The doctrinal positions ascribed to Justinian in the Dialogue are largely consistent with those found in his other writings and can be derived from those writings with only a few exceptions. The portions ascribed to Justinian also have affinities with the writings of Leontius of Jerusalem, which would be consistent with Justinian’s other works. The similarities between Leontius of Jerusalem’s Against the Nestorians and the Dialogue with Paul of Nisibis may also result from Leontius of Jerusalem using the debate as a basis for portions of Against the Nestorians. This is suggested by the similarity between the Nestorian portions of the Dialogue with Paul of Nisibis and those of book two of Leontius of Jerusalem’s Against the Nestorians.
The dependence of Against the Nestorians
While the Orthodox portions of the Dialogue could be expected to have derived from Leontius of Jerusalem’s influence, the Nestorian portions in a debate could not. The dependence of Against the Nestorians on the debate underlying the Dialogue with Paul of Nisibis is further suggested by the topic following the shared material in both documents being the Orthodox charge that two hypostases in Christ would lead to two Sons. Acceptance of this relationship would require that the debate occurred in 532 rather than 561 as Against the Nestorians was written about 544.
The doctrinal positions ascribed to Paul of Nisibis are consistent with descriptions of his position and with the later position of the Persian Church. The positions of the opponents in the Dialogue reflect different conceptions of the word hypostasis/qnoma. These conceptions are consistent with the linguistic backgrounds of the two sides, Greek and Syriac.
A difficulty with accepting Justinian’s authorship of the Dialogue with Paul of Nisibis is its support for one personal activity in Christ. This would seem to contradict the support of two natural activities in Christ defended in the fragment of the Epistle to Zoilus. However, Justinian’s Chalcedonian contemporaries, Ephrem of Antioch and Leontius of Jerusalem differentiated between natural and personal properties and activities in order to preserve both the fullness of each nature and the unity of subject in Christ. Since Justinian’s works have affinities with both of these authors it seems likely that Justinian would also have supported both types of activities in Christ. The fragment is thus important as a source for understanding part of the neo-Chalcedonian background to the Monoenergist controversy of the seventh century.
Read More about Hypostasis is counted as an indivisible unity
