Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
In modern Christological thinking, the tendency is to start with an affirmation of the real humanity of Christ. We recognise with everincreasing realism that the man, Jesus, lived a life open to historical investigation, a life which was circumscribed within the limitations of a normal human psychology and its contemporary environment. This being our pre-supposition, we tend to approve the Antiochene school for its realistic exegesis of New Testament texts referring to the human weakness, progress, experience, finite knowledge, temptation and conflict of the Christ. Correspondingly, we criticise the Alexandrian Fathers for their unnatural exegesis, based, we instinctively feel, upon a form of docetism, however sophisticated. How justifiable is this attitude? It is not the purpose of this paper to minimise the difficulties involved in the Alexandrian position, but the following suggestions may lead to a more sympathetic view of Alexandrian thinking.
page 103 note 1 E.g. my ‘Christological Ideas in the Greek Commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews’, J.T.S., N.S. xx (1969), 150–63Google Scholar.
page 103 note 2 For Monophysite dependence on Cyril, see Lebon, J., Le Monophysisme Sévérien, Louvain 1909Google Scholar; for Cyril's dependence on Athanasius, see Liébaert, J., La Doctrine Christo-logique de S. Cyrille d Alexandrie avant la querelle Nestorienne, Lille 1951Google Scholar.
page 103 note 3 De Incamat, iv. 6.
page 104 note 1 De Incamat., xi-xvi; cf. C. Ananas, i. 44, 45, 59, 60; ii. 14, 16, 55, 61, 66, 67, 68, 70; iii. 4, 31, 33, 38, 53.
page 104 note 2 De Incamat., xi-xvi; cf. C. Arianos, i. 9, 12,16, 21, 35, 39, 43, 59,61; ii. 16,17, 22, 24, 54, 80, 8i, 82; iii. 3–7, 11, 14, 16, 46.
page 104 note 3 De Incamat., liv. 3; cf. C. Arianos, i. 37–50; ii. 41, 47, 53, 61, 65, 70, 75, iii. 33.
page 104 note 4 See preceding notes for use of the same ideas in the work against the Arians.
page 104 note 5 E.g., Cyril's comments on Heb. ii. 16–18: P.G., lxxiv. 964A-9A; P. E. Pusey, Cyrilli injoannem, 1872, iii. 463–6. For discussion see my article J.T.S., N.S. xx. 152–3.
page 104 note 6 See my article in J.T.S., N.S. xx. 152; cf. J. Lebon, op. cit, 205, 287.
page 105 note 1 For discussion of such passages see (i) on Athanasius, Richard, M., ‘S. Athanase et la psychologie du Christ selon les Ariens’, in Milanges de Science Religieuse, iv (1947) 5–54Google Scholar; (ii) on Cyril, J. Liébaert, op. cit.; (iii) on the Monophysites, J. Lebon, op. cit.
page 105 note 2 J. Lebon, op. cit., 227, 232.
page 105 note 3 Quod unas sit Christus, P.G., lxxv. 1357C.
page 105 note 4 Philoxenus, quoted by Lebon, op. cit., 222.
page 105 note 5 For this point I am indebted to M. F. Wiles, ‘Psychological Analogies in the Fathers’, to appear in Studia Patristica xi, in Texts und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur (Berlin).
page 105 note 6 Traclatus in Joannem, xlvii. 12.
page 105 note 7 De Incarnat., xvii.
page 106 note 1 Lebon, op. cit., 221–5.
page 106 note 2 Ibid., 205, 217, 231, etc.
page 106 note 3 Philoxenus, quoted by Lebon, op. cit., 229.
page 106 note 4 Nemesius, De Natura Hominis, iii. 20: P.G., xl. 597.
page 106 note 5 M. F. Wiles, art. cit.
page 106 note 6 My art. cit., 153.
page 106 note 7 E.g. M. Richard, art. cit; J. Liébaert, op. cit.
page 107 note 1 For Athanasius's discussion of these problems, see C. Arianos, iii. 26–58; for an interpretation, see M. Richard, art. cit., 26–46.
page 107 note 2 C. Arianos, iii. 50. For a similar use in Cyril, see J. Lidbaert, op. cit., 123,
page 107 note 3 Liébaert, op. cit.
page 107 note 4 My art. cit., 153.
page 107 note 5 Liébaert, op. cit., 117, 172 ff., 179.
page 107 note 6 Richard, art. cit.; Liébaert, op. cit., 148–50.
page 107 note 7 Burghardt, W. J., The Image of God in Man according to Cyril of Alexandria, Washington 1957. 13Google Scholar; ref. C. Gentes, 34.
page 108 note 1 Wiles, M. F., ‘The Nature of the Early Debate about Christ's Human Soul’, in this Journal, xvi (1965), 139–51Google Scholar.
page 108 note 2 C. Arianos, iii. 30.
page 108 note 3 Galtier, P., ‘S. Athanase et l'âme humaine du Christ’, in Gregorianum, xxxvi (1955), 553–89Google Scholar
page 108 note 4 M. Richard, art. cit.
page 108 note 5 Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines, 2nd ed., London 1960, 288–9Google Scholar.
page 108 note 6 Tomus ad Antiochenos, 7.
page 109 note 1 Ad Epictetum, 7.
page 109 note 2 See the discussion in Roldanus, J., Le Christ et l'homme dans le thiologie d'Aihanase d'Alexandrie, Leiden 1968, 252–76Google Scholar.
page 109 note 3 See J. N. D. Kelly, op. cit., 297–8.
page 109 note 4 P. E. Pusey, Cyrilli in Joannem, ii. 315–18.
page 109 note 5 Liébaert, op. cit., 131 ff.
page 109 note 6 Gesché, A., ‘L'âme humaine de Jesus dans la Christologie du ive siècle’, in R.H.E., liv (1959), 385Google Scholar.
page 109 note 7 Ibid., 398–9.
page 110 note 1 Thesauras: P.G., lxxv. 396–7.
page 110 note 2 De Recte Fide: P.G., lxxvi. 413. For other passages in Cyril, see Sellers, R. V., Two Ancient Christologies, London 1940, 102 n.5Google Scholar.
page 110 note 3 Theodosius of Alexandria an d the Διθεσιs presented to Justinian; quoted by Lebon, op. cit., 202.
page 110 note 4 Wiles, M. F., ‘The Nature of the Early Debate about Christ's Huma n Soul’, in this Journal, xvi (1965), 150Google Scholar.
page 111 note 1 See above, 109.
page 111 note 2 That Christ's humanity was no more than an instrument used by the Logos who is the sole source of salvation in Athanasius's writings, is emphasised by Roldanus, op. cit, 212 et passim.
page 111 note 3 Ibid., 268–74.
page 112 note 1 For the argument of this paragraph, I am indebted to Jouassard, G., ‘Un problème d'anthropologie et de Christologie chez S. Cyrille d'Alexandrie’, in Recherches de Science Religieuse, xlviii (1955), 366 ff.Google Scholar; and Chadwick, H., ‘Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy’, in J.T.S., N.S. ii (1951), 145Google Scholar.
page 112 note 2 That Cyril did recognise some sense in which the soul had its own proper passions is shown by the passage quoted above, p. 110. Clearly he is not entirely consistent, and he wanted to claim that the Logos was παθηs to a greater degree than the soul, while using the analogy to explain his Christological position. The analogy merely helps one to rise to what is inexpressible (see above, 105).
page 112 note 3 Enneads, iii. 6. 1, quoted by H. Chadwick, op. cit.
page 112 note 4 De Nat. Horn., iii. 22; P.G., xl. 601.
page 112 note 5 See above, 107 ff.
page 112 note 6 De Abstinentia, ii. 34–5.
page 113 note 1 Clement, Strom., vii. 14, 31, 33, cf., v. 1.
page 113 note 2 Ibid., iv. 22, vi. 13.
page 113 note 3 Augustine, In Psalmos, 26. ii. 21. Malone, E. E. (The Monk and the Martyr, Washington 1950)Google Scholar claims that this idea entered Christian asceticism from the Stoics via Philo, and continues, ‘The doctrine of πθεlα does not seem to have had any particular application in the case of the martyrs'. If not, it was certainly read back into their situation, as in this passage from Augustine.
page 113 note 4 Eusebius, Dem. Evang., iv. 13. 7: G.C.S., 172.
page 113 note 5 E.g. P.G., xliv. 364; xlv. 40–1; xlvi. 285 et passim. See Daniélou's introduction to H. Musurillo's translation of some of Gregory's mystical writings entitled From Glory to Glory.
page 113 note 6 Ed. C. Butler (Texts and Studies vi), Cambridge 1898; e.g. Prologue (p. 12,1.3); viii (p. 28, l.4); xxxvii (p. 116, I.4); etc.
page 113 note 7 Prestige, G. L., Fathers and Heretics, London 1940, 159 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 114 note 1 E.g. Retractiones, i. 9. 4. Cf. Anti-Pelagian literature, passim.
page 114 note 2 J. Roldanus, op. cit., 309 ff., 328, 336; E. E. Malone, op. cit., 106–7, who also traces this back to the martyr literature: the martyrs did not feel pain because it was really Christ fighting in them; he refers to Perpetua and Felicitas, Polycarp and the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne.
page 114 note 3 Vita Antonii, 7; P.G., xxvi. 852A.
