Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:13:52.538Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regarding the Theological Anthropology of Theodore of Mopsuestia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Arthur Vööbus
Arthur Vööbus
Affiliation:
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the research on Theodore's theology, a complication has arisen. Certain Conclusions which place Theodore's ideas in quite different perspective than the traditional have been drawn. The monograph produced by R. Devreesse established the thesis that the views which have been repeated about Theodore's convictions concerning man are erroneous and need to be corrected. The alleged deviations from the established positions as affirmed by tradition must upon closer examination be regarded as no more than myth which has gained the status of established truth. Theodore's thinking is in fact entirely within the line of orthodox tradition. He taught both the immortal status given to Adam by creation and original sin and its effects on human nature.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , June 1964 , pp. 115 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Essai sur Theéodore de Mopsueste, in Studi e Testi, CXLI (Città del Vaticano, 1948).Google Scholar

2. “Adam, nous dit Theéodore, participant de toute la nature créé, tant visible qu’ invisible, témonin patent de l'amitié de Dieu pour son oeuvre, eréé immortel, Adam est devenu mortel par suite de son péché,” Ibid., p. 98.

3. “Disons tout de suite que rien de cela ne se lit dans I'oeuvre authentique de Théodore, absolument rien. Nous I'immortalité primitive de I'homme et la transmission du péché à ses descendants,” Ibid., p. 102.

4. Ibid., pp. 162ff.

5. “Der ‘Nestorianismus’ Theodors von Mopsuestia in seiner Sakramentenlehre,” in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, VII (1941), p. 100.Google Scholar

6. “ … Dass gegen Ende seines Lebens unser Theologe eine der von ihm früher vorgetragene Erklärungen des Todesloses, nämlich die traditionelle Deutung des Todes als Ursündenstrafe, aufgegeben hätte,” “Theodor von Mopsuestia, ein Gegner der Erbsündenlehre,” in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, LXV (1953-1954), p. 14.Google Scholar

7. Such a spectrum of disparate traditions appears in the treatises of Aphrahat who flourished somewhat earlierin the Syrian church. They unfold the same symbiosis of archaic and more developed tenets. See Vööbus, A., “Methodologisches zum Studium der Anweisungen Aphrahats,” in Oriens Christianus, XLVI (1962), pp. 25ff.Google Scholar

8. For instance, Theodore explains the phrase “you shall die of death,” not that Adam and Eve became mortal, but in the sense that they would be worthy to receive the sentence of death for their trespass. See Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, ed. Schwartz, E. (Berolini, 1924), I, V, p. 173.Google Scholar

9. Fragmenta in Genesin III, 17 ed. Migne, , Patrologia graeca LXVI, col. 640f.Google Scholar

10. Cf. Ibid., col. 1005.

11. On I Cor. XV. 45ff., in Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt und herausgegeben von Staab, K., in Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, XV (Münster, 1933), p. 195.Google Scholar

12. On Rom. XI, 15, ed. Staab, p. 156.

13. De creatura, ed. Migne, , Patrologia graeca, LXVI, col. 633f.Google Scholar

14. Theodori Mopsuesteni episcopi de secundo codice libro quarto, folio decimo, contra sanctum Augustinum defendentem originale peccatum et Adam per transgressionem mortalem factum catholice disserentem, in Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, ed. Schwartz, , I, V, p. 175.Google Scholar

15. “ … novissima vero in hanc dogmatis reccidit novitatem qua dicent quod ira atque furore deus Adam mortalem esse praeceperit et propter eius unum delictum cunctos et necdum natos homines morte multaverit. …”; “sed vir mirabilis propter unum peccatum Adae tanto furore commotum arbitratus est deum, ut et illum atrocissimae poenae subderet …,” Ibid., pp. 174f.

16. In ep. ad. Galatas II, 15–16, Theodori episcopi Mopsuesteni in epistolas B. Pauli commentarii, ed. Swete, H. B. (Cambridge, 1880), I, pp. 25f.Google Scholar

17. In Psalmum L, 7, Le commentaire de Théodore de Mopsueste sur les psaumes, ed. Devreesse, R., in Studi e Testi, XCIII (Città del Vaticano, 1939), p. 337.Google Scholar

18. “II y a une marque de péché sur leurs origines: conçus et formés dans le péché, s'ils ne naissent pas coupables, du moins sont-ils déjà victimes,” Essai sur Théodore de Mopsueste, p. 99.

19. Barhadešabbā, , La seconde partie de l'histoire ecclésiastique, ed. Nau, F., in Patrologia orientalis, IX (Paris, 1913), p. 512.Google Scholar

20. Photius, Bibliotheca cod. CLXX-VII ed.Migne, in Patrologia graeca CIII, col. 513.

21. Contra sanctum Augustinum defendentem originale peccatum, ed. Schwartz, p. 173. It is secondary for our purpose that the content of the excerpts show that the author characterizes his theological adversary in a way that is fitting for Hieronymus. Obviously, his information about the Pelagian controversy was not very clear.

22. Ibid., p. 174.

23. Ibid., p. 176.

24. Pauluskommentare, ed. Staab, , p. 127.Google Scholar

25. On Rom. V, 13–14, ed. Migne, col. 975.

26. On Rom. VII, 8, Ibid., col. 809.

27. Le commentaire sur les psaumes, ed. Devreesse, , p. 481.Google Scholar

28. In Genesin II, 8, ed. Migne, col. 637.

29. In Genesin, II,8–9, Ibid., col. 637.

30. On Rom. V, 18-19, ed. Staab, p. 120.

31. On Rom. V, 21, ed. Staab, pp. 120f.

32. “His errors are mainly due to an imperfect realization of the nature and extent of human sin. With Theodore sin is a weakness rather than a disease, a negative rather than a positive evil. … They Pauline doctrine of justification by faith resolves itself into the fact of the believer's daily struggle towards perfection …,” , Swete, Theodori ep. Mopsuesteni in ep. B. Pauli Commentarii, I p. LXXXVII.Google Scholar Such a criticism itself is in error since it does not understand Theodore's conception of sin nor the Pauline conception of faith. An understanding of sin that leads into daily struggle can hardly be called “an imperfect realization of the nature and extent of hunman sin.”

33. On Rom. XI, 15, ed. Staab, pp. 156f.

34. On Rom. IX, 4, ed. Migne, col. 836f.

35. Ibid., p. 126; cf. p. 127.

36. W. de Vries wastes energy on attempts to salvage the third katastasis in Theodore: “Theodor von Mopsuestia kennt aber auch zwischen diesen beiden Zuständen noch einen mittleren, von dem er freilich sehr seltener spricht als von den beiden einander diametral entgegengesetzten der Sterblichkeit und der Unsterblichkeit.” “Das eschatologische Heil bei Theodor von Mopsuestia,” in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, XXIV (1958), pp. 309ff.Google Scholar

37. In Jonam, ed Migne, col. 317f.; cf. on Rom. V, 13-14, ed. Staab, p. 119; on Rom. V, 16, Ibid., pp. 119f.

38. On Galat. II, 15-16, ed. Swete, I, p. 26.

39. In Jonam, ed. Migne, col. 317; cf. col. 634.

40. A. Vööbus, Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac in Corpus Christianorum Orientalium, Subsidia III (Louvain, 1951), pp. 80ff.Google Scholar

41. 'Arbayā, Barhadbešabbā, Cause de la fondation des écoles, ed. Scher, A., in Patrologia Orientalis, IV (Paris, 1908), pp. 382f.Google Scholar

42. Narsai doctoris Syri homiliae et carmina, ed. Mingana, A. (Mausilii, 1905), II, pp. 109f.; p. 204.Google Scholar

43. Vööbus, A., “Le vestige d'une lettre de Narsaï et son importance historique,” in L'Orient syrien, IX (Paris, 1964).Google Scholar

44. Homiliae et carmina, ed. Mingana, , II, p. 109,Google Scholar cf. p. 204.

45. Ibid., II, p. 109.

46. Synodicon orientale, ed. Chabot, J. B. (Paris, 1902), pp. 526ff.Google Scholar

47. Vööbus, A., The School of Nisibis: its history and contribution to the history of intellectual culture, in Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Subsidia (Louvain, 1964).Google Scholar chapter IX.

48. The Statutes of the School of Nisibis, ed. Vööbus, A. (Stockholm, 1962), pp. 22ff.Google Scholar

49. Traitésur le venredi d'or et les rogations, ed. Scher, A., in Patrologia orientalis, VII, 1 (Paris, 1909), pp. 53ff.Google Scholar

50. Taˇcītā de-Mār Gīwargī, ed Bedjan, P., in Histoire de Mar Jabalaha, de trois autres patriarches, d'un prêtre et de deux laïques nestoriens (Paris, 1895), pp. 477f., 503f.Google Scholar

51. See his rules for monastic life in Syriac and Arabic Documents, ed. Vööbus, A. (Stockholm, 1960), pp. 178ff.Google Scholar

52. Tašcītā de-Mār Gīwargī, ed. , Bedjan, pp. 503f.Google Scholar

53. Liber de unione, ed. vaschalde, A., in Corpus Scriptorum Christianorm Orientalium, Scr. Syri, II, 61 (Paris, 1915), pp. 142f.Google Scholar; Ponticus, Evagrius, ed. Frankenberg, W., in Abhandlungen der k. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, NF XIII, 2 (Berlin, 1921), pp. 266, 323.Google Scholar

54. Evagrius Ponticus, ed. Frankenberg, , p. 294.Google Scholar

55. Synodicon Orientale, ed. Chabot, , pp. 198f.Google Scholar