Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T16:36:08.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of Scripture in the Nestorian Controversy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

Rowan A. Greer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The first half of the fifth century saw the emergence of the christological controversy which led to the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The two chief protagonists were Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius, the Antiochene monk who became patriarch of Constantinople in 428. There are several different ways of regarding the conflict. On one level it involved the political and ecclesiastical rivalry between Alexandria and Constantinople. From another point of view it was a struggle between the Alexandrian and Antiochene Christologies. This essay will attempt to present some reflections upon a third aspect, the exegetical dimension of the Nestorian controversy. The two words currently used to describe patristic exegesis are ‘typology’ and ‘allegorism’. I shall argue that, although there is good reason for supposing the two methods to have been antipathetic, they do not come into direct conflict with one another in the Nestorian controversy. This judgment can be made, first, because Antiochene hostility to allegorism cannot be connected with the christological controversies and, second, because the exegetical differences which marked the Nestorian controversy cannot be described as differences of method. Such a conclusion demands redefinition of the exegetical dimension of Nestorius' struggle with Cyril, and I shall conclude by suggesting some lines upon which redefinition might proceed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 1967 , pp. 413 - 422
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 414 note 1 Harper and Brothers (New York, 1958).

page 414 note 2 A. and C. Black (London, 1965; original ed., 1948).

page 414 note 3 Studies in Biblical Theology (Naperville, I11., 1957); see especially p. 72.

page 415 note 1 I plead guilty to drawing this conclusion in a particularly gross fashion; see Theodore of Mopsuestia, Faith Press (London, 1961), p. 91Google Scholar: ‘In the fifth century this Alexandrian method came into conflict with the more literal school of Antiochene exegesis.… Much of the theological argument can be explained in terms of two differing approaches to Scripture.’

page 415 note 2 Migne, PG 18.613ff.

page 415 note 3 Suidas mentions a treatise by Diodore On the Difference between Theory and Allegory; Facundus (Pro def. 3.6) cites Theodore's treatise Against the Allegorists.

page 415 note 4 Theodore of Mopsuestia, In Epistolas B. Pauli Commenlarii, ed. Swete, H. B. (Cambridge, 1880), Vol. 1, pp. 73–74.Google Scholar

page 416 note 1 cf. Migne, PG 66.317c ff.

page 417 note 1 cf. Quasten, J., Patrology, Spectrum (Utrecht/Antwerp, 1960), p. 119.Google Scholar

page 417 note 2 Migne, PG 69.192B.

page 417 note 3 cf. Cyril of Alexandria, , Deux Dialogues Christologiques, ed. de Durand, G. M., Sources Chrétiennes (Paris, 1964), introduction, p. 12.Google Scholar

page 417 note 4 ibid., pp. 314 and 316; cf. pp. 354, 392, 484 and 514.

page 418 note 1 Nestorius, , The Bazaar of Heracleides, ed. and tr. by Driver, G. R. and Hodgson, L. (Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1925), p. 58.Google Scholar

page 419 note 1 Cyril of Alexandria, , Five Tomes against Nestorius, tr. Pusey, E. B. (Oxford, 1881), p. 95.Google Scholar

page 419 note 2 Loofs, F., Nestoriana (Halle, 1905), p. 232.Google Scholar

page 420 note 1 cf. Barr, James, Old and New in Interpretation, S.C.M. Press (London, 1966), p. 148.Google Scholar

page 420 note 2 Wellek, R. and Warren, A., Theory of Literature, Penguin (London, 1963, first published 1949), pp. 142ff.Google Scholar

page 420 note 3 ibid., p. 150.

page 420 note 4 ibid., p. 155.

page 420 note 5 Barr, op. cit., p. 108.

page 420 note 6 Carr, E. H., What is History?, Penguin (London, 1964, first published 1961), pp. 119ff.Google Scholar

page 421 note 1 Hanson, R. P. C., Tradition in the Early Church, S.C.M. Press (London, 1962)Google Scholar; see especially chapter 6, ‘Tradition as Interpretation’.x