3. Nau conjectures: [ dans sa carriere ] apostolique.
4. Nau conjectures: dans les travaux de l'esprit ; see crit. n., p. 398.
5. See crit. n., p. 398.
6. Literally: 'by the precedence of the parsopha (= πρόσωπον ) '.
7. Syr. parsopha '.
8. There is a lacuna here in the text.
9. Isa. v. 20 (P) .
10. Added by Bedjan.
11. Several lines are here missing.
12. There is a lacuna here in the text.
13. See crit. n., p. 398.
14. Syr. ' Dissertation I'.
15. Literally: 'expect to accept'.
16. Viz. the followers of Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch in a. d. 260, condemned at the Council of Antioch, a. d. 268 (or 269). Among them, the semi-Arian Photinus was condemned in 351.
17. This passage illustrates Nestorius' use of the phrase 'natural union', and explains his refusal to use that phrase to describe the relation of the two natures in Christ. A natural union comes into being where elements are combined into a whole by some external force. (This is the meaning of 'in virtue of a command'.) But the incarnation of the Word was not imposed on him from without; it was due to his own free choice, and his godhead remained a free co-operator throughout. See below, pp. 36-43, 84-86, 161, 179, 300-1, 303-4, 314.
18. Nestorius' argument seems to be as follows: to speak of the Incarnation as a 'natural union' implies that union with the manhood was imposed on Christ's godhead from without, so that the godhead was imprisoned in the manhood like a criminal in gaol. This involves two impossible positions, (1) the denial of the freedom of Christ's godhead (hence the language about 'punishment'), and (a) the ascription of passibility to his godhead.
19. Marginal Gloss. There was not an answer to the seventh question in the original, nor was there even a place for it.
20. Sophronius. In the text Sofronyos; in the margin Sofrinos. Sophronius was a common name in the time of Nestorius; but he seems here to be simply a rhetorical figure devised by Nestorius to enable him to cast his argument in the form of a dialogue. He is used indifferently to represent any heresy. Nan ( in loc .) suggests a Nestorian Bishop of Telia and a Nestorian layman of that name as possible references. Cp. Bedjan, op. cit., pp. ix, x. Cp. p. 378.
21. See crit. n., p. 398,
22. This passage is translated in Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and his Teaching, p. 45, and referred to on p. 78 of that work.
23. The importance of this point is discussed by Loofs in Nestorius and his place in the History of Christian Doctrine, pp. 126 sqq. ; see also below , pp. 22-26.
24. The non-possession of body or flesh (the two words seem to be interchangeable) is for Nestorius a distinctive characteristic of godhead, while the possession of body or flesh is essential to manhood. This antithesis was, of course, common to him and to his opponents, but he seems to have developed his doctrine by the strictly logical working out of such principles. They seem to be the leaven which leavens the whole lump of his thought. Cp. pp. 22, n. 2, 48.
25. i. e. running water and water frozen.
26. This must surely mean: 'is a change from one schema to another schema while the hypostasis remains unchanged.' The word schema seems to mean the form or appearance of a thing at any given moment, e.g. water has one schema when running and another when frozen. But prosôpon, whatever it is, must be a permanent element in the being of a thing, without which, or if it were other than it is, the thing would not be what it is. Might it be that the prosôpon is the unity of the successive schemata of a thing?
27. I.e. an ousia of dust and ashes.