George Bevan: Interpolations in the Syriac Translation of Nestorius' Liber Heraclidis

The last part of Nestorius’ Liber Heraclidis, his apologia pro vita sua  preserved until the nineteenth century in a sixth-century Syriac translation, picks up the deposed bishop’s narration of events with the renewal christological controversy in 448 and the trial of the archimandrite Eutyches. The historical value of this section was brought into question by Luise Abramowski in her 1963 monograph on the Liber, where she argued that it was subject to multiple interpolations after Nestorius’ death. When looked at in detail, however, one sees that all of these putative interpolations need not be seen as such. Only the final prophecy of the Liber, in which the Vandal sack of Rome in 455 is mentioned, should be regarded as a later addition.

If the final part of the Liber is accepted as authentic, then one must revise one’s understanding of Nestorius’ place in ecclesiastical politics in the late 440s. First, Nestorius indicates that he has ongoing contacts with supporters in the East. The Syriac Acts of Second Ephesus give us a good idea of just who these contacts may have been. Second, Nestorius accepted Leo’s Tomus ad Flavianum and saw in it a vindication of his own belief. If this is true, then Nestorius may have been closer to “mainstream” dyophysitism than his critics, ancient and modern, generally accept. Nestorius thus provides are rare corrective on Chalcedonian triumphalism that establishes an Aristotelian tripartite schema for the christological controversy that places Chalcedon at the centre, flanked on either side by the twin heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches.

Finally, Nestorius states that the empress Pulcheria was unwilling to intervene in his case. This is an astonishing statement given the popular belief that it was the augusta herself who cause his downfall. Given that Theodoret also would appeal to her in the mid-440s concerning the tax assessment of Cyrrhus, it is suggested that Pulcheria may not have been as steadfast in her opposition to Nestorius and the other Antiochene dyophysites as later traditions suggest.