CHAPTER 4 Theodoret’s Christology at the Dawn of the Nestorian Controversy: Refutation of the Twelve Anathemas of Cyril of Alexandria

Theodoret’s Expositio rectae fidei predates the outbreak of the Nestorian con- troversy which marks the beginning of the Christological debates of the fifth century. However, as mentioned previously, Lequien and Sellers have planted a seed of doubt in the scholarly dating of the Expositio. Some scholars, while generally dating the work before the controversy with Cyril of Alexandria, still seem hesitant to pronounce a final verdict on the issue.1 Thus in order to reconstruct Theodoret’s early Christology fully, it seems necessary that another of Theodoret’s early works be examined, one which can be dated precisely and which contains substantial Christological material. Theodoret’s Refutation of the Twelve Anathemas of Cyril of Alexandria fits these criteria singularly well, and the following analysis of its Christology will yield sufficient material to reconstruct definitively its author’s Christological teaching in the period pre- dating the Christological controversies of the fifth century.

4.1 The Twelve Anathemas of Cyril of Alexandria

In late November 430, Cyril of Alexandria pronounced anathema upon every- one who did not recognize his Christological model as presented in twelve Christological statements appended to a letter to Nestorius of Constantinople. As previously mentioned, the letter quickly reached John of Antioch, who then started to take the controversy between Cyril and Nestorius more seriously and asked two renowned theologians from his patriarchate, Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Andrew of Samosata, to provide an analysis and response.2 Theodoret

1 For instance, in the most recent scholarly appraisal of the dating, F. Young says that all inter- nal features of the work indicate that the Expositio was indeed an early work, but she still hints at reservations when, later on in the text, she says: “But if this is an early work then it is extremely significant. . . .” Young and Teal, From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and its Background. 332. 2 Andrew of Samosata’s refutation of Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas is characterized by ever more moderate language, though it is tainted by the author’s surprising inability to grasp the

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004290808_005 130 CHAPTER 4 responded to the request in a letter to the archbishop (Ep. 150), to which he appended twelve Christological counter-statements.3 After the receipt of the Twelve Anathemas, the initial controversy between Cyril and Nestorius quickly escalated to a universal battle between two Christological schools of thought, each of which accused the other of heresy. This comes as no surprise, since the method of argumentation in ecclesias- tical circles of Late Antiquity almost always involved accusations of heresy.4 The charge of heresy was a very efficient way of discrediting the opponent.5 Something that would begin innocently as a personal dispute between two ecclesiastical personages would often rapidly acquire a theological dimen- sion. Naturally, the statements made were scrutinized by the opposing parties. The doctrinal implications of the statements, which were often products of the opponent’s imagination bolstered by a lack of charity, were given as much credibility as the actual statements. Moreover, the opponent would often be accused of reviving a notorious heresy that had been condemned long before. As McGuckin observed, “in theological argumentation precedents were always sought from the nearest parallel in history much as legal argument today looks to precedent for authority.”6 In this atmosphere, it is no surprise that Cyril chose the charged language of anathemas for his exchange with Nestorius.

subtlety of his opponent’s theological thought. For further discussion see: Joseph Mahé, “Évêques orientaux du patriarchat d’Antioche,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 7 (1906): 506– 07. Cf. Hefele, History of the Councils of the Church. 38.; Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l’église. 238–39.; Richard, “Notes sur l’évolution doctrinale de Théodoret,” 463.; Stewardson, “The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus According to His Eranistes”, 17. 3 For the text of the epistle: pg 76, 385–452; aco i, 1, 6, 107–48; aco i, 1, 7, 33ff.; npnf2 3, 26–31. For historical context see Théodoret de Cyr, Correspondance: Collections conciliaires. 32.; see also Richard, “Notes sur l’évolution doctrinale de Théodoret,” 463. 4 Thomas Graumann, Die Kirche Väter: Vätertheologie und Väterbeweis in den Kirchen des Ostens bis zum Konzil von Ephesus (431), ed. J. Wallman, Beitrage zur historischen Theologie 118 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). 310. 5 Early evidence for this practice is found in Irenaeus of Lyons’s treatment of the early heresies, where he associates them with Simon Magus, whose condemnation by Apostle Peter was recorded in the Scriptures, an obvious sign of notoriety. See Adversus haereses 1.23.2; 1.24.1; 1.25.1–2. 6 McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy. 31.