SOURCE: Koen, Lars. “Cyril of Alexandria: Interpreter of the Scriptures.” In The Saving Passion: Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandria's “Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John,” pp. 13-37. Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1991.

[In the following excerpt, Koen presents an overview of Cyril's life and works before outlining the principal components of his analysis of Cyril's Commentary on John.]

1.1 CYRIL'S LIFE

After hearing the news about the death of Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, on June 27 in the year 444 a.d., Theodoret, the bishop of Cyrrhus, wrote a letter to Domnus, the bishop of Antioch expressing his feelings thus: “At last and with difficulty the beast has gone. The good and the compassionate pass; the bad lengthen their life for years.”¹ About the very same patriarch the following words are uttered in the most up-to-date encyclopedia on early Christianity: “The main architect of patristic christology.”² This thesis will say something about who this patriarch was, but even more about what he accomplished as theologian.

Relatively little is known of Cyril's life and activity before 428. He was born in Theodosion in lower Egypt, probably identical with the present Mahalla el Kobra, some 120 kilometres east of Alexandria.³ The year of his birth is not known, but he was probably born ca 378 a.d. He was a nephew of Theophilus, the patriarch of Alexandria.⁴ In his early years Cyril received a comprehensive classical and theological education in the learned city of his hometown Alexandria. Cyril was also ordained into the priesthood by his uncle Theophilus. It is usually thought that Cyril lived an ascetic life like his predecessor Athanasius without becoming a monk. Isidore of Pelusium (d.c. 450)⁵ who addresses Cyril in a letter seems to believe that Cyril had some monastic background.⁶ During his whole life he had very good relations with the monks of Egypt.⁷ Except for three incidents Cyril stayed in his hometown his whole life. He left Alexandria in 403 with his uncle to go to the Synodos ad Quercum, (the Synod of the Oak) near Chalcedon, a synod that convinced both himself and his uncle about St. John Chrysostom's guilt.⁸

The second time Cyril left Alexandria was in 431 when he went to Ephesus for what is now called the Third Ecumenical Council of the church. The last time was in 438 when he made a pilgrimage to Palestine with persons from the royal court in Constantinople.

Being convinced of John Chrysostom's guilt made him become restrained towards Rome and Rome's intention to rehabilitate John Chrysostom. It was not until 417 that Cyril restored the saint's name on the diptychs in Alexandria.⁹ Upon his uncle's death on October 15, 412 he was elected and elevated to the the famous see of the Egyptian metropolis, even though the government wanted an archdeacon named Timothy instead. He revealed himself soon as an impetuous man like his uncle. Cyril closed down the churches of the Novatians.¹⁰ In retaliation for Jewish attacks on Christians, he expropriated the properties of the Jews and had them expelled from Alexandria. Cyril also had a strong animosity against the imperial urban prefect Orestes. Cyril even went so far that he honoured as martyr the monk Ammonius who had been tortured to death not for his faith, but for violence done to Orestes. Alexandria housed at this time the famous female Neoplatonist philosopher Hypatia who was torn to pieces by a fanatical Christian mob in March of 415.¹¹ The church historian Socrates hints that Cyril was to blame for her death, but this accusation lacks genuine foundation.¹²

1.1.2 A DECADE OF EXTENSIVE EXEGETICAL AND THEOLOGICAL WRITING

These violent years were followed by a decade or more of extensive exegetical and theological writing, mainly directed against fourth century Arianism and certain aspects of Antiochene christology. The limitations in Cyril's education can be seen in his literary activity. He seems to have little knowledge or interest in secular science, philosophy, or history for their own sake. In this respect he differs from the Cappadocians and Augustine. His language is archaic with many rare words found only in the Alexandrian tradition. He differs from other eastern theologians in using Attic Greek instead of Koiné. He had some knowledge of Latin and wrote to both Rome and Carthage, and on occasions he quotes briefly from Cyprian and Ambrose.¹³

1.1.3 THE CONTROVERSY WITH NESTORIUS

The period we know best in Cyril's life is that which follows the year 428, which marks the opposition to Nestorius. Cyril's significance for theology and church history stems from his opposition to Nestorianism. The Antiochene theologian Nestorius was enthroned as patriarch of Constantinople on April 10, 428. Nestorius found the expression θεοτόκοs as a designation of the Virgin Mary difficult to harmonize with his conception of the relationship between the divine and the human in Christ. He preferred Kριστοτόκοs as a via media between θεοτόκοs and ἀνθρωποτόκοs.¹⁴ His lack of understanding for the popular religion and for the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary roused violent opposition in Egypt, Constantinople, and Rome. Cyril, with his outspoken Alexandrian theology, found in Nestorius' position the heretical christology of the fourth century with two Sons linked by a sheerly moral union, thus making the Incarnation an illusion and undermining the redemption. Cyril's first step against Nestorius was a letter addressed to the Egyptian monks¹⁵ and his Easter Letter of 429 in which he declared that to deny or even abandon θεοτόκοs would be the same as denying the doctrines of the council of Nicea.

A sharp exchange of letters between Cyril¹⁶ and Nestorius only helped to confirm their antagonism. To warn the emperor's family, Cyril wrote three treatises in 430 all bearing the name De recta fide (On the Right Faith). The first was directed to the emperor Theodosius II (De recta fide ad Imperatorem),¹⁷ the second to the emperor's younger sisters, Arcadia and Marina (De recta fide ad reginas),¹⁸ the third to the emperor's elder sister, Pulcheria, and his wife, Eudocia (Ad reginas de recta fide oratio altera).¹⁹ This year both Cyril and Nestorius wrote to pope Celestine I,²⁰ who held a synod in Rome where he took Cyril's side and condemned Nestorius, “the denier of God's birth.”

The pope warned Nestorius that unless he retracted his doctrine within 10 days of receiving the pope's letter, and adapted to “the doctrine of Rome, Alexandria and the whole Catholic Church”, he would be considered excommunicated.²¹

Cyril, delegated to act on behalf of Celestine, held a synod at Alexandria in November,²² and then sent a letter to Nestorius with his 12 anathemas written in uncompromisingly Alexandrian terms,²³ terms that carried Apollinarian overtones to Antiochene ears.²⁴ The emperor Theodosius summoned a general council to meet at Ephesus on June 7, 431. This idea was accepted by Celestine, but he still regarded Nestorius as condemned. Pope Celestine appointed three legates who were to conform in all aspects to Cyril's stand. Cyril opened the council on June 22, though the oriental bishops (mostly in favour of Nestorius) and the pope's legates had not arrived. The first day of the council declared Cyril's second letter to Nestorius (Epistula 4) in full accord with Nicea, condemned Nestorius as a heretic, and proclaimed the Blessed Virgin Mary as θεοτόκοs.

Four or five days later John of Antioch²⁵ and the oriental bishops arrived in Ephesus, held a synod and deposed Cyril and Memnon, the bishop of Ephesus. On July 11 the papal legates approved what the council had done before their arrival and confirmed the depositions of Cyril. The emperor on his part, approved the depositions of Cyril, Memnon, and Nestorius. He had them imprisoned and reproved the council for not heeding his instructions. Cyril was released in October and returned to Alexandria as a second Athanasius. Nestorius retired to a monastery in Antioch.

1.1.4 RECONCILIATION WITH THE ORIENTAL BISHOPS

The estrangement between Cyril and the oriental bishops was not healed until 433. The big problem for the orientals were the 12 anathemas of Cyril and the condemnation of Nestorius. Acacius of Beroea tried to mediate between both sides, and an accord was reached. Cyril, who was suspected of Apollinarianism, provided explanations of his doctrine,²⁶ especially to refute the charge of change or confusion of the two natures in Christ. These explanations were found acceptable, and the leading Antiochenes reluctantly condemned Nestorius.²⁷

What made this agreement possible was a letter from John of Antioch to Cyril.²⁸ This letter more or less reproduced a formula²⁹ drafted by Theodoret of Cyrrhus,³⁰ a formula that the oriental bishops had approved at Ephesus in August 431, and it was sent to the emperor. Cyril welcomed this formula with enthusiasm.³¹

Cyril's reaction shows a remarkable maturing on his part. As with Athanasius after Nicea, terminology even here was seen as secondary and deceptive. He made concessions: the 12 anathemas were played down, such favourite expressions as μία ϕύσιs (“one nature”) and ἐνωσιs κατὰ ϕύσιν (“union according to nature”) were dropped, Antiochene expressions, such as ἓν πρόσωπον (“one person”) were accepted and Cyril's far-reaching άντίδοσιs τἔν ἰδιωμάτων (“communication of attributes”) had limits placed on it. But in substance he was vindicated: the condemnation of Nestorius was accepted, θεοτόκοs was pronounced orthodox and the “two Sons” doctrine was clearly rejected. All talk of συνάϕεια (“conjunction”) of the two natures was changed to ἔνωσιs (“union”).³²

The Formula of Union did not achieve more than a partial and fragile unity. Cyril's own allies were not altogether convinced that he had sacrified language only. On the other side, the oriental bishops thought that Nestorius had been illegitimately condemned. Until his death, Cyril's policy of moderation kept his extreme partisans under reasonable control. On his deathbed he refused to condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius.³³ With his death on June 27, 444, forces were unleashed that brought Monophysitism to a head and led to the council of Chalcedon.

1.1.5 CYRIL'S WRITINGS

Cyril's extant works fill 10 volumes of J. P. Migne's Patrologia Graeca.³⁴ His literary activity can be said to have been divided into two periods by the Nestorian controversy: until 428 he concentrated on exegesis and Anti-Arian polemics and from 429 he was all but exclusively concerned with Nestorianism. Cyril's writings attest that he was rather well acquainted with the classics. In Contra Julianum (The Apology against Julian) Cyril frequently invokes Aristotle, Plato, Alexander of Aphrodisia, Porphyry, Hermes, Plotinus, Pythagoras, Xenophon, Plutarch, Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Sophocles, Euripides, Herodotus and others in order to refute Julian's objections against the Gospel and Christianity.³⁵

1.1.5.1 CYRIL'S EXEGETICAL WORKS

Cyril's exegetical works form the major portion of his literary production. His Old Testament exegesis was influenced by Alexandrian elements of allegory and stronger typology, though he insisted that not all details of the Old Testament have a spiritual meaning. Cyril's New Testament exegesis was more literal, particularly in doctrinal controversy.

His Old Testament commentaries include Adoration and Worship in Spirit and Truth, 17 books proving that the Old Testament is for the Christian church and not for the Jews.³⁶ His Glaphyra (Elegant Comments) were exegesis on passages from the Pentateuch.³⁷ He also wrote a Commentary on Isaiah in 12 main sections.³⁸ Extant in the catenae are numerous fragments from other Old Testament commentaries.

Cyril's New Testament exegesis includes his Commentary on John³⁹ with a dogmatic-polemical tendency against Arianism, Eunomianism, and Antiochene Christology. His Commentary on Luke⁴⁰ is actually a series of homilies that are practical rather than dogmatic. His Commentary on Matthew⁴¹ is fragmentary but covers all 28 chapters of Matthew with an Anti-Nestorian polemical spirit.

1.1.5.2 CYRIL'S DOGMATIC AND POLEMICAL WORKS

The earliest of Cyril's dogmatic-polemical works were directed against the Arians. The most important is the Thesaurus on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, to a high degree a rewriting of Athanasius' Three Orations against the Arians⁴² which was written before the Nestorian controversy. His On the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity is written in the form of 7 dialogues.⁴³

Anti-Nestorian writings include Five Tomes against the Blasphemies of Nestorius,⁴⁴ the three De recta fide to the imperial court⁴⁵, Apology to the Emperor,⁴⁶ written after the council at Ephesus to justify his actions during the council. In the Scholia on the Incarnation,⁴⁷ Cyril explains the names Christ, Emmanuel and Jesus and defines the hypostatic union as opposed to mixture or external relationship only. Cyril wrote That Christ is One,⁴⁸ in the form of a dialogue on the union of divine and human natures in Christ. That Christ is One is probably one of his last Anti-Nestorian writings.

Quite late in his career he wrote The Apology against Julian,⁴⁹ as an effort to refute Julian the Apostate's 3 books Against the Galileans, showing both that he uses the same method in refuting his opponent as Origen did in his Contra Celsum, and revealing that paganism was still very much alive in fifth century Egypt. The remainder of his writings consist of homilies, paschal letters, and private letters. His correspondence is valuable because of its rich dogmatic content.

1.1.6 CYRIL'S THEOLOGY: A BRIEF SKETCH

1.1.6.1 CYRIL—BOTH EXEGETE AND DOGMATICIAN

Cyril was a dogmatic theologian, but also a great exegete. He touched the most important areas of theology, but he dealt systematically only with the Trinity and the Incarnation.

While still alive he was given titles like Bonus fidei catholicae defensor by Pope Celestine, and after his death he was called the seal of the fathers by Anastasius Sinaita in the seventh century.⁵⁰ The Roman church gave him the title Doctor Ecclesiae in 1882.

That Cyril deserves theological immortality is based on his actions and writing in the area of christology, especially at the council of Ephesus. Controversies around θεοτόκοs and his mariology were basically christological issues centred around John 1,14, Καὶ ὁ λόγοs σὰρξ ἑγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμἔν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δὸξαν αὐτου̑, δόξαν ἔs μονογενου̑s παρὰ πατρόs, πλήρηs χάριτοs καὶ ἀληθεία” (“The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the only-begotten Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”)

Cyril's principal preoccupation here was to preserve the unity of Christ, which he felt was endangered by Nestorius and other Antiochene theologians. In the Incarnation the eternal Word took to Himself human nature and made human flesh His own, animated by a rational soul. The union between the Word and humanity is a true, real union, as opposed to a merely moral or accidental union or a union by sharing the same honour of adoration. He uses the same formula that Athanasius used, the foundation for the entire Logos-sarx christology: “The Word was made man, but did not descend upon man.”⁵¹

Because the union is so intimate, one may and must say not simply that the Word is in a man, as in a temple, or that the Word assumed a man, but that the Word is man. In Christ there is only one ὐπόστασιs or ϕύσιs existing in the real order, the Word Incarnate. He who was conceived and born of Mary, He who suffered, died and was buried, is identical with the One who was eternally begotten of the Father. For the same reason Mary is truly and properly θεοτόκοs. There is no mixing of humanity and divinity, no conversion of one into the other; each retains its properties.

1.1.6.2 TWO DIFFERENT CHRISTOLOGICAL BACKGROUNDS

What complicated the christological struggles were two different theological backgrounds. Cyril's thinking is based on the Alexandrian theology, Nestorius' on the Antiochene theology. It would indeed be an overstatement to say that the controversy was a struggle over the interpretation of the Scriptures in the Antiochene and the Alexandrine tradition. Several reasons may be invoked: among Nestorius' faults were his bad behaviour on the pastoral level since he had publicly attacked a key word in the church's preaching of the Incarnation; and also a confusion on the theological level since he did not really understand the exchange of attributes, the communicatio idiomatum (ἀντίδοσιs τῶν ἰδιωμάτων). Cyril's weak spots lay in the area of bad behaviour, his politics, and partly philological confusion. One of the terms he used as a “proof from the fathers”⁵² made other theologians believe that he had inclinations towards Apollinarianism. He used a phrase that he thought stemmed from Athanasius, but was really Apollinarian: μία ϕύσιs τοῦ θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη (“One nature of the Enfleshed Word of God”).

For Cyril, christology was not an isolated issue. Only one and the same Christ who is consubstantial with the Father and with men can save us. Only if it is God's own flesh can man come into contact with the Trinity.

Similarly for the eucharist, by which the believer participates in the flesh of Christ through his contact with the live-giving body of Christ, man participates in His divinity.⁵³

Cyril also had the same opinion about the consequences after the fall and the loss of imago Dei as Athanasius. Restoration of the image comes through Christ and is achieved radically in the Incarnation. We see here the key to an understanding of the later Byzantine theology of θεοποίησιs or θέωσιs.

1.2. WHY STUDY CYRIL'S COMMENTARY ON JOHN?

Why write a thesis on Cyril of Alexandria's Commentary on John? For several reasons:

Our primary aim is enunciated thus by Liébaert: “Seine [Cyril's] besondere, von ihm in die Kontroverse gebrachte Terminologie solle jedoch Anlass zu heftiger Kritik und Quelle langer Streitfragen in der Kirche werden. Eine wirkliche Kenntnis der christologischen Position des hl. Cyrill setzt eine Untersuchung seiner vor der Kontroverse verfassten Schriften voraus, die übrigens den umfangreichsten Teil seines theologischen Werkes ausmachen, bisher aber doch wenig erforscht worden sind.”⁵⁴ (“His [Cyril's] peculiar terminology utilized in the controversies resulted in severe criticism and a source of points of controversies in the church. A real knowledge of Cyril's christology in his writings before the controversy must be obtained from these works—the voluminous works in his literary profession—which, however, has only to a small degree been the object of research.”)

The works that Liébaert has in mind are Cyril's three major works written before the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy: Thesaurus on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, Dialogues on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, and his Commentary on John. They all attack Arianism and state positively the doctrines in question: Trinity and christology.

In the whole of the corpus Cyrilianum there are two texts from the Scriptures that recur: John 1,14 and Phil 2,5-11. These verses constitute two loci in Cyril's christology and soteriology. Cyril's christology and soteriology have primarily been studied on the basis of his later writings. It is the mature Cyril that we find in the common textbooks on history of dogma, a Cyril with a fixed set of formulas that became standard phrases in the aftermath of the Nestorian controversy.

We will therefore examine his christology and soteriology on the basis of his Commentary on John. What is striking about this commentary is its great emphasis on the importance of John 1,14 and Phil 2,5-11 for the understanding of God's salvatory work.

Even though these two loci are taken from two different sources in the Scriptures, and even though these verses take up two different aspects of the Son's earthly life and ministry (Incarnation, humiliation), they are both expressions of one and the same reality: God's saving act in reaching out to man. We attempt to examine an important theological work and its place in the history of Christian doctrine.

A secondary aim of this thesis is to show that Cyril's understanding of salvation is based on the entire foundation of the history of salvation and not only on the concept of “physical soteriology” with its identification of salvation with the granting of incorruptibility and immortal life. This latter view has been maintained by a whole line of protestant theologians, among whom are Adolf von Harnack and Martin Werner. Not even Gustav Aulén's concept of Christus Victor, that is Christ's salvific act as a conquest over the destructive powers, devil, death, and sin, can be called “the classical view of the atonement” in an exclusive sense. In other words, we propose to give an unbiased answer to the questions: “What is Cyril's christology in his Commentary on John?” and “What is Cyril's soteriology in his Commentary on John?”

In short: Cyril's Commentary on John is a neglected work which has not received enough attention. It is necessary to pay closer attention to the christology and the soteriology which are reflected in the commentary. Cyril's understanding of salvation is based on the entire foundation of the history of salvation and not only on an understanding of man's restoration understood neither in a “physical” sense nor according to the Christus Victor motif. Cyril's Commentary on John is a witness to this fact. The period from the death of Athanasius to the Nestorian controversy (373 a.d.–428 a.d.) is a period in which the development of christology and soteriology, with the exception of the Apollinarian heresy, has been virtually neglected in the textbooks on the history of dogma. We intend to help remedy that neglect.

Two subgoals will be dealt with because they both have bearing on the consistency of Cyril's theology throughout his literary activity before, during, and after Nestorius.

1. Protestant theologians have for the most part maintained that Cyril's Commentary on John does not display the maturity which his writings show after the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy. Roman-Catholic and Anglican theologians usually defend the consistency in Cyril's christology both before and after Nestorius.

We claim that it is possible, with the help of his Commentary on John, to reconstruct a picture of what later became official doctrine at the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, that is Cyril's legacy to the development of Christian doctrine. It is a fact that his theological terminology is “undeveloped” and at times confusing, but realiter he holds the same doctrinal position before the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy, as he did after the controversy. What we call consistency can be defined thus: one is consistent if one keeps to one's earlier position. That applies to Cyril.

2. We intend further to show Cyril's dependence on other theologians before him, as well as his consistency throughout his literary production. We will therefore compare his doctrinal position in the Commentary on John with what was probably his latest christological work, That Christ is One.

As mentioned in the statement of our primary aim and our outline of the present state of research will show there is indeed very little work done on Cyril's Commentary on John.

We hope that this thesis, which builds on a work by Cyril which has so far not been widely utilized, can also lead to a revaluation of the views held by many Protestant and Catholic theologians on Cyril's christology and soteriology.

Cyril's commentary is the most extensive Commentary on John in the early church. And even the size of the commentary is vast—three times the size of the Greek New Testament. It is also a “doctrinal commentary” written against Arians, Eunomians, and Antiochene christology. Cyril's aim is to write a δογματικωτέρα ἐξήγσιs, to counter heretics on all points.⁵⁵

Some claim Cyril primarily as an exponent of dogmatic theology.⁵⁶ Others again state that Cyril's main contribution was in biblical exegesis.⁵⁷ In our view, Cyril, as most of the eastern fathers, was both an exegete and a theologian occupied with doctrinal questions.

It cannot be denied, though, that he is often led by doctrinal principles, principles based on his Athanasian inheritance and his own development of that heritage, which were to become formative for Byzantine orthodoxy as well as anticipating strains of doctrinal motifs that were developed in the western church. A division of theology into different branches is a much later phenomenon in the history of theology.

1.3. CYRIL'S COMMENTARY ON JOHN AND ITS TEXT

Many exegetical works on the New Testament by Cyril have been lost, and the Commentary on John is also incomplete.⁵⁸ Books I-VI (John 1,10-10,17) and IX-XII (John 12,49-21-25) have been transmitted intact. The books preserved only as fragments in catenae⁵⁹ are the books VII and VIII (John 10,18-12,48).⁶⁰

We intend to use Pusey's edition, in which the fragments have been edited. The authenticity of the fragments in the catenae, though, are disputed.

Besides Cyril's commentary, commentaries on John by other eastern fathers should be mentioned.

The first is the commentary by Origen. Of the original commentary which had at least 32 books only the following 9 have been preserved: 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 19, 20, 28, and 32. Origen started to write his commentary in Alexandria in 226, but did not complete it until ca 248 in Caesarea. Side by side with impressive theological exposition stands passages of allegorical interpretation, which are entirely inconsistent in method and utterly irrelevant in content to the meaning of the Gospel of John.

The next two commentaries were written by Antiochene exegetes. The first, by John Chrysostom, consists of 88 homilies, and its dogmatico-polemical approach is aimed at Arians and Eunomians. It was probably written ca 391.

The second commentary stems from a contemporary of Cyril: Theodore of Mopsuestia. It has survived in a complete Syriac version and in some Greek fragments. Theodore has interpreted the meaning of the Gospel too narrowly within the scope of his own way and thought.⁶¹ His work never does full justice to the whole range and depth of the theological significance of the Gospel such as can be seen in the commentaries of Origen and Cyril. Theodore writes inter alia in defence of Basil against the Eunomians. The Arian controversy is obviously still very much alive.

1.3.1 THE DATE OF CYRIL'S COMMENTARY

The date of Cyril's commentary is today relatively undisputed. Prior to the publication of an article by Mahé in 1907 many held that the commentary was written after 428; and that for two reasons: the apparent abandonment of allegorical exegesis in favour of a more literal exegesis; and the absence of indications of the Nestorian controversy in the commentary.⁶²

Mahé argued for an earlier date for the following reasons: The commentary does not mention Nestorius at all, neither are elements of polemic against Nestorian theology traceable in it. The catchword θεοτόκοs is not mentioned at all; Mary is designated the “Holy Virgin.”⁶³ Famous Cyriline words and phrases like ἐνωσιs καθ' ὑπόστασιν, ἐνωσιs κατὰ ϕύσιν, and ἐνωσιs ϕυσική are not found in the commentary. For these reasons Mahé dates the commentary before 428.⁶⁴ Charlier is of the opinion that the Commentary on John is the oldest of Cyril's exegetical works written before Glaphyra on the Pentateuch, Adoration and Worship in Spirit and Truth, and Commentary on Isaiah.⁶⁵ In several articles Joussard has convincingly shown that the commentary is written between 425-428.⁶⁶

1.3.2 CYRIL'S PARTITIVE EXEGESIS

How then does Cyril interpret the Bible? In some ways he deviates from the heavily allegorical exegesis of other Alexandrian exegetes. But as a general rule he holds that the Scriptures have two senses: a literal and a spiritual.⁶⁷ A better word for “spiritual” in this context is perhaps the word “typological.” The unpublished thesis by Sauer, Die Exegese des Cyrill von Alexandrien nach seinem Kommentar zum Johannesevangelium. Mit Berücksichtigung zu Origenes und Athanasius, has shown similarities between Origen, Athanasius, and Cyril.⁶⁸ Cyril has probably benefitted from studying Jerome's commentary on the Minor Prophets, and they both seem to be dependent on the pattern found in the Jewish haggadah.⁶⁹

Cyril can never be claimed to be the typical Alexandrian theologian. Even though in his exegesis of the Old Testament there are similarities with Origen, Cyril is more a proponent of a typological interpretation of the Old Testament. And when we come to his exegesis of the New Testament, we find that, due to the circumstances, he often ends up in a literal interpretation directed against the heretics.

In his excellent study on the interpretation of John in the early church, Maurice F. Wiles has shown how Cyril utilizes what he calls “two-nature exegesis;” we have chosen to use another term: partitive exegesis.

Partitive exegesis is used by Cyril to ascribe to the divine nature what belongs to it, and to the human nature what belongs to it.

The divine aspect of the person and work of Christ is specified by terms like ὡs Tεόs (“as God”), Tεία ϕύσιs (“divine nature”), θεότηs (“divinity,” “divine”), ῆμέν ἐστι Λόγοs καὶ Tεόs (“in so far as He is the Word and God”), and καθόπερ ἐστὶ Λόγοs καὶ Tεόs (“as the Word and God”).

The human aspect is specified by the use of terms like ὡs aνθρωποs (“as man”), ὡs aνθρωποs σχηματίζεται (“appearing as man”), οἰκονομικῶs (“according to the Economy” [with the flesh]), ὡs aνθρωποs οἰκονομικῶs (“in so far as He is man according to the Economy”), ῆδῆγέγονεν aνθρωποs (“in so far as He became man”), καθὸ γέγονεν aνθρωποs (“when He became man”), καθόπερ ῆν aνθρωποs (“in so far as He was man”).⁷⁰ Of all these phrases only two are frequent in other eastern fathers.

That Athanasius is the major contributor to both ὡs Tεόs and ὡs aνθρωποs is obvious. The first, ὡs Tεόs, is found 32 times in the corpus Athanasianum, and the majority in Three Orations against the Arians and Exposition on the Psalms. The second, ὡs aνθρωποs, is found 63 times; mainly in Three Orations against the Arians, On the Incarnation, Four Epistles to Serapion, and Exposition on the Psalms.

After Athanasius the Cappadocians come in the following order: Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil of Caesarea. These distinctions or terms are some of the things that we will observe in this thesis. It seems that the Cappadocians took over this exegetical or hermeneutical device from Athanasius. Of them Gregory of Nazianzus was the most prominent. The probable conclusion is that Cyril did know the key works of Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus, and utilized them himself throughout his commentary, a way of interpretation that certainly gives his Commentary on John a dogmatic flavour.

1.3.3 DIFFICULTIES WITH PARTITIVE EXEGESIS

As is the case with the other Alexandrian theologians, also Cyril has a problem when it comes to partitive exegesis, especially in ascribing human sensations to the whole person. When the evangelist plainly says: “Jesus wept.”, Cyril has the following to say: “For this cause He permitted His own flesh to weep a little, although it was in its [divine] nature tearless and incapable of any grief, so far as regards its own nature.”⁷¹ We can here give another example taken also from one of his early works, the Thesaurus on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity: “And again if you hear that he wept and mourned and was terrified and began to be in affliction, consider that He was man while He was God, and you are to refer to the manhood what belongs to it. For since He assumed a mortal and corruptible body He was subject to such sufferings … together with the flesh he also appropriates sufferings.”⁷²

In one of his epistles Gregory of Nazianzus also unfolds the assumption and the sufferings of the Word of God. In a tone which is not unlike Cyril's, Gregory says: “In these last days He has assumed manhood also for our salvation, passible in His flesh, impassible in His Godhead,⁷³ at once earthly and heavenly, tangible and intangible, comprehensible and incomprehensible, the one and the same person, who was made perfect man and God, and who created the entire humanity fallen in sin anew.”⁷⁴

In Cyril's interpretation of John 1,33, we find beside apophatic expressions, even examples of partitive exegesis. Cyril says: “The Son, from eternity with the Father as having origin of being (ὡs ἀρχὴν eχων τοῦ ε[ἱ]ναι), is from the time of the Incarnation called Son of God and appears in the world with a body; he even has His own Spirit in Himself essentially,”⁷⁵ and is said to receive it as man (ὡs aνθρωποs), preserving to the human nature what is proper to it and with the human nature appropriating for us what is proper.”⁷⁶

Christ talks in John 3,13 about “the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.” Here Cyril makes a distinction between what Christ said at that actual time and what He later said at the time of His passion. Cyril says: “For now He says that the Son of Man came down from heaven. But at the time of His passion he fears greatly and that despair is mentioned as Himself suffering the sufferings which concerned only His human nature.”⁷⁷ Observe that Cyril makes a clear distinction between the flesh that Christ assumed at the time of the Incarnation and His divine nature which He had from the Father. In his comment on John 6,2-4 (the feeding of the five thousand) Cyril makes very much out of the words “Then Jesus went up on the hillside.” He says: “For He was lifted up from the earth when he went up on the cross for us. He was lifted up again in another way (later) when He ascended a mountain to the honour and glory befitting God. For we do not, like Israel, dishonour Him as man, no, we worship Him as God and saviour and Lord.”⁷⁸

In his Commentary on John 19,30 Cyril says that Christ overcame the death not as man, but as God. Here again we can clearly observe his partitive exegesis, especially in the discerning words ὡs aνθρωποs and ὡs Tεόs.⁷⁹

Another example of partitive exegesis is provided by Cyril in describing Christ as praying. He says: “Then He prays as man, and distributes [gifts] as God.”⁸⁰ Cyril ascribes everything that the Scriptures record about Christ's words and activities to the one person. As a result of the Incarnation, the Word of God is God and man simultaneously. At times He acts as man (ὡs aνθρωποs οὶκονομικὸs καὶ ἀνθρώπινοs), at other times as God (ὡs Tεὸs μετ' ἐξουσίαs τῆs θεωπρεποῦs). One and the same Logos, equal and consubstantial with God the Father, expresses human and divine words (αἱ ἀνθρώπιναι καί θεἱκαὶ ϕωναί).⁸¹

1.3.3.1 THE WILL OF CHRIST AND PARTITIVE EXEGESIS

In his interpretation of John 17,18-19 Cyril relates the obedience of Christ as man to the fact that Christ as God is the lawgiver. This is one of the many paradoxes in utilizing partitive exegesis.

A problem connected with the doctrine of the two natures of Christ and partitive exegesis is those loci which enunciate the different wills in the person of God the Word, especially when they express ignorance in Christ.⁸² Cyril admits ignorance in Christ several times in his commentary.⁸³ Cyril answers this question in the same way as usual among both Alexandrians and Cappadocians. From a contemporary work of Cyril, Thesaurus on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, we will give one example: “It is easy to see that as God He does know both the day and the hour, even if, referring to what is human in Himself, He can say that He does not know. For after the things predicted by Him, He specifies that this is the end. What else, after all, would the end be, except the last day, which, He says, in view of His Incarnation, He does not know, thus preserving again in His humanity the rank befitting it? For it is proper for humanity not to know the future.”⁸⁴ We can also give an example from his Commentary on John. In interpreting John 11,34ff (Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead), Cyril says: “He was not ignorant when he asked ‘Where have you laid him?’ … Christ also feigns ignorance and asks: ‘Where have you laid Him?’ in order that through the inquiry a multitude might be gathered together to the sign, and that by His enemies, rather than the others, a testimony should be given to the miracle of restoring to life one who was already corrupt.”⁸⁵

In his interpretation of John 6,38-39, Cyril utilizes partitive exegesis to approach the problem of Christ's will in His passion. Christ underwent His suffering willingly for our sake as God, but according to his human nature He would have abstained from it.⁸⁶

To show Cyril's dependence on tradition in this matter a quotation from one of the orations of Gregory of Nazianzus could be given. Gregory says: “Is it not obvious, if one distinguishes the seen from the unseen, that, as God (ὡs Tεόs), he knows; but He professes ignorance as man (ὡs aνθρωποs)? It is clear that the Son knows because the Father knows, for no one could receive this knowledge except from the primary existence.”⁸⁷

1.3.3.2 NOT TWO PERSONS

Cyril discusses in his interpretation of Jesus' dialogue with Nicodemus by night⁸⁸ the possibility of God the Word coming down from heaven, and he rejects the idea, probably of Antiochene origin, that God the Word after the Incarnation can be divided into two persons.⁸⁹ Cyril says: “For as He is the Word of God, He is also man of a woman, but one Christ out of both, undivided when it comes to sonship and glory befitting God.”⁹⁰ A phrase like “The one who comes from above is above all”; is of course “a lucky catch” for Cyril. Here he uses a more “ontological,” partly apophatic, language. Cyril says: “But the word beamed forth, ineffably from God the Father, having His proper birth from above,⁹¹ and being of the essence of the Father as of a fountain.”⁹²

1.3.4 CYRIL'S LANGUAGE

The language in Cyril's commentary is a difficult form of Attic Greek, and in this respect he differs from the majority of eastern fathers who wrote in Koiné.⁹³ There are more than 1000 words which occur either in Cyril alone or in Cyril for the first time or in Cyril more often that in the rest of Greek literature taken together. Most frequent are compound words with κατά and σύν, in each case numbering between 100 and 150.⁹⁴

In the preface to his commentary, Cyril characterizes the theology of the Gospel of John in apophatic terms. Apophatic theology is the kind of theology which describes God's attributes in negative terms, in terms which state what God is not rather than what He is. Behind this type of theological language there is a specific conception of the unknowability of the essence of the Godhead.⁹⁵

In his Commentary on John 10,15 (“… just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.”), Cyril gives an example of his tendency to use apophatic language, so typical of the eastern fathers of the church.⁹⁶

Cyril most probably inherited the use of apophatic language from the Cappadocians; perhaps Gregory of Nazianzus, who in his second Theological Oration (Or. 28) lectures on the persons of the Godhead with the help of apophatic terms. Cyril says: “For the Father alone knows His own offspring (τὸ ἱδιον γέννημα), and is known by His own offspring alone … For that the Father is God, and the Son as well, we both know and believe, but their ineffable nature is in its essence utterly incomprehensible to us and to all other rational creatures.”⁹⁷

Notes

1. Thdt. Ep. CLXXX; PG 83, 1489; the authenticity of this letter has been disputed, but seen against Theodoret's way of thinking this may very well have been said by him.

2. Wickham 1990, p. 249.

3. Scipioni 1974, p. 97.

4. Theophilus (d.412) was patriarch of Alexandria from 385. He is known for taking part in suppressing paganism in Alexandria, as well as for his disgust against “Origenism.”

5. Ascetic and exegete who followed John Chrysostom's exegesis.

6. Wickham 1983, p. xii; Hardy 1981 p. 254. A narrative of Severus ibn-al-Muqaffa (10. cent.) on the lives of the Patriarchs of Alexandria mentions a five years stay in the monastery of Makarios but is probably legendary. Hardy 1981, p. 254.

7. This can be seen in one of his most important letters, Ad monachos Aegypti (epistula 1). ACO 1.1.1, pp. 10-23, a letter written during the Nestorian controversy (428-431). Its importance is due to several facts: The name Nestorius is not mentioned; he quotes Athanasius' Three Orations against the Arians several times; he cites the Nicene Creed; he attacks Apollinarianism in the emphasis on Christ having a rational soul; and—as expected—he uses and defends the use of the word Tεοτόκοs.

8. At the synod Theophilus of Alexandria brought 29 charges against John Chrysostom, the most serious being those of “Origenism” and improper remarks about the empress.

9. Quasten 1986, p. 117; Jouassard 1957, p. 500. Diptychs were lists of living and departed Christians for whom special prayers were made in the Greek and Latin eucharistic liturgies.

10. A rigorist schismatic group in the western church.

11. Hypatia (370-414) was a highly praised Neoplatonic philosopher in Alexandria. She corresponded i.a. with Synesius, one of her students who also was bishop of Ptolemais. Cf. Dörries 1975, pp. 1272-1273.

12. Hist. Eccl. 7, 15. Socrates says: “This affair brought not the least dishonour, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian church.”

13. Jouassard 1957, pp. 500-502; Wickham 1983, pp. xv-xvi.

14. On the Nestorian controversy cf. Baus/Ewig 1985, pp. 105-108; Vogt 1984, pp. 231-233; Chadwick 1978, pp.196-200; Jouassard 1957, pp. 502-504; Frend 1984, pp. 752-758.

15. Ep. 1, Ad monachos Aegypti, ACO I,I,1, pp. 10-23.

16. Ep.2, Ad Nestorium, ACO I.I.1, pp. 23-25.

    Ep.4, Ad Nestorium, ACO I.I.1, pp. 25-28.

17. ACO I.I.1, pp. 42-72.

18. ACO I.I.5, pp. 62-118 (also called Oratio ad Arcadiam et Marinam augustas de fide.).

19. ACO I.I.5, pp. 26-61 (also called Oratio ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam augustas de fide.).

20. Celestine I (d.432), pope from 422, was fierce in combating both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism.

21. Di Berardino 1986, pp. 587-588.

22. Wickham 1983, pp. xxii-xxiii. Quasten 1986, pp. 117-118.

23. Ep. 17, Ad Nestorium una cum synodo Alexandrina. ACO I.I.1., pp. 33-42.

24. On the anathemas see Wickham 1983, pp. xxxv-xliii.

25. John of Antioch (d.441) bishop of Antioch from 429. In spite of his moderation as an exponent of Antiochene christology, he took sides with Nestorius.

26. Ep. 33. Ad Acacium Beroeensem. ACO I.I.7, pp. 147-150.

27. Wickham 1983, pp. xxv-xxvii.

28. Ep. 38. Iohannis Antiocheni ad Cyrillum. ACO I.I.4, pp. 7-9.

29. Formula Unionis inter St. Cyrillum ep. Alex. et episcopos Eccl. Antiochenae. ACO I.I.4, pp. 8ff.

30. Theodoret (c.393-c466), consecrated bishop of Cyr (Cyrrhus) against his own will in 423. His christological position has been a matter of controversy, but it seems that he held Nestorian views at least till 434-435 and possibly until Chalcedon, but that he abandoned them at the latest after 451.

31. Ep. 39. Ad Iohannem Antiochenum de pace. ACO I.I.4, pp. 15-20.

32. This only as a condensation of the Formula of Union; Formula Unionis inter St. Cyril ep. Alex. et episcopos Eccl. Antiochenae. ACO I.I.4, pp. 8ff.

33. Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350-428), one of the great Antiochene theologians and exegetes. He became bishop of Mopsuestia in 392. His anthropology shows similarities with Pelagianism. He did use Nestorian formulae, but tried sincerely to define them in an orthodox sense.

34. Other important editions of Cyrill include Pusey's edition, and important documents and letters are to be found in Acta Conciliorium Oecumenicorum edited by E. Schwartz from 1927.

35. du Manoir 1944, pp. 448-453

36. De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate. PG 68, pp. 133-1125.

37. Glaphyra in Pentateuchum. PG 69, pp. 9-678.

38. Commentarius in Isaiam prophetam. PG 70, pp. 9-1449.

39. Commentarii in Joannem. Pusey 1872; PG 73, pp. 9-1056; PG 74, pp. 9-765.

40. Commentarii in Lucae Euangelium, translated from Syriac by R. Payne Smith 1858.

41. Commentarii in Matthaeum. PG 72, pp. 365-474.

42. Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali trininate. PG 75, pp. 9-656.

43. De sancta trinitate dialogii vii. PG 75, pp. 657-1124; a better version is de Durand's. SC 231, Paris 1976; SC 237, Paris 1977; SC 246, Paris 1978.

44. Libri v contra Nestorium. PG 76, pp. 9-248. ACO I,1,6, pp. 13-106.

45. Cf. p. 15

46. Apologeticus ad Theodosium imperatorem. ACO I.I.3, pp. 75-90. PG 76, 453-488.

47. Scholia de incarnatione unigeniti. ACO I.V.1, pp. 219-231.

48. Qoud unus sit Christus. PG 75, pp. 334-424.

49. Contra Iulianum imperatorem. PG 76, pp. 504-1064.

50. Anast.S. hod. PG 89,113; σϕραγίs τaν πατέρων

51. 'Ανθρωποs δέ γέγονε, καὶ οὐκ εἰs aνθρωπον aλθε. Ath.Ar. III.30, PG 26, p. 681. Even though we find that the classifications in christology as either Logos-sarx- or Logos-anthropos christology are exaggerated, as will be shown, one can of course use the terms as a help in seeing the different aspects of the fathers' christologies.

52. Cyril was the first theologian who used the proof from the fathers extensively beside Scripture. Cf. Nacke 1964, pp. 44-45; 138-139.

    Just as an example of how he argued in doctrinal debate with utilizing both the Scriptures and the earlier eastern fathers we could mention following works:

    Ad monachos Aegypti (=epistula 1); ACO 1.1.1, pp.10-23

    Oratio ad Arcadiam et Marinam augustas de fide; ACO 1.1.5, pp. 62-118

    Apologia xii capitulorum contra Orientales; ACO 1.1.7, pp. 33-65

    Apologia xii anathematismorum contra Theodoretum; ACO 1.1.6, pp. 110-146

    These works are veritable catalogues of testimonies from the Scriptures and the fathers to back up orthodoxy.

53. Gebremedhin 1977, pp. 109-110.

54. Liébaert 1965, p. 105.

55. Praef.In Jo.1,7.

56. Burghardt 1967, p. 574; Quasten 1950, p. 119.

57. Young 1983, p. 254.

58. Reuss 1941, p. 192

59. Catenae (from Latin, meaning “chains”; the Greek term is σειρά) are biblical commentaries from the 5. century onwards, in which the successive verses in the commentary were elucidated by “chains” of passages derived from previous commentaries.

60. The catenae to John have been edited by the German scholar Johannes Reuss. Cf. Reuss 1941, pp. 148-220; Reuss 1966, pp. 188-195; cf. also Fee 1971, pp. 387-394; Kieffer 1968, pp. 69-71.

61. Wiles 1960, p. 159; Fatica 1988.

62. Gebremedhin 1987, p. 34.

63. Mahé 1907, p. 43.

64. Mahé 1907, pp. 43-45.

65. Charlier 1950, pp. 54ff.

66. Jouassard 1945; Jouassard 1962; Jouassard 1977.

67. Wilken 1971, p. 3.

68. Sauer 1965.

69. Abel 1941, pp. 229-230, 105.

70. Wiles 1960, pp. 137-138.

71. In Jo 11,36-37; διὰ τοῦτο ονν συνεχώρησε τῆ ἰδίᾳ σαρκὶ κλαῦσαι ὀλίγον. Pusey II, 282.

72. Thes.24, PG 75,396.

73. Gr.Naz.ep.101, ἐπὶ τέλει δἐκαὶ ἀνθρωπον, προσληϕθέντα ὑπἐ τῆs σωτηρίαs τῆs ἡμετέραs, παθητὸν σαρκί, ἀπαθῆ θεότητι.

74. Gr.Naz.ep.101.

75. In Jo 1,33; οὕτωs ἐχων οὐσιωδῶs eν eυτἐ τὸ ἰδιον Πνεῦμα. Pusey I, 182.

76. In Jo 1,33; διασoζων τe ἀνθρωπότητι τὴν αὐτ[ἔ] πρέπουσαν τάξιν, καὶ σὺν αὐτἔ πρέποντα δι' ἡμas οἰκειούμενοs. Pusey I, 187

77. In Jo 3,13; καὶ ὡs αὐτὸs παθoν ἀναγέγραπται τὰ μόνῃ τἔ ἀνθρωπότητι πρέποντα πάθη. Pusey I, 224

78. In Jo 6,3; ὑψώθη μἔν γὰρ ἔκ τὰs γῆs, καὶ εἰs τὸν ὑπἔρ ἡμῶν ἀναβαίνων σταυρόν. ὑψώθη δἔ πάλιν ἔτέρωs, καθάπερ εἰs ὀροs ἀναβεβηκῶs τὴν θεοπρεπῆ τιμήν τε καὶ δόξαν. Pusey I, 404

79. In Jo 14,28

80. In Jo 17,9-11; ὁ τοίνυν ἔρωτῶν, ὡs ἀνθρωποs, συνδιανέμει πάλιν ὡs Tεόs. Pusey II, 689

81. Kerrigan 1957, p. 374; Wiles 1960, pp. 135, 139

82. On the problem of ignorance in Christ in Cyril cf. Dubarle 1939, pp. 111-112

83. cf. In Jo 6,38; 11,33; 13,21; 17,2.

84. Cyr.Thes.22; PG 75,368.

85. In Jo 11,34; Pusey II, 281; cf. even In Jo 13, 21 and 17,2.

86. In Jo 6,38-39; Pusey I, 486.

87. Gr.Naz.or.30.15.

88. Joh 3, 1-21.

89. In Jo 3,12-13; διχάζεσθαι μετὰ τὴν ἔνανθρώπησιν εἰs δύο πρόσωπα παραιτούμενοs. Pusey I, 224.

90. In Jo 3,12-13; ε[ἱ]s δἔ λοιπὸν ὴξ ἅμϕοών ὁ Kριστὸs, ἀδιαίρετοs εἰs υἱότητα καὶ εἰs δόξαν θεοπρεπῆ. Cyril uses here the formula εἱs ἔξ ἀμϕοῖν, a wording that becomes more frequently after the discord between Cyril and Nestorius. Gebremedhin 1977, p. 36, Pusey I, 224; in the commentary in 1,14; 3,12-13, and 6,54.

91. In Jo 3,31; ὁ δἔ ἀaῥήτοs ἔκ Tεοῦ Πατρὸs ἀναλάμψαs Λόγοs, ἰδιάζουσαν ἔχων τὴν aνωθεν γέννησιν. Pusey I, 242.

92. In Jo 3,31; The Greek word for “fountain” is πηγή. Πηγή in the fathers is mainly about the Godhead (God the Father), secondly it can also be ascribed to the Son and the Holy Spirit. In the later fathers it becomes more and more frequent to be used with respect to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Lampe 1961, pp. 1079-1080.

93. An elucidating article that shows how far Cyril goes in his utilizing of Attic Greek instead of Koiné is found in Vaccari 1937, especially pp. 29-31.

94. Cross 1950, p. 392.

95. The intention behind apophatic theology is not the creation of a distance between man and God, but rather the underlining of the Godhead's exalted being. Man does come into touch with the Godhead through God's uncreated energies. The term apophatic as such gains prominence first with Pseudo-Dionysius, the Areopagite (c.500), although it is very prominent in Gregory of Nyssa and his attack on Eunomianism.

96. In Jo 10,15. Pusey II, 230

97. In Jo 10,15; τὸ δἔ τί κατ' οὐσίαν ἔστὶν ἡ ἀaῥητοs ϕύσιs, ἀνέϕικτον παντελῶs ἡμῖν τε καὶ τοῖs aλλοιs λογικοῖs κτίσμασι. Pusey II, 230.

Works Cited

Abel, F.-M. Parallélisme exégétique entre S. Jérôme et S. Cyrill d'Alexandrie. Viv.Pen. 1, 94-119, 212-230. Paris 1941.

Baus/Ewig. Die Reichskirche nach Konstantin dem Grossen. HKG(J), II.1. Freiburg 1985.

Di Berardino, A. Patrology, IV. Westminster, MD. 1986.

Burghardt, W. J. St. Cyril of Alexandria. NCE 4, 571-576. New York 1967.

Chadwick, H. The Early Church. London 1978.

Charlier, N. Le “Thesaurus de Trinitate” de saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie. RHE 45/1950, 25-81.

Cross, F. L. The Projected Lexicon of Patristic Greek. Actes de VI. congrès international d'etudes byzantines, 389-392. Paris 1950.

Dubarle, A.-M. L'ignorance du Christ chez Saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie. EThL 16/1939, 111-120.

Fee, G. D. The Text of John in Origen and Cyril of Alexandria. Bib. 52/1971, 357-394.

Frend, W. H. C. The Rise of Christianity. London 1984.

Gebremedhin, E. Life-Giving Blessing. An Inquiry into the Eucharistic Doctrine of Cyril of Alexandria. Uppsala 1977.

———. Cyrillus av Alexandria Kommentar till Johannes Evangelium, “en läromässig kommentar.” in Patristica Nordica 2 (=Religio 25), 33-48. Lund 1987.

Hardy, E. R. “Cyrillus von Alexandrien.” TRE 8, 254-260. Berlin 1981.

Jouassard, G. L'activité littéraire de saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie jusqu'a 428. Mélanges E. Podechard, 159-174. Lyons. 1945.

———. “Cyrill von Alexandrien.” RAC 3, 499-516. Leipzig 1957.

———. Saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie aux prises avec la “communication des idiomes” avant 428 dans ses ouvrages Anti-ariens. SP 6 (=TU 81), 112-121. Berlin. 1962.

———. La date des écrits antiariens de saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie. RBen 89/1977, 172-178. Maresouds. 1977.

Kerrigan, A. The Objects of the Literal and Spiritual Senses of the New Testament according to St. Cyril of Alexandria. SP 1 (=TU 63), 354-374. Berlin 1957.

Kieffer, R. Au delà des recensions? L'evolution de la tradition textuelle dans Jean VI, 52-71. Uppsala 1968.

Liébaert, J. Christologie. Von der apostolischen Zeit bis zum Konzil von Chalkedon. HDG III, 1a. Freiburg 1965.

Mahé, J. La date du Commentaire de saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie sur l'évangelie selon saint Jean. BLE 8/1907, 41-45. Toulouse 1907.

du Manoir, H. Dogme et spiritualité chez saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Paris 1944.

Quasten, J. Patrology, vol.3. Utrecht 1950

Reuss, J. Matthäus-, Markus- und Johannes-Katenen nach den handschriftlichen Quellen untersucht. Münster. 1941.

———. Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt und herausgegeben von Joseph Reuss (=TU 89). Berlin 1966.

Sauer, J. Die Exegese des Cyrill von Alexandrien nach seinem Kommentar zum Johannesevangelium. Freiburg 1965.

Scipioni, L. I. Nestorio e il concilio de Efeso. Milan 1974.

Vogt, H. J. “Cyrill von Alexandrien.” Gestalten der Kirchengeschichte, 1984 II. Stuttgart 1984.

Wickham, L. R. Cyril of Alexandria. Select Letters. Oxford 1983.

———. “Cyril of Alexandria,” EEC, 249-250.

Wiles, M. F. The Spiritual Gospel. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church. Cambridge 1960.

Wilken, R. L. Judaism and the Early Christian Mind. New Haven 1971.

Young, F. M. From Nicea to Chalcedon. London 1983.

Abbreviations

ACO: Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. Berlin 1914-

AncB: The Anchor Bible. New York 1964-

Bib.: Biblica. Rome 1920-

BLE: Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique. Toulouse 1909-

CH: Church History. Chicago 1932-

DThC: Dictionnaire de théologie catholique. Paris 1903-1950.

EEC: Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. New York 1990.

EThL: Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses. Louvain 1924-

GCS: Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte. Berlin 1897-

HDG: Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Freiburg 1956-

HKG(J): Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte. Freiburg 1962-1979.

JThS.NS: The Journal of Theological Studies. New Series. Oxford 1950-

KP: Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike. München 1975.

LThK: Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche. Freiburg 1957-1968.

MSR: Mélanges de science religieuse. Lille 1944-

NCE: New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1-15. New York 1967.

PG: Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca. Paris 1857-1867.

PLS: Patrologiae Latinae Supplementum. Paris 1958-

RAC: Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Stuttgart 1950-

RBen: Revue Bénédictine. Maresdous 1884-

RHE: Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique. Louvain 1900-

SC: Sources chrétiennes. Paris 1941-

SP: Studia Patristica. Berlin 1957-

TRE: Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Berlin 1976-

TU: Texte und Untersuchungen. Leipzig and Berlin 1882-

Viv.Pen.: Vivre et penser. Paris 1941-

WA: Weimarer Ausgabe. D. Martin Luthers Werke. Weimar 1883-

ZNW: Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. Berlin 1900-