Cyril of Alexandria 11:20 - 13:00 Tuesday, 20Th August, 2019 Room 1 Presentation Type Short Communications

Cyril of Alexandria 11:20 - 13:00 Tuesday, 20th August, 2019 Room 1 Presentation type Short Communications 605 Surpassing Mere Logomachy: Cyril and Theodoret on the Third and Fourth Anathemas Michael Magree, S.J. University of Notre Dame, South Bend, USA Abstract To avoid erroneous evaluations of ancient debates, it is necessary to note the particulars of the arguments in order to see just where the disagreements lay. In the case of Theodoret of Cyrus’s and Cyril of Alexandria’s debates about the twelve anathemas, the exchanges about Philippians 2:5-11 show that each recognized points of agreement in their common opposition to non-Nicene theologies and, more precisely, in their common acceptance both of the Word’s consubstantiality with the Father and of the Word’s consequent immutability and omniscience. Each bishop attempted to use these principles to argue for their respective differing claims about the Word enfleshed. Theodoret said that the union of humanity and divinity cannot be called natural, because this would obscure the distinction of these natures and would make the union involuntary. Cyril had used just such a distinction of nature and will, but he then had to clarify how it applied. Theodoret argued that consubstantiality means that the Word cannot be ignorant, and therefore Jesus Christ can only be ignorant insofar as he is the human subject of ignorance. Cyril said that a true union must entail the ability to say that the incarnate Word is the subject of ignorance, while not ignorant in itself. Cyril’s repetition of the claim that ‘the same one can both suffer and not suffer’ in his later Quod Unus Sit Christusshowed that Theodoret’s attack on this point hit on a claim that Cyril could recognize as difficult to accept. 1015 Salvation and the Soul of Christ in Cyril's Early Writings Andrew Mercer Southern Methodist University, Dallas, USA Abstract Henry Chadwick once claimed that "Cyril [of Alexandria] has nothing to say about the part played by Christ's soul in the Passion," and others have made similar observations regarding the inattention given to the soul in Cyril's Christology. Against these claims, I will argue in this paper that Cyril's entire vision of the economy of salvation hinges on the fact that the Logos assumed ensouled flesh. I will focus on Cyril's early writings, since it has been recognized that Cyril became more explicit about Christ's soul after his dispute with Nestorius came to fore. The works I will use to prove my thesis are Cyril's early Festal Letters, written between 414 and 427. The letters naturally bear recurring themes related to the Passion of Christ. Cyril follows his predecessor Athanasius, I argue, in seeing the primary purpose of the incarnation as making it possible for the Logos to taste death on behalf of humanity, in order to undue the corruptive effects of sin, the chief of which is death itself. Cyril held the standard view of death as the separation of soul and body, and thus the event of Christ’s death only makes sense for him if Christ had a real human soul. I will conclude by offering an explanation of why Cyril may not have spent much time expounding the extent to which Christ's soul suffered or did not suffer in the Passion, since this has also contributed to the debate over Cyril’s Christological psychology. 880 The Gift of the Holy Spirit: Pledge and Fulfillment in Cyril of Alexandria Veronica Tierney Sts Matthew and Mark Church, Barrington, USA Abstract Cyril of Alexandria’s idiosyncratic view of the creation of human beings asserts that the imago Dei is extrinsic, a gift located within the divine inbreathing in Genesis 2:7. This assertion is necessary in Cyril’s account of the fall as the loss of that divine gift, because only that which is extrinsic or “not rooted” in nature can be lost. Cyril’s account of humanity’s creation, fall, restoration, and ultimate glorification has been described as a narrative of the gift, loss, and return of the Holy Spirit. And yet, there has remained unresolved the question that, if the gift of the Holy Spirit could be lost in Eden, what prevents it from being lost ever again? What accounts for the seeming inadequacy of the first gift relative to the second? Relying primarily on Cyril’s Festal Letters and Commentary on John, the paper will argue that Cyril does, in fact, offer a compelling answer to these questions. He appeals to the gift of the Holy Spirit as pledge (ἀρραβὼν; 2 Cor 1:21–22 and 5:5 and Eph 1:13–14), and frequently connects this idea with the Parable of the Talents (Mt 25:14–30), to explain how the Holy Spirit is given provisionally in both the original creation and the new creation of the resurrection, only to be given in full after the general resurrection and final judgment. 920 ‘Was It Not the “Only Begotten” that was Speaking Long Ago’: Cyril of Alexandria’s Christological Exegesis in His Commentary on Hebrews (Heb. 1:1–2) Shawn Wilhite California Baptist University, Riverside, USA. Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom Abstract In this paper, I will explore the Cyril of Alexandria’s trinitarian exegesis particularly from his Commentary on Hebrews (Heb. 1:1–2)— currently, this commentary remains untranslated into English. These two sections highlight how Cyril’s Christological theology informs his hermeneutical presuppositions and theological exegesis of Heb 1:1–2. I will argue that for Cyril an exposition of Heb 1:1–2 and the use of Scripture remain inherently Christological, and more specifically a focus upon the economy with the flesh. Cyril’s hermeneutical practices and theological exegesis is aimed at and informed by a two-nature Christology. My research will build upon Christological and hermeneutical Cyrilline scholarship, and a special focus upon the following scholars engaged in Cyril’s reading of Hebrews: Rowan Greer, Frances Young, P. M. Parvis, J. Lebon, and Matthew Crawford. This argument will progress in three different stages. First, I will offer a brief historical introduction to Cyril’s Commentary on Hebrews. Second, I will display cursory research on Partitive exegesis in general, followed by a way to define partitive exegesis. And, third, I will examine Cyril’s scriptural exegesis and cue in on his Christological and partitive exegesis of Hebrews 1:1–2. .

Load more