Sorry, Father, when I first saw this thread, I had too many rods already in the fire and didn't have time to repond.
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.
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:
Not a small matter, as even Ephesus II considered it. Immediately after the letter was read (emphasis in boldface and underline mine):
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
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
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.
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).
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.