This monograph, coming out of a doctoral dissertation written at Marquette University, comments upon to the vexata quaestio of Theodoret of Cyrrhus' theological views: Was his Christology Nestorian or was it in accord with what was to become the orthodoxy, sanctioned by the Council of Chalcedon (451)? And can a significant degree of theological development be observed over the course of Theodoret's intellectual career? Vranic's answer is clear, as his intention is to defend Theodoret from accusations of Nestorianism such as those made against him by the Second Council of Constantinople (553). Theodoret's Christology, the author argues, was always orthodox, and the clashes with the miaphysites, far from altering his postures, only brought about a new, richer vocabulary (for example, he eventually came to accept the union between divinity and humanity as one of hypostasis). Chapter i (‘Introduction’) lays out the objectives of the book and offers a thorough status quaestionis. In spite of its chronologically more narrow title (‘Theodoret and the Nestorian controversy [before ad 431]’), chapter ii provides a useful historical summary of the fifth-century Christological disputes all the way to the Council of Chalcedon, integrating the so-called Nestorian and miaphysite controversies into one continuous narrative and reconstructing, especially in its last sections, Theodoret's involvement in the conflict. The main novelty of the book lies in its utilisation, as a likely testimony to Theodoret's early views, of the Exposition of the right faith, whose Theodoretian authorship was restored by Lebon. Thus, chapter iii (‘Expositio rectae fidei’) introduces this work and expounds its Trinitarian and Christological views. In a series of instructive subsections the work's theological vocabulary is analysed, its indebtedness to the Cappadocian tradition is shown and theological and lexical differences between Theodoret's and Theodore of Mopsuestia's Christological models are pointed out. Vranic emphasises the consonance between Chalcedon's doctrine and Theodoret's idiosyncratically argued notion that the Logos was the sole subject of the incarnation (at the moment of the indwelling into Christ's foetus the latter's humanity was still to undergo a process of growth, and as such lacked the rational human soul, with which he would be endowed only later). Chapter iv (‘Theodoret's Christology at the dawn of the Nestorian Controversy: Refutation of the twelve anathemas of Cyril of Alexandria’) provides an analysis of this work as a second example of Theodoret's Christology prior to his discussions with Cyril. The author focuses here on Theodoret's affirmations of the immutability, unmixedness and impassibility of the theandric compound. It is around these same three concepts that Theodoret explicitly structured his late dialogue Eranistēs, summarised in chapter v. Finally, chapter vi is dedicated to the demonstration of the identity between the views expressed in Eranistēs and those propounded in the early Exposition. As a whole, Vranic's work stands as an important contribution to the study not only of Theodoret's thought, but of the Antiochene theological tradition in general.