Thesis (Ph.D.)--Boston University. / 1. Statement of the Problem The problem of the dis sertation is to determine the Gospel text of Cyril of Alexandria, to discover which of the four major text types (Neutral, Western, Caesarean, or Byzantine) Cyril used in his quotations of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. On the assumption that his text is Neutral, Cyril, in the past, has been cited as a witness to that text. The dissertation seeks to ascertain the validity of that assumption. Patristic quotations are valuable because they allow us to date and to localize the various text forms found in the manuscripts and versions. Ultimately they play their part in reconstructing the original text of the Gospels which is the aim of Gospel textual criticism [TRUNCATED]

Thesis advisor: Douglas Finn / Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444CE) is most famous for his contributions to Christology, and especially for his role in the Christological controversy that dominated the latter half of his episcopate. Despite a welcome expansion in Cyrilline studies, especially in the last few decades, anthropology remains an under-represented object of scholarly inquiry. Cyril wrote no single work focused on anthropology; nevertheless, the human story permeates his writings. The underlying assumption of the dissertation is that Christology necessarily incorporates anthropology, given the fundamental assertion that the Son of God became a human being. Through close reading of several of Cyril’s Christological works (Commentary on John, his twenty-nine extant Festal Letters, On the Unity of Christ, and Doctrinal Questions and Answers) several themes and patterns emerge, such that it is possible to connect the pieces and discover a coherent anthropology. I argue that Cyril’s anthropology offers a complete account of the human story, from God’s purpose for humanity in creation, through fall, redemption, and judgment, and finally in the attainment of humanity’s telos in the enjoyment of eternal, familial union with God in heaven. This account is best understood generally in terms of divine giving and human receiving, and specifically according to a paradigm of revelation and imitation. In short, the Incarnation is the divine gift that reveals human nature and purpose, while human reception of that gift lies in both active and passive imitation of Christ. What emerges, therefore, is a distinctly Christological anthropology. Cyril’s account possesses several key features that together represent a significant contribution to anthropology: the Imago Dei is a divine gift extrinsic to our nature, which accounts for how it can be lost in the Fall and regained in Christ; the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit in humanity and individual believers are marked by a pledge and fulfillment dynamic; human freedom is respected by God such that even participation in the divine life is never imposed upon humanity but depends upon positive consent; the differentiation between human nature as a general category and human beings as particular individuals allows for the work of Christ to be beneficial to all, yet imposed upon none; and finally, the ascension of Christ represents the definitive revelation of God’s purpose for humanity, even as it inaugurates the consummation of the human telos. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2018. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Theology.

Cyril of Alexandria left to posterity a sizable body of exegetical literature. This thesis attempts to reconstruct his theology of Scripture in order to suggest that his exegetical practice is inseparable from, and must be interpreted in light of, his overarching theological vision. I argue that the most important intellectual factor shaping his exegesis is his Christologically focused, pro-Nicene Trinitarianism, an inheritance that he received from fourth-century authors. Cyril’s appropriation of pro-Nicene thought is evident in his theology of revelation and his theology of exegesis. Revelation, in his understanding, proceeds from the Father, through the Son, and in the Spirit, following the order of Trinitarian relations. Moreover, this pattern applies to the inspiration of Scripture as well, insofar as inspiration occurs when the Son indwells human authors by the Spirit and speaks the words of the Father. Corresponding to this movement of God towards humanity in revelation is humanity’s growth in understanding that occurs according to a reverse pattern—in the Spirit, through the Son, unto the Father. This scheme applies broadly to Cyril’s soteriology, but also to his understanding of exegesis, since he regarded biblical interpretation as a means of participating in the divine life. More specifically, this Trinitarian pattern implies that the Spirit is required to read Scripture properly, and that in the act of interpretation the Spirit directs the reader to a Christological reading of Scripture, through which the believer gains a limited but genuine apprehension of the Trinitarian mystery. This process continues until the final eschatological vision when the types and riddles of Scripture will be done away with in light of the overwhelming clarity of the vision of the Father.

<p>In this thesis, I examine the pneumatology of Cyril of Alexandria ( d. 444). Cyril was one of the foremost exegetes and theologians of the patristic period, and so was a figure of considerable importance in the history of the development of Christian theology. Of central concern for Cyril throughout his writings was the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, a fact that is unsurprising given that the archbishop came to prominence shortly after pneumatological controversies in the late fourth century were addressed through the calling of the council of Constantinople in 381.</p> <p> I demonstrate in this study that Cyril's understanding of the Holy Spirit revolves primarily around his identity as the Spirit of the Son and the soteriological ramifications of the unity of the Spirit with the Son. Although Cyril is insistent that the Spirit is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son, it is his relationship with the latter that receives particular attention. This accentuation on the unity that exists between the Spirit and the Son influences Cyril's interpretation of potentially problematic passages of scripture, particularly those that refer to the work of the Holy Spirit in relation to Jesus Christ. His emphasis on the unity of the Spirit and the Son also profoundly shapes his perception of the Spirit's person and his role in the salvation of humanity. He portrays the Spirit largely with respect to his likeness to the Son, and ties the Spirit's soteriological operations directly to this likeness. Cyril does not engage in the kind of trinitarian speculation regarding eternal relations as is found in Augustine's De Trinitate. He focuses rather on the interaction of God with the created order and what this interaction tells us about God as triune. Cyril's emphasis on the Spirit as the Spirit of the Son is borne out of his perception that the mystery of God has been revealed to us concretely in the person of Christ, and therefore that our understanding of the Holy Spirit is inextricable from the revelation of the incarnate Word and the soteriological possibilities Christ extended to all humanity. I argue that Cyril constructs a pneumatology wherein the far-reaching soteriological role of the Holy Spirit in relation to Jesus Christ is delineated, and in the process provides a conception of the Holy Spirit that is nuanced and vigorous.</p> <p> My examination of Cyril's pneumatology involves analysis of his understanding of the identity and divinity of the Holy Spirit vis-a-vis the Father and the Son, the role of the Spirit in the incarnation and life of the Son, and the particular soteriological work of the Spirit in the individual believer as well as in the formation, structure, and unity of the church. Primary attention is given to three works: De Trinitate Dialogi (Dialogues on the Trinity), written 423-25; In Joannem (Commentary on the Gospel of John), written 425- 28; and In Lucam (Commentary on the Gospel of Luke), written c. 430. In addition to these writings, I draw on various other commentaries written by the archbishop, as well as on his anti-Nestorian compositions.</p> / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

This master's thesis is dedicated to the theological disputation upon the using of the title Theotokos for Virgin Mary that had been finally resolved at the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus in 431 AD. The first part deals with the crucial moments of deepening theological knowledge in the Church history in order to show a development of the disputation mainly in the 3rd and 4th century. Although Christology wasn't the main theme of the teachings of the Church in that early period some of the theologians especially Irenaeus, Origen, Paul of Samosata and Apollinaris of Laodicea also raised some issues in the field of Christology. The end of the first part offers an inside into the theological mindset of both sides of the disputation - Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodor of Mopsuestia on the one side and the Orthodox fathers Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, Didymus the Blind and John Chrysostome on the other side. The second part presents the written sources of the disputation and offers an insight to its beginning and development. The third and main part focuses on the correspondence between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius mainly on their Second Epistles containing the major topics of the disputation. It discusses a content of these two epistles and also analyses and compares theological arguments of both...

My thesis offers a comparison of the Minor Prophets commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Cyril of Alexandria, isolating the role each assigns (1) the Twelve Prophets in their ministry to Old Testament Israel and (2) the texts of the Twelve as Christian scripture. While the two produce radically different commentaries in terms of quantity and detail of christological interpretation, the source of their divergence cannot be reduced to Cyril's admitting messianic prophecy whereas Theodore does not. Rather, I argue that Theodore does acknowledge christological prophecies, as distinct from both retrospective accommodation and typology. Further, a careful reading of Cyril's Commentary on the Twelve limits the prospective christological revelation he ascribes to the prophets and reveals the positive role he grants the Mosaic law prior to Christ's advent. My thesis secondly explores the Christian significance both Theodore and Cyril assign to Israel's exile and restoration, the pivotal event to which the Twelve bear witness. I here argue that Theodore's reading of the Twelve Prophets, while not attempting to be christocentric, is nevertheless self-consciously Christian. Cyril, unsurprisingly, offers a robust Christian reading of the Twelve, yet this too must be expanded by his focus on the church and concern to equip the church through the ethical paideusis provided by the plain sense of the prophetic text. Revised descriptions of each interpreter lead to the claim that the label “christocentric” obscures more than it clarifies and polarizes no less than earlier accounts of Antiochene/Alexandrian exegesis. I advocate rather for an approach that takes seriously Theodore's positive account of the unity and telos of the divine economy and the full range of Cyril's interpretation, in order to move beyond a zero-sum assessment and offer instead a positive account that appreciates the strengths of each Christian reading of the Twelve.

L’In epistulas Pauli de Théodoret de Cyr (Ve siècle) est le plus ancien commentaire en grec des épîtres de Paul conservé dans sa langue originale. Cette thèse propose l’édition critique du Prologue et de l’In Romanos, à partir de l’examen de tous les manuscrits de la tradition directe ainsi que d’un manuscrit de chaîne. Elle offre aussi la première traduction de cette œuvre en français. Alors que de nombreux travaux se sont penchés sur les principes et les méthodes de l’exégèse antiochienne de l’Ancien Testament, celle du Nouveau Testament est encore assez mal connue. À travers différentes études thématiques, on tente de caractériser la démarche exégétique propre à ce corpus en analysant les éléments structurant le discours ainsi que certaines particularités sémantiques : on met ainsi au jour les lignes de force de l’interprétation à l’œuvre dans un commentaire dont la distance par rapport au texte commenté est minimale. Par ailleurs, on met en lumière le travail de l’exégète par rapport à la source chrysostomienne. Enfin, on étudie les articulations entre exégèse et polémique – discours sur les Juifs, cible marcionite, échos des controverses trinitaires et christologiques – en cherchant des rapprochements avec la tradition exégétique et théologique en ce qui concerne l’argumentation scripturaire. L’analyse de la démarche argumentative aussi bien que la recherche des sources permet de mettre en relief les richesses d’une œuvre qui, à première lecture, semble être une simple paraphrase du texte biblique. / Theodoret of Cyrrhus’s In epistulas Pauli (5th c.) is the oldest surviving Greek commentary that has been preserved in the original language. This dissertation presents a critical edition of Theodoret’s prologue and commentary on the Epistle to the Romans based on all the extant direct manuscripts as well as one catena manuscript. It also offers the first translation of the work into the French language. While many scholars have studied the principles and methods of Antiochene exegesis for the Old Testament, the methods used for the New Testament remain largely unexamined. Through different thematic studies, the dissertation explores the exegetical approach which deals with and is shaped by this latter corpus specifically. By analyzing the elements that structure its discourse as well as its semantic tendencies, it sets out to reveal the central features of Theodoret’s exegetical approach despite the minimal distance which he maintains between the Biblical text and his commentary. Special attention is also paid to Theodoret’s use of the works of John Chrysostom in his own writing. Finally, the dissertation explores the relationship between Theodoret’s biblical exegesis and the rich tradition of scriptural quotation both in a historical and theological context. The main focus is on his polemical discourses on the Jews and the Marcionites and also in his writings on the Trinitarian and Christological controversies. Through a careful analysis of the exegete’s approach to scriptural argumentation and his use of sources, we hope to reveal the richness and versatility of a work which, at first glance, appears to be little more than a simple paraphrase of the biblical text.

The thesis deals teologic comparison of two patristic commentaries of the Sermon on the Plain from Gospel of Luke - by saint Ambrose and by saint Cyril of Alexandria. Both autors are excerpts from their commentaries of Gospel of Luke. At first are outlined life and literary work of both authors and later an analysis of both texts from the point of view of selected principal theological topics is made. After that the two theological views are compared to the Sermon on the Plain, outlining the initial idea of both autors.

Submitted by Daniel de Figueiredo null (dd66fig@gmail.com) on 2018-03-24T10:55:18Z No. of bitstreams: 1 TESE_DANIEL_DE_FIGUEIREDO.pdf: 17866175 bytes, checksum: 6674e2b4c6e440c8bfb103848fcc4347 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Jacqueline de Almeida null (jacquie@franca.unesp.br) on 2018-03-26T13:36:43Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Figueiredo_D_te_fran.pdf: 17866175 bytes, checksum: 6674e2b4c6e440c8bfb103848fcc4347 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-03-26T13:36:43Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Figueiredo_D_te_fran.pdf: 17866175 bytes, checksum: 6674e2b4c6e440c8bfb103848fcc4347 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-03-16 / Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) / Cette recherche a pour but d’analyser le rôle politique, religieux et administratif de l’empereur Théodose II (401-450 ap. J.-C.) dans la gestion de la Controverse nestorienne, conflit qui est apparu dans la hiérarchie ecclésiastique de l’Empire romain d’Orient pendant la seconde moitié de son gouvernement (428-450 ap. J.-C.). Dans le domaine théologique, cette controverse était liée aux divergences entretenues par les évêques Cyrille d’Alexandrie et Nestorius de Constantinople à propos de la compréhension de l’interaction entre les natures humaine et divine dans le Christ incarné. Conformément à leurs respectifs imaginaires politiques et religieux, Cyrille, originaire de la région d’Egypte, défendait une union (ἕνωσις) entre ces natures, alors que Nestorius, originaire d’Antioche, dans la province de Syrie I, défendait une conjonction (συνάφεια) entre elles. Telles divergences ont abouti à une polarisation de la société romaine orientale autour de ces idées, parce qu’il y avait un étroit entrelacement des questions religieuses et politiques dans l’Antiquité tardive. L’étendue du conflit peut être vérifiée par la participation de différents segments de fonctionnaires de l’administration impériale qui s’alignaient aux factions formées, puisque les conflits de cette nature dans ce contexte étaient aussi liés à des constructions idéologiques qui ont contribué pour soutenir et donner de l’unité au pouvoir impérial. Cette adhésion des fonctionnaires nous indique que Théodose II n’a pas arbitré seulement un conflit théologique entre les membres de la hiérarchie ecclésiastique, mais que son intervention a nécessité qu’il négocie sa propre position dans la topographie du pouvoir avec des segments des aristocraties qui ont formé ces cadres de personnel. À partir de là, nous caractérisons le conflit non seulement comme théologique, mais aussi comme politique et administratif. Cette perception a été possible à travers notre catalogage des lettres impériales et épiscopales consultées, ce qui nous a permis de visualiser la formation de réseaux de sociabilité entretenues entre les évêques et les fonctionnaires impériaux. Les informations recueillies dans ces documents, en particulier en ce qui concerne les données prosopographiques des auteurs ou des personnes mentionnées dans les lettres, ont été comparées aux oeuvres Livre d’Heraclide, de Nestorius, et Contre Nestorius, de Cyrille, afin de renforcer la perception de la synergie entre les évêques et les fonctionnaires pour la défense de leurs intérêts politico-religieux communs. Ainsi, nous avons travaillé sur l’hypothèse que Théodose II et les auxiliaires qui ont contribué à l’élaboration de ses stratégies d’action n’ont pas négocié seulement l’unité doctrinale autour d’une orthodoxie religieuse avec les membres de la hiérarchie ecclésiastique. Telles négociations visaient également à maintenir l’unité impériale autour de la diversité des éléments culturels, politiques, administratifs et territoriaux avec d’autres groupes détenteurs du pouvoir, c’est-à-dire, les fonctionnaires impériaux qui contribuaient à légitimer la position centrale de Théodose II en tant que gouverneur. Le jeu de concessions établi par l’empereur à travers l’alternance de soutien entre les factions cyrillienne et nestorienne, qui peut être perçu à l’occasion du Concile d’Éphèse I (431), de la Formule de Réunion (433), au Synode de Constantinople (448) et du Concile d’Éphèse II (449), ne nous indique pas l’incapacité politique de Théodose de conduire le conflit, comme l’historiographie a fréquemment signalé à ce sujet. Dans notre perspective analytique, les mouvements impériaux comprenaient des négociations stratégiques visant à accommoder les intérêts et à contrebalancer des pouvoirs avec les aristocraties de fonctionnaires issus de différentes régions de l’Empire qui s’associaient aux évêques dans le conflit théologique. / Essa pesquisa tem por objetivo analisar a atuação político-religiosa e administrativa do imperador Teodósio II (401-450 d.C.) no gerenciamento da Controvérsia Nestoriana, conflito que emergiu na hierarquia eclesiástica do Império Romano do Oriente, durante a segunda metade do seu governo, de 428 a 450 d.C. Na esfera teológica, tal controvérsia esteve relacionada às divergências mantidas pelos bispos Cirilo de Alexandria e Nestório de Constantinopla no que se refere ao entendimento da interação entre as naturezas humana e divina no Cristo encarnado. Consoantes aos respectivos imaginários político-religiosos em que se inseriam, Cirilo, originário da região do Egito, advogava uma união (ἕνωσις) entre aquelas naturezas, ao passo que Nestório, oriundo de Antioquia, na província da Síria I, defendia apenas uma conjunção (συνάφεια) entre elas. Tais divergências resultaram em uma polarização da sociedade romana oriental em torno daquelas ideias, tendo em vista o estreito entrelaçamento que as questões religiosas e políticas eram percebidas na Antiguidade Tardia. A amplitude do conflito pode ser verificada pela participação de diferentes segmentos de funcionários da administração imperial que se alinharam às facções formadas, pois os conflitos dessa natureza, naquele contexto, estavam, também, relacionados a construções ideológicas que contribuíam para dar sustentação e unidade ao poder imperial. Essa adesão dos funcionários nos indica que Teodósio II não arbitrou apenas um conflito teológico entre membros da hierarquia eclesiástica, mas que sua intervenção necessitou que ele negociasse a sua própria posição na topografia do poder com segmentos das aristocracias que formavam esses quadros de funcionários. A partir daí, caracterizamos o conflito não somente como teológico, mas, também, como político-administrativo. Essa percepção foi possível por meio da catalogação e mapeamento das cartas imperiais e episcopais consultadas, que nos permitiram visualizar a formação das redes de sociabilidade mantidas entre bispos e funcionários imperiais. As informações colhidas nesses documentos, sobretudo no que se refere aos dados prosopográficos dos missivistas, ou daqueles indivíduos citados nas cartas, foram cotejadas com as obras Livro de Heraclides, de Nestório, e Contra Nestório, de Cirilo, no sentido de reforçar a percepção de sinergia entre bispos e funcionários na defesa dos seus interesses político-religiosos comuns. Assim, trabalhamos a hipótese de que Teodósio II, e aqueles auxiliares que contribuíam na elaboração das suas estratégias de atuação, não estavam negociando somente a unidade doutrinal em torno de uma ortodoxia religiosa com membros da hierarquia eclesiástica. Tais negociações também visavam a manutenção da unidade imperial em torno da diversidade de elementos culturais, políticos, administrativos e territoriais, com outros grupos detentores de poder, ou seja, os funcionários imperiais que contribuíam para legitimar a posição de centralidade de Teodósio II como governante. O jogo de concessões estabelecido pelo imperador por meio da alternância de apoio entre as facções ciriliana e nestoriana, que pode ser percebido por ocasião do Concílio de Éfeso I (431), da Fórmula da Reunião (433), do Sínodo de Constantinopla (448) e do Concílio de Éfeso II (449), não nos indica uma inabilidade política de Teodósio II em conduzir o conflito, conforme frequentemente registrou a historiografia sobre o assunto. Em nossa perspectiva de análise, tais movimentos abarcavam negociações estratégicas que visavam acomodar interesses e contrabalancear poderes com as aristocracias de funcionários oriundas de diferentes regiões do Império e que se associavam aos bispos na disputa teológica. / This research aims to analyze the political-religious and administrative performance of the emperor Theodosius II (401–450 A. D.) related to the management of the Nestorian Controversy, conflict that emerged in the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Eastern Roman Empire during the second half of his rule, from 428 to 450 A. D. In the theological sphere, this controversy was related to the disagreements maintained by the bishops Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople regarding the understanding of the interaction between the human and the divine nature of Christ incarnate. Consistent with the respective political-religious imaginary to which each one belonged, Cyril, a native of that region in Egypt, advocated a union (ἕνωσις) between those two natures, whereas Nestorius, a native of Antioch, in the province of Syria I, defended only a conjunction (συνάφεια) between them. Such divergent opinions resulted in a polarization of the Eastern Roman society regarding those ideas, considering that religious and political aspects used to be perceived as being narrowly interlaced in Late Antiquity. The extent of the conflict can be verified by the participation of officials from various segments of the imperial administration who aligned with the formed factions, as such conflicts, in that context, were also related to ideological constructions that contributed to provide support and unity to the imperial power. The adherence of the officials indicates that Theodosius II not only did manage a theological conflict between members of the ecclesiastic hierarchy but also that his intervening in the conflict demanded him to negotiate his own position on the topography of power with segments of the aristocracy that composed these groups of officials. Therefore, we characterize the conflict not only as a theological one, but also as a political-administrative one. This perception was made possible through the cataloging and mapping of the imperial and episcopal letters analyzed, which allowed us to visualize the formation of the sociability networks kept between imperial officials and bishops. Data extracted from those documents, particularly those referring to the prosopographical data of the letters’ authors, or from those individuals mentioned in the letters, were analyzed in contrast with Nestorius’s work entitled Book of Heraclides, and Cyril’s work entitled Against Nestorius, in order to reinforce the perception of synergy between the bishops and officials in the defense of their common political-religious interests. Thus, we study the hypothesis that Theodosius II and those who assisted him in elaborating his strategies of action, were not only negotiating the doctrinal unity around a religious orthodoxy with members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Such negotiations also aimed at keeping the imperial unity regarding cultural, political, administrative, and territorial elements, with other groups that had the power, i.e. imperial officials that used to contribute to legitimate the position of centrality of Theodosius II as a ruler. The concessions game established by the emperor by alternating support between cyrillian and nestorian groups, which can be observed during the Council of Ephesus I (431), the Formula of the Reunion (433), the Synod of Constantinople (448), and the Council of Ephesus II (449) do not indicate a political inability of Theodosius II to conduct the conflict, as frequently recorded in the historiography on the subject. From our standpoint, such moves included strategic negotiations that aimed at accommodating interests and balancing powers with the aristocracies of officials from various regions of the empire and that joined the bishops in the theological dispute. / 13/24320-4

The thesis deals with the comparison attitudes of two Eastern Christian traditions - Orthodox and Coptic to 4th ecumenical council, which held in 451 in Chalcedon. The Monophysite, or Non- Chalcedonian, Coptic Orthodox Church regards it as return to the heterodox teaching called Nestorianism whilst Eastern Orthodox Church this council considers in accordance with the Orthodox doctrine. For Orthodox Christians Chalcedon represents the breakthrough for a refinement of the Christology, concretely in the doctrine about two natures - divine and human - in single person of Christ which the Copts regard as return to Nestorian heresy which due to its dualism interfered the integrity of the person of Christ. The thesis puts forward the insight into the Council of Chalcedon from both perspectives objectively. The thesis is based on authors which represent Orthodox and Coptic traditions but also on these who researched this issue solely from a historical-theological point of view. I have noted reasons - theological and non-theological - why the Copts reject to accept conclusions of this ecumenical council to this day, among other things. I have tried to point out that Monophysitism, or Miaphysitism - whose way the Copts follow - is not only a heretical teaching from the Orthodox theological point of view but...