Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428) was heralded in his own day as “The Interpreter” for his skill in exegeting the Scriptures. However, a century after his death, he would be condemned as a heretic for his affiliation and assumed contribution to “Nestorian” Christology.
Although many of Theodore’s writings were destroyed following his condemnation, a few works remain. Theodore’s commentary on the Gospel of John, in particular, provides a succinct glimpse into his Christological leanings. My paper will argue that this commentary serves as an essential artifact for discerning whether Theodore was appropriately labeled a Nestorian.
My paper will examine Theodore’s John commentary in detail, sifting through the examples where his supposed Nestorianism may appear more overt and examples where there is greater subtlety to parse. In particular, I’ll demonstrate how Theodore’s frequent use of the phrase, “the assumed man” is not helpful to his case. Furthermore, my paper will explore the ways Theodore understands the concepts of “person” and “nature” as well as “union” and “conjunction” as they relate to the Nestorian heresy and clarifications provided later by Cyril of Alexandria.
In addition to this textual examination, my paper will consider the historical scandal surrounding the document. Like several of Theodore’s extant writings, scholars have reason to believe the John commentary saw tampering following his death. George Kalantzis’ observation is noteworthy in that the Greek and Syriac versions of the commentary vary widely with respect to Nestorian issues. The possibility that later editions took on a more Nestorian form suggests a similar possibility that Theodore’s original intention was not to propagate the false Christology. A similar concern has been raised by Robert Devreese and John McKenzie over other documents attributed to Theodore that were utilized for his condemnation proceedings.
As my paper will reason, while Theodore’s John commentary may present a clear case for his condemnation, the skepticism surrounding its authorship and later editing should give present scholars hesitation to cement the Antiochene as a heretic.