Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy
DETAILS: Publisher: St Vladimirs Seminary Press Publication Date: January 1, 2004 Format: Paperback Length: 399 pg. Read Date: September 1-November 3, 2024
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.
Read Irresponsibly, but please Comment Responsibly