Literatura académica sobre el tema "Nestorius"

Abstract This paper has three parts. The first outlines the history of Nestorianism. From the end of the fifth century all the way into the thirteenth century (c.e.), quite a large population—in fact most Christians in Asia—belonged to branches of the Nestorian church. The second part provides a brief biography of Nestorius, after whom this church was named. The third part explores two elements of Nestorius’s christology, as they are found in his posthumously discovered theological writings. (1) Does Christ have one nature or two (both human and divine), and if two, how can one person have two natures? (2) To what extent was Adam, the first man, created for a role that Christ eventually fulfilled?

Was Cyril of Alexandria a theopaschite? In order to resolve this controversial issue, this paper will look at Cyril's Christology with Nestorius's eyes. The charge of theopatheia appears from the very beginning in Nestorius's correspondence with Cyril and retains its central place in Nestorius's work Liber Heraclidis. The paper discusses Nestorian arguments against Cyril's position and Cyril's counter-charges. The conclusion is reached that Nestorius asserted unqualified divine impassibility. Cyril, in contrast, held a qualified view of the divine impassibility and maintained that neither divinity suffered alone, apart from humanity (in which case the assumption of humanity would be superfluous), nor humanity suffered alone, apart from and in sharp contrast to the impassible divinity (in which case the reality of divine involvement in the incarnation would be put at risk).

Abstract: The doctrine of the personal personality of Jesus Christ is still controversial today. Jesus Christ is the central figure and has the highest authority in Christianity, Jesus Christ is trusted by Christians because He is the Savior of all mankind, the proof that He is the Savior is through the Incarnation of the divine nature taking Mary's human nature so that Jesus Christ has two natures in His person namely, divine and human, the nature of Jesus is distinguishable but inseparable. However, a Christian figure in the fifth century, Nestorius, gave the opinion that Jesus Christ had separate divine and human natures in two distinct persons. It was Nestorius's teaching that became a major debate and rejection by Church fathers such as Cyril of Alexandria and rejected Nestorius's teaching in the Church. The author uses the method of text analysis or exegesis from Hebrews 4:12-14 which includes syntactic and semantic analysis, the semantic content will be analyzed by interacting with other texts such as the Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers. :12-14 to make comparisons with the teachings of Nestorius. Based on the results of the research in Hebrews 4:12-14 and the opinion of the church fathers, it shows that Nestorius' teaching is heresy and should not be accepted in the Church. Jesus Christ is fully God and human because in Him there are two natures or natures, namely divine and human and these two natures cannot be separated in two different persons, if the person of Jesus can be separated then He cannot die, rise and save all mankind and it is useless to believe in Him.Abstrak: Doktrin tentang personalitas pribadi Yesus Kristus masih menjadi kontroversi sampai zaman sekarang. Yesus Kristus adalah tokoh sentral dan memiliki otoritas tertinggi dalam Kekristenan, Yesus Kristus dipercaya oleh umat Kristiani karena Dia adalah Juruselamat bagi seluruh manusia, bukti bahwa Ia adalah Juruselamat yaitu melalui Inkarnasi natur keilahian menggambil natur kemanusiaan Maria sehingga Yesus Kristus memiliki dua natur dalam pribadi-Nya yaitu ilahi dan manusiawi, natur Yesus dapat dibedakan tetapi tidak bisa dipisahkan. Namun tokoh Kekristenan pada abad ke-lima yaitu Nestorius memberikan pendapat bahwa Yesus Kristus memiliki natur ilahi dan manusiawi yang terpisah dalam dua pribadi yang berbeda. Pengajaran Nestorius inilah yang menjadi perdebatan besar dan penolakan yang dilakukan oleh para bapa Gereja seperti Cyril dari Alexandria dan menolak pengajaran Nestorius dalam Gereja. Penulis menggunakan Metode analisis teks atau eksegesis dari surat Ibrani 4:12-14 yang mencangkup analisis sintaksis dan semantis, isi semantis akan dianalisis dengan berinteraksi pada teks-teks lain seperti Alkitab dan tulisan para Bapa Gereja, Selanjutnya Penulis juga mengambil hasil teks eksegesis Ibrani 4:12-14 untuk menjadikan bahan perbandingan dengan ajaran Nestorius. Berdasarkan Hasil penelitian Ibrani 4:12-14 dan pendapat para bapa Gereja menunjukan bahwa pengajaran Nestorius adalah bidah dan tidak sepantasnya diterima dalam Gereja. Yesus Kristus sepenuhnya Allah dan manusia karena dalam diri-Nya terdapat kedua natur atau kodrat yaitu ilahi dan manusiawi dan kedua natur ini tidak dapat dipisahkan dalam dua pribadi yang berbeda, jika pribadi Yesus dapat dipisahkan maka Dia tidak dapat mati bangkit dan menyelamatkan seluruh umat manusia dan sia-sialah beriman kepada-Nya.

This article analyses the context of the Syriac translation of a refutation of Nestorian excerpts attributed to Theodotus of Ancyra and preserved (with lacunae) in Ms. British Library Add. 17,148, and compares the work with the transmission and translation of the texts attributed to him. The article examines the reception of Cyrillian dialogues as a form of anti-Nestorian invective in Greek, Syriac and Arabic literary communities, and discusses the possibly concomitant composition of soghyatha such as that ‘of Cyril and Nestorius’ in Syriac intellectual cultures.

Scholars have long suspected that the Byzantine cult of the Virgin Mary owed its early success to the efforts of the early Byzantine empresses. Among them, it is Aelia Pulcheria, Augusta from 414 to 453 and herself a professed virgin until her politically-charged marriage in 451, who is best known for having asserted Mary’s right to be known as Theotokos - the one who gave birth to God. Many sources suggest that the Nestorian controversy debated at the Council of Ephesus in 431 arose from an altercation between Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople from 428 to 431, and Pulcheria. On this view, the debate over Christ’s human and divine natures turned on whether Mary had given birth to God the Son, or only to Jesus the man. It was with this in mind that in 1982 Kenneth Holum suggested that by refusing to support the cult of the Virgin as Theotokos, Nestorius had in effect challenged the imperial family’s religious authority in early fifth-century Constantinople.

Nestorius and his relationship with his eponymous heresy, Nestorianism, has been a controversial topic in religious studies and in Christian theology. Largely thought to have been condemned for professing Nestorianism, the discovery of the Bazaar of Heracleides of Damascus (written by him in exile) led to a wide-reaching reassessment of this very relationship. Despite Nestorius’ protestations in defence of his own perceived orthodoxy, his rejection of the stronger term henosis for the weaker synapheia to describe the union of the natures of Christ and criticism of the use of the term “hypostatic union” both demonstrate that, implicitly, he did profess a two-person Christology. The authenticity of the Bazaar’s authorship and other historiographical issues came to the fore soon after its discovery. The dating of certain key events and the silence of Nestorius in other parts have led to a consensus of sorts amongst scholars in accepting the Bazaar, in large part, as being the work of Nestorius whilst still admitting of later additions and emendations. This article examines the relationship between Nestorius and Nestorianism, explains key theological terminology used in the Christological debates of the First Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon, situates Ephesus I and Chalcedon in their proper context and their relationship to Nestorius, provides an overview of the key arguments for and against the acceptance of the authorship of the Bazaar, and includes a concise summary of the most compelling arguments in favour of the acceptance of the Bazaar’s authorship.

This paper will outline the controversy of Nestorius versus Cyril concerning the enumeration of persons in the Incarnate Christ. Key terms of the debate will be identified with the aim of establishing their meaning according to Nestorius. It will then be argued that Nestorius of the Bazaar remained committed to the basic tenets of orthodox Christianity as his commitment to true and complete natures (fully God, fully man), a single unified subject (a single Person in Christ), and a mutual use of attributes formed the basis of his Christology, even if their theological reconciliation came short of a complete and perfect synthesis.

Сформулированное выходцем из Антиохийской богословской школы, архиепископом Константинополя Несторием радикальное диофизитство не только вызвало активные споры внутри средиземноморского христианского мира, но и стало отправной точкой для стремительного продвижения евангельских идей в Азию вплоть до Дальнего Востока. Несмотря на то, что«теологумен» Нестория достаточно быстро вышел из богословской практики, мы знаем в западной историографии «сирийских христиан» Шёлкового пути как «несториан». При этом на территории КНР прежде всего через эпиграфические и археологические источники открывается масса новой информации о бытовании на территории Поднебесной «светлого учения» (известного экзонима,происходящего от имени Нестория, в Китае не знали, потому именовали новую религию «景教», гдепервый иероглиф означает «солнечный свет», «сияние», «блеск», а второй — «учение», «религия»). В настоящей работе автор, опираясь на открытые в последние десятилетия материалы, попытается отчасти реконструировать бытование христианства среди согдийцев, бывших одной из наиболее активных торговых наций на Великом Шёлковом пути. Одной из интересных категорий инвентаря, который мы видим нередко в погребениях согдийцев, являются ромейские монеты (а чаще — имитации таковых разной степени качества). Зачастую подобные «солиды» несут на себе и христианскую символику (впрочем, их общая семантика и функции дискуссионны). Но при этом, например, несторианское вероисповедание семьи Ми Цзифэня доказывают, что несторианская стела, установленная в Чанане отнюдь не одинокий и случайный артефакт. Хотя количество«последователей сияющего учения» в самой империи Тан и вассальных Китаю западных уделах точно оценить невозможно, совершенно точно, что немало христиан оттуда воздействовали на религиозную жизнь Поднебесной. Formulated by a native of the Antioch Theological School, Archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius radical diophysitism not only caused active controversy within the Mediterranean Christendom but also became the starting point for the rapid advancement of evangelical ideas into Asia up to the Far East. Despite the fact that the “theologoumenon” of Nestorius quickly emerged from theological practice, we know “Syrian Christians” of the Silk Road as “Nestorians” in Western historiography. On the territory of the PRC (People's Republic of China), primarily through epigraphic and archaeological sources, at the same time it is revealed a lot of new information about the existence of a “bright doctrine” on the territory of the Celestial Empire (a famous exonym derived from the name of Nestorius who was not known in China, therefore theycalled the new religion “景教”, where the first hieroglyph means “sunlight”, “radiance”, and “brilliance”,and the second — “teaching”, “religion”). In this work, based on materials discovered in recent decades, the author will try to partially reconstruct the existence of Christianity among the Sogdians, who were one of the most active trading nations on the Great Silk Road. One of the interesting categories of equipment that we often see in the burials of Sogdians is Romean coins (and more often it is imitations of such of varying degrees of quality). Often such “solids” carry Christian symbols (though their general semantics and functions are debatable). But at the same time, for example, the Nestorian religion of the Mi Jifen family proves that the Nestorian stele installed in Changan is by no means a lonely and random artifact. Although the number of “followers of shining teachings” in the Tang Empire itself and Western destinies vassal to China cannot be accurately estimated, it is quite certain that many Christians from there influenced the religious life of the Celestial Empire.

Starting with the fact that John of Antioch and Nestorius were friends, this article asks whether they were also theological allies, as is commonly assumed. Based on an examination of a letter written by John to Nestorius in November of ad 430, as well as other pertinent letters and documents, the author concludes that the two were not on the same side theologically, but that John was unaware of how fundamentally they disagreed. The relationship between John and Nestorius is then used to help interpret the proceedings at Ephesus in ad 431, the action of John and of Cyril of Alexandria in the Reunion of 433 and the Christological controversy as a whole.

Submitted by Daniel de Figueiredo null (dd66fig@gmail.com) on 2018-03-24T10:55:18Z No. of bitstreams: 1 TESE_DANIEL_DE_FIGUEIREDO.pdf: 17866175 bytes, checksum: 6674e2b4c6e440c8bfb103848fcc4347 (MD5)
Approved for entry into archive by Jacqueline de Almeida null (jacquie@franca.unesp.br) on 2018-03-26T13:36:43Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Figueiredo_D_te_fran.pdf: 17866175 bytes, checksum: 6674e2b4c6e440c8bfb103848fcc4347 (MD5)
Made available in DSpace on 2018-03-26T13:36:43Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Figueiredo_D_te_fran.pdf: 17866175 bytes, checksum: 6674e2b4c6e440c8bfb103848fcc4347 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-03-16
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Cette recherche a pour but d’analyser le rôle politique, religieux et administratif de l’empereur Théodose II (401-450 ap. J.-C.) dans la gestion de la Controverse nestorienne, conflit qui est apparu dans la hiérarchie ecclésiastique de l’Empire romain d’Orient pendant la seconde moitié de son gouvernement (428-450 ap. J.-C.). Dans le domaine théologique, cette controverse était liée aux divergences entretenues par les évêques Cyrille d’Alexandrie et Nestorius de Constantinople à propos de la compréhension de l’interaction entre les natures humaine et divine dans le Christ incarné. Conformément à leurs respectifs imaginaires politiques et religieux, Cyrille, originaire de la région d’Egypte, défendait une union (ἕνωσις) entre ces natures, alors que Nestorius, originaire d’Antioche, dans la province de Syrie I, défendait une conjonction (συνάφεια) entre elles. Telles divergences ont abouti à une polarisation de la société romaine orientale autour de ces idées, parce qu’il y avait un étroit entrelacement des questions religieuses et politiques dans l’Antiquité tardive. L’étendue du conflit peut être vérifiée par la participation de différents segments de fonctionnaires de l’administration impériale qui s’alignaient aux factions formées, puisque les conflits de cette nature dans ce contexte étaient aussi liés à des constructions idéologiques qui ont contribué pour soutenir et donner de l’unité au pouvoir impérial. Cette adhésion des fonctionnaires nous indique que Théodose II n’a pas arbitré seulement un conflit théologique entre les membres de la hiérarchie ecclésiastique, mais que son intervention a nécessité qu’il négocie sa propre position dans la topographie du pouvoir avec des segments des aristocraties qui ont formé ces cadres de personnel. À partir de là, nous caractérisons le conflit non seulement comme théologique, mais aussi comme politique et administratif. Cette perception a été possible à travers notre catalogage des lettres impériales et épiscopales consultées, ce qui nous a permis de visualiser la formation de réseaux de sociabilité entretenues entre les évêques et les fonctionnaires impériaux. Les informations recueillies dans ces documents, en particulier en ce qui concerne les données prosopographiques des auteurs ou des personnes mentionnées dans les lettres, ont été comparées aux oeuvres Livre d’Heraclide, de Nestorius, et Contre Nestorius, de Cyrille, afin de renforcer la perception de la synergie entre les évêques et les fonctionnaires pour la défense de leurs intérêts politico-religieux communs. Ainsi, nous avons travaillé sur l’hypothèse que Théodose II et les auxiliaires qui ont contribué à l’élaboration de ses stratégies d’action n’ont pas négocié seulement l’unité doctrinale autour d’une orthodoxie religieuse avec les membres de la hiérarchie ecclésiastique. Telles négociations visaient également à maintenir l’unité impériale autour de la diversité des éléments culturels, politiques, administratifs et territoriaux avec d’autres groupes détenteurs du pouvoir, c’est-à-dire, les fonctionnaires impériaux qui contribuaient à légitimer la position centrale de Théodose II en tant que gouverneur. Le jeu de concessions établi par l’empereur à travers l’alternance de soutien entre les factions cyrillienne et nestorienne, qui peut être perçu à l’occasion du Concile d’Éphèse I (431), de la Formule de Réunion (433), au Synode de Constantinople (448) et du Concile d’Éphèse II (449), ne nous indique pas l’incapacité politique de Théodose de conduire le conflit, comme l’historiographie a fréquemment signalé à ce sujet. Dans notre perspective analytique, les mouvements impériaux comprenaient des négociations stratégiques visant à accommoder les intérêts et à contrebalancer des pouvoirs avec les aristocraties de fonctionnaires issus de différentes régions de l’Empire qui s’associaient aux évêques dans le conflit théologique.
Essa pesquisa tem por objetivo analisar a atuação político-religiosa e administrativa do imperador Teodósio II (401-450 d.C.) no gerenciamento da Controvérsia Nestoriana, conflito que emergiu na hierarquia eclesiástica do Império Romano do Oriente, durante a segunda metade do seu governo, de 428 a 450 d.C. Na esfera teológica, tal controvérsia esteve relacionada às divergências mantidas pelos bispos Cirilo de Alexandria e Nestório de Constantinopla no que se refere ao entendimento da interação entre as naturezas humana e divina no Cristo encarnado. Consoantes aos respectivos imaginários político-religiosos em que se inseriam, Cirilo, originário da região do Egito, advogava uma união (ἕνωσις) entre aquelas naturezas, ao passo que Nestório, oriundo de Antioquia, na província da Síria I, defendia apenas uma conjunção (συνάφεια) entre elas. Tais divergências resultaram em uma polarização da sociedade romana oriental em torno daquelas ideias, tendo em vista o estreito entrelaçamento que as questões religiosas e políticas eram percebidas na Antiguidade Tardia. A amplitude do conflito pode ser verificada pela participação de diferentes segmentos de funcionários da administração imperial que se alinharam às facções formadas, pois os conflitos dessa natureza, naquele contexto, estavam, também, relacionados a construções ideológicas que contribuíam para dar sustentação e unidade ao poder imperial. Essa adesão dos funcionários nos indica que Teodósio II não arbitrou apenas um conflito teológico entre membros da hierarquia eclesiástica, mas que sua intervenção necessitou que ele negociasse a sua própria posição na topografia do poder com segmentos das aristocracias que formavam esses quadros de funcionários. A partir daí, caracterizamos o conflito não somente como teológico, mas, também, como político-administrativo. Essa percepção foi possível por meio da catalogação e mapeamento das cartas imperiais e episcopais consultadas, que nos permitiram visualizar a formação das redes de sociabilidade mantidas entre bispos e funcionários imperiais. As informações colhidas nesses documentos, sobretudo no que se refere aos dados prosopográficos dos missivistas, ou daqueles indivíduos citados nas cartas, foram cotejadas com as obras Livro de Heraclides, de Nestório, e Contra Nestório, de Cirilo, no sentido de reforçar a percepção de sinergia entre bispos e funcionários na defesa dos seus interesses político-religiosos comuns. Assim, trabalhamos a hipótese de que Teodósio II, e aqueles auxiliares que contribuíam na elaboração das suas estratégias de atuação, não estavam negociando somente a unidade doutrinal em torno de uma ortodoxia religiosa com membros da hierarquia eclesiástica. Tais negociações também visavam a manutenção da unidade imperial em torno da diversidade de elementos culturais, políticos, administrativos e territoriais, com outros grupos detentores de poder, ou seja, os funcionários imperiais que contribuíam para legitimar a posição de centralidade de Teodósio II como governante. O jogo de concessões estabelecido pelo imperador por meio da alternância de apoio entre as facções ciriliana e nestoriana, que pode ser percebido por ocasião do Concílio de Éfeso I (431), da Fórmula da Reunião (433), do Sínodo de Constantinopla (448) e do Concílio de Éfeso II (449), não nos indica uma inabilidade política de Teodósio II em conduzir o conflito, conforme frequentemente registrou a historiografia sobre o assunto. Em nossa perspectiva de análise, tais movimentos abarcavam negociações estratégicas que visavam acomodar interesses e contrabalancear poderes com as aristocracias de funcionários oriundas de diferentes regiões do Império e que se associavam aos bispos na disputa teológica.
This research aims to analyze the political-religious and administrative performance of the emperor Theodosius II (401–450 A. D.) related to the management of the Nestorian Controversy, conflict that emerged in the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Eastern Roman Empire during the second half of his rule, from 428 to 450 A. D. In the theological sphere, this controversy was related to the disagreements maintained by the bishops Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople regarding the understanding of the interaction between the human and the divine nature of Christ incarnate. Consistent with the respective political-religious imaginary to which each one belonged, Cyril, a native of that region in Egypt, advocated a union (ἕνωσις) between those two natures, whereas Nestorius, a native of Antioch, in the province of Syria I, defended only a conjunction (συνάφεια) between them. Such divergent opinions resulted in a polarization of the Eastern Roman society regarding those ideas, considering that religious and political aspects used to be perceived as being narrowly interlaced in Late Antiquity. The extent of the conflict can be verified by the participation of officials from various segments of the imperial administration who aligned with the formed factions, as such conflicts, in that context, were also related to ideological constructions that contributed to provide support and unity to the imperial power. The adherence of the officials indicates that Theodosius II not only did manage a theological conflict between members of the ecclesiastic hierarchy but also that his intervening in the conflict demanded him to negotiate his own position on the topography of power with segments of the aristocracy that composed these groups of officials. Therefore, we characterize the conflict not only as a theological one, but also as a political-administrative one. This perception was made possible through the cataloging and mapping of the imperial and episcopal letters analyzed, which allowed us to visualize the formation of the sociability networks kept between imperial officials and bishops. Data extracted from those documents, particularly those referring to the prosopographical data of the letters’ authors, or from those individuals mentioned in the letters, were analyzed in contrast with Nestorius’s work entitled Book of Heraclides, and Cyril’s work entitled Against Nestorius, in order to reinforce the perception of synergy between the bishops and officials in the defense of their common political-religious interests. Thus, we study the hypothesis that Theodosius II and those who assisted him in elaborating his strategies of action, were not only negotiating the doctrinal unity around a religious orthodoxy with members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Such negotiations also aimed at keeping the imperial unity regarding cultural, political, administrative, and territorial elements, with other groups that had the power, i.e. imperial officials that used to contribute to legitimate the position of centrality of Theodosius II as a ruler. The concessions game established by the emperor by alternating support between cyrillian and nestorian groups, which can be observed during the Council of Ephesus I (431), the Formula of the Reunion (433), the Synod of Constantinople (448), and the Council of Ephesus II (449) do not indicate a political inability of Theodosius II to conduct the conflict, as frequently recorded in the historiography on the subject. From our standpoint, such moves included strategic negotiations that aimed at accommodating interests and balancing powers with the aristocracies of officials from various regions of the empire and that joined the bishops in the theological dispute.
13/24320-4

Dans cette thèse, nous étudions la question du traducteur du corpus de Jean Damascène en arabe. Deux noms sont proposés : Antoine, higoumène du Monastère Saint-Siméon-le-jeune (10e siècle) et ‘Abdallah ibn al-Faḍl (11e siècle). La découverte d’un traité supplémentaire, le Contre les Nestoriens 1, ignoré de nos prédécesseurs s’est avérée être la clef pour résoudre cette question. C’est pourquoi nous nous sommes résolus de faire une édition critique de ce traité et du deuxième traité Contre les Nestoriens 2, tous deux traduits par le même traducteur et portant sur le même sujet. Dans l’introduction qui précède l’édition, nous consacrons une première partie au contexte historique de cette traduction, c’est-à-dire aux circonstances du passage d’Antioche du grec à l’arabe. Dans la deuxième partie, nous faisons un état de la recherche sur la traduction de Jean Damascène en arabe. Puis, nous fournirons une nouvelle description des manuscrits qui contiennent au moins un des deux traités Contre les Nestoriens et soulignerons leur apport à la solution de la question posée. Après avoir identifié le traducteur et les œuvres qu’il a traduites, nous essayerons de recueillir quelques informations biographiques sur notre traducteur à partir des colophons. Nous étudierons également la postérité du texte avant de laisser place à l’édition critique. L’ensemble est complété par plusieurs index
In this thesis, I would like to study the question about the translator of John Damascene’s corpus Greek into Arabic. Two names were suggested by scholars: Antony, Abbot of the Monastery Saint-Symon-the-Young (10th century) and ‘Abdallah ibn al-Faḍl (11th century). The discovery of a second Against the Nestorians was the key to solve this question. For this reason, I decided to make a critical edition of the two Against the Nestorians because the translator and the subject are the same, willing to publish the whole translation in the future. In the introduction that precedes the edition, I talked about the historical context and the events that leaded to the translation activity in Antioch (10th /11th century). In the second chapter, I resumed scholars’ conclusions on the Arabic translation of John Damascene’s works. Then, I gave a new description of the manuscripts that have at least one of the two Against the Nestorians and explain how that helped me identifying the translator. After identifying the translator and the works he translated, I collected some new bibliographical information about him from the colophons. I also studied the posterity of the translation. In the third chapter, I tried to find a Greek manuscript similar in content to the Arabic translation. I presented also the way the translator translates from Greek into Arabic. Then, I divided the different manuscripts into groups and draw the stemma. Those introductory elements are followed by the edition, and the whole work is completed by some index containing mostly references to theological and philosophical vocabulary in the edition

Dès sa fondation en 762 par le calife al-Mansûr, Bagdad devint une capitale administrative cosmopolite peuplée de fonctionnaires et de savants chrétiens parmi lesquels les Nestoriens jouèrent un rôle de premier plan. Le secrétaire ou kâtib était un fonctionnaire, un conseiller privé, un calligraphe, un modèle culturel et un fidèle serviteur occupant des postes de confiance dans les services administratifs des califes. C'est à ce titre que les secrétaires nestoriens étaient appréciés car ils présentaient des valeurs morales et des compétences scientifiques les rendant indispensables. Avant de pouvoir évaluer le rôle des secrétaires nestoriens dans la société abbasside, il était incontournable de dépasser dans un premier temps, le cadre d'une étude socio-culturelle pour toucher aux techniques de l'écriture et de l'administration. Leur condition de dhimmis dans la société soulève de nombreux paradoxes que nous avons pu éclairer, dans un second temps, à la lecture des sources littéraires arabes produites par les auteurs musulmans et chrétiens. Les secrétaires nestoriens occupèrent des positions sociales très élevées et leur rôle politique, religieux et culturel fut déterminant non seulement auprès de leur communauté mais aussi auprès des personnages hauts placés dans la hiérarchie sociale de l'Empire jusqu'à la prise de Bagdad en 1258 par les Mongols. Auxiliaires du pouvoir musulman et intermédiaires privilégiés de la communauté nestorienne, le rôle des secrétaires nestoriens s'inscrit dans le cadre de relations islamo-chrétiennes à l'âge classique de l'Islam
Since its foundation in 762 by the caliph al-Mansûr, Baghdad became a cosmopolitan capital where functionaries and Christian scholars played a major role. The secretary, or kâtib was a functionary, a private advisor, a calligrapher, a cultural model and a faithful servant occupying positions of trust in the caliphate's administration. Therefore, Nestorian secretaries showed moral values and scientific skills that made them indispensable. First, before evaluating the role of the Nestorian secretaries in the Abbasid society, it was necessary to go beyond the sociological and cultural context, and explain the methods and techniques of the scribes and the administration. Secondly, their condition as dhimmis in the society created various paradoxes that we were able to clarify on the basis of Arabic references written by both Muslims and Christians scholars. The Nestorian secretaries occupied very high positions; the political, religious and cultural role they played was determinant, not only for their communities but also in regard to the ranked persons in the Empire and that, until the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols in 1258. Auxiliaries of the Islamic power and special intermediaries of the Nestorian community, their role fits in the islamic-christians relations during the classical age in Islam

Longitudinal webs or spider bars are often placed mid-span of a motor shaft and are primarily used to support the windings or rotor laminations while allowing sufficient space for cooling air flow. When subject to a torque, the radial webs experience a loading configuration that includes bending and torsion while the base shaft experiences pure torsion. A webbed cross-section has a higher torsional stiffness as compared to the torsional stiffness of just the circular portion of the shaft section. This influences the torsional critical speeds and can become important for torsional systems that operate with minimal separation margins from resonance frequencies. This work presents various approaches to calculate the stiffening effect. The approaches include empirical and analytical methods described by Nestorides and API 684. An additional method uses a solid model of the motor core and a commercial Finite Element Analysis (FEA) solver to predict steady-state deflection under a torsional load. This in turn allows for a torsional stiffness calculation. Motor core configurations with various shaft diameters, number of spider bars, and spider bar geometries are considered. Good agreement is shown between the FEA results and the Griffith and Taylor method described by Nestorides. The other methods considered, including the calculation method described in API 684, show generally poor agreement with the FEA torsional stiffness results for the webbed shaft geometries studied.