Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
In grateful memory of
don Giuseppe Dossetti and don Umberto Neri
To what extent did the Palestinian Fathers (that is, as we shall see, theolo-
gians, churchmen, and monks) play a role in the development of patristic
Christology? Was late antique Palestine, despite its special religious signifi-
cance, 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 Chris-
tian 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 Eccle-
siastical 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
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, program-
matically 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 irrel-
evant 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 par-
ticular conditions, the interpretation of the prophetic figure of the suffer-
ing 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 be-
came 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 rich-
ness of both the theological and the spiritual life within the ancient Church
of Palestine. We can already guess at this from the mere chronological se-
quence 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 for-
eigner from the West, who established himself in the Holy Land and par-
ticipated very energetically in the problems of the local Church: the monk
Jerome of Bethlehem. After him, who already set such a tone, the atmos-
phere 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 ex-
tent also spiritually, one of the most important factors for the formation of
Byzantine orthodoxy.
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.
FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 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 her-
etics, 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 fea-
ture we are faced with immediately is his deep and all-pervasive biblic-
ism. 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 prin-
cipiis, 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, be-
ing mirrored by them in all its inexhaustible richness. Such interplay can
otherwise be guaranteed only if the reader of the inspired Scriptures him-
self 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
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 nec-
essarily 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 con-
venience, 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 Wis-
dom (Sophia); on the other hand, they represent the subjective perceptions
of the different aspects of his being, according to the varying spiritual de-
grees 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 rev-
elation 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).
FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 365
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
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).
FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 367
Christ.22 Let us leave aside the view according to which this soul is the pre-
existent nous, which alone did not deflect from the love of God, as the con-
troversial 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 en-
sures 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 distin-
guishable, thus anticipating the later doctrine of the communicatio
idiomatum.
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
We can say this initially of Eusebius, also in view of his peculiar biographi-
cal situation, at the junction between the period of the persecuted Church
and the new epoch of Constantines Christian Empire, which in its turn rep-
resents the closest context for the council of Nicaea and its dogmatic for-
mulations. The most common judgment on the bishop of Caesarea insists
upon his theological conservatism, meaning by that essentially his attach-
ment to the heritage of Origen. There is indeed no doubt as to the deep in-
fluence exerted on Eusebius by the great doctor of Alexandria and
Caesarea, who had also left his library in the capital city of Palestine, al-
beit this does not imply an absolute fidelity on the part of his disciple. Nor
should one undervalue Eusebius autonomous capacity for choosing differ-
ent 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 continu-
ity 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.
FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 369
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
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).
FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 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 tra-
ditional 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 communi-
cating to men the true knowledge about God, the Father. Thus, the inter-
vention 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 origi-
nally shared by humanity. On the other hand, Eusebius elaborates a pro-
gressive 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 In-
carnation 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 rec-
ognition 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 redemp-
tion 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 re-
mains 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
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.
FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 373
hide some similarities in outlook between the two authors, as we have al-
ready 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 prob-
lems and expectations of his own time, than we might suppose at a super-
ficial 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 in-
troductory 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 Jeru-
salem lists them, these dangers come from the heretics, the Jews, the Sa-
maritans 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 Alexan-
dria, which emphasizes anew the difficulties facing the Church in such a
mixed religious milieu.34 Moreover, it can be shown that the concerns ex-
pressed 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 fore-
most a deliberate anti-Judaic intention. It does so by means of repeated in-
structions 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
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.
FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 375
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 rife-
rimento 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, pre-
ferring 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
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.
FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 377
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 prop-
erly speaking a theologian. His most salient literary occupation makes him
instead a biblical scholar, but precisely this activity as translator and inter-
preter 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 in-
fluence 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 trans-
lated 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.
FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 379
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 Apollinar-
ianism. 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 doc-
trine on Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. His developments aim
indeed at a more precise understanding of Christs humanity, but he con-
siders 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 apol-
linarianists 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.
FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 381
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, 145-
147: 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
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 Hiero-
nymus, 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.
FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 383
the main object of Jeromes attention; on the other hand, this physical land-
scape, which is evoked through so many details, should be innerly re-en-
acted 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, there-
fore, 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
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.
FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 385
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 con-
stitute 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 in-
terpretation 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 vio-
lent reaction of Palestinian monks to the dogma of Chalcedon, without urg-
ing 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 christo-
logical 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.
FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 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 har-
mony (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 Theo-
dosius, 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 converg-
ing witnesses to the one Lord Jesus Christ provided by the different evan-
gelical 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
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, 151-
152), 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 practi-
cally 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 Pales-
tine.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 formulat-
ing the final dogmatic decision. On that occasion, the controversial pas-
sages 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 es-
sential inspiration for what would subsequently represent the main current
among the Palestinian theologians up to the second council of Constanti-
nople (553), which in its turn marked the official consecration of this ori-
entation. 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 formula-
tion 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 com-
patibility 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 termi-
nologies 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.
FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 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 en-
gagement that the Palestinian theologians were able to propose a new con-
ceptual foundation for the dogma of 451, enlarging its understanding with
the help of cyrillian Christology and leading it to the new idea of the hy-
postatical 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 nor-
mally 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 rea-
son I shall close my presentation of Palestinian Christology with the pic-
ture 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 Christi-
anity, 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
76. 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 neo-
chalcedonianism.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 con-
troversy 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 es-
sential question raised by the dogma of Chalcedon, regarding the ontologi-
cal 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
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 develop-
ment 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 neo-
chalcedonian 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 op-
posed 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 es-
pecially 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 ten-
sions 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
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).
FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 395
Conclusion
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 lit-
erature, would also mean for us to discover other points of view. The disci-
pleship of Christ embraced by monks (without ignoring or contrasting the
opportunity of an ontological definition of his mystery and of the corre-
sponding dogmatic exactness) brought into the foreground also other di-
mensions.
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, 285-
311 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.