The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY: BOOK I 9
torn apart by the murderers of God 16 ^ Nestorius thrust aside and
rejected the term ‘Mother of God’, which had already been forged by
the all-Holy Spirit through many elect Fathers; 17 he counterfeited,
forged in its place and stamped afresh the term ‘Mother of Christ’, 18
and in turn ¢lled the church with countless wars, £ooding it with
kindred bloodshed. Because of this, I think that I shall not be at a loss
for a sensible arrangement of the narrative, and that I will reach its
conclusion, if indeed, with the assistance of Christ who is God over all,
it should take its preface from the impious blasphemy of Nestorius. The
war of the Churches began as follows. 19
A certain Anastasius was a priest of unorthodox judgement, an
ardent admirer of Nestorius and the Judaizing beliefs of Nestorius,
who had also been the latter’s companion when he set out for his
16 The charge of rending Christ’s seamless garment as an image for heresies and schisms
is common: applied to Nestorius, Zachariah iii.1, p. 41, and cf. Theodoret, EH i.4.5, p. 10:1;
to Arians, Athanasius, Life of Severus p. 631; to a possible schism, Schwartz, Sammlungen
64:11^14 (letter of Pope Felix to the Emperor Zeno); to Monophysites, Life of Golinduch
18, p. 166:12^15.
17 Use of the term Theotokos (‘Mother of God’) can be traced back to the fourth century
(Gregory,Vox 98, with 122 n. 86; Starowieyski, ‘Titre’), and had become an issue for discussion
by the early ¢fth (Holum, Empresses 138^9; McGuckin, Cyril 22 and index s.v.); this
was a time of increasing attention to the status of the Virgin Mary as a patron and ideal for
monastic communities, and in particular for the Augusta Pulcheria who had vowed herself
to virginity.
18 For Nestorius’ justi¢cation of the term, see i.7 with n. 55 below; also n. 23. Nestorius
did not regard the term Theotokos as heretical, but wanted to avoid the contentions that it
raised (Bazaar 99). Socrates, accepting that Nestorius did not deny the divinity of Christ,
said that he appeared to be scared of the term Theotokos as if it were some terrible phantom
(vii.32); this hints at what, apparently, was a concern of Nestorius, namely that use of the
term Theotokos might lead people to treat the Virgin as a goddess. For detailed discussion
of his Christology, see McGuckin, Cyril ch. 2.
19 Evagrius is unable to avoid some overlap with Socrates, whose narrative extended to
439 and mentioned Nestorius in its later chapters. On the basis of his own reading of
Nestorius’ writings, Socrates stated that he was not guilty of the popular charges of heresy
levelled against him and in particular did not share the view of Paul of Samosata that Christ
was a mere man; on the other hand, Socrates did convict Nestorius of an ignorant folly
which occasioned considerable discord in the churches (vii.32). From the much longer perspective
of Evagrius, the heresy of Nestorius was an accepted fact, and its establishment a
necessary preliminary to the crucial record of the Council of Chalcedon, so he had to cover
the same events as Socrates. For clear discussion of the complex developments between
Nestorius’ appointment (April 428) and the Council of Ephesus (431), see McGuckin,
Cyril 20^53.