Since I’m going to be reading a lot about Cyril of Alexandria in the coming years, that probably means that a lot of my posts will be of related content. I hope you don’t mind! For many people Cyril is one of the lesser-known fathers, so I thought it might be helpful to give a brief introduction to his life and his work.
Cyril stood as the heir of a rich exegetical and theological tradition in northern Africa stretching back as much as two centuries. Born in Egypt, little is known about his family background or his childhood.[1] His mother and his uncle Theophilus had come to Alexandria when they were orphaned, and in that city they came under the influence and care of Athanasius. In 385 when the office of archbishop became open, Theophilus, who had been rising through the ranks of church offices, assumed the role. At the time Cyril was about seven years old, and his uncle took him with him to the city of Alexandria from the small town where he was living with his mother. In Alexandria he would have received a first class education, possibly being trained in exegesis from Didymus the Blind, an Origenian biblical exegete who held an official church office in the city at that time.[2] As a student in Alexandria, Cyril would have learned reading, writing, and arithmetic in primary school and then gone on to a grammatikos under whom he would have read much of classical literature.[3] The next step of his education consisted of studying with a rhetor who would have refined his linguistic abilities. He also spent five years among the monks in the desert, experiencing the asceticism and spirituality of the desert fathers.[4] This classical and Christian education prepared Cyril for a lifetime spent in service to the church.
In 403 Cyril attended the Synod of the Oak with his uncle Theophilus at which John Chrysostom, a leader in the so-called Antiochene exegetical tradition, was deposed. During this same year he was ordained as lector in the church and possibly also served as secretary to his uncle. Finally, in 412, when Theophilus died, Cyril ascended the throne of the archbishop in Alexandria, though this event was not without controversy. The secular authorities threw their support behind the archdeacon Timothy as new archbishop because they feared that Cyril might continue the harsh policies of his uncle.[5] Despite the fact that the candidacy of Timothy was bolstered by military power, Cyril’s supporters succeeding in having him installed as archbishop as successor to his uncle.
Conflicts marked Cyril’s early years as archbishop, and it is for these events that he is denounced by historians in the modern era. While avoiding some of the more blatant opportunism of his uncle, he was nevertheless unafraid to “manipulate ecclesiastical politics to his advantage.”[6] An example of his administrative style is recorded by the church historian Socrates.[7] According to this ancient source, one night the Jews of the city called out that a church was on fire, and when the Christians running into the streets in order to put out the fire, the Jews fell upon them and killed several of them. The next morning Cyril led a large crowd through the Jewish section of the city, driving them from their homes and seizing their property. However, this event was not merely a matter between the Jews and the Christians. The larger issue standing behind it was the relationship between Cyril and Orestes, the city prefect, both of whom were Christians. The latter would have been infuriated at Cyril’s actions because they were outside the bounds of the law, and because the Jews were a central part of the city’s economy.[8]
The next significant event of Cyril’s ecclesiastical career was the Nestorian controversy. Nestorius, the archbishop of Constantinople who had been taught by Theodore of Mopsuestia, began preaching that Mary was not the “bearer of God” (theotokos), but instead the “bearer of Christ” (Christotokos). Lying behind this assertion was his theological conviction that, although Jesus was one person, the divine and the human within him existed side by side and were perhaps separable in that the divine or the human might be acting alone at any given moment. Cyril opposed this view because he believed that the Christological union it presupposed was insufficient, and that therefore the entire salvific work of Christ was called into question.[9] At the Council of Ephesus in 431, over which Cyril presided, Nestorius’ teaching was condemned as heretical and Cyril’s Christology won the day. Cyril’s theology of the hypostatic union and the communicatio idiomatum set the agenda for the theological discussions that continued in the ensuing councils. As an heir of the Athanasian tradition he ensured that single-subject Christology would continue to be regarded as orthodox.[10]
After the dust had settled at Ephesus, Cyril returned to his role in Alexandria, continuing to write and attend to the affairs of the church. About 438 he received word that the Christology of Nestorius was again being promulgated, based upon the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus, two members of the so-called Antiochene school. In response he authored Against Diodore and Theodore in which he argued that a merely historicist reading of the Bible compromised the doctrine of the deity of Christ. According to John McGuckin, Cyril’s attack on these biblical exegetes effectively “marginalized the Syrian biblical style” and instead established the Alexandrian tradition as the more dominant trend for future generations.[11] Cyril’s conflict with Theodore and Diodore reveal that the difference between the Alexandrian and Antiochene traditions was both theological and exegetical.[12] Theology and exegesis were intertwined. These Christological controversies were not resolved until after Cyril’s death in 444.
[1]This overview of Cyril’s life is largely taken from Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, 3-11.
[2]Cyril writes, “from an early age we have studied the holy scriptures and have been nurtured at the hands of holy and orthodox fathers” (quoted in Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, 5). I was unable to get a copy of the original source in which the quote occurs.
[3]For a brief survey of the classical sources referred to by Cyril in his writings, see C. Datema, “Classical Quotations in the Works of Cyril of Alexandria,” in Studia Patristica, vol. 17, part 1, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone, 422-25 (Leuven: Peeters, 1993).
[4]Lois M. Farag, St. Cyril of Alexandria, A New Testament Exegete: His Commentary on the Gospel of John (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007), 3.
[5]Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, 6. Russell states that Theophilus was known as the “Egyptian Pharaoh.”
[6]Ibid.
[7]Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 7.13, trans. A. C. Zenos, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 2, Socrates, Sozomenus: Church Histories (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 159.
[8]Another often mentioned event under Cyril’s rule is the murder of the pagan philosopher Hypatia by a Christian mob in 415. Socrates hinted at Cyril’s involvement in the affair when he wrote “This affair brought not the least opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian church” (Ecclesiastical History 7.15 [trans. A. C. Zenos, 160]). For a more positive reading of Cyril, see John A. McGuckin’s recent essay in which he concludes that Cyril, far from demonstrating megalomaniacal tendencies in the same tradition as his uncle, instead was a successful pastoral strategist in his leading of the Egyptian church (“Cyril of Alexandria: Bishop and Pastor,” in The Theology of Cyril of Alexandria: A Critical Appreciation, ed. Thomas G. Weinandy and Daniel A. Keating [New York: T&T Clark, 2003], 205-236).
[9]Russell summarizes the controversy thus: “The issue was therefore ultimately about the nature of salvation. The clash arose from the fact that Cyril and Nestorius approached it from different starting-points, Cyril, working with a ‘katagogic’ model, asking how does the Word become human without ceasing to be divine, Nestorius, working with an ‘anagogic’ model, asking how is this man Jesus Christ divine without compromising his humanity” (Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, 40).
[10]Ibid., 41.
[11]John A. McGuckin, “Cyril of Alexandria,” in Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters, ed. Donald K. McKim (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2007), 340.
[12]Note, however, the article by Rowan A. Greer in which he argues that the debate between Nestorius and Cyril was strictly over theology, not exegetical methodology. He holds that both Nestorius and Cyril were using Scripture in the same manner throughout the controversy (“The Use of Scripture in the Nestorian Controversy,” Scottish Journal of Theology 20 [1967]: 413-21).
In a the modern West where it is so often so easy to live a life of ease as a Christian, it is useful to be reminded that it is not always the case for our fellow believers, both today and in the past. Here is one account of the trial of several early Christian martyrs in North Africa in the late second century. It’s called The Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs. It’s not too long, but it does give you a sense of the courage of these Christians facing death.
When Praesens and Claudio were consuls the second time, 16th day of August in Carthage, Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Donata, Secundus, and Vestia were set in the council chamber and Saturninus the proconsul said, “You can gain the indulgence of our lord, the emperor, if return to the right mind.”
Speratus said, “We have never injured anyone, we have supplied/offered no work in unfairness. We have never spoken ill of anyone, but being received wrongly we have given thanks; because of which we regard our emperor.”
Saturninus the proconsul said, “We too are religious, and our religion is simple, and we swear by the genius of our lord the emperor, and we pray for his health, which you also ought to do.”
Speratus said, “If you will present your ears calm, I will speak the mystery of simplicity.”
Saturninus said, “I will not offer to you my ears while you admit to evil concerning our sacred rites. But rather swear by the genius of our lord the emperor.”
Speratus said, “I do not recognize the empire of this world. But I serve instead that God whom no man sees, nor is he able to see with these eyes. I have committed no theft, but if indeed I buy anything, I pay it the tax: because I recognize my Lord, the king of kings and emperor of all peoples.”
Saturninus the proconsul said to the others, “Cease being of this persuasion.”
Speratus said, “It is an evil persuasion to commit murder, to speak a false testimony.”
Saturninus the proconsul said, “Refuse to be partakers of this folly.”
Cittinus said, “We do not have another whom we fear, except our Lord God who is in heaven.”
Donata said, “Show honor to Caesar as to Caesar. But show fear to God.”
Vestia said, “I am a Christian.”
Secunda said, “What I am, I wish to be myself.
Saturninus the proconsul said to Speratus, “Do you persist as a Christian?”
Speratus said, “I am a Christian.” And they all agreed with him.
Saturninus the proconsul said, “Surely you want time to consider?”
Speartus said, “In so just a matter there is no consideration.”
Saturninus the proconsul said, “What are the matters in your chest?”
Speratus said, “Books and epistles of Paul, a just man.”
Saturninus the proconsul said, “Take a period of 30 days and think it over.”
Speratus said again, “I am a Christian.” And they all agreed with him.
Saturninus the proconsul read aloud the sentence from the tablet: “It is decided that Speratus, Narzalus, Cittinus, Donata, Vestia, Secunda, and the others who have confessed to live by Christian rite, because they persist obstinately to return to the custom of the Romans after an opportunity was offered to them, be judged by the sword.”
Speratus said, “We give thanks to God.”
Nartzalus said, “Today we are martyrs in heaven. Thanks to God.”
Saturninus the proconsul ordered that it be said by the herald, “I have ordered Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Veterius, Felix, Aquilinus, Laetantius, Ianuaria, Generosa, Vestia, Donata, and Secunda to be lead.”
They all together said, “Thanks to God.”
And thus they all together were crowned with martyrdom, and they reign with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen.
If you are a Southern Baptist, then you have likely seen a copy of the typical Baptist church covenant pasted in the front of your church’s pew Bibles or hymnals. For some, your church may even require that you commit to keeping this document!
The covenant is as follows:
Having been led, as we believe, by the Spirit of God, to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior, and on the profession of our faith, having been baptized in the name of our Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, we do now in the presence of God, angels, and this assembly, most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another as one body in Christ.
We engage, therefore, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, to walk together in Christian love; to strive for the advancement of this church, in knowledge, holiness, and comfort, to promote its prosperity and spirituality; to sustain its worship, ordinances, discipline and doctrines, to contribute cheerfully and regularly to the support of the ministry, the expenses of the church, the relief of the poor, and the spread of the Gospel through all nations.
We also engage to maintain family and secret devotion; to religiously educate our children, to seek the salvation of our kindred and acquaintances, to walk circumspectly in the world, to be just in our dealings, faithful in our engagements and exemplary in our deportment, to avoid all tattling, backbiting and excessive anger, to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage, and to be zealous in our efforts to advance the Kingdom of our Savior.
We further engage to watch over one another with brotherly love, to remember each other in prayer, to aid each other in sickness and distress, to cultivate Christian sympathy in feeling and courtesy in speech, to be slow to take offense, but always ready for reconciliation, and mindful of the rules of our Savior to secure it without delay.
We moreover engage that when we remove from this place, we will as soon as possible unite with some other church, where we can carry out the spirit of this covenant and the principles of God’s word.
I had always been curious regarding the author of this statement, until today. As I was skimming through my copy of E. Y. Mullins’ Baptist Beliefs, this document was included in the back and attributed to John Newton Brown.
Brown (1803-1868) was an influential Baptist professor, pastor, and publisher (how’s that for alliteration!) in the northeastern United States and, later, Virginia. He was also one of the key authors of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833).
So there you go, now you know the author of that covenant pasted in the front of your hymnal.
Dr. Michael A. G. Haykin’s little book, The Christian Lover: The Sweetness of Love and Marriage in the Letters of Believers, is a book Charlotte (my wife) and I have been recently reading. Haykin’s book reprints the love letters between prominent Christian couples.
In a letter to Sally Jones, Thomas Charles (1755-1814) records how John Newton (author of the hymn Amazing Grace) told him how marriage impacts a man for ministry. This particular letter is from 1780; they were married 3 years later. Let’s listen in…
I understand that you have marriage in view. . . . It always pleases me to hear that a minister is well married. There is something in domestic life that seems suited to improve our meetness for speaking to our people. The growing soul when doubled in wedlock, and multiplied in children, acquires a thousand new feelings and sensibilities of which the solitary bachelor is incapable, and these teach and dispose us to feel for others, and give us interest both in their pleasures and their pains. And this sympathizing temper is a happy talent for a minister to possess. It will give him a deeper place in the hearts of his people, than some more shining accoplishments.
And to Newton’s words, we say “Amen!”, because we know it to be true – our godly wives make us better men, better Christians, better pastors.
See Michael A. G. Haykin with Victoria J. Haykin, The Christian Lover: The Sweetness of Love and Marriage in the Letters of Believers (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2009), 58-59.
If you’re in a coffee shop in Louisville, there’s sure to be a Southern Seminary student pouring himself into a theology book or theological discussion. Such might have also been the scenario back in England during the 1600s…
John Coffey, professor at the University of Leicester, writes about the “proliferation of cofeehouses” in England during the later 1600s. Based on Steve Pincus’s study, Coffey (no pun intended, by the way) describes how
Coffeehouses, which were famed as places of public debate and discussion, dated from around 1650, when the first one had opened in Oxford. By 1663, London alone had over 80 coffeehouses, whilst by the end of the century it had more than 2000.
People met there to read newspapers and discuss politics, and High Church Anglicans associated coffeehouses with Puritanism and republicanism; one declared that ‘a coffee-house is a lay conventicle, good-fellowsip turn’d Puritan.’
John Coffey, Persecution and Toleraion in Protestant England, 1558-1689 (Essex: Pearson Education, 2000), 181.
Steven Pincus, “‘Coffee politicians does create’: coffeehouses and Restoration political culture”, in Journal of Modern History 67 (1995): 834.
When I was working for Greg Wills on his history of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859-2009, I had to painstakingly decipher hundreds of handwritten letters composed by the likes of James P. Boyce, John A. Broadus, William H. Whitsitt, A. T. Robertson, and E. Y. Mullins. Each of these writing styles proved to be challenging reads for different reasons. Boyce and Broadus used many archaic and exuberant terminology foreign to my limited 21st century vocabulary. Whitsitt’s script was considerably small and detailed, making it sometimes difficult to identify specific letters and phrases. Mullins’ writing style was especially wordy, often requiring him to spend many pages to formulate his points. And A. T. Robertson’s form can only be described as chicken scratch, so whenever possible, I sought to pass his letters off to one of my fellow workers, Brandon Nygaard or John Randolph (I really love you guys!).
I invoke these examples to make the simple point that handwritten letters provide a rare connection to men’s souls that cannot be duplicated in the perfect, mechanical typescript of a word processor. While I certainly had an easier job reading the typed letters of middle and late twentieth century personalities, I did not feel the same sense of intimate connection with the author as I had felt with the old, (sometimes) sloppily handwritten letters.
So it is with great sadness that I read this report that grade school education in cursive writing is quickly being replaced with technology skills training:
The decline of cursive is happening as students are doing more and more work on computers, including writing. In 2011, the writing test of the National Assessment of Educational Progress will require 8th and 11th graders to compose on computers, with 4th graders following in 2019.
“We need to make sure they’ll be ready for what’s going to happen in 2020 or 2030,” said Katie Van Sluys, a professor at DePaul University and the president of the Whole Language Umbrella, a conference of the National Council of Teachers of English.
Handwriting is increasingly something people do only when they need to make a note to themselves rather than communicate with others, she said. Students accustomed to using computers to write at home have a hard time seeing the relevance of hours of practicing cursive handwriting.
“They’re writing, they’re composing with these tools at home, and to have school look so different from that set of experiences is not the best idea,” she said. [Full Story Here]
I realize that the world has changed exponentially since I was in grade school. Though I was never particularly skilled at good handwriting, I used it every day. Throughout high school and most of my college education, I would always hand-write the majority of my assignments and term papers before typing them up. Though this was more time consuming, I always believed that I poured more of my heart and soul into my writing when I was able to transfer my thoughts directly into words with my own hand. Those pencil strokes became my words, not just standardized characters on a computer screen. Each letter bore my unique (if pathetic) style. And although I cannot offer empirical proof of my opinion, I truly believed that the quality of my writing was better for having written it by hand. For various reasons, I have long since abandoned this discipline. My papers now require too much documentation and footnoting for me to conveniently work with a handwritten rough draft. However, I still insist on taking practically all my class notes in hand, rather than using a computer. And I have no intention of ever altering this approach.
I am greatly troubled by the possibility that an entire generation of American school children may grow up without learning how to even sign their own names. I am also disappointed that fewer and fewer writers will regularly enjoy the unique satisfaction that comes from writing things out by hand. But I am most troubled by the fact that we as a culture will lose something very essential to our history; namely, the intimacy of the handwritten word in communication. The Apostle Paul made it a point of emphasis to remind the Corinthians that he wrote his letter “in my own hand” (1 Corinthians 16:21). Somehow the thought of St. Paul sitting down at his laptop, setting his margins, using spellcheck, and hitting “Print” doesn’t seem like it would convey the same intended effect. Throughout history, handwritten letters have been a standard form of personal communication. Without the handwritten word, we are left with a culture that communicates only through typescript, texts, and tweets. In this regard, we are remarkably out of touch with a once universal practice of human history. The future of our ability to communicate meaning to one another is now in an unprecedented state of flux.
Here are reasons 4-7 from A. H. Newman’s Manual of Church History, vol. 1 (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1933), 18-19.
4. The study of church history enables us to see the working of great principles through long periods of time. Church history is a commentary on the Scriptures. For every teaching of Scripture we can find many a practical exemplification. We can show, as it were, experimentally, how every departure from New Testament principles has resulted in evil – the greater the departure, the greater the evil. The study of church history, while it may make us charitable toward those in error by showing us examples in all ages of high types of religious life in connection with the most erroneous views of doctrine, will not tend to make us disregard slight doctrinal aberrations; for we shall know that the most corrupt forms of Christianity have had their origin in sligh deviations from the truth.
5. It may be said with confidence that the great mass of minor sects have been formed by those ignorant of church history, and that a knowledge of church history on the part of their founders would have prevented their formation…
6. The history of the Christian church furnishes the strongest possible evidence of the truth and assurance of the final triumph of Christianity. If Christianity has surmounted obstacles seemingly almost insuperable; if though sometimes submerged in corruption it has again and again shown itself able to shake off the accumulations of error, and then to march onward with primitive vigor; we have every reason to believe in its sufficiency for all the trials to which it may hereafter be subjected.
7. A knowledge of church history is essential to any proper treatment and understanding of systematic theology as distinguished from biblical theology. Any attempt to formulate theology in accord with existing conditions and modes of thought that does not take into consideration the formulations of the past in their historical relations one to the other, must prove ineffective…
Here are some great nuggets of exhortation from Karl Barth, pulled from Karl Barth’s Table Talk, which is a group of transcribed Q&A sessions between Barth and his students.
Q: Ought we not to enter the pulpit with the expectation that God will speak through us? Ought we not to hope?
A: You ought to underscore the word ‘hope’. When Luther, near the end of his life, scribbled, “We are really beggars,” he was not in despair. Being a beggar before God means being a child of God!
Q: Do you think that Protestants put too much emphasis upon the Bible?
A: Protestants need not be ashamed of the Bible. . . . Without the Bible over against the Church, then we are in the Roman Catholic camp. The Bible must always be over against the interpreting Church. This is the reason for exegesis. The Bible must be free, that is, sovereign, over against the Church.
Q: Do you think communion should be administered every Sunday?
A: Yes, I do. It should be the climax of every service. Calvin asked the government of Geneva to have communion every Sunday, but the government refused. This began the tradition of infrequent communion in the Reformed Church.
Q: Can we choose freedom? Have we the ability?
A: The liberty of free will is sin! It is the shame of humanity that we live as if we could choose.
I have two examples that illustrate the importance of prepositions, one that is serious and one that is a bit more humorous. Basil of Caesarea, one of the three so-called Cappadocian Fathers of the fourth century, wrote an entire treatise in order to argue about the proper prepositions to use when ascribing glory to God. Basil used the formula “Glory to the Father with the Son together with the Holy Spirit,” while the more common form in the Greek-speaking churches was “Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.” The former formula implied more than some were willing to concede about the Spirit, and so Basil had to defend the deity of the Spirit against the Pneumatomachoi. For Basil, prepositions were important, and could even carry massive theological implications. He eventually concluded that both formulae could be used, since one described God as God, and the other described God’s plan of salvation.
Now for a bit of fun. My wife and I have recently been teaching my three-year old daughter to pray for President Obama, something commanded by Scripture. However, she is still trying to work out the exact definitions of prepositions. As a result, she began insisting that we should pray to President Obama, rather than for him, an innocent mistake that communicated far more than she had in mind. Of course, we responded by telling her that we only pray to God. As you can see, even the smallest words can carry a lot of theological weight. The difference of a few letters can mean the difference between orthodoxy and heresy.
An Introduction to Cyril the Exegete
Because of his prominent role in the Christological controversies of the fifth century, Cyril’s exegetical labors have largely been forgotten by modern historians. Nevertheless, his exegetical works comprise the bulk of his literary output. In the Patrologia Graeca, the most accessible, though probably not the best quality edition of Cyril’s works, his exegetical writings comprise seven massive volumes, while his other works take up only three. Included in this corpus of exegetical writings are two treatises on the Pentateuch titled On Adoration in Spirit and Truth and Elegant Comments. Cyril also authored commentaries on Old Testament books including Psalms, Numbers, Kings, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Job, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezekiel, and Daniel, though all of these writings only survive in scattered fragments. The two Old Testament commentaries that have survived largely intact are the Commentary on Isaiah and the Commentary on the Twelve Prophets. Among Cyril’s New Testament writings are commentaries on Matthew (although fragmentary), Luke (surviving primarily in Syriac), and John, along with fragments of his commentaries on Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Hebrews as well. Very little of his exegetical writings are available in any modern language translation, though some headway on this front is slowly being made.[1] Nevertheless, much work remains to be done. Before looking at several specific passages from Cyril’s Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, it will be helpful to cover a few preliminary issues related to that specific work.[2]
The Commentary on John: Preliminary Issues
While it is impossible to pinpoint an exact date for the writing of the John commentary, it likely was written between 425-428.[3] Although it was written prior to the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy, it nevertheless presents the same theology that came to the fore in the Christological debates.[4] Cyril’s main concern was to maintain the Alexandrian tradition of Christological orthodoxy by asserting the incarnation of the Son of God and the resulting unity of the God-man Jesus Christ. The union between the two natures of Christ was not merely incidental or merely a moral union, but consisted of a hypostatic union such that the two natures always acted in concert with one another (communicatio idiomatum). This presupposition explains why Cyril insisted so strongly that Mary was not merely the bearer of Christ as Nestorius held, but was actually the bearer of God. For Cyril, the union of the two natures was important not only for Christological reasons, but was also essential for proper soteriology. Because Christ was truly God and man he is able to serve as the second Adam and so be the head of the new race of recreated and Spirit-endowed persons.[5]
J. David Cassel has identified three principles or presuppositions that guided Cyril’s exegetical work. The first is that “the Bible should be viewed as a single, unified book.”[6] This theological conclusion allowed Cyril to interpret difficult passages in Scripture by using texts drawn from across the canon. In other words, Scriptura Scripturae interpres (“Scripture is the interpreter of Scripture”). The second principle is “in order to understand any biblical text, the interpreter must understand both the literary conventions and the various words and references employed within the text.”[7] Following this principle, Cyril made use of the tools he learned in from the ancient grammarians such as etymological and historical analysis. The third principle is “common sense and grammatical rules limit the use of allegory.”[8] This is not to say that Cyril did not employ allegorical or figurative readings, but his allegorical readings do not have the same apparent arbitrariness that characterized earlier Alexandrian exegesis.[9]
[1]See Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Isaiah, vol. 1, Chapters 1-14, trans. Robert C. Hill (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2008); Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, 2 vols., trans. Robert C. Hill (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2007-2008). The third volume of Cyril’s Minor Prophets commentary is scheduled to be released soon. With the recent passing of Robert Hill it is uncertain whether more English translations of Cyril’s works will be made available in the near future. The Luke translation is available in an older English translation: A Commentary upon the Gospel according to S. Luke by Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, 2 vols., trans. R. Payne-Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1859; reprint by Studion Publishers, 1983).
[2]Pusey translated the first volume of the John (Commentary on the Gospel According to S. John, vol. 1, S. John 1-8, trans. Philip Pusey, Library of the Fathers of the Church 43 (London: James Parker, 1874). His translation was criticized so severely by other scholars that he gave up his plan to translate the second volume (so Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, 244). Several years later T. Randell picked it the project and finished it: Commentary on the Gospel According to S. John, vol. 2, S. John 9-21, trans. T. Randell, Library of the Fathers of the Church 48 (London: Walter Smith, 1885). Pusey’s translation is indeed archaic and so wooden at times that it can be nearly impenetrable. Russell has also translated select passages from the commentary and included it in Cyril of Alexandria, 96-129.
[3]G. Jouassard, “L’activité littéraire de saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie jusqu’a 428,” in Mélanges E. Podechard, ed. E. Podechard, 159-74 (Lyons: Facultés Catholiques, 1945). In his recent work, Russell accepts a date between 425-428 (Cyril of Alexandria, 96). However, in the recent monograph of Farag, a date of around 406 is posited (St. Cyril of Alexandria, 68). This date would make the commentary on John Cyril’s first commentary.
[4]This point is argued by Lars Koen, The Saving Passion: Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Doctrinae Christianae Upsaliensia 31 (Stockholm: Uppsala, 1991), 22.
[5]The Pauline theme of the second Adam was the controlling motif in Cyril’s Christology and soteriology. Wilken says about this theme, “I know of no patristic commentator whose entire exegetical enterprise is controlled by a single biblical image as is Cyril” (Robert Louis Wilken, “Cyril of Alexandria,” in Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity [Boston: Brill, 2006], 856). For studies on this point see Robert L. Wilken, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind: A Study of Cyril of Alexandria’s Exegesis and Theology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971) and Daniel Keating, “The Baptism of Jesus in Cyril of Alexandria: The Re-creation of the Human Race,” Pro Ecclesia 8 (1999): 201-22.
[6]J. David Cassel, “Key Principles in Cyril of Alexandria’s Exegesis,” in Studia Patristica, vol. 37, ed. Maurice F. Wiles, Edwards Yarnold, and P. M. Parvis, 413-20 (Louvain: Peeters, 2001), 413. The two important words for this principle are skopos and telos. The former referred to the way a book progress to its intended goal and the latter referred to the goal toward which the book progressed.
[7]Ibid., 415.
[8]Ibid., 418.
[9]Also important is the fact that Cyril did not believe that every single text had a spiritual reading, unlike others in the Alexandrian tradition. This provided a positive restraint on his exegetical labors compared with other Alexandrians (Bertrand Margerie, An Introduction to the History of Exegesis, vol. 2, The Greek Fathers, trans. Leonard Maluf [Petersham, MA: Saint Bede’s Publications, 1993], 244).
from → Uncategorized