Cyril of Alexandria's Trinitarian Theology of Scripture

Gregory of Nyssa’s Tabernacle Imagery in Its Jewish and Christian Contexts Ann Conway-Jones The Canons of Our Fathers Monastic Rules of Shenoute Bentley Layton Origen and Scripture The Contours of the Exegetical Life Peter w. Martens Also Available in Paperback Contemplation and Classical Christianity A Study in Augustine John Peter Kenney Corresponding to this divine movement towards humanity in revelation is humanity’s appropriation of divine life according to the reverse pattern—in the Spirit, through the Son, unto the Father. Applied to exegesis, this Trinitarian pattern implies that the Spirit directs the reader of Scripture to a Christological interpretation of the text, through which the believer beholds the incarnate Son, the exemplar of virtue and the perfect image of the Father, and accordingly advances in both virtue and knowledge. This process continues until the inal eschatological vision when the types and riddles of Scripture will be done away with in light of the overwhelming clarity of the Christologically-mediated Trinitarian vision. Jacket illustration: Portrait of the Evangelist Mark from the Abba Garima Gospels © Michael Gervers, 2004 9780198722625_Crawford_hb.indd 1 9 780198 722625 2 MATThEw R. CRAw FoRd is Junior Research Fellow at hatield College, durham University. oXFoRd EARLY ChRISTIAN STUdIES CYRIL oF ALEXANdRIA’S TRINITARIAN ThEoLoGY oF SCRIPTURE The series includes scholarly volumes on the thought and history of the early Christian centuries. Covering a wide range of Greek, Latin, and oriental sources, the books are of interest to theologians, ancient historians, and specialists in the classical and Jewish worlds. General Editors Gillian Clark, Professor Emerita of Ancient history, University of Bristol. Matthew R. Crawford Andrew Louth, Professor Emeritus of Patristic and Byzantine Studies, durham University. ox f or d e a r ly c h r i s t i a n s t u d i e s 2 1 ISBN 978-0-19-872262-5 CYRIL oF ALEXANdRIA’S TRINITARIAN ThEoLoGY oF SCRIPTURE John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy The Coherence of his Theology and Preaching david Rylaarsdam More exegetical literature survives from the hand of Cyril of Alexandria than from nearly any other Greek patristic author, yet this sizable body of work has scarcely received the degree of attention it deserves. In this work, Matthew R. Crawford reconstructs the intellectual context that gave rise to this literary output and highlights Cyril’s Trinitarian theology, received as an inheritance from the fourth century, as the most important deining factor. Cyril’s appropriation of pro-Nicene Trinitarianism is evident in both his theology of revelation and his theology of exegesis, the two foci that comprise his doctrine of Scripture. Revelation, in his understanding, proceeds from the Father, through the Son, and in the Spirit, following the order of Trinitarian relations. Although Cyril’s interpretation of revelation may consequently be called ‘Trinitarian’, it is also resolutely Christological, since the divine and incarnate Son functions as the central content and mediator of all divine unveiling. Crawford also published in this series 31/07/14 7:18 PM 

Ma ter ial Cyril of Alexandria’s Trinitarian Theology of Scripture Pre vie w- Co py rig hte d M A T T HEW R . C R AW F O R D 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries # Matthew R. Crawford 2014 Ma ter ial The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2014 Impression: 1 Co py rig hte d All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2014935090 ISBN 978–0–19–872262–5 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Pre vie w- Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work. 1 Ma ter ial Introduction Co py rig hte d For, as I said, all things are from the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit, and the holy and consubstantial Trinity is glorified in all things that are accomplished. For consider how all things begin from the Spirit, as the one who is in us and who brings about the distribution of divine gifts. And turning the discourse back towards the Son, who is the Son according to nature, it then approaches unto the Father, to whom is assigned the operation through the Spirit by the Son’s mediation.1 1 Pre vie w- Over the past decade or so, the most recent wave of scholarship dealing with the development of Nicene orthodoxy has achieved an increasing level of both historical and theological sophistication in its descriptions of the persons, texts, and events that contributed to the final establishment of a Nicene Trinitarian faith in the 380s. One common feature of these recent accounts that sets them apart from older scholarship on the period is the greater emphasis upon and appreciation of the role that scriptural exegesis played in these debates. For example, only two and a half decades ago R. P. C. Hanson concluded his magisterial study of the period by highlighting the “exegetical contortions” evident on all sides of the controversy. Hanson elaborated, bemoaning the fact that “All sides lack almost completely . . . a sense of historical perspective. . . . There were very few, if any, Biblicists in the strict sense among the writers of the fourth century. The result is, inevitably, much perverse and some positively grotesque interpretation.”2 Such an assessment Cyril, 1 Cor. 12:7ff (Pusey, 287–8). R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 826. Just a little further on, Hanson highlighted the critique of “allegory” put forward by Eusebius of Emesa, and then remarked, “Had all ancient interpreters of the Bible followed this advice, subsequent generations would have been saved the necessity of reading a great deal of nonsense” (p. 829). One wonders whether he is here reflecting on his own labor in writing such a weighty tome! Hanson’s rejection of patristic exegesis was characteristic of much twentieth-century historical scholarship. For example, J. N. D. Kelly once remarked, “Neither John, nor any Christian teacher for centuries to come, was properly equipped to carry out exegesis as we have come to understand it. He could not be expected to understand the nature of the Old Testament writings, still less the complex issues raised by the study of the gospels” (Golden 2 2 Cyril of Alexandria’s Trinitarian Theology of Scripture Co py rig hte d Ma ter ial contrasts sharply with more recent interpretations of the period. Lewis Ayres argues that “pro-Nicenes offer a plausible reading of Scripture.”3 Similarly, John Behr writes, “The basic scriptural grammar of Trinitarian theology—that the one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, made known in and through the Spirit—is preserved in the most abstract discussions of the fourth century, in the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople, and in liturgical language.”4 Finally, and most recently, Khaled Anatolios claims, “The inner form of scriptural language is christological and trinitarian. . . . Considered as a whole and in all its distinct aspects, Nicene trinitarian faith comprises determinate interpretations of Scripture.”5 As a consequence of the growing realization that biblical interpretation is intrinsic to Nicene theology, some have drawn attention to the problematic assumption that one can retrieve and appropriate the dogmatic conclusions of the fourth century, even while rejecting the exegetical arguments by which those dogmatic formulas were arrived at.6 Nevertheless, despite this growing appreciation and interest, patristic exegesis in general, and pro-Nicene interpretation in particular, continue to appear to many Pre vie w- Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom, Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995), 94). The assessment of Stephen Neill and Tom Wright was similar: “Much in the patristic commentaries is quaint, unscientific, even absurd” (The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861–1986 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 98). About Cyril of Alexandria specifically, Johannes Quasten wrote, “His exegetical works form the greater but not the better part of his literary output” (Patrology, Vol. 3, The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature from the Council of Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon (Westminster, MA: Christian Classics, 1984), 119). Similarly, Alexander Kerrigan concluded his influential study of Cyril’s Old Testament exegesis by stating that “his chief title to greatness is not that he was an outstanding exegete, but that he was a theologian,” with the result that “his exegetical principles are not likely to be employed by those, who are now in quest of a new brand of spiritual exegesis which can be harmonized with rigorously scientific method” (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Interpreter of the Old Testament (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1952), 460). Again, G. Jouassard, who nevertheless praised Cyril’s theology and erudition, called him a “très imparfaitement” exegete, because “il a chéri l’Écriture, mais en théologien, à ce point que sa théologie est facilement envahissante, quand il prétend expliquer un texte” (“L’activité littéraire de Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie jusqu’à 428,” in Mélanges E. Podechard (Lyon, 1945), 173). 3 Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 385. Just prior Ayres writes, specifically about Augustine, “the exegesis of Scripture provides the point of departure for the enterprise of Trinitarian theology and for the conjoint exercise of the rational powers that is central to that enterprise” (p.383). 4 The Nicene Faith, Formation of Christian Theology, Vol. 2 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 7. 5 Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011), 282–3. 6 As noted by Andrew Louth, Discerning the Mystery: An Essay on the Nature of Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 100; Ayres, Nicaea, 386. Hanson exemplifies this ambivalence towards pro-Nicene Trinitarianism, since, despite his dismissal of their exegetical arguments, he still held that fourth-century theologians were “working out a form of one of the most capital and crucial doctrines not only of the Bible but of the very spirit and genius of Christianity itself” (The Search, 848). 3 Introduction Pre vie w- Co py rig hte d Ma ter ial modern readers as at best a curiosity and at worst a misreading of Scripture. Therefore, much work remains to be done, both to elucidate the specific ways in which biblical interpretation functioned for Nicene theologians and to make such exegesis intelligible for a modern audience.7 The present study aims to make a contribution to this growing discussion by uncovering the assumptions present within pro-Nicene theology that made such reading practices seem plausible to those who inhabited this theological culture.8 My focus is not on whether the interpretations of specific, individual texts put forward by pro-Nicene theologians may still be regarded as “good” readings. Rather, I hope to bring out the pre-understanding that pro-Nicene theologians brought to the text of Scripture, which then guided their reading of whatever individual passages they encountered. In other words, what follows represents an attempt to operate on a more global scale by clarifying the theological presuppositions that governed pro-Nicene exegesis, at least as seen through one prominent representative of this tradition. It was, in fact, precisely the “presuppositions” about Scripture held by pro-Nicenes that, according to Hanson, made fourth-century theologians “incompetent and ill-prepared to expound” the biblical text. However, when he came to define what those presuppositions were, the brief list he provided utterly failed to get at the heart of what most motivated the theological exegesis of these authors.9 I therefore intend to challenge his portrayal not simply by contesting the validity of the presuppositions he presented, but rather, on a more fundamental level, by presenting an altogether different set of ideas about Scripture that was far more central to the pro-Nicene project than the comparatively tangential points highlighted by Hanson. I suggest that intrinsic to pro-Nicene theology is a certain understanding of Scripture that consists of two components corresponding to the divine movement towards humanity in revelation, and humanity’s encounter with that revelation in the written word of Scripture. These two movements may be 7 Currently the best historical survey of patristic exegesis is Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). A shorter introduction can be found in John J. O’Keefe and Russell R. Reno, Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005). Also helpful is the reference work by Charles Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, The Bible in Ancient Christianity 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2006). For recent proposals for contemporary appropriation of patristic exegesis, see Louth, Discerning the Mystery, 96–131; Robert L. Wilken, “In Defense of Allegory,” Modern Theology 14 (1998): 197–212. Along these lines the collection of essays in Modern Theology 28, no.4 (2012) is also valuable. 8 On the precise meaning of the term “pro-Nicene,” see the introduction to Chapter 2. 9 Hanson, The Search, 848–9. Hanson defined these problematic presuppositions as the “atomic” way in which fourth-century writers treat individual verses, their “oracular concept of the nature of the Bible,” and their inability to take account of the historical background of the texts they were exegeting. Hanson’s summary of pro-Nicene scriptural presuppositions is open to challenge at a number of points, since it is not clear that all pro-Nicene authors exhibit the range of faults he enumerates. 4 Cyril of Alexandria’s Trinitarian Theology of Scripture Co py rig hte d Ma ter ial summarily stated according to the principles that revelation proceeds from the Father, through the Son, and in the Spirit, and that exegesis is a Spirit-enabled contemplation of the Son in Scripture, by which believers are led onwards to a vision of the Father. From both perspectives the incarnate Son occupies the central role in the reading of Scripture, since he is simultaneously the primary locus of divine revelation and the focal point of scriptural contemplation. The chapters that follow aim to fill out in greater detail this basic schematic outline, and in so doing to demonstrate that pro-Nicene thought was not only Trinitarian in its doctrine of God, but also included a correspondingly Trinitarian theology of Scripture. The complexities of pro-Nicene theology are best illuminated by giving sustained attention to individual authors, so that the inner coherence of an author’s thought can be demonstrated, and so that his distinctive voice within this tradition can be heard. Accordingly, the present study focuses upon the theology of Scripture of Cyril of Alexandria.10 Cyril might at first seem like an odd choice, since scholarly accounts of pro-Nicene Trinitarianism typically move from Athanasius to the Cappadocians and onwards to Augustine, never considering later developments in the east. Moreover, in surveys of historical theology, Cyril’s name is typically associated more with the Christological developments of the fifth century than he is with the debates of the fourth. Nevertheless, Cyril’s corpus warrants an investigation for at least three reasons. Pre vie w- 10 Several short summaries of Cyril’s life are available, so I will not rehearse that well-covered material. The only full length biography is well over a century old: Joseph Kopallik, Cyrillus von Alexandrien, eine Biographie nach den Quellen (Mainz: F. Kirchheim, 1881). More recent surveys can be found in Lionel R. Wickham, Cyril of Alexandria, Select Letters, OECT (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), xi–xxviii; Pierre Évieux et al., eds, Cyrille d’Alexandrie: Lettres Festales I–VI, SC 372 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1991), 11–72; Norman Russell, Cyril of Alexandria (New York: Routledge, 2000), 3–63; John Anthony McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 1–125; Sebastian Schurig, Die Theologie des Kreuzes beim frühen Cyrill von Alexandria: Dargestellt an seiner Schrift “De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate,” STAC 29 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 7–28; Lois M. Farag, St. Cyril of Alexandria, a New Testament Exegete: His Commentary on the Gospel of John (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007), 11–69. Other studies relating to his biography include Henri Munier, “Le lieu de naissance de Saint Cyrille,” in Kyrilliana (Cairo: Les Éditions du Scribe Egyptien, 1947), 199–201; F. M. Abel, “Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie dans ses rapports avec la Palestine,” in Kyrilliana, 203–30; E. R. Hardy, “The Further Education of Cyril of Alexandria (412-444): Questions and Problems,” STPatr 17/1 (1982): 116–22; A. Davids, “Cyril of Alexandria’s First Episcopal Years,” in The Impact of Scripture in Early Christianity, ed. M. L. van Poll-van de Lisdonk and J. den Boeft (Leiden: Brill, 1999); Susan Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy: The Making of a Saint and of a Heretic, OECS (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 15–73. A useful timeline of events can be found in Hubert Du Manoir, Dogme et spiritualité chez Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie (Paris: J. Vrin, 1944), 441–7. Historical introductions to this period can be found in Roger S. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993); Christopher Haas, Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997); Fergus Millar, A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief Under Theodosius II (408–450) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006). 5 Introduction Pre vie w- Co py rig hte d Ma ter ial First, he was among the most prolific of early exegetes, and, unlike many others, a large portion of his work has survived to the present day, allowing for a wide reading across a range of texts. In fact, there is more extant literature from the hand of Cyril than from any other eastern patristic author, with the exception of John Chrysostom, whose works are devoted more to moral exhortation than to dogmatic reflection. Cyril’s numerous and lengthy exegetical works illustrate his remarkable commitment to the elucidation of the biblical text within a theological tradition, and this devotion makes him a prime candidate for furthering our understanding of pro-Nicene exegesis. Second, Cyril has not been well served in modern scholarship. In fact, it has become something of a topos in studies published in the past two decades to lament the degree to which he is ignored in much secondary literature.11 Despite the calls for more focus on this fifth-century Alexandrian, monographs devoted to Cyril still remain few and far between, a feature that is especially striking given the size of his corpus. Third, Cyril stood as the selfconscious heir of the robust, pro-Nicene theologies that developed in the latter half of the fourth century. He repeatedly insisted upon the continuity of his faith with that of his predecessors, even while he extended their insights to meet the challenges that arose in his own day. He imbibed the works of a number of earlier authors, synthesized their insights, and added his own contribution to the growing tradition. In fact, one of the subsidiary arguments of this book is that Cyril should be taken seriously for his contribution to Trinitarian theology, and that thinking of him as only having to do with the development of orthodox Christology obscures the significant degree of continuity that existed between the debates of the fourth century and his own controversy with Nestorius. Moreover, the existing scholarship on Cyril’s corpus, scant though it is, has provided a foundation upon which such an investigation can be carried out. Cyril’s exegesis has been the subject of several studies, such as Alexander Kerrigan’s S. Cyril of Alexandria: Interpreter of the Old Testament (1952), Robert Wilken’s Judaism and the Early Christian Mind (1971), and Lois Farag’s St. Cyril of Alexandria, A New Testament Exegete (2007). Furthermore, the 1994 monograph by Marie-Odile Boulnois, Le paradoxe trinitaire chez Cyrille d’Alexandrie, serves as a fine overview of his Trinitarian theology, demonstrating the degree to which he appropriated the pro-Nicene theologies 11 Marie-Odile Boulnois, Le paradoxe trinitaire chez Cyrille d’Alexandrie: Herméneutique, analyses philosophiques et argumentation théologique, Collection des études augustiniennes, Série antiquité 143 (Paris: Institut d’études augustiniennes, 1994), 15–16; Robert L. Wilken, “Cyril of Alexandria as Interpreter of the Old Testament,” in The Theology of St Cyril of Alexandria: A Critical Appreciation, ed. Thomas G. Weinandy and Daniel A. Keating (London: T & T Clark, 2003), 1–2; Daniel A. Keating, The Appropriation of Divine Life in Cyril of Alexandria, OTM (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 12–13; Schurig, Die Theologie des Kreuzes, 1. 6 Cyril of Alexandria’s Trinitarian Theology of Scripture Pre vie w- Co py rig hte d Ma ter ial of the fourth century. Nevertheless, these two conversations have yet to be brought together to a sufficient degree.12 With respect to his exegesis of Scripture, this amounts to a failure to take into account what is perhaps the most significant intellectual context that shaped his biblical interpretation.13 With respect to his Trinitarian theology, this bifurcation ignores one of the most creative ways in which he appropriated and deployed his fourth-century theological inheritance. Hence, as I shall argue, giving attention to the intersection of his Trinitarian theology and his exegetical practice sheds light on both these strands of existing Cyrilline scholarship. Rather than restrict my focus to only one of Cyril’s works, I have decided to consider relevant passages from as many as possible. For example, I have included significant passages from his On Adoration in Spirit and Truth, Glaphyra, Commentary on Isaiah, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, Homilies on the Gospel of Luke, and Commentary on the Gospel of John, among others.14 The nature of the evidence demands such an approach, since in no single work did he give an extended, systematic discussion of Scripture and its interpretation, but instead dealt with these issues in a variety of contexts. Some degree of synthesis across works is therefore necessary in order to approximate the principles that guided his practice but often remained only implicit or partially expressed. Moreover, approaching the topic in this manner has distinct advantages. Most notably, it allows common themes to rise to the surface that otherwise would remain hidden, providing a deeper and richer reading of Cyril’s thought. To take just one example, the shepherd motif that I examine in Chapter 5 occurs in his Commentary on the Psalms, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, Commentary on the Gospel of John, and Homilies on the Gospel of Luke. The recurrence of this metaphor suggests that it should be granted greater prominence as expressing something fundamental for his theology of Scripture. Similarly, taking this approach allows us to observe the biblical passages to which he frequently turns when discussing exegesis. 12 Though it should be noted that Boulnois includes a lengthy introductory section on exegesis (pp. 55–102) and Farag includes some discussion of Cyril’s Trinitarian theology (pp. 71–147). Nevertheless, even in these two examples, the discussions of Trinitarian theology and of exegesis remain insufficiently integrated. 13 The “perhaps” of this statement is intended as an acknowledgement that there was at least one other, highly influential, intellectual context for his exegesis, namely, the grammatical training he and so many other patristic exegetes received as a part of late antique paideia. These philological skills learned from the grammarian no doubt provided Cyril with the tools for interpreting the text of Scripture. However, it was his pro-Nicene theology that defined the nature of this text, the proper theological location of the exegete, and the goal of exegesis—in other words, the end toward which these philological tools were used. On the influence of grammatical training upon patristic exegesis, see the bibliography below in n. 2 of Chapter 6. 14 All translations of Cyril and other authors are my own, though readers should assume that I have consulted existing translations where they are available, and have relied upon them for guidance in varying degrees. A list of critical editions and translations of Cyril’s works can be found in the Bibliography. 7 Introduction Pre vie w- Co py rig hte d Ma ter ial For example, he uses Hebrews 1:1–2 in his Homilies on the Gospel of Luke, Commentary on the Gospel of John, and Commentary on Isaiah to express the uniqueness of the revelation that came through Jesus. If we had only one of these works to go on, we might not recognize the importance of this biblical passage, but would instead see it as merely one among many others in a string of cross-references. There are, admittedly, dangers in this sort of synthetic approach. It might lead to a cancelling out of the differences between these individual Cyrilline texts, and a masking of developments in Cyril’s thought. Aware of such a danger, I have sought to be sensitive to possible developments and have noted them where appropriate. The question of intellectual development is linked to the issue of dating his works. I have no intention here to revise what is currently the accepted chronology of his writings, except to note that, apart from the annual paschal letters and the texts related to the Nestorian controversy, it is extremely difficult to give a precise date for most of his remaining works.15 Almost the only thing we can state with certainty is which works come before 428 and which after, since the Nestorian controversy marks a shift in his focus, and, to some degree, in his terminology.16 Nevertheless, what emerges from the present study is that, apart from a few notable instances, Cyril’s thought on the issues at hand remained largely consistent across the works I consider. The argument progresses in two stages, corresponding to the topics of a theology of revelation and a theology of exegesis. These two foci may be understood as, first, a consideration of Scripture from the perspective of its relationship to the divine in the event of divine unveiling, and, second, from the perspective of humanity’s encounter with the written word in the act of exegesis. I argue that in each case, Cyril has intentionally constructed his theology of Scripture such that it is Trinitarian in structure and Christological in focus. The argument begins in Chapter 2 with a detailed look at the Trinitarian shape of his theology of revelation. In this chapter I suggest that 15 The basic lines of the chronology were laid down by Jouassard, “L’activité littéraire,” and have been little changed since. N. Charlier, “Le ‘Thesaurus de Trinitate’ de Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie, questions de critique littéraire,” RHE 45 (1950): 25–81, offered an alternate proposal, but Jouassard responded in “La date des écrits antiariens de Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie,” RB 87 (1977): 172–8, and most studies since have followed his lead. For a more recent overview of these debates, see John J. O’Keefe, Interpreting the Angel: Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentators on the Book of Malachi (diss., Catholic University of America, 1993), 149–56. 16 However, even this division cannot be rigidly applied, since the Christological dualism that became such an issue in the Nestorian controversy already appears as a concern in Cyril’s festal letter from the year 420 and in his Commentary on the Gospel of John written in the mid-420s. For an illustration of the shift in Cyril’s vocabulary as a result of the controversy, see the two tables at Donald Fairbairn, Grace and Christology in the Early Church, OECS (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 228–9. 8 Cyril of Alexandria’s Trinitarian Theology of Scripture Pre vie w- Co py rig hte d Ma ter ial Cyril demonstrates a strikingly conservative and traditional emphasis on the Son as the agent of divine revelation. However, he situates this frequent patristic topos within the context of a pro-Nicene understanding of Trinitarian agency. As a result, the Son is the primary revealer, but the object of his revelation is the Father, and the means by which he reveals is the Spirit. In other words, revelation comes from the Father, through the Son, and in the Spirit. Chapters 3 and 4 carry forward the argument to consider the inspiration of Scripture as a specific instantiation of Cyril’s theology of revelation. Thus, in Chapter 3 I examine his understanding of divine inspiration by the Spirit. His commentaries on the Hebrew prophets prove useful here, as these biblical passages provided ample opportunity to expound upon this idea. From his descriptions of the authors of Scripture to his description of Scripture itself, Cyril repeatedly emphasizes that the Church’s holy books were inspired by the one divine Spirit, and, as such, are one divine and spiritual book. However, as I argue in Chapter 4, this idea is only part of the picture, for Cyril also speaks about the inspiration of Scripture with reference to the Son. Thus, bringing together the arguments of Chapters 2 and 3, I suggest that Cyril regards the Son as the primary agent responsible for the inspiration of Scripture, since the inspiration of scriptural authors occurs as the Son comes to indwell these human agents by the Spirit in order to speak through them. In this respect, his understanding of inspiration corresponds to his theology of revelation, since in both cases Trinitarian agency proceeds through the Son and in the Spirit. Moreover, in Chapter 4 I highlight what is perhaps the most distinctive aspect of Cyril’s theology of Scripture. On the basis of this Christological understanding of prophetic inspiration and the fundamental distinction between the incarnation and such prophetic indwelling, he is able to argue that the gospels are the most central part of the canon, as being especially inspired, since in them the Son speaks in unmediated fashion. In Chapter 5 the focus of the study turns from a theology of revelation to a theology of exegesis. I begin this part of the argument by considering the role of Scripture in the divine economy, assuming that Cyril’s practice of exegesis is a function of his understanding of the place Scripture occupies in the plan of salvation. The focus in this chapter is on his presentation of Christ as the Shepherd who feeds the Church with the written word. The consistency of this theme in his works suggests that he sees the inspired word as playing a central role in the appropriation of divine life, one analogous to that of the Eucharist, which also has salvific effects upon believers. In fact, Cyril even on occasion speaks of believers’ “participation” in Christ’s life through encounter with the written word, using the sort of language he typically reserves only for the Spirit and the Eucharist. Finally, in Chapter 6 I come to the act of exegesis. Given that Scripture is presented by Christ to the Church for its benefit, what sort of theological 9 Introduction Pre vie w- Co py rig hte d Ma ter ial explanation does Cyril give for the way in which Scripture becomes this nourishing word through the process of interpretation? The archbishop’s Trinitarian vision once again becomes more pronounced in this chapter, as it was in the second. He states that the Spirit is required for proper interpretation, since only the Spirit, given in baptism, can illumine the mind so that it can see the spiritual truth contained in the inspired word. In other words, spiritual persons present spiritual interpretations to other believers as spiritual nourishment. The content of this spiritual enlightenment is none other than a knowledge of Christ, corresponding to the incarnate Son’s role as the primary agent and locus of divine revelation. As readers of Scripture behold the divine revelation that is the Son, they are transformed to exhibit his lifestyle of virtue and they come to understand more perfectly the Trinitarian confession by which they began their journey as Christians. Thus, we end where we began. In the coming of God to humanity in revelation, in the preservation of revelation in the canon, and finally in humanity’s return to the divine through encounter with the inspired word, the believer’s gaze is drawn to the incarnate Son of God, even while this Christological vision is situated within a broader Trinitarian context.