ancyrani Expositio (1669), and
then F. Combefis, Theodoti Ancyrani, Adversus Nestorium (1675).
> For example, J. Hofer, et a/. (eds), ‘Teufel bis Zypern’ (1965) (LThK?), 10, F.W. Bautz and
T. Bautz (eds), ‘Stoss, Veit bis Tiefenthaler, Joseph’ (1996), as well as Bardy in A. Vacant et ai.,
Dictionnaire de théologie catholique (1915-1950), XV, I, 328-30, S. Dopp and W. Geerlings (eds),
Dictionary of Early Christian Literature (2000), A.F.v. Pauly and G. Wissowa, Paulys Real-
Encyclopddie (1934), etc. Notice that he is absent from H. Cancik and H. Schneider, Der
neue Pauly (1996-2003), M. Viller et al., Dictionnaire de spiritualité (1932ff.), E. Ferguson et al.,
Encyclopedia of early Christianity (1997). etc.
2 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

scholars who mention him,® mainly refer to one modern source’ as having
compiled reliably the available information. Ii is painstaking to trace the ancient
sources of many statements in modern reference works, and this may have
contributed to some imaginative biographical narrative writing.’ Recently, some
new information has become available,’ but until the last decade there was not
much scholarship on Theodotus.
Nothing is known about Theodotus’ birth-place, family background, education
or career. It is usually conjectured that he was born after 381. It is not known
when Theodotus became bishop of Ancyra.'® A late dating!! could place some
of his homilies prior to his tenure as bishop.!? Appointments of bishops who
were not native to the city were not uncommon, and some episcopal mobility
was still possible, but when necessary it will be assumed that Theodotus was
native to Ancyra. There is no evidence that his election was marked by simony
or violence.!?
Theodotus’ works can be divided in four genres: records of his statements,
homilies of varying character (short and long, polemic and festal), letters and
treatises. The transmission of most items in the first three categories relates to
collections of conciliar documents, often linked to the sessions. Late antique
editors did not include Theodotus’ theological treatises in collections of conciliar

© It would be an interesting exercise of textual criticism to follow the incorporation of mistakes

into this picture. Particularly misguiding is the statement that Theodotus wrote numerous homilies,
which cannot stand even counting those of dubious authorship, but may have been attractive to a
scholarly perspective looking for earliest instances, e.g. of a liturgical feast, and emphasising the
occurrence of examples.
7 O. Bardenhewer, Das fiinfte Jahrhundert (1923), sometimes also O. Bardenhewer (ed.),
Marienpredigten aus der Vdterzeit (1934).
5 Two very important contributions of the last fifty years, which offer an image of Theodotus
significantly different of what is found in the following pages are J.A. McGuckin, St. Cyril (2004),
61-5, and C. Foss, ‘Late antique and Byzantine Ankara’ (1977), 54, where the timeframe is ques-
tionable, the description as ‘leading figure’ should be qualified, and there is no evidence to warrant
describing Theodotus as an (active) correspondent, his sermons as numerous, and his treatises as
long.
° Best discussed in M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960)
and id., ‘Une homélie grecque inédite’ (1969).
‘© His age cannot be conjectured, cf. R.V. Dam, ‘Bishops and clerics’ (2011), 239. To compare,
Nestorius (c. 370-451) probably was around 50 when he became bishop of Constantinople, while
Cyril (c. 380-444) became patriarch of Alexandria already in 412, with only c. 32 years.
' C. Foss, ‘Late antique and Byzantine Ankara’ (1977), 54 situates his episcopacy in 430 to
440.
'2 For example, R. Caro, La homilética mariana griega (1972), 173 dates Theodotus’ Homily
V to the first quarter of the fifth-century.
‘3 However, Ancyrans were familiar with tensions and irregularities in episcopal elections. For
example, Eusebius, probably Theodotus’ immediate successor in Ancyra took bribes and disorder
for granted: ACO II 1/3, 97[456], 37 - 98[457], 5, of. P. Norton, Episcopal Elections (2007), 182.
See also T.D. Barnes, ‘The crimes of Basil of Ancyra’ (1996) and P.V. Nuffelen, ‘The rhetoric of
tules’ (2011).
 Introduction 3

documents about Ephesus I, even though they could contain similarly post-Ephe-
sian texts, e.g. Cyril Quod unus sit Christus in the Qérellos collection.
In this book, Theodotus of Ancyra’s homilies are analysed in relation to his
participation at the Council of Ephesus I (431) to shed light on the mechanisms of
establishing and divulging theological clarification. Against the background of
church and society in his time, Theodotus was a bishop who stood out in the
Council as well as in the Christological debate, without being a leading character
in either. Theodotus’ participation can be taken as representative of all the other
bishops gathered in Ephesus and their engagement in the conciliar processes. The-
odotus’ role in Ephesus offers a complex image of the mechanisms of underscoring
theology in authoritative teaching received from tradition and clarified at councils.
All extant works by Theodotus focus on the Christological debate. It is
shown in this monograph that the homilies preached by Theodotus in Ephesus
clarify his self-professed motivation to exhort the bishops to defend orthodoxy.
He expected preachers and bishops to convey the faith taught by the church to
all Christians, holding them responsible for the salvation of their audience as
much as their own, to achieve a universal orthodoxy that could ensure the ful-
filment of salvation. Therefore, when problems about a tenant of faith, like a
proper Christological understanding, were found among a congregation, the
preacher was bound to convey the view anchored in the authoritative tradition.
As part of this wider aim, Theodotus preached at the council specifically in
support of the authority of the Cyrillian sessions, so that the theology endorsed
therein would be acknowledged as part of the teaching of the church.
Before presenting an outline of this book, the main methodological choices
are discussed and then related to traditional fields of study, followed by an
overview of relevant aspects of homiletic and conciliar scholarship.

Aims and methodology

The main purpose of this study is to analyse how Theodotus argued-in Homilies
If] and VI, during the Council of Ephesus, for a mechanism of establishing the
theological content as orthodox in relation to an ecclesiastic authority which
included the sessions themselves. It also addresses possible reasons for the
inclusion of these homilies in collections of conciliar documents. This requires
a good grasp of Theodotus’ activity at the council, and some knowledge of his
theology before and during the council.
In so doing, the analysis touches on two separate fields of scholarship, that
is: research concerning the Council of Ephesus, and late antique homiletics.
It also engages tangentially with Mariology, whose scholars have likewise been

'* BM. Weischer, Qérellos 3 (1977). Theodotus Expositio symboli Nicaeni is a line by line
commentary of the Nicene creed with extensive Christological digressions. In the ‘Books against
Nestorius’, Theodotus refutes a Nestorian florilegium.
4 Theodotus ot Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

interested in some of the sources treated here. The present approach turns
toward, and contributes to the understanding of the Council of Ephesus only in
so far as it draws attention to specific, often neglected aspects of conciliar
interaction, foremost to the significance of contributions by apparently ‘lesser’
participants, since most studies focus on the main theological and political
players. That this contribution consists not only in interventions at meetings
but also, importantly, in other means by which participants engaged in the
problems in hand and, simultaneously, expressed their self-identity and self-
understanding of their role in a council, is the particular purpose of this study.
Preaching is identified as central to this effort. Conciliar homilies are not only
mostly neglected in historical analyses of councils, but also figure seldom in
studies about preaching. For these reasons, this study also contributes to schol-
arship on late antique homiletics. It has the advantage of analysing preaching
in a comparatively clearly delimited context, whereas most homiletic studies
face significantly greater uncertainties of historical and theological context.
The analysis offered here aims to make contribution to both fields by address-
ing the homilies’ relation to the council which circumscribes to some extent the
composition and record of these texts. No reassessment of the Council of Ephe-
sus beyond highlighting such additional dimensions is attempted nor will broad
claims be made about late antique homiletics in general. Rather, since both
perspectives enlighten each other, the engagement with conciliar and homiletical
scholarship aims to contribute, by combining them, a distinct understanding of
the available evidence on challenges which bishops faced in relation to the
Christological debate around 430 and the imperially summoned Council of
Ephesus and how preaching offered them one important way to meet them.
The Council of Ephesus is a challenging research topic. Looking at details
usually casts doubts on general analyses, often sprung from scholarship aiming
to discuss facts, ideas and problems related to later periods, especially those
raised by the Council of Chalcedon. Much research has focused on those who
had leading roles at Ephesus or afterwards: principally on Cyril, Nestorius, and
to a lesser extent Juvenal of Jerusalem and John of Antioch. In view of the
factional character of the council, the groups of bishops have often been por-
trayed as an anonymised mass of voters, barely individualised by their names
and sees in the votes. Theodotus stands out among the metropolitan bishops
with his contributions, but does not reach the historical importance of someone
like Juvenal or Acacius of Melitene. The perspective of homiletic studies helps
to temper the representation of Theodotus’ motivation as stemming mainly
from the disputes over episcopal territorial authority.
It may be argued! that the compilers of the collections included material like
homilies or letters to provide sources for excerpts that can be taken out to

'S See p. 120.

 Introduction 5

expand or illustrate theological or ecclesiastic questions. Precisely for such use

theologians and historians who approach the collections of conciliar documents
occasionally pay attention to texts which are not cited in the minutes,'® and they
seldom consider the nature of the text. They neglect questions which these texts
present, sometimes uniquely, such as how a bishop preached to his assembled
fellow bishops, which this study addresses.
Theodotus’ statements and actions in Ephesus have been mentioned in sev-
eral descriptions of the council of 431, to widely varied conclusions,'” and even
analysed in detail.'* Their rhetorical aspects were highlighted, but without rela-
tion to the persuasive role of homilies.'? He was a signatory of several letters
included in conciliar collections, which have been extensively analysed to order
and discuss conciliar events,2° but seldom has there been an investigation of
the sources of the images and phrases they contain, and how they relate to other
documents from the council.
The study of the conciliar material is hampered by the character of the
collections. Currently, they are ‘widely’ available, but presented in a complex
and difficult way.?! This may have hindered research in some areas, for
example, prosopographical studies of bishops who, like Theodotus, at first
glance did not have a prominent role. In so far as it is possible to ascertain
some facts about these individuals, they should be taken into account when
examining the composition of the collections, especially when material prior
to the council was included, as in Theodotus’ case. Theodotus’ involvement
in the council, perhaps only as a second tier participant, reflected rather than
determined his approach to the theological aspects of Christology. His pastoral
concer was constantly present, and he reminded the bishops of the universal
consequences of their decisions. Until the impact of the events in Ephesus on
the world view and pastoral care of other bishops has been discussed in greater
detail, remarks based on Theodotus’ works remain tentative, for lack of com-
parative parallels.

'6 For example, letters, homilies, treatises prior to the council, from friend and foe, which were
read aloud to participants of the sessions in Ephesus.
BE, Schwartz, ‘Cyrill und der M6nch Viktor’ (1926), 22, R. MacMullen, Voting about God
(2006), 62, F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 33, L.E.D. Pin and W. Wotton, The Authors
(1693), 46.
'8 T. Graumann, Die Kirche der Vater (2002), 362, 377.
'S Almost focused on in R. MacMullen, Voting about God (2006), 62.
2° See J.A. McGuckin, Sv. Cyril (2004), 90ff., E. Schwartz, ‘Cyrill und der Ménch Viktor’
(1926), L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 220ff., C. Fraisse-Coué, ‘Le débat théologique au temps
de Théodose IT’ (1995), with references to earlier literature.
*| EB. Schwartz, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum C191 4ff.). See F. Millar, A Greek Roman
Empire (2006), 235ff. Initial versions of a forthcoming English translation by R. Price and T. Grau-
mann were helpful.
6 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Interdisciplinary approach
A study of Theodotus of Ancyra’s homilies said to have been performed in
A.D. 431 during the Council of Ephesus can be done from a range of perspectives
and focus on specific themes. The following paragraphs discuss biographical,
historical, literary and theological approaches and point out what this study
does, and, perhaps more importantly, also explain what it does not.

Biographical study?
It is attractive to do a biographical study of a bishop who seems in advance
reasonably characteristic of the masses of bishops who attended synods and
councils and are at best remembered by their name in the presence and voters
lists. His representativeness is best explained by comparison with the leaders
who have received significant scholarly attention. First, Theodotus is not one
of the main characters, at the centre of praise and reproach, as is the case of
Nestorius, Cyril, John of Antioch and Memnon. Secondly, since the focus is on
pre-Chalcedonian events, also bishops such as Juvenal and Acacius of Melitene
are not good paradigms, inasmuch as many of their actions and their reputa-
tion are informed by the synods and councils of 448-51. Furthermore, following
the late antique representation of their successes and ambitions, studies of
the changes in church political relevance of their sees or their influence on
theological debates centre on their involvement and gains. However, Juvenal’s
career and tactics, for example, have so far not yet been deemed typical of
fifth-century bishops, and are usually caricatured as quite the opposite. After
close inspection of the small available body of evidence it is shown that
none of these drawbacks apply to Theodotus. As a consequence, this study
faces the disadvantage of a significant lack of comparative material and similar
scholarship.
Theodotus’ works and involvement in main historical events is probably best
paralleled by Proclus of Constantinople. However, more information on Proclus
can be found in ancient sources such as church histories and numerous letters
and testimonies. Furthermore, Proclus Tomus ad Armenios was far better
known at all times and more influential than Theodotus’ theological works.
Recent scholarship on Proclus typifies the potential of weaving the available
information, reassessing previous interpretations of the political and ecclesias-
tic developments in a metropolis, and presenting an encompassing representa-
tion of the links between theological debates and official advancement of the
growing Marian devotion.” The resulting complex picture serves well to set
the scene for more specific studies which can alter or nuance this background.

2 See N. Constas, Proclus (2003).

 Introduction 7

An advantage of a biographical approach is that it nuances generalising state-

ments and inferences which can be drawn, for example, from the allegiance to
theological parties or from the geographical location of the dioceses of mem-
bers of this large body of characterless bishops. It also places Theodotus in the
late antique framework, so that comparing the works and information available
about him and about bishops such as Proclus, Juvenal and Memnon sanctions
the use of arguments of silence more often than would generally seem reason-
able. Cyzicus, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Ephesus present valid analogies,
and permit the unrealised potential importance of Ancyra and of Theodotus’
participation to be delineated. The lack of documentation about Theodotus,
which could have been transmitted by the same patterns which preserved the
information about John of Antioch, Nestorius, Firmus and Proclus, is therefore
used to ground claims about Theodotus or at least about the ancient reception
of the works and deeds of the bishop of Ancyra.
Considering the quality and quantity of the relevant information, the bio-
graphical study is only possible if a cautious approach is adopted, and anach-
ronistic inferences, including those from mid or late fifth-century sources, are
avoided. The detailed reading of the evidence in its historical and social context
also shows that some portraits of Theodotus’ conciliar participation are not
likely to represent accurately his actions, motivations and intentions.

Historical study?
The outcome of the research of Theodotus’ homilies does not alter significantly
our understanding of the events of 431, in part because the information about
Theodotus’ participation has already been taken into account. The historical
study offered here questions some interpretations of the characters and actions
in these events, by advancing alternative connections of the scant and generally
unreliable information.
The present analysis contributes significantly to our understanding of late
antique processes of shaping identity, changing the balance, achieving consen-
sus, and presenting it where there is none. The focus is on the means to pre-
serve and shape allegiances, to defend a view, in short, not on the substance of
the decision, but on the decision making process. As such it dialogues with a
‘total historical’ approach to late antiquity that is always indebted to Eduard
Schwartz’s contributions.”? The research of the mechanisms operating in late
antique society is connected to the valorisation of traditions, rituals, communica-
tions, and control mechanisms in the historical studies, especially over the last
fifty years.

8 See C.E. Straw and R. Lim (eds), The Past Before Us (2004), 12 and P. Gemeinhardt, Das
lateinische Christentum und die antike pagane Bildung (2007), 2-4.
8 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Study of literary genres?

The analysis of Theodotus’ homilies which were either first delivered during the
Council, or read to the assembled bishops falls in the scope of homiletic studies.
A literary research of its rhetoric and elocution is fundamental to achieve rele-
vant historical conclusions. Furthermore, it is among the first case-studies of
conciliar homilies and stands out for focusing on the works which are not by
Cyril. However, Theodotus’ homilies are not representative of this category of
‘conciliar sermons by “others”’, no more so than Cyril’s are typical of ‘con-
ciliar homilies in general’. It is argued that this set of works is defined by its
performance setting and transmission and not by internal characteristics, and
therefore does not yield itself to inferences on literary genres. ‘Conciliar’ serves
to describe a small corpus of text, which does not allow generalising inferences,
but suffices to show that preachers in late antiquity did not develop a specific
type of sermonising when addressing bishops gathered for a synod. The con-
junction of genre and transmission exemplifies late antique rhetorical strategies
of persuasion, but does not embody a type of sermon. The careful assessment
of the very lacunal information about delivery setting and historical context, and
the detailed analysis of rhetoric, elocution and argument in the context of other
conciliar discourses and documents lead to a problematisation of the concept of
a homiletic genre up to the fifth century. The reader is reminded that when
discussing the aim of discourse, or what a text wants to achieve, this cannot be
related to any putative intention or frame of mind of the author.

Theological analysis?
The last part of this monograph, dedicated to some aspects of Theodotus’ the-
ology, serves a very specific argumentative purpose in the analysis of conciliar
homilies. It does not attempt to give any definitive answer, not even on specific
topics such as Theodotus’ Christology and ecclesiology. The discussion of
select topics raises questions which show that Theodotus’ homilies transmitted
in conciliar collections are too small and varied a sample to allow any deeper
inference to be tested sufficiently.
A thorough analysis of Theodotus’ theology would require a careful investiga-
tion of his theological treatises. This goes far beyond the scope of this work first
because the links to the conciliar events of A.D. 431 are not straightforward.
Secondly, internal difficulties abound, not least due to the lack of critical edi-
tions. Finally, unlike the homiletic corpus, the comparative material, consisting
of similar treatises, notably Cyril’s works, has not yet been studied in detail while
taking into account the wider socio-political issues of the conciliar disputes.
The interdisciplinary approach confirms that Theodotus’ influence was never
significant and that references to him usually fall in three categories: they either
corroborate a Cyrillian view, or they offer a Cyrillian perspective without being
 Introduction 9

by Cyril, and this either because of a deliberate attempt to be Cyrillian without

quoting Cyril, or because an equivalent passage was not found in the available
works by Cyril. Therefore, a study of Theodotus’ theology would have a very
limited church-historical interest. It will, in due time, be an important contribu-
tion to our understanding of the complex patterns of theological views in an
important moment of church history, and of the development of theological
concepts and doctrine.
The little which the texts yield with enough clarity on the fifth-century Chris-
tological debate has a generalising tone which resonates of comprehensive theo-
logical analyses, which have already taken in account, to some extent, a few of
Theodotus’ works, especially Homily I. Theodotus’ theology has been little
studied?* beyond some remarks on the interplay and relations of influence of
Theodotus’ and Cyril’s Christology.”> Likewise, a study of the presentation of
disputed theological topics in homiletic form in the light of the contemporary
events in Theodotus’ homilies read at the Council would redundantly echo the
recent scholarship on the bishop of Constantinople, despite the differences of
Theodotus’ and Proclus’ theology. For all these reasons, a proper theological
analysis of the conciliar homilies is best postponed until the differences and sim-
ilarities of Theodotus’ approach to the debates of his time are better understood.
Although this study is a self-contained work, much is, admittedly, expected of
the ideal reader. Besides some knowledge about the Cyrillian and Oriental ses-
sions in Ephesus 431 and an awareness of the variety of modern interpretations
of the socio-political context, the historical events and the theological disputes,
it is hoped that the reader is familiar with recent scholarship on homiletics, espe-
cially on Proclus’ activity in Constantinople, and on Cyrillian theology and
church political manoeuvres. This study contributes insights to nuance a global
picture of the fifth-century Roman Empire of the East, which the sources focused
on cannot yield on their own, and it refrains from echoing redundantly the admi-
rable scholarship of the last decades on topics which are not central to the study.

Homiletic and conciliar studies

Research on the homilies of late antiquity is a rather young field. A great num-
ber were neglected for centuries, and those which have been read were seldom
placed in historical context, far less approached considering what they represent

*4 M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960) analyses Homily
V. GL. Castro, Teodoto di Ancira (1992), 25-36 offers a theological review which unfortunately
relies much on the doubtful Hom. i. s. Deip. CPG 6136. They have shown, together with N. Constas,
Proclus (2003), 16-25, 56-71, and M. Aubineau, ‘Un recueil de textes «Chrysostomiens»’ (1990),
Theodotus’ relation to the tradition received from earlier Christian writers like Irenaeus, Clement,
Origen, etc.
. 5 A. van Roey, ‘Le florilége nestorien dans le «Traité contre Nestorius» (1975), id., “Le flo-
nilége nestorien de l'Adversus Nestorium’ (1981).
10 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

in the successive stages of transmission. Generally, homilies have only been

mined for their content.2° This has generated a significant disconnection between
text and context. Scholars and literary critics who pointed to the existence of
specifically Christian genres, like homiletics and hagiography, were usually
concerned with proposing definitions which encompass modem practices. Sub-
sequently, the characterisations of homilies attempt to cover and circumscribe
the body of texts which have been handed down as such by tradition and
a number of texts which bear hallmarks of sermons, or can be classified as
such, or are so for lack of better alternatives. A conventional definition like ‘the
public explanation of a sacred doctrine or of a sacred text’’? places great
emphasis on the exegetical element. Many ‘homilies’ then only marginally fit
in this definition, since in a narrow sense, they are not only exegetical. Also
definitions which additionally emphasise moral exhortations, do not describe
well many works, even when the scholars rely on theorisations by patristic
authors and take into consideration late antique expectations.”° Similar prob-
lems are found in the description of other Christian genres, and the recent
fruitful discussion in hagiography, on which texts it deals with,?? may help
homiletics to likewise reassess the role of the works without reducing the size
of the corpus.
Preaching was a key vehicle for the communication between clergy and their
congregation.*° Often letters reached their intended audience, or a wider one,
by being read as homilies.*! The reaction and participation of the audience
varied much,” and generally the available information points to an inhomoge-
neous gathering of men and women of various social and economic extractions.
However, occasionally the audience could be formed mainly of equally ranked
people, like bishops assembled for a synod, and homiletics in the context of
synodical meetings have recently received increasing interest.** This work con-
tributes to homiletic studies an analysis of conciliar sermons (or homilies), as
I call those transmitted in collections of conciliar documents or said to have
been first delivered to a gathered council.

26 M.B. Cunningham, ‘Preaching and the community’ (1990), 29.

27 KF. Siegert, ‘Homily and panegyrical sermon’ (1997), 421 used, for example, by S. Wessel,
Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 190. See also G. Dunn, ‘Aristotle and
the art of preaching’ (1998).
28 See C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity (2005), 55 on Gregory the Great, and S. Wessel,
Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 193 on Justin Martyr and Eusebius of
Caesarea.
22 P. Hatlie, The Monks and Monasteries (2007), 9-16.
*° P. Allen, ‘Homilies as a source for social history’ (1993), 260-1.
3" R. MacMullen, Voting about God (2006), 62.
* An extensive literature on the numerous ancient sources can be exemplified by [Link]. Max-
well, Christianization and Communication (2006), 46; N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 25, 54.
** Witnessed in informal discussions during British conferences, and in papers like O. Shchuryk,
‘The Christological Position of Acacius’ (2010).
 Introduction 11

Patristic homilies cannot be classified easily, even when categories are

allowed that are rather imprecise and can include many texts, as in the case of
the set of exegetical, polemical, exhortative, panegyrical texts, for particular
occasions and feasts, and on particular doctrinal and moral subjects homilies.**
Conciliar homilies, for example, usually fit well into several of these types at
once. Concerning the homilies in the collections related to Ephesus I, it is
convenient to notice that the homilies can be split in two groups based on their
length. The homilies prior to the council*> are significantly longer than the
sermons which are described as delivered in Ephesus. The contrast in length
is particularly neat for Theodotus’ homilies. This nomenclature will be often
used in this study, in view of its advantages over disputable labels, since, for
example, the long homilies were mostly festal or doctrinal when first delivered,
while the shorter are in almost equal measure polemical, exhortative, panegyr-
ical and doctrinal.
In the steadily growing body of research on fifth-century festal homilies,
the texts are little differentiated by the mode of transmission. Much scholarship
on homilies is devoted to establishing the authorship of anonymous texts or
of those lumped into the works of some author. For example, many pseudo-
Chrysostomian sermons are now ascribed to Proclus and Severian of Gabala.*©
However, the core of Theodotus’ works seems too small to attempt further
attributions to his name.*7
Theodotus’ preaching suggests that he had received a good intellectual train-
ing and Ancyra was traditionally linked to Antioch as a centre of learning.
Together with a literal reading of the evidence of his friendship to Nestorius,
Theodotus’ education can be associated with Antioch.*8 Theodotus’ homilies
have passages of elaborate rhetoric?? which were likely remarkable even to
the congregations of large urban centres, used to the wide range of rhetorical
flourishes common in late antiquity. Theodotus’ homilies aimed to move the

* P. Allen, ‘Homilies as a source for social history’ (1993), 263.

* ACO L I/I, 103ff., ACO I 1/2, 73ff.
*© For example, M. Aubineau, ‘Un recueil de textes «Chrysostomiens»’ (1990), 393; S.J. Voicu,
‘Note su un’omelia pseudocrisostomica per il natale’ (1992), 354-5.
*7 See M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie grecque inédite’ (1969). Still, the literature about pseudo-
Chrysostomian works and Severian’s and Proclus’ sermons contributes to place Theodotus’ style
and approach in its late antique context. See for example, J. Kecskeméti, ‘Sévérien de Gabala’
(1996), K.-H. Uthemann, ‘Die Sprachtheorie des Eunomios von Kyzikos’ (1993).
* A fuller picture of classical education in Ancyra, Alexandria and Antioch can be found in
EJ. Watts, City and School (2006), R. Cribiore, The School of Libanius (2007), P. Gemeinhardt,
Das lateinische Christentum und die antike pagane Bildung (2007) and C. Foss, ‘Late antique and
Byzantine Ankara’ (1977). On the intellectual training of Cyril and Nestorius, see L.1. Scipioni,
Nestorio (1974), S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004) and H.v. Loon,
The Dyophysite C. hristology af Cyril (2009). ‘
. * Occasional textual value judgements or allusions to poetic qualities should be understood
in the light of A. Spira and H. R. Drobner, Kleine Schriften (2007), 214-8.
12 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

audience and also resorted to emotional arguments, ranging from violent stead-
fastness to pious frailty.
Shorter homilies have in general been rather neglected.” Widespread assump-
tions about sequential preaching predominate,*! but precise sources for such
ensembles are mostly lacking.*? This applies also to the short homilies in the
conciliar collections. The few detailed studies of conciliar homilies suggest
sermons may have been important for the solidification of alliances and in trying
to make theological views accepted, and stand as witness to the mechanisms
employed at councils to achieve both, The emphasis on persuasion, the exten-
sive use of psogos imply that care is needed with assumptions about the genre
of homiletics, and that topics from late antique rhetoric are relevant for the
analysis of the homilies.“
In contrast, long conciliar homilies have received attention alongside other
texts prior to the council that are in the conciliar collections, such as letters.
However, notice has seldom been paid to possible performance in Ephesus,
impact on the audience, or role in the collections.** Most of these earlier works
are not mentioned in the gesta, but come interspersed with those which, like
Cyril’s letters, were read at the sessions. These, as well as some long texts prior
to the council included in the acts like Proclus’ Homily I, have merited atten-
tion heedless of their role in Ephesus or in collections.“ Some homilies in the
collections have been contextualised against the theological debate and the
relation between church and politics, and help the texts to become more than
sources of citations or examples of earliest liturgical practices.4”7 The connection
of the homilies to the sessions and other events, and to the preparation of the
conciliar collections has not been explored fully yet.*® The analysis is guided

“© For a few examples studied in detail, see P. Allen, ‘Homilies as a source for social history’
(1993), 262-3.
4! A. Olivar, La predicacién (1991), 555-9.
# See some discussion in P. Allen and W. Mayer, ‘Computer and homily’ (1993), N. Constas,
Proclus (2003), and J.H. Barkhuizen, ‘Proclus of Constantinople: a popular preacher’ (1998), as
well as O. Shchuryk, ‘The Christological Position of Acacius’ (2010).
43'S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004) and O. Shchuryk, ‘The
Christological Position of Acacius’ (2010) have, respectively, researched Cyril’s and Acacius’
polemic homilies. See also I. Rucker, ‘Ephesinische Konzilsakten in armenischgeorgischer Uber-
lieferung’ (1930), B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979).
“4 See C. Ronning, ‘Rituale der Rhetorik — Rhetorik der Rituale’ (2003), and pp. 148ff.
45 F Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 33.
© Ibid.; J.A. McGuckin, St. Cyril (2004); N. Constas, Procius (2003), J.H. Barkhuizen, ‘Proclus
of Constantinople, Homily 1° (1994), id., Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople — Homilies on the
Life of Christ (2001).
47 N. Constas, Proclus (2003).
‘8 It may be symptomatic that the vast majority of the research about homilies has been pub-
lished as papers in journals or collections. Papers on homilies are most frequently isolated case
studies, despite some projects of building databases for comparative studies, e.g. P. Allen and
W. Mayer. ‘Computer and homily’ (1993). Some studies have placed homilies into the context of
 introduction 13

by questions for which conciliar context is little relevant or even a handicap.

Especially the Marian content of some conciliar homilies has drawn scholarly
attention, without considering their transmission and placement in the collec-
tions, rather, they are briskly separated from the remaining ones.*? Furthermore,
the motivation for these studies favours, even imposes, an anachronistic reading
of the texts, looking for answers to questions*° which were not the leading
topics of their time. Symptomatically, the dubious homilies are then equally
valuable sources of examples.*!
A multidisciplinary scholarship on homiletics has highlighted, for example,
the literary aspects which reflect topics of classical rhetoric, and the social
information which can be drawn from the texts. Such insights have bearing on
conciliar homilies, but they fall short of taking into account the relation of these
texts to the events of the council.>* As for research on liturgy of Theodotus’
period,>? when his works and deeds are used, the dialogue with the points of
view of history and even of Mariology seems insufficient. In short, the great
variety of partial independent approaches has hampered a better understanding
of Theodotus’ opus, whether pastoral or literary.
The relation of the Ephesian conciliar homilies to the events at or around the
Council of 431 is exemplified in two recent studies. An interesting albeit brief
study of Acacius’ homilies** took into account sources extant only in languages

an author’s opus. This could be done with particular success for Proclus, e.g. J.H. Barkhuizen,
Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople — Homilies on the Life of Christ (2001), N. Constas, Proclus
(2003). These studies exemplify the wide range of texts classified as homilies, and give one
example of the polemic character of sermons, but outside conciliar settings.
9 For example, to restrict the analysis to only two of Theodotus’ homilies in Greek conciliar
collections, it is claimed simply that ‘the third one is an attack against Nestorius, without any
Marian element’ R. Caro, La homilética mariana griega (1972), 158. He does not esteem highly
Theodotus’ homilies that he analyses. With a focus on the development of the Arian cult, R. Caro,
La homilética mariana griega (1972), 27 considers a homily by Ps. Athanasius, which presents
an Antiochene view, far more relevant than those delivered by Theodotus or Acacius in Ephesus.
See also M. Jugie (ed.), Homélies mariales (1926), 289-93.
*” Sprung from systematic theology, history of dogmas, anthropology and sociology.
| Thus excerpts of the dubious in s. deiparam et in nativitatem domini are translated alongside
Passages of conciliar homilies in P. C. Miller, Women in Early Christianity (2005), 294-5, one of
the few translations into English of ‘Theodotus’ homilies’. A wider array of texts is made avail-
able in G. Gharib, et al., Padri e altri autori greci (2001), 497-514, a comparable Italian volume.
G.L. Castro, Teodoto di Ancira (1992) translates indiscriminately all Greek homilies. I only had
access to this volume and to F. E. Sciuto, Un episodio sconosciuto della controversia cristologica
(1984) during the last stages of proof-reading.
®? For example, in R. Caro, La homilética mariana griega (1972), 157, 167.
3 Asin M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), M. Fassler,
“The first Marian feast’ (2001), 36, 65.
“™ However, E. Schwartz, Zwei Predigten Hippolyts (1936), although not on conciliar homilies,
€xemplifies an approach to homilies which explores seemingly unrelated works, often bringing
together excerpts, and developing aspects which spring forth from this juxtaposition.
°> OQ. Shchuryk, ‘The Christological Position of Acacius’ (2010).
14 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

other than Greek or Latin to shed light on the Greek text in conciliar collec-
tions. However, it seems an isolated case study within a research project more
interested in post-Ephesian developments. A more extensive work analyses
Cyril’s conciliar homilies and explores how he became a ‘church father’ for the
Byzantine church and Nestorius an archetypal heretic for the Eastern church
‘in relation to a broader literary context by examining the full range of literary
genres, including letters, homilies, conciliar acts, exegetical and Christological
treatises, and ecclesiastical narratives.’* There is, however, some imprecision
in the relation of the homilies to the events, and their impact on the council
could be considered more deeply.>’ The texts are analysed thoroughly, but they
remain tools for an analysis of Cyril’s situation in Ephesus, which is different
from most bishops* in so far as he places himself as leader of the bishops and
tries to defend this.°°
In the corpus of homilies from the Council of Ephesus I, Cyril is the best
represented author, with twice as many conciliar homilies than Theodotus and
a similar situation where some of his works predating the council were read to
the assembled bishops. However, in contrast to Theodotus, Cyril’s homilies
are the discourse of a bishop who knows that in a conciliar session one of his
works had been voted on as paradigm of orthodoxy, and that this happened, to
an extent unknown to us, as a consequence of his own preparations for the
council. As for the other authors of conciliar homilies, first, some are like Cyril
personally involved in the outcome of the council, or with a smaller homiletic
corpus. Secondly, about many there is less biographical information than about
Theodotus, so that less historical data can be used as discussed above. Finally,
the conciliar collections do not transmit nor record the reading of works these
other authors of conciliar sermons wrote before the Council. Therefore, Theodo-
tus is the best choice for a representative study of conciliar studies.
Bearing in mind the differences, the studies of Cyril of Alexandria’s and
Acacius of Melitene’s preaching in Ephesus provide helpful models for approach-
ing Theodotus’ works. Further significant links can be established between
Theodotus’ actions and works, and those of Cyril and Nestorius, the main pro-
tagonists. Theodotus not only actively contributed to the Cyrillian Council, both
at the sessions and between them, but also shared many of Cyril’s theological
views.
A lengthy analysis of Theodotus’ participation at the council is meant
to widen the range of interpretations of the participation of the bishops in a

© S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 7.

T. Graumann, ‘Review of Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy’ (2007).
58 Already in Constantinople 381, Gregory Nazianzen was in a similar predicament.
5° T. Graumann, ‘Kirchliche Identitat und bischdfliche Selbstinszenierung’ (2003), J.A. McGuckin,
St. Gregory of Nazianzus (2001), 350.
© Portrayed in S. Wessel. Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004).
 Introduction 15

context where not even the activity of the handful of leading bishops is well
known. In contrast to Cyril,°! Theodotus was not placing himself as leader,
but advocating for the validity of someone else’s leadership, that is, Cyril’s.®
It follows that there was a need to advocate for the existence of a leader.
Although this rationalisation of the historical situation is not stated, Theodotus’
arguments dwell especially on who should occupy the leadership and how far
reaching (beyond the council) it should go. Theodotus based his preferences on
soundness of teaching.
The inferences about Theodotus are to some extent representative of many
other bishops in the first half of the fifth century in Asia Minor, especially of
authors of conciliar homilies. The reception of Theodotus’ works and deeds,
together with works by Severian of Gabala and Proclus of Constantinople,
allows valuable parallels to be drawn to their homiletics, which is more widely
researched.“ The historical and literary pieces of evidence about Theodotus
come together to make this endeavour rewarding, yet the paucity of references
inevitably makes some conclusions hypothetical. It follows that conclusions
seem to become impossible when even less fathomable evidence is extant, as
in the case of most late antique bishops and preachers.
In the following pages, strands occasionally pointed out in earlier scholar-
ship, but seldom brought together more than passingly, are integrated in a still
neglected small example. Because the corpus is limited and rather well circum-
scribed, and the debate quite well located in only a few years, it favours the
development of connections and interpretations. Providing a test case which
has potentially much wider implications, it advances the scholarship on con-
ciliar activity and the preaching of late antique bishops.
After a brief historical contextualisation, Chapter 2 describes conciliar activ-
ity, closely analysing Theodotus’ participation, and then describes elements of
his literary output, especially of style and circumstance. Chapter 3 begins with
a discussion of the relation between the works and the contexts from which
they came, and in which they were received by the various audiences. Finally,
it analyses the theological content of the homilies, considering that defence of
the faith prompted their composition.
In the conciliar homilies, Theodotus argues that an orthodox church, where
all members had a proper understanding and acceptance of theology, was a
Sine qua non condition for the salvific validity and effect of the incarnation.

°! See ibid., 296-8.

A 62 Similar conclusions apply to other bishops at Ephesus, especially Rheginus of Cyprus and
cacius.
doy For example, the collection transmitted in Ethiopic. See B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1
79).
“ See B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.3 (1980), K.-H. Uthemann, ‘Forms of communication in the
homilies of Severian of Gabala’ (1998), J. Quasten, The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature
(1960), 484-6 and references therein.
16 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

For him, this faith had its anchor in the scriptures and in the faith of the fathers,
and lent itself to be expressed in short slogan-like passages and especially
through the Nicene creed.® These reliable ‘unchanging’ authoritative state-
ments would anchor the faith. Theodotus preached to the conciliar bishops
defending that conciliar decisions ought to be grounded on these pillars.
He relied on their authority when preaching in Ancyra, both before and after
the council, and when writing his treatises. Theodotus’ reliance on authority,
on theological slogans, and the reticence towards investigation of theological
matters is tentatively related to his appraisal of classical and religious educa-
tion. It is suggested that his opinion was perhaps informed by contemporary
events, where similar educational or theological backgrounds led to opposite
approaches to theological problems, while from dissimilar circumstances came
solutions which albeit not identical, agreed on the disputed matters of the time.
In his life, he may have experienced how education, whether theological or
philosophical, was not enough to lead to the right faith lastingly.
The analysis of Theodotus’ homilies as theological preaching in a specific
conciliar context and setting shapes and delimits the interest in homiletics,
theology, the Council of Ephesus and its reception. The workings of the Cyril-
lian Council and the reception of its decisions and theological outcomes, the
characteristics of conciliar sermons, the development of doctrine and church
authority are not analysed in isolation, but as linked in Theodotus’ works. This
limits the engagement with Theodotus’ activity and theology, his relation and
contribution to Cyrillian theology and to Christology, even with his own theol-
ogy and activity in other possible perspectives. His homilies give a coherent
example of the values which linked establishing and divulging theological
clarifications to received authority.

® See p. 24 on Nicene faith and creed.

® The difficulty is compounded by the small body of extant texts.
 1. Theodotus’ ecclesiastic context

This chapter aims to address aspects of the world Theodotus lived in and describe
the church of which he considered himself to be a member. Although multi-
faceted and displaying regional differences suppressed by later conciliar deci-
sions, the characteristics of a typical metropolitan bishop support the claims that
Theodotus lived and acted in Ancyra and its environs at least since becoming its
titular, and when necessary it will be assumed that he was native of the capital
of Galatia Prima. His works and deeds seem to reflect a good educational back-
ground, to some extent obtainable in those parts of the Anatolian plateau, or more
probably in one of the cities famous for its schools. As bishop he was part of the
structure of the church and had to engage with the wider problems of Christian-
ity beyond his diocese. Among his duties was the participation in councils, and
in 430 he was invited to an imperially summoned synod in Ephesus. Problems
concerning the right understanding of the relation of the divine and human natures
in Christ had just flared up between the bishops of Constantinople and Alexan-
dria, two of the most important sees, reflecting different theological traditions.
A brief description of some of the ways of communication places Theodotus’
participation at the council in a wider context, providing parallels for speaking in
sessions, preaching, and letters. As a member of the Cyrillian delegation to the
emperor, he would have been involved with the mechanisms of the state and of
the court, and aware of the extent to which the conventions of communication
with the emperor applied to ecclesiastic representatives.
Theodotus of Ancyra’s participation in the First Council of Ephesus in
A.D. 431 is the only securely dated historic event of his life. He was the metro-
politan bishop of a provincial city of significant wealth and importance in the
Roman Empire ruled by the Theodosian dynasty. There is no information about
his birth, and it is not known how long he had already been metropolitan of
Ancyra when the council of 431 was called.! Bishops were not less than middle-
aged, and thus Theodotus probably was born before 390.? Then, he was at least
in his early 40’s at the time of the council, and perhaps he reached a significant
age of c. 65.3 In this case, most if not all of his ecclesiastic career happened in
the reign of Theodosius II.

' See pp. 2, 108.

? A plausible dating to 380’s would place his education during the reign of Theodosius I
(347-395), in the late career of Libanius, see p. 33.
* Theodotus of Ancyra died at least several months before Proclus of Constantinople, since
Eusebius claims to have been appointed to the Ancyran see by Proclus at least some time before
Proclus’ death, in 446 (ACO II 1/3, 97-8[456-7]). Eusebius may not have been the immediate
Successor, and prolonged vacancies were common. See also F.W. Bautz and T. Bautz (eds), ‘Stoss,
Veit bis Tiefenthaler, Joseph’ (1996), 997-9.
18 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Sociopolitical and economical setting

Theodosius IT was installed on the throne in 408, at the age of seven, and was
to reign until 450. By 431, he had been ruling alone for fifteen years, but there
were many at the court, especially the Augusta Pulcheria, who had still much
influence. It has been highlighted how Theodosius II’s balance of control with
Pulcheria influenced events around the Council of Ephesus.* For those who had
business with the emperor, including bishops, it was a situation which offered
possibilities and risks alike. Even those with inside knowledge sometimes mis-
judged whom to address at court on what account.’ Outside Constantinople
most details about the court were probably unknown. Instead, a rather mythical
view of the court held sway in the imagination of the local population, and even
of the bureaucratic aristocracy. God-like® reverence was due to the emperor,
whether he was a strong commander and ruler, like Theodosius I, whom some
still may have remembered well, or a child guided by others.
The reign of Theodosius II was remarkable both for its internal stability, and
its external success.’ A prolonged lull in the military confrontation with the
Persians, spanning Theodotus’ episcopacy, ensured that the court was less
likely to pass through Ancyra.? The Eastern Empire was also not being trou-
bled by ‘barbarians’ in the first quarter of the fifth century.? However, many
later accounts of this period, like the church histories, are tinged with a sense
of uncertainty prompted by the problems with the invasions, especially by the
Huns under Attila in the 440s.!°
Theodotus and his Ancyran audience had little direct contact with the inner
workings of the elaborate and rich imperial court, which remained mainly
in Constantinople,!! and seldom moved eastwards for extended periods. The
geographical, administrative, and military coherence of the empire was partially

4 N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 37, 50, J.A. McGuckin, St. Cyril (2004), 23-6, K.G. Holum,
Theodosian Empresses (1982), 79ff., K. Cooper, ‘Empress and Theotokos’ (2004), ead., ‘Contest-
ing the Nativity’ (1998), V. Limberis, Divine Heiress (1994), 41 ff.
* Cyril was reprimanded by the emperor (ACO I 1/1, 73, 22 - 74, 3) for writing to the
empresses and princesses (Puich.: ACO I 1/5, 26-61). See also C. Kelly (ed.), Theodosius H (2013).
® Only in 457 a Christian element was incorporated in the proclamation of a new ruler with
the coronation by the patriarch of Constantinople, see J. Herrin, Byzantium (2008), 30.
7 F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 41.
® The court, however, was aware that the Sassanid Empire under Bahram V (420-438), since
the inconclusive war of 420-2, was considerably strong and stable. It has been suggested that these
concerns partially influenced the Roman efforts to avoid an estrangement of the Oriental dioceses,
as well as of other regions bordering Persia. See T. Graumann, ‘Kirchliche Identitat und bischéf-
liche Selbstinszenierung’ (2003), 199.
* Theodotus praises the imperial victory over B&pBapot as an accomplished feat. See Exp.
symb., PG77, 1313C.
'0 D. Rohrbacher, The Historians of Late Antiquity (2002), 115-6.
'"' Ancyra had profited especially from Arcadius’ regular early summer journeying through
western Anatolia, see C. Foss, ‘Late antique and Byzantine Ankara’ (1977), 50.
 Theodotus’ ecclesiastic context 19

ensured by keeping a good infrastructure of roads, on which travel was not

unduly hampered. The relative ease of travel meant that those who could afford
it might journey for leisure, education, and private interests. Members of the
army and of the state administration would often be travelling, assigned
to new posts. Letters were regularly exchanged, and the state had ways to
ensure a relatively efficient communication system, although citizens had still
to rely on people they could trust with carrying a letter.!? Even so, distance and
geographical separation were often mentioned as obstacles to communication.!3
Theodosius II was the judge to whom all, poor or rich, could appeal. Only
the emperor legislated,'* albeit aided and influenced by his advisors, the court
and the senate. The legislation with which people worked, and to which they
were used, were the imperial constitutions, laws, letters, and rescripts, in all
their plurality and particularity. Legal decisions very often relied on finding a
relevant precedent. Although Theodosius II had announced in 429 the begin-
ning of the work on what became the Theodosian Code, nothing was issued
before 435.'5 Many members of the imperial administration who were con-
nected with this great legal project were also involved in conciliar events.!®
The ongoing development of the bureaucratic aristocracy was an important
part of the social changes in the cities, affecting a substantial contingent of
the usual audience a bishop would have in the main church(es) of the capital
of his diocese. The imperially paid administration operated mostly without
direct control from the court, which occasionally attempted to refrain or reform
it. Taxes based on ongoing census of the population and evaluation of land,
property and people paid the maintenance of both the central and peripheral
bureaucracy — largely placed in the cities across the empire, it provided the
control of the empire —, and of the army — perhaps three hundred thousand
strong, it dealt with the security of the empire, usually along the frontier, and
also with innumerable local problems.!”
Members of the aristocracy and of the administration in general were well
educated, literate, and often bilingual.'® In the fifth century, use and kriowledge

"2 B. Neil et al. (eds), Preaching Poverty (2009), 46, and P. Allen, *Protegomena to a study
of the letter-bearer’ (2013).
109 The classical study is J. Nicholson, ‘The delivery and confidentiality of Cicero’s letters’
(1994),
“ C. Humfress, Orthodoxy and the Courts (2007), 65; D. Caramboula, ‘Die Reichsidee zur
Zeit Diokletians’ (2007), 283; M. Kaser, Das rémische Privatrecht (1959).
'S Sacra (imperial letter) of 26 March 429: Codex Theodosianum 1.1.5.
‘6 For example, Antiochus was a member of both commissions on the Theodosian Code
(CTh 1 1.5-6), and a regular correspondent of several Orientals, including Nestorius and John of
Antioch who express confidence on his ability to influence the court on their behalf, for example,
ACO 1 1/7, 71, ACO 1 4, 64.
'" F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 14-5, C. Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire
(2004), 109-20, J. Herrin, Byzantium (2008), 30-2.
BC, Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire (2004), 112.
20 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

of Latin in the Eastern Empire was already retreating. Greek had remained
the lingua franca of all eastern regions throughout the empire, even at court.
Theodosius IJ apparently discussed in Greek with bishops and religious digni-
taries on the Nestorian controversy.!? Nevertheless, until the sixth century, the
administration of the empire still employed Latin, at least in internal com-
munications between officials. The technical vocabulary in executive, juridical
and military matters was Latin, or derived from it. Those who were educated
with the prospect of pursuing a career in imperial administration, or who
could become involved with it, would generally learn Latin.”° Theodotus seems
to have had some knowledge of Latin, and how official communication was
handled in the Empire.?! The bishops assembled in the fifth-century councils
in the East, representative of a wide range of backgrounds, show that Latin was
not current, since they were not expected to be fluent,?* although most were
considered ‘educated men’ to some degree.” The administration also used
Greek regularly, since it generally addressed the population in it. Knowledge
of Greek was expected from bishops taking part in imperially summoned coun-
cils. Greek was also used in internal letters between low ranking members of
the administration.
Throughout the Empire, many other languages were spoken and coexisted
with the Greek used, for example, by urban elites. In many areas, bishops knew
that when they spoke in Greek, they were probably not understood by a large
contingent of non-Greek-speaking Christians.”* With the rise of writing in other
languages in the East, scriptures, the liturgy and important theological works
were being continually translated, for example, into Syriac.** Few authors, how-
ever, wrote in more than one language.?6

19 F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 205-7. See also R. Cribiore, The School of Liba-
nius (2007), 208-12 for an analysis of the evidence of widespread lack of fluency in Latin in the
East, also at the imperial court.
20 C. Humfress, Orthodoxy and the Courts (2007), 4, 69ff. According to A. Cameron, ‘Vergil
illustrated between Pagans and Christians’ (2004), 502ff. at least in Constantinople the learning
of Latin and Latin literature and culture could go quite far, and be part of the broader education
available especially to the wealthy. See also F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 20.
2 Indicated by his communication with the Roman legates during the 16-7 July conciliar
sessions and a digression on language and writing in Homily If (ACO I 1/2, 79, 31-80, 29).
However, the plausibility of Theodotus’ knowledge of Latin is rejected and used to question the
authorship of Hom. i. s. Deiparam in G.L. Castro, Teodoto di Ancira (1992), 6. While the authen-
ticity can be ruled out on weightier grounds, Theodotus’ command of Latin remains a valid
hypothesis.
22 See F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), especially 20-4, 84-5.
23 Few rejected all sort of worldly learning to the point of being illiterate.
24 A.M. Crabbe, ‘The invitation list’ (1981), 387-8.
5 AH. Becker, Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom (2006), 17, N. Constas, Proclus
(2003), 93.
6 See, for example, S.P. Brock, From Ephrem to Romanos (1999), 153ff., and F. Biville, ‘The
Graeco-Romans and Graeco-Latin’ (2002).
 Theodotus’ ecclesiastic context 21

The church

Theodotus spoke of the ‘holy church of Christ Jesus’,’’ of which he was a

member and in which he officiated as metropolitan bishop. It was the ‘Theo-
dosian imperial’ church, where state and religion were not kept apart and impe-
rial rulings on the ecclesiastic offices gave clergy some rights and privileges,
but also limits and duties. Like office-holders of the imperial administration,
even metropolitans were expected to obey imperial legislation and any ‘higher’
ranking official. It was the ‘Nicene’ Church, where Christians claimed to hold
the faith of the fathers of Nicaea (325), and to follow the decisions, on doctrinal
or ecclesiastical matters, which the synods and councils they recognised had
reached.”®
As bishop, Theodotus’ responsibilities spanned from his seat to remote areas.
A bishopric could include hundreds of villages scattered around the city,?? which
the bishop might visit for certain occasions or problems, like the ‘orthodoxy’ of
belief. In Ancyra and especially when going out to villages in rural and remote
areas Theodotus would have faced the practice of traditional customs, that still
motivated calls for conversion and missionary activity.2° However, his refer-
ences to unbelief and Hellenism?! ought to be placed in the context of the
invectives against paganism, and the arguments developed, for example, in the
works against Julian. Theodotus would have been aided by others, like scribes,
and presbyters or chorepiscopi leading the churches most villages had.
Bishops also had to deal with urban government structures, especially of their
see. Cities were largely self-governing but there were various communication
channels with the imperial power, in which bishops often excelled, since the
exercise of their religious duties entailed considerable respect and influence.
Distinguished religious leaders could circumvent the formal structure of the
empire relying on their spiritual authority and power.*
It is difficult to infer from Theodotus’ actions and writings facts concerning
his career and background. There was no clear career path in the church, nor
formalised training and education for the exercise of the functions associated
with a certain position. Generalisations are problematic, in view of varying

2 Homily V1.5, B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 132, 6.

: 8 ACOI 1/2, 14, 13. On the late antique characteristics of the ‘Bischofskirche’, see H.R. See-
liger, ‘Die Erforschung der spitantiken Bischofssitze’ (2011), 195-7. See also T. Graumann,
‘Protokollierung, Aktenerstellung’ (2010), 28, A. Weckwerth, Ablauf, Organisation und Selbst-
verstdndnis westlicher antiker Synoden (2007), 7.
i R.V. Dam, ‘Bishops and clerics’ (2011), 223.
1M E. Wipszycka, Etudes sur le christianisme dans l'Egypte (1996), 87.
“ Eg. ACO
TL 1/2, 86, 2; 87, 17.
x F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 26-7.
C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity (2005), 156ff. P. Brown, Power and Persuasion
(1992), 11 fF. 1408f.
22 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

customs, influenced by local traditions. The pattern of progressing from reader

or deacon, via presbyter, to bishop,** was common, but other backgrounds were
also well accepted, especially when links to monasticism existed. Like many
bishops, Theodotus displayed some familiarity with forensic expertise,*> which
was ‘a stepping-stone to advancement in an imperial church’.*®
Dioceses covered all the Empire but episcopal and secular dioceses did
not correspond exactly. The incongruities did not reawaken memories of the
division of the provinces in the Diocletianic and Constantinian reforms, rather,
by the early fifth century, the regional geography of imperial power was widely
seen as a settled world image. Beyond the level of province and metropolis,
parallels with the secular structure are inexact. Spheres of influence of metrop-
olises, and a hierarchy between the bishoprics under one metropolitan were
crystallising.*’ The unspecified boundaries and the fluid structure opened room
for significant disputes, often relying on disciplinary or doctrinal accusations,
many of which based on vague claims.”®
A metropolitan bishop was involved in consecrations of subordinate bishops,
in dealing with their complaints, and was expected to call provincial synods.*?
Ancyra and neighbouring metropolises were not particularly linked to any other

4 ©. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity (2005), 152, 201-2; P. Norton, Episcopal Elections
(2007), 46-51, 62-3 seems as much as can be said about the background of the candidates. The
unsuitability of laymen without prolonged ecclesiastic career is the main emphasis of the avail-
able sources, e.g. Serdica, canon 10. In the election process, only the testimonium can suggest
prior links between the candidate and the city (¢.g., a deacon by administrative and charitable
functions, a presbyter by the liturgical role in the smaller churches of the city), and P. Norton,
Episcopal Elections (2007), 26, 37, 62-3, is cautious of its importance. In larger cities, deacons
were very suitable candidates, for their familiarity with the often large property and wealth of
the see (ibid., 212). Foreigners were often appointed, see ibid., 109 and the examples in P. Allen,
‘Episcopal succession in Antioch’ (2011). See also, R.V. Dam, ‘Bishops and clerics’ (2011),
235ff.
See p. 79.
%© See C. Humfress, Orthodoxy and the Courts (2007), 144. Despite the arguments in ibid.,
111, 153ff., Theodotus may exemplify bishops who had received some ‘formal’ education in
rhetoric prior to their ordination and during their career in the church acquired necessary legal
expertise.
*7 See F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 24-5, 134. Also, P. Norton, Episcopal Elec-
tions (2007), 119ff., 141, R.V. Dam, ‘Bishops and clerics’ (2011), 221, for the limitations of the
parallel. For the secular importance of bishops, see also C. Rapp, ‘The elite status of bishops’
(2000).
38 Eg. involving Constantinople: Photius, Bibliotheca 59.19a15-6 (Synod of the Oak), R. Henry
(ed.), Photius. Bibliothéque 1 (1959), 56 — cf. S. Elm, ‘The dog that did not bark’ (1998), 74-5;
Charisius Philadelphenus libell.: ACO I 1/7, 96, 19-97, 24 (22 July 431) — cf. .A. McGuckin,
St. Cyril (2004), 100, R. Price and M. Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (2005) I, 21,
T. Graumann, ‘Protokollierung, Aktenerstellung’ (2010), 26, 33, and especially the interpretation in
L. Abramovski, ‘Die Sitzung des Konzi!s von Ephesus am 22. Juli 431’ (2004), 387ff., to be paralleled
with N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 92ff. See P.V. Nuffelen, ‘The rhetoric of rules’ (2011).
°F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 24-5, 134-5.
 Theodotus’ ecclesiastic context 23

see, nor yet strictly under the sphere of influence of any emerging ‘patriarchate’.*°
The choice and consecration of bishops increasingly followed synodical can-
ons. In numerous sources, the bishops who were involved are recorded, and
even if a comprehensive assessment is impossible since the evidence for most
regions is scarce and unsystematic, it is used to analyse the patterns of influence
and the fifth-century church political developments. Ancyra, for example, grad-
ually lost to Constantinople the control in the consecration of bishops of many
dioceses.*!
The early fifth century was a period of sedimentation and development for
Christianity. Local differences continued to appear and flourish, and could find
support in regional synods. There was no single authoritative source of norms
for religious practices and beliefs to which to turn.*? Episcopal sees, especially
the main metropolitan sees, operated independently. When problems related to
another see were brought to a metropolitan’s attention, he was expected to
contact the other bishop, and if necessary to refer to equally or higher ranking
bishops, as was the practice of the Roman administration of referring to a
superior instance. The church assumed that collective judgement, in the form
of synodical decisions, had greater authority and metropolitan bishops were
expected to organise regional synods regularly. Outstanding or lingering prob-
lems, or tensions between metropolitan sees were addressed in extraordinary
synods. After Constantine convened Nicaea, it was not rare to refer disciplinary
and doctrinal conflicts stretching over boundaries of diocesan jurisdiction to
the emperor(s). When summoning councils, emperors facilitated the process,
providing, for example, travel coverage,“ accommodation expenses and
administrative personnel for the sessions. The Council of Nicaea set a pattern
of imperial convocation, attendance, participation and even direct intervention,
The Emperor Theodosius II was, like his predecessors, looking for the church
to offer him a unified faith and population, which would favour the prospects
of a more powerful empire.“* The formal ‘establishment’ of a Nicene faith at
the time of his grandfather, Theodosius I,*5 was not reflected in an end of the
conflicts over orthodoxy. Bishops were challenged by heresies in cities and vil-
lages in their dioceses, metropolitans, by their tributary bishops. Religious and
ecclesiastical problems were referred to the imperial authority. The state knew,
perhaps imperceptibly, that religious differences (especially via the formation

* P. Norton, Episcopal Elections (2007), 142-4,

“' ACO II 1/3, 88[447], 28-89[448], 17. See R. Price and M. Gaddis, The Acts of the Council
of Chalcedon (2005) Ill, 67-73. Cf. P.V. Nuffelen, ‘The rhetoric of rules’ (2011).
QR Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 131.
eo, Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity (2005), 237.
~ Many bishops offered this to their emperors, epitomised by Nestorius’ declaration to Theo-
dosius I, quoted by Socrates, H. e. VII, 29, 4-5. See also A. Cameron and S.G. Hall (eds), Eusebius.
Life of Constantine (1999), 42-5, 250-1.
*S Cunctos populos. CTh XVI, 1, 2.
24 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

of a local religious identity) could contribute to the fragmentation of volatile

areas, especially frontier regions. The readiness to fight and die for the faith
which Theodotus expressed in his homilies** reflected the importance of martyr-
dom. The saints from the Roman persecutions were venerated, and it was still
a palpable concept, especially near Persia, since Christianity was persecuted
there.*” Readiness to become a martyr for the right beliefs was a disposition
which could still be fulfilled in an empire where the Christian rulers’ ortho-
doxy, as official religion, had often changed considerably throughout the fourth
century, and where violence was used against those labelled as heretics.
Bishops usually split into two opposing parties on most disputed matters and
the allegiances were often informed by the wider context. At synods and coun-
cils, the sitting order could reflect the factions.** The imperial administration
seemed to ignore, perhaps deliberately, most finesses of ecclesiastical hierarchy
and church political disputes.“ Nevertheless, Theodosius I] was aware of the
tendency to polarisation between the bishops. When he summoned an ecumenical
council in November 430, he asked for dialogue not only between the individuals
at the source of the conflict, but also the larger groups which could form.*°
The reputation of the Council of Nicaea was clouded in imprecision, result-
ing in part from the lack of ‘standard’ documentation about it. Without living
eye-witnesses, by the early fifth century there was a widely shared picture of
what was likely to have happened. In all areas the bishops probably had access
at least to the Nicene creed and to texts on the condemnation of Arius, on
Easter and the canons.°! Included in imperial letters, they were likely to have
been widely circulated and promulgated, as laws valid in the oikoumene of the
Roman empire.*? In some regions other sources were available, like the letters
sent by bishops taking part in the council, such as Eusebius of Cesarea,>* to their
dioceses.** Some of the reports and documents with which the fifth-century
church historians built their narrative®> contributed to the imagination about
Nicaea of the bishops who went to Ephesus in 431, but not homogeneously.
The ‘Nicene’ faith, which all purported not to alter, was not rigidly defined.

4 E.9. B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 132.

47 The persecution there started more or less when Christianity began to be tolerated in the
Roman Empire. See Theodoret of Cyrrhus, H. e¢., V, on persecution in Persia around 420.
48 R. MacMullen, Voting about God (2006), 195. E.g. ACO Il 1/1, 115, 20-34.
*° See below (p. 56) the remarks on the list of invitees, and on the sacra to the council via
John, comes largitionum, of 431 (see p. 81).
® ACO TI 1/1, 115, 19-20.
J. Herrin, Byzantium (2008), 36.
*2 L. Abramowski, ‘Der Bischof von Seleukia-Ktesiphon’ (2011), 17.
33 Ep. Caes., H.-G. Opitz (ed.), Athanasius Werke (1935), 28-31.
+4 Evidence for episcopal archives in the early fifth century is scarce, see A. Weckwerth, Ablauf,
Organisation und Selbstverstandnis westlicher antiker Synoden (2007), 36.
** Socrates, H. ¢. {, 8. Sozomen H. e. I, 17.
 Theodotus’ ecclesiastic context 25

Theological declarations were still formulated in the form of credal formulae,

but bishops increasingly expressed reticence to issue new creeds at synods.
Regional synods were valuable occasions for networking and were held fre-
quently. Accordingly, the bishops invited to Ephesus were familiar with the
‘format’,>’ and were also aware of differences, such as the imperial involve-
ment and the scope of what was to happen there. Bishops with various back-
grounds and diverse experiences met at regional synods, and the pattems of
alliance were not stable.°* Several fourth and fifth-century examples suggest
that procedural minutes or stenographic records of the discussions were often
taken, at least when imperial officers participated.°? Minutes or records of some
of the sessions of the Council of Ephesus are extant, and contain references
to the taking of minutes and attachment of documents. In general, the minutes
did not circulate widely, and contain no self-referential realisation of preserving
the actions of bishops for history. Some bishops and theologians in Ephesus,
or concemed with related events, may have been aware of theological discus-
sions under imperial auspices which had not been enforced, or had been
little effective.*' Many knew, often from first-hand experience, of synods
which had developed very differently from the idealised model of Nicaea.°
The events involving John Chrysostom, which led to his death were recent
and their influence was compounded by the numerous ceremonies related to
the restoration of his memory, which happened shortly before the Nestorian
crisis.? He was a major example for the characterisation of ‘holy men’ in

56 On the fluid distinction of creeds and credal formulae, see, for example, W. Kinzig er al.,
Tauffragen und Bekenntnis (1999), L.H. Westra, The Apostles’ Creed (2002). Even if this recent
scholarship focuses on the first three centuries, it supports translating tiotic in expressions refer-
ring to the miotic of Nicaea or of the Nicene fathers not only as ‘creed’ (cf. ACO [ 1/2, 12, 29),
but also as ‘faith’, to reflect the range of interpretative and synodical aspects contained in the
reference to patristic authority. The session of 22 July 431 (ACO I 1/7, 105, 20ff) and Theodotus
Exp. symb. attest the fifth-century development and establishment of an authoritative creed. See
also S. Gerber, Theodor von Mopsuestia und das Nicénum (2000), 267-71.
57 A, Weckwerth, Ablauf. Organisation und Selbstverstandnis westlicher antiker Synoden
(2007).
8 For example, Acacius of Beroea and other older Oriental bishops had attended synods
where they were on the same side of Roman and other Western representatives, a co-operation
which was not going to repeat itself in Ephesus in the summer of 431.
*® H. Hess, The Early Development of Canon Law (2002), 60-2.
© ACOTI 1/2, 31, 10; 38, 33-4.
°! For example, the selective reception of the Council of Constantinople (381). At least in
Egypt, most canons and the creed were seldom mentioned until the status of council and creed
alike were recognised at Chalcedon in 451 (ACO II 5, 22, 18). See E. Schwartz, ‘Cyrill und der
Ménch Viktor’ (1926), 83f., and E. K. Chrysos, ‘Die Akten des Konzils von Konstantinopel I
(381)' (1982), 426-8.
© Eusebius V. C. 3, 8-27, F. Winkelmann (ed.), Eusebius Werke: 1. Bd., 1. T. (1975), 85-96.
_ © See N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 114-5, also on the influence of Chrysostom’s preaching
in Antioch and in Constantinople, of which there were still plenty of eye witnesses in 431.
26 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

ecclesiastical office. It is likely that the court and the Cyrillians attempted to
act and present their deeds so as to minimise the rise of parallels between
Nestorius and Chrysostom. Nestorius’ own later writing, and those of his sup-
porters tend to emphasise characteristics he held in common with other bishops
with monastic background facing adverse conditions, especially John Chrysos-
tom, also bishop of Constantinople.®
The debate which largely occupied the bishops at the Council of Ephesus
was about Christology. It developed from fourth-century theological disputes,
especially on Trinitarian arguments within Christianity. The gradual and organic
change of ideas makes it difficult to identify and separate factions and ascribe
beliefs to them. Nevertheless, the arguments about theological concepts were
often formulated in terms of orthodoxy and heresy, with claims of upholding
the right faith and accusations of deviating from it. The Nestorian controversy
seems to have sprung from the attempts to tackle remaining Arian and Apol-
linarian heretical problems, whose real extent and vigour it is hard to judge.®
Their presence is often inferred from texts, such as homilies and pastoral
letters, which name heresies present among the audience, whether lay, monas-
tic or ecclesiastic. Rhetorical references to the heresies or other condemnable
groups are hard to distinguish from signs of actual involvement of the congre-
gation with the beliefs ascribed to those deviations.® As discussed below,” a
pedagogical and catechetical purposes of these references was to enlighten fur-
tively the listeners that they were holding ideas which actually belonged to the
heresies being named, or which the preacher attributed to them.
There was no well developed understanding of Christology yet. Most bishops
and theologians expressed confidence that, relying on scripture and the teach-
ings of the church fathers,” they had enough elements to hold an orthodox
understanding of the ‘incarnation of Christ, and what it implies about the divin-
ity and humanity of the incarnate one’.”! They expressed this in the terms and

* Cited as such by Celestine in his letter to the clergy and people of Constantinople (ACO I
1/1, 84, 28-32). See C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity (2005), A. Sterk, Renouncing the
World yet Leading the Church (2004), 141ff. P. Brown, Power and Persuasion (1992).
5 See the extensive references in N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 47.
T. Graumann, ‘Kirchliche Identitét und bischdfliche Selbstinszenierung’ (2003), 198.
7 LI. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 48-9. Cf. S. Wessel, ‘Nestorius, Mary and controversy’
(1999), 12ff.
68 Most early fifth-century examples probably served both purposes. Indeed, an ‘orthodox’
preacher was unlikely to speak, or have his homilies or letters read out in the context of a liturgical
celebration in churches belonging to groups he considered heretical, such as the ‘chapel used by
Arians’ in Constantinople, mentioned in Socrates H. ¢. VII, 29. Likewise, it is implausible that a
preacher would speak of ideas he opposed to a congregation which was not aware of them.
See p. 104.
Cf. e.g. M. Laird, Gregory of Nyssa and the Grasp of Faith (2004), 195, M. Aubineau,
‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 241.
” T. Graumann, ‘Kirchliche Identitat und bisch6fliche Selbstinszenierung’ (2003), 198.
 Theodotus’ ecclesiastic context 27

ways to which they were used, considering them adequate, until a relevant
technical language developed.”
The views of theologians were influenced by the intellectual tradition in
which they had grown up, and by the problems they identified in ideas espoused
by others. With hindsight, their attempts to make explicit, to attack and to
counter the doctrinal issues seem influenced ‘dialectically’, however, the events
precluded any proper dialogue for a long time. During the Nestorian contro-
versy, Cyril’s Christological ideas or at least his vocabulary developed and
crystallised in reaction to what Nestorius and some Oriental bishops espoused,
and vice versa.”
The references to Mary in Theodotus’ homilies and conciliar statements are
part of the significant number of fourth and early fifth-century allusions to
the evolving Marian traditions’* which corroborate the importance of Marian
devotion but also the absence of a fully fledged veneration prior to the Council
of Ephesus. The Nestorian controversy sharpened the separation of different
theological traditions. Data from just a few decades after the Council of Ephesus
on intense Marian devotion with widespread common elements can hardly be
applied retroactively,”> nor should prominent local endeavours”® be regarded as
widely known and appreciated.” The Cyrillian Council validated and recom-
mended the expression ‘Mary Theotokos’, contributing to its increased use, both
in slogans and elaborate theological discussions.
Some trends of ‘popular’ Marian devotion were recognised by the Orientals,
other were encouraged by the Cyrillian bishops, and some received imperial

72 «
Greek Christians of the late antique period had a highly ambivalent relationship with their
language. While they relied on it in their quest for an unequivocal definition of the Christian faith,
they were at the same time only too aware of its slipperiness, which made it all but impossible to
control the meanings of words. [...] The Christological controversies [...] focused on a [...] term
which alone seemed to guarantee the required absence of ambiguity, the OeotdKoc title for
Mary.” D. Krausmiiller, ‘Theotokos-diadochos’ (2006), 35. .
® See T. Graumann, ‘Towards the reception of the Council of Ephesus’ (2010), 171, the
introductions to N. Russell, Cyri/ (2000) and T.G. Weinandy and D.A. Keating (eds), The Theology
of St. Cyril (2003), as well as C.A. Beeley, ‘Cyril of Alexandria and Gregory Nazianzen’ (2009)
for a discussion of the strongly polarised scholarship and its causes.
4 G. Séll, Mariologie (1978), 50-73. Some non-scriptural details, such as the preservation of
Mary’s virginity at Christ’s birth, were probably accepted widely enough for Theodotus to use them
as syllogistic premisses, cf, ACO I 1/2, 75, 12.
* LIF. Mateo-Seco, *Der Titel “Gottesmutter”’ (2004), J. Herrin, Byzantium (2008), 54-5,
M. Fassler, ‘The first Marian feast’ (2001), 28, V. Limberis, Divine Heiress (1994), 145.
%© For example, the patronage of Marian devotion by the women of the imperial household,
see N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 38ff., and K. Cooper, ‘Empress and Theotokos* (2004), 31-41,
St reappraising some scholarly debate, e.g. K.G. Holum, Theodosian Empresses (1982), 144ff.,
V. Limberis, Divine Heiress (1994), 53, K. Cooper, ‘Contesting the Nativity’ (1998); cf. R. Price,
‘Marian piety and the Nestorian controversy’ (2004), 36f., S. Wessel, ‘Nestorius, Mary and con-
troversy’ (1999), Off. .
” See p. 18.
28 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

support.’® Christian devotions and religious practices often had a long develop-
ment before they are first registered in extant literary texts.”? Allusions to such
‘popular beliefs’ could help a preacher to procure the benevolence of his audi-
ence, and secure their attention and regular attendance, opposing the competi-
tion from other sources of entertainment or theological instruction.®° Bishops,
who incorporated devotions, sometimes provided explanations or interpreta-
tions. They were often a source of new input to dogmatic questions to which
theologians did not necessarily react favourably. Some bishops tried to counter
religious practices with normative actions, or to enlighten their audiences as to
the inappropriateness of their doings. Attempts to curb devotions could lead to
dissatisfaction, and occasional challenges ranged from direct questions to com-
plaints to superior instances. For example, Nestorius approached the problems
he spotted in the beliefs held by his audience by highlighting the shortcomings
of their views, discussing and comparing details, and his endeavours left him,
often described as a tactless preacher, exposed to attacks.®!

Ancyra
Information about Ancyra in the fifth century is rather fragmentary.®* The liter-
ary and archeological evidence for the third and fourth centuries is more exten-
sive and allows a vivid depiction of the social and religious environment of
Ancyra in the generations before Theodotus.®? Some of this was part of the
milieu or of the collective memory with which Theodotus dealt. Inferences
about the province and the city in his time demand discretion.
The province of Galatia had a hard climate, and was sparsely populated. Sheep
and goats thrived allowing for textile production and the manufacture of dyes,
probably centred in Ancyra. During the fourth century the province was an
important source of Gothic slaves and the traffic had brought some wealth. Its

7 See J. Baun, Tales from another Byzantium (2007), 78-9, V. Limberis, Divine Heiress (1994),
145-7.
79 E.g. devotional formulas as in John Rylands Library Pap. 470, C.H. Roberts (ed.), Theo-
logical and Literary Texts (1938), 36ff., H. Forster, *Die ilteste marianische Antiphon’ (2005),
107, developed from earlier traditions registered, for example, in apocrypha, cf. S.J. Shoemaker,
‘Between scripture and tradition’ (2008), id., Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition
(2006), 17, 34ff., 152ff., 288.
80 [Link]. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication (2006).
81 See LIL. Scipioni, Nestoria (1974), 30ff. as well as N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 49ff. Nesto-
rius’ downfall can be taken to represent the limit of influence and success a holy man in the
making could have early in the fifth century in the imperial capital, facing incompatible traditional
aspects of the court of the Roman Empire.
82 C. Foss, ‘Late antique and Byzantine Ankara’ (1977) provides an useful survey of the
extant documents, archaeological evidence and ancient ‘secondary literature’.
3S. Mitchell, Anatolia (1995), id., ‘The life of saint Theodotus’ (1982).
 Theodotus’ ecclesiastic context 29

significant grain production™ exceeded internal needs and allowed it to partici-

pate in the most reliable market of late antiquity to some extent. Theodotus may
have profited of the richness of Ancyra by coming from a wealthy family," or
by the lands and property owned or administered by the diocese, which would be
under his control.®? Alexandria illustrates late antique wealthy dioceses, as well
as metropolitan bishops coming from leading Christian families of a well-estab-
lished and powerful regional aristocracy.** Cyril’s network of informants and
bribery is also the paradigm of a bishop using wealth for his own interests.”
In the fourth century, Ancyra had been ‘a military and administrative center,
an imperial resort, a place with a highly literate upper class, and a zealous
Christian community dominated by influential bishops.’® Libanius refers many
times to Ancyra.*! The city did not equal Athens, Antioch or Alexandria in pagan
or Christian tradition. It was only regionally famous and did not figure among
the wealthiest cities in the Eastern Roman Empire. Secular historical accounts
on the fifth century are generally lacking.”* The sources suggest that the city
kept its cultural liveliness and richness in the following decades, rivalling other
cities of similar economical and political significance. Theodotus’ writings com-
posed in good Greek and with elaborate rhetorical, stylistic and argumentative
techniques would have suited the ears of his Ancyran audience, as much as of
conciliar bishops and the court.
Most information for the early fifth century stems from the works of Palladius
and Nilus.” Their accounts revolve around holy men, monks, religious and moral

* ©, Foss, ‘Late antique and Byzantine Ankara’ (1977), 30-1.

85 Eg. the lasting policy of providing bread for the Roman citizens. J. Herrin, Byzantium
(2008), 26.
86 Theodotus’ elocution suggests a classical education, which usually only rich families could
afford. The importance of wealth for the election of bishops is much debated, since the evidence
is unclear and ambiguous. See P. Norton, Episcopal Elections (2007), 183 on the provenance of
the money for post-elections payments at the time of Justinian.
‘7 BE, Wipszycka, Etudes sur le christianisme dans I’Egypte (1996), 159; H.R. Seeliger, ‘Die
Erforschung der spatantiken Bischofssitze’ (2011), 196-7. Cf. ACO I 1/2, 13, 19-23.
88 See C.D.G. Miiller, ‘Alexandrien’ (1978), 256. See also C. Haas, Alexandria in Late Antiquity
(2006), 220-3, P. Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 451-491 (2006), 97, E. Wipszycka,
Etudes sur le christianisme dans l’Egypte (1996), 157-9, and J. McKenzie, The Architecture of
Alexandria (2007), 173, 249.
*© Colourfully discussed in R. MacMullen, Voting about God (2006), 67, especially note 31.
See further P. Batiffol, ‘Les présents de saint Cyrille’ (1919), T. Graumann, ‘Kirchliche Identitat
und bischéfliche Selbstinszenierung’ (2003), 209.
°° C. Foss, ‘Late antique and Byzantine Ankara’ (1977), 51.
°' See C. Foss, ‘Late antique and Byzantine Ankara’ (1977), 42-9 for an overview of the
relevant passages, and R. Cribiore, The School of Libanius (2007), 71-2.
2 See S. Mitchell, A History of the Later Roman Empire (2007), 102.
*® Palladius was bishop of Helenopolis, perhaps Aspuna, south of Ancyra, on the great high-
way, but had died before 431. Nilus lived until the mid-fifth century. See D. Brakke, Demons and
the Making of the Monk (2006), 134-7.
30 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

issues, lending Ancyra a reputation as centre of piety and charity. Palladius wrote
the Historia Lausiaca in 420, a time when Theodotus probably was already in
Ancyra, perhaps as bishop. Both Palladius and Nilus were Galatian supporters
of John Chrysostom, perchance his disciples. They were monks, and travelled
much, Palladius to Egypt and Palestine, and Nilus to Constantinople. They
give evidence of monasteries, hermits, virgins, monks who sometimes settled
elsewhere, including near Antioch, several instances of ‘[p]ilgrimages to the
Holy Land and to Egypt to visit the famous monks’ by Galatians. It is not a
comprehensive representation of the society, and their perspective limits the
historical reliability of the numbers and of the picture they provide of Ancyra
in the first two decades of the fifth century. Their accounts do not rule out the
continuity of many facets which Libanius had described.”
Specific information about monasticism in Ancyra during Theodotus’ life
is not abundant and works such as Palladius’ and Nilus’ are not reliable sourc-
es.°° Regional differences in monastic practices and traditions are characteris-
tic for this time.” Monasticism had developed speedily since the period of the
Tetrarchy to become a well established, but multi-faceted, aspect of Christian
religious life. It influenced the perception of religious authority, theological
language and literary genres. Works on venerated monks and ascetics spread
their ideals quickly and widely. Monks claimed their way of life helped to a
truer knowledge of Christ.°® In the East, bishops came increasingly from
among monks or hermits, and it became the favoured career pattern in Byzan-
tium.” During the early fifth century, the church was experimenting with ways
to explore, influence and control the extremely varied forms of asceticism.
Gradually, the relation of power between a bishop and the monks in his
diocese was specified, and the organisation and running of monasteries was
regulated.'
It is unlikely that Theodotus led a monastic life as bishop. Nonetheless, a
later anti-Nestorian source!®! calls Theodotus a brother, associated with ascetic

° C. Foss, ‘Late antique and Byzantine Ankara’ (1977), 53.

9% Ibid., 49.
% See, however, S. Mitchell, Anatolia (1995), I, 114, interpreting the evidence of 2,000 parthe-
noi led by Magna.
57 See also F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 131-2, C.B. Horn, Asceticism and
Christological Controversy (2006), 54-5, 112ff., P. Hatlie, The Monks and Monasteries (2007),
R.D. Finn, Asceticism (2009), P. Brown, The Body and Society (2008), J. Herrin, Byzantium
(2008), 40-1.
3% C. Stewart, Cassian the Monk (1999), 94-7. For the relation of monastic ideals and the
Christological debate, see D. Fairbaim, Grace and Christology (2003), 133-49 and C.B. Horn,
Asceticism and Christological Controversy (2006).
% A. Sterk, Renouncing the World yet Leading the Church (2004), 173ff.
100 See F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 132 on Canon 4 of Chalcedon, ACO II 1/2,
159[355], 10-23.
'0! Discussed on p. 66.
 Theodotus’ ecclesiastic context 31

practices. Since some sources suggest a monastic background for Nestorius,

Theodotus’ putative earlier acquaintance with him may have come from a
shared monastic experience.
In Ancyra and nearest environs, the mostly imprecise late antique sources
mention a cathedral church and some seven churches or chapels and six other
possible venues for Christian worship which may have stood in Theodotus’
time.'°2 Many religious buildings were probably small, particularly those
described as chapels or abodes of venerable individuals. Nevertheless, they add
up to a significant number of relevant religious sites, considering the size of
Ancyra. Ina smaller scale, it was similar to Ephesus.'® Both cities had suffered
extensive damage in the late third century — either from Gothic invasion'™ or
earthquake — but had recovered economically and socially. The building of
churches in particular had increased quantitative and qualitatively and reached
a new level with the Theodosian religious edicts. In so far as the erection of
churches and other Christian buildings occupied sites or reused building mate-
rials, it is likely that most were sites left derelict from the late third century,
including dilapidated public buildings.‘
Except for Christian buildings, the urban landscape of Ancyra changed lit-
tle in the fourth and fifth century. After most of the city had been repaired or
rebuilt,! construction of non-religious public buildings stagnated. It can be
explained by the security of the city and the absence of destruction or damage
to buildings, most of which were new, but it was probably compounded by a
redirection of private wealth, linked to the Christianisation of the empire, or a
decline in the economy or in the significance of the city. The chronology of
the building activity makes it possible that Theodotus had been directly
involved with its recent surge, or at least with the inaugurations and associated
celebrations.
In Ancyra, several theatres were in use.'°’ Their attendance only declined after
Theodotus’ generation, when they sustained damage in various incursions.’
He had perhaps to contend with the theaters for the attention of his audience,
which may have encouraged him to acquire a confident use of dramatisation.'”

'2 C. Foss, ‘Late antique and Byzantine Ankara’ (1977), 60ff.

'O¥ §, Ladstatter and A. Piilz, ‘Ephesus’ (2007), 413ff.
In Ephesus most of the damage, even related to fires, was due to earthquakes and not to
the Goths, but even there the limited sacking and plundering of the countryside severely affected
the city, with long-lasting economical consequences, cf. ibid., 396.
‘8 See J.-P. Caillet, ‘La transformation en église d’édifices publics et de temples’ (1996), 201-2.
'06 C. Foss, ‘Late antique and Byzantine Ankara’ (1977), 60ff. comprises also important civic
buildings.
‘7 Ibid., 6Off.
'8 See the evidence discussed in C. Foss. ibid., 60, L. Lavan, ‘What killed the ancient city?’
(2009), and E.J. Watts, City and School (2006), 81.
'® See pp. 36, 102 also [Link]. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication (2006), 54. 95ff.
32 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council! of Ephesus (431)

Theodotus probably did not have to deal with the challenge of ‘competing
preaching bishops’.!'°
In 314, Ancyra was the venue for an influential synod,'! in which ‘those
who had lapsed [during the just ended persecutions} were received back into
communion with degrees of penance which reflected the reluctance, willing-
ness, or even enthusiasm with which they had transgressed’.'!? Accommodation
and tolerance are considered characteristic of the regional character of Galatia,
and exemplified by the approach to Montanism in the third and fourth centu-
ries.''3 By 420-30, the overt plurality of Christian beliefs had been significantly
curbed by a twofold systematic targeting. The church had been emphasising
orthodoxy, and both the central and provincial administration tried to enforce
laws against heresies. Nevertheless, a preacher had to cope with collective mem-
ory. Ancyra and its environs had been exposed to a great variety of Christian
trends. There, Theodotus would have addressed some who could recall or had
been part of a ‘heretical church’.''4 Some might remember the mid fourth-century
turbulent episcopacies of Marcellus and Basil, and their teaching, or the ideas
of their supposed disciples, such as Photinus.!'5
Theodotus’ episcopal predecessor was Leontius,''® head of the ‘monastery’
in Ancyra, at least before his election.'!” They do not seem to have been related
by any ties. The dating of most of the building activity mentioned above makes
it attributable to Leontius. The evidence for monasteries and Leontius’ own
monastic life suggest an early establishment and significance of monasticism
in Ancyra. Thus, Theodotus’ audience may have been familiar with the ideas
and vocabulary current in monastic environments, and possibly included
monks and ascetics. In Ancyra, monks do not seem to have confronted their
bishop. "8

"0 The many large churches of Constantinople provided the setting for challenging preachers,
like Proclus. See N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 56-7.
"1S. Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra (2006), 10.
"2 ©. Foss, ‘Late antique and Byzantine Ankara’ (1977), 36.
‘13 The remoter inland parts of Asia Minor throughout late antiquity [...] not unexpectedly
preserved, as they preserve today, a strongly conservative social morality, which was reflected
in their religious practices and beliefs’, S. Mitchell, ‘The life of saint Theodotus’ (1982), 104;
already Socrates (H. e. IV, 8), as noticed in L. Robert, ‘Malédictions funéraires grecques’
(1978).
"4 For example, c. 360 CE there was a living Montanist community in Ancyra, for which the
M. Thdot. 1, 2 were written, see S. Mitchell, ‘The life of saint Theodotus* (1982), 112.
MS See p. 158.
"6 Sozomen H. e., VI, 34.
"7 Nilus Alb. PG79, 703A.
"8 Monks could gather in large numbers, cause significant violence, and stir wider popular
demonstrations. See examples on pp. 74, 112, also F, Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 132.
For a more prudent assessment of the evidence, see D. Brakke, Demons and the Making of the
Monk (2006), 213-5.
 Theodotus’ ecclesiastic context 33

Sozomen praises Leontius* zeal for orthodoxy by commending his successes

against the Novatians by depriving them of their church,'!? which suggests that
many followers were still in the region. Despite such attempts to establish
orthodoxy, a putative regional tendency for toleration comes through in the
absence of overt commitments to eradicate heresy by violence or mass repris-
als. Unlike Nestorius, no anti-heretical claims which would affect large groups
is attributed to Theodotus. Rather, even those he attacked, describe his approach
to consolidate orthodoxy as revolving around his activity as a preacher and writ-
er.!2° In Theodotus’ works, he admonishes, instructs and warns of the dangers
which heterodoxy presents for salvation. In the wake of Nestorius’ deposition,
he defended the exclusion of a few for the betterment of most.
Theodotus’ links to the region and to Ancyra can only be suggested tentatively.
No intervention on behalf of the city or its citizens is recorded. His homilies
lack clear regional references, even in the direct addresses to his audience.
Related to the location of Ancyra, there was a tradition of sending its young-
sters to study in Antioch.'?! Perhaps, Theodotus received his education there,
probably around the tum of the fourth century. Libanius provided abundant
information about Antioch and its importance as a centre of learning.!??
A delicate balance and coexistence of approaches, including a large presence
of teaching in Latin, was probably part of the Antiochene scene throughout the
second half of the fourth century. Non-exclusivity on the students, often sent
by their wealthy parents from afar, was also characteristic.!2> Some information
from the end of Libanius’ career!*4 can be applied to the teaching environment
in the city early in the fifth century. Libanius says that his school was then
threatened by schools where a less thorough method was employed, and where
Latin played a larger role. If Theodotus was sent to Antioch to receive a better
education, and could afford to join the best schools of rhetoric, he may have
obtained a good training in Latin, or at least enough familiarity with it, for it
to have influenced his involvement in Ephesus.!*> An Antiochene-like training
is vouched for by his actions and writings, whose elocution and style is akin to
what theologians who are known to have received a good education employed
in their works.
Theodotus’ theology does not show any significant influence of the Antio-
chene theological milieu, that is, of the distinguished theologians and their

"9 Sozomen H. e., VILL, 1.

ACO I 4, 80, 3-5.
"1 C. Foss, ‘Late antique and Byzantine Ankara’ (1977), 48.
“* E.g., John Chrysostom and Basil frequented his school. Despite the chronology, they and
late antique historiographers counted Theodore of Mopsuestia among Libanius’ students.
'3 EJ. Watts, City and School (2006), 57-8, Students could attend several schools, despite
Ostensive affiliation rituals, see N.B. McLynn, Christian Politics (2009) XII, 34-6.
4 Libanius died in 394. See R. Cribiore. The School of Libanius (2007), 24, 105-7, 206-8.
"5 See pp. 46, 82, 110.
34 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

followers. It has more in common with Alexandrian ideas. However, this does
not rule out an Antiochene education. Grammatical and rhetorical education
was not a decisive factor in adopting philosophical or theological views.!”
Students with different beliefs and views of orthodoxy often co-existed in the
traditional centres of teaching, in which pre-Christian educational models were
followed and developed further.'?” Thus, while nothing is known about Theo-
dotus’ education and background, an Antiochene training, plausible from what
is known about Ancyra, would explain his style and could support an early
acquaintance with Antiochene theologians, perhaps even with Nestorius. This
scenario remains tenable, despite Theodotus’ rejection of some Antiochene
Christological ideas.

Christianity and late antique communication

Theodotus worked with and contributed to the complex late antique oral and
literary culture knit into the existing social and political structures. Official
channels of communication were not equally effective in all regions. Many
imperial letters, including those bearing on theological or ecclesiological mat-
ters, had limited impact and sometimes did not become widely known. The
balance with other important means of communication was complex. Not only
among literate social groups, writing could contribute significantly for the
spread of ideas and news and influence Christianity. Public oral communica-
tions could reach a numerous and socially varied audience, and could disclose
the content of written documents. Word-of-mouth helped to spread information,
for example, by travellers, including monks. Deliberate efforts to promote or
hinder the dissemination of content were vulnerable to many uncertainties and
hazards.
Even if unintentionally, the church became increasingly involved in the cir-
culation of information in written and oral form. In the absence of a formalised
religious education beyond the catechumenate, religious apprenticeship largely
depended of dialogue with, and listening to the teachings of senior bishops and
monks.

Christian orality and preaching

Communication was essentially oral in late antiquity, since written texts were
most often read aloud, and one of the main goals of education was to prepare
the young men to be effective orators, for example, as part of the training for

'26 Qn religious education, see p. 37, and on the ‘School of Antioch’, see A.M. Schor, Theo-
doret’s People (2011), 67ff.
27 NB, McLynn, Christian Politics (2009) XII, 30-4, J. Herrin, Byzantium (2008), 37, P. Gemein-
hardt, Das lateinische Christentum und die antike pagane Bildung (2007), 391-4.
 Theodotus’ ecctesiastic context 35

forensic advocacy.'?8 Also Christian ‘literature’ was essentially oral. Despite

reports of dialogues and disputes on Christian topics in the market square and
other public places,'? a liturgical setting and dedicated venue seem to have
been preferred!*° for the oral delivery of theological or ecclesiastic works to
large audiences.'3! Most texts which register this oratory have been transmitted
under the heading of homilies, encompassing a great variety of texts. Some
hardly seem to rely on Christian themes and vocabulary. The vast majority of
homilies can be fitted in a few categories, ranging from prayer-like monologues
to dialogues with the audience. In early Christianised regions, several homiletic
formats had already largely crystallised, often following influential models.
Other elements of late antique liturgies, like scriptural readings, singing of
psalms and eucharistic celebration were used or echoed in most homilies.!*?
Although homiletics is seen as a literary genre, there are no clear boundaries
of what constituted preaching.' In the texts it can be difficult to separate oral
and written elements. Homilies were often didactic, expounding and clarify-
ing scripture and tradition to the audience, conciliating or criticising local or
individual practices with regard to the conventions of major sees, corroborating
a presumed post-Constantinian normalising tendency.!*4 Sermons had an essen-
tial relationship between exegesis and exhortation, based on scripture.'5 The
persuasive character could prevail, sometimes using just the resources typical
of didactic works.
The propriety of the speech, and the speaker’s ability to relate to the audience
were aS important for preaching as for other forms of oral communication.!*6
Sermons have largely been treated on a one-to-one basis since most of the
context remains unspecified, such as the education and reaction of the audience,
and even the setting. Although common, a ‘Christian’ location and a liturgical
setting were not necessary for preaching. Central questions for the appraisal of
a text in classical rhetoric, such as the adequacy of content and form and the

'28 C. Humfress, Orthodoxy and the Courts (2007), 13.

'2° R. Lim, ‘Religious disputation and social disorder’ (1995), 211, 227; G. W. Bowersock et al.,
Late Antiquity: a Guide to the Postclassical World (1999), 203.
'90 R. Lim, ‘Religious disputation and social disorder’ (1995), 220, 230.
'3! However, exactly where and when can seldom be inferred from sporadic and very diverse
evidence, see L. J. Johnson, Worship in the Early Church (2009).
"2 See M. Cunningham, ‘Dramatic device or didactic tool?’ (2003) and W. Mayer, ‘John
Chrysostom’ (1998). The relevant topics for Theodotus’ homilies are analysed in the section on
Pp. O8ff.
3 Tt would be the Christian literary genre par excellence, yet it kept close links and developed
alongside classical rhetoric, sharing most values and characteristics. See p. 9.
4 See e.g. M.B. Cunningham, ‘Preaching and the community’ (1990), 35 for examples of
appropriation of material from widespread and popular apocrypha.
35 A. Stewart-Sykes, From Prophecy to Preaching (2001), 269.
86M. Cunningham and P. Allen, (eds), Preacher and Audience (1998), P. Allen and W. Mayer,
“Computer and homily’ (1993).
36 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

accessibility of the ideas, are usually unanswerable, since the sources do not
characterise the implicit standards shared by the local society. The information
on the rhetorical conventions taught in the famous schools is generally relevant
for only a small proportion of a late antique congregation.
Authors usually strove to make their preaching accessible to all.!*7 A topic
of attacks against preachers was that they failed to do so. Another was the
critique of not being good Christians but rather behaving like ‘proud’ philoso-
phers.!38 The preacher could nevertheless elaborate his homily having in mind
those who could understand the deeper meanings and allusions. A preacher was
esteemed if he convinced the general audience that his overall style was good
and pleasant, and was adequate to the content (and vice versa).'*? In details he
could display his excellence above fellow preachers. Even if only few noticed
this, their word-of-mouth reports built his reputation, while the general audience
was pleased with an overall understanding and occasionally spotting some of
the niceties for which he was renowned.
140
Extant homilies suggest that preachers largely used common vocabulary,
and that the ‘difficult?’ words were usually an elaboration of well known
expressions. Complex passages, for example due to a syntax which baffles
modem readers, were perhaps made clear to all during the performance by
non-verbal resources. Thus, most in an average audience!*! could follow the
discourse. Less clear is how well they could understand the twists of arguments,
or differentiate a stock argument or construction from a striking one, or notice
refinements of style and content and allusions to other works. The possibility
of several readings in a text, depending on connotations and hints which edu-
cated listeners might notice are not frequent in Theodotus’ conciliar homilies,
where the audience is treated as a uniform whole. Some techniques meant to aid
understanding, such as dramatisation,'*? met with occasional incomprehension.
Accusations included references to the links to other forms of entertainment,

7 That is, all acquainted with the Christian faith. Those whose intellectual pretensions did
not help them with the reading of scripture, e.g. those following some philosophical school, were
more to blame than the preacher for their failure.
138 P, Auksi, Christian Plain Style (1995), 165.
‘39 Proclus of Constantinople is perhaps the best example of a *good preacher’ in the early fifth
century. See J.H. Barkhuizen, ‘Proclus of Constantinople: a popular preacher’ (1998), id., Proclus,
Bishop of Constantinople — Homilies on the Life of Christ (2001).
40 Considering the significant differences between regional variants and scriptural Greek, it
is not possible to judge objectively how difficult the language of the fathers was for the audiences.
See [Link]. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication (2006), 93-4.
4 See L.R. Wickham, ‘Homily 4’ (1993) for inferences about the audience from Gregory of
Nyssa’s more elaborate arguments in Hom. in Eccl. Some scholars suggest the preachers were
understood by few, and did nothing to change the situation, see for example, R. MacMullen, “The
preacher’s audience’ (1989), 508-9.
142 For a characterisation of dramatic homilies, see M.B. Cunningham, *Polemic and exegesis’
(1999), 50 and J. Kecskeméti. ‘Sévérien de Gabala’ (1996).
 Theodotus’ ecclesiastic context 37

such as the theatre, which are now accounted for by the preacher’s effort to
compete for audience.
The schematic presentation of orthodoxy and heresy emphasised the differ-
ences which often came from nuances of language and drew the attention of
the mixed crowds to the debates and the problems of the views under attack.
The conditions of delivery of sermons could affect the audience’s ability to
understand a preacher. Theological problems which were related to language
often dealt with words with several day-to-day meanings and one or more
specific theological meanings, so that complaints of ‘incomprehensible vocab-
ulary’ stand for ‘not comprehensible in the right way’, and ‘people unable to
follow’ can stand for ‘people reasoning in wrong directions’.'3
In his see, a bishop could expect much of his audience to share his vocabu-
lary, especially if his congregation was fairly homogeneous ethnically and
socially. He could envisage a regular audience to share a wide range of presup-
positions, and hope that his discourse was understood as he meant it. Far from
his diocese, or speaking to an audience where many came from quite different
regions, such as would have gathered to hear sermons during a synod, not all
shared and agreed on vocabulary. Clear dichotomies and strong vocabulary
could help to achieve clarity in preaching and transmit a message about the
preacher’s faith. The condensed outline of complex theological problems, how-
ever, complicated problems in other places and times.'#
In the East not only bishops preached, however, one of their ordinary episco-
pal duties was to scrutinise this clerical office.'* The preacher was an inter-
preter of the AOyoc of God. His moral virtues lent authority to his moral admo-
nitions when he interacted with his congregation via sermons. In practice, he
had to take into account the various backgrounds, life experiences and spiritual
needs of men and women in the audience.'4° A homily was both a personal
individual text — for which the preacher was held accountable — and an instan-
tiation of the authoritative discourse of the church, signalled by its reference to
scripture, church fathers and documents.
Homilies were one of the main ways to transmit the faith. Cathechetical ora-
tions were an important aspect of the last stages of the reception into the church,
4 long and rather formal process even for those with a Christian background.
The teaching instilled in catechumens was perhaps the only established reli-
gious education, since there were hardly any Christian schools. The homilies

‘43 See [Link]. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication (2006), 97 for a contrary view.
_' For example, the use of Cyrillian texts to support the position of most groups at the Coun-
cil of Chalcedon in 451 and after it.
‘5 See T.G. Weinandy and D.A. Keating (eds), The Theology of St. Cyril (2003), 212 discussing
Cyril Ep. 83.
"6 See C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity (2005), 55 on Gregory the Great Regula
Pastoralis, WI (PL77).
38 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

to those recently baptised were perhaps the only communications not subject
to problems with irregular attendance of liturgies. The extant examples reveal
that bishops were eager to link to the right path to salvation the current contro-
versial issues about doctrine, advocating the view they deemed orthodox. In the
presentation of the right faith, traditional and newly established doctrines were
juxtaposed. To address new problems bishops could mainly make use of
preaching and of pastoral letters. The audience for homilies was also not lim-
ited to those attending church, since numerous sermons were written down and
circulated. It seems that written sermons were particularly popular with monks
who would not come into the cities often. There is no reliable information
on how they were delivered anew.'*” Since preaching was a regular aspect of
some of the liturgical celebrations, usually it was expected even of those, like
Atticus of Constantinople, who were not gifted with a great elocution. They
could resort to written down homilies at least as models, but also for passages
and even the whole text. It seems that in general homiletics was unremarkable
in form and content, and did not deal with topical or polemical matters. It is
largely unknown what characterised admirable and deficient preaching, and the
selection criteria for the writing down and transmission of homilies are usually
unclear. Such were the means by which a bishop could endeavour to correct
and save his flock when he chose to address a problem.
A bishop was entitled to preach in his see, and he held substantial local author-
ity, especially in more isolated dioceses, but he also could preach by invitation.!*
References to the teaching of other holy men spread their reputation and contrib-
uted to the development of local theological schools. A bishop was also respon-
sible for disseminating in his see the communications from his metropolitan, and
from synods. Regional synods which ought to occur regularly, but were usually
not as frequent as prescribed, did not necessarily curb local incongruous ten-
dencies, and sometimes exacerbated them. In the absence of official centres and
references of learning, the dialogue across provincial boundaries and the larger
synods tried to restrain the rise of contradicting theological views.
Apart from preaching, the reading of letters, and occasionally of conciliar
minutes and acts, of credal statements as well as of non-ecclesiastic letters
including sacras was used to correct or redirect the faithful. Letters addressed
to large groups tended to include fewer details and technicalities than those
addressed to a few individuals.° The uncertainties noted above about the audience

'47 Circulating homilies often were rather similar to pamphlets. Collections of homilies organ-
ised by feast are not yet attested. They became a common resource in later centuries, and many
extant manuscripts are in this format.
148 See W.T. Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians (2007), 156-7, with the example of
Theodore of Mopsuestia in cities near his see.
4 Compare ACO I 1/1, 77-83 and ACO I 1/1, 83-90. The latter lacks explicit details like
written form and ten days. See A. Weckwerth, Ablauf, Organisation und Selbstverstdndnis west-
licher antiker Synoden (2007), 32.
 Theodotus’ ecclesiastic context 39

of sermons applies also to pastoral letters. Even if the named addressees

regarded them highly at first, and provided a formal setting for their reading,
akin to preaching, the reaction of the listeners and later uses could vary much.
Oral delivery also spread letters, treatises, poems and other works on doctrinal
or disciplinary issues.

Written communication
Written works were important for spreading ideas, dialoguing and debating.
Although largely illiterate, the late antique Roman world used writings extensively
in formal and informal circumstances. The population was used to written texts
and to associate authority to them, e.g. in the inscriptions on public buildings
and the reading of sacras. Theodotus explored the significance of a written text
in the metalinguistic and theological discussion of sacra in Homily II.!°°
Christianity had from the beginning relied on writing for communications
and the establishment of doctrine. Over the centuries, stylistic peculiarities
developed, apparent in the vocabulary, erudition and arguments related to the
Christian faith and scriptures. Bishops, who were expected to remain in their
dioceses for most of the time, and had therefore a more reduced mobility than
equally ranking aristocrats and members of the imperial administration, resorted
often to writing to reach out to all their territories and beyond.
The frequent mention of written texts was not out of place in the previous
section on orality. In so far as we work on the transmitted documents, the
boundary between oral and written works is blurred. The recorded oral dis-
courses are texts, and texts were generally read aloud. A letter, for example,
was considered a dialogue without one interlocutor, or with an imagined
absent one, and performed orally, even when it had only one addressee. Orality
contributed to the lack of control over the diffusion of texts. It was very imprac-
tical to withdraw a text, even when imperial laws trying to contain the spread
of ideas specifically ordered the destruction of texts.!5! Reattributing or
anonymising works circumvented the sanctions, and contributed for the survival
of (fragments of) many texts by banned authors. It seems that at any given moment,
only few copies existed of most patristic works, and they were often concen-
trated regionally. Availability of earlier and contemporary works contributed
to independent theological developments and helped to undermine the cohesion
of the church.
Concerns with the authenticity and reliability of written works were increas-
ing among church leaders.'5? A written text spoke for the absent author, but

' See p. 110,

'! ACO 1 1/3, 69, 21-4.
‘2 Ep. Cyril’s drive to establish Alexandria as a repository of Athanasian authoritative sources,
cf. T. Graumann, ‘Kirchliche Identitat und bischéfliche Selbstinszenierung’ (2003).
40 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

could not defend him. It provided evidence for perusal, but was also subject to
tampering and forgery. Preaching had concomitantly the advantage of the pres-
ence of the (purported) author, and the disadvantage that it could be registered
by stenographers during the performace, who could give it to the preacher for
edition, but were not bound to do so.!*3 Not all written sermons circulated with
the author’s approval. However, preachers sometimes revised and distributed
their homilies, or developed their (series of) sermons into treatises. Some hymns
were also based on suitable sermons.!™4
The relation of homilies and texts read aloud is complex. Texts, especially
letters seem to have been read as or in sermons, é.g. the Alexandrian Festal
letters. Sermons are a substantial part of the extant Christian Greek texts from
late antiquity, when some enjoyed significant popularity and were widely dis-
tributed. Homilies could be read anew in liturgical context. In many monastic
environments, reading of patristic texts or of distinguished contemporaneous
speakers was important and often done formally.’ In the cities, for example
at court, homilies could be read outside a church or other religious setting. Even
if a written text recorded accurately the author’s words, had been transmitted
well and was redelivered without introducing changes, the message was subject
to the new context, rituality, manner of delivery and audience, and therefore
different from the original performance.

‘83 A. Merkt, ‘Miindlichkeit: Ein Problem der Hermeneutik’ (1997). 77.

4 N. Constas, Procius (2003), 129; L.M. Peltomaa, The Image of the Virgin Mary in the
Akathistos Hymn (2001), 137-8.
'SS See also p. 112.
 2. Theodotus in Ephesus

Theodotus of Ancyra’s only historically recorded actions are his participation

in the Council of Ephesus, which also decisively influenced the transmission
of his written works. The Council of Ephesus was the one major ecclesiastical
event in the lives of most eastern bishops of the early fifth century. Few of the
bishops who attended it lived to take part in the Robber Synod of 449 or in
Chalcedon (451).
The following narrative selects from the available evidence the most relevant
aspects for the context of Theodctus’ statements and his sermons. This inter-
pretation! shows Thcodotus of Ancyra finding his way between the different
groups, and taking part in events whose significance neither he nor the other
protagonists underestimated. Theodotus seems to have known how to deal care-
fully with technical and bureaucratic aspects of the Cyrillian Council, and to
have employed adequate rational and emotional rhetoric in his pronouncements.
There are records of his participation at most stages of the Cyrillian Council,
as well as his own works closely related to it. Although Theodotus’ personal influ-
ence should not be overestimated, his statements are extensive enough to provide
many clues with which to carry out this analysis. It is a worthwhile endeavour,
if heeding the circular argument between evidence and interpretation.
Recent analyses’ of the gesta have taken into account their characteristics
and clarified some difficult passages, including the setting and meaning of
many events, especially what happened outside or alongside the conciliar ses-
sions, Relevant questions remain, for example, about the moment when and the
setting where texts were brought to the attention of larger groups of bishops,
or whether in the presence of the author, perhaps even delivered by him,
whether in the presence of a third person being referred to in a text. The material
with which one must work on the subject of the Council of Ephesus: is (in)fa-
mously manifold. The information is scattered across texts in many languages,
and some was only rediscovered in the twentieth century. Not even the minutes
of the sessions aimed to be impartial.
The minutes of some Cyrillian sessions as incorporated in Greek conciliar
collections like the Vaticana may reflect the narratives which the Cyrillian

' Even without any ambition of providing a full account of the Council of Ephesus, it has
been attempted not to ‘relier les diverses piéces des actes en un récit dont la trame consiste dans
la vraisemblance psychologique ou politico-religieuse que chaque historien (conditionné par ses
Sympathies et par ses préventions, inconscientes ou délibérées) suppose chez les protagonistes du
«scandale cecuménique» (V 2, p. 24, 23-24), ou de la «tragédie» (C 80, p. 25, 25)’, in A. de
Halleux, ‘La premiére session du concile d’Ephése’ (1993), 50.
2 Including ibid., E. Schwartz, ‘Cyrill und der Monch Viktor’ (1926), C. Humfress, Ortho-
doxy and the Courts (2007), F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), C. Fraisse-Coué, ‘Le débat
théologique au temps de Théodose II (1995).
42 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council ot Ephesus (431)

Council soon sent to the court.? Skilful omissions contributed much to their
ingenuity and success. Loose ends, such as have been pointed out by historians,‘
would have been less apparent to a readership which at best was vaguely
acquainted with the events, but lacked reliable sources to confirm details.
Nevertheless, the collections, where documents such as letters, laws, edicts and
memoirs were added to the proceedings, probably represent more reliable mate-
rial than e.g. the church historians. They do not seem to have had access to now
lost material, rather, they relied on a more fragmentary variant of the extant
sources.> Eye witnesses of the events also provided accounts, but they were
hardly neutral observers.®

The preparations for the council

Theodotus was not involved in the chain of events which led to the imperial
convocation of a council in November 430. It is not clear how well he was
informed of the incidents in Egypt, Constantinople and Rome. Travellers such
as monks may have brought to Ancyra not only rumours, but also copies of
Cyril’s, Nestorius’ and Celestine’s polemical writings, or retold excerpts. The
full extent of Cyril’s proactive preparations for the synod are hard to gauge,
but the theological variety and church political fluidity of Pontica probably
encouraged him to find allies there, and to send them some propaganda, formed
of letters, Cyrillian writings and Nestorian excerpts.’ Nearer the council, Theo-
dotus may also have been informed by John of Antioch.’ Theodotus probably
never understood fully the global historical context and provenance of the
rumours and documents which reached him. His grasp of the conflict between
Nestorius and Cyril before 431 shared little with modern versions. It was
informed by local and personal prejudices and interests which influenced his
decisions and actions.

* A, de Halleux, ‘La premiére session du concile d’Ephése’ (1993), 50, T. Graumann, *Pro-
tokollierung, Aktenerste!lung’ (2010), 32-4.
4 E.g. the discrepancies in the different lists of names, see A.M. Crabbe, ‘The invitation list’
(1981), 369.
5 Their testimony is important for the study of the reception of the council in the following
years, and for an assessment of the extension and quality of our sources.
§ E.g, ACOL 1/5, 12-13 and 125-7.
7 Perhaps similar to ACOI 1/5, 10-12.
® Theodoret’s Ep. CXII to Domnus, who would become bishop of Antioch in 441, replying
to the news of an upcoming synod in Ephesus in 449, narrates events related to the Council of
Ephesus in 431, and mentions that ‘before the journey to Ephesus’ John of Antioch wrote to
Eutherius of Tyana, Firmus of Czsarea, and Theodotus of Ancyra allerting them that Cyril’s
twelve chapters were Apollinarian: Y. Azéma (ed.), Théodoret de Cyr. Correspondance (1965),
50-1. On Theodoret’s network and epistolography, see A.M. Schor, Theodoret's People (2011),
especially 113-4 on Domnus. No extant Council of Ephesus related document prior to it mentions
Theodotus. Cf. p. 66.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 43

The invitation to an imperial synod by the sacra of 19 November 430 was

directed to a limited number of bishops chosen mainly for the importance of
their sees, but also included some renowned theologians. Although the council
was meant to solve a dispute between Alexandria and Constantinople, Cyril’s
supporters far outnumbered Nestorius’. The participants were not chosen on
the basis of their mastery of the conflicting Christological views. The aim
was unanimous agreement, and the right view should not, in theory, depend on
the numerical strength of a party. The invitation list suggests the court was not
up to speed on church political and doctrinal developments. The sacra of
19 November? put the ecclesiastic needs -- i.e. concerning theology — ahead of
the combined public demands, which included the accusations against Cyril
brought up in Constantinople two years before. The priorities were largely due
to Cyril’s efforts, but Nestorius and the Orientals'® could see in the theological
grounds an additional chance to challenge Cyril.
Theodotus was invited because he was a metropolitan bishop, not for specific
Christological views. His sermons, even if known beyond Ancyra, would prob-
ably not have sufficed for him to be counted among the theological eminences
which were invited in addition to the metropolitans.'! The chronology of The-
odotus’ Homilies I and IT suggests he faced a similar Christological debate in
Ancyra, possibly a local development, sharpened by likely tensions between
the input through intellectual and religious links to Antioch, and the influence
of theological ideas from Egypt or Palestine, brought by monks, for example.'”
The occasion of both sermons was one of the proliferating festivities celebrat-
ing an event in the life of Christ, and had allowed him to expound the wonder
of the divine economy and its simply paradoxical elements. His clear focus
probably built on the legacy of the fourth-century Trinitarian debates. During
them, almost inevitably, the arguments addressed the understanding of the

° ACOI I/1, 114-6, especially p. 115, 18.

‘© The group of the [Link] was defined less by geographical criteria of affiliation than
by antagonism to Cyril’s anathemata, and, from concern with matters beyond their dioceses,
by great unease with Nestorius’ troubles. Their sessions were led by John, the metropolitan of
Antioch, whom the court then singled out to stand for the ‘Orientals’ in the discussions leading
to the Formula of 433, and subsequently in its enforcement. He had to deal with the challenges
of several bishops more persistent in their defence of Nestorius. See L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974),
270ff. Antioch, however, exerted no regional influence comparable to the structured control Alex-
andria had over Egypt.
'' Proclus of Cyzicus exemplifies how direct involvement in the Nestorian controversy did
not imply attending the council. Instead, Dalmatius, the bishop actually occupying the see of
Cyzicus, went. Dalmatius signed the letter of protest from 21 June (ACO I 4, 28, 18), but soon
changed sides, and was present at the session of 22 June. It is not likely that Proclus was left out
deliberately, on account of his views which the emperor and court probably knew well from his
Preaching in Constantinople.
I " Cf ACO I 1/1, 10-23 (Spring 429); S. Wessel, ‘Nestorius, Mary and controversy’ (1999),
ff.
44 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Incarnation, and then became more technical during the Apollinarian disputes.'*
The writings of influential theologians like Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Cap-
padocian fathers provided ample material on the Christological topic.
The weighty and deferential rhetoric employed later describing retrospectively
the reaction of bishops to this invitation!* does not necessarily portray how bish-
ops like Theodotus reacted. Any particular self-awareness among the invitees that
reflects Theodosius’ references to the kind and importance of the gathering!> to
which they were called remains hypothetical. Synods were common on a diocesan
level, but the only widely recognised parallel for a council bringing metropolitans
from every corner together to vote on the matters of the church and of the
olkovpévn!® was Nicaea. Theodotus’ and his contemporaries’ information about
the circumstances of that distant event relied largely on collective memory.'”
In the build-up to the council, Cyril apparently continued to exert significant
influence!® on the court. One of his successes seems to have been that the
sacra brought to Ephesus in June 431 precluded civil or criminal charges to be
brought up at the synod or at the legal court of Ephesus, but to refer them to
the imperial court in Constantinople.!? In this way any personal accusation was
excluded from the council, and none made it to the court of the provincial
governor or of the emperor. It had become impossible to bring up charges
against Cyril.” Furthermore, in the sacra of June 431, the question of ortho-
doxy was clearly in the forefront.
Insofar as the sacra from November 430 corresponds to the initial imperial
intentions in convening the council, they were hardly met by what the bishops
ended up doing. Theodosius II expressed hopes that Ephesus I would increase
the homogeneity of ruling in the church throughout the Empire, for example,
by issuing canons akin to those of Nicaea. The emperor had voiced the desire
for the discussion about religious issues to rely on the importance of the creed,
unanimity and dialogue.?! While none of these was accomplished straight-
forwardly, the minutes and appended documents strove to persuade the court
and further addressees how the imperial wishes had been met. In the wake of
Ephesus I, Theodosius may have turned even more to law to provide the unity
which religion increasingly seemed unable to give.”

'SN. Russell, The Doctrine of Deification (2004), 217.

4 E.g. ACO T 1/3, 28, 22-6.
ACO TI 1/1, 115, 26ff.
a

‘© ACO T 1/1, 115, 32-3.

See p. 25 on Constantinople 381 and the recollection of Nicaea 325.
'8 See p. 29.
'S ACOLI/I1, 121, 9-12.
20 E, Schwartz, ‘Cyrill und der Ménch Viktor’ (1926), 11-2.
21 ACOT I/1, 115, 19-20.
22 Work on the Theodosian Code began in 429, see p. 19. See F. Millar, A Greek Roman
Empire (2006), 1.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 45

If Theodotus was in Ancyra when he received the letter(s) convening the

council, the imperial support for travel by road probably helped his journey to
Ephesus. Ancyra was well situated on the cross-roads, and a highway led
directly to Ephesus.”* It must have taken him far fewer than the forty days that
separated Antioch from Ephesus by road.** Theodotus may have been among
the first to arrive if he paid heed to the instruction of setting forth speedily after
Easter and without detours. No problems in Ancyra which might have delayed
him are recorded for the Spring of 431.76 There is no evidence that Theodotus
met other bishops on his way, although others from Anatolia or farther East
would have travelled by the same roads passing through Ancyra.2’ Neither is
it known if Theodotus had met Cyril before arriving in Ephesus, or that they
had corresponded, although he may have been acquainted with some of his
letters, homilies and other works.
The reports about what happened in Ephesus before 22 June are extremely
varied. Statements about the delays or the circumstances for those waiting were
exaggerated within the bounds of rhetorical conventions. There is not much
evidence for imperial provisions for the bishops and their groups, except the
confidence”® that Ephesus would be fully capable of receiving some 600 people.”
In Ephesus, some bishops may not have received the deference they thought
was due to them or to which they were used in their own see. Apparently, the
most important metropolitans received their own lodgings, where they could
entertain larger groups.*° Nestorius and several Orientals may have been quar-
tered at imperial offices or with officers.>' These arrangements reflect the
cohesion of certain groups, but may also indicate the limitations of Ephesian
hospitality. Animosity likely led some bishops to keep or be kept away from

23 ©. Foss, ‘Late antique and Byzantine Ankara’ (1977), 29.

4 Cf LA Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 209, based on John of Antioch’s letters to Cyril, ACO
11/1, 119, 14, and to Theodosius II, ACO I 1/5, 126, 16. The imperial patronage for travelling
by road must have weighted against the much more usual travel by sea between Antioch and
Ephesus. See A. de Halleux, ‘La premiére session du concile d’Ephése’ (1993), 61-2.
5 ACOTL 1/1, 116, 1-5.
*6 In contrast, John of Antioch claimed to have been delayed by local famine, daily riots,
heavy rain: ACO I 1/5, 125, 18-21.
77 Perhaps even John of Antioch, whose supposed sojourn in Ancyra (ACO I 4, 79, 36)
Boe have happened on his return from the council, probably with other bishops (‘nos’: ACO I 4,
, 6).
8 Cf. sacra sent through comes John, August 431, ACO 1 1/3, 31, 19.
> The metropolitans were asked to bring only a small retinue (ACO I 1/1, 115, 23). Among
the c. 200 bishops which came, some may even have brought no assistants, but there would also
be large groups. A certain number of members of the imperial administration were also sent by
Theodosius to Ephesus for the council.
206. For example, ACO I 1/2, 9, 21, ACO 1 1/5, 119, 4. See also L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974),

" ACOTL 1/2. 10, 25.

46 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Counci! of Ephesus (431)

Memnon’s episcopal lodgings. Thus, spread through the city, most bishops
were probably unaware of all the ongoing conversations, debates and plans.
The likely arrival of John of Antioch before the legates of Celestine seems
to have been decisive for Cyril to put the first conciliar session into action.*?
The legates would probably confirm the Roman support, strengthening the
authority on Cyril’s side.*? Cyril had the support of Rome in the form of Celes-
tine’s letters, with a set of conditions to be met by Nestorius.** These were
the main contribution of the see of Rome to the council, beyond any doctrinal
input, or significant participation of the legates.*> Theologically they would
contribute but little to equal the support Nestorius would have from some
Oriental theologians, such as Theodoret, who were coming with John. Like
Alexandria and Antioch, the Roman see was distinguished from most metro-
politan sees by many titles, among them ‘apostolic see’,“° whereby was
acknowledged its distinctive relation to the apostles, especially Peter and Paul.*”
No uncommon authority or solidity of its theological assertions was conferred
to it following from this preeminence.** From the point of view of the Eastern
Roman Empire, Rome could stand for all western bishops.*? Distance hindered
interaction and collaboration in imperial administrative and ecclesiastic matters
alike.*° Eastern metropolitans often informed Rome about their problems,*! but
the ‘detailed’ accounts exchanged with distant sees sometimes exploited that
they might lack other source for the problems under scrutiny.*? Passages in
Celestine’s letters reinforced the importance of the authority of the metropolitan

#2 See the discussion about ACO I 1/2, 67, 7-9 in E. Schwartz, ‘Cyrill und der Monch Viktor’
(1926), 36 and L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 2 10ff.
8 ACO I 1/1, 83-90, especially 90, 20-3.
* ACOTI 1/1, 83, 1-15, to which Cyril could add the anathemata of ACO I 1/1, 40-2.
3 LI. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 420.
% Cf ACO I 1/3, 53-63, where also the honorific ‘Pope’, in Latin and in translation, is used
by Philipus, Arcadius, et al. See also L. Abramowski, ‘Der Bischof von Seleukia-Ktesiphon’ (2011),
11-2.
7 Particularly relevant for the Roman See was the distinction conferred on Peter in Matt.
16:18, which Theodotus explores in Homily VI, B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 126ff.
8 LL. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 420-1. See further J. Herrin, Byzantium (2008), 45ff., F. Millar,
A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 54, 159, LL. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 149ff.
*” For example, ACO I 1/3, 66, 10-1.
® E.g. ACO I 1/2, 52, 21 - 53, 12.
4" See p. 23.
* Against the long-standing view that Rome largely ignored the information which Nestorius
sent to Celestine, perhaps because the Greek posed a language barrier, see H.v. Loon, The Dyo-
physite Christology of Cyril (2009), 254-5. Although he endorsed Cyril’s theology, he did not
adopt it fully. For example, his credal assertions included contents that Cyril was actually condemn-
ing as Nestorian, as discussed in L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 171-2. Instead of a deliberate attempt
to preserve a view which shares aspects with both Antiochene and Alexandrian theologians, this
is seen as an inability of Latin authors to filter non-Cyrillian ideas in view of the lack of resources
and distance from the debate.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 47

sees, the example of fathers like Athanasius,*? and of abiding by synodical

decisions, like the Roman synod which issued these letters.* They came in
handily for the Cyrillian Council, and provided authoritative support to its legal
approach to these specific points.
Theodotus was in Ephesus at least a few days before the council started, as
can be inferred from his evidence on Nestorius’ statements in Ephesus.* It is
not known where Theodotus lodged. It is likely that after arriving in the city,
Theodotus met several bishops who were already there and arriving subse-
quently, and became involved with what was happening in Ephesus in relation
to the council. Probably he also met Cyril but nothing suggests close links or
allows us to include Theodotus in any hypothetical group of planners of the
session(s), which would be tightly knit around the bishop of Alexandria and
is best exemplified by Memnon and Flavian. Their influence on the unfolding
of the events during and between the sessions seems more directional and
purposeful than Theodotus’ actions.
Cyril had a tight grip on the Egyptian bishops,” but otherwise alliances and
commitment to a side of the debate shifted significantly.” Great metropolitan
sees had considerable ecclesiastic power over small sees in the vicinity, but
not always on theology. Furthermore, several dioceses were not closely con-
trolled by any other see over long periods of time, e.g. because of remoteness
or being situated between rivals. The dioceses around Galatia displayed both
theological diversity and absence of an established ecclesiastic hierarchy.
Although the alignment of most bishops was quite predictable, the partisan
boundaries were not firm. Bishops and metropolitans who later would stand
against each other still met and engaged in conversations. On the evening
of Sunday, 21 June 431, the readiness to accept an invitation for holding a

# ACO I 1/2, 88, 21.

“ Athanasius — whether portrayed as hero or victim, his opponents, however, always the
object of caricature — provided the model of the representative of orthodoxy par excellence,
against all sort of heresies; see P. Gemeinhardt (ed.), Athanasius Handbuch (2011), 416-8. Most
bishops, from Gregory Nazianzen to Theodoret of Cyrrhus, put forth claims of resemblance to
him. Patriarchs of Alexandria had an easier task, since they could emphasise the succession in the
see, and even claim authoritative versions of his texts. See T. Graumann, ‘Kirchliche Identitat und
bischéfliche Selbstinszenierung’ (2003). On Cyril’s reliance on Athanasius, see N. Russell, The
Doctrine of Deification (2004), 22ff., J.A. McGuckin, Sz. Cyrif (2004), 132ff., S. Wessel, Cyril
of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 9ff., 111ff. In the fourth and early fifth
ns Alexandria may also have had the closest to a structured religious education to be seen
in the East.
* See p. 59. Theodotus’ theological affinity with Cyrillian ideas as expressed in Homilies 1
and 1] makes the narrative in J.A. McGuckin, Sr. Cyril (2004), 60-5 implausible.
‘ Nicaea Canon 6, discussed in P. Norton, Episcopal Elections (2007), 120-1.
Noticeable in the variants in the lists of signatories, especially those referring to voting, cf.
AM. Crabbe, ‘The invitation list’ (1981), however, see T. Graumann, ‘Protokollierung, Akten-
€rstellung’ (2010), 14 note 28.
48 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

conciliar session the next day, ahead of the arrival of all bishops,** largely
reflected the existing allegiances.
The Oriental sources have other interesting details on what the arriving bish-
ops were doing in Ephesus. At their second session, Candidianus said that up
to that weekend (probably 27-28 June) the bishops had not been celebrating the
liturgies.*? Nestorian and Oriental bishops complained to the emperor*° about
these circumstances. The version of such eye-witnesses suggests that these
obstacles came into place when preparations for holding a first session started.
They imply clearly defined parties. More substantial impediments were men-
tioned by Orientals who arrived later, like John of Antioch who wrote about
prohibitions of liturgies and the blockade of churches and other religious spaces.*!
His account, which is not first-hand, uses a confused time frame and vaguely
describes the existence of various obstacles of different natures. The complaint
may be a negative representation of what were infra-structural limitations in
Ephesus for all bishops to carry out their religious practices, and the conflict
of local liturgical practices with what the bishops were used in their dioceses,
spread across the empire. The claims by Oriental bishops that Memnon made
it impossible for them to celebrate mass, to preach, or to access the Ephesian
churches were probably vague on purpose, in order to suggest that this problem
had befallen only them, and from the start.>*? However, the complaints suggest
some important episcopal activities had been hampered by the circumstances.
The impediments deprived the bishops and their assistants from important plat-
forms to disseminate and clarify their ideas. Their preaching was curtailed.*
Local clerics might have read letters and homilies of visiting bishops, but their
choice could be significantly guided by Memnon’s preferences.
Constantinopolitan and Oriental bishops seem to have welcomed Theodotus,
and he could freely engage in conversations with Nestorius.>+ Thus, it is unclear
how close he was to the Cyrillian bishops, or was known to be, during this time
of waiting. Perhaps, if the purported obstacles applied only to the Orientals,
Theodotus could exercise his episcopal duties and rights, including preaching.
During these days, his Homilies I and II may have been read, or (re-)delivered,
even by him. They could clarify his stance, and offer the bishops a chance to
compare his views to Cyril’s.5° They could also be part of a Cyrillian effort to

48 See the next section on p. 49.

*® ACO I 4, 43, 41 - 44, 1.
*® ACO I 1/5, 14, 19-23. The letter is signed by Nestorius and 11 bishops (16 bishops, with
allusion to further signatories in ACO I 4, 31, 11-29).
ACOT 1/5, 124, 34-7.
* LI. Scipioni, Nesterio (1974), 206.
3 Cf later, in Chalcedon, Theodoret of Cyrrhus and John of Antioch preaching (ACO I 1/7,
82-3; 84, respectively).
4 ACOTI 1/2, 38, 10-2.
* ACO I 1/2, 73. 26-7: 80, 32.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 49

win over bishops who were supporting Nestorius and to strengthen the theo-
logical foundation of Cyrillian bishops who knew little of Cyril's Christology
or would be more willing to support it if it relied not only on the works of the
polemical bishop of Alexandria.

Session of 22 June
On Sunday 21 June, Cyril took the initiative to convene the council by sum-
moning the bishops to a session, mostly relying on word of mouth spread by
his Egyptian bishops and other supporters. Probably, he lacked support from
imperial officers. The comes domesticorum Candidianus, who as bearer of the
sacra to the council ought to have convened and inaugurated the council at
the convenient time,>’ was openly opposed. 68 bishops, including 20 metro-
politans protested, planned to refuse to attend or walk out, and signed the
contestatio.°* Theodotus joined the majority without contestation, putting into
practice what he later preached on unity and harmony in the church, and their
costs. If he had concerns with fairness towards Nestorius, he chose to voice
them at the session.*? Theodotus was probably aware he had much greater
theologically affinity with the Cyrillians than with the Orientals. An effort to
win over recalcitrant bishops, to which Theodotus may have contributed, possibly
by circulating his works, led several bishops to join the Cyrillians, including
some from dioceses around Ancyra, such as Pius of Pessinus.°¢
The Cyrillian sources claim that the bishops gathered in the church called
after Mary.®' This was an ill-fated venue to stand for Nestorius, whose views
were vulnerable to attacks relying on the veneration of the Mother of God. It
was brought about that the comes domesticorum Candidianus read the letter of
the emperors, and that was, for the Cyrillians, the opening of the session. It was
followed by the ‘expulsion’ of the Nestorian bishops and of Candidianus, who
insisted on the presence of all invitees.

*® ACOTI 1/1, 120-1.

* ACOT 1/5, 13, 35 - 14, 1.
: °® See ACO I 4, 27-8, and the similar declaration by Nestorius and his (unnumberred) bishops,
in ACO | 4, 30-1. Candidianus’ narrative version (ACO I 4, 31-4) specifies the walk-out on the
Previous day, when invitations were sent around. See L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 212.
* ACOT 1/2, 9, 6-8.
* A.M. Crabbe, ‘The invitation list’ (1981), 382ff.
*' Documents, including those discussed on p. 93, refer to events taking place in the great
Church, and it is not certain that the church of Mary is meant. The situation of the building or its
€cclesiastic status in summer 431 is still much debated. See S, Ladstatter and A. Piilz, ‘Ephesus’
(2007), 410-3, R. Harreither, ‘Die Synoden von Ephesos’ (2002), S. Karwiese, Die Marienkirche
in Ephesos (1989). Also, A. de Halleux, ‘La premiére session du concile d’Ephése’ (1993), 65-6.
* ACO T 1/5, 119, 31-4.
50 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Counci! of Ephesus (431)

The absence of the imperial officer, Candidianus, and clerks, had deprived
the council from support in organising, recording and validating the sessions,
which was expected to have many aspects in common with the ceremonial and
bureaucracy at the imperial court.& The Cyrillian Council at Ephesus strove
to compensate for the doubts on the validity of the session by claiming to fol-
low closely imperial™ and divine commands,® by alluding to the authority of
Nicaea which apparently had done so, and by providing carefully prepared
collections of documents. There seems to have been interest in elaborating such
acts speedily, which may have contributed to the choice of including several
already extant documents. The fashioning of the sessions, and consequently of
the proceedings, as ‘paper’ based, became a trademark of Ephesus I. Forensic
aspects of reliance on written evidence and Christian insistence on agreement
to the Nicene fathers were among the Cyrillian motivations. The initiative had
lasting consequences, not least for reoccurring in later councils.®
The events of 21 and 22 June were unsettling even for bishops used to a lack
of rigid formal conventions in their rather frequent synods.*’ An awareness of
the weak claims to validity of the session allied to concerns for orthodoxy,
probably sincere among many non-leading bishops at least, made all participants
eager to strive for an authoritative self-representation, and to see themselves,
or especially the ‘best’ among them as fathers of the church.

Theodotus asks for Nestorius’ presence

Theodotus is mentioned early in the minutes of the session of 22 June, inter-
rupting a slightly inconsistent pattern of introducing documents to the assem-
bled bishops. Peter, presbyter of Alexandria and primicerius of notaries, had
described some of the letters exchanged between Cyril, Nestorius and Celes-
tine, with which the council ought to be concerned. However, instead of these
yxaptasc, the proceedings describe how the imperial sacra® was read, at Juve-
nal’s request. Cyril cut short a debate between Firmus of Caesarea and Memnon

® H. Hess, The Early Development of Canon Law (2002), 64.

4 A council summoned by the emperor ought to follow his guidelines, even in his absence,
as in some sessions at Nicaea. See ACO I 1/5, 119, 10 and Lt. 30-1.
6 ACO TI 1/2, 8, 13-4 and 9, 2-3.
6 See extensive discussions in T. Graumann, ‘Protokollierung, Aktenerstellung’ (2010), 32,
34, id., ‘Towards the reception of the Council of Ephesus’ (2010), id., “Reading” the First
Council of Ephesus’ (2009), id., Die Kirche der Vater (2002), id., ‘Kirchliche Identitat und bis-
chéfliche Selbstinszenierung’ (2003), A. de Halleux, ‘Les douze chapitres cyrilliens au concile’
(1992).
67 The regional synods and the imperially backed councils of the fourth, fifth and sixth cen-
turies were very varied and lively, even if by no means informal gatherings, and governed by
certain common aspects, which helped to validate them. See R. MacMullen, Voting about God
(2006), 7, T. Graumann, Die Kirche der Vater (2002), 15, 68.
®® ACO 1/1, 114ff. See T. Graumann, ‘Protokollierung, Aktenerstellung’ (2010), 10f.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 51

of Ephesus, about how many days had passed since bishops arrived for the
council, and urged the council to have the documents (yaptia) read. To further
legitimise the session, he referred to the sacra read by Candidianus, although
it was not in their hands, to be included in the acts. Cyril summarised the task
as ‘the faith be investigated and justice defined without delay’.© He juxtaposed
the ‘theological’ discussion with a juridical decision, bound to be a conviction.
The elucidation of the theological questions and religious differences was being
sidelined.””
Theodotus spoke at this moment, lest the council proceed without attempting
to have Nestorius present:7?
The reading of the documents (yaptiwv) shall be at the appropriate time, however, now
it is fitting that also the most beloved of God bishop Nestorius joins the proceedings,
so that the things of piety are established from common knowledge and agreement.

At first sight, Theodotus’ intervention gives the impression that he was inter-
ested in an open discussion of religious teachings in the presence of Nestorius.
The following discussion widens the range of meanings. An extreme interpre-
tation would present Theodotus as a very manipulative bishop, well acquainted
with an overarching plan by Cyril, only saying this to see fulfilled some of the
conditions posited by the emperor, so that the council could claim to have tried
to do what it could. The inclusion of this passage in the proceedings would then
be similarly motivated. Should Nestorius come, his presence would cause him
more harm than good, lending validity to a session where his cause was help-
less. Should Nestorius not come, then, following this vein of thought, Theodo-
tus’ intervention decisively contributed to the forensic approach of the threefold
summons as explored by the council.”? Theodotus would then probably have
known that his request would lead to the deposition as it happened. That was
a quick solution with several disadvantages, ranging from reinforcing parallels
with the Chrysostomian crises to casting a dark shadow of pretence on the
assessment of Cyril’s and Nestorius’ writings which could be characterised as
some sort of dialogue and examination of faith.
Throughout the gesta Theodotus is presented as holding a leading position
among the Cyrillians, and yet by a second interpretation his request apparently
g0es against Cyril’s document-centred strategy for the council. However much
Cyril had planned in advance, nothing hints Theodotus was privy to his ideas.
Theodotus was among the few middle ranking bishops from Asia Minor, who
Initially tried to contribute to leading the action. This was convenient for Cyril,
who needed support, especially while there was a shadow of the accusation(s)

49
ACO I 1/2, 9, 4-5.
T. Graumann, Die Kirche der Vater (2002), 361-2.
7 e
woos

ACO I 1/2, 9, 6-8.

A. de Halleux, “La premiére session du concile d’Ephése’ (1993). 71.
52 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

which had initially motivated Nestorius to ask for a synod. Slowly, but without
objections, the participation in leadership reduced to a small collegiate presid-
ing over the sessions, and eventually Theodotus was also no longer part of it.”
Should the members of the council have been presented with a farce, where
many played different characters, and (almost) all were kept in the dark about
Cyril’s intentions, then any analysis of the minutes would require an interpreta-
tion based on suspicion, and imply that all events were part of a well-planned
staging, manipulating not only the other members, but also the addressees of
the acts, that is, the emperor and his court. Cyril certainly worked hard to guar-
antee a favourable outcome. It is, however, open to serious doubt if this went
so far as to suggest that all protocolled statements by Cyril’s followers are to
be seen as a facade for hidden aims. This trend largely agrees with Nestorius’
analysis of the events at Ephesus in his Liber Heraclidis,“ where he benefited
from hindsight. He interpreted the invitations as a disguise for bringing him
before the council and condemning him, even with the use of violence. In Nesto-
rius’ opinion, the effort to have him present was only attempting to have his
presence as evidence that he acknowledged the self-established council as legiti-
mate, and thereby endorse a condemnation decided in advance, even if a mock
interrogation happened. Also in this reading, Theodotus’ statement would mas-
querade his hostility to Nestorius, and be part of a grandees’ plan.
However well defined Cyril’s plan of action was, it relied on registering
the feedback of the council to selected documents. Theodotus’ intervention
postponed this, and it caused a significant delay indeed. Considering the turbu-
lent beginning of the session, this adjournment may have been welcomed, for
example to give time to organise documents properly, adequate for the new
circumstances.”
The reference to an unanimous decision” in Theodotus’ statement echoes
the emphasis on consensus and unanimity which was contained in the imperial
sacra,” and to which Cyril had also just alluded.”* Before that, Candidianus

7 See R.A. Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome (1984), 225 for parallels of collective lead-
ership in the Roman Senate. A normalising representation of councils alongside the importance
of participants like Juvenal and Acacius of Melitene in later events, e.g. Chalcedon 451, has
influenced the identification of the main metropolitans who would be steering the sessions in
Ephesus and the identification of the presiding bishops. See T. Graumann, ‘Protokollierung,
Aktenerstellung’ (2010), 22-3, 32, R. Price, ‘Presidency and Procedure’ (2009), 243-5, 266-7, T. Grau-
mann, Die Kirche der Vater (2002), 358, 362-3, J.A. McGuckin, St. Cyrif (2004), 71, E. Honig-
mann, ‘Juvenal of Jerusalem’ (1950), 212, 232, P. L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils
(1996), 147.
7 FE Nau (ed.), Le Livre d’Héraclide de Damas (1910), 81-125. Especially Heracl., 195, ibid.,
117.
™® See p. 50.
7 T, Graumann, Die Kirche der Vater (2002), 362-3.
7 ACOTI/I1, 120, 25.
® ACOI 1/2, 9, 1.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 53

too had vividly referred to it,” when trying to prevent the session. It must have
been fresh in the memory of the participants, and was thus a good argument
for Theodotus’ request, on which he built deliberately.
Theodotus’ intervention allowed the presentation and registration of the
account that on the previous day some bishops had tried to invite Nestorius,
and of what had happened. The invitation then counted as one of the sum-
mons. Theodotus’ request of Nestorius’ presence refers primarily to the prob-
lems of the 22 June session, from which the accused was absent. It allowed
the narrative about Nestorius’ reaction to the invitation to be included, but it
is unlikely that Theodotus aimed at it, knowing precisely what had happened.
Like other bishops, Nestorius had been informed of the decision to start the
council probably by a group of bishops going to one or some of the several
residences where bishops were lodging, and informing them of it. They carried
no official formal invitation, nominally sent by someone. Anonymous ‘other
bishops’ who went along may refer simply to a group they had met on the
way, but perhaps the expression avoided the names of some who did not join
the Cyrillian Council straightaway,®° possibly motivated by Nestorius’ reac-
tion or other events that day. The reports about the first invitation resemble,
for example, those of the meetings with Nestorius on previous days, when
groups of bishops had access to Nestorius and to others who were with him,
and had conversations.®! At the first ‘summons’, Nestorius was likewise approach-
able.
The composition of the groups who went to summon Nestorius on 22 June
suggest that previous acquaintance, regional or ideological affinity played no
role.? The tone of the summons became increasingly juridical, clarifying
the legal situation and consequences, developing from an invitation to the coun-
cil to a summons to face accusations as a defendant. The first call, although
similar to the earlier informal meetings, was voiced in more deliberative and
didactic terms than those, and the last employed the most technical language.
The bishops’ report emphasised how they went dutifully for the sake of faith
and religion, and faced rough soldiers,” the willingness to undergo suffering
echoing the topic of keenness for martyrdom. In a heightened tone, the reports
emphasise the danger of death, and draw on scriptural similarities, exploring
Parallels with the Passion of Christ, for example, the conflict with soldiers and
the waiting outside, and even with the parable of the wicked husbandmen.®4

® ACOT 4, 31-2, 33, 18, 34, 1-4.

® ACO I 4, 27ff., A. de Halleux, ‘La premiére session du concile d’Ephése’ (1993), 68,
A.M. Crabbe, ‘The invitation list’ (1981).
* ACOT 1/2, 38, 2.
* ACOT 1/2, 10-2.
i. ACO I 1/2, 11, 28.
2

Luke 20:9-19, Mark 12:1-12, Mart. 21:33-46.

54 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

From these parallels, the involved individuals and council could draw strength
and vindication. The theme of fighting for the faith was expanded by Theodo-
tus in Homily VI to encourage the bishops.®
Nestorius later acknowledged* that he had requested soldiers for protection.
He, not Memnon, had contro! of clerks and soldiers in the environs of his
house. However, Nestorius’ claims are only plausible if his fears refer to the
forces controlled by Memnon, and the assumption that they were similar to
Cyril’s parabalani, some of which apparently were also in Ephesus. After all,
he could not reasonably fear a group of bishops, even if young and strong, to
the point of not receiving them.*?
At the session, Juvenal and others described Nestorius’ absence as a deliber-
ate, not well motivated (4ya0@1 ovve1d6t1) avoidance of making a stance.®8
These suspicions were taken into account for his condemnation. The Cyrillians
were confident they had obtained a successful valid pattern, set in motion by
Theodotus’ request. The same suspicions were mentioned when John of Antioch
was summoned on 16 July and did not come either.
There was no canon or synodical precedent for how to proceed in Nestorius’
absence. However, Juvenal claimed that three summons were sufficient by an
ecclesiastical instruction,® and then asked for the creed (f &xte8eioa miotic)
of Nicaea to be read, so that arguments (Adyoc) about faith might be contrasted
to it.°° The Nicene niottg was always central to Eastern Christianity,?! and by
asking for the creed to be read, Juvenal made it possible that Cyril’s and Nesto-
rius’ letters be compared to it. Cyril’s letter was read first, once Peter ‘reminded’
the bishops of it, and if in the earlier instance Theodotus’ had brought up a
delaying objection, here Acacius of Melitene obliged with a request.”

Theodotus’ assent to Cyril’s letter

After Cyril’s first letter to Nestorius was read, he requested the council to vote
on its orthodoxy. The reliance on agreement of written documentation to an
accepted standard, in this case, the Nicene creed, was a technical juridical tactic

& See p. 147.

86 Heract., 199 F. Nau (ed.), Le Livre d’Héraclide de Damas (1910), 119-20.
87 Nestorius had in John Chrysostom a good precedent for not attending a synod. Also Cyril
was aware of the similarities. See J.A. McGuckin, St. Cyril (2004), 338 on Cyril’s letter to
Acacius of Beroea (ACO I 1/7, 148, 28-30).
8 ACOTI 1/2, 12, 22-3.
* A. de Halleux, ‘La premiére session du concile d’Ephése’ (1993), 71 on Apostolical Canon
74 — M. Metzger (ed.), Les constitutions apostoliques (1987), 302 — and its disputable status since
based on Canon 2 of Constantinople (381).
® Notice Nestorius’ use of it as proof-text early in the controversy: ACO I 1/1, 29-30.
*! See p. 101 and J.A. McGuckin, ‘Mystery or conundrum?’ (2008).
% ACOI 1/2, 13, 12-5.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 55

which he set forth clearly.? Unanimous approval followed, and the minutes
record what 125 bishops said when they acquiesced. Their order reflects rank
as well as geographical connections, with rare deviations.** Theodotus was the
fourth to speak, after Juvenal, Firmus and Memnon.
The statements are in general quite elaborate.*° Juvenal set the approving
tone. The individual votes fall in a spectrum between those which try to lend
precision to the relation between the letter and the Nicene creed,®© and those
which refer to the personal meaning of both texts for the voter. Despite all the
rhetorical fireworks, the statements would remain rather impersonal if the
expression of the authority of religious men in patristic terms would not turn
them into personal credal appropriation of both. For example, Firmus clearly
linked his assent to Cyril with ‘[...] having received exactly this teaching (86&a)
from the holy bishops, my fathers’.°’ The reference is to the transmission of
tradition, but narrowed down to the fathers that are relevant to him. The juxta-
position of the father title to bishop was traditional,** but in Firmus’ statement
it refers especially to the episcopal succession — whereby a bishop grounds his
person and position in a specific line of bishops and teachers, which become
personal ancestors —, and simultaneously puts the acknowledged consensus of
Cyril’s teaching with the Nicene creed in his biography of faith and place.
‘Father’ is thus not a general term for the venerable eminent figures of the
previous generations of theologians. The bishops refer to it as a potency which
influences the personal stance on matters of faith, and actually generates it.
They describe with it their connection to the faith and church of the past. Cyril’s
teaching is deemed to overlap with the personal adoption and reception of the
teaching of the church. Neither Firmus nor any other bishop give more particulars
of such personal instantiation of tradition. Thus are left open the references to
ways of appropriating the ecclesiastical doctrine whether liturgically, e.g. through
baptism, or didactically, e.g. by the study of certain authors and works.
Firmus was followed by Memnon,” who was succinct. The title of father
he added to Cyril’s name was a recurrent salutation for the Alexandrian bishop,
suggesting different emphases and accents of the concept of ‘father’ are blurred
and mixed in the votes. It carried no weight of age when referring to bishops
as members of an ecclesiastical gathering, as an equivalent to the dignified
address of senators as patres conscripti. When Cyrus of Aphrodisias’ turn

* ACOT 1/2, 13, 20-5.

°4 A.M. Crabbe, ‘The invitation list’ (1981), 379.
. ° See T. Graumann, Die Kirche der Vater (2002), 373-8 for a detailed analysis of the pattern
in all votes.
°° H.-J. Sieben, ‘Zur Entwicklung der Konzilsidee’ (1973), 29-33.
” ACO 1/2, 14, 6-7. .
°* Cf. E. Nacke, Das Zeugnis der Vater (1964), 24-34, with respect to Cyril.
ACO I 1/2, 14, 8-12.
56 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

came, he addressed the preceding bishops as ‘fathers’.!°° The expression is used

to describe the members of the synod especially by the participants summoned
later.'°!
Theodotus articulated his support for Cyril!” with clear references to some
aspects of the important role of ‘father’ pursued by many who spoke after him.
He used the widely accepted reference to the Nicene creed by means of the
number of fathers gathered in Nicaea. Thus, he focused on the actions of the
authors of this set text, which had just been solemnly recited. Theodotus pre-
sented a correspondent representation for the turn each bishop had on 22 June
in sanctioning persons and texts.'°? The allusion encompassed both the effort
of the contemporaneous theologians to formulate adequately the faith, and the
voting of the participants. Their collective task and success as a synod, mod-
elled on that council, could then be apprehended as a similar event at least by
the structural analogies. Theodotus contributed to the adoption by the participants
who spoke next of this approach to the synodical procedures in which each
consciously emulated one of the anonymised Nicene fathers. He mentioned not
only the Nicene ziotic and Cyril’s letter in one breath,’ but he also juxta-
posed the action of the fathers with the action of ‘our father’,!®> namely Cyril,
and so he drew the analogy of their present role as fathers to that of the Nicene
fathers. The flattering exaggeration contained in this approach starts a com-
parative apprehension of Cyril’s role and dignity, and approximates the bishops
to their ancestors. An immediate tendency to use assertions employing the
father-title for Cyril is evident; Flavian, speaking next, employs it twice.!©
The ranges of signification linked to the contexts of both the Nicene and the
Cyrillian synods overlap once Theodotus had addressed Cyril as ‘our father’
and had made explicit the parallel to the fathers gathered at Nicaea. Further
associations are found in various guises in several statements of the plenum.
Even when the explicit title of father is absent, they deal with parallels Theodotus
introduced. The address of the individual as ‘father’ brings with it the authority
of antiquity and holiness, by the reference to the Council of Nicaea. Even state-
ments which were formulated plainly contributed to draw Cyril and the Nicene
Council closer. Some bishops, like Valerian, went much further in spelling the
connection out.!°7
Theodotus was followed by Flavian, Acacius of Melitene, Iconius, and all
others in recognising the correctness of the faith expressed in Cyril’s second

0 ACOI 1/2, 15, 28.

101 T. Graumann, Die Kirche der Vater (2002), 277.
2 ACOT 1/2, 14, 13-21.
3 ACOT 1/2, 14, 18-9.
4 ACOT 1/2, 14, 14 and 18.
105 ACO I 1/2, 14, 19.
6 ACO T 1/2, 14, 24 and 28.
7 ACOT 1/2, 16, 15-21.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 57

letter to Nestorius. The statements expressed the orthodoxy of the fetter which
is much more than the approval of the agreement of Cyril’s letter and the
Nicene symbol of faith which they had been asked. Theodotus is probably
representative of the majority of the bishops whose theology did not agree
completely with the letter under perusal, and nevertheless approved it. After
the unanimous endorsement, the conformity of the implications of any passage
was impossible to question. Even the orthodoxy of any other work by Cyril was
hard to question since most votes had been cast on the author, not the letter.

Theodotus’ brief condemnation of Nestorius’ letter

Once all assembled bishops had affinned that both the fathers who had expounded
[the faith] and the letter of Cyril to Nestorius ‘believed’ similarly, Palladius of
Amaseia requested the reading of Nestorius’ letter, so as to see if it too was in
concord with the exposition of the Nicene fathers.!° It was the reply to Cyril’s
letter which the council had just endorsed, in which Nestorius rebuffed a few
passages. After Nestorius’ letter was read, a chorus of condemning statements
ensued, and Theodotus joined it in ninth place.'
This contrasts with his eager initiative to see Nestorius summoned, and his
early support and acquiescence to the Cyrillian doctrine, voiced in fourth place.
Instead, at this moment, three bishops stated their opinion outside the hierarchical
order. Analysing what they spoke, it would seem that the change of order may
reflect less their haste in expressing condemnation, than a need to fill in a certain
gap. Theodotus may not have been quick to give his statement, when in the quite
lively and agitated meeting the votes were following in swift succession.!!°
Juvenal spoke first again,'!! delivering something of a diatribe which broadened
the accusation to all those who would choose to support Nestorius, or share his
views. He used crucial (e.g. 6p8060€ou miotems) and absolute (e.g. obdap@c¢
obuPwvos, dAAOTpLA Mé&VTNL) terms, setting the tone. He pointedly pronounced
an anathema over Nestorius (employing éva8epatiCw).!!? Thenceforward,
aimost any verdict less damning than his would amount to an expression of
divergence of opinion in the council.
Flavian and Firmus spoke after Juvenal, echoing his thoughts in an equally
inflammatory way. Valerian of Iconium, Iconius of Gortys and Hellanicus of

'8 ACO I 1/2, 31, 6-9.

'® ACO I 1/2, 33, 3-7.
"0 See A.M. Crabbe, ‘The invitation list’ (1981), 385.
' ACO T 1/2, 31, 18-20.
"2 Tt lacks the formulaic structure of an anathema which ought to give a doctrinal decision the
appearance of juridical precision. See A. Weckwerth, Ablauf, Organisation und Selbstverstdndnis
westlicher antiker Synoden (2007), 25, id., Ablauf, Organisation und Selbstverstandnis westlicher
antiker Synoden (2010), 20f.
58 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Rhodes followed with similar thoughts. Instead of suggesting that Theodotus

missed his ‘spot’ because of their haste, they may have filled an awkward gap
caused by Theodotus’ ‘reticence’. It was impossible not to condemn Nestorius,
and Theodotus may have wondered how to best express himself.
Acacius of Melitene then took the initiative of going ahead of Theodotus and
managed to be heard, in seventh place.'’ He provided a statement that was
even longer than Flavian’s approval of Cyril’s letter, and is surpassed in length,
in the minutes of 22 June, only by his evidence against Nestorius. Acacius’
condemnation of Nestorius’ letter had an argumentative structure which borders
on conciliar homiletics." He listed several of the apparent theological absurd-
ities (denial of the real oneness of God with human flesh, so that any aspect of
the salvific economy would be from the flesh alone, and also Nestorius’ claim
of Cyril’s theopaschism), as well as the legal technicality (absence after three
summons) brought against Nestorius. He related the charges on psychological
grounds, referring to Nestorius’ conscience (ovve1d6ta Eavté1). That is, tak-
ing his religious shortcomings for granted, Acacius interpreted Nestorius’
refusal to attend as springing from fear that comes from the bad conscience,
which is so great as to cause him to make use of such worldly protection as
soldiers. The theological topics, especially those on birth and death of Christ,
may have had a persuasive and/or reassuring role, perhaps directed particularly
at Theodotus. Neither the reference to Nestorius’ absence, nor the listing of
theological topics lead to a theological discussion or were directions picked up
in other votes. Acacius apparently brought order back into the proceedings.
He was followed by Memnon,! who resorted to a short assertion but expanded
the offensive vocabulary (e.g. cukogavtiac, BAac@npiac).
Theodotus’ similar verdict was not brief, but more to the point than previous
ones. He interrupted the trend of increasing aggressions, for example by adding
no offence when acknowledging the incompatibility with Nicaea, and by again
awarding Nestorius a formal title (ebAaBeotétov) still due to him.''® His for-
mulaic profession of relying on the Nicene creed encompassed the Cyrillians
(tht pév &kOéoer zerGoueOa). He openly acknowledged that he was siding
with them against Nestorius and whoever thought ‘these things’. It was the first
matter-of-fact restrained statement in a trend of bishops trying to stay low-
profile.!!”

"ACO I 1/2, 32, 14-30.

"4 See L.M. Frenkel, ‘What are sermons doing in the Proceedings?* (2013).
"S ACO T 1/2, 32, 31 - 33, 2.
"6 AJso in Acacius’ reference to the letter: ACO I 1/2, 32, 14-5.
"” Bearing in mind the careful editorial composition of the gesta, the tenor and lack of theo-
logical content of the votes to Nestorius’ letter may nevertheless provide evidence that the bishops
were not familiar with his theology, not even with the excerpts which are included in the minutes
later. See T. Graumann, Die Kirche der Vater (2002), 388. As for the excerpts and the lack
of response thereto, they may have been read but no one cared and/or only the few in the front
 Theodotus in Ephesus 59

On the one hand, Theodotus was the last of the leading group to speak.
On the other hand, most bishops after him followed his example of saying only
as much as needed. Palladius did not follow this example.'!® but from Donatus
onwards, few'?? deviated from this ‘calmer’ tone. In all their variety, the state-
ments agree with Juvenal’s tone-setting verdict.

Theodotus’ evidence against Nestorius

According to the minutes, Theodotus was not involved in the next events dur-
ing the session of 22 June. Celestine’s and Cyril’s letters were read,'”° and
Flavian enquired if Nestorius had fulfilled the conditions mentioned in them.
The bishops Theopemptus and Daniel answer Flavian’s question, when they
testify on the delivery of Celestine’s and Cyril’s letters. Theodotus’ seeming
low profile throughout this is typical of what most other bishops did during the
whole council.
Fidus, bishop of Joppa, intervened and pointed out Acacius and Theodotus
as witnesses of Nestorius’ ongoing failure to give up his wrong views.!?! It is
Fidus only contribution to the course of action. He employs uncommonly
strong language, not only summoning them but adjuring them (dpKifo).
One infers that an Evangelion was lying exposed (mpdketpet) at the venue,
and by that the witnesses ought to swear to say the truth. Fidus uses the making
of minutes (On6uvnpa)!”? as a further threat.'?? The intimidating tone suggests
a lack of trust in the veracity of statements in conciliar setting, and that a certain
unwillingness to testify against Nestorius could be expected.
Fidus knew with certainty that Theodotus had met and heard Nestorius. It is
not clear if this was widely known, or if Theodotus and Acacius had informed
others what they knew, and that they were willing to testify. Fidus may have seen
them where Nestorius had spoken publicly, perhaps preached. If Theodotus
was still a friend of Nestorius until the ‘eve’ of the council despite their estab-
lished theological disparities, Fidus’ convocation was an aggressive summons,

seats could hear them, which also applies to the reading of the letter. The echoes in conciliar
homilies, such as in Theodotus’, could suggest that attention was paid to the excerpts, but these
intertextualities can also be related to other texts, especially Cyril’s letters.
"8 ACOT 1/2, 33, 8-14.
"') ‘The hostility of Euoptius’ statement, who later was part of the Cyrillian delegation to the
Court, stands out. ACO I 1/2, 34, 9-14.
'0 Respectively, Coll. Vat. 10 and 6.
'"! ACO I 1/2, 37, 23-7.
'2 The “guarantee of the records’ could be referring to existing written accounts of Acacius’
and Theodotus’ meetings with Nestorius, possibly including what was spoken. They may have
been at hand during the council, but since the testimonies were included in minutes, there would
No reason to preserve them in the collections, or in another form.
'3 The making of acta is also used as a warning by Ambrose in Aquileia, 381. See A. Weck-
werth, Ablauf. Organisation und Selbstverstandnis westlicher antiker Synoden (2007), 19.
60 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

juridically effective, yet echoing the summoning of two false witnesses at Christ’s
trial,'24 an unwelcome secondary meaning, which Theodotus’ statement, with
further scriptural allusions, perhaps counters.
'°5
Cyril rephrased the request,!*° remembering the ‘oaths imposed’ but ‘vouchsaf-
ing’ for the integrity of Acacius and Theodotus by selecting out of the repertory
of usual episcopal attributes that of ‘most God-beloved in all respects’. Fidus
seems to have had in mind a specific event, ‘three days ago’, but Cyril leaves
it unspecified. Fidus’ ‘what they heard’ becomes ‘discussion with him [Nestorius]
over the orthodox faith’, which Theodotus and Acacius ‘initiated’. Acacius’
account describes discussions. Clear boundaries between Cyrillians and Orien-
tals had not yet been established when Theodotus and Acacius met Nestorius,
but the extent of theological dialogue is questionable. When the conversations
happened, they were deliberative and didactic, but at the session, the reference
to them became charged with legal significance. They provided testimonial
evidence that Nestorius, by keeping his views ‘unchanged’, had not fulfilled
what had been requested by Celestine, neither in 10 days, nor to the time of the
session.
Theodotus spoke first, ahead of Acacius, and said:
T am pained on behalf of a friend, but beyond all friendship I honour piety. Because of
it, I am forced, beyond al! faintheartedness concerning what I am being asked about, to
tell the truth. I think there is no need for our testimony, since his views have become
clear from the letter to your religiousness. For what he proclaimed to say there about
God, that is to say, the only-begotten, reproaching him for the humanity, he also here
spoke, discussing (S1aA¢y6pevoc) that concerning God nourishment with milk or birth
from a virgin should not be said. Thus also here he often spoke that God should not be
said to be two or three months old, and these things not only we, but also many others
heard himself discussing (6taAeyopévov) with us not many days ago in Ephesus.!27

Theodotus’ statement is precise in the facts generally known (friendship, evi-

dence in Cyril’s letter). The sought after evidence springs from these, and
remains vague.!?8 The context of Nestorius’ statements is not specified, neither
is it explained how the slogans can be said to ‘insult the humanity’.!?° Foremost

124 Matt. 26:60-1.

25 See p. 63.
126 Suggesting that not all had heard it, or that it had not been phrased adequately.
"7 ACOT 1/2, 38, 4-12.
'28 Acacius’ statement provided more sharply worded theological slogans. Theodotus’ vaguer
statement may reflect his pastoral concern with unity striving to prevent dissension and confusion
on doctrinal problems among his audience, especially the allied bishops. Without clear details
on essential theological matters, incompatibilities could be avoided or accommodated, preserving
the appearance of cohesion and unanimity needed for the validity and authority of the council.
See L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 277 on related post-conciliar problems.
29 Themes related to Theodotus’ and Acacius’ statements are found in the reading of Nes-
torian excerpts, e.g. the second (ACO IT 1/2, 45. 22ff.) on the birth of Christ, and the eleventh
 Theodotus in Ephesus 61

at the beginning, Theodotus keeps the tone of his disapproval of Nestorius’

letter, refraining from excessive involvement, so that not by his words Nesto-
rius would be condemned, for there is other evidence.
Theodotus may have attempted to leave room for a more balanced account
of Nestorius’ views. For example, he highlighted ‘regarding God’ in py deiv
nepi Oeob Méyew yadaKtotpogiav pNoé yévvnot tiv éKx mapHEvon, echo-
ing Nestorius’ reservations about Mary — inadmissible to his opponents. By the
end of his statement, Theodotus leaves no doubt about his commitment to the
success of the Cyrillian Council. He places Nestorius’ denial of speaking of God
as an x-month old baby climactically last. It was a slogan which later docu-
ments duly explored,'*° and became quite widespread. In homiletics, Theodotus
also relied on catchwords.
Especially at the end, when precise circumstantial details are lacking from
Theodotus’ statement, he uses the first person plural, perhaps to compensate the
vagueness, for it suggests that others could relate similarly. Thereby, Theodotus
also distances himself from Nestorius, being only part of a large audience to
which Nestorius had access. This was probably the partisan entourage, including
bishops, staying with him, and perhaps some from the population of Ephesus.

Was Nestorius preaching in Ephesus?

Theodotus’ statement possibly contains an important clue for preaching in a
conciliar setting, since he used 6iaAéyo, which can refer to preaching.'*! The
statement may therefore imply that Nestorius had preached in Ephesus over the
previous days, contradicting Nestorius’ narrative and Oriental complaints.'3?
Apart from broad meanings, related to conversation or the practice of dialectics,
in classical Greek, especially in a philosophical context, 5taAéyo could already
tefer to persuasive discourses along guidelines, whose audiences, however,
cannot be inferred. Later uses span ‘discourse’ and ‘lecture’, which in patristic
Greek can encompass preaching.'3 Some passages from Eusebius suggest that

(ACO I 1/2, 48, 15-90) on the subject of suffering. Indeed, the anti-Nestorian slogans in several
texts tike Cyril’s letters bear enough resemblance to Nestorius’ assertions to seem deduced from
but untrue to the context and therefore to Nestorius’ views. See the lengthy reassessments, and
discussions about the validity of Nestorius’ claims of misinterpretation in Heracl. by L.1. Scipioni,
Nestorio (1974) and A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben (1979). The accuracy of their
testimonies cannot be judged. L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 207-8, for example, attributes the
Origin of Theodotus’ and Acacius’ differing versions simply to general confusion, not blaming
any bishop with deliberate misquoting.
' See p. 70.
| Adopted by A.J. Festugire, Ephése et Chalcédoine: actes (1982), 229. Cf. S. Wessel,
Nestorius, Mary and controversy’ (1999), 2.
2 See p. 48.
3° [Link]. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (1961), 355.
62 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

occasionally it was used with the meaning of preaching,'* but other quotations,
especially from Basil,'?> highlight how vaguely that was meant.'*°
If diaAeyOuevoc, 61akeyouévov mean ‘preaching’ in Theodotus’ statement, he
would have attended liturgical celebrations where he heard Nestorius preaching and
heard similar reports without necessarily drawing near to Nestorius. In view of the
obstacles set up by Memnon, the passage suggests that the bishops around Nestorius
were holding liturgical celebrations with homilies attended only by themselves.
However, in my interpretation, both instances of diaAéyopa1 more likely
refer to conversations, talks, and arguments. The statement suggests the frequency
of such meetings, so that Theodotus would not have avoided Nestorius in the
time prior to the council.'3? Further evidence that Nestorius was not preaching
is found in the conciliar letter to Celestine.!**
Cyril and Nestorius seem to have made no attempt to meet while in Ephesus
before the council.'*? Both were probably aware of the ‘efforts’ of bishops to
engage them in conversations so that one of the speakers might change sides.!
Acacius’ statement exemplifies how the parties were unyielding. Each wanted
to win the other over to its views, pointing out their misunderstandings, even
blaming differences of vocabulary, but none would openly relinquish anything.
In practice, different ideas coexisted but only while there was no theological
debate about them. ‘Discussions over the faith’ were conducted in terms of ortho-
doxy and heresy, and therefore no toleration of deviating or attenuating views
could exist. Arguments were led in terms of a rejection of heresy, and absolute
categories were brought in, describing for example who could be saved, always
supported by scriptural passages. Where accommodation of differences in
belief and practice can be noticed in late antiquity,'*' it is related to matters
which were not brought into focus in a region until a later date. If affiliation to
a father was revocable,'*? the condemnation of certain theological views, and

34 Eusebius, H. e. VII, 30, 10; ibid., VI, 19, 16.

'5 Bas. Hom. 14, 1 In ebriosos, PG31, 444, 47 - 445, 4, sounding rather like ‘About such
hopes, lets talk tomorrow.’
86 C.F. Crusé, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus (1851), for example, does
not translate any of the referred instances in Eusebius as ‘preaching’.
'57 The conversations may have resembled the active correspondence (oral or written) to more
‘distinguished or leading’ bishops, which, allied to an emulation of their teaching was the
main religious preparation for priests and bishops, in view of the tack of formal education. See
LLL Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), H.I. Marrou, Histoire de l'éducation (1948), 429-34.
'58 ACO I 1/3, 7, 8-11: ‘...how also in Ephesus itself he dialogued with some of the blessed
metropolitan bishops, men not without distinction, but regarded and most-pious, and dared to say
that “I do not confess a two- or three-month old God”, and other worse things he also said to
these men.’
'? P. L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils (1996), 147.
‘$9 See Acacius’ purpose on ACO I 1/2, 38, 18-9.
4" See p. 32.
2 Es Jerome, Adversus Rufinum.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 63

the wording used to achieve it had more lasting consequences. Once the *con-
frontation with Nestorius had been led with the ardour of a battle about ultimate
truths, about salvation and doom, the sympathisers themselves were the ones
who complained of any stepping back from the former stance as a “compromise
with a foul trade-off”.’'?
Theodotus’ reference to Nestorius speaking in front of many may have been
intended to convey his openness and frankness, as a positive note. A biblical
echo can also be traced between Nestorius speaking what Theodotus cited in
front of many, and Jesus’ claim that he had spoken openly to the world.'“
Theodotus portrays Nestorius as having been teaching a sympathetic audience,
among which were some who at the very moment of the council were turning
against him, and using there what they heard from him. This is similar to Jesus’
teaching in synagogues or at the temple, and deferring to others the description
of his teachings.'*° In John’s Gospel, only false witnesses stand forward to
describe Jesus’ teaching. The balance would tip positively for the Cyrillian
party, if the witnesses were deemed true, and their statement contained truthful
assertions with which to condemn Nestorius.'*° The reference to Nestorius’
oratory can also be seen as a concluding deliberate condemnation of Nestorius,
exemplifying his hubris by insisting on his error even in front of many.

Faith contingent friendship

When summoned to give evidence against Nestorius, Theodotus prefaced it
with a brief reference to his friendship with Nestorius. In so far as its relation
to the main matter at stake is not straightforward, or immediately recognisable,
it resembles Flavian’s excursus earlier in the session.'47
By ‘friend’, Theodotus may have just referred to a fellow bishop, however,
it is unlikely that he would have employed a term that suggests a strong bound
at that moment of the session, after the orthodoxy of Nestorius’ letter had already
been rejected, unless there was some truth to it. The traditional interpretation

“3 T. Graumann, ‘Kirchliche Identitit und bischéfliche Selbstinszenierung’ (2003), 200.

‘4 John 18:20.
‘5 Ibid.
'6 Also Cyril complained about false witnesses. To Theodotus’ evidence of the perseverance,
Acacius added the accusation of only temporary or apparent but unreal retraction, echoed in
Cyril's concer in Coll. Vat. 67, ACO I 1/2, 66, 12-6.
‘7 Flavian of Philippi, recognised as an eminent elder statesman, regardless of lacking the
Status of metropolitan, mentions that he is representing Rufus, metropolitan of Thessalonica,
when he expresses his assent to Cyril’s letter, not because it is the first occasion he had a chance
to speak but because it is relevant, making his vote count twice. In this technically legal matter,
the vote of an extremely staunch supporter of Cyril carries with it the importance of a metro-
can's. who would have stood for the Orientals. See A.M. Crabbe, ‘The invitation list’ (1981),
64 Theodotus of Ancyta’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

of this passage is literal and has informed many biographical accounts about
Theodotus.'48 The next paragraphs place it in the late antique context.
Theodotus, once a friend of Nestorius, was clearly opposed to him by the
time of the session of 22 June. Even before Nestorius’ condemnation, Theodo-
tus gave up all personal friendship with him. Human bonds of affection,!9
could not remain in view of their differences on religious matters. Before arriv-
ing in Ephesus, Theodotus may have known that views he was criticising in his
sermons were defended by Nestorius. The statement suggests that Theodotus
looked for dialogue in Ephesus or wanted to see for himself how it stood
with Nestorius, despite the adverse or hopeless situation of healing the rift. This
readiness contrasts with Nestorius’ refusal to attend the Cyrillian Council. The
move made sense juridically, but it was a conduct that was easy to portray as
not quite compatible with Christian values related to frankness, truthfulness and
openness. It was furthermore compounded with Nestorius’ actions and human
behaviour in Ephesus.
Those whose life was meant to be committed to religion, like bishops or
monks, aimed for a certain ‘high’ friendship, trying to emulate the heavenly
communion as well as possible on earth. They strove to replace worldly
friendship in so far as it conflicted with the Christian one grounded on faith.!>°
True Christian friendship involved a togetherness in the divine love, linked
by theories of sacraments by which the union between the believers in past,
present and future is greater than any human bond, such as love or friendship.
Therefore, deviation of orthodoxy, which was considered a proof of absence
of grace, of the presence of the Holy Spirit, of openness to the divine love,
wisdom, was a hindrance to friendship. Furthermore, friends ought to be open
to one another, teach and learn from each other, share ideas, etc. and there-
fore to have an inimicus veritatis as friend endangered one’s own faith and
salvation.'>!

48 For example, O. Bardenhewer, Das fiinte Jahrhundert (1923), 197,

49 This does not seem to be as complete a rejection of ‘social’ friendship (deemed incompat-
ible with Christian values) as, for example, Augustine’s (cf. Conf. IV).
150 §, Rebenich, ‘Freund und Feind bei Augustin’ (2008), 20, 25-8.
51 The infectious character of nearness to those who do not have correct faith occurs in
Theodotus’ Homily IN, ACO I 1/2, 71, 23ff. Within a medical simile, wrong assumptions about
the Christian faith are imparted via communication by word of mouth, exchanged by discussion,
and, in Theodotus’ opinion, grow when matters of faith are given as subject for discussion. Within
the conciliar setting, the danger of the spread of the malady points to the need to separate and
segregate the ‘diseased member’. Acacius showed the infectiousness of ideas, purportedly
accepted by Nestorius, which required exclusion from communion and deposition, by adding in
his statement what some around Nestorius were saying, even if evidence on Nestorius’ belief
had been asked for. See M. Dérmemann, Krankheit und Heilung (2003) for an extensive discussion
of the medical simile, from the Pauline letters to the fifth century, referring back to both Old
Testament and classical antiquity viz. Hellenism. Also [Link]. Maxwell. Christianization and Com-
munication (2006). 89.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 65

Claims of friendship and enmity relied on the fluidity of the concepts and
the use of the same vocabulary covering a continuous range of friendship from
the political (scorned even in classical theorisation) and the philosophical
(including any terms related to paideia) to the Christian one. All meanings were
topical, and provided ample material for theologians. In practice, the types of
friendship were not mutually exclusive.'*? Instances of ideal Christian friend-
ship were exceptions largely exaggerated in encomia. It was mostly a rhetorical
device’? and as such, it explored freely the wide range of associations of a
vocabulary which was also close to other theological topics, like communion.
The strict standards for Christian friendship were expected of bishops but
reality disagreed with the ideal discourse. Leading bishops were involved in the
social networks of the local aristocracies, from which they often came, and
many had attended schools for rhetoric and philosophy frequented by men of
all faiths.!*4 They cultivated friendships within the classical conventions, and
explored them to gain success for which they were also recognised.'*> Never-
theless, when gaining (at least local) political and juridical authority,!5° and
especially when solidifying their spiritual authority, the bishops used the vocab-
ulary and rhetoric of ideal Christian friendship. They applied it both to their
self-representation and to attacks, particularly when confronting a bishop.
Theodotus’ reference to his friendship with Nestorius is more elaborate than
formulaic ways of speaking about a fellow bishop whose orthodoxy was being
questioned. The following tentative sketches on the nature and source of their
friendship are further hampered by the limited information about Nestorius’
background and friends. Theodotus may have come from Ancyra and studied
in Antioch.!57 Nestorius also seems to have acquired in Antioch the erudition
which his style and arguments show.!** The good rhetorical qualities of Theo-
dotus’ homilies, and the seamless weaving of ideas and phrases so that their
source cannot be otherwise identified tally with an eclectic education as the
Antiochene was.!*° This approach helped to incorporate new ideas and phrases,
as may have been the case with Theodotus, when he sided with Cyrillian views.

'S Christian friendship could not tolerate religious differences, and was thus unlike other types
of friendship. Acknowledging the difference, theologians and holy men expressed their desire for
it. They wished it for themselves and for humanity, if not in this present life, then at the time of
(eschatological) salvation. See S. Rebenich, ‘Freund und Feind bei Augustin’ (2008), 13.
183 E.g, ACO I 1/4, 4, 22-8. Even employed in the letter exchange of Cyril and John of Anti-
och, e.g. ACO I 1/7, 155,
4 EJ. Watts, City and School (2006), 154, 158-9. The repudiation of the values of classical
thetoric and philosophy as ‘Hellenic’ did not prevent their use, or the continuation of the praxis.
'SS C. Rapp, ‘The elite status of bishops’ (2000), 397-8.
R.E. Payne, ‘Persecuting heresy in early Islamic Iraq’ (2009), 248.
See p. 33.
L.L Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 24ff. ,
The Antiochene school(s) apparently relied much on manuals and florilegia, encompassing
(or at least open to) all philosophical schools, but without a ‘specific school characterisation’. This
66 ‘Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Theodotus’ friendship with Nestorius may have arisen in a monastic environ-

ment. If little is certain about Nestorius’ early monastic life,!©° nothing can be
inferred about Theodotus’ links to monasticism. The only possible reference
comes from a later anti-Nestorian source.'®! An Antiochene monastic connec-
tion may suggest Theodotus had some discipular relation to Theodoret like
Nestorius.'®? Both explanations for the friendship of Theodotus and Nestorius,
whether from a teaching or a monastic environment, are highly hypothetical.
Any conjectured bond of earlier literal friendship which could be appropri-
ately mentioned at a council would only still have been entertained in 431 if
Theodotus and Nestorius had not been aware of their theological differences.
The antagonism of their views originated prior to the council, as exemplified
by the obvious contrast between the view advocated in Nestorius Epistulue ad
Cyrillum 1, 2, and Theodotus’ Homilies I and II. When the latter were read in
Ephesus, as well as in other contexts where they are intertwined with the issues
pertaining to the Council of Ephesus, the audience would have related the
homilies to the Nestorian controversy and identified the object of Theodotus’
criticism with Nestorius. As stand alone texts, however, they are far more
ambiguous, or at least veiled in their engagement with the specific doctrinal
controversy. In that sense, they do not prove Theodotus’ knowledge of facts or
texts relating to what is usually described as a chain of events leading to the
council, or of the content of Nestorius’ preaching in Constantinople. Theodotus’
homilies prior to the Council only prove that problems related to a proper under-
standing of Christology were relevant to the initial audience. If first delivered
in Ancyra, they add evidence of widespread brewing tensions, closely related
to the developing veneration of Mary,'© and the celebration of feasts like the
Nativity.!%

makes it difficult to spot in texts elements which reflect an Antiochene teaching environment. See
L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 25. Cf. R. Cribiore, The School of Libanius (2007), 37-41, 225-7.
160 “Return to my prior monastic life’ in ACO I 1/4, 53, 21 (ef. ACO I 4, 64, 8, ACO I 1/3, 67,
5). Probably at the monastery of Euprepios, because of links to Theodoret, e.g. the later Syriac
legend, N. Briére, ‘La légende syriaque de Nestorius’ (1910), 3, 15-7, 4, 24-5, 18. See also F. Loofs,
Nestorius and his Place (1914), 27, F. Nau (ed.), Le Livre d’Héraclide de Damas (1910), 362.
‘6! In Vita Petri [beri 19-20, Rufus names only three of those who followed Peter’s ascetic
example in Constantinople. His set of ‘brothers Theodotus, Proclus and Sophronius’ cannot be
identified, but ‘it is possible that at least two of the names mentioned evoked associations with
well-known, contemporary figures who had demonstrated their anti-Nestorian zeal’ in C.B. Horn,
Asceticism and Christological Controversy (2006), 133, cf. C.B. Hom and R. Phenix (eds), John
Rufus: the Lives (2008), 38-9. Although this could provide a valuable link between Theodotus
and Proclus, and explain the assimilation of the beginning of Theodotus’ Homily I in Proclus’ IV,
the chronology speaks against the veracity of this information. Else, it would be relevant that
Rufus characterises them as ‘illustrious in power’ and ‘builders and stewards of the royal estate’.
In any case, it does not shed light on Nestorius’ and Theodotus’ ‘friendship’.
'©2 LIL. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 24ff. only rules out Nestorius’ and Theodoret’s co-discipleship.
'8 Eg. Cyril Hom. pasc. 8, 572B (year 420).
'ot Eg. ACO I 1/2, 74, 2-5.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 67

Nevertheless, it may be sensibly assumed that rumours, even accounts of the

apparently quite public and substantial disturbances in Constantinople would
have reached Ancyra.'© Theodotus ought to have reacted to this, quite likely
trying to obtain details of Nestorius’ views, especially if there had been an
earlier acquaintance. He may have been exposed to a rather caricatured pres-
entation of Nestorius’ views if Cyril’s antagonistic writings reached him. Lack
of evidence disallows ascertaining whether the latter approached Theodotus,
even if Cyril probably also looked in Asia Minor for allies when trying to
expand his support base especially in the months prior to the Council of Ephesus,
reaching out beyond the usual sphere of Alexandrian influence.
The dynamics of early fifth-century church politics may have further con-
tributed to sour any earlier friendliness between Nestorius and Theodotus.
At the time, the still fluid spheres of influence of provinces and dioceses'®
were changing significantly, not least to accommodate the inevitable expansion
of Constantinople, and moving towards a more explicit and rigid structure.
The provinces of Asia Minor had to establish their autonomy and also try to
maintain it in face of the (implicit or deliberate) aspirations of Constantinople.
This possible straining eventually involved Ancyra, since at the Council of
Chalcedon, the then Bishop Eusebius described a status quo where Constantino-
ple was involved in the appointment of bishops in Galatia Prima.'®? However,
any conflict between the sees of Constantinople and Ancyra during the episco-
pacies of Nestorius and Theodotus on matters of ecclesiastic structure or disci-
pline remains speculative, and a theological motivation for Theodotus’ eventual
alliance with Cyril seems more likely. Likewise, the scarce and controversial
claims about Nestorius’ hostile theological campaigning hardly guarantee he
intervened uninvited beyond his province.'®* Therefore, without opposing evi-
dence, local, possibly home-grown, theological difficulties seem preferable as
the prime motivations for Theodotus’ Homilies I and II, wherein he expresses
sharpened doctrinal insights which were later inevitably perceived ta be incom-
patible with Nestorian thinking, as expressed, for example, in the florilegium
of 22 June.'6
Arguments about friendship are mentioned in other passages of the conciliar
acts. For example, the Cyrillian Council describes John of Antioch’s deposition
as stemming from his attachment to Nestorius ‘either because of contentious-
ness’ (against Cyril and the Cyrillians) ‘or because of friendship with the
man’.'7° Stating in an either-or frame the reasons as human emotions (jealousy,

'5 See p. 18ff.

See p. 22.
See p. 2.
See Footnote 38 on p. 22.
' ACO I 1/2, 45ff.
" ACOTE 1/3, 29, 5-6.
68 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

friendship) leaves no room for a decision motivated by affinity of theological

ideas, by concern for church hierarchy or by attention to the imperial orders,
as understood, for example, by Candidianus. The actions of the Council of the
Orientals were linked to the person of Nestorius.'7! The Orientals’ dissent from
the ideas espoused by leaders of the Cyrillian Council is omitted, and therefore
neither the Cyrillian tenets nor the Orientals’ criticism had to be detailed. From
the Cyrillian point of view on stories of friendship with Nestorius, Theodotus
chose the correct option, while John persisted in an error, albeit one which was
excusable by human feebleness. This was a door left open for reconciliation,
which helped even when the escalation of the conflict made necessary more
substantial retractions, which acknowledged some of the concrete reasons for
the disagreement!”

The ‘two or three months old babe’ slogan

The phrasing of an anti-Nestorian topos centred on a characterisation of the
infancy of Christ which occurs in Theodotus’ statement is closely echoed in
many later documents. ‘Eon dipnviaiov i tpinviatov ph Seiv Aéyec@ar
Qg6v’ is a succinct phrase with which ideas that were causing upset earlier may
have been encapsulated and turned into a slogan. Even if the meaning of the
words Sipnviaiov, tpipnviciov was clear, their Christological use may have
seemed unusual and memorable. Extant written sources suggest that duyinviaiov,
Tpunviaiov were seldom used, generally linked to medical literature.'7 In a
theological context they are first attested in Theodotus’ statement; however,
they may have circulated by word-of-mouth in a Nestorian catchphrase before
22 June, and as such the notaries may have resorted to them when registering
Theodotus’ statement, homogenising with further documents. The words are
also found in several letters, including many by Cyril,’ when alluding to a
highlight of Nestorius’ errors. It is generally assumed that Nestorius had used
these words to maximise the effect of a statement, which did not fail to impress
Theodotus, who repeated them. Alternatively, Theodotus, who often employed
neologisms or unusual words, may have coined the phrase to express another
variant of a recurring Nestorian theme.
Theodotus’ testimony addresses the theme of the propriety of attributing
strictly human aspects incompatible with divinity to the God incarnate. It was
present in Cyril’s and Nestorius’ earlier polemics, but none seems to have used

"| Their arguments, however, were no more ‘theological’ and less ‘legal’ than those of the
Cyritlians.
™ ACOT 4,91, ACO T 1/4, 7-9.
"3 As far as TLG searches (in 2009) helped to retrieve occurrences.
4 Coll. Vat. 67 (ACO I 1/2, 66, 28), Coll. Vat. 81 (ACO I 1/3, 4, 32), Coll. Vat. 82 (ACOI
1/3. 7. 10), Coll. Vat. 84 (ACO I 1/3, 13, 20), Coll. Vat. 140 (ACO T 1/5, 3. 24).
 Theodows in Ephesus 69

Theodotus’ vocabulary. Both had expressed the concern with the incarnate’s
passibility using images which resonated in popular devotions and drew on
details of daily life. In homiletics and other literary genres, narratives, dialogues
and mini-dramas explored and expanded gaps of the scriptural narrative, finding
space to develop themes relevant to their debate, as exemplified in the para-
phrases in Theodotus’ homilies.'”> The additional text was not differentiated
from scriptural material and the contiguity to authentic verses, as well as the
similarity of wording to the verses, allowed the added material to inherit some
of the authority attributed to scripture. The material joined to the biblical text
and in its exegesis gave more room to ground theological assumptions, and to
try to persuade the audience.'7°
Theodotus’ and Acacius’ witnessing statements!’’ are among the few para-
graphs in the minutes which address specifically theological topics. During the
session, the bishops also heard the reading of written documents with much infor-
mation about Christology. A reader of the minutes, however, would be faced with
little on the theological questions unless ‘turing over’ to the enclosed documents,
since those texts read out aloud were, in the collections, placed outside the narration.
One audience of the minutes were the papal legates, at the session of 10 July.!”8
They may have known from Cyril’s letters that the Eastern Christological debate
often discussed the birth and infancy of Christ in a Christological setting. Cas-
sian of Marseilles also had a closely related diatribe, linked to the relation of
Jesus to human-experienced time, but focusing more on the conception.!”
Theodotus’ emphasis was on childhood. His slogan, strikingly applying human
timeframe to Christ, was probably effective on Western ears, overcoming even-
tual linguistic barriers which could make communication difficult.
Both Theodotus and Acacius claimed in their evidence that because Nesto-
nius disparaged Christ’s infancy, many left him. Since they gave no details, a
valid implication was that the catchphrase also caused some bishops, initially
supportive of Nestorius, to join the Cyrillian Council, and to distance them-
selves from those who refused to do so. Theodotus’ statement brought up one
of the most inflamatory descriptions of Nestorianism already circulating. It
struck the ears of his first audience, which was the Cyrillian bishops and clerks

For example, Homily VI.4, B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 126, 5 - 128, 14.
J. Kecskeméti, ‘Doctrine et drame’ (1993), 30.
Theodotus: ACOI 1/2, 14, 13-21; Acacius: ACO I 1/2, 38, 13-30.
'® See p. 78.
De incarnatione VII, 26, where the testimony of Jerome is called upon, is perhaps the most
relevant passage in it, showing Cassian’s emphasis was on the conception. See also E. Schwartz.
Cassian und Nestorius’ (1914) and M.-A. Vannier, ‘Le De incarnatione Domini de Jean Cassien’
(2003), 61-3. On the attribution to Cassian the Scythian, of Marseilles, distinct from Cassian the
Sabaite, of Scythopolis, see P. Tzamalikos, The Real Cassian Revisited (2012), 94-6. He suggests
that a Latin translation of Nestorius’ letter was among the décuments which Cassian received from
Ome to write De inc.
70 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

on 22 June, and of future audiences, like the papal legates and the readers at
the court. The recurrence of the catchphrase in later works suggests this phras-
ing was quite influential. [t is found literally in Socrates Scholasticus,'®° and
Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus.'*' Both writers seem to have had access to
some sort of conciliar acta collection. It is difficult to trace back to Theodotus
the influence of the catch phrase.

Theodotus and the verdict against Nestorius

Theodotus’ and Acacius’ testimonies on Nestorius’ recently delivered ‘speeches’
are mentioned in the introduction to the sentence of deposition of Nestorius:
and from the things newly slated (Ay 0éEvt@v) by him in this metropolis, and confirmed
by evidence.
1°?
fr8évtwv could be understood as ‘preach’ and probably echoes the similar
ambiguous meaning of Theodotus’ 6itaAeyépevoc, diarAeyopuévov. Acacius
nowhere mentioned public speeches delivered in Ephesus. For legal purposes
it was irrelevant whether Nestorius was preaching publicly or not. Evidence
was needed that, contrary to what Celestine had demanded, he still kept the
same views, far beyond the 10 days after receiving the letter. Furthermore, all
nuances of these ‘speech’ words represent Nestorius sowing dangerous views,
and therefore he had to be silenced. Considering Nestorius’ reputation at court
as a good preacher, the vagueness of the vocabulary probably strengthened the
persuasive character of the minutes there.
Acacius’ and Theodotus’ testimonies were acceptable and sufficient proofs.
Even Candidianus, however insufficiently informed about the Cyrillian pro-
ceedings, acknowledged this. Otherwise, he might have later said that Nestorius
had been condemned without proofs, when answering John of Antioch’s ‘or
did they condemn the man without proofs?’. Candidianus limited himself to say:
‘they issued their verdict without any hearing, examination or investigation’
.)®
Their testimonies are also quoted in the letter to Celestine, without any detail
of the theological discussions mentioned.'*4 Cyril even used precisely Theodotus’
vocabulary of dipnviaiov, tpinviaiov.!85
If the failure to obey the summons was enough to proceed to judge Nestorius
in absence,'®* the failure to pay heed to Celestine’s conditions was enough to

180 He. VII, 34, 14.

8H. e. XIV, 34, 70.
® ACO I 1/2, 54, 21-2.
8 ACOT 1/5, 120, 28-31.
4 ACOI 1/3, 7, 8-11.
'8 See above, p. 68, on e.g. ACO I 1/2, 66, 28.
86 Later the Cyrillians argued likewise against John of Antioch, and the Orientals similarly
deposed Cyril, and Memnon in absence (ACO I 1/5, 122).
 Theodotus in Ephesus 7h

depose Nestorius. Nestorius’ letter, read after Cynl’s, had already given ele-
ments to describe the heresy being condemned, and the council proceeded
to depose a bishop who had, and continued to, espouse views that were
‘anathema’.'8?
Theodotus signed the deposition seventh (out of 197), after Acacius.

Strengthening of partisanships
From the perspective of the Cyrillian bishops, the session of 22 June had settled
all matters for which they had gathered in Ephesus, and there was no need to
hold another session. Nevertheless, they saw themselves as a council also out-
side sessions according to several conciliar documents, such as letters!** and
homilies: Acacius of Melitene prefaces his sermons with a praise of the gath-
ered council,!®° and the rubrics describe the preaching and reading of homilies
to the ‘council’.'!°° This may refer to formal meetings where all bishops were
gathered but which were not conciliar sessions and where detailed minutes
were not made.!*! As council they engaged in initiatives involving all or most
bishops, like the collective signing of letters, documents, as well as eminently
individual ones, like preaching. Both aimed at strengthening (the appearance of)
cohesion and promoting the theology of Cyril Epistula 2. Since the conciliar
gesta have no narratives for events outside sessions, information has to be
drawn from letters and other documents in the collections, and even more cau-
tiously from later sources to delineate a narrative that is relevant for the study
of conciliar homilies.
It seems it was already night when the decision to depose Nestorius had been
approved and the session was perhaps followed by a torchlit procession through
Ephesus, to much supportive public acclamation.!* This makes it unlikely that a

'§? The session of 22 June issued a deposition as if it had dealt with disciplinary actions, but
the minutes reveal doctrinal questions predominating, and some bishops anathematising Nestorius.
See A. Weckwerth, Ablauf, Organisation und Selbstverstandnis westlicher antiker Synoden
(2007), 23-5.
'88 For example, the Cyrillian reply to the imperial sacra of 29 June (ACO I 1/3, 10, 28).
* ACO I 2, 90, 9-22.
' ACO I 1/2, 73, 26; 80, 32.
; ‘| P LHuillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils (1996), 55, T. Graumann, ‘Protokol-
lierung, Aktenerstellung’ (2010), 21-2, with examples of decisions from sessions without minutes.
2 Cyril Ep. 24, ACOT 1/1, 118, 6ff. Even for factual details this letter demands care since it
addressed the Alexandrian people, who probably had no independent source to dispute the verac-
ity of Cyril’s version. Often more has been read into it than it was ever meant to imply, leading
fo a very influential appraisal of the Council of Ephesus which also affected previous studies of
Theodotus’ homilies. ‘Si notera che questa lettera, pur cosi citata quale testimonianza della
Solenne proclamazione del Theotokos, non fa alcuna allusione alla Vergine deipara ed é solo una
mo” di bollettino della vittoria ad uso de! popolo alessandrino’: L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974),
72 ‘Vheodotus of Ancyra’»s Homilics and the Council of Ephesus (431)

letter was sent to Constantinople on the same day announcing the deposition.!%3
The letter to the clergy and the people of Constantinople!” exemplifies the Cyril-
lian effort to propagate its version of the Council of Ephesus. However, between
22 June and the arrival of the papal legates on 10 July, the disputable status of
the Cyrillian Council worsened, notably because of the rival Oriental sessions
and the antagonistic reaction of members of the imperial administration.

Announcing the news to the world

Letters were the chosen means to spread what the session had achieved, in line
with common practice in late antiquity, not least at synods and the commu-
nication with the emperor.'®> Theodotus recurrently signed the conciliar Ictters
in a leading position, analogous to his votes during the session. Apparently, the
main priority once the council had ‘succeeded’ was to spread as quickly as
possible a narrative of the events convenient for each intended audience. The
circumstances probably dictated urgency, since unfavourable accounts had
already been sent, for example, Candidianus’ report to the emperor.!%
The Cyrillians were probably aware that the imperial court could be among
the obstacles to the acceptance of their decisions. Although conciliar decisions
in theory did not require ratification by the emperor,'”’ they could be overturned
by imperial edict or law, as it happened during the Council of Ephesus,'%® The
Cyrillians strove to prevent this, and rather to gain imperial support. They
presented the session trying to circumvent most of the problems and conflicts
that had happened. Letters spreading as widely as possible the decision of the
council in Constantinople, and gaining an important popular support, should
hinder the emperor from not ratifying it, lest he be faced with significant protests
and unrest. Referring to their zeal for orthodoxy, the bishops were eager to see
the outcome of the council enforced, and not be sidelined, as Constantinople
381] had been.!”

93 ACOI 1/2, 64, 17.

9 Coll. Vat. 85.
'95 T. Graumann, ‘Protokollierung, Aktenerstellung’ (2010), 20-1, F. Millar, A Greek Roman
Empire (2006), 33, A. Weckwerth, Ablauf, Organisation und Selbstverstandnis westlicher antiker
Synoden (2007), 22-3. Synodical letters are primarily technical epistles, and like imperial rescripts
can benefit from the surge of interest in ancient epistolography, cf. D.R. Langslow, ‘The Epistula’
(2007), 233-4.
96 ACO I 1/3, 9, 27.
197 Synodical decisions were universally valid in matters within their scope in view of the
assumed unity of the church, and of episcopal] authority, until overturned by higher instances,
especially statements which had the weight of ‘laws’, that is, imperial written statements.
‘[N]othing, of course, was law without the imperial assent’: N. Russell, The Doctrine of Deifica-
tion (2004), 50.
8 ACO I 1/3, 9-10.
'™ See p. 25.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 73

The letter to the clergy and population of Constantinople” and Theodotus’

Homily I have significant similarities, when keeping in mind the different
purposes and genres of letter and sermon.”°! They share images like the medi-
cal metaphor,” and the letter, which touches already on Nestorius’ homilies
in Constantinople as the most evident proof of his heresy for the population,
mentions Theodotus’ and Acacius’ statements in the same breath as it alludes
to the flight into Egypt, which is a major topic in Theodotus’ homily.” Nesto-
rius’ denial that one should call God him who fled to Egypt occurs in several
conciliar documents including Nestorius’ reply to Cyril’s second letter, read
during the session.?“ The minutes of the session on 22 June, do not allude to
a renewed denial while in Ephesus, but they contain the topic, which is found
among the excerpts from the ‘books of blasphemies’ also read during the meet-
ing. In the third quote,”° Nestorius illustrates with Matt. 2:13 that ‘nowhere
does the divine scripture say that God was born of the virgin Christ-mother’
since the angels say:
‘Rise, take up the child and his mother.’ Note that they did not say: ‘Rise, take up God
and his mother’.

The phrasing of the letter (‘recognise as God who fled’) corresponds to this
excerpt, and is a weightier accusation against Nestorius than what Theodotus
says in Homily VI? (‘who would not recognise the incarnation [correctly],
despises the flight of Christ’). Theodotus does not seem to refer to the excerpt,
and he may have alluded to an ‘attenuated version’ which Nestorius pronounced
in Ephesus, corroborating the claim of perseverance of Coll. Var. 85.
Theodotus’ involvement and contributions on 22 June remain anonymous in
all letters, although the events where the minutes had named him as protagonist
are mostly described with significant detail, proportional to their influence on
the proceedings and as justification of the verdict. In order to identify Theodo-
tus and Acacius by name, access to other sources was needed, but the min-
utes, for example, were not necessarily as widely available as the letters which
were meant to be read aloud to the large groups addressed (e.g. Coll. Vat. 85).
The letter to Celestine?’ hints most clearly at the identity of the witnesses
(‘metropolitan bishops’) who heard Nestorius’ outrages, but it does more than
to refer anonymously to Theodotus and Acacius. Without detailing the number

Coll. Vat. 85 (ACO I 1/3. 13).

*U See A. Weckwerth, Ablauf, Organisation und Selbstverstandnis westlicher antiker Synoden
(2007), 34 on synodical letters being penned by leading theologians.
3, ACO LAL, 75, 8-13. See p. 129.
ot ACOI 1/3, 13, 21-2.
wos ACO 1/1, 30.
soe ACO I 1/2, 46, 5-10.
or B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 124, 1-2.
ACO I 1/3. 5-9. Probably sent to Rome soon, perhaps without annexed translated minutes.
74 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

of metropolitan bishops, the letter suggests a number of the witnesses held this
rank, a detail which is not confirmed in Theodotus’ and Acacius’ vaguer Sstate-
ments. The importance of the evidence was inflated by this increase in the
numbers of people of status and high rank who can testify.
Various sources claim the Cyrillian letters had a successful effect in Constan-
tinople, with chanting processions through the streets, public backing of deeds
by monks, bishops, efc.7°8 even if Coll. Vat. 85 had asked the recipients merely
to pray for a good and suitable new bishop, but not to actively engage in securing
that this choice happens swiftly. It is even possible that the proceedings of the
session were, after being handed over to the emperor, read out in a church, to the
general public, which accompanied it with acclamations.*” Furthermore, until the
acts were read, the shouts of the people who had gathered for the Sunday worship
were interrupted by addresses of ‘clerics’?!° and of the imperial referendarius,
If the minutes were read, Theodotus’ deeds would be known in the capital.
The letters mention few names. Delegations, smaller groups, remain uniden-
tified. Names do not clutter the texts. The average reader and listener of the
letter could not identify them, only those with access to the minutes. For these,
the letters offered guidance and explanation on interpreting the passages of the
minutes, while the letters were kept ‘unpolluted’ and suitable for all audiences,
There was no need to identify partisan individuals, since greater authority was
seen in the collective power of the council than that linked to any individual,
even when individual effort was required. In a reversal of damnatio memoriae,
often solely the accused and criticised are named. Cyril*'' identifies no bishop
from the council, but singles John of Antioch out for his delay, and names
Nestorius, Candidianus and Dalmatius of Cyzicus.

Celebrating in preaching
In the unclear circumstances after the session of 22 June,?!2 soon there seems
to have been occasion for some bishops to express themselves in speeches and
sermons. Collections of conciliar documents include several discourses under
the heading of homilies. Their rubrics sometimes mention date, venue, setting,

208 The most comprehensive list is in ACO I 1/2, 65f.

209 E. Schwartz, ‘Cyril! und der Ménch Viktor’ (1926), 46-7. His reading of these passages,
with words of fairly general meaning, is seconded by the hagiography of the monk Victor, found
in (Sahidic) Coptic manuscripts, of which a translation is available in W. Kraatz, Koptische Akten
(1904), 50-5, especially 54. See E. Schwartz, ‘Cyrill und der Ménch Viktor’ (1926), 22 for other
sources and translations.
210 The metropolitan was not there, but other bishops were in the capital, according to ACOI
1/2, 68ff. Nevertheless, the addresses by clerics have been explained by ‘ein Bischof war ja zur Zeit
in Konstantinopel nicht vorhanden’, E. Schwartz, ‘Cyrill und der Monch Viktor’ (1926), 46-7.
211 ACO TI 1/2, 66-69.
22 LM. Frenkel, ‘Preaching at the Council of Ephesus’ (201 2).
 Theodotus in Ephesus 75

insufficient to provide a reliable chronology. This also cannot be inferred from

the arrangement of the collections.?!*
In contrast with the letters, the sermons were directed at the audience at
hand. The authors could know their sympathies and react to their responses. In
Ephesus, the audience was limited by who would go to a Cyrillian event, the
size of the building, and who could actually hear what was said. There were
probably only favourable and partisan listeners. Apart from bishops, their fol-
lowing and staff, a varied cross-section of the urban population of Ephesus
could be present. The proximity to the conciliar events and the possibility of
direct contact required significant veracity or very skilful paraphrasing of the
events. In contrast, letters were generally addressed to distant and much larger
audiences, e.g. ‘the people’, the ‘clergy’. Sermons apparently were conceived
with less concern that written down versions might be heard not only by the
original addressees, than letters were composed. Nevertheless, the arguments
and narratives found in sermons, letters and statements were quite similar.
Many conciliar sermons seem prompt celebratory reactions to the session of
22 June, dwelling on Nestorius’ deposition and his errors.?!* However, this
imprecision may be a deliberate echo of the Cyrillian insistence on the validity
and sufficiency of their session, fostered by the collections. An indication of
artificiality is the likely chronology. If bishops and others preached only on
Sundays and feast days, there was probably no occasion for prompt unhindered
celebration since 22 June was Monday. By the evening of 27 June, whereafter
the Cyrillian homilies could have been delivered, the Oriental bishops had
already arrived (26 June), held their sessions,?!5 and communicated to the
Cyrillian bishops and to the Ephesian population the deposition of Cyril and
Memnon, and the provisional excommunication of their allies.?!" Those who
had known about the deeds of who went against the canons and the imperial
laws would be received back into communion if they acknowledged their error,
repented, accepted the faith of the Nicene fathers without any addition or dele-
tion, anathematised the capitula and abided by the imperial wish of peaceful
and exact theological dialogue.?!” The Orientals adopted the formats and images
used by the Cyrillians to reclaim the authoritative tradition and counter them with
their own arguments. The deposition of Cyril and Memnon was grounded in
terms of heretical genealogies, and voiced with the medical topos, themes which
occur also in Theodotus’ Homily HI.?'8 Other parallels are in the presentation

*3 The position of some homilies among letters and between minutes — e.g. Coll. Vat. 70-80 -—
Teflects at best the timeframe of inclusion in the collections, and how they were regarded.
ne E.g. ‘nhkavy’, ACOI 1/2, 71, 24, *SvocePeiacg’, ACO I 1/2, 71, 5.
Ne ACO I 1/5, 119, 4-21, see N. Russell, The Doctrine of Deification (2004), 50.
7 ACOI 1/5, 124-5.
a ACOI 1/5, 122, 30 - 123, 3.
“” “[...] none of those set apart for priestly ministry to God should be exctuded from the
church body. But since the excision of the incurable members is necessary for the health of the
16 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

of the council in written output which encompassed minutes and letters. Despite
ongoing problems with access to churches,?'? the Orientals probably also
preached conciliar sermons. Candidianus said he could not prevent the Cyrillian
bishops from celebrating liturgies (synaxis, eucharist), what they had not done
earlier in Ephesus.?°
The probable liturgical setting which can be conjectured for the sermons
enhanced the effect on the audience of abundant virulent assertions in some
homilies,”?! stirring reaction against the Oriental Council. The existence of the
other synod is hinted at,??? but never acknowledged. The Cyrillians did not
allude to the depositions and excommunications decreed by the Orientals, lest
they would thus recognise them.
Rheginus claims to preach in response to someone who does not allow him
to remain silent.2 Addressed as cogé, the requester probably corresponds
to a collective clamour, which may have come as well from the bishops of the
council as from the members of a large urban audience, addressed literally or
ironically as co@oi. The reference to popular clamour may suggest bishops
were among those desiring to hear praises on what they had done.
The brevity of the sermons suggest they were part of sequential preaching,“
which would allow several bishops to preach during a liturgy. Ephesus in the
summer of 431 was like Constantinople, where at any one time several bishops
were in the city and could be attending one liturgy. However, Nestorius’ and
Proclus’ homilies**> have explicit cross-references which are not seen in the
conciliar homilies, except in inter-plays of mood, aggressiveness and harshness.
The claim that the audience wanted to hear some preaching was probably not
directed specifically at Rheginus. The suggestion that he preached extempore
does not rule out that the speakers were chosen and arranged beforehand. Simi-
larly, other short homilies, which lack such remarks, may have been delivered to
answer noisy requests, or in the belief that preaching was wished for.
The arrangement of Rheginus’ sermon and Theodotus’ Homily III in the
Collectio Vaticana echoes the order of the condemning statements of Nestorius’
letter. In both cases reactions phrased in violent colours precede more moderate

whole body, it is right that [...]" (ACO 1 1/5, 121, 38-40). The medical metaphor also predominates
in Celestine’s and Cyril’s letters prior to the council (e.g. the letters to the people of Constan-
tinople by Celestine, ACO I 1/1, 89, 13-5, and by Cyril, ACO F 1/1, 113, 25-9).
29 ACO I 1/3, 47, 4-6, I 1/7, 74, 39-43.
220 ACO 14, 43, 41 - 44,1.
221 More predominant in Coll. Vat. 70 (ACO I 1/2, 70f.), and Qérellos 6 and 8 — B.M. Weischets
Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 62ff., 82ff.: see also pp. 145ff.
22 ACO T 1/2, 71, 5. See p. 95.
223 ACO 1/2, 70, 22.
224 See the references on p. 12.
225 The relation of Proclus’ Homily I (ACO I 1/1, 103-7) and Nestorius’ reply (ACO I 5/l,
37-9) is discussed in N. Constas. Proclus (2003), 65ff.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 77

statements.”6 Theodotus and Rheginus cast in contrasting tones the shared

subject of justifying Nestorius’ deposition. Rheginus’ sermon is virulent and
incensed,””’ echoing the tenur of many votes against Nestorius, such as Juve-
nal’s. The onus was on Theodotus not to seem lenient. He does not contradict
openly more aggressive stances, like Rheginus’. Rather, Theodotus sheds the
‘gentler’ light of didactic passages, which contain theological content where
he still tries to persuade Nestorius to recant only after drawing on familiar
variants and implications of the medical simile. When preaching, the preceptive
component would also distance in time Theodotus’ opposition to Rheginus’
incitations.”78
The topoi on the need to correct, to look for peace and unity in the church,
and to only condemn as a last resource which Theodotus addresses in Homily
Il, giving it a more serene character than Rheginus’, predominate in Celes-
tine’s letters to Cyril and to the council.?? Firmus claims on 10 July, in the
presence of Celestine’s legates, that the council had modelled its votes on these
letters,22° but it is unclear if they had been read before the legates’ arrival.
Aggressive homilies, like Rheginus’, may rule out or antedate the disclosure of
such papal injunctions, relying on the harsher rhetoric employed, for example,
in Celestine’s letter to Nestorius, which had been read during the session of
22 June.”?! Cyril relied at the first session on the conditions mentioned in all of
Celestine’s letters, and Firmus refers foremost to this policy.
Despite the details provided by the rubrics? it is unclear when, where, and
why longer homilies were read in Ephesus, and what their influence was. They
may have been re-delivered as sermons, although unsuited for sequential preach-
ing, or read as documents. Bishops may have asked Theodotus for a source
where he expounded his thoughts more thoroughly, for example after hearing
his statements or sermons. If Homilies I and II were brought to the attention of
the council before Theodotus preached Homilies III or VI, the reception of
Theodotus’ conciliar sermons by those who knew the longer ones may have
been informed by these. Homilies may have also been read to help to persuade
those in doubt or questioning the conciliar decisions. Backed by the theo-
logical and rhetorical skills and reputation of the author, they exposed relevant
theological and ecclesiological material and contained arguments, which were

on See p. 57, contrasting Juvenal and Theodotus’ condemnations. .

83.4 1. Rucker, ‘Ephesinische Konzilsakten in armenischgeorgischer Uberlieferung’ (1930),
134.7 Points to the similarities in tone to Firmus’ Homily, B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979),

m See p. 32 for a possible pastoral background in Theodotus’ ‘toleration’.

3 ACO | 1/2, 75-7 and 83-90.
ACOI 1/3, 58, 1-5.
sé
& Bb

2:
ay COM. Vat. 10 read 22 June: ACO [ 1/2, 36, 12.
y

* Further discussed on p. 120.

78 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homiltes and the Council of Ephesus (431)

anchored in the use of scripture, thus providing material for those who espoused
similar ideas.
Homilies, especially the conciliar sermons, may have enjoyed a pamphlet.
like distribution in Ephesus and beyond. Probably written down while delivered
extempore, they could have been handed out and sent around both before and
after they had been appended to the minutes, in the arising conciliar collections,
Even ‘moderate’ sermons like Theodotus’ contributed to the escalation of the
conflict. The conciliar homilies, with their elements of praise to Cyril, encour-
aged and gave corroborative arguments to Cyril’s supporters. Some Cyrilliangs
developed a blind and tendentious loyalty to Cyril and his formula.?*

Theodotus and the presence of Celestine’s legates

A sacra arrived 6 or 7 July," with the reaction of the court to the conflicting
reports sent from Ephesus and to antagonistic views espoused by people in
Constantinople. The emperors insisted on theological dialogue, decreed the
annulment of the factionalised decisions, and demanded a single council,
attended by all. Theodosius II asked for renewed investigation of everything
‘without contentiousness and with regard for the truth’.?* An ‘argument of piety’,
as ‘had been set down’ was to be ‘examined’ and ‘validated for the future’,
and the emperors reserved for themselves the right to confirm the conciliar
decision, since their rule was ‘on behalf not of men [...] but of doctrine itself
and truth itself’.?°? As both sides persisted in the propriety and therefore validity
of their sessions, and refused to be brought together, the long stay in Ephesus
continued. During this and later months the complaints about waiting gradually
incorporated pastoral concems related to prolonged absence.”8
When the papal legates arrived, the Cyrillians staged conciliar sessions anew
on Friday 10 and Saturday 11 July. Theodotus’ participation again influenced
the course of action, as described in the proceedings, which albeit similar in
style to those of 22 June, seem less detailed. The minutes report statements and
introduce documents which were read, but they name fewer participants. In the
opening list of attendees, Theodotus is, in fifth place, the only metropolitan
bishop named after the representatives of the major sees of Rome and Alexan-
dria (Cyril for both), Jerusalem, Ephesus (as host) and Thessalonica.?”®

233 LL. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 293.

24 ACO I 1/3, 9-10.
5 ACOI 1/3, 10, 18-9.
te=

2% ACO I 1/3, 10, 3-6.

27 ACO 1/3, 10, 4-6, 17-21, See also N. Russell, The Doctrine of Deification (2004), 51.
>** Compare with p. 45, still echoed in ACO I 1/2. 66ff. L.I. Scipioni, Nestorto (1974), 210
contrasts the waiting after the first session with the initial claims of hurry.
2% ACO 11/3. 53, 19-20.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 79

The style of fewer and longer declarations, interspersed with collated inter-
yentions from the floor, may correspond to an effort to make the proceedings
and minutes more conform to an apparently kinder stance of Celestine, aiming
at unity through the spirit supported teaching.’“° Celestine’s letter brought by
the legates and read on 10 July emphasised the apostolic succession (61a60%n)
to vouchsafe the teaching whereby unity ought to be achieved with protection
from the arms of faith.”4' This letter seems incongruous with the events elicited
by Celestine’s earlier letters to Cyril and Nestorius, and suggests that when he
wrote it, he was unaware of Cyril’s handling of them,”
All the action at the two sessions revolved around the papal legates, for
whose delay understanding” was only cautiously expressed because ‘delay’
was one shortcoming being levelled against the Orientals. Firmus’ reply to
Projectus’ possibly falsely-modest exaltation of Roman authority of teaching’
was followed by Arcadius and Philippus’ request to know what had happened,
which Theodotus answered.2
The narrative presents Theodotus with enough authority to postpone further
deliberations for the next day, so that the remainder of 10 July is left for the
legates to be familiarised with the events of the Cyrillian Council, since without
any further remark, the minutes end with Theodotus’ statement. Adjourning
had probably been planned by the fomenters of the sessions.?“°
The statement shows Theodotus’ familiarity with an adequate way of
addressing the legates with deference to Celestine, as well as with the technical
vocabulary of proceedings and acts.*” The ‘very minutes of the proceedings’
should satisfy the legates’ curiosity about the proceedings. Addressing Celes-
tine’s major concerns,”“8 Theodotus promises the minutes will prove the ‘justice
of the decree’, the ‘fervour of the holy council’, and the ‘concord of the faith’.
Theodotus’ suggested postponement of the session allowed the Cyrillian
leaders to inform the papal legates without witnesses or notaries registering

0 ACOI 1/3, 57, 4ff. However, T. Graumann, ‘Protokollierung, Aktenerstellung’ (2010), 13, 28.
*! ACO I 1/3, 55, 21 ff., 56, 15ff, 20ff. Theodotus’ Homily VI expands all these topics, but
the lack of the Greek original precludes close comparison to Celestine’s letter.
2 News had not yet reached Celestine, and he would not have foreseen how his letters were
used in Alexandria.
ou ACOI 1/3, 58, 1-11.
os ACO I 1/3, 57, 29-34.
26 ACO 11/3, 58, 32 - 59, 8.
This instruction warrants calling Theodotus a presiding bishops in R. Price, ‘Presidency
and Procedure’ (2009), 243, 245.
See E. Chrysos, ‘Konzilsakten und Konzilsprotokolle’ (1983), 31 for a largely theoretical
disting lion of these terms; also A. de Halleux, ‘La premiére session du concile d’Ephése’ (1993),
ment, Graumann, ‘Protokollierung, Aktenerstellung’ (2010), 21, 33. Theodotus’ usage is in agree-
2g keeping the terms apart. .
itsele Even if you disagree in mouth, nevertheless you shall present solely that which the Spirit
taught’, ACO 1 1/3, 57, 12-3.
80 Theodowus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Councit of Ephesus (420)

what was said. This private meeting may have been in Latin, and Theodotus
may have been present. The council expected Roman support would enhance
its pressingly needed legitimacy. It was probably the only support ‘external’ to
Cyril’s sphere of influence they could expect. Although the court did not pay
more than formal heed to papal ‘authority’, the Cyrillian collections of con-
ciliar documents tried to be persuasive to both Rome and the imperial court, by
addressing the conditions of Celestine’s earlier letter(s). The adjournment was
perhaps useful to explain to the emissaries Cyril’s use of Celestine’s letters and
their conditions. The legates probably were not informed about Nestorius’
actions as reconciliatory steps which might have sufficed to satisfy Celestine’s
request, even if bishops like Theodotus and Acacius, having talked to Nestorius,
possibly knew that he thought as much.?*?
The next day the Greek acts were read, because the legates express as duty
the need to hear them in session, All members of the council who could hear
this reading of the minutes would have thus become familiar with the ‘official’
representation of the session of 22 June. A Latin translation of the minutes is
not mentioned, and it is not clear how much Greek the papal legates could
understand.?°
The extent of theological clarification offered to the legates is uncertain. It is
not clear if the letters were read beyond the few lines included in the minutes.
The legates have been blamed for not perceiving the significance of the 12 kepha-
laia,>' but they may have not heard them, in Greek or translated, in Ephesus.
Theological excursus may have been limited to informal discussions or preach-
ing, but if texts like the kephalaia were not often re-read, parallels were less
important for the audience than for later readers.
Perhaps the arrival of the papal legates brought some assurance, echoed as
a ‘certain calm’ in Acacius of Melitene’s sermon,’ which may be therefore
dated between 11 and 16 July. Theodotus’ Homily VI may also be dated after
10 July, if the exegesis of Mart. 16:18 alludes to the presence of papal legates,
but its emphasis on the fight for the faith?>* does not suggest this is a moment
of certain calm, rather, of apprehension.
Theodotus’ participation in later developments in Ephesus is difficult to trace,
and the scant evidence may suggest that his influence diminished considerably.

49 LI. Scipioni, Nestoria (1974). 196, whose interpretation explores this extensively, and
assumes Nestorius had, already, the opinion expressed in the later Herac/., and had cared to state it.
250 They spoke Latin during the sessions, possibly to highlight their role as papal legates
representing the West, even if they were proficient in Greck. .
51 Cf A. de Hatleux, ‘Les douze chapitres cyritliens au concile’ (1992), 425f., L.I. Scipio
Nestorio (1974), 245. Rome seems to have ignored them for another century, although they
were probably contained in one of the appended documents presented to the legates and seat
to Rome.
282 ACO I 1/2, 90, 13, BM. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 38.
°3 BLM. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 132, 3.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 81

The minutes of the sessions of 16 and 17 July** do not name him. Even the
list of names stops with Flavian of Philippi, after whom Theodotus was often
named in other lists. These sessions, conducted by Juvenal, deposed John of
Antioch and the Orientals i absentia by the same argument Nestorius had been
deposed, for refusing three summons. The proceedings echo the technicality of
the ‘legal’ nature of the decisions of the Cyrillian session of 22 June and of the
Orientals’ minutes. Cyril and Memnon no longer presided over the sessions,
but were a central driving force by their /ibellus, read at the session. There was
room for other bishops to stand out, and, for example, Acacius of Melitene was
often named.?>5 Theodotus’ likely unremarkable participation may have been
due to Cyril not leading the session, or the approach adopted extending the
sanctions and condemnations to groups and not to few individuals. Theodotus
is also not mentioned in the hardly reliably documented later sessions, such as
on 22 and 31 July.2>°
At the beginning of August 431, the comes sacrarum largitionum John
brought the sacra to “the council’,?°? where Theodotus is ‘accidentally’ named
first among the ‘Greek-speaking’ bishops.7*8 The court accepted the decisions
of both sides ignoring the existence of opposite councils, and John had instruc-
tion to put the deposed bishops Nestorius, Cyril and Memnon under arrest.?°?
Juvenal led the assembly after Cyril’s deposition, and later also the delegation
to the emperor.” Thecdotus’ continued involvement with the council is
attested by the letters he signed in a prominent position, fitting for his see, and
later as a member of the delegation to the court. He was part of the effort to
see the recognition of the Cyrillian session of 22 June as a sufficient solution
to the ‘Nestorius problem’ and the unacceptability of any Oriental decision, and
he may have preached for this cause.
The Cyrillians turned to the same media as before to reverse the tide brought
about by comes John’s presence. They wrote letters and sent minutes to the
outside world and reached out to those in Ephesus delivering sermons. The
argument of receiving and transmitting teaching which predominated in the
Roman participation in the session of 10 July was added by the Cyrillians to
the main themes of the session of 22 June, centred on the affiliation to the
authority of the fathers while aiming to present themselves as authoritative.

ne Coll. Var. 87-90, ACO I 1/3, 15, 26.

” His participation is exemplified in the lengthy eloquent request to see John of Antioch
charged, as leader of the defection (ACO 1 1/3, 17, 10-9).
os ACO I 1/7, 118f., see T. Graumann, ‘Protokollierung, Aktenerstellung’ (2010), 23, 26, 33.
xa ACO T 1/3, 31f.
in The exceptional ordering has been convincingly explained by scribal practice of copying
(ogy a list of three columns made to be read in lines in A.M. Crabbe, ‘The invitation list’

3, ACO 11/7, 68.

2
E. Honigmann, ‘Juvenal of Jerusalem’ (1950), 224.
82 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

They expanded the celebration of Cyril from the concordance of his letter with
Nicene faith to the identification of his teaching as authoritative. They explained
to the emperors that the ‘council’ had not deposed Cyril and Memnon, ‘rather
admires these men for their zeal for orthodoxy and deems them worthy of much
praise from men and from many crowns from Christ the lord’.”*' The brief letters
which both councils sent in answer to the sacra John brought presented selective
narratives. They avoided detailing the theological problems, which no constraints
of adequacy and genre would have impeded. Instead of exactness, proposition
and solution,?©? many interpretational possibilities were left to the audience,
adaptable to varied and changeable ears, such as the recipients afar at the court,
where no one in Ephesus knew with certainty what was happening.”
While the Orientals insisted on Nestorius’ reinstatement and attacked the
12 kephalaia,™ the Cyrillians rallied round Cyril’s authority and upheld his
teachings. The conciliar homilies Cyril preached before his arrest may have
been read.?© The preaching bishops praised Cyril more or less explicitly and
exalted the qualities, such as the accuracy of the teaching, with which his lead-
ership and authority could be explained and defended. During this period,
Theodotus may have preached to encourage the unity and firmness of the bish-
ops.6 Such preaching on unity, linking their actions to the uprightness of their
conciliar decision, may have prepared them to resist the imperial exhortation
to disband.*6? Should Theodotus’ Homily VI postdate the arrival of Coll. Vat.
93, his preaching would be a clear defiance of the content of an imperial sacra,
coming from someone who elsewhere digresses on the authority of a sacra as
exemplar.” In the collections, the assertions of praise of the leaders of the
council, primarily Cyril, were supported by other texts, and sermons like Theo-
dotus’ contain some of the most vehement expressions.

Delegations to the emperor

Theodotus was a member of the Cyrillian delegation which went to the imperial
court, attending the emperor’s request that representatives of both parties meet in

761 ACO I 1/3, 32, 30-2. For a discussion of the image of the ‘crown’, see p. 134.
22 fh axpiptis tis GANVeiag Cytnots: ACO I 1/1, 120, 21, kat& npotaciv te Kai Avo:
ACO LI 1/1, 120, 23.
263 LL. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 232.
264 Cf. A. de Halleux, “Les douze chapitres cyrilliens au concile’ (1992), 447f.
265 Cf S. Wessel, ‘Nestorius, Mary and controversy” (1999), 1-4, ead., Cyril of Alexandria and
the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 191-2, widely accepting the circumstantial information in the
tubrics of Cyril’s homilies. The texts, even of Cyril Hom. div. 7, lack specific references to events
in Ephesus,
266 BLM. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 132. '
27 ACOT 1/3, 31, 28.
2K See p. 165.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 8&3

Constantinople. The delegations were redirected to Chalcedon, without going to

the capital. Emperor, court and senate arrived in Chalcedon on 11 September.?©?
The opposing councils had already met at comes John’s lodgings in August,
refusing to dialogue.?” There is no detailed narrative of the actions of the
embassies, and Theodotus’ participation is hardly mentioned.””! The reports in
letters from the Orientals?’? seem more informative than the Cyrillian sources,
where in the extremely succinct account about Nestorius’ ‘exile’ and the ordi-
nation of Maximian is a narrative about the bishops’ actions in Constantinople
which resembles wishful thinking. It mentions ‘parties’ (uépovuc), but speaks
of only one council. It portrays the emperor approving the Cyrillian decision
after receiving their assurance of having proceeded well.?”? In contrast, the
Orientals’ sources?” describe how a report ‘that Acacius’ mention of a passible
godhead upset the emperor encouraged the Easterners but in the end the results
were inconclusive’ .?’>
Theodotus’ choice as one of the delegates was probably related primarily to
his rank, but his education and theology may have contributed. All delegates
were or represented important metropolitans, enhancing the authoritative self-
representation of the Cyrillian Council as valid. When the deputies for the
Cyrillian Council are listed, the names follow the hierarchy of the dioceses they
represent, and generally do not reflect their leadership at the sessions or in the
delegation.””© For example, Acacius of Melitene is listed after Theodotus of
Ancyra, even if the minutes of the later sessions record no participation by
Theodotus but important interventions by Acacius. The lists of addressers and
addressees of the successive letters, sent back and forth between the delegation at
the court and the council in Ephesus, have a few differences in the composition

6° ACO I 1/7, 77, 4. By | September, Nestorius had already received notice (ACO I 4, 64)
that his renunciation of the see of Constantinople had been accepted, and he could return to the
‘monastery’ of Euproprius, near Antioch, a fact which the Cyrillians rephrase as an imperial exile/
banishment of Nestorius, cf, ACO I 1/3, 67, 5.
° ACO I 1/7, 67, 22-3, J.A. McGuckin, St. Cyril (2004), 102.
; 27 When shortly after the council, John of Antioch faced opposing arguments and preaching
in Ancyra (probably by Theodotus), he recalled the events in Ephesus, Chalcedon and Constantino-
Ple (seditionis), singling Theodotus out by name alongside Firmus (ACO I 4, 80, 3-5). His account
is sufficient to suggest that Theodotus was proactively supporting Cyril and causing problems for
the Orientals,
ACO1 1/7, 71-77.
7 ACO I 1/3, 67, 1-9, and passages from letters between Cyrillian bishops and delegates
{ACO 11/7, 72 confirming ACO I 1/3, 65).
ACO 1/7, 77, 23-6.
“ N. Russell, The Doctrine of Deification (2004), 51. ACO I 1/7, 142, 24-6, and on Acacius’
absurdities, ACO I 1/7, 77, 23-6. Furthermore, when John of Antioch names only Theodotus and
Ags in his reference to the Cyrillian delegates (ACO I 4, 80, 3), he may have not mentioned
Cacius deliberately.
° ACOT 1/7, 72, 4-5. C.f. ACO I 1/2, 13ff., ACO I 1/2. 31ff. See p. 54. 57.
84 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

of the embassy.?”? Not only the order changes, but while in Co//. Ath. 59 the
bishop Arcadius is listed as the legate for the metropolitan bishop of Rome, in
Coll, Vat. 108 it is the priest Philip. The main-matter document suggests that
the delegations were essentially letter-bearers, as understood in late antiquity .278
When needed, bishops travelled back and forth to transmit sensitive or trust-
worthy information,’’’ to contribute where most needed, or to be refrained from
causing more problems.
Foreseeing potential theological discussions, it probably helped that Theodotus
had already displayed good spokesmanship for Cyril and his ideas. The Cyrillian
bishops ought to have expected the Orientals wanting to discuss the 12 kephalaia,
as it apparently happened in Chalcedon.”®° Knowledge of Latin seems to have
been an asset, even if emperor and court were probably ready to listen to them
in Greek, or had translators at hand.2*! Theodotus met all these requirements, but
it was Acacius who came to be known as the chief spokesmen for the Cyrillians,
to rival Theodoret of Cyrrhus, for the Orientals.”8? Nevertheless, the actions of
the Cyrillian delegates in Chalcedon in their refusal at all cost of any theological
dispute, as portrayed in the extant (Oriental) narratives”? echo markedly Theo-
dotus’ views on avoidance of reasoning about the religious mysteries.
Conciliar events like the delegations perhaps gave Theodotus a successful
example of refusal of discussion about theological matters helping to uphold a
view, one which he already defended before the council. Theodotus’ way of
expressing the relation of faith and reasoning may, at later stages of the council,
have seemed less suitable than, for example, specifying criticism on words and
sophisms,”** especially when addressing the emperor who insisted on examina-
tion of matters of faith. Theodotus’ works contain few echoes of later Cyrillian
documents. When themes, which are largely absent?** from early conciliar docu-
ments, occur, Theodotus uses a different vocabulary, as is the case of the improper
use in theological matters of word tricks and sophism.”®° Theodotus is less likely
to have contributed to penning later documents of the Cyrillian Council, which
resemble his works less than, for example, Coll. Vat. 85 did.

277 See also I. Rucker, ‘Ephesinische Konzilsakten in armenischgeorgischer Uberlieferung’

(1930), 75-81.
278 P. Allen, ‘Proltegomena to a study of the letter-bearer’ (2013).
2) There is little information on servants, priests and other aides. B. Neil et a/. (eds), Preach
ing Poverty (2009), 46.
280 ACO 1 4, 64-71. See also L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 238-40.
281 Arcadius and Juvenal were fluent in Latin. For Theodotus, see p. 110, and F. Millar, 4
Greek Roman Empire (2006), 205-7.
282 ACO I 1/7, 77, 23-6, N. Russell, Cyril (2000), 51.
283 ACO 1 4, 69-70.
284 ACO I 1/3, 47, 26-7.
285 M. Simonetti, ‘Alcune osservazioni sul monofisismo di Cirillo’ (1982), 494.
286 Fe. M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 226, 1-5 and
ACO I 1/3. 47-8.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 85

Theodotus returns to Ancyra

Maximian, consecrated metropolitan of Constantinople 25 October 431, assem-
bled a synod. The resulting documents contain signatures of most signatories
of the letters sent by the Cyrillian delegation, including Theodotus.”*7 In the
Cyrillian sources, the events conceming the delegations and the ordination of
Nestorius’ successor are largely conflated. John of Antioch mentions Theodo-
tus’ virulent anti-Orientals efforts,* and Acacius of Beroea claims that when
Theodosius II allowed members of the delegations to enter Constantinople for
the enthronement of the new bishop, Maximian led a crowd of monks which
impeded the entry of Oriental delegates.” It is unclear if Theodotus’ or other
members of any delegation returned to Ephesus before the bishops were again
allowed to return home.2” Some, like Cyril, left Ephesus before the emperors
allowed it, apparently escaping custody with bribes.”7! Thus, Theodotus may not
have met Cyril again after September 431.
If earlier the emperor had only exhorted the bishops to go home in ‘peace
and harmony’ keeping in mind the canonical and dogmatic outcome of the
council,?°? which he thought had already been achieved,” at the final dis-
missal, the bishops were sent with clear instructions to resort to ‘what is writ-
ten’ if there is not ‘peaceful intention’.*** The conciliar decisions were cor-
roborated by imperial laws.2°> These letters had a normative function providing
official backing for further actions,”” but contained few details about the events
in Ephesus. A bishop returning to his see probably spoke about the council and
its outcome. The wider public would hardly have other sources of authoritative
information,””’ and some imperial letters suggest a continuous limited knowl-
edge about details of the councils beyond the walls of Ephesus and the courtly

7 ACO 11/7, 138, 31.

* ACO I 4, 80, 3-5.
yyaS

* ACO 14, 85, 35 - 86, 2.

™® ACO T1/7, 142, 19-33.
*! Bribes: F, Nau (ed.), Le Livre d’Héraclide de Damas (1910), 249. Cyril’s triumphant
welcome in Alexandria ACO I 1/3, 67, 1-9. See N. Russell, The Doctrine of Deification (2004),
St, JA. McGuckin, St. Cyril (2004), 107.
* ACOT 1/3, 31, 27-8.
ACO I 1/3, 31, 24.
ACO I 1/7, 142, 30-1.
E.g. ACO [ 1/3, 67, 13ff.
~* John of Antioch gives evidence of Theodotus’ active involvement in writing and preaching
which Continued the pattern of reciprocal excommunications, ACO I 4, 80, 4-17.
0 _. However, the location of Ancyra on the main highway to Antioch makes it probable that
cout documents were also circulated there, or that narrative accounts from their perspective
u d have been heard. For example, John of Antioch’s presence in Ancyra, shortly after the
Suncil (attested in ACO ¥ 4, 79-80) may have allowed him, and perhaps others, to make their
Point of view known.
86 Theedotus of Ancyra’s Homilics and the Cuuucil of Ephesus (431)

pataces.’’® In principle, the bishops were expected to abide by and enforce

imperial laws in their dioceses. However, some bishops continued to incite
enmity between the parties. The pattern of reciprocal excommunications per-
sisted and Theodotus was deposed at the Synod of Tarsus, for example.*” For
one, John of Antioch complained of the attacks in writing and preaching which
he faced on his return to his see.” John’s letter is a complex piece of evidence,
and presents a rhetorical multifaceted construction of the situation in Ancyra.39
Thus, it is not a good source for detailed inferences, but is enough to notice
that after the Council of Ephesus, polemical preaching was supplemented by
the circulation of defamatory writings. Texts later included in the conciliar col-
lections, such as Theodotus’ homilies, may have been distributed and read
across the provinces. Furthermore, John’s letter suggests the likely scenario for
Theodotus’ theological treatises, which he probably wrote after the year 431.
The next paragraphs delineate the relation of the two works with the conciliar
ideas and the post-conciliar church-political developments.
Theodotus’ Expositio symboli Nicaeni brought together his opposition to
Nestorius, and his view on the foundations of faith, as expressed in his con-
ciliar statements and homilies. The first part of the treatise is an attack against
Nestorian views condemned at Ephesus, founded on a staunch defence of
accepting the Nicene creed ‘as it is’, without any change or interpretational
addition.* Besides scripture, the faith ought to rely on the authority of the
fathers. Credal formulae,*” especially the Nicene creed, carry the strength of
collective and ‘unanimous’ assent. The treatise contains an explicit description
of the authority of the Nicene creed,*™ as made of the words with which the
fathers expounded the faith about the only-begotten, which direct (StopG8obpEvot)
all human reflection (émtvoig), as a canon (kavev). Theodotus expands the idea
of guidance by exploring the meaning of xavav, between its material and its
metaphorical content. The creed is a AOyos which straightens the understanding
(Evvoia) of the human beings, whose énivoia wants to divert (6taoTpéga)
the faith. As in Homily II, Theodotus explores the fluid boundary between text
and its content.* In the treatise, citations and references to scripture abound,
and the exegesis is largely similar to what Theodotus presented in homilies. In

28 Eye-witnesses could see incongruities between ACO I 1/3, 67, 1-9 and ACO I 1/7, 71-77,
for example.
9 ACO 14, 194.
0 ACO I 4, 80, 3-5.
*Ol See L.M. Frenkel, *“Dear prefect, Stop the ill rumour!”* (perhaps 2014).
302 T. Graumann, Die Kirche der Vater (2002), 403-5.
3" A Weckwerth, Ablauf, Organisation und Selbstverstdndnis westlicher antiker Synoden (2007),
26 footnote 119.
34 PG77, 1324C-5B.
5 H.-J. Sieben, *Zur Entwicklung der Konzilsidee’ (1973), 29-30.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 87

Adversus Nestorium,> Theodotus refutes a selection of Nestorian passages

slightly different of what Cyril addresses in the first two books of Contra
Nestorium 0” This is possibly the clearest indication of his dissociation from
Cyril. The open praise of the bishop of Alexandria is restricted to Theodotus’
conciliar homilies. Perhaps, the two treatises against Nestorius were written
independently, but Theodotus may have written his refutation of Nestorian
excerpts instead of just circulating Cyril’s treatise and letters. Perhaps, theo-
logical differences to Cyril’s ideas, to his approach or the way he expressed them
motivated Theodotus.
A fragment of a letter, preserved in Latin, bears a rubric which identifies
it as sent by Theodotus to Vitale. The text deals with the spread of questions
and doubts in Cilicia, especially in Tyana. The writer laments that the simple
religiosity of monastic life be troubled by doctrinal novelties, resembling Cyril
Ad monachos.*® As in most of Theodotus’ extant works, reasoning about
theological matters is considered detrimental to the advantageous faith in the
miraculous economy.” The letter fragment is forthrightly related to the con-
troversy around Eutherius of Tyana Antilogia.*!° Apparently, he had been
deposed by Maximian early in 432,°!' in what has been described as a clear
indication of Constantinopolitan meddling in provinces traditionally not under
its influence. The fragment ascribed to Theodotus adds evidence to the support
Eutherius enjoyed in his diocese, which helped him to retain his see for a
while.?!?

306 A. van Roey, ‘Le florilége nestorien dans le «Traité contre Nestorius»’ (1975), 157. The
text survives in Syriac translation in fragmentary manuscripts, still to be edited.
7 ACOI 1/6, 13-52.
8 ACO I 4, 212, 13-5. On Cyril Ep. 1: ACO I I/t, 11; of. S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and
the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 77-8.
ACO I 4, 212, 15-18; ef. p. 175. ,
"OM. Tetz, Eine Antilogie des Eutherios von Tyana (1964), usually dated to 432. The work
is also know as Confutationes quarundam propositionum. In F.E. Sciuto, Un episodio sconosciuto
della controversia cristologica (1984), 116ff., taking for granted that conciliar documents circu-
lated widely in Ephesus and after the Council, that Theodotus’ homilies were among the texts,
and that the same can be assumed for Exp. symb., the scholar suggests that Eutherius’ attacks were
directed foremost against Theodotus, and not against Cyril’s views. Until both of Theodotus’
theological treatises are carefully analysed, it seems more likely that Eutherius’ attacks of Cyri!’s
views reflect an Oriental criticism, and that Theodotus’ works represent an attempt to make
Cyril’s ideas known to an Oriental audience, and therefore both dwell longer on topics such as
Philippians 2,
um Cyril refers to a no longer extant letter of deposition in his correspondence with John of
Antioch (ACO 1 1/7, 153, 19ff.).
*” Theodoret describes a failed attempt to enthrone a successor, involving Firmus of Caesarea
and Longras, the imperial officer in command of the Isaurian troops (ACO I 4, 87, 22-32). Even-
ually, Eutherius was banished to Scythopolis for his repudiation of the Formula of Reunion, and
fled to Tyr, where he died (ACO I 4, 204, 3-5). On the complex patterns of support beyond
Provincial and diocesan boundaries, see N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 82.
88 ‘Lheodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

In the letter fragment, two aspects stand out. First, that the writer adopts a
heretic succession which starts with Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius comes
second, and Eutherius (actually, all in the diocese of Tyana) is the most recent
proponent of impious questions.*!* Secondly, that it implies that a monk in
Cilicia thought it fitting to direct to Theodotus of Ancyra problems related to
the spread of ideas from Tyana in Cappadocia Secunda. It implies a connection
with monasticism, an awareness of ongoing theological disputations, and the
use of heresiology that echoes Cyril’s move against Theodore, which are not
attested so clearly elsewhere in the sources about Theodotus.
The last document related to Theodotus during his lifetime is a letter by Cyril
addressed to Acacius of Melitene. Only one manuscript mentions also Theodotus,
alongside Firmus, as recipients.>!4 Perhaps, Theodotus had a limited participa-
tion in the networking which Cyril was trying to enhance,*!5 even if Theodotus
was not a regular addressee with Cyril or anyone else. It is possible that Cyril
actually kept Theodotus informed of many events by forwarding to him relevant
texts, such as this letter where he describes the reaction of the Antiochene
synod. Another possibility is that Theodotus actually supported Cyril steadily
and unquestioningly, despite their differences and Cyril was spared the trouble
of addressing Theodotus’ particular objections.>'® It seems that Theodotus was
not a regular correspondent with any major player of the post-conciliar theo-
logical debate. This could seem typical of most bishops who attended the Coun-
cil of Ephesus, who are only mentioned in the acts. However, it is atypical for
the metropolitans who influenced the course of action of the Cyrillian Council
as much as Theodotus. He seems to distance himself from Cyril once he returned
to Ancyra. Perhaps he had his own church-political or theological agenda. The-
odotus’ tendency towards monophysitism did not lead Ancyra to become a
monophysite diocese.*!? Alexandrian influence in Galatia receded and Ancyra
was eventually encroached by the Constantinopolitan sphere of influence.?”®
Perhaps, Theodotus’ statements of uneasiness with divisive attitudes which at
the council met the imperial interests, would have suited the so-called regional

33 ACO 1 4, 212, 12-3, 18-9.

34 ACO 1 4, 231, 28, and the pertinent critical apparatus. Also PG77, 337C, J.A. Fabricius et
al., Bibliotheca Graeca 9 (1804), 585, M. Jugie (ed.), Homélies mariales (1926), 289, and C. Lupus
and T.A. Filippini, Ad Ephesinum Concilium (1726), 373. Also transmitted in Coll. Diosc. 30 (Vat.
1431) — without mentioning Theodotus — it was included in editions of Theodoret’s works like
J.L. Schulze, B. Theodoreti Episcopi Cyri Opera omnia (1774), 880.
3 T, Graumann, ‘Kirchtiche Identitét und bischéfliche Selbstinszenierung’ (2003).
316 Contrasting situations are at the root of Cyril’s letters to Acacius (Ep. 40, ACO T 1/4,
20-31) and Succensus (Ep. 45, ACO I 1/6, 151-7 and Ep. 46, ACO I 1/6, 157-62), for example.
See also H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 534.
47 See the negative evidence of E. Honigmann, Evéques et évéchés monophysites (1951)
where the only mention of Ancyra is on p. 151 concerning a letter by Justinian reaffirming the
Chalcedonian faith.
“MRP Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 451-491 (2006), 296, 316, 780-1. i
 Theodotus in Ephesus 89

propensity for accommodation and tolerance which may have continued to

characterise Theodotus’ Ancyran audience. Cyril, however, soon gave up the
diplomatic reaction to an Antiochene synodical letter*!” as expressed in the
letter to Acacius, for a campaign against Theodore of Mopsuestia.*”°
It is possible that Theodotus’ receding participation during the later sessions
of Ephesus I indicates that he looked not only in words but also in actions for
conciliation by the avoidance of dissension and of debate. John’s letter and the
fragment to Vitale, mentioned above, seems to contradict this. Clearly, the
pieces of evidence are too few, but comparisons of Theodotus’ and Acacius’
conciliar participation present some clues with which to close this section.
The documentation and reception of the Council of Ephesus was much influ-
enced by subsequent events leading to Chalcedon, and by the consolidation of
regional theological differences.**’ Both Theodotus and Acacius of Melitene
died before the Council of Chalcedon. Acacius’ role in church history is much
better documented. In the decade after the council he remained visible in eccle-
siastic matters, first as a supporter of Cyril, later as a critic of what he saw as
Cyril’s retreat, conceding too much to the Antiochene views. It is not known
how Theodotus reacted to the Formula of 433,37? the documents in its wake, or
the imperial laws against Nestorius.*? Compared to Theodotus, Acacius’ works
suggest a worse rhetorician, and in his lifetime he seemed a less subtle church
leader since he stirred up considerably the Christological divisions in the
build-up to Chalcedon, in part getting involved with the questions raised by the
Armenian church.** Acacius’ interventions gave rise to some of the founda-
tional texts of Chalcedonian orthodoxy, such as Proclus Tomus ad Armenios**
and Cyril Epistula 40. Theodotus left works which tend to express a more acute
monophysitism than Cyril’s without contributing much to the development of
doctrine. His preaching and the circulation of his writings apparently increased
anti-Oriental tensions in Galatia, and led to the reputation of a staunch anti-
Nestorian which a close scrutiny of his conciliar participation can disprove only
partially,
No personal legacy or discipleship is attested. All references to Theodotus
of Ancyra are literary.*26 Apart from the compilation and reception of conciliar

319
Non-extant letter of a synod in Antioch, August 438.
320
T. Jansen, Theodor von Mopsuestia, De Incarnatione (2009), 29.
8

321
T. Graumann, ‘Towards the reception of the Council of Ephesus’ (2010).
322
ACO I 1/4, 15-20; cf. J.A. McGuckin, St. Cyril (2004), 114 ff.
323
E.g. ACO 1/3, 67. For example, depending on the date of his Adversus Nestorium, Theo-
dotus may have continued to use Nestorius’ name to personify heterodox Christology despite the
ban Circulated in 436 (ACO I 1/3, 68). For the date, see also ACO I 1/4, xi and L.I. Scipioni,
Nestorio (1974), 275.
va, N- Constas, Proclus (2003), 99ff.
106 ACO IV 2, 187-195.
*~” Discussed in greater detail on pp. 118-26.
90 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (43!)

documentation, Theodotus seems to have been championed first among mono-

physite Christians, especially in Syriac translation. Indeed, it is difficult to trace
Theodotus’ influence because a substantial part of the evidence is in Latin,
Syriac, Ethiopic and Arabic translations, or in glosses of Greek manuscripts,
all materials which are not contemplated by databases like the TLG. Textual
searches nevertheless suggest a reduced number of references of his name and
even fewer attributed quotations throughout Byzantine literature, hinting that
he was considered only a secondary figure in Greek Orthodoxy.*?’

Theodotus’ sermons

This section analyses Homilies IIT and VI closely, as a case study of conciliar
sermons, highlighting their intrinsic relation to the synod. Allegedly, Theodotus
preached them to the gathered synod, and thus, they are better suited to discuss
the role of sermons during the synod than Homilies I and II, only said to have
been read to the council. The circumstances of this redelivery are vague, and
apparently did not affect their content. Theodotus’ brief conciliar sermons are
representative of his thought, since he at least alludes in them to most themes
in his other homilies, to which the final chapter again resorts, to discuss theo-
logical matters.
The first chapter presented a broad picture of the time and space in which
Theodotus lived, and the previous sections, a detailed analysis of his participa-
tion in the Council of Ephesus, and possible scenarios for preaching. So that
particularly noteworthy individual passages for the relation of the homilies to
the conciliar setting can be analysed in the next chapter — highlighting the
conciliar issues to be answered in its last sections by an analysis of aspects of
Theodotus’ theological and ecclesiological thought — it is necessary to describe
and discuss here aspects of the homiletics of this period which are relevant for
Theodotus’ two conciliar homilies. The problematic liturgical setting will be
discussed first, after a brief summary correlated to the task at hand.
Theodotus is particularly well represented in the body of Ephesian conciliar
homilies with both homilies first delivered in Ephesus, and earlier ones, which
are said to have been read in Ephesus to the Council. The Coll. Vat. also
includes a pre-conciliar sermon of Proclus who did not participate in the
council,>28 as well as sermons said to have been held in Ephesus by several
Cyrillian bishops, such as Acacius, Rheginus, and, of course, Cyril himself.2”
The minutes of the sessions record a significant engagement of these leading

27 See pp. 124-6.

328 ACO I i/l, 103-7. See p. 12, 43, 76.
329 Homilies in other major Greek collections of conciliar documents are discussed on p. 121 ff.
and briefly in N. Constas, Procius (2003), 71, 126ff.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 91

bishops. Coll. Vat. is typical of those compilations where only a few sermons
were juxtaposed to letters and decrees while focusing on the minutes and
appended documents.*?° Other Greek collections, transmitted solely in late
antique or medieval translations,**! sometimes were built almost entirely around
homilies, and included also the contribution of bishops less active during the
sessions?2* and a wider range of texts prior to the council.**? Thus, Theodotus’
sermons and read homilies are representative of an intrinsic feature of late
antique conciliar proceedings which is not mentioned in the minutes of the
sessions, Whose importance cannot be fully grasped from the few references in
letters. These show that also the Orientals preached during the conciliar period,
although the evidence is scarce.
Preaching and the engagement with earlier sermons — admittedly through
‘public’ reading — was an important venture during the months in Ephesus, to
which a significant number of bishops contributed. Theodotus’ sermons in
Ephesus need to be interpreted in the wider context of the entire conflict,*
while at the same time their distinct character stems from the direct and very
practical link with the council’s work at the time.*¥° Preaching was a polemical
activity considering the obstacles to liturgical activities, and the inherent impor-
tance of arguments like the validity of teaching and communion.*3’ Exploring
one more communication platform and its intrinsic qualities, sermons allowed
more extended presentation and recapitulation of the theological topics being
debated during conciliar sessions than the statements therein*** as well as advo-
cacy for the bishops’ self-presentation as conciliar fathers and the validity of
their proceedings.*3? The preaching bishop could address directly an audience,
possibly wider than at the sessions, while referring to liturgical elements like
venue, scriptural readings, hymns and hagiography.**° The written versions

*9 E. Chrysos, ‘Konzilsakten und Konzilsprotokolle’ (1983), 32, F. Millar, A Greek Roman

Empire (2006), 237, E. Schwartz, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum (1914ff.), vii: id., Codex
Vaticanus gr. 1431 (1927), 94, T. Graumann, Die Kirche der Vater (2002), 399, and p. 75ff.
* Eg. Ethiopic and Georgian translations — resp. B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979).
1. Rucker, ‘Ephesinische Konzilsakten in armenischgeorgischer Ubertieferung’ (1930).
*2 Eg. Eusebius of Herakleia, B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 100-7.
“3 Fg, Epiphanius Constantiensis, B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 23, B.M. Weischer,
Qérellos 4.2 (1979).
*4 4g. Cf. ACO IV I, 132, 35 - 133, 1f (Constantinople II, Actio V, 101-2). On Nestorius’
Pteaching, see L.L. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 32ff., S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian
Controversy (2004), 242-52.
“5 Cf. insights gained from this perspective into Proclus’ sermonising in N. Constas, Preclus
(2003), 40-76.
336 P 94,

: Respectively, p. 55, 64.

3

SY 8
E.g. ACO 11/2, 38.
9
” Cf. p. 50, 75.
340
Cf. pp. 97, 100, 150.
92 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

preserved many circumstantial details, in spite of having been readied to be

circulated among audiences unaware of details of the original setting.*"!
Analogous to the endorsement and promotion of Cyril Epistula 2 in the
22 June session, Theodotus and Acacius, for example, argued for the existence
of leadership in their homilies, praising Cyril, and commending his teaching >
The homilies differ in the choice of themes and arguments,*** possibly related
to the personal interests of the preacher,** although the imbalance of scarce
texts and abundant complex variables disallows definite conclusions. The hom-
ilies testify to the complexity of the conciliar setting, confirm that the Cyrillian
minutes provide a partial picture, and further indicate the rhetorical effort
behind the quite harmonious and optimistic view which the conciliar factions
wanted to spread in their letters and treatises.
The following analysis of Theodotus’ conciliar sermons, in illuminating their
setting, rhetorical qualities, purposes and main themes, constantly relates them
to examples from other preachers, to texts emanating from the sessions, to letters
written during the conciliar period and to some evidence of non-episcopal
involvement with the Ephesian conciliar events. Existing examinations of
Proclus’ and Cyril’s sermons** have highlighted in particular that exploring
standard images and arguments from both late antique oratory and the theology
inhered from the fourth-century debates, the preachers attempted to denigrate
the soundness of the opponents’ teaching, uphold their own, defend their (living
or dead) paragons, and especially place their endeavours in the sanctioned tra-
dition of the church, and thus relate to the divine world-order, in which they
could place their duties, and allude to divine prophecies and promises.
Conciliar homilies contain only seemingly precise references to the conflict,
open to various interpretations, leaving explicit associations to historical events
tentative. Studying the homilies underscores that the theological vocabulary
was not ‘a separate expression of [...] devotion’,*© but part of the polemic.
However, Proclus’ homilies lack the immediacy of the conciliar context, in both
audience and content, and Cyril’s sermons have been shown to be primarily
invective discourses. The careful reading of a wider range of conciliar homilies
exemplifies the fluidity of generic boundaries, *47 since although their content

4 Cf pp. 100, 109.

+42 BLM. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 124, 12, ACO I 1/2, 90, 13-20, and below, p. 131ff.
38 Noteworthily, Theodotus does not mention Mary in the conciliar homilies, reinforcing
that it was not a mandatory argument in the Christological debate, an insight largely lost when
passages are deprived of the wider context, as in Mariological studies. Cf. S. Wessel, Cyril of
Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 224ff., R. Caro, La homilética mariana griega
(1972), 158. Further, p. 13.
4 Cf p. 76.
345 Cf p. 12.
346 S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 224.
M7 P99, 147.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 93

and style have parallels in other homilies,*** they are hardly encompassed by
any general definition of homilies, even those which have been adapted to the
broad late antique spectrum.*”? Placed in the historical context, and approached
as an oral or written tool for theological persuasion, Theodotus’ homilies share
several images and objectives with other genres, especially letters.*° Against
this background, his preaching may be described as a reflection both of the
council’s self-presentation and continued struggle for acceptance, and as
offering a specific perspective on this struggle that shows Theodotus’ position
among and relation to the Cyrillians, and his main pastoral interests which
appear as a constant throughout his homiletic activity, before the council in
Ancyra as much as in the presence of the assembled bishops in Ephesus.
It raises some questions related to his theological preoccupations, which Chap-
ter 3 addresses, keeping the conciliar setting in mind.

The evidence on the liturgical setting: audience and venue

The rubric of Homily III has the most complete information about a setting in
which Theodotus preached:**!
Homily by Theodotus of Ancyra, pronounced in Ephesus against Nestorius, in the
church of John the Evangelist.

It suggests that Theodotus’ Homily III was delivered at the church of John the
Evangelist,**? which was most probably the ‘great church’, a venue Cyril too used
for preaching. This seems to imply a change of location from the conciliar ses-
sion in the church of Mary.**? However, some of the short conciliar homilies
seem to have been delivered there, for example those of Juvenal of Jerusalem?**
and of Severus of Synada.**° Their Ethiopic sources claim that these two homi-
lies, like Theodotus’ Homily VI, were preached on 5 July. Therefore, Theodotus
perhaps also preached in this church. However, the incipits in the quite late
Qérellos collection are to be treated with caution. The collector of what became
the Ethiopic collection may have supplied information about the venue resort-
ing to the church of Mary, often mentioned in the minutes, and by the time of
compilation more famous, even introducing conflict with the Greek collation.*°°
These rubrics raise additional questions about the state of completion and liturgical

s Cf. B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 21ff., N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 148ff.
4 pg,
50 p73.
S' ACO T 1/2, 71, 21-2.
i The information could also refer to the liturgy. See the section on p. 96.
3p 49.
*4 BLM. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 82.
‘55 BOM. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 62.
86 ACOI 1/2, 94, 23.
94 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

functionality of the church of Mary in Ephesus and the trustworthiness of doc-

uments locating the sessions in the great church called after Mary.°*’
Other conciliar documents add no information to allow many considerations
about the type of liturgy in which Theodotus gave Homilies IH and VIL. Their
scriptural quotations refer to questions raised at the council, and are to be found
in texts read or mentioned at the session of 22 June.?°* In liturgies closely
related to the council, the readings possibly incorporated some of these passages,
Theodotus’ allusion to them does not require this, and does not suggest that
they were coincidentally prescribed readings for the day.
In Homily VI.1,°°? Theodotus represents Cyril (the ‘precious stone’) in the
centre of the choir of fathers. It is one more image in a rich passage, and so
it is not certain that this corresponds to what was going on physically in the
church, but it might suggest a concentric arrangement of the bishops, with Cyril
the leading celebrant of the liturgy in the centre. However, Memnon, as met-
ropolitan of Ephesus and joint Cyrillian leader, probably presided over major
liturgical celebrations.

Audience

Because of the titles and vocatives used (‘fathers’, ‘rocks of the church’),? the
audience of Homily VI must at least in part have consisted of bishops, even if
Theodotus could include other people in that liturgical setting among the fight-
ers for the faith, which is how he praises the audience.**! Opponents to the
majoritarian council were probably not in the audience, since a common initial
reaction to theological differences was to refrain from communion, and, anyway,
the bishops of different parties had shunned and been shunned from reciprocal
liturgies.*® If most Cyrillian bishops were in the audience, they probably left
little or no room where Theodotus’ preaching could be heard by others. In a

47 See p. 49.
358 See the section on p. 127.
359 B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 122, Of.
60 More precisely, in Homily VI, B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 122, the audience are
at first ‘sons’. Their crown is the ‘choir of fathers’ that may refer particularly to the participants
of the Council of Nicaea. The emphasis on the collective strength of the audience expands the
‘assembly’ or ‘choir’ of ‘fathers’ to the group of bishops gathered for the sake of an ecumenical
council. Then, when Theodotus addresses the audience as ‘pure fathers’ - B.M. Weischer,
Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 124, 14 -, he means members of a council who rank alongside the Nicene
fathers.
+61 The evidence for popular involvement (p. 74ff.) makes it possible that a small fraction of
the Ephesian population was at this celebration, and that their active, and often aggressive support
would make this general address the more fitting. See A. de Halleux, ‘La premiére session du
concile d’Ephése’ (1993), 61 for the presence of monks during the conciliar period in Ephesus.
62 P48.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 95

Cyrillian audience, Theodotus’ openly stated theological views were ‘orthodox’

with a faith which agreed with that of the fathers of Nicaea, and with what the
bishops had agreed on at the session of 22 June by the approval of Cyril’s letter
and the condemnation of Nestorius’ letter and Nestorian excerpts. Many in the
audience were probably familiar with theological challenges and perhaps aware
of civilian and juridical issues pending for the Cyrillian bishops.°® Theodotus’
homilies do not include clear evidence of dialogue with the audience or their
reaction.*
The mood and thoughts of the audience could perhaps be sketched from the
timing of the conciliar homilies. However, dates and locations specified in the
sources are often vague or seem conflicting, and scholars’ suggested solutions
disagree much. When dates coincide and locations differ, sources are not pre-
cise enough to infer if liturgies happened simultaneously in two venues or at
different times, in which case the audience could have heard all sermons.
The celebratory mood conceming Nestorius’ deposition*®®> suggests dating
Theodotus’ Homily III relatively close to the session of 22 June. Usually it is
therefore dated to Sunday 28 June. However, in the Qérellos collection, Theo-
dotus’ Homily IIH and Cyril’s first homily are dated to Thursday July 2 (Hamlé 8).
According to both indications, the homily postdates the arrival of John of Antioch
on 26 or 27 June. John’s attempt to prevent Cyril and Memnon from celebrating
the liturgy on Sunday 28 June failed.*® It is noteworthy that the Ethiopic source
apparently had no problem with dating a sermon to a weekday.**” Therefore,
these celebratory homilies may have even been delivered just after the 22 June
session, for example on the Tuesday or Wednesday. In Theodotus’ Homily III,
as well as in Rheginus’ sermon, there is no reference to a challenge to the Cyrillian
Council, such as was posed by the Oriental Council. The texts do not seem to
prepare the audience for a confrontation with an organised and well supported
opposition, and thus do not indicate if the audience was aware of the Antio-
chene meeting. Rather, both Theodotus and Rheginus reassure the audience of
the propriety of their synodical decision, suggesting that the Cyrillians were
still in need of encouragement concerning their own deeds.
Theodotus’ Homily VI is not clearly dated either. The indication ‘on the
same day’ lacks, in the Qérellos collections, a precise reference, tentatively
seen as Cyril’s second conciliar homily.*°* The importance of the exegesis of

363 P 49, 81. See also E. Schwartz, ‘Cyrill und der Ménch Viktor’ (1926), 12-4.
*4 The rhetorical introduction to Rheginus’ sermon mentions some interaction with the audience.
ACO I 1/2, 70, 21-3. See pp. 76f.
465 “the grace of the Spirit [...] has severed the member’, ‘to sever the evil [...] is not cruelty’,
‘how would one remedy one of those so disposed[?]’ (ACO T 1/2, 71-2).
*© ACO 14, 43-4.
*7 Perhaps, the editors of the Qérellos collection were unsure about the correlation of the
calendars,
*8 ACO I 1/2, 92-4. See B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 40, 122. 2.
96 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Matthew 16° may suggest a dating related to the arrival of the papal legates
and the second Cyrillian session,>”° although the Roman see is not mentioned
explicitly and Theodotus uses the passage to reinforce the authority and validity
of decisions taken by bishops of the church in general.
Homily VI has strong words of encouragement for the bishops to stay
united,*”! to be convinced of the uprightness and strength of their decision,372
and suggests they were by then aware of the existence of concrete and substan-
tial organised opposition.*”? The emphasis on unity may even be a reaction to
imperial orders to disband while the leader(s) were under house-arrest.>’4 The
unnamed reference to Nestorius by ‘renegade’*”> may suggest that the sermon
precedes the imperial acceptance of Nestorius’ voluntary relinquishing of the
Constantinopolitan see. Theodotus may have considered the possibility of hav-
ing some audience for whom Nestorius was still bishop, against whom named
diatribe was not fitting.

Venue

This section discusses in more detail the relation between the rubrics and the
content of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies. It shows that although the collector’s
note may present true information from a source independent of the main body
of the text, the plausible information about day, space and setting may also have
been derived solely from the text or have been editorial additions to specify the
conciliar setting and thus justify the inclusion in the collections.
Homily If] has the more intricate interrelation of rubric and content. It sug-
gests that the circumstantial details need not go back to early tradition, but may
have been inferred from the text of the homily by the compilers.
Nestorius is not named in Homily III, however the rubric describes it as
‘against Nestorius’ (tpdg Neotdpiov).*”6 The theology of one particular indi-
vidual which Theodotus criticises corresponds to a caricature of Nestorian
views, such as presented to the Cyrillians on 22 June in the florilegium.>”" His
defence of the exclusion from the church of one ill-disposed member agrees

369 B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 126-8.

37° See p. 46 and B.M. Weischer, Qéretlos 4.1 (1979), 37.
37! ‘no one wavered’, ‘the strength of the church and its faith’, ‘you are built and are unshakeable’,
‘strengthen your minds’, B.M. Weischer, Qéretlos 4.1 (1979), 124, 16, 124, 2, ibid., 5-6, 132, 2.
372 ‘Fight [...] for the sake of justice’, B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 132, 3.
73 * Arrows were released’, ‘the billows of the error wil/ not shake our building’, B.M. Weis-
cher, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 124, 16, 130, 5-6.
4 See p. 81.
5 BLM. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 124, 5, 128, 16.
7 ACO LT 1/2, 71, 21.
“7 ACO T 1/2, 72. 5ff. and ACO I 1/2, 45ff.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 97

with Nestorius’ deposition on 22 June.?7* The author of the rubric relied on the
direct addresses against a proponent of Nestorius’ Christology*” to describe
the homily as said ‘against Nestorius’. He may have inferred from these second
rson singular addresses that Nestorius was among Theodotus’ audience, which
the preposition (tpdc¢) can mean. This was impossible, since the Cyrillians
were not in communion with Nestorius, who remained anyway in voluntary
isolation. Therefore, the second person singular ‘dialogues’ are only oratorical
tools to admonish more persuasively those who might waver in the defence of
the Cyrillian exclusion of Nestorius from communion. The addressee in the
direct discourse evolves from an absent enemy of the faith — indeed, con-
demned in absentia — to those actually present and listening. Nestorius may
be understood as the referential for all the ‘you’ being addressed (albeit not
named),2®° but the same admonitions apply to Nestorians who ought to recant,
and to ‘orthodox’ bishops who ought to be sure and clear about their allegiance,
even if they had already condemned Nestorius and his views.
The Ethiopic Qérellos collection and the 15CE manuscript of the Collectio
Seguierana*®! attest a manuscript tradition which interprets €v “Imavvnt tot
edayyEALOTTL as a time reference to a feast day of John the Evangelist. All other
manuscripts**? do not supply fpépat. Also the rubric of one of Cyril’s homilies
has this reference to John the Evangelist,*** and this main witness to the Coll.
Vat. attests the longer version which refers to the feast day, while the early
Latin translation has the clarification ‘Eiusdem dicta in Iohannis euangelistae
basilica’.>®4 The critical edition*® adopts in both cases the reading which sug-
gests that it refers to the location. Not only text critical grounds make it impos-
sible to read the dative expression as a reference to a day in the rubric of
Theodotus’ homily. The only attested feast for John the Evangelist during sum-
mer and autumn, after 22 June, would fall as late as 26 September.>*6 Unfortu-
nately, the one manuscript tradition with the interpolation guided not only the
Ethiopic translation but also early printed editions, whose translations and inter-
pretations the Patrologia Graeca incorporated, assuring a significant impact in
the literature.387

8 ACO I 1/2, 71, 25ff. and ACO I 1/2, 54, 27.

0” ACOI 1/2, 72, 33ff.
* ACO I 1/2, 72, 7ff.
Ms, D. (ACO I 1/2, 71 app. ad. loc.).
a Mss. VMPSW (ACO I 1/2, 71 app. ad. loc.).
” ACO T 1/2, 94, 23.
Cf ACO 1 4, 63 footnote 2.
E. Schwartz, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum (19 14ff.).
PG77, 4385. The sources suggest the delegation remained in Chalcedon or Constantinople
between the meetings with the emperor early in September, and the consecration of Maximian, at
the end of October, ‘
87 For example, G.L. Castro, Teodoto di Ancira (1992), 101.
98 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

The information in the rubric may, however, stem from the text, where Theo-
dotus praises John the Evangelist, and ‘this metropolis’.3*° This doubtlessly
confirms that Theodotus preached the sermon in Ephesus. Should there have
been no information on the location, the mention of John the Evangelist may
have led a later editor to infer it was delivered in the church dedicated to this
saint, possibly echoing similar references**? already available. Theodotus, how-
ever, is not explicit about the venue, wherefore caution is needed to use this
rubric as proof-text that the bishops of the Cyrillian Council at least during their
liturgical celebrations used the most important church of Ephesus for their
liturgies, or that Theodotus preached there.
The veracity of the rubrics concerning the conciliar roles of Homilies
and I39! is more difficult to judge. Their narrative details have no echoes in the
sermons. Two caveats, at least, are clear. The rubrics may have been added to
justify the inclusion of a text which the compilers wanted or needed to incor-
porate. They may also have drawn on an early manuscript tradition closely
linked to Theodotus, where this information was added to the homilies to con-
fer greater importance, or could have been derived and corroborated from
Theodotus’ participation at the session.

Some characteristics of Theodotus’ homiletics

The few surviving texts by Theodotus were enough for one scholar to describe
his homiletics as talented (‘begabt’), highlighting his use of short sentences,
incisive phrasing and engaging vocabulary to address the hearer and to acquaint
him with the situation by means of rhetorical questions.°”
The overall clarity of Theodotus’ style stems from a simple syntax and a
composition which is driven forward by known formulae, rhetorical images,
questions and repetitions,*°? as well as being organised around scriptural quotations.
Theodotus’ texts exemplify how effective communication could be achieved

88 ACO I 1/2, 73, 19-22.

589 Like ACO I 1/2, 94, 23.
+49 “By the same, said on the day of the nativity of our saviour Jesus Christ, and itself read
aloud in the same synod.” ACO I 1/2, 80, 30-1.
*| *(Homily) by Theodotus, bishop of Ancyra, on the nativity of the saviour, read at the
council in the presence of the Bishop Cyril’, ACO I 1/2, 73, 26-7.
*92_ BLM. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 36-7, who also praises the Exp. symb. and uses The-
odotus as a paradigm with which to compare other conciliar preachers. For example, he, as well
as O. Shchuryk, ‘The Christological Position of Acacius’ (2010), characterises Acacius’ literary
style as more complicated than that of Theodotus et al., pointing out the use of longer sentences,
unclear comparisons, and the dogmatic orientation of the content. See also G.L. Castro, Teodoto
di Ancira (1992), 35, id., ‘Osservazioni su un’omelia greca sul battesimo’ (1992), 309.
393 See A. Weckwerth, Ablauf, Organisation und Selbstverstédndnis westlicher antiker Synoden
(2007), 26 for juridical and conciliar parallels of piling up of meanings meant to increase the
precision,
 Theodotus in Ephesus 99

by delivering a homily with a clear structure and employing to a large extent

topics and vocabulary which were common, so as to establish a link with the
audience by shared concepts.?*
The coherence of the conciliar homilics is exemplified by bringing back into
focus at the end of the work major themes mentioned at the beginning,
oixovopia in Homily II and the ‘fight for the faith’ in Homily VI. Theodotus
binds contrasting thematic blocks by a few sentences. Besides the cohesion of
the text on a structural level,?9° grounded on common rhetorical assumptions,
Theodotus built on ideas shared by the audience.
Homilies III and VI have characteristics of all major genres of classical
rhetoric.*%° The epideictic style is represented in the extensive praise of Cyril,
as well as in the derision of Nestorius, or more accurately, of the unnamed
enemy. Ultimately, however, simple praise is not the main message Theodotus
tries to convey. The Cyrillian bishops ought to have been acquainted with the
theological material of the statements and documents read at their conciliar
session(s), and Theodotus’ Christological topics and arguments?” largely echo
them. He draws no attention to differing views or potential dissension among
the Cyrillians. In so far as the transmission of content is not the main focus of
the conciliar homilies, they also fail to be didactic texts. It is, however, unclear
how steadfast and committed the Cyrillians were. Defending the uprightness of
the conciliar doctrine and proceeding,*** Theodotus encourages and admonishes
the bishops of the council,*? and even more so a later reader of the text within
the collections of conciliar documents. Perhaps, the conciliar homilies ought to
be primarily placed in the deliberative genre. Theodotus exhorts all bishops to
defend orthodox Christology; Cyril’s teaching had been endorsed on 22 June,
and thus Cyril provided Theodotus with a clear anchoring reference. Cyril is
the ‘rock [who] the mystery of the incarnation, truly, recognised’.* Praise that
refers back to Cyril occurs throughout Homily VI. Theodotus sees in Cyril’s
Christology his biggest contribution and achievement, and describes some of

*°4 The rhetorical merits prompted FE. Sciuto, ‘Una citazione virgiliana in Teodoto’ (1991),
524, to guess that Theodotus vas a school master. As a counter-argument, suppose there was no
biographical information about Gregory Nazianzen; applying the same argument to his opus, not
least his poetic and apologetic works, would absurdly suggest he was an excellent schoo!-master,
Surpassing in the fourth-century even Libanius.
*5 Lack thereof in most fifth-century homiletics is used in A. Merkt, ‘Miindlichkeit: Ein
Problem der Hermeneutik’ (1997) as proof of the improvisation and scarcity of reworking of
Patristic homilies. The author points to several examples which minimise the coherence of the
text, and the control an author had over the version being written down and circulated.
“© Compare with K.-H. Uthemann, ‘Forms of communication in the homilies of Severian of
Gabala’ (1998), 139.
“7 ACO I 1/2, 72, Off., B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 128, 3ff.
"8 ACO I 1/2, 71, 25ff., B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 126, 1-6.
™ ACO I 1/2, 72, 3ff., B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 132.
40 BM. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 128, 19.
100 Theodatns of Ancyra’s Homilics and the Council of Ephesus (431)

its key elements. Theodotus’ theology and that of all Cyrifllian bishops is sup-
posed to be the same as Cyril’s.
Theodotus’ conciliar homilies have many marks of orality, however, even
the most explicit instances may not indicate real exchange of ideas between
preacher and audience, rather be only part of oral rhetoric.*°' This is perhaps
best exemplified in the extensive addresses in the second person singular and
direct questions to the listener,*©* who instantiates the saved humanity, to make
Christological orthodoxy more relevant. Theodotus interweaves an occasional
use of the first person plural, placing himself among the audience, and along-
side it within humanity.*°? Passages** which might suggest many were dis-
tracted or facing difficulties to hear,4™ are rather intrinsic to the structure of the
text, articulating the development of thought.
Theodotus uses scripture in line with the practice of fourth and fifth-century
homiletics in general, albeit arguably less abundantly than Cyril and Proclus.*%
In the conciliar homilies, Theodotus’ quotations are mainly restricted to scrip-
tural passages central to ecclesiology and the Christological debate. Sometimes
Theodotus identifies the scriptural source, especially when he quotes it at length
or discusses it more,*”’ but he also can quote a passage verbatim without giving
the reference.*® Furthermore, his text draws on scripture for examples, argu-
ments, images, efc. without citing a passage. Theodotus builds expansively
around citations from scriptures. Even when he claims to be citing it, Theodo-
tus’ quotation can be quite free. For example, Theodotus’ exegesis of Phil. 2:5
makes it necessary to translate the quotation*” differently from most ‘biblical
versions’, with loss of all moral meaning it might have. That is, the clause
‘8 kai év Xpiota1 Inco’ is best rendered literally, as ‘this which was also in
Christ Jesus’, and not with the meaning of ‘life in Christ’,*!° ‘Christ’s attitude’,
for example.*!!

4! See p. 40, C. Ronning, ‘Ritate der Rhetorik — Rhetorik der Rituale’ (2003), 133-4. Espe-
cially conciliar homilies are likely to have been edited carefully when they were included in the
collections.
402 E.g, B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 128, 2-5. ACO I 1/2, 72, 14-5.
403 ACO I 1/2, 72, 16-9. B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 130, 8-9.
404 Eg. B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 124, 15, where ‘joy’ is actually part ofa circular
composition.
405 [Link]. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication (2006), 94, N. Constas, Proclus (2003),
158.
406 See note 6 in R. Caro, La homilética mariana griega (1972), 161.
407 Mention of Jeremiah and of ‘the great apostle’ in Homily II, ACO I 1/2, 71, 32 and
72, 31.
98 Luke 1:31 in ACO I 1/2, 72, 33.
9 ACO I 1/2, 72, 31.
410 Einheitsiibersetzung.
4". The Common English Bible.
 Theodotus in Ephesus i01

Theodotus quotes only scripture as authoritative text, but he expresses many

theological ideas in ways which echo credal formulae."? Statements of faith
were often presented to showcase orthodoxy, in line with their centrality for the
apprehension of Christianity in churches,*"? and the Nicene creed played a central
role in the decision-making process of councils.*'* Despite this importance,
verses from creeds were rarely quoted verbatim in homilies. More frequent are
credal echoes, which in Theodotus serve the following twofold function, one
linked to orality, the other to persuasion.
From the point of view of oral delivery, it is often argued that formulaic
passages give the speaker time to gather his thoughts while speaking.*!> In a
sermon, which is not a text read aloud but always improvised to a certain
extant,‘!® the use of such formulae or block statements can then indicate the
author falling back to expressions which he could speak out while thinking
about what to say next. However, Theodotus’ expansion of ideas by rephrasing
them in similar ways does not introduce redundancy. It emphasises the topic
for the benefit of the audience, and is structured as gradations where the least
element is by itself relevant.4!”
The choice of credal material was not random, since it also had important,
characteristically Christian, argumentative and persuasive roles. Passages which
resemble credal statements, kerygmatic or doxological formulations reflect an
ongoing pattern of realisation of synods and presentation of their outcome in
terms of restatements of a standard creed (such as the Nicene creed), with the
addition of a few refining clausulae.‘!* Indeed, the recurrence of sentences
which in sound and structure tend to resemble doxological formulations exem-
plifies how much credal texts were part of the liturgical reality of the Greek
bishops, even if creeds were not yet regularly part of the liturgy.*!? Creeds could
be used as decisive arguments in view of their central place in theology.”

412 ACO I 1/2, 73, 12-9, B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 130, 7-11. See A. Weckwerth,
Ablauf, Organisation und Selbstverstandnis westlicher antiker Synoden (2007), 26.
4") 1.4. McGuckin, ‘Mystery or conundrum?’ (2008), 251.
44 See the section on p. 54, and W. Kinzig et al., Tauffragen und Bekenntnis (1999), 217ff.
4'S’ Similar ideas come up in most discussions involving orality, from Homeric poetry to musi-
cology, ventured as motivations or explanations for epithets, melismata, erc.
46 See M.J. Carruthers, The Craft of Thought (1998) for a discussion of what memorisation
x repetition meant in the Middle Ages, that it was not a servile rerendering, identical in all
etails,
417 See A. Merkt, ‘Mindlichkeit: Ein Problem der Hermeneutik’ (1997), 80 for a different
Conclusion based on the analysis of sermons by Maximus of Turin.
“8 JA, McGuckin, ‘Mystery or conundrum?’ (2008), 251, 255ff.
“!9 Regular insertion of creeds into eucharistic and baptismal liturgies is associated with Justinian,
See ibid., 251, W. Kinzig et al., Tauffragen und Bekenntnis (1999), 240, LH. Westra, The Apostles’
Creed (2002), 17ff.
“0 See the section on p. 193 for the centrality of the salvation of human beings in Theodotus’
approach to Christology. For this, the passage ‘for us men and for our salvation’ in the Nicene
102 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Thus, what sounds like dogmatic statements, in short sentences, incisive

phrasing and seemingly accurate vocabulary is not only a stylistic feature of
Theodotus’ homiletics,**! but part of the content. Also his briefness seems
deliberate, as there is no sign that Theodotus was interrupted. A disruptive
intrusion was not to be expected in a partisan, well-educated audience which was
presented with a brief sermon which was largely non-polemical for the Cyril-
lian bishops. Therefore, Theodotus probably developed his topics as much as
he saw appropriate for the occasion.
The following sections address a few elements of classical rhetoric present
in Theodotus’ homilies which have an important argumentative role in the
conciliar setting. Nevertheless, it ought to be remarked that Theodotus also
employed several rhetorical operations,*?? and quoted Virgil at one point.*#3

Fictional dialogues
Fictional dialogues are probably the most noticeable rhetorical device among
the several figures of speech which recur in Theodotus’ homilies. Almost all
works attributed to him contain theatrical-like paraphrases of scriptural passages,
usually in the form of fictional dialogues, whether between the preacher and his
audience, or, more importantly, as dialogues put into the mouth of the biblical
characters,*”* changing the words without making the reference unrecognisable.
Even if the engagement is with an absent interlocutor, the passages may be
considered marks of orality. Voice was often given to characters also in texts
composed as written works.
Extensive elaboration on a biblical citation is often used as strong evidence
that the passage was read during the same liturgical celebration.*”> This assumes
accurate knowledge of scriptures by heart was uncommon, and especially for
conciliar homilies, does not take into account that many of the elaborated pas-
sages were at the centre of the disagreements. Knowledge in an oral society
(even if widely literate) accommodated variants,*”° creating a nebulous realm

creed is in the background as much as passages from scripture, as discussed in H.v. Loon, The
Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 504.
#1 See p. 98.
422 In Homily III.3, ACO I 1/2, 72, 16ff. it is easy to list examples of assonance, alliteration,
anaphora, internal rhyme and poliptoton, epistrophe and antistrophe, isocolon, apostrophe (and
aposiopesis). Compare J.H. Barkhuizen, Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople — Homilies on the Life
of Christ (2001), 13-22.
423M. Jugie (ed.), Homélies mariales (1926), 334, 33-9. On the citation of a Greek version of
the (in)famous passage from Eclogue 4, see F.E. Sciuto, ‘Una citazione virgiliana in Teodoto’
(1991).
424 That is, sermocinatio. See H.M. Meissner, ‘Grammatik und Rhetorik’ (1993) for examples
prior to Theodotus. See also J. Kecskeméti, ‘Deux caractéristiques de la prédication’ (1996).
#5 For example, M. Fassler, ‘The first Marian feast’ (2001), 44.
#6 See M.J. Carruthers, The Craft of Thought (1998).
 Theodotus in Ephesus 103

of what would be seen as the standard text or not. Theodotus’ biblical fictions
fall into this scope of recognisable imprecision. He departed and returned to
scripture, weaving his exegesis into it. Seamlessly intercalating into the quo-
tation a fictional dialogue displayed his rhetorical prowess. Theodotus’ aim was
not to make a bishop in the audience question his own memory of the exact
wording of scripture, but to express his ideas in a way so consonant with scrip-
ture that it would not be deemed extraneous to it, or new. As much as ‘scrip-
tural fiction’ attests to Theodotus’ artistry,*?” its use in polemic homilies to
transform the biblical passage or at least re-contextualise it*®® points to a per-
suasive intention with some measure of misrepresentation, perchance deceit.
A modern reader may be concerned when the audience would become aware
that they were being presented not with a scriptural passage, but with an inven-
tive variant or expansion. Without a well settled standard text of scripture widely
available, a preacher could try to make his audience accept some assertions as
being scriptural, which would confer them the greatest authority. Theodotus,
however, does not seem to have attempted this.
As an example of fictional dialogue, in Homily VI.4, the exegesis of Matt.
16:13-20 is structured as a conversation between Jesus and Peter. Gradually
the imagined discourse put into the mouth of Christ extends the biblical pas-
sage, and it ends again consonant with the passage from scripture. It is condu-
cive to the verisimilitude and the effectiveness of the piece that Jesus utters the
Christological interpretation of Peter’s answer.‘”? Prior to Christ’s death and
Pentecost it was not plausible that any human except Christ could have the sort
of insight that goes beyond what was visible in Christ — despite the miracles
he had performed.“° Such questions of who could say what would take exe-
getes like Gregory of Nyssa to consider that passages of the Old Testament
were actually said by Christ.*?! Ultimately, this derived from the classical idea
that the trustworthiness of the speaker contributed to the acceptance of his
speech. It was under the general heading of prosopopoeia that it was discussed
whether a speech was befitting to a person.**” Fictional dialogue as a figure of

“7 GL. Castro, Teodoto di Ancira (1992), 6.

@ “8 As in Homily VI.4 — B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 126-8 —, and 1.3 — ACO I 1/2,
13.
*° “TY Jou called me, the visible one, “God A6yo¢”, and the mystery of the incarnation, truly,
you recognised, and what is in the form of a servant, lord you called.’ B.M. Weischer, Qérellos
4.1 (1979), 128, 18ff.
4x0 E.g. wonders in Matthew 9, and references to recognition of Christ in Matt. 9:5-6.
“| See, for example, Gr. Nyss., Hom. 2 in Eccl., F. Miiller (ed.), Gregorii Nysseni Opera (1958)
V, 298, 5 - 299, 10, S.G. Hall (ed.), Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on Ecclesiastes (1992), 48-9.
“© See especially C. Schaublin, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen
Exegese (1974), 34ff., B. Neuschiifer, Origenes als Philologe (1987), 35ff., H.M. Meissner,
Tammatik und Rhetorik’ (1993), 235: ‘Auch in den Iliasscholien finden wir die Bemerkung,
daB eine Rede aufgrund der Besonderheit der Person, die‘ sie vortrigt, besonders glaubwiirdig
(G&témotoc) ist. Den Gedanken, daB die Person des Sprechers selbst zur Glaubwiirdigkeit einer
104 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

thought fits into the description of rpo8empia.*? Theodotus’ aim was to con-
vey a deeper meaning of the passage, under the guise of preserving it.
Theodotus’ free paraphrases are rarely preceded by a literal rendering of the
scriptural passage,*** and yet it is usually recognisable from the start. Parts of
the citation are intercalated in the paraphrase and in the final expanded version,
Thus, the text has a directionality, and the scriptural excerpt is aimed for,
Theodotus’ paraphrases are always expansions of scripture, with which to con-
vey a more specific reading,** or place it in what seems another context.36

Heretical genealogies
Although not strictly a figure of speech or thought, Theodotus’ use of heretical
genealogies also merits attention among the stylistic features that depend of
the values of classical rhetoric. Claims of support from authoritative teaching
and accusations via links to reprehensible or condemned examples of the past
were a common feature of ancient literature and part of the late antique rhe-
torical training, e.g. in the composition of praises and defamations. The inter-
relationships between systems of philosophical thought was phrased in terms
of relations between persons rather than abstract ideas.*%”
During the Council of Ephesus, affiliation to a patristic genealogy was
explored manifoldly to strengthen an assertion.“® The other side of this
approach to the past and to inherited teachings was the attack of opponents by
drawing links to views held by individuals seen as heretics or negative exam-
ples. The study of heresiologies**? shows that just as there was a search fora
line of succession through teaching deriving from a figure of great authority
with which to validate orthodoxy,” in both sacramental and disciplinal ques-
tions, so the authors also tried to undermine their opponents and enemies by
placing them in a line of succession with the great heresies of the past. They tried
to link them, at least verbally, to heretics, Jews and pagans. It was a suitable

Rede beitragt, fart Aristoteles unter den Uberzeugungsmitteln auf. [e.g. Rher. I, 2 1356a1-13; of
T. 1 1371a8-17).
433 Tbid., 242, 244.
44 M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 224, 9-11.
435 BLM. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 128.
#6 ACO I 1/2, 82, 20-6.
47 See A. Brent, ‘Diogenes Laertius and the apostolic succession’ (1993), 372.
48 See the section on p. 56.
49 Recent publications include P. Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem (2009) and R. Flowe®
‘Genealogies of unbelief? (2011).
0 Encompassing anointing, adoption (spiritual and/or familiar), appointment, efc. A good
example is the claim for a line of apostolic succession of some episcopal sees, like Rome. Esp’
cially in Homily VI, Theodotus emphasised that all bishops should have a certain direct link ©
the apostles.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 105

tactic especially when one could point to actual similarities to certain heresies.
Increasingly there were ready made lists of heretical successions, at the end of
which to stick the opponent.“! Even if many heresies being alluded to were
unrelated to the doctrinal dispute in question, it was still weighty to attack by
references to Arians, Sabellians, erc. Although the roots of heresiology can be
traced back biblically to the Old Testament, and, in Greek rhetoric, to the fourth
century BC,“ it was during the fourth century, in the aftermath of Nicaea, that
it gained momentum.
Heresiologies served a significant hermeneutic-sociological role, and in gen-
eral were employed meaningfully. Although there was not always a one-to-one
correspondence, the ideas under attack were usually related to the chosen her-
esy.“8 The passages which dealt with the ‘old’ heresies did not address much,
if at all, the historical causes of their outbreaks. The rise of ‘new’ errors was
expounded as stemming from previous ideas. The explanations were, so to speak,
‘inherited’ from the tradition, and most can be traced back to earlier diatribes
and apologies.**4 Passages concerning heresies frequently contained quite
aggressive content, with which modern readers struggle, while scholars see in
them evidence for social tensions in late antiquity.
Heretical genealogies occur under a few guises in Theodotus’ homilies.
Usually a heresy is alluded to by some stereotypes linked to it, and rarely is a
heretic named. Sometimes the reference is imprecise, and only hints that those
in error were a large group which lacked faith and remained outside the church.
Theodotus named no heretic but Photinus.**° Photinus was condemned at the
Synod of Sirmium in 351.” By the time of Theodotus, Photinus’ views had been
‘reduced and simplified to a few choice slogans that were easily read as a posi-
tion completely decontextualized from the church’s tradition and scripture’.“®
The church moved against Photinus as in the case of Arius: the linkage with

4" A. Cameron, ‘How to read heresiology’ (2003), 475-6, 478.

“2 Once Christian homiletics has literary pretensions, it abides by the principle that in elevated
thetoricat genres, living people being criticised are not named. See E. Schwartz, Zwei Predigten
Hippolyts (1936).
“8 See R. Lyman, ‘A topography of heresy’ (1993), 47-8, and, in the context of Ps. Athanasius
Contra Arianos IV, M. Vinzent, Pseudo-Athanasius, Contra Arianos LV (1996), 129.
For a study of these aspects in Cyril’s anti-Nestorian works, see M.-O. Boulnois, *The
mystery of the Trinity according to Cyril of Alexandria’ (2003), 82-3.
° D. Mendels, ‘The relationship of Christians and Jews’ (2002), K.-H. Uthemann, ‘Die Sprach-
theorie des Eunomios von Kyzikos’ (1993).
a In Homily Il, ACO I 1/2, 75, 9. See also R. Caro, La homilética mariana griega (1972), 161.
In 351, the synodical bishops were in part trying to move away from the failure of Serdica.
re was also a real concern about a view which could, for example, be used to make evident
th © extremes of pia bxdotacic Trinitarian approaches. Actually, this only becomes apparent in
di
Stailed analyses of the reports about Photinus’ theology, cf. D.H. Williams, Monarchianism and
hotinus of Sirmium (2006), 200. ,
tbid., 205.
106 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Councii of Ephesus (431)

heretical characters meant that any extended refutation of his theology -- where
it was actually known — was redundant to what supposedly everyone already
knew, a minor but chronic irritation in the search for the Christian doctrine of
God. By the time of the struggle against Nestorius, some bishops would rather
preach against this search, since the whole spectrum of Christological inter.
pretation‘? Jay just beneath the surface of Nicene theology and Trinitarian
‘orthodoxy’.
Another explicit attack in Theodotus’ homilies is against Hellenism. In Theo-
dotus’ homilies there are interjections against ‘the Greeks’.*° It occurs in Hom-
ily I, and is developed in greater length in Homily V.**! Hellenism, however,
was not only used as a label with which to offend the opposing party. The
charge of Hellenism was largely brought up to accuse of not ‘simply believing’,
and to represent negatively attempts to understand the ‘being’ of God.*%?
The use of attacks against paganism as part of the ongoing campaign to
spread Christianity and as part of rivalries between Christian groups often seems
to be taken as mutually excluding.*? Rather, while the long standing campaign
against paganism provided arguments and slogans against heretics, the fact that
in the view of many preachers, not least of Theodotus, heresies arose from
Christians pursuing things which were being blamed as typical of paganism,
only made it more pertinent to mention attacks against pagan traits in sermons
directed at Christians. The pursuit of philosophy and other intellectual endeav-
ours, where reasoning was applied to matters of faith, was both seen as typical
of paganism and as a possible cause of heresy.***

49 See L.R. Wickham, ‘Review of The Dyophysite Christology’ (2010), as quoted on p. 172.
450 The identification of paganism with Greek culture may also be related to social problems
where the local population had some resentment against a Greek elite which often kept the obser-
vance of the pagan rites. It is not clear if the situation described in Egypt in E. Wipszycka, Etudes
sur le christianisme dans I Egypte (1996), 86, can be applied to Theodotus’ Galatia.
S! Homily I: ACO I 1/2, 82, LIff., Homily V: M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote
d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 227, 13ff.
2 Some of the best descriptions of this trend are found in studies of the generation after
Theodotus’. See K.-H. Uthemann, “Die Sprachtheorie des Eunomios von Kyzikos’ (1993), 337.
Theodotus is one of the first examples of this apologetic perspective. which then gains importance
e.g. in the Theosophy (by anonymous monophysites), see P.F. Beatrice, Anonymi Monophysitae
theosophia (2001), xxii.
453 For example, considering Cyril, whose career, especially if analysed from the point of view
of the festal letters, is often schematised as having an initial phase when, trying to secure his
position, he dealt mostly with the opposition to paganism, until he concentrated his efforts against
Nestorius: ‘An die Stelle des philosophisch argumentierenden Apologeten und philosophisch-
theologischen Katecheten tritt immer stirker der bischéfliche Seelsorger und theologische Hare-
tikerbekampfer.” in M. Vinzent, ‘Vom philosophischen Apologeten zum theologischen Ketzet~
bekaimpfer’ (2003), 177. Seen thus, al! and any reference to aspects of Hellenism would from
some point on be only items of “Lasterkataloge’.
454 See pp. L8I ff.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 107

Jews form another group who bore the burden of Theodotus’ invective as a
mean of indirect attack.*° If the ‘Greeks’ stand for those who have been
voluntarily erring away from the faith or the truth which has been accessible
to them, the ‘Jew’ is the antagonist Theodotus favours in fictional dialogues
when he tries to reason with the interlocutor, which does not happen in the
anti-Hellenic passages.*° In this way, Theodotus differs slightly’ from the
gradation which can be read into the distinction of Greeks and Jews, attested
already in Clement and Origen, where the Greeks stand for the gentiles open
to conversion, to become part of the all embracing church, as opposed to the
‘post-Resurrection Jews’, who instead resent and are jealous of the gentiles.
Theodotus’ and the traditional perspective coincide when the opponents are
broadly named as Jews having in mind such passages of the New Testament
which point to their inability to see, at least to see that which goes beyond the
obvious, and the sense-perceptible — according to the flesh (kata o@pa).*8
It is a typical example of Theodotus’ approach to heresiology, where he derives
the vein of accusation pursued in slogans and interjections from the content of
the passage of scripture under analysis.*?
To sum up, the predominance of Photinus, Hellenism and antijudaism in
Theodotus’ heresiology is indicative of his close links to the fourth-century
Trinitarian debate.*@

45 See also M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 244-5,
S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 191ff. Antijudaism is
widespread in patristic homiletics, and sometimes it reflects tensions in the co-existence of Jews
and Christians in various regions. See M.B. Cunningham, ‘Polemic and exegesis’ (1999), 46 and
D. Mendels, ‘The relationship of Christians and Jews’ (2002). Since Jews are mentioned — and
attacked — in scripture and are older than all heresies, their name could be used when addressing
any opponent. In the rhetoric of patristic texts they are often seen in the same light as the heretics:
they do not acknowledge the same faith; they have heard about the true faith, but have not
embraced it. Specific to their situation is that they already share, in part, the ‘right’ beliefs, but fail
to ever have had the correct faith in its entirety (a Christian heretic, instead, is seen as someone who
deviates from the correct faith).
6 ACO T 1/2, 74.
457 Ror example, Homily IV.6 (PG77, 1397A), Theodotus actually does not regard the ‘Jew’
any higher than the ‘Greeks’.
“8 ACO I 1/2, 82, 12ff. Other senses of c@pa, such as those referring to Rom. 8:8, are
alluded to in Theodotus’ reproach, in view of earlier Jewish ‘shortcomings’, attested in passages
of the Old Testament. Furthermore, an array of deeper misconceptions (Romans 11) implied
that they were not likely to convert, and therefore could not be redeemed. Addressing error,
Conversion and redemption, Theodotus used these passages. and the remarks against ‘Jew’
Mmherit their sense. See also S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy
(2004), 216-7.
“8 Cf. W. Kinzig and C. Kiick (eds), Judentum und Christentum (2002). Compare to Proclus’
Pe of Jew as an aggressive term for anything that is not an orthodox Christian: N. Constas,
roclus (2003), 155, 276-7.
‘© See R.M. Hiibner, Die Schrift des Apolinarius (1989), 126-30.
108 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Background and context of the homilies read at the council

Considering the information in the rubrics,**! Homilies I and II seem to have
originally been delivered prior to the council, probably in Ancyra, and then read
in Ephesus. Earlier scholarship has always discussed them alongside some or
all the other homilies attributed to Theodotus as examples of festal homilies
with Marian content.*** The transmission of the other festal homilies by Theo-
dotus is not related to the reasonably reliable, albeit challengingly complex, line
of transmission associated to the collections of conciliar documents. For exam-
ple, Codex Parisinus 1171, a typical collection of homilies organised by feast
days,**? contains four homilies ascribed to Theodotus and raises authenticity
and textual issues.*** The critical edition of Homilies I and II took into account
only conciliar documentation, although Homily II, for example, figures in Scorial
538, a collection of festal homilies.“ The transmission of Homily V in only
one manuscript exemplifies the hazards and uncertainties of the preservation of
late antique texts. Furthermore, during the compilation and copying of collec-
tions, patristic homilies were vulnerable to attribution to more famous or more
saintly authors, fragmentation and reorganisation of the text. For example, at
one point Homily II was also attributed to Cyril of Alexandria.*©
In the remainder of this section a chronology of Theodotus’ homilies is ven-
tured after a few remarks on the current text of Homilies I and II, considering

46! See p. 77.

%2 The partial discussion of Homilies I, II and IV in R. Caro, La homilética mariana griega
(1972), which paved the way for their use in scholarship dedicated to homiletics and Marian studies,
is accompanied by a detailed paraphrase. Homilies I and II are transtated in A.J. Festugiére, Ephése
et Chalcédoine: actes (1982). The detailed analysis of Homily V in M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie
de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960) is almost a translation. Homily VII and VIII are
seldom attributed to Theodotus. See also M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie grecque inédite’ (1969).
4% M.B. Cunningham, ‘Preaching and the community’ (1990), 42.
464 M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 223, discusses
the rather poor scribal practice of this manuscript, with many orthographical problems. The main
authenticity problems concern Homily IV, since Paris. gr. 1171 represents a different recension
from Paris. suppl. gr. 399 which is the only Greek text available in print, in PG 77. J.P. Migne,
S. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Theodotus Ancyranus (1859) also reproduces (on columns 1410-2) the
Latin translation of the last paragraph of Homily IV in Paris. gr. 1171, absent from Paris. suppl.
&r. 399. Its Greek text has not yet been published, which is only the most obvious desideratum
for a discussion of Theodotus’ authorship of the homily. At least five manuscripts contain it, and,
furthermore, Nicephorus of Constantinople cited under its incipit in Antirrhetica extensive pas-
Sages which cannot be found in the text in PG 77. See M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie grecquée
inédite’ (1969), 7-9 on some of the textual and theological topics at stake.
“65 This manuscript was not used for the preparation of the critical edition, E. Schwartz, Acta
conciliorum oecumenicorum (1914ff.). The volume is a 11CE ms. of John Damascene’s Sacra
Parallela (PG95, 1040 - PG96, 544), to which were added paper folios from the 15CE at the
beginning. Theodotus’ homily is on Folios 1-4, followed by two folios of excerpts from Cyril,
himself and Athanasius. see E. Miller, Catalogue des manuscrits (1848), 479-80.
466 M. Aubineau. ‘Une homélic de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 221.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 109

whether it represents an ‘original’ version, or if it was substantially tailored to

resemble Theodotus’ views at the council.
Written homilies were read for several reasons, for examplc, to spread the
views of a metropolitan,’ help less gifted preachers,“ provide evidence of
orthodoxy and heresy, inspire theological reflection and discussion. If per-
formed in a liturgical context, a subordinate bishop or a cleric may have read
the text, possibly faithful to the letter of what someone higher in the church
hierarchy wrote. If a gifted orator such as Theodotus ‘read’ his prior homily,
he was more likely to adapt it, however slightly.’ The reading of earlier
homilies to the bishops gathered at Ephesus could fall into any of these pos-
sibilities.
The rubrics of Homilies I and II say they were read to the council, employ-
ing the terms évayvwo@eion’”? and braveyvacby.*”! évayvao8eion is also
used in the minutes of 22 June to describe the reading of Cyril’s and Nestorius’
letters, and, in later meetings, of the proceedings of previous sessions.*’? This
instruction adds the possibility that they were read as documents to the bishops
gathered for a session, in which case the reading may have been done by a
‘professional reader’ from a prepared text. Furthermore, against a reading in a
liturgical context weights the unsuitableness of a nativity homily to any liturgy
in the summer of 431.47
Whatever performance the pre-conciliar homilies had in Ephesus, the text
included in the conciliar collections probably represents a version where super-
fluous or questionable passages were edited. Thus, it is likely that the current text
is at least twice removed from the original sermon. Since they form the bulk
of Theodotus’ undisputed works, they represent the benchmark of his theology
and it is therefore impossible to judge if they represent Theodotus’ pre-conciliar
opinion faithfully. Nevertheless, a few aspects suggest that the transmitted text
largely resembles Theodotus’ sermon. First, expressions which at first seem to
indicate the adaptation of language and content to episcopal and courtly audi-
ences, such as ‘splendid audience’*” were also regularly used for audiences
across the empire. Secondly, passages where the ideas and expression seem

Typicalty exemplified by the Egyptian Pascal homilies.

468 A. Merkt, ‘Miindlichkeit: Ein Problem der Hermeneutik’ (1997), 78.
See M.J. Carruthers, The Craft of Thought (1998), 63.
Homily I, ACO I 1/2, 73, 27.
Homily II, ACO I 1/2, 80, 32.
See, respectively, p. 56, p. 57 and p. 80. Cf. T. Graumann, ‘Protokollierung, Aktenerstellung’
(2010), 29-30.
“* The text of Homilies I and II contains references to the feast as ‘this day’ (ACO I 1/2, 73 28;
77, 10) which are at odds with the conciliar period. In this scenario, the available text probably
Tepresents the version which the reader had, and not what was heard in Ephesus. The homilies
would not have been recorded during delivery.
* ACOT 1/2, 73, 28. Compare with Acacius’ Homily, B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 68.
110 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council ot Ephesus (431)

more fitting to a provincial than a conciliar or imperial audience, such as the

clarification of what a sacra is, or the negative views about wealth.
The long excursus about a sacra in Homily 11,475 raises, in an initial reading,
the issue of knowledge of Latin by the audience which seems more relevant to
an audience in Ancyra than in Ephesus.*7° The discussion about ‘sacra’ would
have had in any setting an enlightening dimension for those who did not know
Latin or were not acquainted with this aspect of the functioning of the imperial
administration. Despite its presence in classical education, fluency in Latin
was quite rare, apparently also among the bishops gathered in Ephesus for the
council, so that Juvenal, for example, stood out among the fathers for it.477
Theodotus’ excursus about sacra does not indicate he could speak Latin, or was
directly acquainted with such a sort of document, or with the vocabulary associ-
ated therewith.*”8 Knowledge of Latin and of technical, mostly legal, vocabulary,
has often been used as evidence of a wider role of bishops in late antiquity,
involved with its secular aspects.4”? A few Latinisms*®? and Theodotus’ par-
ticipation at conciliar events attended by the papal legates suggest that he knew
Latin. The Latinisms may indicate that he was conscious of issues with the
precision of translations or equivalent expressions, and of the separate identities
of languages. As a digression on language the passage on a sacra would be amiss
at court, however, as an important Christological argument**! and an endorsement
of imperial authority it had its place in a text for a wider readership, which can
explain its appearance in the version in the conciliar collections.

Considerations on Theodotus’ preaching in Ancyra

Keeping in mind that the transmitted text may not be a faithful witness of
Theodotus’ pre-conciliar preaching, rather, was tailored to suit the Nestorian
controversy, the next paragraphs discuss the relation with the spread of Nesto-
rian ideas in the first decade of the second quarter of the fifth century.
Homilies [ and I] suggest that Theodotus had to deal with a deviating belief
in his diocese which can be identified with the opinions Nestorius held or was
supposed to hold. When Theodotus talked to Nestorius in Ephesus, he could

45 ACO I 1/2, 79, 31 - 80, 29.

+7 As a linguistic curiosity, the passage can hardly be used as an indication of the level of
literacy or of the provinciality of the audience in Ancyra. See also p. 20.
477 Juvenal not only understood the spoken Latin, but also spoke fluently enough. See E. Honig
mann, ‘Juvenal of Jerusalem’ (1950), 223. See also p. 82.
478 Especially in an Ancyran context, he could be boasting on what he had just learnt!
4) Focused in F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late
Antiquity (2005), A. Sterk, Renouncing the World yet Leading the Church (2004), C. Humfress
Orthodoxy and the Courts (2007).
40 For example, K@deoig in Homily IV.3 (PG77, 1393B). “
4 See. p. 165. :
 Theodotus in Ephesus itl

see or confirm how many similarities the faith of the Constantinopolitan met-
ropolitan had with errors Theodotus had been warning his audience previously.
A conciliar decision against Nestorius would endorse Theodotus’ preaching,
could help his pastoral work, and was thus worth upholding and defending.
Since discordant views about Christology dominate two homilies delivered
on major feasts, they show that the issue had become widespread, and was in
need of clarification. Adopting the more straightforward view that Theodotus
was in Ancyra on these feast days, and preached the homilies there, they indi-
cate that the Christological debate was not geographically restricted to the cen-
tres of the conflicting views, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria, but also
present in provinces like Galatia. Even in this remoter region it seems to have
bothered people of various educational background, since Theodotus probably
preached about it to a largely non-specialist congregation of mixed levels of
erudition.*8? His approach to the difficult issues at stake insisted on avoiding
any discussion of the theological problems themselves, exalting instead theo-
paschite language and biblical parallels.“
With hindsight from the council, Theodotus’ arguments were quite at the
heart of Cyrillian anti-Nestorian propaganda. However, as stand alone passages,
the Christological connection may not have been evident for those who had
not set their mind on this debate. Themes like strong opposition to excessive
rational reflection on theological problems are exposed at length, but the moti-
vation is elliptically stated as destroying wonders related to changes of nature.***
Without long digressions on what he was attacking, Theodotus could juxta-
pose his view of the right faith.“*° However, Theodotus also did not delimit his
statements on orthodoxy,” and did not have to provide in his homilies a com-
prehensive and coherent account of it. The audience was meant to recognise
Passages as being orthodox by their links to scripture*®’ and by reference or
similarity to central concepts of the Christian faith, for example, part of cate-
chetical and liturgical texts.**8 The structuring of passages by juxtaposition
of criticism and references to orthodoxy allowed Theodotus at the same time
to exploit apparent shortcomings of the opposition, in so much as they were
vulnerable to effective slogans, and to expound his take on orthodoxy to his
congregation.
An audience familiar with the arguments and the rhetoric closely connected
to the Cyrillian Council would consider much in Theodotus’ festal homilies as

E.g. ACO 1 1/2, 79, 31ff., ACO I 1/2, 86, I7ff.

E.g. unquestioning magi in ACO 1 1/2, 83, 34.
ACOI 1/2, 84, 16.
ACO I 1/2, 85, 10.
The question ACO [ 1/2, 85, 10 is implicitly the correct statement.
ACOI 1/2, 84, LOff.
E.g. allusion to eucharist in ACO I 1/2, 86, 12.
112 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

directed specifically against Nestorians. The connection was evident also for
Theodotus, who expressed the major topics from Homilies I and II more con-
cisely and related to the Christological conflict in the conciliar homilies II and
VI. The criticism of human reason is then clearly associated to introducing
divisions in Christ, and the weakness of human nature is used to emphasise
Christ’s lowering.“®? What applies to the Cyrillian bishops, the Ephesian audi-
ence, or the readership of the conciliar collections, need not hold for other
regions, even after the council. The Christological debates in Ancyra had perhaps
derived from previous local theological conflicts, as in Constantinople, where
Nestorius faced an ‘arianism-apollianarianism’, whose Christology is hardly
determinable.**! Even in Constantinople it is unclear how culturally, socially and
geographically widespread the problem was,*” but a bishop ought to occupy him-
self with any issue that he thought affected a significant part of the population.
Also in Alexandria, Cyril’s early preaching was not dwelling specifically on
Christology, but in passing he increased the precision of the concepts and ter-
minology while trying to come to terms with issues arising from the Trinitarian
debate.*?? The ‘champions’ of both sides of the Christological debate claimed,
or were said to have dived into the specific Christological problem only as a
reaction to antagonist works. Cyril stated he was moved by the unrest caused
by Nestorius’ works being read by Egyptian monks.*** When excerpts were
used in patristic literature,” at best a narrative context was provided, not a

489 Fg. respectively ACO I 1/2, 75, 26ff., 85, 11 ff.

490 Also modern theologians claim that Homily I ‘presents a clear ideological and thematic
development over Homily II; it reflects fully the context of the Nestorian controversy, especially
in its secondary stage, when Nestorius was stating openly the unity of Christ, but insisting subtly
in the mental separation of the two natures with their own attributes; at this stage, Theodotus
abandons the lines of Antiochene thought, without sundering the old bonds of friendship with
Nestorius, to whom he makes reference with temperate and always veiled expressions. This
appraisal is corroborated by the argumentation based on Pauline thinking, which Nestorius favours
and is completely absent of Homily II, the peculiar conclusion — the plain profession of orthodox
faith -, and the parallels with the Homily given at Ephesus.’ R. Caro, La homilética mariana
griega (1972), 167 (my translation). Notice that this train of thought relies on an argument of
absence, on claims of parallels with a homily which the author ostensibly refuses to analyse.
It assumes that in Ancyra, as in Egypt, Christologically unorthodox ideas had spread because of
the circulation of Nestorian writings among the audience. It does not question if the ‘profession
of faith’ and these so called ‘parallels’ are not due to the transmission of the version recorded in
Ephesus.
491 LI. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 48-9. Cf. S. Wessel, ‘Nestorius, Mary and controversy’
(1999), 12ff.
42 LI. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 62.
43 J.A. McGuckin, Sv. Cyril (2004), 30; C.A. Beeley, ‘Cyril of Alexandria and Gregory Nazi-
anzen’ (2009), 382-3.
494 Coll. Vat. 144, 3-4: ACOT 1/5, 11, 6-29, JA. McGuckin, Sv. Cyril (2004), 277; Coll. Vat. 1,
5: ACOT 1/1, 12, 21-31, JA. McGuckin, St. Cyril (2004), 248. Also T.E. Gregory, Vox Populi
(1979), 88ff.
5 EM. Young, Biblical Exegesis (1997), 19ff., 408.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 113

‘historical one’. Cyril may have known enough about regional variants of the-
ological vocabulary and the ‘Antiochene’ approach to appreciate the setting
trom which Nestorius’ works arose, but perhaps deliberately he did not enlighten
the monks and others who were reading the homilies of the new metropolitan
of Constantinople, and could not be expected to understand the geographical
variants.*°° Instruction could have been fitting for this audience, which dis-
played curiosity beyond diocesan borders. Rather, Cyril challenged Nestorius
quite openly, zeal providing a (reasonably) good cover for ambition. His letters
and the Alexandrian synods drew attention and also criticism from members of
court and church.*%”
The spread of Nestorian ideas prompted no bishop but Cyril to convene a
synod to discuss them, suggesting that for them the problem seemed less acute
or better to be addressed by other means.*% Theodotus’ preaching, for example,
was conveying his view on possibly controversial aspects en passant. The effec-
tiveness of this stance may be gauged comparing to Nestorius’ and Cyril’s.
In Constantinople, Nestorius’ pastoral tactics of tackling problems directly were
answered with open challenges,“ while the audience of Theodotus’ (and Cyril’s)
sermons caused them no similar complications, as long as their attacks were
not explicit, but Cyril’s maneuvering caused him serious worries, and his open
criticism escalated the tensions.>”!
The difficulty of understanding and formulating Christology was not new, and
the efforts of earlier fathers provided several formulations for fifth-century theolo-
gians and preachers from Antioch to Alexandria, over Constantinople and Ancy-
ra.°°? The bishops probably thought they understood the earlier formulations, which
by claims to patristic authority could be put to the congregations as background.
More likely, the Christological problems and solutions were clear only to the non-
average bishop and theologian, the others using it on account of received authority.
If for Homilies I-IIJ and VI authorship and dating relative to the council
cause little trouble, the same is not true for the other homilies. Most scholarship
which accepts Theodotus’ authorship, claims that they were also composed
before 431.5% It has even been suggested that Homily V is to be situated in the

“ N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 31ff.

“7 1A, McGuckin, St. Cyril (2004), 47-8.
8 NB the synod convened in Rome by Celestine responded, like the Council of Ephesus, to
mutual complaints by Nestorius and Cyril, and is not an endogenous reaction to the spread of ideas.
ee p. 28.
» J.A. McGuckin, St. Cyril (2004), 32.
Ors, Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 77-9, and on the
(ogg eaction to the twelve kephalaia, A. de Halleux, ‘Les douze chapitres cyrilliens au concile’
).
we L.L. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 57-8. .
- R. Caro, La homilética mariana griega (1972), 173, 181, M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de
Théodote d’Ancyre sur !a nativité’ (1960), 246.
114 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (43i)

first quarter of the fifth century.“ In the following paragraphs it will be argued
that both Homilies IV and V are more likely to have been at least partially
composed after the summer of 431. Tentatively, also Theodotus’ authorship is
questioned further, by focusing on the lack of binding elements in Homily IV,
which rather seems a juxtaposition of fragments of anti-Nestorian festal
homilies,°° and that Homily V could be a pastiche of theological assertions by
Theodotus within an inventive dramatisation of Matt. 1:18-25.
The main arguments used to date Homily V some time before the counci]>%
were a lack of references to the quarrels which caused the gathering of the
Council of Ephesus and the Christological vocabulary, which is not as technical
as in other of Theodotus’ works, such as Expositio symboli Nicaeni. However,
alongside echoes of Theodoret and a reliance on formulae relatable to Ireneus,
also numerous parallels to Cyril’s and Proclus’ Christological works were iden-
tified, which point to a date closer to the council.’ More importantly, it was
not thoroughly appreciated that the comparatively more technical vocabulary
is to be expected from the literary genre of a treatise.
A central argument for dating Homilies [V and V before the council is that
they seem written as an open reaction to Nestorius. This supposes that Theo-
dotus, being in Ancyra in the years before the council, had to deal there with
widespread ‘Nestorianism’. It assumes a very quick spread of ‘Nestorian’
ideas,*°8 and their acceptance by part of the population, or a perceived concrete-
ness of the danger of this happening. In Homily IV, the insulting and direct
speech to Nestorius,*” does not suggest Theodotus was preaching in Ancyra as
if against Nestorius himself — like Proclus did in Constantinople*!° — but rather
after the deposition, when the use of Nestorius’ name to stand for divergent
Christologies was spreading. In both homilies, the abundant Christological pas-
sages would fit an ongoing involvement, lenience or even acceptance by a good
proportion of the audience of divergent views, requiring specific catechesis.
The absence of Nestorius’ name in Homily V does not hinder postdating it to
Ephesus, and may indicate that Theodotus noticed his audience not associating
Nestorius’ name with the theological issues he wanted to address, especially if
the Christological debate had developed independently of Nestorius’ writings.

504 R, Caro, La homilética mariana griega (1972), 173.

505 Jhid., 177, 181. See p. 108 on the problems raised by the text reproduced in PG 77,
1389D-1412B.
506 M, Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur Ja nativité’ (1960), 246 claims it
ought to be dated earlier than orally suggested by Jouassard to the years immediately before the
council, see also G. Jouassard, ‘Marie’ (1949), 109-11.
507 -M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 246-8.
508 Inferable from unconvincing accusations like ACO I 1/7, 96, 32ff., cf. p. 22.
5 Direct apostrophe: Homily IV, PG77, 1400A; 8vodvupos, Homily IV.7, PG77, 1400A.
510 NL Constas, Procius (2003), 56, M. Redies, ‘Kyrill und Nestorius’ (1998), 200-1. Also.
M. Simonetti, ‘Alcune osservazioni sul monofisismo di Cirillo’ (1982), 496 (footnote 10).
 Theodotus in Ephesus 115

Furthermore, in Ancyra, Theodotus may have been more concerned to correct

theology than to pursue a campaign against Nestorius, and mentioning the name
could, especially until 433, alienate those who still hoped for his return to the
Constantinopolitan see. At this early stage, labelling the heresy after Nestorius
was not yet standard, and a law enforced in 436,°"' almost a damnatio memoriae,
tried unsuccessfully to prevent it.
It seems to me more likely that, after his return from Ephesus, having a bet-
ter knowledge of the key points of Nestorius’ arguments, Theodotus could
attack them. Homilies IV and V have some explicit references to views which
were imputed to Nestorius*!? which are absent of Homilies I and II,>!3 and seem
to allude to the Cyrillian ‘Nestorian’ excerpts and the guiding ‘interpretation’
of the Cyrillian refutations of their ‘errors’, as often transmitted juxtaposed to
them.*!4 Other Nestorian ideas or the context of the excerpts can hardly be seen
in Theodotus’ texts. The arguments against deviating Christological views are
interspersed in longer and freer exegetical and fictional passages dedicated to
the occasion.*!5
From these considerations, an alternative picture may be hypothesised.
Before June 431, Christological problems in Ancyra led Theodotus to compose
Homilies I and II, as part of his regular preaching. When in town,>!® he per-
formed the sacred mysteries in a church perhaps attended by a large part of the
population, since in the capital of a less central province, he hardly could be
distant and unreachable,>"” or be delegating his duties if he was attentive to his
episcopal tasks. Then, the prolonged absence of at least five months*'® during
the council period of 431 must have been noticed: the faithful may have been

1 ACOT 1/3, 69ff. See also ACO I 4, xi-xiii and L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 275-6.
5”) Eg. Theotokos: PG77, 4394B, conceiving incarnate k6yoc: M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie
de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 225, 40-55.
53 Theodotus’ displays in Exp. symb., Homilies IV and V a confidence in exploring the Cyril-
lian caricature of Nestorius’ writings which is absent of Homilies I and Il. It is more reasonable
to gather that Theodotus’ was worried with pre-Ephesus 431 ‘Nestorianism’, than to blame his
early apprehension of Nestorius’ ideas. See G.L. Castro, Teodoto di Ancira (1992), 71.
54 Treatises against heretics frequently centred on refutation of excerpts, selections and col-
lections thereof. Although the treatises against Nestorius which several bishops, often indepen-
dently, wrote postdate the council, Cyril’s third letter already resembled this format, also employed
In the session of 22 June. See A. van Roey, ‘Le florilége nestorien de l’Adversus Nestorium’ (1981),
Li Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 68-9, R. MacMullen, Voting about God (2006). For the use of flori-
legia in Cyril’s pre-conciliar ‘treatises’ like Coll. Vat. 150, see T. Graumann, Die Kirche der Vater
(2002). 324¢f.
4 PG77. 11390D: M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960),
*'S Conciliar canons limited the periods of absence. See C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity
(2005), 265-6.
9 . ” See the characterisation of a bishop like Ephrem in F. Cassingena-Trévedy, ‘Les Eglises
Yriaques
s
& travers |’hymnographie d’Ephrem’ (2009), 237-9.
1 June-October.
116 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

left in ignorance of the matter of the synod, but they must have known that
their bishop had been invited to attend a council, on a scale and of an impor-
tance not seen since Nicaea. They may have received some news about events
in Ephesus, but hardly much bona fide information, in view of all imposed
obstacles.>'° Upon Theodotus’ return, Ancyrans were probably eager to know
what happened and with what outcome. He may have felt at ease to say that
the sanctioned orthodoxy was very much what their bishop had always
preached. There was no need to dwell on the recent theological discussions,
even if they upheld what he advocated. His participation in the council could
have assured him that by preaching as before he was contributing to the salva.
tion of his congregation in keeping them away from error. Theodotus may have
obtained in Ephesus, perhaps from the conversations with Nestorius, cleaner
formulations of the errors faced by his generation, allowing him to engage more
incisively with them as needed.
The council gave Theodotus a pattern into which he could fit the challenges
he faced in Ancyra, and sanctioned calling the Christological deviations after
Nestorius, which he did in Homily [V.>?° Theodotus, who continued to promote
avoidance of reasoning in Homilies IV and V, would also not detail the heretical
views, which probably remained unclear for most people.*?!
The Council of Ephesus has been seen as a watershed in the thematic empha-
sis of the theological debate, providing a clear dichotomy between a Marian
aspect in 428-30 followed by a Christological formulation.*?? Actually, Marian
Theotokos homilies, which were perhaps ground-breaking and particularly
polemical in pre-Ephesian years, remained common, and the extant sermons,
albeit quite numerous, probably do not attest how pervasive they were afterwards.
The clear division®?* does not hold for all areas, and in the East ‘Mary Theo-
tokos’ remained central,>** even when decontextualised.°% Thus, the predomi-
nance of the Theotokos-theme is not a reliable argument for dating a homily.

419 N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 72.

20 PG77, 1399A.
521 The official statements, by church or state, barely mentioned more than Nestorius’ deposi-
tion. Documents with more theological content, like the proceedings or the Cyrillian letters, were
perhaps not circulated widely.
522 R. Caro, La homilética mariana griega (1972), 181.
523 The ‘Mary Theotokos’ discussion may seem to retreat in importance after the Council of
Ephesus I if the focus lies on events and works which are leading to Chalcedon, and from thenc®
to other discussions on orthodoxy particularly significant for the West. See M. Aubineau, ‘Une
homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 238.
524 The imperially backed fostering of Marian devotion contributed to its spread, see references
on p. 27.
525 Eg. ‘It is enough for complete reassurance of sound worship to consider and call the
all-holy Virgin God-bearer’, Photius, cod. 228.248a32-4 (Ephrem of Antioch), R. Henry (ed.),
Photius. Bibliothéque IV (1965), 123. See also L.M. Peltomaa, The Image of the Virgin Mary ®
the Akathistos Hymn (2001), 79-83, 98, D. Krausmiiller, ‘Theotokos-diadochos’ (2006), 35.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 117

Nestorius and the Orientals repeatedly accepted, albeit conditionally, the Theo-
tokos title,*"° but nevertheless after Ephesus it became an established anti-Nesto-
rian topos, and a slogan for orthodoxy. The Council of Ephesus sanctioned the
trend of Marian devotion (which had been brewing not only in lay Christian-
ity’) to be celebrated in preaching, and increasingly in dedicated solemnities.
In Ephesus, Theodotus perhaps came to know a developed and elaborate
rhetoric for the exaltation of Mary,°”* not very unlike his earlier and probably
textually successful efforts.*”° By focusing on Mary, and figures like Joseph,
especially from angles which linked them to trends in popular devotion, he
could convey key points of orthodox theology while diverting his audience
from noticing its inherent problems. He could speak against tainted views with-
out making it clear how the matter under attack could fit together and be turned
into a competing view of the faith. The extensive literary elaboration of the
character of Joseph in Homily V, with narrative details which go far beyond
the scarce references in the canonical books of scripture,>*° suggests the exist-
ence of a popular devotional practice related to him, which Theodotus chose to
exploit.>!
Some parts of Homily IV celebrated the council with reasonably direct
references to the achievements of the sessions.*"? The participation at the
council is unlikely to have motivated Theodotus to change significantly the
content and style of his preaching. In Ephesus, he probably became acquainted
with a wider range of homiletic practices. Perhaps, in the encomium of Mary
in Homily V, he also emulated flourished passages of other homilies, and
celebrated in this way the Ephesian Council, if he ever preached Homily V as
transmitted.
This chronology of the homilies can accommodate that Theodotus was aware
of trends in the Christological discussion after the council. In the deliberations
and works which led to the Formula of Reunion and to Chalcedon, theological
reflection on Christology predominated, and it is of central importance for a
historical view of the period.**? It is not clear if the debates and doctrinal texts

°° ACO I 1/2, 13, 30-1; ACO I 1/5, 12-4, 132; ACO I 1/1, 95, 15ff.
7 ‘Popular Christianity’ stands for the living, daily basis experienced religion. so that ‘popular’
does not fail to include the elites. In this context, especially, scholarship has stressed that the court
was among the early champions of the Theotokos cult.
« E.g. ACO I I/1, 103ff., ACO I 1/2, 91, 22ff., ACO I 1/2, 102ff.
ta ACO I 1/2, 74, 20ff.
33 M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 226-9.
“In the dialogues between preacher and the (fictional) character of Joseph one can see
€xamples of the seeds for the religious dramas which would become part of Byzantine literature.
Ompare Chrysippus Hierosolymitanus, In sanctam Mariam, M. Jugie (ed.), Homélies mariales
(1926), 296-7, 336-7. See M. Fassler, ‘The first Marian feast’ (2001), 56-7.
sn Eg. PG77, 1396C, 1402B. :
~ R. Caro, La homilética mariana griega (1972), 181.
118 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

were equally relevant for daily life in ‘distant’ dioceses. For Theodotus, who
had already faced the discussion in relative isolation, the Christological debate
perhaps sccmed to be reaching new heights and becoming globally recognised
as significant. Theodotus did not fail to engage in this new stage. It was no
longer a problem in his diocese, which he might think best to tackle locally, by
preaching against the mistakes and in favour of the orthodox views. The debate
had become a matter for the church leaders, discussed by bishops and recognised
theologians. The circulation of texts could contribute to discredit or support other
views. Further formats, could then seem appropriate, for example, theological
treatises, such as the two extant works by Theodotus.

Reception of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies

The subsequent transmission of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies depended on
the inclusion in collections of conciliar documents. To discuss the reception
of Theodotus’ works is tantamount to apprehending his influence and how
later generations saw him. Theodotus’ contribution and reputation did not
depend much on what singled him out,**4 but on what made him into a good
example of what was expected of a Cyrillian bishop, as it can be judged from
his participation at the council and contributions to its collections of docu-
ments.
Focusing on the reception of the works spans centuries and generations,
and is much related to their transmission and spread. There are three main
points to be addressed. What can be said about the opinion which Theodotus’
generation and those with possible direct knowledge of him had of his works;
secondly, about the motivation to include Theodotus’ homilies in conciliar
collections, and lastly about how later generations with no other source of
information but what was in the conciliar collections judged Theodotus.

Early allusions to Theodotus’ writings

After the Council of Ephesus, Theodotus still exchanged letters,**> ‘pub-
lished’ theological treatises and preached. He seems not to be mentioned
by name, except once by John of Antioch.*** To judge Theodotus’ influence,
especially in the first decades after Ephesus I, the few occurrences of quota-
tions and allusions are more relevant than the evidence presented by the trans-
mission of Theodotus’ writings. One instance has received attention from

534 Any details of his biography were lost, and the slightly distinctive marks of his theology
passed unnoticed. }
* See above, on the fragment to Vitale and Cyril’s letter, pp. 87ff.
“6 ACO I 4, 80, 2.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 19

scholarship:**’ for many centuries it has been noted that the incipit of Proclus’
Homily 1V*8 is identical with Theodotus’ Homily I, and the exordia share
several sentences.>*? Proclus’ Homily IV is usually dated after the council,“
and Proclus may have been aware of the conciliar significance of Theodotus’
text which would eventually lead to its inclusion in important conciliar collec-
tions. Theodotus’ prominent role in Ephesus, and especially the place his hom-
ily, by all account predating the council, has in the compilations, makes it
probable that he was the original author of the lines shared between the two
texts“! Since Proclus did not attend the council, he could not have heard
Theodotus’ Homily I there. The homily could have been known in Constan-
tinople even before the council by a pattern of circulation of written-down
homilies similar to that which made Nestorius’ works known in Egypt. It is
more likely that the exchange is linked to the aftermath of Nestorius’ resigna-
tion. During the last stages of the Council of Ephesus, Proclus apparently was
in Constantinople and does not seem to have met the delegations in Chalcedon.
They may have met when the Cyrillian delegates went to Constantinople for
Maximian’s consecration.*? Theodotus and Proclus may have heard each other
preach or exchanged their works.
Beyond the identical passages of the first paragraphs of both homilies, the
similarities encompass parallels of structure and content at all stages which
suggest that beyond the resemblance which genre and theme would have war-
ranted, Proclus emulated Theodotus’ text to surpass it.*4? Perhaps Proclus not
only explored a written homily which he had in hands, but spoke to an audience
which knew enough of Theodotus’ earlier homily so that it could appreciate the
emulation, the oblique references and puns. Proclus’ Homily IV is a Nativity
Homily, and therefore cannot have been preached while the delegations were
in Chalcedon and Constantinople in 431. It is usually dated to his Constantino-
politan episcopacy, after 434. In common with Theodotus’ Homilies IV and V,
tentatively dated after 431, the development of Proclus’ Homily IV has few

7 See especially N. Constas, Procius (2003), 238, but also R. Caro, La homilética mariana
8riega (1972), 168. Note that M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité”
(1960), 15, dismissed any further similarity, beyond the initial lines.
_ ™® It goes beyond the scope of this work to analyse that Proclus’ Homily IV is also included
In Paris. graec. 1171.
“8 See S.J. Voicu, ‘Note su un’omelia pseudocrisostomica per il natale’ (1992), 355 on Pro-
clus’ intertextuality.
ne N. Constas, Precius (2003), 214.
“" Theodotus is unlikely to have heard Proclus’ sermon during a visit to Constantinople before
43 1. The scarce pointers limit the inferences about church political echoes and implications.
2B 5 On the objections against Proctus as successor of Nestorius, see N. Constas, Proclus (2003),

“8 A detailed study shows, for example, the correlation between the use of ‘tree of life’,
me spacity of nature’, ‘proof of a wonder by acceptance of other wonders’, ‘significance of the
aBi"s gifts’,
120 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

explicit Christological digressions.>** Since Proclus seems a forerunner of a

‘middle way’ Chalcedonic theological formulation,* and Theodotus leans to
monophysitism,*“° the emulation was perhaps not ‘only’ rhetorical. The similar-
ity of the homilies may hint that Proclus thought he and Theodotus shared
views. Alternatively, it may be posited that Proclus wished to show how he
could surpass a distinguished model, departing from the same point, without
incurring in Theodotus’ monophysite tendency.

Compilation of collections
At first glance all homilies in conciliar collections, especially Homilies III and
VI, which have in their first delivery an inherent character of persuading meet-
ing bishops, seem to fit into the following pattern:
The spoken Christian homily must have been one of the fundamental vehicles of
persuasion and information [...]. But, [...] written texts of homilies, when incorporated
in dossiers bearing on disputed theological issues, contributed important material for
persuasion, and could be laid before secular holders of power as before meeting
bishops.*47

Actually, the whole characterisation hardly fits Homily II, and even less
Homily VI. For instance, it is unlikely that Homily III was included with min-
utes sent to the Emperor Theodosius II, especially during 431,58 or to Rome.*9
The quotation also seems applicable to Homily I, and perhaps to Homily IL.
However, a reader of the Collectio Vaticana would have read Cyril’s and Pro-
clus’ homilies before coming across Theodotus’ text. It has many similarities
to Proclus’ Homily I, but lacks the historical significance of the sermon of the
future bishop of Constantinople which had been an important event in bring-
ing the controversy about, and was perhaps as such included among the first
documents placed before the minutes. The rubric of Proclus’ homily refers to
the delivery in Nestorius’ presence, without further details.°~° In late antique
collections of documents which seem to have been made in the guise of legal
compilations, that is, in a pattern similar to that of the Theodosian and Justinian
Codes, the rubrics of the documents shed light on the role a text was meant to
have. However, the reliability of this information is questionable, considering
the many cases where the rubric duplicates details found in the document or in

544 N_ Constas, Proclus (2003), 213.

543 See ibid., 111, on Proclus Arm.
wow

“6 See the section on p. 152.

M7 F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 33.
S48 T. Rucker, ‘Ephesinische Konzilsakten in armenischgeorgischer Uberlieferung’ (1930), 82
on the disadvantages of Theodotus’ defence of Cyril.
5° Ee. absent from Coll. Cas., see F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 168ff.
588 ACOT I/1, 103, 2-3.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 121

well known sources. Thus, for example, the rubric of Coll. Vat. 19 confirms
information found elsewhere,*>! and the rubrics of Theodotus’ homilies may
well have been deduced from the text.°>
In the collections, the function of the festal and polemical homilies remains
elusive. The Armenian-Georgian transmission of conciliar collections empha-
sises the theological importance of Theodotus’ Homilies I and II and of Proclus’
Homily, as being decidedly anti-Nestorian but also tackling other problems.>*?
Theodotus’ homilies are always placed together in the Greek conciliar
collections:°>4

CPG 6125 6126 6127 6132

V73 V72 vii
A145 Al44
$107 $106
Q4 Q13

In comparison, the order of Cyril’s homilies varies more and they are not
always included as a set:

CPG 5253 5246 5245 5250 5251 5248 5252 (frag.)

V75 V76 V77 V78 V79 V80
All7 = A136
S80 $78 S8l S79 $109 $82
$118
TC53, TCS! TC54 TC52 TCS55 nfa

Only Collectio Vaticana has three of Theodotus’ homilies. The hypothesis that
the conciliar Homily IJ motivated the inclusion of I and II, enhancing the link
of authorship and minimising the importance of the redelivery in Ephesus men-
tioned by the rubric, is weakened by the Collectio Atheniensis, where Homily III

55! See N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 55-8.

*82 See p. 96. The transmission of homilies in the collections of conciliar documents at least
Prompts us to question commonly held assumptions about the quality of the text available to us
as largely unedited, the work of stenographers, without revision of the author. See also A. Merkt,
Mindlichkeit: Ein Problem der Hermeneutik’ (1997), 77-8.
553 T. Rucker, ‘Ephesinische Konzilsakten in armenischgeorgischer Uberlieferung’ (1930), 40.
4 See also ACO I 1/4, xxiv-xxvi, and I. Rucker, ‘Ephesinische Konzilsakten in armenisch-
8corgischer Uberlieferung’ (1930), 40-1, 82-4. Abbreviations: CPG: M. Geerard (ed.), A Cyrillo
Alexandrino ad lohannem Damascenum (1979); V: Coll. Vaticana; A: Coll. Atheniensis; S: Coll.
Seguierana: TC: Latin Coll. Turonensis/Contiana;, Q: Qérellos. Notice that Coll. Vaticana
(Codex Vaticanus 830) is a manuscript from the fifteenth century, Coll. Seguierana (Codex Pari-
Sinus Coislinianus 32) is dated to the eleventh century.
122 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (43i)

is not included. Furthermore, in no collection are Theodotus’ texts near to

Proclus’ Homily,**> which forms part of the narrative background for the occur-
rence of the Council of Ephesus, and features in Coll. Var. and Ath. among
letters exchanged before the council.’ Some of these were mentioned in the
minutes, and it is likely that this set of texts had been assembled before the
session, to have ready material from which to draw accusations and arguments,
It seems that the most useful ones, or those which ended up being used
were pushed to the extremes of this pile. In short, Theodotus’ homilies prior to
the council were not included in this group of texts assembled in advance.
The compilers seem not to have thought that it belonged there. This suggests
that Theodotus’ engagement against Nestorius had no significant impact on the
events leading up to the council, and that his activity had not been widely
known in Constantinople and the other main sees, rather had probably been
restricted to Ancyra. Theodotus may have brought the homilies with him to
Ephesus — increasing the likelihood that they were texts he had revised.
In all Greek collections, Rheginus’ Homily**’ is followed by one or more
of Theodotus’ Homilies. In the Latin Coll, Tur./Cont., however, Theodotus’
Homilies I and II (as TC56 and 57) precede Rheginus’, and appear in the order
which was adopted for modern editions on which the Patrologia Graeca relied.
In all Greek collections, Theodotus’ homilies are followed by Acacius of Meli-
tene’s (V74 $108 A146), which is absent from the Latin collections. In Coll.
Vat. and Seg. this is followed by a homily by Cyril. Only in Coll. Vat. is this
Cyril’s Homily 1. In Seg. it is Cyril’s fifth homily (V79), which is placed
separate from the other five homilies (S78-82) — their order is different from
Coll. Vat., and they are apart from both minutes and other homilies. In the Latin
Coll. Tur./Cont., however, the homilies by Cyril that are included** are all grouped
together, and come next to the other homilies, before Theodotus’ and Rhegi-
nus’. Cyril’s homilies are often**’ contrasted to those of ‘others’, and their
relative position in the collections is connected to the ‘kirchenpolitische Ein-
stellung’ of the collections, especially in attempts to reduce Cyril’s dogmatic
influence. Homilies by ‘others’ would convey the content of Cyril’s orthodoxy
but not pinpointed as Cyril’s.
This interweaving with Cyril’s homilies, coming before or after those by
Theodotus’ and others, suggests they were all rated and included similarly. The
nearness to the minutes of the session of 22 June™ hints at an early inclusion

555 V19, $93 — i.e. near the other homilies — A19. and also in Latin collections.
The contestatio (ACO I 1/1. 101f.) can easily be considered an open letter.
“7 -V70 $105 A143, always after the conciliar letter V69. Also TC58.
588 The sixth Coll. Vat. 80, 136 is not included.
I. Rucker, ‘Ephesinische Konzilsakten in armenischgeorgischer Uberlieferung’ (1930), 82.
560
An argument based on the placement of the minutes for the other sessions after these
homilies (e.g. sessions of 16, 17 July in V87-90 and sessions of 10. 11 July in V106) is weakened
by their juxtaposition to the June session in collections S (resp. $54-9 and S62-4), A (resp-
 Theodotus in Ephesus 123

in the conciliar collections for Ephesus I, or at least at a similar date for both
Theodotus’ and Cyril’s texts,
It has been mentioned above that only those of Theodotus’ homilies deliv-
ered prior to the council are included in Coll. Ath. They are included with the
rubrics concerning their redelivery in Ephesus, to the council. Their inclusion
among sermons and homilies which were delivered in Ephesus increases the
probability that there was a public reading of Theodotus’ Homilies I and II, of
enough significance to motivate the compilers to include them.
The omission of Theodotus’ Homily II from Coll. Ath. and the Latin tradi-
tion and, more importantly, of Homily VI from all extant Greek and Latin
collections, should not be imputed to their content, style, or ties to a specific
moment, since these aspects characterise also, for example, Rheginus’ sermon,
which is in all the collections considered. The polemic and laudatory content
of Theodotus’ Homily III finds parallels in documents in all collections, and
does not seem to have been decisive for its non-inclusion either. It seems all
attempts to explain the inclusion of documents in the conciliar collections fail
to be comprehensive. For example, the absence of all of Cyril’s homilies from
Coll. Ath., as well as Theodotus’ Homily III, could suggest a deliberate lack of
Cyrillian propaganda of the Coll. Ath. However, Acacius’ sermon*°! is as much
that as Theodotus’ Homily III, and is in the collection.
The strong and direct praise of Cyril which characterises Homily VI may
nevertheless have initially prevented its inclusion in the first versions of docu-
ments compiled about the council, which were meant for the court in Constan-
tinople or for western bishops, especially in Rome. The same characteristics
probably motivated its placement in a collection strongly centred around Cyril,
like the Qéreilos collection. A homily by ‘another’ with an explicit association
of the faith ratified by Ephesus to Cyril’s authority would be amiss in collec-
tions aiming to minimise this connection.*©
As far as the reception of the homilies is concerned, the composition of the
collection then translated into Ethiopic shows that for a time at least compilers
saw a unifying aspect between the conciliar homilies. Ethiopic translators and
copyists rated Homilies il and VI similarly, but differentiated them from Hom-
ilies I and I, although similarly linked to delivery in Ephesus to the bishops.

A37-8, 41-2), as well as in the Latin, respectively TC39 (plus Veronensi 20) and TC35 (correct-
ing therefore the chronology).
ne ACO I1/2, 91, 18ff.
”* Treatises, like Cyril’s ‘On the right faith’, are also included in Qérelfos. This association
of treatises to conciliar documents in their early reception would have warranted a discussion of
heodotus’ two treatises in this study. When the Syriac manuscripts of the Adversus Nestorium
are edited it will be possible to gain much insight from the arguments Theodotus developed more
ably in his treatises, and from the comparison to the presentation of similar content in different
Tmat.
8 Rucker, ‘Ephesinische Konzilsakten in armenischgeorgischer Uberlieferung’ (1930), 82.
124 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Also the Armenian-Georgian tradition set them apart, including Homily III as
an after thought, placed after the material about the delegations, so far at the
end of the collection. that once it may have been followed by Homily VI.5%
The core of the part dedicated to the Council of Ephesus in the Qérellos
collection, which is available in several manuscripts, focuses on conciliar
homilies.** Comparing the Ethiopic translation of Homily III with its original
Greek shows significant differences,°©° warning against attempts to reconstruct
the Greek text of Homily VI, and its use in detailed studies which would rely
on particular words.
The analysis of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies, including their links to other
genres, suggests that he was actively involved in persuading the Cyrillian bish-
ops of the uprightness of their decision, of the faith they had espoused, and
therefore to insist on some relevant Christological topics so as to clarify them.
Redelivery of Homilies I and II could aid this persuasion. Lengthier exposition
could elucidate some theological matters, or guide reflections. If they already
served this function when the bishops were gathered for the council, they may
have been included in the collections with the expectation of functioning sim-
ilarly and with like efficiency. Therefore, although Homilies I and II probably
did not figure in the pile of ‘documents at hand’ for any of the sessions, they
fitted into the model of supporting conciliar documents.°®’ The explicit mention
that their delivery was by ‘reading’ may echo the developing pattern of relying
on written documents from recognised theological authorities, living or deceased,
as authoritative, so as to guide decisions. The reference in the rubrics to the
gathered council suggests that Homilies I and II were delivered in the wake of
the session of 22 June. Then, they may have influenced the bishops during the
later sessions of the First Council of Ephesus, not only in their persistence in
defending the outcome of the session of 22 June, but also in the theology which
they upheld, and for which they should advocate in their sees.

Transmission in Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages

The practice in church councils from Ephesus I onwards to quote preceding
councils by the inclusion of bulky excerpts of collections of documents related
to previous synods, drawing from both minutes and included documents, kept
some of Theodotus’ works in circulation for a few centuries, accessible to 4

S64 Ibid., 81-2.

565 A. Dillmann, Chrestomathia Aethiopica (1866) first published Theodotus’ Homily VI in
the West, and was followed by a translation into German in S. Euringer, “Ubersetzung der Homi-
lien’ (1943), 131-4. B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979) provided a better critical edition and
improved translation.
566 BLM. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979).
67 See quote of F. Millar. A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 33 on p. 120.
 Theodotus in Ephesus 125

sizeable audience. Documents were brought to the attention of the gathered

bishops by being read aloud or circulated, and many were then copied into the
proceedings or annexed to the collections. Theodotus had contributed to the
solidification of this approach by speaking in favour of following the teaching
of authoritative authors, and may have seen works he provided being included
in the Ephesian collections,
Within this pattern, the most extensive statement about Theodotus comes from
the II Council of Nicaea, in 787.°° There, the deacon Epiphanius gave evidence
of Theodotus’ good reputation at his time, as the author of a rich anti-heretical
and homiletic oeuvre, to whom nothing outrageous could be attributed.°© Soon
afterwards, an extensive quotation of a passage of the doubtful Homily I'v*”
occurred in Nicephorus of Constantinople’s Antirrhetica.”' Nicephorus, who
died in 829, may have worked with an original which identified this homily
as authored by Theodotus*”? or by Amphilochius of Iconium.>” In the tenth
and eleventh centuries the memory of Theodotus is witnessed by the scribes
attributing all these works to him.
The occurrence of all the long homilies in collections of homilies*” attests
their diffusion beyond the audience of conciliar documents. It suggests the
reading and possible liturgical reuse of Theodotus’ festal homilies at least until
the middle Byzantine period. Also the transmission of Homilies HI and VI in
the Ethiopic version present in several manuscripts points to a significant use
of conciliar homilies at least during the early Byzantine period.
Theodotus’ waning reputation in Greek orthodoxy was probably due to the
fact that apparently there were never more than a few written works under his
name, associated with the even fewer ‘remarkable’ deeds which could be linked
to him, and the absolute absence of anecdotal or miraculous facts about him.
Nevertheless, Theodotus’ engagement for orthodoxy was remembered through
the record of his conciliar pro-Cyrillian activity, drawing from both minutes
and homilies. The long tradition of reading his works which were transmitted
in Greek in agreement with Chalcedonian orthodoxy led to sporadic uses of

%8 G.D. Mansi, Ab anno 787 (1767), 312€.

* See also O. Bardenhewer (ed.), Marienpredigten aus der Vaterzeit (1934), 197, M. Aubi-
eau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 223, R. Caro, La homilética
martana griega (1972), 157.
© PG77, 1393CD.
yo J.-B. Pitra, Spicilegium solesmense (1852), 349. See p. 108 on the authenticity of Homily

.. The tradition of Paris. graec. 1171.

sms The tradition witnessed by Vatic. gr. 1673.
" Except the short — and polemic — Homilies III and VI, all other homilies, which can be
Considered long festal sermons, are either only in collections of homilies, or, in the case of
Omilies 1 and II, also in such manuscripts. See M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre
Sur la nativité’ (1960), 221-3.
126 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

titles of sainthood.*”> This was feasible,°”° since only a significant distancing

from the text brings awareness that e.g. the use of @votc without further qual-
ifications may mean a greater monophysitism than Chalcedon consented, sug-
gesting Theodotus was not ‘orthodox’.
However, in the first generations after Theodotus, he is more frequently
mentioned in connection to monophysitism. Early in the sixth century, the
monophysite author Severus of Antioch quoted in the Liber contra impium
Grammaticum extensively from Theodotus’ Homily I,>”” and, in Orationes ad
Nephalium, he quoted from all the ‘conciliar’ Homilies I-III.5”* In these works,
Theodotus usually comes after Cyril and Proclus among the main witnesses for
orthodoxy.
Next to the Syriac and Ethiopic evidence for his enduring reputation, there
are also some passages of Theodotus’ works in Arabic, mostly without exact
attribution. Homily I was translated as being by Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and there
are six fragments of Homily II, one fragment of Homily [I and an unidentified
fragment.*” Thus, also in the Arabic tradition only ‘conciliar’ homilies seem to
have been known.

575. PG77, 1309A. See also G.L. Castro, ‘Citazione di uno Ps.-Teodoto d’Ancira’ (1992), 365
on the familiarity with Theodotus’ writings and theology from 8CE onwards.
57 See p. 174.
577 J. Lebon, Severi Antiocheni Liber contra impium grammaticum (1929, 1933; 1938):
CSCO93, 321, 25 - 324, 22; CSCOIOI, 336, 15 - 338, 2; CSCOI11, 118, 7-16.
578 J, Lebon, Severi Antiocheni Orationes ad Nephalium (1949): CSCO119, 33, 1 - 34, 14, 48
25 - 49, 2. In these passages, Severus is quoting authoritative statements of fathers like Cyril
Proclus. See also M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 250
and W. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts (2002), 553. .
599 See G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur (1944), 366 and id., ‘Zwel
dogmatische Florilegien der Kopten’ (1937), 376, as well as M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de
Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 250 and W. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripls
(2002), 553.
 3. Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies

I see this assembly [...] strengthened by the fight for the faith[. ...) Rejoice, you pure
sons of the faith, rejoice, that you see Christ glorified!’
These opening lines of Homily VI state clearly Theodotus’ apprehension of ‘faith’.
There is no reference to a correct, proper, better, or right faith. It is absolute,
and therefore allows no degrees or qualifications. It is the faith authorised
principally by the Nicene fathers and those who accord with them. When The-
odotus speaks of ‘pure sons of the faith’, he brings into his speech the notion
that the faithful have to be kept pure or purified by cleansing from heretical
individuals, as done by the Cyrillian Council in their sessions.* Analogously,
when defending the excision of a sick member in Homily III, Theodotus claims
the bishops have become purer by getting rid of a company which did not hold
to the faith?
This chapter begins with an analysis of Homilies III and VI considering the
setting in their first delivery to the bishops gathered for a council. References
to social issues which affected the way Theodotus approached theological and
pastoral issues are discussed here because they usually occur alongside the
more important argumentative meanings of the passages related to the achieve-
ments of the synod. The following sections stem from the close reading of
individual passages which highlights diverse ways in which Theodotus allowed
his main topics to resonate with conventional ideas of late antiquity. His audi-
ence, sharing the cultural background, may have picked up one or more of these
undertones.
How Theodotus spoke to the bishops about the church suggests his views on
ecclesiology and his own role, and how a bishop ought to talk about an institu-
tion of which he was part. It is then possible to analyse better what these text
show about the genre of homiletics in the second section, before addressing
Theodotus’ theology. The aim of the last two sections is not to fill in lacunae
in our picture of 420-30 Christological trends, or to present a rounded whole
of Theodotus’ theology, but only to clarify the prime topics of his conciliar
sermons and deduce from them the likely motivation for his preaching. Theo-
dotus apparently considered one particular theological apprehension of the
Incamation necessary for the salvation of humanity and of individual human
beings, and that the main concern of a religious person, particularly of a bishop,
Was to assist in the process and remove any stumbling blocks. It led him to

' BM. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979) (henceforth, Qérellos 4.1), 122, 3ff.
27 * Nestorius’ deposition (ACO I 1/2, 54, 28). and excommunication of his supporters (ACO 1 1/3,
» 17-9),
* ACO I 1/2, 72,3.
128 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilics and the Council of Ephesus (431)

express this need and present his understanding of relevant, perhaps disputed,
issues even before an audience of fellow bishops. This allowed the inclusion,
in the discussion and in the collections, of diverging ‘details’, some of which
would eventually become the object of later controversies.* He, however,
meant to uphold the univocality of the shared faith. The generally Cyrillian
character of Theodotus’ theology is evident. The themes and images in Cyril
Epistulae 1, 2 pervade Theodotus’ homilies. They also contain in a nutshell
most of Cyril’s vastly greater output, including his later Christological out-
reaches to both Antiochene and pre-monophysitism-monophysites.® For the
purpose of this study, the homiletic shaping and representation of the theo-
logical themes and the likely motivation for such choices are in the foreground,
In this perspective, parallels to Cyril matter if the audience recollected them
and was aware of the authorship. Theodotus’ rationale for conciliar homiletics
is inextricably linked to his theology since it entails that all must hold, defend
and spread the faith. A preacher who understood it properly could (and thus had
to) disseminate it by instructing and persuading his audience. Bishops could
(and had to) protect the faith and the faithful by restraining misguiding preach-
ers. As preachers, they must believe correctly, and know how to communicate
the faith. Theodotus’ conciliar sermons address his demands manifoldly: he
teaches and invites the recognition of a shared Christological model; he exhorts
them to the same task; he provides sample patterns of argumentation, also
found in his homilies read in Ephesus.

Church and council

The conciliar setting is present in at least three levels of the communication

structure of the homilies: emisor, message and receiver are part or interact with
the council.’ This first section shows how Theodotus represented the church
and the council when addressing its members. The result is a clearer represen-
tation of his understanding of the authority of the church as an institution and
of the role of bishops. This is followed by a discussion about Theodotus’ per-
spective on leadership among equals, since much in Homilies III and VI is
structured as a praise of Cyril. Analysing the claims of authority in the sources
points to Theodotus’ idea of Christian holy priesthood.

+ See p. 120.
* M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 247, M. Simonetti,
‘Alcune osservazioni sul monofisismo di Cirillo’ (1982), 193.
6 Ibid., 194-5.
7 The emisor, Theodotus, presents himself as a member of the council, he speaks about the
council, and he speaks to members of the council.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 129

Addressing bishops
In Homily HI. Theodotus resorted to an interweaving of the medical, husbandry
and teacher similes as well as to the image of the prophet® to speak about
bishops, especially those gathered for a council and faced with the decision
of excluding a metropolitan from communion. The structure of Theodotus’
description of the Council of Ephesus by the doctor simile? seems to fit into
the following pattern:
a) just as illness brings death, so error, that is deviation from the straight and
correct God-given path, leads to damnation;'°
b) a divinely established church!! is entitled and bound to correct this.!? The
reference to the ‘holy priesthood’ is,!? at once, to the whole church and
specifically to Theodotus’ audience, which was the bishops of the majoritar-
ian council. They are representatives of the whole priesthood and church,
and their decisions are divinely sanctioned. This collective reference implies
a shift from an individual soul, which is a more usual realm!‘ for the medical
simile, to a collective soul (body) of the church;
c on the other hand, the error is narrowed down to an individual, so that
—

Nestorius,!> who had been condemned, is meant by who ‘was affected by

the suffering’.!* Deposed from the see of Constantinople he is no longer part
of the holy priesthood; excluded from communion, he is no longer part of
the church; placed outside the church, his discourse would lack authority
and no longer be ‘contagious’ ;'7
d) this excision is founded on the principle of lesser evil. Theodotus discusses
at length'® this common aspect of the medical simile.!*

§ Most noteworthy in the exegesis of Jer. 1:10, ACOI 1/2, 71, 32- 72, 3, is the opportunity
to enhance the ‘all-septic’ purity of the church, its universality and primacy over secular govern-
ments, and the ‘genealogical succession’ going back to divine appointment.
° [Link]. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication (2006), 89. For the development
Since the Pauline letters, with particular emphasis on the Cappadocian contribution for an indirect
Way to speak about the church and clerics, see M. Démemann, Krankheit und Heilung (2003).
© ACOTI 1/2, 71, 23-4.
'! Also in Homily VI, Qérellos 4.1, 130, 5-8.
" ACOT 1/2, 71, 24- 72, 2.
® ACOT 1/2, 71, 25.
‘4 Usually, the language expressing the image reflected an one-to-one relation between doctor
and patient.
SEES

* ACO I 1/2, 72, 2-5.

® ACO I 1/2, 71, 25-6.
7 ACO TI 1/2, 71, 27. See also p. v.
* ACOT 1/2, 71, 28-72, 2.
M. Dérmnemann, Krankheit und Heilung (2003), 325-6. Although Theodotus’ rhetoric
mphasises the sorrow and weeping of employing such harsh measures, it is a discourse justifying
hana which in all its definiteness belies an understanding of the use of the simile as in ibid.,
130 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Theodotus identifies the need for expertise to diagnose and offer treatment
against the evil and its spreading. To have and to share such knowledge brings
the image of the doctor close to that of the teacher and educator. In parallel,
since heresy is, in this case, a matter of incorrect apprehension and teaching,
imparting correct beliefs is at once remedy and cure. In the conciliar context,
the good teacher is Cyril, as made explicit in Homily VI.”° Theodotus also
mentions or alludes to the relation of doctor and teacher to Christ, to the ongo-
ing divine influence in the world.*! The medicine and the knowledge which
doctor and teacher have are imparted by God. The appropriate healing is
replacement of wrong theological ideas by the proper understanding of divine
matters. In a religious context, instruction, and even more, divine grace, can revert
any corruption. However, echoing another didactic topos, that any content once
apprehended (by hearing, reading, thinking) has some lasting impact,** the
purity of the faith and of the mind are jeopardised by the contact with impious
discourses.
A twist for the use of the medical simile is the fictional character of Theo-
dotus’ discourse in Homily IH. Although he speaks of healing and instructing,
the antagonist of his discourse is not present, except in the ‘you’ of the fictional
dialogues.” There is no chance that this preaching may be effective in the way
Theodotus claims he aims for.
In Homily VI, Theodotus chooses a far more direct approach to address the
bishops and refer to the church, abundantly using respectful episcopal titles. He
begins claiming that his audience is “cheerful and happy’.”* The next sentences
then point to the achievements of their fight for the faith as the reason why they
ought to be that. It can be assumed that this is a faithful description of the state
of mind of the audience. Thus, probably either the majority in the audience was
unaware of or not troubled by present and future problems, such as the chal-
lenge posed by the Orientals, who in their conciliar session issued a deposition
of Cyril and Memnon, or the likely consequences of having gone against the
commands of the imperial administration and the injunctions of important
members thereof. The celebratory mood is predominant during the first three
sections of the homily. Its highest expression is the exhortation to ‘rejoice now,
and exult’ at the end of section 2, an elaboration of the beginning. It also indi-
cates that a new topic will be dealt with (‘another joy’), which will change the
tenor of the homily. Theodotus goes on listing facts worthy of celebration, and
he choses expressions which say that they cause amazement, marvel, support,

20 Qérellos 4.1, 124, 13.

21 ACOT 1/2, 72, 11.
22 For example, Plato Protagoras, 314b.
3 In this way, Theodotus addresses Nestorius individually, according to the principles of the
doctor simile. See M. Dérnemann, Krankheit und Heilung (2003), 333.
4 Qérellos 4.1, 122, 3.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 131

and strength. Theodotus’ intention is to prepare his audience for further diffi-
culties, mounting problems they were likely to face, and warn them that their
struggle will go on. He concludes exhorting them:* ‘Fight, my friends!’, the
fight for the faith which is an ongoing struggle, in which the bishops ‘have
fought well’,?° as Theodotus portrays at the beginning what they achieved.
The main underlying reference is to the session of 22 June,”’ but also what
contributed to it, like writings and actions in the preceding months and years.
Since after the exordium Cyril is praised, his efforts are probably the main top-
ics, but particularly those who engaged directly with Nestorius or ‘Nestorians’
could feel encompassed in the praise of their fight. The allusions brought into
the homily by the reference to ‘the fight’ go beyond the session of 22 June, and
are what the bishops have achieved together. Theodotus wishes to portray this
as a success, at the same time as he readies them for the continuation of their
struggle against heresy and those who oppose them personally.

Authority of the church

The authority of the church as an institution, and of its leaders (any and all bish-
ops equally) was a matter of course for Theodotus. Even the Nicene creed, which
he would use as benchmark for orthodoxy, had its authority from the fathers who
had spoken it.*8 The images of the exalted status of priests and prophets are valid
in the context of an authoritative church.?? However, in view of the challenges
posed by heresy brewing within its ranks, and by division, exemplified by the
occurrence of parallel councils, Theodotus stressed the links which the ortho-
dox church has to God both by its origin and through its continuing relation to
him. The best example is the emphatic repetition that the orthodox bishops are
in the present the ‘rock’, as Peter was in the New Testament.*?

5 Qérellos 4.1, 132, 3.

*© Qérellos 4.1, 122, 4.
* Also Firmus’ Homily, Qérellos 4.1, 134-7, celebrates the victory, that is, the deposition of
Nestorius. The explicit description of Nestorius’ fall has led I. Rucker, ‘Ephesinische Konzilsakten
in armenischgeorgischer Uberlieferung’ (1930), 83-4 to suggest a date after 431, yet still delivered
in Ephesus. A comparison to Theodotus’ and Rheginus’ weakens the dating on the base of the
Virulence of the language.
*8 See Exp. symb., PG77, 1325B, H.-J. Sieben, ‘Zur Entwicklung der Konzilsidee’ (1973),
29-32. See also G.L. Castro, Cirillo di Alessandria: Epistole cristologiche (1999), 114 commenting
on Cyril’s third letter to Nestorius, ACO I 1/1, 34, 14-8.
* Theodotus transfers to the current bishops the rank he attributes to the Old Testament
Prophets and priests (ACO I 1/2, 71, 30-2). The passages in which he states that not even they
Could hetp humanity (ACO I 1/2, 85, 12-5, 23-5) are part of the Christological polemic, and actu-
ally show that for Theodotus religious persons have great dignity. Likewise, by their spiritual
authority, the bishops are entitled to, for example, dispute with secular rulers — just as prophets
had done in scripture.
* E.2. ‘our building’, Qérellos 4.1, 130, 6.
132 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Theodotus seems aware of a change of paradigm for bishops, adding to the

role of preacher those of scholar, of compiler of florilegia.?! Less emphasis
is placed on pastoral concern as direct engagement with the faithful, than on
the establishment of doctrine through the use of documents. He values the
uprightness of theological teaching highly throughout his works. In the non-
conciliar homilies there are references to the role of the preacher and to eccle-
siastical figures of authority — although not clearly identified with bishops —
who can tell what is ‘right’.** This corresponds, even if in a guise not influenced
by a conciliar surrounding, to the teaching role at the core of Homilies III
and VI.
Authority was central in defending and spreading theological views. The
preacher spoke from an eminent place, and usually carried also the heightened
status of bishop. He would consider himself and his contemporaneous bishops
authorities who stand on the shoulders of the church fathers. References to them
and some citations from select works were gradually used as almost as norma-
tive yardsticks as excerpts from scripture, if not explicitly in theory, then at least
in practice. Alongside the authority enjoyed by the speaker on account of his
position and reputation, his rhetoric was key for him to defend and spread his
theological views. The bishops had to be efficient communicators. Effectively
employing what they had learnt of classical paideia and Christian exempla, they
could avoid the internal contradictions and pitfalls of the views they would not
give up. Already in late antiquity the opponents pointed out several logical
problems and shortcomings in the theological views espoused by the different
champions of Ephesus.** Instead of claiming that the thinkers** were unaware
or unable to see the faults of their own views, the reciprocal criticism suggests
they were not only aware of them, but understood them and reacted accord-
ingly. Whenever possible, even the leading theologians of both camps avoided
deepening the discussion, and kept arguments as much as possible restricted to
their favourite grounds. They claimed to speak clearly and sufficiently, and did
not branch out to make it more approachable from different perspectives.
In homilies, weak logical arguments may have been deliberately explored
for the visual richness of the paradoxes and jumps in logic they represented.”

3. T, Graumann, Die Kirche der Vater (2002), 212-3.

* E.g. ACO TI 1/2, 83, 37 - 84, 1, M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la
nativité’ (1960), 226 IT, 9 - Ill, 4.
*3 Some examples of traps in the Cyrillian Christology, attractive for its elegance and simplicity,
which come up when analysed more carefully are delineated in the incisive, albeit partisan
approach to Cyril of L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 135-6. See the reviews C. Kannengiessef,
‘Review of Nestorio e il concilio de Efeso’ (1978), G. Jouassard, ‘Le cas de Nestorius’ (1979).
* Like their audiences, most were familiar with classical philosophy and logical analysis, e.8:
of the progymnasmata. See E.J. Watts, City and School (2006), 3-4.
*S For example, Theodotus’ Homily III, ACO I 1/2, 72, 12-3; Homily I, ACO I 1/2, 81, 34;
Homily 1V.4 (PG77, 1393D).
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 133

The efficaciousness of this approach relies on motives not pertaining to logic,

but on rhetoric and on arguments of authority.*°
In Homily III, Theodotus refers to the authority of the church to justify excision,
when he uses general aspects of the medical simile alongside references to the
scriptural and the historical roots of the church.*” He highlights the tradition
and the responsibility every bishop has: ‘also the saints have taken care of this
most sacred church’.** This increases the expectations and charge of the bish-
ops. The succession is expressed genealogically*®? and firmly anchored in the
past,” so that in the absence of any reference to the contrary, it amounts to
ardently claiming that the priesthood of those bishops gathered for the session
of 22 June goes back uninterruptedly to the apostles.*!
The passages commending the authority of the church also seem to indicate
that although many, the bishops were united in one single true faith. Based on
scripture and the central role of Peter in receiving power and encumbrance from
Christ, Theodotus dwells on the authority which the present church acquires by
recognising and interpreting theology ‘correctly’. Since there is only one faith,
if the bishops have the same one Peter had, then they are entitled to the same
authority he received from Christ.
Theodotus probably chose Matt. 16:13-20 not only for its Christological
content,*” but also because it supported the claims of the church, that by epis-
copal inheritance it had authoritative teaching. Especially the see of Rome laid
claims to it, since Peter was its apostolic founder.*? Whether the legates were
present when Theodotus preached Homily VI, and understood his Greek or not,
is not essential to consider how Theodotus wanted to persuade his audience,
just as later readers, of the strength of the authority on which the council banked
to decide and to enforce its decision, since the sentence against Nestorius had
relied“ on Celestine’s letters.
The genealogical link to the apostles, and especially the defence of sound
teaching were at the heart of the claims to authority by the council and its
members. Just as an apostle or a see could be distinguished as excelling in the
teachings it held,*> so could also an individual bishop. Theodotus therefore
encouraged the other bishops, who should in principle be following the correct

36
Compare D. Krausmiiller, ‘Theotokos-diadochos’ (2006), 37, 45.
7 ACO I 1/2, 72, 4-5.
* ACOI 1/2, 71, 30-1.
=

‘Fathers’: Qérellos 4.1, 122, 7-9, 124, 14.

Y

" ACOT 1/2, 71, 30.

AR

' On ‘the saints’ and the relation to credal formulae, see also H. Kruse, ‘“Gemeinschaft der
Heiligen™’ (1993), 249-50, 254.
* Qérellos 4.1, 130.
** See also p. 46, 104.
“ See p. 59.
45 Praise of Ephesus: ACO I 1/2, 73. 19, 21.
134 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

teaching of the faith anyway, to acknowledge such leadership. This gave The-
odotus the opportunity to exalt Cyril’s status.

Leadership and teaching: Cyril

While Homily III gives some prominence to Cyril, reflecting the centrality of
texts from his pen and his leadership at the session of 22 June, it is Homily VI,
presumably first delivered after Cyril’s and Memnon’s deposition by the Ori-
entals, and the arrival of news of courtly dissatisfaction with the Cyrillian
Council,** which signals the rallying of the council in support of Cyril. He is
the only leader acknowledged by Theodotus.*”
The encomium of Cyril starts in the exordium: he is the ‘precious stone’ at
the centre of the ‘crown of fathers’.*® This is developed, with the exegesis of
Maithew 16, to the ‘rock’ on which the bishops are to be ‘erected’.*” The ‘great
grace of the lord’ causes Cyril’s preciousness:*° by this Theodotus likely envis-
ages Cyril’s leadership and theological excellence, even superiority. So, too, does
his coming to Ephesus, where his presence has led the bishops to and through
the session of 22 June, and they hope that he will guide them in the ongoing
fight and the upcoming struggles.>!
Theodotus’ description of Cyril as coming from Egypt allows him to inter-
twine the praise with Christological content, and thus to attack Cyril’s enemies.
A fleeting remark about Egypt in the past accentuates the importance of the
present. The present, as the time of the Second Adam,” has as former time the
age of the Old Testament, when Egypt was the land of Israel’s enslavement;
God’s people left it guided by Moses, the archetype of episcopal praise.°> The
present, as the time of Theodotus and the Council of Ephesus, is preceded by a
time when in Egypt there was paganism and Christian heresies flourished, but
Cyril has curbed them. In both senses of present time, the Egypt of the past could
not give Christianity a gift such as Cyril’s theology. Theodotus considers the
possibility of apprehending the divine mysteries a gift. For example, in Homily
I, the presents of the magi are also gifts, which by their (traditional) meaning (of
kingship, divinity and suffering) help to guide the understanding of Christology.

46 See pp. 95ff.

47 Theodotus’ praise lavished on Memnon (ACO I 1/2, 73, 19-22.) is less effusive or conse-
quential than the exaltation of Cyril.
4% Qérellos 4.1, 122, 9.
* Qérellos 4.1, 132, 1.
© Qérellos 4.1, 122, 10-1.
5! Qérellos 4.1, 126, 1-5.
52 Homily V.5, M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960),
228, 2-16.
33 C. Rapp. Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity (2005), 128.
4 ACO T 1/2. 83, an exegesis of Mart. 2:11.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 135

To the cloudy former times Theodotus opposes the bright present. ‘Egypt
shines’ rnore than ‘the sun in the sky’,°> and as the sunlit sky brightens the earth,
so does Egypt enlighten the Christian world. Probably, it was apparent to the
audience that Theodotus meant at this particular moment Cyril himself, taking
the place of origin for the person represented. Accordingly, Cyril is the sun that
gives direction clearly. Furthermore, the clear sun demarcates the boundaries
of light and shadows, like the church which by its synods and councils issues
statements which gradually exclude wrong interpretations.
‘Today it (sc. Egypt) has become heaven’ does not refer only to the pre-
sent day, but to a longer understanding of the present, which encompasses the
time since Christ’s birth, and thus includes his sojourn in Egypt as well as the
fifth century. Egypt had already become a bright place by its role in the life of
Christ, and it gains an even greater importance with Cyril. To this end, as sec-
tion 2 advances, in the opposition of past (first, then) and present (now, today),
the notion of ‘today’ is narrowed to the years of the Nestorian controversy.
When Theodotus says that ‘Egypt received the child’,*’ he refers especially
to Cyril taking voluntarily up the theological fight with Nestorius in the recent
past. Also other Egyptian Christians, especially monks, had taken to heart things
they read Nestorius had said, and had deemed them blasphemous. Their (over-)
reaction had in Cyril’s words prompted his involvement. Thus, the passage is
also Theodotus’ commendation of Cyril for having a diocese where the zeal for
the faith is ripe.
Theodotus uses the framework of the flight into Egypt to discuss Christol-
ogy, first by characterising Jesus as ‘having become a fugitive for our sake’.*®
Since the intention is to exalt the teaching of Cyril, the exegesis weaves the
praiseworthy elements of his Christology into the praise of the man, the imme-
diate link being that Egypt plays a role both for Cyril and the biblical narrative.
Theodotus describes the ‘heretics’ by their misunderstanding of the flight to
Egypt: they ‘despised his flight’.°° With that expression, he counters the upset-
ting statements attributed to Nestorius, since the reference highlights the
childhood part of the saving incarnation. It also alludes to the themes of the
lowness of Christ and of the ‘mere man’, which recur in Theodotus’ and Cyril-
lian Christological works. Nestorius would have questioned what can be said
about the subjects of the scriptural narrative, raising awareness that the child is

°° Qérellos 4.1, 122, 14.

* Qéreilos 4.1, 122, 13.
*” Qerellos 4.1, 124, 3.
** Qérellos 4.1, 124, 4. In the context it primarily refers to the flight into Egypt, but it also
€choes the characterisation of fallen humanity as ‘fugitive’ and ‘runaway’, which recurs in Hom-
ily TH. See p. 144.
© Qérellos 4.1, 124, 2.
© See p. 73.
136 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Christ, who is not identical to the A6yoc.*! Theodotus, however, addressed the
event, and thus, without focusing on the (human or divine) status of the ‘sub-
ject’ of the flight, could say that ‘the child [...| is the creator’.© Theodotus
practically claims the angel® might just as well have said ‘Rise, take up God
and his mother’, and that this must be understood as a valid interpretation of
what is written in scripture.
A similar rhetorical tactic is found in Homily I, where a typological exe-
gesis of one of the miracles that happened in Egypt during the exodus of Israel]
binds together the themes of Egypt, Moses, travel and light to present a sim-
ile for the Christological mystery. This passage from Homily I attests that
Theodotus had other options to praise Cyril with the help of metonyms which
involve Egypt. For example, he could have picked up Mosaic parallels. The
thematic choice of Jesus’ flight was prompted by the relevance of Christ’s
infancy in the conciliar setting. Selectively mentioning that the ‘child Jesus’
‘fled’, and ‘has proven his humanhood’ by this ‘(human) suffering’ was a reac-
tion to upsetting statements attributed to Nestorius about Christ as a baby and
his childhood. Furthermore, Theodotus followed Cyril’s line of argument®
both to praise the patriarch and to repeat to all gathered bishops what was the
orthodoxy they had to carry on defending.
The time of the events of the flight to Egypt becomes gradually the ‘then’,®
to which, at the end of Homily V1.2, a ‘today’ is opposed: the time of Cyril’s
episcopal activity. This ‘today’ is bound to the ‘then’ related to Christ’s corpo-
rality, childhood, meekness, also by Cyril’s teaching, which the audience knew
to dwell on these topics, mentioned frequently in previous phrases of section 2
and just summarised by this sentence, introduced by ‘then’. At this point of the

* ACO I 1/2, 46, 5-10.

®2 Qérellos 4.1, 124, 3-4.
63 Matt. 2:13.
4 A passage possibly known by the audience of Homily VI, cf. p. 77.
* The key passage is: ‘[Tell me] how, in Egypt, light became darkness (cf. Ex.10:22), not
x

having become extinct, but remaining what it was? For it was day for the Israelites and light
surrounded them splendidly, but this light became darkness for the Egyptians, and what was seen,
being one, was at once light and darkness, not having been quickly turned from this and becoming
that.” ACO I 1/2, 84, 16-20.
66 Egypt is not only a metonym for Cyril, but is portrayed as a factor for Cyril’s orthodox
leadership, as if he could draw some spiritual strength from a place which was venerated for
scriptural narratives associated to it, even without ‘material’ evidence, for example, in the form
of relics. In Late Antiquity this was but one of the agentia that could sanctify a place or a venue,
yet one which gained increasing importance. See P. Gemeinhardt and K. Heyden (eds), Heiligé:
Heiliges und Heiligkeit (2012), 83. Theodotus suggests that Christ’s bodily presence in Egypt had
been enough to sanctify that space.
7 For example, on Christ’s (human) suffering, Ep. 1, 14 (ACO I 1/1, 16, 18-32). Howevels
Cyril adopts the theme of Christ’s infancy mostly after 22 June, e.g. Ep. 23 (ACO I 1/2, 66,
24-30).
8 Explicitly stated in ‘Then [...} when in body Jesus was there’: Qérellos 4.1, 124, 10.
 Character and theology of Theodotus” homilies 137

homily, the ‘crown’ has transcended any physical meaning it could have at the
end of section 1, referring there to a ‘choir of fathers’ which can be read as
the assembly of bishops. Before section 3, the crown is a symbol, possibly
associable to apocalyptic, imperial contexts, used without precise reference,
except that it is meant to represent something above. It allows Theodotus
hyperbolically to equate Cyril and Christ as righteous teachers of faith. Cyril’s
merits and achievements are to be so highly regarded that he can stand for
Christ. Also brightness and enlightening are mentioned at the end of both initial
sections. The next one discusses the steadfastness of the church in the face of
the challenge of heresies, that is, the danger of deviating from the faith. Theodo-
tus prepares the theme by praising Cyril as one who is righteous, and therefore
is correct and knows the non-deviating path of faith.
Theodotus commends Cyril’s engagement in spreading his view of the faith,
and attacking what disagrees with it. As one who ‘teaches the faith’ he ‘enlight-
ens the souls’, ‘with the saviour’. Cyril is a model of the authoritative teacher,
who has the correct teachings and knows how to convey them. A teacher would
also correct and condemn mistakes. Allusions to teaching occur in Homily HI
too, after the medical topos.”
A teacher passes on what he knows and demands attention to his lessons.
Theodotus takes up the role of the teacher, in which he has just placed Cyril,
asking for attention from his audience to the narrative which follows,”! leading
to the exegesis of Matt. 16:13-20. There, Peter is the one who knows the cor-
rect answer. Theodotus expands the quotation from scripture so that he makes
Jesus interpret Peter’s answer loaded with Cyrillian Christological content.” In
scripture, Peter is called blessed, and appointed as the ‘rock’, the ‘foundation’.
In Homily VI, Cyril is called blessed and rock by Jesus himself, because, as
Theodotus puts it: ‘Blessed are you [...] because [...] the mystery of the incarna-
tion, truly, you recognised’.”? Peter cannot give the whole answer, only the key
elements which by proper exegesis can be expanded to the full ‘right’ answer. In
the homily, Jesus does what Cyril has done. Theodotus portrays Jesus as saying
what Cyril says. Exchanging their roles, Theodotus has taken further the image
at the end of section 2, where Cyril is like Jesus, and does what he does.”* Cyril

? Qérellos 4.1, 124, 11-3.

See p. 129.
”" Oérelios 4.1, 126, 5.
2 For example, that Christ is the visible one and is called ‘God Adéyoc’, ‘the one in the form
ofa servant’ is called ‘lord’, etc. A good parallel passage in Cyril’s works is Scholia 1 (ACO I 5/1,
220, 5-1 1), but, as discussed in H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 259, this
Work was probably written after the council, attenuating the anathemata. See p. 175 for parallels
m Cyril's works prior to the council, especially in the letters Coll. Vat. 1, 2, 4.
uy Gerellos 4.1, 128, 17Ff. ‘
Qérellos 4.1, 124, 11ff.
138 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

has prepared with his teaching the Christians to hear the answe: which even
Peter would not have understood fully.
Theodotus’ praise of Cyril goes further, in presenting him as the ‘rock’ in
Matthew 16, albcit not explicitly. The rhetorical argument of Homily VI leads
towards a multilayered reading of the ‘rock’. For Theodotus, several things
must be seen as firm foundations,”> and the bishops must get their support
from them:”° the expanded version of Peter’s answer, with all its Christology;
the church itself, as an abstract entity in time and space, going back to Peter,
its authority; Cyril’s teaching; perhaps, the see of Rome and its representatives,
having taken up Cyril’s teaching. At the end, Theodotus has gone beyond the
man. In any of these meanings, the Cyrillian Christology is the firm and great
rock, as are also those who are ready to espouse, rely on and defend it. Probably
Theodotus was preaching to men who held the title of bishops,”’ but the end of
Homily VI’* is directed only at those who can understand themselves as being
addressed in (Theodotus’ rendering of) Christ’s words to Peter, that is, the
Cyrillian bishops. Those who build the church are being encouraged to take up
this teaching of the faith.
The praise of Cyril’s teaching,” which argues for making him into a figure
of authority is a great praise of the Alexandrian bishop. Cyril, by his teaching,
leads Christians to salvation by righteousness,”° that is, Cyril’s righteousness.
Having presented some key elements of Cyril’s teaching of faith, Theodotus
exhorts the bishops to support themselves on it.*’ Considering the circumstances
in Ephesus,*? it might have seemed unwise to preach to the bishops to erect
their church on a man under attack from many fronts. Instead of supporting
alternative or additional foundations, Theodotus insists it was important that
Cyril’s teachings were defended in the fight ahead of them, to which he is
encouraging the bishops. If a literal reading of the end of Homily VI.1 is war-
ranted, and Cyril was sitting right at the centre of the circle of bishops, we may
imagine that he was not displeased to see his theology so ardently defended.
When battle is waged against heresy, the faith of each bishop matters. Even
if it must agree with Cyril’s teaching, Theodotus does not mention his name in
this context.*? The individual unwavering effort has contributed to the success
of the battle so far: each bishop, not least while alone in his diocese, has done

® Qérellos 4.1, 128-30.

7 Beginning of Homily V1.5, Qérellos 4.1, 128, Sff.
7 P94,
*® Qérellos 4.1, 132.
® Oérellos 4.1, 124, 11-4.
80 Oérellos 4.1, 124, 13.
8! Qerellos 4.1, 132, Iff.
® See pp. 81, 141. .
¥? ‘Much battle happened in the opposition to your (pL) faith (¥82994-ha), but no one wavered.
Qérellas 4.1, 124, 17.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 139

his part and his efforts deserve recognition. Moreover, at the session of 22 June
each bishop chose to approve Cyril’s letter, and all of them have since not
wavered in paying heed to his teaching of faith. If the church leads a battle
against heresy, the bishops, fighters for Christ," assembled for the council, are
an army which stands firm behind the leadership of Cyril.
Homily VI, in praise of Cyril, is not simply a piece of propaganda for the
bishop of Alexandria.** It places the teaching at the centre, and therefore
advances statements representative of Cyrillian Christology. Theodotus presents,
especially in sections 2 and 4,°° what he saw as an ‘orthodox’ understanding of
the faith. When delivering Homily VI, Theodotus — whether or not one of the
master-minds behind the conciliar events, or a real ally of Cyril — puts into
practice the advice he gives: he supports himself on Cyril’s teaching and is
ready to fight for the faith. As Cyril, Theodotus teaches anew the faith, so that
his audience can be strengthened by it.
Theodotus has, in Homily VI, put Cyril’s Christology at the centre of the
authoritative teaching of the church, just as Cyril’s letters had been used in the
session of 22 June to portray what was in accordance with the Nicene creed.
Theodotus’ Homily VI exemplifies the reliance on a living authority, and is
closely related to the search for guiding paradigmatic figures in the church, and
to the problems of theologians becoming an authority themselves.®” A living
leader could provide an actual model for reference and identification, and could
defend himself, however, he could also err.
Apparently, figures of authority were more highly regarded when the relation
to them was not vague and general, or stemmed from a different cultural tradi-
tion. There could not be a nearer and more precise source of authority than

54 Eph. 6:10-7, for most parallels for the martial images.

8° Texts which are not related to theological diatribes indicate that piety or orthodoxy were
Not as important as pastoral qualities like charity and philanthropy in the daily life of dioceses.
See E. Wipszycka, Etudes sur le christianisme dans l’Egypte (1996), 149, J. Maxwell, ‘Education,
humility and choosing ideal bishops’ (2011), 450-1, 461, B. Neil er al. (eds), Preaching Poverty
(2009), 40-4, 219-20. The approach to poverty in Theodotus’ Homily VI suggests the Cyrillian
Council was indeed concerned with the theological question, and not only with the ‘juridical’ issue
of deposing Nestorius, as reinforced by the contrast with positive references to poverty (e.g. ACO
11/2, 87, 10f).
* Qerellos 4.1, 122-8.
" Preaching in praise of a bishop who is in the audience, and who has received a collective
Unanimous support (at least as far as those present are concemed, or most readers of the collection
of documents where this homily is found) represents a step beyond the ‘sich auf eine heraus-
Tagende Einzelpersinlichkeit zu beziehen, sich an ihr zu orientieren und sich tiber den Riickgriff
oon zu definieren’, T. Graumann, *Kirchliche Identitat und bischéfliche Selbstinszenierung’
), 10.
* To an Egyptian audience, even Cyril needed to emphasise his links to the authority of
Athanasius, and the claims of the Oriental bishops of following authoritative teachings were
5 wed convincing when they echoed this. /bid., 202, id., Die Kirche der Vater (2002), 411. Cf.
‘ Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 210.
140 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (43!)

the bishop on whose letters a council had relied and who was at the centre of
an ensuing liturgical celebration. However, a living figure of reference was
always in danger of stepping out of the right faith. Moral, ethical, health and
physical factors were important for the construction of reputation, yet the main
issues related to the teaching on the faith. Also past authoritative figures could
be reconsidered, and the church was drawing near to condemning deceased
theologians once held in high esteem.*? There were other reasons for the
identification with a figure of authority not to be complete and servile. Cyril
deliberately identified himself with Athanasius, and contributed to establish his
status of fearless fighter for orthodoxy, but by keeping some distance, Cyril
could gradually change and develop the aspects he was highlighting in Atha-
nasius’ theology, and also keep the identification with his predecessor only
partial and temporary. Just as Cyril does not lose his own character and prom-
inence when identifying himself with a figure of the past,*° so the bishops in
Ephesus, despite all their keen rallying behind Cyril do not become one with
him. With a living figure of authority, even more distancing was justifiable, For
example, in Homily VI, Theodotus does not say ‘Cyril’ when he says on what
‘rock’ the bishops should support themselves. The search for an authoritative
teaching requires a person of authority, but goes beyond him.
References to a figure of authority usually also implied what was the teach-
ing associated to him. Theodotus was perhaps aware that the Cyrillians, all
claiming to be identifying themselves with Cyril, were not necessarily espousing
the same ideas. Their attachment to a name (as exemplified by the votes at the
session of 22 June), did not exclude the possibility of manifold views about his
person and his theology. By only mentioning the name they exempted themselves
from stating more theological details. As described above, Theodotus interweaves
the praise of Cyril with theological topics which he presents as Cyril’s teaching,
and thus his discourse supposedly instructs his audience about what they had
declared their agreement and support probably just a few days earlier.
At the end of Homily VI, Theodotus has developed a figure of authority with
which only bishops are called to identify themselves. He has sketched a model
of Cyril already meant only for the ears of bishops, far predating Cyril’s tactics
in his struggles to defend his authority after the Reunion of 433.°! Theodotus
achieves this new pattern of praise of Cyril at the moment of preaching to an
audience not necessarily formed only of bishops. All who could hear his voice

*9 As exemplified by Theophilus’ synodical letter Jerome, Ep. 92), the works of deceased
theologians were already being condemned, but not yet the authors. On Theophilus attacks on
Origenism and contemporary ‘condemnations’ of Origen, see $. Elm, ‘The dog that did not bark’
(1998), 80-L.
%° T. Graumann, ‘Kirchliche Identitaét und bischéfliche Selbstinszenierung” (2003), 211.
°! Fbid., 212, claims that Cyril develops only after 433 a self-representation meant solely for
an audience involved in dogmatic discourse. which is not the model or guide role for Christians
in general.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 141

in a church in Ephesus”? formed a probably wider public than that of a letter

addressed only to fellow bishops.
This last paragraph offers a caricatured reading of Homily VI, which. despite
the extreme imtcrprctations it contains, may inspire the reader to a fruitful crit-
ical reappraisal of the text. The sermon could be read as a desperate search for
a figure of authority, when circumstances became more adverse; as delivered
by a bishop on the verge of panicking, who imagined he was about to face
excommunication just as Cyril, and who dreaded the displeasure of the court,
which he anticipated in view of the actions of imperial officers, like Candidi-
anus. Such a reading would be in line with a picture of Theodotus as an uno-
riginal thinker and a simple-minded bishop, representative of an hypothetical
mediocre mass of bishops, out of which only extremely few are worthwhile
considering. Accordingly, Rheginus’ homily*? could be simplistically inter-
preted as a celebration sprung from collective enthusiasm from bishops for
whom the session of 22 June was a lightweight matter which would straight-
forwardly be acknowledged and accepted by the whole world.” Although this
takes the ridicule too far, and disregards the rhetorical polish of late antique
texts, especially of homilies in conciliar collections, the parody envisages that
in Ephesus bishops at one point or another took to the pulpit, so to speak, and
shouted frantically at their fellow bishops not to give up the fight and keep
together. Christians, moved by the Spirit, could take liberties a classically
trained orator would have to justify more carefully.

Coping with uncertainties

A few passages from the conciliar homilies give glimpses of Theodotus’ views
of his social and political surroundings. The sermons refer to the instability and
changeability of worldly might and status. Also reflected in the rhetoric and in
the relation to the audience are possible references to Theodotus’ former friend-
ship with Nestorius. Excesses of secular power, slavery and poverty, and religious
violence are some of the less than ideal aspects of late antique society alluded to.
The remainder of this section discusses possibly farfetched secondary mean-
ings of some passages to which Theodotus probably did not allude deliberately.
Those who heard or read the sermons may well not have grasped the references.
They are nevertheless clues to cultural and political background of the homilies,
and thus for a world view shared by the bishops and their audiences.
The conciliar homily of Juvenal of Jerusalem evidences episcopal awareness
of political uncertainties.°> Similarities in content suggest that Theodotus had

® See p. 94.
: ACOI 1/2, 70-1.
48 Qérellos 4.1, 39 tempers ibid., 16-7.
” Qérellos 4.1, 35-6.
142 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

analogous concerns. In Homily V1.4, Theodotus interrupts his flow of argument

to address the renegade (Nestorius) saying: ‘become blessed and not
condemned!’.°° Juvenal says: ‘He [Nestorius] will fall if he does not support
himself on the power of the Spirit’.°’ Both authors place the condemnation in
the future (‘will fall’, ‘become condemned’), and state an alternative (‘support
in the power of the Spirit’, ‘become blessed’). Nestorius had already been
condemned by the council and, for the bishops, their decision was an expres-
sion of the divine judgement. The future phrasing of the condemnation may
indicate that what had been achieved was of smaller consequence compared to
remaining and dying in error. It suggests that both authors expected a divine
judgement to confirm the decision of the church in view of the life of the
person, and some eschatological damnation for those who persisted in heresy,
The lasting final condemnation would be avoidable by a conversion while
alive. Juvenal is harsher than Theodotus on the chances of this happening.
Theodotus’ ‘become blessed’ leaves the emphasis on the individual. Although
the divine (especially through grace, or the presence of the Spirit) facilitates
conversion, men can achieved it by holding to the faith, as taught by the fathers
and the (orthodox) church, that is, what Theodotus is himself preaching. Juvenal,
however, specifies the presence of the Spirit. It is perhaps a clearer formulation
of Theodotus’ expression, but it can also represent a shift of focus, since the
‘power of the Spirit’ is in and supports the church.”* There is perhaps a small
change to the sense. At least Juvenal’s future condemnation cannot be (fully)
identified with the council’s, so as to avoid its logical conflict with occasional
representations of Nestorius’ condemnation as a fact which put him beyond
such help.”
These interpretations of Juvenal’s homily! correspond to discussions of his
motivations and values based on the abundant information about his actions
and deeds.'"' Juvenal avoided saying, at least in a situation where his words
were being registered in written form, something which could be held against
him should Antiochene Christology prevail, or could alienate the powerful see
of Constantinople, should Nestorius be reinstated.'® If such a complex reading

°© Qérellos 4.1, 128, 16f.

7 Qérellos 4.1, 83.
8 See Matt. 12:32, Rom.15:19, Matt. 10:20, 1Cor. 2:4, Eph. 3:5.
” For example, Qérellos 4.1, 134-7; ACO I 1/2, 70, 19ff.
100 “(Theological differences [...] are said to have been sufficiently elucidated by the fathers.
Although Nestorius had already been deposed by the conciliar majority, he [Juvenal] saw that the
case was not yet closed, in view of the Antiochene and imperial opposition’, Qérellos 4.1, 35-6.
101 E, Honigmann, ‘Juvenal of Jerusalem’ (1950), R. MacMullen, Voting about God (2006), 45.
'2 This exemplifies commonplace questionable attempts of pointing out passages to corrobo-
rate biographical information about an author. Criticism of such analyses has found echoes, for
example, in the works of Barthes and Derrida. where individual traits seem to have no role in the
creative endeavour. Dismissing such strict theorisations. theologians and historians continue ©
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 143

of a brief conventional passage is valid for Juvenal’s homily (consistent with

‘a case not yet closed’) because one can consider his biography and many later
events, the same can be done with Theodotus’ text, which largely shares con-
text and background.
Both authors employ harsh terms for the condemnation of heresies when
characterising the interlocutor, instead of the honorific titles given to any bishop
until condemned. The preaching bishops balanced this with the chance of
(almost) any error being corrected (by God, by or through them, efc.). The ensu-
ing contrast signals the possibility of a change of heart which coexists unex-
plained with claims of one faith, allied to one truth, which is ever-lasting,
unchanging, and, according to the church, expressed by the conciliar statements.
All bishops shared a certainty that their majority reached the right decision,
whether at ‘undisputed’ councils, or at the sessions they had recently attended
in Ephesus. For them, the faith did not change. Even if they were aware that
previous generations expressed views which we now describe as different, they
did not express this historically. They acknowledged the limitations of human
understanding of divine matters, and nevertheless they trusted in the prerogative
of the church to decide on matters of orthodoxy. The condemnation of Nestorius
had been achieved on technical grounds of meeting Celestine’s conditions, but
for the Cyrillians these bore sufficiently on Nestorius’ teachings.
As men dealing with power, e.g. planning conciliar sessions, Theodotus
and Juvenal may have pondered on decisions being revoked under similar cir-
cumstances, even without the involvement of secular powers. Their preaching,
however, echoed little the fickleness of history.

Facing error
Theodotus strives to ascertain the authority of the conciliar bishops and to
Praise those who teach the faith. However, he does not forget the human limi-
tations to which they are also subject. He reminds them, lest they become
over-confident or ambitious. They are close to some who err from the faith,
and the teaching of the faith is very vulnerable to deviating from orthodoxy.
Thus, when describing to them the human shortcomings that can distance man-
kind from God — in a passage that is essentially an ornate re-rendering of the
Narrative of the fall of mankind! — Theodotus may have implicitly referred to
his (almost) being sidetracked by the friendship to Nestorius. In the aftermath
of the session of 22 June, it echoed the dangers and errors in which they all

accept unquestioningly authorial echoes. The tack of biographical anecdotes about Theodotus
makes it difficult to choose consistently among the possible inferences from the text, some of
Which are contradictory. Rather, the plausibility of the alternatives reveals the scope of late antique
omiletics.
"8 ACOI 1/2, 72, 16-9. See the section on p. 155.
144 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

could fall, and his case may have been a compelling example: he had erred or
been close to erring, yet he wanted the bishops to believe that he had distanceg
himself from Nestorius’ error. He stated a captatio benevolentiae to validate
his orthodoxy and thus the teaching in his preaching.
In a passage! agreeing with the soteriological emphasis behind most Chris-
tology prior to the Council of Ephesus and also employed during it,!°> where the
most evident and main reading is that ‘we’ refers to fallen human nature, which
needed the redemption through Christ (for since redemption could only be
achieved by the incarnate God, Christology had to be understood correctly), the
repetition of the first person plural, ‘we’, in emphatic positions of the sentences
stresses the relevance of the issue for each and everyone more effectively than
a technical discussion of the salvation which the incarnation brought about
would, since presented as what already had happened, it would be less ‘present’,
Referring back to the initial subject of the homily, the ‘we’ may have encom-
passed Christians who in recent times had ‘erred’ from the correct understand-
ing on this relevant matter, even Theodotus. Considering Theodotus’ statement
at the session of 22 June about his friendship to Nestorius,' the ‘we’ may have
been meant to be understood as an ‘I’, Theodotus speaking about himself,”
Interpreting the passage as a captatio benevolentiae remains secondary. From
Theodotus’ homilies prior to the council it is clear that he already held an anti-
Nestorian stance firmly, but this does not exclude that at some point he had
defended Nestorian views. If accurate, the reports of his friendship to Nestorius
may have affected his reputation, and there may have been slander or (even
written evidence) that once it went beyond personal connections.!°° A never
remorseful Theodotus would not refer to his acquaintance with Nestorius more
than in the passage of contrition of Homily II alongside the acknowledgement
of the friendship at the session.
‘We’ can also refer to all bishops, since, until they had clearly condemned
Nestorius and his views, by coexisting with and thereby tolerating him in their
midst, they had been ‘distanced’ from the one correct understanding of Christol-
ogy. Confessing this, and trusting in God’s mercy, they crave for forgiveness,
which must be concomitant to avoiding the deviating view, and therefore the
excerpt speaks for the acceptance of the conciliar decision. As for Nestorius,
while he does not give up his heretical views, he must remain segregated.
Whether personal or collective, the passage echoes repentance, and stands as
a captatio benevolentiae towards fellow bishops and God. By rekindling in 4
vivid portrait the state of fallen humanity, Theodotus presented to his audience

104 ACOI 1/2, 73, 16-9.

105 JA. McGuckin, Sv. Cyrif (2004), 175, D. Fairbaim, Grace and Christology (2003), 15.
106 P63.
107 “My slowness’: ACO I 1/2, 73, 22.
'08 Sce p. 63ff.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 145

not only the background for the redeeming incarnation, but also the helpless
state of heretics, worse than that of human beings before the start of the econ-
omy. The church in its pastoral duty ought to ascertain that Christians remain
in the faith. The surge of heresy indicated its failure, and hinted at shortcomings
of its members. The ‘we’ can thus refer to the clergy, especially the bishops in
Theodotus’ audience. The whole collective church is affected by the error of only
one. No part of the ‘we’ can be allowed to remain in heresy and be counted
among the ‘we’ for salvation to be granted to the ‘we’.
The passage, possibly representing Theodotus’ or the bishops’ captatio
benevolentiae, is followed by the reference to God’s effort not to lose human
beings.'°? The bishops are bound to prevent error and to bring those in error to
recant, even a heretic like Nestorius. Theodotus’ concern with current heresies
is likewise apparent in the passages aimed at instructing how to repudiate the
envy and the plot of the devil.!!°
Theodotus linked the present day need to preserve the purity of the church
to the narrative of fall, redemption and eschatological salvation of every human
being and of humanity.''' The plurality of interpretative layers of the passages
discussed in this section typifies the lack of rigid boundaries of theological
disciplines — inventions of much later centuries — when theology is put into
practice. Theodotus expressed in his sermons only some facets of his complex
theological views, and if taken out of context they can seem contradictory or
irreconcilable, as exemplified by the aforesaid analysis of Homily IL.3.

Dealing with fighting and violence

Violence was as much part of late antique society as of the life of the church.!!?
Not only was it endured, but it was fostered against the enemies of faith.
Among the conciliar homilists, Rheginus was the most explicit, wishing for
Nestorius an end worse than that of Arius.' This section discusses’ passages
where Theodotus may have had recent events or the ordinariness of violence!!4
in mind, or which could be understood by the audience as more or less veiled
allusions to it.
‘The billows of unbelief {...] could not shake us’!!5 is as much a reference to
the debate of the last couple of years (which the bishops are keen to place in

ie ACO I 1/2, 72, 22-3. Echoing ‘good shepherd’, John 10:12.

Mi ACO I 1/2, 72, 23-4, Qérellos 4.1, 130, 12ff.
1b ACO I 1/2, 72, 3-9.
___” Exemplified in Theodotus’ festal homilies, where he contrasts Christ’s meekness to the awe
aine power of kings, which may hint that the distant imperial court, and especially the not so
‘stant imperial army were dreaded. See Homily I, ACO I 1/2, 85, 30, 86, 4ff.
1, ACOI 1/2, 71, 4-9. See p. 76. ,
\s NB. McLynn, Christian Politics (2009) Ul, 15ff.
” Qérellos 4.1, 124, 16.
146 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

the much longer fight against any heresy) as to the challenges to the Cyrillian
Council. Further, Theodotus’ claims that ‘no one wavered’ refer chiefly to the
bishops of the Cyrillian Council. On the face of it, it should apply only to those
who did not object to and attended the session of 22 June. Theodotus pays no
heed to waverers who, for example, signed the protest on 21 June and changed
their minds soon after,''® and especially none to those who joined the Cyrillian
Council only after the first session. Since the purpose was to encourage the
bishops to follow the lead of the praiseworthy Cyril and to speak in favour of
the unity of the church, exceptions to unanimity had no place in a short homily,
on account of form and length, and of content. Politeness towards the few who
had wavered dictated silence on the matter. Praise of unwavering bishops was
only needed because not all had been thus.
Theodotus’ intention was to fortify the unity of the Cyrillians, by reminding
them that their strength came from their faith. He praised Cyril for his teach-
ing and expounded the faith, using biblical and patristic references that are
as typical of homiletics, as of Cyrillian argumentation for validation. Theodo-
tus instructed the bishops in his audience, so that they could understand their
position of authority and the responsibilities it entailed, and followed Cyril’s
leadership.
Echoing the events of the preceding days, the sentence ‘No one is wounded’!!7
reflects a bloodless battle; and the exhortation to ‘fight [...] for the sake of
justice’!'® expects bloodless battles that lead to the ‘renegade’ becoming
‘blessed’.''? A bloodless battle applies especially well for a battle of words and
letters, akin to what Cyril and Nestorius had exchanged.'”° In their letters, they
expounded several antagonistic theological views, and the council had unani-
mously voiced approval of Cyril’s letter, and likewise rejected Nestorius’.
According to Theodotus’ presentation of the ‘unwavering’ bishops, none of them
had been tempted to adapt the understanding of Cyril’s position, far less to adopt
opposing views. Resoluteness is incompatible with dialogue, so it seemed pref-
erable to abstain from discussion. Any opposition to Cyril’s faith, once estab-
lished as orthodox, had to be repudiated by all means. Thus, the passage can
refer not only to the theological level of the dispute, but also to concrete events
which had happened in Ephesus. The bishops were aware of Candidianus’
displeasure,'?! and some of them may have wondered what the reaction of the
court would be. Bodily injuries could be feared from measures taken by the

116 See p. 47, Relatable to the editorial project to represent all sets of Cyrillian bishops as ‘the
Council’, cf. T. Graumann., *Protokollierung, Aktenerstellung’ (2010), 18.
"7 Homily V1.3, Qérellos 4.1, 126, 1.
"8 Oérellos 4.1, 132, 3.
9 Homily V1.4, Qérellos 4.1, 128, 16.
20 NB. McLynn, Christian Politics (2009) Il, 37.
Rt Eg, ACO I 4, 32, 7.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 147

secular government, or by forces which were allied to the opposing religious

faction. The complaints of the delegations sent to Nestorius refer to such haz-
rds.!??

° Theodotus hints that the powerful leadership of Cyril and Memnon,!? well
rovided with physical forces, would allow the bishops to remain unharmed,
especially if they were cohesive. It is assumed that a fair number of parabalani
had escorted Cyril, and some may have been in Theodotus’ audience.!*4 Simi-
larly, the citation of Jer. 1:10 in Homily III.1 could have, within the context
of defending the deposition of Nestorius, a materiality with which to sanction
even physical violence, such as was perpetrated under the orders of bishops,
whether by the personal body guards under their command or by Christians
following their exhortations. Theodotus refers to the context of real religious
violence familiar to most bishops.
In Homily VI.3, ‘arrows [which] were released’ may allude to the sentence
of deposition of Cyril and Memnon by the Oriental Council. The ensuing
‘no one is wounded’ is not incompatible with it, since no party was willing
to recognise the occurrence of any council other than their own. The Cyrillians
ignored the Oriental’s decisions as much as possible, and Cyril continued to
lead them for several weeks.!*> Accordingly, Theodotus claimed that a decision
of those who stood in ‘unbelief’ did not wound.
Finally, a reader of the written version could even see in the ‘arrows were
released’ a reference to the imperial sacra deposing Cyril, since it was ineffective
in the long term, not least by the continued Cyrillian support. With hindsight,
Theodotus’ words could not have been truer, since none of the bishops who did
not waver from the support of Cyril and his views was in the long term wounded
within his lifetime.

Encomiastic and didactic aspects of the homilies

Bearing the relation of the homilies to the council in mind, it is worthwhile
expanding the remarks of earlier sections about homiletics.'*© Although homi-
lies are often placed in a rhetorical genre of their own, the relation to the three
8enera dicendi of classical rhetoric, still widely known and formally learnt by

(122
See p. 82.
. '3 <“Memnon was himself a controversial character, the subject of complaints by his own
bishops at the Council of Ephesus in 431, the charges including the use of force to make them
Support himself and Cyril of Alexandria in the dispute with Nestorius.’ P. Norton, Episcopal Elec-
tions (2007),
224.
abl * Theodotus may have preached Homily VI referring to one specific event, perhaps remark-
all € at the moment, but which cannot be identified in the extant sources. The available documents
ow suet conjectural readings that imaginative ones need not be added.
see p. 81f.
"8 See pp. 35ff., and especially pp. 98ff.
148 Theedotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

many of the fifth-century preachers and their audience, must be taken into
account.'*7 [t sheds light on the purpose of these texts and how the audience
interpreted them.
Elements of the epideictic genre are obvious and span passages of invective
and encomium, such as praise of Cyril and attacks on heretics and on Nestorius,
They disallow the use of most contemporary characterisations of sermonising
and the simplistic use of sharp boundaries of rhetorical genres since the epi-
deictic content contributes to the didactic and forensic message of the texts.
It cannot be assumed that because preacher and his audience shared most
values!?8 the homilies were always mainly contained, indeed developed within
the epideictic genre, and the didactic aspect was negligible.!*° It is not a fair
representation of the second sophistic to claim that ‘from being the practical
teaching of a life-skill’ it had become ‘a skill value only in itself’,'*° so that
any text would be mainly epideictic, understood as a metalinguistic praise of
the text for itself (‘rhetorical displays’ !?').
Epideictic texts can ‘effect some change in the audience’s understanding of
the subject’,'** but their aim is not to influence action. They represent and
reinforce values, using arguments and proofs, common to other genres, to per-
suade, but mainly praise and criticise individuals.'*? Therefore, even if a text is
built mostly of passages of praise and blame, if its aim is to effect a change or
plead a case, it ought not to be classified as epideictic.!3+
As already discussed,'*> both Homilies II] and VI praise the gathered bish-
ops, and concentrate on Cyril of Alexandria as the leading figure in thought
and action. Theodotus identifies him as the individual driving force which gath-
ers and guides the other bishops. Nevertheless, each bishop is also meant, and
lauded with elaborate references to episcopal title and the biblical background.

27 See P. Gemeinhardt, Das lateinische Christentum und die antike pagane Bildung (2007),
45.
‘28 The cultural sharing is clearer in Christian texts, e.g. by the peculiarities of vocabulary.
29 A. Stewart-Sykes, From Prophecy to Preaching (2001), 37-8. Since preaching would be a
‘repetition of formulae intended not to impart new information or to alter behaviour, but to reinforce
the convictions of the assembly, [... it] is to be understood as epideictic, which re-inforces the
opinions of an audience, rather than changing them’.
130 Cf, ibid., 70-2, who criticises the decline narrative inherent to an analysis as by H.I. Marrow,
A History of Education (1956), but not its content.
1 Cf A. Stewart-Sykes, From Prophecy to Preaching (2001). 38, who claims that a high
preaching style antedates the more grandiose post-Constantine churches.
'32R. Webb, ‘Praise and persuasion’ (2003), 127, M. Whitby (ed.), The Propaganda of Powel
(1998).
‘83 See L. Pernot, La rhétorique de l’éloge (1993), especially pp. 659-724 for the use of argu
mentation and ibid., 720-2, G. A. Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric (1994), 61-2 for
the ultimate aims of an epideictic text. See also R. Webb. ‘Praise and persuasion’ (2003), 127.
"4 See pp. 151ff.
RS See pp. 134ff.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 149

The commendation of Cyril in Homily VI tries to persuade the audience to

support a man who may be facing, or is about to face, adverse circumstances,
and to build the strength of the council from there. Other homilies available
only in Ethiopic collections are likewise exaggerated praises of Cyril and
caricaturing attacks of heretics, including Nestorius.'*° Elements of the epideic-
tic genre are present, since Cyril’s Christology is the cause of his renown, but
the praise of Cyril is not an end in itself in Theodotus’ homily. The communi-
cation model is especially complicated. From the typical structure with sender,
message and receiver, a present Jaudandus is at once part of the message and
its receiver.!37 A concomitant praise of Cyril and of the council makes the
sender also part of the message, and encourages an identification between the
different: receivers.
The praise of Cyril goes beyond its primary object of commendation of his
leadership, and points to Cyril as a model and an authority. Both notions are
employed with pedagogical aims. A model could be imitated or surpassed to
achieve similar or greater excellence. An authority could be relied and built on.
The presence of Cyril'*8 would make a dialectic teaching environment possible
— in theory, at least.
The conclusion of Homily VI"? is an exhortation directed to all bishops,
built on the praise of one among them, and is in line with the whole sermon,
made of parts which can be described as epideictic but with the aim of encour-
aging a course of action.
Theodotus’ Homily III is to a large extent a celebration of the council, and
serves, at least in the collections, as a counterpart to documents like Rheginus’
homily which is a psogos of explicit hate.'*° Apart from the evident links to the
epideictic genre related'to the council, at the end of Homily III occurs another
instance of praise: !*!
John, he imposed for us as teacher, the son of the thunder, he who conferred to this
Metropolis the common treasure of the world, he who in one single verse has expressed
all the piety.

The mention of John may echo the setting suggested in the rubric, which states
that the sermon was given in the church dedicated to John the Evangelist.'#?
The praise is not restricted to the church building, but envisages the city as a whole
iN its claims to metropolitan status and importance. Should a larger audience

36 Especially Acacius’, Firmus’, Rheginus’ and Eusebius’ sermons: respectively, Qérellos 4.1,
68-81, 134-7, 100-7, 118-21.
iy C. Ronning, ‘Rituale der Rhetorik — Rhetorik der Rituale’ (2003), 113.
ie E.g. ‘in the midst’, Qérellos 4.1, 122, 9.
‘a0 Qérellos 4.1, 132.
ta See p. 129.
ROE

i ACO I 1/2, 73, 19-21.

See p. 96 how the rubric may have taken this information from here.
150 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

have been present and have included local citizens,'** presumably local aristo-
crats would have been among them, and the ‘treasure of the world’ may have
appealed to them, pleased by the mention of their wealth, and the signs thereog
which they displayed. However, from content and liturgical setting, ‘metro.
polis’ means primarily the episcopal see. As such, it is a benevolent gesture
towards Memnon.'* The importance of the see of Ephesus largely relied on the
location of the tomb of St John, reflecting the late antique Christian view about
the sanctifying presence of relics. However, the links of a place to events in the
life or death of a saint were also valued, and Theodotus explored the connection
of Ephesus with the writing of John’s gospel.
The meaning of the passage goes beyond these mundane interpretations,
What started as a hagiographical commonplace (‘teacher’, ‘son of thunder’) is
brought into context when clarifying the desired meaning of the ‘treasure’
(KetpNAtov). ‘Common treasure of the (inhabited) world (oixovpévy)’ is not
expanded to a praise of worldly achievements, but refined to what can indeed
gratify,'*> that is, God made man. By praising John’s achievement of formulat-
ing (‘expressed’) the redeeming event, Theodotus is indirectly commending the
city which is related to him, for being hospitable to the bishops and for having
hosted an event (the conciliar session) which has brought Christianity again
close to the redeeming path, by removing error and upholding a formula of
faith. Its citizens are to be the first to welcome and adhere to this decision.
Finally, Theodotus praises John’s teaching for expressing the faith suc-
cinctly (‘one single verse’). In line with the criticism of verbosity and wordy
reasoning,'*© Theodotus commends this manner of speaking that adheres to
succinct formulations to grasp the incarnation and other theological mysteries.
The conciliar session,!*’ and therefore its outcome, was in line with such rhet-
oric of brevity. Memnon as well as Ephesus had their share in the success to
deserve this praise, which, however, is not construed as a particular commen-
dation of Memnon’s teaching and/or orthodoxy. Theodotus reserves such dis-
tinction for Cyril.
This brief panegyric passage at the end of Homily III interrupts the Christo-
logical theme, yet a recapitulation follows. The reference to St John as teacher,
points back to the interconnected use of similes (doctor, husbandman, teacher)
at the beginning, and thus to the importance of authoritative teaching. With
support of a passage of John’s gospel, Theodotus can reiterate points of the

143 See p. 76 for possible popular involvement. They would have been kept informed by letters,
rumours, and what they heard in church.
'44 Tt may even suggest that Theodotus lodged in Memnon’s, just as Cyril is known to have
done.
45 ACO I 1/2, 73, 20: yapiCa: ‘confer’, gratify, etc. For the theological background, p. 175-
146 See p. [81 ff.
'47 The proceedings were centred around the Nicene creed, selected texts and excerpts, and
brief statements.
 Character and theology ot ‘Theodotus’ homilies 151

Christology he defends and had expounded in the homily. The final phrase
encapsulates the incarnation that happened for the sake of human redemption,
the balance of being and becoming, the economy as a central multilayered
concept, and finally, the reference to pbatc without any qualificative. Since the
homily initially seemed a panegyric of Cyril, Theodotus can in this brief con-
cise and precise statement'*® pass his teaching as being Cyril’s.
Theodotus construed a praise of Cyril in sentences and passages which fre-
quently have additional meanings, and often refer to scripture. The auxiliary
layers of meaning are far less important than the praise of Cyril, and probably
were only noticed in Ephesus if Theodotus’ delivery emphasised any of them
by voice or gesture. They are connotations which, even if not driving Theodo-
tus’ choice of images and arguments, may have been among the reasons for
him to know and remember them, or which could later come to the mind of
readers. Thus, ‘Your crown is this choir of the fathers’!*? suggests that Cyril is
the crown for the bishops who are like the saints placed around Christ.'°° Cyril
by, or with, the grace of the lord not only takes his place at their centre, but
also has performed the deeds of Christ’s life on earth, like the coming (back)
from Egypt, and is willing to do all other things which followed the return from
Egypt, up to the death on the cross.
In the previous sections were highlighted the effective persuasive character
of the epideictic passages'*! by digressing on their content and their aim within
the homilies. As discussed in the final sections, although most of the theo-
logical content of the sermons agrees with what was acclaimed positively at
the 22 June session, Theodotus does not step back from saying details which
seem dissonant of the views the conciliar bishops were likely to associate to
Cyril,' and in his audience many who had joined the approval may not have
been convinced about all Cyrillian theological details. Theodotus, as preacher,
expresses his view on theology, ecclesiology, politics, so as to inform his audi-
ence about the correct approach to faith. Furthermore, the praise centres not on
individuals, but on the uprightness of the teaching. Taken together, these
aspects suggest the homilies, as spoken sermons, were mainly didactic.

8 ACO I 1/2, 73, 20-4.

9 Qérellos 4.1, 122, 9.
' Rev, 4:4,
'S' C. Ronning, ‘Rituale der Rhetorik — Rhetorik der Rituale’ (2003), 113-4.
'2 The works safely attributed to Theodotus provide at best a snapshot from the time of the
Council of Ephesus and immediately before, while Cyril’s vast output offers insights into his
thought over time and different audiences. For example, the above mentioned conclusion of Hom-
ily IIT (ACO I 1/2, 73, 18-24) shows Theodotus’ use of a vocabulary that alludes more pointedly
to only divine nature than, for example, Cyril’s Homily V, ACO I 1/2, 92, 32-3 and 93, 17-9, and,
likewise, the warnings against human reasoning on divine matters are more absolute in Theodotus’
Homily VI, Qérellos 4.1, 130, 10, than in Cyril’s Homily [, ACO I 1/2, 96, 10-2, which abates
his earlier statement in Homily V, ACO I 1/2, 94, 18-20.
152 Theodowus of Ancyra’s Homilies aod the Councii of Ephesus (431)

Theodotus defended the actions of the council originally to encourage the

bishops. In the conciliar collections, the homilies pleaded a case for the Cyrillian
Council at the court and later generations. Theodotus, as author of the docu.
ments in the conciliar collection, 1s thus also detending the Cyrillian Council,
The theological content is a piece of evidence justifying the need of a council,
The encomiastic content defends the characters involved. The written text is
therefore primarily deliberative.

Christology
In the sermons in Ephesus, Theodotus spoke mostly about Christology. Dis-
cussing first his stance on what was the central theological issue at the council
will provide firmer ground to approach the other main topics, namely, ecclesi-
ology and soteriology, which he closely linked to Christology, either springing
from or leading to it. An analysis of Theodotus’ theology depends on his ser-
mons and treatises. These texts do not set out systematically his doctrinal
views, but are shaped by the tensions deeply rooted in the controversies
addressed. For the conciliar homilies in particular the discussions and events at
Ephesus, between parties and within groups, provide the backdrop of the
approach to and selection of theological questions. Therefore, the task at hand
is not a systematic and comprehensive portrayal of Theodotus’ theology. In the
homilies, it unfolds in polemical fashion, remaining fragmentary.
Theodotus’ audience spoke about itself as harmonious, but could hardly be
unaffected by the disquiet around them, involving imperial officials, and
implicitly referring back to the emperor who had invited them. The audience
may have been aware there was variance in their theological views. Nevertheless,
in line with the didactic paradigm of homilies, Theodotus provides arguments,
often preemptive, to support the ideas he claims his audience shares with him,
and which he presents as the only ‘right’ ones. Actually, the conciliar homilies
contain hints of varying approaches to Cyril’s Christology. Theodotus places
all theological topics within a framework he claims to share with other fathers
past and present,'*? but of which he expounds only few points.
The extremely selective presentation of only few theological themes in just
two sermons first given in Ephesus justifies resorting also to the homilies orig-
inally delivered earlier but read at the council, as well as to passages from those
few other sermons of certain authorship, so as to better present the overall
shape of Theodotus’ theological views. This seems legitimate, considering the
earlier assessment that his stance remained fundamentally unchanged between

'S This fabric allowed disputed theological themes to be conveyed among content widely
accepted and cherished by an audience, including regional apocryphal narratives and cults. Thes¢
references could help a preacher to gain popularity, more than by opposing them. See p. 28, and
M.B. Cunningham, “Preaching and the community’ (1990), 35.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 153

the run-up to the council and its immediate aftermath.!* At the same time, it
corroborates the insight into his consistency in demonstrating direct parallels
between homilies and also how features in different sermons tailor seamlessly
with each other.
For our understanding of Theodotus’ theology, an overview of the different
approaches and emphases in the main theological discussions of the time may be
beneficial. The hypothetical links of Theodotus’ youth and education to Antioch
are not reflected in his Christology, which bears more resemblance to ‘Alexan-
drian’ formulations.'*5 On the one hand, an Antiochene theologian! was usually
concerned with showing that despite the centrality of there being two natures in
Christ (which was already obvious from the language he was using), he upheld
the unity of the person of Christ. On the other, ‘Alexandrians’, who valued the
unity of Christ so highly that they were loath to choose —- even to use — words to
describe the humanity and deity in Christ, were keen to defend themselves in
making clear that both, divinity and humanhood, are present in Christ, without
mingling (especially without mingling the divine with what is intrinsic to the
human), but cannot in any way be predicated of God.'5” The Antiochene approach
placed prime importance in starting from scripture and figuring out how to under-
stand it.!5® Therefore, the Cyrillian theologians had not only to use scripture in
the central way seen in any Christian writer, but claim and show that their views
were just as well grounded in scripture as the Antiochenes’.
The theology of Cyril was principally a narrative of God’s saving activity
and was expressed as such, a narrative which starts on high, then involves and
is characterised by a coming down.'* Therefore, a constant concern is how this
does not affect what is understood of God. The narrative attempts to safeguard

4D 110ff.
55 This overview echoes N. Constas, Proclus (2003). 359-62, F. Millar, A Greek Roman
Empire (2006), 149-161, S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004),
251-74, and relies on my recollections from A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben (1979)
and A. Grillmeier and T. Hainthaler, Jesus der Christus im Glauben (1990), 605-36, 652-61,
673-87, J.A. McGuckin, St. Cyril (2004), 126-226, L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 70-9, 110-31,
T.G. Weinandy and D.A. Keating (eds), The Theology of St. Cyril (2003), 23-74, FM. Young,
‘A reconsideration of Alexandrian Christology’ (1971).
'S6 The traditional link to the city is only used for the lack of less controversial! labels. Antioch
did not represent a well defined theological tradition, and did not have a local hegemony akin to
Alexandria, perhaps because more affected by the schisms of the fourth century, see P. Norton,
Episcopal Elections (2007), 172. For the theological influence on Alexandria and the political-
ecclesiastical importance in the wake of Constantinople 381 see C.A. Beeley, ‘Cyril of Alexandria
and Gregory Nazianzen’ (2009), 418. A clear demarcation of theological schools is largely due to
the choice of authoritative church fathers by religious groups which gained form by the polarisa-
“on and eventual schism which were unforeseen consequences of Ephesus I, and were not yet
Present before 430; see R. MacMullen, Voting about God (2006), 107.
‘57 A. Grillmeier and T. Hainthaler, Jesus der Christus im Glauben (1990), 647, 679-82.
'® J. J. O'Keefe, ‘“A letter that killeth”* (2000), 85.
9 DA. Keating, The Appropriation of Divine Life (2004), 191-201.
154 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

God from suffering. The coming down is expressed by God’s acting and doing:
he makes his own a ‘something’. What this something is, is not always clearly
expressed, and definitely never consistently by the same concept or word;
sometimes it may be or seems to be “humanity’.'“° This lexical imprecision
does not affect the narrative, since it focuses on the downward movement. The
Son takes on another form of existence, but is the same pre-eternal and the
same uncreated being. Much emphasis is laid on the one and the same action,
and the one and the same subject, yet there are different operations, for exam-
ple, those of the Son as Christ, qualified by the incarnation. Cyrillians have
then to elucidate how the incamated one is different from the pre-existing one,
that is, what the Adyoc was before, and they dwell on what the AOyoc was not
before. To express how the form of the incarnated one is different from the
pre-existing AGyoc they speak of ‘making its own’, and they raise the caveat
that there is no mingling.'®! The incarnated is a different form of the divine,
without being a different entity. In this way, all actions come from one centre
of activity (= God), and this directional sense is behind all texts.
In short, from the perspective of the language employed by each side, they
saw problems in the more extreme opposite formulations: for the Antiochenes,
the Cyrillian ways of speaking were absurd at moments; for the Cyrillians, the
Orientals did what they would ‘never’ do.
Theodotus does not give his audience a lecture about Christology. Rather,
he places topics on Christology within a narrative framework of the economy.
He offers excerpts of this narration that are adequate to the context, for instance,
of interpreting a scriptural passage. It is possible to piece together enough ele-
ments to see how in his theology all the events from creation — especially from
the fall — until salvation are bound to the incarnation and life of Christ. It would
be difficult to present the Christological material clearly without this framework,
and keeping to it nonetheless allows a detached analysis of what characterises
Theodotus’ approach.
With ‘rejoice, that you see Christ glorified!’!®* Theodotus expresses that the
main achievement of the Council of Ephesus was the defence of a Christology
that preserved fittingly what is due to him who saved humanity. Nevertheless,
in Theodotus’ works predominate passages on Christ assuming what is low in
mankind.'® He presents his Christology describing how God the Son moves in
the world, as Christ, within the poor and low qualities of man, while sharing
the glory of God.'® Christ was ‘glorified’, revealing his glory, when he was

160 ‘Humanity’ is expressed by an array of expressions related to t& GvOpamva, cf. M. Simonetti,
‘Alcune osservazioni sul monofisismo di Cirillo’ (1982). 503.
16 JA. McGuckin, St. Cyril (2004), 187.
182 Oérellos 4.1, 122, 8.
3 ACO I 1/2, 72, 24ff., Qérellos 4.1, 130, 1.
4 ACO I 1/2, 83, 36.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 155

resurrected and ascended into heaven,'® but only who has the faith can stand
in relation with him.'® Also, insofar as ‘see Christ glorified’ has perhaps near-
mystical connotations for Theodotus and his audience, the bishops who fight
for orthodoxy have ample reason to rejoice, because they stay in that relation.
For Theodotus, the sufferings of Christ — such as his childhood, poverty, out-
rages — are not to be underrated!®’ because Jesus truly experienced them so as to
prove his complete humanity. This Theodotus considered indispensable for the
salvation of humanity: ‘he has become a human being for your sake’,'®* or, more
clearly ‘the outrage has generated glory for you’.!©? Theodotus does not spell out
in his homilies that by assuming ‘all these that are!” of the form of the slave’,
which are what impedes the salvation of human beings, the deity destroys them,
as can be found, for example, in the conciliar sermon of Acacius of Melitene.'7!
Perhaps, he had a rather singular interpretation of the causation of the incarna-
tion. However, the conclusion, that salvation is brought about, is the same.

Humanity after the fall

Homily III presents a short narrative of the fall,!”? and as in other homilies The-
odotus represents the sorrowful and helpless state of humanity after the fall by
focusing on the insufficiency of any means apart from the incarnation to reverse
this state.'7? In the Old Testament there may be examples of divine intervention,
and the miraculous (which for Theodotus has an essential role in the economy)
is prefigured, but it is not enough. Elements of that Old Testament characterisa-
tion still apply for human beings in the present day. It is not a derogatory view
of humanity, it rather serves to emphasise its negative aspects, so as to build
the background for the @avpactév and napddofov of the incarnation.'
When describing the fall, Theodotus does not fail to mention the deceiving
role of the snake, motivated by envy.'"> However, human beings hold greater
responsibility, as described in Homily III.3. There, while he recalls the fall, as
narrated in Genesis, Theodotus highlights the fallen nature of each individual by

'§§ ACO I 1/2, 76, 32-3.

‘66 Qérellas 4.1, 130, M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’
(1960), 231, 35-43.
‘6! Oérellos 4.1, 124, 8.
'6t Oérellos 4.1, 124, 7.
' ACO I 1/2, 72, 12-4, cf. H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 306ff.
'% The context implies that ‘these’ are the traits of human beings, but Acacius probably delib-
rately did not specify them as being those of humankind, humanity, of person, of man.
'N ACO 11/2, 91, 19-21.
2 ACO TI 1/2, 72, 16-21.
3 ACOI 1/2, 85, I1ff., of ibid., 570.
4 Cf. ibid., 398.
"5 Oérellos 4.1, 130, 13ff. ACO I 1/2, 72, 23.
156 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

the use of the second person singular, e.g. ‘He took up what is yours (ta o@),
since you (ob) had abandoned what is his’. It affected all of mankind, wherefore
Theodotus also employs the plural pronouns, e.g. “We did not bear the grace that
was being given by the lord’. ‘We’ refers to all human beings, within a narra-
tion of the salvation history, which is steadily built with a directional sense,
and where the centre of activity is the same, all the time: God and his project.!76
Theodotus describes more than once the helplessness of post-fall humanity
to lift itself. The freedom of choice'” associated with unnatural (4t6m0v)
desires!”® hinders all attempts to change the situation. His view about the state
of humanity between the fall and the coming of the second Adam, expressed
as hopeless and captive, also echoes Paul.'”? Theodotus explores the theme at
length towards the end of Homily I: God, to save human nature, did it ‘through
his own [...] because (éme157) all creation was weak with regard to our salvation,
who have the habit of both evil and of error’.!®° Here, ‘because’ has a causative
and not explanatory meaning.
Another tension characteristic of Theodotus’ understanding of humanity is
that he speaks of the universal aspect of the salvation brought about by Christ’s
life at the same time that he represents current mankind still characterised by
the attributes of humanity after the fall.'8! Theodotus predicates them to every
human being including those in the present. In Homily III.3, the rhythmical
pattern of the sentences and the persistent use of the first person plural place
each noun (runaway, captive) and adjective (hopeless, slowness) in the same
context regardless of the temporal reference.'*? The urgency to bring the
descriptions of human beings between fall and incarnation to the present reflects
Theodotus’ description of heresy as another ‘plot of the devil’,'®? as if history
threatened to repeat itself, and salvation, to be brought to nil.'§4

"6 Cf. ibid., 411.

"7 Explicit and exquisitely praised in Homily I], ACO I 1/2, 85, 20-3.
'%8 See Homily I, ACO I 1/2, 89, 10-5. The logic of the passage leaves open who made
or moulded the ‘unnatural desires’, since they are described as prior to the fall. Theodotus does
not discuss how the snake could find fertile ground for its suggestions, neither if or how such
‘unnatural’, ‘unwanted’ desires were actually shared by the A6yoc, the only-begotten.
9 ACOTI 1/2, 72, 20-1. Cf. Romans 4.
180 ACO TI 1/2, 85, 12-3.
"8! See below, pp. 196ff., on Theodotus’ universal orthodoxy as a sine qua non condition for
universal salvation, interrelated with the rhetoric against heresy and demonic influence on earth.
On the correlation of the topics in Gregory of Nyssa, and universal salvation as a corollary or
distortion of concepts that can be linked to Origen’s universalism, see M. Ludlow, ‘Demons, Evil,
and Liminality’ (2012), 184, 210-1.
‘82 Cf, H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 91, S. Wessel, Cyril of Alex-
andria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 212.
183 Qérellos 4.1, 122, 5. Cf. M. Willing, Eusebius von Cdsarea als Hdreseograph (2008),
443-5.
4 ACO £ 1/2, 72. 24, cf. N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 130.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 15

~l
Incarnation
Antithetical parallelisms came in handy to represent linguistically the descent
of God which brings about the lifting of human nature. Theodotus does not
express the paradox of the incarnation in one phrase, but in two antithetical
statements, one emphasising the human, and the other, the divine, whose joint
signification convey the desired general meaning. For example:
He remained God according to his nature, he became what you are on account of his
philanthropy for you.'®
Apparently, this sufficed for Theodotus, who did not discuss (further) the rela-
tion of being God and being human in the same one, Christ. Theodotus was not
worried about an ontological explanation of the relation of the two natures in
Christ.'®6
To convey clearly that humanity is saved through Jesus Christ, and that this
was the purpose of the incarnation, Theodotus repeated that events related to
the incarnation happened ‘for our sake’.'®” In spoken discourse, the repetition
of short sentences effectively bound the text together, and drew attention to the
repeated gnome.
According to Theodotus, the incarnation is a descent into indignity, and it is
contrary to the faith to deny this or any other suffering of Christ. Human nature
was created in the image of Christ, but ranking much lower than it.'®® Sin was
the main element in the indignity of human nature.'®? The low status of Christ
was a key feature of the incarnation, in that God could come near human beings,
yet would be hidden from and would not frighten them.!% The lowness is
exemplified by the vocabulary frequently used to describe Christ: servant, slave,
fugitive, runaway.!!
Theodotus condemned those who claim that Christ was actually only a mere
(wiA0c) man, for example asking accusingly ‘How was the bond of sin against
us nailed to the wood (cf. Col. 2:14), if a mere human being bore the cross?’!°?
At least when undergoing suffering, Christ would have to be a mere human
being, if the reasoning of those who ‘do not dare to attribute to God human
sufferings’!*3 was the correct interpretation of scripture.

‘8 ACO I 1/2, 72. 9. Cf. H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 563.
'86 Cf A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben (1979), 608.
'87 Eg. Oérellos 4.1, 124, 1ff. (QA7-EA4). It quickly became a widespread anti-Nestorian slogan,
after Cyril used it, e.g. Ep. 4, ACO I 1/1, 27, 17-8. Cf. H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of
Cyril (2009), 358.
'8§ ACOT 1/2, 78, 28ff.
rs

° ACO I 1/2, 72, 20. Cf. ibid., 186.

' ACO TI 1/2, 85, 25ff.
') ACOT 1/2, 72, 25ff. Cf ibid., 469.
'2 ACO T 1/2, 83, 10. Cf. ibid., 300.
avOpanov 1G6q [...] ob TOAW® tpocdyut Bem, ACO T 1/2, 83, 1.
158 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilics and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Christ, despite his lowness, is not only a human being, that is, he is not a
mere (wiA6c¢) human flesh.!% Positive or negative references to ‘mere man’
were employed in critiques and defences of Christological models. Cyril used
the theme often against ‘Nestorius’.'°° Cyril and those who shared his views
emphasised it positively when interpreting the self-emptying of God, and
denied it when protecting the divinity of Christ. The opposite images were
already important in the fourth century, and their parallel development is not
easily described.!°° The Cyrillians seem to have contributed much to the devel-
opment of such narratives of self-emptying. For example, Cyril used a clear
opposition of the divine and the servants,!°’ and Theodotus emphasised how
pertinent it is to describe Christ as fellow servant or slave.'8
In Homily I,'? Theodotus objects to those who would say Christ is a ‘mere
man’ in what is the only mention of Photinus by name. It echoes closely a
passage from the Adversus Noetum by Ps.-Hippolytus,”°' where Theodotus of
Byzantium is said to have maintained that Jesus Christ was indeed just a mere man
when born from the virgin.*°? The expression ‘mere man’ as related to Jesus was
at the source of many disputes in the fourth century, especially with monarchian-
ism, and it is hard to identify the specific author of the various strands.
The sense in which Theodotus of Ancyra mentions Photinus is not necessarily
the most common at the time of the Council of Ephesus, and the following
paragraphs discuss if his portrayal of Photinus’ ideas is primarily a caricature
or has some connection to his controversial thought. Photinus of Ilyricum was
a metropolitan bishop of Pannonia who was condemned and deposed in 351,
but remained influential and lived on in Sirmium (Valentinian I ordered his
expulsion thence in 375). After the formal condemnation at the Council of
Constantinople in 381, Photinianism persisted mainly in the West into the fifth
century. Some other aspects of his theology find echoes in what Theodotus

% ACOT 1/2, 81, 15.

% E.g. ACOT 1/1, 16, 1-18.
SEEEES

%6 S. Coakley, ‘Does Kenosis Rest on a Mistake?’ (2006), 249ff.

7 ACO T 1/1, 20, 12 - 22, 1.
% Qérellos 4.1, 130, 1, 12ff., ACOI 1/2, 73, 12ff.
% ACOTI 1/2, 75, 10-2.
200 For other heresiological links related to “lowness’, see for example Eusebius of Dorylae-
um’s Contestatio (ACO I 1/1, 101-2).
201 See A. Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church (1995), 116-27, 206ff. on the controver-
sial authorship and dating.
202 ‘There was a certain Theodotus, a native of Byzantium {... who] maintains that Jesus was
a (mere) man, born of a virgin, according to the counsel of the father, [...] he subsequently at his
baptism in Jordan received Christ [...]. And this was the reason, (according to Theodotus) why
(miraculous) powers did not operate within him prior to the manifestation in him of that Spirit
which descended (and) which proclaims him to be the Christ’ (Hippolytus, Adversus Noetum 3,
5, 224), cf. D.H. Williams, ‘Monarchianism and Photinus of Sirmium’ (2006), 189 footnote 8.
203 Cf, N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 61.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 159

criticises,?“* but he chooses to mention Photinus as heresiarch only in relation

to Christology. In Homily II,°> while Theodotus is questioning the views attrib-
uted to Photinus, he moves from a description to a fictional (one-sided) dialogue
with a listener, who is to be seen as Photinus. Phrased as a rhetorical attack,
the initial reference to Photinus could have been only a labelling of the listener,
so as to ascribe his views to a known heresy.
Photinian views were similarly reported, caricaturing them to represent unfa-
vourably the Christologies of either Nestorius or Cyril. The account? that
Photinus ‘taught that Christ was a “mere man” upon whom the word of God
rested’ is found in Socrates,?°? who notes that ‘Photinus held the heresy of
Sabellius the Lybian and Paul of Samosata’. However, by the end of the fourth
century, the main ‘pithy Christological statements’*°* associated with adop-
tionist monarchian theology in the form of Photinianism were statements about
the Son having his beginning from Mary. Cyril mentions the name of Photinus
referring to both categories:
There are some which are possessed by such an impious folly that they claim that the
Oyo come from God is without substance, but that it came to the man simply as a
2OyOs conceived as if expressed outside: thus Marcellus and Photinus.*

Also Nestorius was not accurate in his view of the ideas of Photinus when he
engaged with either representation of Photinianism. He broadly attributed the
discussion about the ‘mere man’ to Paul of Samosata. When answering Proclus’
homilies, he worked with the schematic rendering of the heresy attributed to
Photinus which stresses the ‘beginning’ of the Adyos.?!° Nestorius persistently
denied that his view was similar to that of the followers of Photinus, who called
Mary ‘mother of the man’.?!!
Nevertheless, within the ‘Theotokos conflict’, Nestorius ‘acquired the reputa-
tion among the masses of asserting the blasphemous dogma that the lord is a

204 In the generation prior to Theodotus, Photinus had been accused of using stoic views
— improperly — on Trinitarian issues which were actually mostly on the relation of the Son to God;
see D.H. Williams, ‘Monarchianism and Photinus of Sirmium’ (2006), 202. Theodotus uses sim-
ilar arguments in his pursuit against reasoning (see p. 189).
5 ACO 1/2, 75, 9.
206 N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 53.
"7 Socrates A. e. II, 18, 7; 29, 1-5.
208 DH. Williams, ‘Monarchianism and Photinus of Sirmium’ (2006), 188.
* ACOL 1/1, 45.
*!0 Cf. ‘It is absurd to charge me with teaching the error of Photinus, for while Photinus taught
that God the word had his origin from Mary, I teach that God the word pre-exists before the ages.
On the contrary: that which I assert overthrows the doctrine of Photinus.’ ACO I 5/1, 39, 9-17.
Discussed in N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 68.
2" Heracl., Y/1, 8, and 1/3, 98-9 in G. R. Driver (ed.), The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925). See
N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 68, similarly L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 64. See also R.M. Hiibner,
Die Schrift des Apolinarius (1989), 182-3, 187-9.
160 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

“mere man”, and attempting to foist upon the church the dogmas of Paul of
Samosata and Photinus’.*!? Nestorius answered this strand of thought in his
letter to Celestine, choosing to distinguish the accusations of heresy. He attrib-
uted ‘mere man’ and ‘only this one had the beginning from the virgin’ to Paul of
Samosata. Nestorius claimed that Photinus speaks of another AOyoc, different to
that one come at the end of times, and said that the Adyoc is different from the
temple, and does not recognise that God the A6yo¢ became man. According to
Nestorius,?!? Photinus ignores the divinity of Christ, that a human being took
up divine substance,?'* disregards completely the divinity of the word, existing
before the times; further, Photinus confesses the Adyoc, but does not recognise
that God the Adyog¢ is the Son, lacking, in the incarnation, an individuation into
an autonomous subject.
Theodotus’ digression against Photinus expresses his antagonism to the
‘too strict adherence to Nicaea of Marcellus of Ancyra’.?!5 Theodotus opposed
Photinus and also greatly cherished the low aspects of the humanity which
Christ took up, to better claim that Christ was not only a renowned man.?!6
Theodotus held the opinion that it was important for God to be not only a
‘normal’ human being, but one of low status, because in this way Christ would
be ‘accessible’, would fool the devil,?!” and, more importantly, his deeds would
not be wrongly attributed to anything but his true divinity. For example:
* Concerning social aspects of Christ’s life, Theodotus claims that ‘no one,
having feared an excessive richness of Christ, was discouraged; (the) gran-
deur of a kingdom hindered no one from approaching him, but he was seen
as common and poor’.?!®
¢ When speaking about the involvement of other superhuman forces, Theodo-
tus offers curious narrative accretions. On the one hand, just as neither the
law nor the prophets could help humanity out of its fallen state, so neither
could the angels, not even those ministering the human race, and Christ does
not employ their help.?!? On the other, ‘the betrothal deceived the devil

212 Socrates h. e. VII 32, 5-6, analysed in N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 53.
213 Homily on 12 December 430, F. Loofs (ed.), Nestoriana (1905), 304-5, 310, discussed in
L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 187, 190.
2I4 ‘divinam substantia hominem suscepisse’, F. Loofs (ed.), Nestoriana (1905), 305.
218 T, Rucker, ‘Ephesinische Konzilsakten in armenischgeorgischer Uberlieferung’ (1930), 40.
Similar attacks, e.g. ACO I 1/2, 89, 17ff., suggest that Homilies I and II were later used to high-
light the dogmatic importance of texts like Athanasius Ep. Epict. (PG26, 1050-70) and Proclus’
Homily I, for example in the Armenian-Georgian tradition.
216 Ee. Homily V1.4.
2\7 Cf N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 302.
218 ACOTI 1/2, 86, 15.
219 Cf, Homily I, ACO I 1/2, 85, 15-25; 30-1. The especially noteworthy passages are: ‘the
stronger ange! would minister to the nature in view of our salvation, but (any) human being was
not saved, (all) being seriously involved in the evils, therefore (absolutely) everything was weak
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 161

[since] when the devil heard that generalised grace was likely to be born of
a virgin, he plotted against the virginity, hindering moderation from remain-
ing anywhere’.2?° Furthermore, since the incarnation destroys the power of
the devil,?! when Theodotus says ‘he (=God) did not wish to frighten the
one who became a runaway fugitive of that law, but the lord of all comes in the
form of a slave, putting on poverty, in order not to frighten the prey’,?”? ‘prey’
may at the same time refer to all human beings (‘the runaway fugitive of the
law’), as well as to the devil, which had to be deceived until Christ’s death.
¢ In favour of the credibility of the gospel, the lowness of Christ guaranteed the
correct attribution of his deeds to the divinity, and not to a human power.?
Theodotus concludes his exposition of the descent into the low state of human-
ity which he construed with pairs of antithetical statements with the remark that
he was ‘not diminished with respect to nature’.?*+ That is, the divinity of the
incarnate one is not lesser than that of the Father. The description of Christology
in Homily III, contains extensive passages dedicated to narrative aspects of the
descent and lifting, with remarks dwelling on safeguards against ‘extremes’,
which broadly correspond to heresies.?*5 Sabellianism was frequently cited,
as seen in the florilegium used to describe the Nestorian error in the session of
22 June, where quotes 1076 and 23727 exemplify this.
Theodotus expressed the Christological narrative with words related in vari-
ous ways to low social classes or aspects of human life, allowing him signifi-
cant narrative elaboration and a fruitful use of this lexicon in homilies. For
example, associated to ‘man’ described?’ as a ‘runaway slave’ are fearfulness,
a state of dependance and of error, as well as master or from whom he flees.
‘Fugitive’ and cognate expressions allow Theodotus to expand the theological
narrative based on semantic and scriptural associations. Thus, in the context of
the flight to Egypt mentioned in Homily VI he stresses that Jesus became a

for the negligence of human beings’, and ‘he (=Christ) does not introduce a guard of archangels
(cf. Matt. 26:53); he does not incite the armies of angels.’
220 Homily V, 4 M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960),
227, 7; 12-3.
221 Ee, the accusation ‘Why do you say that the cross is not of God, by which God triumphed
Over the evil of the devil?’ (ACO I 1/2, 88, 31-2).
22 ACOI 1/2, 85, 31-2.
3 ACOI 1/2, 86, 1-8.
24 ACOT 1/2, 72, 9. Cf. H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 179, N. Con-
stas, Proclus (2003), 110, M. Simonetti, ‘Alcune osservazioni sul monofisismo di Cirillo’ (1982),
493,
50 25 See p. 104 on the use of possible associations to heresies as reciprocal attacks. Cf. Ibid.,
2.
6 ACO I 1/2, 48, 11-4.
27 ACO 1/2, 51, 17-26.
228 E.g. ACOT 1/2. 72, 25ff., ACO I 1/2, 79, 7-11. Cf JH. Barkhuizen, Proclus, Bishop of
Constantinople — Homilies on the Life of Christ (2001), 42-3.
162 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

fugitive.”*? For the sake of humanity the incarnated fled, since there were peo-
ple menacing his life.??°

Visibility, appearance and nearness

The visible word, the appearance of Christ, and the nearness of God to his
creation are important components of Theodotus’ Christological account. After
the incarnation, God has a more direct relation to humanity, when compared to
the Old Testament, which is described in Homily II:
The invisible God becomes seen; the word is touched; the only-begotten child of God
becomes akin with the slaves, in order that the nature, transgressing the human being,
may not escape the notice of the investigation of human beings. [...] For long ago the
presence of God was prepared beforehand, his appearing was always made known by
human shapes, desiring to be seen through resources that have influence with us.”!

In the time of the law, God worked wonders and interacted with his faithful by
means of angels, prophets, signs and wonders. The concrete closeness of Christ
is not only expressed by his visibility and materiality (which men could touch),
but also expressed by the ‘becoming near’ (napayivopat).2?
Theodotus’ frequent pairing of the visible and invisible,» and the touchable
and untouchable is strongly associated with the possibility of human beings
apprehending the divine nature of God. Without stepping out of the narrative
approach to Christology, Theodotus says in Homily II, 2 that God becomes
similar (ouyyevis yivetat) to human beings in order that men do not remain
deprived of the knowledge of God, who ‘is unattainable to human reasoning
because of the divinity of (his) nature’.?4
All the many variants in which Theodotus expresses how human beings may
cognise God once he became incarnate are related to the epiphany, revelation
and disclosure which God offers to mankind. God chooses a course of action
which overcomes human limitations, Human faculties of perception, cognition
and intellection are not altered by the incarnation, since humanity is not lifted
out of its former state regarding these. Rather, the relation to God is changed

229 Oérellos 4.1. 122, 14ff.

230 See the section on p. 141 for possible ‘real world’ parallels. Cf. S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexan-
dria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 210.
1 ACOI 1/2, 74, 12-6.
232 Eg. ACO 1/2, 72, 25. Cf. H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 266, 477.
23 Although Spatdg and Gdpatos are both related to Spd, which is usually translated as
‘to see’ (so that most Nicene creed translations have ‘seen and unseen’), Theodotus employs them
with a strong emphasis on the (im)possibility of being seen, which is best rendered as (invisible.
Therefore, when translating I try to use ‘seen’ only for the participles Sp@pevoc. Cf. H.v. Loon,
The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 267, 481.
234 ACO I 1/2, 74, 5-6.
5 ACO 1 1/2, 74, 13-5.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 163

to a closer and more accurate knowledge when God grants men awareness of
some divine characteristics.”° Theodotus kept the description of human appre-
hension of God apart from the exegesis of ‘emptying’, where he emphasised
the descent of God to the human nature.”*” The tactic to keep the two aspects
in separate paragraphs may have served to counter Nestorius’ teaching, where
frequently the mention of the opposing visible-invisible pair came related to
references to the kenosis. Still, for both authors the human nature of Christ was
an instrument which made the invisible nature seen.??8
Theodotus often describes the human limitations in Christ in connection with
the use of a vocabulary of ‘appearance’. For example, when summing up a
Christological passage, just before the epilogue of Homily III:
what appeared was made believable by the sufferings, and the hidden one was shown
by the wonders.”

10 PatvopEvov and TOV KpunTOPEVOV work as antithetical pairs just as invisible

and visible are used to describe the God of the Old Testament and the God of
the New Testament, respectively. Nevertheless, Theodotus literally says that
God ‘appears’ as a human being. t6 @atvopevov and Tov KpUnTOPEVOV state
antithetically Christ’s modes of existence, and are in climactic end-position (in
Greek, the phrases share the rhythmic pattern ‘dative — verb — participle subject’).
Other words from the semantic field of paiva, often used emphatically, occur,
for example, in “Thus he appears as a human being’, or, in Homily II, ‘the mani-
festation of God that appeared to human beings in the nature of a human being’ .”°
The semantic range of the words in many modern languages can suggest to
present-day readers that such passages present a docetic view of the incarnation,
which is, however, an anachronistic and mistaken understanding.”*!

Life, crucifixion

When Theodotus expands Philippians 2, for example in Homily IH,” he renders

freely the whole life of Christ in a paragraph. After a detailed polemic exegesis
of verses 5-6, with ample use of paraphrases and variations, and particular

6 ACOI 1/2, 74, 17-20.

7 ACOT 1/2, 75, 1-5.
238 A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben (1979), 658, L. Abramowski. Untersuchungen
zum Liber Heraclidis des Nestorius (1963).
2% Kai yap toig ma8eciv éxtotodto TO pavopevov Kai toig Gabpaciv éSeikvu Tov
Kpuntopevov. ACO I 1/2, 73, 18.
40 ACO I 1/2, 74, 17. Figures of speech emphasise the root patv-: ‘éugaveiar oaveiont’.
4! Likewise, JA. McGuckin, St. Cyril (2004), 218-9 refutes criticism of doceticism in Cyril’s
Christological works. Theodotus’ opposition to doceticism, however, focused on the ‘taking only
the form of man’, and not also the sufferings. See PG77, 1341B.
*2 ACOI 1/2, 73, 1-12.
164 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (43!)

attention to the names of Christ Jesus,’ the remainder ot the Pauline chapter
is echoed in the allusions to other scriptural passages representing Christ’s
life. Theodotus leads the discussion about the names to an exegesis of Luke 1:3],
with references to the nativity and infancy of Christ. The paragraph then follows
Philippians 2 closely, while Theodotus represents Christ’s experience of human
suffering, and at the same time, his performance of superhuman wonders.
At the end of the argument about Christology in Homily III," Theodotus
provides a tour de force of biblical allusions and paraphrases, not unlike what
preceded the exegesis of Phil. 2:6.°4 The final exegetical flourish is a selec-
tion of remarkable events of Christ’s life that are related to displays of his
suffering. It is built of brief sentences which are bound together by figures of
speech, never repeated more than a couple of times, like alliteration, regular
syntactical patterns emphasised by participles and nouns that decline similarly,
and rhythmic variation of the conjunctions. The references suffice to encom-
pass the whole of Christ’s life, from birth in a manger to the fear of death on
the cross. Initially, the first half of the clauses are allusions to Philippians 2,
representing the human in the incarnate one, to which the remainder of the
clauses opposes the wonders performed by Christ, as signs of his divinity.
Theodotus refers to many other topics of Philippians 2 without citing them
literally. He dwells on these images, expands his discourse, while delaying the
reference to the cross (PAil. 2:8).
Theodotus gradually distances himself from Philippians 2, so that when he
addresses (Christ’s) ‘obedience up to the Cross’ (Phil. 2:8), he speaks of with-
drawing (6nootéAAw) of the Cross. Theodotus uses this ‘shrinking from the
Cross’ as a sign of (Christ’s) humanity, for it refers to the utmost example of
passibility (it is the high point and concluding image in the sequence of allu-
sions to scripture). It signals the suffering-fullness of the death of Christ. Thus,
one can say, following Theodotus’ words, that with the death of Christ on the
cross both aspects (signs of humanity and super-human wondrous displays of
divinity) become concrete in the same event: it is an unquestionable sign of
passibility, and it is the culmination of the incarnation. By it the devil is
defeated, and hell is opened. Theodotus considered this victory to be obtained
not only by the divine power, but also by its concealment in human form.7“6
In Homily I, a festal sermon for a nativity celebration, extensive passages
discuss the crucifixion. It is not only one more example of suffering taken up
by God, but also the means by which death is destroyed by death, by which
human sin is crucified on the cross, because God made the death his own.”

743 See p. 185.

24 ACOI 1/2, 73, 1-5.
445 ACO I 1/2, 72, 25-30.
246 ACO I 1/2, 79, 29-34.
47 ACOT 1/2, 83, 5. Cf. H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 365.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 165

Furthermore, relating the crucifixion to 1Cor. 1:23,748 it becomes the paradigm

of suffering which those in error — equated to Jews and Gentiles — wish to deny
of the incarnate God. Theodotus places those in Christological error in direct
descent of the roots of any heresy. Theodotus used ‘Jew’ as an interjection to
offend an interlocutor, whether present or absent, usually in the context of the
exegesis or of references to 1Cor. 1:23, where the Jews are one archetype of
those who deny or doubt the sufferings of Christ.2?

Theodotus’ Christological vocabulary

Theodotus expressed several aspects of a ‘theory of language’ and of his view
of the ‘nature of human discourse’ in his homilies, while talking about the
divine word, and its coming to be in human form, unchanged but apprehended
differently. Human language is an example of the limitations of parallels used
to describe divine matters and at the same time the tool to show the imperfec-
tion of the models. In Homily II,?°° such metalinguistics is central to Theodotus’
Christological argument. The excursus on sacra is the climax of a reflection on
language with theological implications, exploring the meanings of Adyoc. It is
a metaphysical awareness of the importance of the written text which is also
found well developed in Cyril.75!
The model chosen by Theodotus?> is a parallel between the content of a
discourse and its material representation. It has both advantages and disadvan-
tages over other metalinguistic metaphors used to further the understanding of
Christology, such as the well known example by Theodore of Mopsuestia.2™
Theodore uses an analogy with robes and clothing, which a king wears to
show something, but they are not his nature.?** Theodotus speaks of the letters,

248 ‘Christ crucified, [...] a scandal for the Jews, [...] a folly for the Gentile.’
249 See p. 107. ,
250 ACO I 1/2, 76, 22-31, 77, 10-35, ACO I 1/2, 79, 34 - 80, 29.
51 Not only the author of pamphlets and theological treatises, he also became an expert of
philology, and an advocate for authoritative versions. T. Graumann, ‘Kirchliche Identitat und
bischéfliche Selbstinszenierung’ (2003), 210.
2 ACO I 1/2, 79, 34 - 80, 29. Cf. H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009),
285ff.
53 From Theodore Contra Eunomium: ‘Was fiir den Konig Purpurgewander oder kénigliche
Kleider sind, das ist fiir den Gott-Logos der Anfang, den er aus uns genommen hat, unzertrennlich,
unverduBerlich, ohne (raumliche) Entfernung in der Anbetung. Wie der K6nig also nicht durch
Natur Purpurgewander hat, so hat auch nicht der Gott-Logos durch Natur Fleisch.’ Translation:
A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben (1979), 628.
°4 “1 DJer Kénig trigt Purpurgewander, um seine Stellung zum Ausdruck zu bringen. Sie sind
aber nicht seine Natur oder Substanz. So wachst auch Christi menschliche Natur nicht zusammen
mit dem Logos in eine Wesenheit, sondern erhalt (nur) dieselbe Ehre und Anbetung wie der
Logos. Das Prosopon Christi ist so der letzte Ausdruck der engen Verbindung, die zwischen
Christi Menschheit und der Hypostase des Logos besteht. Das Beispiel der kéniglichen Gewander
166 Theodotus ot Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

syllables, ink and paper a discourse takes on when written down, but are not
itself — surely not its content.2°° The words have, or symbolise, content in a dif-
ferent, more intrinsic, way than robes, and correlate more easily to the adodpatog
of the divine nature which is the divine characteristic at the centre of both authors’
analysis. However, Theodotus’ probably deliberate (because rich) ambiguous
use of Adyos, referring to either or both divine and human Adyos, introduces
imprecision into his approach. Theodotus was perhaps echoing the primarily Alex-
andrian tradition of similes to writing.**° It served to rival a pattern of Christo-
logical metaphors which is encapsulated in Theodore’s version.’>’ Noteworthily,
both Theodotus’ and Theodore’s images refer to secular authority and its signs,48
Theodotus’ choices of words also seems to reflect his concern with language.
An example is the preference for verbs in various prefixed forms without
apparent detriment to the clarity of a passage.?? Theodotus also used a number
of rare words,” although the homilies transmitted in collections of conciliar
documents do not attest this, perhaps because of editorial interventions. Some
are words coined only in the previous century, or whose use in a religious
context was new, and which never became widespread. In some cases, the words
apparently are not attested before him, and some expressions seem to have
remained hapax legomena.”°!

konnte geeignet sein, diese Verbindung als eine duBere, zufallige hinzustellen. Aber Theodore
betont aufs starkste, daB es sich um eine einzigartige Verbindung hande!lt, eine unzerstérbare,
unverduBerliche, die durch keine 4uBere Distanz aufgelést werden kann’. In ibid., 628.
55 ACO I 1/2, 80, 1-10.
256 See the wide range of similes to writing in F.M. Young, Biblical Exegesis (1997), 106 and
the parallels cited in ead., ‘God's image” (2011), 60, 65, on the relation between image and
archetype in fourth-century controversies where the image of the king/emperor is a recurrent
analogy.
257 For metalinguistic Trinitarian models related to imperial authority, compare Athanasius Ar.
3,5, K. Metzler et al. (eds), Oratio II contra Arianos (2000), 311, and Basil Spir. 18 (PG32, 149C).
258 The discussion about the meaning of sacra is as much a reflection on language as on
government. Theodotus often speaks of the excesses of might of kings and emperors (for example,
Homily I, ACO I 1/2, 85, 30ff.), but in this passage he upholds the imperial authority. In Ancyra
it could have served to defend why a bishop would obey secular rulers; in Ephesus, it could mir-
ror the claims of gathering in Ephesus ‘promptly’, discussing the faith, etc. in obedience to the
imperial summon, and in the collections, it would add to the desired image of an obedient and
cooperative Cyrillian party. E.g. benevolent explicit reference to emperors: Cyril Hom. div. 7,
ACO I 1/2, 101, 30 - 102, 2.
259 Contrast the repetition of yiyvopai in ACO I 1/2, 83, 1-23 with verbs prefixed with mpoo-,
ouv-, tapa- in ACO I 1/2, 83, 24-37.
260 Based on G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (1961) and searches in TLG. How-
ever, the absence of Homily IV is an obvious example of the shortcomings of the database, which
make vocabulary surveys little reliable when performed beyond a well defined group of texts, cf
H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 228.
261 In Homily I, pooyevtds (ACO I 1/2, 81, 3). Most examples are found in Homily IV, such
as 2xn6OnTt0¢, TpooryyiG, and K@Seoig for Latin ‘caudex’ — not in G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic
Greek Lexicon (1961), and translated back to Latin as vellus (fleece) in PG77, 1394B. G.W.H. Lampe,
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 167

Thus, Theodotus continues a trend of great freedom not only in modulating

but also in constructing new lexemes manifested especially by fourth-century
theologians. Gregory Nazianzen defended this ‘innovating as regards the names
for the sake of clarity’.?© In the fourth century, it can be explained by the need
for a new conceptual framework in which to express Christian worship and
doctrine with the necessary precision.”© At least in the vicinity of Antioch, the
‘tradition of innovation’ was still alive at the turn of the fifth century, as attested
by Asterius.2™
Theodotus’ rare words echo the difficult theological issues dealt with in the
florid and elaborate passages where they occur. Audience and readers may have
valued the choice of compound (formed by adding prefixes) or derived words
(crossing the adjective, noun, verb boundaries) as a sign of erudition, or inter-
preted it as a search for more precision. Theodotus mostly employed standard
processes of lexical derivation, ensuring that his discourse remained clear and
approachable. Instances of ambiguous words in important contexts ought not
to be dismissed as accidental.?© Cyrillian and Antiochene writers alike spoke
of the need of greater clarity and precision to surpass what were quite patent
lexical limitations and boundaries which impeded suitable ways of talking
about the divine mysteries, and acknowledged the shortcomings of human
abilities when confronted with the limitless attributes of God.?
In the following sections, Theodotus’ use of a few words important in the
Christological debate is analysed. The small corpus of extant works allows only
tentative conclusions, since general descriptions?®’ fit several authors alike,
and in the setting and among the documents of the Council of Ephesus themes,

A Patristic Greek Lexicon (1961) gives Homily 1V.3 as only example for &yaAAiaopa, to which
TLG adds Cyril Glaphyra in Pentateuchum, and then only Pseudo-Macarius Hom. sp. 50, 17, or
later writers like Procopius, Theodorus Studites and Georgius Chortatzes. Finally, in Homily V.5,
24 (‘the holy Spirit is the sanctifying power of the maker’), Theodotus employs &y1actiKds (with
dbvayic), an adjective used as a special attribute of the Holy Spirit, coined during the Trinitarian
debate (occurring also with évépyeva), which becomes rather widespread in the writings of the
church fathers up to the fifth century, after which it is much less used and changes its meaning to
be used mostly in a liturgical context. Theodotus already employs the adjective as part of a formula
within a quite elaborate syntax, but the passage reflects a — possibly indirect — acquaintance with
the vocabulary of the Cappadocian fathers.
°®2 Oratio 39, 12 (PG36, 348B), C. Moreschini and P. Gallay (eds), Grégoire de Nazianze.
Discours 38-41 (1990), 174, L6f.
*63 Social and political factors for Christianity’s ‘progressive’ attitude in relation to the Greek
linguistic heritage are discussed in W. Kinzig, ‘The idea of progress’ (1993), 123ff., K.K. Banev,
Pastoral polemics (2008), 68.
*64 More than sixty hapax legomena in the thirty-one Homilies on the psalms: W. Kinzig (ed.),
Asterius. Psalmenhomilien (2002). See K.K. Banev, Pastoral polemics (2008), 67-8.
*65 See p. 61. .
266 Cf. B. Meunier, Le Christ de Cyrille (1997), 275, L.L. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 83.
*67 Eg. M. Simonetti, ‘Alcune osservazioni sul monofisismo di Cirillo’ (1982), 193-5.
168 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

examples, citations, and patterns recurred, and alliances were recognised mostly
in shared ways of speaking. Details of vocabulary allow some insights.°®
First, a section discusses Theodotus’ formulaic use of &vuméotatos and
odvotmdnc, placing him in the environs of Cyril’s use of Cappadocian
theological concepts. Then are examined some occurrences of oikovopia, a
concept around which Theodotus structures his theology and anthropology.
Finally, a few passages on pvotc are analysed where Theodotus’ usage of the
term suggests his Christology may be described as tending towards monophysite
views.

évundotatos, oda1HdNs
These words, especially évvm6otatoc, have received much attention in modem
theology, largely assuming they have a technical meaning in patristic works.
The complex history of their ancient use is now better understood,”® as a result
of a reassessment of contemporary Christology,?”° and research of late antique
philosophy.?”! The usage of the words by fifth-century authors which do not
seem to have contributed directly to the post-Chalcedonian development is still
largely ignored. An analysis of the passages where Theodotus employs them
contributes insights into the spread of theological formulae where echoes and
influence are hard to set apart. Theodotus’ usage corroborates the insight?” that
it had no technical meaning yet, but was a tentative borrowing from Stoic
anthropology.?”3 Usually évuxéctatos,? the adjective proper of bréctacig
occurs conjoined with obo1md1¢,2"" what pertains to the odoia.?”* Once évu-
nOotatOs is used in isolation.?”7
The adjectives qualify the divine AOyoc in passages where human language
is a parallel or contrasting example.?”* While évuzéatatos seems restricted

268 Fg. Hv. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), G. Richter, Oikonomia (2005),
E. Schwartz, Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431 (1927), A. Grillmeier, ‘Die anthropologisch-christologische
Sprache des Leontius’ (1990).
69 See B. Gleede, The Development of the Term évundatatos (2012).
See [Link]. Shults, ‘A Dubious Christological Formula’ (1996).
3
we2

271 C, Erismann, ‘A world of hypostases’ (2011).

A. Grillmeier, ‘Die anthropologisch-christologische Sprache des Leontius’ (1990), 72.
27) Also, [Link]. Shults, ‘A Dubious Christological Formula’ (1996), 431.
274 Natural, subsistent, inherent or just enhypostatic.
* Essential, substantial.
27% ACO TI 1/2, 81, 16-7, 24-5. ACO I 1/2, 77, 35, also ACO [ 1/2, 80, 16.
277 ACO I 1/2, 76, 24-6.
278 G.L. Castro, ‘Citazione di uno Ps.-Teodoto d’Ancira’ (1992), 365 argues that Theodotus
was not at ease with the vocabulary of hypostasis, preferring the ‘economy’ vocabulary over
expressions like ka0 Oxdotaov. As discussed in the next session, Theodotus used and referred
often to oixovopic in a wide range of meanings, but since oixovowia was also a central concept
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 169

to late antique and Byzantine literature,?”? odo1mdn¢ is widely attested in

Ancient Greek, for example, in Plutarch. It was a common technical term
especially in medical texts,289 which was then used in theological discussions,
incorporating its ‘metaphysical’ usage by Aristotelian commentators, appar-
ently developed by Alexander of Aphrodisias.
odo1@dns TE Kai Evundotatos functions as a set phrase with which to
qualify the incarnate word in contexts where it is already clear that the refer-
ence is to the divine AOyoc (for example, by the qualification as 9e00 or é«
cob mMatTPOSG yeyevvnpéevov). While the locution increases the clarity and
enhances the importance of the passage, it also seems to expand the d4000c1ov
1@ matpi of the Nicene creed, taking into account the vocabulary of hypostasis.
In the guise of a prolonged epithet it resembles a credal formula where inter-
polations were not meant as changes but added interpretations.”#!
It has been claimed that Cyril of Alexandria was ‘really fond’ of the term
évumOotatos and that in all occurrences where it applies to a part of the
Trinity, it has a technical Trinitarian meaning but is not a Christological term.?*?
It has also been claimed that in the Christological debate, the words évumd0-
tatos and obo1wdn¢ were shunned by the ‘orthodox party’.?® It is easy to
see that most instances are in early works, and for the present discussion, that
Cyril only used both adjectives together in texts that predate the Council of
Ephesus.”* Cyril typically put these adjectives alongside other qualifications
of the Son, for example, in Commentarii in Joannem, respectively dbvapis
gvoikh and Cav Adyo>c.285 The passages actually exemplify Cyril’s early
approach to the Christological argument,”® and the current scholarly opinion
has largely overlooked that he used Evum60tatoc in some of his most polem-
ical Christological treatises, especially in De recta fide ad Theodosium.®’

for the compilers of concilar documentation and the set of works is small, Castro’s conclusion
seems precipitate.
29 See B. Gleede, The Development of the Term évundotatos (2012). 11-3.
8 See the entry in H.G. Liddell et al. (eds), A Greek-English Lexicon (1996). TLG lists
several instances in Galenus and Aretacus.
8) Cf. L.H. Westra, The Apostles’ Creed (2002), 540ff., B. Gleede, The Development of the
Term évondatatoc (2012), 29-33.
*8? See ibid., 38-41.
28 G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (1961), 485-6. The Orientals also rarely used
these expressions, and usually in a Trinitarian context.
**4 The only examples in which Cyril is known to have used both adjectives together are in
Commentarii in Joannem, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate (PG75, 580, 7-8), and in
the spurious De sancta trinitate (PG77).
78 DE, Pusey (ed.), Cyrilli in D. Joannis Evangelium (1872) I, 70, 10-6; II, 714, 16-7. See
B. Gleede, The Development of the Term évundotatog (2012), 38-40.
**© CA. Beeley, ‘Cyril of Alexandria and Gregory Naziarizen’ (2009), 386.
ins ACO 1/1, SOf. Also in Duodecim capitum defensio adversus orientales episcopos, ACO 1
2S.
170 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431}

Theodotus is the only author to employ both words together in works contained
in ACO,”*8 but there are four more uses of &€vund0tat0¢, all in Cyril’s works,
It occurs in his letters to the monks,?* to the emperor,””” and to Maximian,291
and also in his brief exposition on the incarnation.2 Cyril also employs the
word in a Trinitarian digression when he presents a ‘heretical’ attack?” against
Anathema 9.7°4
The circulation before the Council of Ephesus of Cyril’s works containing
évundotatos and especially of the passages where the combined locution
occurs is unclear. Theodotus may have become acquainted with this phrase vig
Cyril, but his audience in Ancyra and in Ephesus may not have known them,
The passages in both Cyril’s and Theodotus’ works are representative of
the links of the early fifth-century Christological debate to the fourth-century
Trinitarian disputes and show that outside the original polemic a freer use of
the formulae reveals their shortcomings and contradictions.”°* Theodotus’ usage
suggests he was not looking for controversial words. It seems that the occur-
rence of €vvndéotatosg in the works of the Cappadocians was more important
than the use in credal works to contextualise the word in an authoritative patris-
tic tradition. Since Theodotus used a set phrase more often than évutdotatog
alone, it is likely that he had contact with only a small part of the works where
the term is used, yet direct knowledge of Gregory of Nyssa and/or Epiphanius
is possible.2°
The use of these words by Theodotus, Cyril and others, albeit in a Christo-
logical context, does not seem to have had any direct influence on later genera-
tions.” Rather, in the sixth century, as part of the lexical developments in the
reception of Chalcedonian Christology,2* &€vundotatos, brdéctaotc, évobo1ov

288 E, Schwartz, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum (191 4ff.).

769 ACO TI 1/1, 15, 7-11.
20 ACOI 1/1, 51, 15-8.
°' ACOI 1/3, 72, 14-6.
292 Cyr., Inc., ACO 11/5, 4, 19.
283 Usually identified with Andrew of Samosata’s views.
24 Cyr., Apol. orient. ACO I 1/7, 51, 30-2.
5 B. Gleede, The Development of the Term évendatatoc (2012), 40.
296 Tn the Trinitarian discussion, the phrase had likewise been used about the Adyosg by Gregory
of Nyssa, for example, in Oratio catechetica magna, J.H. Srawley (ed.), The Catechetical Oration
(1903), Section 8, 153-5, and, employed in reference to the Spirit, in Adversus Macedonianos dé
Spiritu sancto, F. Miiller (ed.), Gregorii Nysseni Opera (1958), III 1, 102, 26-9. The words occut
in a similar way in Epiphanius Panarion, K. Holl (ed.), Epiphanius (1985) III, 365, 5-9.
297 GL. Castro, Cirillo di Alessandria: Epistole cristologiche (1999), 84, however, claims that
the unceasing use of this term in the Christological debate of ‘subsequent centuries’ refers ‘clearly
to Theodotus. See also id., Teodoto di Ancira (1992), 76.
298 This technical usage is exemplified in several passages of Eustathius Epistula ad Timo
theum scholasticum de duabus naturis adversus Severum, and in the works of Leontius of Byzai-
tium and John Philopponus. See K.-H. Uthemann, Christus, Kosmos, Diatribe (2005), 62, 78.
Leontius acknowledges (PG86.1277C) a rupture with traditional vocabulary. See H. Stickelbergeh
 Character and theology of Thcodotus’ homilics 71

and oboia were differentiated more precisely. Theologians claimed to be in the

tradition of Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Cyril and Theodotus, yet they
would no longer use the words convertibly nor the set phrase as an ornament.

oikovopia

As other theologians of his time, Theodotus used oikovopia and related words
in a wide array of meanings, from the colloquial reference to a household,
to exegetical and technical theological and church political significations.?”
Theodotus’ audience seems to have grasped the range of associations he drew
from an expression whose technical theological meaning was not yet settled?
Theodotus used the household as an image of dealing with human affairs
when he spoke to and about a church which ought to engage with human matters,
and should do so in the usual ways of the world. Economy encompasses the
whole relation of God to the creation, especially to humans. To describe the
economy more conveniently for the limited human intellect,*°! Theodotus’ use
of its semantic field gradually shifts from administrator of the household, in a
reference to Joseph, to God as the ‘dispenser of the unbelievable’ .*°? Even if
Theodotus says that God ‘takes up childbirth as the beginning of the economy’ 7?
he does not follow this idea consistently. He sees all topics related to Christ,
especially the incarnation, as key aspects of the economy.
The economy binds the narrative, and sometimes describes the account itself.
Theodotus uses economy as an abstract concept™ to describe the oxondg*
which God has for humanity.*° In other passages, it refers only to some aspects
of the divine intervention in the created (and especially in the human) world.

‘Substanz und Akzidens bei Leontinus’ (1980), 158, J. Meyendorff, ‘Continuities and Disconti-
nuities’ (1993), 75. .
29 G, Richter, Oikonomia (2005), 359-425, focused on Cyril’s works prior to the council,
Provides some context for Theodotus’ usage. See also G.L. Castro. Teadota di Ancira (1992). 29.
Cf. G. Richter, Oikonomia (2005), 540.
*' Homily V.7, 5, 9-15.
™ Homily V.3, 22.
8 ACO T 1/2, 81, 30, PG77, 1345B.
304 “24 Tig olKovopiag’, ACO I 1/2, 73, 7-8. The Latin translation in PG77, 1390A as well
as A.J. Festugiére, Ephése et Chalcédoine: actes (1982), 269 avoided the lack of definiteness and
Specified it as ‘mystery’.
*05 As the goal of a text oxonds was used in late antiquity both in scriptural exegesis, and in
&rammatical and rhetorical commentaries. See, for example, M. Harl, ‘Le guetteur et la cible’
(1961), 454ff., F.M. Young, Biblical Exegesis (1997), 24-30, 190; M.J. Carruthers, The Craft of
Thought (1998), 79-82, 262; A. Spira and H.R. Drobner, Kleine Schriften (2007), 291, H.M. Meissner,
Grammatik und Rhetorik’ (1993), 225-7.
#6 ACO I 1/2, 73, 13. ACO I 1/2, 82, 34-6. Cf. H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of
Cyril (2009), 290.
172 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homihes and the Council of Ephesus (431)

In Homily III, while attacking the views of the incarnation which would
make Christ’s action no longer bring salvation,*°’ Theodotus presents a narra-
tive of Christ’s deeds to describe the economy.*® However, economy can also
refer to the continuing action of God in this world.*”’ At the beginning of the
homily, oixovopém is the verb employed to say that the grace of the Spirit
brought the holy priesthood into being, and sustains each generation of priests.3!
This is closely related to the incarnation, since the holy priesthood to which
Theodotus refers is only the Christian priesthood, which comes into existence
with Christ and his sending forth of the Spirit.
At the end of Homily III, Theodotus encompasses the audience in a divine
plan, for whose sake the incarnation happened,*!! using oikevotnta.?!? Its
non-theological sense of community and collectiveness with a hierarchical ele-
ment, where the members gain their importance from the head of the house,
may reflect the council — where the outcome is given by the univocal voting ~,
or the community of the church. Every human being can be described as the
‘servant’ (oikéty¢) whom God comes to save.?!3 Indeed, in the Roman house-
hold oike1étnta was a normal way to allude to the collective not only of serv-
ants, but of all in the house.*'* Theodotus goes from and beyond the Roman
household to the divine household, moving from a relation to a man to that to
God. This relation is marked by closeness arising from mutual roles, where the
head cares for the members. In a world described as oikoupévn,?) the faithful
are led to a state characterised by a relation to God modelled on human terms,
which represents their salvation.

QvoIc
As a last case study of Theodotus’ theological vocabulary, attention is drawn
to pbotc, which he apparently preferred to use unqualified,?'® for the Geucis
vows or Bedt1¢.7!? Theodotus often used pvotg in Christ, God, the Adyo¢
without any further specification as if he trusted that the words he employed
would encompass the meaning he desired conveniently, reflecting his stance on

7 ACO I 1/2, 72, 7, ACOI 1/2, 90, 1-4.

08 ACO I 1/2, 73, 15-9.
0 ACO T 1/2, 73, 14, ACO I 1/2, 90, 2.
30 ACO I 1/2, 71, 24-5. See John 20:21-2.
s

1 ACO I 1/2, 73, 23.

2 ACOTI 1/2, 73, 19.
n

3 ACO TI 1/2, 73, 13, exegesis of Phil. 2:5-7. See p. 184.

414 The image of the household was meant to be benign, but it nevertheless reflected a rigid
and authoritarian social structure.
1S ACO I 1/2, 73, 21.
46 ACO TI 1/2, 72, 6-7; ACO I 1/2, 72, 15.
7 ACO I 1/2, 81, 20-7; ACO I 1/2, 81, 30-1; ACO I 1/2, 81, 33-4. Cf H.v. Loon, The
Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 275.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 173

the clarity derived from fewer words.*'8 Theodotus does not seem aware of the
risk that the passages could be read meaning that there is only one nature:
probably (only) a divine nature, with human attributes. In such a reading the
body of Christ is still Christ’s own, without any division, and therefore God
suffers insofar as his own body suffers. Thus, as regards the sufferings, the
conclusion is the same as would be reached assuming Theodotus alluded to
both human and divine natures in Christ when he says @bvotc. His manner of
expressing avoids the criticism he levels at those ‘who divide the human being
from God’s word and who separate what was made one by the mention of the
natures, who say that Christ is certain two things and who convey the <one>
only by reflection, for contention.’3!?
Observing Theodotus’ way of speaking about @dotg in Christ naturally
brings up the question whether his Christology was miaphysite or dyophysite.
These labels are rather anachronistic, and in 431 there was a wide range of
more or less ‘miaphysite’ or ‘dyophysite’ theologians:
Whether [Theodotus] thought that there was ‘only one nature in Christ and that a divine
nature’, as ‘monophysitism’ used often most misleadingly to be defined, or not (prob-
ably not), he did think that the incarnation could be illustrated and its possibility
explained by the turning of the Nile into blood. I would not judge objectionable calling
such a view ‘monophysite’; it is certainly almost the opposite of Babai.>*°

Instead of circumventing the issues raised by Theodotus’ vocabulary because

of the anachronistic problems it prompted, it seems that the reception of his
works can help to understand them. At stake is not if Theodotus can be read as
a precursor of Monophysitism, since the Syriac and Ethiopic manuscript tradi-
tion attests sufficiently the appeal of his works for later Miaphysites. Rather,
the aim is to discuss if his Christology was perceived as such in his time and
presented problems for Chalcedonians. The latter concern can be disregarded,
since Theodotus was considered a saint by the Orthodox (Chalcedonian) church
throughout the Middle Ages.*2! Theodotus was read in a ‘Chalcedonian’ way,
for example, when Expositio symboli Nicaeni was used to preface Zeno Heno-
ticon.? In his time, neither Cyrillians or Orientals, nor readers of Theodotus’
texts in the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon left remarks about his
way of speaking about ‘nature’ (of and in Christ, Jesus, God, etc.). Theodotus
makes no statement about his practice of omitting further qualification of a
noun like @vo1g. However, outside this religious and linguistic setting, in order

“18 Objections against verbosity were common among the writings of the fathers, and were the
basis for Theodotus’ criticism of Aoyiopoi, further discussed on p. 181.
9 ACOT 1/2, 86, 31-3; app. ad. loc. on the manuscript and florilegia evidence for €v (1.32).
0 LR, Wickham, ‘Review of The Dyophysite Christology’ (2010). Cf. M. Simonetti, ‘Alcune
Sservazioni sul monofisismo di Cirillo’ (1982), 498 (footnote 20).
2 See p. 125.
2 For example, Pio. II. 2; Vat. gr. 1492, 1655, 1664.
 174 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

to preserve the tradition of reading Theodotus as orthodox, the Latin transla-

tions, for example, regularly added adjectives, like divine, to these passages.323
Thereby the translators effectively hid that aspect of Theodotus’ theology.
The same happens with a passage where Theodotus claims that God is not con-
nected to suffering by his own nature, but through union to suffering. A suffering
nature (e.g. a human nature) must not be associated to Christ’s being, m&O0¢ ig
united to the (one) nature.**4 The choice of most translators to add clarifying words
and phrases** suggests that in their view Theodotus’ Christology was murky and
that he lacked the confidence and familiarity with the ‘right’ vocabulary to
express himself. The sonority of the phrase that helped Theodotus to dazzle the
audience would in this view also have distracted them from the vagueness of hig
vocabulary. Theodotus’ coherent criticism of others suggests he thought his was
a clear Christological formulation, and as such he highlighted it, for example,
with rhythmic use of the vocabulary of suffering and the repetition of x and 9.
The beginning of Homily HI.2 is another passage relevant for the discussion
of Theodotus’ understanding of @botc, and of unclear translation because it is
difficult to identify the speaker of ‘if you are looking at the nature, you see
well’ 326 The speaker may be the fictional character (Nestorius), or Theodotus
as an answer to his question, since ‘if you take away completely the suffering,
you deny the economy’ can also be seen as a reply to the preceding phrase.
Theodotus tries to make the attribution of the catch-phrase ‘deny that God has
suffered’ to Nestorianism more vivid by placing it into a fictional dialogue.
The ambiguity prevents the use of this passage as a key text for Theodotus’
particular Christological views at the time of the council. In short, exactly what
Theodotus meant by ‘nature’ (pbo1c) remains elusive. Despite the importance
of Christology in Theodotus’ homilies in conciliar collections, the texts yield
only a small set of technical passages. Comparing them with the great number
of Christological works Cyril wrote between 428 and 431, it seems that ‘ovat
is more likely to mean individual nature than separate reality’ “27
Cyril’s technical vocabulary of nature*”® was related to the achievements
of the Cappadocians in the context of the Trinitarian debate.*° Cyril’s early

323 For example, the first passage of Homily III quoted in this section is rendered as ‘Sane si
ad deitatis naturam spectes, non erras’ in PG77, 1386D, and likewise A.J. Festugiére, Ephése et
Chaicédoine: actes (1982), 268.
4 ACOI 1/2, 73, 11-2.
5 Cf. Oérellos 4.1, 50, 16-7; 51, footnote 56; PG77, 1390B; A.J. Festugiére, Epheése et Chal-
cédoine: actes (1982), 269.
26 ACO I 1/2, 72, 6.
*7 Hy. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 331.
28 Ibid., 283, M. Simonetti, ‘Alcune osservazioni sul monofisismo di Cirillo’ (1982), 49%
504.
9 See LI. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 369-86, largely based on F. Loofs, Leontius von Byzant
(1887).
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 175

background in Athanasian doctrine did not hinder him, even by 428 at the lat-
est, from adopting Gregory Nazianzen’ Christology ‘as the basic framework of
his own thought, within which he could locate compatible motifs from Atha-
nasius and others.’7°° Just as Theodotus’ Homilies I and II,*) this vocabulary
could develop without a dialogue with Nestorius.*#?
John 1:14 is a key text on which Cyril develops his ‘winning intuitive’
Christological model.??? When Theodotus cites the Scriptural passage at the end
of Homily III,3*4 he claims it expresses the Christian edoéPeta. It is part of the
praise of John the Evangelist, within the homage to Ephesus. Theodotus com-
mends the evangelist’s brevity, whose teaching has conferred grace (yapiCopat).
Brevity excuses Theodotus from expounding the Johannine passage at length.
In the brief exegesis he offers, he employs his vocabulary of nature without
qualifications. It is connected to the recapitulation of the Christology he exposes
in the homily, just before the concluding formulaic doxology.** The recapitula-
tion succinctly intertwines layered allusions, built around parallels (6 dv/flesh,
being/becoming, nature/economy). Theodotus finds in 6 dv alluding to Ex. 3:14
the parallel for the 6 AOyos of John 1:14. After this substitution, Theodotus’
exegesis of John 1:14 is an interpretation of the words: dv is seen verbally, and
characterised by what pertains to the nature (again, unqualified); the becoming
(éyéveto) which implies change and the human aspects of the incarnate one
are justified by the economy. Theodotus is concerned with the Christological
summary, which he tries to validate rhetorically by juxtaposition to the preced-
ing biblical quotation of John 1:14 and especially to the subsequent doxology
formula, as if by diffusion of their authority.
Homily III.43* is Theodotus’ discussion of Philippians 2, a corner-stone
text for Cyrillians and Nestorians alike. The exegesis of Phil. 2:5-7 motivated
the frequent use of the vocabulary of lowness and servility to talk about the
humanity and divinity of Christ.*7’7 Without attempting to trace the history of
its Christological exegesis in the setting of the Council of Ephesus, some key
examples are compared to Theodotus’ exposition.

C.A, Beeley, ‘Cyril of Alexandria and Gregory Nazianzen’ (2009). 417.

See pp. 108ff.
“? Ibid., 416.
A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben (1979), 639; cf. S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexan-
aria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 38-9, and H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of
Cyril (2009), 544.
+ Theodotus’ also mentions John 1:14 in Homily 11, ACO I 1/2, 75, 24.
A. Olivar, La predicacién (1991), 524-5, W. Mayer, ‘John Chrysostom’ (1998), 117-8.
‘ ACO I 1/2, 72, 30 - 73, 9.
“" The variety of expressions for low ranking workers and poverty, and the self-evident depend-
€ncy of the slaves and the poor in relation to the masters echo the social structure of Ancyra and
sok late antiquity in general. See, however, R. MacMullen, ‘The preacher’s audience’ (1989),
176 Thecdotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Theodotus’ Homily III.4 has many similarities to Cyril Epistula 1, 13-4338

Both authors ask their audience for the meaning of the text, and reprimand
those who in dving so would be led to introduce divisions in Christ. Both
dwell on the narrative of the ‘descent to humiliation’*”’ to explain ‘how he
was emptied’,*#° and then present statements to claim that this does not
contradict God’s impassibility. While Cyril argues against the possibility that
Christ was a mere man, saying that divinity was necessary so that an empty-
ing could happen,**! Theodotus is more worried with the manner of the self.
emptying. These and other similarities*4? should be seen as evidence that
Cyril’s letter was the backdrop, the shared knowledge in which the Cyrillians
were willing to talk to each other, rather than as specific allusions and emu-
lations.
In the conciliar setting of the sermon, the bishops had perhaps recently heard
Nestorius’ answer to Cyril’s second letter, and had explicitly condemned it,
They had also been presented with a selection of objectionable things said by
Nestorius. Both contain passages dealing with Philippians 2.4% In Nestorius’
exegesis in the florilegium, his paraphrase of Phil. 2:6-7a omits the clause
about emptying. Theodotus, on the contrary, draws attention to Kevda.
Addressing his interlocutor with ‘Tell me the emptying of the only-begotten!’ >
Theodotus narrates the hymn in Philippians 2 about slavery, lowness, obedi-
ence, suffering, and death on the cross, without quoting any verse.
Neither the theme of self-emptying nor any direct allusion to this scriptural
passage occur in Cyril’s first two letters against Nestorius.*> Only some ele-
ments of the hymn appear, in narrative fashion, emphasising the humanity and
redemption brought about by Christ. Thus, the bishops probably had not heard
a Cyrillian exegesis of Philippians 2 during the session of 22 June.
The structure of Theodotus’ exegesis of Phil. 2:5ff. takes him from an invec-
tive against dividing conceptually (e.g. positing two things, when saying ‘one’),

38 Coll. Vat. 1, 13-4. ACOT 1/1, 16. Cf. ACOT 1/2, 95, 10-5.
39 Cyril: ACOI 1/1, 16, 8.
40 Theodotus: ACO I 1/2, 73, 10.
1 ACOT I/I, 16, 15-7.
+2 Like the insufficiency of the most pre-eminent man (Moses, as proven by the miracles he
performed) to ‘surpass the limitations of humanhood’: ACO I 1/1, 20, 28 - 21, 20.
343 Respectively, Coll. Vat. 5,4 ACO I I/1, 30, and Coll. Vat., 60, 7 ACO I 1/2, 47, 16-22.
*44 Theodotus: ACO I 1/2, 73, 9-10.
45 In the second letter to Nestorius, Cyril uses @vo1g unqualified, for example in ‘This does
not mean that he underwent the experience of death in terms of his nature for it would be madness
to say or think such a thing; rather, as I have said, it means that his flesh tasted death.’ (aco!
1/1, 27) ‘He’ refers to the AGyog of God, named several lines before, and the intervening phrases
make it clear that Cyril means ‘Christ’, since only so does ‘his flesh’ on the next line make sense.
See J.A. McGuckin, St. Cyril (2004), 264, and especially H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology
of Cyril (2009), 331-2. The isolated instances can be explained from the context, see further,
M. Simonetti, “Alcune osservazioni sul monofisismo di Cirillo” (1982), 496.
 Character and theology of ‘heodotus’ homilies 177

as shall be discussed in the analysis of Theodotus’ preaching against reasoning,*#°

to an argument for the freedom of the self-emptying. It leads to a presentation
of elements of the self-emptying which point to Christ’s full humanity and
divinity. The condemnation of conceiving separately in Christ a man and the
}Oyos is the content of Anathema 4,7 by which Cyril condemns Nestorius’
use of Phil. 2:5ff. It is unclear if everyone in Theodotus’ conciliar audience
knew the anathemata, since at least during the session of 22 June the third let-
ter to Nestorius apparently was not read.*“* Those familiar with the letter may
still have lacked the broader polemical use of the connection with this scrip-
tural passage. Cyril makes an explicit link of Anathema 4 to an exegesis of
Phil. 2:5ff. in Explicatio duodecim capitum>” following a pattern similar to
the passage from Theodotus’ sermon just described. Cyril wrote this Explicatio
while under house-arrest at Ephesus, in late summer 431, probably a while
after Theodotus preached his sermon. Cyril’s ideas or the way of expressing
them were not all new, and Theodotus may have — at the earlier date — echoed
Cyrillian ideas when so many similarities exist between his sermon and the
Explicatio.**° Cyril's treatise addresses topics like a communicatio idiomatum,>!
or that it is the spOcM@nov which ought not to be divided more directly than
Theodotus.*°?
The emphasis on the freedom of Christ’s lowering, or the impossibility of
someone compelling him to become what human beings are if he ‘was to shun
human characteristics’ >? sheds light on Theodotus’ hard-to-translate re-rendering
of Phil. [Link]
he, who took freedom out of a booty, does not sustain anything servile, in order not to
cause detriment to freedom.**
Theodotus seems to refer to a shared understanding of the ineffable freedom of
God as a cause for him to freely become Christ, subject to the characteristics
of a human being without being constrained by (i.e. sustaining) them. This
points to an understanding of Anathema 4 that Cyril would then expound.*°>
Theodotus’ exegesis of Phil. 2:5ff. mentions often the pboic involved in the

M6 See p. 184.
“7 Coll. Vat. 148, 13-4: ACOI 1/5, 19-20.
M8 ACO I 1/2, 36, 20-1. Cf. T. Graumann, ‘Protokoltierung, Aktenerstellung’ (2010), 33, id.,
Die Kirche der Vater (2002), 402, A. de Halleux, ‘Les douze chapitres cyrilliens au concile’ (1992),
425-6, 447ff.
“4 ACO I 1/5, 19, 22ff.
350 See H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 271-8 on De incarnatione
and De recta fide ad Theodosium (which he calls Oratio ad Theodosium).
SI ACO TI 1/5, 20, 3-6.
2 ACOT 1/5, 20, 6-9.
3 ACOT 1/5, 19, 27.
4 ACO I 1/2, 73, 5-6.
485. 3A, McGuckin, St, Cyril (2004), 234.
178 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

self-emptying, while Cyril’s, in Explicatio, mentions @baic but once, and remark-
ably only when referring to the ‘nature of man’,**° perhaps because the next
anathema focuses on ovotc.**’
In Homily II1.4, Theodotus’ unqualified use of pvoig seems unremarkable
at first sight. For example, ‘he remained God according to his nature’>>* seems
a reinforcement of ‘he remained what he was’,*°? which resembles in sound
similar slogans and catch phrases.*©° However, Theodotus goes on to speak of
“by nature he was lord’, and that ‘not a passive nature [...] was appended to
God’, the lord ‘holding the impassive nature’.**! The passage does not clarify
what Theodotus understood by the pvotc of or in something, especially by the
votc in Christ. Taking his exegesis of Philippians 2 by the letter rather sug-
gests he thought only one nature existed in Christ,**? which was never qualified
by a only-human attribute.
Three occurrences of tit oikeiat pvboe1 in Homily I] shed some light on
Theodotus’ view of bots of the incarnate word of God. The passage directly
concerned with the narrative of the economy presents problems for translation:
For the only-begotten is said (to be) word, not uttered, but essential and enhypostatic,
suffering nothing in his own nature, being an impassible word [...] has made the suf-
fering of the nail-pierced one his own.?°?
TH Oiketat PvoEL may refer to what is different between the nature of God or
of the Adyoc, and that of Christ, if oikeioc is considered an allusion to the
economy. Then, a possible translation of the dative would be ‘through the
incarnate nature’, as if Theodotus had more explicitly employed oikovopiKds.2
However, oikcioc often had the weakened sense of being equivalent to 1510¢,/°
which leads to a few more interpretations of the expression. Depending on the
interpretation of the dative, possible translations are ‘suffering nothing on
account of his nature’ or ‘in his (=divine) nature’. A translation of oixgian as
equivalent to 15106 is supported by an earlier instance of tH oiksiat pboet in
Homily II. There it refers to the ‘uttered word’ of a king which ‘in its own

86 ‘we attribute these sayings which are beyond the nature of man to one Christ and Son’,
ACO 1 1/5, 20, 6.
57 “TChrist] is truly God as the one natural (lit. also by nature) Son’, ACO I 1/5. 20, 17-8.
8 ACO I 1/2, 72, 9-10.
359 ACO [ 1/2, 72, 9.
*6 Echoing Coll. Vat. 1,12: ACO1 1/1, 15, 25ff.
*6! ACOI 1/2, 73, 10-2.
*©2 Theodotus’ usage cannot be satisfactorily explained as ‘common nature’ because of the
exegetical and polemical context of the passages. See H.v. Loon. The Dyophysite Christology of
Cyril (2009), 512-7.
*6¥ ACO I 1/2, 80, 16-7, 20.
1 Cf LI. Scipioni, Nestoria (1974), 320ff. See also H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology
of Cyril (2009), 188 on ‘to appropriate’ (oixetobv).
5 Cf, ibid. 279.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 179

nature’ (tit oikeia: @boeL is not affected by what befalls the paper or the
elements on which it is written.?%
The clearest indication that Theodotus’ choice of vocabulary indeed alludes
to the economy is the first occurrence of the expression in Homily IY. When
Theodotus begins to discuss the ‘uttered word’ as a ‘model of what is set before
us’, he promises his interlocutor that he will ‘show how [...] the untouched is
touched, not altered in his own nature, but taking up a seen and touched
shape.’°©” Strictly speaking, all the sentence refers to is the model which The-
odotus will present, that is, the word of human discourse, but he clearly alludes
to the word of God. It follows from the passage that since Theodotus only
speaks of one pbotc in Christ, and that the word does not ‘alter his own nature’,
Christ has indeed only one nature, namely the divine one.
The unqualified use of pto1c potentially highlights Christological questions,
and translators have often supplied qualifications. Theodotus relied on the shared
assumptions of his audience and the characteristics of the Greek language. The
consistent use, however, suggests that he avoided the qualified expressions pur-
posely. Rather than dismiss this usage of pbotc as ambiguous, it fits into Theo-
dotus’ criticism of a rational approach to divine matters. Theodotus did not oppose
Cyril’s theology, and his Christology was open to a Cyrillian reading. Theodotus
may have been reticent of pinning down divine matters with too many words
chosen by feeble human reasoning or a nuanced account of theological topics.
Theodotus’ homiletic output suggests he stepped away from Cyril’s expressions
and did not keep up with the lexical development after the council.

Wondrous economy, human reasoning and evil

Substantial aspects of Theodotus’ Christology rely on his stance on human
reasoning about matters of faith. He acknowledged reason and understanding
can play a role in the relation of the faithful towards God, yet he did not hesi-
tate to preach against reasoning. Theodotus dwells on the limitations of the
human rational mind, especially in the opposition to miraculous and wonderful
aspects of the economy. Occasionally, Theodotus expresses the importance of
the ‘wonderful’ (16 8avpaotdév, 16 mapadoEov) as a requirement:
He became a human being while the essence of God was not changed nor altered into
another nature. For else that which came to be would not have been a wonder, if he had
accepted another nature through a change of nature.764
The extraordinariness of Christ’s suffering, and the wonderful display of his
divine powers in wonders and miracles are exemplified by the pairs of allusions

66 ACOI 1/2, 80, 13-4.

7 ACO I 1/2. 76, 20-2.
*€ ACOI 1/2. 81. 34. Similarly. ACO I 1/2, 75, 27-9. Contrast ibid., 398.
180 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

to events in the life of Christ at the end of Homily IIT,° where figures of sound
and repeated syntactic structure provide features uniting first halves (i.e., what
refers to the slave, that is, to human beings*”°) and second halves (i.e. what
refers lo the lord, God*”'). Additionally, Theodotus states at the end of the pas.
sage that ‘what appeared was made believable by the sufferings, and the hidden
one was shown by the wonders’, and thus answers what he had said before
(‘Tell me the emptying of the only-begotten’).>”2
This passage is a subdued sample of the rich images which accentuate the
wonderful in the world in Theodotus’ longer homilies.*”* When he concentrates
on the ‘supernatural’ he frequently includes non-scriptural details, often in the
framework of lengthy fictional excursus from biblical exegesis.°”* The passages
are part of his defence of faith against reasoning, where the importance of the
wonderful is a major argument.

Importance of the wonderful for the faithful

It has recently been claimed that Theodotus ‘did think that the incarnation could
be illustrated and its possibility explained by the turning of the Nile into blood.”
It is unlikely that this is an accurate presentation of Theodotus’ Christology.
Theodotus did not use such miracles as models of the theological conundrum at
stake, rather, as models of their inaccessibility, and therefore conducive to the
proper apprehension of matters of faith. He lists many wonderful deeds to express
events which are out of the order of the world?” as human beings know it.
He chose miracles which involve a transformation (of one thing into something
else) and which are accordingly relevant to the wider context of the text, and
do not digress or even distract. Theodotus asks the faithful to see as wonders
what scripture describes as wonder, and once they do this and acknowledge the
wondrousness of such happenings, he demands them to accept the far greater
wonder of all aspects of the economy, especially of the incarnation.>””
Wonders are an essential part of the divine actions in the world,*”8 including,
before the incarnation, the miracles of the Old Testament. For Theodotus all

76 ACOI 1/2, 73, 14-9.

3 Showing the form of a slave, hungering as one, toiling and shrinking from the cross as 3
human being.
¥1 Act well, confer grace, do wonders exemplified by the multiplication of bread, the walk-
ing on the sea.
372 ACO 1 1/2, 73, 9-10. Cf. ibid., 365.
33 For example, PG77, 1393BC, describing Christ’s begetting, before asking ti Bavpacwpev:
474 See p. 102.
75 Cited on p. 173. Compare ibid., 368.
% napadobos 5& Sti tov tig PHOEWS AdyoV Eviknae, ACO I 1/2, 80, 34.
7) ACOT 1/2, 85, 1-10.
a

“18 Cf. ibid., 293, 303; N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 64.

 Character and theology of Theodutus” homilies 181

‘supernatural’ divine interventions ought to remain as wonders to fulfil their

intended role. God meant them to be beyond human reason, and thus they
should remain. Therefore, the magi are a model for the Christians, ‘having
believed the star and not having been curious about nature. The gentile accept
wonders by belief’, and Theodotus attacks those who ‘disbelieve, relying on
human reasoning’.*”? Homily V, a nativity festal homily, can be seen as a
praise of the unbelievability (mapa50§oc) of the economy and several of its
aspects. Theodotus frequently employs t6 xapé&do€ov, an expression apparently
used more by Antiochene and Oriental writers than Cyrillians.3®° He argues that
several (or even all) aspects of Christ’s life including his birth, had to be won-
drous and miraculous since the economy is ineffable.?*!
Theodotus repeatedly said that faith needs wonders,**? although he granted that
wonders are not enough on their own.*83 In the late antique context, miracles ~ in
hagiography or from personal experience — were seen to be the ultimate standard
by which holy men, bishops et a/. were ranked.**4 The cherishing of mysteries
for their own sake, as something that makes religion and faith more dear, is also
found in other homilies in conciliar collections,>®> and may reflect a social need
for miracles, likewise answered, for example, by theurgy, which contributed to
the popularity of Neoplatonism.**° As in Christianity, the fundamental features
and concepts of its systems of thought centred around immaterial aspects, but it
developed elements to answer a craving for concrete (or at least visible) miracles.
Although there were material facets central for the Christian faith, for example
in some of the sacraments, it incorporated alternative answers to the yearn for
the spectacular, involving the concrete world around mankind.*8’

‘Against reasoning’ and the exegesis of Phil. 2:5-11

The importance of the wonderful, the centrality of faith being received and
accepted are some of Theodotus’ motivations to preach against reasoning. In

9 ACOI 1/2, 83, 24-5.

*8° See the entry in G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (1961). See also S. Gerber,
Theodor von Mopsuestia und das Nicénum (2000), 162-3.
1 Ee. Homily V.4, M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’
(1960), 227, IV, 1-2.
2 Especially, ACO I 1/2, 76, 4-5.
*8 M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 230, 25-8.
4 ©, Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity (2005), 160-4.
*5 For example, Qérellos 4.1, 65, 107.
38 EJ. Watts, City and School (2006), 88-9.
However, positing this social picture may reflect an oversimplification of the mindset of
the early fifth century that echoes theories of late antique decadence in a model which posits a
Progression towards abstraction, as if this scheme is globally valid particutarly in this period.
- MacMullen, Voting about God (2006), 45-55, 116. Other examples of use of miracles as proof
Of the veracity of the faith in A. Kofsky, Eusebius of Caesarea (2000), 172ff.
182 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

a few instances in Homilies HI and VI, Theodotus’ deliberate stance against

reasoning on matters of faith comes through.*** Lengthier passages in Homi-
lies I and II, on similar topics, make more apparent the negative connotations
in his way of speaking about human understanding. ‘here, he describes the
limitations of the human mind, wherefore God is unattainable to human reg.
soning:
He came into his own ((81a), he says, and his own did not receive him (John 1:11), but
rather he was in the world and the world came to be through him, and the world did
not know him (John 1:10). But the ignorance (&yvoug) iself is not of the category® of
the human beings. For God is unattainable by human reasoning because of the divin-
ity?” of (his) nature; for it is not natural for the mind of human beings to look down
on him. The divine nature escapes from the mind of human beings; it is loftier than our
reasoning (Aoytopav).??!
Since wonders are central to Theodotus’ understanding of faith, if men, with their
understanding, could grasp them, not only would they stop being effective,>? but
a part of the faith would also be damaged:
If the unreachable of the word? were accessible to us, it would not be a wonder, but
a matter according to nature; but if what has come to be is a wonder and a sign, it
yields the word to the wonder working lord.*%4
Reason could ‘destroy’ the miracles. It is an argument in Theodotus’ and Cyril’s
interpretation of Nestorius’ approach to Christology, for example, concerning
wonders related to the incarnation.*”5
Theodotus criticised the vocabulary of no philosophical school in particular
whilst speaking against human reasoning.*°° Human reason as such, being God

388 Eg. ACO I 1/2, 72, 21, 33-5; Qérellos 4.1, 130, 10. Cf. S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria
and the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 65.
389 As what can be predicated of something, this was standard logic vocabulary, especially
Aristotelian logic. Cf H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 103-8, 122.
9° As a logical argument, equivalent to ‘a white thing is bright because of its whiteness’, the
use of the causal sentence adds little, since unattainability is part of the divine attributes, however
the redundancy associates God’s ineffability to his nature and thus contributes to Christological
arguments on Christ’s divine nature.
1 ACOT 1/2, 74, 5-10. Cf. ibid., 64.
2 ACOT 1/2, 89, 32-3.
33 LOyos.
4 ACO I 1/2, 75, 26-7. The highlighted passage summarises Theodotus’ sharp criticism:
obk fv Gabpa, dAAG Kata bo mpaypya: (1.26).
395 See below on the criticism of conceptual divisions. Cf. L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974),
283ff.
396 The occurrence of what may now seem technical vocabulary related to one or othef
philosophical school can at best suggest that Theodotus received a good education and had af
audience with a similar erudition, which would understand his meaning without focusing on thi
words.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilics 183

given (in creation) is not evil’*’ — rather, limited*’* — but Theodotus considers
it unable to know its limitations, and thus prone to interfere with faith matters,
and the foundations of faith.*°? Nevertheless, human faculties could be used
tor theological purposes. For example, Theodotus criticises the enemies of the
faith for not recognising the incarnation. This recognition is an intellectual
apprehension of the theology behind the scriptural narratives, not of these them-
selves. A failure to recognise the incarnation was one of the things being imputed
against Nestorius and those who shared his ‘unorthodox’ Christological views,
or defended him. Theodotus wishes to preclude that the Son be estranged from
God," or that, concerning Christ, what is human and divine be separated too
much by reasoning.**? Frequently, Theodotus relates this to envisaging a change
of natures,* or a refusal to attribute human passions, weaknesses and (hence)
mutability to Christ,“ and seems to be still employing arguments reminiscent
of the Arian debate.
Christians ought to strive to obtain a proper understanding of theological
matters. The point of dissension are the possible and preferable ways to obtain
it. Such valuation of the means towards theological understanding is balanced
with the dangers of being led to mistaken apprehensions on questions pertain-
ing to the faith. Christian writers thought disapprovingly of certain attempts
in these directions, considering humans prone to error in all their endeavours.
In this, they shared ideas of Hellenistic and Jewish thought. Theodotus’ critical,
highly negative view of reasoning, echoed a common topic in Greek patristics,
exemplified by some writings of John Chrysostom.*°* Questioning and inquir-
ing into a theological matter would too often lead to mistaken understanding.
An incorrect apprehension of a topic can be passed on in teaching and is more
difficult to be put aside than the awareness of not understanding something.
This seems to have been one of the implicit motivations for church fathers to
criticise reasoning about theological mysteries,*’ and to try to regulate theologi-
cal instruction.4

87 Praise of man created by God: ACO I 1/2, 78, 14-7.

3 * ACOT 1/2, 83, 21-3, 74, 8-12. Cf. H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009),
70,
“9 Praise of man created by God: ACO I 1/2, 82, 16-8.
© Qérellos 4.1, 124, 2.
“| ACOI 1/2, 74, 14.
2 ACO TI 1/2, 89, 30-3.
“8 ACO I 1/2, 82, 22-3.
4 ACO I 1/2, 83, Sff.
“05 Cf S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 137 and S. Gerber,
Theodor von Mopsuestia und das Nicdnum (2000), 196-8.
5 See JLLR. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication (2006), 90, 115 for specific exam-
Ples and a wider discussion.
“7 Cf. H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 265, 292.
408 For example, reciprocal excommunications, such as befell Theodotus (ACO I 4, 80, 16-7).
184 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Theodotus states the logic for his attack against reasoning in the final exhor-
tations of Homily I:
Do not dissolve the wonder, being eager to find the reasun, for the wonder which rea-
son makes known, does not remain. If the reason of what came to be is well-known,
the fact is no longer a sign nor a wonder; and if it is sign and wonder, leaving behind
the reasonings, recover the belief.4”
Theodotus’ main concern is with the splitting and dividing, which leads to sepa-
ration in words or concepts, because if applied to understanding Christ, the
union is denied.*!° It seems that for him this mental process was such an essen-
tial part of any human reasoning that he would rather speak against any reason-
ing, than advocate an approach to the divine mysteries that would (somehow)
not involve an intellectual dividing, and still aid human beings in their way
towards God. If he could imagine another way of thinking, he held back from
instructing his audience to adopt it and abandon what they were used to and
had perhaps been trained to do.*!!

‘Only conceptually’

In Homily I,*!? Theodotus states the grounds of his objections against what can
be described as to ‘separate through reflection what had been joined’, saying
that the ‘concept would become false, having separated what had always
been joined’. Theodotus defends an agreement of concept and reason (A6yoo).
Therefore, if, for example, someone says something is one, he ought to think
a single one (Eva).4%
Theodotus expresses his wish that the audience engage in the exegesis of
Philippians 2 by modifying the biblical text, adding ‘each’, and therefore
changing »povéw to third person singular.*!* Thus he addresses the audience
collectively by Paul’s words. A proper Christology is reflected in what is ‘con-
sidered in Christ Jesus’, and Phil. 2:6 is the answer to Phil. 2:5.4)5 Theodotus
raises contrasting challenges against the dividing in the mind, expressed by

409 ACO I 1/2, 89, 32-4.

410 Cf. ACO I 1/2, 89, 30, and next paragraph.
41! Bisections, antipodes and sic et non arguments had an important role in the late antique
educational system. The analogy of the divided line (Plato, Rep. VI 509D-13E) may be suggestive
of the importance of bisection in many philosophical schools, not to mention the approach to
language and discourse of grammar and rhetoric, respectively. See also P. Gemeinhardt, Das
lateinische Christentum und die antike pagane Bildung (2007), 398-9.
42 ACO I 1/2, 89, 20-30.
413, ACO I 1/2, 89, 26-7. Cf. H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 267.
414 ACO I 1/2, 73, 1. It is the most significant alteration of a scriptural reading in Theodows’
conciliar homilies.
15 ACO I 1/2. 73, 4.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 185

the references to ‘dividing’ (6 dta1p@v), ‘supposing’ (bxot1BépEvos), ‘positing’

(Ketpévarv).46
Theodotus’ exegesis of Phil. 2:5ff. involves the polemic concerning the
names of the incarnate one: Christ, Jesus, Emmanuel, and combinations thereof.
Stating ‘There he says Jesus’, Theodotus argues that Paul is deliberately empha-
sising Jesus, while Nestorius would say in such circumstances something like
‘Paul says Christ Jesus’,*!? and dwell on the use of Christ there.*!8 Theodotus,
on the other hand, omits Christ when speaking about the name. Before address-
ing Christ’s ‘self-emptying’ (Phil. 2:6ff.), Theodotus draws on Luke 1:31,*°
as another scriptural passage which roots the human links of both the names
(the ‘appellation’) and the person (the human person, and as such related to
the fact of having been born of Mary, the ‘mother’). ‘This one, the seen one
(tov SpOpEvov)’ receives a name, just as every man.*”°
Early in the Christological debate, Cyril linked the discussion about the
names to the introduction of divisions into Christ.*?! He insisted on this approach,
epitomised in Anathema 4,2? regardless of Nestorius’ protests of preserving
the unity, who claimed to be distinguishing only conceptually.47
For Theodotus, no thinking about the human and the divine in Christ would
not deny the reality of the incarnation.*#* He was more uncompromising than
Cyril, who would accept a subtle purely conceptual apprehension of the divine
and human in Christ with the imagination of the intellect.4?° In Epistula 46,
Cyril also draws a parallel to the human being composed of body and soul,*”6
which is only distinguished conceptually.*”” Some Cyrillians objected that so

18 ACO TI 1/2, 72, 33-4.

417 ACO TI 1/2, 72, 32. Cf. LI. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 140ff.
418 See Coll. Vat. 5, 3-4 ACO I I/1, 29-30, of. JA. McGuckin, St. Cyril (2004), 366.
419 ACO I 1/2, 72, 32-3.
20 ACO I 1/2, 73, 2-3.
221 Coll. Vat. 1, 13-4, ACO T 1/1, 16.
422 See p. 177, H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 392.
23 ACO I 1/1, 30, 2-7. Also later in the Heract. he addressed the ineffabitity of the self-empty-
ing (Phil. 2:6), and insisted that Christ was ‘indivisible as one single being’, but also that ‘the Adyos
took the form of a slave (Phil. 2:7) for his mpdomnov. but not for his nature’ in view of what has
been described as the language barrier of the Christological discussion. See F. Nau (ed.), Le Livre
@Héraclide de Damas (1910), 67, 152. See also J.A. McGuckin, St. Cyril (2004), 162-72.
24 ACO I 1/2, 89, 32 - 90, 3.
425 ay widaic dicAdvtes évvoiaic Kai tbc év ioyvaig Oewpiats itor vod Pavtaciats tiv
Stapopav SeEdpevor, ACO I 1/6, 162, 6-7. Cyril accepted, even referred to a conceptual distinction
between the natures; cf. M. Simonetti, ‘Alcune osservazioni sul monofisismo di Cirillo’ (1982),
493, 510. Theodotus, however, objected to conceptual distinction between ‘two’, in the masculine
8ender, open to being read as referring to two ‘persons’. Therefore his view was never considered
an open challenge for Cyril, as shown by the ‘monophysite’ sources which cite him while being
adamantly pro-Cyrillian.
20 RM, Young, ‘A reconsideration of Alexandrian Christotogy’ (1971), 105-6.
27 ACO I 1/6, 162, 15ff. Cf H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 245.
186 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

much distinction ought not to be drawn in Christ, even in a ‘two natures

and one person’ pattern as suggested by the level of separation between body
and soul in the human being.*** Nestorius too saw in the parallel] shortcomings
of Cyril’s union according to the hypostasis.‘2?
In Homily III.4, Theodotus attempts to draw out the extremes to which
ideas about the conceptual positing of two ‘somethings’ in Christ can be bent
via the accumulation of questions addressed either to the fictional interlocutor
or the audience. These questions imply the ridiculousness and unfittingness of
this approach. Theodotus uses the context of Philippians 2*° to put in parallel
a few pairs where the difference between the human and the divine are high-
lighted: slave/lord, suffering/not-suffering. When interrogating his fictional
interlocutor about the advantage (Svnots) of all this theologising, Theodotus
refers to what is being posited (keipat) using xp&ypa.3! Theodotus not only
questions the usefulness of stipulating mpdypata, but he is about to condemn
those who think about two rpa@ypata in Christ. Although mp&yya could be
used technically in religious texts of this time,“ Theodotus apparently employs
it quite colloquially, equivalent to the contemporary use of ‘thing’, and not as
incorporeals, in opposition to o@pa, for example. Theodotus seems aware of
ongoing conflicts of adopted terminologies.**? Choosing to allude to ‘what is in
Christ’ as mpa&yuata frees him from employing any highly charged technical
word (nature, being, existence).**4 xpaypo. is not another option, but Theodotus’
way to speak of the error of others without the error crossing his lips.
Theodotus perhaps drew on the authority of Cyril, whom he praises for his
teaching, with echoes of vocabulary and arguments from Cyril’s exegesis of

#8 Cyril explained the parallel in letters to Acacius, Succensus, Eutogius, etc. See ibid., 537-
43, especially 540. See also G.L. Castro, Cirillo di Alessandria: Epistole cristologiche (1999), 160
on ACO I 1/3, 92, 9-12 about Cyril’ concession of a distinction in thought of the hypostases.
Theodotus’ generalising stance against reasoning suggests that he would discourage even this
distinction.
49 See H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 526-7, L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio
(1974), 137.
430 See in D. Keating, ‘Christology in Cyril and Leo’ (2010), 53, 55 how the vocabulary of
the exegesis of Phil. 2:6-7 exemplifies the similarities and conflicts of Leo’s and Cyril’s Chris-
tology. While Cyril, like Theodotus, used phrases without a noun for what is human and divine
in Christ, Leo’s use of Paul’s forma was central to making passages of his Tomus (e.g. ACO I
1/1, 14-5.) ‘unbearable’ for Easterners. In spite of having received a Latin version of Cyril’s Schol.
inc., Celestine focused on the question of duality, which had been at the centre of the exegesis by
Theodotus, Nestorius and the Cyril of the Explicatio of Anathema 4. See J.A. McGuckin, St. Cyril
(2004), 294.
41 ACO 1 1/2, 73, l. Cf H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 319.
422 Entry in G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (1961), and P. Hadot, ‘Sur divers sens
du mot PRAGMA’ (1980).
433 Cf H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 194ff.
4M Perhaps akin to his stance on the use of pbotc. See p. 179, and M. Simonetti, *Alcune
osservazioni sul monofisismo di Cirillo’ (1982), 496.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 187

Philippians 2 in Epistula 1,*° which his audience probably knew. The emula-
tion seems an attempt to surpass it rather than of homage. The rhythm of the
frequent repetition of Phil. 2:5 in Homily ITI draws attention to the verse from
scripture, and highlights its argumentative importance.‘ It is the scriptural
passage which, if correctly understood, should be a guide for a proper mastery
of Christology. The focus on the verse helps Theodotus to draw the authority
of scripture to his exegesis. The aim of the preaching theologian is that all
Christians settle on a ‘right’ view and hold it. Theodotus instantiates this when
asking the audience what understanding of Christ they have.**” Questioning
the assumptions of the audience prepares the exegesis of the remainder of Phi-
lippians 2 with a warning against approaching the subject of Christology with
too much of their rational understanding, and against venturing to bring into a
discourse any conceptual twofoldness.48
The discussion about the shortcomings of the excuse of doing things ‘only
conceptually’ is present on both sides of the Christological debate, but is not
as predominant an argument as in Theodotus’ homilies before the council.
Perhaps, in Ancyra it was a particularly relevant theme. Theodotus’ audience
may have identified or admitted a tendency to rationalise, especially if the con-
gregation was worried about being led astray by their thoughts, or by the digres-
sions of others urging for reflection on theological topics. The argument was
then applicable to Nestorius, as a particularly acute example of ‘bad’ influence.
In the fifth century, fewer theologians were engaging with the philosophical
and cosmological implications of religious and logical formulations than in
the fourth century.“° They claimed to put such questions aside in their own
theological exploits, and advocated that others do so. Avoidance of reasoning
is a significant trait of Cyril’s works,“! and from his many works and the quite

45 ACOL I/I, 16.

6 Fg. Cyril’s extensive quotation in Expl. xii cap. (ACO I 1/5, 19, 22ff.),and in Schol. inc.,
12, PE. Pusey (ed.), Cyrilli Epistolae (1875), 524, to argue against Christ as a ‘mere’ man, and
not to answer to Nestorian usage of the passage with the emphasis on the reality of Christ.
47 ACO I 1/2, 73, 4. The gnomic use of the aorist 2ppovrjoapev refers not to the past, but
to the constant and age-encompassing God-given faith.
“® See p. 172, of. H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 370.
#9 Cf S. Wessel, ‘Nestorius, Mary and controversy’ (1999), 12f.
+0 Eg. Greg. Naz. Or. 26.9.
“1 Hiv. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 354, M. Simonetti, *Alcune
Osservazioni sul monofisismo di Cirillo’ (1982), SOOff. Exemplified by the criticism against too
much curiosity and reasoning in Dial. trin. 3, 466a — G.-M. de Durand (ed.), Cyrille d’Alexandrie.
Dialogues sur la Trinité (1976-8) 2. See M.-O. Boulnois, ‘The mystery of the Trinity according
to Cyril of Alexandria’ (2003), 80. In a treatise, Cyril could balance the argument by allowing a
Search for the ‘correct understanding’: ‘As long as theological research keeps within these limits,
it does not spring from idle curiosity, but is life-giving, since “the nourishment of minds is true,
faultless knowledge [...]” (Glaphyra Ex. 11.3: PG69, 456d-457a)’; cf. M.-O. Boutnois, ‘The mys-
tery of the Trinity according to Cyril of Alexandria’ (2003), 82-3. Limits within which human
Teason could search on all matters were often the smallest restriction posited by theologians from
188 Theodows of Ancyra’s Homilies and tie Council of Ephesus (431)

detailed information on the problems he faced, it is possible to correlate his

worries on ‘[sJuch speculation’ to what he saw in Origenist thinkers.*4? Also
Nestorius claimed to be dealing with some who pursue a Aoyopayia. He con-
demned their efforts and instead praised ‘popular napaiveoic’. He may have
preached regularly against resorting to reason.
Regardless of the difficulty of the problems and the effort to solve them, bish-
ops readily criticised who reached conclusions apparently in conflict with the faith
of the church. They claimed it would be better not to have elite thinkers, who
worry about difficult questions, and would not count themselves among them.
They advanced the argument that in the new world-order of Christianity, rational
inquiry would no longer be necessary, in contrast with a pre-Christ’s-coming
world, where philosophical inquiry had a natural place.** They attacked Classi-
cism as a whole, and avoided systematic discussion of intellectual processes*46
that could identify specific issues or the inappropriate use of concepts and ideas.
Theodotus’ criticism is not aimed at those practising philosophy ‘for its own sake’
(e.g. in the schools), but at those who mix it carelessly with matters of religion.
Occasionally, Theodotus’ arguments against human reasoning lead him to express
widespread condemnation of any philosophising,““’ but the context points to a
rather non-judicious focus on condemning any rational arguments on theological
topics.“® Resorting to reasoning causes belief to be neglected, without which
matters of faith (e.g. those concerning God and his mysteries) are not approach-
able properly, as Theodotus expresses in a visually rich passage:
For having delivered yourself to reasonings and having left behind faith exactly as a
steadfast ship, and willing to penetrate in your searches the sea of God’s signs, you
shipwreck perforce.”

the fifth century onwards, especially by those of monastic extraction. See A.H. Becker, Fear of
God and the Beginning of Wisdom (2006), 15-6.
#2 J.J. O’Keefe, ‘Incorruption, anti-Origenism’ (2003), 195, E.A. Clark, The Origenist Con-
troversy (1992), 43ff.
3 LI. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 66.
44 EF 2. M. Laird, Gregory of Nyssa and the Grasp of Faith (2004), 36.
45 Eg. E.J. Watts, City and School (2006), 158-9, [Link]. Maxwell, Christianization and Com-
munication (2006), 17. Cf. H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 504.
#46 Eg. M. Laird, Gregory of Nyssa and the Grasp of Faith (2004), 34-40. Cf. H.v. Loon, The
Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 533, L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 283ff.
47 ACO1 1/2, 82, 16-8.
#48 ACO I 1/2, 82, 16-8, and, concerning Christology, ACO I 1/2, 89, 28 - 90, 2.
#9 M. Aubineau, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 226, II, 3-6.
Sea travelling was not part of Ancyran daily life, but the familiar topos of travel by sea is speci-
fied because it implied leaving safety and stability behind, demonstrating moral strength and
physical and intellectual courage. See A.P. Kazhdan and G. Constable, People and Power (1982);
C. Galatariotou, ‘Travel and perception’ (1993), 226; G.T. Dennis, ‘Perils of the deep’ (2001);
L. Brubaker, “The conquest of space’ (2002), 247-8; and also M.E. Mullett, ‘In peril on the sea’
(2002). Cf. S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 210.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 189

The attack on dependence on reason and nature was as much against philosophers
as against heretics, who often were described as being led astray by following
reason instead of faith. Theodotus’ Hellenism**° is most obvious in his labelling
of those who pursue the condemnable use of Avyiopot with the Greeks of
1Cor. 1:23.45! Theodotus’ use of this verse shows his positive appraisal of
human rationality, since he suggests that only Christians deserve to be called
AOyuKot, while Jews are the most unknowing (@yvapovéotepot) among the
&Aoyou men, although, for example, Christ becomes (eucharistic) nourishment
for both A6ytKot and &Aoyou.4?
In Theodotus’ works, Aoytopoi means reasoning,‘ or closely related ideas
from the semantic field of AGyoc, whose manifold senses Theodotus explores
more freely.54 Aoytopoi always carry a negative sense that can be seen in
the qualificatives or at least from the context. Therefore, the word may have
been reminiscent of Evagrian’ ideas**° for Theodotus’ audience. However, the
meaning is quite different. Theodotus’ Aoy1op0i are not a quasi synonym for
the demons that plague those who are on the monastic path,** or an allusion to
the capital sins.’ Furthermore, even if Evagrius’ Aoyiopoi can generally be
translated as thoughts or considerations, they seldom imply the use of reason.**

450 See p. 104 for its place in heresiological lists. Also, J. Kecskeméti, ‘Doctrine et drame’
(1993), 54-7.
4! ACOT 1/2, 82, 12-32.
482 ACO I 1/2, 86, 17, 22.
453 He uses it encompassing deviating and erroneous approaches (i.e. mostly intellectual
activity or things involving the mind, possibly those presupposing reason as such) as related to
the perception of the divine, particularly as revealed in the scriptures, but also of the divine that
is part of the life of a faithful. It echoes the traditional critique of (bad) rhetoric, of word-chopping
and of protracting and convoluted arguments.
454 For example, comparing Theodotus’ Homily I and Proclus’ Homily IV, which have
extremely similar initial paragraphs, while in N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 226, Proctus employs
VOUOg (law) to say that the incarnation goes against the ‘laws’ of nature (which have actually
been established by God himself), Theodotus consistently uses AGyog for these laws/reasons
(ACO T 1/2, 80, 34). Thereby he means rules which men are more used to, and may understand.
The incarnation breaks the ‘laws’ of nature, in so far as they are what humans describe nature
with, and therefore Theodotus can say that Aoy1opoi are useless.
45 K_ Corrigan, Evagrius and Gregory (2009), 78-81. Also P. Géhin et al. (eds), Evagre le
Pontique. Sur les pensées (1998), 27-8 on the meanings of AoywspLd¢ for church fathers, expanding
the initial discussion in A. Guillaumont and C. Guillaumont (eds), Evagre le Pontique (1971), 56-63,
or A.D. Rich, Discernment in the Desert Fathers (2007).
456 They distract the monk from reaching 2 state where he may endeavour to fulfil the proximity
to the divine.
487 With this meaning, Aoyiopoi is still used in several religious denominations. Its common
Latin translations is witia, e.g. in the rendering of Cassian the Sabaite. Cf. Inst. coen. V 1, M. Petschenig
(ed.), Johannis Cassiani (1888), 81. See also P. Tzamalikos, The Real Cassian Revisited (2012),
124-6, 182.
+8 The two negative meanings of Aoyiopoi, that is, word-chopping and evil thoughts, are
seldom if ever treated jointly by fourth and fifth-century authors, whether monastic or not. Neither
190 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (43!)

Theodotus’ expressions have at least a lingering association with AOyoc and

oyouayia. Nevertheless, the reproaching mention of Aoyiopoi may have led
those familiar with concepts spreading together with monasticism, especially
monks themselves, to interpret it accordingly. The faith versus reason debate
had also influenced Evagrius’ evolving use of the term, and with appropriate
qualifications he occasionally used A0y1OH6v as an intellectual process involv-
ing reason.**? Those acquainted with the Evagrian terminology may have been
more affected by Theodotus’ arguments when he referred to the problems
which can be brought about by Aoy1opoi, or to the devil as a driving force of
damaging intellectual processes and active in the present, as discussed in the
next topic.
Bishops at councils were perhaps aware of the sort of lack of clarity on
theological issues which has been levelled against them with hindsight.“ The
digressions in Homilies I and II on ‘refrain from reasoning’ may have appealed
to the bishops not only as Christological arguments but also as guidelines for
the theological debate.**! The appeal of Theodotus’ works beyond the Chris-
tological debate was helped by the stance against reasoning in theology which
gained momentum in the East.*© Perusal of the faith was not encouraged, and
a better understanding of the divine mysteries was not seen as necessary or
even useful for a growth in faith. What are called or considered mysteries ought
to be kept as such.**? Theodotus’ approach may be justified considering the

are the extreme meanings connected. The very wide range of semantic fields linked to Adyoc was
not problematised, rather, its plurality of meanings was often exploited.
459 P. Géhin et al. (eds), Evagre le Pontique. Sur les pensées (1998), 18, 9 are enlightening
remarks with respect to Evagrius’ works warranting that Aoytopoi are not something bad on their
own, e.g, Peri logismon 8.
460 Concerning theological understanding, the following criticism of later events can be
applied to the schematic presentation of Cyril’s and the Oriental’s thought during Ephesus 431 in
view of the Formula of Reunion of 433: ‘in fact there existed probably very few contemporaries
who were able immediately to recognize that Eutyches’s restoration meant a doctrinal aberration,
as it was termed two years later.’ E. Honigmann, ‘Juvenal of Jerusalem’ (1950), 237.
461 Although the conciliar homilies contain passages on themes which Theodotus characterised
in earlier homilies as consequences of dismantling miracles with human reason, the arguments
against reason are rare and brief in them, for example, Qérellos 4.1, 130, 10ff.
462 For example, in the Ethiopian church. Several text in the Qérellos collection digress on
the insistence against reasoning, echoing Theodotus’ arguments. Severus of Synada expresses in
his homily a clear opposition to attempts to elucidate matters related to faith, as a way to ‘play
safe’: Qérellos 4.1, 67. E.g. decrees against ‘disputes’ about religious questions already settled in
synods, like ACO IT 1/3, 119-121[478-480] — see E. Honigmann, ‘Juvenal of Jerusalem’ (1950),
251 — although imperial decrees could have limited influence.
463 When approaching theological questions, earlier generations rather said that despite the
inevitable failure to grasp by reason the mysteries, the individual could grow in faith by dwelling
on them with whatever human faculty God gave. See M. Laird, Gregory of Nyssa and the Grasp
of Faith (2004), 22. This also contrasts with the rigourous exploration of possibilities in Abelard
Logica ingredientibus, B. Geyer (ed.), Peter Abaelards philosophische Schriften (1919), 26, 11-15;
28, 25-7; see also P.V. Spade, Five Texts on the Mediaeval Problem of Universals (1994), 49, 52.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 19]

absence of a religious educational system.“ In order to promote the acceptance

of the conciliar decisions, it was best to keep people (including bishops!) from
looking too much at Nestorius’ and Nestorian works, lest they were not able to
distinguish what is orthodox insofar as it falls outside the conciliar endorsed
anathemata and the views of those condemned; lest they had difficulties in
refraining from following what was actually anathematised, and perhaps even
believed in it. Preaching against deep understanding of theological matters
caused collateral damage: doubts and problems did not stop surfacing, and those
refraining from reflection and reasoning, found it increasingly difficult to see
the issues at stake.
Theodotus’ stance ‘against reasoning’ lays blame on most attempts to reach
a proper (theological) understanding on one’s own. The alternative which Theo-
dotus preached was — of course — faith, but also to acknowledge the received
teaching and accept the authority of the church, its bishops and preachers,4
This authority is not subject to the same criticism because it does not rely (only)
on human values or merits, rather, it relates to sacramental aspects. In order to
appreciate the importance which Theodotus placed on bishops fulfilling their
daily duties of preaching and administering sacraments, and the rationale of
Theodotus’ demands that they be steadfast in a sound theology to do so, it is
necessary to present Theodotus’ view of the evil in the world. He phrased it in
often elaborate references to the devil, to envy and to evil in general.

The evil in the world

For Theodotus, the devil and similar demonic forces were indeed agents in the
present moment, influencing the lives of people and the events in the world.‘
Theodotus’ personified references to the devil would have further layers of
meaning for those familiar with monasticism.*°’ He echoed the recurrent theme
in ascetic and monastic literature*® of the faithful not only having to keep pas-
sively the faith, but also fight off actively the attack of demons.*® -
Theodotus personified evil or mentioned the devil when recreating biblical
narratives even where scripture does not mention it.4”° Some allusions are
loose, for example, the description of a flight of the devil as a consequence of

464 See p. 38.

465 Cf H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 503.
466 Cf M. Ludlow, ‘Demons, Evil, and Liminality’ (2012), 181-2, S. Wessel, Cyril of Alex-
andria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 29.
467 See remarks in L.L. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 36, 152. Also K. Corrigan, Evagrius and
Gregory (2009), 72-5, 93-7.
468 Eg. P. Géhin et al. (eds), Evagre le Pontique. Sur les pensées (1998), 217-23. See D. Brakke,
Demons and the Making of the Monk (2006), 106ff., 147-50.
469 E.g. Homily VI.2: Qérellos 4.1, 124, Sff.
40 Homily V.4, 15-20, Homily VI.2. See p. 160.
192 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

the flight into Egypt.*’' The incarnation drives the devil into loss and flight.472
The child flees into Egypt, and later Jesus retreats into the desert, and there he
explicitly puts the devil to flight.” The generic desert was easily equated with
(he desolate areas preferred by monks and ascetics, among whom Egyptian holy
men were particularly esteemed. They were renowned for putting the devil to
flight, and the narratives mentioned often that they did so by reflecting on the
hardships Jesus faced. Similarly, the bishops, many of whom lived as or among
monks at one point in their lives,*”* did the same, both in preaching and in the
decisions they took in their dioceses and during synods. The flight into Egypt
which happened at one point in the past was part of that event by which human
beings, particularly the church members, could face and put the devil to flight.
Theodotus described envy as a central motivation for heresy. Envy of the
inequality of rank inherent to the creation of man (Gen. 1:26-8) was described
as the cause for the snake’s treachery, whereby it turned against the good deeds
of God.*”> Since heresy is also seen as a denial of God’s philanthropy, Theo-
dotus put envy as its motivation.*”® Just as the snake had brought about the
fall, and effected the end of the paradisiacal existence of mankind (which only
the incarnation could redeem), so too those who spread heretical views about
the incarnation were undoing God’s perfecting deed towards men. If envy is
the motivation, the ensuing actions (that is, the unorthodox claims) are delib-
erately aimed at destroying what gives mankind salvation. The logic of this
analogy is not particularly clear. It seems that since ‘God had united himself to
the human being’, this implies a higher (deified) state of the human, at least for
those who hold the (orthodox) faith (so that they are saved). They can therefore
be likened to the human beings in the Genesis account, placed above the rest
of the creation.4” In Genesis 3 the snake brings mischief about by persuasion

471 Tt probably reflects some of the extensive apocryphal narratives related to the flight into
Egypt. They are among the earliest and best developed stories whose theological details the
church rarely cared to address, while also seldom condemning the devotional practices linked to
it. See L. Valensi, La fuite en Egypte (2002), 22¢f.
4 Revelation 2.
413 Cf. Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-5; Luke 4:1-13.
44 Evidence, especially statistical, for the early fifth century is very sparse. See A. Sterk,
Renouncing the World yet Leading the Church (2004), 180ff. for a discussion on how and why
what were good examples and cases (of bishops who were or had been monks) slowly became
the norm. It also becomes apparent that before the Justinian period this pattern was surely not a
widespread norm (although the available data hinders conclusive generalisations) nor expected.
475 The Christian tradition on the account of the fall dwelt vividly on increasingly narrative
details, in part developing what was already present in Hellenistic Judaism (as exemplified in Vita
Adae et Evae, Josephus and the Talmud). Cf. Cyril Ep. 39, ACO I 1/4, 16, 10.
#76 Homily V1.5: Qérellos 4.1, 130, 12ff.
477 Envy is further explored in ACO I 1/2, 72, 23ff. Theodotus anchors the plot of the devil in
both Gen. 3:1 and Rev. 12:4 to speak of the contrivances against orthodox faith. See also M. Ludlow,
‘Demons, Evil, and Liminality’ (2012), 196-7 on Gregory Nazianzen.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 193

via a discourse which relies on syllogistic argumentation.‘ It is deception

brought about by words,‘”? in a dialogue where the snake has greater knowledge
and mischievously instructs Eve, Theodotus’ allusion to the fall48° may have
reminded the bishops that Nestorius’ conversation had, likewise, been described
on 22 June as being full of error. The council had acted to remove the danger
of a bishop who held unorthodox ideas in office, where he had access to the
ears, minds and hearts of his audience.
In a culture where malignant supernatural forces were real, Theodotus’
description of heretics as personifications, agents for the devil, demons or the
devil itself is not only a linguistic and rhetorical resource but also a hyperbole
of the problem he was facing.**! For the church, heresy and its adherents were
a concrete problem, which it tried to tackle with preaching and sacraments.
Therefore, Theodotus claimed it was essential that all bishops defended the
faith at the councils, and taught properly. Else, evil could win and endanger the
salvation of mankind as discussed next.

Church and salvation

This last section focuses on the few, but particularly eloquent passages in Theo-
dotus’ homilies on the soteriological character of Christology.**? He understood
the history of humanity after the incarnation as a continuous event within God’s
plan. Therefore, he saw the salvation of mankind both in the present existence
of humanity, and as a future and final salvation.
The present day salvation was brought about by the incarnation, which led
humanity to exist in a redeemed state if compared to what it was like after
the fall. This is described as corrupt, low and slow.*® In Homily III.3,4 Theo-
dotus refers to the active (that is, motivated by human free will) aspects of the
fall in the vocabulary which variedly represents carrying and taking as the
actions leading to original sin, without explicitly mentioning the taking the
fruit. With expressions like ‘not to bear the grace’, ‘to take the advantage’,

478 N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 282-4.

4 Cf. Cyril Hom. div. 4, ACO 1 1/2, 104, 22, and S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the
Nestorian Controversy (2004), 125.
480 Especially Gen. 3:1, 13-4.
8! Homily V1.2: Qérellos 4.1, 122f. ACO I 1/2, 72, 22-4. References on evil, the devil, his
influence, as a source of heresies, can be found in R. MacMullen, Voting about God (2006), 44,
132 (note 12); on heretics as his agents, see M. Willing, Exsebius von Casarea als Hareseograph
(2008), 443, 487.
482 G_L. Castro, Teedoto di Ancira (1992), 8, 34. Compare to Cyril: T.G. Weinandy and
D.A. Keating (eds), The Theology of St. Cyril (2003), 24-31, J.A. McGuckin, St. Cyril (2004),
175; and Nestorius: L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 5Off.
483 See p. 155.
4 ACO I 1/2, 72, 16-9.
194 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Theodotus links sin and salvation to the themes of payment, loaning and
being indebted in Philippians 2, Thus Theodotus discusses the redemption with
the terms the Pauline letters express it. and the macro-structure of Homily III
exemplifies how the history of humanity and of the individuals can be repre-
sented by interrelated antithetical pairs. The incarnation leads all human beings
to a relationship,*® an aim desirable in itself since it is a connection to the
divine.
Theodotus repeatedly affirms that all humanity was saved by the unique
instance of the incarnation, and by each and all events in Christ’s life.486 ]¢
happened in the past and changed the state of humanity. However, only those
who believe ‘adequately’ in the incarnate one and his life actually take part in
the lifting of humanity brought about by the lowering of Christ. Especially in
the conciliar homilies, the ‘adequate’ faith is what the council endorsed, and
all the audience, particularly the bishops, ought to share it. Theodotus holds
that his faith is the same of Cyril, whose teaching he praises, and of all with
whom he is in communion.
Without wondering at or trying to formulate a logic behind it, Theodotus thus
claims that those who are not orthodox Christians are not human beings of the
same sort as those who are part of the redeemed humanity. At no point does
Theodotus discuss what this other existence is. It bears strong resemblance to
the state after the fall, and therefore Theodotus describes the deviation into
heresy in similar terms as the fall narrative.
In Homily JI, Theodotus follows an introduction on possible roles of the
church as carer and purifier*®’ with a representation of the ‘error’, the ‘illness’
(that is, the heresy) in question,*** and he describes with the vocabulary of
‘disposition’ those who live with such deviating beliefs, and how people share
religious ideas.**° With only a fraction of the wide range of possible meanings
of diaKke1pat, he expresses that heretical beliefs, as appositions of t@v ob tas
Stakeipévov,* are something ingrained and hard to be eliminated. However,
Theodotus also envisages feasible remedies, considering the use of the same
expression in the context of the metaphors of medicine and husbandry.”!
obtac refers primarily to badness (kakia) beyond care, but also to the oncom-
ing allusion to the reproachable statements about Christ. Therefore the heresies

#5 ACO I 1/2, 73, 29, of. H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 441,
L.L Scipioni, Nestorio (1974), 320ff.
486 Eg, ACO I 1/2, 80, 33-4, 86, 16-7, 88, 27-8.
47 ACO I 1/2, 71, 24-6.
#88 ACO I 1/2, 71, 27-8.
489 ACO I 1/2, 72, 1-5.
&

4%” ACO I 1/2, 73, 4 is distractingly paraphrased in the translations of PG77, 1386CD and of
A.J. Festugiére, Ephése et Chalcédoine: actes (1982), 268 who interpret the participle as referring
to ‘members’.
“ol ACO] 1/2, 73, 3.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 195

are to be dealt with harshly because or at least when they come up as disposi-
tions. That is, if a person not only incurs, expresses, argues for, but also remains
in this situation deliberately. and does so in a thorough and steady way, human
efforts are not able to reverse the state he is in. Claiming that a heresy is a
disposition implies that all heretical actions like thinking, speaking, reasoning,
and acting in erroneous ways are linked and go back to a factor which over-
whelms the individual. This justifies the exclusion from the church, even if,
since TOV ODTAS SLAKEtLEVOV does not necessarily carry a deterministic idea
by itself, it remains implicit that however great their error, these people are no
irremediable case, at least for God. Neither state of salvation or of error is
unchangeable during a man’s lifespan. He may lapse, but also be called or
recalled to right belief.4?* God, however, does not drag men towards virtue or
success (katop8apata).’? Heretics willingly obey the enemy and offend the
legislator. Someone who perseveres in heresy distances himself from God, who
owns all creation.*”
The salvation of each individual ultimately depends on God, through
divine yaptc,*> but every Christian has his share in that he keeps to the ortho-
dox faith. X&ptc can assist him to that end,‘ but to the last, each individual
must do his part in thriving for his salvation. The incarnation does not change
the freedom of will of human beings, and thereby humanity can stray willingly
from orthodox faith. Moreover, a human being can be led astray, by other
people or some instance of evil present in the world. At the same time, how-
ever, for Theodotus, the freedom and ability of human beings to achieve salva-
tion is never constrained, wherefore the responsibility of falling into heresy
lies with the person. There are temptations and dangers, personified in super-
natural and human evils (e.g., respectively, devil and heretics), but there is
equally good support (e.g. the holy Spirit and the orthodox bishops, respec-
tively).
Theodotus’ concept of grace**’ links the central theme of orthodox Chris-
tology to the major concern of an orthodox priesthood to guide the church.**
From the start of the economy, grace is a means for the interaction of the
human with the divine.*9? For Theodotus, the leaders of the church have, if not

42 Oérellos 4.1, 130, 16.

3 ACO 1/2, 85, 22.
4 ACOT 1/2, 72, 16ff.
5 ACO I 1/2, 73, 29ff., 80, 26, of. H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009),
U71Ff.
6 Qérellos 4.1, 132, 5 (82).
‘87 Expressed with formulae with scriptural background like Heb. 10:29, Rom. 16:24, 2Cor. 8:9.
8 ACO I 1/2, 71, 25. For a socio-economic approach to the ‘burden of leadership’ placed
on the preacher, while the congregations should ‘just believe’ what they were told, see R. Mac-
Mullen, *The preacher’s audience’ (1989), 510-1.
% ACOTI 1/2, 72, 15.
 196 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

a greater share of participation in grace, then, at least a stronger role of mediat-

ing it to all human beings. This confers on them the power to perform what
pertains to their role, but increases their duties. Episcopal authority was largely
related to performing sacraments, which Theodotus linked to divine grace,
intertwining them with the acceptance of the divine mysteries. In the sermons,
the most explicit allusions to sacraments are to the eucharist.™
X@pis has a supportive role for the priesthood established by it®! through
theological insights such as Cyril’s.%°? Although bishops share in human short-
comings, their utterances about God ought to agree with the faith. However,
heretical views at once negate the salvific consequence of the incarnation and
deny the present influence of grace on the individual. The parallel structure of
Homily HI.1°% implies that to ‘make grace into a part of reproach’ refers to
objectionable approaches to ‘the human in God’ and vice versa. Grace refers
to the joining of ta Gv@pmmiva to God, and expresses that God should have
interest in humans.*° Their faith must be pure, and in agreement with that of
the whole church. The bishops are figures of authority who receive the deserved
respect and obedience, but they also carry a large responsibility. Importantly,
they link the prospect of salvation of individuals to the purity of the church,
Theodotus mentions that ultimately redemption lies in God’s hands alone, but
also presents a pure church as one of the few things in this world which can
help individuals.

Contribution of church and council for salvation

Theodotus advocated the purity of the church to the bishops gathered for
a council, defending the excision of one individual who spreads corrupting
ideas.>°S However, he also alluded to the salvation of an individual who strays
into error.*°7 Theodotus does not discuss the tension between these ideas, which
he expressed in separate passages. Excision is presented as the only solution for
irremediable cases. At the same time, Theodotus seems to hold a positive view
about human nature,°8 the efficacy of instruction, and the involvement of
grace for final salvation. He encourages conversion from heresy. Although the

$00 ACO I 1/2, 73, 30-1, Also ACO I 1/2, 86, 11, 17-8, ACO T 1/2, 88, 18-20. See also
H. y.. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 575-6.
' ACOT 1/2, 71, 25.
é

502 Oérellos 4.1, 122, 11.

5° Cf. S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy (2004), 121-8.
*4 ACO I 1/2, 72, 3-5.
505 Cf. H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 288ff.
36 ACO 11/2, 71, 29-31.
7 Qérellos 4.1, 130, 2, ACO I 1/2, 89, 5ff.
508 ‘his most beautiful creation’: ACO I 1/2, 72, 22.
50° ‘it is reasonable from the start [...] to supply words of piety’: ACO I 1/2, 72, 2.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 197

leading argument in Homily III is the defence of a severe measure, Theodotus

mentions that there can still be room for a correction, a conversion to a pure
faith. It remains unclear if Theodotus included the already deposed Nestorius
among those who might be saved upon conversion.>!°
Bishops could also be rewarded with a certain status of holiness in their
lifetime for their steadfastness in the faith,>!! by accepting the exegesis of the
church and fighting for it, even by receiving the crown of martyrdom for its
sake. After the fulfilment of their lives, they would be rewarded with divine
glory for it.5!? In Homily I11.2,5 Theodotus’ exhortation to instruct — not only
Nestorius or a heretic, but any Christian — offers the bishops the prospect of
eschatological glory, and throughout Homily VI the reward is represented as a
crown. Theodotus’ praise of Cyril>'4 assumes that a few, fighting in words and
deeds for the ‘right’ faith, may even display a share in this glory in their life.
Not only ‘without fight no one is crowned’, but also ‘suffering is rewarded with
the fortune’, and tied to the ‘increase in the church’.5!5 This may seem a con-
ventional wish reflecting the missionary and proselytising nature of Christian-
ity, but in the context of June 431 and the existing split among the bishops, it
probably expresses more specifically a wish that the majoritarian council might
increase by being joined by more bishops abandoning the side of Nestorius and
the Orientals.>'® Furthermore, the bishops expected that the conciliar decisions
would be adopted and enforced by an increasing number of bishops, in dioceses
throughout the Christian world, so that all would stay in communion.
For Theodotus, a human being who does not believe adequately that the
incarnation happened as it did (that is, as Theodotus envisages and understands
it) not only denies the fact, but nullifies its effects. In short, by heresy man has
the power to undo a divine action.5'7 Theodotus does not go so far as to say
that the disbelief of one single human being nullifies the sanctification of
humanity as a whole. The unbeliever himself is deprived of the consequences
of the incarnation. Taking Theodotus’ logic to its last consequences would
mean that if all humanity fell into heresy, the effect of God’s incarnation would
be reversed, an option which Theodotus apparently never envisaged.

510 Cf. M. Simonetti, ‘Alcune osservazioni sul monofisismo di Cirillo” (1982), 496.
51 Qérellos 4.1, 122, 7-10; 124, 11-4, of. S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian
Controversy (2004), 99. See P. Gemeinhardt and K. Heyden (eds), Heilige, Heiliges und Heiligkeit
(2012), 412-3.
S!2 Qérellos 4.1, 132, 4ff.
513 ACOT 1/2, 72, 6-10.
514 Qérellos 4.1, 124, 11 ff, cf. S. Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy
(2004), 230ff.
515. Oérellos 4.1, 132, 4ff.
516 A.M. Crabbe. ‘The invitation list’ (1981), 386.
‘7 ACOT 1/2. 84, 6-7.
198 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

A heretical view of the incarnation contradicts the faith of all Christians,

It is not only a problem for those deprived of the salvation brought about by
the economy, since ideas can spread. Hence, with the ability and duty to lead
the faithful properly, the church as a whole and the preacher in particular have
a large role to play to avoid the existence of such ideas once they accept that
proper guidance includes keeping error away. The church ought to be one,
doctrinally homogeneous and disciplinarily undisturbed. Also the emperor
expected the church to become an all-encompassing unity.>!®
An important but not explicit future component in this concern for the pre-
sent state of salvation of humanity can be inferred from Theodotus’ vocabu-
lary. First, evil is still present and influential in this world. Human beings
are expected to strive to limit its influence and remove it, aided by divine
help, but the hope of a decisive victory over evil lingers in Theodotus’ works.
Secondly, when orthodox faith being rewarded is mentioned, reward in lifetime
is a significant component, yet the idea of an eschatological judgement is never
far!
Theodotus aims for a Christian world, where heresy is absent, and thus all
exist in the state in which humanity is supposed to be after the incarnation,
In such a world, every human being partakes in a relation to the divine, which
is a crown in itself.°*° The church had to grasp what that state was, and at
councils bishops contributed to establish statements on the faith and to care for
ecclesiastic purity. Theodotus preached on what the sessions were endorsing,
since the bishops had to understand it so as to preach likewise in their dioceses.
Then they would be contributing to the salvation of those who followed their
teaching, and qualify for seeing their efforts rewarded.
The future to which Theodotus refers**! is a time when by the action of
grace, in part via the church, all human beings live in that state of salvation.*7
It would apply as a reward only to those living then and thereafter. Doubtlessly,
Theodotus would have wished such an orthodox world to come into being in
his lifetime, yet it remains unclear how those already dead are rewarded for
their right faith. Placed side by side with homilies like Rheginus’, with clearer
eschatological content,**? Theodotus’ Homily VI suggests that a lifetime which
comes to an end within orthodox faith in the incamate God both experiences a
sanctified state at the moment of death, and awaits for an eschatological reward
in line with Rev. 14:13 and Col. 1:5a, for example.

518 See p. 23.

519 Cf H.v. Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril (2009), 573-4, and D.A. Keating, The
Appropriation of Divine Life (2004).
50 Qérellos 4.1, 132, 2ff.
521 Oérellos 4.1, 132, 3ff.
52 ACOI 1/2, 73, 19.
3 ACOT 1/2, 71, 8.
 Character and theology of Theodotus’ homilies 199

Thus, Theodotus’ conciliar homilies are a defence of the uprightness of the

conciliar proceeding and doctrine™ by placing them in the divine order, respec-
tively as one aspect of episcopal duty in the tradition of the church, and as an
expression of the teaching received through Christ, the scriptures, the Spirit,
and the fathers. He argues by expounding and clarifying a select number of
scriptural passages, which were widely used in the Christological debate.>*5 The
exegetical passages have many parallels in Cyril’s works, and if some differ-
ences can be noticed, then only in details casually mentioned and which were
not yet contentious.>*° Theodotus merely spoke about some aspects of a biblical
narrative,>?? including both Christ’s life and the life of the church, which his
audience also knew. Theodotus conceded some passages concerning God, his
actions and his influence were difficult for human beings to apprehend because
of their own limitations.*7® However, men ought not to remain in error, and
therefore mistakes in the understanding of arguably the most influential event
in the history of humanity had to be resolved. Theodotus described humanity
after the fall,*2? which is the condition in which God comes into the world,>2°
when he became knowable to human beings in an unimpeded manner that
contrasts with the veiled revelations in the Old Testament.*! Christ is as low
as the lowest human being, and obedient to the Cross,>? but his existence
redeems humanity because he is not a wiAd¢ man.>*? Theodotus employed
various terms and expressions to claim that the divine appropriates suffering,
insisting that this is a case where divine dealings are beyond human cognition,>*4
rather the most important wonder.*** The Incarnation is redeeming provided it
is properly understood, that is, as Theodotus presented it, but its efficacy is, in
his view, seriously undermined by misrepresentations, like that he ascribed to
Nestorius.*6 It was not only a mistake, but an evil spreading and countering
the saving divirie intervention.**’ There was, however, another parallel thread
in the oixovopia where men were expected to fulfil the divine ‘requests’.
Theodotus exhorted his audience to accomplish the tasks which befall bishops

4 See p. 99.
85 Cf p. 175.
26 Cf p. 175ff., 185ff.
"27 Cf p. 154ff.
8 Cf. p. 155ff., 162ff., 181ff.
See the section on p. 155.
sw
157ff.
VN

162ff.
164 ff.
. 157, 176.
wuV UVM

184.
180ff.
181 ff.
. 19LFE.
200 Theedotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

according to Christ’s commandments,*** arguing with reference to the dangers

of the spread of evil and the reward for those who believe appropriately,°39
Despite the bellicose vocabulary, it is a positive and constructive perspective
on faith and the duty of bishops, promoting unity and cohesion, and offering
‘another’ perspective on Cyril’s theology.**!

53 DP 1936f.
539 DP. 196ff.
40 E. Schwartz, Codex Vaticanus gr, 1431 (1927), 94.
lJ. Rucker, ‘Ephesinische Konzilsakten in armenischgeorgischer Uberlieferung’ (1930), 82-
 Conclusion

The study set out to contribute a new perspective on the available evidence how
bishops tackled the Christological debate around 430 and dealt with challenges
related to the imperially summoned Council of Ephesus by focusing on con-
ciliar homiletics and showing its significance in the wider historical and theo-
logical context. This has been achieved by clarifying in Chapter | the regional
parameters in which Theodotus’ theology and pastoral activity developed.
The next chapter described the events during the Council of Ephesus in which
Theodotus was involved as well as possible settings for preaching of conciliar
sermons or reading of homilies. Then, the analysis of his conciliar homilies
related the content to the conciliar setting, the form to the conventions of late
antique rhetoric, and the texts to their reception, especially through collections
of conciliar documents. The relation of Theodotus’ preaching to some of the
main challenges faced by the Cyrillian bishops during 431 was discussed in
Chapter 3, including the defence of the validity of their sessions, their choice
of Cyril’s theology as representative of the teaching of the church, and their
effort to become the univocal gathering of all bishops which they claimed to
be. The last sections detailed how Theodotus’ stated his motivations to support
and safeguard the teaching of the church in relation to the arguments employed
in the Christological debate — by him as well as other theologians. The result
is an appreciation of the self-representation of a bishop in a conciliar setting
responsible for both disciplinary and doctrinal matters, championing exclusion
from communion and leadership on grounds of sound theological teaching
which is concomitantly being conveyed to the audience and defended. Preach-
ing was an important means of mobilising support among other members of the
council as well as the clergy and population of the city; personal attacks, slo-
gans, and interaction with the audience were some of the rhetorical devices
employed by bishops openly defending their theological and ecclesiastical
views in homiletic form.! These elements add a new dimension to evidence
for conciliar studies, which usually analyse other sources, being more attentive
to meticulous reading of minutes and documents mentioned therein or closely
related to them.
Because of the specific perspective employed, the work may seem a limited
Contribution to conciliar and homiletic studies alike. Yet, at the intersection of
the distinct perspectives, it is claimed here, a number of pertinent observations
became possible that shed light on both questions and, importantly, illuminate
4n area hitherto neglected in scholarship of both fields. The chosen approach,
for one, provides a counterbalance to the conventional exclusive attention to

' See L.M. Frenkel, ‘Preaching at the Council of Ephesus’ (2012).

202 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

leading figures. Understanding the participation of important, but not major

bishops like Theodotus (who, for example, contributed to spread Cyril’s per-
spective and helped to achieve its acceptance) gives insight into the forma-
tion of Cyril’s prestige, illustrates the resonance of Cyrillian theology in the
episcopate and beyond, and thus underscores that the debate was not only a
personal fight over power. The few surviving sermons represent scarce, yet
valuable, evidence of an additional means of communication, with which coun-
cils presented and consolidated themselves: homiletics supplied bishops a cen-
tral, and likely highly effective device.
Analysing Theodotus of Ancyra’s homilies in relation to the Council of Ephe-
sus has shed light on the mechanisms of establishing and divulging theological
clarification. The grounds on which the defence of orthodoxy relied cannot be
explained in isolation from the theological content both in Theodotus’ statements
at conciliar sessions and also in his homilies. The connection is especially clear
in the brief conciliar homilies, and accordingly they were the appropriate
sources to be analysed here. The Council of Ephesus has a role in all that is
related to Theodotus. The scarce information available about the author is asso-
ciated to the council and its aftermath, the collections of Ephesian documents
are central for the transmission and reception of most of his texts, including
those prior to the council, while all his later writings incorporate the arguments
of patristic authority with which he defended the Cyrillian Council.
Against the background of church and society in his time (Chapter 1), a
study of the participation specifically in the Council of Ephesus has portrayed
Theodotus as a bishop who was, in the conciliar events as well as in the Chris-
tological debate, above the average. His rank of metropolitan bishop and the
status of his diocese are reflected in the order of the acclamations and votes.
His deeds displayed a greater engagement, whether by frequent interventions
at the sessions of 22 June, 10, 11 July, which included the important statement
against Nestorius, or by his participation in the delegation to the emperor.
Theodotus’ erudition, evidenced in his writings, can also be seen in the style
of his involvement at the council. By the analysis of Theodotus’ participation,
it has been possible to gather some information about conciliar processes with-
out relying on the better known leading characters: Cyril, Nestorius, as well
as Acacius of Melitene, Juvenal of Jerusalem, John of Antioch, Theodoret of
Cyrrhus. These figures are often too controversial in two regards, at least. It
seems that the information about the major bishops’ involvement in Ephesus
431 is coloured by what happened later, to an extent which cannot be deter-
mined precisely. They have close connections, often borne from personal
involvement, with events leading to and during the Council of Chalcedon, and
its reception. The delineation of theological parties, as well as the emerging or
developing dogmatic controversies caused prejudices on the reception of the
Council of Ephesus even in the early subsequent years. The problem does not
apply to the same extent to Theodotus whose role in the doctrinal, ecclesiastic
 Conclusion 203

and political disputes after Ephesus 431 was very limited. However, his role in
Ephesus in 431 was significant enough to offer a complex image of the mech-
anisms of underscoring theology in authoritative teaching received from tradi-
tion and clarified at councils. The second problematic aspect of seeing the most
important characters as representative of the issues at the First Council of Ephe-
sus is the extent to which their individual conflicts and agendas showed through
their actions at Ephesus, and that events at Ephesus were about them. Theodotus
can be seen as a better paradigm for all the other bishops gathered in Ephesus
and their engagement. Even if he stands out to some extent, and may have had
his own church-political agenda and theological preconceptions, and is there-
fore not a template for all bishops, his participation does not come from the
same level of personal involvement as that of the major bishops. Focusing on
Theodotus allows us to see the council from an angle which is not that of the
authors of a major part of the works associated with it. In other words, Theo-
dotus has been assigned (and fits) into a party of the theological debate, but
never has it been attempted to define or identify one of the parties with him.
Theodotus’ actions were mostly discussed in the first sections of Chapter 2,
which provided the background for the subsequent analysis of his rhetoric.
The focus on conciliar homiletics made it necessary to point to the relation of
the sermons not only to the general literary conventions, but also to specific
aspects derived from the conciliar setting in the next sections. As far as the
analysis of Theodotus’ works in the synodical setting allows generalisations, it
is likely that conciliar sermons had little impact on the outcome of the sessions,
where theological and church political issues dominate. Rather, they consoli-
dated the unity of the party and offered resources to argue for the views it was
endorsing. Expanding this material, the third chapter first analysed how the
content of the homilies reflects the Council of Ephesus, both in its agenda and
in the events. The reception of the works was also analysed, in the initial setting
of a congregation, and later as part of collections of documents or homilies.
The relation of the works to the conciliar contexts refers to the theological
issues at stake, and points to the motivation for preaching also to the council.
The homilies were composed for the sake of defending the faith, and how the
council’s authority was related to a tradition expressed in theological terms.
The last chapter also set out to explain why universal orthodoxy mattered,
exploring Theodotus’ theology and the connection he posited between salvation
and orthodoxy. To do so, it was necessary to sketch what Theodotus considered
orthodox, at least regarding Christology, which prevails in all his works and is
the theme better represented in the extant sources. Theodotus’ Christology has
many similarities and some differences to Cyril’s views. The sermons give a
valuable insight into the possibility of accommodating some variants, while not
tolerating others, such as views considered Nestorian. While delineating Theo-
dotus’ Christology, aspects of his ecclesiology and soteriology became evident.
This outlined the theological background in which Theodotus sees the role of
204 Theodows of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

preachers and bishops. They have to convey to all Christians the faith, which
is taught by the church. They are responsible for their own salvation and that
of their audience and their congregation. However, at least as a rhetorical tool,
Theodotus emphasises the need that all human beings become and remain
orthodox for salvation to be fulfilled, not nullified. Thus, when problems about
a tenet of faith, like a proper Christological understanding, are found among
a congregation, the preacher is bound to try to convey the orthodox view,
anchored in the authoritative tradition. The last chapter thus showed how Theo-
dotus preached at the council in support of the authority of the Cyrillian ses-
sions, so that the theology they endorsed would be acknowledged as part of the
teaching of the church.
From the historical study of the first two chapters, it may be suggested that
in the first quarter of the fifth century the Christological problems were geo-
graphically more widespread and multifaceted, and less related to personal
formulations of a Nestorius or a Cyril. Theodotus developed Christological
themes building on the topics and arguments of fourth-century Arian and Trin-
itarian debates. The controversies had involved several bishops of Ancyra, and
the region had a reputation of tolerance and accommodation. He preached
against views which may have developed endogenously in Ancyra independent
of Nestorius’ or Theodoret’s influence. After all, Ancyra had close links to
Antioch then, and it would eventually fall under the control of Constantinople.
In any case, Theodotus may have formulated his reaction against a ‘Nestorian’
Christology independently of Cyrillian influence in Galatia. Not only is Cyril’s
propaganda little documented and hard to date, but Theodotus’ homilies point
to a more ‘monophysite’ view.
It is likely that Theodotus noticed, at the latest while in Ephesus, that similar
educational or theological backgrounds could lead to opposite approaches to
theological problems, while dissimilar backgrounds could lead to solutions
which, albeit not identical, held in common what seemed to matter. On the
one hand, Theodotus and Nestorius may have had in common an Antiochene
educational background and an Oriental monastic experience, but faced with
theological, devotional and liturgical developments in their dioceses, they
tended to opposite Christological views. On the other hand, Theodotus found
someone who defended similar theological points of view in Cyril, who came
from an ‘Alexandrian’ background. Cyril referred often to Athanasius’ author-
ity, but his theology was influenced perhaps even in equal measure by the
Cappadocians. Their works served both Cyrillians and Orientals to underscore
their own claims. A few circumstances suggest Theodotus had early links to
Antioch, but his theology has little relation to a so-called Antiochene approach,
typified by comparison to the works of Nestorius, John and Theodoret. Rather,
Theodotus’ homilies transmitted in the Cyrillian collections of conciliar docu-
ments show similarities of vocabulary and arguments to the sermons of Cyril
and Acacius, for example. His writings correspond to the theological affiliation
 Cunclusion 205

he acknowledged in Ephesus.’ A good education in a specific tradition, immer-

sion in a sound theological heritage or a fine religious life experience were not
enough to lead someone to keep the right faith, however well intellectually
trained and gifted. Nestorius’ downtall epitomised the dangers arising from
what human intellectual faculties can achieve regarding the divine mysteries.
Theodotus’ reticence to reasoning is a Christological argument and. probably
also a pastoral concern, confirmed by the events during the Council of Ephesus.
The caution against reasoning contributed, it seems, to a reliance on author-
ity, on theological slogans, and reticence towards investigation of theological
matters. Theodotus suggested that the solution for the church was to rely on
unchanging authoritative statements. These would be the scriptures, short slo-
gan-like passages from some fathers and especially the Nicene creed. Theodo-
tus preached about the reliance on authority to the conciliar bishops, defending
that conciliar decisions should be grounded on these pillars. He relied on their
authority when preaching in Ancyra, both before and after the council, and
when writing his treatises.
Theodotus employed such yardsticks with a hierarchical gradation which was
made possible by his attitude to language. Scripture is the central source of
authority, from which all other assertions derive their strength. In homilies
he could expand scripture with passages which resembled it closely, or with
rhetorical figures interwoven in scriptural allusions. Theodotus argued for the
authority of the fathers next, especially in Homily VI. Their teaching provides
strength to the church. It is endorsed by tradition, through use and repetition of
allusions, encapsulated in selected excerpts, but does not extend to every text
of a father of acknowledged authority. This contrasts with scripture, from which
any excerpt, however much torn out of context, is theoretically authoritative
to serve as a proof-text, although during controversies enemies were often
denounced for inappropriate exegesis.
The validation of the teaching by the living tradition of the church has its
high point in the approval of texts at synods and councils. Credal formulae are,
in this regard, a special example. Early examples echo scripture much, but most
extant texts are patristic formulations that incorporate non-biblical vocabulary.
The formulae do not draw authority from the endorsement of individual bish-
ops, however intellectually or hierarchically elevated, but from collective and
unanimous approval, where the accordance of many is meant to reflect divine

> A question not addressed here are the mechanisms for countering ‘novelties’ relying only
On the already available authoritative content, which may not answer precisely the problems,
before a synod offers ‘clarifying’ options. Homilies I and II, seen as pre-Ephesian homilies, would
exemplify this.
* Although manuscript evidence points to the availability of various readings in the fifth century,
re canonicity of a version is not a debated issue in the extant texts related to the Council of
phesus.
206 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

guidance. The Council of Ephesus relied on the Nicene creed, setting it apart
of other credal formulae and statements of faith.‘
The allusions to patristic formulations and explanations mainly refer to suc.
cinct excerpts synodically approved or endorsed by the ‘living tradition’ of the
church. The brief phrases tend to acquire a slogan-like character. Correspondingly,
slogans, like ‘Theotokos’, are taken up, and by recurrent use stand for the
orthodox answer to heresy. Theodotus’ homilies indicate that he sometimes
built also on the veneration of saints, apocryphal narratives, and popular deyo-
tions as appealing examples of orthodox tradition. He used their efficaciousnesg
to refute ‘mistaken’ theological claims.
Theodotus’ homilies conveyed to bishops and congregations the importance
of the conciliar decisions and made orthodoxy relevant for their religious
life.5 He claimed that a proper understanding and acceptance of theology was
a sine qua non condition for the salvific validity and effect of the incarnation,
To this end he expressed clearly that the ‘right’ view was anchored in tradition,
emphasising the authority of the church and of the fathers of the church.
In festal sermons, Theodotus spread ‘orthodoxy’ by instructing his flock with
allusions to the central topics of the contemporaneous theological debates
alongside the themes which form the main argument of the feast, or together
with images linked to popular devotion, and he did not address openly and
directly the theological difficulties. In order to tackle heterodoxy, first it was
encapsulated in set phrases, which could then be attacked without exposing ortho-
doxy to questions at the same time. Slogans, like those attributed to Nestorius,
were to a large extent theological absurdities, standing in contradiction to
authoritative catchwords and formulae, such as ‘for our sake’, and ‘Theotokos’.
In Ephesus, Theodotus was an ally with Cyril whose ideas he claimed to be
worthy to commend as authoritative. Theodotus acknowledged Cyril’s impor-
tance, and put it in the context of the council’s role of defining orthodoxy and
church policy, which ought to influence imperial policy and the otkovpévn
constructively. The agenda and rhetoric of the documentation of Ephesus pre-
dominate in the arguments which could indicate reciprocal influence between
Theodotus and Cyril. Theodotus espoused the Cyrillian viewpoint forthrightly,
but his rationale may have had some influence. For example, some arguments
in Homilies I and IJ are only echoed in works which Cyril wrote after the session
of 22 June.
Theodotus’ thoughts cannot be considered ground-breaking. At best, he stands
as a forerunner of trends in conciliar authority and reliance on slogans that afe
better seen at Chalcedon. Theodotus’ actions and especially his statements
about ecclesiology and salvation exemplify his argument about the need of al

4 Theodotus later addressed its centrality in the Exp. symb.

5 See C.B. Hom, Asceticism and Christological Controversy (2006), 3 on continuing com
cern of whole segments of the population with the theological debates.
 Conclusion 207

unwavering commitment to a certain set of ideas and beliefs. The constancy

to a faith formulated within schematic boundaries can be seen at work when
Thceodotus and Nestorius could not surpass the gulf which had emerged between
their theologies, foreshadowing the post-Chalcedonian schism. Theodotus’ out-
put is an early testimony of coherently adopting an approach to religion and
faith that highlights the love for the mystery, and claims to disparage religious
polemics.°

® See p. 5.
 Appendix
Translation of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies

The translations of Theodotus’ four conciliar homilies have been prepared from
published critical editions,’ taking into account some existing translations.
Even if every translation is an interpretation, an attempt has been made not to
impose through the version an explanation. I tried to add only as many words
as necessary to meet English grammatical requirements, and to preserve the
possibility of various meanings of the participles, particles and pronouns.

A.2. Homilies preached at the Council of Ephesus

The structure of the texts of Homilies IfI and VI is indicated with brief com-
ments in square brackets.

Homily HI
p-71120 Homily by Theodotus of Ancyra, pronounced in Ephesus against Nestorius,
in the church of St. John the Evangelist
[The session of 22 June is described with the images of the medical topos.
Nestorius is the corrupted member which is severed to avoid the spread of the
infectious error. The church is explicitly described as the holy priesthood.)

' What the doctor is for our bodies, the priest is for the souls.
Indeed, since the error is an illness of the souls, and, if it carries on, it brings the
punishing death,
'25 the grace of the Spirit has established?, as remedy, the holy priesthood,
and it has severed the member that was affected by the suffering,
not being unsparing with that one, but sparing the remaining members.
[The church is diseased when its holiness is blemished. An error is dangerous
when it spreads, which is possible when there is contiguity and communication.
To cease these is seen as a treatment, described with emphasis on the oldness of

' B. Schwartz, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum (1914ff.) and B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1
(1979), respectively. Superscript page and line numbers refer to the critical editions, while super-
Script bold roman numbers refer to the paragraph numbering in PG 77: J.P. Migne, S. Cyrillus
Alexandrinus, Theodotus Ancyranus (1859), 1349-89.
? Homily I-III: ibid., A.J. Festugiére, Ephése et Chalcédoine: actes (1982), 267-94; G.L. Castro,
Teodoto di Ancira (1992), 69-104. Homily VI: B.M. Weischer, Qére!los 4.1 (1979), 123-33. My
thanks to Peter Fisher for his help with the translation.
* @ixovépnoev.
210 Theadotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

this iraditional remedy, alongside claiins that il is both necessary and beneficent,
The need to plant and sever is described in antithetical clauses, alongside the use
of terms of husbandry. Finally, the ideas which the next paragraph counters are
introduced.|

Since indeed the contiguity* of the rotten faith causes a communication? of the
evil, it severs the member so as to sever the evil, and that is not cruelty, but
medicinal treatment.
It is weeping that the doctor severs the member, but the sparing makes severing
a remedy.
'30Tt is an old form of treatment, and it goes back to the origins: that is how
also the saints® have taken care of this most-sacred church.
For the priest also carries a sword, not to harm, but to cure.
This, grace has previously first conveyed to Jeremiah when it says: ‘TodayI
appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and
overthrow, to build and to plant.’’ For piety is not planted °”” if corruption is
not first severed.
Doubtlessly it is reasonable from the start to water, to employ care for farming,
to supply words of piety, to apply all care to the member:
but if badness becomes stronger than care, excision is the medicine for those
thus disposed.®
Indeed, how would one remedy one of those so disposed, who criticise in God
the human aspects, '* and make grace into a part of reproach?
[In a fictional dialogue, the interlocutor voices elements of Nestorian Christology,
and Theodotus answers that they deny the salvation brought about by the incamation.]

il What do you say? Answer me! I deny, says he, that God has suffered.
If you are looking at the nature, you see well;
but if you take away completely the suffering, you deny the dispensation’.
{In antithetical statements the incarnation is described in a narrative of descent,
that is brought about by the love of God for mankind, and that lifts humanity
up.]

No longer insult the suffering God, but consider the usefulness of the sufferings!
God has descended into indignity,
not diminished with respect to nature, but conferring his grace.
He remained what he was. And he has assumed what he was not.

4 tO ovvexés.
5 petadoow.
© ot Gyro.
7 Jer. 1:10, transtation from the NIV.
® rav obtas SiaKxetpévov.
* oixovopia.
 Appendix: Translation of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies 211

He remained God according to his '!° nature, he became what you are on account
of his philanthropy for you.
[The incarnation is described as a salvific outrage. Christ is the doctor on whom
the care depends. He accepted all the human, including the sufferings, in order to
save humans, because of the fall.]

Do not turn into outrage" the manner of the care. Do not offend the doctor!,
even if by the meanness of the body he procured the cure. For this meanness
is not an outrage, but a sign of the philanthropy.
He descended towards you, not to remain down, but so as to lift you towards
him. Do not reject the descent, so as not to lose the ascension.
Accept the outrage which has generated glory for you. The nature has not been
outraged, but the grace conveys to you the good things.
Because of you, the outraged servant, the lord '!5 has been outraged!
He took up what is yours, since you had abandoned what is his.
[The fall and its consequences.]

MI We distanced ourselves from the good lord.

We did not bear the grace that was being given by the lord.
We, loaning, took the advantage of paradise.
We transgressed the law. We offended the legislator.
We obeyed the enemy. We fell out of honour.
[The incapacity of human beings to escape the fallen state on their own.]

The runaway lived in this earthly place. '!?° He has not lifted the head towards
the lord.
Pleasure held down the fugitive. Sin held captive the runaway.
It was hopeless for our mind!! to lift the head towards God. What then?
Would my slowness cause God the loss of his most beautiful creation, the
human being?
But the God of the universe did not suffer this.
Neither was it necessary that envy would rule over the grace of the lord, nor that the
gift of God should be defeated by the plot of the devil. Then what did the lord do?
[The manner of the incarnation, God appearing in extreme lowness so as not to
frighten.]

'°5 He became near the runaway one, for the slave was not able to go near him.
He became near the servant, not in lordly majesty, nor sending ahead a guard
of honour of angels, nor putting into motion phalanxes of archangels, nor mov-
ing flames, nor shaking the elements.

10
bBors.
"' Siavoia.
212 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

That would be to make the runaway a fugitive.

But he came near wishing to catch the fugitive, wanting to possess his own
creation.
He does not frighten by what appears!”, but he calls for association!* '° by the
meanness of the person.'*
He became a co-slave, in order to be proclaimed lord.
[Exegesis of Phil. 2:5, criticising those who divide Christ in attempts to say pre-
cisely what suffers.]

'V For because of this the great apostle said: Each ‘among you consider’ this
which was also in Christ Jesus’.!®
There he says Jesus.
Tell, which? The mother gave the appellation to the new-bom: ‘You shall call
his name Jesus’.!’
Where is he who divides the Christ? Where is he who does equivocality!® to
our mystery, and on the one hand says Christ (is) one, but on the other sup-
poses two? .
!35 One the slave, the other the lord; one the sufferer, the other the not suffering?
What is the benefit °? of one single appellation, while positing two things?
Each ‘among you consider this which was also in Christ Jesus! ’!? He says Jesus
of this seen one, the virgin called thus.
Each ‘among you consider this which was also in Christ Jesus! ’2° For what did
we consider in Christ Jesus?
[Exegesis of Phil. 2:6-7a, contrasting the emptying of God with the absence of
detriment to his divine attributes, so that Christ had no need to reach out to any
divine aspect.]

‘Who, being in form?! God, did not consider equality !° with God a booty to be
grasped’.?? What is it, that is being said?
He, who took freedom out of a booty, does not sustain anything servile, in order
not to cause detriment to freedom.
Then what is he?

paivopat.
Sptdia.
5
ee

Tpdcwnov.
ave

Opoveito.
v Pee
ee ee

Phil. 2:5.
Luke 1:31.
=F sseert

duovopiav Epyatopar.
Phil. 2:5.
Phil. 2:5.
open, occasionally rendered as ‘nature’.
Phil. 2:6.
 Appendix: Translation of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies 213

Since by nature he was lord, he ‘did not consider equality with God a booty to
be grasped’,?? for what [pertains to] the dispensation did no harm to the divinity.
‘Who, being in form God, did not consider equality with God a booty to be
grasped, but emptied himself’.**
¥ Tell me the ''!° emptying of the only-begotten!
(The sufferings are the expression of Christ’s appearing as human being, without
any detriment to the divine impassibility. The miracles, performed by him as God,
showed him as such.]

If he had not suffered the human [aspects], how was he emptied?

Whenever I say that God has suffered, I say [it] keeping the impassive nature.
For suffering was appended* to God: not a passive nature, but the union to the
suffering.
For when the philanthrope lord had decided to sympathise with the servant
(but he was holding the impassive nature), he united to himself the suffering
that fulfilled the project”®.
Thus the lord became near, thus he approached the fugitive,
as a! 5 co-slave appearing, and as lord acting well,
the form of a slave?’ showing, and the grace of a lord conferring,
hungering”® as a slave, and gushing forth breads as God,”?
toiling as a human being, and on the surface of the sea walking as God,*°
shrinking from the cross as a human being.?!
Indeed, what appeared was made believable*” by the sufferings, and the hidden
one was shown by the wonders.
Thus he appears as a human being, leading us all together to the relationship.”
[Praise of the piety practised in Ephesus as a reflex of John’s teaching; final dox-
ology.]

John, !2°he imposed for us as teacher, the son of the thunder, he who conferred to
this metropolis the common treasure of the world**, he who in one single verse

Phil. 2:6.
Phil. 2:6-7a.
Dm
QE

TEPLaNTa.
OKONOS.
be ak we

Cf. Phil. 2:7b.

Ph Cf. Luke 4:2, but also by sound similarity of metvaw and tame1vdéw to the ‘lowering’ in
Ey

i, 2:8a.
°° Matt. 14:13-21; 15:32-9 and similar; John 6:1-15.
° Matt. 14:22-32, John 6:16-21.
| Matt. 26:37-44.
® &motoito.
* olxeotyta.
4 oixovpévn.
214 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

has expressed all the piety: for ‘the word’, he says, ‘became flesh’.*> The being36
became flesh, on the one hand being because of the nature, on the other, becom-
ing because of the dispensation!
Through whom and with whom to the Father the glory, and the power, with the
Holy Spirit for ever. Amen.

Homily VI
P-122 [Homily] By Theodotus, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, on that day.
(While greeting the bishops in the audience, Theodotus recognises approvingly
their joy for the victorious achievements against Christological heresy, and places
Cyril at the centre.]

1. Cheerful and happy I see this assembly,*’ and strengthened by the fight for
the faith, which you have fought, because you have fought well,
and in your faces*® is visible '5 the joy for the fight, as the soul looks through
the eyes, and reveals itself, in the face, how it is.
Rejoice, you good sons, in the assembly of the good and of the holy fathers!
Rejoice, you pure sons of the faith, be happy that you see Christ glorified! Your
crown is this choir of the fathers, and in its midst is '!® the precious stone that
is come from Egypt by the greatness of the grace of the lord.
[Egypt is praised as a means to commend its patriarch Cyril and serves as thematic
link to scriptural passages relevant for Christological topics: the exegesis of the
flight into Egypt places emphasis on the childhood of the incarnated and reiterates
that Jesus was a fugitive for our sake.]

2. Not for such a gift was the former Egypt designed.

Today it has become heaven, because the light of the sun in the sky does not
shine like this, as Egypt shines.
First, because in there was ?-'*4 the child Jesus, having become a fugitive for
our sake;
then, when they who would not recognise the incarnation*’ despised his flight,
the child, who for our sake fled, Egypt received.
And at that time it was honoured through the child, which is the creator of the
whole world, and who became a child for our sake.

38 John 1:14.
© 8 dv.
4k: congregation, synod.
*8 9%: possibly for tpdcwxov. See A. Dillmann, Chrestomathia Aethiopica (1866), 273.
% aN: incarnation, taking on of human nature. but also humanity, human nature. See
A. Dillmann, Chrestomathia Aethiopica (1866), 197, H. Ludolf, Jobi Ludolfi 1.C. Lexicon aethiopico-
latinum (1661), 134-5.
 Appendix: Translation of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies 215

{Suffering proved in what Christ appears, his actions vanquished the devil. Praise
of Cyril on account of his Christological teaching.}

Do not pay heed“ that he fled, '* oh renegade,*! but pay beed that the flight of
the child drove into fleeing the devil!
Because he did not flee out of fear, but to demonstrate his humanhood.
For he became a human being for your sake, to demonstrate, in your” suffering,
in what he was visible.
Therefore, do not underrate the sufferings, because through them he demonstrated
his humanhood.
Then, Egypt was honoured, when as !!° a child, in body* Jesus was there; for
a child he became, as your very self, to make you a child by meekness.*
Today, however, there is one in it*S who with the saviour shines forth like him
in the midst of the crown, and enlightens the souls by righteousness, in that he
teaches the faith.
In truth,” therefore, rejoice now, and exult, pure fathers, in that you pay heed!
[As in the opening, opposition to the spread of unbelief is described as a successful
battle.]

3.15 And I wish to show you another joy. And which is this?
Numerous were the billows of unbelief, but they could not shake us.
Much battle happened in the opposition’ to your faith, but no one °:!76 wavered.
Arrows were released, but no one is wounded.
The enemy banded together, but, defeated, fled, amazed by the strength of the
church and its faith.
[The success of the fight against heresy is due to the strength of the church, which
comes from its foundation on the biblical rock (Matt. 16:20). The rock is first
described as the wisdom of Christ, and in the ensuing fictional dialogue, a para-
phrase of Mart. 16:13-20,*8 Theodotus presents elements of his Christology.]
I admire and marvel at the wisdom of the building-master Christ, who built it,
and a rock it is, on which the church was built.

2d: consider, reason about.

6AM: perfidious one, heretic, but also in Matt. 17:17.
Therefore, human.
/”, incamate, bodily.
f@uG: simplicity, rectitude.
Le. Egypt.
4°77: alternatively: your belief.
bak: controversy, disobedience, infidelity.
The cited verses are never identical to but follow most closely R. Zuurmond, Novus testa-
mentum Aethiopice (2001), 356 or 357.
216 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Fphesns (431)

4.5 Do you want to become acquainted with the rock, on which you” are built
and are unshakeable?
The saviour, in conversation with his disciples, said: Whom do humans call me,
the son of man?
I do not speak about my concealed [thing],*° but about what is visible.>!
Whom do humans call me, the son of man? —
Do you not know, '!° 0 lord, the heart of human beings?
You, who live in our mind,*? do you not know our heart?
What is unknown to you, who [even] knows what will be, before it comes to
be? —
whom do humans call me, the son of man, me, the visible one? Say, whom do
humans call me? —
Some call you Elijah; others call you Isaiah, and again others °-'28 call you one
of the prophets, themselves honoured. —
[The faith of the bishops is probed and those whose Christology questions the
incarnation of God in the ‘visible one’ are confuted.]

But you, oh rocks of the church? —

Where was he, who would have said about Christ, that he is an honoured man,
and would not have believed about him that he is the incarnate one?
If he had been an honoured man, then the honour of a prophet would have been
enough.
'5 If it was not enough, then he was the incarnate one. —
Whom do humans call me, the son of man? — Some call you Elijah; others call
you Isaiah, again others call you Jeremiah, and others call you one of the proph-
ets. - But you, whom do you call me, the visible one, not the concealed one? —
[The conclusion of the dialogue based on Matt. 16:13-20 emphasises the divinity
in Christ, as the correct understanding of the incarnation.]

And replying '!° Peter narrated** that which became foundation and rock of the
church.
And what did he answer?
‘You are Christ, the son of the living God.’ The visible one he called ‘son of
the living God’.
And he did not rebuke him, as if he had honoured him above his ousia,® but
praised Peter blessed. ‘Truly’, he answered and '!5 said to him: ‘You are blessed,

4 You: plural.
© pas.
5) ASATCA,.
2 @S: cogitatio; also: spirit, intent.
53 fdié: renowned, glorious, distinct.
“4 ¥7é: explained, enunciated.
55 yA®: essence, existence, substance, nature. Used c.g. for doovo10s.
 Appendix: Translation of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies 217

Simon, son of Jonah, for not what is body** has revealed [this] unto you, but
my father, who is in heaven.’ —
Oh renegade, become blessed and not condemned! —
Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for not what is body and the blood have
revealed [this] unto you, and because you called me, the visible one, ‘God
word’,°” and the mystery of the incarnation,* truly, you °'*° recognised, and
what is in the form of a servant, lord you called.
[The correct understanding of the incarnation, and Peter, on account of having it,
are the foundation of the church. Its strength comes from its members supporting
themselves on it. Confession of an undivided Christology.]

Receive therefore the earnings from the lord! Henceforward I give you a power,
that goes beyond*’ honour, and I say to you: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock
I build the church’.
5. '5 Thus, this rock is our foundation, and therefore the billows of the error®
will not shake our building, and it shall be for us all, that we may support
ourselves on it.
On this rock of the faith shall we be built, and be in Christ Jesus, in that we
believe in one and only son of God, in that we do not divide and do not sepa-
rate the one.
[Those who attempt to introduce divisions in Christ are equalled to the snake
(= devil).]

'19 For what was united shall not be separated, and what grace has united, the
mind®! shall not separate.
Why do you, oh virile one, dissolve the incarnation? God united himself to man.
And why do you envy the progeny of man, and equal yourself to the snake
of the earth?.
For also it envied the work of God, when from dust a likeness of himself '!5 he
formed. And today you are envious, when he has made his likeness the consort
of his throne.
Do not be amazed about it!
But if you truly wish to be envious, then envy him who was once created accord-
ing to the image of God.

6 2,
57 PA: LOYOS.
58 +--+: embodiment; not Fila, used elsewhere.
avert: alternatively: ‘is more than’, or ‘comes from’.
1.92: alternatively: impiety.
6 Ans. .
1K0,: man, husband; but similar to 1AM: worse, contend.
3 tOAg.
218 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

[Exhortation of commitment to the defence of the faith, assurance of success,

despite troubles, in view of the solid faith foundation. Vows of growth of the
church in the concluding doxology.]

P-132 6, By these words let us therefore be erected on this great rock, and praise
him, who is God above all, in that you strengthen your minds in you!
Fight, my friends, for the sake of justice, for without fight no one is crowned,
And because of this, with fortune is rewarded the '5 suffering.
And to us all may be given, by the grace of Christ, the lord, that we, in the holy
church of Christ Jesus, increase, erected on the foundation of the apostles and
prophets.

A.3. Homilies said to have been read at the Council of Ephesus

In the following translation of Theodotus’ Homilies I and II, I ventured to suggest
the late antique reception of the text even more than in the rendition of the con-
ciliar sermons. Accordingly, the English vocabulary envisages an audience which
employed Greek not only for religious purposes and was somewhat familiar with
the socio-political structures of the Roman Empire.“ For the sake of a clear rendi-
tion of Theodotus’ theological lexicon, the expressions on nature, division, think-
ing, appropriation and movement are translated as systematically as possible. The
effort to preserve words, such as AGyoc and mpa@yya, may have led to a dense
text which, it is hoped, echoes the original also in occasional opaqueness.®

Homily I

P.73125 (Homily) By Theodotus, bishop of Ancyra, at the engendering of the

saviour, read aloud in the synod, in the time of the Bishop Cyril
' The theme of this present feast is splendid, and conveys a common salvation
to human beings.
And splendid also is the present gathering, which welcomes grace gratefully. °
And abundant grace is given to those who welcome her with gratitude;
for so great a measure of bounty is provided as the greatness of the gratitude
of those to whom the grace is conveyed,
as when you®, taking bounty, gratify the giver, not only having repaid for the
things you took, °74 but also making the giver more of a debtor to you.

*4 For example, BactAstc and derivatives are translated as ‘emperor’, also in citations of and
passages that allude to Matthew 2.
65 Parentheses enclose added words; square and angle brackets refer to text critical marks in
E. Schwartz, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum (1914ff.), and as in it, Homily II precedes I.
6 G&vOpwros.
" You: singular.
 Appendix: Translation of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies 219

Gratefully then, accept® the grace, by exhibiting that this audience is splendid
for us!
Yet the theme of the feast is God’s manifestation towards human beings,
the coming of the ever-present one,
the visit of the all-fulfilling one,
the attention of the all-seeing one.
‘He came into his own’, he says, ‘and his '° own did not receive him’, rather
‘he was in the world and the world came to be through him, and the world did
not know him’.
But ignorance itself is not part of the accusation against’! human beings.
For God is unattainable to human reasonings because of the divinity of (his)
nature;
for it is not natural for the mind of human beings to descry him.
The divine nature eludes the mind of human beings; it is loftier than our rea-
soning.
We then suffer loss '!° of knowledge of God through (his) better nature; in order
that precisely that does not come about, the invisible takes up a visible nature,
the one who is not governed by touch accepts a body that is tangible.
The invisible God becomes seen;
the word is tangible;
the only-begotten child of God becomes akin to the slaves,
in order that the nature which surpasses the human being may not pass unno-
ticed by the recognition of human beings.
And do not consider strange to God the son who came into being.
" For long ago the advent”? of God was pre-prepared; ''5 he, appearing, was
always made known by human characteristics, appropriating from us materials
which can be seen.

For let a Jew come forward into the midst; .

let anyone who utterly disbelieves the manifestation of God that appeared to
human beings in the nature of a human being come forward!
Let him tell me, how did Moses see God?
Did he see the invisible nature?
In no wise! For it is unattainable to human reasonings.
But how '° did he see? Talk!
(He saw) fire being kindled out of the bramble and not destroying the bramble.”

You: plural.
© John 1:11.
John 1:10.
"| xatnyyopias: alternatively ‘predication of”.
® napovoia.
™ Cf Ex. 3:2.
220 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Then why do you disbelieve in the one who was born from a virgin and who
did not destroy virginity?
Or, on the one hand, hearing that God speaks out of the bramble and says to
Moses, ‘I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob’,’* and that Moses, falling down, makes obeisance,
do you believe, not reasoning about the seen fire, but the speaking God;
on the other hand, whenever I recollect a virgin womb, !°
you loath it and turn away.
For what is more worthless, talk!, a bramble or a virgin womb spotless as
regards the sufferings of sin?
Do you not know that ancient things are a practice for the newer and for the
things that have come to be now? For the mysteries are prefigured through
what is old”.
Because of this, a bramble is kindled, fire appears and the elements of the fire”
neither operate nor indeed afflict.
Do you not see, in the bramble, the virgin?
Do you not behold, in the fire, the philanthropy of him who descended?
The judge (is) among !*° the condemned and judgement does not come about;
the arbiter, among the sentenced, and nowhere retribution.
The judge has been established, yet not judging but teaching, not sentencing
but healing.
Do you see how that gentle fire thus disclosed philanthropy?
Do not wonder if he, being God, is born through a virgin’s °7> womb; for God does
not consider anything an outrage which is a cause of salvation for human beings.
Yet do not give me this retort, that the nature of God is mean, as it once became
attainable for outrages.
For nothing of the mean things that he decided on for our sake outrages that
nature, but he appropriates” lesser things”® in order to save our nature.
Then, since the mean things do not outrage the nature of the blessed God, but
produce salvation for human beings, '° ™ how will you say that the motives of
our salvation became causes of outrage to God?
Therefore, today God became visible through a virgin, and the virgin remained
a virgin and became a mother. For the agent of incorruption does not produce
deterioration; the maker of immortality corrupts nothing.
Yet, since Photinus also says that the one who is born is a mere human being,
denying that the '!° birth”? is from God, and assumes that the human being
coming forth from the womb is divided from God,

4 Ex, 3:6,
® t@Ov nakadv.
x3 5

7% t& RvpOds.
7 oixeodtat.
* t& éXattova.
% tOKoOV.
 Appendix: Translation of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies 221i

let him now say to me how the human nature, being born through a virgin
womb, preserved the virginity of the mother uncorrupted. For no mother of a
human being has remained a virgin.
Do you see how what happened provides me with a twofold concept of who
was born?
On the one hand, if he was born like us,®° he was a human being;
on the other, if he preserved the mother as a virgin, he who was born is made
known as God by those who consider properly.
For God visited the world, not interchanging one place for another, '!> but hav-
ing enveloped himself with my nature, and, as I said, wished to be visible, (he,)
the invisible one by nature,
so that from the birth he did not begin to be God, but (began) to appear to
human beings.®!
For since he was God, he undertook to become a human being because of the
philanthropy towards us,
in order that we should embrace the judge as (our) kin,
in order that we, who have no free-speech (arising) from our own accomplish-
ments, are able to be confident.
For having been led to the tribune, they, '?° who do not speak freely through
their own®? virtues, reap free-speech as if from their own*? kin.
What then?
God visited as a human being, not exchanging one place for another, but exhib-
iting the invisible nature as visible
and having been seen as human being, and appeared akin to human beings,
even as the evangelist announces, saying that ‘the word became flesh’ .®4
125 And how, says he, did the word become flesh? How was it possible for
the divine word to become a human being?
Do you ask the way of God’s wonders?
If the incomprehensibility of the word was attainable for us, it would not be a
wonder, but a natural thing®>; but if what has come to be is a wonder and a
sign, concede the word to the wonder-working lord!
For that he came about, I wish you to know and to reap the profit for your faith
from what happened; and how |° he came about, concede to him who effects
it!

© xa8 fas.
" Hote odk Eoyev Api tod sivar Beds &k TOD ToKOD, GALE Tod Mavivat dvOpdrotc:
“so that he did not possess a beginning of being God, but of appearing to human beings’. Compare
with ACO I 1/2, 77, 24; 30-2, and, in Homily I, ACO I 1/2, 82, 18-9.
® oikeiov.
3 iBiov.
84 John 1:14.
SS Kate @bolv Tpayya.
222 Theodotus ot Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Or do you believe the doctor, who prescribes, and do not meddle with the way
of the treatment, trusting your own salvation to the art®*, though °° any one
else, who is unskilled, meddles with the way of the art; but on the one hand
gain knowledge of what came to be, on the other, concede the way to the art!
Yet, do you seek after the words of all the wonders that have been worked by
God as though you were in need of (the) words, in order that you also might
work the same wonders for God?
But precisely what I was saying, I say now: of a thing, of which we know the
word, | its nature is neither wonder nor sign.
Such is what I say.
A builder creates a house:
we know the word, we gain knowledge of the materials put together, we are
able to talk about what has come to be, although because of (our) unskillfulness
we will not be competent to effect it.
The only-begotten moulded from mud eyes for the one blind since the hour of
birth;87
this is beyond our word; a wonder it is called, not investigated by reasonings
of human beings; a sign it is called that happened beyond habitual® !!° nature.
And that it came to be we know, but we are unable to talk of the way.
For tile and brick are prepared out of mud, (but) a nobility of eyes is not
moulded, fine membranes do not come to be, changefulness of seeing is not
assembled, exactness of a sphere is not rounded off with such a fine mien.
Mud is not by nature proper to be lifted up towards a nobility of eyes. Surely
then, it is precisely that that the nature of the earth does not admit; for it is not
by nature proper to admit of the idea of an eye, !!5 it accepted this from the
wonders-working one, who drew the nature towards his own will, while he
himself is not a slave to the word of nature.
No longer then rely on a weakness of human nature nor say:
how did the nature of a human being have room for God?
how did God become a human being?
how did the word of God become a visible flesh?
But believe that it came to be, (and) allow the one who has made it to know
the way.
Y And if you also will to articulate clearly out of an illustration what is set
before (us), !?° [ will show you how the incorporeal is embodied, the invisible
is seen, the intangible is tangible,
not having been altered according to his own nature,®* but having taken up 4
visible and tangible shape.

86 téyvn.
7 Cf. John 9:1.6.
*

88 ouvi6n.
cit olkeiat pboel.
 Appendix: Translation of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies 223

This word, the one spoken, which I call of the human beings, by employing
which we associate with others, and explain notions” to one another,
is a word not seen, nor touched with hand, only resonating through hearing.
But whenever I adduce the spoken '** word as an illustration of the enhypo-
static word of God,
you shall not consider that I say that the divine word is spoken! Begone!
For word is said of the only-begotten, while divine scripture explains the impas-
sivity of his engendering, since the mind of human beings also gives birth to
the word impassively.
Because of this, there it designates the son of God himself,
here it names a word,
elsewhere the divine scripture calls (him) effulgence,?!
saying each of these names about him, in order that '3° you may think the things
said about Christ exempt from blasphemies.
For sometimes it employed such designations, sometimes others, willing that
the instruction appropriate to the glory of God is made.
Yl Such is what I say: it calls the only-begotten ‘son of the father’, having
willed to present the homoousion by the glory.°?
For since your son comes to be for you of the same nature (as you), the word,
wishing to show one single essence of father and son, says son of the father of
the only-begotten engendered !*° out of him.
Next, since engendering, and son, provides us with an impression of the suf-
fering according to °-”’ the engendering,
it designates this son also word, revealing by this name the impassivity of the
engendering.
But since someone who, admittedly as a human being, becomes a father is
exhibited older than his own son, while the designation itself provides that (we)
observe the father before the son,
so that you shall not retort the same also of the divine nature, but '* shall think
that the only-begotten already existed with the father continuously, it calls
‘effulgence’ the only-begotten of the father.”
For the effulgence is bern out of the sun, while in no wise it is thought as taking
place later than the sun, but we think that exactly from when the sun (is), then
also (is) the effulgence born out of the sun.
Then let the effulgence disclose for you that the son always existed with the
father!
Let the word reveal the impassivity of the engendering!
Let the son make known the homoousion! !!¢

te évObpua.
Cf. Hebr. 1:3.
©

92
Alternatively, ‘having willed to represent the homoousion to the glory’.
Cf. Hebr. 1:3.
<
224 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Vv But let us recapitulate what is set before (us),

and let us reveal the manifestation of the divine word born today,
and let us exhibit through an illustration how what is not seen by nature becomes
seen,
and what is not tangible because of (its) incorporeal nature, is found, tangible.
Therefore, this word, which we speak, <which is in> the communications
[which] we employ is an incorporeal word, not appearing to sight, not being
tangible by touch.
But !'5 whenever the word puts on letters and sounds”, it becomes apparent, is
grasped by sight, is tangible by touch.
For me, then, assume one speaking with another!
The pre-existing word is not seen, is it? We do not touch with (our) hands the
word that is poured out, do we?
However, if you write on papyrus those (words) which you said, what you did
not see beforehand, you see later, and the very kind’ of word which you did
not touch beforehand, you shall touch through the papyrus and the letters.
Why?
Because the incorporeal '”° word puts on the body of the papyrus and the shape
of the sounds.
Surely then, since the illustration became clear and you remembered by habitual”
illustrations,
come, let us show how the only-begotten son of God(,) the divine word, who
is eternal with the father(,) being incorporeal as to the nature(,) appropriating
a nature of a human being(,)
later was born through a virgin, not beginning to be God, but beginning to
appear (as) a human being.” !25
For you shall not say: since the only-begotten has been engendered from the
father, how was he born again from a virgin?
Out of the father he has been engendered by nature, out of a virgin he has been
engendered through dispensation:
that, as God, this, as a human being.
Since your word also is an offspring of your thought, but, whenever you will
to put in sounds and letters and you wish to imprint on the papyrus the word
— this to which your mind gave birth — you write the letters with your hand,
and in some way !?° with the hand you give birth to the word again, which did

4 otoryeia: also ‘elements’.

%S gidoc.
% vivopévan Kata ovvierav.
7 od« &pytv AaBav tod civar Oedc, GAA Gpyiv AaBov tod pavijvar GvOpanoc: ‘not
taking a beginning of being God, but taking a beginning of appearing a human being’. Compare
with ACO I 1/2, 75, 17-8; 77, 30-2; 37; 78, 1.
% apd, while in this paragraph all other ‘from’ and ‘out of” correspond to ‘ék’.
 Appendix: Translation of Theodotus’ cunciliar homilies 225

not then began to be”? when the hand was imprinting the letters, and did not
then come forth into being’ when the hand was imprinting the letters,
but on the one hand it is engendered from the mind,
on the other, the word accepted the beginning of appearance’*! from the hand
which imprinted the letters.
VIII Since then the illustration has become clear, and the image! (is) best-known,
come, let us accommodate the image to the archetype.
Here mind,
there think of a father;
here '35 you know a word being born out of the mind,
there, think of a word essential and enhypostatic, engendered out of the father;
here behold a hand giving birth to a word through letters,
there think of a virgin in labour with the word through the body, not indeed
giving the beginning to divinity through °* birth — perish the thought! — but
to God appearing to human beings, having become a human being.'™
For since he became exactly what I (am), he was, perforce, born exactly as I,
with my nature and, perforce, he decides on my birth.
Because of this the divine word also appropriated begetting, and welcomed the
virgin as mother and came through a womb adorned with virginity. '°
For God loathes nothing of what he moulded, since indeed nothing of (his)
works became unworthy of him.
Everything is beautiful and very beautiful, if we see these things as the moulder
saw what had come about: ‘For God saw all things as many as he had made,
and, look, very beautiful’ .!™
Behold everything with impassive eyes!, and you, like God, behold them very
beautiful.
Banish the suffering, and gain knowledge of the nobility of what came to be!
X1.10 What then is wonderful if God settled within his own work and house?
You, however, say on the one hand that he dwells in heaven worthily,
cn the other you think that the human being is his sole unworthiness,
judging things'® not by the truth of the words, but by the suffering and the
preconception.
What then is loftier, tell me: heaven or human being?
For God, what is more prised: sun or human being? !5

® of tote AaPdvta tiv dpyiv tod eivar: ‘which did not then take the beginning of being’.
ovdé té6te mpoerSdvta elc 16 elvan.
"U cod 5&8 mavijvat tiv dpyty ... E5€Eato.
cixav.
Thy apyiyy Bedtytt Sovcav ... 16 Pavijvat Pedov dvOpwroig yevopEevov ivOpwrov. See
above, ACO I 1/2, 75, 17-8; 77, 30-2.
'04 Gen. 1:31,
Ta TPaypata.
226 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

For me, do not heed the splendour of the sounds'™, nor prefer nature for the
fine mien, nor be astounded with the radiance that leapt from the sun, nor that
I am clad in skin and flesh,'’ according to the divine Job, but examine the
nobility of a reasoning soul.
Behold the preparation of a human-being and wonder at the living being.
He is mindful of being able to govern and lead all living beings: he took hands,
serving the wisdom of the mind, organs creative of manifold art;
only one of all the created beings came to be free of necessity; '?” God created
only the human being as lord of his own judgement.
Do you not see that the sun is constrained to run (its) course? Do you not
behold its uniform motion? Why?
Because it did not become lord of its own judgement.
And you proceed freely, you perform what you want, you do not have necessity
forcing you through life, you were instituted free by the soul.
A sun, a slave of necessity, but a human being, free as to (his) judgement.
Then, who is better, tell me, the slave or the free man? !*>
The one under the yoke of necessity or the one detached from all necessity?
Nothing is wonderful or unbelievable if God abided in (the) human being which
he welcomed, straightaway moulded in his own image.
* For God straightaway at the beginnings of creation exhibited the purpose
about the human being,!°* on the one hand, having taken soil from the earth
and having moulded it, on the other, having prepared the image of his own
divinity.!
Why then out of a mean nature did he mould thus one whom he intended to
honour in the preparation?
Why !° did he make the [actual] human being without having taken (him) from
the utmost splendour of the sun, but from earth, and plasters him of soil, when
the element!'° lies below and is trodden-down?
Do you will to understand for whom?
Because he intended to honour the human being by the image, he gives him
the mean nature, in order that the excess of honour does not excite the human
being towards madness,
in order that whenever he was honoured beyond the nature, he was abased
through the recollection of the nature, and he gains knowledge of the greatness
of the honour, '35 not of his own worth, but of the grace of the giver.
Surely then, this was also philanthropy °° of the preparer, that the image of
God has (its) nature from earth;

16 otoyeia: also ‘elements’.

'07 Cf. Job 10:11.
108 Cf Gen. 2:7.
109 Cf. Gen. 1:27,
otoiyeiov: also ‘sound’.
 Appendix: Translation of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies 227

for he had the nature (as a) pledge of measured purpose: *! so that the human
being (should be) a noble living being even if later outraged by the sufferings
entering unawares.
Do not then see him as having given offence, but reason about the nobility of
the image of God before the transgression of the law.
Why then do you !> disparage the expelled (human being), forgetting his first
preparation,
and not reasoning about the ancient honour, which God rendered him again
with much distinction, having united to himself his own image?
Nothing then came to be without!!! his philanthropy. Neither is it outraging to
a good lord to share in (the) slavery of the slaves towards a gain of the servant.
For the good one is not outraged by these things, but what he really is is made
known through such things. !!°
And do not wonder at the matter!
Indeed, if you should now prepare yourself as a house of God, he would also
dwell in you, even if not so as in Christ: for in Christ ‘the whole fullness of
the divinity dwells bodily’.!!”
But lo, what a wonder!
The whole fullness of the divinity dwells bodily in a single one,
and fills all, and outdoes the creation,
being entire in a single one, and distinguished from none of the creatures.
And indeed do not let '!5 what has been said appear impossible to you.
Indeed, I also now speak a word: this word is in a single one and the word
came to be in all,
and a single one had room for the entire word and the word is not circumscribed
by a multitude.
113
Therefore, tf also a thing''’, which comes to be and decays, abides entire in a
single one and comes to be in all,
what appears wonderful to you if God both abided entire in a human being and
is found in all?
X20 Therefore the theme of todays assembly (is) that God becomes a human
being, deciding on the human things in order to give the divine things,
and appropriating the sufferings, in order to gratify impassiveness,
entering unawares upon death in order to present immortality.
And he acquired the sufferings of the human beings for his own, not altering
the nature,
but appropriating this!'* by (his) judgement,

') @xaidov: ‘childless of’.

"2 Col. 2:9.
"3 rpaypa.
4 Unclear antecedent. possibly ‘suffering’.
228 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

and he makes these things very suitably, proposing to save the human being.
Then, for what sort of motive has he made the sufferings '** of the human beings
his own?
Because he wanted to destroy the suffering by suffering and to make death
ineffective by death,
and he willed to overthrow similarities! through similarities,
he appropriates the cross,
he makes the buffeting his own,
he has made the chain his,
in order that the sufferings, having become God’s, take authority over sufferings,
For neither was God’s nature wronged — indeed, not by any change of his own!!6
did he accept the sufferings —
and the sufferings take from God the strength against similarities.
Henceforth, then, '*° death, having become as of God, makes death ineffective,
and having died, it undoes the tyranny of death, since he was both God and a
human being.
For the Jews did not crucify a mere man, neither did they nail the visible nature
only,
but they brought (their) daring to the God (who was) in it,''’ who had appropri-
ated the sufferings of the united nature.
And in order that this also should become clear to you, let us bring the word
to the illustration which was said in the beginning.
XM Let it then be posited that °°° the emperors pronounce a word,
and that this is imprinted in letters on some papyrus to dispatch the so-called
sacra'!® to the cities, a word clothed with both papyrus and letters, gratifying
freedom or conveying another imperial bounty to the needy.
But let this so-called sacra, in the language of the Italians,'!® be received by
someone,
(who is) an unbeliever and disobedient and hostile to the city and an enemy of
the emperor, and he, having taken the papyrus, tears it apart. '5
What was torn here? Tell me!
Only the papyrus, or the imperial word also?
Truly if papyrus was torn apart with regard only to itself, the destroyed (object)
was cheap; he who tore was not accountable, or accountable for five obols
only.
But he receives the ultimate penalty — and is punished — and by it is brought to
death,

ta Opoersi.
"6 vetaPoArt tdiat.
gic tov év abtit Gedv fyayov Ta ToAp Mata.
Alternatively, ‘the sacra, which was said’.
Altematively, ‘this sacra, which was said in the language of the Italians,’.
 Appendix: Translation of Thevdutus’ conciliar homilies 229

not for only having maltreated papyrus, but as if he had also torn apart the
imperial word.
Truly ''° the word of the emperor is impassive, neither by its nature having
been taken with hands, nor being able to be torn apart,
however, it was also itself torn apart, having appropriated the suffering of the
papyrus and the letters.
Do you see how the impassivity accepts suffering, whenever it shares!?° a suf-
fering nature?
For the word was not torn apart in its own nature, and it accepted the suffering
of the papyrus and of the sounds.
XIV Wherefore let the Jew not be confident that he crucified a mere human
being. |!5
For what appeared was a papyrus, yet the word hidden in it (was) imperial from
nature, not spoken by tongue.
For the only-begotten is said word, yet not a spoken one, but an essential and
enhypostatic one,
which on one hand suffers nothing through its own nature,'?' being an impas-
sive word,
and on the other, makes its own the sufferings of what appears,
and, just as the imperial word itself both accepted the matter of the letters, and
the suffering of the papyrus became the word’s own, !°
so the only-begotten word of God has made the sufferings of the crucified one
his own.
Because of this, just as one who maltreats an imperial sacra is lead to death as
if having torn the word of an emperor,
so the Jew who crucified the appeared one receives the penalty, having extended
the daring to the divine word itself.
Henceforth God avenges what happened as his own suffering.
But what has been said is enough, since it is also necessary to ponder your
recollections!
For the multitude '*° of things that have been said, gushing over the concept of
the listeners, makes the listener forgetful of what has been said.
But by God’s grace may it come to pass both that through recollection you
embrace what has been said,
and, secondly, that you benefit from these things, and inherit the empire of the
heavens in return for them!
May it come about that we all succeed to that,
by the grace of Christ, to whom be the glory and the power for ever and ever.
Amen.

20 Kolvevriont.
RU ch otkeiat pboet.
230 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Homily I

p-80 1.30 By the same, said on the day of the nativity of our saviour Jesus Christ,
and itself read aloud in the same synod.
'The theme of this present feast is both splendid and strange.
Splendid, because it brings a common salvation to human beings.
Strange, because it has conquered the word of nature’.
For nature no longer knows the virgin who gave birth, but grace not only
showed her giving birth, but preserved her virginity, °®! made her a mother,
and did not destroy the virginity.
For it was grace which preserved chastity.
O seedless earth, which blossomed with the fruit of salvation!
O virgin, who overcame the very paradise of Eden!
For while it brought forth the stock of propagated plants,!”? after bringing forth
trees out of virginal earth, the virgin herself is better than that earth.
She did not '5 bring forth trees of fruit, but the Jesse Tree,'** providing the fruit
salvific for the human beings.
That earth was a virgin and she herself (was) a virgin too;
but there God ordained it to produce trees, while from this virgin the creator
himself became an offspring in the flesh!>.
Neither did that accept a shoot before the trees, nor did she herself impair the
virginity by the birth.
The virgin has become more glorious than paradise, '!°
for paradise was merely the planting of God, but she cultivated God himself in
the flesh,!76
who decided on being combined to the nature of a human being.

'2 tov Tis PLOEWS AdYoV.

23 Cf Gen. 2:9.
24 Cf. Isa, 11:10.
RS katé odpKa.
3

?6 Until this point, the beginning of Proclus’ Homily IV has many expressions and sentences
in common with this homily, as highlighted in the following citation:
The theme of this present feast is both splendid and strange. Splendid, for it brings an
extraordinary salvation to humanity. Strange, for the birth ofa child has conquered the
laws of nature.
And while nature cannot conceive of the mother who gave birth, grace not only showed
her giving birth, but preserved her virginity, made her a mother, and did not destroy het
incorruptibility.
O seedless earth, which blossomed with the fruit of salvation! O Virgin, who opened
paradise for Adam!
Rather she is more glorious than paradise, for paradise was merely the planting of God,
but she cultivated God himself in the flesh.
Let us then all draw near, not to dance at the wedding of the master’s mother, for she is
a virgin with no experience of wedlock [...]
 Appendix: Translation of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies 231

Did you!?’ see how the strange mystery that surpasses the word of nature came
to be?
Did you see the thing'* beyond nature which came about through Gad’s power
alone?
Did you see the word beyond the word!” being born?
Because the one who is bor is the word of God, it is clear from these things
that he did not undo the virginity, |!
She who gives birth to mere flesh is deprived of virginity; but when the word
of God is born from flesh’, it preserves virginity, showing himself as word.
And when you hear the word, think of the essential and enhypostatic, not that
which is poured out through the mouth.
" Then is born the only-begotten son of God, who is also called word, not tak-
ing out of the birth the beginning of being word, but making the birth (the)
beginning of becoming a human being."?! !0
Before time the word was God, co-eternal to the begetter;
then, when he willed to become a human being because of human beings, not
by a change of divine nature but by a wonder and a will of God, he welcomed
the birth as (the) beginning of becoming a human being.
Because of this, the word is born as human being, and, as God, preserved vir-
ginity.
For neither does our word, being born, destroy thought, nor does the essential
and enhypostatic word of God, deciding on birth, !?5 corrupt virginity.
Therefore, what came to be is beyond a word of nature, and no longer does it
conform to a word of nature: I tell you a wonder. Do not disturb the reasonings!
I tell you that God was born, deciding on birth, not making a beginning of (his)
divinity.
Being God, he appropriated birth, the birth did not prepare him as God.
What he was, he continued (to be), and he became what he was not.
Therefore, wishing to become exactly what he was not, because of dispensa-
tion, he decides on birth as the '*° beginning of the dispensation.
He became a human being, yet the nature was not altered, the limits of divine
essence were not disturbed;
for ‘you are the same and your eternity does not cease’,!?? says holy scripture,
and ‘you reside (in) eternity’,'*> making this evident, (namely) the unchanging-
ness of the divine essence.

27 You: singular.
8 rpdypa.
29 tov AOyov brép TOV Adyov.
130 Alternatively, for capxi ‘in flesh’.
3! odk &pyty Tod sivat AOyos Ek Tob TdKov AaPov, GAA TOD yevéo8ar EvOpwnos dpyxt|Vv
Tov ToKov noLtobpevog. Compare with Homily II, ACO I 1/2, 75, 17-8; 77, 24, 30-2; 37; 78, 1.
"2 Ps. 101:28.
" Bar. 3:3.
232 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

And again it says: ‘the same I am, and have not changed’.
Therefore he became a human being while the essence of God was not dis-
turbed nor altered into another nature.
For otherwise what came to be would not have been a wonder, if he had
accepted a different nature through a change in nature. '35
For many such changes of things!*> come to be with us, but God performs a
wonder inasmuch as, remaining what he was, he became what he was not,
and indicating just that the great apostle said: °-®* ‘who exists in the form of God’ 36
he says ‘exists’, but never ‘existed’, so as to show the lastingness of the nature.
“Who exists in the form of God, deemed to be equal to God not a prize’,
he says ‘to be equal to God’, never ‘to become’.
Then again he proclaims, saying: ‘But he emptied himself, taking the form of
a slave’.!37
Do you!8 see how he remained what he was, and !* emptied himself into the
form of the slave,
both being that, and becoming this,
having performed a wonder — not having altered nature —,
having willed it — not having been compelled by change of essence?
For what God says, he does, even when what is being said is beyond the word
of nature.
For to perform wonders he also has the power which is both capable and does
not await the words of the nature.
Because of this, he both exists as God and empties himself into a slave’s form,
he both is equal to God and becomes a human being, !!°
he both is eternal and submits to birth,
and performs precisely those wonders which the word of nature does not know.
™ Thence both the Greeks reason Christ’s mystery is a folly and the Jews say
the word of the dispensation is a stumbling-block,
and Paul made it evident, saying: ‘We proclaim Christ crucified, on the one hand
a stumbling-block for the Jews, on the other, a folly for the Greeks’.'°? !!5
Why a folly for the Greeks?
‘Because the souled!*° human being does not accept the things of the spirit, and
they are a folly for him’.'*!

M4 Mal. 3:6.
Rpaypata.
M6 Phil. 2:6.
7 Phil, 2:7,
You: singular.
9 1Cor, 1:23.
140 woyikdc is often translated as ‘natural’, ‘unspiritual’. Exploring the semantics of ‘souled’
helps to preserve the linguistic links behind Theodotus’ attribution of Aoytopoig woyii¢ to the
woykds &vOpenos.
Cor, 2:14,
 Appendix: Translation of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies 233

For the souled human being, seated next to! the nature, and examining all
things by reasonings of (the) soul, reasons a folly the wonders of God, which
do not have with them the word of nature.
Indeed, when the Greek hears that the saviour entered while the door was
locked," having brought through this dense body (of his), which needed a place,
he laughs, not believing '”° the wonder, but seeking the word of the thing,
And when he hears that a child-bearing virgin remained a virgin, he deems the
word a folly, not having learnt to believe in God’s wonder-workings.
Surely then, when he also hears that God became a human being unchangingly,
he thinks that what came to be is impossible, demanding too (that) herein (there
should be) a change of nature.
But Paul did not teach thus, when he said that the one who is equal to God
became a human being.'*5 For he says that he emptied himself, not that he cast
away the '?5 fullness of the divinity.
On this account he also said: ‘We proclaim Christ crucified, on the one hand
a stumbling-block for the Jews, on the other, a folly for the Greeks.’
And why is it a folly for the Greeks if a mere human being has been crucified?
Nothing which came to be according to nature is considered foolish. If what
suffered existed naturally, how is the narrative considered foolish?
But, he says, when we proclaim Christ crucified, we again say <he (is)> power
of God and wisdom of God !°
— for ‘to those who are called,’ he says, ‘both Jews and Greeks,’ we proclaim
‘Christ, power of God and wisdom of God’!46 —
proclaiming that God’s wisdom is crucified, he says,
we are considered to talk foolishness by the Greeks, who know not to believe
in a wonder-working God, but disturb reasonings about the nature of every-
thing, and who deem (they) outrage God, who appropriated sufferings, in order
to save the sufferer.
For they do not see the achieved aim, which is salvation '* and is Proper to the
goodness of God,
but they only say that God joined sufferings to himself, not examining the
accomplishment of human beings’ salvation from this.
Nothing that saves a human being outrages God, who by them is shown not
subject to suffering, but loving mankind. °-
TV Nonetheless, he says, I do not dare to attribute a human beings’ sufferings to God.
Surely then you neither say that he saves the human being from the sufferings,
nor that by the cross he exposes the power of the devil,
nor that he nailed our sin to the wood,

42 Cf. Luke 10:39.

43 Cf John 20:19.
Tpaypa.
45 Cf Phil, 2:6.
6 1Cor, 1:24.
234 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

nor that through his own sufferings he cures the sufferings of human beings,
nor do you say that he made death ineffective through death. '*
If God had not appropriated the sufferings, whence (came) such great accom-
plishments through the sufferings of Christ? how did powers come to be?
How is death destroyed by death, if God did not make it his own?
But these sufferings, having been appropriated by God, took the strength for
such great accomplishments from divinity, becoming as God’s own, but they
did not impair the essence of divinity in its own impassiveness, which always
remains.
How was the record of sin (that was) against us, nailed to the wood,!*? | when
a mere human being bore the cross?
How did the cross crucify sin, or death break up the tyranny of death,
unless these had become God’s and had taken the power from him, while he
appropriated what was ours'®, not suffering in nature!*??
And indicating just that, the great apostle said: “No one of the rulers of this age
knew’ the mystery of the lordly suffering; ‘for if they had known (it),’ he says,
‘(they) would not '!5 have crucified the lord of glory’.'°°
Y On this account, we say both that he remained what he was, and that he
became exactly what he was not.
For remaining in essence what he was, he accepted sufferings, having united
himself to the suffering nature.
He became a subject,!>! without having laid aside empire;
he became a human being, while remaining both God and word;
being incorporeal as to the nature, he became flesh unchangingly.
How and in what way?
1.20
Not as you are able to reason, but as he is capable of working wonders.
For whenever I tell you a wonder, abandon the reasonings!
For wondrous and prodigious things are strengthened by belief in God and are
not investigated by reason.
Nor is any other of the wonders according to our reason, but each came about
similarly, even if our reasoning does not attain the thing'*?.
The Magi also admitted these things, having believed the star and not being
inquisitive!* about '?5 nature.
The gentiles accept wonders through belief, and what do you, believer, disbe-
lieve, falling by human reasoning?

97 Cf. Col. 2:14,

TH TETEpA.
Alternatively, for pboei ‘by nature’.
150 1Cor, 2:8.
'Sl_ Cf Phil. 2:8 (nowever, ACO I 1/2, 83, 17 refers to Phil. 2:9).
? np&ypa.
TMOAVNPAYHOVIGAVTES.
 Appendix: Translation of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies 235

Those who descended from Chaldea, as the evangelist'>* said today, showed,
through their gifts,
the mystcry to somcone who comprchends the aim of the gentiles well.
For they brought as gifts a threefold kind!>> of presents — gold, incense, myrth:
on the one hand, gold because he who is honoured was emperor,
on the other, incense, because he who had been born was God;
for through custom they had brought this '*° to whom they consider gods!*°.
They also offer myrrh, disclosing by it, I think, the suffering of death.
Do you see how the Magi too recognised that he remained God and also became
a human being, accepting death?
For he became the very thing which I am, in order to raise our nature towards
his own worth.
For the union (of two) does this: (it) combines!” to each one the things of the other.
Because of this, then, being God, he became a human being,
in order that a human being '*5 might also become God, lifted up towards
divine glory by this combination,
so as to be a single one and itself, both divinely glorified and suffering what is
human.

And all who admit the union of divinity 84 and humanity would agree with us
on them!
For what has been united is no longer named two but one, [if] by concept you
divide again and examine each according to itself!*®,
Surely then you undo the union:'*?
for it is impossible both to preserve the union and to examine each at the same
time according to itself, but what was united came to be one indissolubly and
no longer becomes two.
“I But, I distinguish by rationalisation only, he says.
Surely then you also undo the union ! with the same rationalisation; for by what
you might separate one from the other, by this you also sever the combination.
Then why do you split the saving dispensation, thinking of two and cancelling
the union?
But even as the great apostle also says: ‘Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday,
today and for eternity’ ,'°
saying (that they are) one and the same, God eternal and a human being, who
began from (a certain moment in) time,

'M Cf. Matt. 2.

18S. giS0c.
86 roig bx abt@v vopiCopévoic Veoic.
'S? Gpvarntovea.
ao

'88 kat idiav.

'S9 Alternative reading: ‘... but one, if you again divide [...] to itself, then surely you ...°
© Heb. 13:8.
236 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

and we admit that !!° the same one (is) God and a human being, being the one
before, and becoming the other later.
But. says he. how did the only-begotten become a slave, remaining what he
was, and becoming what he was not?
Do you then wish to understand this?
Understand’! that he came to be, yet only he who works wonders knows how
he came to be;
for neither are you able to tell me how the Egyptian river became blood, while
the nature of the water remained unchanged.!
Indeed on the one hand, the Hebrews enjoyed (it) as water, on the other hand,
'15 the Nile became blood for the Egyptians, and became what it was not, while
remaining what it was.
Tell me the way (of this)! But you cannot tell: for it is a wonder of God, which
rejects reasonings.
And how in Egypt did light become darkness,'® without having become extin-
guished, but remaining what it was?
For it was day for the Israelites and splendid light surrounded them, but this
light became darkness for the Egyptians,
and what was seen, being one, was at once light and darkness, without having
been quickly turned from this, !?° and becoming that.
For while the light did not suffer anything, darkness came about, when God
worked miracles and did not await the word of nature.
Then how did the water of the Nile, while remaining water, become blood?
Or how did the light, while remaining in its own! nature, become darkness?
For this was not destroyed and became that.
For the nature of the water was not destroyed, and the Hebrews revealed this
by being able to drink!® it;
but the nature both remained itself within '*5 its own limits and became blood,
which precisely it was not, when God shows the wonder beyond word.
Vl And how did the Babylonian flame become dew for the three youths?!®
Indeed, it was flame and became dew, and both these things are revealed by the
operation.
For, on the one hand, the three youths, being cooled by this, taught that it was
dew; on the other, the Babylonians who were burnt by this disclosed that it was
also flame.
Do you know how the fire remained fire and became dew?

6\ Alternative reading: ‘Then, if you wish to understand this, understand...’

182 Cf. Exod. 7:20.
3 Cf. Exod. 10:22.
zR REE

Eni tij¢ tdiac.

65
TOTLLOV EXOVTES.
Cf. Dan. 3:48.50.
 Appendix: Translation of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies 237

what was seen was not two things!® !3° nor two natures,
but one and <the same>.
For that which was flame became dew. and the just (persons) bear witness to it,
Therefore no longer ask me the way of the signs of God. °°
For again I will tell you on the one hand what came about, showing the wonders,
on the other, leaving it to God to know the word of the wonders!®,
Tell me next:
God works these wonders and <preserving> the flame makes dew, without
altering the flame and transforming it to dew,
wishing to undo the sentence of the tyrant, and willing to avenge the wronged
ones, and '° wishing to consume the guilty gentiles
|- and God works such wonders, preserving the fire within its own limits and
exhibiting dew,
and, in order that the three youths should be saved, God worked such wonders —],
yet, in order that God might save the world, do you doubt that God, remaining
the same, became a human being?
It was not necessary to alter the flame in order to produce dew,
and wishing himself to become a human being because of the salvation of
human beings, was it necessary to alter his own nature? !!°
(The) fire remained and became dew, and you say: how does God remain and
become a human being?
For then, wishing to save our nature, God prepared our salvation not through
others, but through himself, since all creation was enervated in respect of our
salvation, seeing that we have the habituation'™ to both evil and error;
for the great habit!” of evil, which rejected the nature, became contrary to nature
for the human beings:
a prophet prophesied, but the word was enervated, '!° defeated by evil;
angels became ministers of our salvation — and the great Paul bears witness to
(it), saying of angels: ‘Are they not all ministering spirits, who weré sent out
into service for those who are about to inherit salvation?’;!7!
an angel, stronger as to the nature, ministered toward our salvation, but no
human being was saved, being seriously involved in evils,
therefore everything was enervated towards the indifference of human beings; 1.20

for the evil of the malicious defeated the zeal of the good,
not because God is defeated, but because he entrusts virtue to a judgement from
the freedom of choice,!7”

167
Tpayya.
163
TOV Gavpatov tov Adyov.
a

469 Bev.
0 guvnGeia.
= 35

“Heb. 1:14.
'2 GLA Str yvOunt tod adtegovsiov tiv apethy énitpémer.
238 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

he does not force you by necessity towards accomplishment, nor does he drag
(anyone) who does not wish (it) towards virtue,
so that having prepared for you virtue (as) voluntary, he makes accomplishment
itself yours,
val What then?
Since prophets had been defeated,
and teachers were not efficacious,
and law was enervated,!73
and angels failed in the zeal,
inasmuch as the judgement of human beings '75 does not yield to the good (things),!74
the maker of nature himself visited, wishing to restore nature, which had been
defeated;
‘and he descends —
not resounding as God!7°
nor terrifying the ears with thunders,
nor throwing round himself darkness and showing dreaded fire in the darkness,
nor frightening the hearers with (the) voice of a trumpet, as once he presented
himself to the Jews, producing fear,
nor frightening the servant, —
rather, he invites him with grace and goodness. !2°
He does not introduce a guard of archangels;'”° he does not rouse up the armies
of the angels.
For he did not will to frighten the one who became a runaway fugitive from
that law,
but the lord of all comes in the form of a slave, throwing round himself poverty,
in order not to frighten the prey.
He was bom in an unseen locality, having chosen for engendering an unnoticed
field;
he was born through a poor virgin, and he took on himself all poor things, in
order to catch the human being quietly for salvation. °*
For if he had been born gloriously and descended throwing round himself much
richness, the unbelievers would say that the extravagance of richness performed
the change in the (inhabited) world!”’.
If he had decided on the great city of Rome, they would reason about the
change in the (inhabited) world by the lordship of the citizens.
If he had become the son of an emperor, they would have ascribed the gain to
the lordship. '*

"Cf Rom. 8.
4 Alternatively, ‘does not give way to good (persons)’.
3

"5 Cf. Exod. 19:16.

© Cf. Matt. 26:53.
33

7 olxovpévys.
 Appendix: Translation of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies 239

If he had become the son of a legislator, they would have ascribed the gain to
his commands.
But what does he do?
Every [action] poor and mean, everything average and unnoticed by the crowd,
so that divinity alone should be made known (as) modifying the (inhabited)
world.
Because of this, he decides on a poor mother, a poorer native-land, he comes
to be lacking money.
And let the manger explain to you the lack.
For since no couch exists on which the lord may lay down, !!°
he is placed in a manger,'”®
and the helplessness of advantage becomes a most beautiful disclosure of
prophecies.
For he was laid down in the manger, disclosing that he will be nourishment for
ineloquent (persons) too.
For the word of God, living in destitution, and having been placed in the man-
ger, drew to himself both rich and destitute, both (the) eloquent and (the) slow
in the word.
Do you see how the lack of advantage performed the prophecy,
and the poverty illustrated that he, who was poor because of us, (was) acces-
sible to everything? |"
For no one was discouraged, fearing Christ’s excessive richness;
(the) grandeur of an empire hindered no one from approaching him, but he who
exposed himself for the salvation of everything was seen as common and des-
titute.
In a manger, then, the word of God is laid down, also through (the) mediation
of the body,
so that both reasoning and ineloquent know how to partake of (the) abundance
of the saving nourishment. :
And perhaps the prophet also loudly proclaimed this beforehand, describing the
mystery of this manger, saying: '?° ‘An ox knows the owner and an ass the man-
ger of his lord, but Israel does not know me and the people do not perceive me’.'”
For even if the word has a simpler concept, showing the Hebrews as (the) most
unknowing among the ineloquent, it may, however, also be possible to reveal
this, that it illustrates the manger of the lord upon which was placed the one
who became nourishment for those (who were even) more unreasoning.
Indeed, the prophet does not reveal the manger indeterminately, but this manger
he affirmed '*> (as being) ‘of his lord’, indicating, I think, the manger definitely
by this connective.

"8 Cf. Luke 2:7.

"9 Isa. 1:3.
240 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

And on the one hand, let (anyone) who wishes philosophise over these things,
revelling in the changeful consideration of divine scripture!
'S On the other hand, we have shown that the rich (being) was poor because of
us, making salvation easily grasped by all through the word of divinity.
And indicating just that, the great Paul said: ‘For us, he, being rich, was poor,
so that we might be enriched by his poverty’.!®° !2°
And who was he who was rich?
What was enriched?
And how was this one poor because of us?
Let them say to us, they who divide the human being from God’s word and
who separate what was made one by the recollection of the natures, they who
say that Christ is two (things) and for (their own) defence provide the <‘one’>
by rationalisation alone!*!,
Therefore, tell me, who, being rich, was poor with my poverty?
Is it the one who seems to be a human being, from whom you separate the
divinity?
But this (being) never became rich! '5 He was poor, born of poor ancestors.
Then who was the rich (being) and of what was he rich, °°’ who because of us
became destitute?
God, he says, enriched the creation.
Surely then God also became destitute, making his own the destitution of what
is seen.
For the same (being) both enriched the divinity and became destitute because
of us.
Neither would you say that the human being enriches (itself), being poor both
by nature and in money, nor[, in fact,] would you say that one who enriches
(the) worth of divinity is poor '> without attributing humanity'®? to him.
Because of this the apostle too, combining the glory of divinity to human sufferings,
not wishing either to divide by rationalisation, or to separate by word what had
been made one,
said that the same (being) enriched divinity, and was poor through sufferings,
and was the one because of himself, and suffered the other because of us.
But if he who enriched the divinity was poor with human poverty, how did he
not also suffer the rest, having once chosen to become a human being because
of !}° philanthropy?
X But enough of these things!
(I bid) you, rather, behold that poorest of dwellings of him who enriches the
heaven!

180 2Cor. 8:9.

81 Emivoiat wovnt.
2 14 GvOpaniva.
 Appendix: Transiation of Theodolus’ conciliar homilies 241

Behold the manger of him who sits above the cherubim!!®

Behold, swaddling-clothes of him who fettered the sea with sand! !*4
Behold the poverty below, reasoning about his richness above!
For thus you would see the greatness of grace and of philanthropy, if you rea-
son about |'5 so great condescension of God.
Indeed, the richness of his divinity is shown in this poverty, inasmuch as the
star reveals the destitute to the Magi,'® and leads the gentiles to the manger of
the destitute.
But also angels, rejoicing in this, were proclaiming the poor (being) to the
shepherds, singing of his richness of divinity.'*6
Indeed, the Magi brought as a gift the incense to him who appeared as if to a
god, not separating one nature of another, '”° and not severing the united one
by rationalisation, but having once seen with wonder the God who appeared,
offered incense to him, disclosing by this the divine worth.
And the angels did not separate who had been born from the divine word by
rationalisations like yours,
but knowing (him to be) one and the same, and seeing and apprehending, were
loudly proclaiming, saying: ‘Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth,
good-will among human beings’,!*7
and not, like you, saying some things '*5 while rationalising others and admitting
with words that Christ Jesus is one, yet dividing the same by rationalisation,
Just as you, who have concepts which fight with the words,
but they glorify one and the same God.
Accordingly he appeared both in destitution and in a manger to everything.
Because of this, he is both in swaddling-clothes and glorified by angels <>'**
While the star did not descend for the Magi — for stars do not interchange the
places —, but since '*° the land of the Chaldeans has many devoted to (the)
motion of the stars, the stronger power, which guided the Magi, took up (the)
property of a star, in order that the Chaldeans, from what they had leamt, would
learn what they did not know, and turning to astronomy, would be taught by
the stars themselves the mysteries of Christ.
That it was not a star, but angelic power, guiding the gentiles towards piety,
the evangelist himself reveals, saying that this star once also appeared during
(the) day, '35 once was hidden, and he says at another time that it guided the
Magi -°8 and that it went with them to Bethlehem, which no one would say that

83 Cf. Pss. 79(80):2. 98(99):1.

184 Cf Jer. 5:22.
‘88 Cf Matt. 2:9.
186 Cf Luke 2:13-4.
'87 Duke 2:14.
188 See ACO I 1/2, 87, 28 app. ad. loc. on the lacuna.
242 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

any of the habitual stars[, clearly perceived'*’,] does, but a power that appears
to the astronomers in the shape of a star.
And what was said about the star, (that it) ‘stood above the child’ ,!°° will obvi-
ously disclose that what appeared is power.
For no particular star among those fixed in the sky '* would have become clear
standing above the child, since the greatness of distance, deceiving the sight’s
judgement, makes clear to the perception neither the stationariness nor the
motion of the stars.
He says: ‘The star stood above where the child was’.!?!
Surely then, the star which appeared, having left the heights, came to be nearer
to the ground, in order to show by (its) stationariness the engendering of the
emperor.
Indeed, the Magi were seeking (someone) as an emperor, inquiring after an
emperor’s birth and saying to the Jews: !!° ‘Where is he that is born emperor
of the Jews? For we saw his star in the East and came to prostrate ourselves
before him.’!'°?
Do you seek an emperor, Magi? Why do you offer incense as if to a God?
However, I both know an emperor and gained knowledge of a God;
because of this I offer him both gold and incense, disclosing by the gifts at once
both God and emperor.
XIL15 But this (being), who then drew Magi with ineffable power towards piety,
has now also attracted today the bright audience, when he is no longer placed
in a manger, but set before on this saving altar'.
For that manger became the mother of this altar;
because of this he is placed in the one so that on this other he may be eaten
and may become saving food for the believers.
On the one hand, however, the manger displayed this splendid altar, '?° on the
other, the virgin made these choirs of the virginity blossom;
the meanness of the cottage in Bethlehem displayed these notable shrines, while
the swaddling-clothes now became the deliverances from the failures.
Did you see the accomplishments of the former destitution which have now
appeared?
Did you see poverty that has come to be mother of such great richness?
(Surely,) the meanness of the only-begotten for a little (time) below, which
conveyed so great a richness for the (inhabited) world, does not destroy (it)?
Then why '?> do you reproach Christ for the meanness in Bethlehem?

89 SAO tit aloGrjcet.

190° Matt. 2:9, in a reading attested in some ancient manuscripts, as opposed to the predominat-
ing €ot&0n adopted in modern editions.
181 Matt. 2:9,
92° Matt. 2:2.
3 cpanétng. Cf iCor. 10:21.
 Appendix: Translation of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies 243

Why do you adduce destitution to (our) midst, without reasoning about the
profits to the world (which come) from it?
Why do you say that God’s suffering, which became cause of such great good
things, is unworthy?
Why do you set aside the wounds of the only-begotten, which brought forward
so great a salvation to the human beings?
Why do you seat next to the sufferings and do not behold the accomplishments
of the sufferings which now come about?
Why do you say that suffering is unworthy of God, by which the tyranny of
the devil has been undone? !°
Why do you say that destitution is unworthy of God, by which the world is
enriched with piety?
Why do you say that death is unworthy of God, by which God spent death?
For what (reason) do you say that the cross is not God’s, by which God tri-
umphed over the evil of the devil?
Why do you say that this alone is not of God, who nailed my sin to the wood?
Do not discredit the sufferings from which the impassive (being) is born;
do not ridicule meanness through which the tyranny of the devil is dissolved;
do not reproach '35 God (for) a buffet, through which he released the human
being from sin;
do not say that a chain is unworthy of God, by which he split sin’s chain of
ropes; !%
do not say that destitution is unworthy of God, because °* the devil, being rich
in deceit, was made poor;
do not judge a cross which dissolved altars; !%
do not disparage the nails through which Christ brought together the (inhabited)
world to a single purpose of piety.
Do not reason about the mean things, but rather the accomplishments of the
suffering one which have come about from these things, (accomplishments)
which you would not say have come about from the mere suffering human
heing, inasmuch as you are mindful and are persuaded by what appears. !4
And why do you also call mean the things which God welcomed because of
the salvation of human beings?
For if sufferings'*® are and are said to be by the nature, but became (the) cure
of our sufferings:
no longer then designate them sufferings, but remedy of our sufferings!

'4 Cf. Heb. 12:1.

95 Bopovs.
1% xaOtpata. Theodotus employs it seven times in Homilies I and II, but uses x41 more
often,
244 Theodotus af Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

And do not adduce to me the limbs of the virgin for a reproach of divinity.
For their nature is not unworthy also, even if the sufferings of the dishonour
that followed defiled the nobility of the body. !!°
For limbs (are) not base by the nature, but are outraged through unnatural
desire.
For if they were base by the nature, God would not have plastered them with
his own palms, since God is indeed not the maker of base things, but of the
most beautiful ones; ‘for God saw all the things, as many as he had made, and,
look, very beautiful’.!%”
For none of them that came to be under God through his own nature (is) bad,
nor did God prepare anything base, but we, falling from the first preparation,
‘15 insulted our nature with unnatural desires.
Then, if God, who moulded the limbs of the woman, is not discredited, neither
is he mocked, having dwelt in them; for God does not live unworthily in his own
creation.
XIl And if you say: how, leaving behind heaven, did he reside in a womb?
I will also say to you that he, being God, became a human being because of
human beings, remaining God without interchanging essences!%8, }7°
For that very reason I admit the same (being is) God and man,
on the one hand, God before time,
on the other, a human being who came to be, beginning from the birth,
not two, but one,
not being declared as one, yet rationalised (as) twofold:
for it is necessary that the concept does not fight with the word.
We do not think two, and we admit a single one;
let neither word nor concept separate what was joined by dispensation and
wonder.
Yet if someone would separate by rationalisation what had been joined, he
would think that it had been sundered, and |” the concept would become false,
having separated <clearly> what had always been joined.
It is then necessary to have the concept agreeing with the word.
Do you say that Christ is one, that the same (being is) God and human being?
Surely then also think of one.
Yet if you say one, but rationalise two, you have the concept battling with your
word.
So do not say two, separated by some difference!”.
For if you unite with words, do not sever with concepts: for if you sever with
concepts, you deny union.

'97 Gen. 1:32.

18 netatebeions odoiac.
99 Siagopa.
 Appendix: Translation of Theodotus’ conciliar homilies 245

So do not !3° lead away the reasoning to separated natures, inasmuch as God
works the wonder of the extreme union.
Believe the wonder and do not explore with reasonings what came to be!
Do not dissolve the wonder, being eager to find the word; for the wonder which
the word makes known, does not remain.
If the word of what came to be is well-known, the fact is no longer a sign nor
a wonder;
and, if it is sign and wonder, leaving behind the reasonings, recover the belief,
admitting that the one Lord °° Jesus Christ is the same, both God and human
being, not separated either by rationalisations or reasonings,
in order that we do not, separating with reasonings the things which are united,
deny the saving dispensation.
For if the union of God and human being is made known through the dispensa-
tion, he who separates the union denies the dispensation.
Let us then believe in the wonders of the dispensation,
in order that Christ, '* (whom we) believe in, may present this imperial grace
of heavens to those who admit, from which it may come to pass that we all
succeed to the grace of Christ, to whom be glory for ever.
Amen.
 A note on abbreviations and primary sources

Abbreviations
In general, titles and abbreviations follow G.W.H. Lampe. A Patristic Greek
Lexicon (1961), for patristic literature, and H.G. Liddell er al. (eds), A Greek-
English Lexicon (1996), for classical Greek sources, or follow their patterns.
Besides these, the following abbreviations are used:
ACO: _ E. Schwartz, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum (1914ff.);
CPG: M. Geerard (ed.), A Cyrillo Alexandrino ad Iohannem Damascenum (1979);
PG: J.P. Migne (ed.), Patrologiae: Series Graeca (1857-1866);
PL: J.P. Migne (ed.), Patrologiae: Series Latina (1844-1855);
TLG: Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, a digital library of Greek literature, University
of California, Irvine: [Link].

Primary sources
Critical editions of the majority of the sources mentioned in this book can be
found in ACO, and for clarity they are cited by a reference that follows the
template: tome part/volume, page, line numbers (where applicable). The fol-
lowing list provides their titles and the number of the documents in the ancient
collections (to which the Index locorum points). It also contains the remaining
ancient sources cited in the main text, with a short reference to the editions
included in the Bibliography. Except for Theodotus, authors are listed alpha-
betically and follow G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (1961), therefore
allowing for collective authors such as ‘Concilium Ephesinum anno 431°.

Theodotus
Homilies:
1: In die nativitatis domini (CPG 6125): ACO I 1/2, 80-90:
Il: Jn die nativitatis (CPG 6126): ACO TI 1/2, 73-80;
Ill: Contra Nestorium (CPG 6127): ACO I 1/2, 71-3;
IV: Ins. deiparam et in Simeonem (CPG 6128): PG77, 1389D-412B;
V: In domini nostri lesu Christi diem natalem (CPG 6129): M. Aubineau, ‘Une
homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité’ (1960), 224-32;
VI: Homilia habita in ecclesia s. lohannis (Ethiopic) (CPG 6132): B.M. Weischer,
Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 122-32;
dubia:
Homilia in baptisma domini (CPG 6135): M. Aubineau, Recherches patristi-
ques (1974), 100-10;
Homilia in s. deiparam et in nativitatem domini (CPG 6136): M. Jugie (ed.),
Homélies mariales (1926), 318-35.
248 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Treatises:
Expositio symboli Nicaeni (CPG 6124): PG77, 1313C-48D;
Contra Nestorium: British Library MS Add. 17148 . f 1-44 (unpublished).

Letter fragment:
Ex epistulae ad Vitalem monachum Cappadocem (CPG 6130): ACO FI 4, 212, 10-9,

Other authors
Abelard
Logica ingredientibus — B. Geyer (ed.), Peter Abaelards philosophische Schriften (1919),

Acacius of Melitene
Homilia Ephesina — Coll. Vat. 74 — ACO F 1/2, 90; in Qéreilos: B.M. Weischer,
Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 68-80.

Aristoteles
Ars rhetorica — W.D. Ross (ed.), Aristotle. Ars rhetorica (1959).

Athanasius
Oratio tertia adversus Arianos ~ K. Metzler et al. (eds), Oratio III contra Arianos
(2000);
Epistula ad Epictetum — PG26, 1049-70.

Augustine
Confessionum libri XHI — H. Juergens et al. (eds), S. Aurelii Augustini Confessionum
libri XII (1981).

Basil of Caesarea
Homilia 14 (= in ebriosos) — PG31, 444-64;
Liber de Spiritu sancto — B. Pruche (ed.), Basile de Césarée. Sur le Saint-Esprit (1968),
250-530.

Canones
LXXXV apostolici — M. Metzger (ed.), Les constitutions apostoliques (1987), 275-309;
Nicaea (325) — P.P. Joannou (ed.), Discipline générale antique (1962-64), I/1, 22-41;
Serdica (343) — P.P. Joannou (ed.), Discipline générale antique (1962-64), I/2, 156-89;
Constantinople (381) — P.P. Joannou (ed.), Discipline générale antique (1962-64), 1/1, 48-53;
Chalcedon (451) - ACO II 1/2, 158-63 (canones 1-27).

Cassian
De incarnatione — M. Petschenig (ed.), Johannis Cassiani (1888);
De institutis coenobiorum et de octo principalium vitiorum remediis libri XH —
M. Petschenig (ed.), Johannis Cassiani (1888).

Celestine
Epistula ad Cyrillum — Coll. Vat. 9 — ACO 1 1/1, 75-7;
 A note on abbreviations and primary sources 249

Epistula ad Nestorium — Coll. Vat. 10 — ACO I 1/1, 77-83;

Epistula ad Constantinopolus | — Coll. Vat. 11 - ACO T 1/1, 83-90.

Chrysippus of Jerusalem
In sanctam Mariam — M. Jugie (ed.), Homélies mariales (1926), 336-43.

Concilium Ephesinum anno 431

Gesta Ephesi d. 22 m. lun, a. 431 — Coll. Vat. 33-62 - ACO I 1/2, 3-64;
Gesta Ephesi d. 10 et 11 m. Tul. a. 431 cum epistula Caelestini ad synodum — Coll. Vat.
106 — ACO I 1/3, 53-63;
Gesta Ephesi d. 16 et 17 m. lul. a. 431 — Coll. Vat. 87-90 — ACO I 1/3, 15-26;
Gesta Ephesi d. 22 m. lul. a. 431 — Coll. Ath. 73-79 — ACO 1 1/7, 84-117;
Synodi relatio ad imperatores de Nestorii damnatione — Coll. Vat. 81 — ACOT 1/3, 3-5;
Synodi relatio ad Caelestinum — Coll. Vat. 82 — ACO I 1/3, 5-9;
Synodi relatio ad imperatores destinata per Palladium — Coll. Vat. 84 - ACO I 1/3,
10-3;
Synodi epistula ad clerum et populum Constantinopolum de depositione Nestorii — Coll.
Vat. 85 — ACO I 1/3, 13-4;
Synodi epistula universalis — Coll. Vat. 91 — ACO I 1/3, 26-8;
Synodi relatio ad imperatores de Orientalibus -— Coll. Vat. 92 — ACO 1 1/3, 28-30;
Synodi relatio ad imperatores ad sacram per lohannem comitem sacrarum largitionum
lectam — Coll. Vat. 94 — ACO1 1/3, 32-3;
Synodi mandatum episcopis Constantinopolim directis ~ Coll. Vat. 95 —- ACO I 1/3,
33-6;
Episcoporum Constantinopoli degentium epistula ad synodum — Coll. Vat. 98 — ACO I
1/3, 42-3;
Synodi epistula ad episcopos Constantinopolim degentes — Coll. Vat. 99 — ACO T 1/3,
43-4;
Synodi petitio ad imperatores — Coil. Vat. 102 - ACO T 1/3, 47-8;
Narratio de Maximiani ordinatione — Coll. Vat. 109 - ACOT 1/3, 67;
Relatio legatorum ad imperatores — Coll. Vat. 108 — ACO I 1/3, 65-6; Coll. Ath. 59 —
ACO T 1/7, 72. :

Concilium orientalium Ephesini habitum anno 431

Actiones — Coll. Vat. 151 — ACO 1/5, 119-24;
Gesta synodi Orientalium d.26. m. lun. 431 — Coll. Cas. 87-8 — ACO 1 4, 33-8;
Secunda commenta synodi quae cum Iohanne Antiocheno conuenit in Ephesum — Coll.
Cas. 95 —- ACO 14, 43-4;
Contestatio directa beato Cyrillo — Coll. Cas. 82 - ACO 1 4, 27-30;
Contestatio Candidiano comitis — Coll. Cas. 84 — ACO 1 4, 31-2;
Edictum ad synodum magnificentissimi comitis — Coll. Cas. 86 —- ACO 1 4, 33;
Orientalium relatio ad imperatores — Coll. Vat. 153 — ACO I 1/5, 124-5;
Eorundem relatio ad augustas — Coll. Vat. 153 - ACO 1 1/5, 131-2;
Mandatorium synodi Orientalis ad legatarios suos — Coll. Cas. 111 - ACO 1 4, 63;
Mandatariorum Orientalium supplicatio 1-2 - Coll. Ath. 62-3 —- ACO 1 1/7, 72-5;
Mandatariorum Orientalium epistota ad illorum concilium 1-2 — Coll. Ath. 65-6 - ACO
I 1/7, 76-7; — Coll. Cas. 114-5 - ACO 14, 64-5;
250 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Mandatariorum Orientalium epistola ad illorum concilium 3 — Coll. Cas. 120 - ACO

14, 70-1;
Epistula synodi Orientalium ad legatarios — Coll. Cas. 116 — ACO 1 4, 65-7;
Orientalium relatio ad imperatores Coll. Cas.117 ACO 4, 67-8;
Gesta Ephesi de episcopi Cypriis — Coll. Ath. 81 - ACO [ 1/7, 118-22.

Concilium Chalcedonense anno 451

Actiones — ACO II 1, 55-469;
Canon 28 — ACO II 1/3, 88.

Concilium Constantinopolitanum anno 553

Actiones — ACO IV 1, 3-231.

Cyril of Alexandria
Homilia diversa 1 (= Ephesi praedicata, or Ephesi habita, valde pulchra) — Coll. Vat.
77 — ACO TI 1/2, 96-8;
Homilia diversa 2 (= Ephesi praedicata in die Joannis evangelistae or Ephesi habita
in basilica s. lohannis evangelistae) — Coll. Vat. 76 - ACO I 1/2, 94-6; in Qérellos:
B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 54-61;
Homilia diversa 4 (= De Maria deipara in Nestorium) — Coll. Vat. 80 —- ACO ¥ 1/2, 102-4;
Homilia diversa 5 (= Ephesi praedicata deposito Nestorio, or Ephesi dicta, deposito
Nestorio) — Coll. Vat. 75 — ACOT 1/2, 92-4; in Qérellos: B.M. Weischer, Qérellos
4.1 (1979), 88-99;
Homilia diversa 6 (= In Joannem Antiochenum, or Ephesi dicta in lohannem Antioche-
num) ~ Coll. Vat. 78 — ACO I 1/2, 98-100; in Qérellos: B.M. Weischer, Qérellos
4.1 (1979), 108-17;
Homilia diversa 7 (= Ephesi praedicata [/dicta] priusquam a comite comprehenderetur)
— Coll. Vat. 79 — ACOT 1/2, 100-2;
Ephesi dicta in maiore ecclesia, quae vocatur Mariae — ACO 1 3, 143, 28-31;
Homilia paschalis 8 (= Epistula paschalis 8) — W.H. Burns et al. (eds), Cyrille
d’Alexandrie. Lettres Festales 7~11 (1993);
Epistula | (= Ad monachos Aegypti) - Coll. Vat. 1 - ACO T 1/1, 10-23;
Epistula 4 (= Ad Nestorium) — Coll. Vat. 4- ACOT 1/1, 25-8;
Epistula 11 (= Ad Caelestinum) — Coll. Vat. 144 — ACOT 1/5, 10-2;
Epistula 17 (= Ad Nestorium) — Coll. Vat. 6 — ACO I 1/1, 33-42;
Epistula 19 (= Ad monachos Constantinopolitanos ) — Coll. Vat. 145 — ACO1 1/5, 12-3;
Epistula 23 (= Epistula ad Comarium et Potamonem episcopos [episcoporum Constan-
tinopoli consistentium commonitorium]) — Coll. Vat. 67 —- ACO I 1/2, 66-8;
Epistula 24 (= Ad clerum populumque Alexandrinum) — Coll. Vat. 28 — ACO I 1/!,
117-8;
Epistula 31 (= Ad Maximianum Constantinopolitanum) — Coll. Vat. 115 — ACO 1 1/3, 72-4;
Epistula 33 (= Ad Acacium Berocensem) — Coll. Ath. 107 - ACO I 1/7, 147-50;
Epistula 39 (= Ad Iohannem Antiochenum) — Coll. Vat. 127 — ACO © 1/4, 15-20;
Epistula 44 (= Commonitorium ad Eulogium presbyteros) — Coll. Vat. 132 — ACO!
1/4, 35-7;
Epistula 45 (= Epistula ad Succensum !) — Coll. Vat. 171 — ACO 1 1/6, 151-7;
Epistula 46 (= Epistula ad Succensum IT) — Coll. Vat. 172 — ACO I 1/6, 157-62;
 A note on abbreviations and primary sources 251

Epistula 55 (= De Symbolo) — Coll. Vat. 135 — ACO I 1/4, 49-61;

Epistula 68 (= Ad Acacium Melitenum) — Coll. Cas. 303 — ACO 1 4, 231-2;
Epistula 83 (= Epistula ad Calosyrium) — P.E. Pusey (ed.), Cyrilli Epistolae (1875), 603-7;
Libellus — Coll. Vat. 88 — ACU 1 1/3, 15-7;
De recta fide ad Theodosium — Coll. Vat. 7 —- ACO T I/1, 42-72;
De recta fide ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam — Coil. Vat. 149 —- ACO T 1/5, 26-61;
Oratio ad dominas, or De recta fide ad Arcadiam et Marinam — Coil. Vat. 150 - ACO
1 1/5, 26-61;
Apologeticus ad imperatorem Theodosium — Coll. Vat. 119 — ACO F 1/3, 75-90;
De incarnatione — Coll. Vat. 140 - ACO I 1/5, 3-4;
Explicatio duodecim capitum — Coll. Vat. 148 — ACO I 1/5, 15-25;
Duodecim capitum defensio adversus orientales episcopos — Coll. Ath. 24 - ACO 1/7,
33-65;
Contra Nestorium — Coll. Vat. 166 — ACO I 1/6, 13-106;
Quod unus sit Christus (= Chr. un.) — G.-M. de Durand (ed.), Cyrille d’Alexandrie.
Deux dialogues Christologiques (1964), 302-515; in Qérellos: B.M. Weischer,
Qérellos 3 (1977), 31-238;
Glaphyra in Pentateuchum — PG69, 9-678;
Scholia de incarnatione — PE. Pusey (ed.), Cyrilli Epistolae (1875), 498-579; excerpta
Parisina 1 — ACOTS/1, 219-31;
Commentarii in Joannem — P.E. Pusey (ed.), Cyrilli in D. Joannis Evangelium (1872);
De trinitate dialogi —- G.-M. de Durand (ed.), Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Dialogues sur la
Trinité (1976-8);
Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate - PG75, 9-656;
De trinitate (sp.) — PG77, 1120-73.

Epiphanius of Salamis (Constantiensis)

Panarion (= Adversus haereses) — K. Holl (ed.), Epiphanius (1985) volume 3.
Symbolum — B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.2 (1979), 26-47.
Homilia — B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.2 (1979), 52-8.

Eusebius of Caesarea
Historia ecclesiastica — E. Schwartz and T. Mommsen (eds), Eusebius Caesariensis
Werke. Die Kirchengeschichte (1903, 1908);
Epistula ad Caesarienses — H.-G. Opitz (ed.), Athanasius Werke (1935), 28-31 (in Atha-
nasius decr.).
De vita Constantini — F. Winkelmann (ed.), Eusebius Werke: 1. Bd., 1. T. (1975).

Eusebius of Dorylaeum
Contestatio -— Coll. Vat. 18 - ACO I 1/1, 101-2.

Eusebius of Herakleia
Homilia — B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 134-7.

Evagrius Ponticus
Peri logismon — P. Géhin et al. (eds), Evagre le Pontique. Sur les pensées (1998).
252 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Firmus
Homilia — B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 134-7,

Gregory of Nazianzus
Oratio 39 — C. Moreschini and P. Gallay (eds), Grégoire de Nazianze. Discours 38-4]
(1990), 150-97.

Gregory of Nyssa
Homilia 2 in Ecclesiasten - W.W. Jaeger et al. (eds), Gregorii Nysseni opera (1952ff.)
5, 299-314;
Oratio catechetica magna — J.H. Srawley (ed.), The Catechetical Oration (1903);
Adversus Macedonianos de spiritu sancto — W.W. Jaeger et al. (eds), Gregorii Nysseni
opera (1952ff.) 3/1, 89-105.

Gregory the Great

Regula pastoralis — B. Judic et al. (eds), Grégoire le Grand. Régle pastorale (1992),

Hippolytus
Contra haeresin Noeti — R. Butterworth (ed.), Hippolytus of Rome. Contra Noetum
(1977), 43-93.

Jerome
Epistula 92 (Theophilus, synodica epistula) —\. Hilberg (ed.), Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi
Epistulae (1996), 147-55;
Adversus Rufinum — P. Lardet (ed.), Saint Jéréme. Apologie contre Rufin (1983).

John of Antioch
Epistula ad Nestorium — Coll. Vat. 14 - ACO IT 1/1, 93-6;
Epistula ad Cyrillum | ~ Coll. Vat. 30 — ACO 1 1/1, 119;
Epistula ad Cyrillum 2 (de pace) — Coll. Vat. 123 —- ACO I 1/4, 7-9;
Epistula ad Cyrillum 4 — Coll. Ath. 118 — ACO 1/7, 155;
Epistula ad Antiochum praef. praet. ab Ancyra — Coll. Cas. 127 - ACO'1 4, 79-80;
Epistula ad Alexandrum episcopum Hierapolis — Coll. Cas. 139 — ACO1 4, 91;
Relatio ad imperatorem seu imperatores seu imperatrices 5 ~ Coll. Vat. 154 - ACO!
1/5, 37-9;
Homilia — Coll. Ath. 72 — ACO 11/7, 84.

John of Damascus
Sacra parallela — PG95, 1040 - PG96, 544.

John Rufus
Vita Petri [beri — C.B. Horn and R. Phenix (eds), John Rufus: the Lives (2008).

Juvenal of Jerusalem
Homilia Ephesina — B.M. Weischer, Qérelios 4.1 (1979), 82-6.

Leo the Great

Tomus ad Flavianum episcopum (= Epistula 28) — ACO H 2/1, 24-33; ACO II 1/1, 10-20.
 A note on abbreviations and primary sources 253

Leontius of Byzantium
Contra Nestorianus et Eutychianus — PG86 1, 1267-398.

Martyrii Theodotii
Martyrii Theodotii 1 — P.F. de’ Cavalieri (ed.), | martirii di [Link] e di S. Ariadne
(1901), 61-84;
Martyrii Theodotii 2 — ibid., 85-7.

Memnon of Ephesus
Epistula ad clerum Constantinopolitanum — Coll. Vat. 101 — ACO I 1/3, 46-7.

Nestorius
Homilia IV (de incarnatione) — F. Loofs (ed.), Nestoriana (1905), 296ff;
Homilia — Coll. Pal. 22 - ACO I 5/1, 37-9;
Epistula ad Cyrillum I — Coll. Vat. 3 - ACO T 1/1, 25;
Epistula ad Cyrillum 2 — Coll. Vat. 5 - ACO T 1/1, 29-32;
Ex lib. qui vocatur Tragoedia — Coll. Cas. 81 — ACO I 4, 25-7;
Epistula ad Theodosium — Coll. Vat. 146 — ACO T 1/5, 13-5; Coll. Cas. 83 - ACOT 4,
30-1;
Epistula praefecti praetorio ad Nestorium, ut cum honore ad suum monasterium rema-
neret, unde ad episcopatum fuerat euocatus — Coll. Cas. 112 - ACO1 4, 64;
Liber Heraclides — P. Bedjan (ed.), Le livre d’Héraclide de Damas (1910); translations:
F. Nau (ed.), Le Livre d’Héraclide de Damas (1910); G.R. Driver (ed.), The
Bazaar of Heracleides (1925);
Anonymous Syriac hagiography — N. Briére, “La légende syriaque de Nestorius’ (1910),
1-16.

Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus

Historia ecclesiastica — PG145-7;
Antirrhetica — J.-B. Pitra, Spicilegium solesmense (1852).

Nilus of Ancyra
Oratio in Alhianum — PG79, 696-712.

Palladius of Aspuna (Monachus)

Historia Lausiaca — PG34, 995-1260.

Photius of Constantinople
Bibliothecae codices — R. Henry (ed.), Photius. Bibliothéque I (1959), id., Photius. Biblio-
théque IV (1965), id., Photius. Bibliothéque V (1967).

Plato
Protagoras — J. Burnet (ed.), Platonis opera (1968) 3;
Respublica — J. Burnet (ed.), Platonis opera (1968) 4.

Proclus
Homilia 1 — Coll. Vat. 19 - ACO1 1/1, 103-7;
254 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Homilia 4 — N. Constas, Proclus (2003), 226-36;

Tomus ad Armenios — ACO IV 2, 187-95.

Ps.-Macarius
Homiliae spirituales 50 (collectio H) — H. Dorries et al. (eds), Die 50 Geistlichen
Homilien des Makarios (1964).

Rheginus
Sermo Ephesi habitus — Coll. Vat. 70 —- ACO I 1/2, 70; B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1
(1979), 100-7.

Severus of Antioch
Liber contra impium grammaticum — J, Lebon, Severi Antiocheni Liber contra impium
grammaticum (1929, 1933, 1938);
Orationes ad Nephalium — J. Lebon, Severi Antiocheni Orationes ad Nephalium (1949),

Severus of Synada
Homilia Ephesina — B.M. Weischer, Qérellos 4.1 (1979), 62-6.

Socrates Scholasticus
Historia ecclesiastica — P. Périchon and P. Maraval (eds), Socrate de Constantinople.
Histoire ecclésiastique (2004-7) I, 107; II, 180.

Sozomen
Historia ecclesiastica — J. Bidez and C. Hansen (eds), Sozomen. Kirchengeschichte
(1960).

Theodore of Mopsuestia
Contra Eunomium — L. Abramowski and A.E. Goodman (eds), A Nestorian Collection
of Christological Texts (1972).

Theodoret of Cyrrhus
Epistula CXII — Y. Azéma (ed.), Théodoret de Cyr. Correspondance (1965), 50-1;
Epistula ad Alexandrum episcopum Hierapolis — Coll. Ath. 69 — ACO ¥ 1/7, 79-80;
Coll. Cas. 119 — ACO 1 4, 69-70;
Homilia Chalcedoni habita — Coll. Ath. 71 — ACO T 1/7, 82-3;
Historia ecclesiastica — L. Parmentier and F. Scheidweiler (eds), Theodoret. Kirchen-
geschichte (1954).

Theodosius II
Codex Theodosianum — T. Mommsen and P.M. Meyer (eds), Theodosiani libri XVI
(1905);
Epistula ad Cyrillum 1 — Coll. Vat. 8 - ACO I 1/1, 73-4;
Epistula ad Cyrillum 2 — Coll. Vat. 25 — ACO T 1/1, 114-6;
Sacra ad synodum Ephesinam (431) missa — Coll. Vat. 31 — ACO T 1/1, 120-1;
Epistula scripta ad concilium Ephesinum (431) per Palladium — Coll. Vat. 83 - ACO 1
1/3, 9-10;
 A note on abbreviations and primary sources 255

Sacra per lohannem comitem sacrarum largitionum destinata — Coll. Vat. 93 — ACO 1
1/3, 31-2;
Constitutio ad Isidorum scripta de relegatione Nestorii — Coll. Vat. 110 - ACO I 1/3,
67;
Edictum praefectorum praetorio — Coll. Vat. 112 - ACO I 1/3, 69-70;
Epistula ad Joannem Antiochenum -— Coll. Vat. 120 — ACO I 1/4, 3-4;
Epistula ad concilium Ephesinum — Coll. Cas. 118 —- ACO I 4, 68-9;
Epistula ad concilium Ephesenum concilium dissoluendum — Coll. Ath. 97 - ACOT 1/7,
142.
 Bibliography

Abramowski, Luise, Untersuchungen zum Liber Heractidis des Nestorius, Corpus scrip-
torum Christianorum orientalium 242, 22, Subsidia (Louvain, 1963).
—, ‘Die Sitzung des Konzils von Ephesus am 22. Juli 431. “Ober die Befestigung des
Symbols der heiligen Vater in Nicda und iiber den vom Presbyter Charisius iiber-
gebenen Libellus”’ Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte 115 (2004), 382-90.
—, ‘Der Bischof von Seleukia-Ktesiphon als Katholikos und Patriarch der Kirche des
Ostens’, in D. Bumazhnov et al. (eds), Syrien im 1,-7. Jahrhundert (2011), 1-56.
Abramowski, Luise and Alan Edward Goodman (eds), A Nestorian Collection of Chris-
tological Texts: Cambridge University Library MS Oriental 1319, University of
Cambridge oriental publications 18-9 (Cambridge, 1972).
Adams, J. N., Mark Janse and Simon Swain (eds), Bilingualism in Ancient Society:
Language Contact and the Written Text (Oxford, 2002).
Aland, Barbara, Johannes Hahn and Christian Ronning (eds), Literarische Konstituie-
rung von Identifikationsfiguren in der Antike, Studien und Texte zu Antike und
Christentum 16 (Tiibingen, 2003).
Allen, Pauline, ‘Homilies as a source for social history’, Studia Patristica 24 (1993) 1-5.
—, Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-century Heresy: The Synodical Letter and
other Documents — Introduction, Texts, Translations, and Commentary, Oxford
early Christian texts (Oxford, 2009).
—, ‘Episcopal succession in Antioch in the sixth century’, in J. Leemans et al. (eds),
Episcopal Elections (2011), 23-38.
—, ‘Prolegomena to a study of the letter-bearer in Christian antiquity’, Studia Patris-
tica 62 (2013) 481-92.
Allen, Pauline and Wendy Mayer, ‘Computer and homily: accessing the everyday life
of early Christians’, Vigiliae Christianae 47 (1993), 260-80.
Aubenque, Pierre (ed.), Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique, Bibliothéque
d’histoire de la philosophie (Paris, 1980).
Aubineau, Michel, ‘Une homélie de Théodote d’Ancyre sur la nativité du Seigneuer’,
OCP 26 (1960) 224-32. .
—, ‘Une homélie grecque inédite attribuée 4 Théodote d’Ancyre sur le baptéme du
seigneur’, in Diakonia pisteos. Melanges J.A. de Aldama, Biblioteca teologica
Granadina 13 (Granada, 1969), 6-30.
—, Recherches patristiques: enquétes sur des manuscrits, textes inédits, études (Amster-
dam, 1974).
—, ‘Un recueil de textes «Chrysostomiens», notamment d’homélies pascales. Le
Codex Pharmakidi 22 (s. XVI)’, Meoaiwvixa 3 (1990), 387-95.
Auksi, Peter, Christian Plain Style: the Evolution of a Spiritual Ideal (Montreal, 1995).
Ayres, Lewis and Gareth Jones (eds), Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric, and Com-
munity (London, 1998).
Azéma, Yvan (ed.), Théodoret de Cyr. Correspondance, Ill — Epist. Sirm. 96-147, Sources
chrétiennes 111 (Paris, 1965).
Banev, Krastu Krassimirov, Pastoral polemics: a rhetorical analysis of Theophilus of
Alexandria's Letters in the First Origenist Controversy, PhD thesis, University of
Cambridge. Faculty of Divinity (Cambridge, February 2008).
258 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Bardenhewer, Otto, Das fiinfte Jahrhundert mit Einschluss der syrischen Literatur des
vierten Jahrhunderts, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur 4, 1% and 24 edition
(Freiburg im Breisgau, 1923).
—, (ed.), Marienpredigten aus der Vdterzeit (Miinchen, 1934).
Barkhuizen, Jan Harm, ‘Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1: A perspective on his
Christology’, Patristic and Byzantine Review 13 (1994), 49-63.
—, ‘Proclus of Constantinople: a popular preacher in fifth-century Constantinople’, in
M. Cunningham and P. Allen (eds), Preacher and Audience (1998), 179-200.
—, Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople — Homilies on the Life of Christ (Brisbane,
2001).
Barnes, Michel R. and Daniel Harrison Williams (eds), Arianism after Arius: Essays
on the Development of the Fourth Century Trinitarian Conflicts (Edinburgh,
1993).
Barnes, Timothy David, “The crimes of Basil of Ancyra’, Journal of Theological Studies,
N.S. 47 (1996), 550-4.
Batiffol, Pierre, ‘Les présents de saint Cyrille a 1a cour de Constantinople’, in Etudes
de liturgie et d’archéologie chrétienne (Paris, 1919), 154-79.
Baun, Jane, Tales from another Byzantium: Celestial Journey and Local Community in
the Medieval Greek Apocrypha (Cambridge, 2007).
Bautz, Friedrich Wilhelm and Traugott Bautz (eds), ‘Stoss, Veit bis Tiefenthaler,
Joseph’, Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon 11 (Hamm, 1996).
Beatrice, Pier Franco, Anonymi Monophysitae theosophia: an attempt at reconstruction,
Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 56 (Leiden, 2001).
Becker, Adam H., Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom: the School of Nisibis
and Christian Scholastic Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia, Divinations:
Rereading Late Ancient Religion (Philadelphia, 2006).
Bedjan, Paul (ed.), Le livre d’Héraclide de Damas (Paris, 1910).
Beeley, Christopher A., ‘Cyril of Alexandria and Gregory Nazianzen: Tradition and
complexity in patristic christology’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 17 (2009),
381-419.
Belke, Klaus, Ewald Kislinger, et al. (eds), Byzantina Mediterranea: Festschrift fir
Johannes Koder zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien, 2007).
Bidez, Joseph and Christian Hansen (eds), Sozomen. Kirchengeschichte, Die Griechi-
schen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 50 (Berlin, 1960).
Biville, Frederique, ‘The Graeco-Romans and Graeco-Latin: a terminological frame-
work for cases of bilingualism’, in J.N. Adams ef al. (eds), Bilingualism in Ancient
Society (2002), 77-102.
Blaudeau, Philippe, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 451-491: de l'histoire a la géo-
ecclésiologie, Bibliothéque des écoles frangaises d’Athénes et de Rome (Rome,
2006).
Bouinois, Marie-Odile, ‘The mystery of the Trinity according to Cyril of Alexandria:
The Deployment of the Triad and its recapitulation into the Unity of Divinity’,
in T.G, Weinandy and D.A. Keating (eds), The Theology of St. Cyril (2003),
75-111.
Bowersock, Glen Warren, Peter Robert Lamont Brown and Oleg Grabar, Late Antiquity:
a Guide to the Postclassical World, Harvard University Press reference library
(Cambridge, Mass., 1999).
 Bibliography 259

Brakke, David, Demons and the Making of the Monk: Spiritual Combat in Early Chris-
tianity (Cambridge, Mass., 2006).
Brent, Allen, ‘Diogenes Laertius and the apostolic succession’, The Journal of Eccle-
siasticai History 44 (1993), 367-89.
—, Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century: Communities in Tension
Before the Emergence of a Monarch-bishop, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae
31 (Leiden, 1995).
Briére, Maurice, ‘La légende syriaque de Nestorius’, Revue de !’Orient chrétien 15
(1910), 1-25.
Brock, Sebastian P., From Ephrem to Romanos: Interactions between Syriac and Greek
in Late Antiquity, Variorum collected studies series 664 (Aldershot, 1999).
Brown, Peter, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire,
1988 Curti Lecture Series (Madison, Wis., 1992).
—, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity,
Columbia classics in religion (New York; Chichester, 2008).
Brubaker, Leslie, “The conquest of space’, in R. Macrides (ed.), Travel in the Byzantine
World (2002), 235-57.
Bumazhnov, Dmitrij, Hans Reinhard Seeliger and Horn, Comelia B. (eds), Syrien im
1.-7. Jahrhundert nach Christus: Akten der 1. Tiibinger Tagung zum Christlichen
Orient (15.-16. Juni 2007), Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 62
(Tiibingen, 2011).
Burnet, John (ed.), Platonis opera, Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis
(Oxford, 1968).
Bums, W.H., Louis Arragon, Pierre Evieux and Robert Monier (eds), Cyrille d’Alexandrie.
Lettres Festales 7-11, Sources chrétiennes 392 (Paris, 1993).
Butterworth, Robert (ed.), Hippolytus of Rome. Contra Noetum (London, 1977).
Caillet, Jean-Pierre, ‘La transformation en église d’édifices publics et de temples a la
fin de |’Antiquité’, in Claude Lepelley (ed.), La fin de la cité antique et le début
de la cité medievale de la fin du HI siécle a l’avénement de Charlemagne. Actes du
colloque tenu a l'Université de Paris X-Nanterre les 1, 2 et 3 avril 1993, Munera.
Studi storici sulla Tarda Antichité 8 (Bari, 1996), 191-211.
Cain, Andrew and Noel Emmanuel Lenski (eds), The Power of Religion in Late Antiq-
uity (Farnham, 2009).
Cameron, Alan, ‘Vergil illustrated between Pagans and Christians: Reconsidering “the
late-4th c, Classical Revival”, the dates of the manuscripts, and the places of pro-
duction of the Latin Classics [Review discussions]’, Journal of Roman Archaeol-
ogy 17 (2004), 502.
Cameron, Averil, ‘How to read heresiology’, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern
Studies 33 (2003), 471-92.
Cameron, Averil and Stuart George Hall (eds), Eusebius. Life of Constantine, Clarendon
ancient history series (Oxford, 1999).
Cancik, Hubert and Helmuth Schneider, Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopddie der Antike. Das
klassische Altertum und seine Rezeptionsgeschichre (Stuttgart, 1996-2003).
Caramboula, Dimitra, ‘Die Reichsidee zur Zeit Diokletians’, in K. Belke et al. (eds),
Byzantina Mediterranea (2007), 283-93.
Caro, Roberto, La homilética mariana griega en el siglo V, Marian Library studies, new
ser. 3-4 (Dayton, Ohio, 1972).
 260 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Carruthers, Mary Jean, The Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making of
Images, 400-1200, Cambridge studies in medieval literature 34 (Cambridge, 1998).
Cassingena-Trévedy, Francois. ‘Les Eglises syriaques a travers Vhymnographie
d’Ephrem: théologie, typologie, réalité’, in M.-A. Vannier (ed.), Péres et la nais-
sance de l’ecclésiologie (2009), 235-59.
Castro, Giovanni Lo, ‘Osservazioni su un’omelia greca sul battesimo confrontata con
omelie di Teodoto d’Ancira’, Orpheus 13 (1992), 295-314.
—, ‘Citazione di uno Ps.-Teodoto d’Ancira nel florilegio greco «Doctrina patrum de
incamatione Verbi»’, Orpheus 13 (1992), 364-8.
—, Teodoto di Ancira: Omelie cristologiche e mariane, Collana di testi patristici 97
(Roma, 1992).
—, Cirillo di Alessandria: Epistole cristologiche, Collana di testi patristici (Roma, 1999),
Chrysos, Evangelos K., ‘Die Akten des Konzils von Konstantinopel I (381)’, in Gerhard
Wirth, Karl-Heinz Schwarte, Johannes Heinrichs (eds), Romanitas- Christianitas:
Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Literatur der rémischen Kaiserzeit; Johannes
Straub zum 70. Geburtstag am 18. Oktober 1982 gewidmet (Berlin, 1982), 426-35.
—, ‘Konzilsakten und Konzilsprotokolle vom 4. bis 7. Jahrhundert’, Annuarium His-
toriae Conciliorum. Internationale Zeitschrift fiir Konziliengeschichtsforschung
Augsburg 15 (1983), 30-40.
Clark, Elizabeth Ann, The Origenist Controversy: the Cultural Construction of an
Early Christian Debate, (Princeton, N.J.; Oxford, 1992).
Coakley, Sarah, ‘Does Kenosis Rest on a Mistake? Three Kenotic models in Patristic
exegesis’, in C.S. Evans (ed.), Exploring Kenotic Christology (2006), 246-64.
Combefis, Francois, Theodoti Ancyrani, Adversus Nestorium, liber; id est, ejus, ex
Scriptura et fide Concilii Nicaeni confutatio. S. Germani in S. Mariae dormitionem
et translationem, oratio historica. Franciscus Combefis Latio reddidit, castigavit,
notis illustravit (Paris, 1675).
Constas, Nicholas, Proclus of Constantinople and the Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity:
Homilies 1-5, texts and translations, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 66 (Lei-
den, 2003).
Cooper, Kate, ‘Contesting the Nativity: Wives, virgins, and Pulcheria’s imitatio Mariae’,
Scottish Journal of Religious Studies 19 (1998), 31-43.
—, ‘Empress and Theotokos: Gender and Patronage in the Christological Contro-
versy’, in R.N. Swanson (ed.), The Church and Mary (2004), 39-51.
Corrigan, Kevin, Evagrius and Gregory: Mind, Soul, and Body in the Fourth Century,
Ashgate studies in philosophy and theology in late antiquity (Famham, 2009).
Crabbe, Anna M., ‘The invitation list to the council of Ephesus and metropolitan hierarchy
in the fifth century’, The journal of theological studies, N.S. 32 (1981), 369-400.
Cribiore, Raffaella, The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch (Princeton, 2007).
Crusé, Christian Frederic, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of
Cesarea, in Palestine (London, 1851).
Cunningham, Mary B., ‘Preaching and the community’, in R. Morris (ed.), Church and
People (1990), 29-47.
—, ‘Polemic and exegesis: anti-Judaic invective in Byzantine homiletics’, Sobornost
21(1999), 46-68.
—, ‘Dramatic device or didactic tool? The function of dialogue in Byzantine preach-
ing’, in E. Jeffreys (ed.), Rhetoric in Byzantium (2003), 101-13.
 Bibliography 261

Cunningham, Mary and Pauline Allen (eds), Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early
Christian and Byzantine Homiletics, A new history of the sermon 1 (Leiden,
1998).
Dam, Raymond Van, ‘Bishops and clerics during the fourth century: Numbers and their
implications’, in J. Leemans et al. (eds), Episcopal Elections (2011), 217-42.
de’ Cavalieri, Pio Franchi (ed.), martirii di [Link] e di S. Ariadne, con un’ appen-
dice sul testo originale del martirio di S. Eleuterio, Studi e testi (Biblioteca apos-
tolica vaticana) 6 (Roma, 1901).
de Halleux, André, ‘Les douze chapitres cyrilliens au concile d’Ephése (430-433)’,
Revue théologique de Louvain 23 (1992), 425-58.
—, ‘La premiére session du concile d’Ephése (22 juin 431)’, Ephemerides theologicae
Lovanienses 69 (1993), 48-87.
Dennis, George T., ‘Perils of the deep’, in C. Sode and S. Takacs (eds), Novum Millen-
nium (2001), 81-8.
Dillmann, August, Chrestomathia Aethiopica: edita et glossario explanata ab Augusto
Dillmann (Leipzig, 1866).
DiTommaso, Lorenzo and Lucian Turcescu (eds), The Reception and Interpretation of
the Bible in Late Antiquity: Proceedings of the Montréal Colloquium in Honour
of Charles Kannengiesser, 11-13 October 2006, Bible in ancient Christianity 6
(Leiden, 2008).
Dopp, Siegmar and Wilhelm Geerlings (eds), Dictionary of Early Christian Literature
(New York, 2000).
Dérnemann, Michael, Krankheit und Heilung in der Theologie der frithen Kirchenvater,
Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 20 (Tiibingen, 2003).
Dérries, Hermann, Erich Klostermann and Matthias Kroeger (eds), Die 50 Geistlichen
Homilien des Makarios, Patristische Texte und Studien 4 (Berlin, 1964).
Driver, Godfrey Rolles, The Bazaar of Heracleides (Oxford, 1925).
Dunn, Geoffrey, ‘Aristotle and the art of preaching’, Worship 72 (1998), 220-35.
Durand, Georges-Matthieu de, Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Deux dialogues Christologiques,
Sources chrétiennes 97 (Paris, 1964).
—, Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Dialogues sur la Trinité, Sources chrétiennes 231, 237, 246
(Paris, 1976-8).
Eisenberger, Herbert (ed.), Herméneumata: Festschrift fir Hadwig Horner zum sech-
zigsten Geburtstag, Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften n.F., 2.
Reihe 79 (Heidelberg, 1990).
Elm, Susanna, ‘The dog that did not bark: Doctrine and patriarchal authority in the
conflict between Theophilus of Alexandria and John Chrysostom of Constantino-
ple’, in L. Ayres and G. Jones (eds), Christian Origins (1998), 68-93.
Erismann, Christophe, ‘A world of hypostases. John of Damascus’ rethinking of Aris-
totle’s categorical ontology’, Studia Patristica 50 (2011), 269-87.
Euringer, Sebastian, ‘Ubersetzung der Homilien des Cyrillus von Alexandrien, des
Severus von Synnada und des Theodotus von Ancyra in Dillmanns “Chrestomathia
Aethiopica”’, Orientalia 12 (1943), 113-34.
Evans, C. Stephen (ed.), Exploring Kenotic Christology: the Self-emptying of God
(Oxford, 2006). ‘
Fabricius, Johann Albert, Gottlieb Christoph Harless and Christoph August Heumann,
Toannis Alberti Fabricti, Theol. D. et prof. publ. Hamburg Bibliotheca Graeca,
262 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

sive, Notitia scriptorum veterum Graecorum quorumcumque monumenta integra

aut fragmenta edita exstant tum plerorumque e mss. ac deperditis ab auctore
tertium recognita et plurimis locis aucta 9 (Hamburg, 1804).
Fairbairn, Donald, Grace and Christology in the Early Church, Oxford early Christian
studies (Oxford, 2003).
Fassler, Margot, ‘The first Marian feast in Constantinople and Jerusalem: chant texts,
readings, and homiletic literature’, in K. Levy and P. Jeffery (eds), The Study of
Medieval Chant (2001), 25-87.
Ferguson, Everett, Michael P. McHugh and Frederick W. Norris, Encyclopedia of early
Christianity, Garland reference library of the humanities 1839, 2"4 ed. (New York,
1997).
Festugiére, André Jean, Ephése et Chalcédoine: actes des conciles (Paris, 1982).
Finn, Richard Damian, Asceticism in the Graeco-Roman World, Key themes in ancient
history (Cambridge, 2009).
Flower, Richard, ‘Genealogies of unbelief: Epiphanius of Salamis and heresiological
authority’, in C. Kelly et al. (eds), Unclassical Traditions (2011), 70-87.
Férster, Hans, ‘Die alteste marianische Antiphon- eine Fehidatierung? — Uberlegungen
zum “altesten Beleg” des Sub tuum praesidium’, Journal of Coptic Studies 7
(2005) 99-109.
Foss, Clive, ‘Late antique and Byzantine Ankara’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 31 (1977),
27-87.
Fraisse-Coué, Christianne, ‘Le débat théologique au temps de Théodose I]: Nesto-
rius’, in C, Pietri et al. (eds), Naissance d’une chrétienté (250-430) (1995), 499-
550.
Frenkel, Luise Marion, ‘Preaching at the Council of Ephesus (431)’, Studia Patristica
52 (2012), 285-94.
—, ‘What are sermons doing in the Proceedings of a Council? The case of Ephesus
431°, Studia Patristica 62 (2013), 363-70.
—, ‘“Dear prefect, Stop the ill rumour!” — John of Antioch’s tactics to counter Cyril-
lian propaganda after the Council of Ephesus I’, Studia Patristica (2014).
Fuhrer, Therese (ed.), Die christlich-philosophischen Diskurse der Spdtantike: Texte,
Personen, Institutionen: Akten der Tagung vom 22.-25. Februar 2006 am Zentrum
fiir Antike und Moderne der Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg, Philosophie der
Antike 28 (Stuttgart, 2008).
Galatariotou, Catia, ‘Travel and perception in Byzantium’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47
(1993), 221-41.
Gallandi, Andreas, Bibliotheca veterum patrum antiquorumque scriptorum ecclesiasti-
corum 9 (Venice, 1773).
Geerard, Maurice (ed.), A Cyrillo Alexandrino ad lohannem Damascenum, Corpus
Christianorum: Clavis Patrum Graecorum 3 (Turnhout, 1979).
Géhin, Paul, Claire Guillaumont and Antoine Guillaumont (eds), Evagre le Pontique.
Sur les pensées, Sources chrétiennes 438 (Paris, 1998).
Gemeinhardt, Peter, Das lateinische Christentum und die antike pagane Bildung, Stu-
dien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 4 (Tiibingen, 2007).
Gemeinhardt, Peter (ed.), Athanasius Handbuch (Tiibingen, 2011).
 Bibliography 263

Gemeinhardt, Peter and Katharina Heyden (eds), Heilige, Heiliges und Heiligkeit in
spdtantiken Religionskulturen, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten
61 (Berlin, 2012).
Gerber, Simon. Theodor von Mopsuestia und das Nicdnum: Studien zu den kateche-
tischen Homilien, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 51 (Leiden, 2000).
Geyer, Bernhard, Peter Abaelards philosophische Schriften: zum ersten Male hrsg. von
Bernhard Geyer, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters. Texte
und Untersuchungen 21 (Miinster i.W., 1919).
Gharib, Georges et al., Padri e altri autori greci, Testi mariani del primo millennio 1,
24 ed. (Roma, 2001).
Gleede, Benjamin, The Development of the Term évvndatatog from Origen to John of
Damascus, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 113 (Leiden, 2012).
Graf, Georg, “Zwei dogmatische Florilegien der Kopten’, Orientalia Christiana Perio-
dica 3 (1937), 345-402.
—, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur I, Studi e testi 118 (Citta del
Vaticano, 1944),
Graumann, Thomas, Die Kirche der Vater: Vdatertheologie und Vdterbeweis in den
Kirchen des Ostens bis zum Konzil von Ephesus (431), Beitrige zur historischen
Theologie 118 (Tiibingen, 2002).
—, ‘Kirchliche Identitaét und bischéfliche Selbstinszenierung. Der Riickgriff auf ‘Atha-
nasius’ bei der Uberwindung des nachephesinischen Schismas und in Kyrills
Propaganda’, in B. Aland ef al. (eds), Literarische Konstituierung von Identifika-
tionsfiguren (2003), 195-213.
—, ‘Review of Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy. The making of a
saint and of a heretic. By Susan Wessel’, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 58
(2007), 114-7.
—, ‘“Reading” the First Council of Ephesus (431)’, in R. Price and M. Whitby (eds),
Chalcedon in Context (2009), 27-44.
—, ‘Protokollierung, Aktenerstellung und Dokumentation am Beispiel des Konzils
von Ephesus (431)’, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 42 (2010), 7-34.
—, ‘Towards the reception of the Council of Ephesus (431): public sentiment and
early theological responses’, Studia Patristica 45 (2010), 47-162.
Gregory, Timothy E., Vox Populi: Popular Opinion and Violence in the Religious
Controversies of the Fifth Century A.D. (Columbus, 1979).
Grillmeier, Alois, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1979).
—, ‘Die anthropologisch-christologische Sprache des Leontius von Byzanz und ihre
Beziehung zu den Symmikta Zetemata des Neuplatonikers Porphyrius’, in H. Eisen-
berger (ed.), Herméneumata (1990), 61-72.
Grillmeier, Alois and Theresia Hainthaler, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche,
3" ed, (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1990).
Guillaumont, Antoine and Claire Guillaumont (eds), Evagre le Pontique. Traité pratique
ou Le moine, Sources chrétiennes 170-171 (Paris, 1971).
Haas, Christopher, Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict,
Ancient society and history (Baltimore, London, 2006).
Hadot, Pierre, ‘Sur divers sens du mot PRAGMA dans la tradition philosophique grecque’,
in P. Aubenque (ed.), Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique (1980), 309-19.
264 Theudotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Hall, Stuart George (ed.), Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on Ecclesiastes: an English Version
with Supporting Studies: Proceedings of the Seventh International Colloquium on
Gregory of Nyssa (St. Andrews, 5-10 September 1990) (Berlin, 1993).
Harl, Marguerite, ‘Le guetteur et la cible: les deux sens de skopos dans la langue reli-
gieuse des chrétiens’, Revue des études grecques 74 (1961), 450-68.
Harreither, Reinhardt, ‘Die Synoden von Ephesos’, Mitteilungen zur christlichen
Archdologie 8 (2002), 78-94.
Hatlie, Peter, The Monks and Monasteries of Constantinople, ca. 350-850 (Cambridge,
2007).
Henry, René (ed.), Photius. Bibliothéque I (Codices 1-84), Collection byzantine (Paris,
1959),
—, Photius. Bibliothéque IV (Codices 223-229), Collection byzantine (Paris, 1965).
—, Photius. Bibliothéque V (Codices 230-241), Collection byzantine (Paris, 1967).
Herrin, Judith, Byzantium: the Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire (Princeton, 2008).
Hess, Hamilton, The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica,
Oxford early Christian studies (Oxford, 2002).
Hilberg, Isidor (ed.), Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae, Corpus scriptorum ecclesias-
ticorum latinorum 55, 2™4 ed. (Wien, 1996).
Hofer, Josef, Karl Rahner ef ai. (eds), ‘Teufel bis Zypern’, Lexikon fur Theologie und
Kirche: begriindet von Dr. Michael Buchberger 10, 2") ed. (Freiburg i. Breisgau,
1965).
Holl, Karl (ed.), Epiphanius, Bande 1-3: Ancoratus und Panarion, Die griechischen
christlichen Schriftsteller 25, 31 and 37 (Leipzig, 1985).
Holstenius, Lucas, Theodoti Ancyrani Expositio in Symbolum Nicaenum prodit nunc
primum ex bibliotheca Barberina (Rome, 1669).
Holum, Kenneth G., Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late
Antiquity, The transformation of the classical heritage 3 (Berkeley, 1982).
Honigmann, Ernest, ‘Juvenal of Jerusalem’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5 (1950), 209-79.
—, Evéques et évéchés monophysites d’Asie anteriéure au VI* siécle, Corpus Scripto-
tum Christianorum Orientalium 127. Subsidia 2 (Louvain, 1951).
Hom, Cornelia B., Asceticism and Christological Controversy in Fifth-century Palestine:
the Career of Peter the Iberian, Oxford early Christian studies (Oxford, 2006).
Horn, Cornelia B. and Robert Phenix (eds), John Rufus: the Lives of Peter the Iberian,
Theodosius of Jerusalem, and the Monk Romanus, Writings from the Greco-
Roman world 24 (Leiden, Boston, 2008).
Hiibner, Reinhard M., Die Schrift des Apolinarius von Laodicea gegen Photin (Pseudo-
Athanasius, Contra Sabellianos) und Basilius von Caesarea, Patristische Texte und
Studien 30 (Berlin, 1989).
Humfress, Caroline, Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2007).
Jaeger, Werner Wilhelm et al. (eds), Gregorii Nysseni opera (Leiden, 1952ff).
Jansen, Till, Theodor von Mopsuestia, De Incarnatione: Uberlieferung und Christologie
der Griechischen und Lateinischen Fragmente einschliesslich Textausgabe (Berlin,
2009).
Jeffreys, Elizabeth (ed.), Rhetoric in Byzantium: Papers from the Thirty-fifth Spring
Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Exeter College, University of Oxford, March
2001, Society for the promotion of Byzantine studies. Publications 11 (Aldershot,
2003).
 Bibliography 265

Joannou, Périclés Pierre (ed.), Discipline générale antique, Pontificia commissione

per la redazione del codice di diritto canonico orientale. Fonti. [ser.1]; fasc. 9
(Grottaferrata, 1962-64).
Johnson, Lawrence J., Worship in the Early Church: an Anthology of Historical Sources
(Collegeville, Minn., 2009).
Jouassard, Georges, ‘Marie a travers la patristique: maternité divine, virginité, sainteté’,
in H.D. Manoir (ed.), Maria (1949), 19-157.
—, ‘Le cas de Nestorius’, Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique 74 (1979), 346-8.
Judic, Bruno, Floribert Romme! and Charles Morel (eds), Grégoire le Grand. Régle
pastorale, Sources chrétiennes 381-382 (Paris, 1992).
Juergens, Heiko, Wiebke Schaub and Martin Skutella (eds), 5. Aurelii Augustini Confes-
sionum libri XIII, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana
1106, 2"4 ed. (Stuttgart, 1981).
Jugie, Martin (ed.), Homélies mariales byzantines, Patrologia Orientalis 93 (19.3) (Paris,
1926).
Kannengiesser, Charles, ‘Review of Nestorio e il concilio de Efeso. Storia, dogma, cri-
tica. By Luigi I. Scipioni’, Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique, 73 (1978), 669-71.
Karwiese, Stefan, Die Marienkirche in Ephesos. Erster vorldufiger Grabungsbericht
1984-1986, Denkschriften, Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philo-
sophisch-Historische Klasse 200 (Wien, 1989).
Kaser, Max, Das rémische Privatrecht, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. Abt. 10.
Rechtsgeschichte des Altertums T. 3, Bd. 3 (Miinchen, 1959).
Kazhdan, Aleksandr Petrovich and Giles Constable, People and Power in Byzantium:
an Introduction to Modern Byzantine Studies (Washington, D.C., 1982).
Keating, Daniel, ‘Christology in Cyril and Leo: unnoticed parallels and ironies’, Studia
Patristica 48 (2010), 53-8.
Keating, Daniel A., The Appropriation of Divine Life in Cyril of Alexandria, Oxford
theological monographs (Oxford, 2004).
Kecskeméti, Judit, ‘Doctrine et drame dans la prédication grecque’, Euphrosyne, N.S. 21
(1993), 29-68.
—, ‘Sévérien de Gabala: exégéte et théologien antiochien méconnu’, Euphrosyne,
N.S. 24 (1996), 99-126.
—, ‘Deux caractéristiques de la prédication chez les prédicateurs pseudo-chrysosto-
miens: la répétition et le discours fictif’, Rhetorica 14 (1996), 15-36.
Kelly, Christopher, Ruling the Later Roman Empire, Revealing antiquity 15 (Cambridge,
Mass., 2004).
Kelly, Christopher (ed.), Theodosius Il — Rethinking the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity,
Cambridge classical studies (Cambridge, 2013).
Kelly, Christopher, Richard Flower and Michael Stuart Williams (eds), Unclassical
Traditions. Volume II: Perspectives from East and West in Late Antiquity (Cam-
bridge, 2011).
Kennedy, George Alexander, A New History of Classical Rhetoric, Princeton paper-
backs (Princeton, N.J., 1994).
Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘The idea of progress in the early church until the age of Constan-
tine’, Studia Patristica 24 (1993), 119-34.
—, Psalmenhomilien, Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 56 and 57 (Stuttgart,
2002).
266 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Kinzig, Wolfram and Cornelia Kiick (eds), Judentum und Christentum zwischen Kon-
frontation und Faszination: Ansdtze zu einer neuen Beschreibung der jiidisch-
christlichen Beziehungen, Judentum und Christentum 11 (Stuttgart, 2002).
Kinzig, Wolfram, Christoph Markschies and Markus Vinzent, Tauffragen und Bekennt-
nis: Studien zur sogenannten ,,Traditio Apostolica“ zu den ,,Interrogationes de
fide“ und zum ,, Rémischen Glaubensbekenntnis” , Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte
74 (Berlin, 1999).
Kofsky, Arieh, Eusebius of Caesarea Against Paganism, Jewish and Christian perspec-
tives series 3 (Leiden, Boston, 2000).
Kraatz, Wilhelm, Koptische Akten zum Ephesinischen Konzil vom Jahre 431, Texte und
Untersuchungen 26 (Neue Folge, 11. Band), Heft 2 (Leipzig, 1904).
Krausmiiller, Dirk, “Theotokos-diadochos’, in A. Louth and A. Casiday (eds), Byzantine
Orthodoxies (2006), 35-54.
Kruse, Heinz, ‘“Gemeinschaft der Heiligen”. Herkunft und Bedeutung des Glaubens-
artikels’, Vigiliae Christianae 47 (1993), 246-59.
Ladstatter, Sabine and Andreas Piilz, ‘Ephesus in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine
period: Changes in its urban character from the third to the seventh century AD’,
Proceedings of the British Academy 141 (2007), 391-433.
Laird, Martin S., Gregory of Nyssa and the Grasp of Faith: Union, Knowledge, and
Divine Presence, Oxford early Christian studies (Oxford; New York, 2004).
Lampe, Geoffrey William Hugo, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford, 1961.
Langslow, David R. ‘The Epistula in Ancient Scientific and Technical Literature, with
Special Reference to Medicine’, in R. Morello and A.D. Morrison (eds), Ancient
Letters (2007), 211-34.
Lardet, Pierre (ed.), Saint Jéréme. Apologie contre Rufin, Sources chrétiennes 303
(Paris, 1983).
Lavan, Luke, ‘What killed the ancient city? Chronology, causation, and traces of con-
tinuity’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 22 (2009), 803-12.
Lebon, Joseph, Severi Antiocheni Liber contra impium grammaticum, Corpus scripto-
rum Christianorum Orientalium 93-4, 101-2, 111-2 (Paris, 1929, 1933, 1938).
—, Severi Antiocheni Orationes ad Nephalium: eiusdem ac Sergii Grammatici epis-
tulae mutuae, Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 119-120 (Louvain,
1949).
Leemans, Johan, Peter Van Nuffelen, Shawn W. J. Keough and Carla Nicolaye (eds),
Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 119 (Boston,
2011).
Levy, Kenneth and Peter Jeffery (eds), The Study of Medieval Chant: Paths and
Bridges, East and West: in Honor of Kenneth Levy (Woodbridge, Suffolk,
2001).
L’Huillier, Pierre, The Church of the Ancient Councils: the Disciplinary Work of the
First Four Ecumenical Councils (New York, 1996).
Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott and Henry Stuart Jones (eds), A Greek-English
Lexicon, 9 ed. (Oxford, 1996).
Lim, Richard, ‘Religious disputation and social disorder in late antiquity’, Historia:
Zeitschrift fiir Alte Geschichte 44 (1995), 204-31.
Limberis, Vasiliki, Divine Heiress: the Virgin Mary and the Creation of Christian
Constantinople (London, 1994),
 Bibliography 267

Loofs, Friedrich, Leontius von Byzanz und die gleichnamigen Schriftsteller der grie-
chischen Kirche, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen
Literatur 3, Hft. 1-2 (Leipzig, 1887).
—, Nestoriana: die Fragmente des Nestorius (Halle a. S., 1905).
—., Nestorius and his Place in the History of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge, 1914).
Loon, Hans van, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, Supplements to
Vigiliae Christianae 96 (Leiden, 2009).
Louth, Andrew and Augustine Casiday (eds), Byzantine Orthodoxies: Papers from the
Thirty-sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Durham, 23-25
March 2002, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies 12 (Aldershot, 2006).
Ludlow, Morwenna, ‘Demons, Evil, and Liminality in Cappadocian Theology’, Journal
of Early Christian Studies 29 (2012), 179-211.
Ludolf, Hiob, Jobi Ludolfi I.C. Lexicon aethiopico-latinum: ex omnibus libris impres-
sis, nonnullisque manuscriptis collectum, et cum docto quodam aethiope relectum;
accessit authoris Grammatica, cum allis nonnullis, quorum catalogum sequens
pagina exhibebit; nunc primum in lucem editum, studio & cura Johannis Michaelis
Wanslebii (London, 1661).
Lupus, Chretien and Tommaso Antonio Filippini, Ad Ephesinum Concilium Variorum
Patrum Epistolae: ex manuscripto Cassinensis Bibliothecae Codice desumptae:
item ex Vaticanae Bibliothecae manuscripto ... nunc primum in publicam lucem
data (Venice, 1726).
Lyman, Rebecca, ‘A topography of heresy: mapping the rhetorical creation of arian-
ism’, in M.R. Bares and D.H. Williams, (eds), Arianism after Arius (1993),
45-62.
MacMullen, Ramsay, ‘The preacher’s audience (ad 350-400)’, Journal of Theological
Studies 40 (1989), 503-11.
—, Voting about God in Early Church Councils (New Haven, 2006).
Macrides, Ruth (ed.), Travel in the Byzantine World: Papers from the Thirty-fourth
Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, April 2000, Society for the
Promotion of Byzantine Studies publications 10 (Aldershot, 2002).
Manoir, Hubert Du (ed.), Maria: études sur la Sainte Vierge. Tome I (Paris, 1949).
Mansi, Giovan Domenico, Ab anno CCCCXXXI. ad annum CCCCXLL, Sacrorum
conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 5 (Florence, 1761).
—, Ab anno 787 usque ad anno 814, Sacrorum conciliorum: nova et amplissima col-
lectio 13 (Florence, 1767).
Marrou, Henri Irénée, Histoire de l'éducation dans l’antiquité, 2" rev. et augm. ed.
(Paris, 1948).
—, A History of Education in Antiquity (New York, 1956).
Martens, Pieter William (ed.), In the Shadow of the Incarnation: Essays on Jesus Christ
in the Early Church in Honor of Brian E. Daley, S.J. (Notre Dame, Ind., 2008).
Mateo-Seco, Lucas F., ‘Der Titel “Gottesmutter” in der Theologie der Kirchenvater vor
dem Konzil von Ephesus’, Sedes Sapientiae: Mariologisches Jahrbuch 8 (2004),
5-36.
Maxwell, Jaclyn LaRae, Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity: John
Chrysostom and his Congregation in Antioch (Cambridge, 2006).
—, ‘Education, humility and choosing ideal bishops in late antiquity’, in J. Leemans
er al. (eds), Episcopal Elections (2011), 449-62.
268 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Mayer, Wendy, ‘John Chrysostom: extraordinary preacher, ordinary audience’, in

M. Cunningham and P. Allen, (eds), Preacher and Audience (1998), 105-37.
McGuckin, John Anthony, St. Gregory of Nazianzus: an Intellectual Biography (Crest-
wood, N.Y., 2001).
—, St. Cyril of Alexandria: the Christological Controversy: its History, Theology, and
Texts (Crestwood, N.Y., 2004).
—, ‘Mystery or conundrum? The apprehension of Christ in the Chalcedonian definition’,
in P.W. Martens (ed.), /n the Shadow of the Incarnation (2008), 246-59,
McKenzie, Judith, The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt, c. 300 B.C. to A.D. 700,
Pelican history of art (New Haven, Conn., 2007).
McLynn, Neil B., Christian Politics and Religious Culture in Late Antiquity (Farnham,
2009).
Meissner, Henriette M., ‘“Grammatik und Rhetorik in Gregors von Nyssa Exegese des
Buches Prediger: Beobachtungen zur fiinften Homilie’, in S.G. Hall (ed.), Gregory
of Nyssa, Homilies on Ecclesiastes (1992), 223-76.
Mendels, Doron, ‘The relationship of Christians and Jews during the years 300-450:
A preliminary report of the Christian point of view’, in W. Kinzig and C. Kiick
(eds), Judentum und Christentum (2002), 45-54.
Merkt, Andreas, “Miindlichkeit: Ein Problem der Hermeneutik patristischer Predigten’,
Studia Patristica 31 (1997), 76-85.
Metzger, Marcel (ed.), Les constitutions apostoliques, Sources chrétiennes 336 (Paris,
1987).
Metzler, Karin, Martin Tetz and Kyriakos Savvidis (eds), Oratio IH contra Arianos.
Athanasius Werke |. Die dogmatische Schriften 3 (Berlin, 2000).
Meunier, Berard, Le Christ de Cyrille d’Alexandrie: l’ humanité, le salut et la question
monophysite, Théologie historique 104 (Paris, 1997).
Meyendorff, John, ‘Continuities and Discontinuities in Byzantine Religious Thought’,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47 (1993), 69-81.
Migne, Jacques Paul (ed.), Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina (Paris, 1844-
1855).
—, Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca (Paris, 1857-1866).
—, S. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Theodotus Ancyranus, Paulus Emesenus, Joannes Anti-
ochenus, Acacius Berrheensis, Memno Ephesinus, Acacius Melitensis, Rabbulas
Edessenus, Amphilochius Sidenus, Patrologie cursus completus: seu, Bibliotheca
universalis, integra, uniformis, commoda, oeconomica omnium SS. patrum, docto-
rum, scriptorumque ecclesiasticorum. Series greca 77 (Paris, 1859).
Millar, Fergus, A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius H
(408/450), Sather Classical Lectures 64 (Berkeley, 2006).
Miller, Emmanuel, Catalogue des manuscrits grecs de la bibliothéque de |’Escurial
(Amsterdam, 1848).
Miller, Patricia Cox, Women in Early Christianity: Translations from Greek Texts
(Washington, DC., 2005).
Mitchell, Stephen, ‘The life of saint Theodotus of Ancyra’, Anatolian Studies 32 (1982),
93-113.
—, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor (Oxford, 1995).
—, A History of the Later Roman Empire, AD 284-641: the Transformation of the
Ancient World, Blackwell history of the ancient world (Oxford, 2007).
 Bibliography 269

Mommsen, Theodor and Paul Martin Meyer (eds), Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitu-
tionibus Sirmondianis; et leges novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes, Les lois reli-
gieuses des empereurs romains de Constantin a Théodose II (312-438) (Berlin, 1905).
Monaco, Giusto (ed.), Studi di filulugia clussicu in onure di Giusto Monaco (Palermo,
1991),
Morello, Ruth and Andrew D. Morrison (eds), Ancient Letters: Classical and Late
Antique Epistolography (Oxford, 2007).
Moreschini, Claudio and Gallay, Paul (eds), Grégoire de Nazianze. Discours 38-41,
Sources chrétiennes 358 (Paris, 1990).
Morris, Rosemary (ed.), Church and People in Byzantium: Society for the Promotion
of Byzantine Studies: Twentieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Manches-
ter, 1986 (Birmingham, 1990).
Mosheim, Johann Lorenz and James Murdock, ‘Primitive period’, Institutes of Eccle-
siastical History: Ancient and Modern | (New Haven, 1832).
Miiller, Caspar and Gustav Detlef, ‘Alexandrien’, in Agende-Anselm von Canterbury,
Theologische Realenzyklopidie 2 (Berlin, 1978), 248-64.
Mueller, Fridericus, Gregorii Nysseni Opera (Leiden, 1958).
Mullett, M. E., ‘In peril on the sea: travel genres and the unexpected’, in R. Macrides
(ed.), Travel in the Byzantine World (2002), 259-84.
Nacke, Ewald, Das Zeugnis der Vater in der Theologischen Beweisfiihrung Cyrills von
Alexandrien nach seinen Briefen und antinestorianischen Schriften, PhD thesis,
Westfalischen Wilhelms-Universitét Miinster. Katholisch-Theologische Fakultat
(Miinster, 1964).
Nau, Frangois, Le Livre d'Héraclide de Damas (Paris, 1910).
Neil, Bronwen, Pauline Allen and Wendy Mayer (eds), Preaching Poverty in Late Anti-
quity: Perceptions and Realities, Arbeiten zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte
28 (Leipzig, 2009).
Neuschiafer, Bernhard, Origenes als Philologe, Schweizerische Beitrage zur Altertums-
wissenschaft 18 (Basel, 1987).
Nicholson, John, ‘The delivery and confidentiality of Cicero’s letters’, Classical Jour-
nal 90 (1994), 33-63.
Norton, Peter, Episcopal Elections 250-600: Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late
Antiquity, Oxford classical monographs (Oxford, 2007).
Nuffelen, Peter Van, ‘The rhetoric of rules and the rule of consensus’, in J. Leemans et
al. (eds), Episcopal Elections (2011), 243-58.
O'Keefe, John J., ‘“A letter that killeth”: toward a reassessment of Antiochene exegesis,
or Diodore, Theodore, and Theodoret on the Psalms’, Journal of Early Christian
Studies 8 (2000), 83-103.
—, ‘Incorruption, anti-Origenism, and Incarnation: Eschatology in the thought of Cyril
of Alexandria’, in T.G. Weinandy and D.A. Keating (eds), The Theology of St.
Cyril (2003), 187-204.
Olivar, Alexandre, La predicaci6n cristiana antigua, Biblioteca Herder 189 (Barcelona,
1991).
Opitz, Hans-Georg (ed.), Athanasius Werke. Band II, Lieferung J (Berlin, 1935).
Parmentier, Léon and Felix Scheidweiler (eds), Theodoret. Kirchengeschichte, Grie-
chischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 44 (19), 24 ed. (Berlin,
1954).
270 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

Parvis, Sara, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy, 325-
345, Oxford early Christian studies (Oxford, 2006).
Pauly, August Friedrich von and Georg Wissowa, Paulys Real-Encyclopddie der clas-
sischen Altertumswissenschaft: neue Bearbeitung, 2. Reihe 2 (Stuttgart, 1934).
Payne, Richard E., ‘Persecuting heresy in early Islamic Iraq: the Catholicos Ishoyahb
ITI and the elites of Nisibis’, in A. Cain and N.E. Lenski (eds), The Power of
Religion in Late Antiquity (2009), 397-409.
Peltomaa, Leena Mari, The Image of the Virgin Mary in the Akathistos Hymn, The
Medieval Mediterranean 35 (Leiden, 2001).
Périchon, Pierre and Pierre Maraval (eds), Socrate de Constantinople. Histoire ecclési-
astique, Sources chrétiennes 477, 493, 505, 506 (Paris, 2004-7).
Pernot, Laurent, La rhétorique de l’éloge dans le monde gréco-romain, Collection des
études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité 137-8 (Paris, 1993).
Petschenig, Michael (ed.), Johannis Cassiani De institutis coenobiorum et de octo
principalium vitiorum remediis libri XH; De incarnatione Domini contra Nesto-
rium libri VII, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 17.1 (Vienna,
1888).
Pietri, Charles, Luce Pietri and J. Biarne (eds), Naissance d’une chrétienté (250-430),
Histoire du christianisme des origines 4 nos jours 2 (Paris, 1995).
Pin, Louis Ellies Du and William Wotton, Containing the Authors that Flourished in
the Latter Part of the Fifth Century, A new History of Ecclesiastical Writers:
containing an account of the authors of the several Books of the Old and New
Testament; of the Lives and Writings of the Primitive Fathers; an abridgment and
catalogue of their works; their various editions, and censures determining the
genuine and spurious. Together with a judgment upon their style and doctrine.
Also, a compendious History of the Councils; with chronological tables of the
whole 4 (London, 1693).
Pitra, Jean-Baptiste, Spicilegium solesmense complectens sanctorum patrum scriptorum-
que ecclesiasticorum anecdota hactenus opera: selecta e graecis orientalibusque
et latinis codicibus (Paris, 1852).
Porter, Stanley E. (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C.-
A.D. 400 (Leiden, 1997).
Price, Richard, ‘Marian piety and the Nestorian controversy’, in R.N. Swanson (ed.),
The Church and Mary (2004), 31-8.
—, ‘Presidency and Procedure at the Early Ecumenical Councils’, Annuarium Histo-
riae Conciliorum, 41 (2009), 241-74.
Price, Richard and Michael Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated
texts for historians 45 (Liverpool, 2005).
Price, Richard and Mary Whitby (eds), Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils 400-
700, Translated texts for historians. Contexts | (Liverpool, 2009).
Pruche, Benoit (ed.), Basile de Césarée. Sur le Saint-Esprit, Sources chrétiennes 17 bis,
24 ed. (Paris, 1968).
Pusey, Philip Edward (ed.), Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in
D. Joannis Evangelium (Oxford, 1872).
—, Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini Epistolae tres oecumenicae;
Libri quinque contra Nestorium; XH capitum explanatio; XII capitum defensio
utraque; Scholia de incarnatione unigeniti (Oxford, 1875).
 Bibliography 271

Quasten, Johannes, The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature, from the Council of
Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon, Patrology 3 (Utrecht, 1960).
Rapp, Claudia, “The elite status of bishops in late antiquity in ecclesiastical, spiritual.
and social contexts’, Arethusa 33 (2000), 379-99.
—, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity. The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of
Transition (Berkeley, 2005).
Rebenich, Stefan, ‘Freund und Feind bei Augustin und in der christlichen Spatantike’,
in T, Fuhrer (ed.), Die christlich-philosophischen Diskurse der Spdtantike (2008),
11-31.
Redies, Michael, ‘Kyrill und Nestorius: Eine Neuinterpretation des Theotokos-Streits’,
Klio. Beitrdge zur alten Geschichte 80 (1998), 195-208.
Rich, Antony D., Discernment in the Desert Fathers: Didkrisis in the Life and Thought
of Early Egyptian Monasticism, Studies in Christian history and thought (Milton
Keynes, 2007).
Richter, Gerhard, Oikonomia: der Gebrauch des Wortes Oikonomia im Neuen Testa-
ment, bei den Kirchenvatern und in der theologischen Literatur bis ins 20. Jahr-
hundert, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 90 (Berlin, 2005).
Robert, Louis, ‘Malédictions funéraires grecques’, Comptes-rendus des séances de
l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 122 (1978), 241-89.
Roberts, Colin H. (ed.), Theological and Literary Texts (no. 457-551), Catalogue of the
Greek papyn in the John Rylands Library, Manchester 3 (Manchester, 1938).
Rohrbacher, David, The Historians of Late Antiquity (London, 2002).
Ronning, Christian, ‘Rituale der Rhetorik — Rhetorik der Rituale. Uberlegungen zu
Konstantin als Identifikationsfigur in der spatantiken Panegyrik’, in B. Aland et
al. (eds), Literarische Konstituierung von Identifikationsfiguren (2003), 111-37.
Ross, William David (ed.), Aristotle. Ars rhetorica, Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca
Oxoniensis (Oxford, 1959).
Rucker, Ignaz, ‘Ephesinische Konzilsakten in armenischgeorgischer Uberlieferung’,
Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-
historische Abteilung 1930 (1930).
Russell, Norman, Cyril of Alexandria (London, 2000).
—, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, Oxford early Chris-
tian studies (Oxford, 2004).
Schiublin. Christoph, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen
Exegese, Theophaneia, Beitrage zur Religions- und Kirchengeschichte des Alter-
tums 23 (K6éln, 1974).
Schor, Adam M., Theodoret’s People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late
Roman Syria, Transformation of the classical heritage 48 (Berkeley, 2011).
Schulze, Johann Ludwig, [Tou Makariou Theodoretou Episkopou Kurou apanta] = B. Theo-
doreti Episcopi Cyri Opera omnia: ex recensione lacobi Sirmondi 5 (Halle, 1774).
Schwartz, Eduard, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum ~ iussu atque mandato Soctetatis
Scientiarum Argentoratensis edidit Eduardus Schwartz [continuauit Johannes
Straub] (Berlin, 1914ff.).
—, ‘Cassian und Nestorius’, in Konzilstudien, Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen
Gesellschaft in Strassburg 20 (Strassburg,. 1914), 1-70.
—, ‘Cyrill und der Monch Viktor’, Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften
in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse 208(4) (1926), 1-51.
272 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council ot Ephesus (431)

—, Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431: eine antichalkedonische Sammlung aus der Zeit Kaiser
Zenos, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philoso-
phisch-Philologische und Historische Klasse XXXII, 6. Abh (Miinchen, 1927).
—, Zwei Prediyten Hippolyts. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften: Philosophisch-Historische Abteilung 3 (Miinchen, 1936).
Schwartz, Eduard and Theodor Mommsen (eds), Eusebius Caesariensis Werke. Band 2,
Teil 1-2: Die Kirchengeschichte, Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten
drei Jahrhunderte 9 (Leipzig, 1903, 1908).
Scipioni, Luigi I., Nestorio e il concilio de Efeso: Storia, dogma, critica, Pubblicazioni
della Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore. Studia Patristica Mediolanensia |
(Milano, 1974).
Sciuto, Francesco Erasmo, Un episodio sconosciuto della controversia cristologica durante
il Concilio d’Efeso: Euterio di Tiana contro Teodoto d’Ancira (Catania, 1984),
—, ‘Una citazione virgiliana in Teodoto di Ancyra (V sec)’, in G. Monaco (ed.), Studi
di filologia classica (1991), 517-26.
Seeliger, Hans Reinhard, ‘Die Erforschung der spatantiken Bischofssitze des syrisch-
palastinischen Raumes und ihrer Bauten’, in D. Bumazhnov ef al. (eds), Syrien im
1.-7. Jahrhundert (2011), 195-210.
Shchuryk, Oleh, “The Christological Position of Acacius of Melitene in the Context of
the Council of Ephesus 431°, Studia Patristica 45 (2010), 131-8.
Shoemaker, Stephen J., Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assump-
tion, Oxford early Christian studies (Oxford, 2006).
—, ‘Between scripture and tradition: the Marian apocrypha of early Christianity’, in
L. DiTommaso and L. Turcescu (eds), The Reception and Interpretation of the
Bible in Late Antiquity (2008), 491-510.
Shults, F. LeRon, “A Dubious Christological Formula: From Leontius of Byzantium to
Karl Barth’ Theological Studies 57 (1996), 431-46.
Sieben, Hermann-Joseph, ‘Zur Entwicklung der Konzilsidee’, Theologie und Philoso-
phie (VI): Vom ,,Konzil der 318 Vater“ zu den ,,katholischen Konzilien“ der Kirche
48 (1973), 28-64.
Siegert, Folker, ‘Homily and panegyrical sermon’, in S.E. Porter (ed.), Handbook of
Classical Rhetoric (1997), 421-43.
Simonetti, Manlio, ‘Alcune osservazioni sul monofisismo di Cirillo di Alessandria’,
Augustinianum, 22 (1982), 493-511.
Sode, Claudia and Sarolta Takacs (eds), Novum Millennium: Studies on Byzantine His-
tory and Culture Dedicated to Paul Speck (A\dershot, 2001).
S6ll, Georg, Mariologie, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte III, 4 (Freiburg im Breisgau,
1978).
Spade, Paul Vincent, Five Texts on the Mediaeval Problem of Universals: Porphyry,
Boethius, Abelard, Duns Scotus, Ockham (Indianapolis, Cambridge, 1994).
Spira, Andreas and Hubertus R. Drobner, Kleine Schriften zu Antike und Christentum:
Menschenbild - Rhetorik - Gregor von Nyssa, Patrologia: Beitrage zum Studium
der Kirchenvater 17 (Frankfurt am Main, 2007).
Srawley, James Herbert, The Catechetical Oration of Gregory of Nyssa, Cambridge
patristic texts (Cambridge, 1903).
Sterk, Andrea, Renouncing the World yet Leading the Church: the Monk-bishop in Late
Antiquity (Cambridge, MA; London, 2004).
 Bibliography 273

Stewart, Columba, Cassian the Monk, Oxford studies in historical theology (New York,
Oxford, 1999).
Stewart-Sykes, Alistair, From Prophecy to Preaching: a Search for the Origins of the
Christian Homily, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 59 (Leiden, 2001).
Stickelberger, Hans, ‘Substanz und Akzidens bei Leontinus von Byzanz. Die Verinde-
rung eines philosophischen Denkmodells durch die Cristologie’, Theologische
Zeitschrift 36 (1980), 153-61.
Straw, Carole Ellen and Richard Lim (eds), The Past Before Us: the Challenge of
Historiographies of Late Antiquity, Bibliothéque de |’Antiquité tardive 6 (Tum-
hout, 2004).
Swanson, Robert Norman (ed.), The Church and Mary, Studies in Church History 39
(Woodbridge, Suffolk, 2004).
Talbert, Richard J.A., The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton, N.J., 1984).
Tetz, Martin, Eine Antilogie des Eutherios con Tyana, Patristische Texte und Studien
1 (Berlin, 1964).
Treadgold, Warren T., The Early Byzantine Historians (Basingstoke, 2007).
Tzamalikos, Panagidtés, The Real Cassian Revisited: Monastic Life, Greek Paideia,
and Origenism in the Sixth Century, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 112 (Lei-
den, 2012).
Uthemann, Kar]-Heinz, ‘Die Sprachtheorie des Eunomios von Kyzikos und Severianos
von Gabala. Theologie im Reflex kirchlicher Predigt’, Studia Patristica 24 (1993),
336-44.
—, ‘Forms of communication in the homilies of Severian of Gabala: a contribution to
the reception of the diatribe as a method of exposition’, in M. Cunningham and
P. Allen (eds), Preacher and Audience (1998), 139-77.
—, Christus, Kosmos, Diatribe: Themen der friihen Kirche als Beitrdge zu einer his-
torischen Theologie, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 93 (Berlin, 2005).
Vacant, Alfred, Eugéne Mangenot and Emile Amann, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique:
contenant l’exposé des doctrines de la théologie catholique, leurs preuves et leur
histoire (Paris, 1915-1950).
Valensi, Lucette, La fuite en Egypte: histoires d’Orient et d’Occident; essai d'histoire
comparée (Paris, 2002).
van Roey, Albert, “Le florilége nestorien dans le «Traité contre Nestorius » de Théodote
d’Ancyre’, Studia Patristica XII (TU 115) (1975), 155-9.
—, ‘Le florilége nesiorien de l’Adversus Nestorium de Cyrille d’Alexandrie et du traité
contre Nestorius de Théodote d’Ancyre’, TU 125 (1981), 573-8.
Vannier, Marie-Anne, ‘Le De incarnatione Domini de Jean Cassien’, in Badilita, Cristian
and Attila Jakab (eds), Jean Cassien entre l’Orient et l’Occident. Actes du colloque
international organisé par le New Europe College en collaboration avec la Ludwig
Boltzmann Gesellschaft (Bucarest, 27-28 septembre 2001) (Paris, 2003), 49-63.
Vannier, Marie-Anne (ed.), Péres et la naissance de l’ecclésiologie, Patrimoines Chris-
tianisme (Paris, 2009).
Viller, Marcel, Ferdinand Cavallera and Joseph de Guibert, Dictionnaire de spiritualité
ascétique et mystique: doctrine et histoire (Paris, 1932ff).
Vinzent, Markus, Pseudo-Athanasius, Contra Arianos IV: eine Schrift gegen Asterius
von Kappadokien, Eusebius von Cdsarea, Markell von Ankyra und Photin von
Sirmium, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 36 (Leiden, 1996).
274 Theodotus of Ancyra’s Homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)

—, ‘Vom philosophischen Apologeten zum theologischen Ketzerbekampfer. Zur bio-

graphischen Verkirchlichung von christlichen Amtstragern am Beispiel Kyrills von
Alexandrien’, in B. Aland et al. (eds), Literarische Konstituierung von Identifika-
tionsfiguren (2003), 173-94.
Voicu, Sever J., ‘Note su un’omelia pseudocrisostomica per il natale (CPG 5068; BHG
1920q)’, Orpheus 13 (1992), 354-363.
Watts, Edward Jay, City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria (Berkeley,
Calif.; London, 2006).
Webb, Ruth, ‘Praise and persuasion: argumentation and audience response in epideictic
oratory’, in E. Jeffreys, (ed.), Rhetoric in Byzantium (2003), 127-35.
Weckwerth, Andreas, Ablauf, Organisation und Selbstverstdndnis westlicher antiker
Synoden im Spiegel ihrer Akten, PhD thesis, Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-
Universitét, Philosophischen Fakultat (Bonn, 2007).
—, Ablauf, Organisation und Selbstverstandnis westlicher antiker Synoden im Spiegel
ihrer Akten, Jahrbuch fiir Antike und Christentum. Ergainzungsband, Kleine Reihe
5 (Miinster, 2010).
Weischer, Bernd Manuel, Der Dialog ‘Dass Christus einer ist’ des Kyrillos von Alexan-
drien, Qérellos 3 (Wiesbaden, 1977).
—, Homilien und Briefe zum Konzil von Ephesos, Qérellos 4.1 (Wiesbaden, 1979).
—, Traktate des Epiphanios von Zypern und des Proklos von Kyzikos, Qérellos 4.2
(Wiesbaden, 1979).
—, Traktate des Severianos von Gabala, Gregorios Thaumaturgos und Kyrillos von
Alexandrien, Qérellos 4.3 (Wiesbaden, 1980).
Weinandy, Thomas G. and Danie! A. Keating (eds), The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexan-
dria: a Critical Appreciation (London, 2003).
Wessel, Susan, ‘Nestorius, Mary and Controversy, in Cyril of Alexandria’s Homily IV.
(De Maria deipara in Nestorium, CPG 5248)’, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum
31 (1999), 1-49.
—, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy: the Making of a Saint and of
a Heretic, The Oxford early Chnistian studies (Oxford, 2004).
Westra, Liuwe H., The Apostles’ Creed: Origin, History and some early Commentaries,
Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia. Research on the inheritance of early and
medieval Christianity 43 (Turnhout, 2002).
Whitby, Mary (ed.), The Propaganda of Power: the Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity,
Mnemosyne, bibliotheca classica Batava. Supplementum 183 (Leiden, 1998).
Wickham, Lionel R., ‘Homily 4’, in S.G. Hall (ed.), Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on
Ecclesiastes (1992), 177-184.
—, ‘Review of The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. By Hans van
Loon’, The Journal of Theological Studies 61 (2010), 381-3.
Williams, Daniel Harrison, ‘Monarchianism and Photinus of Sirmium as the persistent
heretical face of the fourth century’, Harvard Theological Review 99 (2006), 187-
206.
Willing, Meike, Eusebius von Cdsarea als Hdreseograph, Patristische Texte und Stu-
dien 63 (Berlin, 2008).
Winkelmann, Friedhelm (ed.), Eusebius Werke: 1. Band, 1. Teil, Uber das Leben des
Kaisers Konstantin, Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte
(Berlin, 1975).
 Bibliography 275

Wipszycka, Ewa, Etudes sur le christianisme dans 1 "Egypte de l’antiquité tardive, Studia
Ephemeridis Augustinianum 52 (Roma, 1996).
Wright, William, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired
since the Year 1838 (New Jersey, 2002).
Young, Frances Margaret, ‘A reconsideration of Alexandrian Christology’, The Journal
of Ecclesiastical History 22 (1971), 103-14.
—, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge, 1997).
—, ‘God’s image: the ‘elephant in the room’ in the 4th century?’, Studia Patristica 50
(2011), 57-71.
Zuurmond, Rochus, Novum testamentum Aethiopice: the synoptic gospels; Part III: The
Gospel of Matthew, Athiopistische Forschungen 55 (Wiesbaden, 2001).
 Index locorum

Abelard, Logica ingredientibus 190 Coll. Ath.

Aristotle, Ars Rhetorica Coll. Ath.
I, 2 1356a1-13 103 Coll. Ath.
I, 11 1371a8-17 103 Coll. Ath.
Athanasius Coll. Ath.
Epistula ad Epictetum 160 Coll. Ath,
Oratio tertia adversus Arianos 3,5 166 Coll. Ath.
Augustine, Confessionum libri XIIIV 64 Collectio Casinensis
Basil of Caesarea Coll. Cas.
Homilia 14,1 62 Coll. Cas.
Liber de Spiritu sancto 18 166 Coll. Cas.
Canons Coll. Cas.
Apostolicat Canon 74 54 Coll. Cas.
Constantinople, Canon 2 54 Coll. Cas.
Nicaea, Canon 6 47 Coll. Cas.
Serdica, Canon 10 22 Coll. Cas.
Chrysippus of Jerusalem, /n sanctam Mar- Coll. Cas.
iam 117 Coil. Cas.
Codex Theodosianus Coll. Cas.
11,5-6 19 Coll. Cas.
XVI11,2 23 Coll. Cas.
Concilium Chalcedonensis Colt. Cas.
22 Post Concilium Constitutio 190 Coll. Cas.
23 Edictum 190 Coll. Cas.
Actio | 282-6 24 Coll. Cas.
Actio V4 23, 30 Coll. Cas.
Actio XVH 18 2,17 Coll. Cas.
Actio XVH 35 17, 67 Coll. Cas.
Epistularum collectioM 11 186 Coll. Cas.
Concilium Constantinopolitanum II Coll. Cas.
ActioV 91 Coll. Cas.
Concilium Ephesinum Coll. Cas. 303 88
Collectio Atheniensis Collectio Palatina
Coll. Ath. 169-70 Coll. Pal. 22 76, 159
Coll. Ath. 81, 83 Collectio Vaticana
Coll. Ath. Coll. Vat. 1 43, 87, 112, 136, 158,
Coll. Ath. 170, 176, 178, 185, 187
Coll. Ath. Coll. Vat.3 66
Coll. Ath. Coll. Vat.4 157, 176
Coll. Ath. Coll. Vat.5 54, 66, 73, 176, 185
Coll. Ath. Coll. Vat.6 46, 59, 131
Coll. Ath. Coll. Vat. 7 159, 169-70
Coll. Ath, Coll. Vat. 8 18
Coll. Ath. Coll. Vat.9 73,75
278 index locoerum

Coil. Vat. 10 38, 46, 59, 77 Coll. Vat. 77 151

Coll. Vat. 11 26, 38 Coll. Vat. 79 166
Coll. Vat. 14 117 Coll. Vat. 80 75, 117, 193
Coll, Vat. 18 122, 158 Coll. Vat. 81 70
Coll. Vat. 19 11, 76, 90, 117, 120 Coll. Vat. 82 62, 70, 73
Coll. Vat. 23 136 Coll. Vat. 83 72, 78
Coll. Vat. 25 24, 43-5, 50 Coll. Vat. 84 70
Coll. Vat. 28 71 Coll. Vat. 85 73, 76, 84
Coll. Vat. 30 45 Coll. Vat. 87 81
Coll. Vat. 31 49, 52, 82 Coll. Vat. 88 81
Coll. Vat. 34 50 Coll. Vat. 91 127
Coll. Vat. 36 50, 52 Coll. Vat.92 44, 67
Coll. Vat. 37 49, 51 Coll. Vat. 93 45, 81-2, 86
Coll. Vat. 38 45 Coll. Vat.94 82
Coll. Vat. 39 53 Coll. Vat.95 48
Coll. Vat.40 45, 53 Coll. Vat. 101 76
Coll, Vat.41 53 Coll. Vat. 102 84
Coll. Vat.42 53, 67 Coll. Vat. 106 46, 77-9
Coll. Vat. 43 54 Coll. Vat. 108 83
Coll. Vat. 44 29, 54-5 Coll. Vat. 109 66, 83, 85-6
Coll. Vat.45 21, 55-6, 69, 77, 117 Coll. Vat. 110 86, 88
Coll. Vat. 46 57 Coll. Vat. 111 89
Coll. Vat.47 57-9 Coll. Vat. 112 39, 115
Coll. Vat. 51 59 Coll. Vat. 115 44, 170
Coll. Vat. 52 53 Coll. Vat. 119 186
Coll. Vat. 53 48, 60, 62, 69, 91 Coll. Vat. 120 65
Coll. Vat. 60 60, 67, 70, 73, 96, 136, Coll. Vat. 123 68
161, 176 Coll. Vat. 127 88, 192
Coll. Vat. 61 47 Coll. Vat. 128 88
Coll. Vat.62 127 Coll. Vat. 135 66
Coll. Vat. 67 46, 63, 68, 74, 78 Coll. Vat. 140 70, 170
Coll. Vat. 70 75-6, 95, 141-2, 145 Coll. Vat. 144 112
Coll. Vat.71 64, 75, 93, 95-102, 127, Coll. Vat. 145 42, 117
129-134, 143-5, 149, 151, 154-8, Coll. Vat. 146 48-9
161-4, 171-2, 174-8, 180, 182, 184-7, Coll. Vat. 148 177-8. 187
192-8 Coll. Vat. 149 18
Coll. Vat. 72 11, 18, 20, 27, 48, 66, Coll. Vat. 150 115
71, 98, 105, 107, 109-112, 117, 154, Coll. Vat. 151 45, 49-50, 70, 75-6
157-9, 161-6, 168, 171, 175, 178- Coll. Vat. 152 75
184, 194 Coll. Vat. 153 45, 48
Coll. Vat. 73 21, 48, 71, 98, 103-4, Coll. Vat. 154 42, 45
106-7, 109, 111-2, 131-2, 134, 136, Coll. Vat. 160 117
139, 145, 154-8, 160-1, 164, 166, Coll. Vat. 166 87
168, 171, 173, 175, 179-185, 188-9, Coll. Vat. 172 185-6
194-7 Excerpta Parisina 1 137
Coll. Vat. 74 71, 92, 117, 123, 155 Cyril
Coll. Vat. 75 47, 95, 151 Commentarii in Joannem 169
Coll. Vat. 76 93, 97-8, 176 De sancta trinitate 169
 index locorum 279

De trinitate dialogi 3,466a 187 195 52

Glaphyra in Pentateuchum 166, 187 199 52, 54
Quod unus sit Christus 3 Wi,8 159
Thesaurus de suncid cotisubstantiall tr ini- 1/3, 98-9 159
tate 169 Syriac hagiography 66
Epiphanius of Salamis Nicephorus
Homilia 91 Antirrhetica 108, 125
Panarion 170 Historia ecclesiastica XIV, 34,70 1
Symbolum 91 Nilus of Ancyra, Oratio in Albianum 32
Eusebius of Cesarea Palladius of Aspuna, Historia Lausiaca 30
De vita Constantini Photius Constantinopolitanus, Bibliotheca
3, 8-27 25 59, 19al5-6 22
42-5 23 228, 248a32-4 116
Epistula ad Caesarienses 24 231 (287a, 17-8) 1
Historia ecclesiastica Plato
VI, 19,16 62 Protagoras 314b 130
VII, 30, 10 62 Respublica VI 509D-S13E 184
Eusebius of Herakleia, Homilia 91, 149 Proclus, Homilia 4 66, 107, 119, 189, 230
Evagrius, Peri logismon 8 190 Pseudo-Athanasius, Contra Arianos
Firmus of Cesarea, Homilia 77, 131, 149 IV 105
Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 39,12 167 Pseudo-Macarius, Homiliae spirituales 50
Gregory of Nyssa (collectio H), 17 166
Adversus Macedonianos de spiritu Rheginus of Cyprus, Sermo Ephesi habi-
sancto 170 tus 76-7, 90, 95, 122-3, 131, 141, 145,
Homilia in Ecclesiasten 36 149, 198
Homilia2 103 Severus of Antioch
Oratio catechetica magna 8 170 Liber contra impium Grammaticum 126
Gregory the Great, Regula pastoralis Orationes ad Nephalium 126
Il 19, 37 Severus of Synada, Homilia Ephesina 93,
Hippolytus, Contra haeresin Noeti 3, 5, 190
224 158 Socrates Scholasticus, Historia ecclesiastica
Jerome 1,8 24
Adversus Rufinum 62 Il, 18,7 159
Epistula 92 (Theophilus, synodica epis- Il, 29, 1-5 159
tula) 140 IV, 8 32
John Cassian VII, 29 26
De incarnatione Vil, 26 69 VIL, 29, 4-5 23
De institutis coenobiorum V, 1 189 VIE, 32, 5-6 160
John of Damascus, Sacra parallela 108 VIL, 34, 14 1, 70
John Rufus, Vita Petri Iberi 19-20 66 XIV, 34,70 70
Juvenal, Homilia Ephesina 93, 141-3 Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica
Leontius of Byzantium, Contra Nestorianus 1,17 24
et Eutychianus 170 VI, 34 (32
Martyrii Theodotii 1,2 32 VIO, 1 33
Nestorius Theodore of Mopsuestia, Contra Euno-
Homilia IV (de incarnatione) 160 mium 165
Liber Heraclides 60, 80, 163, 185 Theodoret of Cyrrhus
117) 52 Epistula CXII_ 42
280 Index locorum

Historia ecclesiastica, V 24 Homilia Ul

Theodosius II see Concilium Ephesinum — Coll. Vat.
see Codex Theodosianus Th
‘Theodotus translation 209
Adversus Nestorium 87, 89, 123 Homilia IV 107, 110, 114-7, 119, 125 .
Expositio symboli Nicaeni 3, 18, 25, 132, 166
86-7, 98, 114-5, 131, 173, 206 Homilia V1
Homilia | translation 214
see Concilium Ephesinum — Coll. Vat. Homilia dubia in s. deiparam et in nativ-
73 itatem domini 13
translation 230 Homilia in BMV
Homilia 1 see Homilia dubia in s. deiparam et in
see Concilium Ephesinum — Coll. Vat. nativitatem domini
72 Homilia in BMV et Symeonem
translation 218 see Homilia IV
 Index of Old and New Testament passages

OT Bar.
3:3 231
Gen.
1:26-8 192 NT
1:27 226
1:31 225 Matth.
1:32 244 1:18-25 114
2:7 226 2 218, 235
2:9 230 2:2 242
3 155, 192 2:9 241-2
3:1 192-3 2:11 134
3:13-4 193 2:13 73, 136
4:1-11 192
Ex. 9 103
3:2 219 9:5-6 103
3:6 220 10:20 142
3:14 175 12:32 142
7:20 236 14:13-21 213
10:22 136, 236 14:22-32 213
19:16 238 15:32-9 213
16 96, 134, 138
Ps. 16:13-20 103, 133, 137, 215-6
79(80):2 241 16:18 46, 80
98(99):1 241 16:20 215
101:28 231 17:17) 215
21:33-46 53
Tsa. 26:37-44 213
1:3 239 26:53 160, 238
11:10 230 26:60-1 60

Jer. Mark
1:10 129, 147, 210 1:12-5 192
5:22 241 12:1-12 53

Job Luke
10:11 226 1:31 100, 164, 185, 212
2:13-4 241
Dan. 2:14 241
3:48 236 2:7 239
3:50 236 4:1-13 192
4:2 213
Mal. 10:39 233
3:6 232 20:9-19 53
282 Index of Old and New Testament passages

John Phil:
1:10 182, 219 2 87, 163-4, 175, 178, 184, 186-7, 194
1:11 182, 219 2:5 100, 184, 212
1:14 175, 214, 221 2:5ff. 176-7, 185
6:1-15 213 2:5-7 172, 175
6:16-21 213 2:5-11 181
9:1.6 222 2:6 164, 177, 184, 212-3, 232-3
10:12 145 2:6ff. 185
18:20 63 2:6-7 186
20:19 233 2:6-7a 176, 212-3
20:21-2 172 2:7 185, 232
2:7b 213
Rom. 2:8 164, 234
4 156 2:8a 213
8 238 2:9 234
8:8 107
It 107 Col:
15:19 142 1:5a 198
16:24 195 2:9 227
2:14 157, 234
!Cor.
1:23 165, 189, 232 Heb:
1:24 233 1:3 223
2:4 142 1:14 237
2:8 234 10:29 195
2:14 232 12:1 243
10:21 242 13:8 235

2Cor. Rey.
8:9 195, 240 4:4 151
12 192
Eph. 12:4 192
3:5 142 14:13 198
6:10-7 139
 General index

Acacius of Beroea 25, 54, 85 Cassian of Marseilles

Acacius of Melitene 15, 52, 85, 88-90, see John Cassian
186, 202 Celestine 26, 42, 46, 62, 70, 73, 75, 113,
homiletics 12-4, 71, 80, 89, 92, 98, 109, 160, 186
122-3, 149, 155 legates of 46, 77-9
role at Ephesus 431 54, 56, 58-60, 62-4, letters 46, 50, 59-60, 70, 77, 79-80, 133,
69-71, 80-1, 83-4, 89 143
Alexander of Aphrodisias 169 Chalcedon
Ambrose 59 Council of (451) 2, 4, 25, 30, 37, 41,
Amphilochius of Iconium 125 48, 52, 67, 89, 116-7, 173, 190, 202,
Ancyra 206
city and see 2, 7, 11, 17-8, 21, 28-34, meeting at (431) 52, 83-4, 97, 119
45, 85, 88, 166, 175, 188, 204 Chalcedonian theology 88, 120, 125-6,
links to dioceses 17, 22-3, 42-3, 45, 49, 170, 173
67, 83, 85-6, 88, 110, 112-6 Codex
preaching in 16, 66, 89, 108, 110-2, Codex lustinianus 120
166, 170, 187, 205 Codex Theodosianus 19, 44, 120
Andrew of Samosata 170 Constantinople 7, 20, 25-6, 32, 76, 97
Ankara Council of (381) 14, 22, 25, 43-4, 54,
see Ancyra 72, 153, 158
antijudaism 104, 107, 165, 189 court 18, 27, 123
Antioch influence on dioceses 22-3, 67, 142,
‘Antiochene theology’ 13, 25, 34, 43, 204
45-6, 66, 89, 103, 111-3, 128, 142, population 67, 74
153, 167 creeds
‘classical education’ 11, 29, 33-4, 65 elaboration of 25, 86, 101, 205-6
Synod of (438) 87, 89 Nicene 16, 24-5, 54-6, 58, 86, 101, 139,
Antiochus 19 169, 206
Apollinarianism 26, 42, 44, 112 reliance on 38, 44, 56, 86, 131, 205
Aquileia, Synod of (381) 59 Cyril
Aretaeus 169 authoritative teaching 14, 55-7, 78, 82,
Arianism 24, 26, 105, 112, 145, 183, 204 87, 94-5, 99, 100, 122-3, 126, 130,
Aristotle, Aristotelian 169, 182 134-9, 146, 149, 176, 186, 194, 202,
asceticism 206
See monasticism complaints against 43-4, 52, 68
Asterius 167 education and career 2, 11
Athanasius 47, 108, 139, 160, 166, 175, homilies 8, 14, 90, 92-3, 95, 97, 100,
204 112, 121-3, 128
Atticus of Constantinople 38 influence of
Basil of Ancyra 32 at court 18, 44, 72, 74, 80, 113, 152
Basil of Caesarea 33 on dioceses 42, 47, 67, 80, 88-9, 113,
Candidianus (comes domesticorum) 48-52, 135, 138, 170
68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 141, 146 * wealth and violence 29, 54, 85, 135,
Canons 23-4, 44, 86, 115 146-7
284 General index

links to Athanasius 140, 204 friendship 1, 11, 59-60, 63-7, 141, 143-4
role at Ephesus 431 46, 49-52, 60. 62, Galenus 169
70, 77, 95, 138 Georgius Chortatzes 166
deposition 75, 81, 85, 130, 134, 141, Gregory of Nazianzus 14, 47, 99, 167,
147, 149 175, 187, 192
theology 128, 153, 187 Gregory of Nyssa 36, 103, 156, 169-71,
Christology 27, 112, 154, 158-9, 190
165-70, 174-7, 182, 185-6 Hellenism 104, 106, 165, 189
Trinitarian debate 112, 174, 204 Henoticon 173
devil 145, 156, 160-1, 164, 191-3, 195 heretical genealogies 26, 88, 104-7, 115,
didactic topos 129-30, 137, 150 146, 159, 161, 165, 195
dyophysitism 173, 204 homiletic genres 2, 8, 10-2, 35, 69, 93, 99,
Ephesus, Council of (431) 105, 119, 128, 147-9
returns, immediate aftermath 85-90 Jerome 69
session of 22 June John (comes sacrarum largitionum) 24,
assent to Coll. Vat.4 54-7 45, 81, 83
condemnation of Coll. Vat. 5 57-9 John Cassian 69
Nestorius’ absence 50-4 attribution to Cassian of Marseilles 69
Nestorius’ preaching in Ephesus 61-3 John Chrysostom 11, 25-6, 30, 33, 51, 54,
outcome in letters and sermons 71-8 171, 183
preparations for 42-9 John of Antioch
references to ‘two or three months old leadership 42-3, 202
babe’ 60, 68-70 links to
testimonies against Nestorius 59-61 court 85-6
verdict against Nestorius 70-1 dioceses 42, 83, 85, 118
sessions of 10-31 July 20, 22, 25, 54, role at Ephesus 431 43, 45-6, 48, 65,
69, 72, 77-81, 122, 202 70, 74, 81, 95
delegations to the emperor 17, 82-5, deposition 54, 67, 70, 81
97, 119, 124, 202 John Philopponus 170
Ephesus, Synod of (449) 41-2 Justin Martyr 10
Ephrem of Antioch 116 Justinian 29, 88, 101, 192
Epiphanius (deacon) 125 Juvenal 202
Epiphanius of Salamis 170 knowledge of Latin 84, 110
Euoptius 59, 83 role at Chalcedon 451 52
Eusebius of Ancyra 2, 17, 67 role at Ephesus 431 50, 54-5, 57, 59, 81
Eusebius of Cesarea 10, 24 Latin 20, 33, 46, 80, 84, 97, 110, 122-3,
Eusebius of Dorylaeum = 122, 158 166, 186
Eustathius 170 Leo of Rome (the Great) 186
Eutherius of Tyana 42, 87 Leontius of Ancyra 32-3
Evagrius 189, 191 Leontius of Byzantium 174
Fidus of Joppa 59-60 Libanius 17, 29-30, 33, 99
Firmus of Cesarea 42, 50, 55, 57, 59, 77, Marcellus of Ancyra 32, 159-60
79, 83, 87-8 Mary 13, 27, 61, 66, 92, 108, 116-7, 159,
Flavian of Philippi 47, 56-9, 63, 81 185
florilegia 3, 65, 67, 96, 115, 126, 132, 161, church in Ephesus 49, 93-4
173, 176 Maximian 83, 85, 87, 97, 119, 170
Formula of Reunion of 433 43, 89, 115, Maximus of Turin 101
140, 190 medical topos 64, 75, 77, 129-30, 133, 150
 General index 285

Memnon Plato, neoplatonism 130, 181, 184

complaints against 48, 54, 62, 95, 130, Plutarch = 169
147 Proclus_ 6, 9, 11-2, 15, 17, 32, 36. 43. 66.
praise of 134, 147, 150 76, 89-92, 100, 107, 114, 119-22, 126,
role at Ephesus 431 46-8, 50, 54-5, 58, 159, 160, 189
81-2, 94, 150 Procopius 166
deposition 70, 75, 134 Pseudo-Athanasius 13, 105
miaphysitism, monophysitism 57, 88, 120, Pulcheria 13, 18, 27
126, 168, 173, 178, 204 Rheginus of Cyprus 15
monasticism 22, 26, 29-32, 38, 40, 42-3, Sabellianism 105, 159, 161
64, 66, 85, 87-8, 94, 112, 135, 187, 189- Serdica 22, 105
92 Severian of Gabala_ 11, 15
Montanism 32 Sophronius of Jerusalem 1, 66
Nestorius Theodore of Mopsuestia 33, 38, 44, 88-9,
education and career 2, 10-1, 28, 34, 66, 165
83 Theodoret of Cyrrhus 42, 46-8, 66, 84,
homiletics 61, 73, 76, 89, 91 87-8, 114, 126, 202, 204
links to Theodorus Studites 166
court 14, 19, 23, 48 Theodosius I 17, 23, 31
dioceses 42, 46, 67, 69, 111-3 Theodosius II 17-20, 23-4, 44-5, 78, 85,
Nestorianism 14, 89, 106, 115, 159-61, 120
174, 191 Theodotus
on Mary, Theotokos 28, 61, 117, 159 Christology 152-79
role at Ephesus 431 43, 57-63, 68-73, Christ's life 162-5
139, 142, 193 crucifixion 157, 161, 163-5, 199
deposition 81-3, 89, 95 fall of mankind 143-5, 155-7, 192-4,
refusal to attend 49-54, 58, 64, 70 199
theology 112, 160, 175-7, 185-8 incamation 73, 137, 144, 151, 154-5,
Nicaea, Council of (325) 21, 23, 25, 44, 157-64, 169, 172, 178, 180, 185,
50, 56 192-5
Nicephorus 70 vocabulary 165-79
Nilus of Ancyra 29-30, 32 évundotatos, oboimdn¢g 168-71
Novatianism 33 oikovopia 168, 171-2, 177-8, 199
orality 34-5, 39, 100-2 pboig 126, 151, 172-9
Origen, Origenists 9, 107, 140, 156, 188 education and career 2, 11, £7, 20-2, 29,
orthodoxy 33-4, 83, 153, 182, 205
defence of 3, 15, 33, 72, 99, 116-8, 142- homiletics, conciliar
3, 155, 202-4 audience 94-6, 129-31
formulation of 26, 32, 37-8, 89, 95, 101, liturgical setting 93-4
109, 111, 131, 136, 139 church and council in, 128-9, 131-4
of texts and individuals 44, 54, 57, 60, Cyril (leadership, teaching) 134-41
62, 64-5, 104, 140, 146, 191-2, 194-5 encomiastic and didactic aspects 147-
reception 90, 125-6, 174 52
Palladius of Amaseia 57, 59 reception 118-20
Palladius of Aspuna 29-30 uncertainties, error, violence 141-7
Paul of Samosata 159-60 venue 96-8
Photinus 158-60 links to Antioch 11, 33-4, 65, 153, 204
Pius of Pessinus 49 meaning of sacra 39, 82, 110, 165-6
286 General index

theology (see also Christology) wonders, miraculous 103, 111i, i119,

church 193-200 162-4, 179-82, 184, 190, 199
conceptual division 176, 182, 184-91 transmission, reception of, 2, 108, 112,
economy 87, 151, 154-5, 168, 171-2, 118. 120-6. 202
179-80, 195, 198 collections 120-4
evil 129-30, 156, 179-80, 191-3, 195, Theophilus 140
198-200 Theotokos
exegesis of Phil. 2:5-11 181-4 see Mary
human reasoning 84, 87, 106, 116, violence 2, 24, 33, 52, 141, 145, 147
162, 177, 179-91, 205 Vitale 87, 89, 118
salvation 3, 15, 33, 58, 64-5, 101,
116, 127, 138, 144-5, 154-6, 172,
192-200, 203-4, 206

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER * IMPRIME SUR PAPIER PERMANENT ® GEDRUKT OP DUURZAAM PAPIER - [SO 9706

N,V. PEETERS 5.A., WAROTSTRAAT 50, B-3020 HERENT