OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 02:34:08 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Perry translation of Acts of II Ephesus  (Read 2758 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Symeon
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 582


Radovan Karadzic - Serbian Hero


« on: March 26, 2008, 07:47:41 AM »

Well, I think this is of interest to everybody.

I've discovered that Internet Archive has Perry's translation of the acts of II Ephesus (or rather, everything not read out at Chalcedon) available for free in a variety of formats.

http://www.archive.org/details/secondsynodofeph00perruoft

Enjoy!
Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2008, 08:21:57 AM »

Perry's edition is old and polemical. Subdeacon Peter Farrington of the BOC is working on a revised and more balanced edition. It will be added to the growing Oriental Orthodox Library series once completed.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Symeon
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 582


Radovan Karadzic - Serbian Hero


« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2008, 08:25:41 AM »

So I am aware, but Subdeacon Peter Theodore's edition isn't out yet, and it will cost money. Wink
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2009, 12:35:10 AM »

Price and Gaddis note (v. 2, p. 265, fn. 2), Robert Doran has already down a new translation of the section on Ibas, which, although not the whole record of the OO Syriac Acts of Ephesus II once the acts for Eutyches were edited out, come close.
Quote
Stewards of the Poor: The Man of God, Rabbula, and Hiba in Fifth-Century Edessa
http://books.google.com/books?id=nzK4AAAACAAJ&dq
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2009, 03:45:54 AM »

That's just the section on Ibas, and there are sections dealing with the other heterodox.

Perry is still as useful as we have. Indeed apart from his polemical notes, his factual notes are good. I would recommend the archive.org file, and I use it all the time. My edited edition would only have removed the worst of Perry's notes so that it was more neutral in tone. I may still get round to it if God gives me the time!

But I do know that a scholar is working on a new edition. I can't remember which scholar it is, but I am sure that will be worth getting hold of when it comes out.

There are a great many useful texts on archive.org. And books.google.com also fills in a lot of gaps if people are unable to use a proper theological library. I am fortunate that my wife is doing a degree at the moment which lets me access the athens academic library of papers and books.

I have recently completed a paper on Eutyches and Perry's edition of Ephesus II, together with Price's edition of Chalcedon, were extremely useful.

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,726


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2009, 03:54:50 AM »

Father bless!

Ialmisry mentions that the Syriac Acts of Ephesus II are missing a section that has to do with Eutyches.  Is there any explanation for that?
Logged

Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2009, 04:14:30 AM »

It needs to be remembered that Acts are created as cultural artifacts in a particular context and for a particular purpose. The Acts of Chalcedon are not a neutral record of the event, but Price shows that in several very important places all discussion of what is taking place is excised. It did not suit the compilers of the Acts that any discord be preserved in the record.

Likewise, the surviving manuscript of the Acts of Ephesus II was produced at the time of the Three Chapters controversy and would appear to be an extraction of those materials from the complete Acts which were relevant to the research relevant to that controversy. Eutyches was not part of that controversy and so the scribe did not extract those sessions not relevant.

Of course the substance of the first session is available in the Acts of Chalcedon. My recent studies of Eutyches using these sources has certainly filled out my understanding of the controversy around Eutyches, and made me much more understanding of the condemnation of Flavian.

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2009, 09:21:22 AM »

That's just the section on Ibas, and there are sections dealing with the other heterodox.

Perry is still as useful as we have. Indeed apart from his polemical notes, his factual notes are good. I would recommend the archive.org file, and I use it all the time. My edited edition would only have removed the worst of Perry's notes so that it was more neutral in tone. I may still get round to it if God gives me the time!

But I do know that a scholar is working on a new edition. I can't remember which scholar it is, but I am sure that will be worth getting hold of when it comes out.

Sebastian Brock perhaps, Father.

Quote
There are a great many useful texts on archive.org. And books.google.com also fills in a lot of gaps if people are unable to use a proper theological library. I am fortunate that my wife is doing a degree at the moment which lets me access the athens academic library of papers and books.

From what I understand, not available for North American Institutions. Cry


Quote
I have recently completed a paper on Eutyches and Perry's edition of Ephesus II, together with Price's edition of Chalcedon, were extremely useful.

Father Peter

Is it available?
« Last Edit: June 22, 2009, 09:43:21 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2009, 12:41:06 PM »

It needs to be remembered that Acts are created as cultural artifacts in a particular context and for a particular purpose. The Acts of Chalcedon are not a neutral record of the event, but Price shows that in several very important places all discussion of what is taking place is excised. It did not suit the compilers of the Acts that any discord be preserved in the record.

Father, you are correct, but while true (and true of, for instance, court transcripts today), Price also shows (v. I, pp. 75-8) that because of the discord over the transcripts of Ephesus II which is preserved in the Acts of Chalcedon, do we find out about the process:

Quote
...When all went smoothly, the transcription process was intended to be invisible.  Later readers were supposed to see only the finished version authenticated by episcopal signatures.  Only when the transcript itself came under critical scrutiny, as was the case during the trial of Eutyches and tis aftermath, do we learn about the details of notarial practice....The compilers of the Acts made a deliberate and explicite decision to suppress the text of the first draft definition that had been presented in Session V, and in several of the early sessions it seems likely that additional debate regarding Leo's Tome or the Definition took place but was not recorded....By contrast, Sessions I and III-both concerned with examining the conduct of the previous council and the behavior of Dioscoros-seem to have been transcribed as fully as possible.

And on that (p. 110):
Quote
The mammoth minutes of the first session of the council, of 8 October 451, contain a reading of the Acts of the first session of the Second Council of Ephesus of 449....whose decrees Chalcedon had been summoned to reverse.  The bishops, many of whom had taken part in Ephesus II, had the embarrassment of hearing read out their statements and acclamations......their contention was vocal and abject.
To that we may ammend Ekhristosanesti's comments:
c) I am confident given Fr. Peter's pursuit of academic objectivity that he will include whatever warrants being included in the work he is preparing. I do not recall enough about the manuscript evidence for the Acts of Ephesus II to comment on the point you raise off the top of my head, I can only as a matter of common sense raise what is an obvious question as to whether the text you refer to truly represents that which was ommitted, or whether it more accurately reflects that which was concocted. As I recall, many claims concerning the proceedings of Ephesus II made during and after Chalcedon were refuted at the time with an ease that would not have been permitted had such claims been evidenced by the records before the parties at the time. St Dioscorus defended himself brilliantly and silenced with ease the fraudulent agendas and contradictions of his accusers.
would seem the record of the Acts of Chalcedon is good enough for EK to make this claim (there are several spots where Pope Dioscoros does get the better of his detractors, e.g. p. 144 when a bishop accuse his notaries of making the uproar, and the Pope points out that since he only has two notaries, how could they cause such a disturbance?).  Or is their another version of the Acts?

I've alluded to this passage in Price and Gaddis:
Quote
The three chapters were the point in question....For great as was the dignity of those holy men who wrote the letters recited, yet they did not approve their letters simply or without inquiry, nor without taking cognizance that they were in all things agreeable to the exposition and doctrine of the holy Fathers, with which they were compared.”  But the Acts proved that this course was not pursued in the case of the letter of Ibas; they inferred, therefore, most justly, that that letter had not been approved.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ii.html

That link actually vindicates that Pope Vigilius was convinced that Chalcedon had approved the letter and that it is thus in question whether or not it truly had. It does not simply take the word of the Second Council of Constantinople.

So yet more proof that Pope Vigilius didn't know what he was doing.  Your point?

Or perhaps proof that 2nd Constantinople was making stuff up. It appears to have been the opinion of the majority of the West, which mostly went into schism with Vigilius after his acceptance of 2nd Constantinople. And I wouldn't be surprised if the East came up with this idea simply on the force of it being the promulgation of Justinian. I think he actually had to depose some bishops in the East who took the same position as Vigilius, though of course they weren't as numerous as in the West.
The Price book makes a succinct statement of something I had thought but didn't feel in the mood to retrace my conclusion (OK, I was lazy).
Quote
Very soon after the council, a copy of the minutes in Greek was brought to Rome, where neither Leo nor his staff could read it with ease.  In March of 453 Leo wrote to Julian of Cos, who had represented him at the council, and complained that he still knew very little about what had actually taken place at Chalcedon.  These linguistic difficulties-along with his opposition to the twenty-eighth canon-help explain Leo's long hesitency (much to the consternation of Marcian and Anatolius) to endorse the  council's decrees. He asked Julian to arrange for a full translation of the acts, but there is no evidence that this task was ever begun or that subsequent popes of the late fifth and early sixth centuries had access to a Latin translation.
Extant Latin translationa of the complete acts seems to have been produced not at the pope's court but in Constantinople itself...prepared during the middle decades of the sixth century, probably in connection with the on going disputes between Rome and Constantinople over the Three Chapters.
p. 83-4.  Price
 also notes that in contrast to the Greek editors of the previous century, the translators favored the Ultramontanism of Rome.  The Greek acts actually edit out the more extravagent claims of Pope Leo and his legates, not without import in and of themselves: many of the quotes of the Latin (which the Greek speaking Fathers never heard because they didn't speak Latin) find their way to quote trawls so popular with Vatican apologists.

Interesting how in a thread about something that happened at Chalcedon, all you can do is bring up Ephesus II.  I know the two councils are related, but you are going beyond that.  I think you are trying to distract from the real issue.  Same thing with your bringing up the Synod of the Oak.  Neither I nor any other OO in this thread have argued that Ephesus II is an ecumenical council.  That really doesn't even have anything to do with the topic of this thread.  Deal with the issue of the thread.

Ephesus II is the issue of the thread.

As Price and Gaddins point out, Chalcedon is the most documented Council, but as they further point out, that means including a lot that didn't actually happen at Chalcedon.  They are compelled to include a pages LONG chart of the first session, which basically is little more than going through the whole transcript of Ephesus II, which, of course is why the official minutes of Ephesus II survive, as the OO Syriac translation omits the exoneration of Eutyches.  As Hefele notes:
Quote
The Acts of the Synod of Chalcedon, which are given most fully by Mansi in the sixth and seventh folio volumes of his great collection of the Councils (and somewhat less fully by Hardouin, t. 2.), are very numerous and extensive, and are divided into three parts, in accordance with the usual division adopted since the Roman edition of the Councils, of the year 1608: (1) The Acts which have reference to the Council of Chalcedon; but to this are prefixed, for example, the letters of Pope Leo, and of the Emperors Theodosius II and Marcian (these are the documents of which we have already made very frequent use). (2) The minutes of the sessions at Chalcedon, with a great many supplements which had been read there. To these belong particularly the Acts of the Synod under Flavian in the year 448 and those of the Robber-Synod. (3) Documents which refer to the period which followed immediately upon the Synod of Chalcedon and its ratification. Into this third part Mansi has also woven that collection of letters which under the name of Codex encyclicus forms a special appendix to the Acts of the Synod, and which will be more particularly discussed by us later on. The Ballerini in their edition of Leo’s works (t. i. p. 1491 sqq., t. 2. p. sqq., t. 3. pp. 213 sqq. and 518) and Mansi (t. 7. p. 773 sqq.) have given some further documents relating to our Synod.
http://www.godrules.net/library/hefele/84hefele_c5.htm

At the end of the "reading" of the Letter to Maris in Price and Gaddis, they have (Chalcedon) and then go on to Ibas' interrupting the reading of the transcript of Ephesus II with his demand for the reading of the letter from the clergy of Edessa attesting to his Orthodoxy from Tyre-Beirut.  Why the label "Chalcedon?" because if you look through their excellent edition you see much of Chalcedon was actually done someplace else, largely at Ephesus II.

And another comment in a similar vein of Price and Gaddis:
Price and Gaddis (p. 255 footnote 12) state:

Quote
'the Orthodox teacher' is the reading of the Latin version, wher the Greek has 'the bishop.'  Schwartz detects in the Greek a change to the text in the light of the condemnation of Theodoret's writings against Cyril of Alexandria at the Council of Constantinople of 553.

However the Greek a few lines above refers to him as "Orthodox Teacher," and Theodoret's correspondance to Pope St. Leo, refered to in the proceedings, besides its effusive flatter to Leo (he blatantly contradicts the plain words of the account of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, besides Galatians ), is quite Orthodox (except perhaps a veiled "Only last year when two fellows tainted with the unsoundness of Apollinarius had gone thither and patched up slanders against me, he stood up in church and anathematized me, and that after I had written to him and explained my opinions to him").
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.iv.x.cxiii.html

so there is no reason to believe "doctor" is not the orginal or correct reading.

and to recap:
I do not recall enough about the manuscript evidence for the Acts of Ephesus II to comment on the point you raise off the top of my head, I can only as a matter of common sense raise what is an obvious question as to whether the text you refer to truly represents that which was ommitted, or whether it more accurately reflects that which was concocted.


The problem is that the controversy on just this point moots the distinction: any accurate and thorough account of Ephesus II would have to address them.  And as I pointed out above, as Price and Gaddis point out, the first session of Chalcedon was basically the review of the Acts of the first Acts of Ephesus II, and was the basis of ALL that followed at Chalcedon and beyond.  Indeed, for all that happened between Ephesus II and the calling of Chalcedon which it caused.

Quote
Likewise, the surviving manuscript of the Acts of Ephesus II was produced at the time of the Three Chapters controversy and would appear to be an extraction of those materials from the complete Acts which were relevant to the research relevant to that controversy. Eutyches was not part of that controversy and so the scribe did not extract those sessions not relevant.

Which is of course an intersting alter ego of Ibas, as he wasn't relevant to Eutyches' controversy.


Quote
Of course the substance of the first session is available in the Acts of Chalcedon. My recent studies of Eutyches using these sources has certainly filled out my understanding of the controversy around Eutyches, and made me much more understanding of the condemnation of Flavian.

Father Peter

Therefore the Acts are authentic enought to make that statement.

Btw, I've noticed that Price and Gaddis subscribe to the line that Constantionple II was only Ecumenical until Chalcedon defined it as such, a favorite argument for those who support the Vatican's ultramontanism and filioque (the "Latin stick" that Fr. Romanides speaks of).  The problem is that they also refer to bishops making use of the canons of that council prior to Chalcedon, and the simple fact that both the Nestorians (who were cast out at Ephesus I) and the non-Chalcedonians (whose Council of Ephesus II P and G explicitely state did not acknowledge Constantinople I as Ecumenical, and who parted ways by not accepting Chalcedon) both accept the Creed as the Fathers of Constantinople sealed it, and the OO Coptic liturgy explicitely commemorates the 150 Fathers of Constantinople I.  All very odd if Chalcedon is what made Constantinople I Ecumenical.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2009, 12:42:19 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2009, 01:26:28 PM »

Hiya

I don't doubt that the Acts of Chalcedon are authentic to a great extent, but Price does state that there are gaps in the record. I have heard him speak a couple of times (I wish I could study under him), but that would take me beyond the AUP. I don't think I'd want to suggest that every sentence was edited so that it became a fiction, but there are missing passages where the reception of various figures is debated or where the first draft of the Definitio is rejected by the Papal and Imperial authority against the wishes of the bishops.

I think I have missed what you wanted to say through the various multiple levels of quotation, so I'd appreciate a summary of your post so I can respond intelligently.

In regard to Ibas and Eutyches, I'd say that at the period between 447-451 they were equally controversial in their own contexts. Ibas was particularly objected to by many of the OO over many years, as was Theodoret of course, and was notorious as a committed Thedorean. Ephesus II was all about the continuing vitality of Nestorianism/Theodoreanism, and the anti-Cyrilline movement. It didn't have much to do with Eutyches at all, apart from his representing (rather defectively) a Cyrilline Christology. It had everything to do with removing Nestorian/Theodoreans from episcopal positions.

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2009, 03:29:49 PM »

Sorry, Father, when I first saw this thread, I had too many rods already in the fire and didn't have time to repond.

Hiya

I don't doubt that the Acts of Chalcedon are authentic to a great extent, but Price does state that there are gaps in the record. I have heard him speak a couple of times (I wish I could study under him), but that would take me beyond the AUP. I don't think I'd want to suggest that every sentence was edited so that it became a fiction, but there are missing passages where the reception of various figures is debated or where the first draft of the Definitio is rejected by the Papal and Imperial authority against the wishes of the bishops.

AUP?

As you rightly pointed out, the Acts of both Ephesus II and Chalcedon are "cultural artifacts," but even before that, they are even just artifacts.  As Price and Gaddis point out (v. I  p. 76)
http://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=PA76&dq=tachygraphists
at a point of the Acts of Chalcedon, when the transcript became an issue and what was supposed to remain unseen, the practice of the notaries, stenographers and tachygraphists, came into pure view: as no one can record accurately every word of every conversation in a debate the statements of a few voices in an acclamation are recorded for the whole, things said in committee are incorporated as if in the general assembly and vice versa and some things said the stenographers are told not to write down.  And that is before the agendas get the opportunity to edit and revise the transcripts....

As to the that, as G and P point out (p. 78) "There are a number of instances in which it is clear that the record did not included everything that was said, particularly when matters of faith were under discussion.  The compilers of the Acts made a deliberate and explicit [emphasis added] decision to suppress the text of the first draft definition that had been presented in Session V...."

My problems over the issue of Ibas (the start of this recent spade of posts on this topic), is that after the Letter to Maris, the transcript has Ibas interrupt and have another part read.  So far, I've yet to see another part of the various transcripts read to such a clean break, with no commentary by the participants on what was allegedly just read.  In the Syriac Acts of Ephesus II, the Letter (which, was read as a document, i.e. not from a transcript) is followed by the question of proof of Ibas' authorship: since Ibas was in prison and not in Ephesus, a number testified to him having admitting it as his, NOT reading from the transcripts of the trial of Berytus-Tyre.

One technical problem to start: was the Letter to Maris the Persian proved to be of Ibas' authorship at the Council of Chalcedon?  Not that I doubt that it was, but it is a technical legal/canonical point, and one that Pope Vigilius had pressed, deeming the Letter inauthentic.  Hence the Judgement of Constantinople II:
Quote

Not a small matter, as even Ephesus II considered it.  Immediately after the letter was read (emphasis in boldface and underline mine):
Quote
THE JUDGE said:-
This writing, which has just been read, is, as also you have learnt, a copy of the Letter; for, this the Deposition of the Glorious Count makes evident.  How, then, can it be received as authentic and deposited among the (Documentary) Acts, in order to its being notified to the God-loving Bishops already named?....

EUSEBIUS, Deacon, said:-

I heard Ibas say-"They exhibited a copy of my letter; and immediately on their beginning to read it, I acknowledged it to be mine."....

if, true, it looks like Ibas knew where reading of the transcripts was going and redirected it, because it seems odd that there was no comment on the contents of the letter, especially as the bishops didn't let the vacating of Ephesus II restore Ibas, let the accusations against him at Berytus be refiled, and, as
Quote
Diogenes the most devout bishop of Cyzicus said: 'I judge the verdict [at Berytus, which restored Ibas] pronounced concerning the most God-beloved Ibas by t mose God-beloved bishops Photios and Eustathius to have force, especially since the accusers pressing the case have approved with their own signatures the decision issued and now read before this holy and ecumenical council.
and yet demanded Ibas make another anthematization, to which he replied
Quote
I have already in writing anathatized Nestorius and his doctrine, and now I anathematize him countless times.  For what has been done once with conviction, even if it be done countless times, does no harm.  Anathema to him, and to Eutyches, and to whoever says one nature.  And I anathematize everyone who does not believe as this holy council believes.


Quote
I think I have missed what you wanted to say through the various multiple levels of quotation, so I'd appreciate a summary of your post so I can respond intelligently.

The Letter of Ibas, unlike the Tome of St. Leo, was not examined at Chalcedon.

Paschasinus, the spokesmand for Pope St. Leo, presiding although  (not knowing Greek) did not having a clue as to what was going on, and the transcript reinforces my view on that, and how the confused idea that Ibas' Letter was Orthodox got started in the West, culminating in Pope Vigilius' defense of it.

That the Ultramontanism of the Latins was not translated in to Greek for the Fathers at Chacelcedon, and that the Latin speakers in the West, having only a vague idea of what went on, projected their own ideas on to the Council.

That Chalcedon was first and foremost a review of the actions of Ephesus II, such that the latter is not only not off topic when speaking of the former, but a necessary consideration of any talk of the former: much of Chalcedon's Acts are the incorporation of Ephesus II's Acts, the voiding thereof.

Some of the conclusions of P and G about the editing of the Acts, like changing Thedoret from "doctor" to "bishop" to the time of Justianian cannot be sustained.  (Like their conclusions about the Ecumenicy of Constantinople I prior to the Definition of Chalcedon, dealt with elsewhere).

Quote
In regard to Ibas and Eutyches, I'd say that at the period between 447-451 they were equally controversial in their own contexts. Ibas was particularly objected to by many of the OO over many years, as was Theodoret of course, and was notorious as a committed Thedorean. Ephesus II was all about the continuing vitality of Nestorianism/Theodoreanism, and the anti-Cyrilline movement. It didn't have much to do with Eutyches at all, apart from his representing (rather defectively) a Cyrilline Christology. It had everything to do with removing Nestorian/Theodoreans from episcopal positions.

I am aware that that is how the OO's see it.  The OO Syriac Acts, for instance, have next to nothing on Flavian's deposition, but devote nearly half of the proceedings to Ibas (pp. 28-145 in Perry, out of 380 pages of the Acts, with another 6 pages on his nephew Daniel.  Not having petitioned to be restored, the sentence against him was one of the few acts of Ephesus II left to stand).  But the Acts of Chalcedon devote a LOT of space to Ephesus II, and little of it is on Nestorianism except to condemn it, and praising Pope St. Cyril (Ibas takes up only pp.258-309 of one volume out of the three of P and G, of nearly a thousand pages of the Acts).

The biggest problem for that read that Ephesus II was about Nestorianism (and not, as EP can see it, the only salvageable part of Ephesus II) is that Pope Dioscoros neither mentions Nestorius, Theodore or even St. Cyril in his sentence of deposition of EP St. Flavian, the single act that drew the most ire at Chalcedon and beyond.  The sad fact is that the deposition was the latest in a long string of events sent in motion by Pope Timothy's interference in the Church at Constantinople at the first Ecumenical Council held there, a dialectic stopped only by Pope Dioscoros' deposition by Chalcedon, but not before setting off the chain reaction we are still dealing with.

http://books.google.com/books?id=HWpne39PRHAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s
has some on Pope Dioscoros trying to make Ephesus II a replay in all details (whether it fit or not) of Ephesus I.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2009, 03:31:12 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2009, 03:32:07 AM »

Having gone through my notes I am quite clear in my own mind - though always willing to be persuaded - that Ephesus II was all about Nestorianism.

Here are just a few reasons why I think so:

i. The period of controversy around 447-451 AD seems to me to have come to a head because Eutyches had written to Leo of Rome warning him that Nestorianism was on the rise again in the East. Leo asked for more information and promised to act. Those he appears to have accused of Nestorianism were Domnus of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrus, both condemned at Ephesus II for Nestorianism.

ii. The Imperial preface to the Council quite clearly states that the council is dealing with Nestorianism. When the Emperor commands that Theodoret is to remain in his diocese because he has been writing tracts against St Cyril he also adds that the partisans of Nestorius might well try and ensure he can attend the Council.

iii. The Imperial edict sent to the council also adds that 'Flavian and Eusebius resolved to resuscitate what had been set at rest by Our Clemency, and presumed to renew the depraved error of Nestorius in opposition to the Injunction of Our Clemency, arid threw into the Churches the divisions and scandals of Heretics when silenced and at rest'.

iv. The 6 anathemas which were raised against Chalcedon by St Dioscorus show that 'Chalcedon is anathematised because it has accepted the communion of the partisans of Nestorius, such as Ibas'.

v. When St Timothy present a confession of faith to Emperor Marcian and speaking of Ephesus II he says, 'We ask them: Which of your signatures do we give credence to? That given at the Second Council of Ephesus, where you anathematised and drove out as Nestorians those who dare speak of two natures in one Christ and who do not confess “one nature of God the Word incarnate”; or that given at Chalcedon, where you anathematised yourselves in writing by saying: “Anathema to those who do not confess two natures in one Christ after the union, but confess one nature of God the Word incarnate”?

So I am clear in my own mind that the evidence shows that Ephesus II was all about Nestorianism. This is without going through the text of the various judgements against people in detail. Even the condemnation of Flavian, which seems entirely justifiable to me, is based on his condemnation of St Cyril's 'one nature' Christology in favour of what certainly has the appearance of an Eastern 'two nature' Christology. The fact that other bishops at Constantinople 448 speak of 'the Word and the one who was assumed', and 'two natures in one person', seems to me to speak clearly that there was a strong Theodorean influence among Flavian's synod.

I am attaching links to a couple of papers I have written about Ibas and Eutyches. They are not academic, since they were written for my Church publication and for Church members, but they are a pretty good description of my thinking at the moment.

http://www.britishorthodox.org/Ibas.pdf

http://www.britishorthodox.org/Eutyches.pdf

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,726


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2009, 07:52:23 PM »

Father Peter,

I read your paper on Eutyches and I have a question.  If I understood correctly, at Ephesus II, they mention the first and third ecumenical councils as being standards of the faith, but leave out the second ecumenical council.  Why is this?

I recall reading (of course I can't recall where) that Constantinople I was actually a local council and it is not known at what date the Armenian Church accepted it as ecumenical.  I was under the impression that it took a while for the whole Church to accept it as ecumenical, and there is no consensus as to when this took place.

Could it be that Constantinople I was not yet an ecumenical council at the time covered by your paper, and that is why it was not appealed to?


« Last Edit: June 29, 2009, 08:55:56 PM by Salpy » Logged

Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2009, 02:23:28 AM »

Constantinople 381 wasn't really well known before Chalcedon. It is mentioned by a synod in Constantinople in 382, the following year, and is called ecumenical - but this simply refers to its universal character having drawn together bishops from the Empire in the East. It was not mentioned by Ephesus 431 for instance.

The creed was read out at Chalcedon and some consider this establishes it as ecumenical. But it was the action of Justinian in declaring it one of four ecumenical councils which set it apart.

Rome refused to accept the canons of Constantinople 381 until 1215, when Constantinople had in any case been taken over by the Latins. Pope Felix III d. 492, only accepted three ecumenical councils, Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon. It was not until Hormisdas d. 523, that Constantinople was considered on a par with these, and even then the canons were not accepted.

This is an interesting case since with regard to the OO we are often condemned because we cannot accept every aspect of the EO councils, especially the anathemas against the saints, but clearly Rome refused to accept various canons and was in communion with the Eastern Chalcedonians throughout the first millenium.

I think that the case of Constantinople 381 allows us to see that ecumenical first had the meaning of a universal gathering of bishops from across the Empire to deal with a matter of concern to the whole Church and Empire. That it then came to mean a council which had a lasting authority throughout the Empire, and then finally to the concept that it was infallible in every word and aspect and must be received as a divine fiat. Ephesus II is an ecumenical council. It was called to deal with a matter which affected the whole Church and Empire, and it gathered together bishops from the whole Church and Empire. It received Imperial assent and became Imperial Law. What it taught seems to me to have been true and necessary. Therefore as far as I am concerned it has authority.

in my opinion the OO preserve the middle concept in which a council has authority because it is true and because it represents the mind of the universal Church. I don't see that the OO have developed the later concept in regard to councils, though this does not mean that those councils which are considered authoritative are not greatly respected, especially Nicaea and Ephesus I, and then at some time between the 4th and 6th centuries also Constantinople 381. (I don't know when we started using the Nicene-Constantinopolitan version of the creed). But they are understood as events within the life of the Church and as manifestations of the conciliar activity in the Church seen in a continuum from the humblest local synod of a minor bishop, through metropolitan synods, up to universal councils of bishops from the whole empire. It is the same Holy Spirit at work, and the same humanity which sometimes obscures and confuses the work of the Spirit. Yet when there is that which is seen to be true then it is recognised by the Church and has the authority of the truth, no further authority is needed.

Father Peter
« Last Edit: June 30, 2009, 02:38:24 AM by peterfarrington » Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2009, 12:59:39 AM »

Constantinople 381 wasn't really well known before Chalcedon. It is mentioned by a synod in Constantinople in 382, the following year, and is called ecumenical - but this simply refers to its universal character having drawn together bishops from the Empire in the East. It was not mentioned by Ephesus 431 for instance.

Father, I am working on posting the documentation, e.g. the Theodosian Code, on Constantinople I.  Once such document is none other than a exposition on the Creed by Theodore of Mopsuestia: he keeps refering to the Nicene Creed of the 318 Fathers, does not mention the 150 Fathers of Constantinople; nonetheless the Creed he uses is Constantinople's, much as we now say Nicene Creed when we really mean the revision of Constantinople I.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14289.msg334134/topicseen.html#msg334134

Quote
The creed was read out at Chalcedon and some consider this establishes it as ecumenical. But it was the action of Justinian in declaring it one of four ecumenical councils which set it apart.

Justinian called the Fifth Ecumenical Councils.

Quote
Rome refused to accept the canons of Constantinople 381 until 1215, when Constantinople had in any case been taken over by the Latins. Pope Felix III d. 492, only accepted three ecumenical councils, Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon. It was not until Hormisdas d. 523, that Constantinople was considered on a par with these, and even then the canons were not accepted.

The canon in question, 3 was the same as 28 of Chalcedon, which Rome had problems with.  However, Rome still asked why Flavian was after Antioch at Ephesus II, reflecting the order of Constantinople c. 3.

It would be rather hard, nay impossible, to accept Chalcedon and not accept Constantinople I, as Chalcedon is explicite as putting it on a par with Nicaea I and Ephesus (I) (P and G, vol. II 11-25).

Quote
This is an interesting case since with regard to the OO we are often condemned because we cannot accept every aspect of the EO councils, especially the anathemas against the saints, but clearly Rome refused to accept various canons and was in communion with the Eastern Chalcedonians throughout the first millenium.

There is a question of how much Rome "rejected," as it followed the same canons when it suited her.

Quote
I think that the case of Constantinople 381 allows us to see that ecumenical first had the meaning of a universal gathering of bishops from across the Empire to deal with a matter of concern to the whole Church and Empire. That it then came to mean a council which had a lasting authority throughout the Empire, and then finally to the concept that it was infallible in every word and aspect and must be received as a divine fiat.

I don't agree in the details, but your overview, Father, is accurate enough.

 
Quote
Ephesus II is an ecumenical council. It was called to deal with a matter which affected the whole Church and Empire, and it gathered together bishops from the whole Church and Empire. It received Imperial assent and became Imperial Law. What it taught seems to me to have been true and necessary. Therefore as far as I am concerned it has authority.

So, where does that leave Eutyches?

Quote
in my opinion the OO preserve the middle concept in which a council has authority because it is true and because it represents the mind of the universal Church. I don't see that the OO have developed the later concept in regard to councils, though this does not mean that those councils which are considered authoritative are not greatly respected, especially Nicaea and Ephesus I, and then at some time between the 4th and 6th centuries also Constantinople 381. (I don't know when we started using the Nicene-Constantinopolitan version of the creed). But they are understood as events within the life of the Church and as manifestations of the conciliar activity in the Church seen in a continuum from the humblest local synod of a minor bishop, through metropolitan synods, up to universal councils of bishops from the whole empire. It is the same Holy Spirit at work, and the same humanity which sometimes obscures and confuses the work of the Spirit. Yet when there is that which is seen to be true then it is recognised by the Church and has the authority of the truth, no further authority is needed.

We are agree in the principle. In the application,.....

Father Peter
[/quote]
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #15 on: July 13, 2011, 09:04:38 PM »

Constantinople 381 wasn't really well known before Chalcedon. It is mentioned by a synod in Constantinople in 382, the following year, and is called ecumenical - but this simply refers to its universal character having drawn together bishops from the Empire in the East. It was not mentioned by Ephesus 431 for instance.

Father, I am working on posting the documentation, e.g. the Theodosian Code, on Constantinople I.  Once such document is none other than a exposition on the Creed by Theodore of Mopsuestia: he keeps refering to the Nicene Creed of the 318 Fathers, does not mention the 150 Fathers of Constantinople; nonetheless the Creed he uses is Constantinople's, much as we now say Nicene Creed when we really mean the revision of Constantinople I.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14289.msg334134/topicseen.html#msg334134
I recently posted a confession of Pope Dioscoros' non-Chalcedonian successor, Pope Timothy:
Quote
Timothy Aelurus of Alexandria

The Profession of Faith of Saint Timothy, which he sent to the Emperor Leo by the Count Rusticus; and a partial history of that which happened to him afterwards.

Seeing that the illustrious Count Rusticus asked of me that I have regard to the Orthodox Faith, I make known my point of view in testifying that I anathematise all heresy, and those who say that the flesh of Our Lord came from heaven, or that it is an appearance, or that he did not have a rational soul. I also distance myself from the letter of Leo, governor of the Church of the Romans, who introduced a division into the one indivisible Our Lord Jesus Christ; because of which, I do not subscribe to the council of Chalcedon. For I was baptised, and I baptise, in accordance with the confession of the 318 holy Fathers of Nicaea; it is this that I preach and it is this that I believe, without any addition or subtraction, and those who believe in such a manner are in communion with me, for the Faith does not grow old and has no need of renewal with the passage of time.

I do not presume to say two natures in God who took a body and who was made man of the holy Virgin Mother of God. I confess above all the Faith, while I marvel with rapture at the indivisible, un-shakeable, and life-giving mystery of the Incarnation. It is a terrible thing indeed if the doctrines of each heresy stay as they are, and those of the Orthodox Christians change over time. It becomes an object of derision to the unbelievers if, in the last days of the world – while we wait for Christ our Saviour to come from heaven, in a frightening manner, for the second time – we are divided concerning the subject of the confession of his preaching. What will be made of those who, since the coming of Christ, baptised according to the symbol of the Faith? For me, therefore, in accordance with the divine Scriptures, this is the way I will live in Christ, with the same Faith which has been passed to me by the Spirit of holiness since the the first times; and this would be to me a blessing, of dying while keeping the profession of faith of the holy Fathers who recalled it without change, such as I received it and of which here are the contents: “I believe etc.”. 

And after that finished, he said: Here is my faith; It is with this profession of faith that I request death and resurrection before the fearsome tribunal of Christ our Saviour, on the fearsome day of judgement when He comes in His glory, to judge the living and the dead. To Him be glory in the ages. Amen....
http://www.orthodox-library.com/library.htm
What caught my eye is that Pope Timothy refers to the Creed of the 318 Fathers of Nicea, but then goes on about Jesus Christ "who was made man of the holy Virgin Mother of God" (I'm assUming a mistranslation for Theotokos), refering to a clause that the 150 Fathers of Constantiople added (among others, e.g. "comes in His glory").  That is also determinative, as Eutyches was condemned by EP St. Flavian on that clause, and Chalcedon confirmed it, and Pope Dioscoros at Euphesus refused to hold Eutyches to that standard, and deposed EP St. Flavian for deposing Eutyches on it.  I wonder what "I believe etc." said, Nicea or Constantinople's Creed, or did Pope Timothy distinguish between the two?

On the differences between Nicea and the revision at Constantinople:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14289.msg334134/topicseen.html#msg334134
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #16 on: July 13, 2011, 09:20:28 PM »

This is an interesting case since with regard to the OO we are often condemned because we cannot accept every aspect of the EO councils, especially the anathemas against the saints, but clearly Rome refused to accept various canons and was in communion with the Eastern Chalcedonians throughout the first millenium.

I think that the case of Constantinople 381 allows us to see that ecumenical first had the meaning of a universal gathering of bishops from across the Empire to deal with a matter of concern to the whole Church and Empire. That it then came to mean a council which had a lasting authority throughout the Empire, and then finally to the concept that it was infallible in every word and aspect and must be received as a divine fiat. Ephesus II is an ecumenical council. It was called to deal with a matter which affected the whole Church and Empire, and it gathered together bishops from the whole Church and Empire. It received Imperial assent and became Imperial Law. What it taught seems to me to have been true and necessary. Therefore as far as I am concerned it has authority.

in my opinion the OO preserve the middle concept in which a council has authority because it is true and because it represents the mind of the universal Church. I don't see that the OO have developed the later concept in regard to councils, though this does not mean that those councils which are considered authoritative are not greatly respected, especially Nicaea and Ephesus I, and then at some time between the 4th and 6th centuries also Constantinople 381. (I don't know when we started using the Nicene-Constantinopolitan version of the creed). But they are understood as events within the life of the Church and as manifestations of the conciliar activity in the Church seen in a continuum from the humblest local synod of a minor bishop, through metropolitan synods, up to universal councils of bishops from the whole empire. It is the same Holy Spirit at work, and the same humanity which sometimes obscures and confuses the work of the Spirit. Yet when there is that which is seen to be true then it is recognised by the Church and has the authority of the truth, no further authority is needed.
I have often criticized that we EO do not treat all the Ecumenical Councils on a par with Scripture, often saying that I would like to see an Orthodox Bible that has the Horoi of the Councils in it.  Despite that, I think it important that we know the Definitions, while admitting that historically we haven't.  What that has led to is a mechanical upholding of the Seven Ecumenical Councils divorced, except for the first three (prevented by use of the Nicene Creed and the title Theotokos) from their content. Something that led to the restoration of Theodoret and Ibas, while content focus led to their deposition at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.  I'm reminded of Gaddis' comment that Pope Dioscoros' confession from Gangra resembles the Tome of Leo.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2011, 03:03:03 AM »

I don't really agree with your description of the case of Eutyches.

I have written a paper about his case here...

http://www.orthodoxmedway.org/eutyches.pdf

Do you disagree with my presentation?

Father Peter Farrington
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Tags: cheval mort Chalcedon polemics Ephesus II Chalcedon St. Dioscoros Eutyches Constantinople II Constantinople I 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.12 seconds with 46 queries.