Malalas and the Debate over Chalcedon

189

There are other indications that the battle lines between opponents and advocates
of Chalcedon in the sixth century were not clearly divided. As an example I cite the
case of the Agnoetai, or those who, following the teaching of the Alexandrian deacon
Themistius (517-535), expressed the view that Christ had been in ignorance of various
facts, for example, the burial-place of Lazarus (Evangelium secundum lohannem 11,
34). Initially this ‘heresy’ was confined to Constantinople and Alexandria, although
later it spread throughout the empire, and Themistius’ views were taken up also by
Chalcedonians or at least mild Chalcedonians.30 In other words, the Agnoetic debate
seems to have been a genuine struggle for common ground between the opponents
and the proponents of the council of 451, and it may be that Malalas was not exempt
from this struggle.
Let us now turn to efforts designed not to harmonise religious differences regarding
Chalcedon. Among the opponents of the council the partnership between Philoxenus
of Mabbug and Severus, future patriarch of Antioch, is at the forefront of this effort,
which was to articulate the anti-Chalcedonian position in what has been described
as a turning-point in the history of incarnational theology.31 Yet, for all that, Severus
could be moderate and nuanced in his pastoral advice, as can be seen from his reply
to one of his frequent correspondents, Caesaria the patrician, who had asked what she
should do about attending liturgies with Chalcedonians:
But when I (...) consider the broadness of the God-inspired scripture, I find that
people who hold ministerial posts or high offices, and are obliged to accompany
and attend upon rulers, receive an indulgence, if, when they go in with them and
hear a lesson and prayers, they keep themselves perfect: I mean if they do not com-
municate in the communion from which they are divided.32
For his part too Severus was content to follow the example of earlier anti-Chalcedo-
nians like Timothy Aelurus, Peter the Iberian, and Philoxenus in believing that “those
who renounced Chalcedon should not be subjected to the humiliation of re-ordina-
tion or re-baptism, but should rather be required to make a written profession of faith
and to do penance”.33
On the other side of the fence we have strict Chalcedonians like Leontius of Byz-
antium and his expanded circle, treated in depth by Cardinal Grillmeier.341 would like
to adduce one example of this school of thought to illustrate how pervasive the debate
about Chalcedon was in the sixth century. My example is the monk Eustathius, oth-
erwise unknown to us, whom we can probably date to the mid-sixth century. He was
clearly an amateur theologian with a hatred of Severus of Antioch, but he had excel-
lent sources at his disposal, including the original Greek works of Severus which had
30 For the details see van Roey/Allen (1994), pp. 3-15.
31 See Moeller (1951), p. 670.
32 Severus Antiochenus, Epistulae selectarum tomus sextus IV10.
33 Allen/Hayward (2004), p. 21.
34 Grillmeier/Hainthaler (1995), pp. 181-270.