St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy, Its History, Theology, and Texts

by John Anthony McGuckin

The Christological Controversy describes the turmoil of fifth-century Christianity seeking to articulate its beliefs on the person of Christ. The policies of the Theodosian dynasty and the conflicting interests of the patriarchal sees are the context of the controversy between Nestorius of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria, a bitter dispute that racked the entire oecumene. The historical analysis expounds on the arguments of both sides, particularly the Christology of Cyril, which was adopted as a standard.

Genres: Theology, Christianity, History, Church History, Religion, Nonfiction

427 pages, Paperback

First published December 23, 2010

About the author

John Anthony McGuckin is the Nielsen Emeritus Professor of Byzantine Christian Studies at Union Theological Seminary and Columbia University, and currently professor of early Christianity in the Theological Faculty of Oxford University. An archpriest of the Romanian Orthodox Church and Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, he has written more than thirty scholarly books. He lives in the UK.

Reviews

[Caleb Kuddes · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic book that I probably should have actually read when I was assigned it at seminary. I appreciated Fr. McGuckin's nuanced exploration of Nestorius and the personality factors and imperial dynamics that influenced, but did not constitute the core of the crisis over the person of Jesus Christ. Cyril, obviously the hero of the story, shines as an exemplar of theological and political insight, and may be unfairly maligned by modern scholars who try to read modern sensibilities onto his actions in a very pre-modern world.

[Gino Marchetti · Rating 5 out of 5]

A clear and concise overview of the history and theology of the Christolgical controversies of the 5th-century. McGuckin presents a fair and balanced reading even of those who were not in the Cyrillian camp, and corrects some of the popular misunderstandings of both Cyril and Nestorius.

[Madison · Rating 5 out of 5]

A little difficult to get through in some places, but it's overall a good book. Helpful in giving a solid perspective on the controversy.

[Hobart · Rating 4 out of 5]

This originally appeared at The Irresponsible Reader.
---
WHAT'S SAINT CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA AND THE CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY ABOUT?
I think if I tried to summarize this book, I'd either go on for paragraphs upon paragraphs or I'd miss something important, so I'm just going to borrow the summary on the Publisher's site:

This important and compelling work describes the turmoil of fifth-century Christianity seeking to articulate its beliefs in the person of Christ. The policies of the Theodosian dynasty and the conflicting interests of the patriarchal sees are the context of the controversy between Nestorius of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria, a bitter dispute that racked the entire civilized world. The historical analysis expounds on the arguments of both sides, particularly the Christology of Cyril, which was adopted as a standard.

There are five chapters and I want to say a little about each.
CHAPTER ONE: THE CONTEXT OF THE EPHESUS CRISIS
You've probably heard the popularized version—or the John Godfrey Saxe line about not wanting to know how the sausage is made when it comes to laws. Well, there's a bit of truth there in theology, too. There's a part of me that was better not knowing all the politicking, maneuvering, and PR work that went into the Nestorian Controversy. McGuckin gives us a lot of the run-up to the Ephesus Council, the convoluted way the Council got the job done—and how the various players got the Emporer to take the position he did following it.

It was interesting—and probably for someone who if better grounded in Orthodox history it was easy to follow (I didn't find that)—but for me, it went on too long. Not only was it out of my comfort zone, I just didn't find most of it that engaging or interesting. There were more than enough points that did pique my interest to keep me going—but I really had a hard time in this chapter.

CHAPTER TWO: THE CHRISTOLOGY OF NESTORIUS
McGuckin goes out of his way in this chapter to prove that he's being (or at least attempting to be) fair to Nestorius. So much so that I was a little afraid that he was going to end up saying the differences between the two camps were overstated, and that they were closer than anyone (particularly those in the middle of the controversy) realized.

He didn't go that far—and the next chapter demonstrates that very clearly—but he does show the root of the differences (which weren't that great) and then how the differences were compounded and grew until Nestorious went too far.

CHAPTER THREE: THE CHRISTOLOGY OF CYRIL
This chapter is the heart of the book and truly could've been published as a decent-sized volume by itself (maybe with Chapter Five to really make it worthwhile). McGuckin goes full Cyril fan-boy here—and it was great to see.

More importantly, he explained both the main and some of the minor points of Cyril's Christology in depth. This was not easy reading, and I really had to think about some points—and read the occasional paragraph a few times to really get it (and I'd have to read them a few more before they'd get really ingrained).

I cannot say enough good things about this chapter, and I know I'll be returning to it (and the last chapter) again—I'm not sure I'll work through the rest again (just because it's not something I really need to worth through). although I wouldn't mind it. But these two chapters? Just gold.

CHAPTER FOUR: THE OECUMENICAL RECEPTION OF CYRIL'S THEOLOGY
This is a rather brief chapter recounting how Cyril's teaching, largely through this conflict, affected the church immediately following him up through Chalcedon and the impact it had there. As much as I thought the first historical chapter could've used some trimming, I think this could've used a few more pages.

CHAPTER FIVE: TRANSLATED TEXTS
This is easily the most valuable part of the book—no disrespect to McGuckin's analysis or recounting, but we get fifteen texts—homilies, letters, and theological writings from Cyril and Nestorius that show what both were saying—and there are a couple of appendices of other writings that play a role in the controversy.

It's one thing to read a modern scholar's take on these texts, it's another to be able to read them for yourselves.

SO, WHAT DID I THINK ABOUT SAINT CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA AND THE CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY?

Cyril’s language and preferred formulas were, as we have seen, sometimes responsible for causing more confusion than illumination in the camps of his opponents. Unlike Nestorius, however, his essential meaning always tended to emerge clearly enough from the discursive flow of his text, and so, while he cannot justly be called a confused thinker, at times he can be rightly accused of being a diffuse and discursive theologian... It would, nonetheless, be truer to conclude that it was only Cyril who possessed the moral and intellectual authority to bring matters to a head, at precisely the necessary time, by stating the issues so forcefully and so brilliantly.

When all is said and done, for the mystical and moral power his icon of Christ bears, for the profundity of his christian sense, the power of his intellect, and the unfailing purity of his literary purpose, then surely all his faults are diminished in significance.

His greatness cannot be denied.

All in all, this was a great book. It could've been a bit more engaging (especially in the first chapter), it could've been a little easier for Western laity to get into (not that we're the audience). But those issues pale in comparison to the really good analysis, summarizing, and showing how it all plays out and is still relevant to the Church (Eastern and Western) today.

A lot of what McGuckin says about the patristic approach to exegesis here, and the characterization of Western and Eastern approaches to theology were interesting and thought-provoking—and on the whole very valuable. In fact, I wrote almost a few more notes about things like that—asides to the main controversy, than I did about the controversy. It was very helpful.

I really don't have that much to say—it's not an easy read, there are portions that we didn't need (well, I didn't need), but it's worth the effort. I'm so glad that I read this and got this level of insight and understanding into this vital period of Church History. If you give it a shot, I imagine that you will almost certainly agree.

[Lucy · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first part of the book gives the context for the council of Ephesus. It's basically a political/historical drama. You might think that would be boring. Personally, I found it incredibly well told and interesting. There were so many highlights, I can't list them all. The count reading his orders and immediately realising he messed up, the stomping of the staffs to commence the council, the scandalised faction swappers, John of Antioch's stalling, the bishops sweating in the courtyard for hours, smuggling out missives in canes, Cyril's huge network of lobbyists/informants, the rude insult against Pulcheria etc.

One thing which wasn't touched on - I've heard that Nestorius wanted to ban women from coming to vespers? Because he thought it wasn't decent for them to be out at night or something. My overall impression is that he had some weird issues with women, what with this, refusing to call Mary the mother of God, and his rudeness to Pulcheria. But who knows.

The second part of the book goes into Nestorius' and Cyril's theologies, and then the third part goes into the aftermath i.e. the robber council and council of chalcedon. Finally, we have a lot of Cyril's writings at the end.

I'm not really qualified to assess the author's take on the theology. It all seems orthodox to me, he clearly holds Cyril in high esteem, and what's more, many of Cyril's writings are included in the book so you can judge for yourself.

I agree with the author, I don't think Cyril is obtuse or rambling/discursive in his writing as people apparently accuse him. Some people are slow, and so giving many examples, or repeating the point in different ways, or broken down into the most basic points, helps us slow people follow along. Additionally, at times he is clearly addressing arguments people have put forth, so even if it seems obvious to us, he must have had to do it to answer their argument.

Cyril's writings are very beautiful. I loved the homily and the scholia on the incarnation. He quotes scripture so much, and I learnt more about scripture from his writings incidentally. For example, all the typology for the incarnation. There is also a messianic prophecy verse quoted (about angels worshipping Jesus) which in the bible versions available to me is different because they're based on a later Masoretic.

Some limitations with the book:

1. It talks about theodoret of cyr and another guy (forgot his name) being anathemised at a later council but in the council it just seemed like it was a couple of their letters which were anathematised and not the men themselves? And I'm also wondering if the men had already retracted those writings at chalcedon? In any case I have some confusion from the book here.

2. You are not going to understand the difference with the non chalcedonians from this book. (The ones who aren't Nestorian, obviously ie the coptics etc) At least, I didn't. I don't think it was the main point of the book so it's ok. To me, unless they go the eutychian heresy route (and they don't, they reject Eutyches it seems), it seems like the two vs. one nature thing is possibly a terminology dispute. Like is it just a schism over not liking the two natures terminology? Is there even a difference in doctrine? They apparently resumed talks with the eastern orthodox just last month so maybe the holy bishops have some hopes there can be peace.

[Mark Gaschler · Rating 4 out of 5]

Was Nestorius a Nestorian?

You can spend a lot of time on this topic. Nestorianism, the heresy which would see the divine nature of the Logos and the human nature of Jesus as separate persons, is named after him. Modern critics have, typically, are more sympathetic to Nestorius than to Cyril and usually try to defend him from Cyril's accusations. I think that McGuckin, very firmly in the pro-Cyril camp (I have his translation of On the Unity of Christ somewhere in my library), gives Nestorius a fair reading.

Nestorius denied the charges. And if you give Nestorius a generous reading, if you follow (or try to follow) his arguments, then the answer is that Nestorius maybe wasn't a Nestorian, depending on how you read him. The problem is that Nestorius wasn't particularly good at communicating his ideas while also using his authority as archbishop of Constantinople to push them. The crisis between Nestorius and Cyril wasn't simply that of two theologians writing papers against each other, but two leaders of the church very publicly fighting over doctrine. Cyril had the theological chops and political acumen for it and Nestorius, to put it simply, did not.

[Tyson Guthrie · Rating 4 out of 5]

McGuckin seeks to reclaim Cyril as a hero of Christian orthodoxy. A worthy task, and effective on the whole. McGuckin’s Eastern Orthodox perspective and his penchant for the dramatic may cause him to overstate his case. Still, if one must listen to a theology set at too high a volume, Orthodoxy is to be preferred.

[Adonis McReynolds · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most intense books I have ever read but also of highest importance as it pertains to understanding Orthodox Christology which is at the root of all other aspects of theology that make up the true faith Jesus gave to the apostles. Addresses the Christological conflict in the most detailed of manners and didnt leave a stone unturned. Most excellent work!

[Katerina Nixon · Rating 4 out of 5]

The story of the Council of Ephesus is a wild ride. Who knew church history was so exciting?

That said, McGuckin's outline of the controversy was well written and even gripping. His explanation of the theological issues at stake included lots of helpful context about the exegetical assumptions of the time.

[Lukas Stock · Rating 5 out of 5]

Detailed and clear analysis and exposition of Cyril and Nestorius along with readable translations of relevant primary sources. Seminal, and a must read for any student of theology.

[David Bradford · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredibly fascinating. Christology is an essential doctrine and I’m grateful this book helped me relinquish any potential errors I had in such a crucial area.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

St Cyril of Alexandria is the sphragidis of the Fathers, the seal of the Fathers. While he is not the last word in Christology, he was an able summarizer of Christological thought and was remarkably consistent. He’s also disliked among academics today. St Cyril played hardball and it seemed like he used unsavory means to keep heretics from being represented at Council.



Prof McGuckin dismantles these myths. McGuckin a) exposes the postmodern and elitist presuppositions of the university professors and b) offers a different angle on the Nestorian Controversy—and he does it with dash, flair, and humor.



To be fair, though, it is difficult to know exactly what Nestorius actually believed. Nestorius was accused of maintaining there were two persons in Christ, a position he seemed to deny. Yet McGuckin makes clear that Nestorius believed in two prosopon in Christ. This word can mean “person” but doesn’t always, and that appeared to give Nestorius an out. Yet as McGuckin and St Cyril make clear, Nestorius nonetheless held to two operating principles in Christ. (At this point McGuckin gives a long summary of Nestorius’s Christology. In short, it reads:



• Extreme divine impassibility: the Logos cannot suffer (131).

• Christ’s two natures remain ontologically apart, existing side by side (135).

• The Church’s confession of Christ should always begin with his double reality (156).



On pp. 138ff McGuckin gives a helpful summary of the meanings of ousia, physis, hypostasis, and prosopon.



Cyril’s Christology

Before examining St Cyril’s Christology, McGuckin surveys Apolloniarius’s Christology. While denounced as a heretic (and rightly so), Apollonaris put his finger on many important points. To put it another way, while Apollonaris’s heresy was bad, it set the stage for Cyril’s triumph. Apollonaris saw the important point that had to be maintained: the single subject of the Logos (179).



Redemptive Deification

St Cyril’s Christology was tied to his soteriology: “The incarnation was a restorative act designed for the ontological reconstruction of a human nature that had fallen into existential decay as a result of its alienation from God” (184). The Logos appropriates human nature—and this human nature becomes that of one who is God—the human nature is lifted up to extraordinary glory.



St Cyril also offers us a way to think about divine impassibility: we should see the intimacy of the connection between the two realities of Christ…In the incarnation the power of the one transforms and heals the fallibility of the other.



“The human nature is conceived as the manner of action of an independent and omnipotent power—that of the Logos; and to the Logos alone can be attributed the authorship of, and responsibility for, all its actions” (186). The subject is unchanged, but that subject now expresses the characteristics of his divinely powerful condition in and through the medium of a passible and fragile condition.



Of course, St Cyril ties this in with the holy mysteries (188). The believer is deified because the encounter brings him into life-giving proximity with the Logos—and this proximity was the metaphysical root of all being.



St Cyril’s vision was the transformation of the human race according to the paradigm of divine appropriation of a human nature in the incarnation (188).



The Ecumenical Reception of St Cyril

Cyril preferred to say that Christ was of two natures, placing the stress on the Incarnation (231).



McGuckin scores major points in noting that St Leo’s Tome actually had to pass muster before it was excepted. The Church didn’t merely receive it and note, “Leo has spoken. The end.” They said this, but only after it passed a Cyrillene test. Why did they praise Leo? Because his Tome agreed with Cyril and the Fathers, not merely because he was “pope.”



Conclusion

This was a fantastic book. It is truly one of the great books written on Christology. Because of the timeline it does not deal with later concerns about the energies and wills of Christ. However, it wonderfully ties in ecclesiology, Christology, soteriology, and the Eucharist into one prism which then sheds multi-perspectival light on the Church.

[Patrick Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very Good information and a very good book if you like to read about history and how things came about. It is not an interesting read or a book that grabs you and pulls you and you get absorbed in the reading but it is VERY GOOD for learning about the third ecumenical council (Ephesus, 431 AD) and what transpired between Cryil of Alexandria and Nestorius. Nestorius put a division in Christ or a separation between His humanity and divinity whereas Cyril of Alexandria (who was the Bishop of Alexandria) argued that there was absolutely no separation in Jesus divinity and Humanity but that God united Himself with man in a true and complete union (henosis) without separation, division or mingling. Nestorius position led to the Third Ecumenical (means "Universal") council in Ephesus (in Modern day Turkey near the west coast near the Aegean Sea) in 431AD. Cyril represented what the Church has always believed and articulated the position of the Fathers and the Scriptures very clearly and the Orthodox position prevailed. This book chronicles all of the events that took place and the details what each side believed. The last part of the book is dedicated to the actual writings of Cyril and Nestorius so you can read them first hand. Really a good book to help you understand the third council and the events and issues that led up to that. On thing that is interesting (to me), is that Cyril used the phrase, "μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη; mia physis tou theou logou sesarkomene" and the author states that, in all likelyhood, this is really Cyril's own phrase (because some people say he did not say that). What is translates to is this: "One nature of the Word of God incarnate" which stressed the complete unity of the Logos with humanity (i.e., that Christ was truly 100% God and truly 100% man with a true and indivisible union of the divinity with the humanity). Based on this fact that Cyril actually worded it like that, I think the Eastern Orthodox should respect the way the Coptic Orthodox refers to Christ (as Cyril did) and understand that they believe exactly as the Eastern Orthodox do but express is in the way Cyril did (as opposed to the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451 which is the way the Eastern orthodox express their Christology).

[Jared · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book both lifts up St. Cyril and brings his theological mind and heart into a proper light within the broader understanding of the Catholic Church. It illuminates both the subtleties of Nestorianism and Cyril's theological language battle to root out heresy, while at the same time accepting other Orthodox wordings of true theology coming out of Antioch. This last is the most important for relations with the non-chalcedonians. Both a strict adherence to an Orthodox understanding of the Person of Christ being both God and Man, and at the same time acknowledging that simple formulas do not capture who He is.
The book also includes many of the Homilies and letters (in translation) where Cyril is dealing with the God-man, and for this alone it is very valuable.

[Mikhail · Rating 5 out of 5]

This study is remarkable. Mr. McGuckin does an excellent job of providing context to the Christological debates. Readers are presented with a firm historical sketch of the controversy, a detailed analysis of the Christological beliefs of St. Cyril and Nestorius, and a clear sense of all the main actors involved in the debates. My understanding of the controversy increased greatly after reading this book. I especially love the inclusion of source texts from the hands of both St. Cyril and Nestorius themselves.

I wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone interested in Christian theology or history.

[Cody Edds · Rating 4 out of 5]

McGuckin's volume is the standard work on Cyril's place in the Christological Controversies from Ephesus to Chalcedon. Much of this work undoes Gibbon's thesis and presents Cyril within his own historical and theological context. The detail that McGuckin goes into in relating what lead up to, what took place at, and what followed Ephesus is absolutely stunning. I've not read anything of this magnitude on any of the church councils and I was stunned by such details.
Along with this, the texts that McGuckin provide is vastly important and helpful.
A must-read for anyone wanting to know and understand Cyril of Alexandria as a person, a churchman, and a theologian.

[Jeff Rottman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent picture of the lives/theology of the major players at the Council of Ephesus in 431

[Good · Rating 5 out of 5]

see http://wheatonblog.wordpress.com/2011...

[Mattaniah Gibson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was assigned this book for my Christology class. It's a good historical background to the controversies, if a little dry at points.

[Jay D]

awesome.