Between Ephesus and Chalcedon: An Analysis

“In that time there were brought into Armenia fallacious and frivolous books left by a certain Greek whose name was Theodore.  … [Sahak and Mashtots] with their truth-loving diligence removed them away and rejected them by casting them out of the frontiers.”

The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church, by Karekin Sarkissian

In the last post, we reviewed five letters that are of significance in this study of the Armenian relationship with (and, ultimately, rejection of) Chalcedon.  These letters are from the period after Ephesus in 431, but before Chalcedon – in other words, capturing the situation in and thought behind Armenian Christology leading up to the Council at Chalcedon.

To summarize the five letters, these were exchanges warning the Armenians of the potential creep of Nestorianism within their community.  This risk was present, as Armenia had relationship with Syriac churches in the east favorable to Nestorius (and Theodore, referenced in the quote above) – this, at the same time that the stronger relationships for the Armenians were with the Greeks: Byzantium.

Here we review Sarkissian’s analysis of these letters, placing them in context and providing a look at the relationship of the Armenian Church through these letters toward Chalcedon, which was still to come.

It is to be remembered that the Armenians were not present at Ephesus.  It was at this council that Nestorius was condemned.  Sahak and Mashtots, not being at the council, received letters from Cyril of Alexandria, Proclus of Constantinople, and Acacius of Melitene, warning them of the books of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia (the teacher of Nestorius). The two further received the canons of the council.

Given the fact that the Armenian Church was in relationship with Syriac-speaking Christianity we could easily accept, a priori, that some works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and other Antiochene writers could have been translated into Armenian.

When Nestorius was condemned, and Theodore was not, it is also likely that the works of Theodore would be translated into Armenian by those favorable to the Antiochene views – as he offered the same Christology, but his name was not rejected at Ephesus.

That any of the subject books were translated isn’t certain, because nothing of these is preserved.  Then again, if they were to be rejected…this often resulted in the destruction or banishment of such works.  In any case, it is clear that Armenia would become a battle line dividing the Greek from the Syriac – or Cyril’s Alexandrian Christology from that of the Antiochene view.  There were, no doubt, supporters of each in Armenia and within its Church.

The first three of the five letters, as follows: Acacius to Sahak and Mashtots; their reply to Acacius; Acacius to the nobles of Armenia.  In the first letter, Acacius denounces Nestorius and Theodore, yet after this, he approaches cautiously – be watchful for such followers of these two.   But why cautiously?  It is likely that what he heard, he heard from unofficial channels – from Armenian students who studied under him at Melitene.  He didn’t want to give the impression of intervening when he was not asked to do so officially.  Further, Theodore was still held in high regard – Nestorius and Nestorianism was rejected at Ephesus, but not Nestorius’s teacher; not yet, anyway.

Why was his second letter addressed, then, to the nobles, urging them to carry on with the anti-Theodorean campaign?  Sahak, in his response to the first letter, did not seem all that concerned about the situation.  He openly denied the existence of such heretics.  In other words, Acacius might have concluded that the message was not properly handled by the recipient.  In the meantime, Acacius received three Armenian priests still pressing the issue, and must have gathered more strength regarding his concern of the heresy present within Armenia.

As to the nobles, they were noted as having done good work in rooting out this heresy.  While it might not be proper for a bishop of one diocese to write to the layman in another regarding such matters, in fact there was nothing uncommon about nobles defending the faith.  We see this throughout Europe in the first 1500 years of Christendom.

After this came two additional letters, or documents: first, the Tome of Proclus, and then Sahak’s reply to this.  Regarding this exchange, two priests were sent to Constantinople with a book containing “the blasphemies” of Theodore, and asked Proclus to comment on these.  The result was his famous Tome.  Yet, here, as previously noted, things get a little fuzzy.  The Tome in Armenian, is different in certain places than it was in the original Greek. 

As Sahak was confident there were no Nestorian teachers in Armenia, why would he send these two priests to Proclus for an examination?  Is it possible that the two went without the knowledge of their primate?  Did they independently represent the anti-Theodorean group within the Armenian Church? Or, perhaps, did they go on instructions of Acacius himself – who, by now, found it necessary to write twice on the matter to the Armenians?  As it is, at least one of the two traveling priests had a very close relationship with Acacius. 

Or, perhaps the two went to Constantinople with the knowledge of the primate – but that knowledge to be kept hidden.  It is easy to see the difficult position that the primate of the Armenian Church would have been in, had he placed himself in the middle of this conflict. 

First of all, Sahak had written that there is no sign of the Nestorian theology in Armenia.  Now, he officially sends a delegation to Constantinople to write against this heresy?  It would seem a contradiction on a major theological issue.

But further, Theodore had not been condemned at Ephesus.  The teaching of his student was condemned, along with Nestorius, the teacher.  Theodore was still in good standing in the Church, with a good reputation.

Further still, Sahak had already faced warning from the Persian authorities regarding his relationship with the Greeks and Byzantium – living on the border between two empires has a way of forcing such difficulties.

Yet, to the extent that Nestorianism had root in Armenia, it had to be confronted.  And whether Sahak was aware of the delegation or not, the Council of Ephesus had to be defended.  Proclus could write on the matter as bishop of Constantinople, free of any of the intrigues and pressures that the Armenian primate faced in his situation – well, other than the issue of naming Theodore by name, as he would not be officially condemned for more than one hundred years.

Which comes to the alterations of the letter – the differences in the translated Armenian letter from the Greek as originally written by Proclus.  Sarkissian points out three.

First, the introduction.  The Armenian translation has the letter addressed personally to Sahak and Mashtots, whereas in the Greek it is addressed to the bishops and presbyters more generally.  The translator felt that by personalizing the letter, it would carry more influence.

Second, in the Greek, Proclus writes that he was impelled to write this letter based on a letter received from the Armenians.  In the Armenian, Proclus writes that he “heard,” or “became aware of” the situation in Armenia, and therefore responds with this letter.

It is the third change that is most important.  Theodore is introduced by name in the Armenian, where he is not in the Greek.  The language used is even sharper than that which was in the letter from Acacius.  The explanation of this additional language seems simple enough:

Simply because without it the whole mission – to fight Nestorianism through the condemnation of Theodore’s writings – would have failed, and Proclus’ letter would not have served the purpose that Leontius and his colleagues had in mind when acquiring it.

On the one hand, the alteration of this text seems a less-than-honest way to get one’s point across.  On the other, those behind the alteration merely came to the conclusion of the fifth ecumenical council, the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, well over one hundred years before this council.  At this later council, the writings and person of Theodore were condemned.

As an aside, this may be part of the background of what I have heard elsewhere: at least some of the churches that rejected Chalcedon found agreement with subsequent councils.  But to hold both councils together, when to these non-Chalcedonian churches the two councils appear to have come to different, even opposite, conclusions, was a bridge too far.

There is one small problem to deal with regarding this alteration in the Armenian: Sahak and Mashtots both could read Greek, so why translate to Armenian?  Sarkissian concludes that the additions and changes were made to the Greek letter that was presented to the primate, and from which the Armenian translation was made.

As to who made the changes, Sarkissian offers multiple possibilities, and not just the Armenians who went on the mission.  There were others in Constantinople and elsewhere who were concerned about this heresy rooted in Theodore’s teaching gaining traction in Armenia.

Did these Armenian priests act with subterfuge against their primate.  Sarkissian considers this, but concludes that it is highly unlikely.  Ultimately, he believes that the primate was aware of the mission and purpose, but developed a method by which he could accomplish his ends without being directly guilty in front of his Persian overlords.

Conclusion

This, however, did not mean that everything was settled and the doctrinal situation became one of a monolithic shape or of peaceful state.

Keep in mind, we are still more than a decade before Chalcedon.  The primate, and the Armenian church, were staunch defenders of the third council at Ephesus, and would come to see the problems in Chalcedon that were either contradictory to Ephesus or otherwise left too much room for gray.

Certainly, the expression of agreement that Nestorians offered regarding both Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo gave the Armenians significant pause – why would Nestorians, condemned at the third council now be positive about the fourth?

Sarkisian tackles this in his next three chapters.