The Nestorian Church: a lamentable misnomer

Abstract

According to a very widespread understanding of church history the christological controversies of the fifth century were brought to a happy conclusion with the Definition of Faith issued at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. This definition was accepted as normative by both Greek East and Latin West (and hence, subsequently, by the various Reformed churches of the West). Only a few obstinate Orientals (so this conventional picture would have it) refused to accept the Council's Definition of Faith, whether it be out of ignorance, stupidity, stubbornness, or even separatist nationalist aspirations: these people were, on the one side of the theological spectrum, the Nestorians, and at the other end, the Monophysites-heretics both, the former rejecting the Council of Ephesus (431) and believing in two persons in the incarnate Christ, the latter rejecting the Council of Chalcedon and holding that Christ's human nature was swallowed up by the divine nature. It need hardly be said that such a picture is an utterly pernicious caricature, whose roots lie in a hostile historiographical tradition which has dominated virtually all textbooks'of church history from antiquity down to the present day, with the result that the term 'Nestorian Church' has become the standard designation for the ancient oriental church which in the past called itself 'The Church of the East', but which today prefers a fuller title 'The Assyrian Church of the East'. Such a designation is not only discourteous to the modern members of this venerable church, but also-as this paper aims to show-both inappropriate and misleading. The reality behind the divisions caused by the christological controversies concerning the relationship of the humanity and the divinity in the incarnate Christ was, needless to say, far more complex than the popular caricature suggests. While it is quite true that the Assyrian Church of the East has never accepted the Council of Ephesus, and the Oriental Orthodox churches have, in their turn, rejected the doctrinal definition of the Council of Chalcedon, each had perfectly sound reasons for doing so. In the case of the Council of Ephesus, it was not to any doctrinal decision (the Council issued no definition of faith) but to its irregular

The Christology of the Church of the East

“…The term 'Nestorian', alluding to Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, deposed at the Council of Ephesus, was first used by those hostile to the Christology of the Church of the East during the bitter controversies of the fifth and sixth century, but by the time of the Middle Ages and under Islamic rule, it had also come to be used as a term of selfdefinition by writers of the Church of the East, and this usage continued into the twentieth century. Although the name 'Nestorian' is still upheld by some today, in the context of ecumenical relations, it is highly problematic, since it can be (and is) the source of serious misunderstandings; accordingly, the term is much better avoided (Brock 1996). The basic problem lies in the fact that the name 'Nestorius' conjures up at least three completely different connotations for different people: from the viewpoint of the Church of the East, Nestorius was a Greek theologian who upheld the 'two-nature' Christology in the face of Cyril of Alexandria.…”

A rum deal: The purser’s measure and accounting control of materials in the Royal Navy, 1665–1832

“…' 104 By the end of the eighteenth century, the incentive to engage in corrupt and profiteering practices was diminished: the purser was employed by the Navy Board and was paid a salary 'equivalent to that of the boatswain, the gunner and the carpenter and his responsibility was not markedly greater than theirs if it was greater at all.' 105 Opportunities for defrauding the naval administration became rarer as accounting mechanisms became more robust and the Board became increasingly effective in reducing the need to buy provisions directly. Many pursers found to have committed fraud were dealt with severely.…”

Syriac into Middle Iranian: A Translation Studies Approach to Sogdian and Pahlavi Manuscripts within the Church of the East

“…According to Sims-Williams (1992) Dickens (2009: 108-109) and Orsatti (2007: 128-147). 10 On the use of the term "Nestorian" with regard to the Church of the East see Brock (1996). 11 About dating, see Durkin-Meisterernst (2006: 6-7 Durkin-Meisterernst (2006: 7-8), since it is the only one and since in that area Middle Persian is attested as a liturgical language only in the Manichaean tradition, it seems to have been brought to Turfan rather than having been produced locally.…”