Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects The hrC istology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus: The Question of Its Development Vasilije Vranic Marquette University Recommended Citation Vranic, Vasilije, "The hrC istology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus: The Question of Its Development" (2012). Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 182. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/182 THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THEODORET OF CYRRHUS: THE QUESTION OF ITS DEVELOPMENT by Rev. Vasilije Vranic, M.A., MPhil. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2012 ABSTRACT THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THEODORET OF CYRRHUS: THE QUESTION OF ITS DEVELOPMENT Rev. Vasilije Vranic, M.A., M.Phil. Marquette University, 2012 The Christological opus of Theodoret of Cyrrhus remains somewhat controversial due to his involvement in the Nestorian and Monophysite controversies as the champion of the Antiochene milieu. Although the recent scholarship is increasingly benevolent in the considerations of his Christology, still certain doubts are present about the constancy of his teaching. In this dissertation, I argue that the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus remains consistent and unchanged throughout his life. The analysis of both his early and mature Christological output, as evidenced in the Expositio rectae fidei and the Eranistes, shows that the main theological concepts and terminology remain unaffected by the many years of fierce theological debates. Theodoret’s Christology is constructed around the key concept of sharp distinction between the uncreated and created orders of existence, to which the divine and human natures of Christ respectively belong. The ontological chasm between these orders effectively prevents the union on the level of οὐσία and φύσις, which designate the common characteristics of entities, but could only takes place at the level of πρόσωπον or ὑπόστασις, which he reserves for individual characteristics. Theodoret’s Christology is defined in relation to the economy of salvation. The Logos is the subject of the Incarnation, since he is the only personal presence at the moment of conception. The Logos creates and unites to himself the human nature of Christ. The natures are united in the person of Jesus Christ. The Christological work of Theodoret paved the way to the definition of faith proclaimed at the Council of Chalcedon. It was through his efforts that the Antiochene Christology experienced certain restitution after the blow dealt to it by the Cyrilline party at the Council of Ephesus (431). Therefore, Theodoret of Cyrrhus ought to resume his rightful place in the history of the Christological controversies alongside and in equal glory with Cyril of Alexandria. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Rev. Vasilije Vranic, M.A., MPhil. Now, at the end of six years of study at Marquette University, I should like to begin by thanking my professors and fellow students for their more then generous help and support. The outstanding instruction in various aspects of theological discourse I received from my professors at Marquette exceeded by far all my expectations. From the University, I also received not only a generous financial assistance to complete my studies, but through a Teaching Fellowship awarded to me, I have received the necessary experience to further my academic career. The time spent here was a truly life-changing experience. Marquette indeed provides cura personalis. I would like to thank members of my dissertation committee V. Rev. Dr. Alexander Golitzin, Dr. Michel R. Barnes, Dr. Deirdre Dempsey, and Dr. Mark F. Johnson for kindly agreeing to examine my work. Their comments and ideas in various stages of the writing process have provided invaluable guidance on this difficult path. I reserve special gratitude for my dissertation director Archimandrite Bishop-elect Alexander Golitzin for his patience and support during all these years. I met him while I was still a graduate student at Cambridge University trying to make a decision on my future studies. After hearing him lecture, I decided that I would like to study under his supervision. I am very grateful to him for agreeing to supervise my study of Theodoret’s Christology. It goes without saying that without his constant help and patient advice this dissertation could not have possibly been written. I would also like to thank Dr. Michel Barnes for his kindness in sharing his expertise with me throughout my studies. I am especially grateful for his guidance during one whole semester in which he supervised my dissertation. These supervisions helped me crystallize my thinking and shape my argument. Without the help and relentless support of the late Metropolitan Christopher (Kovacevich) of Midwestern America (Serbian Orthodox Church) I would not have had the privilege of studying at Marquette University. I express my deepest gratitude and appreciation for his constant support and fatherly love. May his memory be eternal! Much gratitude is also due to His Grace Bishop Longin of Midwestern America and New Gracanica (Serbian Orthodox Church) for his kind support of my studies and work in academia. I reserve special gratitude to V. Rev. Prof. Dr. Stanimir Spasovic for many years of wise counsel and the untiring help he provided throughout my studies. His support and guidance played an instrumental part in my life. I will be eternally indebted to him. Thanks to Dr. Sarah Turner of the University of Bristol, who read through my dissertation with an astonishing sense for detail in an attempt to correct my style and grammar. Needless to say, all the remaining mistakes are solely mine and are probably the result of later modifications. I cannot even begin to describe the gratitude I owe to my wife Jelena for all her patience and support in the course of all my studies. Without her, it would have been both physically and emotionally impossible to complete them. This dissertation, in particular, ii is just as much her achievement as it is mine. I am also grateful to our four-year-old son Petar for his unconditional love and understanding, which regaled and encouraged me in the process of writing. He does not know for the time when his father was not too busy to play with him as much as he would like. I believe that will largely change now. Also, thank you to my mother-in-law Prof. Dr. Danica Petrovic and my sister-in- law Dr. Marija Petrovic for their help and support, which they provided to our family when we needed it the most and thus enabled me to complete the dissertation. Finally, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my entire family, but especially to my wife Jelena, son Petar, our baby girl whom we expect soon, mother Jelena, brothers Vladimir and Nikola, and to the memory of my late father protopresbyter Perisa, who instilled in me the love for theology. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………. i Abbreviations …………………………………………………………………………….vi 1.0. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................... 1 1.2. Present Status of the Problem .................................................................................. 3 1.3. Statement of Procedures and Methodology ........................................................... 11 PART I: The Historical Background ................................................................................ 14 2.0. Theodoret and the Nestorian Controversy (before 431 AD) ................................. 16 2.1. The Origin of the Nestorian Controversy .............................................................. 17 2.2. Rome and the Nestorian Controversy .................................................................... 18 2.3. Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas and the Escalation of the Controversy ....................... 24 2.4. The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) ......................................................................... 26 2.4.1. The Convocation of the Council ..................................................................... 26 2.4.2. The Venue of the Council ............................................................................... 29 2.4.3. The Eve of the Council of Ephesus 431 AD ................................................... 32 2.4.4. The Sessions of the Council of Ephesus ......................................................... 34 2.5. Reactions to the Decision of the Council of Ephesus ............................................ 36 2.6. The Aftermath of the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) ............................................. 38 2.7. The Tomos of Reunion .......................................................................................... 48 2.7.1 The Content of the Oriental Creed .................................................................. 49 2.7.2. The Reunion of 433 AD .................................................................................. 53 2.8. Hostility Continues: The Christological Debate from 434 to 444 AD .................. 54 2.8.1. The Controversy over Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia ........ 57 2.9. The Monophysite Controversy .............................................................................. 63 2.9.1. The Resident Council of Constantinople (448