Category: Cyril of Alexandria
Online readings on Cyril of Alexandria.
“Cyril and the Condemning of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus”, Billy Cash
“Cyril of Alexandria”, earlychurch.org
“Cyril of Alexandria”, Orthodox Wiki
“The Exegesis of Cyril of Alexandria vs. Theodore of Mopsuestia: A Play in Three Acts”, Andy Peloquin (downloadable paper)
“Disliking Cyril of Alexandria”, Brian LePort
“Remembering Cyril of Alexandria and the Twelve Anathemas”, Marc Cortez
“St. Cyril of Alexandria”, Catholic Encyclopedia
“St. Cyril of Alexandria”, CCEL.org
“The Historical and Political Development of Christology from The Council ofChalcedonin 451 to the Third Council of Constantinoplein 681”, Justin Cardinal (downloadable paper)
“The Perniciously Persistent Myths of Hypatia and the Great Library”, D.B. Hart
“Twelve Anathemas”, Early Church Texts
…if you have any links to add please leave a comment!
Let’s discuss Cyril of Alexandria!
Cyril of Alexandria pondering how to bury Nestorius.
There are two things I know about Cyril of Alexandria: (1) he was the one who sought to bury Nestorianism and (2) he comes across as a thug.
Nestorianism is attributed to Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople. He sought to separate the divine and human natures of Christ or at least emphasize their distinction. This point was most important in the discussion over whether Mary the mother of Jesus should be called the “Christ-bearer” (Christotokos) or the “God-bearer”(Theotokos). Nestorius seemed to have feared calling Mary Theotokos because the divine nature of Christ was incarnate and eternal as the Word, not “born” which seems to indicate “coming into existence”. Others like Cyril argued that Christotokos seemed to deny the incarnation, as if the one born was somehow less than God. At least this is how I understand the debate.
Eventually Cyril won the day. Nestorianism because a heresy. The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon seemed to have sided with Cyril, though there is a bit of tension here. Cyril’s view seems quite close to that of the monophysites, those who saw only “one nature” in Jesus, either God fully emptied into man or man fully engulfed into deity, not not two distinct natures. Chalcedon attempted to maintain the tension of Jesus being “fully God, fully man” with two natures that are not morphed into one yet completely united. I don’t know if Nestorius really, really disagreed or if he was framed as disagreeing by his opponents.
Cyril came across as a Christian mafioso in my estimation. He lead gangs of monks. He played the political game with much vigor. I don’t recall all I read, but I remember thinking of him as less of a pastor, more of a punk. I don’t know that he handled his dispute with Nestorius correctly. In fact, I doubt he did. That said, the past is the past and all our interpretations are history!
Let me know your thoughts on this man!
__________
See my other posts wherein I prepare for my Th.M. oral defense:
If you’d like to discuss Origen of Alexandria and Irenaeus of Lyons, go here.
If you’d like to discuss Athanasius of Alexandria, go here.
If you’d like to discuss Basil the Great, go here.
If you’d like to discuss Gregory of Nazianzus, go here.
If you’d like to discuss Gregory of Nyssa, go here.
If you’d like to discuss John Chrysostom, go here.
N.T. Wright on the Chalcedonian Definition
Council of Chalcedon
Tomorrow I will post my review of N.T. Wright’s chapter “Whence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies in the Life of the Church?” from Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hay’s (eds.) Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright, but today I want to share something he says about the Chalcedonian Definition, wherein Jesus was stated to be fully human and fully divine over against the teaching of Nestorius, who was deemed a heretic and accused of splitting the divine from the human within Christ (though it seems many are not sure if this is actually what he taught or if it is merely how his opposition [e.g. Cyril of Alexandria] framed him).
Wright writes,
“…the Chalcedonian Definition looks suspiciously like an attempt to say the right thing but in two dimensions (divinity and humanity as reimagined within a partly de-Judaized world of thought) rather than in three dimensions. What the Gospel offer is the personal story of Jesus himself, understood in terms of his simultaneously (1) embodying Israel’s God, coming to rule the world as he had always promised, and (2) summing up Israel itself, as its Messiah, offering to Israel’s God the obedience to which Israel’s whole canonical tradition had pointed but which nobody, up to this point, had been able to provide. The flattening out of Christian debates about Jesus into the language of divinity and humanity represents, I believe, a serious de-Judaizing of the Gospels, ignoring the fact that the Gospels know nothing of divinity in the abstract and plenty about the God of Israel coming to establish his kingdom on earth as in heaven, that they know nothing of humanity in the abstract, but plenty about Israel as God’s true people, and Jesus as summing that people up in himself. The Council of Chalcedon might be seen as the de-Israelitization of the canonical picture of YHWH and Israelinto the abstract categories of ‘divinity’ and ‘humanity.’ I continue to affirm Chalcedon in the same way that I will agree that a sphere is also a circle or a cube also a square, while noting that this truth is not the whole truth.” (p. 135)
As I have talked with fellow evangelicals over the years it does seem that many find the Council of Chalcedon as being more political than doctrinal and few seem to think that anything substantial came from the decisions made there. Wright does not go that far, but he does seem to imply it only reached a half-truth and one could suggest that he doesn’t see the difference between the Christology of Cyril and that of Nestorius as being very relevant.
What are your thoughts? Do you think Wright undermines something very important that is found in the Chalcedonian Definition or do you fall to the side that sees the Council of Chalcedon as semi-irrelevant (or worse)?
The Greatest Alexandrian Theologian?
Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria
Today the eastern church remembers two great Patriarchs of Alexandria: Athanasius and Cyril. I am fond of Athanasius, but Cyril is another story. These are not the only two great Alexandrian theologians. We may mention Origen and Clement as well. I am sure there are others. Who do you consider to be the greatest Alexandrian theologian?
Greek Fathers Annotated Bibliography
As previously mentioned I was in a class on the Greek Fathers this spring. Each student had to contribute to an annotated bibliography made for the class. Well, it is finished and available here.
Who Is Your Favorite Greek Father?
Council of Nicaea
I am almost done with a class I have been taking on the Greek Fathers with Dr. Marc Cortez. It has been a facinating theological journey. I have come to greatly respect these men for their contributions to Christianity. The individuals we studied include the following: Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus. For those who are familiar with any of this theologians who would you say is your favorite?
Cyril of Alexandria on the Death of Christ
This is a quote taken from Cyril of Alexandria’s On the Unity of Christ that seems appropriate for Good Friday:
“…the Only Begotten Word of God has saved us by putting on our likeness. Suffering in the flesh, and rising from the dead, he revealed our nature as greater than death or corruption. What he achieved was beyond the ability of our condition, and what seemed to have been worked out in human weakness and by suffering was really stronger than men and a demonstration of the power than pertains to God.”
While we may rightly speak of the death of Christ having legal and substitutionary provisions–and this is precious to us–we must not forget that part of redeeming creation so that we could be resurrected meant dying as one of us so that we can live as he.
Disliking Cyril of Alexandria
Cyril of Alexandria
I admit I have only just begun reading about Cyril of Alexandria, and I am currently reading his famous work On the Unity of Christ (trans. John A. McGuckin), but am I alone in thinking that while he appears to have been a great theologian he was also a political monster? He was in constant conflict with pagans and Jews. He had mobs of monks striking fear into the hearts of his opponents. He seems to have supported the murder of a female philosopher as the final defeat of “idolatry” in Alexandria. He was part of the disposal of two bishops of Constantinople–John Chrysostom and Nestorius–partially for legitimate reasons but also in part because he feared Constantinople overshadowing Alexandria.
All that being said, do we have any Cyril scholars out there who can tell me why I should like this man (other than his defeat of Nestorianism)?
Against the Populist: Athanasius, Cyril, and King
I found it interesting that on the same day that we here in the United States remember one whom we consider to be a prophet and a saint, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Orthodox church remembers the great Athanasius of Alexandria and Cyril of Alexandria. While for some there may be little or no connection I see a very important one. All three of these men stood against the populist agenda of the day maintaining what they knew to be truth even if the whole world stood against them.
Athanasius stood against the Arian heresy. The Arian heresy maintained that Jesus was the first created being, but not God (much like modern Jehovah’s Witnesses). As more and more people were swayed into this heresy, even emperors who sided with them, Athanasius stood against them. He wrote, he debated, and he won. When it was all said and done we Christians had returned to orthodoxy rightly worshiping Jesus as ‘very God of very God‘.
Cyril stood against the Nestorian heresy. The idea that Jesus could be fully God and fully man was bothersome to Nestorius and his followers. It was proposed that there was a human Jesus and a divine Jesus in one body. Two person in Jesus. Cyril stood with those who rightly argued that Jesus is one unified person with two natures: God and man. The Nestorians faded away; orthodoxy remained.
Finally, Martin Luther King Jr. stood against those who thought one race of people could be superior to another. He reminded us all that we are made in the imago dei and therefore skin color cannot determine the worth of a person. The fight that he fought is one that we are still fighting today.
All three of these men were prophets of God in their day. All three stood for truth against a populist opinion that taught falsehood. Let us remember with Athanasius, Cyril, and King that it is not numbers that determine the truth but the Truth itself.
