Jesus Wars by Philip Jenkins, Appendices

Jesus Wars, by Philip Jenkins

Appendix to Chapter One: The Church’s General Councils

Through the centuries, the church called many councils and gatherings at regional and local levels, but a few great events were recognized as having special authority for the whole Christian world. These were general or universal (ecumenical) in nature. Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches agree on accepting the first seven of these general councils as authoritative. Although these councils dealt with many miscellaneous items of belief and practice, each focused chiefly on an issue or debate that was particularly divisive at the time. Each council proclaimed a set of views that became established orthodoxy for much of the church, although in each case, the defeated party did not simply cease to exist Overnight. The first seven councils were:

1. First Council of Nicea (325) The church was divided over Christ’s divinity. Followers of Arius believed that, as a created being, Christ was inferior to God the Father. Their opponents, led by Athanasius of Alexandria, taught that all three persons of the Trinity—-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—were fully equal. The Council of Nicea resulted in a decisive victory for the Trinitarian party over the Arians. Athanasius went on to become bishop of Alexandria.

2. First Council of Constantinople (381) The emperor Theodosius I called this council mainly to settle continuing debates concerning the Trinity. Arianism remained powerful long after the Council of Nicea, while some groups denied the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Council of Constantinople tried to resolve these issues, and it defined the role of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity. This council created an expanded version of the creed originally declared at Nicea, and when later generations use the so-called Nicene Creed, they are in fact using the form accepted at Constantinople in 381.

3. Council of Ephesus (431) With Trinitarian issues largely settled, the main focus of debate now turned to Christology, that is, the proper understanding of the character of Christ and the relationship between his human and divine natures. Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, was accused of dividing the two natures in a way that made the Virgin Mary the mother of Christ, but not of God. His leading opponent, the patriarch Cyril of Alexandria, taught the full unity of Christ’s natures. Cyril’s views triumphed, with the support of the Roman pope, and the Nestorian party was condemned. It remains open to debate whether Nestorius did in fact hold the views attributed to him.

[Second Council of Ephesus (449) Although later generations refused to recognize the credentials of this council, it was called in much the same way as its predecessors. The church of Constantinople was deeply split, with a strong party emphasizing Christ’s single divine nature. Constantinople’s bishop Flavian condemned these views as extreme and heretical. Under pressure from the Alexandrian patriarch Dioscuros, a council met to investigate and condemn Flavian and to support One Nature teachings. The council degenerated into a mob scene, in which Flavian suffered mortal wounds. This gathering was subsequently rejected as a “Gangster Synod” and not a true council.]

4. Council of Chalcedon (451) The fourth council was called to reverse the disastrous results of the recent Gangster Synod. The council condemned the actions of Dioscuros of Alexandria and his allies. After intense debate, it also formulated a definition of Christ’s being that presented him as both fully divine and fully human. This historic Chalcedonian definition owed much to the thought of the Roman pope Leo 1.

5. Second Council of Constantinople (553) In the century following Chalcedon, the church continued to be severely split over christological issues, with many regions continuing to stress Christ’s One Nature (the Monophysite movement). Partly in order to reconcile these dissidents, the emperor Justinian called a council that would condemn the writings of some long-dead theologians whom the Monophysites regarded as gravely heretical. The Second Council of Constantinople did condemn the controversial writings—the so-called Three Chapters—but at the cost of creating new disagreements. Only after some years as a prisoner of the empire could the Roman pope Vigilius be bullied into accepting the council’s decisions.

6. Third Council of Constantinople (680—81) In a last-ditch attempt to settle the christological wars, the Byzantine emperors had tried to establish that, whatever people thought about Christ’s natures, at least they could all agree that he had a single will. Unfortunately the compromise pleased nobody, and many attacked this imperial policy as a Monothelete (One Will) heresy. The Third Council condemned Monotheletism, proclaiming instead the belief that Christ was of two wills as well as of two natures.

7. Second Council of Nicea (787) From the 720s, the Byzantine Empire split violently over the question of icons and images, with some activists arguing that such pictures should be prohibited as idolatrous. The Second Council of Nicea declared that such images were legitimate, provided they were venerated as opposed to being worshipped in their own right.

The New Language of God

The Apollinarian crisis also showed how much of the controversy in the church arose from disputes over shades of language. By the end of the fourth century, theologians drew subtle yet critical differences between a number, of words that earlier had been thrown around in far vaguer terms. The most significant thinkers were the so-called Cappadocian Fathers: Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. Through their work, the church developed a whole new Christian philosophical system, complete with a terminology that would allow for greater precision in argument. This allowed Christology to be discussed in terms of levels or degrees of union, in a way that avoided a simple equation of Christ = God. The vocabulary they created shapes all the controversies of the fifth century.

The most important of these terms are ousia, physis, hypostasis, and prosopon.

Greek:	Ousia	Physis	Hypostasis	Prosopon
Latin:	Essentia	Natura	Substantia	Persona
English:	Being	Nature	Individual reality	personality

Physis meant nature, in the sense of “one’s true nature.” Hypostasis is, a complex word but can be translated as “individual reality.” The word suggests “underlying” and could have an architectural sense, implying the foundations of a house. Prosopon implied personality. The word originally implies mask, as in a theatrical performance, and the Latin equivalent would be persona. In terms of modern psychology, it is fitting to think that what we call our “person” or personality is in fact a mask that we show to the outside world; but in a theological sense, it had no such sense of deception or illusion.

The distinctions are important. In terms of the Trinity, the Cap-padocians imagined three individual beings—Father, Son, and Spirit—each with its own identity, hypostasis, but sharing a common being or ousia. God the Son is indeed of the same being, ousia, with the Father, as Nicea had declared, but that does not take us back to the Sabellian debates. As a human being, I share a common ousia with other humans, so we are of the same sort, but that does not mean that we are all identical. I have my individual identity, which differs from that of John Smith or Mary Jones. Christ could thus be homoousios with God without being identical to God.

But other key questions proliferated. If Christ had both a human and a divine nature (physis), what was their relationship? At what stage did they come together? Did this happen from the conception of Christ, from his birth, or from some other time? And what hap­pened to the human nature after that union? Did the human nature survive the Incarnation? Did it exist after the Resurrection? Just how human was the Christ who walked in Galilee was a knotty question.

What did Christ know, and when did he know it? Presumably Christ had knowledge that fell short of that of God the Father, but how constrained was he? We might agree that the infant Jesus in the manger did not have total awareness of the inner workings of the universe, but did the adult man? Jesus’ degree of knowledge might in theory have developed gradually, as the man grew, matured, and suffered. But could we identify a specific point at which Jesus gained awareness of his divine identity, rather than a gradual realization?

Appendix to Chapter Two: Some Early Interpretations of Christ

During the first centuries of Christianity, various thinkers tried to explain the role of Christ and the relationship between his human and divine natures. Some leaned toward a One Nature approach, emphasizing his divinity. Others stressed that his humanity existed alongside his divinity: this view can be categorized as a Two Nature approach. Some key movements and thinkers included:

Adoptionists

A Two Nature approach that saw Christ as a man filled with the spirit of God, but that divinity de­scended on him only at a moment during or after his earthly lifetime. Human and divine natures existed separately.

Apollinarius

A fourth-century bishop, Apollinarius stressed Christ’s divinity so absolutely that he denied the presence of any rational human soul in Christ. In his view, Christ had a single nature, and it was divine.. The First Council of Constantinople (381) condemned his views as heretical.

Arians

Arians denied the full equality of God the Son with the Father and thus denied the Trinity.

Basilides

Gnostic Christian thinker of the second century, active in Egypt. He taught a complex mythology, in which Christ came to liberate the forces of light from the material realm of ignorance and evil. Christ was the Mind (nous) of God, who de­scended upon Jesus at his baptism.

Cerinthus

Gnostic Christian thinker (c. 100) who argued that the spiritual being of Christ descended on the man Jesus during his baptism in the Jordan; this was an early (and radical) form of Two Nature Christology.

Chalcedonian

The position that became the orthodoxy of the mainstream church after the Council of Chalce­don (451). This approach holds that Two Natures are united in the one person of Christ, without confusion, change, division, or separation. Christ exists in two Natures.

Docetists

Early belief that Christ represented only an illu­sory shape taken by a purely divine being: he had no real human nature. Christ’s sufferings on the cross were illusory.

Ebionites

 Early Jewish-Christian movement following Christ as a human being, the son of Joseph and Mary; although he was the Messiah, he had no divine nature.

Eutyches

A Monophysite thinker active in the 440s, Eutyches saw Christ as a fusion of divine and human elements, but critics believed he left little room for Christ’s human identity.

Gnostics

Gnostics saw Christ as a divine being come to redeem believers from the evil and contaminated material world. Christ’s true identity or nature was always divine, and while on earth, he occupied a supernatural body quite distinct from humanity.

Manicheans   

Originating in the third century, this movement became an independent world religion. Its founder, Mani, taught an absolute and eternal war between forces of light and darkness. Christ was a liberator come to redeem the elements of light trapped in the material world. He was thus a purely super­natural or divine being and any human or material elements must be illusory. This view overlaps closely with Gnostic and Docetic ideas.

Marcion (c.85-160)

Important early Christian thinker who argued for a radical distinction between the flawed God of the Old Testament and the true God of the New. Jesus Christ was the Son and representative of this greater God, who sent him to save the world from the old spiritual regime. Marcion was condemned for heresy.

Melkites

Originally an insulting term for those followers of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy who lived in regions
dominated by Monophysites. As they followed the religion of the king or emperor, they were
called “King’s Men.”

Miaphysites

A form of One Nature Christology associated particularly with Cyril of Alexandria and his suc­cessors. In this view, the incarnate Christ has one Nature, although that is made up of both a divine and a human Nature and still comprises all the features of both. Christ is from two Natures.

Modalists      

See Sabellius.

Monophysites

Believers in One Nature Christology. The term is often used generically to cover other less extreme approaches, including Miaphysitism.

 Monotheletes

In the seventh century, the Roman Empire tried to overcome the long war between One and Two Nature approaches to Christ. Instead, the empire and church leaders argued that Christ had a single Will. Critics called this view the Monothelete (One Will) heresy, and it was eventually con­demned as such.

Nestorians

Nestorius was accused of teaching that two Na­tures coexist within Christ but in a conjunction that falls short of a true union. Mary was thus the Mother of Christ (Christotokos), but could not be called Mother of God (Theotokos). Later scholarship tends to see Nestorius as much closer to mainstream orthodoxy than this description would suggest and not therefore a “Nestorian.”

Paul of Samosata

A third-century bishop of Antioch, Paul believed that the man Jesus became divine at the time of his baptism. This was condemned as a form of Two Nature heresy or Adoptionism.

Sabellius

Sabellius taught in Rome in the early third cen­tury. He believed that Christ had a human body but was identical to God in his nature: he had no real human nature. In this view, Father, Son, and Spirit are not persons, but modes of one divine being. Christ was one with the Father to the extent that it was the Father who suffered on the cross. This was an extreme form of One Nature belief.

Valentinus

A second-century Egyptian thinker, Valentinus taught a classic form of Gnostic Christology in which the divine Christ came to redeem the evil world, but he had no true human nature, and his body was always supernatural rather than truly human.

Word/Flesh Christology

Theologians believed that God’s Word, the Logos, became flesh (Sarx), so the Logos was the princi­ple guiding Christ’s flesh or body. This Logos/Sarx approach tended to see Christ as a representative of humanity rather than, necessarily, a fully devel­oped individual in his own right.

Word/Man Christology

In this Logos/Anthropos approach, God’s Word, the Logos, became human in the form of the man (Anthropos) Jesus Christ. Christ was not just a ge­neric representative of humanity, but a fully indi­vidual human being.

 

Appendix to Chapter Five: The Twelve Anathemas Proposed by Cyril and Accepted by the Council of Ephesus (431)

The word anathema was very potent, and it even had violent implications. Greek translations of the Old Testament use this term to describe the total condemnation or annihilation of a city, such as Jericho, where God commands the Israelites to mas­sacre “everything that breathes.” A person under anathema was equally cut off from both the church and civil society.

 

1. If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh), let him be anathema.
2. If anyone does not confess that the Word from God the Father has been united by hypostasis with the flesh and is one Christ with his own flesh, and is therefore God and man to­gether, let him be anathema.
3. If anyone divides in the one Christ the hypostases after the union, joining them only by a conjunction of dignity or au­thority or power, and not rather by a coming together in a union by nature, let him be anathema.
4. If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the Gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man,  thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.
5. If anyone dares to say that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather God in truth, being by nature on Son, even as “the Word became flesh,” and is made partaker or blood and flesh precisely like us, let him be anathema.
6. If anyone says that the Word from God the Father was the God or master of Christ, and does not rather confess the same both God and man, the Word having become flesh, ac­cording to the scriptures, let him be anathema.
7. If anyone says that as man Jesus was activated by the Word of God and was clothed with the glory of the Only-begotten, as a being separate from him, let him be anathema.
8. If anyone dares to say that the man who was assumed ought to be worshipped and glorified together with the divine Word and be called God along with him, while being separate from him, (for the addition of “with” must always compel us to think in this way), and will not rather worship Emmanuel with one veneration and send up to him one doxology, even as “the Word became flesh,” let him be anathema.
9. If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by  the Spirit, as making use of an alien power that worked through him and as having received from him the power to master unclean spirits and to work divine wonders among people, and does not rather say that it was his own proper Spirit through whom he worked the divine wonders, let him be anathema.
10. The divine scripture says Christ became “the high priest and apostle of our confession”; he offered himself to God the Father in an odor of sweetness for our sake. If anyone, there­fore, says that it was not the very Word from God who became our high priest and apostle, when he became flesh and a man like us, but as it were another who was separate from him, in particular a man from a woman, or if anyone says that he offered the sacrifice also for himself and not rather for us alone (for he who knew no sin needed no offer­ing), let him be anathema.
11. If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving and belongs to the Word from God the Father, but maintains that it belongs to another besides him, united with him in dignity or as enjoying a mere divine indwelling, and is not rather life-giving, as we said, since it became the flesh be­longing to the Word who has power to bring all things to life, let him be anathema.
12. If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let him be anathema.

 

 

The Main Figures in the Story

Acacius: patriarch of Constantinople (471—89). In 482, Acacius persuaded the emperor to issue the Henoticon, a document aimed at winning over both supporters and opponents of the Council of Chalcedon. The ensuing controversy resulted in a decades-long split between the churches of Rome and Alexandria.

Aelia Eudoxia (died 404): empress, wife of the emperor Arcadius, and deadly enemy of John Chrysostom.

Aetius (396-454): Flavius Aetius, Roman general who dominated the Western Roman Empire (c. 433-54) and defeated Attila the Hun. He was murdered by the emperor Valentinian III in a court intrigue.

Ambrose (c. 340-97): born in Gaul, bishop of Milan from 374, and a dominant voice in the Western church. He established the pres­tige and independence of the church in the face of Roman imperial
authority.

Anastasius (430-518): born in what is now Albania, Roman em­peror (491-518), he supported the Monophysite party and was out of communion with the Roman papacy.

Anatolius: representative of Dioscuros of Alexandria in the impe­rial capital, Constantinople. Following the murder of Flavian of Constantinople in 449, Dioscuros helped place Anatolius in the pa­triarchate. Despite his early connections, Anatolius turned against the Alexandrian party and allied with the Roman pope. He died vio­lently, probably at the hands of Dioscuros’s followers.

Anthimus: patriarch of Constantinople (535-36). The Roman pope forced his deposition, and he spent years in hiding, protected by the empress Theodora.

Aspar (c.400-471): from the barbarian people of the Alans, Aspar was the leading military figure in the Eastern Roman Empire (c.430—70). The emperor Leo eventually murdered him.

Athanasius of Alexandria (293-373): as secretary to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, he became a leading spokesman for the Trinitarian position at the Council of Nicea (325). He became bishop himself in 328, but his repeated political battles mean that he would spend much of his time in office in exile.

Babai the Great (551-628): leading scholar and reformer of the Church of the East, the “Nestorian” Church. He gave a sound systematic basis to Two Nature Christology.

Barsaumas: leading Syrian monk and an aggressive supporter of One Nature teachings. His monks provided a frightening armed force that supported Dioscuros at the Second Council of Ephesus.

Basiliscus: Roman emperor (475-76), Basiliscus was the brother-in-law of the emperor Leo. After Leo died, Basiliscus organized coup d’etat against the new emperor, Zeno, and ruled briefly.  He tried to place the Monophysite party in power throughout the church.

Benjamin of Alexandria (590-661): a Monophysite, whose brother Mennas was martyred by the Byzantine government, Benjamin served as pope of the Coptic church from 622 until his death in 661.

Candidian: imperial count (senior official) charged to maintain order at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The enemies of Nestorius criticized him as being too favorable to the accused heretic.

Celestine I: Roman pope (422-32), and an important player at the First Council of Ephesus (431).

Chrysaphius: eunuch official who held power at the court of Theodosius II through the 440s; a strong supporter of One Nature theories of Christ and a supporter of Eutyches. He was executed or lynched when the regime changed in 450.

Constans II (630-668): Roman emperor (641-68), Constans tried to settle the continuing debate over the natures of Christ by creat­ing a common position on which they could unite, the idea of the One Will, Monotheletism.

Cyril of Alexandria (378-444): nephew of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, Cyril succeeded him as bishop in 412. He was an ag­gressive critic of Nestorius of Constantinople, whom he confronted and defeated at the First Council of Ephesus (431).

Damasus (305-384): born in Spain, he became Roman pope in 366 and greatly expanded the prestige and self-confidence of the papacy.

Diodore of Tarsus: founder of the great Christian school of Antioch, who died around 390.

Dioscuros of Alexandria: personal secretary to Cyril of Alexandria, who in 444 succeeded Cyril as patriarch.  Dioscuros was the leading figure at the Second Council of Ephesus (449), the “Gangster Synod,” and he was deposed at the Council of Chalcedon (451).  He died in 454.

Domnus of Antioch: nephew of John, patriarch of Antioch, Domnus succeeded him in that office in 441. He tried to defend other bishops who were under attack for being too sympathetic to Two Nature views, so that he himself was deposed at the Second Council of Ephesus (449). He retired to a monastery and made no further claim to his see.

Eudocia (Aelia Eudocia) (401-60): wife of the emperor Theodosius II and a scholar and philosopher in her own right. She long remained a rival at court to her sister-in-law Pulcheria. She was sympathetic to the Monophysites.

Eudoxia (Licinia Eudoxia) (422-62): daughter of Emperor Theodosius II, she married Emperor Valentinian III.  She report­edly invited the Vandal king Gaiseric to sack Rome in 455.

Eusebius: as bishop of Dorylaeum, Eusebius attacked christological views that he thought veered too far toward overstressing either One Nature or Two Nature approaches: he thus became a major enemy both of Nestorius in the 430s and of Eutyches in the 440s. The Second Council of Ephesus (449) deposed him, but he took refuge with Pope “Leo in Rome. The Council of Chalcedon (451) restored him to favor. Not to be confused with the great church historian of the same name.

Eutyches (380-456): a Constantinople monk who held the senior rank of archimandrite. His Monophysite views provoked a religious struggle within Constantinople in the 440s, which in turn led di­rectly to the Second Council of Ephesus (449).

Flavian: patriarch of Constantinople (446-49), he attempted to discipline the monk Eutyches for his views on Christ’s nature, but the controversy led to Flavian himself facing opposition at the Second Council of Ephesus. At that council, a mob maltreated Flavian so badly that he died shortly afterward.

Galla Placidia (392-450): Roman princess who was abducted by Visigoths when Rome fell in 410. She married the Western Roman emperor Constantius III and bore his son Valentinian III. Galla Placidia was the virtual ruler of the Western empire for many years as the regent for her son. She was a strong supporter of papal and Chalcedonian Christianity.

Gregory Nazianzus (c.330-90): great Christian theologian and church father, one of the so-called Cappadocian Fathers and one of the prime enemies of Arians and of various theologies that de­tracted from the godhood of the Holy Spirit.

Heraclius (575-641): Roman emperor from 610, he saved the empire from destruction by the Persians and was long remembered in Monophysite history as a severe persecutor.

Hilarius: Roman archdeacon who attended the Second Council of Ephesus (449), where he tried unsuccessfully to curb the illegal pro­ceedings. He reigned as pope (461—68).

Ibas: Syrian theologian who served as bishop of Edessa (435-57). At the First Council of Ephesus, he criticized both Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria. Supporters of Cyril tried to have Ibas’s ideas condemned, and he was tried (448-49). The Council of Chalcedon restored him to office.

Irenaeus: imperial count who tried to maintain order at the First Council of Ephesus (431), his attempts at maintaining fairness led to his being denounced as a supporter of Nestorius. Irenaeus later became bishop of Tyre, where he was himself attacked for alleged Nestorianism.

Jacobus Baradaeus (c.500-578): Monophysite monk whom Bishop John of Ephesus ordained as bishop in 541 with authority over the Monophysite churches of the East. Jacobus became the founder and organizer of a whole alternative Eastern church that became known as Jacobite.

John of Antioch: patriarch of Antioch (429-41), John was the leader among the Eastern bishops in the controversies surrounding Nestorius.  John’s late arrival at the First Council of Ephesus (431) was critical in shaping the events of that gathering. He eventually patched up a reconciliation with his archrival Cyril of Alexandria.

John of Ephesus (507-86): one of the most important figures in the Monophysite church in the East, but the Orthodox emperor Justinian also entrusted him with campaigns against paganism. John was a leading historian of church affairs in his time, particularly from a Monophysite point of view.

John Chrysostom (347-407): born in Antioch and studied under Diodore of Tarsus. In 398, he became archbishop of Constantino­ple, but a feud with Theophilus of Alexandria and the empress Aelia Eudoxia led to his being deposed and banished. John is famous as one of the greatest Christian preachers.

Justa Grata Honoria: Roman princess, sister of the Western Roman emperor Valentinian III. While confined in a convent for plotting against her brother, she tried to call on the aid of Attila the Hun, which gave the Huns a legal justification for their assaults on the empire.

Justinian (483—565): nephew of the Roman emperor Justin I, whom he succeeded in office in 527. Justinian reconquered large sections of the old Western empire. Although he favored Orthodox and Chalcedonian Christianity, his wife, Theodora, ensured that some Monophysite clergy enjoyed protection. In 553, Justinian called the Second Council of Constantinople as a means of drawing together Chalcedonians and Monophysites.

Juvenal: bishop of Jerusalem (422-58), Juvenal was heavily en­gaged in most of the ecclesiastical wars of his time, his main motive being to establish the patriarchal authority of his see of Jerusalem. He supported Dioscuros of Alexandria at the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 and opposed him at Chalcedon in 451.

Leo I (401—74): born in Thrace and ruled as Eastern Roman em­peror from 457 to 474.

Marcian (396-457): a prominent Roman soldier who became East­ern Roman emperor in 450 and married the princess Pulcheria. Marcian and Pulcheria called the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and enforced its decisions.

Maximus the Confessor (c.580-662): theologian and mystic who opposed the Roman Empire’s policy of insisting that Christ had only One Will: critics called this view the Monothelete heresy. His opposition led to his trial and condemnation. He was tortured and mutilated, and died in exile.

Memnon of Ephesus: bishop of Ephesus at the time of the great council held in that city in 431. Memnon cooperated closely with Cyril of Alexandria against Nestorius.

Nestorius (386-C.451): born in Syria and trained in Antioch, Nestorius became archbishop of Constantinople in 428, but his views attracted much opposition. Following the First Council of Ephesus (431), he was deposed and exiled.

Peter the Fuller: patriarch of Antioch (471-88), Peter was a strong Monophysite, who did much to spread those views in Syria.

Peter the Iberian (411—91): born in Georgia, Peter was a celebrated monk and a leader in the Monophysite cause. He helped organize the Monophysite church in Palestine.

Peter Mongus, the Stammerer: deacon to Timothy Aelurus, pa­triarch of Alexandria, Peter became patriarch himself in 477 and was a leader in the Monophysite cause until his death in 490.

Proclus: an associate of John Chrysostom, Proclus became bishop of Cyzicus. He was passed over as archbishop of Constantinople, and when Nestorius took the post in 428, Proclus attacked him for his views on the Virgin Mary. Proclus preached influential sermons and homilies on the Virgin and the Incarnation. He was archbishop of Constantinople from 434 to 446.

Proterius: chosen to replace Dioscuros as patriarch of Alexandria after the Council of Chalcedon in 451, he was murdered by an in­surgent Alexandrian mob in 457.

Pulcheria (399-453): daughter of the Roman emperor Arcadius and sister of Theodosius II, she was probably the most powerful person within the Eastern Roman Empire for some decades. She was a critical force in shaping church orthodoxy. In 450 she married Marcian, who became emperor, and together they called and sup­ported the Council of Chalcedon.

Severus of Antioch (465-c.540): monk and organizer of Monophysite churches. Severus was bishop of Antioch from 512 to 518 but was deposed when the imperial regime changed. He continued to be the main spiritual force behind the Monophysite movement throughout Egypt and the East.

Shenoute (died 466): abbot of Egypt’s great White Monastery, in fact a vast monastic complex. Like the patriarch Cyril, Shenoute held the One Nature teachings of the Coptic church.

Theodora (c.500—548): wife of the emperor Justinian and a sup­porter of the Monophysite cause in the church and the empire.

Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350-428): born in Antioch, where he was associated with John Chrysostom and Diodore. In 392, he became bishop of Mopsuestia. Theodore wrote widely and daringly on theological matters, although the mainstream church later con­demned some of his ideas as heretical.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-457): born at Antioch and became bishop of Cyrrhus in 423. He became a leading activist in the de­bates surrounding Nestorius and was a principal adviser to the bish­ops of Antioch in their conflicts with Alexandria. The second Council of Ephesus (449) condemned and excommunicated him, but he was restored by the Council of Chalcedon (451). Theodoret was also a significant historical source in his own right.

Theodosius I (347-95): born in Spain, emperor of both Eastern and Western Roman Empires from 379 to 395. He called the First Council of Constantinople in 381.

Theodosius II (401-50): Eastern Roman emperor from 408 through 450. He was strongly influenced through much of his reign by his sister Pulcheria. Theodosius was responsible for calling both the First and Second Councils of Ephesus.

Theodosius of Alexandria: patriarch of Alexandria from 535 to 567 and a Monophysite leader. In 536, the Orthodox/Chalcedonian church ceased to recognize his authority, beginning a formal schism in Alexandria that lasted for centuries.

Theophilus of Alexandria: bishop of Alexandria (385-412). He suppressed pagan temples in Alexandria. He engaged in a political feud with John Chrysostom, in which John was deposed from his see of Constantinople.

Timothy Aelurus: patriarch of Alexandria (454—77), although he spent much of that time in exile or in hiding from imperial authori­ties. He was a Monophysite and a deadly enemy of the Chalcedonian cause.

Timothy Salofakiolos: in 460, the emperor chose Timothy as pa­triarch of Alexandria in the Chalcedonian cause. The local Monophysites opposed him so strongly that his power seemed shaky, giving him his nickname of “Wobbly Cap.” He was deposed in 475 but returned to office from 477 to 481.

Valentinian III (419-55): Western Roman emperor (425-55).

Zeno (425-91): Eastern Roman emperor from 474. He issued the Henoucon in 482, which was an unsuccessful attempt to end debate between One Nature and Two Nature believers.