"FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS" - ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST The Patristic Developments of Christology Within The Church of Palestine L. Perrone

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS
ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

The Patristic Developments of Christology
within the Church of Palestine
L. Perrone
In grateful memory of
don Giuseppe Dossetti and don Umberto Neri
To what extent did the Palestinian Fathers (that is, as we shall see, theologians, churchmen, and monks) play a role in the development of patristic
Christology? Was late antique Palestine, despite its special religious significance, a less important area when compared with other, apparently more
active parts of the Christian East? A glance at the valuable source book on
ancient Christology (which includes both theological and spiritual
texts), published by two distinguished scholars like Antonio Orbe and
Manlio Simonetti may at first convey the impression that the Palestinian
contribution was indeed a marginal one, since it receives only a couple of
mentions.1 To obtain a more precise picture, we should look further in the
well-known summa on ancient Christology, a masterpiece of early Christian studies: Alois Grillmeiers Christ in Christian Tradition.2 Here things
begin to become more encouraging for us, although in order to appreciate
this properly we should not forget how Grillmeiers magnum opus has
evolved and grown to its present state.
Since it was originally conceived as a review of patristic Christology
with the aim of retracing the preparation of the formula of Chalcedon, in its
1. See Il Cristo, 1: Testi teologici e spirituali dal I al IV secolo, a cura di A. Orbe; 2: Testi
teologici e spirituali in lingua greca dal IV al VII secolo, a cura di M. Simonetti, Milano 1985,
1986. The latters anthology reports only two texts of Eusebius (the prologue to the Ecclesiastical History HE I 1, 7 - I 4, 15 and his letter to the Church of Caesarea after the decision
of Nicaea) and one of Leontius of Byzantium (from the Contra Nestorianos et Eutichianos).
2. I shall refer to the latest edition of the original work and to its continuation (quoting only
the volume): A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, I: Von der
apostolischen Zeit bis zum Konzil von Chalkedon (451), Freiburg i.Br. etc. 19903; II/1: Das
Konzil von Chalkedon (451). Rezeption und Widerspruch (451-518), Freiburg i.Br. etc.
1986; II/2: Die Kirche von Konstantinopel im 6. Jahrhundert, unter Mitarbeit von T.
Hainthaler, Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1989; II/4: Die Kirche von Alexandrien mit Nubien und
thiopien nach 451, unter Mitarbeit von T. Hainthaler, Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1990.
LA 49 (1999) 357-396
358
L. PERRONE
previous form it responded essentially to concerns of a dogmatic nature and

reflected a finalistic view of the christological developments within patristic
thought, seen as leading ultimately to the dogma of two natures in one
person. In time, especially as Grillmeier started to describe the long process of the reception of the Fourth Council, he introduced a wider perspective than formerly, considering ancient Christology now not only from the
strictly dogmatic point of view but rather as a matter of the whole Church.
Thanks to this different orientation, while the first historical-systematic
approach left little room for the Palestinian contribution before Chalcedon,
the new context of a christological thought related to local churches or to
different ecclesiastical regions leads Grillmeier to pay more attention to the
specificity of the Church of Palestine next to the other sister-churches of
the East.3
We should gain a methodological lesson from this new model of research for our present study: in my opinion (and insofar as I am a historian
of early Christian literature and doctrines, and not exactly a theologian),
patristic Christology cannot be restricted to systematic theology alone, but
one has to take into account also the christological features expressed in
several insights by the life of the Church.4 With regard to the case of Christian Palestine, one should highlight them within the broader context of liturgy, pilgrimage and monasticism, which is typical of the Holy Land in the
heyday of the Byzantine domination. Starting from these aspects, a survey
aiming at a more adequate presentation of Palestinian Christology is called
upon to reflect more generally on the historical setting of the Holy Land in
late antique and Byzantine times, to ascertain the kind of influences it exerted upon the expression of Christology.
3. As has been announced, the third volume on the history of the reception of Chalcedon
will deal with the Churches of Antioch and of Jerusalem in the sixth century together with
Armenia, Georgia and Persia. Already in vol. II/1 (see above n. 2) Grillmeier concerned
himself on a larger scale with the situation of Palestine after 451. Still depending on his
initial approach, Grillmeiers synthesis is a little disappointing for the crucial period from
the third to the fifth century, during which he reviews to a certain extent first Origen and
then, perhaps even with greater relevance, Eusebius of Caesarea, while he reserves to Cyril
of Jerusalem only very brief treatment.
4. A further step in this direction is made, for instance, by B. Studer, Gott und unsere
Erlsung im Glauben der Alten Kirche, Dsseldorf 1985, who not only unites quite happily
in his exposition Trinity, Christology, and Soteriology, but tries also to include aspects
both of the liturgical life and of the cultural and political contexts, while retracing the
development of Christian dogma. I tried myself to assume this stance, so to say, programmatically in my book La chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche. Dal concilio di
Efeso (431) al secondo concilio di Costantinopoli (553), Brescia 1980.
FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST
359
We should never forget that even under the Christian Empire this land
still maintained a pluralistic appearance from the ethnic and religious point
of view. External factors, such as the presence of considerable Jewish and
Samaritan communities, and also of an influential pagan population at least
for a while even after the victory of Christianity, are not to be seen as irrelevant for the ways in which faith in Jesus Christ was here announced and
formulated in thought.5 Let me just mention an example: due to these particular conditions, the interpretation of the prophetic figure of the suffering servant (Is 53) was not at all simply an academic question or even an
inner matter of discussion for the Christian exegetes alone, since in the
third century the same topic was debated also among the Rabbis and became occasionally an object of the Jewish-Christian dialogue, as we hear
from Origen.6
I wont be able to provide such a wide horizon, although it would be
helpful and opportune, but at all events I cannot refrain from remarking
beforehand what kind of requisites a thorough investigation of our theme
should fulfil to be really satisfactory. I shall therefore restrict myself to a
summary description of the main lines of the theological evolution only
with some hints at these further aspects to give at least an idea of the richness of both the theological and the spiritual life within the ancient Church
of Palestine. We can already guess at this from the mere chronological sequence of my exposition, with its variety of periods and personalities: I
shall set its starting-point in the Christology of Origen, towards the middle
of the third century, and then proceed to the fourth century, first with
Eusebius of Caesarea and after him with Cyril of Jerusalem. For the fifth
century, I shall introduce into this gallery of Palestinian authors one foreigner from the West, who established himself in the Holy Land and participated very energetically in the problems of the local Church: the monk
Jerome of Bethlehem. After him, who already set such a tone, the atmosphere of doctrinal controversy will increase more and more, especially in
the aftermath of the council of Chalcedon. From the years around 431 up
5. The importance of such historical implications has been eloquently shown by R. Wilken,
The Land Called Holy. Palestine in Christian History and Thought, Yale 1992, regarding
for example the interpretation of the biblical promises of the land by Christian authors like
Origen, faced with their Jewish counterpart.
6. See Origen, Contra Celsum I, 55, where he mentions a disputation with Jewish sages.
These explained Isaiahs passage in a collective sense, as pointing to the condition of the
people of Israel in the diaspora and to the missionary task connected with it. How important
the Jewish-Christian debate could be for the elaboration of a christological perspective, will
be best appreciated further on, when we shall examine the case of Cyril of Jerusalem.
360
L. PERRONE
to the seventh century the dominating theological debate will focus on the
christological question. We shall see how the Palestinian contribution to it
has been, as a matter of fact, politically, theologically, and to a certain extent also spiritually, one of the most important factors for the formation of
Byzantine orthodoxy.
The Path from Biblical to Ontological Christology: Origen

It may not be too inappropriate to locate in the first instance Origens
position in the complex and long path leading from the initially biblical
and kerygmatic Christology to its later ontological and dogmatic
elaborations. There is no need, I think, to justify the insertion of the great
Alexandrian doctor in our overview: apart from his staying in Caesarea
Maritima for the two last decades of his life, the most fruitful ones in his
very rich literary productivity, Origen remains for a long time, more or
less openly, an inspiring force of theological thinking and of spiritual life
inside the Holy Land, as demonstrated symptomatically, among other
things, by the two origenistic controversies at the beginning of the fifth
and in the first half of the sixth century, both having Palestine as their
original scene.7
Before Origen, if we except the traces of Judaeo-Christianity, we have no
clear indications of a distinctive Palestinian theological atmosphere, despite
the efforts made first by Hegesippus and subsequently by Eusebius of Caesarea
to fix some points in a map which for the most part remains a terra incognita.
With Origen, officially engaged also in public disputations (witness his Dialogue with Heracleides), things start to change. After him, the Church of Palestine will be prepared to intervene in its own voice in the theological
discussions of the time, beginning with the response to the doctrines of Paul
of Samosata (in short, a mixture of Wisdom Christology and adoptianism) in
7. See at last, respectively, E. Clark, The Origenist Controversy. The Cultural Construction
of an Early Christian Debate, Princeton 1992 and B.E. Daley, What did Origenism mean
in the Sixth Century?, in A. Le Boulluec - G. Dorival (ed.), Origeniana Sexta. Origne et
la Bible/ Origen and the Bible. Actes du Colloquium Origenianum Sextum. Chantilly, 30
aot - 3 septembre 1993, Leuven 1995, 627-638. The width of Origens influence among
Palestinian authors of the following centuries still awaits for extensive inquiries. There is
evidence of his presence not only in the representatives of the school of Caesarea, like
Eusebius or Acacius, or of course in Rufinus and Jerome, but also both in Cyril of Jerusalem
and his successor John, in the presbyter Hesychius of Jerusalem and in the authors of the
sixth century, first of all in Leontius of Byzantium.
361
the sixties of the third century.8 To complete briefly the historical background
of Origens Christology, besides the many challenges to the ecclesiastical
preaching which he had to answer on the part of the gnostics and other heretics, one has to record also the reply he gave to pagan criticisms brought
against the person of Christ in his monumental apology Against Celsus.
As is well known, when we approach Origen, the most impressive feature we are faced with immediately is his deep and all-pervasive biblicism. This means that also his Christology has to be seen first and foremost
in this light. Despite the strong speculative inclinations and the ensuing
ontological formulations which found their way specifically in the short
christological treaties contained in his major systematic work, the De principiis, we are dealing essentially with a scriptural Christology, that is with
a thinking intimately rooted in the continuous meditation on the Word of
God. For this reason, Michel Fdou, reconstructing quite recently Origens
image of Jesus Christ in a superb and very readable book, helps us to see
from the first how he interpreted the Bible as the book of Christ.9 The
mystery of Jesus Christ, as proclaimed by the Church, is the key to the
understanding of the Scriptures, both the Old and the New Testament, being mirrored by them in all its inexhaustible richness. Such interplay can
otherwise be guaranteed only if the reader of the inspired Scriptures himself possesses the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2, 16), according to the very
often repeated hermeneutical guideline.10
8. Origens interventions in favour of the Church doctrine were especially directed at the Church
of Arabia (see G. Kretschmar, Origenes und die Araber, Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche
50 [1953] 258-279). The case of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch (261-268/269), is
admittedly one of the most significant debates before Nicaea. The Letter of the six bishops,
also called Letter of Hymenaeus from the name of its first signatory, the bishop of Jerusalem,
is a good witness to the influence ensured by Origens Christology within the Palestinian Church
of the third century. On this major episode see L. Perrone, Lenigma di Paolo di Samosata.
Dogma, chiesa e societ nella Siria del III secolo: prospettive di un ventennio di studi,
Cristianesimo nella storia 13 (1992) 253-327.
9. M. Fdou, La Sagesse et le monde. Le Christ dOrigne, Paris 1994. As for the christological
treaties in De principiis, see I, 2 (On the Son) and II, 6 (On the Incarnation of the Lord).
Origens decisive role for the recognition of the Bible as the book of Christ has been put forth
by H. von Campenhausen, Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel, Tbingen 1968.
10. See J. Rius-Camps, El dinamismo trinitario en la divinizacin de los seres racionales
segn Orgenes, Roma 1970, 378-382; F. Cocchini, Il Paolo di Origene. Contributo alla
storia della recezione delle epistole paoline nel III secolo, Roma 1992, 50. Fdou
summarizes well this reciprocity between the regula fidei and the Bible, with regard to the
christological interpretation, in the following words: Il faut avoir la pense du Christ pour
tre en mesure de lire la lettre comme prophtie du Christ, et lon acquiert justement cette
pense du Christ par le chemin de la foi (La Sagesse et le monde, 53).
362
L. PERRONE
Through his christological reading, Origen discovers within the Bible

the various contents of the ecclesiastical doctrine on Christ, as he summarized them in the Preface to the De principiis.11 Jesus Christ is the divine
Wisdom, existing eternally with the Father as his Only-Begotten Son. He
is his minister and agent in the work first of creation and then of revelation
and redemption, which ultimately culminates in the Incarnation, Death and
Resurrection of Jesus. The history of salvation is thus led by the condescension of the Logos, who manifests himself to men and guides them to
the final salvation through the communication of Gods love. It is a long
way to the coming of Jesus, but starting with the figures of the patriarchs
Origen is able to point always to this final goal: the economy of the Old
Testament is for him an economy of figures (typoi), which anticipate
their true and full model the person and the event of Jesus Christ. This
economy of types reaches its peak in the person of Joshua, who alone
with his name already announces the mistery of the true Saviour, Jesus
Christ, and with his coming into the Land of promise indicates the final
substitution of the Law by the Gospel, as was developed by Origen in his
Homilies on the Book of Joshua, on the line originally traced by the Letter
to the Hebrews (4, 8-9).12
In order to present more fully the Bible as the book of Christ, Origen
does not restrict himself to the typological method of interpretation as applied to historical persons and events. He also reads the prophetic and the
sapiential books as an overall prophecy of Jesus Christ. Moreover, the disclosure of his mystery is not an exclusive privilege of the prophets of Israel, inasmuch as the oracle of Balaam (Num 23-24) which particularly
attracted the attention of Origen witnesses to its recognition also on the
part of the pagans and emphasizes the universal call to redemption.13 Nor
should one think that this kind of christological interpretation runs the risk
of confining itself to a somewhat schematic and exterior economic perspective, without providing clues for a deeper understanding of the personal
being of the God-Man. As shown, for instance, in his exegesis of the
11. De princ. I, Praef. 4.
12. See Origne. Homlies sur Josu, texte latin, introduction, traduction et notes par A.
Jaubert (SCh 71), Paris 1960 and J. Danilou, Sacramentum futuri. tudes sur les origines
de la typologie biblique, Paris 1950, 212-215; Fdou, La Sagesse et le monde, 89-96.
13. The centrality of this topic in Origens exegesis of the Old Testament has been stressed
by M. Fdou, Christianisme et religions paennes dans le Contre Celse dOrigne, Paris
1988, 447-470. For more details about the history of interpretation, before and after Origen,
see now G. Dorival, Un astre se lvera de Jacob. Linterprtation ancienne de Nombres
24, 17, Annali di storia dellesegesi 13 (1996) 295-352.
363
Psalms by means of the so-called prosopological approach, Origen points

to the mysterious unity of divine and human aspects in the person of Jesus
Christ, anticipating by the way the later conceptuality of the two natures
and one person. So, commenting upon Psalm 44 in the Commentary on
the Gospel of John, Origen distinguishes between the titles of King and
of Christ (Ps 44, 7-8), the first of them indicating his divinity and the
second one his humanity, while stressing at the same time their unity in the
person of the Logos.14
If this pronouncement already seems to evoke the peculiar accents of
the formula of Chalcedon, Origens christological interests were usually
stimulated by different concerns linked to the problems of his time, especially since he reacted to marcionism and gnosticism, both compromising
the idea of the incarnation of God and of the full humanity of Jesus. Insofar as he is himself a representative of the theology of the Logos,
which after the important premises set out by Philo of Alexandria and by
the Prologue of John had steadily developed in the works of the Apologists during the second century and then in the Alexandrian school,
Origen is very sensitive to the universal presence of the Logos within
creation and history. Yet, this does not mean that he is led to partly reduce the significance and novelty of his incarnation, as will rather be the
case with Eusebius. Furthermore, as is proved by the emphasis on the fact
that Jesus was a real and complete man (that is, for him, consisting of
body, soul, and spirit), we can guess how Origen was conscious of the
soteriological postulate which was common among the Church Fathers
when they reflected on the assumptus homo: quod non est assumptum,
non est sanatum. Though this axiom will be acknowledged in its most
classical form only in the course of the fourth century with Athanasius,
its content was already present in Origens thought, including its related
implications of deification later so current in Greek patristic and Byzantine theology.
I have so far recalled mostly the biblical imprint of origenian
Christology. This should not be forgotten, if we try now to discover some
of its ontological dimensions. These are indeed considerable, as we were
14. Com. Ioh. I, 28, 191-196. I follow the judgment of Fdou, La Sagesse et le monde, 114,
who sees here un dveloppement sur lidentit du Sauveur qui se laisse tantt percevoir
dans sa divinit et tantt dans son humanit lune et lautre ntant dailleurs pas spares,
mais au contraire unies dans la personne du Logos. Nest-ce pas dj, en substance, la
fameuse doctrine du concile de Chalcdoine sur le Fils de Dieu qui doit tre reconnu en
deux natures, sans confusion et sans sparation?
364
L. PERRONE
already able to infer from some occasional hints, but they have properly to
be seen as an effort to transpose coherently the biblical indications into the
language and the categories of a more systematic, and therefore also necessarily philosophical, approach. We see this mutual dependence in what
probably represents the most peculiar element in Origens christological
thought: his doctrine of the epinoiai (let us translate it, for the sake of convenience, with the word titles or aspects) of Christ.15 Collecting on
several occasions the wealth of names and titles attributed to Jesus Christ
by the Scriptures (the most impressive of them is the exposition to be found
in the first book of the Commentary on John), Origen sees the epinoiai in a
double perspective, with regard to Christ himself and with regard to man.
On the one hand, names and titles express the objective perfections of
Christ, to be conceived hierarchically up to his culminating aspect as Wisdom (Sophia); on the other hand, they represent the subjective perceptions
of the different aspects of his being, according to the varying spiritual degrees or situations of man. As is clear from this last remark, the origenian
doctrine of epinoiai implies a dynamic component, which is not limited to
the part of man, who is called to grow spiritually and to appropriate by the
way the several dimensions of Christs being, becoming himself a son of
God. Yet, as a matter of fact, this growth is possible only because Christ in
his turn establishes a dynamic relation with man, brought about by him in
his multiple manifestations thanks to the initiating condescension of revelation and incarnation.16
With his view of the epinoiai of Christ, Origen also reflects a crucial
metaphysical question of Greek philosophy: the traditional problem of the
one and the many. Due to the plurality of his objective perfections or
epinoiai, the Son is seen by Origen as multiplex in constitutione, while the
Father is absolute simplicity. It is thanks to his being multiple that Christ
can assume, as original and eternal Wisdom, the mediating role between
God the Father and the creation. By combining both Proverbs 8, 22 and
15. On this well-known point see recently J. Wolinski, Le recours aux epinoiai du Christ
dans le Commentaire sur Jean dOrigne, in Le Boulluec - Dorival (ed.), Origeniana Sexta,
465-492.
16. Wolinski sums up both aspects well: De mme que chez Irne le Verbe saccoutume
lhomme pour que lhomme puisse saccoutumer Dieu, de mme, chez Origne, il se montre
lhomme selon la diversit des epinoiai et des formes (morfai) pour sadapter lhomme.
Ce mouvement nest pas seulement une vue de lesprit. Nous savons dj que les epinoiai
ont un fondement rel dans le devenir chair du Christ. Elles en ont un galement dans
lhomme vers lequel vient le Verbe: elles sidentifient avec le devenir de lhomme qui
reoit le Verbe selon tel ou tel aspect, selon tel ou tel degr (ibid., 483-484).
365
John 1, 1, Origen assumes as the supreme epinoia of Christ the idea of

Wisdom, which as exemplary cause of the world contains preformed
in itself eternally the archetypes and the ideal patterns of all creatures. This
conception at first resembles closely the Platonic world of ideas, but we
have to remember that here Wisdom is not primarily an impersonal being.
Instead, it is the Only-Begotten Son, which is the object of the perennial
love of the Father, deposing so to say in him the germs of the future creation.17 This further act, in its turn, depends on the intervention of the Son
as the Logos or Word of God, operating extra Deum as instrumental
cause, the agent of the Fathers will.18
We reach here the delicate and controversial realm of Origens disputed
conformity to Christian dogma. Of course we have to avoid the anachronistic accusations later brought against him by his most virulent adversaries, who stressed the deficiencies in his theology with regard to the faith of
Nicaea. We should instead appreciate the substance of his trinitarian and
christological thought in the light of his own time. Now, seen in this perspective, we have first and foremost to recognize the remarkable progress
made by Origen through his outspoken trinitarian model of God. His opposition to every form of monarchianism or modalism is directed to reinforce
the idea of God as Father, Son and Spirit. It is perhaps true that within this
pluralistic pattern of the divinity there might be less room for the person
of the Spirit, but this should not surprise us, if we keep in mind the slower
development of patristic pneumatology as compared with Christology (the
Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan symbol of faith is still an eloquent witness to
that). So Origen, as we saw before, devotes himself to a closer examination of the relation between the Father and the Son, which otherwise according to his critics would not have escaped the danger of subordinationism. Though such an opinion can still be heard today, several scholars
17. On the distinction between the Son as Wisdom and Logos, see R.D. Williams, The
Sons Knowledge of the Father in Origen, in Origeniana Quarta, Innsbruck - Wien 1987,
146: The Son is Wisdom, perfectly realising that contemplative vision that perceives the
wholeness and unity of the cosmos i.e., presumably, he mediates the intelligible unity of
all things as they exist in the mind of the Father, by perfectly contemplating and attuning
himself to the Fathers mind so that all things that come into being do so in rational and
intelligible, harmonious and congruous ideal form. So as Word, he is the ground of our
understanding of things in their ideal and rational nature. It is the Fathers will that the Son
should include... perfectly the intelligible forms of all things, realising in each concrete
existent its proper measure of participation in the noetic world.
18. According to Fdou, through his idea of Wisdom, Origen sefforce de penser du mme
mouvement la diffrence de lordre cr avec le Crateur et linscription de cet ordre cr
dans le dessein originel de la Divinit (La Sagesse et le monde, 267).
366
L. PERRONE
have convincingly shown to what limited extent these criticisms should be

accepted as valid. Despite Origens terminological difficulties as to the distinction between hypostasis and ousia, Henri Crouzel has insisted on the
effective affirmation of the consubstantiality between the Father and the
Son, which is dynamically implied by their unity of will, goodness, love
and light.19 On the other hand, with regard specifically to the question of
subordinationism, Crouzel offers a more balanced evaluation, which shows
how hierarchical elements mix together with egalitarian ones, while other
scholars have stressed Origens independence from the plotinian scheme of
the three hypostaseis with its strong subordinationist pattern.20 In a more
positive sense, Fdou has finally taught us to understand the apparently
subordinationist pronouncements of Origen in the perspective both of the
Logos kenosis in the Incarnation and of the Fathers self-communication
ab aeterno to the Son.21
Origen is thus no precursor of Arius in a true sense, nor is he in some
other respect the predecessor of the christological deviations which will
afflict the Church from the fifth century onwards: i.e., the opposite emphasis put respectively on the divine or the human aspects in the unique mystery of Jesus Christ. Instead of that, the model elaborated by Origen for
thinking the unity of the Logos with the man Jesus prepares in some way
the later solutions of post-chalcedonian theologians. It is an ontological and
at the same time mystical approach, in correspondence with that fundamental spiritual dynamism which is typical of Origens theology. For him, the
union of the Logos with the sarx is made possible through the soul of
19. H. Crouzel, Limage de Dieu dans la thologie dOrigne, SP II, Berlin 1957, 194-201.
For this view of a dynamic unity, see for instance Contra Celsum VIII, 12: Qrhskeu/omen
oun to\n patera thv alhqeia kai to\n uio\n th\n alh/qeian, onta du/o thv uJpostasei
pragmata, en de thv oJmonoia kai thv sumfwnia kai thv tauto/thti touv boulh/mato.
20. See, for instance, H. Ziebritzki, Heiliger Geist und Weltseele. Das Problem der dritten
Hypostase bei Origenes, Plotin und ihren Vorlufern, Tbingen 1994, for whom Origen
tends instead to break the rigid subordinationism which is typical of the neoplatonic
system.
21. Ce qui dans un premier temps se donne lire comme infriorit du Fils dsigne en
fait, selon les cas, le mystre du Verbe qui sest fait chair ou le mystre de Dieu qui de
toute ternit se communique au Fils. Et cette ternelle communication peut-tre elle-mme
envisage selon deux points de vue: si le Pre est plus grand que le Fils, cest dabord que
le Fils se reoit totalement du Pre en tant quil est depuis toujours engendr; et cest en
outre que le Fils nest pas simplement tourn vers le Pre mais aussi vers le monde qui, lui,
est infrieur Dieu. Mais les deux points de vue sont en fait insparables car le Fils
ternellement engendr nest autre que la Sagesse du Trs-Haut, elle-mme mdiatrice entre
Dieu et le monde (Fdou, La Sagesse et le monde, 309-310).
367
Christ.22 Let us leave aside the view according to which this soul is the preexistent nous, which alone did not deflect from the love of God, as the controversial hypothesis of the pre-existence of intellects would have it. In the
face of the mystery of the God-man (and Origen is admittedly the first to
employ this expression),23 the loving bond of the soul with the Logos ensures the full participation in the divinity of the man Jesus. As exemplified
by the vivid image of the iron burning in the midst of fire, the intimacy of
the union between God and man in Jesus Christ leads Origen to assert that
they, though remaining different in substance, are in fact no longer distinguishable, thus anticipating the later doctrine of the communicatio
idiomatum.
The Fourth Century:

Christological Perspectives within the Trinitarian Debate
No other figure, among the Palestinian theologians of the following centuries, can compete in his own presentation of Christ with the width and
depth of Origens christological reflection, distinguished by a remarkable
balance of scriptural, ontological and spiritual elements. A result of this
kind was moreover made possible also in the absence of definite dogmatic
constraints. On the contrary, the urgency of conformity to a norm of orthodoxy will be increasingly felt afterwards, at first during the arian controversy of the fourth century and subsequently in the christological conflicts
of the fifth and sixth centuries, determining in this way a progressive impoverishment of the biblical and kerygmatic substance in favour of a rather
abstract, essentially metaphysical refinement of dogmatic formulations
about Jesus Christ. Yet such a development will require more time before
we can observe its full consequences, so that even in the fourth century we
continue to face a certain variety of christological expressions, as can be
documented by two personalities as different as Eusebius of Caesarea and
Cyril of Jerusalem. Both of them, despite their difference of outlook, seem
at first to attest more to the continuity of christological thinking in Palestine at the time than to a really changing and innovative response to the
new problems. But this impression is only a part of the truth: as a matter of
fact, both Eusebius and Cyril are in their own ways actively reacting to a
22. De princ. II, 6, 3: hac ergo substantia animae inter deum carnemque mediante.
23. See Grillmeier, I, 343-344.
368
L. PERRONE
new political and religious atmosphere, which is not without effect also on
their expressions of Christology.24
1. Eusebius of Caesarea: a Political Christology

We can say this initially of Eusebius, also in view of his peculiar biographical situation, at the junction between the period of the persecuted Church
and the new epoch of Constantines Christian Empire, which in its turn represents the closest context for the council of Nicaea and its dogmatic formulations. The most common judgment on the bishop of Caesarea insists
upon his theological conservatism, meaning by that essentially his attachment to the heritage of Origen. There is indeed no doubt as to the deep influence exerted on Eusebius by the great doctor of Alexandria and
Caesarea, who had also left his library in the capital city of Palestine, albeit this does not imply an absolute fidelity on the part of his disciple. Nor
should one undervalue Eusebius autonomous capacity for choosing different fields and cultivating his own interests, as is shown by his many works
of historiography, apologetics, theology and exegesis, which together point
to a changed cultural atmosphere.25 In this sense, Eusebius Christology
represents a good point of observation, since it displays motifs of continuity and at the same time of differentiation from the previous scene.
As for Eusebius theology of the Logos, which he inherited from the
Apologists and the Alexandrian school, there is apparently no substantial
difference in it before or after Nicaea, that is even after he had to reckon
with the homousios. The characteristic impact of this established tradition
24. The question of continuity and innovation becomes central, when we try to assess
Eusebius and Cyrils respective attitudes towards the Holy Places, but this point is of
course not without connections with their theological opinions. For a discussion of this topic
see P.W.L. Walker, Holy City, Holy Places? Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy
Land in the Fourth Century, Oxford 1990 and R. Wilken, The Land Called Holy. I stressed
their practical convergence in Sacramentum Iudaeae (Gerolamo, Ep. 46): Gerusalemme e
la Terra Santa nel pensiero cristiano dei primi secoli. Continuit e trasformazioni, in A.
Melloni - D. Menozzi - G. Ruggieri - M. Toschi (ed.), Cristianesimo nella storia. Saggi in
onore di Giuseppe Alberigo, Bologna 1996, 460-464.
25. On Eusebius creative origenist fellowship see recently C. Kannengiesser, Eusebius of
Caesarea, Origenist, in H.W. Attridge - G. Hata (ed.), Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism,
Detroit 1992, 435-466. For his remarkable literary performance, which should also be seen
as a clue to a different intellectual atmosphere, see my article: Eusebius of Caesarea as a
Christian Writer, in A. Raban - K.G. Holum (ed.), Caesarea Maritima. A Retrospective
after Two Millennia, Leiden etc. 1996, 515-530.
369
on Eusebius christological and apologetic approach can be measured, for

instance, from a very famous page the Preface he wrote to the Ecclesiastical History , where he traces the theological foundation to the history of
salvation culminating in the Church as its final stage. Notwithstanding
Origens intense recognition of the three hypostaseis of the Trinity,
Eusebius here reveals himself to be rather sensitive to a form of binitarian
subordinationism, as a consequence of the absolute centrality of the Logos
in the work of creation and in history. The presupposition to that was obviously the recognition of the Logos independent existence, in other words
the acceptance of his full hypostatical character, which Eusebius stressed
anew even after the council of Nicaea, when he had to oppose in Marcellus
of Ancyra one of the latest forms of monarchianism. Nevertheless, his affirmation of the hypostatical character of the Logos is accompanied as I
already remarked by the emphasis laid on his subordinate role in cooperation with the Father.
It is difficult, with Eusebius, to escape the impression of confronting a
more developed and rigid form of subordinationism than it was still the
case with Origen, though not everybody agrees with such a conclusion.26
We have, however, unmistakable indications of this direction in Eusebius
language, due to his overt preference for expressions like the second God
or similar designations, when indicating the person of the Logos who acts
as the servant and the agent of God the Father. It is the same line of thought
which originated the first attempts at a theology of the Logos, since
Eusebius view is analogously meant to provide a model for thinking the
cosmological relation between the transcendent God and his creatures.
Therefore, the Logos is called on to play this intermediary role, filling a
gap between God and the world which otherwise would remain
unbridgeable. This approach clearly resembles the philosophical perspective drawn by Middle Platonism with its soul of the world, a contact
which in the case of Eusebius is even more difficult to deny, because of his
extensive reading of authors belonging to that tradition.27
26. The more common judgment is expressed by Grillmeier, I, 393 (see also its most drastic
form at p. 402: Eusebius is much more distant from Nicaea than Origen himself!). A more
positive evaluation of Eusebius subordinationism has been proposed recently by J.R.
Lyman, Christology and Cosmology. Models of Divine Activity in Origen, Eusebius, and
Athanasius, Oxford 1993.
27. On the other hand, we should not forget the apologetic needs underlying Eusebius
efforts, as is properly observed by J.R. Lyman: In his apologetic works Eusebius set out
to prove from philosophy and Scripture that Jesus, the incarnate Logos, was the unique
agent of the Fathers will foretold by the Hebrew prophets and mirrored in Platonic
370
L. PERRONE
Despite this, Eusebius is fundamentally concerned to express the relation of the Logos to the Father according to the ecclesial conscience of his
own time. It is not at all a coincidence that he originally intended his most
famous work, the Ecclesiastical History, as the description of the apostolic successions (the diadochai tn apostoln, according to the initial
words of the book). If he appears to be quite reserved towards the
homousios, also Cyril of Jerusalem and many other churchmen and theologians of the fourth century shared his feelings towards a formulation which
could not be found directly in the Scriptures and moreover was suspected
of depending on a materialist conception of God. Therefore, apart from
such terminological doubts, he admits with the Church that the Son is himself God, of the same nature as the Father, and rejects the ideas of Arius,
for whom there was a time in which the Son was not, though Eusebius
differentiates himself from the form given by Origen to his doctrine of eternal generation. Not only does he underline, on this point, the will of the
Father who gives birth to the Son from eternity avoiding images which
would insinuate a certain automatism in his generation (as the well-known
analogy of the sun and the ray of light), but he considers also the Son as
one in himself, like the Father, thus distancing himself from a peculiar
aspect of Origens Christology.28 Inasmuch as for Eusebius the Logos receives his existence from the Father and is his perfect image, his being as
Son can be said to partake of an essential likeness to the Father. To sum
up, notwithstanding his theological conservatism and his subordinationist
penchant, Eusebius is able to rethink some aspects of the theological tradition to which he is attached, in order to better formulate his view of the
Son of God.
Eusebius was also attentive to the christological debate at the beginning of the fourth century, as is shown by the Apology of Origen, a book
written together with his teacher Pamphilus, before the latter was put to
death as a martyr during the Great Persecution (310). In the rich catalogue
of accusations made by Origens critics, the majority point to old and re-
writings. Hence he deliberately considered the theology of Christ from both historical and
philosophical viewpoints (ibid., 108).
28. Both distinctions have been pointed out by J.R. Lyman (see ibid., 109 ff.). See, for
example, how Eusebius presents the Sons generation in Dem. Ev. IV, 3 (GCS 23, 152-153).
Regarding the oneness of the Logos, as attested to in Dem. Ev. IV, 10, Lyman observes that
in Origen and the Middle Platonists the single essence of the highest god was commonly
contrasted with the lower multiplicity of the second god, whose cosmological mediation
required a multiple essence (ibid., 111).
371
cent problems of Christology, these last being those discussed in the half
century after the death of Origen and the condemnation of Paul of
Samosata.29 Once again, we are able to detect in Eusebius a mixing of traditional and novel perspectives. The derived elements mainly go back to
his view of the finality of the Incarnation, though the accent laid on it by
Eusebius reveals unmistakably his specific concerns. The salvific design,
whose protagonist throughout history is the Logos, is aimed at communicating to men the true knowledge about God, the Father. Thus, the intervention of the Logos responds essentially to pedagogic aims; it is directed
towards the education of humanity, a goal which had already been attained
by earlier men, the God-loving Hebrews, as represented by Abraham and
the other patriarchs, before Moses established the people of the Jews, in
order to stop the spread of idolatry and to prevent further corruption. As is
clear from Eusebius view of the origins, his idea of salvation runs in a
certain sense the risk of underrating the unique meaning of the Incarnation,
that is insofar as it implies the simple restoration of the knowledge originally shared by humanity. On the other hand, Eusebius elaborates a progressive view of history, in which the coming of the Logos represents a
peak and a final point, inaugurating his effective sovereignty on history.
This final kingdom is attested to both by the diffusion of the Church and
the conversion of the Empire to Christianity, so that we are faced here for
the first time with a form of political Christology, undoubtedly Eusebius
most characteristic contribution.30 As is witnessed to by his Constantinian
writings, the ultimate elaboration of such political Christology introduces
us to the person of the Emperor, as the representative of the Logos on earth,
who in his behaviour towards the world is called on to establish a sort of
mimetic relation with the Son of God.31
Against this ideological background, for the bishop of Caesarea the Incarnation of the Logos responds primarily to the necessity of adapting the
29. PG 17, 578 ff. The first five among the nine items mentioned by the authors concern
christological matters (1. the Son of God is innatus; 2. his existence is per prolationem, as
believed by the Valentinians; 3. Christ is a simple man, in conformity with the doctrine of
Paul of Samosata; 4. the Saviour acted in appearence and not in reality; 5. Origen preaches
two Christs).
30. The originality of Eusebius approach has been stressed anew by W. Kinzig, Novitas
Christiana. Die Idee des Fortschritts in der Alten Kirche bis Eusebius, Gttingen 1994, 517
ff., while Kannengiesser (Eusebius of Caesarea, 452 ff.), also with regard to Eusebius
political Christology, argues for a fundamental continuity with the origenist tradition.
31. See especially H.A. Drake, In Praise of Constantine. A Historical Study and New
Translation of Eusebius Tricennial Orations, Berkeley etc. 1976.
372
L. PERRONE
divine teaching to men in the most successful form, though his coming had
already been prepared for by a long history of education which included
both Jews and pagans, biblical revelation and Greek wisdom. With regard
then to the person of the Incarnate, the man Jesus is seen by Eusebius as
the instrument, the interpreter and the image of the Logos dwelling in him.
The sovereignty of the Logos finds thus in the man Jesus its own temple,
wholly illuminated and deified by its own presence. It is this insistence on
the active part played by the Logos within the Incarnate that brings about
the loss of another significant component of Origens Christology, the recognition of the anima mediatrix of Christ. Eusebius is not alone, but again
represents a wider trend of thought, which will lead in the course of the
fourth century to a developed Logos-sarx Christology, to be paralleled by
the second major pattern before Chalcedon, the Logos-anthropos
Christology. Within this Logos-sarx scheme, the responsibility for redemption is entirely taken on by the Logos, while the sarx as such has no
soteriological relevance. Though the absence of a human soul in Jesus
points already to the later expressions of Apollinarianism, it is not possible
to envisage Eusebius as an Apollinarianist ante litteram, because he remains attentive to the distinction of natures in Jesus Christ and avoids the
language and the idea of a mingling of them, which on the contrary was
typical of Apollinarianism and later on in its wake, at least verbally, of
Monophysitism.32
2. Cyril of Jerusalem: a Testimonial Christology

A few decades after Eusebius we encounter another dominant personality
of the Palestinian Church in the fourth century: Cyril of Jerusalem, the
bishop of the newly established Christian Holy City for the most part of
its second half (348-387), and the author of the famous Prebaptismal
catecheses. When compared with Eusebius apologetic and political
Christology, his deeply scriptural and catechetical view of the mystery of
Jesus Christ impresses us at first with the weight of its evident diversity. It
is indeed a rather different approach, due also to the pastoral occasion for,
and the didascalic finality of Cyrils pronouncements, though we should not
32. The rejection of a human soul is explicitly stated by Eusebius, in his polemic against
Marcellus of Ancyra, in de eccl. theol. (GCS 14, 88. 15-22). See H. de Riedmatten, Les
actes du procs de Paul de Samosate. tude sur la christologie du IIIe au IVe sicle,
Fribourg 1952, 71.
373
hide some similarities in outlook between the two authors, as we have already noticed regarding the homousios. It was not by chance that the bishop
of Jerusalem was installed on his throne with the help of the doctrinal party
to which Eusebius belonged, though he had afterwards to suffer from these
semi-arian connections as from the growing rivalry between Caesarea and
Jerusalem. Besides that, even if he is not a politician of the same sort as
Eusebius, we can discover in Cyrils preaching more attention to the problems and expectations of his own time, than we might suppose at a superficial glance. We then see very well what I already hinted at at first: in order
to appreciate the real import of an exposition of Christology, we should
take into account the historical context in all its dimensions.
At all events, Cyril himself has offered us some clues to that in the introductory lecture to his Catecheses, where he invites the catechumens to
take hold of his teachings so that they may become a weapon for their own
faith in face of the several enemies who threaten it. As the bishop of Jerusalem lists them, these dangers come from the heretics, the Jews, the Samaritans and the pagans.33 The listing may appear stereotyped, but its order
significantly corresponds to the situation of conflict described fifty years
later (400) by the bishops of Palestine in a letter to Theophilus of Alexandria, which emphasizes anew the difficulties facing the Church in such a
mixed religious milieu.34 Moreover, it can be shown that the concerns expressed by Cyril in the Procatechesis were particularly exemplified, in the
course of his lectures, with regard to the Jews. We have thus to do with a
Christology which, among the other polemical aims, fulfils first and foremost a deliberate anti-Judaic intention. It does so by means of repeated instructions and exhortations aimed at confuting the possible objections on
the part of the Jews. We find this element as a structural component in all
33. Cyril of Jerusalem, Procat. 10. For O. Irshai, Cyril of Jerusalem: The Apparition of
the Cross and the Jews, in O. Limor - G.G. Stroumsa (ed.), Contra Iudaeos. Ancient and
Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews, Tbingen 1996, 99, this list was not
arrived at by chance, and although it did include all the enemies of the Church, a careful
study of Cyrils lectures shows that this classification reflected the relative strengths,
according to him, of those who stood against the Church. The Jews were close to the top of
that list. Moreover, Cyrils direct and indirect polemic with the outstanding representatives
of heresy in his time, the Marcellians, Sabellians and neo-Arians, shows that the influence
of the Jews and their thinking on these groups was for him most grievous of all. We should
furthermore remark how Cyril, explaining the prophecies on the coming of Christ
(especially Gen 49), opposes the actual vindication of a continuity in Jewish authority
through the person of the patriarch (Cat. XII, 17).
34. The letter, sent to the bishop of Alexandria in response to his warnings against
origenism, is preserved by Jerome, Ep. 93, ed. Hilberg, CSEL 55, 155.9-19.
374
L. PERRONE
the catecheses specifically devoted to explain the doctrines of the Creed

concerning Jesus Christ.35 The method applied by Cyril remains throughout identical: he claims support for his teaching on Christ from the testimonies of the prophetic writings, convinced as he is that the Jews, at least
in principle, will not be able to reject them as devoid of authority.36 Among
the numerous instances of such a polemical device, one may point to the
confutation addressed by the bishop of Jerusalem to the objections usually
brought against the Virgins birth or against the resurrection of Jesus: the
Old Testament displays for him enough episodes which mention a sign or
a wonder made by God in men; so, why should this not be possible in the
case of Jesus, inasmuch as he truly is the Son of the omnipotent God who
became man?37
This argumentative approach may justify my definition of Cyrils teaching as a testimonial Christology. As a matter of fact, we discern through
it the persistence of an ancient tradition of early Christian preaching and
thinking, to which Cyril remains ostensibly faithful, even in the midst of
the more sophisticated theology of his own period: that is, the recourse to
testimonia normally taken from the Old Testament in order to prove the
truth of the faith in Christ. Cyril is a real virtuoso of typological correspondences, exploited by him to such a large extent, that he is able to sustain every main point of his discourse with a whole mosaic of scriptural
passages. Precisely in view of that, Cyrils christological presentation remains quite traditional, though he is aware of aspects and formulations
which recall the more developed expressions of Christology. We find,
among other things, some traces of the origenian doctrine of the epinoiai,
albeit in a simplified form: speaking of the one Lord, Jesus Christ, Cyril
reviews the names and titles of Christ and remarks how their multiplicity
is meant to answer the spiritual needs of men according to their different
35. Cat. X-XV. The anti-judaic polemic had a quite concrete ground a few years later,
because of the attempt to reconstruct the Temple made by the Jews with the support of
Emperor Julian. On this point see L. Lugaresi, Non su questo monte, n in Gerusalemme:
modelli di localizzazione del sacro nel IV secolo. Il tentativo di ricostruzione del Tempio
nel 363 d.C., Cassiodorus 2 (1996) 245-265.
36. Cyrils argumentation essentially rests upon the idea of such scriptural witnesses, as
noted by P. Jackson, Cyril of Jerusalems Use of Scripture in Catechesis, Theological
Studies 52 (1991) 438-442.
37. With regard to the Virgins birth, see Cat. XII, 2 (where Is 7, 14 is played against the
Jews rejection of Jesus Christ) and XII, 21 (containing a disputation with the Jews as to
the interpretation of the Isaianic passage). XII, 16 proposes then a summary catechesis in
polemical form, so to explain the possibility of Incarnation by means of the Old Testament
theophanies. For the objections to Jesus resurrection see XIV, 15 ff.
375
conditions.38 Also Cyril continues to elaborate upon the well-established

scheme provided by the theology of the Logos, reviewing the biblical history in the light of his salvific interventions. Yet, out of a sense of the mystery which the doctrinal conflicts of his century had rendered even more
urgent -, when he deals with the theme of eternal generation, he underlines
the fact that it is properly unknowable to men, since there are no suitable
human analogies to explain it, not even the most popular equivalence of
mind and word.39 Furthermore, the agency of the Son with regard to the
world is described by Cyril in terms rather of egalitarian cooperation than
of instrumental subordination. This mirrors, on the other hand, a keener
sense of the unity and equality between Father and Son, who are one, because as Cyril says God generated God.40
Cyrils teaching on the Incarnate represents, in its turn, a good summary
of the traditional doctrine of the Church and of contemporary orthodox theology. The bishop of Jerusalem reminds his hearers that both God and man,
their distinction and unity, should be fully preserved in the mystery of Jesus Christ, warning them in this way against the errors of docetists and
adoptianists, as also against the new danger posed by the manichaeans.41
To explain the necessity of the Incarnation, Cyril provides as usually a
scriptural foundation, going back to Adams fall which brought about the
38. Cat. X, 3-5. Cyrils appreciation of the Son of God as a good doctor and patient
teacher betrays an origenian cast of mind (X, 5). For M. Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV
secolo, Roma 1975, Cyrils theology is allineata con quella che potremmo definire la pi
rigida ortodossia prenicena nel solco della tradizione origeniana (p. 209).
39. For the doctrine of the eternal generation, see Cat. XI, 4. 8. As to its form, this eternal
Sonship is the fruit of a process inexplicable to men (XI, 7); more positively, it is of spiritual
character, and not a physical generation (XI, 7). For the warning against excessive curiosity,
see XI, 12: You dont know what is written and you try to investigate what has not been
written? The image of mind and word is not satisfactory for explaining the idea of eternal
generation, because for Cyril a temporal distance between the human mind and words
cannot be completely avoided (XI, 14). On this point M. Simonetti stresses again Cyrils
fidelity to Alexandrian tradition: A differenza di Ario e di Eusebio di Cesarea, e unica
testimonianza per noi in tal senso nel gruppo eusebiano, Cirillo dimostra di aver ben inteso
la distinzione tipicamente alessandrina fra arch ontologica e arch cronologica in riferimento al Figlio (La crisi ariana nel IV secolo, 208).
40. Cat. XI, 16. 18. For V. Saxer, Cyrils idea of the Son represents a middle position,
distant both from the arian theology and from the nicene view of Athanasius (Cirillo e
Giovanni di Gerusalemme. Catechesi prebattesimali e mistagogiche, Milano 1994, 60-61).
Cyril refrains from speaking of a unity of nature between the Son and the Father, preferring to assert a dynamic unity and harmony of will (Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV
secolo,208).
41. Cat. IV, 9; XII, 1 ff. The polemic against the manichaeans is especially developed by
Cat. VI, 21 ff.
376
L. PERRONE
subsequent and overall corruption of mankind but also initiated Gods

salvific design. As we already saw in Eusebius, for Cyril too the mediation
of Christs humanity is indispensable in order to know God, since men in
their weakness are incapable of seeing him. Therefore, they need a Saviour
in the form of a man, so that they may be more easily educated, though for
Cyril the Incarnation does not respond only to a pedagogical aim. More
than it was the case with Eusebius, the bishop of Jerusalem is aware of its
redemptive finality, which implies the deletion of sin and death in man.
This is how the Cross of Christ comes to assume a central place for him,
since it is the guarantee of redemption for all men: to underline that, Cyril
speaks of the Golgotha as the center of the earth, where Jesus opened his
arms so to embrace symbolically the entire human race.42 Such a centrality
of the Cross should be wonderfully displayed, and once again locally
proved, shortly afterwards by the apparition of the Cross in the skies of
Jerusalem on the 7th of May 351, encompassing in its extension the
Golgotha and the Mount of Olives a symbolic link between the two holy
places stressing anew the universal kingship of Jesus Christ both through
his death and resurrection and his future coming as a triumphant judge of
the living and dead.43
We approach here another distinctive feature of Cyrils testimonial
Christology, which displays a further and unprecedented dimension of actuality in his Catecheses. In the newly established context of a Holy City
and a Holy Land of the Christians, the witnesses to the truth of the Creed
against both Jews and pagans are not contained anymore only in the Scriptures but are also accompanied by a different kind of proof, appealing now
more directly to the senses and the piety of the faithful. This further proof
consists in the testimonies to the events of Jesus life, death and resurrection which are furnished by the physical setting of the Holy Places and by
the precious relics connected with them, first and foremost the tomb of Jesus and the holy wood of the Cross. As Cyril states, if he would try to deny
the reality of Jesus suffering, the Golgotha itself and the fragments of the
Cross would convince him, with all the weight of their concrete and immediate witness to the passion of Jesus.44 The bishop of Jerusalem, claiming
42. Cat. XIII, 28. The christological foundation is provided in XIII, 23 with the help of Col
1, 18 (Christ is the head in the body of the Church) and 2, 10 (he is the chief over every
power).
43. See Ep. ad Constantium, PG 33, 1165-1176; E. Bihain, Lptre de Cyrille de
Jrusalem Constance sur la vision de la croix, Byzantion 43 (1973) 264-296.
44. Cat. XIII, 4. For further use of local testimonies with regard to Golgotha see IV, 10; X, 19.
377
on several occasions the testimony of the Holy Places, introduces us for

the first time to a kind of experimental, devotional if not altogether sacramental Christology, nourished together with the biblical memories by
the local setting of Christs earthly life and events.45 A new epoch had begun for christological thinking in Palestine: the framework of the Holy
Places and pilgrimage becomes inevitably from now on a component, more
or less explicitly, for the subsequent expressions of Christology. To follow
its impact would require a further investigation into the devotional life of
the Holy Land from the fourth century onwards. With regard to Cyril, I can
only point to his decisive role in the first organisation of the Jerusalem
stational liturgy, which will be centered more and more on the actualisation of Jesus historical events. To enforce such a re-enactment, these are
normally celebrated by the local community precisely on the spot where
they had happened, as we already catch in the eighties of that same century in the Itinerary of the pilgrim nun Egeria.46
On the Threshold of the Christological Controversies:

Jerome, the Monk of Bethlehem
We can deal more briefly with our next witness to the Palestinian
Christology, though not because he is a less important figure or because he
is a Latin emigrant. Even if Jerome came from abroad, he was not the first
to find his new country in the Holy Land, and his story is as such a quite
common one at the turn of the fourth and the fifth century and later on too.
Among the pilgrims who came to pray at the holy places, many stayed on
there as monks and with this decision profited from the spiritual life of the
45. I dont think that we need to speak here of sacramental ways of thinking, as affirmed
by P. Walker, Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the 4th Century, in A. O Mahony et al.
(ed.), The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land, London 1995, 32. Cyrils attitude recalls
rather the idea of the Holy Places as a fifth gospel.
46. R. Wilken (who sees furthermore this development already starting with Eusebius)
observes that for the first time... sight begins to be a component of Christian faith. As this
new fact penetrated Christian consciousness in the fourth and fifth centuries, Christian
realised that seeing the holy places was a way of renewing the image of what had
happened, that is, re-presenting the saving events of the past in the present (The Land
Called Holy, 90-91). For the evolution of the Jerusalem liturgy, and its underlying
theological conception, see A. Renoux, Le codex armnien Jrusalem 121. I. Introduction:
Aux origines de la liturgie hirosolymitaine, PO 35/1, Turnhout 1969; G. Kretschmar,
Festkalender und Memorialsttten Jerusalems in altkirchlicher Zeit, Zeitschrift des
Deutschen Palstina-Vereins 87 (1971) 167-205.
378
L. PERRONE
local church and in their turn contributed themselves to it. Melania the
Elder, Rufinus and Jerome are typical representatives of this international
society, involved in the situation of the Jerusalem church, at the time of
bishop John (386-417), as will subsequently be the case with the monks of
the Judaean Desert like Euthymius, Sabas or Theodosius, who originally
were all foreigners. We have here thus the first reason why we would like
to introduce the testimony of Jerome: through him we begin to observe
another essential trait of the religious landscape of Christian Palestine in
Late Antiquity, which now becomes not only the land of pilgrims but also
a major centre of eastern monasticism. We cannot leave aside this new
component of ecclesiastical life, if we want to approach correctly the
christological controversies. Palestinian monasticism, both autochthonous
and international, is a fundamental factor for the following developments
of Christology.
After having said that, we still need to justify our summary treatment
of an author, who for the reasons just mentioned appears to be only the first
in a long series of representatives. As a matter of fact, Jerome is not properly speaking a theologian. His most salient literary occupation makes him
instead a biblical scholar, but precisely this activity as translator and interpreter of the Bible brought him in touch with Origen, his most significant
predecessor and model as philologist and exegete. Despite his subsequent
attacks on Rufinus, John of Jerusalem and the origenist party in the first
controversy about the orthodoxy of the great Alexandrian, Jerome remained
largely indebted to Origen. Therefore, we can measure once more his influence on christological thought and at the same time perceive Jeromes
new accents on the eve of the dramatic conflicts over the dogma of Jesus
Christ, God and man. For this analysis we have emblematic evidence in the
mixed text represented by the Homilies on the Psalms, circulating under
the name of Jerome but for some scholars to a large extent merely translated and adapted by him from a corresponding work of Origen.47 At all
events, these homilies presumably preached by Jerome in the church of the
47. Tractatus sive homiliae in Psalmos, ed. G. Morin, CCL 78, Turnhout 1958. For the
scholarly discussion on the authorship see lately Origene - Gerolamo. 74 omelie sul libro
dei salmi, intr., trad. e note di G. Coppa, Milano 1993, 13-32. Their overall dependence on
Origen was especially asserted by V. Peri, Omelie origeniane sui Salmi. Contributo
allidentificazione del testo latino, Citt del Vaticano 1980. His thesis has been rejected by
P. Jay, Les Tractatus in Psalmos, in Jrme entre lOccident et lOrient. Actes du
colloque de Chantilly publis par Y.-M. Duval, Paris 1988, 367-380, for whom the clear
origenian inspiration of the homilies should not be an obstacle for considering them a work
of Jerome, as is shown by their many actual connections.
379
Nativity around 400, for an audience generally consisting of monks and

nuns, pilgrims and local inhabitants, reveal his actual concerns towards the
trinitarian and christological heresies which challenged the teaching of the
Church. Moreover, they offer another eloquent proof of the new contextual Christology, because of Jeromes particular attachment to the holy
places.48
For Jerome too, who follows faithfully in the footsteps of Origen, the
Bible is the book of Christ. Being situated at the centre of both the Old and
the New Testament, Jesus Christ has to be regarded as the protagonist also
of the Psalms. Out of this conviction, Jerome commits himself to the
method of prosopological exegesis, which from time to time prompts him
to develop some insights into the personal being of Christ. Within the
trinitarian perspective, the Sons relation with the Father and the Holy
Spirit is viewed by Jerome as a mystery inexplicable to the human mind
and only attainable by faith.49 We meet anew the same emphasis we observed shortly above in Cyril of Jerusalem regarding the mysterious generation of the Son, but its underlying inspiration seems in this case more
directly deriving from the polemic against the Eunomians, who encouraged
a rationalistic approach to the trinitarian problem. Conforming himself to
the final theological result of the long struggle against Arianism, Jerome
insists upon the mutual relation between the Father and the Son: in a movement of reciprocal attraction, the Son leads to the Father, and the Father in
his turn leads himself to the Son, since they are both of one nature and one
substance, the one being inseparably in the other.50 However, these homilies, much more than for their echo of the trinitarian debate, are for us first
of all an interesting document of the contemporary situation, since they
provide some revealing clues to the evolution of christological thought at
the beginning of the fifth century.
48. The Homilies on the Psalms are not the only evidence of Jeromes activity as preacher.
He held some further homilies, dealing with the gospels or particular festivities (like the
Tractatus in Marci Evang., CCL 78, Turnhout 1958). See finally also Y.-M. Duval, LIn
Esaiam paruula adbreuiatio de capitulis paucis de Jrme. Une homlie (tronque) et une
leon de mthode aux moines de Bthlem, in R. Gryson (ed.), Philologia Sacra. Biblische
und patristische Studien fr Hermann J. Frede und W. Thiele zu ihrem siebzigsten
Geburtstag, II, Freiburg i.Br. 1993, 422-482.
49. See especially Tract. in Ps. (series altera) 91, 6 (Ital. transl., pp. 660-665). Tract. in Ps.
98, 5 opposes the faithful to the dialecticians, emphasising again the mystery of God
and man (p. 323). A violent criticism of Arius and Eunomius is introduced in Tract. in Ps.
5, 11 (p. 110).
50. Tract. in Ps. 109, 3 (p. 393); Tract. in Ps. 66, 5 (p. 140).
380
L. PERRONE
Its most recent stage had been marked by the dispute over Apollinarianism. This new crisis had broken out already in the seventies of the fourth
century, as the arian controversy was reaching its final phase. Jerome had
frequented the school of Apollinaris of Laodicea, a biblical scholar and a
vigorous adversary of Arianism, but he felt bound to the Roman Church in
questions of orthodoxy and on the other hand stood under the influence of
the great Cappadocian doctors. From both pope Damasus and Gregory of
Nazianzus he had heard a clear condemnation of Apollinaris thesis, which
denied the presence of a rational soul in Christ, while stressing in him the
unity between God and man through the idea of the one nature of the
incarnate Logos, later on to become very controversial as a christological
formula, also because of such a dubious authorship.51 Jeromes answer to
this new deviation develops from the point of view of the traditional doctrine on Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. His developments aim
indeed at a more precise understanding of Christs humanity, but he considers also the way in which God and man are united in him. We have thus
a first and somehow still uncertain approach to the future dogma of
Chalcedon, in so far as Jerome already points to the one person in two
natures. This happens when he rejects the accusation, launched by apollinarianists also in contrast with the first manifestations of Antiochene
Christology, according to which the acceptance of God and man in Christ
as two complete realities may imply two Sons.52 However, his use of the
term person is not yet definite and steady, due to his occasional leaning
towards its assimilation with the concept of nature, as displayed by its
51. Both the Roman and the Cappadocian sources of Jeromes position, together with the
influence of Didymus the Blind, are stressed by M.-J. Rondeau, Les commentaires
patristiques du psautier (IIIe-Ve sicles). Vol. II: Exgse prosopologique et thologie,
Roma 1985, 152 ff.
52. Tract. in Ps. 109, 1: Nobis ergo qui filius Dei est, ipse est et filius Dauid: non alius
filius et alius filius, non facio duas personas in Deo et homine (p. 222). See also Ep. 120,
9, ed. Hilberg, CSEL 55, 497.22-498.10: Crucifigitur ut homo, glorificatur ut deus... Haec
dicimus, non quod alium deum et alium hominem esse credamus et duas personas
faciamus in uno filio dei, sicut nova haeresis calumniatur, sed unus atque idem filius dei
et filius hominis est, et quicquid loquitur, aliud referimus ad divinam eius gloriam, aliud
ad nostram salutem. Other important passages can be found in Comm. in Zach. 2, 6 (CCL
76 A, 799) and in Comm. in Hier. 3, 52 (CCL 74, 148). For Grillmeier, I, 589, Jeromes
christological thinking is sustained by the effort of proposing a via media: In der Mitte
zwischen dem apolinaristisch-arianischen Monophysitismus und der adoptianischen
Christologie der alten Adoptianer und des Photin hindurch legt sich Hieronymus seine
christologische Formel zurecht, die aber nicht die Vollstndigkeit und Klarheit anderer
Lateiner erreicht.
381
occurrence within the same homilies in relation to the assumptus homo.53

We get here a first glimpse of the difficult field of dogmatic formularity
with regard to the mystery of Jesus Christ, which will occupy for centuries
also the theological efforts of the Palestinian authors.
As for the human component of the Incarnate, the recognition of a complete humanity implies for Jerome that Christ not only is endowed in principle with a soul and a body like all men, but also (with a rather concrete
and, to a certain extent, quite modern view) that he participates of the same
affections and feelings as them. In this way, Jerome does not restrict himself only to a generic declaration of christological orthodoxy in the face of
Apollinarianism, but he is able, also encouraged by the psychological situation of the Christ he is faced with in the Psalms, to stress the experience
of the passions in him. At first, since the new heresy (as Apollinarianism
is called by Jerome) pretended to simplify the anthropological structure in
Christ, asserting that he was devoid of his intellectual component (the
nous), the monk of Bethlehem responded to that by opposing his idea of
the man as a composite being (homo compositus).54 Then, commenting
upon Ps 108, 31, Jerome proceeds to describe the emotions felt by Christ
at the moment of his passion. With Mt 26, 38, he sees him as oppressed by
sadness. Now, the fact that Christ experiences such feelings demonstrates
for Jerome that he possessed a soul capable of suffering from the passions
and the desires of the body, though he did not commit sin.55 Moreover,
Jerome supports his view with the help of the already mentioned
53. See again Tract. in Ps. 109, 1: Omnia euangelia personant de persona hominis (p. 222).
Jeromes oscillation with regard to persona has been noted by Rondeau, Les commentaires
patristiques du psautier, II, 140 ff.
54. Tract. in Ps. 15, 9-10 (pp. 381-383). The anti-apollinarianist connection of this exegesis
has been brought to light by Rondeau, Les commentaires patristiques du psautier, II, 145147: Dire que le Christ est un tre compos, en entendant par l non pas quil est Dieu et
homme cest en ce sens quOrigne dit de lui quil est su/nqeto/n ti crhvma mais que
comme homme, il est, conformment lanthropologie aristotlicienne, compos dune me
et dun corps, a sans doute une porte antiapollinariste (pp. 146-147).
55. Tract. in Ps. 108, 31 (pp. 220-221): Qui tristis est, sensum habuit. Insensibilis enim
anima sensum non habet, insensibilis anima non habet sensum neque dolorem: ubi enim
dolor est et tristitia, ibi sensus est. (...) Si ergo uoluerint nobis dicere: Propterea non
dicimus eum habuisse sensum, ut non uideatur habere peccatum; nos illis respondeamus:
Habuit corpus sicut et nos, aut non habuit? Si dixerint, habuit, respondeamus illis: Ergo
habuit et passiones corporis nostri. For the equivalence between sensus and nouv, see
Rondeau, Les commentaires patristiques du psautier, II, 151. With regard to the
impeccability of the Lord and the problem of the propaqeia, Jerome is open to the influence
of Didymus, though he refrains in the homilies from applying it to the person of Christ (see
ibid., 160-161).
382
L. PERRONE
soteriological postulate: man, consisting of soul and body, would not be

saved, if Christ had not taken on both a soul and a body.56
Jeromes commitment to the recognition of the full humanity of Jesus
Christ is attested to by another side of his Christology, which after its biblical and ontological features invites us to discover more immediately the
impact of its spiritual dimensions. Here the redemptive value of the Cross
comes into the foreground thanks to a view linking Christology and
ecclesiology, and pointing at the same time to the universality of salvation
through the image of Christ who extends his arms as protective wings over
the world.57 On the path already opened up by Origen, Jerome finds his
own way to a warm and intimate devotion to Jesus, contemplated in the
fragility and humbleness of his human existence.58 This renewed Jesus
mysticism is, however, nourished by an element which was rather marginal,
if not totally absent in Origens thought: the connection with the holy
places and among them especially with Bethlehem. It is true that Jerome
also on this point was rather inconsistent, since he seemingly changed his
mind after he had first sponsored enthusiastically the dwelling in the Holy
Land as a privileged setting for monastic life.59 Despite that, even in his
most reserved statements, he is still disposed to make an exception for
Bethlehem, where he had deliberately decided to settle.60 We can try to
combine and, in a certain sense, to reconcile both opposite reactions
through the evidence furnished by the Homilies on the Psalms. On the one
hand, they mention, as a matter of fact, quite a lot of places related to the
life of Jesus, the village of Bethlehem being as I have already hinted
56. Tract. in Ps. 108, 31: Si enim non suscepit Dominus cuncta quae hominis sunt, non
saluauit hominem. Si autem suscepit corpus, animam autem non suscepit: ergo corpus
saluauit, animam autem non saluauit (p. 221).
57. According to Tract. in Ps. 95, 10 (p. 154) the Cross is the column of humankind, upon
which the Church was built. For G. Coppa (see above n. 47), who speaks of a soteriological
Christology, la passione e la croce suscitano le ininterrotte riflessioni dellomileta: esaltato
sulla croce, Cristo ha esaltato noi, ci ha elevati fino a s e sollevati fino al cielo; morto
per farci vivere; il Crocifisso il cantico nuovo poich il Figlio di Dio morto come
uomo, affinch gli uomini avessero la vita (pp. 40-41). As for the image of Christs arms
on the cross, see Tract. in Ps. 90, 4; Tract. in Ps. 90, 4 series altera.
58. See especially Tract. in Ps. 98, 5. Prayer to Jesus plays an important part in Jeromes
devotion to him, as remarked by K. Baus, Das Gebet zu Christus beim heiligen Hieronymus, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 60 (1951) 178-188.
59. Compare Ep. 46 (around 386) with Ep. 58 (395) and see my remarks in Sacramentum
Iudaeae (Gerolamo, Ep. 46), 467-477.
60. On Jeromes attitude towards the birthplace of Jesus, see P. Antin, La ville chez saint
Jrme, in Id., Recueil sur saint Jrme, Bruxelles 1968, 375-389.
383
the main object of Jeromes attention; on the other hand, this physical landscape, which is evoked through so many details, should be innerly re-enacted and should be lived everyday as a personal experience of spiritual
life. As Jerome says, blessed he who carries within himself the Cross, the
resurrection, the place of Christs birth and of his ascension! Blessed he
who carries Bethlehem within his heart, and Christ is born every day in
it!61 In this way, the fact of living in the Holy Land has to be seen just as
a help and the starting-point for a deeper sequel and imitation of Christ,
which is likewise a common goal for all believers. Jeromes attitude, therefore, does not merely reflect the attempt at an overall spiritualisation which
should shake off the concrete links to the places. This fact is even more
evident when he speaks of Bethlehem: Jeromes preferential option for the
birthplace of Jesus leads him to recognise in the manger a primary symbol
for the essential truth of Christianity: the message of the God who became
himself man out of his loving mercy for humankind and chose to come
precisely among the poor and simple people.62
The Christological Controversies of the Fifth and Sixth Centuries:

the Palestinian Contribution to a Definition of the Ontology of Christ
1. The response of the Church of Palestine to the christological

controversies
I have so far retraced a series of approaches to Christology which were
developed in the period preceding the long struggle over the definition of
an ontology of Jesus Christ, God and man. The necessity of dogmatic pronouncements began to be felt in the first decades of the fifth century, initially still in the wake of Apollinarianism and then during the discussions
about the term of Theotokos (Mother of God), already employed by
Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem but rejected by the bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius. Such controversy brought to light, much more than it had
been the case during the apollinarianist crisis, the sharp contrast between
the two major christological schemes developed up to then, with their different ways of solving the problem of union in Christ: the Logos-sarx,
61. Tract. in Ps. 95, 10.

62. Tract. in Ps. 131, 6.
384
L. PERRONE
mainly represented by the Alexandrian theology, and the Logos-anthropos,

whose principal exponent was the Antiochene school, though western
thought also showed itself closer to this second approach. In short, the
Logos-sarx scheme insisted on the Logos as the principle of the union between God and man, while the Logos-anthropos was more concerned with
preserving the distinction of the two natures in Christ, both the divine and
the human. Faced with these alternative solutions, the choice of the Palestinian church was in a certain sense predetermined, since the influence enjoyed by Alexandrian theology from the third century on at first brought
Palestine into the camp of the allies of Cyril of Alexandria, as we see from
the support given to him by the Palestinian bishops at Ephesus (431). This
alliance would last until the beginning of the council of Chalcedon, twenty
years later, when Juvenal of Jerusalem, who was striving for the recognition of patriarchal status for the see of the Holy City, decided to go over to
the opposite side, now formed by Constantinople, Rome and the Antiochenes, thus abandoning Dioscorus of Alexandria and the monophysite party.
Thanks to this dramatic change, the Church of Palestine was able to associate itself officially with the dogmatic decision of Chalcedon, which proclaimed Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect man, to be recognised
in two natures without confusion and separation, forming one person
and one hypostasis.63
This summary presentation of such a crucial stage for the christological
dogma should not lead us to consider its political aspects as ultimately decisive and therefore to view it in a negative light. The dogmatic allegiance
of the Palestinian Church during this period was of course also a matter of
politics (even in its most dubious sense), first and foremost because of the
unavoidable context of Constantinian Christianity with its mutual relation
between Church and state. Yet, doctrinal affiliation cannot be seen only as
the consequence of an interplay between different political forces. On the
one hand, Christology is no longer a thing for theologians or churchmen
alone: as had happened during the fourth century with the trinitarian question, the Christian masses are now alert and reactive to the christological
problems of their own days. On the other hand, though it may be less vis-
63. For more details about the Palestinian participation in these events, see L. Perrone, I
vescovi palestinesi ai concili cristologici della prima met del V secolo, Annuarium
Historiae Conciliorum 10 (1978) 16-52. As to the dogmatic evolution during this period, I
refer to my sketch in Da Nicea (325) a Calcedonia (451). I primi quattro concili ecumenici:
Istituzioni, dottrine, processi di ricezione, in G. Alberigo (ed.), Storia dei concili
ecumenici, Brescia 19932, 71-107.
385
ible and at times problematic, there is indeed an intrinsic connection of the

dogmatic debate with the inner life of the Church both passively and actively, that is as a subsequent or as an initiating factor. It is not by chance
that from now on the most engaged participants in the christological controversies within the Palestinian Church were the monks, who devoted
themselves specifically to the goal of spiritual perfection. Once more, for
our description of Palestinian Christology, we should take into account the
whole complex of factors. To give at least some perception of their richness and variety, let us mention two noteworthy episodes of the liturgical
life of the Jerusalem church in the first half of the fifth century: the feast
of the Theotokos on the 15th of August, whose institution around the time
of the council of Ephesus is attested to by the Armenian Lectionary, and
the distinct celebration of Christmas on the 25th of December, imposed for
a while by bishop Juvenal. The two festivities, despite their dissimilar success, witness to the interaction between dogmatic development and devotional life, since the first is a clear celebration of Mary as Mother of God
and the second was probably aimed at underlining the Nativity of God as
man in conformity with the concerns which led to Chalcedon.64
Moreover, theological reflection also accompanied the dogmatic debate,
though this was at first approached through a distinctive perspective, as we
may guess from the works of Hesychius of Jerusalem, the most remarkable
figure in the first half of the fifth century. Known as a teacher of the
Church of the Holy City, that is as an official preacher in it, Hesychius
alternates homiletic activity with his role as exegete, covering in his organic effort of explanation biblical books such as the Leviticus which had
only partly attracted the attention of previous interpreters. Although
Hesychius does not appear to be at the same level as the authors who preceded him, he deserves to be examined for himself as a characteristic witness to the theological atmosphere of the Palestinian Church of his time.65
It is no accident that the Scriptures, commented on in the festal assemblies
or in several exegetical writings, represent the undisputed centre of
64. I have dealt with both episodes, discussing their eventual chronology and their
connections respectively with council of Ephesus and the council of Chalcedon in La chiesa
di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche, 51-59.
65. Hesychius relative independence and originality, with regard especially to his
Commentary on the Leviticus, has recently been asserted by E. Zocca, La lebbra e la
sua purificazione nel Commentario al Levitico di Esichio: un tentativo di confronto con
la tradizione esegetica precedente e contemporanea, Annali di storia dellesegesi 13
(1996) 179-199. She exemplifies it quite interestingly in relation to Origen (see pp.
186-187).
386
L. PERRONE
Hesychius literary activity. Through his efforts, the Palestinian scene again
seems to guarantee its fidelity to a great tradition of biblical studies, from
Origen through Eusebius up to Jerome, or to reflect the priority of pastoral
concerns, as manifested by the Catecheses of Cyril and John of Jerusalem.
In view of the new dogmatic issues emerging, this means that we do not
yet face a production of polemical works, which in the long run will constitute the main contribution of Palestinian theologians to Christology after
Chalcedon. Instead of that, the answer given by Hesychius to the problems
raised by the nestorian controversy continues to be sought in scriptural interpretation and in connection with the categories provided long since by
the Alexandrian Christology. To tell the truth, Hesychius tends to refrain
from a speculative approach to the mystery of the God-man and warns
against what he regards as an excessive curiosity towards it.66 His adhesion
to the Logos-sarx Christology does not moreover imply an appropriation
of the christological formulations which had become characteristic of the
time and quite common after the arian and apollinarianist controversies, so
that he may appear from this point of view somehow outdated.67 But it is
precisely this traditionalism which to a large extent can account for the violent reaction of Palestinian monks to the dogma of Chalcedon, without urging us to think that they were all fanatic monophysites. They were instead
not yet prepared to understand the difficult balance, induced by the search
of a viable compromise, which the council had tried to reach between
Alexandrian, Antiochene and western Christology.68
The acceptance of such a complex synthesis among different christological traditions was the delicate task to which the Palestinian Church
would apply itself for most of the century after Chalcedon. If the dogma of
451 was at first perceived as a betrayal of the true faith, not only for its
66. See Comm. in Lev. V, PG 93, 984 C: Curiose utique non inquirant (scil. doctores),
quemadmodum verbum caro factum est: quomodo, qui in forma Dei erat, in forma servi
factus est, quomodo exinanivit semetipsum, et in coelis mansit. Horum enim fides salutem
affert, periculum inquisitio.
67. Hesychius typically Alexandrian orientation, in the sense of his compliance with the
Logos-sarx scheme, has been noted by M. Aubineau, Homlies pascales (cinq homlies
indites), SC 187, Paris 1972, 94-95, 109-110; Id., Les homlies festales dHsychius de
Jrusalem, I: Les homlies I-XV, Bruxelles 1978, XLI-XLIV.
68. Hesychius himself seems later to have reacted very critically, as we may infer from a
fragment of his lost Ecclesiastical History, directed against the Antiochene school (ACO
IV I, 90). For the evaluation of the chalcedonian definition as a synthesis of the
christological traditions of the fifth century see L. Perrone, Limpatto del dogma di
Calcedonia sulla riflessione teologica fra IV e V Concilio Ecumenico, in A. Di Berardino
- B. Studer (ed.), Storia della teologia. I: Epoca patristica, Casale M.to 1993, 539-554.
387
assertion of two natures but also because it had taken the form of a new
horos (a definition), in contrast with the norm of Ephesus reasserting the
sufficiency of the symbol of Nicaea, afterwards it was inserted in the harmony (symphnia) of the first four ecumenical councils; all of them had
as a matter of fact assured the Church of the correct expression of its own
faith in the Trinity and in Jesus Christ, God and man. For this reason, the
monastic masses revolting for almost two years after Chalcedon would be
succeeded at the beginning of the sixth century by other masses of monks,
now defending the council against the attempts to condemn it made by the
monophysites under the guidance of Severus of Antioch (512-518). The
peak of this tenacious resistance was the famous demonstration in the
church of St. Stephen just outside the walls of Jerusalem (516/517), where
thousands of monks, coming especially from the monasteries of the
Judaean Desert, assembled with their archimandrites, Sabas and Theodosius, to hear the decisive slogan proclaimed by the second, the great
coenobiarch, which marks the final appropriation of Chalcedon within the
Palestinian Church: four gospels, four councils! In this way, the converging witnesses to the one Lord Jesus Christ provided by the different evangelical versions were paralleled by the cumulative attestation to the faith
of the Church in his mystery which was contained in the texts of the four
normative councils.69
2. The contribution of the Palestinian Theologians to Chalcedonian

Christology
The long process of reception necessarily implied a new interpretation of
the chalcedonian dogma, which would answer the criticisms brought
against it by the monophysites, irremovably clinging to the originally
69. I have described the gradual transition from rejection of Chalcedon to its acceptance and
interpretation in La chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche, 89-222. The period

up to the chalcedonian restoration under Emperor Justinus was lately dealt with by Grillmeier,
II/1. For the primacy of the first four councils in the ancient church, as stated first by
Theodosius (Cyril of Scythopolis, V. Sab. 56, ed. Schwartz, TU 49/2, Leipzig 1939, 151152), see Y.M. Congar, La primaut des quatre premiers conciles oecumniques, in Le
concile et les conciles. Contributions lhistoire de la vie conciliaire de lglise, Paris 1960,
75-110. The commitment of the monks of the Judaean Desert to chalcedonian orthodoxy has
been retraced by J. Patrich, Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism. A Comparative Study
in Eastern Monasticism, Fourth to Seventh Centuries, Washington 1995, 301-310. It is
important to notice that the monastic statements in favour of Chalcedon were supported also
by the call to the witness of the holy places (see Cyril of Scythopolis, V. Sab. 57).
388
L. PERRONE
apollinarianist and then cyrillian formula of the one nature (mia physis)
of the incarnate Logos. To escape their suspicion of a divisive Christology,
of the kind professed by Nestorius and the Antiochenes, there was practically only one possibility: to show how the contents of the chalcedonian
definition were potentially reconcilable with Cyril of Alexandria, up to 451
regarded as an undisputed doctrinal authority also by the Church of Palestine.70 A similar method had already been adopted during the council, when
the Palestinian bishops had shown their perplexity towards the Tome of
pope Leo the Great, which afterwards would contribute itself to formulating the final dogmatic decision. On that occasion, the controversial passages of the Tomus had been associated with corresponding texts of Cyril
to indicate their ultimate convergence. This manner of solving the apparent
antagonism between two different Christologies already anticipates the essential inspiration for what would subsequently represent the main current
among the Palestinian theologians up to the second council of Constantinople (553), which in its turn marked the official consecration of this orientation. Such a cyrillian-minded reappropriation of Chalcedon, because of
its analogies with a similar phenomenon experienced by the Creed of
Nicaea in the fourth century finally resulting in the so-called neo-nicene
theology, has been given the name of neo-chalcedonianism, to better
characterize its concordist approach.71 We should notice that its success
did not depend alone on the conciliatory approach as such: as a matter of
fact, this could have been exploited merely as a tactical stratagem or as an
external device, not to enable an effective encounter between the formulation of the Chalcedonian dogma and that of the cyrillian tradition, as we
may still observe in some of the earliest attempts made in Palestine. On
the contrary, a true synthesis could be realized only when the asserted compatibility between the two distinct terminologies would be accompanied by
the effort to rethink and clarify their respective concepts (first of all those
70. Cyrils doctrinal interventions on the Palestinian stage are attested to particularly by his
Ep. 41, addressed to Acacius of Scythopolis short after Ephesus, and by the Responsiones
ad Tiberium; De dogmatum solutione, answering questions put by Palestinian monks.
71. For the definition of neo-chalcedonianism and the simultaneous use of both terminologies as its most peculiar aspect, see M. Richard, Le No-chalcdonisme, Mlanges
de Science Religieuse 3 (1946) 156-161. S. Helmer, Der Neuchalkedonismus. Geschichte,
Berechtigung und Bedeutung eines dogmengeschichtlichen Begriffes, Bonn (Diss.) 1962,
stresses instead, as its main feature, the solution given to the problem of the hypostatical
union. See also A. Grillmeier, Der Neu-Chalkedonismus. Um die Berechtigung eines neuen
Kapitels in der Dogmengeschichte, in Id., Mit ihm und in ihm. Christologische
Forschungen und Perspektiven, Freiburg i.Br. 1975, 371-385; II/2, 450 ff.
389
of physis and hypostasis) and to apply them anew to the problem of the
union of God and man in Christ. It was precisely through this further engagement that the Palestinian theologians were able to propose a new conceptual foundation for the dogma of 451, enlarging its understanding with
the help of cyrillian Christology and leading it to the new idea of the hypostatical union.72
The theological movement of neo-chalcedonianism was for the most
part supported by exponents of the Church of Palestine, who intervened as
writers of mere works of controversy or of theological treaties, being normally themselves too polemical rather than systematic, because of the
apologetic pressures they were under. Such authors, by their critique of
the two extremes of monophysitism and nestorianism, often evoked
by them in rather schematic terms, aimed at establishing the middle
course of chalcedonian theology. It is not possible here to introduce the
whole series of these theologians, from the fifth to the sixth century, all
the more so as in many cases their individual profile is not well-defined.
We have indeed to do with a collective work of theological elaboration,
rather than with independent and original personalities. In this sense, we
may not improperly speak of a school or of a scholastic theology. Yet
these often modest and also partly anonymous enterprises succeeded, as a
combined effort, in providing a new lasting approach to the long-debated
question, an approach not to be substantially modified even in the final
phase of the christological controversies, that is during the conflict of the
seventh century over monoenergism and monotheletism. For this reason I shall close my presentation of Palestinian Christology with the picture of this theological evolution, without hinting at its further
manifestations on the eve of the Arab conquest, when we meet again a
major author in the person of Sophronius of Jerusalem. Such a substantial
continuity of the chalcedonian tradition within the Church of Palestine
was guaranteed first of all by the monasticism of the Judaean Desert,
which for many centuries acted as a decisive influence in eastern Christianity, thanks especially to the contribution of Mar Saba to dogma, liturgy
and hymnography.73
72. The neo-chalcedonian component is moreover a part of a larger complex, in which the
synthesis of 451 becomes the dominant theme of theology up to the third council of
Constantinople (680-681). I tried to retrace its main elements until 553 in Limpatto del
dogma di Calcedonia sulla riflessione teologica fra IV e V Concilio Ecumenico, 554-579.
73. See Patrich, Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism, 323-352, who follows the
history of the Great Laura up to the iconoclast Controversy.
390
L. PERRONE
The initial approach of neo-chalcedonian theologians, as displayed by

Nephalius, who wrote a Defense of the council and led a campaign against
the monophysites of Gaza (around 508) with the support of the Jerusalem
church, is still largely affected by the search for a diplomacy of the
dogmatic formulations, to overcome the resistance of adversaries. To this
effect, diphysite and cyrillian Christology are simply juxtaposed by him,
while their different terminologies are held as equally legitimate, without
making yet a real step towards clarification of the hypostatical union.74 A
slightly more developed stage was reached by John of Scythopolis, a fine
theological and philosophical mind as commentator of Pseudo-Dionysius
the Areopagite, who committed himself also to being an apologete of
Chalcedon from the second to the fourth decade of the sixth century,
writing against both monophysites and nestorians. Criticizing the intransigent diphysites, John accepted the theopaschite formula (One of the Trinity was crucified), which had been drawn, as its characteristic corollary,
from the strong unitive Christology exhibited by Cyril of Alexandria in
his much-discussed Anathematisms. On the other hand, John, opposing
Severus of Antioch, clearly stated the persistence in Christ of the two
operations or activities (energeiai), both the human and the divine.
These seemingly contrasting aspects of Johns Christology show how the
full neo-chalcedonian synthesis had still to be sought. Nevertheless, we
can observe the weight of the cyrillian influence on him also through the
emphasis laid upon the Logos as the subject of the union between God
and man, this union being expressed with the formula according to the
hypostasis.75
74. Nephalius position is known to us through the confutation written by Severus of
Antioch (Orationes ad Nephalium, ed. Lebon, CSCO 119-120, Louvain 1949). See further
C. Moeller, Un reprsentant de la christologie nochalcdonienne au dbut du sixime
sicle en Orient: Nephalius dAlexandrie, Revue dhistoire ecclsiastique 40 (1944-45) 73140; P.T.R. Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451-553), Leiden 1979, 105-111;
Perrone, La chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche, 148-151, 234-240;
Grillmeier II/2, 48-54.
75. The importance of John in the theological scene of the sixth century, specifically with
regard to his Scholia on the Corpus Areopagiticum, was originally indicated by H.U. von
Balthasar, Das Scholienwerk des Johannes von Scythopolis, Scholastik 15 (1940) 16-38
and has more recently been reaffirmed by W. Beierwaltes, Johannes von Skythopolis und
Plotin, SP XI/2, Berlin 1972, 3-7, and by P. Rorem, John of Scytopolis and the Dionysian
Corpus, Oxford 1998. See also B. Flusin, Miracle et histoire dans luvre de Cyrille de
Scythopolis, Paris 1983, 17-29. For his christological ideas, see Gray, The Defense of
Chalcedon in the East, 111-115; Perrone, La chiesa di Palestina e le controversie
cristologiche, 240-249.
391
The political and theological programme of neo-chalcedonianism was

proposed again, at a more elaborate level, by the grammarian John of
Caesarea, whom his opponent Severus of Antioch ironically calls a new
reconciliator and mediator of contrasting words, rightly catching a characteristic aspect of his position.76 However, the Grammarians purpose did
not confine itself to the pure synthesis of two alternative terminologies,
though we may feel in him a deeper sense of the inadequacy of christological formulations, never to be taken singly as truly satisfactory definitions, before the transcending mystery of Jesus Christ. At all events, the
arguments put forth by John of Caesarea on behalf of Chalcedon rested
upon a wider basis, as we may guess from the organic plan of his defense,
uniting the preliminary definition of ontological notions with a historical
apology of the two natures and concluding, after the direct confutation
of the monophysites, with the quotation of patristic authorities.77 Within
such a varied framework, John searched first for a distinction between the
concepts of ousia (a common or general substance or nature) and hypostasis (an individual existence or person), thus asserting both the two
natures of Christ and his personal unity: that is, according to the dogmatic
formula preferred by John, two ousiai in one hypostasis. Despite the limitations still contained in this distinction (particularly with regard to the
humanity of the Incarnate), it undoubtedly represented a progress in ontological conceptuality as applied to the christological dogma. Furthermore,
this advance was reinforced by Johns initial recognition of a more sophisticated notion of hypostasis, which did no longer point just to the idiomatic or individual characteristics but already included the idea of
self-existence. John also arrived apparently at proposing a model for
thinking the individual character of the human nature in Christ through his
idea of the enhypostasia: in other words, for him the hypostasis of the incarnate Logos conferred its individual traits on human nature as a result of
the hypostatic union. As we may perhaps realise from this last insight, we
should not be too disconcerted by the abstractly metaphysical language of
this Christology, since behind it we can hear again, as its dominant concern, the words of Johns Prologue: the Word became flesh. Finally, the
initiative of the Logos towards his humanity implies a process of deifica76. Severus of Antioch, Contra impium grammaticum, II 12, ed. J. Lebon, CSCO 112, 89.
77. On Johns literary activity see Iohannis Caes. Opera quae supersunt, ed. M. Richard,
append. supped. M. Aubineau, CCG 1, Turnhout 1977, XIII-LVIII. As for his contribution
to Christology, see Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East, 115-121; Perrone, La
chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche, 249-260; Grillmeier, II/2, 54 ff.
392
L. PERRONE
tion, though John does not yet exploit this motif in the same way that we
shall soon see in Leontius of Jerusalem, the main exponent of neochalcedonianism.78
Keeping in mind these growing scholastic aspects of chalcedonian
theology, we may now introduce a much-disputed personality, who is not
properly a neo-chalcedonian theologian but rather the interpreter of a more
refined diphysism. I refer to Leontius of Byzantium, a monk of the Nea
Laura and a leader of the origenist movement, which stirred up a great controversy in the monasteries of the Judaean Desert after the death of Sabas
(532) until its condemnation by the council of 553.79 Notwithstanding this
party affiliation, Leontius of Byzantium did not elaborate an origenist or,
more precisely, evagrian Christology, since he faced the same problems
with which the other Palestinian authors were confronted and tried to a
large extent to solve them by means of a similar conceptuality.80 The essential question raised by the dogma of Chalcedon, regarding the ontological definition of Christ, continued to be the distinction between the
concepts of physis and hypostasis. Nevertheless, Leontius of Byzantium
took as the Leitmotiv of his Christology its assertion of the two natures
in Christ, which were united without confusion and separation. For this
reason he preferred to speak of one union according to the essence
(katousian), though he did not ignore the role played by the hypostasis of
the Logos.81 Therefore, despite his somehow symmetrical presentation of
78. Johns contribution to the understanding of hypostasis and enhypostasia is subject to
different evaluations. While S. Otto, Person und Subsistenz. Die philosophische Anthropologie
des Leontios von Byzanz. Ein Beitrag zur sptantiken Geistesgeschichte, Mnchen 1968, 182187, sees in Johns thought both the idiomatic connotation of hypostasis and its meaning as selfexistence, Grillmeier, II/2, 69, manifests some reservations as to his real assertion of
enhypostasia. For the portrait traced above, I refer to my conclusions in Limpatto del dogma
di Calcedonia sulla riflessione teologica fra IV e V Concilio Ecumenico, 572-574.
79. A recent profile of this major figure has been drawn by D.B. Evans, Leontius von
Byzanz, in Theologische Realenzyklopdie, XXI, Berlin 1991, 5-10. See also Grillmeier,
II/2, 193 ff.
80. An attempt at reconstructing the supposedly evagrian Christology of Leontius has been
made by D.B. Evans, Leontius of Byzantium. An Origenist Christology, Washington 1970.
His thesis was convincingly rejected by B. Daley, The Origenism of Leontius of Byzantium, Journal of Theological Studies 27 (1976) 333-369. See also his more recent article
quoted above (n. 7).
81. He also employs occasionally (in the Dialogus contra aphthartodocetas) the formula of
the union according to the hypostasis: L. Perrone, Il Dialogo contro gli aftartodoceti di
Leonzio di Bisanzio e Severo di Antiochia, Cristianesimo nella storia 1 (1980) 430-431.
A. Grillmeier, II/2, 197-198 and 209, emphasizes the limitations of Leontius Christology
regarding both the notion of hypostasis and enhypostasia.
393
divinity and humanity in Christ, we do not find in him the idea of a tertium
quid uniting both. But what strikes us more, in the midst of an apparent
reduction of Christology to the ontological perspective, is Leontius strong
reaffirmation of a biblical and soteriological view of Christ in his Dialogue
against the Aphthartodocetes. Rejecting here a further doctrinal development within the monophysite movement (which gained apparently some
favour also among chalcedonians but was opposed by Severus himself),
Leontius clearly stated that the identity of Christs human nature and of the
way he suffered not only establish the Kyrios as a model for men but also
guarantee our possibility to imitate and to follow him.82
Finally, in the fourth and fifth decades of the sixth century the neochalcedonian synthesis finds its most remarkable exponent in Leontius of
Jerusalem, whose distinctive profile was definitively vindicated after he had
previously been identified with his homonymous Leontius of Byzantium.83
As an interpreter of the via media of Chalcedon, Leontius of Jerusalem opposed both monophysism and nestorianism, although his prevailing effort
addressed rather the second of these two christological errors. Instead of
developing Chalcedons notion of the two natures, as his namesake did especially against the severan monophysites, Leontius of Jerusalem, who was
sensitive to the cyrillian tradition, emphasized first of all the mia hypostasis
in the formula of 451. This is his primary contribution, besides the already
mentioned features of neo-chalcedonianism and despite some persisting tensions deriving from this approach.84 For the Jerusalemite, the subject of the
Incarnation is the Logos, who assumes a human nature, devoid in itself of a
hypostatical character, that is of a self-existence, this being provided by
82. I may repeat here the conclusion I proposed in a previous contribution: Se le formule
concettuali elaborate attraverso un approccio eminentemente razionale al problema

dellontologia di Cristo risultavano ancora inadeguate a risolvere i nodi contenuti nella
sintesi di Calcedonia, con questa prospettiva biblico-soteriologica il Bizantino torna a
riappropriarsi della vicenda storica del Signore incarnato, ma tracciando al tempo stesso un
collegamento pi immediato fra limmagine evangelica di Cristo e il senza confusione e
senza separazione della definizione conciliare (Limpatto del dogma di Calcedonia sulla
riflessione teologica fra IV e V Concilio Ecumenico, 576-577).
83. Such a distinction was worked out by M. Richard, Lonce de Jrusalem et Lonce
de Byzance, Mlanges de Science Religieuse 1 (1944) 35-88. For recent studies, see
Perrone, La chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche, 275-285; Grillmeier, II/2,
286-327.
84. There are doubts as to his full acceptance of the double terminology, both diphysite
and monophysite (so, for instance, Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East, 126), or
of the theopaschite formula (M. Richard, Lonce de Jrusalem et Lonce de Byzance,
58-60).
394
L. PERRONE
the Logos himself. In this way, the man in Christ is en-hypostasized

through the hypostasis of the Logos.85 Now, to what extent can the ontological solution envisaged by Leontius of Jerusalem solve the problem of the
individual character of Jesus human nature? Also for him hypostasis maintains its idiomatic or individual meaning, according to the definition formerly given by the Cappadocian Fathers within the trinitarian perspective.
On the other hand, to contrast the idea that the Logos assumed a generic
humanity, without individual traits, Leontius of Jerusalem elaborates the idea
of an individual nature of the man in Christ, receiving a hypostatical character through the hypostasis of the Logos. Thus, the union of God and man
in Christ leads to a cumulation of divine and human idiomata, the idioms
of the second person of the Trinity being added to those pertaining to the
man Jesus.86 Once more, despite our difficulties with such an ontological
model, we should try to get a glimpse of the soteriological implications of
Leontius Christology. Though it may appear so more or less explicitely,
christological ontology cannot be viewed only as an abstract pattern of
thought, worked out for mere dogmatic reasons without any connections
with the needs and feelings of the Christian life. We can ascertain the truth
of this observation in Leontius of Jerusalem more clearly than in all the
other neo-chalcedonian theologians, since his approach to the problem of
the union in Christ is closely connected with the motif of theosis, that is a
process of deification which, starting with the action displayed by the Logos
towards his humanity, extends itself to all men and finally to the whole creation. The symbol of this deifying action, which at the same time exemplifies
at best how the union of God and man should be thought of, is taken by
Leontius from the example of the burning iron, thus going back to an image
already used by Origen to illustrate the mystery of divinity and humanity in
the Incarnate.87
85. For Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East, 127, Leontius primary contribution
to the Neo-Chalcedonian programme thus seems to be his absolute insistence that
Chalcedons one hypostasis is the Word itself, in which the natures subsist. See also K.P.
Wesche, The Christology of Leontius of Jerusalem: Monophysite or Chalcedonian?, St.
Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 31 (1987) 65-95.
86. The inner tensions of this model are brought to light by Grillmeier, II/2, 315: Der
Einbau des basilianischen Hypostase-Begriffs mit seiner Idiomenlehre war dazu angetan,
die neuen Einsichten des Leontius von Jerusalem nicht ausreichend zur Geltung kommen
zu lassen.
87. See above. The link between ontology and soteriology is inculcated especially through
the exploitation of the patristic theme of the kuriako\ anqrwpo to indicate Christ's
humanity (A. Grillmeier, JO kuriako\ anqrwpo. Eine Studie zu einer christologischen
Bezeichnung der Vterzeit, Traditio 33 [1977] 47-51).
395
Conclusion
We may indeed find other interesting indications of a continuity between
the first stage of the theological evolution here described and the last phase,
despite its almost exclusive concentration on the ontological definition of
Christ and the undeniable impoverishment of the christological perspectives resulting from this. Yet it is time to conclude my presentation and to
answer the initial question.
I think that after all this there is no further need to underline how the
Palestinian contribution to patristic Christology deserves to be considered
among the most remarkable voices of eastern theology. If this does not
mean, at least with Origen and Eusebius, a local peculiarity (due to the
contacts with Alexandrian theology and its ensuing influence), in the time
the response of the Palestinian Church to the developments of theology and
dogma assumed its own distinctive features.
They thus enable us to speak of a Palestinian Christology in a more
defined regional sense. This particular view was fostered, among other
things, by the special conditions of the Holy Land, as we have seen at first
in the fourth century with Cyril of Jerusalem, then with Jerome in the fifth
and later on with the monks who opposed Severus in the sixth century.
The final commitment of the Palestinian Church to chalcedonian orthodoxy was aided by this peculiar religious context, which preserved the
traces of Jesus life and thanks precisely to the holy places experienced an
international atmosphere, in itself more favourable to a process of synthesis among different traditions. It was, however, not only a question of local
factors, but also the capacity to assume a theological leadership, which
played an important role for the dogmatic conclusion taken in 553 by the
century-old christological struggle.
As I already remarked, the scholastic language of this final period
should moreover not be isolated from the former theological tradition nor
from the larger context of ecclesial life in Palestine, lest we catch a too pale
and abstract picture of its spiritual relevance. If we could follow the echoes of chalcedonian Christology, for instance, in monastic hagiography as
represented in the time of Emperor Justinian by Cyril of Scythopolis, we
may perhaps better perceive also its impact on the spiritual life of the
monks.88
88. See L. Perrone, Il deserto e lorizzonte della citt. Le Storie monastiche di Cirillo di
Scitopoli, in Cirillo di Scitopoli, Storie monastiche del deserto di Gerusalemme, Abbazia

di Praglia 1990, 78-86.
396
L. PERRONE
Yet to explore more generally this chapter of monastic and ascetic literature, would also mean for us to discover other points of view. The discipleship of Christ embraced by monks (without ignoring or contrasting the
opportunity of an ontological definition of his mystery and of the corresponding dogmatic exactness) brought into the foreground also other dimensions.
These aspects compensate in our eyes the speculative abstractness of
post-chalcedonian Christologies, providing us with the warmth and depth
of an always new and living encounter with Christ.89
Lorenzo Perrone
Universit di Pisa
89. I refer here especially to the monasticism of Gaza, from Abba Isaiah to Barsanuphius
and Dorotheus. I dealt with it in La chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche, 285311 and more recently in I Padri del monachesimo di Gaza (IV-VI sec.): la fedelt allo
spirito delle origini, La chiesa nel tempo 13 (1997) 87-116.

"FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS" - ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST The Patristic Developments of Christology Within The Church of Palestine L. Perrone

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

"FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS" - ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST The Patristic Developments of Christology Within The Church of Palestine L. Perrone

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS

ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

previous form it responded essentially to concerns of a dogmatic nature and

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

The Path from Biblical to Ontological Christology: Origen

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

Through his christological reading, Origen discovers within the Bible

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

Psalms by means of the so-called prosopological approach, Origen points

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

John 1, 1, Origen assumes as the supreme epinoia of Christ the idea of

have convincingly shown to what limited extent these criticisms should be

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

The Fourth Century:

1. Eusebius of Caesarea: a Political Christology

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

on Eusebius christological and apologetic approach can be measured, for

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

2. Cyril of Jerusalem: a Testimonial Christology

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

the catecheses specifically devoted to explain the doctrines of the Creed

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

conditions.38 Also Cyril continues to elaborate upon the well-established

subsequent and overall corruption of mankind but also initiated Gods

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

on several occasions the testimony of the Holy Places, introduces us for

On the Threshold of the Christological Controversies:

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

Nativity around 400, for an audience generally consisting of monks and

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

occurrence within the same homilies in relation to the assumptus homo.53

soteriological postulate: man, consisting of soul and body, would not be

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

The Christological Controversies of the Fifth and Sixth Centuries:

1. The response of the Church of Palestine to the christological

61. Tract. in Ps. 95, 10.

mainly represented by the Alexandrian theology, and the Logos-anthropos,

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

ible and at times problematic, there is indeed an intrinsic connection of the

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

2. The contribution of the Palestinian Theologians to Chalcedonian

interpretation in La chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche, 89-222. The period

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

The initial approach of neo-chalcedonian theologians, as displayed by

74. Nephalius position is known to us through the confutation written by Severus of

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

The political and theological programme of neo-chalcedonianism was

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

concettuali elaborate attraverso un approccio eminentemente razionale al problema

the Logos himself. In this way, the man in Christ is en-hypostasized

FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST

Scitopoli, in Cirillo di Scitopoli, Storie monastiche del deserto di Gerusalemme, Abbazia

Вам также может понравиться