St.

Cyril of Alexandria, A New

Testament Exegete
 Gorgias Studies in Early Christianity and
Patristics

29

In this series Gorgias publishes monographs on Christianity and

the Church Fathers in the early centuries of the Christian era.
Gorgias particularly welcomes proposals from younger scholars
whose dissertations have made an important contribution to the
field of patristics.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, A New
Testament Exegete

His Commentary on the Gospel of John

Lois M. Farag

9
34 2014
Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA
www.gorgiaspress.com
Copyright © 2014 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright

Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the
prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC.

2014 ‫ܘ‬

9
ISBN 978-1-4632-0387-0 ISSN 1935-6870
Reprinted from the 2007 Gorgias Press edition.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

A Cataloging-in-Publication record is available

from the Library of Congress.
Printed in the United States of America
To the Coptic Orthodox Church—the Church of Alexandria
and
To St. Cyril—the great Alexandrian Exegete and Theologian
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents..................................................................................................vii
Preface......................................................................................................................ix
Introduction .............................................................................................................1
Chapter 1.................................................................................................................11
The Years before Cyril’s Episcopal Career...................................................11
The Early Years of Cyril of Alexandria ....................................................12
Serapion the Wise.........................................................................................16
Cyril’s Education in the Desert..................................................................22
The Important Figures Residing in the Nitrian Desert at the Time of
Cyril ................................................................................................................26
Cyril and the Position of Reader avnagnw,sthj ........................................30
The primary and secondary education of Cyril .......................................40
Study of Rhetoric..........................................................................................48
Libraries in Alexandria.................................................................................49
The Alexandrian cultural milieu at the time of Cyril ..............................51
The Date of The Commentary on the Gospel of John......................................60
Conclusion.....................................................................................................67
Chapter 2.................................................................................................................71
The Trinity .........................................................................................................71
Theological background ..............................................................................74
God.................................................................................................................78
Trinity.............................................................................................................82
Oneness of the Trinity.................................................................................92
The Father .................................................................................................. 101
The Son....................................................................................................... 103
The Holy Spirit .......................................................................................... 132
Conclusion.................................................................................................. 144
Chapter 3.............................................................................................................. 149
Cyril’s Exegetical Method............................................................................. 149
Part One: Literary Exegesis.......................................................................... 149
The Literary Aspect of Cyril’s The Commentary on the Gospel of John .... 154

vii
viii ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

The Text as “Commentary” .................................................................... 155

The Division of the Commentary .......................................................... 157
The Division of the Gospel Text............................................................ 158
Grammar..................................................................................................... 166
Geography .................................................................................................. 170
Cyril and Greek culture ............................................................................ 174
Style ............................................................................................................. 182
Argumentation with Heretics .................................................................. 186
Conclusion.................................................................................................. 195
Chapter 4.............................................................................................................. 199
Cyril’s Exegetical Method............................................................................. 199
Part Two: Spiritual Exegesis ........................................................................ 199
Cyril’s Understanding of the Two-Fold Exegesis ................................ 200
Arrangement and Invention .................................................................... 205
Cyril’s use of the terms: tu,poj( pneumatiko,j( musth,rion( ai;nigma(
kru,ptw( skiagra,foj( diaskope,w( ba,quj( shmei/on( eivkw,n( sch/ma(
qewri,a( and qewre,w ................................................................................ 223
tu,poj ....................................................................................................... 225
pneumatiko,j ........................................................................................... 230
musth,rion............................................................................................... 233
ai;nigma ................................................................................................... 234
kru,ptw.................................................................................................... 236
skiagra,foj ............................................................................................ 237
diaskope,w .............................................................................................. 238
baqu,j ....................................................................................................... 238
shmei/on ................................................................................................... 238
eivkw,n ....................................................................................................... 240
sch/ma ...................................................................................................... 240
qewri,a( qewre,w .................................................................................... 241
Cyril’s use of the Old Testament Themes in his New Testament
Interpretation ............................................................................................. 243
Moses...................................................................................................... 245
The Manna............................................................................................. 247
Conclusion.................................................................................................. 252
Conclusion........................................................................................................... 255
Appendix.............................................................................................................. 263
The Gospel of John....................................................................................... 265
Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 317
Index..................................................................................................................... 345
PREFACE

I have always cherished St. Cyril as a major theologian in the universal

church and especially in the Coptic Church. My journey with Cyril of
Alexandria took a different level when I was completing my M.Div. studies
at Harvard Divinity School and contemplating a doctoral degree. During a
conversation with Brian Daley, S.J., I was discussing my interest to work on
a topic that would address my curiosity in both Bible and
Alexandrian/Coptic theology. As the conversation progressed, he
mentioned that there are no scholarly works on The Commentary on the Gospel
of John by Cyril of Alexandria. It was the perfect topic. The more I
contemplated the idea the more I became enthused about it. I began my
doctoral studies knowing exactly what I wanted to work on and began
absorbing everything that I could regarding Cyril of Alexandria.
When I arrived at The Catholic University of America for my doctoral
program, I discussed my idea with Robin Darling Young. She immediately
liked the proposal and accepted to guide me through my work. Sidney
Griffith, S.T. was equally interested in my topic and supported me through
my program. He encouraged many initiatives and intellectual ideas beyond
my academic studies. Two years later, Philip Rousseau arrived at The
Catholic University of America to lead the program of Early Christian
Studies. He also came on board and encouraged and facilitated many
avenues for my academic growth.

Lois Farag
July 10, 2007
The Feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria

ix
INTRODUCTION

St. Cyril of Alexandria is called “Defender of the True Faith and Apostolic
Man.” The Coptic Orthodox Church has given him the title “The Pillar of
Faith,” the Greek Orthodox Church, “Seal of the Fathers,” and the Roman
Catholic Church, “Doctor of the Church.” All these acclamations are an
indication of Cyril’s contribution to the Christological development of the
universal church. Scholars have studied Cyril the political bishop, Cyril the
theologian, and Cyril the defender of the faith. This work will attempt to
shed light on Cyril the young man who grew up and was educated in
Alexandria, Cyril the student of rhetoric and Scripture, Cyril the ascetic who
lived in Scetis for five years, and Cyril the theologian whose theological
thought is based on his extensive study of Scripture. It is a study of Cyril
the exegete who laid the foundation for Cyril the theologian.
Cyril, bishop of the Church of Alexandria from 412, acquired fame for
his Christological formulations during the Nestorian debate. Not much is
known about his personal life or the early years of his episcopacy. But
starting in 429, Cyril became the center of ecclesial events and the focus of
historians’ speculations ever since. The events began in 428 when
Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople, gave a series of sermons in the
imperial capital asserting that the Virgin Mary could not be called
Theotokos—Bearer and Mother of God. His theological reasoning was that
the divine person, the Word, was indwelling the human person of the man
named Jesus. The Virgin Mary gave birth to the human person of Jesus, not
the Incarnate Son of God, and hence she should be called Christotokos.
These assertions caused great agitation in the city, where the clergy, monks,
and the laity constantly addressed Jesus as both Christ and God. If the
Virgin Mary is not the Mother of God, if she did not give birth to “God,”
then our salvation is in jeopardy. For according to Athanasius of Alexandria
in his On the Incarnation, it is only God who can save us. When Arius
suggested that the Son is a “created being” and “there was a time when he
was not,” the whole church rose to condemn such teachings. Similarly, if
Mary did not give birth to “God” and is not the Mother of God, then we

1
2 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

cannot be saved. In the early phases of the debate Proclus, Bishop of

Cyzicos, responded with a sermon in Constantinople in the presence of
Nestorius during the Christmas season of A.D. 428. Nestorius in turn,
launched another series of sermons accompanied with written documents
expressing his theological ideas. These documents reached Cyril of
Alexandria, who responded to Nestorius in writing. Though bishops such
as Proclus, the laity, monks, and clergy of the capital city, and Pope
Celestine of Rome and his archdeacon Leo were all watching Nestorius very
carefully and confronted him in different ways, it was Cyril’s writings that
were to define and drive the debate for centuries. Cyril’s correspondence
with Nestorius, especially his Third Letter to Nestorius with its twelve
anathemas, became the documents that defined orthodoxy.
For Cyril the core issue was Christological: it affected our
understanding of the person of Christ, of the Incarnation, and hence of our
salvation. In Cyril’s opinion, Nestorius’ formulations of the Christological
union divided the person of Christ into two sons. Cyril expressed his
understanding of the Incarnation as the union of two natures—divine and
human nature—into the one nature of God the Word Incarnate, (mi,a fu,sij
tou/ qeou/ logou/ sesarkwme,nh). Cyril was also concerned with the larger
picture of the Godhead. He insisted on the oneness of the person of Christ
and the oneness of his nature in order to insure the oneness of the Trinity.
The debate became heated and Cyril found himself at the center of
escalating events that culminated with the Emperor Theodosius calling for a
council in Ephesus for Pentecost of A.D. 431. Cyril emerged as a victor in
this council and Nestorius was anathematized. 1
This is the Cyril that most theologians and historians discuss. But Cyril
was much more than this. Cyril was a multifaceted personality. A Christian
Egyptian and a citizen of the Roman Empire, raised in the cosmopolitan
city of Alexandria and trained as an ascetic in Scetis, a student of Scripture
and rhetoric, Cyril became a writer, an exegete, a reader in the Church of
Alexandria, a bishop of an ancient apostolic church, a pastor and shepherd,
a theologian, a defender of the faith, an intellectual, and a politician.

1 Patrologiae Graeca (hereafter PG) 77.105–122; Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum

(hereafter ACO), ed. E. Schwartz (Berlin, Liepzig, 1927f), 1.1.33–42. Details of the
Nestorian controversy together with Cyril’s role in it and the main texts that
defined the debate can be found in John McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria: The
Christological Controversy; Its History, Theology, and Texts (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Susan
Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy, the Making of a Saint and a
Heretic (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
 INTRODUCTION 3

Cyril, a native Egyptian, was born to a Christian family in Upper Egypt

and moved as a child to the cosmopolitan city of Alexandria. One of the
largest cities of the Roman Empire with a port that hosted people of many
ethnic backgrounds, Alexandria was the home of pagans and Jews, as well
as Christians. It was a cultural city and a center for pagan and Christian
learning and philosophy. 2 This was the city that Cyril called home. He was
not raised in a remote, isolated town; he was rather at the center of the
world—politically, ecclesiastically, culturally, and economically.
Cyril experienced the ascetic life in the desert for five years. His uncle
Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, “sent him to the Mount of Nitrea” to
study Scriptures. 3 We have few details about his five year stay in the Scetis
of St. Macarius in the Nitrean desert. There is no historical information that
would indicate that he became a monk. This would lead us to conclude that
he remained in the status of “guest” during his stay in the monastic
community. At the same time he was a very special guest to be given the
privilege of studying Scriptures with the desert fathers. His study of
Scripture entailed that he become a “disciple” to one of the desert fathers
who mentored him during his studies. One can speculate that the position
of his uncle Theophilus must have guaranteed special attention to his
discipleship and he must have been assigned to one of the “holiest” fathers
with good knowledge of scripture. As a desert resident he was required to
experience and practice the asceticism, prayer, and spirituality of the desert
fathers. This aspect of his life will appear in his writings and exegesis. The
desert monks had an esteemed status in the Church of Alexandria and when
Nestorius’ ideas began arriving in Egypt, the monks were the first to receive
a letter from Cyril explaining the orthodox faith. 4 Cyril was a student of the
desert and a student of Scripture in the desert.
Bishop Theophilus asked Cyril to leave Scetis and return to Alexandria
at the outbreak of the Origenist controversy. After his return, Cyril resumed
his study of rhetoric in Alexandria. No famous teacher claimed him as a
student as Libanius—the famous rhetor— claimed John Chrysostom as his
student and lamented his loss to the Christians. There is no information
about his teacher either in secular or ecclesiastical literature. His writings

2 For a detailed study about the city of Alexandria during the time of Cyril refer
to Christopher Haas, Late Roman Alexandria, Topography and Social Conflict (Baltimore:
The John Hopkins University Press, 1997).
3 B. Evetts, trans., History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria, vol. 1,

Patrologia Orientalis (hereafter PO), ed. R. Graffin and E. Nau (Paris: Librairie de
Paris, 1907), 427.
4 PG 77.9–40. ACO 1.1.1.
4 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

indicate that he was highly trained in rhetoric, though he lacked

appreciation for Greek philosophy. Cyril was articulate in his writings and
his concern for theological precision led him to coin new words. He was a
prolific writer. What is left of his writings is preserved in ten volumes of the
Patrologiae Graeca.
Cyril’s study of rhetoric together with his study of Scripture in Scetis
prepared him to be an exegete. His study of rhetoric formed his method of
exegesis and his study of scripture provided the subject matter. As an
exegete, he was prepared to be a reader (avnagnw,sthj) in the church. 5
Readers were required to have knowledge of exegesis. As a reader, he
cultivated his exegetical acumen and exegesis became the focus of his
writings.
His exegetical enterprise was interrupted by the Nestorian controversy
when his writings shifted towards dogmatic treatises and letters. His
exegetical works and extensive writings prepared him to be clear in his
theological expressions and to articulate the orthodox faith. His writings
reveal a thorough knowledge of heresies that faced the church, which
indicates he was well read in both heretical and orthodox literature. He was
an intellectual who did not shy away from exploring and investigating ideas
and other theological formulations. By the time the Nestorian controversy
erupted, Cyril was an articulate rhetor, an intellect, a prolific writer, an
exegete and a theologian ready to defend the faith.
After the death of his uncle Theophilus in 412, Cyril became bishop of
one of the largest churches of the Early Church—the Church of
Alexandria. His episcopal responsibilities were extensive. They included
managing a geographically large church with many dioceses and a
corresponding number of bishops. He was required to send a yearly Paschal
Letter to announce the date of Easter to the universal church. As the
bishop and shepherd of the city of Alexandria, he had direct pastoral
responsibility for the inhabitants of the city, which included taking care of
the poor, resolving family and personal disputes, and other social
responsibilities.
Cyril’s ecclesial duties overlapped with his political and civic
responsibilities, as can be seen in the cases of the Novatians and the Jewish

5McGuckin, 5. F. M. Abel, “Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie dans ses rapports avec la

Palestine,” in Kyrilliana: Études varées à l’occasion du XVe centenaire de Saint Cyrille
d’Alexandrie (444–1944), (Le Caire: Les Éditions du Scribe Egyptien, 1947): 230.
Norman Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, The Early Church Fathers, ed. Carol Harrison
(New York: Routledge, 2000), 6.
 INTRODUCTION 5

unrest. The beginning of Cyril’s tenure as a bishop was relatively calm

except for the problem of the Novatians, one of the many heretical groups
in the city of Alexandria during his time. The newly promulgated imperial
codes permitted, if not advocated, the closing of all churches that belonged
to heretical groups. 6 The Code also implied that immediate action be taken:
“We command that all churches shall immediately be surrendered to those
bishops who confess that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of
one majesty and virtue of the same glory, and of one splendor….” 7 The
Code was not limited to the physical structure of the churches used by
heretical groups. It also threatened their lives. Those who disobeyed the
new laws and attempted to resist the submission of their churches or insist
on assembly or “provoke any agitation against the regulation of Our
Tranquility, they shall know that, as authors of sedition and as disturbers of
the peace of the Church, they shall also pay the penalty of high treason with
their life and blood.” 8 Only the bishop of the city knew whether the
churches were occupied by his flock or by other, “heretical” groups. He was
responsible to comply with the law and report any irregularities. The new
laws of the Christianized Roman Empire required the bishops to be
involved in the enforcement of the law, to the extent that the bishop of
Alexandria was given a force of 500 to 600 men —parabalani—for this
purpose. 9 The churches of the Novatians were seized, but not on Cyril’s
initiative. It was an imperial policy applied in most of the cities of the
empire, including Rome.
Another type of unrest involved the Jewish population in Alexandria.
According to Socrates, a Jewish group falsely accused a Christian of exciting
the crowds on account of some dancers; they arrested and tortured him in

6 Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions (New

York: Greenwood Press, 1969), 440. Th.C. 16.1.1–4.

7 Th. C. 16.1.3.
8 Th. C. 16.1.4.
9 The Theodocian Code provides numerous examples to the authority of the

bishop such as Th. C. 1.27.1, which gives authority to the bishop, if parties consent,
to rule in cases and his sentence will supersede that of the judge. The Code
involved the bishops in all aspects of life. For the laws that guide the structure and
the work of the parabalani refer to Th. C. 12.12.15; Th. C. 16.2.42. Also, Cyrille
d’Alexandrie: Lettres festales (I-VI). Introd. P. Évieux, texte W. H. Burns, trad. et note
L. Arragon, M. O. Boulnois, P. Évieux , M. Forrat, B. Meunier. SC, vol. 37 (Paris:
Les Éditions du Cerf, 1991), 57–61. W. Schubart, “Parabalani,” Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 40 (1954): 97–101. A. Philipsborn, “La campagnie d’ambulanciers
‘Parabalani’ d’Alexandrie,” Byzantion 20 (1950): 185–190.
6 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

the theater. Cyril immediately contacted the Jewish leaders urging them to
cease assaulting the Christians. The events escalated rather rapidly with both
groups—the Christian and the Jewish—exchanging accusations. Socrates’
narrative informs us that Orestes, the prefect of the city, resisted all of
Cyril’s attempts at reconciliation and this resistance was not received well
among the monks of Nitria, who came to Alexandria to set matters straight.
A series of violent events followed. Socrates writes that some of the
Christians believed rumors that Hypatia, an Alexandrian female
philosopher, opposed the reconciliation of Orestes and Cyril. These
Christians laid in wait for her, kidnapped her, took her to a church, and
killed her. 10 Cyril was blamed for Hypatia’s murder though there is no
evidence to support such claims. 11 This social unrest involved not only the
Prefect of the city, but also Cyril as a bishop. He was the official
representative of the culprit Christians and he exchanged correspondence
with the emperor regarding the events. As with the case of the Novatians,
Cyril in his capacity as a bishop was an important political player.
It is as bishop that Cyril wrote the dogmatic treatises devoted to the
Nestorian controversy that have captured the attention of modern
theologians and been the focus of most of the scholarly research. These
were written by the mature Cyril. But more than seventy-five percent of
Cyril’s surviving writings are works of exegesis. To understand Cyril fully
and to understand the scope of his thought, research should include his
exegesis. Kerrigan has written a detailed study about Cyril’s Old Testament
interpretation. 12 But there is no comparable study of his New Testament
exegesis.

10 Full details of the unrest are recorded in Socrates H.E. 7.13–15.

11 Pierre Évieux is of the opinion that Cyril is not responsible for the death of
Hypatia. Évieux, 55–6. Beginning with the writings of Gibbon in the eighteenth
century on, Cyril has been constantly accused of the murder of Hypatia and is
generally portrayed as the tyrant bishop lusting for power and control. E. Gibbon,
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (New York, 1960). Though there have been
some recent attempts by John McGuckin to clear Cyril of such accusations based
on “balanced” scholarly research, such attempts “have called down censure in some
reviews as examples of theologians having a penchant for being too kind to a
villain.” John McGuckin, “Cyril of Alexandria: Bishop and Pastor,” in Theology of
Cyril of Alexandria, ed. Thomas Weinandy and Daniel Keating (New York: T&T
Clark, 2003), 207.
12 A. Kerrigan, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Interpreter of the Old Testament (Rome:

Institutum Pontificum Biblicum, 1952).

 INTRODUCTION 7

Cyril wrote on most of the New Testament books, though not much
of this work has survived. He covered the Book of Acts and most of the
Epistles. There is no indication that he wrote anything on the Book of
Revelation. 13 There are some surviving fragments on the Gospel of
Matthew, but no fragments that would indicate that he wrote a commentary
on Mark. 14 The only remaining works that are almost complete are those on
the Gospel of John and Luke. The commentary on Luke has survived in a
Syriac translation and is in the form of homilies that were delivered after the
Nestorian controversy broke out. The Commentary on the Gospel of John is
complete except for two books in fragments. The mere fact that this
commentary has survived almost intact is an indication that many
generations found the commentary valuable enough to copy and preserve it
until it reached our hands.
Cyril’s Commentary on the Gospel of John is the only work of New
Testament exegesis that reveals his theology and exegetical method in a
comprehensive manner. John’s Gospel is theological in nature and Cyril
wrote his commentary with the intention of focusing on dogmatic matters.
Though it is a lengthy commentary—more than one volume of Patrologiae
Graeca—it seems to be written with a continuous, consistent thought, an
indication that it was an uninterrupted writing. 15 Cyril wrote it at a time
when Origenist speculations and the Arian heresy were perceived as the
worst threats to the Church and he articulates his theology with these two
major theological threats to the orthodox faith in mind. In doing so, he
presents us with a rather comprehensive theological vision of his
understanding of the Godhead, which for him means the Trinity. In
addition, the text was written before the Nestorian controversy and is a
good source for Cyril’s theology before Nestorius. The study of the

13 PG 74 includes exegetical fragments of the following texts:

Fragments on Acts PG 74. 757–774.
“ on Romans PG 74. 774–856.
“ on 1 Cor PG 74. 856–916.
“ on 2 Cor PG 74. 916–952.
“ on Hebrew PG 74. 953–1006.
“ on James PG 74. 1008–1012.
“ on 1 Peter PG 74. 1012–1016.
“ on 2 Peter PG 74. 1018–1022.
“ on 1 John PG 74. 1022–1024.
“ on Jude PG 74. 1024.
14 The remaining fragments on the Gospel of Matthew are in PG 72. 365–374.
15 The Commentary on the Gospel of John is in PG 73 and PG 74.9–756.
8 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

commentary will answer questions about the consistency of Cyril’s theology

before and after Nestorius. Did the Nestorian controversy force him to
rearticulate his theology? Or does the commentary reveal a Cyril who was
already a mature theologian with a well formulated theological framework?
The Commentary on John reveals Cyril’s approach to heresy and the Jews
before he was part of the political scene, that is, before becoming a bishop.
The text was written, as this study will prove, before Cyril’s episcopal
career, before he was involved in any politics, whether secular or ecclesial.
He had no political motive—ecclesial or secular—for his interpretation.
Cyril’s commentary is a dogmatic treatise designed to prove the invalidity of
heretical teachings and explain orthodox theology as presented in the
Gospel. He never mentions a heresy or the founder of a heresy by name;
his arguments are on the subject matter and theological in nature. As for his
argument with Judaism, the commentary reveals that one aspect of his
method of spiritual interpretation is to reveal the truth and meaning of the
Old Testament type and its fulfillment in the New Testament. It is a
theological argument, not an anti-Semitic sentiment. This is what The
Commentary on the Gospel of John reveals to the reader. 16
There were a few writers who wrote commentaries in Greek on the
Gospel of John before Cyril. The first we know of is Origen. 17 Origen had a
great influence on Cyril’s exegetical method even though Cyril in his
commentary writes a well thought out polemic against Origen’s speculation
on the avpokata,stasij and the pre-existence of the soul. Around A.D. 391,
John Chrysostom delivered exegetical homilies on the Gospel of John. 18
Chrysostom has no influence on Cyril’s commentary, however. This might
be due to the difference in genre—Cyril’s dogmatic exegesis versus
Chrysostom’s exegetical homilies—rather than to any personal dislike.
Theodore of Mopsuestia also wrote a commentary on the Gospel of John,
but there is no internal evidence in Cyril’s commentary that he knew
Theodore’s work. 19 Didymus the Blind wrote a commentary on the Gospel

16 Chapter Three of this text discusses Cyril’s method of heretical

argumentation and Chapter Four discusses Cyril’s Spiritual Exegesis and the
fulfillment of the Old Testament type in the truth of the New Testament.
17 Origen’s commentary was produced in four volumes of the series Source
Chrétiennes. Origène, Commentaire sur S. Jean, trans. Cécil Blanc, Sources
Chrétiennes, v. 120, 157, 222, 290 (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1966–1992).
18 PG 59.23–482.
19 PG 66.728–785. Theodori Mopsuesteni commentarius in Evangelium Iohannis

Apostoli, ed. J.-M. Vosté Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium, v. 115, 116
(Louvain: Secrétariat du corpus SCO, 1940).
 INTRODUCTION 9

of John that has survived only in fragments. 20 Cyril’s commentary reveals a

strong continuity of thought between the two Alexandrian writers. There is,
then, a strong Alexandrian influence on Cyril’s theology and exegetical
method. Cyril’s Commentary on John was not an isolated exercise on his part.
It shows that he walked in the footsteps of two colossal exegetes—Origen
and Didymus. And as this study will demonstrate, Cyril puts into effect the
theology of another, unsurpassed Alexandrian theologian—Athanasius of
Alexandria.
Important for his contemporaries, Cyril’s commentary remains
significant for present day theologians. Cyril was a theologian who
formulated his theology based on the biblical text while employing the art
of rhetoric. It is crucial to understand the exegesis that was instrumental in
formulating Cyril’s theology. It is also critical to view his later dogmatic
treatises in light of his earlier writings. Cyril became the standard of
orthodoxy, yet interpreting his writings has caused centuries of debate. The
commentary raises points such as the oneness of Christ in his nature and in
operation and his oneness within the Trinity that would become
instrumental at the Council of Ephesus and later. Cyril’s triumph at
Ephesus and the acceptance of his theology centuries later can be attributed
primarily to his persuasive theological vision. The vision began in The
Commentary on the Gospel of John. The study of Cyril’s commentary is therefore
crucial.
The present work portrays Cyril as theologian and exegete through an
examination of his Commentary on John. It begins with an attempt to place
Cyril and his commentary within their context. Chapter One begins with
the writer and his childhood. It attempts to view Cyril in a more
comprehensive way, beginning with the few sources available that shed light
on his early years. It follows Cyril’s move from southern Egypt to
Alexandria in the north and reconstructs his stay in Alexandria during his
early years. The chapter explores the state of Scetis during the time of
Cyril’s stay in the desert and investigates the identity of “Serapion the
Wise,” whom sources say was Cyril’s teacher, together with other fathers
dwelling in the desert who might have had influence on Cyril and his study
of Scripture. It also investigates the position of reader (avnagnw,sthj) , which
Cyril occupied on his return to Alexandria. Readers were biblical exegetes
with some level of secular education, so this chapter looks at the
educational system at the time of Cyril. It also looks at the cultural
resources and libraries of Alexandria together with the resources at the

20 PG 39.1645–54.
10 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

patriarchal residence that were at Cyril’s disposal. Putting all this

information together the chapter concludes with a proposed date for The
Commentary on the Gospel of John.
Chapter Two discusses Cyril’s understanding of the Trinity which
constitutes the main framework within which Cyril forms his theology.
When Cyril speaks in the commentary about the Godhead, he speaks about
the Trinity. Chapter Two investigates Cyril’s articulation in his Commentary
on the Gospel of John of Trinitarian theology and the relationship of each
person within the Trinity: all things are from the Father through the Son in the
Holy Spirit.
Chapters Three and Four discuss Cyril’s exegetical method in his
Commentary on the Gospel of John. Chapter Three begins by exploring the
literary genre of a commentary followed by the literary and theological
divisions of the Gospel text as used in the commentary. Part of
understanding the literary aspect of the commentary is to understand the
rhetorical method that Cyril uses by investigating its grammar, geography,
philosophy, style, and rhetorical argumentation. Chapter Four explores the
spiritual aspects of Cyril’s exegesis by exploring his use of the rhetorical
tools of arrangement and invention. This is followed by a detailed study of
Cyril’s terminology and use of Old Testament themes in his exegesis.
The commentary that Cyril wrote on the Johannine Gospel reveals his
exegetical method and his strong Trinitarian theology. He approaches the
Gospel text both literally and spiritually. He begins with the literal meaning
and then directed his readers to the deeper, spiritual, hidden, and enigmatic
meaning of the text. Cyril’s spiritual interpretation aims to reveal the type of
Christ, contemplate the mystery, and discover the deep and hidden meaning
of scripture. The Trinity is the framework within which Cyril articulates his
understanding of the Incarnation and redemption. The unity and the
oneness of Christ are preserved at all times and under all conditions. The
indivisibility and oneness of the Son has to be preserved not only within his
own nature but also within the Trinity. The commentary also reveals the
nature and work of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling of the Spirit is the
beginning of the newness of life.
CHAPTER 1

THE YEARS BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER

St. Cyril is considered one of the greatest theologians and exegetes of the
Church of Alexandria. He became pope 21 and bishop of the Church of
Alexandria in A.D. 412. Cyril’s fame escalated with the beginning of the
Nestorian controversy and he remained a prominent theologian of the
universal Church until the time of his death in A.D. 444. Most ancient
historians and modern scholars have been primarily concerned with the
period of his fame during his episcopacy leaving the period before his
episcopal career scantily treated. 22 In addition, Cyril’s writings reveal only
minor amounts of personal information. This information is gleaned from a
few remarks and dates in his personal correspondence with the disputing
parties of the Nestorian controversy, and his Festal Letters.
In fact, the only definite dates we have about Cyril are the date of his
episcopacy, A.D. 412–444, and that he accompanied his uncle Theophilus
to the Synod of the Oaks in A.D. 403. This is one of the rare occasions
where Cyril mentions in his writings something that is pertinent to his
person. In fact, being at the Synod in A.D. 403 is the only sure date that we
have before his episcopal appointment. In his letter to Bishop Acacius Cyril
writes: “However, I want your holiness to recall something worthwhile
which pertains to the present time. For when in the great city of
Constantinople, your holy synod was gathered at the time when John
[Chrysostom] was accused, and later when there were statements composed

21 For brief references to documents attributing the title “pope” to the bishop
of Alexandria refer to Norman Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, The Early Church
Fathers, ed. Carol Harrison, (New York: Routledge, 2000), 208.
22 For Cyril’s contemporary writers see the Historia Ecclesiastica of Socrates and

Sozomen. For Coptic writers refer to the seventh century chronicle of John, Bishop
of Nikiu and the tenth century History of the Patriarchs by Severus, Bishop of El-
Ashmunien. For modern scholars who wrote general introductory biographies of
Cyril refer to the studies of Wilken, McGuckin, and Russell.
11
12 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

in writing by men concerning him, when it might come about that a

definition against him would be the result, and I was one of the bystanders
[kavgw. evtu,gcanon tw/n e`sthko,twn ei-j], I know that I heard your holiness
speaking in the following words to the Synod, ‘If I knew that, if we granted
forgiveness to John, he would be better disposed within himself and would
depart from the hardness which is in him, I would beseech you all in his
behalf.’” 23 Another indication that Cyril was present at the Synod is
insinuated by the letter sent by Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, to Cyril
concerning John Chrysostom’s title restored to the diptych. Atticus writes:
“But learn for what reason I send these letters. Your holiness somehow
thoroughly knew, or rather has been seen by those eyes with which our
saintly father, the most God-loving Theophilus, saw, what kind and how
great a disorder seized the capital city and that the pious faith was in danger
of being shaken apart from the depth.” 24
Due to the sketchy information about the early period in Cyril’s life,
his childhood is shrouded in silence and mystery. But these formative years
are crucial in understanding Cyril’s writings and determining the date of The
Commentary on the Gospel of John. Therefore, we will give special attention to
the early years of Cyril. These years will give us an understanding of his
intellectual formation, including his education and the tutors who had the
greatest effect on his youth.

The Early Years of Cyril of Alexandria

There are very few existing sources that offer any biographical information
concerning Cyril. For the years prior to the episcopacy we are dependent on
the writings of John, the seventh century Bishop of Nikiu, and Severus,
Bishop of El-Ashmunien, who compiled his History of the Patriarchs in the
tenth century. John, Bishop of Nikiu, informs us that Cyril’s mother and
her brother Theophilus were born of Christian parents in the southern
Egyptian city of Memphis. When their parents died at an early age, their
Ethiopian slave left Memphis and headed north, where her last destination
was the city of Alexandria. She entered the church in Alexandria, where
Pope Athanasius was preaching. He noticed them and ordered that they
would be detained until he could speak with the three visitors. He baptized

23 E. Shwartz, ACO 1.1.7, p148, 31–36. PG 77.157. Clavis Patrum Graecorum, ed.

M. Geerard (Turnhout, 1974–80), 5333. J. I. McEnerney, trans., St. Cyril of

Alexandria: Letters, Fathers of the Church, vol. 76 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic
University of America Press, 1987), 130–1.
24 Schwartz, Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431, p23. McEnerney, 77:83–4.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 13

the Ethiopian woman, Theophilus and his sister and from that time on
Athanasius became their benefactor. 25 Theophilus became a disciple of
Athanasius and his sister was sent to live with the nuns until the day of her
marriage. 26 Theophilus’ sister got married and settled in the town of
Mahalle, where she gave birth to Cyril. 27 John, Bishop of Nikiu, adds that
Theophilus baptized his nephew and appointed Cyril an anagnostes and saw
that he learned the Holy Scriptures. 28 The interval of time between the
child’s baptism and being appointed to the rank of anagnostes is not
specified. However, the narrative shows the interest of Theophilus in his
nephew’s welfare from the very early years of the child.
Severus, Bishop of El-Ashmunien, is a famous tenth century Coptic
historian and scholar. He wrote a History of the Patriarchs, namely the
patriarchs of the Church of Alexandria. Under the life of Pope Theophilus,
he gave a lengthy account about the upbringing of the young Cyril. This
narrative arrangement makes us understand that Severus considered the
education and upbringing of Cyril as part of Theophilus’ achievement in the
patriarchate rather than part of Cyril’s life. 29 Severus possibly intended to

25 There is no specific reason given as to why Theophilus and his sister being

born of Christian parents were not baptized in their infancy. The baptism of
children in early Christianity was frequently delayed. This seems to persist till the
sixth century. To point to one example, we can mention the case of Severus of
Antioch who was not baptized until he was an adult.
26 Robert Henry Charles, ed., The Chronicle of John, Coptic Bishop of Nikiu (c.690

A.D.) Being the History of Egypt Before and During the Arab Conquest, Text and
Translation Society, London, vol. 3 (Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1907), 75–6.
27 Munier identified the city of Mahalle to be the city of Mahallet el-Borg about

half a kilometer north of Mahallet el Kobra. Kyrilliana: Études variées à l’occasion du

Xve centenaire de Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie (444–1944), (Le Caire: Les Éditions du
Scribe Egyptien, 1947), 199–201. Abel suggests 378 to be the date of Cyril’s birth
and most scholars accepted this date though Abel does not give any arguments for
this suggestion. Kyrilliana, 230.
28 Charles, 76. John of Nikiu refers to three more episodes in Cyril’s life. The

enrollment of John Chrysostom’s name to the dyptich, the Nestorian controversy,

and the death of Hypatia. John is mainly dependent on Socrates’ history for details
concerning Hypatia’s death.
29 This work will attribute the History of Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria

to Severus, Bishop of El-Ashmunien. Some scholars argued that Severus is a

“compiler” or “collector” rather than the author of the lives of the Patriarchs
mentioned in the History. For further details on this point refer to D. W. Johnson,
Coptic sources of the Arabic History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Ph.D. Thesis, The
Catholic University of America, Washington D.C., 1974. Also Johnson’s further
14 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

point to Theophilus’ interest in education and give special regard to the idea
of passing on tradition from one Alexandrian bishop to his successor.
Severus begins his account by mentioning that Theophilus brought up his
nephew Cyril “to the best of his power.” 30 He continues to explain what
Theophilus did for his nephew. Severus writes:
And after some time the patriarch sent him to the Mount of
Nitria, to the desert of Saint Macarius. And Cyril dwelt there five
years in the monasteries, reading the books of the Old and New
Testaments; for Theophilus urged him to apply himself
assiduously to his studies, saying to him: “By these studies thou
wilt some day arrive in Jerusalem on high, which is the dwelling-
place of the saints.” For Cyril was the attendant of Theophilus in
the patriarchal cell, and was ordained reader. The patriarch,
when he sent Cyril to the desert, entrusted him to Serapion the
Wise, and charged him to teach Cyril the doctrines of the
Church, which are the true doctrines of God; so Cyril learnt all
the Scriptures by heart. He used to stand before his teacher
studying, with a sword of iron in his hand; and if he felt an
inclination to sleep, he pricked him with the sword, and so he
woke up again; and during most of his nights he would read
through in a single night the Four Gospels, and the Catholic
Epistles, and the Acts, and the first Epistle of the Blessed Paul,
namely, that addressed to the Romans; and on the morrow after
this, Cyril’s teacher would know, by looking at his face, that he
had studied all night. And the grace of God was with Cyril, so
that when he had read a book once, he knew it by heart; and in
these years in the desert he learnt by heart all the canonical
books. 31
Severus continued by explaining that Cyril was summoned back to the
patriarchate this being an indication that Theophilus was occupied in
making decisions for his nephew, another sign of attentive upbringing.
Severus continues his narrative,
After this, the patriarch Theophilus sent to him and brought him
back to Alexandria, and there Cyril dwelt with the patriarch in

research, Further remarks on the Arabic History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, OC 61

(1977): 103–116. Johannes Den Heijer has summarized all arguments that oppose
or agree with the thesis of authorship in his work Mawhub Ibn Mansur Mufarrig et
l’historiographie Copto-Arabe: Étude sur la composition de l’Histoire des Patriarches
d’Alexandrie, CSCO 83 (Louvain: Peeters, 1989), 93–96.
30 B. Evetts, trans., History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria, vol. 1,

Patrologia Orientalis, ed. R. Graffin and E. Nau (Paris: Librairie de Paris, 1907), 427.
31 Ibid., 427–8.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 15

his cell, and read aloud in his presence; and the priests and
learned men and philosophers were astonished at him, and
rejoiced over him on account of the beauty of his form, and the
sweetness of his voice which never changed, as it is written: “I
opened my mouth and drew in my breath.” And all the people,
when they heard him read, desired that he might never cease
reading, because he read so sweetly, and was so beautiful in
countenance. And his uncle Theophilus loved him greatly, and
thanked God that he had granted him a spiritual son who had
grown in grace and wisdom. Cyril’s conduct was excellent, and
his humility was great; and he never ceased to study theology,
nor to meditate upon the words of the doctors of the orthodox
Church, Athanasius, Dionysius, and Clement, patriarch of Rome,
and Eusebius, and Basil, bishop of Armenia, and Basil, bishop of
Cappadocia. These are the orthodox fathers whose works he
studied. And he would not follow the doctrine of Origen….” 32
Severus’ revealing account has not received much attention from
scholars and was dismissed by others. 33 Nevertheless, a careful study of this
quote will reveal that it is carefully worded and is a result of a meticulous
study. The following points will be investigated: the identity of “Serapion
the Wise,” who was the tutor of Cyril during his presence in the desert; the
date of Cyril’s presence in the desert and the important figures residing in
Nitia during that time; the education Cyril received from Serapion in the
Nitrian desert with specific attention to the study of scripture and the role
of the teacher-disciple in the monastic setting; the reason why Cyril was
summoned from the desert after five years; the implication of Cyril’s
position of reader upon his return; and the continuation of his secular
education in the patriarchal cell after his return from the Nitrian desert.
After investigating all of these points we will end the chapter with the
conclusion of why and when Cyril wrote his commentaries, including that
on the Gospel of John.

32 Ibid., 429.
33 Wickham dismisses Severus’ account, based on his strong personal opinion,
where he states that it is “a tissue of legends and misunderstood facts.” He does
not give any scholarly justification for refuting Severus’ account. Lionel R.
Wickham, ed. and trans., Cyril of Alexandria: Select Letters (Oxford Early Christian
Tests, ed. Henry Chadwick (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1983), xii-xiii
16 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Serapion the Wise

Based on Severus’ comment quoted above, Kerrigan writes, “According to
Severus, Cyril had Macarius and Serapion of Thmuis as his masters.” 34
However, a careful reading of Severus shows that it was the “desert of Saint
Macarius” not Macarius as a person who is mentioned. In addition,
Serapion of Thmuis, Cyril’s teacher, was not conclusively identified as the
same person as Serapion the Wise. Though Kerrigan misreads Severus’
comment, he concludes that Severus’ account cannot be correct based on
chronological calculations, and the only possible teacher of Cyril is Isidore
of Pelusium. This conclusion is based upon the close relationship exhibited
in Isidore’s letter of reproof to Cyril. 35 In general, all these propositions
represent an effort to uncover Cyril’s early teacher or teachers and the
source of his education, whether on the spiritual and biblical, or the
scholastic level. Thus, we will discuss the options of either Serapion of
Thmuis, Serapion the Wise, or Isidore of Pelusium as Cyril’s possible
instructors.
Serapion of Thmuis (died after 360) was also known as Scholasticus. He
was a friend of St. Athanasius and St. Antony of Egypt. In the life of St.
Antony, written by St. Athanasius, we understand that St. Antony left to
each—Serapion and Anthanasius—one sheepskin. The sheepskin is
considered a valuable and most personal memento of a person, therefore
signifying the close relationship between St. Antony and his two disciples
and their special endearing status among his numerous followers. Serapion
was the father of a group of monks before his ordination as bishop of
Thmuis. Serapion was a prolific writer, his most famous exposition being a
treaty against the Manicheans entitled Contra Manichaeos. In addition to a
doctrinal treatise on the divinity of the Holy Spirit, he composed another
significant writing, The Sacramentary of Serapion of Thmuis, also known as the
Euchologion. 36
It is plausible to envision Serapion of Thmuis as the teacher of Cyril
for several reasons. He was a Scholasticus and thus was extremely suited to

34 A. Kerrigan, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Interpreter of the Old Testament (Rome,

Institutum Pontificum Biblicum, 1952), 10.

35 Ibid.
36 For further reference to the life and works of Serapion consult: J. Quasten,

Patrology, vol. 3 (Texas: Christian Classics, A Division of Thomas More Publishing,

n.d.), 80–85. Henry Wace and William C. Piercy, A Dictionary of Early Christian
Biography (Hendrickson, 1999), 889. F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone eds. The
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (New York: The Oxford University Press,
1998), 1485.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 17

fulfil the role of Cyril’s tutor and mentor. Second, he was a monk, and
therefore could have contributed to Cyril’s scholarly education a biblical
dimension that is clearly present in his work. Next, he was a good friend of
Athanasius and was entrusted with a letter to Constantius that refutes the
Arian controversy. In addition to this last point, the proposition that
Serapion of Thmuis is Cyril’s tutor also accounts for Cyril’s great literary
interest in the Arian controversy, because Serapion was a great friend of
both Athanasius and Antony who were both the greatest defenders of the
faith against Arianism. Finally, both Serapion and Cyril share an interest in
liturgy as evidenced in their writings. 37 These factors suggest that Serapion
of Thmuis is Cyril’s teacher, and is Cyril’s educator in Greek “paideia.”
Nonetheless, the chronological difficulty is so strong that this proposal
must be rejected. Although we do not know the exact birth date of Cyril,
the suggested date is 378. Whatever margin of error might exist, it cannot
compensate for the huge gap of eighteen years to the time of Serapion’s
death around 360. 38 Therefore, Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis, could not have
been a teacher of Cyril.
The identity of Serapion the Wise provides yet another challenge. 39
Another famous Serapion is the one referred to as sindonites (sindoni,ou). 40
Our main source of information about Serapion the Sindonites comes from
Palladius’ The Lausiac History. Palladius mentions that “he is highly literate
[euvgra,mmatoj],” 41 and it is known that he knew Sacred Scripture by heart.
Serapion was an Egyptian ascetic who would repeatedly sell himself into
slavery in order to save souls. He sailed to Rome with the intention of

37 The text of Cyril’s liturgy can be found in PG 77. The Coptic Church still
uses the liturgy attributed to Cyril to the present day.
38 Adding another ten years until Cyril is of a suitable age to grasp any level of

education beyond the elementary level.

39 There are two other Serapions that could easily be dismissed. The first

Serapion, a penitent of Alexandria is an unlikely candidate to be a teacher of Cyril.

Chronologically, he lived during the Decian persecution and renounced the faith
and was penitent for the rest of his life. The second Serapion, Bishop of Heraclea,
is Egyptian by birth. He was ordained deacon by Chrysostom. At the very end of
his life he was excommunicated and exiled to Egypt during the time of Theophilus.
His life story is most ill reputed. Theophilus would not put his nephew under the
supervision of either a penitent or an excommunicated heretic. Sozomen HE 6.28;
8.9; 8.19. For more details on the lives of both Serapions see Wace, 889, 890.
40 Sindonites so called because of the linen cloth he always wore.
41 Dom Cuthbert Butler, The Lausiac History of Palladius (Cambridge: At the

University Press, 1898), 109. Robert T. Meyer, trans., Palladius: The Lausiac History,
vol. 34, Ancient Christian Writers (New York: The Paulist Press, n.d.), 105, 199.
18 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

visiting other ascetics but died during his visit and was buried in the city.
The Latin martyrolgies make him the bishop of Thmuis. 42 His literacy, good
knowledge of Scripture, and ascetic life suggest that he could possibly be a
candidate to be Cyril’s teacher. Nevertheless, his lifestyle consisted of
constant travel, and the possibility of coming from the Pachomian monastic
tradition made him a most unsuitable candidate for Cyril’s tutor. 43
Theophilus was associated with the Nitrean monastic tradition more so
than to any other. In addition, the constant travel of Serapion does not fit
the profile of a tutor who could have long term students, or any student.
There was another anchorite in Scetis by the name of Serapion who
lived at the time of Theophilus, but there is only a remote probability that
he would be Serapion the Wise, the tutor of Cyril. There is no mention of
his scholarly ability or even his knowledge of writing. The other reason that
would make him the least likely candidate to tutor Cyril, is that he was a
leader in the Anthropomorphite movement in Scetis that disagreed with
Theophilus’ Festal Letter concerning the topic. 44 Though he later repented,
this would not have made him one of Theophilus’ favorites. Therefore, he
would not have been likely to entrust him with Cyril’s education.
The last famous character in Scets by the name of Serapion is Serapion
the Great. 45 He was the companion of St. Macarius the Great and the
author of the Coptic hagiography of St. Macarius. 46 The hagiography shows
that he was a witness to the conversation between St. Macarius and St.

42Wace, 889.
43Meyer comments that Syriac manuscripts mention that Serapion died “at the
convent of Pachomius in the desert.” Meyer, Lausiac History, 199. He is not to be
confused with Serapion, Bishop of Dendara (Nitentori), who sought the ordination
of Pachomius to the priesthood during the visit of St. Athanasius to the Pachomian
monasteries at the beginning of his episcopacy.
44 Letters of A.D. 401 and 402. The Latin translations of these letters are found

in Jerome’s Epistle 96 (CSEL 55.159), Epistle 98 (CSEL 55.185), and Epistle 100
(CSEL 55.213). However, it is Epistle 92 that anathematized Origen’s writings.
Jerome Epistle 92.1 (CSEL 55.148).
45 For Serapion the Great, I am basically dependent on Father Matta-El-

Meskeen’s research. Matta-El-Meskeen, Coptic Monasticism in the Age of St. Macarius

(Nitrean Desert: Monastery of St. Macarius Press, 1984), 270–1.
46 Some manuscripts added to the author Serapion, the title “bishop of

Themuis” because of the fame of the latter. But Amelineau definitely concluded
that the author is Serapion the Great. In addition, Butler affirmed the conclusion of
Amelineau. Matta-El-Meskeen, 270.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 19

Antony. 47 After the death of St. Antony, he left the Eastern Desert and
moved westward to the Nitrian Desert—Scetis—and remained with his
friend St. Macarius until the latter’s death. Sozomen mentions Serapion the
Great as one of several prominent monks in Scetis, together with the other
two Macariuses, who preserved the Nicean faith at the time of St.
Athanasius. 48 Jerome mentions his name as one of the “pillars of Christ”
whom he visited with Paula in 386. 49 We do not know when or at what age
Serapion died, although we do know that he wrote the life of St. Macarius
who died at the age of ninety-seven in 397. It might have taken him several
years to write the biography of St. Macarius. At the time that Theophilus
wrote his famous letter against the Anthropomorphites, Serapion was still
alive. Cyril would have been at the age of twenty-two when Theophilus
wrote his letter to Scetis.
Therefore, if we assume that Cyril had his private scholastic education
until the age of seventeen when his uncle Theophilus sent him to Scetis,
then it is most probable that he was discipled under Serapion the Great.
The latter was famous for his steadfast Nicean faith, the friend of three
famous ascetics namely St. Athanasius, St. Antony, and St. Macarius. In
addition, he was famous for his piety and considered a “pillar” in the desert.
Serapion the Great was a man of considerable intellect and had the ability
to compose a hagiographic text about his spiritual brother St. Macarius.
These factors must have been excellent assets in making him a suitable
teacher for the young Cyril. At the age of fifteen, Cyril must have acquired
an advanced amount of scholastic education and it was time for him to
become grounded in the spiritual and biblical disciplines. 50 He stayed for
five years in the desert, until the year 400 when the turmoil and
Anthropomorphic turbulence hit Scetis. Theophilus found this a suitable
time to summon his nephew to the Patriarchate in Alexandria. Thus,
Serapion the Wise, the “pillar of Christ,” was most likely the spiritual father
of Cyril and the one who opened his intellectual horizons to the biblical
world, and instructed him in the monastic way of life.

47 Sozomen writes that Serapion is one of the contemporaries of St. Antony and

who later went to Scetis after the death of his father, St. Antony. Sozomen HE
6.30.
48 Sozomen HE 3.14.
49 He is mentioned as of equal status to Macarius and Arsenius. Jerome Epistle

108. (CSEL 55.324). St. Macarius moved to Scetis in 385. Thus, Serapion was
already a well renowned monastic when he moved to Scetis.
50 The scholastic education of Cyril will be discussed later in this chapter and in

following chapters.
20 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

It is necessary to make a final note regarding the thesis proposed by

Kerrigan that Isidore of Pelusium could be Cyril’s tutor. As previously
mentioned, the thesis is based on Isidore’s letter of reproof to Cyril
claiming that no one would write such a hard criticism of Cyril had he not
been in close relationship with him and most probably Cyril’s tutor.
However, a closer look at the character and style of Isidore’s writing will
give us a better understanding of his person and literary activity. He was
born in Alexandria in the fifth century and his writings indicate that he read
Greek poets, historians, orators, and philosophers. 51 He became a monastic,
following the Pachomian rule and at a certain point in his life was appointed
a presbyter. It is debated whether he was part of or the founder of a
monastic community in Pelusium. During Isidore’s lifetime there was a
certain Eusebius, Bishop of Pelusium, who was the center of an
ecclesiastical scandal. Perhaps this is the breaking point at which Isidore
used his literary sword to respond to clerical vice and abuse of the episcopal
position. Some excerpts from his writings might give us an indication of his
character. Alluding to Eusebius’s love of church-building, he says:
“It was not for the sake of walls, but for the sake of souls, that
the King of Heaven came to visit us.” “Could I have chosen, I
would have rather lived in apostolic times, when church
buildings were not thus adorned but the church was decked with
grace, than in these days, when the buildings are ornamented
with all kinds of marble, and the church is bare and void of
spiritual gifts.” 52
Isodore accuses church shepherds of the following:
“Once shepherds would die for their flocks; now they destroy
the sheep by causing the soul to stumble…. Once they
distributed their goods to the needy; now they appropriate what
belongs to the poor. Once they practiced virtue; now they
ostracize (e,xostraki,zousi) those who do…. [But] I will not
accuse (aivtia,somai) all.” 53
Isidore’s sharp criticism is not limited to the bishops. He addresses the
priests as follows:
Some… openly reproach priests; others pay them outward
respect but in secret revile them…. This does not surprise me. As
they do not act like those of old, they are treated differently.
Those of old corrected kings when they sinned; these do not
correct even rich subjects; and if they try to correct some poor

51 Wace, 545.
52 Isodore of Pelusium Epistle ii.246 (PG 78.634–5).
53 Ibid., Ep. iii.223 (PG. 905–8).
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 21

man, they are reproached as having been convicted of the same

offences. 54
Isidore actually followed the advice that he gave to others and
“corrected kings.” He advises Theodosius II to “combine mildness with
authority.” 55 He adds “He who has been invested with rule ought himself to
be ruled by the laws; if he himself sets them aside, how can he be a lawful
ruler?” 56 He also rebuked Pulcheria for the envoys who “compromised
their Christianity in the negotiation of a peace.” 57 Lest one think that he is
attentive only to those in power, Isidore addresses every fault he finds in
others, including inhospitality and gluttony. He was equally sharp in his
criticism of monks who did not do manual labor and visited cities where all
that the “angelic life” required was “a cloak, a staff, and a beard.” 58 No
wonder every one was careful when dealing with him, and that he
developed many enemies in high places.
Within this context we can understand Isidore’s letter to Cyril. This
letter was written when Cyril was at the council of Ephesus trying to defeat
the Nestorian heresy. Isidore wrote to Cyril:
Prejudice does not see clearly; antipathy does not see at all. If
you wish to be clear of both these affections of the eyesight, do
not pass violent sentences, but commit causes to just judgment.
God… was pleased to ‘come down and see’ the cry of Sodom,
thereby teaching us to inquire accurately. For many of those at
Ephesus accuse you of pursuing a personal feud, instead of
seeking the things of Jesus Christ in an orthodox way.” 59
Isidore has appointed himself and his pen to be the judging sword of
Christendom, from the king to the least Christian faithful. Cyril was a target
and part of his campaign of criticism aimed equally at king and monk.
Understanding Isidore’s character clarifies for us why Cyril accepted his
criticism. Not because Isidore was his tutor, but rather this was Isidore at
his best. Cyril understood his character, and therefore was not offended by
his harsh remarks.

54 Ibid., Ep. v.278 (PG 78.1500).

55 Ibid., Ep. i.35 (PG 78.197).
56 Ibid., Ep. v.383 (PG 78.1556–7).
57 Ibid., Ep. iv.143 (PG 78.1224–5).
58 Ibid., Ep. i.92 (PG 78.245).
59 Ibid., Ep. i.30 (PG 78.361).
22 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Cyril’s Education in the Desert

In the monastic tradition of the Egyptian desert, a spiritual father took great
care to hand down the tradition to his disciples through the repetitive
narration of the elders’ stories. Monasticism had a great impact upon the
church. It is not coincidental that St. Athanasius resorted to St. Antony to
come down to Alexandria to calm the people during the Arian controversy
and restore peace to the church. Athanasius’ continuous visits to monastic
gatherings in the Nitrean desert and along the River Nile were a
demonstration of Athanasius’ belief in the impact of monasticism on the
church and the faithful. 60 If he was assured that the faith of the monks is
orthodox, then he was assured that the rest of the church would follow in
their footsteps. 61 Theophilus understood this very well, and made constant
visits to the Nitrean desert. Moreover, he maintained a close relationship
with many of the desert dwellers. In fact, he even sent his nephew to be
tutored by one of its fathers. When Cyril was confronted with the Nestorian
controversy, his first letter was addressed to the monks. 62 Cyril understood
their importance—he knew that the monks were the first to be addressed in
such a theological controversy. When a new pope is ordained for the See of
Alexandria, one of his first tasks is to visit the Nitrean desert. This tradition
was kept in the church and developed into a patriarchal custom for
centuries to come. 63 If the desert suffered from any heresy, theological
ignorance, or instability of any kind, the church was always affected. The
desert provided leadership, a source of spiritual rejuvenation, the passing
down of tradition, and the preservation of the orthodox faith. The
continuous history of Egyptian monasticism and its interaction with the
church of Alexandria proves this observation.

60 In The Life of Saint Pachomius it is mentioned that after only one year of the

appointment of Athanasius as bishop of Alexandria, he made a long trip to the

south to visit all the churches. This included visits to Pachomian monasteries on
the river Nile. Armand Veilleux, trans., Pachomian Koinonia. Vol.1, The Life of Saint
Pachomius (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian, 1980), 51.
61 David Brakke, has interpreted the Athanasian visits as a means of exerting

control on monasticism; however more attention needs to be given to the pastoral

dimension of these visits and their theological impact on Christian masses who are
ready to believe in what the monk or “holy man” believes in. David Brakke,
Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism (Oxford & New York, 1995).
62 ACO 1.1.1 pp10–23; CPG 5301; J. I. McEnerney, St. Cyril of Alexandria:

Letters, Fathers of the Church, vol. 76 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University
of America Press, 1987), 13–33.
63 Metta-El-Meskeen, 432.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 23

Therefore, a closer look at the education in the desert will shed light
on the milieu that nourished Cyril’s mind, the milieu that functioned as a
conscience to Cyril, and the milieu that fed and shaped the spiritual life of
the Church in which Cyril resided.
The monastic life is primarily concentrated on living the
commandments. Thus, scripture became the nourishment and the center
force of the monastic life. The Sayings speak of a monk who lived in his cell
for twenty years. One day he decided to sell all his books and travel to the
inner desert. Abba Isaac met him and inquired about his destination. The
monk answered that he had been reading the books, that is, scripture, for
twenty years and now he decided to begin putting what he learned into
practice. 64 Reading scripture was a major activity of the monastic life, but
the emphasis on applying what one reads is the aim of all this reading.
Reading scripture is for the illumination of the soul and the mind. 65 The
constant reading and memorization of scripture was an activity that had a
spiritual aim. Reading scripture was intertwined with the daily monastic life
and activities. John Clobus advises the brothers “to read an hour, pray an
hour and work an hour.” 66 Meanwhile, St. Climados advised the brothers to
stay in the cell and read with understanding and comprehension and with a
mind that gives glory to God. 67 St. Epiphanius said that meditation in
scripture is a great treasure that keeps a person from sin and encourages the
person for doing what is righteous. 68 Therefore, Cyril lived in a milieu that
promoted the memorization of scripture, put what was memorized into
practice, and used the reading as a source of one’s meditation. This spiritual

64 Paradise of the Fathers (Diocese of Beni Suef and Bahnasa, 1977), 390.
65 John Clobus’ instruction to his disciple. Paradise, 370. Burton-Christie gives
an example of scholars who did not understand the significance of scriptural
memorization. Burton-Christie writes: “Hans Lietzmann illustrates well the
tendentious attitude which has sometimes characterized the Protestant approach
towards monasticism and especially towards its use of Scripture. Speaking of the
practice of memorization of Scripture in early monasticism, Lietzmann says, ‘It
should of course be understood that this learning by heart was nothing more than a
superficial accomplishment, ascetic in character, a kind of weaving and mental
matting…. The mechanical memorization did not penetrate the heart; it gave
indeed only the faintest biblical tinge to the world of ideas in which the monks
lived.” Douglas Burton-Christie, The Word in the Desert: Scripture and the Quest for
Holiness in Early Christian Monasticism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993),
13–4.
66 Paradise, 370.
67 Ibid., 131.
68 Ibid., 389.
24 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

scriptural exercise in connection to daily practice gave the contemplative

person illumination of the soul and mind.
The impact of this is obvious in Cyril’s writings. His extraordinary
knowledge of scripture is evident from his writings and from his choice of
writing scriptural commentaries on both the Old and the New Testaments.
His love of scripture is manifested in the fact that seventy-five percent of
his surviving literature is scriptural exegesis. 69 This knowledge of scripture
and its practical implication in addition to his stay in the desert left a print
on his soul and is reflected in his writings.
The exercise of practical renunciation in the desert according to
scripture cast an enduring effect on the writings of Cyril. An example of the
enduring impact of renunciation was portrayed in his writings on poverty.
St. Cyril commenting on Jn 9:11 writes about the blind man who was healed
by Jesus Christ and, when asked by the Jewish leaders, answered that he did
not know the identity of his healer. Cyril comments that, based on rumors
in Jerusalem about the miracles done by Christ, the blind man most
probably thought a holy man healed him. Then, Cyril gives a reason as to
why the blind man did not inquire about the identity of his healer. He
explains that those not beguiled by poverty (th/j avgohteu,tou peni,aj) do not
understand how it is to struggle with untempered need (avkra,tw| macome,noij
evndei,a|) that makes the afflicted person not interested in making
acquaintances (gnw/sin). 70 This comment betrays sentiments of empathy
that arise either with a sensitive soul or with a man who experienced
poverty. Cyril, most probably, understood quite well what poverty meant
during his stay in the desert being surrounded with monks who hardly
owned anything.
Cyril also comments on Jn 12:4–8 where Judas is complaining about
the waste of ointment poured by Mary on Christ’s feet instead of giving the
money to the poor. Cyril wrote that the only thing that should precede the
love for the poor (h` filoptwci,a) is the veneration of God. It is not
possible to constantly put all our time and effort into the priestly service
(th.n i`eratikh.n leitourgi,an); rather, we should give time to the poor. Cyril
gives precedence to serving the poor over priestly service. 71 This could arise

69A detailed account of his scriptural exegetical writings will be discussed in the
section “The Date of the Commentary of the Gospel of John.”
70 Cyril of Alexandria, Sancti Patris Nostri Archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D.

Joannis Evangelium. Accedunt Fragmenta varia necnon Tractatus Ad Tierium Diaconum Duo,
Edited by P. E. Pussey, vol. 2 (Bruxelles: Impression Anastaltique Culture et
Civilisation, 1965), 161. Will later be referred to In Jo.
71 In. Jo. 2.303.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 25

from two points; first, his deep concern for and understanding of the plight
of the poor; second, because at the time he wrote The Commentary on the
Gospel of John he is not yet affiliated to the priesthood. 72
One aspect of the monastic wisdom holds that silence is more
profitable than words. Cyril’s experience of silence appears in his writings. 73
He writes on Jn 6:25 “When they found him on the other side of the sea,
they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” that the question is of
no purpose for the people learned nothing of it. Cyril remarks that there
was no need for the question since He was already there. If they had
observed his presence in silence, they would have learned more. Cyril
writes, “Therefore, we seek wisdom from the wise, and let us honor silence
in trembling above uneducated words.” (sofa. toigarou/n para. sofw/n
zhthte,on( kai. protetimh,sqw lo,gwn avpaideu,twn h` evn sune,sei sigh,)) 74 In
Hellenistic culture, a person who asks an unwise question is understood to
be an uneducated person (avpaideu,twn) and lacks wisdom and logical
thinking.
Cyril considers the dogmatic interpretation of his works, including that
of the Gospel of John, as part of a spiritual undertaking that every believer
needs to have. He is most probably influenced by the Pauline verse, “And
now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is
love,” (1 Cor 13:13) that explains the three dimensional side of human
spirituality. These three aspects need to be nourished in order for a person
to reach a spiritual goal, that is, to be in the presence of God in the Divine
Courts. Cyril writes:
There are three things we need to attend to with which we can
attain the divine courts and ascend to the church of the
firstborn. Namely by practices of various aspects of

72 The commentary does not reveal any special attention to the role of the

priesthood. This is very clear in the exposition of Jn 6:48–56 (Bk 4 ch.2 in the
commentary) where the pericope deals with the Bread from heaven. This is a direct
reference to the Eucharist, yet Cyril addressed the verses through a dogmatic
approach. It is true that the whole commentary is dogmatic; thus, this approach is
no surprise at this pericope, however, the focus on the bread as a vivifying body
and understood through the lens of the Incarnation without any reference to the
priesthood can assert the idea that Cyril was not yet affiliated to the priesthood.
This is one of the internal pieces of evidence that advocates the composition of the
commentary before his episcopal career.
73 Silence as a means of teaching can be more understood from the story of

Abba Joseph in the section of “Important Figures Residing in the Nitrean Desert at
the Time of Cyril.”
74 In Jo. 1.434.
26 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

righteousness, by faith in orthodox doctrines, by hope in

[eternal] life. Therefore, there is no other than a protector who
would be capable to lead us in such things, a true cause rather
than a mere excuse, except our Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed not.” 75
Working on some “aspects of righteousness” is nothing but doing
good deeds, which would be void if not within the realm of divine
neighborly love. “Faith in orthodox doctrines” is essential, not mere faith
but it must be orthodox or we would be in the list of heretics mentioned in
the first chapter of Cyril’s Johannine commentary. Finally, without hope in
the eternal life, we would fall into despair and never reach our goal, the
divine courts. It is clear, Cyril is undertaking his dogmatic commentary
from a spiritual point of view, where he considers discussion of dogmatic
matters as part of our three fold spirituality or else we fail to attain the
divine courts.
These are just a few examples of the spirituality present in the writings
of Cyril. Though his works are primarily exegetical and dogmatic, the
spirituality of the Desert is intertwined in every page of his writings. He
truly considered every exegetical and dogmatic work as a spiritual
undertaking.

The Important Figures Residing in the Nitrian Desert at the Time of

Cyril
The desert trained Cyril to read and apply Scripture together with spiritual
and ascetic exercises. Another aspect of the monastic training that Cyril
experienced in the desert was discipleship. This is an important aspect of
the monastic life and it greatly influenced the church’s ideal of what a
teacher (dida,skaloj) should be, and shows what was expected of church
leadership. Discipleship in the Nitrian Desert began with the model of a
father and sons. The system began with an anchorite who attained great
fame for his pious life and spiritual wisdom. The means of obtaining the
wisdom of the desert varied according to the circumstance and personalities
of the inhabitants of the desert. In the course of time, this wise anchorite or
hermit began to gain renown through some stories propagated orally by
desert visitors about the monk’s spiritual status. Soon men came to seek his

75 Dia. triw/n toigarou/n pragma,twn tai/j a;nw kai. qei,aij prosbalou/men

auvlai/j( kai. eivj th.n tw/n prwtoto,kwn avnabhso,meqa evkklhsi,an\ dia. pra,xewj dh,
fhmi( th/j kata. poiki,lhn avreth.n( kai. pi,stewj th/j evn ovrqo,thti( kai. evlpi,doj th/j
evn zwh|)/ a=r v ou=n e[teroj h`mi/n tou/ du,nasqai toiau/ta dra/n genh,setai corhgo.j( h;
pro,xenoj( h; aivti,a( h; pro,fasij para. to.n Ku,rion h`mw/n vIhsou/n to.n Cristo,n*
ouvmenou/n\ In Jo. 2.409
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 27

advice and discipleship. The number of disciples varied from one monk to
another according to his own personal capacity, 76 but, no matter how many
disciples the father accepted, there were always one or two very special
disciples who accompanied the father throughout his life. An example of
this can be found in Paphnotius and John, the two disciples of St. Macarius
the Great. 77 When the disciples grew in number, the father would appoint
some of his disciples who attained spiritual maturity to oversee the new
comers. The growing numbers of disciples seeking guidance from a desert
father gradually led to weakness of spiritual guidance and this led
occasionally to the weakness of the desert spirituality. Nonetheless, those
disciples who showed the greatest obedience to their spiritual father were
the ones who benefited most from his teachings. 78
Through the Nitrean system of father-disciple relationship monastic
teachings were propagated. The system was not based on a rivalry of who
attained more disciples nor did it ever involve the idea that the disciples
should not seek other fathers in the desert for sayings of wisdom. Loyalty to
a father was not threatened by seeking wisdom from as many hermits as
possible. Seeking words of wisdom was encouraged by many for it was
never considered as a threat of obedience to the father to whom the disciple
entrusted his salvation. This system made it possible to orally transmit the
sayings of as many fathers as one could consult.
When we apply this monastic model of discipleship to the case of Cyril
we can propose the following image. Cyril remained for five years in the
desert and left in the year 400, at the age of twenty-two, for Alexandria after
being summoned by his uncle Theophilus. Therefore, the major fathers
residing in the desert during the last decade or two before the end of the

76 We have Mark the obedient disciple of Silvanus, the most beloved of the

twelve disciples. In comparison we know of Abba Moses the Black who had
seventy disciples or Isaac, one of the disciples of St. Macarius the Great who had
one hundred and fifty disciples. We also know of Abba Isidorus who had a
thousand disciples. The one who exceeded all is Serapion, bishop of Oxyrhynchus
who had ten thousand brothers and twenty thousand sisters. Matta-El-Meskeen,
337. The development of communities through the charisma of a spiritual leader
could best be seen through the life of St. Pachomius. Armand Veilleux, trans.,
Pachomian Koinonia. Vol.1, The Life of Saint Pachomius (Klamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian,
1980.). For a more detailed study about discipleship refer to Irénée Hausherr,
Spiritual Direction in the Early Christian East, trans. Anthony P. Gythiel (Kalamazoo,
Mich.: Cistercian, 1990.)
77 Matta-El-Meskeen, 337.
78 Ibid., 338.
28 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

fifth century would be those who had the most impact on Cyril. Of those,
other than Serapion the Wise, we have St. Macarius the Great and Abba
Joseph. There were other significant figures dwelling in the desert at that
time who most probably impacted Cyril, but to investigate every figure in
that era would be beyond the scope of this study. The idea is to give an
example of how the presence of these colossal figures in the desert could
affect the formulation of the image of the teacher-disciple relationship
together with other monastic virtues that formed the Christian ideal for
Cyril.
St. Macarius was a close friend of Serapion the Wise. Serapion wrote
his biography and they both shared the discipleship of St. Antony the
Great. Most probably Cyril had a personal interaction with St. Macarius,
heard about him from his father Serapion, attended the talks that he
addressed to the monks, and also participated in the propagation of the oral
tradition of Macarius in the desert during and after the latter’s lifetime.
Macarius died around the year 397. He gave a farewell speech that,
according to the biography of Serapion the Wise, was attended by all the
monks of Nitrea. 79 There is a great probability that Cyril witnessed this
event, which must have taught him a great lesson in discipleship. The image
of the great Macarius surrounded by all the monks in the Nitrean desert
standing silently to hear every word uttered by the father of the desert must
have given him a new vision and understanding of the impact of a teacher
on his disciples.
The second figure is that of Abba Joseph, 80 who died in 407. He was
another disciple of St. Antony and St. Macarius. It is because of his
affiliation to these two great saints that we think he maintained close
friendship with Serapion the Wise, who shared the same discipleship with
St. Antony and friendship with St. Macarius. Cyril must have witnessed the
following story about the father’s role in the spiritual salvation of his
disciples unfolding in the desert. It is narrated that Abba Joseph was
overcome with an overwhelming sadness unlike anything ever known to
him. He always remained silent whenever asked about his deep sorrow.
However, one day his disciples could not tolerate his sorrow any longer and

The text of the full speech is found in Matta-El-Meskeen p111–118.

79
80He is not the Joseph of Panephysis that received Cassian when he first
arrived in Tannis as mentioned in Cassian’s Conferences XI-XVII and XIX-XXIV. A
sample of his sayings can be found in Benedicta Ward, trans., The Sayings of the
Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian, 1984), 101–
104. Nor is he the Joseph who was one of the seven brother monks in the Nitrean
Desert.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 29

fell at his feet entreating him to tell them the reason of his grief and silence.
Although he kept his silence, they understood that it must be something
related to their behavior that depressed their father so greatly. At last, Abba
Joseph said that he was troubled with himself because he saw himself,
together with all the brothers in the desert, regressing in their spiritual life.
He noted that he felt he was loosing his spiritual life, together with that of
his disciples. He elaborated that there was not enough fear of God. He also
went on to explain that when the fathers used to meet they discussed things
that elevated each of them to the kingdom of heaven, but now when there
is talk among the brethren, it pulls them down to the lowest level. The
spiritual life among the disciples of Abba Joseph became so bad that Abba
Silvaus and Abba Lot decided to leave the Nitrean desert because the
brethren no longer cared about the monastic rules of the elders. Talk in the
desert did not enrich their souls any longer but became obstructive to their
biblical reading and daily prayers. Abba Joseph concluded with the
following ultimatum: they would either repent by following the monastic
rules of the elders or he would leave the desert like the rest of the pious
fathers.
This was a catalyst of sort for the brothers. They began entreating him
to stay among them, explaining that their negligent life was caused by the
lack of instruction from the elders and that the saints did not sit among
them and talk about the lives of the fathers and their way of life. They were
deprived of direction from the elders. When Abba Joseph saw how each of
the brothers was moved he began calming the situation, he asked them to
stand, and raise their hands in prayer. Their lengthy prayer was
accompanied with great remorse and repentance. At the conclusion of the
psalmody, Abba Joseph asked the brothers to be strong and resume their
love for each other and keep the rules of the fathers and he, Abba Joseph,
would be their guarantee before the heavenly Father that they would all be
in the kingdom of heaven. Abba Joseph sent word to the fathers who left
Nitrea to return back and the spirituality of the Nitrean desert was
revived. 81 This is a powerful story of a single father who was able to revive
the laxity that overcame the brethren of a whole community in the desert.
The events of this story occurred during Cyril’s stay in the desert. The story
of such a community and the powerful message of the role of the
father/teacher to change the lives of the whole community surely impacted
Cyril’s understanding of the power of teaching, for the lack of teaching by
the elders led to ignorance of the spiritual way of life among the monks.

81 Matta-El-Meskeen, 296–299.
30 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Cyril understood the impact of teaching upon every aspect of the church,
whether on the monastic level or on the level of the average believer. He
understood the role of a teacher from St. Macarius, Serapion the Wise,
Abba Joseph, and others who exemplified the system of monastic
discipleship.
If Cyril remained any longer in the desert, he might have been one of
the ascetic fathers who gathered disciples of his own; however, his short
stay made him know the essence of the lives of these great fathers and put it
to work throughout his episcopal career. He always kept in touch with the
desert, but he was never to be identified as part of it.
As previously mentioned, we do not have any detailed account of the
early life of Cyril. Nevertheless, based on the scant data that we know about
him we can propose this plausible account of Cyril’s stay and training in the
“desert.”

Cyril and the Position of Reader avnagnw,sthj

Our interest in the rank of avnagnw,sthj, reader or lector, arose from a
passing remark in the History of the Patriarchs by Severus, Bishop of El-
Ashmunein, stating that “Cyril was the attendant of Theophilus in the
patriarchal cell” and he was also an “avnagnw,sthj.” 82 Three centuries earlier,
around A.D. 690, John, Coptic Bishop of Nikiu, wrote about Cyril’s early
childhood, “they shaved his head and numbered him amongst the readers
and appointed him to be an anagnostes.” 83 Severus’ account appears not
dependent on John of Nikiu’s account because he omits John’s reference to
Cyril being ordained deacon at a later time. With regard to Cyril’s story, this
suggests that Severus had one or more independent sources, the majority of
which did not mention Cyril being a deacon; thus, Severus was accurate in
his analysis of his sources and did not add the deaconal ordination to his
story. After the death of Theophilus, there were two candidates to the See
of Saint Mark, an archdeacon by the name of Timothy and Cyril. Historians
attribute the title “archdeacon” to Timothy, while no account attaches a title
to Cyril’s name. 84 This gives a general consensus among early historians that
Cyril did not have any clerical rank before becoming the Bishop of
Alexandria.
Cyril accompanied his uncle Theophilus to the Synod of the Oaks in
403. If he accompanied Theophilus in the capacity of an attendant, he

82 Patrologia Orientalis 1.428.

83 Charles, 76.
84 Socrates HE 2.156.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 31

would not have had the right to attend the sessions of the synod as Cyril
himself attested. 85 It is in his capacity of being an avnagnw,sthj that he was
able to witness the proceedings of the synod. 86 If Cyril was appointed to the
rank of avnagnw,sthj after learning his scriptures during his stay in the
desert, then this would have been at the age of twenty-two. Thus he was a
reader for twelve years or more before he became a bishop in A.D. 412. It
was during this period that Cyril began writing his voluminous exegetical
works. Therefore, a careful examination of the rank of avnagnw,sthj is worth
pursuing.
Since the position of the reader was not considered part of the clerical
ranks, not much attention was paid to this rank, and sources that referenced
to the reader’s rank are extremely scarce. Another problem that faces the
researcher is that this scanty information is collected from divergent places
and different periods. Not all churches followed the same ordination rites
or delegated the same responsibilities to the reader’s rank. Thus, this
research will focus only upon the resources that might be relevant to the
Church of Alexandria. Furthermore, relevancy is based on consistency and
continuity.
The practice of reading aloud was common in the days when illiteracy
was dominant throughout society. In addition, it was a suitable form of
communal participation in the liturgical readings. Therefore, the church,
from its infancy, adopted the practice of reading aloud in the congregation.
The writings of the New Testament attest to this practice. In Col. 4:16,
“And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the
church of the Laodiceans; and see that you read the letter from Laodicea.”
In 2 Thess. 5: 27, “I adjure you by the Lord that this letter be read to all the
brethren.” In Rev. 1:3, “Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the
prophecy….” These scriptural verses do not make it clear whether this

85ACO 1.1.7 p148, 31–36. PG 77.157. CPG 5333.

86 Russell, McGuckin, and Abel mentioned Cyril to be a lector and have
accepted this title for Cyril as a matter of fact. McGuckin and Abel stated that Cyril
was appointed lector in 403. They both accepted that Cyril accompanied his uncle
Theophilus to the Synod in 403 in the capacity of an avnagnw,sthj and suggested the
date of the Synod to be the date of his ordination. John McGuckin, St. Cyril of
Alexandria: The Christological Controversy. Its History, Theology, and Texts (Leiden: Brill,
1994), 5. F. M. Abel, “Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie dans ses rapports avec la
Palestine,” 230. While Russell states that “he would have been at least a lector and
perhaps also a secretary to his uncle, as Theophilus had been to Athanasius”
without giving a date. Russell, 6.
32 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

injunction of reading aloud in the church was assigned to one specific

person or simply to someone who had the ability to read.
The first mention of a “reader” is in the writings of Justin Martyr
(c.100–c. 165). In his First Apology he exhorts the faithful as follows, “And
on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather
together to one place, 87 and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of
the prophets are read, as long as time permits; when the reader has ceased,
the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good
things.” 88 Therefore, by the middle of the second century, the practice of
reading the Epistles and parts of Old Testament seems to be established as
part of the Christian worship. The reading is followed by a sermon that is
conducted by “the president” not the reader. There is no clear indication
that the “reader” is either a person dedicated to such work or is part of the
clerical hierarchy.
Tertullian (c. 160–c. 225) reflects in On Prescription Against Heretics that
the reader is a rank in the church. He writes, “And so it comes to pass that
to-day one man is their bishop, to-morrow another; to-day he is a deacon
who to-morrow is a reader; to-day he is a presbyter who to-morrow is a
layman.” 89 By the end of the second or beginning of the third century the
“reader” was established as a rank in the church but clearly one that is of
lower rank than that of a deacon.
A few decades later, in A.D. 250, we read in the Epistles of Cyrian (d.
258) of a great development in the rank of “reader.” In Epistle 23, Cyprian
writes to the clergy about appointing a certain Saturus as reader. Cyprian
justifies his appointment on the grounds that the clergy previously entrusted
Saturus with the Easter readings. Cyprian also speaks about appointing a
certain Optatus “from among the readers to be a teacher of the hearers;
examining first of all, whether all things were found in such as were in
preparation for the clerical office.” 90 Thus, by the middle of the third
century, the appointment of readers became the prerogative of the bishop.

87The gathering might not necessarily be in a church.

88Justin Martyr Apologia I pro christianus 67. Kai. th|/ tou/ h`li,ou legume,nh| h`me,ra|
pa,ntwn kata. po,leij h] avgrou.j meno,ntwn evpi. to. auvto. sune,leusij gi,netai( kai.
ta. avpomnhmoneu,mata tw/n avposto,lwn h] ta. suggra,mmata tw/n profhtw/n
avnaginw,sketai( me,crij evgcwpei/) ei-ta pausame,nou tou/ avnaginw,skontoj o`
proestw,j dia. lo,gou th.n nouqesi,an kai. pro,klhsin th/j tw/n kalw/n tou,twn
mimh,sewj poiei/tai) A. W. F. Blunt, ed. The Apology of Justin Martyr (Cambridge: At
the University Press, 1911), 100. ANF 1.186.
89 Tertullian de praescriptione haereticorum 61. CSEL 70. ANF 3: 263.
90 Cyprian Epistles 23. CSEL 3.536.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 33

This appointment should include some consultation with the clergy for
which Cyprian is defending his action for not doing on the basis that the
clergy have already shown no objection for Saturus to read on previous
occasions. It is important to note that not all readers were of the same rank.
Optatus was assigned to be a “teacher.” This position of “reader” and
“teacher” seem to be “in preparation for the clerical office.” 91 Therefore,
the rank of the reader-teacher in the church was not considered part of the
clerical hierarchy, though he was eligible for teaching. This specific rank of
reader-teacher survived until the twelfth century Byzantium. The title
di,daska,loj was assigned to the “Gospel exegete.” This exegete and
di,daska,loj would be in the “Great Church” under the jurisdiction of the
patriarch. 92 The continuity of this tradition from the third century church of
Cyprian in Carthage to the twelfth century Byzantium, indicated the great
possibility of it being the case with Cyril in Alexandria at the end of the
fourth or beginning of the fifth century. As noted above, not all readers
were teachers. Nonetheless, Cyril was a reader in the patriarchal residence,
who was sent to the desert to study scripture, was under the discipleship of
Theophilus, was groomed to succeed his uncle, accompanied Theophilus to
the Synod of the Oaks, and was most certainly a reader in the rank of
di,daska,loj. In fact he was assigned to be a “Gospel exegete.”
Cyprian’s thirty-second Epistle speaks about another appointment of a
certain Aurelius as reader. Aurelius was chosen to the rank of “reader” on
the basis of his merit. His faith was tested and he proved victorious because
he confessed twice, he was tortured, exiled, and did not renounce his faith.
His body revealed the scars of his wounds and his modesty were exemplary
to the whole congregation. 93 Although Cyprian refers to him as a reader, his

91 Lampe cites Canon 10 of the Concilium Sardicense in A.D. 343 that states

that the “bishop must first have been reader, deacon and priest.” G. W. H. Lampe,
A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1994), 99. We are not
sure to what extent this cannon was put into practice and how many churches,
other than that of Sardinia, have abided by it. However, there is another tradition,
in the Church of Alexandria, that if the person nominated to the rank of bishop is
not a priest, he would receive the rank of priesthood the day before his ordination
to the episcopal rank. This tradition is kept up to the present day in the Church of
Alexandria.
92 J. Darrouzès, Recherches sur les OFFIKIA de l’Église Byzantine de l’Orient Chrétien

11 (Paris: Institute Français d’Études Byzantines, 1970), 75.

93 The Synod of Carthage decreed that “When a reader is ordained, the bishop

makes a discourse to the people upon him, his faith and his life, and then delivers
to him the codex from which he is to read….” Charles J. A. Hefele, A History of the
34 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

merits would have promoted him to “a higher degree of clerical

ordination.” 94 Readers were not nominated on the sole basis of their
reading ability, but, in addition, they were nominated for their virtue and
their orthodox faith. This is further demonstrated in Epistle 33 where
Cyprian writes about appointing Celerinus as reader. His merits as a
confessor promoted him to the reader’s rank. Cyprian writes, “There is
nothing in which a confessor can do more good to the brethren than that,
while the reading of the Gospel is heard from his lips, every one who hears
should imitate the faith of the reader.” 95 Due to the fact that Cyprian chose
two exemplary people to the reader’s rank, he thinks that “they may be
honoured with the same presents as the presbyters, and may share the
monthly divisions in equalled quantities.” 96 The Apostolic Constitution
provided similar provisions for the reader’s rank since they can receive
alms. 97
Every ecclesiastical promotion is accompanied by a rite, though not all
rites are of equal significance. 98 The earliest available reference to the rite of
appointing an avnagnw,sthj is in the Règlement ecclésiastique égyptien where the
bishop keeps the prerogative of appointing the avnagnw,sthj. 99 A prayer
accompanies this appointment but the rite is clear to emphasize that there is
no imposition of hands. 100 In contrast to the previous rites, the Apostolic
Constitutions do provide a prayer that makes the imposition of hands very
clear. The Constitution belongs to Matthew the Apostle and it states,
Ordain a reader by laying your hands upon him, and pray unto
God, and say: O Eternal God, who is plenteous in mercy and
compassions, who has made manifest the constitution of the

Councils of the Church, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Clark, 1883), 411. Therefore, Cyprian on
this occasion was following the decrees of his church.
94 Cyprian Epistles 32. CSEL 3.565.
95 Ibid., Epistles. 33. CSEL 3.571.
96 Ibid.
97 “Eiv de. kai. avnagnw,sthj evstiv lambane,tw kai. auvto.j moi/ran mi,an eivj timh.n

tw/n profhtw/n w` sau,twj kri. yalmw|do.j kai. pulwro,jÅ S’il y a un lecteur, il

recevra une part de sportule, en l’honneur des prophètes, de même le chantre et le
portier.” The Constitutions Apostoliques quoted in H. Leclercq, “Lecteur,” in
Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie (1929), 2243.
98 Darrouzès, 15.
99 Darrouzès points out that all ranks and clerical orders are delegated by the

bishop, ex cathedra. Darrouzès, 67.

100 Règlement ecclèsiastique ègyptien quoted in Leclercq, 2246. The Canons of

Hippolytus do emphasize that there is no imposition of hands in the appointment

rite. Ibid., 2247.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 35

world by your operations, and keeps the number of your elect,

do also guard carefully your servant, who is to be entrusted to
read your Holy Scripture, and your law and give him the Holy
Spirit, the prophetic Spirit. You who instructed the wise Esdras
your servant to read your laws to the people, and now call on
your servant and grant him wisdom to accomplish without
blame the work entrusted to him and be worthy to receive a
higher degree, through Christ, with whom glory and worship be
to you and to the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen. 101
The Apostolic Constitutions is preserved in Coptic 102 and therefore was
known in Egypt at the time of Cyril, yet there is no indication from the
description given to Cyril that the reader’s rank is affiliated to the clerical
hierarchy. In addition, John, Bishop of Nikiu, a few centuries later wrote
that Cyril was tonsured and does not mention imposition of hands. 103 John,
being a bishop, is surely aware of all the rites of the church since he
administers them himself and could not have missed the point of not
mentioning the laying of hands. Thus, we can conclude, that up until the
tenth century in the Church of Alexandria, the avnagnw,sthj was tonsured
without the imposition of hands. 104 The present rite for appointing an

101 Constitutiorum Apostolicarum VII.22. o` pote. telw,nhj diata,ssomai

avnagnw,sthn evpicei,risai evpiqei.j auvtw|/ th.n cei/ra( kai. evpeuxa,menoj pro.j to.n
qeo.n le,ge( o` Qeo.j o` aivw,nioj( o` polu.j evn evle,ei kai. oivktirmoij( o` th.n tou/
ko,smou su,stasin dia. tw/n evnergoume,nwn faneropeoih,saj kai. to.n avpiqmo.n tw/n
evklektw/n sou/ diafulattwn auvto.j kai. nu/n e;pide evpi to.n dou/lo,n sou grafa.j
avnaginw,skein tw|/ law|/ sou kai. do.j auvtw|/ pneu/ma a[gion( pneu/ma profitiko,n) o`
sofi,saj [Esdran to.n qera,ponta, sou evpi to. avnaginw,skein tou.j no,mouj sou tw|/
law|/ sou( kai. nu/n parakalou,menoj u`fv h`mw/n so,fison to.n sou/lo,n sou kai. do.j
au`tw|/( e;rgon avkata,gnwston dianu,santa to. evgceirisqe,n auvtw|/ a;xion
avnadeicqh/nai mei,zonoj baqmou/ dia. Cristou/ meqv ou- soi h` do,xa kai. to. se,baj
kai. tw|/ a`gi,w| pneu,mati eivj tou.j aivwnaj) avmh,n) C. C. J. Bunsen, ed. Analecta Ante-
Nicaena, vol II (London: Longman, Brown, Green, et Longmans, 1854), 428.
102 Ibid.
103 Charles, 76.
104Darrouzès clarified some of the ambiguities related to the rites of ordination

due to the different usage of terms in different places through the centuries. He
says that, in general, by eleventh and twelfth century Byzantium, these terms
ceirotoni,a( sfragi,j( and probolh, were used to indicate the following:
Ceirotoni,a: designates an ordination by election and imposition of hands and is
reserved for the ordination of bishop, chorbishop, priest, deacon, and sub-deacon.
Sfragi,j: is the sign of the cross and is reserved to the chanters, readers, archons,
and others. Probolh,: is a promotion and is assigned to the econome and others.
Darrouzès, 89. For further elaboration on the problem facing the canonists
36 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

avnagnw,sthj in the Church of Alexandria is by a tonsure of five crosses, one

in the middle and four on the side accompanied by the invocation of the
Holy Trinity without the imposition of hands. 105
The age of appointing an avnagnw,sthj varied considerably. In the time
of Cyprian, the reader’s appointment was as a quite mature man who
survived persecution and resisted renouncing the faith under the penalty of
death. It seems that after the peace of the church, children were appointed
readers. Leclercq found two records of an avnagnw,sthj at the age of five. In
fact, the range was from age five to seventy-three. Records indicate that
teenagers together with men in their early and mid twenties were the most
frequently appointed. 106 As we previously suggested, Cyril was summoned
from the desert after the eruption of the Origenist controversy at the age of
twenty-two. It is not clear from Severus’ account when Cyril was an
avnagnw,sthj. Moreover, it is not known whether he went to the desert after
being appointed avnagnw,sthj and whether his schooling in the desert was to
fulfil the requirement of knowledge of scripture—as is expected of those in
the rank—or whether he was sent in preparation for the rank and on his
return to Alexandria he was promoted to be an avnagnw,sthj. It is most
probable that Theophilus sent him to the desert first to be taught by the
great desert teachers and on his return when he proved to be of great
potential, his uncle made him an avnagnw,sthj and furthered his study in
rhetoric in anticipation of the position he expected to fulfill later in life.
The job description of a reader entailed many activities. Their
education must have put them in a position of distinction even before the
appointment. Their nomination based on their integrity must have further
enhanced their prestige in society. Therefore, an avnagnw,sthj had both
secular and religious responsibilities and activities and, most probably, was
expected to be capable of fulfilling these duties.
The secular activities of the reader come from the advantage of literacy
that he possessed. A fourth century papyrus from Oxyrhynchus is written

concerning further distinctions between the terms ceirotoni,a and sfragi,j read
Darrouzès, 90–1. Darrouzès clarifies that a seventeenth century Euchologion
mentions that the avnagnw,sthj receives two types of sfragi,j, a tonsure in the sign
of the cross and three signs of the cross. Darrouzès, 151. Hans-Georg Beck
provides a general study about the clergy and laity in Byzantium in his work Kirche
und Theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich (München: C. H. Beck’sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1959), 79–94.
105 The Order of the Fraction of the Priesthood and Consecrating the Altar Vessels,

(Diocese of Beni Suef and Bahnasa, 1992), 13.

106 Leclercq, 2247.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 37

by “Aurelius Ammonius, son of Corperus, lector of the former church of

the village of Chysis” 107 during the Diocletian persecution in Egypt. He
informs “the consulship of our lords the emperors Diocletian … and
Maximian…” 108 that the church delivered the bronze door that was its only
possession. The presence of a literate man, at least in Greek, in a small
church in a village such as Chysis put him in a position to serve the church
in more ways than reading scripture and instructing the faithful. This is one
of the rare documents that illustrate an activity outside the liturgical setting.
It is obvious that readers must have conducted other church business that
needed literary skills if no other literate person was present in the
congregation. The reader was selected for his integrity and was, thus,
trustworthy to speak, in many cases, on behalf of the church in legal affairs
even if there were other literate believers at hand. Therefore, it is very
possible that Cyril was entrusted with other clerical affairs in the
Patriarchate. This is proven by his presence at the Synod of the Oaks as a
secretary where he oversaw some of the clerical duties of the Synod.
Religious responsibilities of the reader, as we previously said, were not
limited to the liturgical readings. The reader-teacher had to instruct the
believers after the liturgy. This practice persisted in Egypt at least until the
tenth century. Believers were exhorted to spend their Sundays reading the
word of God. The faithful were advised to seek readers to the greatest
extent. If they did not have a reader in their village, they traveled to another
village and spent the Sunday there. As for the readers themselves, they were
rewarded by a great grace and blessing when they spent Sundays reading to
the believers. 109
Nevertheless, their position as teachers in the church contained its
boundaries. They were not to deliver sermons in churches. Sermon delivery
was always reserved for the Bishop and to anyone the bishop delegated.
This delegation was given primarily to priests, and only to priests with
special abilities to preach. As in the case of John Chrysostom it was a great
privilege for him, as a priest, to deliver sermons in the presence of his
bishop. In the case where readers had the potential to preach, they were
ordained as priests to give them the privilege to preach. 110 In many cases,

107 P.Oxy. XXXIII 2673. Peter Parson, ed. and trans., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri,
vol. 33, (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1968), 107.
108 Ibid.
109 Severus Bishop of El-Ashmunien, El-Dur El-Thamin fi Edah El-Din (Cairo,

Egypt: The New Bookstore, 1925), 197–8.

110 Cyprian in Epistle 33 informs the church that he is selecting Celerinus and

Aurelius to be readers. He writes “Know, then, that these for the present are
38 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

when a learned person had the right to teach and thus had the title
dida,skaloj he would put his abilities in writing. This was the case of
Origen, 111 Didymus the Blind, and Ephrem the Syrian, where not one of
them was part of the clergy but their position as a dida,skaloj in the church
permitted them to produce numerous writings. 112 It is worthwhile noting
that most of their literary production was devoted to exegetical works.
Cyril considered himself a dida,skaloj and his spiritual understanding
of the talent entrusted to him, was obviously the motivating factor for his
writing and putting on paper what would benefit the church and her
believers. He repeatedly spoke about teaching used in the service of “divine
teaching” (tw/n qei,wn maqhma,twn) 113 and how the teacher had to be patient
with his listeners and not get weary of repetition. On another occasion he
writes about the fruit of teaching (th/| didaskali,a| ))) karpo,n) noting that a
good teacher should not grow weary of repetition (evpanalh,yewj) nor bury
the Master’s talent in the earth (kaqa,per eivj gh/n,( to. despoteiko.n
avntoru,ttein ta,lanton) but must trade the money on the table and the
Savior would recover that money from the tables and give it life. 114 Cyril felt
that he was entrusted with knowledge and given the gift of teaching and
had an obligation to use his talent by spreading the seed which the Lord will

appointed readers, because it was fitting that the candle should be placed in a
candlestick, whence it may give light to all, and that their glorious countenance
should be established in a higher place, where, behold by all the surrounding
brotherhood, they may give an incitement of glory to the beholders. But know that
I have already proposed the honour of the presbytery for them….” Ep. 33. In many
cases, the reader’s rank was the first step towards the priesthood. Many were never
selected to the priesthood, as we see in the case of readers at the age of seventy-
three, for reasons that are never disclosed. So if a reader had the potential of
preaching, he would be ordained to the priesthood.
111 Origen began to deliver sermons only after his ordination to the priesthood

in Ceasarea. All of his literary activity in Alexandria were scholarly theological

treatises and exegetical writings, none of which are in homiletic form.
112 It should be noted that priestly and episcopal positions were not the license

for any of these men to write. We have the example of St. Athanasius who wrote
two of his masterpieces before he became a bishop. He wrote Oratio contra gentes and
Oratio de incarnatione Verbi in A.D. 318 at the age of twenty-two and a decade before
becoming bishop of Alexandria and before his ordination as deacon in A.D. 319. I
did not include him among the above mentioned list because these two writings are
not exegetical.
113 In Jo. 1.271.
114 Ibid., 1.192.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 39

use to give life to the listeners. On another occasion, Cyril writes the
following:
…[He] wasted long discourses on those who came to Him,
therefore, giving us a most beautiful example, setting Himself a
model to the church teachers to imitate. For even though not all
might attain profit on account of their own depravity, yet since
some have likely made use of the good, thereby, we must not
hesitate to lead to what is profitable. For, as it were, we bury in
unfruitful silence the talent given to us, that is, the grace through
the spirit, we shall be like the wicked servant who said to his
master without restraint, “I know that you are a harsh man,
reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not
scatter seed and I was afraid and withheld your talent in the
earth, here you have what is yours.”
)))diekarte,rei makrou.j avnali,skwn lo,gouj toi/j prosiou/sin
auvtw/| ka,lliston h`mi/n u`pogrammo.n kai. dia. tou,twn didou.j, kai.
tu,pon e`auto.n toi/j th/j E`kklhsi,aj didaska,loj avnatiqeij) eiv
ga.r kai. mh. pa,ntej wvfeloi/to tuco.n e[neka, ge th/j sfw/n auvtw/n
mocqhri,aj( avll v evpei,per eivko.j avpo,nasqai, tinaj th/j evnteu/qen
spoudh/j( ouvk ovknhte,on peri. th.n tw/n sumfero,ntwn u`fh,ghsin)
katacwnnu/ntej ga.r w]sper eivj a;karpon siwph.n to. doqe.n h`mi/n
ta,lanton( toute,sti( th.n dia. tou/ Pneu,matoj ca,rin, kat v
evkei/non evso,meqa to.n ponhro.n oivke,thn to.n avne,dhn le,gonta tw|/
oivkei,w| despo,th| “Hidein o]ti sklhro.j a;nqrwpoj ei=( qeri,zwn
o]pou ouvk e;speiraj( kai. suna,gwn o[qen ouv diesko,rpisaj( kai.
fobhqei.j kate,cwsa to. ta,lanto,n sou) i;de e;ceij to. so,n) 115
Cyril regarded the knowledge that he acquired a talent that he could
not bury lest the Master of the house might come and take it away from
him. He felt the spiritual obligation to teach, or spread his teaching on the
tables, and expected the Lord to give life to his words and reap the fruit of
his toil. This is a recurring theme in Cyril’s writing.
Some of the readers expected a promotion in their status. For some,
being made a reader was the first step to ecclesiastical posts. Those who
were satisfied with the priesthood without aspiring to the higher episcopal
ranks were encouraged to get married at the age of puberty. A Synod at
Hippo in A.D. 393 decreed that “When the readers have attained the age of
puberty, they must either marry or make a vow of continence.” 116 There
were restrictions on the wife to be. If she was a widow, then the reader was
aware that his highest rank of promotion was subdeacon. 117 Readers were

115 In Jo. 2.55,56.

116 Hefele, 398.
117 Ibid., 419.
40 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

not to marry heretical women, permit their children to be married to

heretics, or allow their children to be baptized by heretics. 118 Those who
took the vow of celibacy had to make this decision at a young age.
Therefore, we can conclude that Cyril took the vow of celibacy at a young
age and this decision settled the prospects of Cyril. He was not to be a lay
priest serving in a parish, but rather had the possibility of promotion to the
episcopal rank. 119

The primary and secondary education of Cyril

Recent excavations in Egypt and in the northern territories of the Roman
Empire have shown “that Egypt was not isolated in its writing practices.” 120
In addition, Egypt was a good representative of the educational system
around the Mediterranean region. The papyri evidence gathered from Egypt
agrees with the information gathered from Plutarch, the second century
Greek philosopher, and with Libanius, the fourth century Syrian
rhetorician, and Quintilian, the first century Roman rhetor. 121 Furthermore,
excavations in Egypt provided writing boards from the fourth and fifth
century A.D. with arithmetic exercises which archeologists are sure belong
to primary school children. 122 Upon further comparison with other exercise
boards in Greek education it was concluded that the Greek and Coptic
language curriculum coincided. Marrou writes,
…when one compares the school manual dating from the end of
the third century B.C. that has been edited by Guéraud and
Jouguet with any of the Coptic schoolbooks of the fourth
century A.D., one is struck by the extraordinary similarity of the
methods employed: with more than five centuries between them,
the procedure is the same in both cases.” 123
Browning in his most recent study confirmed Marrou’s results.
Browning writes,
…change on the whole had been slow and almost imperceptible.
Traditional attitudes, methods and values had sunk deep roots in

Ibid., vol 3, 400.

118

A general summary of readers and their duties could be found in Harry Y.

119

Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church (New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1995), 218–231.
120 Raffaella Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, Greek Education in Hellenistic and

Roman Egypt (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001), 6.

121 Ibid.
122 H. I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity, translated by G. Lamb

(London: Sheed and Ward, 1956), 158.

123 Ibid., 154.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 41

ancient society, roots which remained relatively undisturbed by

the social, political and religious changes of the period.
Education of all kinds was marked by rigid conservatism. There
was no resistance to innovation because there was no innovation
to resist.” 124
Kaster reached similar conclusions when he wrote that “the commonly
observed truth that the late-antique schools of grammar and rhetoric were
sound proof against the outside world, their methods and their status largely
untouched by the profound political and religious changes that had taken
place around them.” 125 Based on these findings, together with the recently
published corpus of three hundred and thirty-two Coptic school texts, we
can conclude that the Hellenistic educational system is applicable to
Egyptian curriculums whether in Greek or Coptic. Actually, Cribiore
frequently discussed through her study how bilingualism affected the young
student’s education. In Egypt, students spoke Coptic at home and
functioned “in their daily life in Greek koine, but were exposed to literary
Attic Greek in school.” 126 Browning writes that “Coptic-speaking students
were often expected to learn a little Greek. So we find them copying lists of
Greek words with their Coptic equivalents, sententiae of Menander with
interlinear Coptic translations, and short scriptural texts in both languages.”
Browning also asserts that archeological data affirm this system to have held
until the seventh-century in Upper Egypt. 127
Thus, our information about Hellenistic education will be relevant to
the education that Cyril received in his childhood.
Hellenistic education was divided into three periods, each consisting of
seven years. The first period was that of a “small child” (paidi,on) and
continued to the age of seven. The second phase, that of the “child” (pai/j)
was from the age of seven to that of fourteen. The third educational phase
was that of an “adolescent” (meira,kion) and that lasted until the age of
twenty-one years old. 128 The last phase did not necessarily continue for
seven years since—as we shall soon see—some of this curriculum was
moved to the earlier phase by grammarians. In practice, “the boundaries

124 Robert Browning, Education in the Roman Empire, The Cambridge Ancient
History, ed. Avril Cameron, vol. 14 (Cambridge University Press, 2000), 855.
125 Robert Kaster, Guardians of Language, the Grammarian and Society in Late

Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), ix. Browning comments

that “such general statements call for some qualification.” Browning, 855.
126 Cribiore, 175, 6.
127 Browning, 856, 7.
128 Marrou, 102.
42 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

between educational levels were blurred.” 129 Due to the fact that not all
students had the scholastic ability or financial resources to go through the
three period curriculum, adaptations were made to suit some students.
Students were satisfied with part of the educational curriculum based on
their ambition in life or the career they were to pursue. “Only about one-
sixth of Libanius’s students, for instance, attended classes for five or six
years…. Two years of study were often sufficient to be able to plead in
court, and students who had relatively modest means and/or wanted to
obtain immediate rewards frequently opted to stop at this point.” 130
If students were to follow the standard model of education they would
proceed in the following steps. The small child was expected to spend the
first seven years in the care of his parents, especially his mother or nanny,
during which time the child would learn how to speak the language and
receive some cultivation in his or her manners. “He [the child] was
introduced into the social life and shown how to behave, how to be well
mannered and polite, and also given some kind of moral discipline—some
of the ‘nurses’ used to check the child and try to develop his will by means
of strict rules, and by treatment that, considering his age, was extremely
harsh.” 131 After this period the child was sent to school. At this stage, both
boys and girls went to school, although most probably nothing much was
expected of the young girls and more attention was devoted to male
students. 132 Though communal education was more normative in the
Hellenistic age, primary education remained for the most part private. 133 If
the child was to attend school, the pedagogue (paidagwgo,j)—the family
servant—was to take the child to and from school every day. This job
included carrying the child’s belongings, sometimes even carrying the child

129 Cribiore, 190. Browning reached the exact same conclusion as Cribiore. He

wrote, “The traditional three-stage system—elementary literacy, grammar and

rhetoric—was maintained throughout the fifth and sixth century and later, though
the distinction between the various stages tended to become more blurred than in
earlier periods.” Browning, 856.
130 Cribiore, 224.
131 Marrou, 142.
132 Marrou writes that terra-cottas discovered in Alexandria and elsewhere

“portray little school girls at work.” Ibid., 144.

133 The ephebia and the gymnasium were the two educational stages that

attracted state funding, when possible. Since the sense of the importance of
education suffered at various historical epochs, the benefactors euverge,thj were
asked to contribute, which later became a title of renown. However primary
schooling still remained more of a private enterprise. Ibid., 112.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 43

himself, and protecting the child on their way to school. 134 The pedagogue
was entrusted with the moral education of the child in addition to
overseeing that the child completed the homework. Therefore, his job was
complementary to the educator or instructor whose job was to impart
education proper, that is, learning the alphabet, reading, writing,
mathematics, and so forth. 135 The role of the pedagogue became
increasingly important until it began to lose its etymological sense and took
the sense of “an educator in the full sense of the word.” 136
Primary schooling began with reading the alphabet, then syllables,
words, and finally texts and anthologies. This entire process was done
almost twice, once orally through brute recitation of everything the students
learned, and another time through writing the letters, syllables, and
sentences again in their entirety. Primary education included learning how
to count and do basic arithmetic that was crucial for managing the finances
and formal affairs in their adult life. 137
Since primary education was mostly private, it is probable that Cyril—
after arriving at the patriarchal residence at the age of seven or so—was
immediately entrusted with a private tutor. 138 The patriarchal residence
included a great number of grammarians, scribes, shorthand secretaries, and
other literary professionals, such as translators, that were indispensable for
managing ecclesiastical matters. Pope Theophilus must have chosen one or
more of his able staff to tutor Cyril in the basics of reading and writing. As
to the moral part of his education, that was usually the responsibility of the
pedagogue, it might have been taken care of by monastics or residing
priests. His moral education would have been completed by the end of his
five-year stay in the Desert.

134 The child belongings could be rather a burden to carry since books were

bulky and heavy. Some of the books that were made of parchment were so heavy
to the extent they were used as weapons in fights with other students. Cribiore,
144, 145.
135 Marrou, 143–4.
136 Ibid., 144.
137 Marrou has a detailed description of the lengthy time spent in meticulous

memorization in every stage of the process of education. Marrou also adds that his
understanding of the primary system of education is primarily based on school
exercise books found in Upper Egypt. This is what makes all this information even
more relevant to Cyril’s education. Marrou, 150–159.
138 Theophilus became pope in A.D. 385 when Cyril was at the age of seven.

This point will be elaborated under “The Alexandrian Cultural Milieu at the Time
of Cyril.”
44 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Secondary education, which began at the age of fourteen, included the

study of classics with a great stress on Homer. The study of classics meant
reading, reciting, and explanation of the texts, that is, exegesis. During this
study morals and composition were stressed with an added emphasis on
grammar. This stage of education was taught by grammarians—
grammatiko,j—sometimes known as filo,logoj. 139 The grammarians were
concerned with the teaching of classics, and since the pool of literature
from which they could draw was huge and was constantly increasing, some
texts were selected on the basis that they were quite representative of the
classical genre for teaching purposes. 140 Homer was the most selected and
dominated the curriculum. The number of papyri, writing tablets, and
ostraca that were pulled from the soil of Egypt shows “the place Homer
had in the education of Greek Egypt.” 141 Some of the other classical writers
who found their way to the curriculum with Homer were Aeschylus,
Sophocles, and Menander. 142 The students did not read the texts directly,

139 Ibid., 161.

140 This is known from school exercise books found mostly in Egypt. These
school exercises played a great role in the manuscript transmission of classical
literature. Marrou, 403–4.
141 Marrou, 163. St. Cyril quoted Homer more than once in his writings and

most probably his knowledge of Homer came primarily from his education by the
grammarian. St. Cyril’s use of classical works will be dealt with in Chapter 3.
Bagnall concludes, based on archeological findings, that classical reading in the
fourth and fifth century Egypt is dominated by Homer and Menander. Other
authors are found but not in such abundance such as Aeschylus, Sophocles, Pindar,
Sappho, and Theocritus. Bagnall suggests that the decline of reading in these
authors is due to the rise of new authors which were found in greater number such
as Dio Chrysostom, Themistios, Philostratos, Himerius, Heliodoros, and Libanius.
These classical authors were found with Old and New Testament books, non-
canonical books of the early church together with exercise books. R. S. Bagnall,
Egypt in Late Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 103.
142 Marrou, 163. These authors were found in the same list as that of Bagnall.

Cribiore in her most recent research gave more attention to this point and also
concluded, based on archeological data, that Homer was also by far the most read
and taught poet of all times. She asserts that Homer was mandatory in the
educational curriculum. She also concluded that Euripides was the next favored
author but in Egypt, Menander was a favorite choice. She adds the following names
as being also frequently used: Callimachus, Pindar, Theognis, Hipponax, Aratus,
Theocritus, Apollonius Rhodius, and Isorates. Cribiore, 194–204. It is most
probable that students in the grammar schools read these authors in their school
exercises and after graduating kept interest in these authors together with other
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 45

rather the texts were introduced through a summary or outline of the work.
After the students’ texts were compared to that of the teacher—some sort
of textual critical analysis was done since no two manuscripts were the
same—reading the text followed. Reading was a rather complicated process.
Reading, whether private or public, was audible. The reason was that texts
were written in “continuous script,” meaning there was no “division
between words, sentences, or paragraphs, and no punctuation.” 143
Therefore, reading meant that the student had to understand the text well
enough to be able to read the continuous script and give expression to the
unpunctuated text. This continuous process of reading and rereading of the
text in preparation for public reading led the grammarians to emphasize
memorization as a faculty that would facilitate expressive reading. The
process of reading also included exegesis of the text. This was a principal
academic tool that the grammarian taught his students in order to be
efficient readers. 144 Ignorance of the meaning of the text hindered the
reader from producing an understandable expressive outcome. In other
words, good readers had to be good exegetes. It is most probable that Cyril
was selected to be a reader when he reached this academic level, in which,
he acquired good knowledge of the biblical text together with other church
writings to enable him to read church reading efficiently.
This description of the educational system makes Severus’ comments
even more poignant, “…so when he [Cyril] read the book once, he knew it
by heart…” on Cyril’s return to the patriarchal residence “…he read aloud
in his [Theophilus] presence; and the priests and learned men and
philosophers were astonished at him,….” 145 Here we find the process of
reading and memorizing as part of Cyril’s education. The practice of
“reading aloud” required understanding the meaning of the text, exegesis,
thus arriving to the utmost level of reading proficiency.
Secondary education included the study of the moral aspects of these
texts. “From the poets, especially Homer, Hellenistic teachers tried to
extract a fully articulated moral code. The prime movers in this endeavor

Christian literature. Cribiore mentions that some of the Bodmer papyri contain
codices that include Christian works together with Menander’s. Cribiore, 200.
143 Gamble, 202.
144 “Dionysius considered the highest skill that grammarians practiced the

‘critical study of literature,’ that is, exegesis, textual criticism, aesthetic evaluation
and judgment of the authenticity of a text.” Cribiore, 186. When discussing the
style and method of Cyril’s exegesis, we will notice the influence of his grammarian
training on his exegetical method.
145 Evetts, 428.
46 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

were the Stoics. In their hands Homer became “the wisest of poets,” a
romantic Wise man, intentionally concealing under the veil of myth a
complete and detailed body of doctrine.” 146 This process was accompanied
with the “methodical study of the elements of the language: what we call
‘grammar.’” 147 The final element to complete the picture of a thorough
grammarian course was composition which was in the form of “preparatory
exercises”—progumna,smata. Though composition was essentially the duty
of the rhetors, for practical reasons “as the more advanced rhetoric became
increasingly technical and more and more exacting, it became a matter of
necessity for higher education to hand preparatory exercises over to the
secondary school and so, by force of circumstances, they were “usurped” by
the grammarian.” 148 Since the Hellenistic system of education was to give
the harder exercises first and then the easier ones, by the time the student
finished his education with the grammarian he was an extremely able writer
and—if he had the talent—a poetry composer. Thus, at the age of
seventeen when Cyril headed to the Desert, he completed about eighty-five
percent of his education. He was an able writer and had a good sense of
rhetoric.
When the people in the Eastern Empire, including Egyptians, accepted
Christianity the Greek educational system was already well established. All
the great fathers of the church acquired their education through this system.
This raised a lot of questions, such as whether the church accepted the
learning of “morals” in grammar schools from Homer and others. Due to
the fact that in the Eastern parts of the Empire Christianity was introduced
into the context of a previously well-established pagan culture and
civilization, education was never totally Christianized. Homer was still
taught by Christian grammarians to their Christian students, albeit with a
more Christian interpretation. 149 We find in exercise books from some
Egyptian ostraca that exercises included extracts from the Psalms or a
composition exercise with the subject title, “Relate the miracle of Christ and

146Marrou, 169.
147Ibid., 170.
148 Ibid, 172.
149 Julian the Apostate knew that Christian teachers had their own interpretation

of the Homeric and other classical texts and thus he promulgated that “Christians
who taught Homer and Hesiod without believing in the gods they described were
accused of failing in honesty and candor by teaching something they did not
believe. They were ordered either to apostate or to give up teaching.” This decree
did not work for long and the code was overturned and Christians resumed
teaching classics. Marrou, 323–4.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 47

the vine.” 150 Christianity, in the early centuries, did not undertake an
alternative system nor did it Christianize the educational system but rather
added its Christian flavor to the interpretation of the classics with an
addition of Christian texts that were primarily Biblical. 151
The most systematically documented attempt to Christianize the
Hellenic educational system we know of was during the reign of Julian the
Apostate. When the latter ordered Christian rhetors to restrict their teaching
to Christian texts and not attempt to interpret Homer or any other Greek
poet, a certain Syrian grammarian by the name of Apollinaris began a daring
project. Apollinaris in conjunction with his son, who was also a grammarian
of the same name teaching in the same city of Laodicea, endeavored to
write the Biblical texts, both Old and New Testaments, in the form of
Platonic dialogues. Nevertheless, after the death of Julian, all their efforts
were wasted. Christian parents of the upper class thought they would be
depriving their children of the standard education that made their children
respected among the cultivated elite of the society. In addition, because the
educational system and a certain system of Attic writing were extremely
ingrained in the pagan culture, scriptural translations were found
“intolerable” among the educated elite. 152 It is most probable, that Cyril
received most of his knowledge of Greek culture through his education and
did not attempt to cultivate it further after he completed his curriculum.
St. Cyril must have had his literary education, both the primary and the
secondary, through the tutoring of one of the grammarians residing in the
patriarchate. He most likely did not attend the ephesia, which was the
physical exercise part of the gymnasium, which by the third century was
already considered insignificant in the educational system. This part of his
education was most probably replaced by sending him to the Nitrean desert
where he focused on the study of scripture and other Christian texts. His
stay there strengthened both the moral and spiritual components of his life.
By the time he returned from the Desert, he might perhaps have required
one or two years in the study of rhetoric after which he became an
accomplished rhetor of the highest caliber.

150 Ibid., 331.

151 This part of the research is discussing the basic educational system, that is,
acquiring the basic skills of reading, writing, grammar, arithmetic, and rhetoric. This
discussion will not include the School of Alexandria or the catechetical school,
which was a school of higher education in theological studies where the students
admitted were already well established rhetors and grammarians.
152 A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire: 284–602, vol. 2, (Baltimore, MD:

John Hopkins University Press, 1986), 1006.

48 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Study of Rhetoric
During the Hellenistic period, the real essence of being educated was to
take lessons in rhetoric, that is, to learn the art of eloquence. Theophilus
must have known the importance of such an education for his nephew if he
expected anything of him. Moreover, Alexandria was the best place to
provide such an education. Theoretically, there were three kinds of
rhetorical training, the deliberative, the judicial, and the epideictic. Only
epideictic, or the eloquence of set speech, survived, developed, and even
flourished. It flourished in a culture that was very rhetorical and public
speakers gradually became in demand, more powerful, and their eloquence
was used for political and even military mediation. Rhetoric was the
ultimate goal of any esteemed education. To learn rhetoric entailed, with
eloquence of speech, an ability to be a thinker and acquire logical thinking.
It was the means to be a cultured person. This common culture was a
unifying factor that enabled Hellenistic as well as Christian literature to
circulate and be accessible to all churches. 153
Rhetoric was divided into three parts: theory, study of models, and
applied exercises. Theory meant knowing the exact steps, stages, divisions
and subdivisions in any topic that could be the subject of rhetoric. 154 The
study of theory ensured that the most ungifted student could still become
an orator if the steps of theory were meticulously followed. Then came the
study of models, where a set of typical masterpieces of universally admired
rhetoric was studied to the greatest detail, interpreted, memorized, and then
read aloud. It was under a rhetor that one learned how to “read.”
Furthermore, if Cyril reached such excellence in reading as Severus noted,
then he must have had some rhetorical study, which is confirmed by his
style of writing. The third stage was applied exercises. These exercises
tended to be actual speeches delivered in law courts or the assembly. In the
case of Cyril, his exercises were conducted within the church or patriarchal
residence. When Cyril reached such a level of education, he must have been
promoted from reader to teacher-reader, where he taught scripture. It was
from these exercises that Cyril developed his exegetical works. 155

153The idea that paidei,a and rhetoric are the unifying factor in the Hellenistic
culture is explored in Peter Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a
Christian Empire (Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1992).
154 Marrou gives detailed steps of eulogy. The student of rhetoric was to study

all the thirty-six stages of eulogizing and had to follow them to the iota. The
student could add more points in his exercise but he had to prove that he knew all
the basic points by heart in order to be considered a rhetor. Marrou, 198–199.
155 Marrou, 194–205.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 49

Libraries in Alexandria
Libraries exist wherever there are any cultural or educational activities. Most
Hellenistic gymnasiums had libraries. These libraries were rather small, most
probably very small in comparison to our modern day standards and
accommodated primarily the needs of the study in the gymnasium. 156 Every
local church had its small library that held at least the basic texts used for
liturgical purposes and texts of all the books of the Old and New
Testaments. Anianus wrote in the early fifth century that “all church
libraries of the Greeks” held works of St. John Chrysostom. 157 Church
libraries usually collected a number of sermons written by famous fathers of
the church that could serve for liturgical purposes at different occasions.
These sermons were also used for educational purposes. Scholarly bishops
typically had a library of considerable size. For example, the library of St.
Augustine is known to have escaped the destruction of the Vandals even
though the valuable content of the library is unknown, but we know that it
included works of Christian and non-Christian writers. 158
We are sure that the city of Alexandria had at least three main libraries
that were accessible to Cyril: the Library of Alexandria, the library of the
catechetical school, and the patriarchal library. We know that the famous
Library of Alexandria included pagan, classical, as well as religious books.
The most celebrated religious text of all was the Septuagint that was
specifically translated for the use of the Library. 159 Pope Theophilus had
been constantly accused of destroying the Library of Alexandria. The
accusation is actually limited to the part of the library annexed to the
Serapeum. None of the Christian chronicles of the period record the A.D.
391 destruction of the Serapeum. What we know is that Pope Theophilus
“attempted to turn one of the temples of the city into a church. After a
resistance from the pagan side, which led to street-fighting and much
destruction, Theophilus obtained the approval of the emperor Theodosius I
for closing all the temples, including the Serapeum.” 160 Most probably Cyril

156 Marrou, 410.

157 Gamble, 169.
158 Ibid., 168.
159 For further study on the Library of Alexandria refer to Roy MacLeod, ed.,

The Library of Alexandria, Centre of Learning in the Ancient World (London, New York:
L. B. Tauris, 2000). Also, Gamble for a general view about the use and importance
of libraries in the Christian world.
160 MacLeod, 73. Historians flashed this activity as a sign of the despot

character of Theophilus. Historians usually narrate this incident as the destruction

not the conversion of the Serapeum. But these incidents have to be understood
50 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

would not have had much use for the pagan literature stored in the
Serapeum—his concern would have been primarily with the Christian texts.
The library of the catechetical school might have been the one of most
use to Cyril, and he would have had easy access to it. In addition, he could
have had access to the personal library of Didymus himself. We do know
that personal libraries constituted a major recourse for lending and copying
of early manuscripts. The patriarchal library must have had an elaborate
archive, at least all the patriarchal correspondence, Festal Letters, and the
many other Christian literary works. Emperor Constans asked St.
Athanasius to copy the text of Scriptures and send it for use in Italian
churches. 161 At the council of Ephesus, Cyril used citations from texts by
the following writers to back his arguments: Peter of Alexandria,
Athanasius, Julius of Rome, Felix of Rome, Theophilus, Cyprian of
Carthage, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil of Caesarea, and
Gregory of Nyssa. 162 Having access to all these texts proves that he had a
considerable Christian library, although whether the texts were personal
copies or that of the patriarchate is not clear. This library not only included
the writings of the fathers but also that of heretics. Cyril, in his Commentary
on the Gospel of John, attempts to refute heretical teachings. In his exposition
of Jn 14:11 he referred to a booklet or pamphlet of his adversaries (
biblidiw| tw/n div evnanti,aj) that he had in his possession and cited from it
with the intention of refuting their claims. 163 In the early part of the
commentary, Cyril refuted one heresy after another and is clearly working
from available texts. What is apparent is that he had access to a library, a

within their historical context. It was at the time of Emperor Theodosius who had
recently promulgated laws to outlaw all pagan religious activity. Under the rule of
Emperor Theodosius, and by the injunction of these laws, it was the duty of the
bishop of each city to see that this law was carried out. The execution of these laws
occurred with the support of the Empire aided with troops of men, sometimes
called parabalani, provided by the state to assist the bishop when enforcing the law.
Theophilus would not have been the only bishop to enforce these laws, though he
might be one who executed them with great zeal. For the obligations of the bishops
towards the state consult Clyde Pharr, translator, The Theodosian Code and Novels and
the Sirmondian Constitutions (New York: Greenwood Press, 1969), 440–486. Book 16
and the Sirmondian Constitutions deal directly with the regulations of the church,
obligations of bishops, and other religious groups in the empire like Jews and
pagans.
161 Athanasius Ad imperatorem Constantium Apologia 4 (PG 25.600–1).
162 McGuckin, 86.
163 In Jo. 2.434.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 51

library that contained a large collection of both patristic and heretical texts
since both types of texts are evident in his work.

The Alexandrian cultural milieu at the time of Cyril

It is important to understand the surroundings that shaped Cyril in his
formative, young years. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the elements
that influenced the shaping of the mind and character of Cyril. Theophilus
took him into the patriarchate at a tender age. Theophilus was pope of
Alexandria for twenty-eight years (385–412) and Theophilus ascended the
see of St. Mark when Cyril was only seven years old. There is no account of
when Cyril was summoned to the patriarchal residence—it could have been
a few months or a few years later. However, when we read the intense
interest of Theophilus in the cultivation of his nephew’s cultural and
educational prospects we can assume it was at an early age, maybe that of
seven. This is not unique for Theophilus, for we know that this same thing
happened to him at the time of St. Athanasius, who saw the potential of the
young Theophilus, even before he was baptized, and recruited him in the
patriarchal care at a very tender age. Theophilus was certainly influenced by
this incident in his life that led him to take the apostolic mantle after St.
Athanasius, and wanted to do the same thing with his blood relative,
Cyril. 164

164 Being a protégée of a promising young boy seems to have been a recurring

theme that devleped into some sort of a tradition in the Church of Alexandria. We
know that Athanasius was chosen by Alexander in his youth, Athanasius chose
Theophilus at a young age when he visited the Patriarchate, and Theophilus in turn
chose Cyril in his childhood. The story of Theophilus aforementioned is based on
John of Nikiu’s account. The story of Athanasius is quoted by Rufinus H.E. 1.14,
and Socrates H.E. 1.15 who mentions that his story is based on Rufinus’ account.
Sozomen in H.E. 2.17 mentions the same story independently. The story of St.
Athanasius goes as follows. It was customary for the Church of Alexandria to
celebrate the martyrdom of Pope Peter of Alexandria, with the agnomen of “The
Seal of the Martyrs.” During this annual celebration, headed at the time by Pope
Alexander of Alexandria (A.D. 312–328), Athanasius and some of his friends were
playing on the shore. Alexander watched them carefully and noticed they were
playing bishop and catechumens who were baptized by the bishop. The careful
reenactment of the ritual obligated Alexander to call the young Athanasius to his
presence. After questioning the young boy, he recognized that he had a most
talented and promising young man in his presence. He oversaw his education and
made sure he was well versed in grammar and rhetoric. Alexander then appointed
Athanasius as his secretary. (Sozomen H.E. 2.17). This story is considered
legendary by a few scholars based on some chronological discrepancies that
52 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Most probably it did not take Theophilus a long time to decide the
educational curriculum and future of the young Cyril and he summoned
him quickly to Alexandria to be under his supervision. The patriarchal
residence became the new dwelling of the young boy, which would later
turn out to be his true and only home until the day of his death. Cyril soon
became quite accustomed to the talk, intrigues, policy, and politics of the
patriarchal residence. He had not experienced anything else other than that
atmosphere apart from his short five-year stay in the Nitrean desert. He
became accustomed to seeing the political, ecclesiastical, intellectual, and
social dignitaries come in and out of the patriarchal residence. Since this
study focuses on the writings of Cyril, we will limit our research to the
ecclesiastical and intellectual figures that might have had an influence on
him. Besides the monastic figures that influenced him, we can safely suggest
that Theophilus must have had a great impact on Cyril. In addition, we can
include the figures of Didymus the Blind, Rufinus of Aquileia, and Jerome.
The focus on these three individuals is not exclusive, and does not mean
that they were the only people who could have influenced the young Cyril.
They are just an example of many who passed through the threshold of the
patriarchal residence and of whom we have an account.
Pope Theophilus was historically famous for his role in the Origenist
controversy, the exile of St. John Chrysostom, and his zeal to eradicate
paganism from Egypt. History informs us that in A.D. 391, with the
permission of Emperor Theodosius I, he attempted to convert the temple
of Serapis, known as the Serapium, and also the Mithraeum, and the temple
of Dionysos to churches. Nevertheless, it was the Origenist controversy
that developed to a heated confrontation between Theophilus and John
Chrysostom that overshadowed any other endeavor that Theophilus
accomplished and marred his character forever in history books. Since the
details of this regrettable episode in history are documented elsewhere,
unfortunately for the most part by his opponents, we will focus on another
aspect of Theophilus’ character—we will examine Theophilus the
theologian, writer, and educator.

Athanasius would have been the age of fourteen when this incident happened and
thus would already been too old. Even if the story is legendary, what concerns us is
that it was written by Rufinus, who was a student and disciple to the Alexandrian
Church for some time, thus this story must have been propagating among the
Alexandrians at the time of Theophilus and must have been a moral example for
him to follow, since he himself was a beneficiary of such an act of benevolence
himself.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 53

Little of Theophilus’ writings and intellectual heritage survived. There

is no indication that he was a prolific writer but what is left of his work will
shed light on the Theophilus that influenced Cyril. His writings are
comprised of epistles, Paschal Letters, homilies, the Paschal canon, and
treatises. Some of these epistles survived through the Latin translations and
are preserved in Jerome’s letters. The correspondence is concerned with the
Origenist controversy and the consequent trouble caused by the Tall
Brothers and John Chrysostom. Through the study of his refutation of
Origenism we can perceive the theological mind of Theophilus. His Paschal
Letters were available for some time, at least until the Council of Chalcedon
where Timothy Ailuros mentioned Theophilus’ third paschal letter in the
dogmatic argumentation of the council. Some of his homilies survive and
they present some of the pastoral concerns of the bishop. For instance, he
wrote on the themes of judgment, penance, contrition and abstinence, the
institution of the Eucharist. 165 Another famous and popular spurious
writing is his vision of the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt and their
residence there. 166 Theophilus did not write any commentaries or dogmatic
treatises. The focus was primarily pastoral which included fighting
Origenism. He was theologically astute or he would not have had Rufinus
as a disciple and Jerome as a strong advocate.
The friendship between Theophilus and Jerome flourished with the
Origenist controversy. Though Jerome was a reader and translator of
Origen, as well as another Alexandrian, Dydimus the Blind, when the
controversy arose he signed against Origen. Meanwhile, his friend and
compatriot Rufinus of Aquila refused to follow his lead and did not sign
against Origen. The situation became very complicated and involved John,
the bishop of Jerusalem. Theophilus intervened and solved the
disagreement and in this way gained Jerome as a friend and a strong
supporter of all Theophilus’ further fights against Origenism. 167 Jerome
translated all of Theophilus’ correspondence pertaining to Origenism into
Latin and promoted his position in the West. The strength of the friendship
between Theophilus and Jerome was exhibited when Jerome’s good friend
Paula died. Her passing devastated Jerome. He did not have any literary

165 For a full reference to all of what survived of his homilies refer to Quasten
3.104.
166 Though most scholars consider this work as spurious, it is a very popular

reading to this day among the Copts. And the reverence of the work is due to the
attribution of the authorship to Cyril who recounts the vision of Theophilus.
167 J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (New York: Harper

& Row, 1975), 195–209.

54 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

activity for a long time but this was interrupted when he translated
Theophilus’ Paschal Letter of the year 404 into Latin. 168 His obligation and
strong friendship to Theophilus forced him out of his mourning. Jerome
previously wrote to Theophilus saying, “You caress as a father, instruct as a
teacher, enjoin as a bishop…You do not demand subjection from your
monks; they are therefore all the more subject to you. You offer them a kiss
and so they bow their necks.” 169 This quote shows the great respect that
Jerome developed for Theophilus. Through the stormy times of the
Origenist controversy, there is no doubt that Theophilus must have
expressed and shared with Cyril the mutual friendship between them. There
is a great probability that this led Cyril to be acquainted with Jerome’s
literary activity since they both shared a passion for biblical exposition.
Jerome’s influence on Cyril raised recently interest among some
scholars. The research carried out by most scholars was primarily based on
comparing Old Testament exegetical works of Jerome and Cyril with a
special focus on the commentaries on Isaiah and the Minor Prophets. 170
However, in special reference to this work, we cannot proof any influence
from Jerome since there is not mention of Jerome ever writing a
commentary on the Gospel of John. Our interest at this point is the
intellectual milieu of Cyril, researchers not only agree that Cyril was
acquainted with Jerome’s work but also other Old Testament exegetical
works like those of Eusebius of Caesarea and Basil of Caesarea.

Kelly, 278.
168

Letter 82; quoted in Kelly, 208.

169
170 F. M. Abel, “Parallelisme éxégetique entre S. Jérôme et S. Cyrille

d’Alexandrie,” Vivre et Penser. Recherches d’exegèse et d’histoire, 1re série, 94–119, 212–
30. (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1941). Kerrigan, a decade later, was at first skeptical about
Abel’s conclusions but after further research conceded to the results. He asserts
that Cyril had some literary dependence on Jerome. But he finally concludes that
Cyril consulted other commentaries like those of Origen, Eusebius, and St. Basil
but did not follow them blindly. Kerrigan writes in regard to Jerome, “…Cyril
consulted Jerome frequently. It has been shown that Cyril does not adhere to his
model slavishly; he criticizes Jerome’s opinions at times; he abandons him, when
and to the extent that he pleases; even when he depends on him, Cyril sometimes
manages to add new details or paraphrases his materials freely.” Kerrigan, 438–9.
The latest research conducted in 1998 by Fernández Lois suggests a “strong
probability” of Jerome’s influence on Cyril though there is no “absolute certainty.”
Russell, 226. Further details and references to Jerome’s influence on Cyril can be
consulted in Russell, 70–1, 225–6.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 55

If scholars suggest the thesis that Jerome influenced Cyril, we can also
propose that Didymus the Blind influenced both Jerome and Cyril. Jerome
writes of Didymus,
Here we have a man who has reached perfection without a
teacher, so as to be a vehicle of the spirit and a self-taught
genius. He surpasses Cicero in eloquence, Aristotle in argument,
Plato in discretion, Aristarchus in learning, Didymus, that man
of brass, in the number of his books; and not only Didymus, but
all the writers of his time in his knowledge of the Scriptures. 171
Jerome’s respect for Didymus can easily explain the commonality
between Cyril and Jerome, if this proposal stands.
The third figure involved in the Origenist controversy was Rufinus of
Aquileia. As previously mentioned, he was a good friend and compatriot of
Jerome. They both shared their interest in Origen before the controversy
broke out. He spent seven years in Egypt, from 373–380, where he studied
in the school of Alexandria under the tutorship of Didymus the Blind. It is
likely that during this time he formed an acquaintance with Theophilus.
Rufinus left Egypt five years before the appointment of Theophilus to the
episcopal see of Alexandria. Although Jerome denies Rufinus’ discipleship
to Didymus in Apology 3,18, Kelly thinks “his denial is not convincing.” 172
Rufinus did not produce a literary work that distinguished him as a
theologian in his own right since his work is primarily translation and there
is not much of his own mind that we can perceive. Though there is no way
to ensure the issue of Rufinus’ discipleship to Didymus, there is historic
probability. This shows how Alexandria and the School of Alexandria,
headed at that time by Didymus the Blind, were the meeting places of
people who later played a pivotal role in ecclesiastical history and a leading
role in the preservation of a Christian heritage. 173
Didymus the Blind was the head of the school of Alexandria until the
time of his death in 398 at the age of 85. He was highly respected for his
erudition as well as his exemplary life. He lived as an ascetic and met with
St. Antony more than once. His most famous students were Rufinus and
Jerome, where the former called him “prophet” and “apostolic.” 174 He died
when Cyril was twenty years of age. Cyril must have met with him, listened
to some of his lectures, and absorbed a love of biblical scholarship from

171 Jerome Ep. 50.2. CSEL 54.388.

172 Kelly, 205.
173 It is primarily through Rufinus’ Latin translations of Origen that many of the

latter’s work reached us.

174 Rufinus Apologia contra Hieronymum 2.25. CCL 20 (29–123).
56 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

him in addition to his influence as an ascetic person. Though there is no

indication as to whether Cyril attended or studied in the School of
Alexandria, there is no reason to suggest that he did not make use of the
presence of such a figure in the cultural capital. We do understand from the
correspondence of St. Jerome that such an interaction was indeed possible.
He writes to Pammachius and Oceanus,
In my younger days I was carried away with a great passion for
learning, yet I was not like some presumptuous enough to teach
myself. At Antioch I frequently listened to Apolinaris of
Laodicea, and attended his lectures; yet, although he instructed
me in the holy scriptures, I never embraced his disputable
doctrine as to their meaning. At length my head became
sprinkled with gray hairs so that I looked more like a master than
a disciple. Yet I went on to Alexandria and heard Didymus. And
I have much to thank him for: for what I did not know I learned
from him, and what I knew already I did not forget. So excellent
was his teaching. 175
This important correspondence makes us understand that the School
of Alexandria, and the scholars residing in it, not only gave lectures within
the regular curriculum, if there was anything as such, but also provided an
intellectual atmosphere where visiting and interested people attended some
sort of public lectures given by the residing scholars. There is no doubt that
Cyril attended some of these public lectures, either presented by Didymus
himself or other lecturers. 176

175Jerome Ep. 84.3. CSEL 55.24.

176Marrou in his study makes it clear that there were two types of lectures. The
first type was called “lessons—scolai,—given by the grammarians, rhetors and
philosophers” and there is another type called “avkroa,seij... ” He explains that the
first type can be considered as “whole courses” while the second type of lectures
were “additional lectures given more or less on their own.” I. H. Marrou, A History
of Education in Antiquity, translated by G. Lamb (London: Sheed and Ward, 1956),
409–410. It is to the latter type that we refer to. This is confirmed by the
description of Jerome in his epistle and this is the type of lectures that Cyril most
probably would have attended in the School of Alexandria, since we do not have
any reference that Cyril had a formal and continuous education in the most famous
theological school of Alexandria. There is another type of lecture given by
“wandering lecturers” that were “addressed to adults living in a polite society.”
Marrou, 187. This could have been another type of education that the school of
Alexandria provided for its adult education. There is a possibility that Jerome, or
any dignitary visiting the city, gave such lectures during their stay in Alexandria for
a few months.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 57

Grillmeier writes, “The Cyril of the early period takes a great deal,
indeed almost everything, from Athanasius…The young Cyril surely knew
the blind teacher of Alexandria, Didymus. The two belong to the same
thought-world. Nevertheless, we cannot say that Didymus exercised a real
influence.” 177 Both, Didymus and Cyril, rightfully belonged “to the same
thought-world.” If influence is only measured by the transmission of
thought from one theologian to the other, as in the case of Athanasius and
Cyril, then we can accede to Grillmeier’s comment. However, if the
intellectual dialogue and complementation of thought among Didymus and
Cyril can also measure influence, then Grillmeier’s statement needs some
amendments. The following example can shed light on this indirect
influence.
Grillmeier describes the contribution of Didymus to the Arian
controversy in that he evaluates “Christ’s soul in its theological aspect.” 178
The importance of this addition is that he insists that in the Incarnation,
Jesus Christ assumed the full humanity, body together with the soul and
spirit. At the time of the Appollinarian controversy, this was a bold
suggestion since the Apollinarians proposed that the presence of the soul in
the assumed humanity would advance the idea that the Logos incarnate is
liable to sin. That Christ can sin is an unacceptable theological premise on
the basis of Christ’s words “Which of you convicts me of sin?” (Jn 8:46).
Didymus expressed his idea as follows,
Now as the soul which Jesus took is something other than the
Trinity (a;llh evsti.n para. th.n Tria,da), it is by nature created to
endure propatheia and the beginning of amazement (pe,fukev
de,cesqai propa,qeian kai. avrch.n tou/ qambei/sqai). 179
Didymus asserts the presence of a soul that endures propa,qeia. Lampe
defines the meaning of propa,qeia as the “first stage of emotion.” 180 One
cannot but notice that Lampe cites the word in only three works, all of
which are expositions of the Book of Psalms, written by Origen, Didymus,
and Cyril of Alexandria. We know that Cyril studied Origen very closely and
wrote a lengthy comment refuting Origen’s ideas in his systematic
refutation of all heretical ideas in The Commentary on the Gospel of John. We
also know that Didymus was a good disciple of Origen’s ideas and shared

177 A. Grillmeier, Christ in the Christian Tradition: From the Apostolic Age to the
Council of Chalcedon (451), trans. John Bowden, vol. 1 (Atlanta: John Knox Press,
1975), 418.
178 Ibid., 362.
179 Text XVIII, 10, 4–5; quoted in Grillmeier, 363.
180 Lampe, 1161.
58 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

the anathema pronounced in the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 553.

Though we cannot speak of “influence” here, this continuous thread of
thought can only affirm the dialogue of ideas among these three
Alexandrian theologians.
The idea of Christ’s sinlessness was elaborated by Didymus in his
Commentary on the Psalms, though the idea never reached the conclusion of
“the impossibility of Christ’s sinning.” 181 The further contribution of Cyril
to the idea of the sinlessness of Christ is found in his exposition of Jn 8:46,
“Which of you convicts me of sin?” He follows Didymus’ route in choosing
to explain the sinlessness of Christ on a theological basis as opposed to a
psychological one. Cyril explains that sin is the “turning away from what is
better to that which is not [better]” (paratroph/j th/j avpo. tou/ belti,onoj
evpi. to. mh. ou[twj). 182 The process of turning away entails change, and in the
case of sin it is a change from what is better to what is not so. Nonetheless,
God does not experience “change” for He is immutable. Cyril clarifies his
statement by saying how we could perceive the immutable God to not
experience change, He who is steadfast in His own unshaken good which is
not of another but of Himself (avklo,nhtoj de. ma/llon toi/j ivdi,oij
evmpefuko,sin avgaqoi/j( kai. ouv par v e`te,rou tino.j( avll v evx e`autou/). 183 This
type of interaction of ideas is not that of promoting and propagating the
same idea but rather that of elaboration and continuation. Cyril elaborated
on the sinlessness of Christ and confirmed it to be based on his
immutability.
Grillmeier, among other scholars, also noted that the term Qeoto,koj
was frequently used by Alexandrian writers such as Athanasius and
Didymus. 184 Obviously we can add Cyril’s name to this list without
hesitation. Though in reference to this term the influence of Athanasius is
undoubtable, the presence of Didymus’ name on the list has its significance
for understanding that the chain of transmission is multifaceted. Grillmeier
adds that one can find in Cyril’s work some “Aristotelian definitions of man
with reference to Didymus, but these do not signify any transference of an
Aristotelian anthropology to christology.” 185 We cannot say that Cyril was a
student or disciple of Didymus, for neither history nor the writings of both
theologians could promote this suggestion. However, we can consider a
degree of interaction of thought, based on the previous examples together

181 Grillmeier, 363.

182 In Jo., 2:102.
183 Ibid.
184 Grillmeier, 298.
185 Ibid., 416.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 59

with the clear presence of both theologians within the same city at the same
time span. They not only shared time and lived within the same city
boundaries, they also shared friends, intellectual and theological interests, a
common heritage, and an undying devotion to the church of Alexandria
that bound both of them to one body of believers.
Theophilus, Rufinus, and Jerome all shared the acquaintance of
Didymus the Blind. We also know that Palladius visited Didymus four
times. Alexandria and the school of Alexandria was the center of this circle
of friends, although later their paths diverged. Alexandria lured many other
men, but this group serves as an example of the type of Christian
intellectuals that this great metropolis attracted. Cyril was not living in a
vacuum or in isolation. He was in an intellectual center that attracted
substantial men who eventually shaped his vision and broadened his
horizon to the greater church beyond the boundaries of Alexandria. Cyril
was exposed in his home setting to a diverse school of ecclesiastical politics,
public relations, intellectual excitement, and virtuous people. He was at the
hub of events and culture, not only that of the Christian culture but also the
pagan one.
Intellectual activities not only occurred in the premises of the School
of Alexandria. The patriarchal residence was another center of intellectual
and spiritual activity. Severus, bishop of El-Ashmunein writes, “…and there
Cyril dwelt with the patriarch in his cell, and read aloud in his presence; and
the priests and learned men and philosophers were astonished at him….”186
Any patriarchal residence, and especially that of Alexandria, was a busy
place. Bishops and priests came to consult or give reports about their
parishes. Monks would come to do the same thing. The famous monastic
tradition of at least two visits per year to the pope, one on the Feast of the
Nativity and another on that of the Resurrection, became a staple in the
residence. The record of these visits can be found in the Apophthegmata
Patrum and in the Life of St. Pachomius. Popes gave regular biblical study
sessions in the residence, to both men and women, as attested during the
life of St. Athanasius. The presence of lectors and cantors in residence was
another aspect of activity. Scribes and shorthand secretaries were always
present in the residence. They copied official letters and statements needed
in the patriarchate. The Church of Alexandria had translators that
completed translations from and to Latin. St. Cyril writes to Celestine, “I
issued documents containing excerpts from the principal statements. I
caused them to be translated as far as it was possible for men in Alexandria,

186 PO, 428.

60 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

and I have given to the beloved Posidonius the letters written by me,
commanding him to bring them to your holiness.” 187 From this incredibly
short statement we can sense the constant need of scribes and translators.
The scribes preserved the letters of Nestorius and copied excerpts from
them together with copies of St. Cyril’s letters that were sent to various
churches. The translators were translating letters of correspondence, as the
one mentioned above, if not other literary works, maybe that of Jerome.
Scribes and shorthand secretaries accompanied bishops when they attended
synods or councils to take minutes of the meetings. These would be
different from the scribes and shorthand secretaries designated by the
emperor and who later provided the “official” minutes of the council. We
also know that shorthand secretaries became indispensable beginning
around the fourth and fifth century because they sat at the foot of the
bishop and took note of the sermons. The most famous are the shorthand
secretaries of St. John Chrysostom who recorded all his homilies in
shorthand form. We also know of St. Augustine following the same pattern.
This was practiced in both the East and the West. This has become
standard practice in all major sees by the fourth and fifth centuries. 188 It is
probable that it was one of those literary men who began instructing Cyril
in the first principles of reading and writing.

The Date of The Commentary on the Gospel of John

Mahé, in the first decade of the twentieth century, disagreed with previous
scholars who suggested that The Commentary on the Gospel of John was written
after the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy. 189 These scholars have
presented two basic arguments. The first concerned Cyril showing some
progress in the use of the literal sense. Mahé responded by writing that the
change was due to the alteration of topic. He explained that in the De
Adoratione and Glaphyres, Cyril is demonstrating that the Old Law is a figure
of the New Law, but in the Commentary on John he understood the real value
of the “spiritual sense” and developed it with the “literal sense” or

187ACO 1.1.5 pp10–12. CPG 5310. A. J. Festugiére, trans., Ephèse et Chalcédoine

Actes des Conciles (Paris, Beauchesne, 1982), 528–531. McEnerney, 1.64.
188 Marrou, 312.
189 Mahé mentions the following preceding scholars: Bardenhewer, Patrologie

(1894); Ehehard, Die Cyrill von Alexandrien zugeschriebene Schrift in Theolog. Quartalschrift
(1888); and Batiffol, Littérature grecque Chrétienne (1897). In J. Mahé, “La date du
Commentaire de S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie sur l’Evangile selon S. Jean,” Bulletin de
Littérature Ecclésiastique 8 (1907): 41.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 61

“historic” sense. 190 The second involved the constant attack on

christological dualism, which is a clear characteristic of Nestorius’
Christology. Mahé rightfully argued the attack on christological dualism is a
general attack on the Antiochene Christology. In other words, Cyril was
following the footsteps of Athanasius and Apollinarius. Moreover, Mahé
argued that a careful examination of the christological terminology of the
Commentary on John clarifies that Cyril was not specifically attacking
Nestorius. The term Qeoto,koj was not mentioned once, in comparison to
the constant presence of the term in all Cyrillian literature after the outbreak
of the Nesotian controversy. 191 In addition to this point, other christological
terminology concerning the dual or one nature of Christ became more
precise in the writings after the Nestorian controversy in comparison to
what is used in the Commentary on John. 192 With these arguments Mahé set
once and for all the date of The Commentary on the Gospel of John to be before
428.
Current scholarship accepted the date of authorship of The Commentary
of the Gospel of John to be before 428. The question now is to determine how
many years before 428 the commentary was written? Jouassard’s work
constituted the first attempt to answer this question four decades later.
Jouassard began his argument by dividing Cyril’s work into two categories,
one before Nestorius and the other after Nestorius. 193 What survived of
Cyril’s work constitutes ten volumes of the Migne. Not to mention Mai’s
further collection and later discoveries of Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and
Arabic works not included in the Migne. 194 Therefore, if we confine our
reckoning—just for the sake of this argument—to the Migne collection we
find that the works written before the Nestorian controversy are as follows:

190 Mahé supplies a lengthy list of references from The Commentary on the Gospel of
John to support his argument in Mahé, “Date,” 42, 43.
191 Mahé, “Date,” 43.
192 Ibid., 44. He provided extensive reference to prove his argument.
193 G. Jouassard, “L’activité littèraire de saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie jusqu’à 428,”

Mélanges E. Podechard. Lyons: Facultés Catholiques (1945): 159–160.

194 N. Charlier, “Le Thesaurus de Trinitate de S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie,” Revue

d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 45 (1950): 33. Resources in other languages are catalogued in

Mavritti Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, Vol. 3 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1979), 1–
57. In addition, Jouassard mentioned that there are Armenian fragments from the
commentary on Ezekiel attributed to Cyril in the Bodleian Library. In Jouassard,
Activité, 162, n.2.
62 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

1. De Adoratione et Cultu in Spiritu et Veritate (peri. th/j evn pneu,mati

kai. avlhqei,a| proskunh,sewj kai. latrei,aj) (usually abbreviated as De
Adoratione) comprise PG 68.
2. Glaphyra (Glafura,) comprise PG 69.9–677.
3. Fragments from Cyril’s commentaries on Kings, Psalms, Canticle
of Moses, Proverbs, Canticle of Canticles comprise PG 69.679–1293.
4. Commentary on Isaiah comprises PG 70.9–1450. The rest of PG 70
comprises fragments from Commentaries on Jeremiah, Baruch, and
Daniel.
5. Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah,
Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Haggai) comprises
PG 71.
6. The continuation of the Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Zechariah
and Malachi) comprises PG 72.9–365. The rest of PG 72 has fragments
from the commentary on the Gospel of Matthew and that on the
Gospel of Luke.
7. Commentary on the Gospel of John PG 73.
8. The continuation of The Commentary on the Gospel of John comprises
PG 74.9–757.
9. Fragments from commentaries on Acts of the Apostles, Romans,
First and Second Corinthians, Hebrews, James, First and Second Peter,
First John, and Jude comprise PG 74.758–1026.
10. Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate (Qhsauro,j) comprises PG
75.9–656.
11. De Trinitate Dialogi i-vii PG 75.657–1124.
12. Paschal Letters from year 414–428 in PG 77.
This makes a total of more than seven volumes of the Migne written
before the Nestorian controversy. Seven of these volumes are exegetical
works. Only the Thesaurus and De Trinitate are non-exegetical. The order of
writing is rather difficult to deduce and awaits further research but we can
assert the following theories. Both De Adoratione and Glaphyra, are
expositions of selected Pentateuch passages, they are complementary works,
and both are anti-Arian writings. 195 These two treatises share with The
Commentary on the Gospel of John one commonality: they are exegetical works
geared towards anti-Arian polemics. Jouassard, Charlier, and Liebaert
suggested that these three writings are written within the same time frame.
Jouassard further proposed that De Adoratione, Glaphyra, and the
Commentaries on the Minor Prophets together with that of Isaiah were

195 Jouassard, Activité, 161. Charlier, Thesaurus, 42.

 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 63

written before 423. The Thesaurus and De Trinitate were written between 423
and 425. The Commentary on the Gospel of John was written at the beginning of
425. 196 Both Charlier and Liebaert strongly disputed this suggestion. The
summary of Jouassard’s position was that, in The Commentary on the Gospel of
John, Cyril insinuated that he would not repeat writing about a topic on
which he had previously written. However, it is necessary to note that, at
this point, Cyril was referring to the Thesaurus. 197 Both the De Trinitate and
Thesaurus are addressed to the same Memesinos. The Commentary on the Gospel
of John refers to De Trinitate. 198 Based on these three points Jouassard
deduced a connection between the three writings and that they had to have
been written one after the other. In the First Letter to Nestorius, Cyril
writes, “In fact, I say that, while Atticus of happy memory still lived, a book
concerning the holy and consubstantial Trinity was composed by me in
which also is a treatise about the Incarnation of the only begotten in
harmony with which I have now written.” 199 Atticus died in October 425.
Based on this comment in the letter, Jouassard set his chronology and
concluded that De Trinitate together with the Thesaurus were written
sometime between 423 and 425. If these two works preceded The
Commentary on the Gospel of John, then the latter was written beginning in 425.
All the rest of the Old Testament Commentaries were written before that
date because none of them include hints of anti-Arian polemic. 200
Charlier opposed Jouassard’s chronology. He, together with Liebaert,
agreed that the order of the composition is the Thesaurus followed by De
Trinitate and then the Commentary on John. Charlier firmly opposed the
fixation of the 425 date. For Charlier, and rightly so, when Atticus “was still
alive” could mean any time before his death on October 425. 201 Actually,
Atticus was enthroned on March 406 and the Thesaurus and De Trinitate
could have been composed as early as 406 when Cyril was twenty-eight
years of age. Charlier, together with Lebon, even suggested that The

196 Jouassard, Activité, 170.

197 Cyril remarks that he will not repeat what is said concerning the eternity of
the Word with the Father since this has been sufficiently discussed in this book,
referring to the Commentary, as well as in the Thesaurus (e;n te tw|/ prokeime,nv w|
bibliw|( kai. tw/| kat v evpi,klhn Qhsaurw/)| . In Jo. 1.81.
198 Cyril writes that the Son is by nature God and is not a creature. Commenting

on this statement, which is obviously addressed against the Arians, he says that this
is sufficiently discussed evn tw/| peri. th/j a`gi,aj Tria,doj lo,gw|) In Jo. 1.128.
199 ACO 1.1.1 pp2–25. CPG 5302. McEnerney, 1.35–36.
200 The details of this argument are in Jouassard, Activité, 164–166.
201 Charlier, Thesaurus, 62–63.
64 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Commentary on the Gospel of John is Cyril’s first exegetical work. Charlier based
his thesis on the two possible translations of Cyril’s comment in his
prologue to the Commentary on John where he writes, “avrxo,meqa de. th/j
vIwa,nnou suggrafh/j.” 202 This could be translated as “we begin the writing
of John” or “we begin with the writing of John.” The former means that the
writer is beginning the Commentary on John while the latter means that he will
begin his commentary enterprise with the Gospel of John. The second
translation suggests that the Gospel of John was the first exegetical work
written by Cyril. Charlier gave special attention to the introduction of the
Johannine commentary. He considered it an introduction to all of Cyril’s
exegetical scriptural writings, not only that of John’s Gospel. When comparing
the more fundamental character of the introduction and how it considers
scriptures in general it can be easily suggested that this is a general
introduction in comparison to other commentary books where the prologue
is particular to the text being examined. Another important observation is
that Cyril does not like repeating his explanation. In the Johannine
Commentary Cyril writes a long exposition on the “manna.” 203 He writes
this excursus without any reference to the Glaphyra which indicates that the
latter was not yet composed. 204 Based on these internal evidences it can be
safely concluded that The Commentary on the Gospel of John was the first
exegetical work that Cyril composed. 205 Finally, Jouassard insisted that it
was impossible for Cyril to compose any work during the lifetime of
Theophilus and thus the earliest that Cyril could possibly compose a work
would be in 412. 206 Liebaert footnoted the first paragraph of his book and
commented that it was very possible that Cyril began his literary activity
before his episcopal years. 207 It is to this point that we must now turn our
attention.
As discussed previously, Cyril must have followed the conventional
educational system available at his time and finished his primary, secondary,

202 In Jo. 1.7

203 In Jo. 1.457–470.
204 Charlier, Thesaurus, 60–61.
205 Though Charlier and Liebaert conclusively abated Jouassard’s argument

about the composition of John’s commentary in 425, the latter, twenty-seven years
later, wrote an article, without any further evidence, and insists that he still holds
his position regarding the 425 date. G. Jouassard, “La date des écrits antiariens de
saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie,” Revue Bénédictine 87, 1977 Maredsous (1977): 172–178.
206 Jouassard, Activité, 170–171.
207 J. Liebaert, La doctrine christologique de S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie avant la querelle

nestorienne (Lille: Facultés Catholiques, 1951), 11.

 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 65

and rhetoric schooling, thus completing his education, at most, by the age
of twenty-one. By that age, he received his secular education through
private tutoring in the patriarchate and his religious education in the Nitrean
desert. He was appointed to be a reader “in” and “of” the patriarchal
residence. Reading correctly the lectio continua involved a constant process of
interpretation. Therefore, Cyril as a reader of the patriarchal residence had
to delve at an early age, starting from the time when he was in the Nitrean
desert, to interpret scripture. Scriptural interpretation was truly his passion.
This is evident from the list of works collected in the first seven and a half
volumes of the Migne and before the outbreak of the Nestorian
controversy. Most probably, it was the Nesotrian controversy that
interrupted his exegetical work and prevented him from accomplishing a
complete exegesis of all the scripture. Until very recently, it was thought
that Cyril did not write exegetical works for the Major Prophets, except
Isaiah, until the discovery of one Armenian text for the interpretation of
Ezekiel. 208 It is clear that Cyril focused especially on biblical interpretation,
even though these biblical expositions were primarily geared towards
dogmatic interpretation as in the example of The Commentary on the Gospel of
John. For the sixteen years following the outbreak of the Nestorian
controversy we know that he wrote treatises that comprised two and a half
volumes of the Migne together with Homilies on the Gospel of Luke
preserved in Syriac. It was thus impossible for Cyril to write seven and a
half volumes of the Migne in the first sixteen years of his episcopacy [from
A.D. 412 to 428], including the extensive management of such a large
church as that of Alexandria. Most probably, after accompanying his uncle
Theophilus to the Synod of the Oaks in A.D. 403, Cyril began to think
seriously about putting his thoughts in writing. He had enough experience
by that time, gained confidence when he accompanied his uncle to such an
important event, and through his daily reader’s duties began to write his
exegetical writings. His residency in the patriarchate likely facilitated such an
activity. Cyril’s exegetical writings must have been guided by the following
process.
Prolific writers, such as Origen and Augustine, used dictation as their
means of composition. Eusebius describes the procedure as follows, “From
this time, however, Origen began his commentaries on the sacred
Scriptures, to which he was particularly urged by Ambrose who presented
innumerable incentives, not only by verbal exhortations but by furnishing
the most ample supplies of all necessary means, for he had more than seven

208 In Jouassard, Activité, 162, n.2.

66 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

secretaries when he dictated, who relieved each other at appointed times.

He had not fewer copyists, as also girls, who were well-exercised in more
elegant writing.” 209 Augustine wrote in Ep. 174, written in A.D. 416 to
Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, “…Since my plan could not be carried out on
account of the persons who got access to the books before I wished, I
discontinued my interrupted dictation, thinking to make a complaint about
this in some of my other writings, so that those who could might know that
those books had not been published by me but filched from me before I
thought them worthy of being published in my name.” 210 These two prolific
writers could not have been able to achieve their enormous output had they
not followed the dictation method while composing their works. Though
Cyril never mentioned that he used copyists or shorthand secretaries to
assist him in his writing, we know from both Origen and Augustine that
prolific writers could not have achieved this output without such help.
Therefore, we can reasonably assume that Cyril too was aided by secretaries
in the output of his work. Knowing that the patriarchal residence could
provide such assistance, Cyril must have made good use of it.
Publication, as we can deduce from the previous two quotes, was
private. Gamble describes the process as follows,
Authors who wished to make their work public had several ways
to do so. They might make or have made at their own expense,
several copies of an initial draft, which they would then
distribute to friends. This alone did not amount to publication
but constituted what we might think of as a referee procedure:
the author expected a private reading and response from the
recipients, with a view to revising and improving the work.
Alternatively, they might invite a small group of friends to a
reading (recitatio), at which the work, or parts of it, would be read
by the author and discussed by the gathered company. In these
ways an author made his work known, but only to a small and
sympathetic circle of acquaintances. The work remained
essentially private, under the author’s direct control, and was still
subject to revision. 211
Cyril was in an optimal milieu for such an extensive procedure to take
place. As a reader he developed his exegetical thought. He put his ideas into
words with the help of the resources present in the patriarchate. After
composition, he read extracts from his work to interested visitors who

209 Eusebius H.E. 6.23.1–2. PG 20.576. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, trans. C. F.

Cruse (MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 213.

210 In Gamble, 133. Augustine Ep. 174. PL 33.758.
211 Gamble, 83–4.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 67

constituted the inner circle of acquaintances. They were his critics, his
audience, and his supporters. This is supported by Severus’ comment that
after his return from Nitrea, “…and there Cyril dwelt with the patriarch in
his cell, and read aloud in his presence; and the priests and learned men and
philosophers were astonished at him,….” 212 Cyril always had the resources
and environment that facilitated and encouraged him to write beginning in
his early years. As to publication, this might have begun after he resided on
the episcopal seat. His fame and prominence as the pope of Alexandria
could be the reason for demand of copies of his work, or maybe it was even
after the Nestorian controversy that his works began to be more sought
after than ever.

Conclusion
Cyril was born of a family from Memphis, Upper Egypt. His mother,
together with her brother Theophilus, left Upper Egypt, after the death of
their parents, and headed north to Alexandria. On their arrival to the great
city of Alexandria, they visited the patriarchal residence where Athanasius,
who was pope at that time, took interest in Theophilus and his sister and
became their benefactor. Theophilus’ sister, the mother of Cyril, moved to
Mahalle in the Delta region where she got married. She gave birth to Cyril
in 378. In 385, when Cyril was seven, Theophilus became pope of
Alexandria and following the example of his benefactor Athanasius,
brought Cyril to Alexandria and oversaw his education in the patriarchal
residence. At the age of fourteen Cyril finished his primary education and
proceeded to the secondary level. At the age of seventeen Theophilus
decided to send his nephew to the Nitrean desert in order to continue his
education in spirituality, scripture, and morality, where the latter was
considered part of the main stream educational system of the time. Cyril
dwelt in the desert for five years under the guidance of Serapion the Wise
absorbing the desert spirituality from his teacher as well as from the other
great teachers and monastics of the time such as Macarius and Abba
Joseph. His relationship with the monks never dwindled, for when the
Nestorian controversy erupted, the monks were the first to receive a letter
concerning the situation of the church. When the tranquility of the desert
was disrupted by the Origenist controversy in 400, Theophilus summoned
Cyril to Alexandria. 213 At the age of twenty-one, Cyril resumed his

PO, 428.
212
213Tranquility does not mean the absence of noise around the vicinity of
monastic dwellings. Gleason gives an interesting description of the Egyptian desert
68 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

education in rhetoric for a year, or a maximum of two. Shortly after Cyril

arrived in Alexandria, Theophilus appointed him to the order of
avnagnw,sthj or reader. His position as reader included reading scriptural
texts during the liturgical services as well as reading in the patriarchal
residence to those who came to visit. Reading was a complicated process,
because the reader had to prepare the reading before hand by deciphering
lectio continua and this in its own terms involved interpretation. Reading was
considered a matter of interpretation. The process involved dedicated study
from Cyril. When he proved fit, he was appointed as reader-teacher. A
reader in the rank of di,daska,loj assigned to be a “Gospel-exegete.” This
position gave Cyril the opportunity to pursue his scriptural exegetical
interests. His presence in the patriarchal residence gave him the use of
many of its resources. He made use of the patriarchal library, benefited
from the presence of the grammarians and rhetors overseeing the
patriarchal correspondence and administrative affairs, and benefited from
the clergy, philosophers, and scholars who frequently visited the patriarch.
He occasionally attended lectures by scholars who either resided or visited
the School of Alexandria. Cyril was living in the cultural center of the world.
He had many opportunities and resources to nourish his education and
intellect. In 403, at the age of twenty-five, he accompanied his uncle
Theophilus to the Synod of the Oaks. This is the first official public
appearance of which we are aware, where Cyril was officially the secretary
of Theophilus.
His position as reader-teacher helped Cyril to gradually develop his
interest in exegesis. He began putting his ideas in writing by year 406
beginning with the Thesaurus and De Trinitate followed immediately by The
Commentary on the Gospel of John. These three texts were his very early
writings. His love for the Bible culminated in a lengthy list of commentaries
of most of the books of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Even
after his ascendancy to the episcopacy, he continued his exegetical writings
accompanied by the yearly Paschal Letters. His exegetical enterprise was

as a “busy place.” By “busy” she means the visits of “uninvited guests, colleagues,
potential disciples, clergy and lay visitors.” These visits included the exchange of
news as well as gossip. Maud Gleason, “Visiting and News: Gossip and Reputation-
Management in the Desert,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6:3 (Fall 1998): 502.
Therefore, what is meant by tranquility is when the activity of the desert reaches a
disturbing level as in the case of the Origenist controversy. During that time monks
had to choose sides, had to make statements of loyalty to opposing parties, and had
to prove their orthodoxy. When politics overtakes the lives of the residents of the
desert then we can say, that the tranquillity of the desert is disrupted.
 THE YEAR’S BEFORE CYRIL’S EPISCOPAL CAREER 69

interrupted in 428 by the Nestorian controversy; otherwise, he would have

continued his commentaries on the Major Prophets. The Nestorian
controversy consumed Cyril’s mind and activities and his writings reflected
this. After 428, Cyril’s work was devoted to polemical writings. His interest
in exegesis never abated. His sermons on the Gospel of Luke that were
delivered during his episcopacy combine his love for exegesis and his
preoccupation with the Nestorian controversy. He never seemed to find
time to write a commentary, but only to deliver it in homiletic style. In 444,
at the age of sixty-six, Cyril died leaving behind a huge amount of literature
for the following generations to ponder.
CHAPTER 2

THE TRINITY
Saint Cyril wrote The Commentary on the Gospel of John with the intention of
defending the faith against the false opinions (yeudodoxi,aij) of other
teachers (e,terodidaskalou,twn). Conscious of this aim, he decided to write
his commentary with a special focus on dogmatic issues; thus, he specified
his exposition as a “dogmatic exegesis” (dogmatikwte,ran ))) evxh,ghsin). 214
Consequently, the Prologue of John was a truly fertile place to launch a
detailed and long exposition of heretical teachings, one after the other; for
instance, the first verse of the Gospel took the first three chapters of Book
One to explicate. Throughout the commentary his focus never failed to
respond to a heresy when deemed appropriate. Nonetheless, the heresy that
most captured the attention of Cyril was that of Arius. 215 It will be noticed
that most dogmatic explanations emphasize, over and over again, the
divinity of the Son, the equality and unity of essence between the Son and
the Father, the fact that the Son is eternal, the unchangeable divine essence,
and the remaining doctrines that are directly threatened by Arian teachings.
Having this in mind, the commentary is still a very good place to begin
investigating the theology that Cyril embraced, because, while asserting the
orthodox doctrine against that of the Arians, the Biblical text gives him a
great opportunity to also speak about countless other topics.

214 In Jo. 1.7. Kannengiesser is of the opinion that St. Athanasius is the

“inventor of what one can call the ‘dogmatic exegesis’ which became one of the
principal forms of biblical interpretation throughout the great controversies of the
fourth and fifth centuries.” Charles Kannengiesser, “Athanasius of Alexandria and
the foundation of traditional Christology,” in Arius and Athanasius: Two Alexandrian
Theologians (Great Britain: Variorum, 1991), 110.
215 Apart from Arius, the catalogue of heresy includes, Origen, Eunomius, the

dualism of the Antiochenes (without specifying any names), Sabellius, and a special
attention to the Jews.
71
72 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Cyril’s theology is very much within the Alexandrian tradition. The

Church of Alexandria produced some prominent figures that shaped its
thinking and influenced the thinking of the catholic church. The most
famous were Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, and Didymus the
Blind. There are other writers whose literary works were not given the same
fame. For example, Dionysius of Alexandria, Peter of Alexandria,
Alexander of Alexandria, and Theophilus—Cyril’s uncle. This second group
of writers has not received much attention from researchers and therefore,
we cannot fully assess the impact of their writing on Alexandrian theology.
As to the first group we can glean some common aspects among them.
Clement of Alexandria set the tone of extensive use of biblical quotes when
he alluded to 1500 passages in the Old Testament and 2000 in the New
Testament. He also quoted 360 passages from the classics. 216 He placed
classical education at the service of Christian doctrine. He set some
standards for Christian writing, standards that were necessary for it to
achieve any chance of recognition in the pagan world. Origen followed with
his leading role in Biblical commentaries. He also pioneered in Biblical
textual criticism when he put the Hexapla together. The Church of
Alexandria also produced St. Athanasius. Quasten writes that Athanasius’
“knowledge of Scripture, his skill in debate and the depth of his conviction
have gained the admiration of succeeding generations.” 217 Didymus the
Blind, the last known head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, was
reported by Palladius to have “interpreted the Old and the New Testament
word by word, and such attention did he pay to the doctrine, setting out the
exposition of it subtly yet surely, that he surpassed all the ancients in
knowledge.” 218 Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, and Didymus
the Blind all focused on scripture, either to write commentaries, or to quote
from it extensively, that led later scholars to notice and comment on this
phenomena. The focus on scripture was a trait found throughout
Alexandrian theology.
Alexandrian theology is primarily a Biblical theology. By Biblical
theology we mean a theology that uses Biblical terms, is based on Biblical
verses, and uses ideas and references directly quoted from or alluding to the
Bible. The commentary is an exposition that is not based on systematic
theology, since most arguments are not conducted on a philosophical basis.
Therefore, a Biblical exegetical text written to address dogmatic issues is an

216 Quasten, Patrology, 2.6.

217 Ibid., 3.23.
218 Ibid., 3.86.
 THE TRINITY 73

extremely good place to begin investigating the theology of its writer. We

can even argue that such a text could be a very good representation of
Cyril’s theology because of the vast number of topics and issues that a
Gospel text covers. In addition, the exegesis of the fourth Gospel is most
suited for such investigation because of the Gospel’s theological focus.
Furthermore, the commentary was written before the Nestorian
controversy and thus reveals the theology of Cyril before the heated
Nestorian debate. Most of the scholarly work connected to Cyril focused on
the post-Nestorian texts, especially the texts that deal directly with the issue
of the debate. 219
A theological study of The Commentary on the Gospel of John is certainly
extremely significant. The commentary is almost intact except for two
books, books seven and eight, that have been collected from fragments and
catenae. Therefore, the possibility of interpolations into the text is reduced
to a minimum. The commentary is thoroughly comprehensive in its subject
which gives one a broader view of Cyril’s theology, amending the excessive
scholarly focus on his Christology at the expense of the larger Trinitarian
picture. The intent of the study is to put the theology of Cyril within
perspective of other topics that were not discussed in other studies. For
example, subjects such as the Trinity, will and free choice, heretical dogmas,
the Gospel message and spirituality, the newness of life, teachers and
teaching in the church, and many other topics. Since each of the topics just
mentioned is a research project of its own, this chapter will be confined to
the study of the Trinity.
This chapter will begin by highlighting the theological background that
guided Cyril in his theological undertaking. Following this is a clarification
of what Cyril means by the terms “God” and “Trinity,” then we will discuss
each person of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The
interrelationship that guides and binds the activity of each person of the
Trinity will then be explored. Finally, the research will examine the oneness
of the Trinity and how it is directly related to understanding the oneness of
Christ. 220

219 For example, there is no known study that discusses the homilies delivered
on the Gospel of Luke after the Nestorian debate. Scholars have focused primarily
on Nestorian polemical texts.
220 Brian Daley pointedly writes at the opening paragraph of his article that

“One of the strange twists of modern Patristic studies is the lack of attention paid
by scholars to Cyril of Alexandria’s theology of the Trinity, despite the relatively
large place that Mystery occupies in the bulk of his writing. The reason, of course,
is that the study of early Christian theology in both East and West, since the time of
74 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Theological background
As discussed in the previous chapter, Jerome shared mutual correspondence
with Theophilus and this raised the question among some scholars
concerning Cyril’s acquaintance with the literary products of Jerome. In
addition, we know that Cyril was aware of the writings of Didymus the
Blind, since both belonged to the same school of thought. Liébaert, in a
detailed study of Cyril’s Thesaurus and after comparing the method of
argumentation, style, and vocabulary, concluded that Cyril most probably
used Didymus’ Adversus Eunomium IV-V. 221 However, what Liébaert was
most certain about is that, while writing the Thesaurus, Cyril entirely
reworked Athanasius’ Contra Arianos. Cyril added some personal touches to
the Athanasian work but, as a whole, the personal additions are rather slim.
This opinion was based on a detailed comparison of the two texts, the
Thesaurus and Contra Arianos. 222 Liébaert also concluded that Cyril did not
borrow from Basil, or Gregory of Nyssa, or Epiphanius. It is quite striking
that Cyril’s sources were without exception Alexandrian. Apart from the
influence of Athanasius, Didymus the Blind is possibly the only other
source for Cyril’s Thesaurus. 223
Cyril did not deny the impact of St. Athanasius on his thought and
repeatedly mentioned Athanasius in his correspondence. Cyril referred to
Athanasius eighteen times in his letters. A certain priest by the name of
Alypius compared the struggle of Cyril to keep the faith during the Council
of Ephesus to “the martyrdom of the thrice-blessed Athanasius” (to.
martu,rion tou/ trismakari,ou vAqanasi,ou). 224 Cyril himself repeatedly

the Reformation at least, has been dominated by Dogmengeschichte: by the

investigation of how the classic shape of Christian orthodoxy developed, in the
controversies and arguments that paved the way for the creeds, canons, and
conciliar definitions accepted as normative by the mainstream Christian churches.”
Brian Daley, The Fullness of the Saving God: Cyril of Alexandria on the Holy Spirit, in
Theology of Cyril of Alexandria, ed. Thomas Weinandy and Daniel Keating (New
York: T&T Clark, 2003), 113.
221 J. Liébaert, La doctrine christologique de S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie avant la querelle

nestorienne (Lille: Facultés Catholiques, 1951), 56–63.

222 Ibid., 63–4. The comparison between both texts, the Thesaurus and Contra

Arianos is summarized into two tables in Ibid., 24, 25–27.

223 Ibid., 63.
224 ACO 1.1.3 74,3. Even during his lifetime, Cyril was already compared to his

predecessor in many ways. He was even called the “son of Athanasius.” (fils
d’Athansase), quoted in H. Du Manoir, Dogme et Spiritualité chez S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie
(Paris: L. Vrin, 1944), 18.
 THE TRINITY 75

referred to Athanasius as “my father.” This is how Cyril describes

Athanasius in his first letter to the monks: “In any event, our father
Athanasius, of hallowed memory, adorned the throne of the Church of
Alexandria for the whole of forty-six years and arrayed an unconquerable
and apostolic knowledge in battle against the sophistries of the unholy
heretics and greatly gladdened the world by his writings as by a most
fragrant perfume and all bear witness to the accuracy and piety of his
teaching.” 225 Cyril’s understanding that his predecessor had an “apostolic
knowledge” and that his writings were accurate and the product of piety
and describing the writings as “most fragrant perfume” just indicates to
what extent Cyril held the writing of Athanasius in his heart. Cyril even
acknowledged that he does not depart from his father’s writings: “That we
follow the doctrines of the holy Fathers in all ways, and especially of our
blessed and all-glorious father, Athanasius, praying earnestly not to depart
from him in anything at all.” Cyril had a copy of all of Athanasius’ works
and when “some have published a corrupt text of the letter of our all-
glorious father, Athanasius,” Cyril was aware of the corruption and alerted
Epictetus to the interpolation. 226 Cyril also considered Athanasius as a
confessor of the faith when he addressed him as “the most holy and most
blessed Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria and confessor.” 227
Since Cyril’s Thesaurus depended primarily on Athanasius’ Contra
Arianos, and because The Commentary on the Gospel of John is also a work
against Arius, we need to understand the basic Athanasian theological
framework by which Cyril was influenced. Athanasius was the champion
that confronted Arius, instrumental in formulating the Nicean Creed, a
bishop of the Church of Alexandria, and the benefactor of Theophilus. All
of the previously-mentioned points can only affirm the direct and indirect
influence Athanasius exerted on Cyril. It should be emphasized that this is
not a comparative study of Cyril and Athanasius nor is it meant to affirm
the influence of Athanasius on Cyril; rather, reference to Athanasius will be
used to explain the framework within which Cyril operated. Thus, we will
proceed with presenting the main framework of Athanasius’ On the
Incarnation, as this work represents a summary of the author’s theology and
we can consider it some sort of an Athanasian manifesto.

225 ACO 1.1.1 p10–23. CPG 5301. McEnerney, 76.15.

226 ACO 1.1.5 p15–20. CPG 5339. McEnerney 76.151–2.
227 ACO 1.1.7 p146; McEnerney 77.183. In addition, Cyril called him “the thrice

blessed” or “the blessed and noble.” Ibid., 76:117; 76:166; 77:57; 77:66; 77:185.
Cyril also called Athanasius, “the most pious bishop” and in the same letter he also
called him “the most God-fearing bishop.” Ibid., 77.2,4; 77:92–3.
76 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

On the Incarnation begins with the story of the creation and fall. God
created the world through the Word. God also created the universe out of
nothing and created man after his own image, the image of the Word. His
own image entailed having a portion of the power of the Word, and being
endowed with reason that would enable them to live in everlasting
happiness. 228 God created man with a free will, knowing that man could
choose good or evil. In anticipation of man’s ability to sway to either side
God guarded man in the garden and gave man the law. If our first parents
keep the commandments, they keep the life of eternal incorruption in
heaven. On the other hand, if they transgress, they suffer corruption by
death. Transgression made humans return to their original state—they came
out of nothing and after the transgression they returned to nothing. God’s
goodness could not let man go to waste and suffer corruption and death.
Only through the Word, in whose image we were created and through
whom the world came to be, can corruption and death be overcome. For
this purpose the incorruptible, incorporeal, and immaterial Word of God
becomes incarnate. He takes a real body like ours from a virgin. By that he
would turn men towards incorruption and abolish death by his resurrection.
Corruption cannot be overcome except by death. Since the Son cannot
suffer death, the incarnation was the only means by which the Son would
have a human body that suffers death. He died on behalf of humanity and
satisfied the debt of death incurred by the transgression. Now, we die
awaiting the general resurrection instead of being subject to condemnation.
The Word did not suffer any change when he became Incarnate. When
he was “circumscribed in the body” he was not absent elsewhere, nor when
he was active in the body was the “universe left void of His working and
Providence.” 229 The Incarnate Word did things as man and God. When
Gospel writers “speak of Him as eating and drinking and being born, they
mean that the body, as a body, was born and sustained with the food proper
to his nature; while God the Word, who was united with it, was at the same
time ordering the universe and revealing Himself through His bodily acts as
not man only but God. Those acts are rightly said to be His acts, because
the Body which did them did indeed belong to Him and none other;
moreover, it was right that they should be thus attributed to Him as Man, in
order to show that His body was a real one and not merely an

228 Athanasius, de incarnatione 3 (PG 25.101).

229 Athanasius, de incarnatione 17 (PG 25.125).
 THE TRINITY 77

appearance.” 230 Therefore, according to Athanasius, the works belonging to

the body prove the reality of the incarnation and oppose all docetic
accusations. On the other hand, divine works are to affirm his divinity. His
works manifested him as God and man. Since our salvation requires the
two components, the divine and the human, the Incarnate Word had to
manifest the presence of both components within him at all times through
his works. The Son of God is “living and active.” 231 He took a body and
appropriated it “as His own.” So, it is impossible for the body to remain
dead, because it has become the “temple of life.” 232 The body “died as
mortal, but lived again because of the life within it; and its resurrection is
made known through its works.” 233
The conclusion of Athansius’ treatise is summed in his famous phrase,
“For He was made man that we might be made god (qeopoihqw/men).” 234
This statement summarizes the main aim of the incarnation according to
Athanasius and the Alexandrian fathers who preceded and followed him.
The salvific act of the Word had to ensure overcoming death and
incorruptibility and thus restore man to the original image of God. This act
requires the Word who is the creator, and only the creator can restore his
creation. “That we might be made God” is the act of restoring creation.
Therefore, when Arius proposed the idea that the Word is not fully divine,
Athanasius could not accept this because his point was that without the
presence of the full divinity in the Incarnate Word the ability of restoration
is reduced to nil. By the same token, when Nestorius suggested that the
humanity assumed is not that of the Word but assumed by grace Cyril saw a
great threat to the theme of salvation. The Incarnate Word must take
humanity “as His own” so that through it He is able to restore the divine
image. If the humanity is not “His own” how will the Word restore
creation? The image presented by Athanasius in On the Incarnation of the Word
is the crucial thesis by which all the church adjusted her orthodoxy. This

230 Athanasius, de incarnatione 18. St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, trans. & ed.
by a Religious of C.S.M.V (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003),
46.
231Athanasius, de incarnatione 31 (PG 25. 149).
232 Ibid.
233 Ibid.
234 Athanasius, de incarnatione 54 (PG 25.192). For studies on the “divinization”

in the Early Church refer to J. Gorss, The Divinization of the Christian according to the
Greek Fathers, trans. Paul A. Onica (Anaheim, California: A&C Press, 2002). Johan
Leemans, “God became Human in order that Humans might become God”: A Reflection on
the Soteriological Doctrine of Divinization (Leuven: University Press, Peeters, 2000).
78 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

main framework was the guiding pattern of Cyril. Any theological

innovation that would jeopardize this scheme of salvation had to be
conformed with Athanasius’ treatise, Contra Arianus, must also be
understood on the basis of ideas expressed in On the Incarnation. Thus,
during the study of Cyril’s work we cannot avoid referring to this
Athanasian main theme when suitable. This explains why Cyril had
difficulty in accepting or refuting some ideas. If the ideas presented by
anyone do not conform to this scheme they are usually labeled “false
opinions” (yeudodoxi,aij). 235 Moreover, for Cyril, they had to be opposed
resulting in the product of this exegetical work.

God
Cyril explained that for someone to claim that he believes in God, this
belief should be in God the Father, the Son, the Son who became incarnate,
and the Holy Spirit. 236 According to Cyril, if one was satisfied with the faith
in “God” and that this one word is sufficient to encompass this faith, then
their faith is that of Judaism. But the faith, that is, the faith of the
Christians, should indicate the acceptance of the name of the Son (to. o;noma
tou/ Ui`ou/) and thus include the acceptance of the evangelical preaching
(khrugma,twn euvaggelikw/n). 237 Believing in the Son alone is not sufficient;
in addition to the name it must entail the belief in His incarnation and in the
Holy Spirit.
Cyril wrote this with a clear intention to refute the Jewish
understanding of God that does not include the three persons of the
Trinity. Though the argument is formed with an apologetic intent, it reveals
how Christians are supposed to define and understand their triune God.
Christians should have a faith that believes in the holy and consubstantial
Trinity (a`gi,a kai. o`moou,sioj Tria.j) where each person of the Trinity
differs in name (tai/j tw/n ovnoma,twn diaforai/j) and quality of persons
(tw/n prosw,pwn poio,thsi,) and each person has a distinct or separate
property (ivdio,thsi diaste,lletai). 238 Cyril explained further what he meant

235In Jo 1.7.
236dei/ ga.r pisteu,ein tou.j oi[ ge fronou/sin ovrqw/j( ei;j ge Qeo.n Pate,ra( kai.
ouvc a`plw/j eivj Ui`o.n( avlla. kai. evnanqrwph,santa* kai. eivj to. Pneu/ma to. [Agion)
In Jo. 2.401.
237 Ibid.
238 Ibid. At this point of the argument, Cyril focused on the differing names of

the Trinity, and did not qualify what he meant by the “quality of persons” nor
distinguished property. In other parts of his commentary, as will be discussed
 THE TRINITY 79

by differing names of the Trinity. He wrote that the Father is not the Son,
nor is the Son the Father. Also the Holy Spirit belongs to the Godhead
(i;dion th/j qeo,thtoj). 239 Although Cyril clearly emphasized each person of
the Trinity, he repeatedly insisted that he was speaking about only one God
(e[na Qeo.n). Cyril repeated himself again—as he usually did to affirm his
point—that it is not sufficient to affirm our faith by the simple statement
“We believe in God,” (Pisteu,omen eivj Qeo.n) rather we must explicitly say
that we believe in every person of the Trinity and attribute the same glory to
each person (e`ka,stw| prosw,pw| to.n auvto.n th/j do,xhj). Giving equal glory
to each person of the Trinity affirms our faith in the equality of each person
and that we confess equally each of the three persons and attribute equal
faith to each person. Nevertheless, this insistence on distinction is
accompanied by a unity of nature (e`no,thta fu,sewj) of the Trinity.
Distinction is accompanied by unity in one and the same thought. Once
Cyril asserted the unity of the Trinity, the argument is instantly followed by
pointing to the unity of the Son for there is only One Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor
8:6). 240 For Cyril, if we sever the two natures of the Incarnate Word then we
are separating the flesh from the Word and speak of two sons. He who
believes in the two sons then believes only in the flesh (ginwske,tw
pisteu,ein eivj mo,nhn th.n sa,rka). 241 Cyril found it very important to insist
that Christians must understand that the belief in one God must also entail
the belief in the Trinity, while at the same time keeping the unity of the
Trinity and affirming the One God.
Cyril explained that fully knowing that God is the origin and creator of
the universe is not sufficient. For knowing that God is only God (to. me.n
ga.r eivde,nai mo,non Qeo.n o;nta to.n qeo.n) does not differ much and
distinguish us from the Jewish belief in God. 242 Christians do have

further on, he explained the different activity of each person of the Trinity to
signify the separate property.
239 Ibid.
240 All scriptural quotes are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.
241 In Jo. 2.402.
242 In Jo. 2.682. Such comments raised questions about Jewish polemics in the

writings of Cyril. This exegetical work is a dogmatic exegetical work and Cyril is
defending the Christian faith against all those who have differing opinions. This
includes the Jews. Sensitivity towards Jewish issues has surfaced only in the last
century and we should not project our modern opinions shaped by recent historical
events on writings that were written centuries earlier in a very different social and
political setting. Wilken addressed this issue in a brief discussion of Jewish-
Christian relations especially in Alexandria during the first five centuries of the
80 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

knowledge of God that exceeds that of the Jews. This belief should affirm
that he is Father (avll v o[ti kai. Path.r) and the Father of the Son. In
addition, we have to clearly affirm that the Holy Spirit is one of the Trinity.
For Cyril to believe that God is creator is directly connected with the
Trinity for Let us make humankind in our image according to our likeness (Gen
1:26) signifies the Holy Trinity (h` a`gi,a Tria.j shmai,netai). 243 Cyril
acknowledged that the Jews (the men of ancient times, toi/j avrcaiote,roij)
had a difficult time understanding this, for neither was the Father named
nor was the Son manifest. 244 However, the Son gave us the Father’s name
(to. o;noma tou/ Patro.j) and brought us to perfect knowledge of himself
when he said, I have made your name known to those whom you gave me from the
world (Jn 17:6). 245
The Son did not only reveal the Father to the world he also added and
changed the Law. God established his commandments when he handed
them down to Moses. The Law was strict and straightforward, Thou shalt not
commit adultery. Nevertheless, we find Christ has the authority to add, but I
say unto you that you shall not covet. Cyril asserted that no one has ever
added or changed the word of God. Only Christ maintained the authority
to say, but I say unto you. Cyril explained that what Christ is really doing is
changing the type into truth (o` Cristo.j metatiqei.j ta. evn tu,poij eivj
avlh,qian). 246 Therefore, Christ is not under the Law but rather a
promulgator of the Law. Furthermore, Christ makes his own word that of
the Father (i;dion ou=n a;ra lo,gon to.n tou/ Patro.j evpoih,sato Cristo,j). 247
Since this is the case, the Word is in the Father and proclaims
(evxaggeltiko,j) the will of the Godhead (tw/n th/j qeo,thtoj qelhma,twn).
Then Cyril proceeded to the logical conclusion of his argument: if the Son
and the Word proclaims the will of the Godhead and promulgates the Law,
then he is indeed one with the Godhead. He proceeded on to give a clear
definition concerning what is the only true Godhead, it is the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit (qeo,thtoj de, fhmi th/j avlhqou/j kai. mo,nhj( h. evn Patri, te
kai. Ui`w|/ noei/tai kai. Agi,w| Pneu,mati). 248 Cyril again asserted that when

Church. R. L. Wilken, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind. A Study of Cyril of
Alexandria’s Exegesis and Theology (New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
1971), 1–68.
243 In Jo. 2.682.
244 Ibid.
245 Ibid.
246 In Jo. 2.712.
247 Ibid.
248 Ibid.
 THE TRINITY 81

he speaks about God he is really speaking about the Trinity. This quote was
not to make a polemical point against the Jews. He was asserting that the
God he is speaking about has to constantly include the image of the Trinity,
or else how can Cyril speak about the Word and the Holy Spirit if they are
not part of the Godhead.
Cyril offered an example of how to distinguish between ouvsi,a and
fu,sij to establish that the Father and the Son are of the same nature. He
explained the difference in the following way. There are two persons, with
the assumed names of Paul and Silvanus, who have different levels of
knowledge of the mystery of Christ. If we suppose that Paul has been fully
instructed in the mystery of Christ (pepaideu,sqw telei,wj to. evpi. Cristw|/
mustrh,rion) and Silvanus has lesser knowledge than that of Paul, does this
mean that they are not alike in nature (fu,sin) or that the essence (ouvsi,aj)
of Paul surpasses that of Silvanus? 249 No. Cyril did not accept the notion
that Paul and Silvanus are of different nature or essence because of their
divergent level of knowledge of the mystery of Christ. Having scrutinized
the matter according to his satisfaction, Cyril concludes that essence
(ouvsi,aj) is not defined according to its level of knowledge, whether of
learning or teaching. Consequently, the nature of the Son is not affected if
he says that I speak these things as the Father instructed me (Jn 8:28). Therefore, it
is not wrong to say that the Son is by nature God (ouvde.n avdikh,sei to.n
Ui`o.n eivj to. ei=nai kata. fu,sin Qeo.n) and will be of the same essence (th/j
pro.j auvto.n o`moousio,thtoj) as the Father. 250 The importance of this
example is that the nature (fu,sij) of God is not defined according to its
properties as having knowledge or lack of it. Neither is the nature of the
Son defined according to the properties of his person. The nature of God is
different from his essence (ouvsi,a) and we cannot use essence to define
nature. To speak about God is to speak about God’s nature and for this
Cyril had to compare it with the Son’s nature. To speak about God is to
speak about the Son and to speak about the Son is to speak about the
Trinity.
The Only-Begotten follows the laws of his own nature (avll v w`j
fu,sewj ivdi,aj qesmoi/j avkolouqw/n). 251 Moreover, the laws of his nature are
the same as that of the nature of God. Therefore, since both have the same
nature, the congruence of the behavior of the Son with that of the Father
must exist because how could the consubstantial and one Godhead ever be

249 In Jo. 2.49–50.

250 Ibid.
251 In Jo. 2.52.
82 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

in disagreement with itself? (pw/j ga.r a;n o[lwj h` o`moou,sio.j te kai. mi,a
qeo,thj au[th kaq v e`auth/j diconoh,sai pote,*) 252 Cyril proceeded to explain
that God the Father exists properly of his own by himself (u`fe,sthken ivdi,a)| ,
as do the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet the Trinity is not divided and the one
nature of the Godhead comes to its complete fullness in unity. 253 Again,
when Cyril discussed the Godhead and the nature of the Godhead, he
specifically highlighted the existence of each person of the Trinity and their
unity identifies the Godhead. For even if each person of the Trinity exists
on its own, they are not at variance in will or nature.
Speaking about God is speaking about the Trinity. When Cyril used
the term qeo,j he had in mind the three persons of the Trinity. Therefore, as
an extension of what it is to speak about God, we have to examine what
Cyril wrote about the Trinity.

Trinity
This section will inquire into the notion of the Trinity in Cyril’s
commentary. The Trinity is the main theological idea within which Cyril,
together with other early church writers, based their arguments. In Cyril’s
writings, this framework is expressed in the following Trinitarian formula:
All things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. This
formula expresses the activity within the Trinity and the relationship
between each person within the Trinity.
Cyril assured his readers that believing in the Trinity is justifiable
(dikaiou,meqa). 254 The Son himself ordered his disciples to preach the
Gospel to the nations by telling them Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
(Mt. 28:19). 255 Cyril argued that if having three different names for each
person of the Trinity contributes nothing towards our thoughts and
understanding (pro.j no,hsin) then why is there any commandment for us
believers to be baptized in the name of the Trinity rather than being
baptized into unity (mh. pro.j e`na,da)? 256 Thus, the three persons have a
genuinely special significance to our faith and each person of the Trinity

252Ibid.
253In Jo. 1.52–3.
254 In Jo. 1.27.
255 This verse has been traditionally used by the early fathers, following Basil’s

example in On the Holy Spirit (PG 32.67–217), to prove the divinity of the Holy
Spirit. Cyril approached the verse from a very different hermeneutical point of view
and used it to validate the belief in the Trinity.
256 In Jo. 1.28.
 THE TRINITY 83

exists as a person on his own (w`j evn uvposta,sei me.n ivdia|). 257 Since each
person of the Trinity has the same nature and none of the natures of the
divinity suffers change, we therefore have one Godhead and each person of
the Trinity has the same and equal worship. Cyril mentioned the exact idea
in very similar words when he commented on Jn 1:1 And the Word was with
God. Cyril insisted that we should distinguish each person of the Trinity and
acknowledge that each exists in their own person and not consider them as
one and the same lest the difference be that of name only. 258
Thus, believing in the Trinity is an integral part of our faith and this is
expressed from the early stages of our entering the faith, that is, on the day
of our baptism. If the existence of the Trinity does not contribute to our
mental understanding of the Godhead, there is no need to call the Father
“Father,” the Son “Son,” and the Holy Spirit “Holy Spirit.” In this case, it is
not for polemical reasons that we intellectually understand three persons,
but because it contributes directly to our vision of what our faith is.
Commenting on Gen 19:24, Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah
sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven, Cyril pointed out that the verse alerts
the reader to the presence of two Lords. One Lord sent the fire from
heaven, therefore one is the sender. Another rained on Sodom and
Gomorrah, the other accomplishes the command of sending the rain. It is
clear that the Father works everything through the Son (w`j o` Path.r diV
Ui`ou/ pa,nta evnergw/n). 259 The explanation that Cyril provided clarifies that
an activity—the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah—that involves the
Father and the Son is bound by the relationship of “dia.” The Father works
dia. “through” the Son. When Cyril expounded upon a verse that includes
two or more persons of the Trinity, he attempted to clarify the relationship
among the persons.
Cyril clarified when commenting on Jn 14:11, then believe me because of the
works themselves, that the Son is not an instrument (o;rganon) in the hands of
the Father. 260 Cyril explained that there is a great difference between the
way that Christ is in Paul and worked wonders through him and the works
of Christ himself. The indwelling of God the Father in Christ is quite

257 Ibid.
258 In Jo. 1.17.
259 In Jo. 1.28.
260 Cyril is speaking here about the Son being used as an instrument in achieving

the work of the Father. This is very different from the theological issue raised by
modern scholars about the human nature of the Son used as an instrument by the
divine nature. The issue of the human nature as an instrument will be considered
when we discuss the “Son.”
84 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

different from that of Christ in Paul. The Only Begotten is not a musical
instrument in the hands of the Father nor a saw in the hands of a skillful
carpenter. The Father does not work wonders (qaumatourgi,an) through the
Son reducing him to a mere instrument and making the Son alien to the
Father. 261 This is to clarify the dia. relationship between the Father and the
Only Begotten Son; it is not a relationship of instrumentality which would
subsequently reduce the Son to an alien from the essence of the Father. 262
The Son is of the same essence as that of the Father and is truly Son. If he
is not Son, then the Father is not Father and is not Father in truth (ouvk e;ti
ga.r e;stai path.r katV avlh,qeian o` Path,r). 263 It will follow that the Holy
Trinity is falsely named, if neither the Father is truly Father, nor the Son is
Son by nature. It will also follow then, corresponding to this view, that
there will be slander against the Holy Spirit. 264 Therefore, if we reduce the
Son to an instrument, it will follow that he is a creature and thus not of the
nature of the Father. Consequently he is not the Son of the Father and the
Father is not truly Father. Furthermore, if we attack the Father this will
affect the Holy Spirit. The result is that the whole idea of the Trinity will fall
apart. Therefore, the Trinitarian thought was very much embedded in
Cyril’s mind and he always ensured that nothing would pull it asunder.
Each person of the Trinity sheds light on the nature of the Trinity.
When Cyril expounded on Jn 8:19, If you knew me, you would know my Father
also he wrote that it is possible to have the most accurate and full knowledge
of the Father through the Son according to Psalm 139:6 where such
knowledge is too wonderful for me. Thus, since we know the Son we know who
begets him (evpeidh. ga.r evpe,gnwmen to.n Uio.n( evpe,gnwmen evx ouvtou/ to.n
gennh,santa). 265 Therefore, when we mention the Father the memory
(mnh,mh) of the Son is brought to our minds and the Son triggers the name
of the one who begets him. Therefore, the Son is the door and way to the
full knowledge (evpi,gnwsin) of the Father. 266 Subsequently, when we know
what the Son is by nature, and him being an image (eivko,noj) and an impress
(carakth/roj) of the Father we are able to know the archetype

261In Jo. 2.439.

262Ibid.
263 In Jo. 2.440.
264 yeudw,numoj ou=n a;ra pantelw/j h` a`gi,a Tria.j( mh,te tou/ Patro.j o;ntoj

kata. avlh,qeian patro.j( mh,te mh.n ui`ou/ kata. fu,sin tou/ Ui`ou/) avkolouqh,sei de.
avnalo,gwj tw/| qewrh,mati kai. h` kata. tou/ Pneu,matoj dusfhmi,a) In Jo. 2.440.
265 In Jo. 1.727.
266 Ibid.
 THE TRINITY 85

(avrce,tupon). 267 Gradually, we attain an incontestable conception of the

Holy Trinity. 268 Knowing one person of the Trinity leads us to know the
other persons and the Trinity as the Godhead. 269
Cyril asserted the same idea when he wrote that the persons of the
Trinity are alike in all things in natural properties (tw/n fusikw/n
ivdiwma,twn). 270 If some heretical opinion suggests that there is a Son other
than the Word, then the Holy Spirit will correspondingly have another one
equal with him. In this case we have a duality in the Trinity. In other words,
the Trinity has become double or twofold, and the divine nature is shown
to be composite. 271 Therefore, any duality in any person of the Trinity will

267 In Jo. 1.728.

268 Ibid.
269 Though we have demonstrated this notion from one example as illustrated

in Cyril’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, this very same idea is the basis of his
treatise De sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate. Cyril wrote an exposition on the Trinity in
the form of dialogue. Cyril explained in his introduction to the text that he chose to
write in dialogue genre because, as Quasten has elegantly rephrased Cyril’s words,
“the subtlety of the questions that he intends to answer demands the adoption of
this form.” Quasten, Patrology, 3.126. Regarding the topic of the Trinity, in his
prologue, Cyril lists the contents of his seven dialogues. The first six concern the
Son and the last and seventh concern the Holy Spirit. In the first six dialogues he
discusses the Son being co-eternal (sunai<dio,j) and consubstantial (o`moou,sioj) with
the Father. He is also generated by nature (kata. fu,sin gennhto.j) from the Father.
The Son is truly God as the Father. The Son is not created or made. The divine
properties (ta. th/j qeo,thtoj i;dia) of the Son are that of the Father. The human
properties are of the Son after his economy and not when he was the Word. The
last dialogue involves the Holy Spirit and is concerned to prove that the Holy Spirit
is God and of God by nature (o[ti kai. Qeo.j kai. evk Qeou/ kata. fu,sin). Cyrille
d’Alexandrie: Dialogues sur la Trinité, edited and translated by G. M. De Durand. SC,
vol. 231 (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1976), 128. In conclusion, when Cyril wanted
to dedicate a treatise speaking about the Trinity, his approach is to speak about the
properties and nature of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the method that
Cyril uses to approach the Trinity is through discussing the properties and nature of
each person of the Trinity demonstrated from the above example in the text of the
commentary. This research will not proceed to investigate this idea in the dialogues,
rather it will restrict the research to the text of the commentary. It is important to
observe that Cyril focused his discussion in the dialogues as well as the commentary
on issues that are threatened by the Arian controversy and, therefore, tries to assert
the divinity of the Son, as well as that of the Holy Spirit.
270 In Jo. 1.58.
271 ge,gonen ou=n h`mi/n h` Tria.j evn diplw/|( kai. evn sunqe,sei loipo.n qei,a

fai,netai fu,sijÅ In Jo. 1.58–9.

86 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

lead to a duality of the Trinity. To keep the Trinitarian system intact, Cyril
must attribute to each person the same and exact properties in order to
preserve the oneness and the unity of the Trinity.
In most cases Cyril summarized his discussion about the Trinity by a
formula that clarifies the relationship of each person within the Trinity. He
usually affirms or concludes his discussion with the statement “for all things
are by the Father through the Son in the Spirit” (pa,nta ga.r para. Patro.j
diV Ui`ou/ evn Pneu,mati). 272 Thus, we will proceed to follow the discussions
that lead to this Cyrillian formula and understand the context in which he
used it.
When commenting on Jn 17:23 I in them and you in me, that they may
become completely one, Cyril used the verse to express the relationship between
the Father and the Son, as well as that of the Trinity. Cyril began with the
economy that has taken place for the salvation of our souls; that is, the
starting point of his argument to expound this verse is the Incarnation. Cyril
described the Word leaving his equality with God the Father following the
theme of the second chapter of Philippians. Therefore, the Word stepped
out of heaven leaving his glory and equality with the Father and emptied
himself—He, who from old and before the beginning, is worshiped with
the Father. Cyril implied, based on the Philippians text, that this worship
included the flesh. The flesh that is earthly, perishable, and of human form,
is intellectually of the Word’s nature. This nature that is required by
necessity is his own for he was in the form and equality with the Father. 273
When he took an earthly temple from the Virgin’s womb, once and for all,
it became represented (paradecqei.j) as the body of the Word and thus
became accounted as one with him. 274 For Christ is one, and the Son is one,
even when he became man. 275 As a result, Cyril wrote that the Son, after his
ascension, is in union with the Father, taking worship equal to that of the
Father as based on Phil. 2:9–11. Even though the flesh is not of the
Father’s nature and does not enjoy union with God, it is one with the Word
and is in union with the Father. Following this explanation, Cyril gives this

272 To mention a few references: In Jo. 1.67–69; 1.126–128; 1.292–295; 1.537–

539; 2.431–434; 2.534–541; 2.660–661; 3.2–3.

273 o` pa,lai kai. evx avrch/j evnupa,rcwn meta. Patro.j de,cetai tou/to meta.

sarko.j( tou/ ghi<nou te kai. evpikh,rou periblh,matoj kai. th/j avnqrwpei,aj morfh/j(
th/ w`j evn lo,gw| fhmi. tw|/ fusikw/| nooume,nhj( avpaitou,shj avnagkai,wj( kaqa,per evn
ca,ritoj me,rei( to. fu,sei proso.n auvtw/|) h=n ga.r kai. e;stin evn morfh|/ kai. ivso,thti
tou/ Patro,j) In Jo. 3.1–2.
274 In Jo. 3.2.
275 ei-j ga.r o` Cristo.j kai. ei-j Ui`o.j( kai. o[te ge,gonen a;nqrwpoj) In Jo. 3.2.
 THE TRINITY 87

brief concluding summation, “If one ought to speak more concisely and
more clearly, the Only-Begotten says that what was given to him was given
to his own flesh. Indeed, given totally by the Father, through himself, in the
Spirit.” 276 He then elaborated on this statement and further explained that
in no other way can we have union with God except intellectually (nooi/to)
through Christ when he manifested himself and became man. The union
with the Spirit, which was a union without confusion with God the Word
and in an inexpressible way, sanctified the flesh. Furthermore, through this
union we are united with the Father permanently, albeit not in a physical
way.
This elaborate exegesis of Jn 17:23 I in them and you in me, that they may
become completely one leads us to the following conclusions. First, Cyril had in
mind the Athanasian theme of salvation, where, God, in order to save
humanity, had to send the Word and take flesh and become man, and
through his incarnation he is able to lead humanity to deification.
Therefore, Cyril followed the Philippian scheme of divine kenosis and lets
the Word be united with flesh. He takes the earthly temple, once and for all,
not only for the duration of his earthly ministry, but permanently, and takes
humanity as his own and as part of his nature. With this permanent union,
he receives worship and glory equal to that of the Father. Moreover, with
this permanent union, he causes the sanctification and deification of
humanity. Through our sanctified state we are united with the Father.
Therefore, the Father has sanctified us and united us with him through his
Son, and all this could not be done except in the Spirit. Clearly, for Cyril,
the incarnation was the work of the Trinity and not simply one person.
Once again Cyril explained a verse where the relationship between the
Father and the Son needs to be clarified. Jn 14:11 reads, Believe me that I am
in the Father and the Father is in me. Cyril explained that there is nothing that
intervenes and separates the one from the other into different natures. For
he is consubstantial (ovmoou,sioj) with his own begetter and nothing can
separate one from the other, for he is one in essence (ouvsi,a|) with the
Father. 277 To make himself clear, Cyril gave the example of the offspring of
human beings. Our offspring are of the same human nature as ourselves
though each is physically distinct from the other. In the case of humanity
we evidently share a common essence and thus cling together only
physically or draw together in a certain manner. However, each tends to go

276 kai. eiv crh, ti suntomw,teron kai. safe,steron eivpei/n( e`autw/| dedo,sqai

fhsi.n o` Monogenh.j to. doqe.n th/| ivdi,a| sarki,) doqe.n de. dh. pa,ntwj para. Patro.j
di v auvtou/ evn Pneu,mati) In Jo. 3.2.
277 In Jo. 2.431.
88 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

their own different way and each withdraws to their own self. 278
Nevertheless, this is not the case with God. For the Father is personally a
Father and not a Son. Similarly, he who comes of him is Son and not Father
and the spirit is peculiarly Spirit. 279 Since the Holy Trinity is together and
joined in one Godhead we therefore have one God. 280 Due to this unity, no
one person of the Godhead will withdraw to itself as a human does. After
Cyril explained how the Son proceeds from the Father and the Holy Spirit
proceeds from God he concluded with his famous formula that sums up his
understanding of the relationship among the Trinity by writing, “for all
things are through the Son in the Holy Spirit” (pa,nta ga.r di v Ui`ou/ evn
Pneu,mati `Agi,w)| . 281 Cyril insisted on the individuality of each person of the
Trinity. This individuality does not lead to withdrawal or separation as
happens among human beings, but, because all things are through the Son
in the Holy Spirit, the unity is preserved and the one Godhead is guarded.
We have one God among us.
John the Evangelist writes in Jn 1:10, and the world came into being through
him (kai. o` ko,smoj di v auvtou/ evgeneto). The verse is clear in asserting that
the Word is the creator and not a creature and thus is of equal divinity with
the Father. 282 The Son alone, as creator, has the power to reign over his
creation and is thus equal to God. 283 However, most important of all the
world came into being through him, makes us think of thought (e;nnoian) of the
Father and leads us to know the “of whom” (evx ou-) and “through whom”
(di v ou-) in the process of creation. “For all things are by the Father through
the Son in the Holy Spirit” (pa,nta ga.r para. Patro.j di v Ui`ou/ evn `Agi,w|

278Ibid.
279 ivdiazo,ntwj me.n ga.r path,r evstin o` Path.r( kai. ouvc Uvio,j) kai. pa,lin
o`moi,wj Ui`o.j o` evx auvtou/ kai. ouv path.r( kai. pneu/ma to. Pneu/ma ivdi,wj) In Jo.
2.431–2.
280 In Jo. 2.432.
281 Ibid.
282 At this point, Cyril tried to assert the divinity of the Son, obviously in

response to the Arian polemics.

283 Cyril, at this point of his discourse (In Jo. 1.100), writes that he already

discussed in the Discourse concerning the Holy Trinity (tw/| peri. th/j a`gi,aj
Tria,doj lo,gw|) about the divinity of the Son. This leads us to conclude, first, that
the commentary was composed after his Dialogue on the Trinity. Second, that
Cyril, once he discussed a point and elaborated on it, does not rewrite it again in
another treatise. He does not repeat himself. Third, the Trinity is a topic that is of
such paramount importance to him that he devoted a treatise to it. In fact, the
Trinity is such an important topic to Cyril that he decided to write a separate
treatise on it before proceeding with his exegetical work.
 THE TRINITY 89

Pneu,mati). 284 Therefore, when the thought of creation was in the mind of
the Father, the work of creation was done through the Son and all in the
Spirit.
On another occasion Cyril discussed the manner in which the Word
ascended into heaven. The Word accomplished this through his own power
(du,namij) being the Power and Wisdom of the Father. Everything is done
by the Father not apart from the Son (pa,nta me.n ga.r para. tou/ Patro.j
plh.n ouv di,ca tou/ Ui`ou/). 285 That is why John the Evangelist writes, all
things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being (Jn
1:3). Consequently, since the Son is consubstantial with the Father, it
follows “that all things are of the Father through the Son totally in the
Spirit” (o[ti pa,nta me.n evk Patro.j( di v Ui`ou/ de. pa,ntwj evn Pneu,mati). 286
Cyril defined work in a different way. It is not only “work” as in the process
of creation but also “work” as ascending into heaven. Any kinetic energy
(evne,rgeian ki,nhsij) 287 exerted is considered “work” or considered an
activity of the Son. Thus, any activity of the Godhead is done through the
Son and totally in the Spirit.
When Cyril commented on Jn 4:34, My food is to do the will of him who sent
me and to complete his work he began to explain that the work referred to in
this verse is to send the Son, and this is understood to be with respect to
the incarnation (kata. to.n th/j evnanqrwph,sewj tro,pon). 288 Therefore, the
work in this verse presents Christ as the fulfiller or accomplisher
(teleiwth,j) of God’s work. He was sent to complete the work of salvation.
Cyril concludes with the explanation that “all things are by the Father
through the Son in the Spirit” (pa,nta ga.r para. Patro.j di v Ui`ou/ evn
Pneu,mati). 289 Here the work of the Son is completing the redemptive work
through the Incarnation.
Cyril commented on Jn 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the
vinegrower to reflect on the relationship between the Father and the Son
within the understanding of the Trinity. Christ is the vine who mothers and
nurtures his branches. For we are begotten of Him and in Him in the Spirit
to bring fruits of life (avnegennh,qhmen ga.r evx auvtou/ te kai. evn auvtw/| evn
Pneu,mati pro.j karpofori,an zwh/j). 290 The nurturing work of the Son is

284 In Jo. 1.128.

285 In Jo. 2.661.
286 Ibid.
287 Ibid.
288 In Jo. 1. 293.
289 Ibid.
290 In Jo. 2.535.
90 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

accomplished in the presence of the Spirit. It is a new life accompanied with

faith and love towards him. The newness in us is maintained by our keeping
the commandments that have been handed down to us. Cyril constantly
declared that we should have an active role in our salvation and suggested
that observing the commandments is considered one such activity. 291 We
can keep the commandments by not grieving the Holy Spirit that is dwelling
within us. For all who obey his commandments abide in him, and he abides in them.
And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit that he has given us (1 Jn
3:24). For by not grieving the Holy Spirit dwelling in us we attain Christ in
us and we in Him. His dwelling within us nurtures us. For just as the root
of the vine distributes to the branches enjoyment of its natural quality
(poio,thtoj fusikh/j) so does the Word give the nature of God the Father
to us through the inspiration of the Spirit. When the Father gets the title of
husbandman (gewrgo.n), that does not mean that the Father is doing
nothing or that he is idle while the Son is nourishing and perfecting human
nature in the Spirit. Rather, the whole work of rectification is done by the
holy and consubstantial Trinity (o[lhj de. w[sper th/j a`gi,aj kai. o`moousi,ou
Tria,doj e;rgon evsti.n h` tw/n kaq v h`ma/j evpano,rqwsij). 292 This power and
wisdom to perform these actions belong to the whole Trinity. We call God
a savior. At the same time, we do not attribute the salvific work partly to
the Father, and partly to the Son or the Holy Spirit. We call our salvation
the work of one Divinity (avll v o;ntwj th/j mia/j qeo,thtoj kato,rqwma
le,gontej th.n e`autw/n swthri,an). 293 Although we divide the activity of
creation among the three persons of the Trinity, all things are from the
Father through the Son in the Spirit (pa,nta ga.r para. Patro.j div Ui`ou/ evn
Pneu,mati). 294 Therefore, as the work of creation was done by the Trinity so
the Father nourishes us in piety through the Son in the Spirit (o[ti tre,fei
me.n h`ma/j eivj euvse,beian o` Path.r di v Ui`ou/ evn Pneu,mati). 295 Cyril did
consider that each person of the Trinity could have a separate activity when
dealing with humanity. For the Son is the vine and the Father is the
husbandman and we cannot be nourished by one separate from the other.
Cyril concluded his argument once again by confirming that all things are
from the Father by the Son and in the Spirit (pa,nta ga.r para. Patro.j di v
Ui`ou/ evn Pneu,mati). 296 Cyril made it even more clear by asserting that there

291 In Jo. 2.409.

292 In Jo. 2.536.
293 Ibid.
294 In Jo. 2.537.
295 Ibid.
296 Ibid.
 THE TRINITY 91

is no division of activity, though we may consider varied aspects of activity

(evkei/ to. th/j evnergei,aj ouv memerisme,non( ka;n poiki,lwj te kai. diaqo,rwj
evnergei/sqai tuco.n nooi/to, tini). 297 For there is only one substance
(ouvsi,aj) that is the true Godhead that is conceived in three persons.
Throughout this argument Cyril attempted to explain the diversity of divine
operations while establishing the unity of the essence of the Trinity.
Cyril also discussed another activity done by the Trinity in unity. He
explained the meaning of the verse Just as the living Father sent me (Jn 6:57).
Cyril clarifies that the word “sent” cannot mean anything other than the
Incarnation. He therefore investigates the operation of the Incarnation. It is
written he was sent by the Father, that is, he was incarnate by the Father. At
the same time, Gabriel attributes the making of the divine body to the
activity of the Spirit (th|/ tou/ Pneu,matoj evnergei,a|), where Cyril referred to
the announcement in the Lukan narrative. 298 Thus, we understand that the
operation of the Incarnation was the work of the one nature of the
Godhead. We conceive the Godhead as in the Father and in the Son and in
the Holy Spirit, where they did not work separately but all work is
accomplished by the whole of the divine nature. The Trinity is one with
respect to its power and everything else for all things are of the Father
through the Son in the Spirit (pa,nta ga.r evk Patro.j di v Ui`ou/ evn
Pneu,mati). 299 Therefore, the detailed operation of the Word taking
humanity is a work done by the Trinity and cannot be attributed to the Son
alone, he being the Word Incarnate.
Finally, how do we interpret that all things were made through him? Does
this mean that the Son is rendering services (u`pourgo.j) or doing the will of
another? This might make some think that he could no longer be conceived
as Creator. But he is the power (du,namij) of God and as Son he works all
things having the Father and the Holy Spirit as co-workers
(sunergazome,noi). 300 Again, Cyril ends his argument asserting that “for all

297 Ibid.
298 In Jo. 1.538. In this example, Cyril is speaking about Gabriel’s participation
during the Incarnation process in announcing the Spirit’s contribution to the
creation of the body of Christ. It should be clarified that at the beginning of his
exposition, Cyril made it clear that Christ was a complete human being (a;nqrwpon
o`loklh,rwj). By this term we understand that Cyril believed that the humanity of
Christ included a soul and not just the sw/ma as might be implied in this part of his
exposition. Further discussion of the nature of humanity acquired by Christ,
according to Cyril, will be discussed under the title “Son.”
299 In Jo. 1.538.
300 In Jo. 1.68.
92 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

things are from the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit” (pa,nta
ga.r evk Patro.j di v Ui`ou/ evn ~Agi,w| Pneu,mati). 301 Even though the work
of creation is always attributed to the Word, Cyril still asserted that creation
is done by the Trinity using his famous formula that describes the
relationship of each person of the Trinity.
Through these many examples Cyril tried to explain that any activity
attributed to God or to any person of the Trinity is in reality the joint
activity of all three persons. Creation is done through the Word. It is clear
from the scriptural text that the whole of the Trinity participated in the act
of creation. This clearly defeats the accusation by some who want to
eliminate the Son from the divine triad and reduce him to just an
instrument of the Father. The activity of the Trinity does not separate each
person from the other nor divide the activity, rather it portrays the varied
aspect of each person and preserves their individuality. The activity of the
Godhead varies from the act of creation to bringing the wrath on Sodom
and Gomorrah to ascending to heaven or accomplishing the salvation of
humanity, which included the Incarnation. The Son is not an instrument
but a fulfiller and an accomplisher of God’s work. In summation, all activity
of the Godhead is summarized in the formula; “all things are from the
Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.”

Oneness of the Trinity

Though Cyril gave attention to the activity of the Trinity, he was even more
concerned with the oneness of the Godhead. When Cyril wrote about
creation and that all things are made through the Son and that nothing was
made without him, he emphasized that the Son is not fulfilling the wishes
of the Father as would one person rendering services to another. Rather,
creation is a joint activity by the whole Trinity, following the Trinitarian
formula that all things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy
Spirit. He further elaborated on the oneness of the Trinity. For instance, he
gave the example of the flower and its fragrance. He said we could not say
that the flower was present at the operation (evnergeian) of sweet fragrance.
Fragrance proceeds naturally (evx auvtou/ pro,eisi fusikw/j) from the flower.
The fragrance and the flower cannot be separated. The same applies to the
Father and the Son, the Son does not work apart from the Father
(evrga,zesqai ))) di,ca tou/ Patro.j) nor does the Father remain still or
stationary (avtremou,shj) while the Son is working. 302 If each works apart or

301 Ibid.
302 In Jo. 1.68.
 THE TRINITY 93

separately then we have two creators rather than one. He also gave the
example of the sun and its radiance explaining that we cannot separate the
sun from its radiance. Following this example he concluded that the Father
is conceived in truth as Father. The Son is being conceived as Son and the
same with the Holy Spirit. We cannot separate any person of the Trinity
from the other. The number of the Trinity amounts to one and the same
Godhead (o` th/j a`gi,aj Tria,doj avriqmo.j eivj mi,an kai. th.n auvth.n
avnabai,nei qeo,thta). 303 As previously mentioned, for how will God be
conceived as being one and be called God, if each of the indicated persons
(ivdio,thta) withdraws (avnacqrh,sei) completely—while being wholly
removed from having continuity of nature with the other and of the
essential conditions? 304 Cyril continued to explain that we should conceive
of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit according to their personal being
(tou/ ei=nai ivdiosusta,twj) and not mixing the difference of the persons or
the names. 305 While reserving for each their own name, we still refer to one
Godhead. While the Son is called Word, wisdom, radiance, impress
(carakth,r), and power of God not one of these characteristics can sever
the Son from the Father. Thus, when the Father works the Son will work,
since he is his natural, essential, and truly existent power (evrgazone,nou
dhlon o,ti tou/ Patro.j o` evrga,setai( w`j du,namij fusikh, te kai. ouvsiw,dhj
kai. evnupo,statoj auvtou/). 306 Again, he clarified his explanation by an
example of the fire and heat where separation is hardly conceivable. 307 For
if we conceive of them separately then we conceive of two gods (i[na mh.
du,o now/tai qeoi.). 308 Cyril elaborated by writing that in each example that
he has given, the fire and heat, flower and fragrance, sun and radiance, light
and radiance, in each of these examples the generator is not separate in
thought (evpinoi.a) from the generated and that which springs forth is

303 In Jo. 1.69.

304 Ibid.
305 Ibid.
306 In Jo. 1.70.
307 Cyril, at this point, had in mind the Arians who wanted to separate the

Father from the Son and reduce the Son to a creature. The reason that Cyril was
defending the divinity of the Son, is that otherwise there will be separation between
the Father and the Son and thus a fall into a duality of the Godhead or multiple
Gods. Although the context is the Arian controversy, the threat is dismantling the
unity of the Trinity and the oneness of the Godhead. If the three persons are not of
equal nature and essence, then the theme of the Incarnation, deification, salvation
will fall apart.
308 In Jo. 1.71.
94 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

indivisible (avmeri,stwj). 309 Activities of the Trinity are different and distinct
only in our thoughts (evpinoi.a|) but we cannot separate the persons who
generate this energy.
The notion that we cannot separate the persons generating the activity
is closely linked to the parable of the vine and the husbandman, where Cyril
argued for the fundamental recognition of the different activities and at the
same time not dividing the Trinity. Cyril continually defended the oneness
and unity of the Trinity. Cyril made it clear that the intellectual recognition
of divergent persons and divergent activities must not lead us to conclude
separation of persons, lest we fall into suggesting different or multiple gods.
This is a crucial point in Cyrillian thought. Any separation leads to
multiplicity of cause or origin and thus leads one to think of a multiple
Godhead. In the parable of the vine and the husbandman previously
mentioned Cyril spoke of no division of activity (evkei/ to. th/j evnergei,aj)
though intellectually we may think of diversity or varied aspects of the same
thing (poiki,lwj). 310 At the same time we have one ousia (mia/j de. ouvsi,aj)
we have one source of all these activities and that is the true and real
Godhead that is conceived in three persons. When we speak of any activity
then we recognize at the same time that it is the function of one divinity or
one Godhead. He spoke of varied evne,rgeiai but this variation comes from
one source, no matter how varied these activities may be.
Cyril explains how God reveals Himself to humanity. Cyril commented
on Jn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’
Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me by speaking about
free choice of human beings and on the means of teaching. 311 The Father
gives knowledge of Christ to those who are worthy through persuasion.
They hear, learn, and receive good instruction in the doctrines through their
own free power and free will. That free will is embedded in their human
soul. Otherwise, we could not claim and demand our rewards for our good
deeds. 312 Therefore, we have freedom of instruction and freedom to follow
these instructions. The Father will accomplish (evnergh,sei) the revelation of
his own Son to those who are worthy through his Wisdom. For the Son is

309In Jo. 1.72.

310In Jo. 2.537.
311 The idea of free will in the Commentary on John has received great attention

from Cyril. Cyril linked free will of human beings to the free will of the Son and
this in turn is understood within the Trinitarian understanding of the relationship
of the three persons of the Trinity. The study of free-will is important and cannot
be understood outside Cyril’s Trinitarian understanding.
312 In Jo. 1.507–8.
 THE TRINITY 95

the wisdom of the Father (sofi,a de. tou/ Patro,j evstin o` Ui`o,j). 313 Again,
the activity of revealing knowledge of God is done through the Son,
although the revelation is about the Son and the mystery of Christ. As
previously mentioned, all divine activity is done through the Son, and in this
case if it concerns the Son, it is still Wisdom that reveals knowledge to
those who are worthy of it. Cyril added that the activity of the Father or his
will towards any person is carried out through the Son. At the same time,
the activity of the Son and that of the Holy Spirit when carried out is said to
be an activity of the whole of the Trinity (pa,shj ei=nai le,gwn th/j avgi,aj
Tria,doj). 314 Thus, when the Father wants to reveal his own Son, the Son
himself is doing this and no less the Holy Spirit (kai. auvto.j o` Ui`o.j tou/to
poiw/n eu`ri,sketai( dia. to. Pneu.ma de. ouvde.n h-tton to. {Agion). 315 Cyril
confirmed his argument by citing a Pauline verse, for I did not receive it from a
human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ,
proving that the Holy Spirit is taking part of the revelation of Christ to us
(a;n o[ti kai. ouvto. to. Pneu/ma to. [Agion ouvden h-tton h`mi/n avpokalu,ptei
Cristo,n). 316 To confirm that the Spirit has a role in handing down
knowledge to believers Cyril referred to Jn 16: 12–13, I still have many things
to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the spirit of truth comes, he will guide
you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears,
and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will
take what is mine and declare it to you. The Holy Spirit, being a Spirit of Truth,
will illuminate those in whom he is (pneu/ma ga.r avlhqei,aj u`pa,rcon,
fwtagwgh,sei tou.j evn oi-j a;n ge,noito). 317 However, this does not mean
that we are severing them or alienating the Father from the Son or either
from the Holy Spirit, for there is one Godhead (mi,a qeo,thj). Cyril again
affirmed that we preach the holy and consubstantial Trinity. The attributes
belong to each without dividing or separating the will (boula,j) or the

313 In Jo. 1.508.

314 Ibid.
315 Ibid.
316 Ibid.
317 In Jo. 1.509. It is important to notice that throughout the commentary Cyril

constantly referred to “I am the Truth” and the Spirit is “the Spirit of Truth” and
also used the term the “Spirit of the Son” or “the Spirit of Christ,” where the latter
is based on the logical deduction of the two previously mentioned statements. This
logical deduction has led many to conclude that Cyril was affirming the filioque
theology. Cyril never suggested it to be the Spirit of procession but rather of
possession, it is the Son’s own spirit. This point will be clear when we discuss the
“Son” and the “Holy Spirit.”
96 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

operation (evnergei,aj) of the Godhead. 318 Through this explanation Cyril

was affirming the individuality of each person of the Trinity, yet insisting on
their unity. This unity preserves the identification of the evne,rgeia of each as
well as the boulh,. Cyril again reworded his argument and says that the Son
is revealed through the Father as the Father is revealed through the Son.
After explaining how knowledge of God is bestowed from the Trinity
to humanity, Cyril explained how the spoken words of Christ are the same
as those of God. Spoken words are considered a form of transmission of
knowledge of God to humanity equal to the transmission of revelation
through the Son in the Holy Spirit as discussed in the previous passage.
Cyril elaborated on this point when he comments on Jn 14:10, The words that
I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
Cyril begins with a differing premise; the verse begins with the words said
by Christ, but Cyril began his exposition with the words that the Father
speaks. What the Father speaks is what Christ is now saying. He continued
his explanation by noting that the Father and the Son are of equal essence,
therefore they do not only speak the same words but also do the same
works. Thus, if the Godhead is one, in the Father and the Son and the
Spirit, every word that is from the Father is through the Son in the Spirit;
and every work beyond expectations is through the Son in the Spirit and
considered coming from the Father. 319 The nature of the work of the
Father shines through the Son. In this explanation, Cyril connected the
utterance of words with action, as if he were giving power to the words
equal to the power of actions, and that words perform actions, as in
creation narrative where utterance contained the force of creation. All this
action, whether in words or work, is done through the Trinity. Cyril
concluded his exposition by again confirming the reading of the verse that
the words and works of the Son are that of the Father. The Father speaks
through the Son, for the Son is his Word. Through the Son he works
wonders, for he carries this out through his own power, that is, the Son is
the power of the Father. 320
When Cyril commented on Jn 10:37,38, If I am not doing the works of my
Father, then do not believe me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me,
believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I
am in the Father, he was again faced with a verse dealing with work e;rgon and

318In Jo. 1.509.

319evpei. kai. mia/j ou;shj th/j qeo,thtoj( e;n te Patri. kai. Ui`w/| kai. Pneu,mati
nooume,nhj( a[paj me.n lo,goj o` para. Patro.j( pa,ntwj evsti. di v Ui`ou/ evn Pneu,mati)
kai. pa/n e;rgon( h;toi para,doxon( di v Ui`ou/ evn Pneu,mati) In Jo. 2.429.
320 In Jo. 2.430.
 THE TRINITY 97

how this work reveals the relationship between the Father and the Son.
Cyril in this instance argued in defense of the divinity of the Son against the
Arians. He started by explaining that the Son is equal to the Father because
the former does work that is endowed with divine quality (di v w-n poiw/
qeoprepw/n e;rgwn) though being in the flesh (sa,rka) he seems to be like
one of us. 321 Because of this, it is possible to perceive that the Father is in me
and I am in the Father, understanding that both are of the same essence. Cyril
noted that we cannot apply the same thing to ourselves. Although all
humans are of the same nature, because of our bodies we cannot call
ourselves one. Since the divinity is incorporeal this would not apply,
although we conceive of each person of the Trinity as distinct. Though the
Trinity is three persons, each person does not denote part of the Trinity but
the whole of it. God is indivisible and simple although in three persons. 322
Again, the unity and oneness of the Trinity is emphasized in Cyril’s
explanation.
When Cyril commented on Jn 6:28 he used a similar argument to the
one he employed previously but concluded the argument with a unique
example. Again, the Arian teaching is on his mind and he is determined to
refute it. Cyril argues that “they”–—the heretical entity, which in this case
means the Arians—are trying to sever the Son from the Father. However,
they do not understand that to exist does not mean that he is of another
essence than the Father (ouvsi,aj avllo,trion); 323 for I am in the Father and the

321 In Jo. 2.261.

322 In Jo. 2.261. This discussion about the unity of the Trinity is taken from a
Syriac fragment. Actually the text of the Commentary on John is intact except for
books seven and eight that are collected from catanae or fragments. This quote is
from book seven. Liébaert depends on a detailed manuscript study done by Reuss.
The latter divided the catanae into six different types and labeled the six groups as
type A to type F. Liébaert asserted after his investigation that Pusey’s edition (the
edition upon which this research is based) was a considerable improvement over
previous texts. I assume that Liébaert is referring to the Patrologiae Graeca edition
here. Though Pusey’s text is the best available, Liébaert still wanted to clarify that
Pusey did not consult in his edition manuscripts of type C and D. Reuss tried to
amend this by publishing two fragments from manuscripts of type C and D
providing texts for Jn 10:36; Jn 11:11; and Jn 12:45. Liébaert, Doctrine christologique,
75–76. And Joseph Reuss, “Cyril von Alexandrien und sein Kommentar zum
Johannes Evangelium,” Biblica 25 (1944): 207–209. The authenticity of some of
these fragments has been argued but in this text to which we have just referred, the
thought is very consistent with that of Cyril, and this text could be considered
authentic since it conforms with the rest of the thought in Cyril’s work.
323 In Jo. 1.450.
98 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Father is in me, and therefore will not withdraw into a separate personality
(eivj ivdio,thta). 324 Then Cyril concluded that the Holy Trinity is conceived
as one in the Godhead (dia. to. evn mia/| qeo,thti th.n a`gi,an noei/sqai
Tria,da). 325 Once he affirmed the oneness of the Trinity, Cyril stated that he
would confirm this by an example from the Law (avll v evk paradei,gmatoj
nomikou/). 326 In other words, he resorted to the Old Testament to confirm
the Trinity.
In the Book of Exodus the Lord says to Moses that the children of
Israel shall give a ransom for their souls. They shall give half of a didrachma
as an offering to the Lord which is equivalent to a didrachm according to
the offering of the sanctuary (Ex 30:13). 327 Cyril pointed out that this
shadowed Christ (evskiagrafei/to Cristo.j) for Christ offered himself for
all creation as a ransom to God the Father. The offering is usually one
drachma but not separate from the other, for the coin is actually two
drachma (du,o dracma,j). 328 Therefore, to affirm the unity, Cyril provided an
example from the Law. Though Christ is a ransom and therefore this
requires only one drachma no one drachma can be offered, for the coin is a
didrachma. Thus, the Son and the Father are inseparable.
From the sample of texts quoted it is clear that Cyril repeatedly
affirmed the Trinity and its oneness. Liébaert rightly commented that the
Trinitarian question remained Cyril’s preoccupation throughout the whole
of the commentary though he never pursued his comment any further. 329

324Ibid.
325Ibid.
326 Ibid.
327 The di,dracmon was a double drachma. It was a temple tax that was sufficient

to ransom two persons. That is, one drachma was for one person but it was usually
used in the dual di,dracmon rather than the singular dracmh,. This is demonstrated in
Mt 17:24–27 where Christ asks Peter to fish and give taxes for both Peter and
himself. It is interesting to note here that Cyril was using the LXX and thus using
the Greek coin system rather than the shekel as mentioned in the Hebrew text. The
dracmh, is a Greek coin equivalent to one forth the Hebrew shekel. Horst Balz and
Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1 (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994), 353–4.
328 In Jo. 1.450.
329 Liébaert emphasized in his study the pre-Nestorian texts. Thus, he focused

mainly on the Thesaurus and the Dialogues and occasionally on The Commentary on the
Gospel of John. Though his focus was not the Johannine commentary he had the
great insight to comment the following: “L’ouvrage est en majeure partie dirigé
contre l’arianisme. La question trinitaire reste toujours au premier plan des
préoccupations de Cyrille.” Liébaert, La Doctrine christologique, 85. Meanwhile, Koen
 THE TRINITY 99

Dratsellas comments that the Incarnation of the Son has not changed the
relationship between the Logos, the Father, and the Holy Spirit, when he
writes, “Here we have the same relation between all Persons of the Holy
Trinity before and after the Incarnation of the Logos since this Incarnation
does not mean change of the Divinity of the Logos.” 330
Other modern scholars have mentioned the Cyrillian Trinitarian
discussion but usually from diverse perspectives. Du Manoir observed that
Cyril continued to speak about the Trinity even after the Trinity had been
definitively settled and he still compares it with the pagan model. Du
Manoir’s comments on the pagan comparison are based on the Contra
Julianum text where Cyril devoted the whole treatise to refute paganism with
some focus on Platonic arguments. 331 As a teacher and educator, Cyril was
forced to repeat and emphasize the Christian doctrines. He did this with the
intention of affirming the Trinitarian dogma to his readers, to refute
heresies, and, according to Cyril’s way of thinking, there is no way to speak
about God if we do not speak about the Trinity. Therefore, speaking about
the Trinity was unavoidable even if the Trinitarian issue was settled. 332
Another approach to the Trinitarian understanding in Cyril’s thought
is found in Louth’s article about the use of the term i;dioj. Louth notes that
Athanasius uses the term i;dioj in the Trinitarian sense to “express
uniqueness of the Trinitarian relationships—the Son and the Spirit are
related to God the Father in a way utterly different from creatures—but
also the intimacy and closeness of the intratrinitrarian relationships.” 333

briefly mentions that Cyril treated the “Incarnation in a trinitarian context.” Lars
Koen, The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandria’s
Commentary on the Gospel of John. Studia Doctrinae Christianae Upsaliensia, 31
(Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1991), 66.
330 C. Dratsellas, “Questions on Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria,” Abba

Salama 6 (1974): 227–8. Dratsellas wrote a short paragraph concerning this topic in
which he quoted three times The Commentary on the Gospel of John and used three
quotes from different post-Nestorian works. Though he does not pursue the topic
beyond this one paragraph, his finding a continuous thought between the pre and
post Nestorian works is a point worth noting.
331 Du Manoir, Dogme et Spiritualité, 42–3.
332 Meijering also focused on the pagan aspect of Cyril’s Trinitarian discussion.

He compared the ideas of Cyril about the Trinity with those of Numenius,
Plotinus, and Porphyry. This comparative work is also based on Contra Julianum. E.
P. Meijerin, “Cyril of Alexandria on the Platonists and the Trinity,” in God Being
History (Amsterdam: Oxford, 1975), 114–127.
333 A Louth, “The use of the term i;dioj in Alexandrian Theology from

Alexander to Cyril,” Studia Patristica 19(1989): 199.

100 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Nevertheless, the term i;dioj was also used by Athanasius to characterize

the relationship between the two natures of Christ. The Logos takes the
body and makes it his own body. This connection is directly related to
Athanasius’ understanding of the theme of salvation as presented in his On
the Incarnation of the Word. 334 Louth continues:
These two usages of i;dioj—the trinitarian and the
Christological—clearly go together for Athanasius, because both
(the intimacy of the Son with the Father, and the intimacy of the
union of human and divine in Christ) are necessary for the
accomplishment of redemption: so he suggests that those who
deny the son is the Father’s own should go on to deny that he
took true flesh from Mary the Ever-Virgin. 335
Louth goes on to argue that because of the influence of Athanasius on
Cyril, the latter conveys in his writings a very similar picture. Louth writes:
The Son’s consubstantial relationship to the Father is often
expressed by saying that the Son is the Father’s own…. The
Spirit, too, is i;dioj and o`moou,sioj. Even where Cyril does not
use the terms i;dioj, we find him expounding the trinitarian
relationships in ways familiar from Athanasius, and taking these
ideas further. For instance, at the very beginning of his
commentary on John, he argues that the Son is ouvk e;xwqen to his
Father, he is not e;kfuloj or xe,noj, he exists together with the
Father inseparably (sunupa,rcon kai. avcwri,stwj), together they
form mi,a fu,sij…. Like Athanasius, Cyril transfers the use of
i;dioj from trinitarian to a Christological context: the Word
makes his body his own. 336
The point that i;dioj is used in the Trinitarian as well as the
Christological meaning shows the reality of the interconnection between the
Trinity and understanding the Incarnation. The Logos must be understood
within a Trinitarian context, otherwise the power and validity of the
Incarnation is useless. If the Son is not divine and part of the Trinity, he has
no salvific or sanctifying power. The Son has to make the body his own in
order to be able to preserve the unity with the Trinity and within this unity
the Son is able to deify humanity.
Gregory Nazianzen in his oration on Athanasius, praises Athanasius
for “he [Athanasius] admirably guarded the oneness of the Godhead and

334 This is linked to the argument at the beginning of this chapter that

Athanasius’ understanding of salvation and the Incarnation was the greater

framework that guided Cyril’s theology.
335 Louth, Use of i;dioj, 200.
336 Ibid., 201.
 THE TRINITY 101

religiously taught the Trinity.” (kai. to. e;n kalw/j evth,rhse( qeo,thti ga,r\
kai. to. tri,a euvsebw/j evdi,daxen). 337 Not only did the early writers recognize
the Trinitarian pattern of Athanasius but also modern scholars have noticed
that “Athanasius sought to safeguard the divinity of the Son and at the
same time recognize the reality of the Incarnation and life of Jesus. His
interest is completely Trinitarian, but the lines among which he shaped his
answer were to provide the center of the later Alexandrian passion for the
unity of Christ.” 338 The Trinitarian idea constitutes the main theological
framework within which Cyril, as well as Athanasius, work their theological
projects. We discussed the straightforward arguments by which Cyril
describes the interrelationship between the three persons of the Trinity, for
example the Cyrillian formula “from the Father through the Son in the
Holy Spirit.” When Cyril wrote his second anti-Arian writing De sancta et
consubstantiali Trinitate he approached the Trinitarian argument as follows.
The text was written using the form of a dialogue and it includes seven
dialogues. The first six are about the Son and the seventh and last is about
the Holy Spirit. Thus, Cyril himself approached the Trinity in his treatise by
discussing each person of the Trinity. Having the introductory background
about the Trinity in this chapter we will proceed to speak individually about
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Father
God being the Father of the Son and the Only Begotten is a major theme in
Christian theology. It became even more important during the Arian
controversy when the divinity of the Son was challenged. The counter
argument against the Arians was to affirm that the Son, being truly Son, is
of the same essence as that of the Father and is therefore divine and one of
the Godhead. This point, the Father as the begetter and Father of the Son,
we choose to discuss under the title Son, because the Father is the Father of
the Son. A relationship—since by definition it is a relation between two—
that gives us the convenience to discuss either from the Father’s or from
the Son’s side. Though in the case of the divine Trinity both are one, it is
easier to approach it under the Son title because it is profoundly linked with
the Incarnation. This section will thus discuss what is unique to the Father,
that is, fatherhood and knowledge of the Father.

337 Orations 21 (PG 35. 1096C).

338 Robert Wilken, “Tradition, Exegesis, and the Christological Controversies,”
Church History 34 (1965): 129.
102 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

The other aspect of the divine fatherhood involves the relationship to

humanity, since we are instructed to address him as “Our Father who art in
heaven.” Cyril, in his first book, argued extensively against many heretical
teachings. Of course, having Arianism as one of his main opponents, he
argued that the Father is the begetter of the Son and therefore the Son is of
the same essence as that of the Father. Proceeding from this point, Cyril
discussed the fatherhood of humanity being in the image of God’s
fatherhood. Cyril began to argue that, due to being created in the likeness of
God, we are able to be fathers of our own children. Cyril noted that we
received the name of family or fathership (to. th/j patria/j h;toi
patro,thtoj) from God and not vice versa based on Eph. 3:15, from whom
every family in heaven and on earth takes it name. 339 We are fathers by imitation of
him who is the primordial precedent of all humanity (to. pa,ntwn evsti
presbu,taton). 340 We are fathers by imitation because we are made in his
own image (pepoih/sqai kat v eivko,na). Therefore, by nature, he is Father of
the Word and is begetter and we, who are created in his image, are also
fathers of our children. 341
When in Jn 6:52 we read that the Jews disputed among themselves, saying,
“How can this man give us his flesh to eat” Cyril argued that the “Jews” ought not
ask “how.” Cyril redirected the question and suggests that rather than
asking “how” they should study his works (tw/n ivdi,wn e;rgwn). 342 Cyril
modified this statement further and noted that even if we study his works
still no one knows who God is by nature; however, this should not stop us
for God rewards those who seek him (Heb. 11:6). Therefore, our knowledge of
God is based on the study of his works, which is carried out through
seeking him. Based on previous arguments, then, we can conclude that we
cannot know God except through his Son who is his power and work.
The knowledge of the Father through the Son is clearly stated in Jn
14:7, If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him,
and have seen him. Having said that, Christ then had to testify (evpimarturei/)
to the disciples the knowledge of the Father and said, from now on (avpa,rti)

339 In Jo. 1.37.

340 In Jo. 1.38.
341 Ibid. The premise of this argument is based on the creation narrative that

states we are made in God’s image. A detailed study of the “image” and “likeness”
can be found in Burghardt where he traced the use of both terms from the early
church fathers until the time of Cyril. Since Burghardt gave a detailed attention to
this topic we will not pursue this topic here. Burghardt, The Image of God in Man, 1–
12.
342 In Jo. 1.526.
 THE TRINITY 103

you do know him, and have seen him. What he meant by “from now on”
(avpa,rti) is not the time of uttering this statement but rather beginning from
the time of his presence among us, from the time of the Incarnation. 343 The
Psalmist speaking of God the Father says, The knowledge of thee is too wonderful
for me (Ps 138:6 LXX); according to Cyril, this is because we saw the Son’s
incredibly marvelous deeds (qaumatourgh,masi). 344 Through the Son we not
only know the Father but also see him. For knowledge (gnw/sij) might be
from private mental contemplation through which we come to understand
both the divine and inexpressible, ineffable nature of God (th/j qei,aj te
kai. avrrh,tou fu,sewj). 345 To have seen the fullness of God, which is
different from knowledge through mental contemplation, signifies our full
knowledge through vision of his miraculous works (th.n dia. tw/n
teratourghma,twn plhrofori,an shmai,nei). 346 Therefore, we have not only
ascertained facts through mental knowledge that God the Father is the
creator but we have seen all things under his subjugation through the works
of his Son. The Son rebuked the sea and winds. Thus, creation is under the
subjugation of the Son as of the Father. The Law of Moses said, The Lord
our God is one Lord (Deut. 6:4) because the people of old could not be driven
away by worshiping more than one God like other nations. Therefore, the
distinctiveness of the Person of the Father from that of the Son could not
be revealed to them. Nevertheless, by the Word’s Incarnation we know that
the Father has done his mighty works through the Son. He has also shown
that the nature of the Godhead is shown in the Holy Trinity and is truly one
(kai. th.n evn th/| a`gi,a| Tria,di nooume,nhn te kai. u`festw/san avlhqw/j mi,an
e;deixe qeo,thtoj fu,sin). 347
It is through the Son that we know the Father. Thus, we now turn our
attention to the Son, to know both the Father and the Son.

The Son
The Gospel of John begins with a Christian rewriting of Genesis 1:1 that
describes the Incarnation and asserts the divinity of the Logos. Following
the prologue is a collection of speeches or logiko,i and events through
which the Incarnate Word reveals his nature, his message, and establishes
the new covenant. Finally, we have the passion narrative together with the

343 In Jo. 2.415.

344 In Jo. 2.416.
345 Ibid.
346 Ibid.
347 In Jo. 2.417
104 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

resurrection. The theological themes that Cyril tackled are consequently

following the same themes as that of the Gospel of John. Therefore, in this
commentary, the broad themes that Cyril covered concerning the Son are
the generation of the Son from the Father, the unity but maintained
distinctiveness of each person of the Trinity, the attributes or titles of the
Son, the Incarnation, and the death of Christ and its salvific effect. Many
other minor topics are included in the commentary but the present
discussion will be restricted to the above mentioned topics since they form
the main framework of the text.
Cyril followed the scriptural verses that assert that we know the Father
through the Son and the Son is the one who can give us the true knowledge
of the Father. Commenting on Jn 8:55, but I do know him and I keep his word,
Cyril wrote that the Son has knowledge of his own Father—not such
knowledge as in us—but divinely suitable and such that cannot be
commented upon (oi=den o` Ui`o.j to.n e`autou/ Pate,ra( ouv toiau,thn e;cwn
gnw/sin, o`poi,a pe,r evstin h` evn h`mi/n( avlla. qeopreph/ te kai.
avnexh,ghton). 348 Human beings do not ask their begetter about their own
human nature, but each knows and understands their essence from their
own selves. The Son also knows his own Father because they are of the
same essence and because the Son is his Word, for it is clear that the Word
is defining (dhloi/ ga.r o` lo,goj to.n o[ron). 349 This means that the Word has
the definition and essence of the Father for lo,goj means definition. Thus, it
is the Son who is capable of knowing the Father since he is his Logos. For
the Son is his image (eivkw.n) and the impress (carakth.r) of him. 350
Not only is the knowledge of the Father unable to be commented
upon but the generation of the Son is also inexplicable (avnexh,ghton). 351
Isaiah himself said, Who shall declare his generation? For his life is taken away from
the earth (Is 53:8 LXX). What is lifted from the earth is the account of the
Only Begotten’s generation (o` peri. th/j gennh,sewj lo,goj tou/
Monogenou/j) for it is above our understanding. We are of this earth and
bound by time and it is hard to understand the “beginning” since He is
before time. For “beginning” is related to time and the Son is before and
older than time and ages. The Father is considered the source (phgh/j) of the
Son who is in him being his wisdom, power, impress, radiance, and image
of the Father (sofi,a kai. du,namij kai. carakth.r kai. avpau,gasma kai.

348 In Jo. 1.128.

349 Ibid. lo,goj can also mean “definition.” Liddell and Scott, 1058.
350 In Jo. 1.129.
351 In Jo. 1.17.
 THE TRINITY 105

eivkw.n u`pa,rcwn auvtou/.) 352 Therefore, there is no time when the Father is
not all of these attributes being wisdom, power, and radiance. Since the
Father is everlasting, and the Son has the attributes of the Father, so is the
Son everlasting. 353 That is to say, having the Father, who is the source of
the Son, being before times, and having the Son as the express image of the
Father, the Son is therefore everlasting. Since the Son is everlasting, then his
generation from the Father is beyond time and thus free from the
generation of time; moreover, his generation cannot be defined by time.
Cyril’s insistence on enumerating the attributes of the Son was
required by the necessity of proving the divinity of the Son and his being of
the same essence as the Father. If the attributes mentioned are of a divine
nature, then the Son shares in the divinity of the Father. 354 In addition, the
attributes of the Son reveal the Father, for the attributes of the Son are the
attributes of the Father. For the Father is seen in the Son and the Son is
seen in the Father (w`j o`ra/sqai me.n evn Ui`w|/ to.n Pate,ra( evn de. tw|/ Patri.
to.n Ui`o.n). 355 The comments on Gen. 19:24, as previously mentioned,
attribute to the Son the “power and arm” (du,namij auvtou/ kai. braci,wn) of
God. 356 It is through the Son, that is, the power and arm of the Father, that
fire rained upon the Sodomites. Therefore, we have one who sends
(evxapo,steilon) and another who is sent (avposte,llonta) 357 but both are one.
In the same way, if the Son is the radiance and reflection (avpau,gasma,) of
the Father, as he is light of light, he is his own distinct being, but of the
same essence as the Father. 358

352 In Jo. 1.18.

353 In Jo. 1.18 and 1.40.
354 As Cyril used the Son to be of the same essence as that of the Father to

prove the equality and the divinity of the Son, he also used the Holy Spirit to prove
the divinity of the Son. For when the Son uses his own Spirit to work wonders this
also demonstrates his divinity. This will be shown during the exposition of the
verses on the Holy Spirit.
355 In Jo. 1.25.
356 In Jo. 1.28.
357 In Jo. 1.29.
358 In Jo. 1.27. avpau,gasma, was mentioned only once in the New Testament in

Heb. 1:3, to which Cyril is referring to in this statement. In the Epistle to the
Hebrews the Son is the avpau,gasma, th/j do,xhj the reflection of the glory of God.
Therefore, in the New Testament the only time the word avpau,gasma, is mentioned
it has the meaning of “reflection” a meaning that is assigned in the passive sense.
However, Cyril used the same word in his commentary to mean radiance and
effulgence of light, and linked it with the Son being “light of light.” This meaning
reflects the active sense of the word. Others like Origen, Gregory of Nyssa,
106 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

The attributes and titles of the Son signify the divinity of the Son,
therefore, the Son is not lesser than the Father. Cyril candidly stated that he
listed the varied names of the Son in an attempt to disprove the Arian claim
that the Son is not equal to the Father. The Son is the wisdom and power
of the Father (sofi,an me.n ga.r kai. du,namin tou/ Patro.j). 359 He is the light
and truth of the Father (kai. fw/j auvtou/ kai. avlh,qeia). 360 He is also
righteousness (dikaiosu,nh). 361 Since the Psalm states, in your righteousness give
me life, Cyril added that the Father gives life to those who believe in Christ.
Life is given to the believers through Christ and in Christ. Moreover, the
Son is the counsel of the Lord. 362 Therefore, since the Father is perfect, the
Son is also perfect and he is wisdom, power, light, truth, life, and the
counsel of the Father. Consequently, the Son is equal to the Father.
The Son is revealed to us through his titles. Cyril commented on Jn 8:
24, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he, by writing that we
truly need to believe in Christ in order to have life or we will die in our sins.
We have to believe that he is God from God. He is also Savior, redeemer,
king and truly Lord. If we do not believe that he is all these titles we will
perish. In addition, he is the light that came and the glory of the Lord that
has risen. 363 He is the healer of our bruises, where our bruises are the
afflictions and sins from which we suffer. 364 He is the forgiver of sins, who
whitens our sins even if they were like scarlet. 365 He is not only the healer of
spiritual afflictions, but also the bodily ones. He opens the eyes of the blind,
the ears of the deaf, gives the lame the power to walk and the stammerers
strength to speak clearly. 366 He will also come with strength and with power
to tend to the flocks, for he is the shepherd. 367 He is the messenger of the
covenant. 368 He is the sacrifice and the offering. 369 He is also the law that

Theodoret, and Chrysostom used the word in the active and connected it with fw/j
e,k fwto,j as well. Bauer, A Greek English Lexicon, 82. This is important because in In
Jo. 2, 19–20, Cyril used the titles of Christ to demonstrate the active role of Christ
in our salvation and not dying in our sins. Titles are used here to demonstrate the
divinity of the Son but at the same time reflect his work and his salvific act.
359 In Jo. 1:32. Based on verse 1 Cor. 2:4.
360 In Jo. 1.33. Ps 43:3.
361 Ibid., Ps 119:40.
362 Ibid., Ps 33:11.
363 In Jo. 2.20. Is 50:1.
364 In Jo. 2.20 Jer. 3:22 LXX.
365 Ibid. Is 53:25; Is 1:16–18.
366 Ibid., Is 35:5,6.
367 Ibid., Is 53:9–11.
368 Ibid., Mal 3:1,2.
 THE TRINITY 107

Moses preached. 370 In summation, we have the Son who is light, healer,
forgiver of sins, shepherd, messenger of the covenant, sacrifice, and law. It
is interesting to notice that all the titles that Cyril utilized are Old Testament
titles. In his explication he did not venture to combine those of the Old
with the New Testament’s. It is possible that Cyril wanted to restrict his
exegesis of Jn 8:25 in answer to the question, who are you? Since those who
questioned him were the Jewish leaders and his listeners were also Jews,
perhaps Cyril was responding as he envisioned Christ would respond. His
long complex answer is dependent upon what his audience would
recognize, in this case, Old Testament prophecies. However, at the same
time, it is important to recognize all of these titles, because if a believer does
not acknowledge the Son to be light, forgiver, and sacrifice among other
things, we are going to die in our sins. We must recognize the Son as equal
to the Father. In this way, he explained who the Father is by shedding light
on the titles of the Son. To know the Father we have to know the Son.
Cyril again reaffirmed that the attributes of the Father are of the Son
and vice versa. If the Son is equal and not less than the Father then he has
equal attributes and is thus of equal divinity. This is an example of how
Cyril presented his argument. If the Father is almighty, and the Son is
likewise almighty, how is he lesser than Him? (eiv pantokra,twr evsti.n o`
Path.r( pantokra,twr de. o`moi,wj kai. o` Ui`o.j( pw/j evla,ttwn auvtou/
evstin*) 371 Cyril repeated the same argument regarding lordship, light, life,
and perfectness of the Son. 372 Again, he was dealing with titles and how
each title contributes to understanding the Father through the Son while at
the same time asserting the Son’s divinity. 373
Cyril repeatedly contended that to know the Father is to know the
Son; meanwhile, although we know the Father through the Son, at the same
time we have to recognize that each is different from the other. Further still,

369 In Jo. 2:21. Ps 50:6–8.

370 In Jo. 2.21. Deut 18: 15–18.
371 In Jo. 1.36.
372 Ibid.
373 Other early Church writers, such as Origen also followed the same

argument. Origen, as well as Cyril, discussed the titles of the Son beginning with
the title of “Word” and gave great attention to the title “Light” among other titles.
He discussed the titles of the Son beginning with the title of “Word” and others
like “Light” which took great attention from Origen, as well as Cyril. Origen,
Commentary on the Gospel According to John, translated by Ronal Heine. The Fathers of
the Church, vol, 80 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press,
1989), 59–94.
108 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

the individuality of each person is to be understood within the unity of the

Trinity. The constant complexity of unity while maintaining the
individuality of each person, and asserting that each sheds light on the
other’s qualities and understanding is a theme that recurs in Cyril’s work
quite often. Therefore, in speaking about the unity and at the same time the
individuality of the persons of the Trinity, Cyril expressed his ideas in the
following way. Cyril found an opportunity to speak about the nature of
faith when he comments on Jn 14:1 believe in God, believe also in me. He said,
that in this verse, Christ has included the faith in God to include the faith in
the Son. If we do not acknowledge the Son and do not include the name of
the Son in our faith, it appears that we have not accepted the injunction of
evangelic preaching (khrugma,twn euvaggelikw/n evpi,tagma fai,netai). 374 In
order to have a complete faith, one has to believe in the Father and in the
Son and the Holy Spirit. Moreover, belief in the Son must include belief in
his Incarnation. Cyril once again reaffirmed the individuality of each person
of the Trinity and writes, “the holy and consubstantial Trinity’s peculiar
nature is distinguished by both the distinction of names and the quality of
the persons.” 375 For the Father is Father and not Son, and vice versa; and
the same is pertinent to the Holy Spirit. We believe in one God but at the
same time we must explain our faith and attribute to each person of the
Trinity the same glory. 376 Cyril was explaining that faith in God must
include that of the Son, together with the Holy Spirit. If the Son is not
included then we have deviated from the evangelic preaching—the
kerygma—handed down to us. This teaching includes a clear
acknowledgment of the Son and his Incarnation.
Cyril insisted that each person of the Trinity should be given the same
glory because this confirms the equal divinity of the Son to that of the
Father. When Cyril comments on Jn 17: 4–5, I glorified you on earth by finishing
the work that you gave me to do. So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with
the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed, he explained how the
Son carried out the work of salvation (finishing the work) and how this does
not mean a separate essence of each person. That is to say, while
acknowledging the distinctiveness of each person we recognize the unity of
the Trinity. Cyril wrote that the Son did the “work” not as a servant or a
creature assigned work but as the power and wisdom of the Father who is

374 In Jo. 2.400–1.

375 In Jo. 2.401. h` me.n ga.r a`gi,a te kai. o`moou,sioj Tria.j( kai. tai/j tw/n
ovnoma,twn diaforai/j kai. tw/n prosw,pwn poio,thsi, te kai. ivdio,thsi
diaste,lletaiÅ
376 Ibid.
 THE TRINITY 109

entrusted to accomplish the work. When one reads “O God command your
strength,” (Ps 67:28 LXX) one’s understanding might lead to a duality of
persons (kai. prosw,pwn dua,da parenegkw.n), the one who commands and
the one who is commanded. 377 Then the verse unites both, the commander
and the one commanded, to their natural unity when it continues
“strengthen, O God, this which you have wrought in us.” The Son is then
entrusted with the work. Cyril gave two examples about the sun and fire.
The sun sheds light to illuminate the world and the fire gives heat.
However, no one suggested that the ray and the light are servants to the sun
or the burning power as servant to the fire, for each of the two operates
through its own innate nature (evnergei/ me.n ga.r e`ka,teron di v w-n e;cei
fusikw/j ta. oivkei/a). 378 If it appears that each is working on their own
(auvtourga.) yet they are distinct in nature. 379 What has been said about the
sun and fire can be applied to the Father and the Son. When we read about
the work of the Father and the Son it should be understood in a
relationship of each being distinct but inseparable.
Cyril wrote on many occasions about the “work” of the Son. The
major work that is entrusted to the Son is the Incarnation and saving the
world. On every occasion when it was possible to write about the
Incarnation Cyril was ready to do so. When Cyril commented on Jn 14:31,
but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the
Father, he began to explain the command that he obeyed in love of the
Father. The command is to save humanity. When Athanasius wanted to
explain the Incarnation and the story of our salvation, he began with Adam
and the creation story. He defended his approach by saying that we cannot
understand the reason for the Incarnation if we do not understand the
origin of man and his transgression, because we are the object of the
Incarnation and for our salvation the Word appeared in human form. 380
Cyril followed the same course of thought. He began to explain the
command of God beginning with the story of Adam. Adam suffered the
divine curse (th/j qei,aj avra/j) of death by breaking the commandments. 381
Adam was justly punished for his transgression, but the second Adam, that
is Christ, underwent suffering on our behalf though there was no guile in

377 In Jo. 2.674.

378 In Jo. 2.676.
379 Ibid.
380 Athanasius di incarnatione 4 & 5.
381 In Jo. 2.529.
110 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

his mouth (1 Pet 2:22). 382 This was done through his love of the Father; the
Son took the form of a man, though he is equal to God, and died to save
the world. The Son, being the power of the Father himself, accomplished
the command to suffer death of the flesh through the love of the Father. By
his death, he would destroy the power of destruction, give life to those who
suffered destruction, and renew (avnanew/sai) them to their ancient state of
glory. 383 The Son accomplishes and works the command of salvation given
by the Father through his Incarnation. By being in the form of man he was

382 The theme that Christ is the second Adam is discussed in detail in R. L.
Wilken, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind. A Study of Cyril of Alexandria’s Exegesis
and Theology (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1971), 93–200. Cyril’s
aim or skopo,j of presenting the Adam typology was to highlight the idea of the
newness of life. Wilken addressed the issue of the “newness of life” but not as the
skopo,j of the typology as Cyril intended but as a byproduct of the typology. Wilken
points out that “Cyril often describes the renewal of mankind as a return to that
which was in the beginning. Just as he often speaks of the renewal to that which is
‘better.’ It is clear that he does not mean a return to the original state, but a new
state brought about through Christ.” This new state offers man with gifts that were
not in the possession of the first Adam. Wilken, Judaism and Christian Mind, 90, 117.
Wilken also pointed to some of Athanasius’ suggestive comments regarding the
Second Adam typology. Ibid., 104. In addition, he traced back the tradition of
renewal and re-creation found in Athanasius as the starting point for Cyril. Ibid.,
167. Wilken also notes that there is no detailed “study of the Adam-Christ typology
in Cyril’s works.” Ibid., 108. Wilken comments that there are different terms that
had been used to represent the idea of renewal like “re-creation, renewal,
transformation, restoration.” Ibid., 115. He writes that “The thread [of
transformation] first appeared in Cyril’s commentary on John 4:24 where he said
that the new life in worship and in truth was a remodeling or transformation of the
old way of life which had been governed by the law. The corollary to this idea is
Cyril’s conviction that the new life in Christ is superior to the old life under the law.
These two terms summarize the whole of Cyril’s attitude towards the relationship
between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism has been transformed through the coming
of Christ and the result is superior to what was before.” Ibid., 88–89. The idea of
“renewal” is a major theme in Cyril’s thought, and beginning from John 17 onward
the theme is highlighted because of the theme of resurrection and the
accomplishment of Christ’s salvation that brings renewal to humanity. The topic of
“renewal” in Cyril’s thought is a theme that recurs again as part of the sanctifying
work of the Holy Spirit. Ladner has mentioned the idea of renewal in Cyril’s
theology in Gerhart B. Ladner, The Idea of Reform (New York, Harper Torchbooks,
1967), 79–81. Also, Daniel Keating, “The Baptism of Jesus in Cyril of Alexandria:
The Re-creation of the Human Race,” Pro Ecclesia 8 (1999): 201–222.
383 In Jo. 2.530.
 THE TRINITY 111

able to destroy death and renew humanity to its ancient glory. These words
can be considered the explanation of Athanasius’ famous phrase “God
became man so that we may become gods.” In what follows, we will pay
close attention to Cyril’s explanation of the Incarnation, being the work of
the Father done through the Son. Furthermore, we will again look to the
constant influence of Athanasius on Cyril’s understanding of the
Incarnation.
Cyril continually posed the question concerning the aim (skopo,n) of
the Incarnation. 384 Being in the form of God, he emptied himself and took
the form of a servant (Phil 2:6,7) so that, through the Incarnation, the depth
of our salvation will be exposed and will be seen at once according to what
is permissible to us. The Incarnation revealed and set before us the
possibility of salvation. Having established this point, Cyril wrote that one
cause of the Incarnation was revealed by Paul when he wrote, as a plan for the
fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth
(Eph 1:10). That means reuniting things as they were in the beginning. Two
methods of reuniting things are suggested, one according to Rom 8:3–4,
and the other according to Heb 2:14,15. In Romans, the epistle discusses
that the Law could not fulfill salvation because of the weakness of the flesh;
therefore, God sent his own Son to condemn the sin in the flesh. In
Hebrews, Christ, through death, brought death to naught and delivered us
from bondage. In addition, in Jn 1:11–13, He came to his own and those
who received him, he made them children of God. Based on these three
verses, Cyril concluded that the three aims for the Incarnation were to
condemn sin in the flesh, to overcome death by his death, and to make us
children of God by which we receive a regeneration in the Spirit
(avnagennh,saj evn Pneu,mati). 385
Cyril not only explained the aim of the Incarnation, he also attempted
to explain the Incarnation itself. And the Word became flesh (Jn 1:14), is the
clearest statement about the Incarnation that the Evangelist has written.
The Word became flesh signifies nothing else than the Word became Man.
Cyril based his argument on Joel 2:28, I will pour out my spirit on all flesh where
it is very clear that by “flesh” is meant the whole of the human being
including the soul since we comprehend the whole from the part (avll v evk
me,rouj to. o[lon sullabw.n). 386 Cyril followed this with more explanation.
He noted that man is a composite (su,nqeton) rational (logiko.n) creature.

384 In Jo. 2.481.

385 In Jo. 2. 481–2.
386 In Jo. 1.138.
112 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

He is clearly composed of a soul and a perishable and earthly flesh (evk

yuch/j dhlono,ti kai. th/j evpikh,rou tauthsi. kai. ghi<nhj sarko,j). 387 This

387 Ibid. Cyril elsewhere emphasized the presence of the soul within the
understanding of the word “flesh-sa,rx.” He mentions in Jn 8:12, I am the light of the
world, that the light is not “in him” but the light is “him,” for I am the light. The basis
of this is that we cannot divide Christ into two sons after the Incarnation, one is
the Son of God and the other is the man in the flesh. But there is One Lord Jesus
Christ, 1 Cor 8:6. We cannot sever the Son for he took the body as his own (auvtou/
ga.r i;dion to. sw/ma). In Jo. 1.713. Cyril concluded the whole argument by writing
that when we say that the Son of God became flesh we do not say that he was
encompassed in flesh (sarki. peribeblh/sqai,) for when we use the word flesh we
indicate the whole man (to.n pa,nta dhlou/men a;nqrwpon). In Jo. 1.713. In Jn 7:27
Cyril made a similar statement that Christ is wearing his own robe, that is, his own
body or his temple, does really signify a soul and a body (evk yuch/j dhlono,ti kai.
sw,matoj). In Jo. 1.442. Again, he asserted in Jn 6:57 that when we speak about the
Incarnation of the Son of God, we mean a complete man was made (a;nqrwpon
o`loklh,rwj), that is, he is man in all that entails. In spite of this clear assertion from
Cyril that sa,rx includes a soul, scholarly works have argued lengthily on this point.
Grillmeier argued that Arius denied a soul for Christ. Grillmeier also stated that
Christ’s soul was not a crucial issue until the Council of Nicea. Grillmeier, Christ in
Christian Tradition, 239–40. Grillmeier adds that Athanasius has acknowledged that
Christ has a soul but it has neither a “theological factor” nor a “physical factor.”
Ibid., 308–9. According to Grillmeier, Athanasius, after the Council of 362,
recognized that the soul of Christ is physical but has no theological factor. Ibid.,
320–323. As for Cyril, he took Athanasius’ stand, Christ has a soul, it is physical but
has no theological factor. Ibid., 414–7. Burghardt defends the presence of a soul in
Christ by saying how could Cyril write that “what has not been assumed has not
been saved” if he did not believe that Christ had a soul. Burghardt, The Image of God
in Man, 107. The problem with Burghardt’s argument is that this quote, that is
based on Gregory Nazianzen’s Letter 101, is quoted in the comment on In Jo.
2.318, Book 7 which is collected from fragments. Liébaert argued that the
fragments are not Cyril’s words while Hallman argued that they are authentic.
Further study needs to be done to determine if there is an interpolation in the
fragments on Jn 7:27,28. Liébaert, La Doctrine Christologique, 131ff. Joseph M.
Hallman, “The Seed of Fire: Divine Sufferings in the Christology of Cyril of
Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 5
(1977): 377. Ng, in his article about St Athanasius, reaches a conclusion that “we
find that while the evidence supporting Athanasius’ recognition of Christ’s human
soul are not conclusive, the arguments for rejecting it are even weaker.” Nathan K.
K. Ng, “The Soul of Christ in Athanasius,” Coptic Church Review 22 (Spring 2001):
23. Also A. Louth, “The Concept of the Soul in Athanasius’ Contra Gentes – De
Incarnatione,” Studia Patristica 13 (1975): 227–231. McKinion argued the presence of
a soul from a philosophical point of view. He explained the Aristotelian and Stoic
 THE TRINITY 113

vision of human beings. He said that the Neo-Platonists are a synthesis of both
visions, thus, their belief is that the pneuma pervades and mixes with the whole
body, thus, Cyril, as a Neo-Platonist, must have included in his Logos-Sarx
Christology the presence of a soul. Steven A. McKinion, Words, Imagery and the
Mystery of Christ: A Reconstruction of Cyril of Alexandria’s Christology (Leiden; Boston:
Brill, 2000), 55–59. After McKinion argued his idea philosophically he addressed
the issue from scripture and said that scriptural ethos spoke of a;nqrwpoj as sa,rx
and asserted that Cyril asserts the presence of a human soul in Christ. He also used,
within his argument, the idea that Cyril mentioned that what was not assumed is
not saved which we have previously discussed as debatable. Ibid., 159–175.
Liébaert approached the topic of the presence of a soul in Christ from the
standpoint of development in the thought and writings of Cyril. He first discussed
the philosophical view that there are two possible understandings of becoming
man. The Aristotelian which considered it a union between the soul and a body and
the Platonists who considered man a spiritual being engaged in a body. Liébaert, La
Doctrine Christologique, 147–148. Liébaert argued that Athanasius did not include a
soul in his system and it was strictly a sa,rx image. According to Liébaert, this image
is the prevalent Platonist idea and was adopted by Didymus the Blind and
Apollinarius. This is in contrast to Eustathius of Antioch and his followers who
insisted on the human soul to Christ. Ibid., 149–150. Liébaert argued, after quoting
Cyril’s explicit reference to soul in his writings, that Cyril’s thought was in line with
the current Platonist anthropology that man is an incarnate spirit and the soul was
not part of the framework of thought in the system. He also argued that the soul
did not play any part in the Anti-Arian polemics. Based on this Liébaert concluded
that Cyril’s works before 428 did not include reference to the soul. Ibid., 155–8.
The mention of soul comes later in his writings. Ibid., 171–2, 184. Liébaert’s
argument does not accord with the cited reference to the soul in the Commentary on
John mentioned above. The Commentary is one of his early writings and is pre-
Nestorian. The presence of soul in Cyril’s writings is evident in his early writings
and the theory of idea development does not hold. Hallman asserted that the use of
sa,rx does include human soul and based his argument on Jn 1:14 interpretation.
Hallman wrote that Cyril uses sw/ma twice and sa,rx twenty-seven times in the
Thesaurus; thus, his use of sa,rx does include the soul. Hallman, 373. Koen argued
that a division of modern scholarship into a Logos-sarx and Logos-anthropos
Christology is rather exaggerated. Lars Koen, The Saving Passion, 19. Koen is of the
opinion that “Grillmeier is also satisfied with observing the similarity between
Athanasius and Cyril and finds them both lacking in an understanding of the real
humanity of Christ. He gives priority to a Logos-sarx-christology to the apparent
exclusion of other aspects of Cyril’s christology.” Ibid., 36. The presence of the
soul in Christ must be understood within a larger context of the Incarnation and
salvation where Christ has to assume humanity in its totality in order to be saved.
McCoy writes that “Cyril argued that when one speaks of a man the reference is to
a soul and a body together, though the soul is of another nature than the body.” J.
114 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

perishable and corruptible flesh was sealed up with the spirit of life
(katesfragi,zeto tw|/ pneu,mati th/j zwh/j). 388 This spirit of life is of the
divine and makes us benefit from the divine goodness. When we
transgressed and received the punishment of returning to dust then the
earthly body suffered the departure of the spirit of life and this was death. It
was the death of the flesh alone, for the soul was kept in immortality, since
the punishment was limited to the flesh since it was the flesh that was to
return to dust. The way to recover (avnasw,zesqai) what was lost is for the
flesh to intertwine (sumplokh|)/ again with life and regain our immortality.
The means to achieve this is to unite this mortal body with the Word that
gives life to all things (tw|/ ta. pa,nta zwogonou/nti Lo,gw|). 389 For he is Life
and when he is united with the flesh he will bring forth (evnerga,sasqai)
good in the flesh, that is, life.

D. McCoy, “Philosophical Influences on the Doctrine of the Incarnation in

Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria,” Encounter 38 (1977): 381. Welch, in his article,
addressed the topic of the soul of Christ. Welch comments on Cyril’s De recta fide ad
Theodosium saying, “Cyril continues on to say that Christ laid down his own soul for
our soul, ‘in order to be the Lord of the living and the dead,’ and that Christ’s soul
was offered as ransom for our souls. It was the soul of Christ that descended into
hell, preached to the imprisoned spirits and bestowed the power of the divine
sovereignty over hell. Cyril quotes 1 Peter 3:17–20 and concludes that the passage
must refer to the soul of the Logos. There is no room in his thought for the idea
that the divinity separated from the humanity at the death of Christ.” Lawrence J.
Welch, “Logos-Sarx? Sarx and the Soul of Christ in the Early Thought of Cyril of
Alexandria,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 291. The beginning of
Welch’s article includes a summary of scholarly works concerning the topic of the
soul in Christ. Ibid., 271–276. Dratsellas also presented a summary of scholarly
works that dealt with the topic of the presence of a soul of Christ. Dratsellas
believed that Cyril is a biblical theologian and in biblical terminology “sarx” meant
the whole of human nature. Dratsellas, “Questions on Christology,” 204–8.
Dratsellas argued that the Thesaurus, one of the early writings of Cyril, uses clear
terminology about the soul in Christ. Ibid., 209. He strongly disagreed with
Grillmeier about the young Cyril’s use of the Logos-Sarx Christology. Ibid., 213.
Also consult Maurice F. Wiles, “The Nature of the Early Debate about Christ’s
Human Soul,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 16 (1965):139–51. Further detailed
interest in the topic of the soul of Christ in the writings of Cyril can begin with the
Dratsellas and Welch articles that include a summary of major works regarding this
topic.
388 In Jo. 1.138.
389 In Jo. 1.139.
 THE TRINITY 115

Cyril added that the Evangelist did not say that the Word came into
(evlqei/n) flesh but became (gene,sqai) actual flesh. 390 The difference is that
the former would be the case of prophets and saints and the latter would be
the case of the Word Incarnate. Therefore, he is God by nature in flesh and
with flesh and having it as his own (dia. tou/to kai. Qeo,j evsti kata. fu,sin
evn sarki.( kai. meta. sarko.j( w`j ivdi,an e;cwn auvth.n). He is worshiped in
this flesh and with this flesh (kai. evn auvth|/ kai. su.n auvth|/
proskunou,menoj). 391 God is in him without separating the flesh of the Word
and there is no other God than him. He unites the flesh to the Word and
makes it his own (i;dion auvtou/). For Christ is one from both (ei-j ga.r evx
avmfoi/n o` Cristo,j). 392 Cyril maintained the unity of the flesh with the
Word on earth, where Christ is one and in heaven, where the glorified flesh
shares in the worship due to God. This is an affirmation that when Christ
took the flesh as his own, he recovered what was lost—that is, its previous
glory—and thus the Christ will be worshiped in and with the flesh. The
theological framework within which Cyril is working is embedded within
the idea of the oneness of the person of Christ and the oneness of the
Trinity. The Incarnation is becoming actual flesh and having the flesh as his
own. The flesh, according to Cyril, is composed of a soul, a perishable and
earthly flesh, and a spirit of life. Jeopardizing this understanding of the
Incarnation nullifies salvation.
Cyril commented on Jn 3:35, The Father loves the Son and has placed all
things in his hands, by noting that the proof of the Father’s love is that he
gave the Son all power and authority. The same idea is found in Mt 9:27
and Mt 28:18. This does not imply that the Son is lesser than the Father for
having to receive it. For the Son is equal to the Father and has all power.
Nevertheless, when he became man and humbled himself, he then received
humanly (avnqrwpi,nwj) what was his, as God (qeoprepw/j), for it is a
restoration and recovery (evpanadromh. de. ma/llon kai. evpana,lhyij) with the

390 In Jo. 1.140. This is a direct answer to the Nestorian controversy, though

Cyril wrote this text before he even became a bishop. So, the Nestorian
controversy did not make Cyril rethink his opinions, he just became outspoken and
defensive about them. Another possibility is that the Nestorian opinion did not
come from a vacuum. Nestorius’ training in the Antiochene school of thought
made him develop his controversial ideas and it is most probable that Cyril, because
of his acutely trained theological sense, considered this a point to be addressed lest
it would lead to heresy, which it actually later did.
391 In Jo. 1.140.
392 Ibid.
116 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

flesh of what he had before the flesh. 393 It is as if it is an attestation of the

divine powers within the Incarnate Logos and assurance that what he had
before being in the flesh did not change after assuming the flesh.
Cyril explained that Christ did not receive the Spirit for himself, but
rather in himself for us (h`mi/n de. ma/llon evn e`autw|/) for all good things are
quickly transmitted from him to us. 394 Since Adam disobeyed and sinned
and since through him the whole of human nature lost the God-given good
(to. qeo,sdoton avgaqo.n), the human race needed the Word, who knows no
turning (o` troph.n ouvk eivdw.j), to become man, so that through him
goodness would be preserved firmly in human nature. 395 The reason we
need the Word is to reverse the action of Adam. As Adam sinned by
turning from goodness to evil, the Son who is unchangeable—for he is the
one who does not sin—is the one who could firmly secure the goodness in
us. Therefore the Son, as man, would indisputably preserve in himself
(die,swsaj avnamfilo,gwj evn seautw|/), the holy anointing, that is, the Spirit
(a[gion cri,sma toute,sti to. Pneu/ma). 396 The Only-Begotten became man,
like us, so as to strongly guard (avraro,twj th|/ fu,sei fula,ttoito) in human
nature the good things and root the grace of the Spirit (h` tou/ Pneu,matoj
r`izwqei/sa ca,rij) within it. 397 Knowing that the Son, being of God’s
nature, is unchangeable (avmeta,ptwton), he can instill in humanity his
unchangeableness and thus reverse the changeableness of Adam. This is the
way to reverse the first loss of goodness that humanity lost in Adam by
instilling in humanity the newness of life (kaino,thta zwh/j) and return to
incorruption. After the Incarnation he was man and one of us (h=n
a;nqrwpoj kai. ei-j evx h`mw/n) and after the resurrection, humanity was given
the renewing Spirit (to. avnakaini,zon Pneu/ma), where Christ lived again
having the whole of human nature in himself. 398 Renewal of humanity could
not have been achieved without the Son who, having taken human nature
as his own, was able to reverse the first change towards sin incurred by
Adam and establish a newness of life within humanity.

393 In Jo. 1.256.

394 In Jo. 1.693.
395 For a discussion about the relationship between the unchangeableness of

God, even after the Incarnation, with the divine impassability refer to David B.
Hart, “No Shadow of Turning: On Divine Impassibility,” Pro Ecclesia vol. 11, no. 2
(Spring 2002): 184–206.
396 In Jo. 1.694.
397 Ibid.
398 Ibid.
 THE TRINITY 117

Cyril explained the same idea again when he comments on Jn 17:33, In

the world you face persecution. But take courage: I have conquered the world, to
elaborate upon Christ’s conquering of the world. Christ conquered every sin
and will thus freely give (evpidw,sei) victory for those who attempt to
struggle for his sake. 399 Christ not only conquered corruption and death,
making his resurrection the beginning of a new life, but through the power
of his resurrection he will also overcome the world. For Christ overcame
the world as man, humanity will thus be empowered to overcome the world
through the power of his resurrection. 400
To understand how the Incarnate Son of God conquered we have to
hold before our minds the Son who is at the same time God and man (Qeo.n
evn tauvtw|/ kai. a;nqrwpon o;nta to.n Ui`o.n). 401 Christ bears in his person the
nature of the one Son; at the same time we cannot cast aside the manner
befitting humanity (ta. th/| avnqrwpo,thti pre,ponta). For example, we cannot
ignore the death of Christ considering it foreign to his nature since he is the
one who gives life to all. He endured death in the flesh since all flesh is
mortal. However, in the scheme of redemption he gave up his body for
death, where he implanted his own life into it (auvtw|/ th.n ivdi,an evnefu,teuse
zwh.n), and did not exert any powerful means to rescue himself from
death. 402 For his incarnation was for the sole reason to give human nature
the ability to escape death and return to the original state of incorruption.
He achieved this through sanctification. Earthly bodies (gh/j sw/ma) do not
have the fruit of sanctification in their own nature (fu,sewj me.n ivdi,aj ouvk
e;cei karpo.n to.n a`giasmo.n) therefore humanity was in need of God who is
by nature prone to sanctify all things (tou/ a`gia,zein ta. pa,nta pefuko,toj
Qeou/). 403 The Word who dwells within himself, sanctifies the temple of his
dwelling through the Holy Spirit (tou/ evn auvth|/ katoikh,santoj Lo,gou dia.
tou/ `Agiou/ Pneu,matoj to.n oivkei/on nao.n a`gia,zontoj) and alters his own
nature by his energy (kai. eivj evne,rgeian auvto.n th/j ivdi,aj metapoiou/ntoj
fu,sewj). 404 Thus, the Son is able to incur sanctification within himself
through his own power and by the energy embedded within him, and

399 In Jo. 2.657.

400 This is a recurring theme in Cyril’s writing where he comments on Jn 13:36
that Christ’s suffering is the first to bring release (lu,sij) from death and his
resurrection is marked as the beginning of courage (euvtolmi,aj) to attain the
newness of life. In Jo. 2.393–4.
401 In Jo. 2.725.
402 In Jo. 2.726.
403 Ibid.
404 Ibid.
118 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

through this process of sanctification he is able to implant the sanctifying

power within humanity. 405 Christ sanctified his own temple—since it is
created—through which he is able to sanctify all created things. When the
Son anoints his own temple for sanctification it is understood that the
Father is said to do so for the Father works through no other person except
through his Son (evnergei/ ga.r ouvc e`te,rwj h; di v Ui`ou/). 406 This is really
another way of explaining Athanasius’ noteworthy statement, “God became
man so that we may become gods.” Christ took a body and sanctified it,
and it is through this sanctified body he implants the fruit of sanctification
in humanity and achieves deification.
Cyril summarized his understanding of Christ’s death when
commenting on Christ being taken to be crucified (Jn 14:16–18) and further
writes that the death of Christ accomplished a reversal (avnti,strofon) in the
situation of humanity. The death of Christ was a source of renewal of
humanity to a newness of life (kaino,thta zwh/j) without corruption. 407
Again, Cyril was following the same theme of the return (avnti,strofon) of
humanity to its original state, even better, to a state of incorruption.
Cyril did not, at any stage of the commentary, give special attention to
the issue of knowledge or ignorance of Christ. He commented that it is
written in Luke that Jesus advanced in wisdom and grace ( vIhsou/j de.
proe,kopten evn sofi,a| kai. ca,riti) while the Spirit said somewhere else that
the Son has his glory full of grace (o[ti plh,rh ca,ritoj e;cein th.n do,xan )))
to.n Ui`o.n). 408 The last statement acknowledges Christ’s fullness in grace and
glory, and there is nothing beyond that, so how can the Lukan verse still
attribute more growth in wisdom and grace? Cyril explained that growth is

405 Hallman writes that Cyril after arguing against the Arians and proving the

divinity of the Son, “Cyril asserts that the human nature is perfected by the divine
Word.” Hence any moral development or growth in wisdom of Christ mentioned
in the Gospel narrative is through “the gradual elevation of the humanity of Jesus
by the Logos.” Hallman, The Seed of Fire, 373. Hallman does not go further in his
discussion about the perfection of humanity through the Son who has acquired a
body or humanity as his own.
406 In Jo. 2.727.
407 In Jo. 3.80.
408 In Jo. 1.143–4. It is worth noting that the New Testament Nestle Aland text

has kai. vIhsou/j proe,kopten sofi,a| kai. h`liki,a| kai. ca,riti para. qew|/ kai.
avnqrw,poij where stature (h`liki,a|) is not mentioned in Cyril’s text. The Nestle
Aland edition does not mention any other variant reading for this word in other
manuscripts. Cyril mentioned the non-tangible attributes such as wisdom and grace
while the physical growth in stature is not mentioned.
 THE TRINITY 119

in the eyes of those who saw his works and marveled at him. The spectators
experienced an increase in knowledge of Christ. The increase was in those
who saw him, not in himself. This explanation clarifies why Cyril either
omitted stature (h`liki,a|) or it may be that his text did not have h`liki,a| and
this consequently influenced his exegesis.
When Christ went to raise Lazarus in Jn 11:33–4 he asked where did
Lazarus lay? Cyril explained that this should not be considered ignorance of
the Son, but rather should be considered equality with the Father who
called on Adam saying, Where are you? (Gen 3:9). Cyril claimed that this
question would gather the crowds around Lazarus to witness the miracle of
restoring life. 409 On another occasion, two of John’s disciples follow Christ
and he says to them, What are you looking for? (Jn 1:38). Cyril again noted that
Christ is not ignorant (avgnoh,saj) for as God he knows all things. He rather
asks the question to begin a discourse (diale,xesi). 410 When the crowds in
Jerusalem began whispering among themselves Is not this the man whom they
are trying to kill? (Jn 7:25) and when Christ teaches in the temple saying, You
know me, and you know where I am from (Jn 7:28), Cyril commented that Christ
said the last statement in answer to the whispers of the crowds, for he has
knowledge (th.n gnw/sin) of all things spoken. 411 When Christ knew that the
Pharisees heard that he baptized more than John, he left Judea (Jn 4:1–3).
Cyril commented that this signifies that Christ had foreknowledge of what
was happening, since he knew in himself (auvtoma,twj oi=den) and did not
wait for someone to tell him. 412 Cyril concluded that it is worthy of God’s
befitting economy (qeoprepou/j oivknomi,aj a;xion) to leave Judea. 413 In all of
these references, Cyril continually asserted that God is all-knowledgeable
and, consequently, the Incarnate Son of God is also all-knowledgeable. Cyril
did not divide the knowledge of Christ in such a way that knowledge
belongs to the divinity and ignorance belongs to humanity. Rather, Christ is
all-knowledgeable as God, and he answers questions or leaves an area, as is
befitting the economy. This is not because his humanity is ignorant, but
because it is befitting to take action that is more suitable to the economy. 414

409 In Jo. 2.280–1.

410 In Jo. 1.193.
411 In Jo. 1.655.
412 In Jo. 1.261.
413 Ibid.
414 Both Du Manoir and Liébaert gave some attention to the ignorance of

Christ in the Commentary on John. Du Manoir tried to answer the question, is the
ignorance of Christ real or apparent? He answers the question that the divinity does
not need progress but it is the divine knowledge that appeared progressively in his
120 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Just as Cyril did not divide the knowledge or ignorance of Christ into
human ignorance and divine knowledge, he did not divide the nature of
Christ into two, but rather maintained the unity under all circumstances.
The issue of the unity of the Son later became the main focus of
controversy in Cyril’s Christology. At the time of writing his commentary—
which, as I have argued in Chapter One, was before his becoming bishop
and before the beginning of the Nestorian controversy—he was extremely
adamant about the unity in Christ. Because of the importance of the issue
of unity, we will now address the unity of Christ as presented in the
Commentary on John.
Cyril comments on Jn 6:53, Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of
the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you, that Christ hands down
to his disciples the “life giving knowledge of the mystery” (th.n zwopoio.n
tou/ musthri,ou gnw/sin). 415 Cyril alerted his readers that Christ intentionally
withheld knowledge of how he would give them his flesh to eat because the
disciples had first to believe before they were called to seek and inquire
about the mystery (evpi. to. crh/nai pisteu,ein pro. th/j evreu,nhj kalei/). 416
For Christ did not explain in detail how humanity is to partake of the flesh
and blood of himself before the Last Supper when he explained to his
disciples that this is a new covenant. The explanation of the mystery was
given to the few who believed. Therefore, those who have not accepted the
faith in Christ are told that they are going to be deprived of the

humanity. He also thought that Cyril responded to the problem of ignorance in his
post-Nestorian works. Du Manoir, Dogme, 150–154. Du Manoir gave a summary of
scholarship concerning the ignorance of Christ on p154–7. Liébaert was of the
opinion that Cyril changed his mind and maintained that God is perfect and does
not need progress in wisdom! Liébaert, La doctrine, p 138–143. Liébaert also
provided a summary of scholarship regarding the ignorance of Christ. Ibid., 87–
101. Koen asserted that Cyril admits the ignorance of Christ in the Commentary on
John. Koen, The Saving Passion, 27. Smith compared some Cyrillian manuscripts
concerning Christ’s growing in wisdom as mentioned in Lk 2 and comments as
follows: “all [manuscripts] affirming that our Lord’s increase in wisdom, stature,
and grace cannot be said of Him considered as the Word, but either must be
understood of the increase of admiration on the part of all who beheld Him, and
daily witnessed a fuller manifestation of His glory; or, as the two latter extracts
teach, it refers to the human nature.” Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, trans. R.
Payne Smith (Studion, 1983), 65. This opinion confirms Du Manoir’s conclusion.
Also A. M. Dubarle, “L’ignorance du Christ dans S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie,”
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 16 (1939):111–120.
415 In Jo. 1.528.
416 In Jo. 1.529.
 THE TRINITY 121

sanctification and blessedness of life (th/j evn a`giasmw|/ kai. makario,thti

zwh/j) for they will not partake of Jesus’ mystical blessing (oi` dia. th/j
mustikh/j euvlogia,j ouv paradexa,menoi to.n vIhsou/n). 417 The Word is life by
nature, and his body (sw/ma) is also quickening since it is united with the all-
quickening Word (e`nwqe.n tw|/ ta. pa,nta zwognonou/ti Lo,gw|). 418 After the
Incarnation, the body and the Word are indivisible (avdiai,retoj ga.r meta.
th.n evnanqrw,phsin). 419 The body is not of the same nature as the Word but
they came together to be one in union and in an incomprehensible
agreement (e[n di. th|/ suno,dw| kai. th|/ avpaerinoh,tw| sundromh|/). 420 Cyril then
proceeded to explain the force of this unity. The body is not an instrument
of the Word, nor is it obeying orders, rather, the body is united in complete
agreement with the Word, that as the Word is life giving, so is the body of
Christ life giving. 421 The life-giving attributes of the body are shown in the

417 Ibid.
418 Ibid.
419 Ibid.
420 In Jo. 1.530.
421 Cyril did not consider the body of Christ an instrument, because of its unity

with the Logos it becomes one Christ. This body of the one Christ has a life-giving
power; therefore, it cannot be considered an instrument but of one and the same
Christ. If the body is an instrument, how can we account for Cyril’s understanding
of salvation where Christ sanctifies his body through which humanity is sanctified.
Human sanctification does not lead our bodies to be instruments to our souls.
Modern scholarship has given much attention to the idea of Christ’s body as an
instrument. The whole argument is based on two quotes from Athansius’ works: de
incarnatione 44 and Contra Arianius 3:35. In these references Athanasius used the
word o;rganon. Du Manoir noted that Thomas Aquinas has often used the terms
instrumentum, organum in his writings. Du Manoir added that Janssens, based on
Aquinas’ use, has gathered many of Aquinas’ works citing Cyril’s work. Du Manoir,
Dogme, 139. It is most probable that the influence of Aquinas on Catholic theology
shaped their approach and focused their attention to the term o;rganon. Grillmeier
discusses the issue of the body as instrument in the context of the Logos-Sarx
Christology. If Athanasius, according to Grillmeier, suggests that Christ has a sarx
without a soul, then it is most probable that the body is an instrument since it is
devoid of soul. Grillmeier, 317–8. However, this research demonstrated that the
sarx includes a soul. Fraigneau-Julien concludes his article that the body of Christ is
“comme organe physique de la divinité.” B. Fraigneau-Julien, “L’efficacité de
l’humanité du Christ selon saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie,” Revue Thomiste 55 (1955) 628.
McGuckin was more particular with his words and writes, “His [Christ] person was
divine and could not be reduced to the bodily life, yet it elected to express itself
through that bodily manner. As a result even the bodily life became a direct vehicle
of the revelation of the divine.” McGuckin intentionally chose “vehicle” instead of
122 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Eucharistic mystery, for if we do not eat his flesh we cannot have life. The
power of this mystery is proved and demonstrated by the ability of the flesh
of Christ, when it was united with the Word, to be life-giving. The proof is
in the raising of the dead, which was not done by word only (ouv lo,gw|
mo,non) or by command. Rather, there is a great stress on employing his
flesh as a coworker (sunerga,thn) in the process of raising the dead. 422 The
flesh has the power to be life-giving (zwopoiei/n duname,nhn) because it is
made one with the Word (w`j e[n h;dh genome,nhn pro.j auvto,n). 423 This also
asserts that it is truly his own body and not another’s. Cyril demonstrated
his point by the example of the daughter of the chief of the synagogue
where, he took her by the hand and called out, “Child, get up!” (Lk 8:54). In this
miracle he gave life by the power of the command as God and again

“instrument” to express his ideas. John McGuckin, “A Synopsis of St. Cyril’s

Christological Doctrine,” Coptic Church Review 19 (1998) 46. O’Keefe referred to
Grillmeier’s opinion without any comment. John O’Keefe, “Interpreting the Angel.
Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentators on the book of
Malachi,” (Ph.D. Diss., The Catholic University of America, 1993), 230. Koen
presented both points of view of Christ’s body as “his own” and as “an
instrument.” For the point of view of the body as an instrument he is dependent on
Grillmeier Koen, 65. Liébaert wrote that the Incarnate Word performs his miracles
dia. th/j sarko,j and writes that in addition to the body being an instrument it is
also co-worker or co-operative (sunerga,thj) with the Logos. Liébaert, La Doctrine,
216. McKinion expressed a different opinion concerning the body of Christ as
instrument. He writes: “The third component of Nestorius’ suna,feia which Cyril
rejects is that God the Word has taken up an ordinary human being like us to use as
his instrument (ovrga,non) to provide redemption…. Cyril is intent on maintaining
singleness of agent. In other words, the referent of the Incarnation must be the
Word, both before and after become a human being. To say, as he accuses
Nestorius of doing, that the Incarnation is the Word’s assumption of an ordinary
human being like us to utilize as his instrument is to deny the necessary singleness
of agent…. If the body of Christ, which belongs to a human being assumed by the
Word as his instrument, is not his, then he is not truly Son of God, but the Son
using an ordinary human being, like the boy using the lyre….” McKinion, 100–1.
Also McKinion, 146. McKinion was applying the notion of instrumentality from
the post-Nestorian writings. This is the implication of accepting the instrumentality
of the body even without Nestorius’ influence. If the body is not his own but an
instrument, then it could be another person’s, it could be similar to the situation of
the prophets, and if God could use a body as an instrument, then what is the
significance of the Incarnation? The body must be “his own” in order to achieve
the “newness of life” and the “new creation.”
422 In Jo. 1.530.
423 Ibid.
 THE TRINITY 123

through the touch of his holy flesh (dia. th/j a`fh/j th/j a`giaj sarko.j) to
show that it is one intrinsic operation through both (mi,an te kai. suggenh/
di v avmfoi/n evpidei,knusi th.n evnergeian). 424 Another example is that of the
raising of the widow’s son of Nain. He approached the dead son and touched
the bier and he said, young man, I say to you rise! (Lk 7:14). Again, the operation
of raising the dead included the power of the command of the Word and
the touching of the bier. Cyril then concluded his exegesis by referring back
to the power of the Eucharistic mystery saying that if the body that is one
with Christ is life giving and raises the dead, surely we are also partaking of
immortality when we partake of the mystery. 425 The unity as explained here,
is not only a physically inseparable and indivisible unity. This unity also
includes a unity in operation.
Likewise, when Cyril spoke of the healing of the blind man in Jn 9:6–7,
he also connected the healing of the blind man to the life-giving ability of
the body of Christ. In addition to the life-giving powers, Christ’s body is
also a patron of light (fwtismou/ pro,xenon) for he is by nature the true
light. 426 Cyril again compares the healing of the blind man where Christ
used his spittle in conjunction with the command to “go and wash,” with
the raising of the son of the widow where the command to “I say to you
rise” is joined by touching the bier with his hand. This is another assertion
that the body of Christ possesses a life-giving power in addition to its being
a patron of light. Cyril’s understanding of the Eucharistic mystery is based
on his theological understanding of the Incarnation. The life-giving power

424 Ibid.
425 Ezra Gebremedhin, Life-Giving Blessing: An Inquiry into the Eucharistic Doctrine of
Cyril of Alexandria, (Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1977). Gebremedhin
dedicated his research to the study of the vivifying power of the Eucharist, in the
larger spectrum of Cyril’s work beyond the scope of The Commentary on the Gospel of
John. However, here, our aim is to focus on the unifying factors of the humanity
and the divinity of the Son which includes, in part, its vivifying power, since the
Son is the Life of the world. Gebremedhin’s study is an elaboration of this and is
very relevant to this point. There are other articles on the Eucharist listed in the
following three works: Burghardt, 113; in Daniel Keating, “The Baptism of Jesus in
Cyril of Alexandria: The Re-creation of the Human Race,” Pro Ecclesia 8 (1999):
544. And Mahé provides a summary of scholarly works on the Eucharist in J.
Mahé, “L’Eucharistie d’après S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie,” Revue d’Histoire Écclésiastique 8
(1907): 677–8. See also, Du Manoir, 185–203, where he includes a discussion about
the real presence. McKinion, 208–212. Koen, 73. E. Michaud, “S. Cyrille
d’Alexandrie et l’Eucharistie,” Revue Internationale de Théologie 10 (1902):599–614,
675–692.
426 In Jo. 2.158.
124 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

of the mystery is explained through Cyril’s Christological expressions of the

oneness of the person of Christ which includes unity of operation. Unity of
operation excludes the body of Christ as an instrument and excludes duality
in the person of Christ. When the Nestorian controversy erupted later, Cyril
considered it a threat to the understanding of the person of Christ, the
Incarnation, and consequently the understanding of the Eucharistic
mystery. The Nestorian vision includes instrumentality of the body and
duality of operation contrary to Cyril’s vision of unity.
These ideas are represented in Athanasian writings. In St. Athanasius’
Contra Arianos he writes, “…when there was need to raise Peter’s wife’s
mother, who was sick of fever, He stretched forth His hand humanly, but
He stopped the illness divinely. And in the case of the man blind from
birth, human was the spittle which He gave forth from the flesh, but
divinely did He open the eyes through the clay. And in the case of Lazarus,
He gave forth a human voice, as man; but divinely, as God, did He raise
Lazarus from the dead. These things were so done, were so manifested,
because He had a body, not in appearance but in truth; and it became the
Lord, in putting on human flesh, to put it on whole with the affections
proper to it; that, as we say that the body was His own, so also we may say
that the affections of the body were proper to Him alone, though they did
not touch Him according to His Godhead.” 427 There are two main
Athanasian points that Cyril adopted. First, work done by the Incarnate
Word is done through the cooperation between the Word and his body as
one single activity. Second, the body is true and not “in appearance,”
addressing docetic opinions. Athanasius also addressed the truthfulness of
the body of Christ in de incarnatione 18. Even after the Nestorian
controversy, Cyril still kept the same ideas. His sermons on the Gospel of
Luke portray similar ideas. He writes commenting on the miracle of raising
the son of the woman of Nain, “And the manner of his rising is plain to
see; for He touched, it says, the bier, and said, young man, I say unto thee, arise. And
yet how was not a word enough for raising him who was lying there? For
what is there difficult to it, or past accomplishment? What is more powerful
than the Word of God? Why then did He not effect the miracle by a word
only, but also touched the bier? It was, my beloved, that thou mightest learn
that the holy body of Christ is effectual for the salvation of man. For the
flesh of the Almighty Word is the body of life, and was clothed with His

427 Contra Arianos 3.32.

 THE TRINITY 125

might.” 428 The continuity of the theological theme of unity of operation is

evident.
Cyril explained that Jn 15:1, I am the true vine, refers directly to Christ
and to no other, for he gives to those who believe in him his body and his
blood that they might have in themselves eternal life. At the same time,
eternal life might be conceived as the flesh of him who is the eternal life,
that is, the Only Begotten. Since he is eternal life, then he is the one who
raises us up on the last day. Cyril then proceeded to explain these
statements in greater detail. Since Life, that is, the Son of God, took to
himself flesh, his flesh is a transforming force of life (th.n th/j zwh/j
metecw,rhse du,namin), and it is impossible that life be conquered by death
(qana,tw| nika/sqai th.n zwh,n). 429 Seeing that life is in us, the bonds of death
cannot hold up, and life will gain victory over corruption. When Christ says,
I will raise him, he not only conferred on his own flesh the power to raise
from the dead, but also the Incarnate Word, being one with his own flesh
(e[n u`pa,rcwn meta. th/j ivdi,aj sarko.j), also says I will raise him. 430 For Christ
cannot be divided into two sons, and his body cannot be foreign to the
Only-Begotten, for the body does not neglect its own soul, nor does it
consider it foreign. 431 If the unity between the Word and the body that he
assumed as his own is not preserved, then the body of the Word will not
have this vivifying effect in its wonder working nor will it have the force of
vivifying in the rest of human bodies that it affects.
In Jn 19:23–24, the soldiers wanted to divide Christ’s clothes among
themselves. They divided the clothes into four parts, but when it came to
the seamless tunic, they cast lots and did not divide the tunic. Cyril
commented that it is impossible that scripture would address such details
had it not been of benefit for the believers. To begin with, the readers
would benefit by knowing that it is in fulfillment of a prophecy in the book
of Psalms (Ps 22:18). This event is also a mystical sign (shmei/on
mustikh/j). 432 The four parts of the garment signify the salvation of the four
corners of the world. This is in comparison to the Only Begotten, whose
body is cut into small pieces for the sanctification of every soul, yet he
remains undivided and whole. Indeed, Cyril finds in every division and

428 Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, trans. R. Payne Smith (Studion, 1983),
155 & 201.
429 In Jo. 2.543.
430 Ibid.
431 Ibid.
432 In Jo. 3.88
126 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

unity, in any event of the scriptural narrative, a sign of the unity of the
Christ.
Cyril never separated the body from the Word even at the time of the
ascension. He wrote that we must not accept a divided Christ as some want
to divide Christ into two (eivj du,o katameri,zesqai cristou.j). 433 Most
probably he meant the general Antiochene tendency—a tendency that later
led to the Nestorian controversy—to separate the humanity of Christ from
his divinity. He went on to explain that Christ keeps himself undivided in
every way after the Incarnation (avme,riston ga.r e`auto.n pantach/| fula,ttei
meta. th.n evnanqrw,phsin). 434 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending
to where he was before (Jn 6:62), for in the situation, where he was before, the Word
was without an earthly body (gh/j sw,matoj). 435 Paul says he is one Lord Jesus
Christ (1 Cor 8:6), for he is one Son before and after the Incarnation, and
his body should not be alien to the Word (ouvk avllo,trion) for it is his own
(to. i;dion auvtou/ ))) sw/ma). 436 Cyril refused the division of humanity from
the divinity of Christ not only during his earthly ministry and during his
performance of miraculous works, but this indivisibility was sustained even
during his ascension.
Cyril not only insisted upon the unity of the Son during his ascension
but also the preservation of this unity when he came down from heaven
for, No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son
of Man (Jn 3:13). Cyril writes, “for since the Word of God came down from
heaven, he says the Son of Man came down from heaven, declining to
divide into two persons after the Incarnation.” 437 Since the verse writes the
“Son of Man” is the one who descended, then he is no other than the Word
of God. Even in the description of the descent there is no division of
persons. Cyril added, for as he is the Word of God, he is also the Man of a
woman, for there is one Christ of both, undivided in sonship and God
deserving glory (ei-j de. loipo.n evx avmfoi/n o` Cristo.j( avdiai,retoj eivj
ui`o,thta kai. eivj do,xan qeopreph/). 438 For Cyril, the indivisibility of Christ
had to be preserved under all circumstances of the Incarnation and in the

433 In Jo. 1.550.

434 Ibid.
435 Ibid.
436 Ibid.
437 In Jo. 1.224. tou/ de. Qeou/ Lo,gou katabebhko,toj evx ouvranou/( to.n Ui`o.n tou/

avnqrw,tou katabh/nai, fhsi( dica,zesqai meta. th.n evnanqrw,phsin eivj du,o

pro,swpa paraitou,menoj)
438 Ibid.
 THE TRINITY 127

process of the Incarnation as well. The indivisibility had to be kept during

the ascension and later descent.
Cyril wanted to prove the indivisibility of the Word from his own body
at all times. He repeated this idea in many forms. Therefore, he wrote that,
while the Word was among us on earth, he still filled the heavens. So even
now, while he is heaven with his own flesh (evn ouvranoi/j meta. th/j ivdi,aj
sarko.j), he still fills the earth. 439 Though we might tend to think of him as
present with us in his divinity, he speaks of being with us, a little while. This
verse indicates the whole and perfect self without division (telei,wj te kai.
o`loklh,rwj e`auto.n avpo. tou/ me,rouj shmai,nwn) 440 so that no one would
sever Christ into two sons for he is one Christ. We should think of the
Word as being one with his temple, that is, his body. They are not of the
same essence but after their ineffable union, we should not sever them, for
Christ is one of both (ei-j ga.r evx avmfoi/n o` Cristo,j). 441
The indivisibility of the Incarnate Son must be understood within the
Trinity. Cyril explained that the Son does not seek his own glory for it is in
his power to incur immediate punishment since, I do not seek my own glory;
there is one who seeks it and he is the judge (Jn 8:50). For those who insult him
insult also the Godhead, and people should be careful of the Father’s wrath.
For if the Son is forbearing (avnexikakou/ntoj), the Father will not tolerate
this and will rise against the insolent people. 442 This is not as if God is
pleased to be on behalf of his saints, but rather being one with the Son, they
both are co-glorified (sundoxazo,meno,n). 443 As the Son partakes of the glory
of the Father he also partakes of his essence. For he who slanders
(dusfhmi,aj) against the Son, is impious (dussebh,santej) against the whole
Trinity. 444 The indivisibility of the Son Incarnate is to be preserved not only
within his own nature, but also within the Trinity.
When the blind man in Jn 9:37 was asked if he believes in the Son of
Man and he replied asking who is he to believe in him, Jesus said to him, “You have
seen him, and the one speaking with you is he.” Cyril instantly proceeded to
explain that the answer makes us understand the aim or object (skopo.n) of
the Incarnation. 445 We should not divide the one Son into two. What Cyril

439 In Jo. 2.381.

440 Ibid.
441 Ibid.
442 In Jo. 1.112.
443 In Jo. 1.113.
444 Ibid.
445 In Jo. 2.200. McKinion gave great attention to Cyril’s use of the term skopo,j

in his writings. He analyzed the intention of the skopo,j of Cyril in his writings.
128 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

seems to imply is that when the blind man was asked to see the Son of
Man—the wonder-worker—he was asked to see the Son of God; it was
through belief that the blind man understood that the Son was presented to
him in form of his humiliation. Cyril continued to explain that scriptures
loudly proclaimed that the Son and Christ are one. For the Son is one, and
only one, both before being in conjunction with the flesh and after he came
with the flesh (ei-j ga.r kai. mo,noj Ui`o.j( kai. pro. th/j pro.j sa,rka
suno,dou( kai. o[te sunh/lqe sarki,). 446 The Son is one before and after the
Incarnation. Cyril continued to say that the Word does not show any
distinction between what is presented to the bodily eye and what is known
through speech (kai. to.n toi/j tou/ sw,matoj ovfqalmoi/j u`popi,ptonta( kai.
to.n evk th/j lalia/j ginwsko,menon). 447 Cyril constantly affirmed that the
Son is always one and is one in the Trinity, whether he is in the flesh or not.
The state of the Incarnation does not change the oneness of the Son, and to
keep the oneness of the Son, the oneness of his nature must be
preserved. 448

McKinion, 23, 30, 33, 227. Kerrigan also discussed the term skopo,j in Kerrigan,
Cyril, Interpreter of the Old Testament, 87–111.
446 In Jo. 2.200
447 In Jo. 2:201. Liébaert in his work has considered this passage as a crucial and

the most representative passage of refusing Christological dualism. Liébaert, La

Doctrine, 203–4.
448 Cyril writes in a letter to John of Antioch preserved in Ethiopic and Arabic

that “it is not reasonable to isolate each nature, in this way you cease the unity and
each is alone in a separate entity…. He who separates Christ, separates the mystery
of the name…. This person sets two persons, one is free, the other is captive, one
suffers, the other does not suffer. What does it mean to have one name but two
operations.” B. M. Weischer, Qerellos IV 1: Homilien und Briefe zum Konzil von Ephesos.
Wiesbaden, 1979. Modern scholarship elaborated on the unity of Christ from the
post-Chalcedonian standpoint or focused primarily on post-Nestorian writings.
Some scholars used writings of both periods, pre and post Nestorian, without
discrimination. Du Manoir presented a summary of Cyril’s use of scriptural and
patristic references concerning the unity of Christ. He then cited a list of Cyril’s
Christological terminology. They are as follows: su,nodoj( su,mbasij( sundromh,(
avna,lhyij and pro,slhyij. Du Manoir wrote that evnoi,khsij and katoi,khsij are
rarely used since they might have Nestorian tendencies. Du Manoir, Dogme, 120–
126. Working on the Johannine text it was observed that the last two have been
used more than “rarely.” Therefore, Du Manoir’s suggestion is to be taken into
consideration that after the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy, Cyril decided to
minimize his use of these two terms lest they would be misinterpreted. It should be
noted that most of the work of Du Manoir is based on post-Nestorian texts. As for
 THE TRINITY 129

the adverbs used to describe the unity: a;frastoj( avpo,rvr`htoj( pantelw/j( avrvrh,twj(
avperino,htoj( avporvr`h,twj( kai. u`pe.r nou/n( avdiaire,twj( evxaire,twj( mustikh,
parado,xwj. Ibid., 125. Liébaert provided his own list. Liébaert’s list was primarily
focused on the Thesaurus and the Dialogue and both are pre-Nestorian. Nonetheless,
he consulted other post-Nestorian texts as well. Liébaert, La Doctrine, 200–3. As for
“humanity” Cyril used these terms: sa,rx( sw/ma( to. avnqrw,pinon( avnqrwpo,thj(
avnqrw,peia morfh,( ta. h`me,tera( to. proslhfqe,n( ta. auvth/j $avnqrwpo,thtoj%( to.
ferou,menon( evn ei;dei tw|/ kaq v h`ma/j( evn toi/j kaq v h`ma/j( ge,gone kaq v h`ma/j( h`
tou/ dou,lou morfh,. Ibid. 133. Liébaert provided a shorter list of words used by
Cyril describing the human condition of Christ. Liébaert , La Doctrine, 170. Both
Liébaert and McKinion approached the topic by investigating the philosophical
background of the Incarnation. McKinion investigated the concepts of place and
physical union and the influence of these two themes in Cyril’s Christological
images. McKinion was of the opinion that Cyril refused unity according to
su,nqesij( mi,xij and kra/sij) McKinion, 49–79. As for Liébaert, he was of the
opinion that there are two possible understandings of becoming man. The
Aristotelian understanding -- that of the union between soul and body -- in contrast
to the Platonist view of man as a spiritual being engaged in a body. Liébaert was of
the opinion that Cyril follows the Platonist prevalent idea and both Didymus the
Blind and Apollinarius follow this Platonist worldview. Liébaert, La Doctrine, 147–
150. Other articles concerned with Cyril’s anthropology: H. M. Diepen, “La
christologie de S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie et l’anthropologie néo-platonicienne,” Euntes
Docete 9 (1956), 20–63. H. M. Diepen, Aux Origines de l’anthropologie de Saint Cyrille
d’Alexandrie (Paris, 1957.) McCoy has another suggestion of how to define the
union of Christ and writes that it is “possible to argue that Cyril’s mia physis formula
reflects a heavy reliance upon the analogy of the union of predominance. For
though Jesus Christ represents a union “out of two,” following the Incarnation
there is but the “one nature of the Incarnate Logos-God” and it is questionable
whether, in Cyril’s understanding, there is a human person following the
Incarnation. This is precisely what one would expect if the understanding of the
Incarnation were based upon the model of the union of predominance.” McCoy
also believed that the philosophical framework within which Cyril worked made
him “conceive of the Incarnation in a static fashion rather than as an
exemplification of the dynamic interaction of God and man.” J. D. McCoy,
“Philosophical Influences on the Doctrine of the Incarnation in Athanasius and
Cyril of Alexandria,” Encounter 38 (1977): 390–1. Liébaert wrote about the unity of
Christ that, after the Incarnation, we do not separate except by thought and that
the Word is God before the Incarnation and after the Incarnation. Liébaert
suggested that Cyril was influenced at this point by Didymus the Blind. Liébaert, La
Doctrine, 204–210. Liébaert quoted Paschal Letter 11 (420 AD) in which Cyril
affirms that the Word vivifies all, that is why the body is considered as his own and
one with Him. Ibid., 211. He adds that it is this same logic that prevents us from
considering the body of Christ as an instrument. Grillmeier affirmed that the “mia
130 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

physis” formula is Apollinarian but concluded that this formula guarantees a one
life giving power. Grillmeier clarified that we should not equate the unity of the
person with the unity of evne,rgeia . Grillmeier, 333–6. On the other hand, Samuel
wrote that it does not matter if the “mia physis” formula is Apollinarian so long as
it is used in an orthodox understanding. He commented that some of the Nicene
Creed phrases were unorthodox until agreed to be understood and used in an
orthodox way. V. C. Samuel, “One Incarnate Nature of God the Word,” Greek
Orthodox Theological Review 10 (1964) 37–53. Fraigneau-Julien summarized his
understanding of the unity and wrote that Cyril affirmed the one and unique Christ
is composed of two different natures and that they are inseparable after the union.
Fraigenau-Julien, “L’efficacité,” 616. Norris writes that the Christological models
that Cyril uses “make clear the way in which he understands the point of some
other figure.” This is applied on Christ when Cyril explains that “ ‘one nature’ of
man is produced by the knitting together of two dissimilar realities, soul and body,
and then apply this analogy to Christ.” R. A. Norris, “Christological Models in Cyril
of Alexandria,” Studia Patristica 13 (1975) 266. McKinion answered this very point
in his work when he commented that when Cyril uses an analogy he is not
explaining the Incarnation but rather gives an “illustration” of it. Cyril’s analogy
“serve in the capacity of illustrating his formulae, rather than describing the event of
Incarnation.” McKinion, 228. Weinandy shared the same opinion and wrote that
the soul/body analogy is used by Cyril to illustrate the oneness of Christ but not to
illustrate the type of relationship between them. Weinandy explained that kaq v
uvpostasin means that the union was with the person of the Word with humanity
and thus becomes one person united to himself flesh and this establishes an
existential type of incarnation. “Actually, conceiving the incarnational act as
personal/existential establishes, and so guarantees, that it is truly the one person of
the Son who is man and that it is truly as man that the Son exists. It is this insight
that the Council of Chalcedon will sanction.” Thomas Weinandy, “The Soul/Body
Analogy and the Incarnation: Cyril of Alexandria,” Coptic Church Review 17 (1996),
66. McGuckin writes that “Cyril speaks of this union of deity and humanity as a
“Hypostatic Union.” The person of the Logos is the sole personal subject of all the
conditions of his existence, divine or human.” John McGuckin, “A Synopsis of St.
Cyril’s Christological Doctrine,” Coptic Church Review 19 (1998): 47. Koen presented
a general overview of Cyril’s ideas about the union. Koen, The Saving Passion.
Dratsellas describes the unity in these words, “But while He remains God He has
added to His eternal Being something new, something that He had not before. He
assumed human nature and took the form of a servant and He became, through
His Incarnation, Theanthropos. The Logos, while He was Incorporeal, (a;sarkoj),
before the Incarnation, now afterwards is sesarkwme,noj.” C. Dratsellas,
“Questions on Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria,” Abba Salama 6 (1974): 215.
Dratsellas was of the opinion that the mia physis in Cyril’s Christology means the
“Physis of the Logos is the subject of the whole sentence.” Ibid., 218. Therefore,
for Dratsellas the unity is in the Logos and not in the Incarnate Logos. But is not
 THE TRINITY 131

Cyril wrote much about the Son and is most famous for his
Christology, which explains why most modern scholarship has given
attention to his understanding of the Son and his nature. At the same time,
the main focus of modern scholarship is on the post-Nestorian literary
works of Cyril. It is for good reason that scholarship focused on his later
writings for they are more engaged in Christological issues and instrumental
in settling the Christological controversy. Modern scholarship is so
specialized in its concern that it has focused on Christology without looking
at the bigger Trinitarian picture, within which Cyril is working. For example,
modern scholarship has concentrated on the following topics in Cyril’s
Christology: the unity of the divinity and the humanity, the presence of a
soul in Christ, the suffering of Christ, and the issue of ignorance. In
addition, these studies are constantly using vocabulary within the
framework of post-Chalcedonian theology and focusing on the unity from
the Chalcedonian point of view. The previous quotes demonstrate Cyril’s
constant emphasis on the unity of the Son with the persons of the Trinity
while each preserves their distinctiveness. Cyril gave great attention to the
work (evne,rgeia) of the Son in relationship to the Father and the assumed
flesh. The unity of the evne,rgeia with the body that is his own preserves the
unity with the Father and consequently the Trinity. The Incarnate Word
redeems humanity by conquering death in his own flesh, and through his
own flesh, grants humanity victory over death and incorruption; his life-
giving body grants humanity life and humanity thus receives the “newness
of life,” that is, to be deified and saved. The unity of the body or humanity
to the divinity is preserved at all times even after the ascension for we
believe in one Christ before the Incarnation and after the Incarnation. The
state of the Incarnation does not change the oneness of the Son and to
keep the oneness of the Son the oneness of his nature has to be preserved.
The Incarnate Word is life-giving, and the body of the Incarnate Word—
the Eucharist—is also life-giving. The mystery of the Incarnation sheds
light on the mystery of the Eucharist. Through his meticulous exposition of

the Logos already one before the Incarnation why does he have to be assigned the
term “mia physis?” McKinion has a good summary of what scholars have said
about the unity in his chapter “Various Interpretation of Cyril’s Christology.”
Mckinion, 181–191. A most excellent article that sums Cyril’s opinion about unity
is in R. M. Siddals, “Oness and Difference in the Christology of Cyril of
Alexandria,” Studia Patristica 18 (1985): 207–211. The varied interpretation of the
oneness and unity of the person of Christ among scholars sometimes seems
irreconcilable. However, a quick exposition of varied interpretation is important for
further research and discussions.
132 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

the Johannine text, following the main themes of the Incarnation, death,
and resurrection, Cyril explained the nature of Christ, the relationship of the
Son to the Trinity, and salvation.

The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is of equal divinity to the
Father and the Son. Once Cyril was content that he defended the divinity of
the Spirit, he explained the difference between the Spirit of the Son and the
Spirit of the prophets and that it is the Spirit of the Son that personally
dwells in the saints. Cyril also pointed to the work of the Spirit that enables
us to say, Abba Father, that is, has granted us sonship. The work of the Spirit
is also manifest in the creation and in the Spirit’s participation in the nature
of man. Because of this participation, the Spirit has a role in the newness of
life granted by the Son. In conformity with the Cyrillian Trinitarian formula,
Cyril asserted that the Spirit is sent through the Son. And with this he
answers the question of when and where the disciples received the Spirit. It
is these topics that we discuss in this section.
When Cyril commented on Jn 1:1, and the Word was with God, one
would expect him to limit his comments to the relationship between the
Word and the Father. After Cyril asserted that the Father is a person in his
own, and so is the Son, he quickly added that the Holy Spirit shares the
same characteristic as the Father and the Son and should be counted as
God (sunqeologoume,nou). 449 He later asserted, in commenting on the same
verse, that we are justified (dikaiou,meqa) in belief in the Father and Son and
the Holy Spirit. 450 Therefore, the presence of the Holy Spirit is crucial in
Cyril’s expositions of the basic texts that deal directly with the Incarnation.
The Spirit is equally divine; how else can one say that the person who
receives the Spirit is a partaker (me,tocoj) of God or how could Peter say
that we are participants [koinwnoi.] of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4) if the Spirit is
not God. If it is a created and not a divine spirit that dwells within us, how
could we say that we are the temples of God? Those who willingly accept
the Spirit to dwell in their hearts, intellectually perceive the divine (nohtw/j
qewrou/si). 451 This great honor and privilege is envied by all. Therefore, the
indwelling of the Spirit is the beginning of the newness of life that is
granted to those accepting the Incarnate Son. The Spirit dwells in them.
The Spirit gives them the privilege to envisage God and gives them the

449 In Jo. 1.25.

450 In Jo. 1.27.
451 In Jo. 2.469.
 THE TRINITY 133

right of sonship to cry out, Abba, Father, for because you are children, God has
sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Gal 4:6). The
Incarnate Word communicates the Spirit of divine sonship to human
nature. 452
As God gives the Spirit without measure, so does the Son for, He whom
God has sent speaks the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure (Jn 3:34).
The Spirit of the Son is very different from the Spirit bestowed on
prophets. Athansius explained that the “Word became flesh” means that He
did not come into man as he used to come into the saints. 453 The prophets
and saints received the Spirit with measure and they were unable to bestow
it on one another. It is only the Son who gives the Spirit from his own
fullness (w`j evx i`di,ou plhrw,matoj) and he gives it by virtue of essence in
himself (ouvsiwdw/j evn e`autw/|) not as a participant. 454 For the Son, the
bestower of the Spirit is superior to the prophets and saints. When the
apostolic hands (ceirw/n avpostolikw/n) give the Spirit to someone, they are
not true givers of the Spirit but rather summoners of the Spirit
(pneumatoklh,toraj). Cyril is very clear in his thoughts and precise in his
expressions. He coined the word pneumatoklh,toraj to convey the
meaning. 455 Cyril then supported his argument with the example of Moses.
Moses could not keep the Spirit that was upon him, but it was in God’s
power alone to bestow it on others and, therefore, God took the Spirit that
was upon him and gave it to the seventy elders. 456 Neither the prophets, nor
the saints, nor the apostles had the power of bestowing the Spirit, but it is
in God’s power alone. When the Spirit dwells in someone, like Paul, they
are called God bearers (qeofo,roj). 457 But, since the Spirit is not of their
essence, they cannot bestow it on others, as we have said above, they are
just summoners of the Spirit. 458

452 In Jo. 1.470. De Halleux, “Cyrille, Théodoret et le ‘Filioque,’” 625.

453 St. Athanasius Contra Arianus, 3.30.
454 In Jo. 1.253.
455 Ibid., pneumatoklh,toraj is one of the words coined by Cyril and used in this

commentary and is found no where else and used by no one else. Lampe, 1106.
456 Ibid. Num 11:17.
457 In Jo. 2.442.
458 Burghardt commented that Cyril made a distinction in the intervention of

the Spirit in the Old Testament from that of the New Testament and quotes Cyril,
“The Spirit was in the prophets for the requirements of prophecy, but now He
dwells in the faithful through Christ—and first of all in Him, when He became
man.” (In Jo. 1.697) Burghardt commented that the difference is that in the first
134 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Cyril clearly states that the Spirit is through the Son and in the Son (to.
di v auvtou/ te kai. evn auvtw|/), and it is this Spirit that personally dwells in the
saints. 459 The Spirit and the Son are one even though we conceive each of
them as having an independent existence. Again, it is not that the Spirit of
the Son is the Spirit of the saints, but rather it is the Spirit of the Son that
dwells in the saints. 460 The Spirit of the Son is the source of sanctification
of the saints. Cyril here emphasized the sanctifying power of the Spirit of
the Son. Elsewhere he wrote that sanctification is the union with God. He
wrote that the communion (koinwni,aj) and union (e`nw,sewj) with God
cannot be achieved without the participation of the Holy Spirit. Union with
God is achieved by regaining our perfect image. The pure image of the
Father is the Son, and the natural likeness of the Son is his Spirit (eivkw,n
me.n ga.r avkraifnh.j tou/ Patro.j o` Ui`o.j( o`moi,wsij de. fusikh. tou/ Ui`ou/
to. Pneu/ma auvtou/). 461 Again, he introduced his argument by narrating the
perfect image of man at the time of creation and how, through
disobedience, death and corruption overcame human nature. Here, Cyril
involved the whole Trinity in the process of sanctification. It is not the
Holy Spirit alone that renders sanctification. It is the Spirit of the Son, the
Son is the image of the Father, and the utter goal is reaching union with
God. This holistic view of the role of the Trinity in the process of
sanctification is a constant theme in Cyril.
Cyril emphasized the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The means to defend
the divine essence of the Holy Spirit is to say that it is in the Son (evn tw/|
Uivw/|), not from without as in the case of saints or prophets, but by virtue of
essence and by nature (avll v ouvsiwdw/j kai. kata. fu,sin). 462 The proof that

case it is “illumination” (e;llamyij) and in the second it is “complete and perfect

indwelling” (katoi,khsij). Burghardt, Image of God in Man, 115.
459 In Jo. 2.639.
460 Keating believed that Cyril’s idea of divine indwelling has been

misrepresented in modern scholarship. He argued that modern scholarship has

tended to focus on Cyril’s account of redemption from the standpoint of the
Eucharist and he argued that this is a distortion of Cyril’s theology. Modern
scholarship has not given much attention to the “mode of divine indwelling
through the Holy Spirit.” Keating opposed Gebremedhin approach (p28) and
argued that divine indwelling of the Spirit is “characteristic of Cyril’s own thought,
both exegetically and dogmatically.” Daniel Keating, “The Twofold Manner of
Divine Indwelling in Cyril of Alexandria: Redressing an Imbalance,” Studia Patristica
37 (2001) 546–7.
461 In Jo. 2.731
462 In Jo. 1.174. Cyril insisted that the Spirit is in the Son. This is very much

related to the famous formula that “All things are from the Father, through the
 THE TRINITY 135

the Son was holy before the Incarnation and did not need an external
sanctification from the Holy Spirit, is pronounced by Isaiah, who narrates
to us that he was glorified by the Seraphim by repeating Holy three times (Is
6:3). 463 Therefore, sanctification is in the Son, before and after the
Incarnation, and he does not receive the Spirit from without as saints and
prophets do.
If the Son has the Spirit in himself, how then do we understand, I saw
the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him (Jn 1:32). Cyril
explained the descent of the Spirit beginning from the creation story. 464 The
first man, being of the earth, had the choice between good and evil, he
became master of his choice. Having chosen evil, he suffered death and
corruption, sin reigned (bebasi,leuken h` a`marti,a), and the nature of man
was shown stripped of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling (gumnh, te ou[tw loipo.n
tou/ evnoikisqe,ntoj `Agi,ou Pneu,matoj h` avnqrw,pou fu,sij avnedei,knuto). 465
Thus, the Holy Spirit departed from man, and God promised to send from
heaven the second Adam. He sent his own Son, who was without sin and
without change and through his obedience we might escape the wrath of
the first disobedience. When the Son became Incarnate he received the
Spirit, not taking it for himself as his own, for he is the abundant giver
(corhgo,j) of the Spirit, but he received the Spirit to preserve it in his nature,
as man, to implant (r`izw,sh|) grace in us. For this reason, he received the
Spirit, to renew (avnaneoi/) in us the ancient good. 466 He also receives the
Spirit on our behalf, so that he may sanctify our whole nature. 467 Therefore,

Son, in the Spirit.” But Du Manoir was of the opinion that if the Spirit is not a
creature and it is by which the Father operates, then Du Manoir noted it is very
logical to conclude that if the Holy Spirit depends on the Son for Divine operations
then the Holy Spirit also depends on its origin on the Son. Du Manoir, Dogme, 227.
Du Manoir based his argument on his personal logic not on Cyril’s works. Du
Manoir devoted p224–230 to prove the Filioque from Cyril’s writings.
463 In Jo. 1.137.
464 St. Athanasius in de incarnatione argued that the story of creation is of

paramount importance to understand the Incarnation and salvation, de incarnatione 4

and 5. Again, the influence of Athanasius was evident in Cyril’s thoughts and how it
affected his arguments.
465 In Jo. 1.184.
466 In Jo. 1.184,5.
467 In Jo. 1.185. Liébaert summarized Cyril’s answer concerning the issue of

sanctification into three main points. First, Cyril proved that the Son is of equal
divinity to the Father and thus does not need the sanctification of the Spirit.
Second, he explained the text from the standpoint of the Incarnation. Third, he
demonstrated the unity of the Trinity and demonstrated the essential unity between
136 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

the Son receives the Spirit not to be sanctified, but to sanctify our nature.
Not as saints and prophets receive the Spirit, he receives it on our behalf to
give it back to us in abundance. For the Spirit, is by virtue of essence,
(ouvsiwdw/j) in his nature and is not there by participation (meqekto.n). 468
The Son did not need the Spirit to descend from heaven and remain
on him for the angel said to Mary that the, child to be born will be holy; he will be
called Son of God (Lk 1:35). There is a contrast to John the Baptist who, will be
filled with the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:15), for the Holy Spirit was in him as a gift and
not by virtue of essence (doto,n ga.r h=n evn auvtw/| kai. ouvk ouvsiw/dej to.
[Agion Pneu/ma). 469 Again Cyril compared the presence of the Holy Spirit in
Christ and other figures recorded in scripture to enforce his argument that
the Holy Spirit is by nature ouvsiw/dej of the Son while it is granted to
prophets and saints as a gift.
The unity and the divinity of both the Son and the Spirit are essential
for the Trinitarian thought of Cyril. He argued that in the verse, I will ask the
Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit
of truth (Jn 14:15,6); the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of truth. In addition,
Christ said that he is “the Truth” (Jn 14:6). Therefore, the Son has oneness
(e`no,thta) with the Spirit. 470 Cyril proved his theological argument by a
series of verses thematically connected until he reaches his theological aim.

the Son and the Holy Spirit. Liébaert, La doctrine, p. 109–113. Mahe listed all means
of sanctification that Cyril mentioned throughout his literary work. Mahe wrote
that Cyril described sanctification as purification, as a transformation of the soul, a
change from corruption to incorruption, a change from vice to virtue and from
servitude to freedom, a reconciliation between God and man, an elevation to a
superior nature than our own, it is a new birth, a new creation, a restoration of our
nature, and a return to our original state of creation. All these descriptions of
sanctification can really be summed up in that it is a “newness of life” and a “new
creation.” J. Mahe, “La sanctification d’après S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie,” Revue d’histoire
écclésiastique 10 (1909) 32. Wilken believed that Cyril’s interpretation of the baptism
of Christ is one of the most “complete and thoroughgoing interoperations of the
baptism of Jesus in the patristic Church…. Exegesis and theology blend in his
treatment of the problem.” Wilken writes that Cyril in his interpretation “made it
possible for the Spirit to return again to mankind. He does this through the
resurrection from the dead, and by his resurrection he opens up a new way for
mankind which had not been known before. In him there is a new creation.”
Wilken, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind, 140.
468 Ibid.
469 In Jo. 1.186.
470 In Jo. 1.188.
 THE TRINITY 137

Such method of theological argumentation and biblical interpretation

became a trait in Alexandrian exegesis beginning with Origen.
Cyril took the opportunity to elaborate on the power of regeneration
of the Spirit when Nicodemus could not understand what it is to be, born
from above and being born of water and Spirit (Jn 4:3,5). Cyril explained that the
regeneration through the Spirit (th.n dia. Pneu,matoj avnage,nnhsin) is done
through partaking of the divine nature (th/j qei,aj fu,sewj gino,meqa
koinwnoi.) (2 Pet 1:4). We are restored to the divine sonship and brought
forth to the newness of life (kaino,thta zwh/j) through him and in him (di v
auvtou/ kai. evn auvtw|/) to become and be transformed completely to the
archetype. 471 Again the power of the Son to restore is joined with the power
of the Spirit to achieve this newness of life. For “in him” refers to the Holy
Spirit and “through him” refers to the Son, following the Cyrillian
Trinitarian formula. Once again, the idea of transformation through the
newness of life recalls the Athanasian opinion that “God became man so
that we might become gods.” Cyril further explained that the process of
newness and restoration to the original image of the archetypal beauty
(avrce,tupon ))) ka,lloj) is carried on in a twofold manner. Since man is
composite and not of single nature (evpeidh. ga.r su,nqeto,n ti kai. ouvc
a`plou/n kata. fu,sin o` a;nqrwpoj), that is, of body and soul, therefore man
will require a twofold healing (diplh/j ))) qerapei,aj). 472 This is the reason
that the verse, without being born of water and Spirit, has a twofold aspect. For
the spirit of man is sanctified by the Spirit and the body of man is sanctified
by water. Therefore, through the working of the Spirit, the sensible water is
transformed and gains the power to sanctify. Cyril seemed to hint later that
in many cases when water is mentioned it is often a way of naming the Holy
Spirit. 473
Cyril attributed to the Spirit the same property of life giving as he does
to the Son. In Jn 6:63 it is written, it is the Spirit that gives life. So how do we
understand this verse? Cyril explained that the flesh has no power of its
own to be life-giving. Through the mystery of the Incarnation we learn that
the life-giving Word who dwells in the flesh has the power to impart life
(du,natai zwopoiei.n). 474 For neither Peter nor Paul could have this life

471 In Jo. 1.218,9.

472 In Jo. 1.219
473 In Jo. 1.268,9. Cyril quoted Is 43:20,21; Jer 31:12 LXX and Is 44:4 in which

water has a power of renewing of life, though in these quotes the comparison
usually begins with the effect of water on animals and plants where it is considered
a metaphor to human life.
474 In Jo. 1.551.
138 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

giving power, it is only through Christ, for in him the whole fullness of the deity
dwells bodily (Col 2:9). Still, God is spirit (Jn 4:24), and Paul says that, the Lord is
the Spirit (2 Cor 3:17). Thus, the Son who calls himself from his own Spirit
(avpo. tou/ ivdi,ou pneu,matoj e`auto.n ovnoma,zei), has this life giving power. In
the end, Cyril affirmed that this does not mean a subordination (u`festa,nai)
of the Spirit but that we have to understand that the Spirit has its own
proper existence for his Spirit is no other than himself (ouv ga.r avllo,trion
auvtou/ to. Pneu/ma auvtou/). 475
Cyril realized that calling the Son Spirit might be confusing and in
need of more proof, and set out to list verses that assert that the Son has
often been called or referred to as Spirit. Cyril made the verses prove his
point. In 1 Jn 5:6, it is written, the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the
truth. We know that Christ said that, I am the truth (Jn 14:6), therefore, both
the Spirit and Christ are one and both are “the Truth.” Cyril’s argument
became more clear when he quoted Romans 8:8–10, and those who are in the
flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the
Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not
belong to him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is
life because of righteousness. 476 For Cyril, this was enough evidence to prove that
the Spirit of God dwells in us for he himself said that Christ is in us (auvto.n
ei;rhken evn h`mi/n ei=nai to.n Cristo,n). For his Spirit is indivisible of the
Son (avdiai,reton ga.r tou/ Ui`ou/ to. Pneu/ma auvtou/). 477 Even though we
know that the Son is inseparable from the Spirit, we have to also
acknowledge that each is existing in their own entity (nooi/to u`pa,rcein
ivdiosusta,twj). 478 Thus, the name “Spirit” or “Son” are very often
undifferentiated (avdiaforei/). 479 Therefore, because of the interchange of
names between the Son and the Spirit, Cyril was able to claim that both
have the life giving power since both are one and the same but each exists
separately. This has to be understood within the oneness and unity of the
Trinity in order to assemble the oneness of activity that each person of the
Trinity has without dividing the Godhead.
Knowing the distinction between the Son and the Spirit, and knowing
that the Son is Son and not Spirit, and the Spirit is Spirit and not Son, Jn
14:18 says that the Paraclete is sent forth, after which the Son promises that

475In Jo. 1.552.

476Cyril used the same argument about the Son and the Spirit and used the
same verses in In Jo. 2.471.
477 In Jo. 1.554.
478 Ibid.
479 Ibid.
 THE TRINITY 139

he will come himself. Even if it seems that they are identical to each other,
each is distinct. With this emphasis on distinctiveness, Cyril warned his
readers not to be confused when seeing that the proper Spirit is of the
Father and is conceived to be of him (evpei,per evsti.n evk tou/ Patro.j i;dion
Pneu.ma kai. auvtou/ noei/tai). We could even call the Spirit his mind (nou/j
auvtou/). 480 It is not exceedingly difficult to claim that, because Paul says that
we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). We have the mind of Christ, we have
Christ, we have God, and we have the Spirit of God.
Cyril was concerned with the relationship of the Son to the Holy
Spirit, for preserving the divinity of the Holy Spirit affects that of the Son
and vice versa. Cyril wrote that when Christ speaks about the Paraclete, he
is speaking about the Spirit of Truth, that is, his own Spirit that comes from
the Father. The Spirit is naturally of the Son and is in him (evn auvtw|/) and is
sent forth through him (di v auvtou/ proi?o.n). 481 Cyril adhered to the formula
that relegates to the Son all action and operation (evne,rgeia) to be done
“through” him. It will follow then that the sending of the Spirit is
“through” the Son. Nevertheless, we cannot draw any distinction
(diwrisme,na) of essence between the Son and the Spirit. 482 We should
recognize that when the Son sends forth the Spirit, this does not mean that
the Spirit is different in essence or less than the Son. As previously
mentioned, the Spirit has to be of God to be able to provide sanctification.
In addition, the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, and belongs to the Son and is
not from outside (e;xwqen) nor is it acquired (evpi,kthton). 483 As Cyril stressed
the distinctiveness of each person of the Trinity he reminded his readers of
the unity of the Trinity and described the unity as being bound up tightly
(avnasfi,ggetai) in one divinity (e[na qeo,thtoj), showing the unity of
substance (th/j ouvsi,aj th.n e`no,thta). 484 The unity of the Trinity preserves
the divinity of each person of the Trinity and at the same time shows the

480 In Jo. 2.471.

481 In Jo. 2.607.
482 Ibid.
483 In Jo. 2.609. McKinion writes that Cyril “maintains that Christ performs

divine works because he is God, and therefore, the Spirit of God is his own Spirit.
Consequently, the power to perform miracles is his own power. He is not an
instrument for accomplishing them, instead, he does these works himself, in his
own power. He reiterates this claim by stating, against Nestorius, that the Spirit of
God is within Christ and from him, and is not foreign to him. (Adversus Nestorium
ACO 1.1.6.77.)” McKinion, 146–7. The notion that the Spirit is not foreign to
Christ prevailed in Cyril’s writings even after the Nestorian controversy.
484 Ibid.
140 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

distinctiveness of activity of each person within. The correct balance

between the unity and distinctiveness is a major theological theme in Cyril’s
writings.
The theme that the Spirit is sent “through” the Son is again mentioned
when Cyril explained Jn 17:18,19; As you have sent me into the world, so I have
sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be
sanctified in truth. Cyril explained that when scripture mentions that the
disciples were to be “sanctified in truth” it means sanctified in his Spirit, for
the Spirit is truth (to. ga.r Pneu/ma, evstin h` avlh,qeia), and also the Spirit is
of the truth (evpei. kai. Pneu/ma th/j avlhqei,aj evsti.n) that is of the Son. 485
He sent the apostles and prepares them for sanctification by the Father. He
causes the Holy Spirit to dwell in them through the Son (evnoiki,zontoj
auvtoi/j dhlono,ti di v Ui`ou/ to. Pneu/ma to. [Agion). 486 It is this Spirit that
guided them through their evangelization to the world. This Spirit gave
them power and enlightenment and inspiration. After the resurrection,
Christ clearly promised the Holy Spirit to his disciples. It is the Spirit of
God the Father proper to God the Father (i;dion ga.r tou/ qeou/ kai.
Patro.j to. Pneu/ma. evstin) and is of his essence. 487 It is the Father who
pours out the Spirit through the Son himself (ceo,menon me.n evk Patro.j di v
auvtou/ de. tou/ Ui`ou/). 488 It is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, also,
since both are of the same substance. When the Son asked the Father for
sanctification he was asking for the restoration and renewal of creation.
This sanctification is achieved through and in the Spirit (to.n evn Pneu,mati
kai. dia. Pneu,matoj a`giasmo.n). 489 Again, Cyril resorted to the story of
creation, the story that narrates how at creation God breathed into the
nostrils of man the breath of life (Gen 2:7) which, for Cyril, signified the
sanctification by the Spirit. 490 Thus, after the resurrection, when Christ

485 In Jo. 2.717.

486 Ibid.
487 In Jo. 2.718.
488 Ibid.
489 Ibid. Burghardt wrote that Cyril, when he speaks about sanctification

constantly oscillates between the Spirit and the Son. “The justification of this
fluctuation stems from the fact that, for Cyril, our participation in God, as well as
our resemblance to God, has reference to the three Persons; we share in the divine
nature.” Burghardt, The Image of God, 70.
490 Keating argues that Cyril's use of the Gen. 2:7 verse not to refer “to the

inbreathing of the human soul, but to the original gift of the Holy Spirit, is a
distinctive feature of his thought and central to his narrative of redemption.”
Keating even calls Cyril “the theologian of the divine indwelling.” D. Keating,
 THE TRINITY 141

bestowed the Holy Spirit on the disciples, it was the restoration of

sanctification through the Spirit, and a communion with the divine nature
(to.n dia. Pneu,matoj a`giasmo.n( kai. th.n th/j qei,aj fu,sewj koinwni,an). 491
Humanity therefore achieves the newness of life.
Cyril attempted to make sense of Jn 7:39, for yet there was no Spirit,
because Jesus was not yet glorified. If there was no Spirit, then how did the
prophets prophesy and how could the stories of Elisha together with other
prophets of the Old Testament be understood? Once again, Cyril began his
explanation with the story of creation. He wrote that man was created in
incorruption because the Spirit of God abided in man. After the
transgression, the Spirit abandoned man. At the time of the Incarnation, the
Father began to give the Spirit again, and Christ—being the first fruit—
initially received it as the beginning of the renewed nature. The beginning of
this renewal through the Spirit began with the descent of the Spirit on
Christ during his baptism. Nonetheless, the Spirit is “his own,” so how did
Christ receive the Spirit in baptism. He received it as man, so that we in him
may receive the Spirit (i[na h`mei/j evn auvtw|/ to. Pneu/ma kerda,nwmen). 492
Cyril posed the question of when and where the disciples received the
Holy Spirit? Was it at the time when Christ appeared in the house after the
resurrection and told his disciples, Receive the Holy Spirit (Jn 20:22) or was it
at the time of Pentecost (Acts 2:2–4). Some might suppose that the
disciples received a double dose of grace (ditth.n ))) th.n ca,rin) or that we
simply do not know the event at which the pouring of the Spirit took
place. 493 Yet Christ is Truth and he cannot say anything but the truth and he
has said, Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I
do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you (Jn
16:7). Cyril explained that it is significant that Christ is with the Father when
the Spirit is given to the disciples for it shows that the Son is giving the
Spirit with the Father (kai. tw|/ Patri. Sundoth/ra fai,nesqai to.n Ui`o.n). 494
It shows that the Father is giving the Spirit through the Son and in
cooperation with him. For it is significant that those who believe in the Son
know that he is the power of the Father and that he is the creator of the
world, for the Word created man and endowed him with the spirit of life

“Divine Indwelling,” 547–8. Keating’s article referred to other articles that deal
with the opinion of the fathers concerning Gen. 2:7 and includes more remarks on
Cyril’s interpretation of Gen. 2:7.
491 In Jo. 2.720
492 In Jo. 1.693.
493 In Jo. 3.133
494 In Jo. 3.134.
142 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

(Gen 2:7). 495 With disobedience man fell into corruption and came under
the power of death, but the Father restored him to newness of life through
the Son (kai. eivj kaino,thta zwh/j avneko,mise di v Ui`ou/) as at the
beginning. 496 Restoration took place through the Son. By the death of His
holy flesh He conquered death (tw|/ qana,tw| th/j a`gi,aj sarko.j nekrw,saj
to.n qa,naton) and consequently incorruption. He died and rose from the
dead and secured victory for humanity. He had to reveal to humanity that it
was He who created us at the beginning and it was He who sealed us with
the Holy Spirit (kai. tw/| `Agi,w| de. h`ma/j katasfragi,santa Pneu,mati). 497
He, as our Savior, is the one who can grant this Spirit to us since He is the
one who granted it to us in the beginning. Thus, He granted the Spirit
through a visible form (evnargou/j) to his disciples so as to announce the
renewed nature (th/j avnakainizome,nhj fu,sewj) of humanity. The Spirit
impresses its image on the person who accepts it and in this way the person
is transformed into the likeness of the maker (kat v eivko,na tou/
kti,santoj). 498 Christ cannot make an impress on the soul of a person unless
this person willingly partakes of the Spirit and follows the Gospel laws. This
is the work of the Spirit in man.
Christ constantly proclaimed future events so that when they happen
we believe that He spoke the truth. He raised Lazarus, the widow’s son, and
the daughter of Jairus so that when He speaks about His own resurrection
we believe that what He said is truth and that He fulfills His promises. He
thus proclaimed that He would send the Spirit, and He promised that He
would fulfill this promise after He is with the Father. He granted His
disciples the Spirit at this special event as a first fruit of His promise as He
had done for other promises. 499 Based on this argument Cyril concluded
that the disciples did receive the Holy Spirit at the time when Christ
pronounced, Receive the Holy Spirit, for Christ is The Truth and cannot lie. As
for Pentecost day, God more visibly (evmfaneste,ran) granted the gift of the
Spirit. 500 The first time it was given in their hearts, but now in this visible
form it was granted with tongues of fire as the time when they were first
endowed with the gift of languages. They had already been sanctified by the
first gift of the Spirit but now they were able to speak in tongues to

495 The Athanasian argument of explaining any part of salvation by beginning

with the story of creation.
496 In Jo. 3.135.
497 Ibid.
498 Ibid.
499 In Jo. 3.137.
500 Ibid.
 THE TRINITY 143

proclaim the manifestation of their grace in a more public manner. In this

way, when they were heard speaking tongues as a result of the presence of
the Spirit, those who heard them believed that they had been sanctified with
the Spirit on previous occasion. Therefore, Cyril proposed two occasions
for the descent of the Holy Spirit. The first was for sanctification which is
promised for our renewal and salvation and as a precursor of the promise
of the Spirit. The second was in a more visible way to prove the first event
and make it a tangible proof for people to believe the inward work of the
Spirit for the newness of life.
The confirmation of the idea that the disciples did not receive the
Spirit before Christ ascended to the Father is in Jn 20:17 when Christ said
to Mary Magdalene, Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the
Father. Cyril explained that the nature of God cannot be defiled (molusmo.n)
by a touch. 501 The reason that Christ gives to Mary for not allowing her to
hold on to him is that he has, not yet ascended to the Father. Cyril elucidated his
point by saying that before the crucifixion Christ mingled with the just and
unjust and ate with the sinners and let everyone touch him. For he is the
physician who came to heal the sick (Lk 5:31). He did not stop the woman
who came to him in the house of a Pharisee and bathed his feet with her
tears and dried them with her hair (Lk 7:38). Nor did he reprimand the
woman who had suffered from hemorrhages for twelve years and touched the
fringe of his clothes (Lk 8:43,44) but rather healed her and comforted her.
However, after the resurrection he said, Do not hold on to me, because I have not
yet ascended to the Father, based on what he had already told them earlier in Jn
16:7, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away,
the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go I will send him to you. After Christ left
Mary Magdalene, the Johannine Gospel narrates that Christ appeared in the
house and said, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” When
he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” (Jn
20:21,22). The disciples received the Spirit after he announced that the
Father sent him. 502 He ascended to the Father and thus they received the
Spirit from the Father through the Son. 503

501 In Jo. 3.117.

502 In Jo. 3: 117–119.
503 In Jo. 3.134. Mahé wrote that Christ has not communicated the Holy Spirit to

our nature before the resurrection. Only after the resurrection did he become of
the principal of our regeneration. Mahé added that this is the reason why in the Old
Testament and the Law the prophets did not have the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit
guided them but did not dwell in them. J. Mahé, “La sanctification d’après S. Cyrille
d’Alexandrie,” Revue d’histoire écclésiastique 10 (1909) 35–6. Wilken also commented
144 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Cyril confirmed the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He added that the Holy
Spirit is also the Spirit of the Son but very different from the Spirit
bestowed on the prophets or Apostles. It is only the Son who can bestow
the Spirit. The Apostles are only bearers and summoners of the Holy Spirit.
The notion that the Apostles are summoners of the Spirit will later shape
the role and power of the priesthood in the Alexandrian Church. The Son
received the Holy Spirit not to be sanctified but to sanctify human nature.
Sanctification, regeneration, sonship, and newness of life are achieved
through the Son in the Spirit. A quick reading of Cyril might give the
impression that the role of the Son is not different from that of the Spirit
since both are, for example, life-giving, or the Son and the Spirit are not
distinct since the Son is the Truth (Jn 14:6) and the Spirit is the Truth (1 Jn
5:6). Exchange of titles should not lead to confusion. Each person exists
separately and is distinct. This is the mystery of the oneness of the Trinity
and the oneness of the activity of each person of the Trinity. This is
explained in the sending of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit was sent from the
Father through the Son. It is the Spirit of sanctification, enlightenment,
inspiration, and evangelization. Cyril’s Trinitarian formula everything is
from the Father though the Son in the Holy Spirit guards the understanding
of the Trinity, each person of the Trinity, activity of each person within the
Trinity, and the unity and distinctiveness of the Trinity.

Conclusion
The text under study is an exegetical text primarily concerned with doctrinal
issues with a particular focus on the Arian heresy. There was no attempt on
Cyril’s side to make it a homogeneous dogmatic treatise; rather, he followed
the biblical text and commented extensively on it. Because that is the kind
of text it is, we cannot suggest that the conclusions, about the Trinity and
each person of it, are a final and definitive representation of Cyril’s

that only after the resurrection did the Spirit descend and renewal took place.
Wilken, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind, 137. Though both Mahé and Wilken are
right to say that the Spirit was not received before the resurrection, it is more
precise to say that the Spirit was communicated after Christ ascended to the Father,
that is, the resurrection in combination with the ascension to the Father is the
beginning of the communication of the Spirit to humanity. De Margerie
commented very briefly on the moment of the descent of the Holy Spirit by saying
that Cyril was the only one who was able to reconcile the two texts of Jn 20:22 and
Acts 2:43. Bernard De Margerie, “Saint Cyril of Alexandria Develops a
Christocentric Exegesis,” in An Introduction to the History of Exegesis, trans. Leonard
Maluf, vol. 1 (Petersham, Mass.: Saint Bede’s Publications, 1993): 250.
 THE TRINITY 145

Trinitarian theology. Nevertheless, this is an attempt to gather, as much as

possible, the constantly recurring images, because Cyril is very repetitive in
his style of writing about each person of the Trinity. The commentary gives
an extraordinary amount of details about various issues, but the focus is on
the holistic image of the Trinity as presented in Cyril’s Johannine
Commentary. The importance of the Trinity is well pronounced in this
commentary. The Trinity constitutes the main framework within which
Cyril forms his theology. Since most scholarship focused on specific topics
in Cyril’s work, it was time to present a framework that would put all of
Cyril’s theological ideas into perspective.
Cyril is an Alexandrian naturally influenced by the theology of the
Alexandrian church. St. Athanasius was the major figure that made the
greatest impression on his ideas. As demonstrated throughout the chapter,
Athanasius’ influence was not only in his understanding of the aim of the
Incarnation and main theological and Christological concepts, the influence
was also in the details. Liébaert definitively proved in his study, with
extensive charts, the influence of Athanasius on Cyril’s Thesaurus and the
Dialogues on the Trinity. This chapter revealed the parallelism between
Athanasius’ idea of deification of humanity through the Incarnation and
Cyril’s idea of the Incarnate Word bestowing the newness of life to those
who believe in him. The Word grants a new creation through the vivifying
power of the body that he took as his own. The newness of life is given
from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.
When Cyril spoke about God, he was speaking about the Trinity. For
him, the Christian God is a Trinitarian God. Our worship must
demonstrate our faith and thus we must give equal glory and equal worship
to each person of the Trinity. A major theme in Cyril’s theology is the
insistence on the distinctiveness of each person of the Trinity, while at the
same time preserving their unity. Due to the unity of the Trinity, the unity
of the Son is paramount. For, if we sever the nature of the Incarnate Word,
then we separate the flesh from the Word and speak of two sons. Then we
do not have a Trinity but a belief in a God in four persons, a Quaternity.
Cyril confirms the importance of the Trinitarian thought in our minds
by proving that it is Biblical. Our initiation to the Christian faith involves
our baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If the
existence of the Trinity does not contribute to our mental understanding
and contribute directly to our vision of the Godhead, then there is no need
to call the Father “Father,” the Son “Son,” and the Holy Spirit “Holy
Spirit.” Each person of the Trinity sheds light on the nature of the Trinity
and leads to an understanding of each person within it. The Trinity works in
146 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

unity, for everything is from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.
The work of creation was done in unity among the Trinity. If the Son’s
work is to redeem humanity through the Incarnation, for he is the power of
God, the redemptive work was done in unity. It was the Father who “sent,”
the Son who was sent, and the Holy Spirit contributed in the making of the
body of the Incarnate Word. All this is to be understood within the oneness
of the Trinity while not mixing the difference and distinctiveness of each
person. While each reserves their own name, we still refer to one Godhead.
The Father is the begetter of the Son. Divine fatherhood is bestowed
on humanity when we address him as “Our Father who art in heaven.” We
know the Father through the Son and it is through the Son and his witness
that the Father is revealed.
The Son is equal to the Father. That the Father works through the Son
does not make the Son less than the Father for the Son has all power and
authority as the Father. The divine powers of the Son did not change before
being in the flesh or after assuming the flesh. The Son reveals the Father to
us. Revealing the attributes of the Son asserts his divinity and therefore
reveals the divine attributes and at the same time the attributes of the
Father and the whole Trinity. The Son is light, healer, forgiver of sins,
shepherd, messenger of the covenant, sacrifice and law. Though we know
the Father through the Son, at the same time, we have to recognize that
each is distinct from the other. The Son is the Father’s power and all work
is done through the Son. The main work of the Son is the Incarnation. The
aim of the Incarnation is to condemn sin in the flesh, to overcome death,
and, through the regeneration of the Spirit to become children of God. The
Son bestows life to us. The Son is Life, and when he is united with the flesh
and takes it as his own, he bestows life to those who believe in him. The
Son did not receive the Spirit for himself, but rather in himself for us for all
good things will be transmitted from him to us. He is unchangeable and
thus can instill in humanity his unchangeableness and reverse the
changeableness of the Adam. Renewal of humanity was achieved when the
Son took human nature as his own and established the newness of life
within humanity. The unity of the Word with his body is not separated at
any time after the Incarnation. Even after the ascension we cannot divide
Christ into two. This unity is not only preserved during the ascension, but
still persists even when the Son of Man descends from heaven. The
indivisibility of humanity from the divinity of the Incarnate Word persists at
all times and under all conditions. The indivisibility and oneness of the Son
must be preserved not only within his own nature but also within the
Trinity.
 THE TRINITY 147

The Holy Spirit is God. The Holy Spirit is divine because those who
partake of the Holy Spirit are partakers of God. Those who willingly accept
the Spirit to dwell in their hearts also intellectually perceive the divine. The
indwelling of the Spirit is the beginning of the newness of life. The Spirit
gives us the ability to perceive God and to receive the divine sonship. God
gives the Spirit without measure. The Spirit of the Son is different from the
Spirit bestowed on prophets and saints. The Spirit is through the Son and in
the Son. It is not the Spirit of the Son that dwells in the saints. Therefore,
when we say the Spirit is in the Son, we actually mean that it is divine as the
Son because it is not from without. It is the Spirit of the Son and is in the
Son. John Damascene wrote, “we do not say that the Spirit is from (evk) the
Son, but we call Him the Spirit of the Son.” 504 The Spirit of the Son
sanctifies us and the Son bestows his Spirit on us. For the Son has the Spirit
in himself. During his baptism he received the Spirit to preserve it in his
Incarnate nature to implant it in us and to sanctify our whole human nature.
We received the Spirit during creation, but when we transgressed we were
stripped from the Holy Spirit and it departed from man. After the
resurrection and after he ascended to the Father he bestowed the Holy
Spirit to humanity again. The regeneration through the Spirit is done
through partaking of the divine nature. The Spirit shares with the Son the
property of life giving. Through the Incarnation we learn that the life giving
Word who dwells in the flesh maintains the power to impart life to those
who believe in him. This property of life giving shared by the Son and the
Holy Spirit is the means by which newness of life is granted to humanity.
The restoration of humanity is the aim of the Incarnation, is the aim of the
Son, is the aim of the work of the Trinity, where all things are from the
Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.

504 John Damascene De fide orthodoxa 1.8 (PG 94.789–1228).

CHAPTER 3

CYRIL’S EXEGETICAL METHOD

PART ONE: LITERARY EXEGESIS

Francis Young eloquently describes the process of exegesis as “partly
‘taught’ and partly ‘caught.’” 505 The process of exegesis, as well as that of
writing, is partly the product of the educational system and this is “taught.”
The place and method of education, as well as the historical context of the
period shapes the writer’s style, approach, and method of writing. The other
component of exegesis and writing is influenced by the writer’s personal
input as nourished by personal experience, and affected by the historical
and social setting and spiritual maturity. This is “caught.” Thus, any
approach to the study of a text has to be twofold: the literary part and the
personal or spiritual part. The former is the process of writing that exhibits
the literary norms of the period in which the text was written and reflects to
what extent the writer followed these rules and to what degree the writer’s
innovative style can be detected. The latter is the personal input of the
writer, which includes his personal erudition; and his choice of words that
reflect his personal ideas and world-view. In addition, the text can reveal the
writer’s spirituality and theological disposition. It should be noted that this
two step or twofold exegesis is an artificial division. The intellectual process
of exegesis is the combination of both but spelled out separately in writing
to facilitate for the readers what is intended by the text. Cyril was a teacher
and clarifying his method was part of his aim. For the purpose of this study,
we are going to refer to the first part as “Literal Exegesis” and the second
part as “Spiritual Exegesis.” A separate chapter will be dedicated to each
component of exegesis. The present chapter is dedicated to researching

505 Frances Young, “Exegetical Method and Scriptural Proof: The Bible in
Doctrinal Debate,” Studia Patristica 19 (1989), 304.
149
150 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

what is meant by “literal exegesis” as presented in Cyril’s Commentary on the

Gospel of John.
Chapter One of this work argued that the literary education of a
person, together with his moral and exemplary life, may make him a good
candidate to be a reader in the church. The use of such provisions may
encourage one to be an erudite person in scripture and be promoted to be a
dida,skaloj and assigned to be a “Gospel exegete.” Since education is one
of the key components that enables a person to delve into biblical texts and
thus equip a person to be an exegete, the educational background that
enabled Cyril to be such an exegete, was explained in the first chapter. At
this point of the research, it is necessary to take a closer look at the
Hellenistic educational system beyond what was discussed in Chapter One.
Since this study is based on a literary text, rather than an oral text
preserved in writing, it is necessary to look more deeply on the rhetor’s
literary background that is primarily formed through grammar. Quintilian
argued that “the two professions [that is, of the grammarians and rhetors]
must each be assigned their proper sphere.” 506 As discussed in the first
chapter, the fine line between the “two professions” is blurred and there is a
lot of overlapping between the two disciplines. 507 A general background of
the grammarians’ literary practices was described briefly in Chapter One;
therefore, further elaboration on specific aspects of grammatical or
rhetorical styles will be elaborated upon separately as this work deals in
detail with Cyril’s text.
Before launching into the comparative aspect of the research—
between classical rhetoric and Cyril’s writings—it is valuable to have a brief
look at the present state of research and why this approach is useful for
Cyrillian studies. According to Frances Young, Edwin Hatch was the first to
argue, more than a hundred years ago, that the roots of patristic exegesis lie
in the ancient educational system, and in the schools of the grammarians
and rhetors. Hatch suggested the investigation into the influence of Greek

506 Quintilian, Institutio Oratio, text and translation by H. E. Butler, 4 vols, Loeb

Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1920–2), 2.1.4–8.

507 For further reading on the topic of rhetoric, Donald Lemen Clark, Rhetoric in

the Greco-Roman Education (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959). George
Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1972). Idem, Quintilian (New York: Twayne, 1969). James
Murphy, ed., A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric (New York: Random House,
1972). Jeffrey Walker, Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2000). W. Rhys Roberts, Greek Rhetoric and Literary Criticism (New York:
Cooper Square, 1963).
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 151

ideas on Christianity. This implied researching “the influence of Greek

methods of exegesis on Christian exegesis, and on the debt of Christian
preaching owed to Greek rhetoric.” 508 The other studies that followed
focused mainly on certain personages. It seems the persons that interested
the researchers were those writers that were known to have achieved high
rhetorical standards or worked as rhetors or grammarians before attaining
their ecclesiastical position. The writers that have gained the greatest
scholarly attention were Augustine, John Chrysostom, 509 and the
Cappadocians 510 since all of them have surviving written orations on which
scholars have data or information for their research. Some attention was

508 Frances Young, “The Rhetorical Schools and their Influence on Patristic
Exegesis,” in The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, ed. Rowan
Williams, (Cambridge University Press, 1989): 182–3. Edwin Hatch, The influence of
Greek Ideas on Christianity (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1957).
509 Some examples of research on rhetoric of John Chrysostom: T. E.

Ameringer, The Stylistic Influence of the Second Sophistic on the Panegyrical Sermons of St.
John Chrysostom (Patristic Studies 5; Washington, D.C., 1921). M. A. Burns, Saint John
Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Statues: A Study of Their Rhetorical Qualities and Form
(Patristic Studies, 22; Washington, D.C. 1930). F. W. A. Dickson, The Use of the
Optative Mood in the Works of St. Chrysostom (Patristic Studies. 11; Washington, D.C.
1926).
510 Some examples of research on rhetoric of the Cappadocians: J. M. Campbell,

The Influence of the Second Sophistic on the style of the sermons of St. Basil the Great (Patristic
Studies, 2; Washington, D.C. 1922). G. H. Ettlinger, “The Orations of Gregory of
Nazianzus: A Study in Rhetoric and Personality,” in Preaching in the Patristic Age:
Studies in Honor of Walter J. Burghardt, S. J., ed. D. G. Hunter (New York, 1989), 101–
18. A. B. Poynton, Gregory of Nazianzus and the Greek Rhetoricians (A Supplement to
the Index of Walz, Rhetores Graeci, Vol. 9) (Oxford, 1933). R. R. Reuther, Gregory
of Nazianzus: Rhetor and Philosopher (Oxford, 1969). M. Alexandre, “Le mortuis’ de
Gregoire de Nysse,” Studia Patristica, X (TU, 107; Berlin 1970), 35–43. J. Bernardi,
La prédication des Pères cappadociens: Le prédicateur et son auditoire (Publications de la
Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de l’Université de Montpellier, 30;
Monpellier, 1968).
152 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

given to Clement of Alexandria 511 and Tertullian 512 because of their

polished literary styles. 513
As for Cyril of Alexandria, knowledge of the history of his early
education is very speculative since there is no concrete information about
his early life, but his style of writing definitely presumes that he acquired an
extremely high level of education. He was not known to have held the
position of a rhetor or grammarian before being a bishop. In addition, his
writings did not include any orations nor was he known to be an orator, in
contrast to Augustine, Chrysostom, and the Cappadocians, whose orations
fill many pages. Cyril could not have competed with these distinguished
figures famous for their Christian oratory. There are only two modern
studies that point to some aspects of Cyril’s literary style. The first is
Kerrigan’s study in which he devoted only a meager part of his work to
some of the literary aspects of Cyril’s Old Testament exegetical works. 514
The second is Cassel, who, in his dissertation, argued that Cyril applied his
grammarian skills to educate the clergy in the art of scriptural interpretation.
The latter based his work on the Commentary on Isaiah. He used the
commentary to point out some literary aspects that indicate that Cyril used
the commentary as a medium of instruction since there are some
indications in the text that it was presented orally. 515 To date, there is no

511 An example of research on the rhetoric of Clement of Alexandria: J. David

Cassel, “Cyril of Alexandria and the science of the grammarian: a study in the
setting, purpose and emphasis of Cyril’s Commentary on Isaiah,” Ph.D. diss.,
Charlottesville: University of Virginia, 1992..
512 An example of research on the rhetoric of Tertullian: R. D. Sider, Ancient

Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian (London: Oxford University Press, 1971).
513 In addition to the previous titles dedicated to specific Christian authors, here

are examples of general research on rhetoric that is related to Christian themes: P.

Auksi, Christian Plain Style: The Evolution of a Spiritual Ideal (Montreal, 1995). T. D.
Barnes, “Panegyric, History, and Hagiography in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine,” in
R. Williams ed., The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick
(Cambridge, 1989), 94–123. G. J. M. Bartelink, Quelques observations sur PARRHSIA
dans la littérature paléo-chrétienne (Graecitas et Latinitas Christianorum Primaeva Sup.,
3.1; Nijmegen, 1970). T. C. Burgess, Epideictic Literature (Studies in Classical
Philology, 3; Chicago, 1902), 89–261 (repr. New York/ London 1987 [Ancient
Greek Literature]). M. L. Clarke, Rhetoric at Rome: A Historical Survey (London, 1953).
Ibid., Higher education in the Ancient World (London, 1971).
514 A. Kerrigan, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Interpreter of the Old Testament (Rome,

Institutum Pontificum Biblicum, 1952).

515 J. David Cassel, “Cyril of Alexandria and the science of the grammarian: a

study in the setting, purpose and emphasis of Cyril’s Commentary on Isaiah,”

 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 153

research dedicated to Cyril’s rhetoric. Thus, these two chapters will be an

attempt to contribute to the research on Cyril’s exegesis with an emphasis
on his rhetorical style.
Scholars have approached rhetoric from different perspectives. To
take some recent examples, Peter Brown approached rhetoric from the
viewpoint of “persuasion.” He did not discuss the idea of persuasion from
the literary perspective but rather as a political means in exerting power in
the Roman Empire. He concentrated on the upper class control of power
with special attention to the religious and cultural elements that played a
role in the formation of the imperial power. He contended that paideia
created a common culture among both the upper class and rulers and that
bishops, who were learned in paideia, were able to replace the ruling power
within their region. He also contends that Christian writers presented
monks as a stratum in the society that were “untouched” by paideia and at
the same time showed an element of power and control in the society.
These uneducated monks shared with the bishops a new power that is
determined by “the love of the poor” rather than paideia. 516 On the other
hand, Avril Cameron has approached the topic from the view point of
Christian usage of rhetoric. She studied the art of biography writing in
Christian hagiography and how this art evolved to have a more visual form,
that is, the art of iconography complemented this style of rhetoric. She also
discussed the genre of “acts” that had a very specific literary quality that has
set it apart from other literary genres. She writes that she is not using
rhetoric “in its technical sense, but rather in the current, far looser sense it
seems to have acquired, by which it can mean something like ‘characteristic
means or ways of expression’; these modes may be either oral or written, or
indeed may pertain to the visual or to any other means of
communications.” 517 It is the “technical sense” that is going to be presently

Ph.D. diss., Charlottesville: University of Virginia, 1992. J. David Cassel, “Cyril of

Alexandria as Educator,” in In Dominico Eloquio: In Lordly Eloquence, eds. Paul
Blowers, Angela Russell Christman, David G. Hunter, and Robin Darling Young
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), 348–68.
516 Peter Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity; Towards a Christian Empire

(Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1992).

517 Avril Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of the Empire (Berkeley, University

of California Press, 1991), 13. For reading and reference works concerning the art
or te,cnh of rhetoric refer to Quintilian, Institutio Oratio, text and translation by H. E.
Butler, 4 vols, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1920–2). This research will refer continuously to Quintilian’s work since it is
considered a classic for such a topic, is more comprehensive in its coverage, and
154 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

discussed rather than a political, social, or artistic visual approach. This

study will accept the general consensus of scholars in this field without
delving into a detailed discussion about the various competing schools of
rhetoric. There are no studies on Cyril’s rhetorical style, and only when
much research is done on the various styles of his writings would it be
necessary to go into greater depth to investigate the possibility of whether
Cyril is a follower of a certain school of rhetoric. 518

The Literary Aspect of Cyril’s The Commentary on the Gospel of John

To understand the literary facets of Cyril’s commentary, one needs to
examine in detail the literary aspects of rhetoric and investigate whether
these aspects are present in the particular text under consideration and try
to understand what type of genre the Commentary on John represents. Then
we will attempt to understand the divisions within the text and see if they
have any theological significance. Text division is part of the text invention
since one should have a clear division of the text before venturing to start
the interpretation as interpretation includes the process of division.
Following that we will examine Cyril’s literary style regarding grammar,
interest in i`stori,a, that is, geography. In addition, the work will investigate
Cyril’s knowledge of Greek philosophy together with the method in which
he argued against heretical dogmas. It should be noted that the results
might appear to be less than clear-cut, because practical application of
theory of rhetoric tends to deviate from the theoretical framework with the
intention to accommodate the aim of the literature composed.

has summarized the work of previous rhetors. Burton L. Mack, Rhetoric and the New
Testament, Guides to Biblical Scholarship, ed. Dan O. Via (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1990). Stanley Porter, ed. Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period
330 B.C.–A.D. 400 (Leiden: Brill, 1997).
518 Sider in his work on Tertullian, and Colson before him, faced a similar

challenge. Sider writes, “He [Colson] argued that the influence of rhetoric went
much deeper than mere stylistic ornamentation, that it provided categories and
distinctions which affected the structure of thought, and he called for a history
describing the influence of rhetoric on the Fathers at the basic level of thought
patterns. Perhaps Colson’s challenge was too demanding: such a history can be
written only after we have discovered the rhetorical basis of the thought of the
individual writers.” R. D. Sider, Ancient Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian (London:
Oxford University Press, 1971), 2–3. And this is the challenge of this research:
there is no “rhetorical basis of the thought of the individual writers” and to reach
such an aim will require many research efforts in this field.
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 155

The Text as “Commentary”

Cyril clearly stated that he was writing “dogmatic exegesis”
(dogmatikwte,ran ))) evxh,ghsin). 519 The text under consideration is an
exegetical work. The general tendency of the early church writers was to
write exegetical works in the form of scholia, homilies, and commentaries.
The best example of an Alexandrian writer who wrote exegetical works in
all of these three forms is Origen. Jerome in his thirty-third Epistle
mentions that Origen wrote scholia on Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus.
Scholia (sco,lia) were written primarily for educational and instructional
purposes in a school setting, as the word implies. They were a literary form
used by previous Alexandrians, and Cyril was most probably aware of that
genre. The second form of exegetical writings is the “homily” (o`mili,ai).
Homilies were given in a liturgical setting. In most cases they were
comments on the readings of the day; therefore, they usually commented
on biblical passages selectively and, when put in written form and collected
in one volume, did not usually cover the whole biblical text. Origen’s
homilies were taken down by stenographers, and an example of what is
extant of them are twenty homilies on Jeremiah, thirteen on Exodus,
sixteen on Leviticus, twenty-eight on Numbers, twenty-six on Joshua, nine
on Judges, nine on Psalms, thirty-nine on Luke, and many others. 520 The
last genre was that of commentaries (to,moi). Quasten remarked that
homilies’ purpose was “popular edification” while commentaries were
“written in order to give a scientific exegesis. They are a strange mixture of

519 In Jo. 1.7. (dogmatikwte,ran ))) evxh,ghsin) that is a “more dogmatic exegesis.”

Cyril is making it clear from the outset of his commentary that he will be more
focused on dogmas that expose the false doctrines of the heretics. This is most
probably in comparison to commentaries that tend to focus more on spirituality,
literal, or mystical explanation of the text, or other religious interests. Though this
commentary includes some spiritual advice, Cyril’s main focus is on dogmatic
issues. The early church literary genres were not clear cut in their genres. Thus
biblical expositions would include many other topics, as much as the orator is
capable of including. The most obvious would be that of John Chrysostom whose
biblical expositions included many topics. It was the means that the shepherd spoke
to his flock. Therefore, Cyril’s clear presentation of a “more dogmatic”
presentation indicates that he is going to focus on this issue more than anything
else.
520 Quasten, Patrology, 2.46–7. An impressive full list of Origen’s surviving

homilies is listed in Quasten.

156 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

philological, textual, historical, etymological notes and theological and

philosophical observations.” 521
Quasten’s remarks are clear in that a commentary was not written for
the general public but served as some sort of reference work for the more
learned who wanted a more in depth look at the biblical text. Furthermore,
the list of the elements in the “strange mixture” that Quasten lists is
nothing more than the elements of a literary rhetorical work. Origen wrote
commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew and John, and some of the
Pauline Epistles. He also wrote commentaries on some Old Testament texts
and parts of the commentary on the Canticle of Canticles are still extant. 522
On the other hand, Didymus the Blind wrote only commentaries in the
form of scholia. Moreover, there is no indication that Didymus wrote or
delivered any homilies. It is interesting to note that the literary activity of
the writer reflects his daily life preoccupation. Didymus the Blind’s activities
were confined to his school, most probably due to his handicap, and his
literary activity reflects this.
Based on the previous exegetical categories, the exegetical text of the
Gospel of John is a commentary. Cyril gave the heading of his commentary
as e`rmhnei,a h;toi u`po,mnhma. 523 It includes an interpretation, explanatory
notes, and commentary. Cyril does not have any scholias. The extant
authentic homilies attributed to Cyril have a Marian theme. The other
extant series of authentic homilies that have an exegetical theme are those
on the Gospel of Luke and they were clearly delivered after the outbreak of
the Nestorian controversy. They were short, uncomplicated, and expressed
theological themes rather simply. Cyril was always aware of his listeners, and
he frequently apologized when the homily tended to be long, being aware
that his listeners were getting tired and most probably he felt from their
body movement that they were beginning to lose concentration. He usually
started with a summary of the previous day to remind his listeners where he
last stopped. None of these characteristics were present in the Johannine
commentary. The only two other exegetical works that Cyril wrote that are
not in commentary form are De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate and
Glaphyra. The former is in dialogue form and both addressed some passages
in the Pentateuch. The rest of his exegetical work was in the form of
commentaries, that on the Gospel of John being one of them. This is

521 Ibid., 2.48. Quasten represents a certain attitude. This could be contrasted

with the opinions of Henri De Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, vol 1: The Four Senses of
Scripture, translated by Mark Sebanc (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1998).
522 Ibid., 2.50.
523 In Jo. 1.1.
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 157

another indication that Cyril produced his exegetical works before his
episcopal years. They were written when he was in a mind set of not being
concerned with homiletic responsibilities, nor obligated for daily teaching;
thus, having to write in the form of scholia, but rather concerned with the
study of scripture as a reader appointed to be a “Gospel exegete. ” 524

The Division of the Commentary

The Commentary was divided into a preface plus twelve books (bibli,on).
The preface was only seven pages. 525 Each book was divided into headings
(kefalh,) that explained the topics or argument to be discussed. 526 Taking
into consideration that typed scripts are more homogeneous than written
scripts, we can fairly assume that Cyril paced his writings so that every two
books would cover about three hundred pages, on average, per bound
volume. He must have taken into consideration the easy handling of a
book, its binding, and other practical production constraints. However, it
should be noted that the first book was limited to the theological division of

524 Cassel’s dissertation thesis considers the Commentary on Isaiah as a

collection of exegetical lectures produced for educational purposes. The result of

this research shows disagreement with Cassel’s thesis that Cyril wrote his
commentaries for educational purposes to teach the elements of exegesis to the
priests of Egypt or interested advanced students. If this was the purpose, Cyril
would have written his commentaries in the form of scholia. Cassel, Cyril and the
Science of the Grammarians, 58.
525 The pages referred to are pages of the Pussey edition. The page of this

edition will be considered as the measuring unit by which we measure the length of
the text and its divisions.
526 The division of the books is as follows:

1. Book 1: Jn 1:1–28 Vol. 1; Ps 1–168 number of pages: 168

2. Book 2: Jn 1:29–5:34. Vol. 1; Ps 69–362 number of pages: 293
3. Book 3: Jn 5:35–6:37 Vol. 1; Ps 365–481 number of pages: 116
4. Book 4: Jn 6:38–7:24 Vol. 1; Ps 485–644 number of pages: 159
5. Book 5: Jn 7:25–8:43 Vol. 1; Ps 647–728 + Vol. 2 Ps 1–90
number of pages: 171
6. Book 6: Jn 8:44–10:17 Vol. 2; Ps 91–241 number of pages: 150
7. Book 7: Jn 10:18–12:2 Vol. 2; Ps 243–299 [fragments]
8. Book 8: Jn 12:2–12:48 Vol. 2; Ps 301–334 [fragments]
9. Book 9: Jn 12:49–14:20 Vol. 2; Ps 338–488 number of pages: 150
10. Book 10: Jn 14:21–16:13 Vol. 2; Ps 489–629 number of pages: 170
11. Book 11: Jn 16:13–18:23 Vol. 2; Ps 629–737 + Vol. 3; Ps 1–40
number of pages: 148
12. Book 12: Jn 18:24–21:25 Vol. 2; Ps 43–171 number of pages: 128
158 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

the Prologue of John. Therefore, from the physical evidence, we can

assume that he had the prologue as a volume of its own. Book Two was
also a volume of its own that was around three hundred pages. The rest of
the books were bound together in twos, where each volume would average
three hundred pages. The two missing books, Books Seven and Eight,
confirm this theory. If we take, for example, the transition from Book Two
to Book Three, it is in the middle of the pericope about Christ being the
“Bread of Life.” However, since Books Three and Four were to be bound
together in one volume, Cyril did not find it unusual to end the book in the
middle of the pericope. This is in comparison to the division between Book
One and Two, in which he made a conclusion at the end of the pericope.
The same situation was present in the division between Books Five and Six,
where the book ends at the middle of the pericope, in comparison to Book
Six that ends at the conclusion of a pericope. Therefore, book divisions
were carefully crafted to take into consideration the practical limitations of
book production in addition to the internal division of the biblical text.

The Division of the Gospel Text

The early parts of the Gospel narrative absorbed Cyril’s attention, and by
the time he reached the end of his commentary he was almost narrating the
text without many explications since all his theological views were already
clearly and repetitively mentioned throughout the commentary. The first
verse of the Gospel of John was interpreted in three chapters. The second
verse in the same Gospel required a whole chapter of interpretation. Cyril
used the first verse to explain the “orthodox” faith. Once he felt that he set
the foundation of his theological argument, Cyril began launching his
attacks on the heretics beginning with Eunomius starting with verse two (Jn
1:2). In the following verses Cyril concentrated his arguments against the
Arian heresy. The beginning of Chapter Nine of his book was devoted to a
very detailed argument against Origen. Cyril’s commentary was a “dogmatic
exegesis” interpretation, and the first book of his commentary set the
foundation and the tone for the rest of his text. Thus, in the first book of
the commentary, Cyril intentionally outlined the basics of the “orthodox”
faith and challenged the heretical teachings. 527 By the time Cyril reached the

527 It should be noted that due to the theological content of the first chapter of

the Gospel of John, many early Christian writers devoted much attention to the
first chapter of John. John Chrysostom devoted the first twenty-one homilies of a
total of eighty-three to the first chapter of John. That is about one fourth of his
homiletic attention was given to John 1. PG 59. Origen devoted the first nine
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 159

last book of his commentary, he laid clear all his arguments and narrated the
last chapters of the Gospel for the sake of completion.
Books Three, Four, and Five each interpret almost one chapter, in
contrast to the rest of the commentary where a book commented on two or
more Gospel chapters. What is significant about Books Three and Four is
that they included within them long treatises about Old Testament topics.
Book Three contained two separate treatises—one on Moses 528 and the
other on manna. 529 Book Four held three separate treatises, the
tabernacle, 530 the Sabbath, 531 and circumcision. 532 Book Five paid special
attention to the Arian heresy. Therefore, Books Three, Four, and Five were
tailored to address certain topics that were of interest to Cyril.
We can conclude that he arranged his commentary as follows. The first
book was the foundation of his arguments. Book Two was an extension of
this elaboration and the division between Books One and Two was solely
for practical reasons. Books Three, Four, and Five, were devoted to special
topics that he wanted to address and he approached them in the form of
separate treatises. Books Seven and Eight are fragments, and therefore it is
difficult to make concrete statements about their contents. By the time Cyril
began writing his last four books, he had already laid down his theological
framework and he began to attend more to exegesis of spirituality and
practical daily life. 533 For example, Jn 14:24, Whoever does not love me does not
keep my words was an opportunity for Cyril to exhort his readers to follow
the commandments as he considers this to be a particular state of virtue (to.
th/j avreth/j ei=do,j) where one participates in the Divine nature. 534 The
contents of the Gospel message helped him to pursue such a course. This
was the same with Book Eleven where the theme of the Holy Spirit was key
in the chapter and Cyril used it, together with his emphasis on theological

books of a total of thirty-two books, that is, about a third of the text, to the first
chapter of John. SC vols. 120, 157, and 222.
528 In Jo. 1.391–440. Bk 3, chs 3 and 4.
529 In Jo. 1. 456–481. Bk 3, ch 6.
530 In Jo. 1.562–578. Bk 4, ch 4.
531 In Jo. 1.615–627 Bk 4, ch 6.
532 In Jo. 1.628–644. Bk 4, ch 7. The research will deal with each of the above

mentined treatises in the following chapter dealing with “spiritual exegesis” under
the heading of the “Use of the Old Testament” in Cyril’s exegesis.
533 Cassel was of the opinion that the divisions of the books of the Commentary

on Isaiah were arbitrary and without any logic. Cassel, Cyril and the Science of the
Grammarians, 54.
534 In Jo. 2.502.
160 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

doctrines, to embellish some spiritual themes. Book Twelve was devoted to

the last days of Christ and Cyril tended to follow the historical narrative to a
great extent with the occasional embellishment of spiritual themes. 535
Two illustrations will clarify the contrast between the approach in
Book One and Book Twelve. In comparison to the first book, where he
divided one verse into two chapters, we notice that in Book Twelve he took
at least seven verses at one time. For example, he dealt with Jn 21:7–14 as
one segment. 536 This segment was more narrative in style where the passage
describes Christ’s appearance to the seven disciples while fishing and the
catch of the one hundred fifty-three fish. At this point, Cyril seized the
opportunity to elaborate in a way that was quite outstanding for his method.
Cyril explained that the ignited fire was done to prove to the Apostles that
it was the Savior who started the work of preaching and not them. 537 He
then elaborated on the meaning of the number of the hundred and fifty-
three fish. 538 One hundred is a perfect number. Cyril presented two possible
explanations for this number. One hundred could have signified the
complete sum of rational creatures (having in mind the hundred sheep in
the parable of the good shepherd), or the fertility of the righteous soul. The
number fifty referred to the elect remnant of the people of Israel, since fifty

535 Cyril’s writing was extremely theological by its very nature, so when we write
that Cyril tended to follow the last days of Christ more on the historical side, that
does not mean that there were no theological arguments involved. For example, in
the previous chapter we mentioned that Cyril was the only early church writer who
was able to reconcile the two narratives of the descent of the Holy Spirit. This was
explained in Book Twelve. What is meant by following the historical narrative is
that it was comparatively, theologically less complex than the early part of the
commentary. It is a comparison between the beginning and the end of the work,
and not an absolute statement that the end of the commentary was less theological.
536 There are many other examples that cannot be enumerated. A quick glance

at the Appendix will clearly reveal the difference of length in the segment divisions
throughout the commentary.
537 In Jo. 3.161.
538 The early church writers showed great interest in the interpretation of

numbers. For example, Origen discussed in his Commentary on the Gospel of John some
interpretation of numbers as in the building of the temple. Origen, Commentary on
the Gospel of John, translated by Roland Hiene. The Fathers of the Church, vol 80
(Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1989), 316. Another
example is that of Evagrius who divided his book Chapters on Prayer into 153
chapters in imitation of the 153 fish caught by the disciples after the resurrection.
Evagrius Ponticus, The Praktikos and Chapters on Prayer, trans. John Eudes
Bamberger (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1981).
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 161

is half of one hundred and falls short of the perfect hundred. Three referred
to the Trinity. 539 In this segment Cyril did not elaborate on dogmatic issues,
as was his custom in the early parts of his commentary but rather focused
on the more spiritual and allegorical aspects of the scriptural message.
Another example can also be found in Book Twelve, where Cyril
commented in Jn 19:23–4 on the divided garments. Cyril wrote that the
divided garment might signify the mysterious providence that the four
quarters of the world are destined to be saved. Though he later pursued a
theological interpretation that Christ cannot be divided, he quickly reverted
to elaborate that the seamless robe refers to the fact that Christ’s body came
to existence in the world without intercourse. 540
As mentioned above, this text is a “commentary.” Christian writers
followed the same steps as secular grammarians’ commentary procedure on
Scriptures. In Jones’s opinion, “Most of these follow too faithfully the
tradition of the secular grammaticus, explaining the text line by line and word
by word and commenting on obscurities with much pedantic learning.” 541
Dionysius Thrax was of the opinion that any reader who is trained in a
grammarians’ school and acquired the basic grammarian’s skills will be able
to read and analyze a text. 542 The importance of Dionysius Thrax for this
research is that many of his papyri have been found in Egypt 543 and thus we
may assume that his theory of the art of interpretation might have been
familiar to Cyril. Dionysius’ six parts of rhetoric or the art or te,cnh of
grammatical analysis of text are,
1- expect reading of the text with its correct accents and
punctuation; 2- explication (evxh,ghsij) of the poetic tropes which
occur in the text; 3- the appropriate definition of both the rare
and unusual words and the historical aspects of the text; 4-
research (eu[resij) into etymologies; 5- reflection on analogies;

539 In Jo. 3.160–3.

540 In Jo. 3. 87–9.
541 Jones, The Later Roman Empire, vol. 2, p1011. For a similar analysis of Cyril’s

Commentary on Isaiah refer to Cassel, Cyril and the Science of the Grammarians, 73.
Young explained that Quintilian is one of the most informative sources for us to
understand the methods of exegesis as practiced in the schools of the grammarians.
She says that Quintilian was of the opinion that “correct reading precedes
interpretation.” She explains further that correct reading is a process of
interpretation “since words were not divided, there was no punctuation and not all
hand written copies in the class would be identical.” Young, Rhetorical Schools, 184.
542 Cassel, Cyril as Educator, 352.
543 Cassel, Cyril and the Science of the Grammarians, 136.
162 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

and 6- the evaluation (kri,sij) of the work, which is the most

elegant of all the parts of the science. (Ars Grammatica 1.4–8). 544
Thus, according to Dionysius Thrax, the process of interpretation
included, after a careful reading of the text, dividing the text, that is,
deciding on the punctuation, looking at some grammatical issues, and
attesting the correctness of the text to be worked upon. Also this included
attending to obscurities and Cyril was fascinated with explaining the names
and locations of obscure towns and cities. We will thus investigate whether
Cyril followed the te,cnh required of the grammarian to analyze the text.
Cyril’s Commentary on John follows the principle of commenting word
by word on the text. The whole Gospel text can be reconstructed from the
Commentary. 545 He began a book by listing the headings (kefalh,) or topics
he intended to discuss. He then began his chapter by citing the heading
(kefalh,) again and listing the verse, half verse, or more than one verse, that
he intended to explicate followed with the interpretation. We will now take
a closer look at Cyril’s choice of verse division.
The first verse division that involved an exegetical decision was Jn
1:3,4. The verse reads as follows: pa,nta di v auvtou/ evge,neto kai. cwri.j
evge,neto ouvde. e[n o[ ge,gonen evn auvtw/| zwh. h=n( kai. h` zwh. h=n to. fw/j tw/n
avnqrw,pwn. Metzger poses the question: “Should the words o[ ge,gonen be
joined with what goes before or with what follows?” 546 Metzger remarked
that manuscripts did not have punctuation, and any punctuation reflected
the “exegetical understanding of the meaning of the passage.” 547 Metzger
provided these further remarks: there is a general consensus among ante-
Nicene writers, whether they are orthodox or heretical, to attach o[ ge,gonen
with what follows. At this point we can conclude that Cyril followed the
ante-Nicene consensus. On the other hand, the Arians and Macedonians
customarily attached o[ ge,gonen with what precedes to interpret that the
Holy Spirit was created. This led the following writers to attach o[ ge,gonen
with what follows to avoid such heretical interpretation. 548 Modern editions
attach o[ ge,gonen with what precedes and end the verse after o[ ge,gonen. As

544 Quoted in Cassel, Cyril as Educator, 352–3. [insertion of Greek in text is mine]

Alfredus Hilgard, Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam, Part I vol. 3 (Lipsiae:
In Aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1901), 13–16.
545 The Appendix has reconstructed Cyril’s Johannine text, showing textual

variants.
546 Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York:

American Bible Society, 1994), 167.

547 Ibid.
548 Ibid.
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 163

to Cyril, he attached o[ ge,gonen with what follows and devoted the whole of
Chapter Six of Book One to this verse o[ ge,gonen evn auvtw/| zwh. h=n. Clearly
Cyril has made it an exegetical point against the Arians to interpret the verse
in this form.
Another example is that in the printed modern editions we have Jn 5:
36–38 divided as follows:
36 But I have a testimony greater than John’s. The works that
the Father has given me to complete, the very works that I am
doing, testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me. 37 And
the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf. You
have never heard his voice or seen his form, 38 and you do not
have his word abiding in you, because you do not believe him
whom he has sent.
Cyril considered verse thirty-six and the first half of thirty-seven as one
unit. There were two testimonies for the Son, one is that of John and the
other is that of the Father. The completion of the testimony of the Father
ends in the middle of verse thirty-seven. Cyril considered that the testimony
of John and the Father constitute one exegetical unit. Cyril interpreted the
rest of the verses focusing on the Jewish leaders who did not understand
what was said by Moses, since they neither heard nor saw Him. The
division had great consequences for the subsequent interpretation.
A similar example is found in Jn 6:27. The verse was situated after the
episode of the feeding of the five thousand and followed by Christ’s
comment that he was the “Bread of Life.” Verse twenty-seven is amid these
two pericopes and reads, Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that
endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on him that God
the Father has set his seal (Jn 6:27). In Chapter Four, Cyril focused on the
miracle of feeding the multitude. He concluded the pericope with the
assertion that, though Christ fed all those present with food that perishes, it
is time that we focus our attention to the eternal food that is more mystical
and sanctifies us totally, body and soul. 549 On this note Cyril ended Chapter
Four. He concluded the chapter discussing half of verse twenty-seven.
Chapter Five began with the focus on the verb “being a seal” (evsfra,gisen).
He turned the discussion from the mystical setting of the eternal bread to
the theological setting of asserting the oneness of Christ with the Father,
for He is the Only Begotten who is the impress and seal of the Father. The
main topic of Chapter Five was the Son being the seal (evsfra,gisen) of the
Father. 550 It can be suggested that when Cyril finds a topic that is of interest

549 In Jo. 1.438–440.

550 In Jo. 1. 441–455.
164 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

to the main skopo,j of his work, in this case a dogmatic Trinitarian aim, he
does not hesitate to devote the entire chapter to the topic. There are
numerous examples to illustrate that verse division affects interpretation.
These two examples will suffice to illustrate the point.
There is another way of dividing the verses that does not necessarily
make a substantial theological difference, but rather makes more rhetorical
sense in interpreting the verses. Jn 20:11–13 are divided as follows: 551
11 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb.// As she wept,
she bent over to look into the tomb; 12 and she saw two angels
in white sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at
the head and the other at the feet. 13 They said to her, “Woman,
why are you weeping?” She said to them,// “They have taken
away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” 14
When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus
standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. 552
Cyril’s first division described the situation of Mary: she was weeping
and located outside the tomb. The second division included the arrival of
the angels and their initiating a conversation with her. The third part
detailed Mary’s response and reaction. It is the image of a stage scene where
the change of character indicated a shift on the stage focus. In the first and
third parts, Mary was the figure at the center of the stage. In the second
part, the angels were playing their role on stage.
The example just mentioned sets the foundation for another criterion
of division in Cyril’s commentary. The previous example did not affect the
theological outcome, but is rather a result of rhetorical understanding of the
role of the persons dominating the scene. The following example is an
illustration of a division due to change in the stage of events but is affected
by theological understandings. When Cyril began commenting on Jn 6:1,
After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, also called the sea of Tiberias,
he started as follows. The verse is the beginning of Book Three, Chapter
Four. The heading (kefalh,) of the Chapter clearly stated the theological
significance of this verse. He writes, “That many times the departures of
Christ from Jerusalem make clear the transferring of his grace to the
Gentiles.” 553 Cyril explained that Christ left Jerusalem for a reason. During
his stay in Jerusalem he healed the man who had an infirmity for thirty-eight

551 The numbers are the modern printed division. The double slash “//” refers

to Cyril’s division.
552 In Jo. 3.110–113.
553 {Oti polla,kij ai` Crisou/ metaba,seij avpo. th/j `Ierousalh.m to.
metateqh,sesqai th.n ca,rin evpi. ta. e;qnh dhlou/sin\ In Jo. 1.397.
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 165

years. Christ healed the infirmed man on a Sabbath and this caused a
disturbance in the city that was incited by the Jewish leaders. Cyril posed the
question what does “after this” mean? It means that after the disturbance
caused by the healing on the Sabbath, Christ left Jerusalem. 554 Thus, Cyril
concluded that when Christ leaves the scene in Jerusalem and crosses the
Sea of Galilee after the ungrateful Jewish leaders accuse him of
transgressing the Sabbath rather than thanking him for healing the paralytic,
it is a sign of transference of Grace from the Jews to the Gentiles. This
might be considered allegorical interpretation, but it included the reality of
physical movement from one place to another and therefore the stage of
events is emptied of its players. Different peoples inhabited these locales,
the Jews in Jerusalem, and the Gentiles across the Sea of Galilee. For Cyril
this indicates the transferring of Grace to the Gentiles who live across the
Sea of Galilee. For Cyril it signified the beginning of a new chapter in Book
Three.
Another similar example is Jn 9:1, As he walked along, he saw a blind man
from birth. The very last verse in Jn 8:59 spoke about an attempt to stone
Christ in the temple, but he disappeared from Jewish leaders. Cyril
connected Jn 8:59 to Jn 9:1 and at the conclusion of Jn 9:1 he ended his
discussion and began a new chapter in Book Six. Cyril interpreted Christ’s
leaving the temple because of the blindness of the Jews who could not
understand the message. They were like the blind man who was blind from
birth. He then connected verses Jn 8:59 to Jn 9:1 with the theme of
blindness and this theme included the scene of leaving the temple locale
and moving out of the traditional Jewish precinct. 555 Cyril’s combination of
the biblical verses was greatly influenced by his exegesis.
The final observation concerning the division of verses in Cyril’s
commentary regarded the last three books. As previously mentioned, the
early books of the commentary were lengthy interpretations and the
division of verses has, in most cases, affected the exegetical process. As to
the last three books of the commentary, Cyril was more cursory in his
approach. He felt that he explained in detail most of the theological
dogmas, the verse division follows to a great extent the divisions of the
modern printed editions. A look at the appendix will confirm this
observation.

554 In Jo. 1.397–8.

555 In Jo. 2.133–5.
166 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Grammar
Included in the reading process of the text—together with the text
division—is the process where the grammarian certifies a text is attested
and explains grammatical obscurities. The effect of grammar on
interpretation included his use of the definite article, his punctuation and
restructuring of verses, and his textual critical insights. This process is the
second aspect of Dionysius Thrax’s first point regarding the reading of the
text.
Cyril wrote the following observations on the Johannine text.
Commenting on Jn 1:1 vEn avrch| h-n o` lo,goj he gave a grammatical
explanation in response to the heretics, by which, in this case, he meant
Arius, who did not consider the Son to be the Word of the Father. To do
so, Cyril argued that when Divine Scriptures put nouns with prefixed
articles (ta. ovno,mata protattome,nwn tw/n a;rqwn) then it meant something
that was truly (avlhqinw/j) what was said to be. 556 The article made the noun
more defined than just the general and non-specific noun. Cyril offered an
example to clarify what he meant. He said there are many gods, but when
the noun God is prefixed with an article, then “He Who is” is signified. 557
Therefore, when The Son of Man was defined with an article, we understand
that he meant only one and that is the Word. Therefore, when Scripture
writes, In the beginning was the Word, then it is clear that the verse refers to the
Son who is of the same essence as that of the Father. 558 Cyril followed this
argument all through his commentary.
The consistency of the article argument can be demonstrated by
another example where presence of an article before a noun, especially the
divine name, whether it is God or Jesus, is so consistent that it is interesting
to question, whether it is a textual variant in Cyril’s personal copy or
whether it is reverence to the name. When comparing Chapter Eleven of
John’s Gospel in Cyril’s text with the Nestle-Aland edition it is found that
the name vIhsou/j is prefixed with an article six times, in Jn
11:9,33,38,45,46,51, where verse forty-five has both the name vIhsou/j and a
prefixed article added to the text. The Nestle-Aland edition does not attest
to any variants to Jn 11:33, 38, 45, 51. On the other hand, Jn 11: 9,46 does
have a variant that attests to such possible additions. 559

556 In Jo. 1.59.

557 Ibid.
558 Ibid.
559 In Jo. 2.263–297. Further examples can be observed in the Appendix.
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 167

Cyril commented on Thomas’ utterance o` ku,rio,j mou kai. o` qeo,j mou

in Jn 20:28 that this is to show that there is only One Lord and One God. 560
Cyril argued that Thomas gave an answer with an article to eliminate any
suspicion that he is addressing an angel or an important person. Cyril
reminded his readers that Paul acknowledged that in fact there are many gods
and many lords (1 Cor 8:5). Cyril goes on to explain that because of this faith,
Christ instructed his disciples to preach to the nations and to assert that he
is Lord and God by nature even when he became man (ku,rioj ga.r o;ntwj
evsti. kata. fu,sin kai. Qeo.j kai. o[te ge,gonen a;nqrwpoj). 561 Though the
disciples touched him physically, they did not sever him into two sons but
recognized him as the same in the flesh. 562 In this case, Cyril used the
presence of the article in the text to assert a theological principle he dearly
held, that is, the oneness of Christ. A similar idea is found in Jn 6:68 which
reads according to Cyril’s text kai. h`mei/j pepisteu,kamen( kai. evgnw,kamen
su. ei= o` Cristo.j o` a[gioj tou/ Qeou/ where o` Cristo.j is absent from the
Nestle-Aland but he attests that the variant is found in other manuscripts
including a Boharaic one. 563 Cyril alerted his readers to observe that su. ei= o`
Cristo.j o` a[gioj tou/ Qeou/ is singular and has a prefixed article (monadikw/j
kai. protetagme,nou tou/ a;rqrou). 564 Based on this observation, he affirmed
again that this is to remove any doubts about those who are called sons by
grace, for there is only one Son who is truly Son. 565 Cyril again asserted the
oneness of Christ. For example, Cyril commented that in the verse evgw eivmi
to. fw/j tou/ ko,smou (Jn 8:12) using the definite article refers directly to
Christ for he is the Light. 566 The presence of the article emphasized the
specificity of the light and that it is not any light. The attention to
grammatical details such as the definite article clearly played a theological
role in the interpretation.
Another aspect of Cyril’s grammatically astute remarks can be
observed in his comments on punctuation and grammar. Jn 5:39 reads
evreuna/te ta.j grafa.j( o[ti evn auvtai/j dokei/te u`mei/j zwh.n aivw,nion e;cein(
kai. au-tai, eivsin ai` marturou/sai peri. evmou/( kai. ouv qe,lete evlqei/n pro.j
me.( e;chte. 567 Cyril explained that the verb evreuna/te (to search) was usually

560 In Jo. 3.151.

561 In Jo. 3.152.
562 Ibid.
563 In Jo. 1.574.
564 In Jo. 1.576.
565 Ibid.
566 In Jo. 2.325–6.
567 In Jo. 1.383.
168 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

interpreted in the imperative mood, as if Christ was ordering the Pharisees

to search the scripture. Cyril said that the presence of the conjunction kai.
persuades us to look at the verse differently. According to Cyril, the
meaning conveyed is that they search scriptures because they are convinced
that they will find eternal life, then Christ blames them for although the
search led to Him, they refuse Him and choose not to come to Him. 568 This
interpretation did not imply the imperative mood. Modern scholars have
reached a similar conclusion where the verb “search” is not translated in
most versions in the imperative mood.
In the following example, Cyril suggested a change in the punctuation
already common to most readers. Jn 7:21 reads e[n e;rgon evpoi,hsa kai.
pa,ntej qauma,zete* and Cyril began his comment by suggesting that he is
going to read the above mentioned statement as a question, rather than with
a comma, or with a full stop. 569 Cyril reads it as a question that would mean,
“I have healed the man on the Sabbath and do you marvel?” Thus he
interprets the passage as if Jesus is asking whether they condemn the
miracle-worker and are not looking at the miracle itself for the sake of the
Sabbath. Nestle-Aland attested that there are variations in the punctuation.
Therefore, Cyril was not the only one who attempted to suggest the
question mark as the proposed solution. 570
They said to him, “Who are you?” e;legon ou=n auvtw/| Su. ti.j ei=* (Jn
8:25). Cyril suggested that the reading of this verse, which is the way it is
punctuated now in modern printed texts as well as that of Cyril, should be a
question with a note of admiration. To achieve this Cyril suggested that the
acute accent on the word su. be thrown back so that the emphasis would be
on the su.. 571 For the Jewish leaders question Christ in a tone that implies
that he is a worthless person and this punctuation would achieve such a
message.
In another reading, Cyril wrote that many readers, when reading Jn
7:23, were unable to decide how to divide it so as to make of it a clear
reading. Cyril informed his readers that he was going to divide the verse
into short segments with the aim of clarifying the meaning. Cyril
understood that the lack of punctuation and thus the lack of divisions in the
verse make reading and comprehending the meaning of texts difficult. He
therefore proceeds to the very main task of the grammarian. Cyril gave this

568 In Jo. 383–4.

569 In Jo. 1.611.
570 Some modern English translations, such as the NRSV, does not suggest a

question mark.
571 In Jo. 2.22–3.
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 169

first suggestion to the verse, if a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, are you
angry at me, that the Law of Moses should not be broken, because I made a whole man
well on the Sabbath? 572 Cyril wrote that Jn 7:22 informs us that Moses gave you
circumcision (it is, of course, not from Moses, but from the patriarchs), and you circumcise
a man on the Sabbath, that is, circumcision is not from Moses but the fathers.
Thus, the circumcision of the fathers broke the Sabbath as written in the
Law of Moses. 573 Based on this argument Cyril suggests the following
reading, are you angry at me, that the Law of Moses should not be broken, because I
made a whole man well on the Sabbath? 574 At this point Cyril is satisfied that he
reached a convincing subdivision and provided a reasonable meaning; he
thus began to elaborate on the interpretation.
The previous few examples illustrate the grammarian’s work, and show
that attention to the literary aspects of the text is part of the interpretive
method. Another aspect is textual attestation, that is, to critically investigate
the correctness of the text. This is still within the first point of Dionysius
Thrax’s method. The first example we have is Jn 1:41. According to Cyril’s
text it reads as follows: eu`ri,skei ou-toj prw/toj to.n avdelfo.n to.n i;dion
Si,mwna.. 575 The Nestle-Aland text reads prw/ton. Metzger presented the
following argument for the choice of prw/ton. Prw/toj “means that Andrew
was the first follower of Jesus who made a convert.” While prw/ton “means
that the first thing that Andrew did after having been called was to find his
brother.” 576 Based on this argument the Committee agreed to use prw/ton
instead of prw/toj. In the meantime, we have prw/toj in Cyril’s text. Based
on Metzger’s argument we expect Cyril to interpret the text as Andrew
being the first to make a convert. Cyril commented that Andrew made good
use of his talent (ta,lanton) and explains to his brother the whole mystery
and thus saves his brother (avnasw,zei). 577 Therefore, Cyril decided on the
interpretation that is linguistically in accord with his text.
The following example is taken from Book Eight that was collected
from fragments. Therefore, the comments in consideration are to be taken

572 In Jo. 1.615.

573 Ibid.
574 In Jo. 615–6. Which is translated in the NRSV as “If a man receives

circumcision on the sabbath in order that the law of Moses may not be broken, are
you angry with me because I healed a man’s whole body on the Sabbath?”
575 Which is translated in the NRSV as “He first found his brother Simon and

said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated anointed).” Where
in the modern edition “first” is the translation of prw/ton.
576 Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 172.
577 In Jo. 1.195.
170 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

with caution. The Cyrillian text writes Jn 12:28, Pate.r( do,xaso,n sou to.n
Ui`o,n. 578 Further on, Cyril commented that he was aware of another textual
variant where Christ cries to the Father to do,xaso,n sou to. o;noma. 579 He
then gave some sort of a casual statement and quickly proceeded with his
argument. Cyril wrote that whether the text contains glorify thy Son or glorify
thy name is a matter pertaining to scientific precision (tauvto,n evsti th/| tw/n
qewrhma,twn avkribei,a|). 580 What this statement means, is that he is not
interested in going into details on the basis that such an activity is a science
of its own. It was highly unusual for Cyril to treat a textual variant that
casually, or to proceed with his interpretation without stating which variant
he preferred, as observed in the previous examples. Cyril usually exhibited a
tendency to interpret texts meticulously.

Geography
Explaining obscure things in a text was part of the art (te,cnh) of the
grammarian. This is the third point of Dionysius Thrax’s previously
mentioned te,cnh of grammatical analysis. Historical events and
geographical locations were an integral part of the grammarian’s training in
exegesis. Cyril is exceptionally interested in geography and various scholars
have noticed this interest. 581 His geographical knowledge was primarily
from his erudition as a good grammarian. We know of three visits Cyril
made outside of Egypt. The first was to Constantinople in 403 when he
accompanied his uncle Theophilus to the Council of the Oak. His second
major trip was to Ephesus in 431 where the famous council convened to
resolve the Nestorian controversy. His last trip was to Jerusalem in 438, at
the age of sixty, when he accompanied the Empress Eudocia on her

578 In Jo. 2:315.

579 Nestle Aland in its apparatus also notes the presence of the two variances.
580 In Jo. 2.318. Cassel commented that when Cyril used the terms tauvto,n evsti

he usually employed it in the sense of introducing a definition or explanation of

words. Cassel, Cyril and the Science of the Grammarians, 171. Cyril did not seem to
follow such a usage in this example which raises more doubts to the authenticity of
this fragment.
581 The most notably F. M. Abel, “Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie dans ses rapports

avec la Palestine,” 205–230, and “La géographie sacrée chez S. Cyrille

d’Alexandrie,” Revue Biblique 31 (1992):407–427. Kerrigan also devoted a segment in
his research to “Cyril’s interest in geography.” Kerrigan, St. Cyril of Alexandria
Interpreter of the Old Testament, 322–333.
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 171

pilgrimage. 582 Since we know that Cyril died in 444 at the age of sixty-six,
his trip to Jerusalem was only six years before his death. Moreover, since
Cyril’s exegetical writings were completed early in his literary career, then
we can fairly assume that the historical and geographical description and
information presented to us in The Commentary on the Gospel of John was
primarily from his erudition, for by that time he had not yet visited
Jerusalem.
Cyril was of the opinion that those who deprecate the historical
(i`stori,an) aspects in the divine Scriptures and consider it as out of date,
deprive themselves of the full understanding of the essence of Scriptures.
Due to the fact that historical events were presented to us in Scriptures, it is
fit to pursue their benefit and seek their salvific attributes. 583 Therefore,
Cyril’s scholarly training and his personal convictions make it worth while
to pursue the presence of his geographical and historical understanding in
his theological interpretation.
Since the texts that are under discussion are exegetical texts, the locales
that are under discussion encompass the area where biblical events took
place, that is, Palestine, Egypt, and Syria. Abel’s article focused on these
three geographical locations. He concluded that Cyril’s knowledge of
Egyptian geography is, not surprisingly, perfect. Cyril was also comfortable
in discussing the Egyptian gods mentioned in any biblical text. 584 In regard
to Palestine, Abel named the cities mentioned in the Bible and tried to
investigate Cyril’s sources of information and how Cyril described the
location of cities. According to Abel, Cyril rarely consulted the Onomasticon
or Peri. tw/n topikw.n by Eusebius which came to be a kind of common
reference for many Christian writers of the time. 585 In addition, Abel
suggested some dependence on Didymus the Blind and Jerome. 586 Abel
followed the same method of investigation regarding the Syrian cities. 587
Abel’s study focused primarily on the Commentaries on Isaiah, Hosea,
Amos, Micah, Joel, and Jonah. 588 Furthermore, Abel’s research focused on

582Abel, “Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie dans ses rapports avec la Palestine,” 224,
230.
583 Commentary on Isaiah, PG 70.192A.
584 Abel, “La géographie sacrée,” 408–412. Abel discussed in greater detail
Cyril’s knowledge of Egyptian gods like Apis, and the Sun, or -Wn. Also, Cyril
clearly understood the impact of the Nile on the life in Egypt.
585 Ibid., 408.
586 Ibid., 408.
587 Ibid., 422–427.
588 Jonah’s book is referred to solely for discussing the city of Tarshish.
172 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Old Testament commentaries, and addressed the sources of his information

on city location. 589 We will thus turn to the Commentary on John and
investigate some of Cyril’s geographical textual concerns and whether this
affected his interpretation in any way.
An example of Cyril’s interest in geographical details is located in Jn
6:1 kai. meta. tau/ta avph/lqen ov Ihsou/j pe,ran th/j qala,sshj th/j
Tiberia,doj. 590 This is different from Nestle-Aland’s text of Jn 6:1, meta.
tau/ta avph/lqen ov Ihsou/j pe,ran th/j qala,sshj th/j Galilai,aj th/j
Tiberia,doj. 591 Cyril’s text has solved the problem and omitted Galilee.
Cyril’s text did not make it necessary to draw a distinction between the “sea
of Tiberias” and the “sea of Galilee.” There was no reference in his text to
the “sea of Galilee.” In Cyril’s view, the problem of the text, as he has it, is
clarifying to what sea it refers. Since he was an Egyptian, and the major Sea
that is relevant to Egypt is the Mediterranean, combining the word “sea”
with Tiberias might lead some to think of a vast body of salt water
equivalent in area to that of the Mediterranean. Lest his readers fall into
such a dilemma, Cyril wrote that John the Evangelist, calls the Lake
(li,mnhn) of Tiberias a sea (qa,lassan). 592 He offered a scriptural explanation
that the gathering of water in the creation narrative was called sea

589 Cassel, in his work, devoted to the Commentary on Isaiah also noted Cyril’s
interest in geography. As mentioned above, a grammarian’s interest in i`stori,a
included interest in history and geography among other aspects. On this basis,
Cassel investigated Cyril’s reference to the history of Israel, references to historical
context, and references to specific historical events. As to geography, Cassel took
note of how Cyril distinguished between the sea (qa,lassa) and the seacoast
(parali,a). Ibid., 189. He also explains what was meant by the “Rivers of Ethiopia,”
where Carthage is located. Cassel concluded his research on i`stori,a by
commenting on the scientific and agricultural allusions in Isaiah. Cassel, Cyril and the
Science of the Grammarians, 175–196.
590 In Jo. 1.397.
591 Metzger comments that “the clumsiness of the two successive genitives,

both identifying the same sea, prompted some copyists to omit th.j Galilai,aj”
Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 181. NRSV translation already included an
interpretation in the process, where Jn 6:1 reads, After this Jesus went to the other side of
the Sea of Galilee, also called the Sea of Tiberias. Cassel quotes Cyril’s Commentary on Isaiah
concerning the Lake Tiberias, “One must be aware that the Holy Scripture calls
Lake Tiberias ‘the Sea of Galilee,’ the very place where the godly disciples were
found practicing the art of fishermen.” Cassel, Cyril and the Science of the Grammarians,
190.
592 In Jo. 1.403.
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 173

(susth,mata tw/n u`da,twn qala,ssaj). 593 He wrote that non-Christian writers

used the word indifferently, and did not hesitate to call the lake a sea. It is
clear that he was referring to the general poetic use following Homer who
used the term limne,ia to mean sea. 594 His literal elucidation of the term
clarified the meaning in reference to his readers living in close proximity to
the Mediterranean and in reference to the classic use of the term.
Cyril’s geographical knowledge not only clarified the meaning, but also
affected his interpretation. A good example would be Jn 4:43–45. After the
Evangelist narrates the story of the Samaritan woman he continued to tell
his readers that Christ departed to Galilee, and at his arrival in Galilee, the
Galileans welcomed him because they saw the great miracles that he did in
Jerusalem, since some of them attended the feast. The narrative would be
consistent had not the flow of the journey from Samaria to Galilee been
interrupted in Jn 4:44, with Christ saying that a prophet has no honor in his
own country. Cyril explained the reason for such an unexpected comment
from Christ since it seems to be out of context. Cyril wrote that Christ
passed by Nazareth that lies in the middle (dia. me,sou keime,nhn paratre,cei
th.n Nazare.t), that is, half way between Samaria and Galilee. 595 Because he
was born in Nazareth everyone expected him to pass through the town;
since he did not, it was expected that he give an explanation for not
stopping over. His explanation was that no prophet maintains honor in his
own town. Christ would have wasted his time giving teachings to them as
they would neither honor nor accept his words. 596 He thus decided not to
deviate from his original route because of his hometown.
Cyril’s comment on Jn 4:44 was unique and many other interpreters,
ancient and modern, have found difficulty in harmonizing the problem.
Origen began by noting the inconsistency of the text and posed the
question of what the statement about the honor of the prophet in his
hometown has to do with his trip from Samaria to Galilee. 597 Origen
contemplated further and wrote that whether Christ was in Samaria or in
Galilee when he uttered this statement, neither was his hometown.
Furthermore, the Evangelist was not perplexed or unclear about his
language, for later he clearly expressed that he went into “Cana of

593 In Jo. 1.403. Referring to Gen 1:10.

594 Liddell Scott, 1050.
595 In Jo. 1.300.
596 Ibid.
597 Origène: Commentaire sur Saint Jean, edited and translated by C. Blanc, SC vol.

222 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1975), 13.364.

174 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Galilee.” 598 Origen then focused on the issue of dishonored prophets and
discussed some Old Testament examples and then concluded that Christ’s
statement was not only applicable to the prophets and to Christ, but was
also applicable to every teacher throughout the ages. Not only Christian
teachers, even Greek philosophers were persecuted. 599 Origen recognized
the inconsistency, asked the right questions, and solved the issue by
generalizing it to a universal issue that confronted and continues to face all
teachers.
John Chrysostom also posed a similar question, concerning why the
Evangelist added the statement about a prophet not having honor in his
hometown. Chrysostom suggested that Christ said these words to avoid
entering Capharnaum. Chrysostom further noted that Capharnaum is
Christ’s hometown based on Lk 10:15, And you, Capharnaum, will you be
exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. 600 It was known that
Christ was from Nazareth and not from Capharnaum. Chrysostom failed to
find a reason for the statement. 601 When comparing the suggested solutions
by Origen, Chrysostom, and Cyril to solve the problem raised by Jn 4:44,
Cyril’s knowledge of geography gave him the upper hand in providing the
most plausible interpretation.
Cyril’s attention to the te,cnh of the grammarian and his appreciation
of the historical aspect of the text, together with his special interest in
geography, gave good results to Cyril’s interpretation. The full implication
of this exercise is apparent in his New Testament exegesis where its effect
on interpretation and the spiritual meaning of the text is apparent.

Cyril and Greek culture

The aspects of Greek culture most significant in Cyril’s work are the
analogies he draws from Greek philosophers and poets, and his use of
logical argumentation drawn from the rhetorical system. Reflection and use
of analogies are the fifth element on the art (te,cnh) of grammatical analysis
of a text according to Dionysius Thrax. Scholars’ interest in Cyril is

598 Ibid., 13.365–7.

599 Ibid., 13.371–380.
600 John Chrysostom, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Homily 35. PG 59.200

A,B.
601 Let us consider Raymond Brown as an example of a modern scholar’s

opinion on this dilemma. Brown writes, “A better solution for the problem created
by vs. 44 is to regard it as an addition by the redactor.” R. A. Brown, The Gospel
According to John. The Anchor Bible, vol. 1 (New Doubleday, 1966), 187. The
redactor was Brown’s solution.
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 175

primarily dogmatic with a great focus on post-Nestorian writings. Fewer

studies have given attention to his exegetical work, all of which are Old
Testament Studies. 602 Furthermore, hardly any philosophers paid attention
to Cyril. Maybe the damaging testimonies of Harnack and Liebaert had
dissuaded scholars of philosophy from having interest in Cyril. Wilken is of
the opinion that
“Cyril of Alexandria is one of the less attractive figures in the
ancient Church. Many protestant historians, offended by his
churchmanship and intimidated by his orthodoxy, have joined in
the condemnation voiced by one of his contemporaries on
hearing of Cyril’s death …. Historians of theology have claimed
that he had no theological interest, and was motivated solely by
political ends. Once Harnack made the proud boast that he need
not cite passages from Cyril, since Cyril’s theology was quite
simple and would be recognized immediately by anyone familiar
with the subject. In his view Cyril was an Apollinarian. After
commenting on Cyril’s Christology, Harnack remarked, “This
either means nothing at all or it is Appollinarianism.” (History of
Dogma, IV, 176.) 603
Though Wilken’s remarks explained the theological dismissal from
which Cyril suffered, there are recent attempts to redeem Cyril from this
condemnation. The previous type of assertions in combination with
Liebaert’s comment might have aggravated the situation even more.
Liebaert concluded his article that investigated Cyril’s interest in the ancient
culture by writing, “dont les goûts et les qualités furent d’un bibliste et d’un
théologien, non d’un lettré ni d’un philosophe.” 604 Hopefully philosophical
attention to Cyril will catch up with the theological and the slow-growing
exegetical attention.
We will therefore begin our investigation into this matter with Cyril’s
opinion about Greek philosophy, his use of Greek citations, and conclude
with a brief synopsis of scholarly assessment of the topic. Cyril’s writings
did not betray a great fascination with Greek culture. He uses few Greek
analogies and references in his writings. This is an example of how Cyril
perceives Greek culture and philosophy. He writes,

602 Like that of Kerrigan, St Cyril of Alexandria, Interpreter of the Old Testament, and
a couple of unpublished dissertations in the last decade, for example that of
O’Keefe’s work on Malachi, and Cassel’s work on Isaiah. All three are dedicated to
Old Testament texts.
603 R. L. Wilken, “Exegesis and History,” Church History 34 (1966), 141.
604 J. Liébaert, “Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie et la culture antique,” Mélanges de

Science Religieuse 12 (1955), 21.

176 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

For the Greeks who seem to be wise, and filled with worldly and
devilish wisdom, expend long and short discourses, and speak
purposeless circular presentations, and as it is written, weaving the
spider’s web, 605 verily pretend to seek what is the nature of truth,
goodness, or justice, and inventing to themselves only the
shadow of true knowledge, without entirely tasting the virtue of
accomplishing deeds, and remain being destitute of wisdom
from above, and make their exercises of words without profit.
`Ellh,nwn me.n ga.r oi` dokwou/ntej ei=nai sunetoi.( kai. th/j
kosmikh/j kai. daimoniw,douj sofi,aj avnapeplhsme,noi( makrou.j
kai. pikrou.j avnali,skontej lo,gouj( kai. ku,klouj qewrhma,twn
eivkai,wn e`li,ttontej( i`sto,n te avra,cnhj kata. to. gegramme,non
u`fai,nontej, th.n avlh,qeian( h;toi to. avgaqo.n( h; to. di,kaion o[ ti
pote. kata. fu,sin evsti.n( prospoiou/ntai zhtei/n( kai. mo,nhn
w[sper skia.n th/j avlhqou/j gnw,sewj e`autoi/j avnapla,ttontej(
a;geustoi pantelw/j th/j evn e;rgoij diatelou/sin avreth/j( kai/ th/j
a;nwqe,n te kai. o;ntwj sofi,aj e;rhmoi diame,nontej( evp v ouvdeni.
tw/n crhsi,mwn e;sq v o[te ta. me,cri lo,gwn poiou/ntai
gumna,smata) 606
Cyril seemed to have the following problems with Greek culture: the
source of their wisdom was worldly and devilish, there was too much use of
words without a set aim of reaching virtue or accomplishing deeds, and, in
addition, the result of their endeavors was in vain. These were Cyril’s words
and should reflect his viewpoint, yet he was not the only one to have these
opinions. He was rather representative of the worldview of his time—not
only the religious milieu in which he was surrounded but also the secular.
There was hostility between rhetoric and philosophy. The leading
figure in this debate was Plato. Schenkeveld summarizes the debate as
follows,
Plato’s objections to contemporary rhetoric are that it is just a
collection of recipes, not a well-ordered system; moreover, its
practitioners do not try to educate their audience, are not
interested in its psychology and only say what is pleasing to their
listeners. Plato’s main disapproval, therefore, turns on the lack of
moral goals in rhetoric.” 607
This account of the debate between rhetoric and philosophy has a long
history, beginning with Plato and Isocrates from about the fourth century
BC, and later, in the first two centuries AD, we find the same arguments

605 Is 59:5.
606 In Jo. 1.594.
607 Dirk Schenkeveld, “Philosophical Prose,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in

the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400, ed., Stanley Porter (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 198.
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 177

discussed by Quintilian. 608 Quintilian’s writing was a synthesis of rhetorical

works up to his time; thus this opinion was quite representative. Cyril’s
disdain for philosophy is noted in this historical debate between philosophy
and rhetoric. He must have absorbed the ferocity of the debate from his
teachers during his grammatical instruction. By the end of the fourth
century AD there began attempts to reconcile philosophy and rhetoric.
Isocrates had already tried to reconcile both disciplines and calls his
“rhetoric filosofi,a and maintained that it is ‘a wisdom in practical affairs
resulting in high moral consciousness and equated with mastery of the
rhetorical technique.’” 609 By the end of the debate rhetors incorporated in
their system training in qe,seij 610 and this was part of the philosophical
educational programs as suggested by Aristotle. 611
We find the same concerns echoed by Cyril as well as secular circles.
They both condemned the indulgence in rhetoric without aim, and this is
what Cyril called “circular presentations.” There was the common
complaint of the lack of moral aim or benefit due to indulgence in the flurry
of rhetoric. This is what Cyril called the “shadow of true knowledge” and
their inability to taste true virtue which has its realization in good deeds. 612
If the seculars complained about the lack of “morals in rhetoric,” Cyril, who
believed that Scripture was the source of all moral ethics, certainly agreed
with the secular Greek philosophers who complained of lack of morality.
Cyril was taking advantage of the debate between philosophy and rhetoric
and echoed the same concerns for the advantage of Christian education and
rhetoric.
Liébaert noted that in Book Seven of Contra Iulianum, Cyril was asked
about the value of Greek culture. He answered that scriptures contain the
perfect information for the Spirit, and the “things outside,” that is, outside
the spiritual realm or non-Christian knowledge, are not necessary.

608 Ibid., 197.

609 Ibid., 198.
610 qe,seij is part of “invention.” Invention (eu[resij) means “discovery,” that is,

the discovery of the resources that are present in a given rhetorical problem. For
further reading on these two elements of classical rhetoric read Malcom Heath,
“Invention,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D.
400, ed. Stanley Porter (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 89–119.
611 Ibid., 199.
612 Under the subtitle ‘Cyril’s education in the desert’ in Chapter One, we

discussed how Cyril’s insistence on the practice of righteousness is essential if we

want to attain the Divine Courts. Cyril held the principle that moral living must
accompany faith.
178 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Nonetheless, Cyril ended his argument on a more positive note, similar to

that of Clement and Origen, and noted that we learn virtue from the Holy
Spirit but we utilize Greek letters as a preparatory exercise to true teaching
(oi-on ti progu,mnasma th/j avlhqou/j paidei,aj). 613
Cyril’s education in Greek paideia exposed him to some Greek
philosophy and literature. Cyril’s knowledge of Greek philosophy was
elucidated in the following passages in The Commentary on the Gospel of John.
In the story of the feeding of the five thousand, Cyril commented on Jn
6:5–7 that Christ takes care of those who depend on him. When the
multitude, or in general all humanity, were in need of food they came to
him and the mighty creator created food for them. Then Cyril compared
the hope of the multitude on Christ as their remaining hope to what the
Greek poets say, “ ---- sidh,reon e[lkoj avna,gkhj.” 614 In this case he was
likely referring to the bodily pain of hunger.
Another reference is in Jn 6:38–9 that spoke about the will of the
Father and the Son. Cyril, in the attempt to explain that the Trinity has one
will, feared that his readers were not attentive to his words due to the
difficulty of the subject matter. To grasp the attention of his readers, he
referred to a Greek saying and compared his difficult words to words that
do not go straight but are scattered out of the king’s trodden way and
having left the carriage road these words pressed forward on a steep hill and
rocks (w`j o` par v [Ellhsin e;cei lo,goj( th.n a`maxito.n( evpi. krhmnou.j
evpei,gh| dai. pe,traj). 615
Cyril devoted Chapter Four of Book Four to the discussion of the
tabernacle. He explained that the tabernacle was built on the first month, at
the beginning of spring. Then Cyril elaborated on the spring imagery and
described the sun, the flowers, the plains of grass, and the cornfields. It
seems that this description of nature was influenced by some Greek poet, to
whom Cyril gave credit by saying that this description is “as one Greek poet
says” (kata, tinaj tw/n par v [Ellhsi poihtw/n). 616
When Christ attended the Festival of the Booths, he began teaching in
the temple. The crowds were amazed at his teachings, but some of those
attending the festival began questioning him and accused him of being
possessed by a demon since he transgressed the Sabbath by healing a sick

613 PG 76.852B–860. A. J. Liébaert, “Saint Cyrille D’Alexandrie et la culture

antique,” 18–9.
614 In Jo. 1.409. Which can be translated as the iron wound of bodily pain, or the

iron wound of necessity.

615 In Jo. 1.489.
616 In Jo. 1.567.
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 179

man and some in the crowds attempted to kill him. Christ confronted the
crowds and said, I performed one work, and all of you are astonished? (Jn 7:21).
Cyril commented on this verse by saying that Christ was very cautious in his
approach with the crowds and did not confront them but soothed them by
saying I performed one work knowing that the crowds themselves transgressed
the Law on many occasions. At this point, Cyril turned his attention to the
unruled crowds and justified his description by appealing to the phrase,
“according to Greek poets” (kata. tou.j par v [Ellhsi poihta.j), 617 and
writes the following description,
For according to Greek poets, the undecided council and
multitudes are prone to anger and as they might pretend to
please with smooth agreement, and are easily excited like a bold
bull, and how they are apt to act with fierce might to bold ends.
Avkrito,boulon ga,r pwj( kata. tou.j par v [Ellhsi poihta.j( kai.
pro,ceiron eivj ovrgh.n avei. to. plh/qo,j evsti( kai. leiota,th|
sumpnoi,a| th/| pro.j o[per a;n bou,loito kecrhme,non( kai. eivj
avka,qekton qra,soj euvko,lwj avpotaurou,menon( gorgo,teron de,
pwj h;per evcrh/n eivj ta.j evpi. toi/j deinoi/j a`li,sketai to,lmajÅ
618

The imagery is that of excited crowds attending a fight in an arena. It is

quite interesting to find Cyril making the analogy of the crowds at the
temple similar to those in an arena. He wanted very much to convey to his
readers the ferocity of the confrontation between the crowds at the temple
and Christ.
In the pericope of the blind man whom Christ healed, the Pharisees
called the blind man for questioning and they tried to convey the message
that they, the Pharisees, did not know from where the one who healed him
came. In defense of Christ who healed him, the blind man answers, if this
man were not from God, he could do nothing (Jn 9:33). Cyril explained that the
blind man was much quicker to perceive the truth than the Pharisees who
were supposed to be instructed by the Law. The blind man defended Christ
by saying that no one is able to do miracles unless he comes from God, for
miracles are only done through divine work or operation (evnergei/ ga.r dia.
mo,nwn a`gi,wn ta. toiau/ta Qeo,j). 619 For God only bestowed on the saints
such capabilities. If this was not the case, then what is the difference
between the good and the bad, between the just and the sinner, for if both
could perform miracles and there is no distinction then this would create
confusion.

617 In Jo. 1.611.

618 In Jo. 1.611.
619 In Jo. 2.194.
180 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

“For it is as one Greek poet said,

if the shirker is allotted the same share as the one who makes
war,
and the evil shares the same honor as the good, will it not be
bitter to experience hardships on account of virtue?”

eiv ga.r kaqa,per e;fh tij tw/n par v E[ llhsi pointw/n

;Ish moi/ra me,nonti( kai. eiv ma,la tij polemi,zoi( 620
kai. evn i;sh| timh/| kako,j te kai. avgaqo.j( pw/j ouvk eivkai/on to.
pikrw/n avpopeira/sqai po,nwn dia. th.n avreth,n* 621
Good and evil cannot share the same honor and reward, and the Iliad
was the good place for Cyril to make the analogy.
All five of these references to Greek poets came as analogies. Cyril was
using the references to validate the image in a more common way. None of
these references was a source of moral exhortations, or an addition to a new
understanding, or a deep philosophical speculation. They would be
considered more as a style of writing where Cyril elaborated on a certain
image with the aid of the available, well known, Greek imagery.
As to the presence of other Greek references in Cyril’s literary corpus,
most scholars who wrote on this topic, focused on Contra Iulianum. The
reason was that Contra Iulianum contains abundant references to Greek
writers and this presented a good source of data in comparison to the rest
of Cyril’s literary corpus. Contra Iulianum has seventy references 622 to Greek
literature in comparison to the Commentary on John’s five references. Cyril
cited Plato, Aristotle, and Porphyry among others. 623 Liébaert provided a
more comprehensive list of Greek writers that Cyril cited beyond those that
Julian mentions. 624 This list shows that Cyril quoted mostly from Hermes
Trismegistus, Homer, Plato, Plotinus, and Porphyry. It is interesting to note
that Aristotle is not mentioned in the list from the Thesaurus though we
know that Cyril was extremely well aquainted with Aristotle. 625

620 Liddell Scott’s identified this Homeric verse to be from Iliad 9.318. Henry

George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: At the

Clarendon Press), 1103.
621 In Jo. 2.194.
622 Du Manoir, Dogme et Spiritualité, 448.
623 Du Manoir makes a list of the major writers that Cyril referred to in Ibid.,

449.
624 J. Liébaert, “Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie et la culture antique,” 22–26.
625 J. M. Labelle, “Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie, témoin de la langue et de la pensée

philosophiques au Ve siècle,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 52(1978): 148.

 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 181

The use of Greek culture and philosophy was not only limited to
citations; rather it was incorporated within the rhetorical system and the
logic of argumentation from the very beginning. The struggle among the
rhetorical and the philosophical schools led to an incorporation of both
disciplines on many facets. The early Christian writers felt some
dependence on Greek rhetoric and ultimately Greek philosophy for rules of
argument. From the earliest years Christian writers not only adapted some
of the Greek and pagan wisdom into Christianity, but even justified its use
and defended it. The beginning of such a process can be traced to Clement
of Alexandria. Clement, and those who followed him, attempted to argue
that the basis of Greek philosophy and thus philosophical argumentation
had its roots in the Mosaic Law. 626 Further research is needed to understand
this aspect of Cyril’s work and assess the impact of Greek philosophical
thinking on his theological argumentation. 627

626 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 5. For a synthesis of the early Christian

attempts to defend the use of Greek philosophers since Greek wisdom is derived
from the Old Testament refer to Winrich Lohr, “The Theft of the Greeks,” Revue
d’histoire Ecclésiastique 95.3 (2000): 403–426.
627 The most important work in that field is by Ruth Siddals, “Logic and

Christology in Cyril of Alexandria” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1984)

together with a summary article of the dissertation “Logic and Christology in Cyril
of Alexandria,” Journal of Theological Studies 38 (1987): 341–67. Siddals reached the
conclusion that “this mind [of Cyril] has been educated to think in a particular way,
and shares with the Neo-Platonists of Late Antiquity a genuine fascination for
Aristotle’s Organon and Porphyry’s Isagoge.” Ibid., 341. She also concluded that she
showed “the degree of precision which Cyril brings to christology, by using tools of
elementary logic. Having acquired a grasp of Aristotelian and Porphyrian logic early
in his career, Cyril used this facility in developing his primary christological model,
his pattern of exegesis, and his soteriology. The presence and value of these
conceptual tools needs to be recognized in any evaluation of Cyril’s theology and,
indeed, in any assessment of the Nestorian controversy.” Ibid., 366–7. On the
other hand, Labelle suggested that Aristotle had great influence on Cyril through
Cyril’s constant use and reading of Porphyry. J. M. Labelle, “S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie:
témoin de la langue et de la pensée philosophiques au Ve siécle,” Revue des Sciences
Religieuses 52 (1979): 34. Boulois wrote that Cyril interpreted Plato through
Numenius, Porphyry, and Plotinus. Marie-Odile Boulois, “Platon entre Moise et
Arius selon le Contre Julien de Cyrille d’Alexandrie,” Studia Patristica 32 (1997): 267.
Boulois’ statement was very close to Labelle’s argument that the readings of
Porphyry influenced Cyril and introduced him to other philosophers. Kearsley
quoted Meijering who affirms that Cyril “tells us himself, for example, that he
discerns a Christian view of God not only in some of Plato, but also in Plotinus
(AD 205–270), the founder of Neoplatonist philosophy, and in his disciple
182 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Other than Cyril’s dependence on earlier Christian writers, Greek

culture, and philosophy, he also read Josephus. Cyril explained that Christ
prophesied the suffering of the Jews when he said to the weeping women,
Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children
Lk 23: 28. On another occasion he said to them, when you see Jerusalem
surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near Lk 21:20. Cyril
commented that the Jews suffered wars and were removed from their
country and many other things that Josephus related in his history (i`storei/
kai. vIw,shpoj evn oivkei,oij suggra,mmasi). 628

Style
Style is the third element in the five parts of speech (me,rh lo,gou) in Greek
rhetoric. 629 Style is very important because it has a direct impact on
listeners, and in our case readers, since it includes choice of words and

Porphyry.” Roy Kearsley, “The Impact of Greek Concepts of God on the

Christology of Cyril of Alexandria,” Tyndale Bulletin 43 (1992): 309. Kearsley wanted
to prove the effect of Neoplatonism on Cyril and that Cyril’s attempts were not to
“replicate” Neoplatonism but rather to “transpose” it. Ibid., 307. Andersen, after
assessing previous scholarship regarding the impact of Platonism on Christian
Christology, proposed that the Neo-Platonists of Alexandria and the Christian
theologians formed some sort of an alliance in Alexandria since both were
threatened by the Manichaean dualism. G. Andersen, “The Integration of
Platonism into Early Christian Theology,” Studia Patristica 15 (1975): 399–414.
Liébaert wrote that Cyril’s polemics against Arius led Cyril to use, sometimes, the
principles of logic and definitions borrowed from Aristotelian dialectic. Liébaert,
“Saint Cyril d’Alexandrie et la culture antique,” 19. Grant’s and Datema’s articles
are important for listings of Cyril’s use of Greek philosophers in works beyond
Contra Iulianum and The Commentary on the Gospel of John. For further reading about
the influence of ancient Egyptian religion on Cyril’s writing, read, J. McGuckin,
“The Influence of the Isis Cult on St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Christology,” Studia
Patristica 24 (1993): 291–299. Etienne Drioton, “Cyrille d’Alexandrie et l’ancienne
religion Égyptienne,” in Kyrilliana: Études variées à l’occasion du XVe centenaire de Saint
Cyrille d’Alexandrie (444–1944), (Le Caire: Les Éditions du Scribe Égyptien, 1947),
231–246. Also Laszlo Kakosy, “A Christian Interpretation of the Sun Disk,” in
Studies in Egyptian Religion, ed. M. Van Voss, 72–76 (Leiden: Brill, 1982).
628 In Jo. 2.32. According to Cassel, Cyril also referred to Josephus when

describing the captivity of the Jews in Is 5:13. Cassel, Cyril as Grammarian, 187.
629 Wuellner, Arrangement, 50–83 also discusses the various divisions of the

“parts of speech” following the different schools of rhetoric.

 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 183

clarity of presentation and thus has a lasting persuasive impact. 630 There are
four main “virtues” of style: correctness or purity, clarity, ornamentation,
and propriety. 631 Thus style is an integral part of the rhetorical tool that
Cyril is employing in his exegetical method.
Cyril wrote in Attic Greek. 632 According to the four virtues of style,
Cyril preserved the correctness or purity of the language. The one thing that
all scholars who worked on Cyril agreed upon was the complexity of Cyril’s
literary style. Complexity might affect the second virtue of style “clarity.”
Cyril was quite determined to be clear and this was expressed in his
repetitive style. Cyril did not pay great attention to clarity—defined as
simple presentation—depending on the fact that his commentary was not
an oral presentation and his audience was not listeners, but readers who
were keen to delve into the biblical interpretation.
Wilken described his language as “not easy.” 633 He added the following
comment with regards to Contra Iulianum, which can be taken as
representative of Cyril’s writing style more generally.
Cyril’s style is prolix and turgid, an unhappy synergy of
grandiloquence and affectation; he likes rare and unusual words
(he is particularly fond of compound verbs); and he is achingly
repetitious. He even has the habit of repeating little words at the
beginning of a sentence: Ou[tw ga.r ou[tw( ;Edei ))) e;dei( ;Aqrei
))) a;qrei) The Contra Iulianum is not a book one reads for
pleasure. 634
Cyril’s use of “rare and unusual words” was well noted during the
compilation of a Lexicon of Patristic Greek in which Cross writes,

630 Galen O. Rowe, “Style,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period

330 B.C.–A.D. 400, ed. Stanley Porter (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 121.
631 Quintilian, Inst. Orat. 1.4–7. Deals with some aspects of grammar as part of

style such as correctness, use of language, and orthography.

632 Liébaert commented on Cyril’s Thesaurus that it was written in Attic Greek.

Liébaert was of the opinion that Cyril, more than any other Father, is distinguished
for his Attic Greek, pure syntax and rich vocabulary. Liébaert, Saint Cyrille
d’Alexandrie et la culture antique, 20.
633 Robert Wilken, “Cyril of Alexandria’s Contra Iulianum,” in The Limits of

Ancient Christianity, ed. W. Klingshrin (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,

1999), 43.
634 Ibid. Altaner said, “Cyril’s writings, which are very important for Church

history and the history of dogma, do not rank very high as literary productions.” As
quoted in Burghardt, Image of God in Man, 51. And Burghardt adds, “Especially in
exegesis, his style is as prolix as his output is prolific.” Ibid.
184 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

The material in our files has disclosed that Cyril coined a highly
distinctive vocabulary. There are well over 1,000 words which
occur either in Cyril alone or in Cyril for the first time or in Cyril
more frequently than in the whole of Greek literature taken
together. These Cyrilline words are compounds of common
words or verbal elements with prepositional prefixes.
Characteristic instances are avnafoita,w( graopreph,j( katwqe,w(
proanaqre,w. Especially frequent are compounds with kata, and
su,n, in each case numbering between 100 and 150. These words
are so characteristic that their occurrence is a sure test of
Cyrilline authorship. 635
It seems that Cyril himself worked hard to maintain a distinguished
and precise vocabulary. For we know of a surviving text by the title Spelling
Book (peri, ovrqografi,a) of John Thrax to which he added several additions
of uncommon words. Most scholars identified that book as belonging to
Cyril of Alexandria since the name Cyril was inscribed on the text. 636
Therefore, neologism is considered one of the main characteristics of Cyril’s
style.
The distinguished and rich word style of Cyril causes us to infer that
he is a precise writer and if no word existed that would express the exact
meaning that he wanted to convey to his readers, he resorted to coining
new words. We can suggest that he was aiming to create a Christian
vocabulary that was distinct from the secular or pagan usage to liberate
Christianity from the Greek philosophical terminology. He wanted to rid
the words from the loaded nuances of their pagan usage. Of course, the
Greek language was imbedded in its culture, and freedom of nuances can be
beyond one generation’s task. Most probably he wanted to initiate the
process that would free Greek words of their Greek pagan past and recreate
a new Greek-Christian vocabulary. Based on this general observation of the
richness and precision of Cyril’s vocabulary, it is time to reassess the general
scholarly view that Cyril was an imprecise theologian because he used,
according to their conjecture, the term fu,sij and u`po,stasij
interchangeably. It is hard to accept that the writer who took pain to coin
new words in the language or seek words that were hardly in use to convey
the precise meaning was careless or unaware of the different use of the
terms fu,sij and u`po,stasij.

635 F. L. Cross, “The Projected Lexicon of Patristic Greek,” in Actes du VIe

Congrès International d’Études Byzantines (Paris, 1950): 392.

636 Robert Browning, Education in the Roman Empire, 858.
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 185

McGuckin commented that Cyril came in an era of defining

theological dogmas for the Church. He is of the opinion that scholarship on
literary work of such a great Church theologian demanded the following:
“an acute reworking, his doctrine is both technical and
philosophically demanding. One of his most important
contributions to Christian history is the way in which he worked
out an exact terminological scheme of discourse. It would be a
mistake, however, to think that this makes Cyril a dull writer.
There are passages where, like many other ancient rhetors, his
capacity for elaborating an argument through several variations
sometimes exceeds the patience of modern readers, but
throughout all his work there is a spirit of passion and religious
fervor that communicates itself to those who have the eyes to
see and the ears to hear, and the Dialogue presented here
represents Cyril in the full flight of his theological maturity, yet
in a literary style that is at once fluent and elegant.” 637
McGuckin’s observation on the “Dialogue” was relevant to Cyril’s
style in general and to the Johannine commentary under discussion.
Precision and repetitiveness were certainly characteristic of Cyril’s work. As
mentioned above, he was so repetitive at the beginning of the Commentary,
that he explained all the major theological themes to the extent that, by the
end of the Commentary, Cyril was largely narrating the biblical text.
Cyril’s repetitiveness was considered by modern standards boring.
However, he considered it the duty of a good teacher not to be slothful.
Do you see the offspring of teaching yielding much fruit? Do
you see the great profit found in repetition? Accordingly, let
those who are entrusted to teach to learn of this, let it be seen
that he is above all fear, think that silence brings complete loss to
himself than to his listeners, and not to countermine the master’s
talent in the earth in idle sloth, but rather give his money to the
bankers.
O`ra|j/ th/| didaskali,a| gei,tona to.n evx auvth/j avnadoqe,nta
karpo,n* o`ra/|j o[son th/j evpanalh,yewj eu`re,qh to. ke,rdoj*
manqane,tw toigarou/n dia. tou,twn o` dida,skein pepisteume,noj(
o;knou me.n avmei,nwn o`ra/sqai panto.j( e`autw|/ de. ple,on h;per
toi/j avkrowme,noij evpizh,mion h`gei/sqai th.n siwph.n kai. mh. eivj
avrgi,an me.n avdranh/( kaqa,per eivj gh/n( to. despotiko.n
avntoru,ttein ta,lanton( diane,mein de. ma/llon toi/j trapezi,taij
to. avrgu,rion\ 638

637 John McGuckin, “A Synopsis of St. Cyril’s Christological Doctrine,” Coptic

Church Review 19 (1998): 42.

638 In Jo. 1.192.
186 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Cyril was driven by a sense of responsibility of a teacher who was

entrusted with the faith and must defend it. He realized that he was
entrusted by God with a talent, that was his ability to be a good teacher
(being in the position of teacher-reader) and was obligated to expound the
faith to his greatest ability. He considered any endeavor, less than his
maximum, as sloth. He repeated the same sentiment more than once. For
example he says, “we have many times said and say again, for through
discussion you receive great benefit.” 639 And again he reiterated the same
thing when he wrote that Christ goes over the same words again when he
finds that his listeners did not understand him the first time. For this is
something most befitting to teachers (didaska,loij) to repeat the instruction
many times so that it may be fixed within the souls of the hearers. 640 Cyril
was aware of his repetitive style, and defended it on the basis that it was
part of the necessity of teaching. Even Christ, the great teacher, did the
same thing.
Dratesellas was of the opinion that “when Cyril ponders on the
Incarnation of the Word of God and man’s salvation, which was the eternal
will of God the Father, he uses the active tense in the verbs when the
subject is God the Father (pe,pomfen to.n vIdion Ui`o.n), and that he uses the
verb in its passive tense when God the Word is the subject and God the
Father is the cause (avpesta,lh meta. sarko,j).” 641 Though this is a very
insightful comment, further investigation on the Cyrillian literary corpus is
needed before asserting the generality of such a literary observation.
Cyril’s literary style was characterized by its complexity, neologism,
richness of vocabulary, the use of compound words with prepositional
prefixes, repetition, precision, attention to detail, and instruction.
Ornamentation, the third virtue of style, did not leave any significant trace
on Cyril’s style.

Argumentation with Heretics

The aim of this commentary is to refute heretical teaching. Therefore, it is
suitable to provide a quick note on Cyril’s method of argumentation against
heretics. Scholars of rhetoric conventionally divided speech into three

639 In Jo. 2.88.

640 In Jo. 2.103.
641 C. Dratsellas, Questions of the Soteriological teaching of the Greek Fathers with special

reference to St. Cyril of Alexandria (Athens, 1967–8), 203; quoted in Lars Koen, The
Saving Passion. Studia Doctrinae Christianae Upsaliensia, 31 (Uppsala: Acta
Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1991), 70.
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 187

kinds: deliberative, forensic, and epideictic. 642 The forensic or judicial

speech (dikaniko,n) is usually delivered in court. 643 It became the most
important and common kind of speech to be taught in schools since it
prepared students in a practical way for their future livelihood, if they chose
to have a legislative career. Most school exercises are based on forensic
speeches, since students who were not even interested in law found this
faculty valuable in order to manage their daily affairs. Thus, most of the
handbooks written for teaching rhetoric focused primarily on judicial
exercises at the expense of the other two genres. 644 Thus Cyril’s education
has equipped him with a mastery of forensic speech; and he artfully used it
in his argumentation with heretics.
A common practice with Cyril, together with other early Christian
writers, was to use the literary genre of dialogue in his refutation against
heretics. It was mostly used by apologists in works of anti-Jewish polemics,
a good example of this genre would be Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho.
Cyril used, in Chapter One Book Four, this genre in his refutation of
Eunomius. 645 Cyril also used this literary genre in his Nestorian controversy.
The best example of which would be Quod Unus sit Christus and in his De
Trinitate Dialogi VII. It was a literary genre that was quite favorable for
Cyril’s polemics and he used it throughout his literary career, before and
after Nestorius. Since it was a literary genre unto itself and Cyril used this
genre in some of his complete works, it is sufficient to simply make
reference here since further investigation of this genre is beyond this
research. 646 The other method of refuting heretics is the use of forensic
speech and this is what we will begin presenting now.

642 Quintilian, Inst. Orat., 1.8–9. Quintilian’s description is restricted to

deliberative and forensic oratory only.

643 George Kennedy, “The Genres of Rhetoric,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric

in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400, ed. Stanley Porter (Leiden: Brill, 1997),44.
R. D. Sider, Ancient Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian (London: Oxford University
Press, 1971), 12.
644 Kennedy argues, based on speeches of historians, that deliberative oratory

was influenced by “the rules of judicial speeches.” George Kennedy, The Art of
Persuasion in Greece (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963), 204.
645 One of his earliest compositions De Adoratione et Cultu in Spiritu et Veritate

was written in the form of a dialogue between Cyril and a certain Pelladius.
646 For more information about the literary genre of dialogue read “Le genre

littéraire du dialogue dans les premiers siècles” and “Le problème des sources des
Dialogues” in Liébaert, La doctrine christologique, 69–71. Liébaert was of the opinion
that Cyril’s sources in his dialogue are primarily Alexandrian. Ibid., 71.
188 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

In Book One Chapter Eight in his exposition of Jn 1:9 The true light,
Cyril himself set the heading (kefalh,) as, “thoughts or syllogisms” (e;nnoiai
h;toi sullogismoi.). 647 This heading included fourteen arguments each
introduced with a;llo and one with a;llo evk tou/ auvtou/. 648 The fourteen
syllogisms indicated the importance of deductive logic in Cyril’s
argumentation. The logic included the introduction of Biblical verses as part
of the premises on which the deductive argument takes place. This was
followed by another thirteen arguments each introduced with a;llo. 649 The
heading of these arguments indicated that it was another type of
argumentation for those of “simpler thoughts” (a`plouste,rwn evnnoiw/n) in
which he uses solely Biblical citations to demonstrate that the Son of God
alone is the true Light. 650 Therefore, when Cyril set on the task of proving
that the Son is the true Light he approached the topic from two sides, the
logical side and the Biblical side. Moreover, within each mode of proof, he
set various proofs, thirteen or fourteen of them with the aim of exhausting
all possible aspects of the topic. This is also another good example of a
teacher writer who was not too lazy to write all possible arguments for a
single point.
The previous example was addressed to those of “simple thoughts”
and targeted against Arius asserting that if the Son is true Light, and God is
Light then the Son is true God. The following argument was towards those
with “complex” thoughts and was targeted against Origen. 651 Cyril took the
opportunity of Jn 1:9, The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the
world to delve into the argument. He began his argument to examine who
are the beings capable to enlighten everyone. He began with the angels and
went through the stories of Cornelius, Manoah—the father of Sampson—
Zechariah, and Daniel as figures represented in the Old Testament to reach
the conclusion that angels can enlighten people, and man can borrow
illumination (fwtismo,n) from man. 652 This is because man is complex or
compound (sunqi,sei). 653 He explained that a wise man can give advice to a

647 In Jo. 1.97.

648 In Jo. 1.97–102.
649 In Jo. 1.103–7.
650 In Jo. 1.103.
651 Cyril attempted to refute Origen in Ep. 81 that is addressed to the “holy

fathers at Scitis.” His refutation in this epistle was primarily focused on those who
do not believe in the resurrection of the body. ACO 3.201–2. The refutation in the
Johannine commentary is more lengthy and comprehensive.
652 In Jo. 1.108–9.
653 In Jo. 1.109.
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 189

friend. He who gives wisdom to others, if he be originate, is not wisdom

itself, but a minister of the wisdom that is in him, for in wisdom is a wise
man. 654 So is the case with the one who teaches prudence, or enlightens
others, or communicates any good that he received. Everything in us is a
gift of God, for God has given the Apostles and instructed them you received
without payment; give without payment (Mt 10.8). Originate things (ta. genhta.)
are compound (sunqe,sei), then light is consequently compound, that is,
compound with what they receive from God. The true Light is that which
lightens, not that which is lighted by another, and this is the Only-Begotten.
The Son is simple and not a compound nature, for the Godhead takes
nothing from a double (diplo,hj). 655 When a person enlightens another, it is
done by teaching. When God enlightens us, this is not done by teaching, as
angels and men do, but rather it is done at the moment of creation. God
imparts in us wisdom straightway, as he has done with Adam. We receive
God’s light by his mercy. 656
Cyril then explained the meaning of the true light, which enlightens everyone,
was coming into the world. It does not mean that the light passes physically
from one location to another to enlighten the world. The Spirit said that the
Light was in the world, therefore, it means the nature of man was lightened
from the first periods and received understanding from the light that is in
the world, and that it is the Son who fills all things with light. When Christ
himself says, I have come as light into the world (Jn 12:46), he means he came
into the world by the Incarnation. 657
Cyril was careful to announce that coming to the world meant the
Incarnation, for according to his argument, based on this verse, some—it is
clear that he is referring to Origen—wrote, that the souls of men were
preexistent. Being in the light, meant that the souls were in true bliss, but
when they were overcome with strange thoughts and desires, God punished
them and burdened them with bodies, and that by this trial the souls would
try to do what is good. 658

654 Ibid.
655 In Jo. 1.110.
656 In Jo. 1.11–2.
657 In Jo. 1.112–4.
658 In Jo.1.115. It is interesting to note that Cyril proved that he was a close

reader of Origen and he knew exactly the problematic issues in his theology. This is
to be contrasted to Severus, Bishop of El-Ashmunien’s comment in Cyril’s vitae
that he never read heretical teachers, especially Origen. It is clear that it is a
rhetorical statement to express the piety and purity of Cyril’s theological
understanding. Evetts, History of the Patriarchs, 429. Actually, he did not only study
190 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Cyril took this as an opportunity to launch a detailed criticism of the

pre-existence of souls. He introduced his points of contention as to the
absurdity of believing in the pre-existence of souls, and that sin is punished
by sending the soul into bodies of earth (ta. evk gh/j katape,mpesqai
sw,mata). 659 He set the following heading (kefalh,), “thoughts or principles
of an entangled and inferential character” ( ;Ennoinai h;toi qewrh,mata
sumpeplegme,nou kai. sch,matoj sullogistikou/). 660 He listed twenty-four
arguments each forwarded with a;llo, and half of them were conditional
sentences beginning with eiv. The first eight were logical arguments, the rest
were based on biblical arguments. The first eight pose these statements or
questions:
1. If the Evangelist says the man is lightened (fwti,zesqai,) when
coming into the world, then this is considered as an honor and addition of
gifts and not a punishment to chastise previous sins.661
2. If the soul is a pure mind (nou/j ))) kaqaro/j) why would it need to
be lighted when the soul comes into the world?
3. If the soul that existed before the body and inclined to virtue
sinned and was in bondage of the ills of the body; how then is it that when
it was in this condition of bondage it received light? 662
4. What is the reason for sending the soul that sinned into a body to
learn by experiencing the disgrace of its own lust? To throw the soul in lust
is not a way to heal but rather this would drag the soul into more sin. 663
5. If the preexistent soul was entangled with flesh and blood
(sunepla,kh sarki. kai. ai[mati) 664 for its sins, how is it that when it received
remission of sin from Christ it still bears the method of its punishment. For
those who believe in Christ believe in the resurrection of the body. 665
6. If being entangled with flesh is the result of sin, why then is the
one who commits the greatest offense by the Law, is by that same law
honored with death and the one who has committed no crime suffers to
live? Therefore, embodiment (evnswma,twsij) is not punishment. 666

Origen closely, but rather all heretical teachings in order to write his dogmatic
exegesis.
659 In Jo. 1.116.
660 In Jo. 1.117.
661 In Jo. 1.117.
662 Ibid.
663 In Jo. 1.118.
664 sunepla,kh is an example of Cyril’s newly coined words with a sun prefix.
665 In Jo. 1.118–9.
666 In Jo. 1.119.
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 191

7. If embodiment (evsarkw,qhsan) is a punishment, how did the

Savior profit us by abolishing death? Why did he not destroy that which
punishes us? 667
8. Another form of the same principle: If bodies are a punishment,
why do we thank God for promising the resurrection?
At this point Cyril has finished one set of arguments and follows it
with another set of biblical arguments. He continues as follows:
9. Why does Isaiah the prophet rejoice at the resurrection of the
dead, the dead shall rise and they that are in the tombs shall be raised (Is 26:19 LXX)
when he should have proclaimed it with sorrow if it is a sign of
punishment? 668
10. God promised Abraham that his seed would be a multitude of
stars. How could this be a blessing when all the souls of Abraham’s seed are
condemned souls? 669
11. In Deut 1:10–11, how could God bless Israel to be a multitude
of stars when it is a punishment.
12. God answered the prayer of Hanna with a child, did she then ask
for the downfall of a soul? 670
13. If the body is a punishment, why did Hezekiah, the king of
Jerusalem, ask, with great supplication, for the increase of his years and not
the death of his body? 671
14. If embodiment is a punishment, why did the Eunuch bring up
Jeremiah from the dungeon? Would it not have been a better honor to
release him from his punishment? What was the reward to save the three
youth and rescue Daniel from the lions? 672
Having cited all possible examples of prominent figures in the Old
Testament, he proceeded with verses from both the Old and the New
Testament.
15. For all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each
may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil (2 Cor
5:10). Man receives punishment or reward based on what he did in the
body. There is not mention of prior sins. Therefore, there is not

667 Ibid.
668 In Jo. 1.120.
669 Ibid.
670 In Jo. 1.121.
671 In Jo. 1.121–2.
672 In Jo. 1.122.
192 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

preexistence of souls since only what is done during its time in the flesh is
marked out. 673
16. Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God (Rm
12:1). If our bodies are given as a punishment to our souls, how can we
present them as a sweet odor to God?
17. Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose
sins were not like the transgression of Adam (Rm 5:14). How does he say that
death reigned over those who did not sin if the mortal body is given in
consequence of former sin? 674
18. Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? (Jn
9:2). Based on scripture that wrote, punishing children for the iniquity of parents
(Ex 20:5). Christ answers neither him nor his parents. It is clear the
discourse pertains to the period before his birth and Christ answers neither
has sinned. 675
19. God created the earth and he formed it to be inhabited (Is 45:18). The
earth was not created to be filled with bare spirits but with bodies suitable
to it. It is absurd to think that God creates souls that should sin in order to
make the nature of bodies come into being.
20. I was by him suiting myself to him, I was that wherein he took delight; and
daily I rejoiced in his presence continually. For he rejoiced when he had completed the
world and rejoiced among the children of men (Prov. 8:30–1 LXX). When God
completed the world he rejoiced in the forming of man. If souls were
embodied as punishment then God is a maker of a prison rather than a
world. How could God delight in punishment? 676
21. If the flood was brought on a world of the ungodly (2 Pet 2:5). Noah
who was righteous was rewarded by being preserved. Should not those who
sinned linger more in the body, since it is a punishment? But we saw that it
was the sinners who received release from their bodies. Therefore, bodies
are not punishment for the souls of men or God would be unrighteous
punishing the ungodly with favor and honoring the righteous with
punishment. 677
22. If the body is a punishment how did the Savior love Lazarus and
raise him from the dead putting him in prison again (Jn 11:36). 678

673 In Jo. 1.122–3.

674 In Jo.1.123.
675 In Jo. 1.123–4.
676 In Jo. 1.124.
677 In Jo. 1.125.
678 Ibid.
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 193

23. If bodies were punishment for sin, how then do we see that death
entered by sin? (Rm 5:12). 679
24. God created all things in incorruption and He made not death, but
through the envy of the devil came death into the world (Wisdom 1:13; 2:24). If the
body is punishment why accuse the envy of the devil for bringing in to us the
termination of wretchedness. Why do we thank the Savior for the
resurrection? 680
Therefore, Cyril finally concludes, the body is not a mode of
punishment nor is it the wages of our former sin.
The argument just described follows the model of forensic speech.
The text began with commentary style by stating the verse to be interpreted
and within it is enclosed complete forensic speech. The introduction
(prooi,mion) introduced the verse under discussion, which enlightens everyone,
was coming into the world. 681 Cyril realized that in the introduction he must
discuss two points, who enlightens (the first part of the verse) and what it
means to come into the world (the second part of the verse). Those who are
capable of enlightening are three: angels, humans, and God. Angels and
humans derive their enlightenment from God, the power to enlighten is not
within them; therefore, they are compound beings. God, the Son,
enlightens us from his own self, for he is the true Light; therefore he is
simple, therefore he is divine and equal to God and true God. He thus
established the first part of the verse.
The second half discussed what it means to come into the world. This
is another way of speaking about the Incarnation. This was the beginning of
the second part of the speech dih,ghsij and it was divided into proposition
and reason or rationale. 682 The proposition is the Incarnation of the true
light, or in other words it is the issue of the incarnation. The rationale stems
from those who believe, based on this verse, in the incarnation of
preexistent souls that dwelt in blissful light. They claim that the souls that
transgressed were punished by being entangled in a body. Here, Cyril stated

679 In Jo. 1.123–4.

680 In Jo. 1.126.
681 The introduction (prooi,mion) is common among all kinds of speech.
682 The narration (dih,ghsij) includes “a clear statement of the proposition and

the reason for its proposal.” Rhetorical syllogism and reason (rationale) could be
part of the proposition. Moreover, the propositions could include a host of things
such as “maxims, proverbs, chreiai (anecdotes), citations, as well as stock themes or
issues from popular ethical philosophy.” Burton L. Mack, Rhetoric and the New
Testament, 42. The “proposition” is where Christian writers differed from their
pagan counterparts.
194 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

the sta,sij or issue of his argument which is a major component in forensic

speech.
The third part of forensic speech was proof (pi,stij). 683 He provided
twenty-four arguments divided into two main categories. The first category
was the “invented” proof. This was done by the first group of eight
arguments based on syllogism and rationale. 684 He presented a logical proof
of the invalidity of being in bodies as a punishment. The second category
was the “uninvented” proof. In this case, Cyril used witness and literary
authority. Witnesses were usually chosen as persons of credible characters.
His witnesses were the biblical characters, Isaiah, Abraham, Hannah,
Hezekiah, and Jeremiah. From arguments fifteen to twenty-four he cites his
literary authority. His literary authority was the bible, specifically Pauline
epistles, prophetic citations, and wisdom literature. 685

683 Proof (pi,stij) included opposite, analogy, example, citation of authority, and
moral impression. Quintilian, Inst. Orat., 5. (Quintilian devoted the whole of book
five to “proof.”) The opposite was primarily used in judicial oration where the
opposing views were refuted. Analogy and example are the main forms that
included the data or any other form of proof for the construction of the rhetorical
argument. A further component of “proof” was citations. In judicial speech this
was “some form of witness, precedent legal decision, or documentary evidence.”
Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament, 43. Also Kennedy, Greek, 10.
684 Liébaert described Cyril’s methods of addressing heresy as a collection of

brief syllogisms of the same type. The thesis to be refuted or proved, was a
conditional preposition, showing the reason, the case, the truth or absurdity of
consequences. Lièbaert argued that syllogism is a method of Aristotelian
argumentation. Liébaert thought that Cyril used it to fight the heretics on their
grounds since Accacius and Eunomius also used it. On the other hand, Athanasius
and Epiphanius were more dialectic in their arguments. Neither Gregory of Nyssa
nor Basil applied syllogisms in their works in refuting Eunomius. It is to be noted
that Didymus the Blind used syllogisms one after the other while Cyril separated his
arguments by a;llo,. Liébaert, La Doctrine Christologique, 57–8.
685 In Liébaert’s detailed comparative study between Cyril’s Thesaurus and

Athanasius’ Contra Arianus he showed the dependence of Cyril on Athanasius with

regard to the content of the argument. But a closer investigation is needed to know
to what extent he was dependent upon Athanaius’s literary style. It is observed that
in Athanasius’s text he set his problem followed by a reason for refutation. Then in
Contra Arianus 1.11 he began his arguments by explaining texts beginning with Phil
2:9,10, followed by Ps 47:7,8 (Contra Arianus 1.12), then Heb 1:4 (Contra Arianus
1.13) where the latter was the final chapter of the First Discourse. The Second
Discourse and Third Discourse were totally dedicated to the explanation of texts,
both from the Old and the New Testament, with an emphasis on the Old.
Athanasius devoted much attention to the backing of the biblical texts in his
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 195

The fourth part of forensic speech was the conclusion (evpi,logoj). The
body is not a mode of punishment.
Cyril presented a forensic speech of perfect “argument.” It is a treatise
in defense of the orthodox doctrine against Origen, though his name is
never explicitly mentioned. 686
The composition of this treatise followed the rhetorical rules to the
greatest extent. Though the method of writing followed rhetorical rules to
the letter, we should be aware of the extraordinary Christianization of
rhetoric that took place in this very same treatise. 687 The thesis and
proposition were concerned with Christian topics that pertain to the faith
and Christian dogma. The defense and proof, were heavily Christianized.
The credible witness was not the senator, the gods, or notable warriors but
was comprised of no other than the biblical characters that constitute the
greatest witness to the Christian message. Citations of authority were not
from Homer, nor poetry, nor any famous philosopher. The citations were
Biblical citations, whose moral credibility is unquestionable. Homer was no
longer the source from which to derive moral axioms.

Conclusion
To interpret the exegetical method of any writer, one has to examine the
literary and spiritual aspects of his method. In the early church, the literary
aspect was dependent upon the way writers wrote and addressed their
audience. This means, it was dependent on the educational system that
produced these writers, it was dependent on the art of writing, the art of
persuasion, and it was dependent on rhetoric. Though all rhetorical
methods explained in the early textbooks were in connection to the art of
speech and persuasion, what was written complied with these methods,
either because they were first written and then memorized for delivery, or

arguments. The biblical text also served as a witness and a source of authority to
Athanasius. Therefore, Cyril was not only following a grammatical tradition of
refutation, he was also following a line of Alexandrian theological tradition of
polemics.
686 Liébaert noted that Cyril frequently uses the terms oi` ai`retikoi,( oi` di v

evnanti,aj( etc.; when referring to heretics in the cases when their names were not
explicitly mentioned. Liébaert, La Doctrine Christologique, 74.
687 For another perspective on the christianization of rhetoric read Andreas

Sprira, “The Impact of Christianity on Ancient Rhetoric,” Studia Patristica 18.2

(1989): 137–53 where he considered Christianity as the source of new “fire” in
rhetoric after the decline of the republic and the rise of the monarchy when
rhetoric lost the “life force.”
196 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

because the audience was so tuned to the oratory style, that it consequently
affected the written literature and became the standard means of
communication.
Cyril of Alexandria was neither an orator nor a poet, and thus did not
attract as much attention by scholars of rhetoric as other famous Christian
writers, such as Augustine, the Cappadocians, or Chrysostom to mention
just a few. Therefore, it is due time to take a closer look at this aspect of his
work.
Knowing the basic elements of classical rhetoric we can suggest the
following literary aspects in Cyril’s writings with special attention to
commentary writing based on that of John. Cyril followed the rules of
commentary writing by first citing the verse under consideration and then
ensued with a detailed commentary on it, word by word. He divided his
commentary into twelve books. This division was partly based on the
practical aspect of book production and thus took into consideration size
and bookbinding and other publishing limitations of the time. Within these
practical restrictions he accommodated his inner spiritual and theological
division. For example, the prologue was most important for him to expand
on the major dogmatic issues debated in his time, and therefore he
dedicated a whole book for this pericope. Within these two main divisions,
the verse division came into play. Verse division is part of the exegetical
procedure where in some cases theology might affect the division as in the
example of o[ ge,gonen in Jn 1:3,4. Or as in the case of Jn 5:36–38 and Jn
6:27 where the division is consequential on the interpretation; or as in Jn
20:11–30 the division depends on the role of the character in the pericope.
The art or te,cnh of grammatical analysis included, after text division,
grammar, and explaining historical aspects of the text. In Cyril’s case the
historical aspects emphasized grammar and geography. An important
characteristic of Cyril’s literal work was his attention to grammatical
nuances as in the case of the definite article that ultimately had a defining
role in his theological interpretation. In addition he had his astute remarks
on punctuation, which is that part of grammar that affects verse division
and interpretation, and his care about textual exactness.
An exceptionally noticeable aspect of his work was his attentiveness to
geography. Though part of the grammarian’s job is to explain historical or
geographical aspects of any text, his interest was not just clarification about
location, but an interest that affected interpreting Christ’s travel behavior as
in the case of Jn 4:43–45 and understanding where was the true hometown
of Christ. This is where the Johannine commentary revealed this very
distinguished aspect of Cyril’s theological ability in comparison to Old
 CYRIL’S LITERARY EXEGESIS 197

Testament commentaries where theological aspects might not be so

decisive.
Cyril’s use of Greek culture was sparse because he believed, as well as
his secular contemporaries and Greek philosophers, that it was not a true
source of wisdom, it was too indulgent in rhetoric without realizing a moral
aim. Nevertheless, his condemnation of Greek culture did not involve a
total ban on its use, but rather to be selective in using it, and employ it for
the benefit of true teaching. He used Greek references in his work on the
Commentary on John for the sake of analogy as a literary style but did not
pretend to make any moral use or derive wisdom from these analogies. It
was a means of clarifying his point to the readers with familiar imagery.
Cyril’s literary style was so complex that it has affected scholars’
interest in him. Adding to the complexity were lengthy arguments that seem
repetitive to the modern reader, and his use of obscure words led him to be
unwelcomed in scholarly circles. His books are difficult reading, and the
lack of entertaining aspects in his works, together with choosing difficult
dogmatic topics led to a meager output of scholarly work on the major part
of his work. It was his obligation as a teacher that drove him to these
lengthy and prolific set of works.
His argumentation with heretics was quite a good example of Cyril
applying forensic rhetoric. He followed the four main parts of forensic
composition, prooi,mion( dih,ghsij( pi,stij( evpi,logoj to the minutest detail.
He was a writer who was very well trained in rhetoric and his literary
production was an attestation to that. However, Cyril did not follow the
rules of rhetoric without any understanding of himself as a Christian writer,
and he Christianized all the Hellenic aspects of Greek rhetoric to the service
of Christian education.
This chapter has dealt with the rhetorical aspects of “arrangement”
and “style” in Cyril’s work. To get the full picture of Cyril’s work we will
delve into the “invention” and “arrangement” again in order to understand
their impact on his spiritual exegesis. His choice of words was also crucial
to understanding his spiritual interpretation. Both parts, the literal and the
spiritual, were indivisible and intertwined and permeate his interpretation.
This chapter of the work was dedicated to the literary style of the
author since such a study is always useful to have a full comprehension of a
writer’s interpretation. However, it should also be emphasized that his
Alexandrian upbringing and spirituality nourished this literary aspect. Thus,
Athanasius’ influence on his style of argumentation should be taken into
consideration when assessing his method of heretical debates. Even
devoting the whole of the commentary to dogmatic exegesis, with an
198 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

emphasis on Arius, was greatly influenced by his being an Alexandrian

resident where the whole Arian question began. In addition, it is very
possible that his literary style could be a good indication of the Alexandrian
rhetorical schools educational system of the time. The literary style did not
only reveal Cyril’s literary aspect, it exposed Cyril’s mind revealed through
his expressions and his approach and choice of emphasis.
CHAPTER 4

CYRIL’S EXEGETICAL METHOD

PART TWO: SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS

Literary and spiritual exegesis are indivisible. According to Cyril, literary
exegesis always precedes the spiritual, and if spiritual exegesis is lacking,
then the text under discussion is a text that cannot provide any spiritual or
moral value. Since the aim of Scripture is to provide this moral, spiritual,
and dogmatic aspect to those who hold it as truth, it is the obligation of
biblical exegetes to elaborate on the spiritual aspect otherwise there would
be no difference between the grammarian who interprets Homer in the
classroom and the Christian teacher who interprets scripture in church or in
any setting that has Christian education as its aim. 688 Cyril himself was
aware that the process of exegesis involved these two steps. This chapter
will begin by demonstrating that Cyril was aware of the two step aspect
involved with exegesis. This will be followed by elaborating on the
“invention” and “arrangement” in Cyril’s exegesis where it becomes clearer
that he engaged in the text first on the literary basis. Once he tackled all
literary issues of the text, he then proceeded to the spiritual level. He clearly
made the transition from one from of exegesis to the other. Cyril was
attentive in his writings to the two steps of exegesis and he made his readers

688 Kannengiesser wrote that scriptural exegesis was not a scientific study

limited to experts. He adds, “It was not a secular enterprise which regarded biblical
writings as any other literary legacy. Even when using methods and criteria applied
by contemporary non-Christian interpreters to classical sources of Hellenic
traditions, patristic exegetes never intended to assimilate the Bible to their classical
heritage. They did not allegorize Kings or Chronicles as another Iliad nor did they
identify Abraham’s journey and Moses’ long-lasting exodus as a variant of the
Odyssey.” Charles Kannengiesser, “The Bible as Read in the Early Church: Patristic
Exegesis and its Presuppositions,” in The Bible and its Readers (London: SCM, 1991),
31–2.
199
200 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

aware of it. This will serve as an introduction to understanding his use of

some exegetical terms in his spiritual exegesis and his use of the Old
Testament in interpreting the New Testament.
The importance of investigating the spiritual exegetical method of
Cyril is that it will reveal his true aim in undertaking such a huge project of
interpreting the Gospel of John. His aim was to reveal to his readers that
the type that was hidden within the Old Testament is transferred to the
truth in the New Testament.

Cyril’s Understanding of the Two-Fold Exegesis

Cyril was aware that his exegetical procedure was divided into a two-fold or
two step approach. The illustration will begin with the miracle at Cana of
Galilee. After explaining the miracle, Cyril recapitulated all the significant
lessons derived from this event. Cyril wrote that the first miracle in the
Gospel of John sanctified marriage and made it honorable and abolished
the curse of women. In addition, the miracle shows the glory of the Son
and consequently the faith of the disciples is strengthened. Cyril considered
that these four conclusions when reasoned out from the miracle represent
the end of the historical discourse (i`stori,aj lo,goj). 689 Nevertheless, he
thought that it was necessary to consider another explanation of what has
been said and say what has been signified (oi=mai de. dei/n kai. e`te,ran toi/j
eivrhme,noij evpinoei/sqai th.n qewri,an( kai. ti, to. evnteu/qen u`podhlou,menon
eivpei/n), 690 that is, explain the significance of the miracle.
The other explanation that is not related to the historical discourse
(i`stori,aj lo,goj) is that the Son is the Bridegroom, made human nature his
own, and thus human nature is his bride and wisdom is their offspring.
Also, the marriage at Cana was consummated on the third day, the three
represents the whole of time, thus the marriage was consummated in the
last times. 691 The resurrection was also on the third day where Christ is the
Firstborn. Cyril stressed the point that the miracle was performed in Cana
of Galilee and not in Jerusalem. Cyril found this a very clear indication that
the Jewish synagogue drove away the bridegroom from heaven (tw/n
vIoudai,wn Sunagwgh. to.n evx ouvranw/n avpew,sato numfi,on) and that the

689 In Jo. 1.203.

690 Ibid.
691 Cyril based the third day motif on Hos 6:1–3; Come, let us return to the Lord; for

it is he who has torn, and he will heal us; he has struck down, and he will bind us up. After two
days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him. Let us
know, let us press on to know the Lord; his appearing is as sure as the dawn; he will come to us
like the showers, like the spring rains that water the earth.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 201

church of the Gentiles (evqnw/n vEkklhsi,a) gladly received him. 692 It is to be

noticed that the geographical motif of leaving Jewish territory, especially
Jerusalem and the Temple, and going into the Gentile areas, was a sign of
rejection from the Jews and acceptance of the Gentiles; thus, Christ found
it beneficial to perform miracles among those who were ready to accept or
accepted the message. As to the wine, it failed those attending the feast, as
the Law did not suffice and did not lead to perfection. Nevertheless, the
new wine was better than the first, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2
Cor 3:6). Cyril ended his spiritual exegesis by writing, let the hearers
consider what I say (kai. noei,tw pa,lin o` avkroath.j( o[ le,gw). 693
It is clear that Cyril intentionally divided his exegesis into two separate
entities, and he indicated the end of one and the beginning of the other. At
the end of the historical exegesis he listed all the lessons learned, and at the
end of the spiritual one, he exhorted his hearers to consider the spiritual
lessons. It seems that he understood that the spiritual exegesis was not for
everyone to understand and heed, he therefore considered the first four
lessons as acceptable by all, and the spiritual lessons to those who were able
to understand and benefit from a “higher” level of interpretation. 694
In interpreting Jn 4:12–15, Cyril approached the verses from three
different angles, but here he did not spell out his division. Jn 4:12,13 was
first interpreted as explanatory narration (dih,ghsij) that the Samaritan
woman was beginning to realize that a prophet and not just a thirsty man
was speaking to her as the conversation began. This was followed by a
historical explanation of the origin of the Samaritans and their relationship
to the Babylonians and the tribes of Israel. 695 Jn 4:14 rose to the level of
discussing the spiritual water and notes that the Lord calls the tangible
water the Holy Spirit. 696 In this set of verses, Cyril covered the two aspects
of exegesis and gave greater attention to clarifying some historical facts
about the origins of the Samaritan people.
Cyril explained that there were some verses expressed in a human
mode (avnqrwpi,noij lo,goij) of expression to signify things beyond
expression. In addition, there were things that cannot be expressed and are
unspeakable by our voices (ta. tai/j h`mete,raij a;rvr`hta fwnai/j) that were
brought to the level of mode of expression in order that we may understand

692 In Jo. 1.204.

693 In Jo. 1.205.
694 The different levels of interpretations targeted to different levels of

spirituality resonated a similar approach to that of Origen.

695 In Jo. 1.270–1.
696 In Jo. 1.271.
202 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

them. 697 Therefore, any misunderstanding that we experienced in any verse,

was solely due to the weakness of words (th.n tw/n r`hma,twn avsqe,neian)
that are unable to express the accurate meaning of matters beyond
expression. 698 Spiritual exegesis always claimed, together with other things,
its vital role in explaining that which is beyond words. The literal was the
obvious meaning, the spiritual was that beyond the verbal expression.
Cyril reiterated the same idea not in reference to a biblical verse, but
rather regarding attributing human expression of the divine glory, for the
words and expressions we use to describe God fails when tested for
accuracy and precision. Human expressions are not to be understood as we
understand them among ourselves, but as adding further dimension to their
meaning as far as they are suitable for the divine nature. The divine glory
suffers from the weakness of the human tongue and its poor diction (th.n
th/j avnqrwpi,nhj glw,tthj avsqe,neian kai. th.n evn le,xei ptwcei,an). 699
Therefore, when things are said concerning God in a manner that is applied
to humanity, we should understand it in a manner that is befitting God. 700
The ambiguity that results from human expression regarding that which
belongs to God is due to the inherent weakness of our language to express
what is beyond expression. At this point the human mind and tongue
should understand its limitations and accept the spiritual understanding.
In the previous examples, the ambiguity was unintended but was a
result of the weakness of words to express divine ideas. The following
example explains that sometimes the words are intended to be expressed
enigmatically. Cyril wrote in the heading of Book Three, Chapter Two, that
the Jews could not understand that the Son was the image of the Father
because they did not understand the words enigmatically spoken by Moses
(w`j mh. noou/ntaj ta. dia. Mwuse,wj aivnigmatwdw/j ma/llon eivrhme,na). 701
He commented that Jn 5:37,8 is not a simple passage because the ideas are
not set in a simple order; rather it is a swarm of hidden contemplations
(avlla. kekrumme,nwn qewrhma,twn e`smo.n). 702 These ideals escaped the mind
of the unexamined hearers (to.n tw/n avzhth,twj evpakrowme,nwn
parippeu,onta nou/n). 703 Therefore, the ambiguity of some of the verses,
instead of being beyond human expression, could be written in enigmatic

697 In Jo. 2.246.

698 Ibid.
699 In Jo. 2.258.
700 Ibid.
701 In Jo. 1.375.
702 Ibid.
703 Ibid.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 203

form waiting to be revealed in the light of the Incarnation. Spiritual exegesis

helps readers to gain access to this revelation.
A clear demonstration of this principle is the descent of God on
Mount Sinai. The descent was a type. Those who did not understand it as a
type perceived the images of the descent, not as images of spiritual realities,
but of seeing the divine nature physically, even believing that God used a
bodily voice. 704 Cyril suggested that to understand the narrative of the
descent, as explained in Ex 19:17–19, one must refine the thickness of the
letter of the law into spiritual contemplation (pneumatikh.n qewri,an). 705 For
God’s descent was not on a low place but on a mountain, to understand
that though God descends to our level of understanding, he is still above
us, both in words and thoughts (kai. lo,goij kai. qewrh,masi). 706 The height
of the doctrines were signified by the mountain, and the words of the
Godhead were unclear because they were surrounded by smoke wounding
the eyes of our understanding. For Paul testified that we are going to see
through a mirror dimly (1 Cor 13:12). 707 Those who did not interpret the
Exodus text spiritually, that is, did not apply spiritual exegesis, did not see
through the clouds and the smoke of the mountain that covered their eyes.
Their dim eyes could not see the loftiness of the revelation but remained
confined to the physical sound and voice that was enshrouded in clouds.
Another example of Cyril’s clear perception of the two-fold exegesis
was demonstrated in Jn 14:8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we
will be satisfied.” Cyril explained that Philip asked to see the Father with the
comprehension that he would see the Father with bodily eyes (toi/j tou/
sw,matoj ovfqalmoi/j). 708 If scripture informs us that God appeared in the
old days to the prophets, we notice that no two prophets agree on one
vision. The vision of Ezekiel was very different from that of Isaiah,
therefore, Philip should have understood that we could not see the divine
essence. 709 For a thoughtful person, the contemplation in the Son sufficed
to represent to us the perfect fullness of the nature of the Father. Having
presented these ideas as an explanation of the meaning of the verse, Cyril
added that he set forth the meaning of this passage according to the simpler
(a`plouste,ran) view adopted by most men and now it was necessary to

704 In Jo. 1.378.

705 In Jo. 1.379.
706 In Jo. 1.380.
707 Ibid.
708 In Jo. 2.417.
709 In Jo. 2.418.
204 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

elaborate on the hidden (kekrumme,nwn) meanings. 710 The hidden meaning

was elaborated upon for the following three verses. Cyril was very clear
about his exegetical procedure and he navigated his readers through both
meanings, explaining that they should be attentive to both and not neglect
one aspect of the meaning at the expense of the other.
When Cyril contemplated a certain verse and gave an explanation for
it, he was aware that his words and interpretation were not final and
exhorted his readers to venture and look for further and higher meanings.
Cyril thought that the higher meaning of any verse could be elaborated
upon by many and to any high level to which they were able. Christ said to
Thomas I am the way, and the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6), to which Cyril
elaborated by saying that scripture has described Christ as light, wisdom,
power, and many other names, why is it in this occasion that he chooses to
be the way, truth, and life? 711 Cyril explained that the real power of the
word is deep and not easily visible. Nevertheless, he did not hesitate from
attempting to discover the meaning. Cyril explained that he would write
exactly what came to his mind (eivj evmh.n avnabai,nei dia,noian),
commending those who wanted to speculate more keenly (ovxuwpe,steron)
than the customary meaning. 712 Cyril then delved into a more spiritual
understanding of the verse regarding the three main things we need to help
us attain the divine courts—namely righteousness, faith in orthodox
doctrines, and hope in eternal life. 713 Spiritual interpretation and spirituality
were open to all to contemplate.
Cyril was also aware that even in regard to the literal explanation, the
audience, to whom the words were addressed, may vary in their
interpretation of the verse. In Jn 15:22 Christ says If I had not come and spoken
to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. Cyril began
to speculate who could “them” be. If it were both the Greeks and the Jews,
then the message came to every individual on earth and made clear the
work of righteousness to everyone. Therefore, if the Jews were ignorant of
the work of righteousness they would have been worthy of pardon, but
since the message was directed to everyone then there was no excuse. 714 If
these words were addressed only to the Jews, then, as has previously been
illustrated through the entire Gospel, they would endure the Gospel

710 In Jo. 2.419.

711 In Jo. 2.408.
712 In Jo. 2.409.
713 Ibid. The section discussing the three virtues that lead us to the divine courts

was discussed in Chapter One as an example of Cyril’s spirituality.

714 In Jo. 2.599.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 205

teachings and would persecute those who love Christ. 715 Cyril then
elaborated on the excuses that the Jews would have given for not following
the Gospel message. Here, Cyril was speculating on the targeted audience
and gave a different interpretation in each case.
In his writing, Cyril indicated more than once that he consciously
considered two levels of interpretations and pointed out to his readers that
he intentionally approached a verse or text from different angles. 716 The
spiritual meaning could be hidden, intentionally or unintentionally. It was
the interpreters’ task to help the reader unveil the obscurities of the text,
but all were welcomed to venture contemplation to a higher level of
interpretation.
Cyril’s writing was carefully crafted, and in order to further understand
his spiritual interpretation it is necessary to look carefully at the way he
composed his arguments. Therefore, a closer look at his “arrangement” and
“invention” is necessary at this point of research.

Arrangement and Invention

Arrangement and invention are two components of the five parts of speech
in rhetoric. Invention is the planning of the speech, and once planning is

715 In Jo. 2.600.

716 Kerrigan writes that in some passages “the literal sense is complete in itself,
since it serves its own purpose and does not need to be transposed into a higher
sense.” Kerrigan adds that “More numerous by far are the instances in which,
whilst recognizing the existence of the literal sense, he implicitly avows that it is
incomplete on the grounds that it is but the ai;nigma or the eivkw,n or para,deigma or
tu,poj of a higher meaning.” A. Kerrigan, “The Objects of the Literal and Spiritual
Senses of the New Testament according to St. Cyril of Alexandria,” Studia Patristica
1 (-TU 63), Berlin (1057), 360. Kerrigan’s thesis is that “An examination of his
commentaries on the Old Testament led to the conclusion that the distinction
between the literal sense of the Old Testament and its spiritual sense lies chiefly in
the nature of the objects described by them.” Kerrigan concluded in his article that
the same principle holds for New Testament exegesis. Ibid., 354. De Margerie
explains what is meant by the “nature of the objects.” He writes, “that which is
human belongs to the literal sense, that which is divine to the spiritual sense.”
Bernard De Margerie, “Saint Cyril of Alexandria Develops a Christocentric
Exegesis,” in An Introduction to the History of Exegesis, trans. Leonard Maluf, vol. 1
(Petersham, Mass.: Saint Bede’s Publications, 1993), 243. This theory that the
“nature of the object” decides the type of exegesis whether literal or spiritual does
not hold with the present research in which we find Cyril attempting the literal
exegesis first, to the whole of the Gospel text, and then tries to seek a spiritual
interpretation if a type of enigmatic meaning is within the text.
206 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

set, arrangement follows. Arrangement includes the way to introduce the

topic and what arguments and proofs are needed to reach the conclusion. 717
In the previous chapter, I discussed the literary style of Cyril and one
example of forensic composition that dealt with heretics was examined.
This chapter will elaborate on the other parts of speech, that is, invention
and arrangement. The aim is to convey the setting within which Cyril
expressed his spiritual exegesis and the context within which he elaborated
upon his Old Testament treatises and references. To achieve this aim, this
research will take Book Three as a case study to discuss invention first, then
arrangement, followed by an examination of choice of words that express
spiritual exegesis, and the use of Old Testament in interpreting the New
Testament. The choice of Book Three is based on practical reasons. It is the
shortest book in the commentary and includes some demonstrative
examples of Cyril’s exegetical procedure. 718
The following lengthy exposition shows how well he mastered his art
(te,cnh) of rhetoric, especially arrangement and invention. He had a general,
partially poetic introduction for the whole chapter which gave us the
indication that it was going to involve divine contemplation (tw/n qei,wn
qewrhma,twn). Then, Cyril introduced each chapter of the book with a
heading that summarized the goal of what he was about to present to his
readers. This could be considered the “proposition” for each chapter. 719 In
the first chapter he also introduced to the readers the method of inquiry; it
was going to be a “critical inquiry.” Though guided by the Gospel narrative,
he had his own choice of themes to be presented in each chapter. In the
first chapter he presented the Baptist as a person who does not give light of
his own but rather he was a type of a lamp that burned and shone but not
of his own. He compared the Baptist to other saints. This was proof

717 For more detailed information about “Invention” in Greek rhetoric read
Malcom Heath, “Invention,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period
330 B.C.–A.D. 400, ed. Stanley Porter (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 89–119.
718 Though the focus will be on Book Three as the basis of the case study, the

research will pull citations and examples from the whole text of the commentary.
719 Narration (dih,ghsij) includes “a clear statement of the proposition and the

reason for its proposal.” Burton L. Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament, 42.
Rhetorical syllogism and reason (rationale) could be part of the proposition.
Moreover, the propositions could include a host of things such as “maxims,
proverbs, chreiai (anecdotes), citations, as well as stock themes or issues from
popular ethical philosophy.” Ibid. The “proposition” is where the Christian writers
differed from their pagan counterparts, as will be seen as this investigation
progresses.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 207

(pi,stij) by analogy. 720 At this point, Cyril resorted to the Old Testament to
contemplate the lamp in the Tabernacle. This was proven by citing a
passage from the Old Testament. This was the same authority that he used
in forensic arguments against the heretics. Once Cyril was comfortable in
the Old Testament setting, he elaborated on a comparison of the sequence
of events in the Old Testament with that of the New Testament. He thus
proved that the choice of the Apostles was foreshadowed in the Old
Testament events. This was another set of proofs by analogy. The
comparison between the light of the Baptist and the far superior light of
Christ was elaborated upon to show that the Baptist was a witness or
testimony to the Son himself. He concluded the themes of lamp, tabernacle,
and witness to assert the Baptist was a witness to the Son. The elements of
arrangement and invention were complete.
Chapter Two began by stating the proposition in the heading that the
Son is the impress of the Father and this being the case can be proved even
from the Law. Cyril proposed that his aim is to uncover the hidden
meaning in the verses allotted to this chapter. He first tended to the literary
issues of the text then he attended to the hidden meaning. The Pharisees
did not really understand what Moses said about Christ, since they could
not understand the hidden meaning in the Law. Therefore, Chapter Three,
was some sort of an extension of Chapter Two—it set out to prove that the
Pharisees did not really understand the Law. This is how Cyril explained
Deut 18:15–19. He thus proved by citing authority—citing the Old
Testament—that the Pharisees did not understand the hidden meaning. He
proved his proposition and by this he ends the first theme by the
completion of Book Three.
Chapter Four was the beginning of a fresh theme that was linked to
the beginning of a new scene triggered by the journey from Jerusalem to
Galilee. The new theme was the transference of grace from the Jews who
refused Christ to the Gentiles who accepted him. The Gentiles accepted
Christ when they followed him for the whole day and at the end of the day,
in the evening, needed food. Cyril took this opportunity to introduce some
spiritual and moral themes such as that of hospitality. The feeding of the
multitudes was an opportunity to begin introducing the connection of the
miraculous feeding on the mount to that in Exodus, that is, the manna.
Nevertheless, Cyril skillfully delayed the discussion of the manna. He
attended to the deeper meaning of the text on various occasions, such as
elaborating on the meaning of numbers. For instance, what he considered

720 Discussed in Chapter Three.

208 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

the five loaves and the two fishes to really signify. He again interrupted the
sequence of the exegesis to give a summary, a spiritual summary of what
was said. It is not clear, whether this practice was common among rhetors.
However, Cyril often recapitulated his ideas in summaries. It can be
suggested that this was a rhetorical device to recapture the attention of his
readers so that they were better able to follow his arguments. Maybe in
public presentations he was able to change the pitch of his voice or
introduce any other rhetorical device to captivate his audience.
Nevertheless, when readings were lengthy and tackled complicated topics
such as dogma and Old Testament comparisons, it can be suggested that
summaries were a means to refocus his readers. An organized mind, like
that of Cyril’s, might have found that this was the only device he could
think of to keep the attention of his readers. The summary ended the scene
and the Gospel text presented us with the walking on water event. At this
point there did not seem to be an arrangement or invention; it can be
suggested that Cyril was bound to follow the Gospel text. It was a
commentary, and following the text sequence was, after all, the main
guiding line of the commentator. Nevertheless, Cyril used this opportunity
to elaborate on spiritual and moral themes. Other than the theme of
hospitality presented earlier, he connected the miracle of feeding the
multitudes with that of walking on water as signifying the Apostles and the
Church. Chapter Five was an opportunity to focus on spiritual exegesis
without worry about rhetorical guidelines.
Chapter Five ended with the multitudes asking Christ for a sign like
the one that Moses gave in the desert, and this served as the introduction to
the theme of manna that was tackled in detail in Chapter Six. As in Chapter
One, there was a comparison between the Baptist and Christ where one of
its conclusions was that Christ was superior to the Baptist; the same theme
is followed in Chapter Six. In Chapter Six, we have a comparison between
the manna and the Eucharist, thus the giver of the Eucharist was superior
to Moses, the giver of the manna. Since both were divine gifts, the theme of
Grace and divine gifts round the conclusion of Book Three. These points
will now be discussed in more detail.
Use of poetic images in spiritual interpretation. Book Three was
divided into six chapters. The proem used some poetic images from the sea.
Cyril thus introduced Book Three by writing that he had just set down his
pen (or more accurately his reed, ka,lamon) after swimming in the deep and
wide sea of divine contemplation (kai. tw/n qei,wn qewrhma,twn to. platu,
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 209

te kai. baqu. dianhxa,menoi pe,lagoj) 721 intending to reach the port, as if the
harbor was our end destination, and just then there was another ocean. For
Cyril this other ocean was like the beginning of another sequel. 722
Therefore, each chapter for Cyril was like a sea, the termination of which
was equal to a ship arriving to port to anchor, but at this point, the captain
realized that there was another sea to cross before reaching the harbor. The
sea image might seem to be an extremely conventional one and thus not call
for our attention. Rather, the studies of images in the sophist and Christian
writers revealed that all these images were driven from a standard set of
sources. These were usually “medicine, the games, nature and pastoral
images, sea images, the army, the arts and technology.” 723 Though studies
informed us that these images were distinctively rhetorical, Ruether warned
us that we should not easily dismiss them. On her comment on Gregory’s
use of the image of life as a tumultuous sea, she writes,
This passage should serve to warn the modern student of ancient
rhetoric and literature against a common pitfall. It is too easily
assumed that, because an idea is a commonplace, it is merely a
commonplace, and that when such commonplaces are used they
are automatically to be written off as fictional or as not
expressing the author’s real feelings. The mind-sets of a culture
do not merely affect the window-dressing of its ideas; they affect
the way the people in that culture think, and finally they
condition the way they actually experience things. The idea of
the sea as the symbol of the instability of life, and the rock as the
unmovable sage, was an absolutely stock topos in classical thought
of this period, found alike in the pagan and the Christian
authors. 724
Ruether concluded that these images do, actually, represent meaningful
experiences for the writers who use them. Therefore, Cyril’s proem should
receive some attention, first for its poetic imagery and, second because Cyril
in his writing, which is usually more argumentative and factually oriented,
showed that this introduction was an attempt on Cyril’s part to show some
stylistic and rhetorical eloquence.
Chapter heading sets the trajectory of “critical inquiry” followed by
“deep meaning.” The heading of the first chapter set the trajectory of the

721 In Jo. 1.365.

722 Ibid.
723 Ruether, Gregory of Nazianzus, 80. In the previous chapter we noticed that

Cyril used the games image in the temple scene and the army image borrowed from
Homer.
724 Ibid., 96.
210 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

rationalization. The heading indicated that the chapter was going to be a

“critical inquiry” (zh,thsij avkribh.j) why the Baptist is called by Christ not
only the lamp but burning and shining (avlla. kaio,menoj kai. fai,nwn). 725
Chapter One explicated Jn 5:35–37a, where the first verse described the
Baptist being a burning and shining lamp. Cyril explained that a lamp does
not have light of its own but its light is from without. So are the saints who
are illuminated from Christ in the Spirit. This is different from Christ who
is the Light by nature. Therefore, the Baptist was a lamp according to the
above explanation. 726 This is an example of syllogistic reasoning that Cyril
often used. Christ is Light. Lamps do not have lights of their own. Saints
also do not have light of their own, but have it from Christ. Therefore, the
Baptist was like the saints who take light from Christ, thus like a lamp that
takes light from another. Therefore, the Baptist was a lamp. Also, we can
conclude that the Baptist was not Christ. The second part of the verse, and
you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light means, according to Cyril, that the
Jews followed the Baptist for a while and then changed their minds when
he testified on behalf of Christ.
Therefore Cyril gave his first set of explanations, which he considered
to be the meaning that is well trodden and the commonly used
interpretation (to.n euvtribh/ ))) th/j e`rmhnei,aj tro,pon). 727 In Cyril’s opinion
the lamp cannot signify only the Baptist, but must have another dimension
since the words of the Savior extend to deep meaning (evpeidh. de. tou/
Swth/roj o` lo,goj eivj baqei,aj h`ma/j kataei,nwn evnnoi,aj) because this is the
only way we can track the beauty of the truth (th/j avlhqei,aj to. ka,lloj). 728
Cyril then proceeded to interpret the whole verse from a perspective of a
deeper meaning.
The Baptist was not only a lamp but also burning and shining. If the
Baptist was only a lamp, the reader would recall Ps 132:17 I have prepared a
lamp for my anointed one and take it that the Baptist was the one to whom the
prophecy applied. However, when burning and shining is added to the verse,
then one must look beyond the prophecy and search for a prefiguring of
the Law, as a figure and shadow of John (w`j evn sch,mati pa,lin kai. skia/|
th.n vIwa,nou). 729 For Cyril this was directly connected to the tabernacle and
the oil of the lamp in Ex 27: 20ff, you shall further command the Israelites to bring
you pure oil of beaten olives for the light, so that a lamp may be set up to burn regularly.

725 In Jo. 1.365.

726 In Jo. 1.366–7.
727 In Jo. 1.368.
728 Ibid.
729 Ibid.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 211

Cyril then explained that at this point one should take the explanation to all
possible truths (pro.j th.n evndecome,nhn safh,neian). 730 Accordingly, there
are two different levels in Cyril’s spiritual explanation. The first level goes
beyond the literal meaning and identified what the Old Testament text
provided as a figure and shadow to the event or verse of the New
Testament. After the identification, the pursuit of the meaning followed.
Therefore, Cyril found the pure oil to represent the nature of the Holy
Spirit, which nourishes and illuminates the soul, as in a lamp. 731 Therefore,
the Baptist was the type (evn tu,pw|) of a lamp that was burning and shining
in the tabernacle of testimony (evn th|/ skhnh/| tou/ marturi,ou). 732
Commentary’s chapter conclusion. Cyril continued his interpretation
of the set of verses he set for Chapter One concluding, that, though the
Baptist, the lamp, was depicted in the Law and the Prophets, the Jewish
leaders did not believe the Baptist. Now that Christ had a greater witness
than the Baptist—for the Father testified on his behalf—they did not
believe Christ either. Cyril ended this chapter by the testimony of the Father
on behalf of Christ, in the middle of verse thirty-seven. For Cyril, Jn 5:35–
37a formed a unit of the Baptist being a lamp who was shining and burning.
This lamp was foreshadowed in the Law and was burning and shining in the
tabernacle of testimony. The Baptist who shone and gave light and
testimony for the coming of Christ was not believed. Now the Father was
sending the Son and the Father was a witness to the Son. The theme of
Baptist, lamp, tabernacle, testimony, Baptist as witness, and Father as
witness formed a complete idea for Cyril and he thus decided to resume
interpretation of the rest of the verse in the following chapter.
Deeper meaning of events’ sequence. Another aspect of the passage
was the order of events. After the completion of the tabernacle came the
ordering of the lamp, and this was followed by the appointment and
function of the priests. For Cyril, this was not intended to present a simple
narration of events but rather hold a deeper meaning; in other words, after
the completion of the law and the Prophets there appeared, the voice of the
forerunner—the ordering of the lamp—after which the ordination of the
Apostles occurred—appointment of the Aaronic priesthood. At this point
Cyril informed his readers that the consideration of the lamp was
completed. 733 The sequence of events for Cyril frequently played an

730 In Jo. 1.369.

731 Ibid.
732 Ibid.
733 In Jo. 1.371.
212 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

important role in his interpretation. 734 Even the choice of the Apostles after
the testimony of the Baptist was foreshadowed in the Old Testament. For
Cyril the sequence of events represented a divine scheme that had to be
contemplated and could not be dismissed by a serious interpreter delving
into the deep meaning of scripture.
Explaining the “literary problems” followed by “hidden
contemplation.” Chapter Two interpreted Jn 5:37b–46. Cyril summarized
the topics he would discuss in the chapter in his heading where he wrote
that the Son is the Image of the Father and that the Jews did not
understand the words uttered enigmatically (aivnigmatwdw/j) by Moses. 735
He introduced the chapter by writing that there was a “swarm of hidden
contemplations,” and he informed his readers of his intention to
contemplate the hidden meaning of the text. Again, the chapter heading set
the trajectory of rationalization of the chapter.
Jn 5:37b–8 You have never heard his voice or seen his form, and you do not have
his word abiding in you, because you do not believe him whom he has sent. The
Pharisees neither heard nor saw the Father. Cyril commented that Christ
always answered the thoughts of the Pharisees, and thus he is by nature
God and knew the depth of their hearts. Moreover, he gives the examples
of Christ’s knowledge of the hearts of men by referring to the Lukan
pericope of the hanging down of the paralytic from the ceiling by four of
his friends and that Jesus perceived their thoughts (Lk 5:22). 736 He also
refered to Lk 6:6–9 where Christ answered the words in their hearts when
he questioned those witnessing the miracle of healing of the man with the
withered hand whether healing on the Sabbath is good or evil. After a long
discussion of the issue of the Sabbath, Cyril interpreted the verse explaining
that the problem with the Pharisees was that they considered themselves
the keepers of the Law, therefore, they were the ones who heard his voice
on the Mount. Based on this authority, the Pharisees designated for
themselves the right to pose the question, who is this man? 737 Cyril seized
the opportunity to point out that Jews did not understand the revelation on

734 On another occasion when Cyril was interpreting Jn 6:16,17 he posed the
question as to why the miracle of walking on the water was introduced after the
miracle of feeding the people?
735 In Jo. 1.375. This heading together with the introduction to the chapter was

discussed under Cyril’s Understanding of the Two-Fold Exegesis.

736 In Jo. 1.376.
737 In Jo. 1.377.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 213

Mount Sinai where they thought that the divine nature could be seen
through the physical eyes and that God used a physical voice. 738
Jn 5:38–9 begins with a literary problem in the verse, where Cyril
argued that the verb should not be read in the imperative mood. 739 In Jn
5:41–46, Cyril followed the text and gave some attention to the idea that
Christ was not an ambitious leader seeking followers and disciples for he
did not receive honor from man. It is the Pharisees who were seeking
honor by attributing to themselves the discipleship of Moses. If they were
true disciples of Moses they would have believed Christ, since Moses wrote
about him. This is the end of Chapter Two and Cyril took this opportunity
to elaborate on the testimony of Moses for Christ. Chapter Three is
devoted to Deut 18:15–19 where Cyril introduced it with the heading, “that
Moses was indicating the coming of the Savior.” 740 The elaboration on
Deut 18:15–19 was directly connected to Chapter Two. Since the Jews were
unable to hear the message from the Law and Prophecy about the coming
of a Savior, Cyril attempted to devote a chapter to prove the presence of
the message in the Old Testament and the ignorance of the Jewish
leadership who could not decipher it.
Chapter Four focused on Jn 6:1–27a. The new chapter was the
beginning of a different scene, where Christ left Jerusalem for Galilee. The
reason for leaving Jerusalem was again because of the confrontation with
the Jews. At the end of this episode Cyril wrote that leaving Jerusalem was a
sign of transferring Grace from the Jews to the Gentiles. 741
For Cyril, the general order of John 4 to John 6 was as follows. The
Pharisees heard that Christ was baptizing and attracting more disciples,
Christ anticipated a confrontation and left to Galilee passing by Sychar
where he met the Samaritan woman. He left Samaria heading to Galilee
avoiding Nazareth. He remained there and healed the official’s son. In Jn 5,
Christ went to Jerusalem to attend “a festival of the Jews.” Christ healed on
the Sabbath, there was another confrontation and Christ announced that
the Father testifies for him. The Jews did not accept his testimony and,

738 In Jo. 1.379. The discussion of this section where the descent on the Mount

of Sinai is a type was explained under Cyril’s Understanding of the Two-Fold

Exegesis.
739 Jn 5:38 and the imperative mood was discussed in Chapter Three in greater

detail.
740 In Jo. 1.391. The chapter devoted to Deut 18:15–19 will be discussed in more

detail under the use of the Old Testament in Cyril’s New Testament interpretation.
741 In Jo. 1.397. This point was discussed in Chapter Three under both “Verse

Division” and “Geography.”

214 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

because of this confrontation, Christ again left Jerusalem and traveled to

Galilee by crossing the other side of the Sea of Galilee. In Galilee Christ
administered more miracles. The sequence of the previous three Gospel
chapters affirmed Cyril’s opinion that every time Christ left Jerusalem it was
due to a confrontation with the Pharisees and Christ departed from
Jerusalem and proclaimed the message to the Gentiles through his miracles.
Therefore, the sequence of biblical events again impacted the exegesis.
Departure from Jerusalem should not be considered only as the historical
narrative of the physical journey from one place to another but also the
deeper theological and spiritual meaning and that is the departure of Grace
from the Jews to the Gentiles.
Jn 6:2–4 describes the crowds following Christ. Cyril first approached
the obvious meaning that those who followed Christ were the pious people
who, because of the miracles they saw, decided to follow Christ. 742 Cyril
then regarded this as an opportunity to compare the impact of miracles on
two peoples. The Pharisees were jealous when they saw the miracles and the
following of the multitudes while the Gentiles and other pious people
considered the miracles as a cause to follow him more zealously. However,
the concealed meaning (evgkekru,fqai dia,noian) 743 revealed three types of
people following Christ. Those who followed Christ were either admirers of
his works and miracles, envious Pharisees, or close disciples who followed
him under persecution and went up into the mountain and sat with him (Jn
6:3). 744 Those who sat with him received the greatest grace and sat with him
on the twelve thrones and judged the twelve tribes of Israel. 745 The motif of
the transference of Grace is still observable. Cyril began by tackling the
literary problems of the text, elaborated on its content, gave attention to
certain topics, then the reader was ready to understand the hidden and
spiritual meaning of the text. In the case of John 4 to John 6, Christ’s
departure from Jerusalem indicated the departure of Grace from the Jews to
the Gentiles.
The virtue of hospitality reflects Cyril’s moral and spiritual concerns.
In Jn 6:5–7, Christ asks for food for the multitudes and Philip answers that
there is not enough to feed them. Cyril took the opportunity to speak about
the virtue of hospitality. Even the rich might hesitate to be hospitable to
huge crowds, for it is simple to be hospitable to the few, but it is courage

742 In Jo. 1.404.

743 In Jo. 1.405.
744 Ibid.
745 In Jo. 1.406.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 215

that is needed to boldly feed the many. 746 Cyril added to the moral aspect a
more spiritual stance (qewri,an pneumatikh.n) to the verse when he
commented that Christ lifting up his eyes indicated that those who love him
are worthy of the divine visitation (th/j qei,aj evpiske,yewj avxi,ouj). 747
Furthermore, in Jn 6:7, when Philip thought that money was the only
means to get food, Christ proved to him that the divine powers are superior
to the natural order of things. 748 When the narrative was simple—that is, it
did not involve a deeper or enigmatic meaning—and related to an event
such as a miracle, Cyril seized the opportunity to attend to the moral and
spiritual aspects of the narrative since the dogmatic aspect was more
difficult to pursue.
Jn 6:8,9 mentions Andrew’s reasoning that five loaves and two fishes
cannot feed the multitude. At this point, Cyril began to connect the feeding
of the multitude with Exodus and the feeding of manna in the desert. Cyril
also suggested that the disciples should have belief lest they follow the
example of Moses who did not believe and smote the rock and was
punished for his unbelief and did not enter the Promised Land (Num
20:10,11). 749 Though it is common to connect the feeding of the multitude
with the manna, at this point Cyril made a decision of simply alerting the
reader to the connection and did not proceed to elaborate on the manna. In
fact, he reserved the elaboration on the manna for Chapter Six of the same
book. Invention and arrangement were clear at this point, where he
intentionally postponed specific themes seeking better arrangement.
Jn 6:10 makes a distinction between the people (avnqrw,pouj) who sat
down and the five thousand men (a;ndrej) who were counted and Cyril took
the opportunity to comment on that distinction. Cyril interpreted this as
Christ offering food to those who were manly and did not have an
effeminate (evkqhlu,nesqai) character. 750 The emphasis on the bravery and
power of men and their refined spiritual understanding was one of the
distinguishing traits in Cyril’s writing. 751

746 In Jo. 1.406.

747 In Jo. 1.407.
748 In Jo. 1.409.
749 In Jo. 1.413.
750 In Jo. 1.415.
751 For a general summary of Cyril’s attitude towards women in his writings

refer to Burghardt, The Image of God in Man, 126–140. Cyril acknowledged the image
of God in every human being regardless of gender. On the spiritual level he did not
differentiate, but he often commented on the effeminate nature as being evil, that
is, not manly in virtue.
216 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Cyril captured the opportunity of Jn 6:11 to suggest that if the

Evangelist took great care in his narration to describe the quantity and type
of bread then he gave us something to think about. Cyril thought, and those
who are fond of learning contemplated more powerful things (kai.
skopei,tw to. krei/tton o` filomaqh.j), and that the five loaves of barley
referred to the five books of Moses. 752 Barley hinted to the coarser food
that is the Law. The fishes referred to the Gospels and the Epistles of the
New Testament. In this miracle, Christ mixed the two—barley and fish—to
nourish the souls. 753 When Cyril found the biblical text paying attention to
details like numbers, or kind, he was of the opinion that it cannot be
mentioned just for historical reasons, there must be a deeper meaning. 754 At
the same time he considered this interpretation as a suggestion that could
be adjusted or improved by whoever was capable of doing so.
Jn 6:12,13 describes the gathering of the fragments left over and again,
since it was an event of simple narrative, Cyril introduced a moral
interpretation about the value of hospitality. The verses also indicated that
there were twelve baskets filled and Cyril interpreted it to refer to the
Apostles who dispensed for us the spiritual food. 755 In Jn 6:14–15 Cyril
came a full circle and returned to the main theme that guided the early parts
of the chapter. The people who followed Christ and believed in him wanted
to honor him and make him a king in comparison to the Jews who
condemned themselves by not accepting him. 756
Spiritual Summaries: a distinctive feature of Cyril’s exegesis. After
interpreting Jn 6:15, Cyril seized the opportunity to break the sequence of
interpretation and presented a summary—a spiritual summary—of what
was said. He writes,
But our discourse is not without share of spiritual
contemplation, on which account we will surely inquire,
summing up as it were the whole force of what has been done,
and setting before you the summation of the discourse from the
beginning.
Pneumatikw/n de. qewrhma,twn o` lo,goj h`mi/n ouvk avmoirei/( dio.
dh. pa,lin evrou/men( o[lhn w[sper avnakefalaiou,menoi tw/n

752 In Jo. 1.417.

753 In Jo. 1.418.
754 In the previous chapter we discussed Cyril’s attention to details when Jn

21:7–14 was discussed in which Cyril elaborated on the meaning of the hundred
and fifty-three fish caught In Jo. 3.161–3.
755 In Jo. 1.421.
756 In Jo. 1.421–4.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 217

gegenhme,nwn th.n du,namin( kai. to.n evx avrch/j tw/n prokeime,nwn

avnamhrusa,menoi lo,gonÅ 757
Cyril began his summary from the last verse in the pericope under
consideration where, after Christ performed the miracle he withdrew again to
the mountain by himself (Jn 6:15). He then connected Christ’s withdrawal from
Jerusalem and crossing of Lake Tiberias sitting on the mount and feeding
the multitudes and again leaving the crowds and withdrawing to the
mountain. Cyril pointed out the constant theme of withdrawal from and going
to the mountain. His being on the mountain and feeding the crowds
signified the supervision from above that was due to the saints. 758 Cyril
suggested that the five barley loaves and the two fish ought to be
understood as the writings of the Old and the New Testaments; moreover,
it signified the disciples receiving the fruits of ministry. Christ’s withdrawal
and departure alone to the mountain signifies Christ being the first fruit who
will ascend to the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? Those who
have clean hands and pure hearts (Ps 24:3). Those who followed Christ are the
pure of heart, and are the ones who followed him to the mountain in
contrast to the Jews who were jealous of him. He was the one who leads to
the hill of the Lord. Withdrawing signified going to heaven. After finishing this
summary, Cyril attached another summary that was described as short (evn
ovli,gw|). 759 He reiterated the message in the assertion that after Christ left
the Jewish people and was received as King by the Gentiles and later
performing miracles among them, he ascended into heaven alone (mo,noj)
waiting for the time when the kingdom would be more manifest. 760 A
summary followed by a shorter summary was a means by which Cyril
conveyed his message. He knew about what he was speaking, he formed his
invention and arrangement to convey the message, and he ended the
message with a summary, equivalent to the epilogue of the rhetor. The
whole passage of Jn 6:1–16, which begins with arrival to Galilee after
withdrawal from Jerusalem until the withdrawal from the multitudes to the
mountains was taken as one unit of interpretation with a clear message. The
message was conveyed by delving into the deeper meaning of the passage.
Though Cyril began with the literary interpretation, and paid much
attention to literary details, his aim was always the spiritual meaning.
Scene transition. Jn 6:16–17a is the beginning of a new pericope that
begins with the departure of Christ from the scene. The change of the stage

757 In Jo. 1.424.

758 In Jo. 1.425.
759 In Jo. 1.425.
760 In Jo. 1.425–6.
218 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

of events was always a signal for the end or the beginning of the literary
segment upon which Cyril was working. 761 This pericope was about Christ
walking on the water. Cyril posed the question of why the miracle of
walking on the water was introduced after the miracle of feeding the
people. 762 The sequence of events always maintained a spiritual or
theological significance for Cyril. Cyril responded to the question by saying
that at the time of the feeding of the multitudes, Philip and Andrew thought
he could not do something out of the ordinary to feed the multitudes. They
thought he was powerless. Christ wanted to prove to his Apostles, that
everything is possible to God and that the nature of things cannot hinder
him. 763 This was the theological introduction to the pericope.
The literal and spiritual meaning of the miracle of walking on the
water. Jn 6:17–21 is the pericope of Christ walking on the water to the boat.
Cyril gave a short exegesis that was quite to the point that Christ will deliver
us from danger and that he comes to the rescue when fear is at its height.
He does not only save from danger but delivers to safety as Christ took the
boat to shore. 764 This was a straightforward, or simple, interpretation of the
pericope. As has become Cyril’s method of interpretation, the narrative was
interpreted first from a literary perspective and then he attempted to find a
spiritual meaning. Thus Cyril writes, “since we have set before us every
portion of the subject singly, let us work, come let us join the meaning of
the first part with what follows weaving a spiritual interpretation
(pneumatikh.n evxufh,nwmen qewri,an).” 765 By “the first part” Cyril meant the
previous pericope. Therefore, as Christ ascended to the mountain he also
ascended to heaven after the resurrection (this is the first part). After the
resurrection the disciples were left alone, they were representing all who
follow ecclesiastical teachers (didaska,lwn evkklhsiastikw/n) who swim in
the sea of the present life, alone, facing all those who oppose the faith.
Nonetheless, they will be freed from all danger when Christ appears in his
power, for this is what it means to walk on the sea, where the sea is taken as

761 Donatus, in his commentary on the Andria, analyzes “the arrangement of

the play (ta,xij) into acts and scenes and notes that it is very difficult to determine
how the play should be divided.” Donatus “suggests that the principal criterion for
determining the conclusion of an act is that none of the actors remain on stage;
scenes, on the other hand, can be distinguished by the entrance or exit of one or
more characters.” In Cassel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Science of the Grammarians, 150.
762 In Jo. 1.426.
763 In Jo. 1.427.
764 In Jo. 1.426–430.
765 In Jo. 1.430.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 219

a type of the world. When Christ returns, the ship of the Apostles—that is,
the Church—will be taken to safety, that is, to the land. 766 Christ came to
his disciples in the night while they were watching for him. Cyril connected
the watchfulness of the disciples at night with the parable of the five wise
and five foolish virgins (Mt 25: 1–13). Both the disciples and the virgins
were watchful, waiting for the Bridegroom. When Christ comes he does not
enter the ship but rather moves the ship to land, for when the Lord comes
he will not be co-working (sunergh,swn) with his disciples any more but will
reward them for what they have achieved already, since his arrival will be at
the end of times. 767 The miracle of walking on the water was not only
interpreted in theological terms, as to show the dominion of Christ over
nature and him being all-powerful, but Cyril also gave it a more
eschatological understanding. Jn 6:22–27a was a simple literary systematic
following of the text. This concluded Chapter Four of Book Three.
Dogmatic interpretation. Chapter Five began with Jn 6:27b, which the
Son of Man will give you. For it is on him that God the Father has set his seal. The
theme that the Son is the seal and impress of the Father is such an
important theological theme that Cyril decided to devote the whole chapter
to its discussion. He therefore ended the previous chapter in the middle of
verse twenty-seven, reserving one full chapter on the Son being the impress
of the Father. Since the Son is the impress of the Father, he is equal to the
Father and one with him; thus, the Arian dogmas were challenged. In
addition, since this is primarily an anti-Arian defense, Cyril justified that in
his invention and arrangement he should devote the whole chapter to this
dogmatic theme. Jn 6:27b–31 served as a unit that expressed a full dogmatic
idea. This division and arrangement fit the scopes of the interpretation.
Since the previous chapter devoted a section to heretical argumentation, we
will consider that enough attention was devoted to this issue and proceed to
the following chapter.
Use of Old Testament types in Cyril’s exegesis. Chapter Five ended
with the multitude asking Christ for a sign as the one that Moses gave in the
desert, that is, the manna. Cyril commented that they had already seen this
sign when they ate the five loaves and two fishes on the mount. For the
second time in Book Three, Cyril did not comment on the manna but
rather ended the chapter on this note. 768 Chapter Six began with Jn 6:32,
Then Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread

766 In Jo. 1.430–1.

767 In Jo. 1.432–433.
768 In Jo. 1.455.
220 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. Cyril
derived the opportunity of the bread of haven to speak about the manna. The
heading of Chapter Six was “concerning the manna, that it is a type (tu,poj)
of Christ’s presence, and of the spiritual graces through him.” 769 Since Cyril
believed that the Jews cleaved to the type (tu,pw|) and not the truth, he
decided to begin contemplation (qewrh,mata) on the subject of the
manna. 770 He decided to discuss everything written about the manna in the
Mosaic books (tw/n Mwusai?kw/n bibli,wn). 771 He further informed his
readers that his aim was to prove that every reference demonstrates that
Christ is the true manna (o[ti to. ma,nna to. avlhqino.n auvto,j evstin o`
Cristo.j). 772 Cyril believed that the quotes in the Law about the manna
were clear in terms of history (i`stori,aj) and he therefore decided to delve
into the spiritual (to. pneumatiko,n) meaning only. 773 After ending his long
contemplation on the manna he proceeded to Jn 6:34 They [the disciples] said
to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” The disciples, in their demand for the
availability of bread to them were carnal in their imagination and demands,
and still viewed themselves as of the earth, and desired a full belly. Cyril
immediately connected the request of the disciples for bread to the request
of the Samaritan woman for water. Scripture was one unit for the early
church exegetes, when one verse triggered to the mind the worldly demands
and the inability to comprehend the spiritual aspect of bread or water, Cyril
easily connected both references.
Metaphor as a source of spiritual exegesis. Jn 6:35a, I am the bread of life
is a verse that has no other meaning except one of a spiritual nature. It
cannot be taken literally. From the rhetorical aspect this is considered a
“metaphor” which by definition “is a word or phrase literally denoting one
kind of object or idea but used in place of another in such a way that it
suggests a likeness or an analogy between them.” 774 Therefore, in this case,
Cyril did not venture any literal interpretation but writes,
It is the custom of our Savior Christ when describing the more
divine and already proclaimed mysteries, to weave his discourse
upon them enigmatically and not very transparently.

769 In Jo. 1.456.

770 In Jn. 1.458.
771 Ibid.
772 In Jo. 1.459.
773 Ibid. The segment devoted to the manna will be discussed in more detail

under the use of the Old Testament in Cyril’s exegesis of the New Testament.
774 Rowe, Style, 126.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 221

;Eqoj tw|/ Swth/ri Cristw|/ ta.j peri. tw/n qeiote,rwn kai. tw/n
h;dh prokathggelme,nwn musthri,wn poioume,nw| dihgh,seij(
aivnigmatw,dh pwj kai. ouv sfo,dra diafanh/ ta. evp v auvtoi/j
evxufai,nein dihgh,mata) 775
Christ intentionally wanted unveiled (avkataka,lupton) words to be set
before the unholy (avnosi,oij). 776 Therefore, literarily, the verse is a
metaphor, but Cyril attributed the intention of the metaphor to a more
theological aspect, that mysteries were not to be unveiled before the
uninitiated and the impure of heart. Thus, Cyril’s explanation that I will open
my mouth in a parable (Ps 78:2) was an indication of such instances where his
hearers were unable to understand what he said. Therefore, Cyril explained
that when Christ said that he was the bread of life, he introduced grace and life
through his holy body and life was introduced to humanity. He overcame
death because he is superior to death. 777 Cyril concluded his comments on
this verse by again referring to the manna and that the bread of life is
greater than the manna. This also served as an introduction to the following
division, that is, the second half of the verse, where not only is the bread of
life greater than the manna but also whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and
whoever believes in me will never be thirsty (Jn 6:35b).
Jn 6:35b, the continuation of the previous division, contains also a
hidden (ke,kruptai,) meaning. 778 Christ used a means of instruction similar
to that which he used with the Samaritan woman. She asked if he was
greater than Jacob and the means to convince her that he was greater
consisted of making a comparison between the water and the well. He
offered water that gave eternal life that was superior to the water of the
well. In this verse he did not tell his listeners that he was greater than
Moses, but told them that he was giving them bread, that was greater than
the manna, and he was giving them water that is better than the water
Moses got out of the rock. 779 Therefore, he is greater than Moses. That is
the hidden message of this verse. He is greater because he offers nothing
corruptible, but rather blessing in the participation of the holy body and
blood (fqarto.n me.n ouvde.n( euvlogi,an de. ma/llon th.n evn metalh,yei th/j
a`gi,aj). 780 Those who participate do not suffer corruption since his Body
commingles with our bodies. He, who is by nature life, grants us eternal life,

775 In Jo. 1.470–1.

776 In Jo. 1.471.
777 In Jo. 1.471–2.
778 In Jo. 1.473.
779 In Jo. 1.474–5.
780 In Jo. 1.475.
222 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

for having become partakers of the divine nature, we shall ascend to life
and incorruption (qei,aj te fu,sewj gegono,tej koinwnoi.( pro.j zwh.n kai.
avfqarsi,an avnabhso,meqa). 781 The water at the well was mentioned first,
then the manna, thus baptism is the introduction to the Eucharistic
participation in the divine nature. Those who are baptized and do not
attend church and taste the divine grace and do not partake of the Eucharist
deprive themselves of eternal life. 782 Cyril introduced the manna at this
stage of his exegesis to make a direct connection with the superiority of the
Bread of Life to the manna in the exact same way as to the superiority of
the water that he gave to the water in the well of Samaria. The superiority of
the gift indicated the superiority of the giver.
Jn 6:36–37 are the final verses of Book Three. Again the theme of the
divine gifts was prevailing where those who were disobedient were left
without a share in the divine gifts. By the end of the book, divine gifts were
not only the grace, which was the way the book began but the Eucharist
was added to the understanding of what was granted to us by the
Incarnation. For those who come to the Father and the Son, who is by
nature savior and life-giving (w`j swth/ri kai. zwopoiw|/ kata. fu,sin), are
partaking of the blessings (euvlogi,aj) which in this case is also the Eucharist
since they are partakers of the divine nature and brought back to
incorruption and life, returning to the nature we maintained at the
beginning. 783 Only through him and the divine grace will people not be
delivered to judgment.
Cyril retained a theological and spiritual aim in writing this
commentary. He was constrained by the Gospel text itself, but at the same
time he followed the rhetorical rules of writing whenever applicable. 784
Where the Gospel text narrated simple events and there was no room for

781 In Jo. 1.476.

782 In Jo. 1.475–6.
783 In Jo. 1.179.
784 Kannengiesser commented on the contrast between modern exegesis and

the patristic one; he writes, “As a discipline, its motivation is no longer theological,
nor is its purpose to encounter in scripture the living God. It is a professional
exercise of text-criticism and historical inquiry, which dispenses the interpreters
from being Christian believers, and omits to address scripture as holy.”
Kannengiesser, The Bible as Read in the Early Church, 35–6. The contrast is clear, Cyril
considered the biblical text as sacred and the source of spiritual interpretation in
contrast to the present state of exegesis that subjects the text to the literal
investigation without taking it to the second level, or at least to the scopes of
scriptures.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 223

the presentation of a theologically sophisticated theme, Cyril focused on

moral and spiritual interpretations. Though it was a “simple” event, Cyril
considered it most relevant to speak about the deeper and spiritual meaning
of the text, for it cannot be mentioned in the Gospel had it not an aim or a
message to convey. Cyril’s main division of the books of the commentary
followed a certain theological or spiritual theme and this marked the
divisions of his text.
Having understood the main framework of Cyril’s arrangement and
invention, we can investigate in greater detail the words he used to
introduce his spiritual interpretation followed by his use of the Old
Testament.

Cyril’s use of the terms: tu,poj( pneumatiko,j( musth,rion( ai;nigma(

kru,ptw( skiagra,foj( diaskope,w( ba,quj( shmei/on( eivkw,n( sch/ma( qewri,a(
and qewre,w
Cyril utilized spiritual interpretation to a great extent as we noted during the
discussion in this chapter and the previous one, but he was clearly of the
opinion that spiritual exegesisshould not be exaggerated or forced to the
meaning of the text. He writes, “it is necessary not to attempt to drag
around by force to spiritual interpretation that which ought to be used
historically” (kai. o[te mh. dei/ perie,lkein peira/sqai biai,wj eivj
pneumatikh.n e`fmhnei,an to. istorikw/j wvfelou/n). 785 For Cyril, the reason
was that this forced interpretation might lead to confusion over what might
be simply (a`plw/j) understood. 786 Therefore, the following terms that Cyril
used to express his spiritual interpretations follow the rule that they were
not forced interpretations of the text, but, rather, useful for the reader.
Cyril commented on the following Pauline verses, for the trumpet will
sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed (1 Cor 15:52)
and then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with
them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever (1 Thess
4:17) were examples of verses taken by way of resemblance of an image
(o`moiw,sewj eivj eivko,na) which will not damage the force of the truth (th/j
avlhqei,aj th.n du,namin). 787 Therefore, any images, analogies, or other
rhetorical imagery devices used in scripture, should not eliminate the simple
meaning of the text and should not affect the truth and historicity of what
was expressed. This principle sheds light on what was discussed in the

785 In Jo. 2.154.

786 Ibid.
787 In Jo. 1.213.
224 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

previous section. Cyril always began with the literal interpretation, then
delved into the spiritual aspect of the text, in turn giving more meaning to
the text itself without diminishing the validity of the literary explanation that
he just presented.
In spite of Cyril’s great consideration of the literal meaning, he was still
very conscious that Christ himself said, I have said these things to you in figures
[paroimi,aij]. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures (Jn
16:25). Cyril wrote that Christ meant by a proverb or a parable (paroimi,an)
that it was an obscure (avmudro,n) discourse and was not entirely visible or
manifest (evmfanh/) to the listeners. 788 So long as we are on this earth, the
nature of the Father is revealed to us by shadows and symbols (dia. skia/j
kai. u`podeigma,twn) and various images and types (eivko,noj kai. tu,pwn)
deduced from different phases of human life. 789 However, once the season
of the Incarnation has passed and our redemption is complete we will not
see in riddles, but rather the full glory will be revealed to us. 790 Cyril gave
great attention to the literary aspect of the text, but we are at a stage where
revelation is given to us in obscurity, and until the time has come when the
full glory and complete understanding of the Godhead is achieved, we are
obligated to toil in order to understand the hidden meaning of the texts.
Any details in the text are not written arbitrarily. If something is written it
either has the straight forward meaning that is simple and even edifying or
in some cases, it has a hidden meaning that we have to investigate until the
end times come and is revealed completely.
Cyril was trying to maintain the very difficult and fine balance between
the literal sense and the spiritual sense. The tension in the interpreter’s work
always exists in order to achieve balance—in responding to the question of
what extent the exegete follows the spiritual sense and what degree one
abides by the literal one. 791 The following usage of a certain set of words
will reveal how Cyril applied the principles that had just been brought to
light.

788 In Jo. 2.646.

789 In Jo. 2.648.
790 Ibid.
791 Kerrigan presented three examples of the literal sense in the New

Testament. One of the examples was the Baptist’s coming before and after Christ.
This cannot be interpreted literally because there is an ai;nigma, “an image from our
affairs” about a person who excels. The Baptist spoke about what he hears and
sees—he spoke in terms of a normal human situation.” Kerrigan, Objects of the
Literal and Spiritual Senses, 357.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 225

tu,poj. Type (tu,poj) is the most frequently used word in Cyril’s writing.
According to Cyril, Christ himself understood that the teachings in the Law
were a type shadowed in the writings. For example, where it is written, Thou
shalt not commit adultery, Christ amended the injunction that one should not
even covet. Though the Law explicitly stated that one should not add or
take away from it (Deut 4:2), Christ took away and added to the Law, that
is, added coveting to the banning of adultery, therefore, changing the type
into truth (metatiqei.j to. evn tu,poij eivj avlh,qeian). 792 Based on Christ’s
example, then, the injunctions of the New Testament were to be viewed as
emendations to the Old Testament to transfer the type and shadow to
truth. Thus, Cyril considered it a legitimate method of interpretation
following the example of Christ.
Cyril reiterated the same meaning in Jn 7:18, those who speak on their own
seek their own glory. Cyril explained that Christ did not speak of himself but
rather he was exhorting his listeners to be obedient to what was foretold.
While he only removed the unprofitable and thick shadow of the letter and
persuasively transformed it into a spiritual meaning which already lay in
types (mo,nhn tou/ gra,mmatoj th.n avnwfelh/ kai. pacei/an avfistw/nta
skia.n( metaskeua,zonta, te piqanw/j eivj pneumatikh.n qewri,an ta. evn
tu,poij e;ti lanqa,nonta). 793 Cyril again asserted that what Christ was saying
was nothing new, but rather it was the transformation of what was said in
type to the truth.
Having established the legitimacy of the method of transforming the
type to the truth, Cyril took an opportunity when interpreting Jn 14:24 to
reassert that the Mosaic Law can be considered a preparatory exercise
(progu,mnasma) to the true worship in the Spirit (th/j avlhqou/j kai. evn
pneu,mati latrei,aj). 794 The Law did not bring anything to perfection and it
was Christ who brought the shadows of things to the truth and not in types
(th.n avlh,qeian ouvk evn tu,poij). 795 Cyril supported his argument by citing
Paul, this is a symbol of the present time… until the time comes to set things right (Heb
9:9–11). Paul also recognized that what was presented in the Law was but a
symbol, and, in Cyril’s diction, a type, until the time comes. In Cyril’s
opinion, this time began with the Incarnation when the shadows of the Law
were to fulfill the reality of the time.
The theme that types are taken from our daily lives is repeated in Jn
3:29 where the topic of Christ as the Bridegroom is presented. Cyril
792 In Jo. 2.712.
793 In Jo. 1.606.
794 In Jo. 2.503.
795 Ibid.
226 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

commented that the discourse is again taken from the likeness of our affairs
(o`moiw,sewj th/j kaq v h`ma/j) and this leads us to the knowledge of refined
thoughts (a;gei de. eivj evpi,gnwsin qewrhma,twn leptw/n). 796 For the type of
conceived things (tu,poi tw/n nohtw/n) are the ones that endure the touch of
the hand (ta. ceiro.j a`fh.n) and the grossness of corporeal examples
(swmatikw/n paradeigma,twn) and this introduces us to the spiritual
things. 797 Therefore, types (tu,poj) are drawn from every day events or the
materialistic things that surround us. These are the sources of inspiration or
the means that inspire our understanding and illuminate our minds leading
us to spiritual realities. That is why the literal meaning of the text is crucial,
since it is the source of the type otherwise the spiritual meaning is forced on
the text. In Cyril’s opinion, this is not what is intended, since it will damage
the force of the truth.
A good illustration of interpreting a historical event or an every day
event into a spiritual meaning is the departure of Christ from Jerusalem (Jn
5:5,6). 798 After discussing the miracle of the paralytic, Cyril decided to end
the discourse on history (o` th/j i`tori,aj lo.goj)—that is, discussing the
literality of the event—and transform the type of the letter to its spiritual
meaning (metaskeuaste,on de. pa.lin eivj qewri,an pneumatikh.n to.n avpo.
tou/ gra,mmatoj tu,pon). 799 Cyril interpreted the departure from Jerusalem
after the killing of the sheep, referring to the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem
located beside the pool of Bethesda, and preaching salvation to the
Samaritans and the Galileans, as the withdrawal of Christ from the Jews
after his own sacrifice on the cross. This was made even clearer when Christ
explicitly told his disciples, after the resurrection, to preach to the Gentiles
and to go and meet him in Galilee. His return to Jerusalem on Pentecost
day, at the fulfillment of weeks, signifies in types and enigma (evn tu,poij kai.
aivni,gmasin) that Christ will return in the last days to the Jews and, through
faith in him, the Jews will celebrate all feasts with him. 800 It is to be
observed that Cyril extracted his “type” from events in sequence. Although
the interpretation was based on the event of Christ leaving Jerusalem and
going to Samaria and then Galilee, the type was elongated to an extended
time of events that lasted until the day of Pentecost. Nonetheless, it
initiated the “type” beginning with the journey out of Jerusalem but its

796 In Jo. 1.236.

797 Ibid.
798 In Chapter Three and in Chapter Four we discussed that Christ’s departure

from Jerusalem spiritually signified the departure of Grace.

799 In Jo. 1. 305–6.
800 In Jo. 1.306.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 227

implications and spiritual significance were illuminated by almost the whole

life span of Christ.
On another occasion (Jn 10:40–2), Christ left Jerusalem again to go
beyond the Jordan to the place where the Baptist was baptizing. Cyril
described this as a type clothed in riddles (tu,pou aivni,xhtai) that signified
that the church of the gentiles possessed the springs or fountain of baptism
(ta.j phga.j tou/ bapti,smatoj). 801
Cyril considered that Christ’s descent from the mountain was
representative (avnatupou/n) of his Second Coming from heaven. 802 This was
in contrast to Christ interpreting the field is the world (Mt 13:38). 803 Not only
events but also locations, mountains, and fields, can be types of the
elevation of heaven and the lowliness of the created earth.
Another historical event that is pregnant with types is the Exodus
event. What introduced the Exodus theme in the interpretation was the
notion of the “sea.” Once again, Christ withdrew from Jerusalem and
headed to Galilee and crossed the Sea of Tiberias (Jn 6:1). The sea separated
Christ from the Jews he left behind in Jerusalem. Thus, came the theme of
the sea as a separator of good and evil—it separated Christ from the Jews,
and separated Pharaoh from the Jews. As Pharaoh was pursuing the
Israelites across the sea blindfolded by his anger, he did not realize that he
was fighting God; thus, his entire army was doomed and Israel was saved.
Now, as the persecutors died in the sea—that is, Pharaoh—so is the present
case with the Jews who in their anger are persecuting Christ. They will share
the same fate as that of Pharaoh if they do not abandon their pursuit. 804
The whole event of the pursuit and the crossing of the sea in the Exodus
narrative became a type for the pursuit of the Jews to Christ. In this case it
was a type that held a hidden mystery (o` tu,poj kekrumme,non e;cein
musth,rion). 805
The healing of the blind man in John 9 is considered a type (tu,pon) of
the calling of the Gentiles. It is also a type that holds a mystery (tou/
musthri,ou) which Cyril promised to present in brief. 806 After Christ left the
temple he decided to heal the blind man and did this of his own initiative
without any entreaty. God called on the Gentiles out of his good nature
(avgaqo.j kata. fu,sin), for they did not call on him but he came forward and

801 In Jo. 1.262.

802 In Jo. 1.436.
803 In Jo. 1.437.
804 In Jo. 1.402–3.
805 In Jo. 1.402.
806 In Jo. 2.155.
228 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

showed the Gentiles his mercy. For the Gentiles and Greeks in their
darkness could not call for his mercy as it was with the blind man who in
his darkness did not know Christ to call for his salvation. It was indeed an
act of mercy and philanthropy (evle,w| kai. filanqrwpi,a|). 807 The healing was
accomplished on the Sabbath and thereby represented a type of the last age
of the present world where the Savior made his light shine on the Gentiles.
For the Sabbath was the end of the week and represented the end of
times. 808 The pericope of the blind man does not only represent a type, for
combined with the verse, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam it carries a deep
(baqu,j) meaning. It indicates that Christ is the creator and framer of all
things (kti,sthj te kai. dhmiourgo.j tou/ panto,j). 809 In addition, this miracle
carries a power of action that possesses a mystical significance (lo.gon
mustiko.n h` tou/ pra,gmatoj du,namij). 810 It carries the mystical connection
to Baptism where, through the washing, the Gentiles were able to
understand the mystical significance of the Trinity. 811 The miracle is not
only a type containing a deep meaning; it also carries a mystical significance.
Each spiritual meaning found in the event of the healing of the blind man
was very specific. The blind man, as a physical reality, is a type of the
Gentiles. The creative act, is not a type since it does not refer to a physical
presence of a person or object, but rather is an activity and thus carries a
deep meaning. As to the action of going to the pool, this is indicated as
mystical.
Cyril gave special attention to the rending of the veil of the temple.
The veil shrouded the inner portion of the temple, allowing no one to enter
the holy of holies except the high priest who entered with a sacrifice once a
year. In the meantime, Paul wrote that the Spirit signified, by figures in type
(dia. tw/n evn tu,poij schma,twn), that things were not made manifest since
the people kept at a distance. 812 That is, the people were distanced from the
holy of holies and nothing was manifest to them, since they were not
allowed to see anything because the Law was still in force placing the Jews
outside the holy of holies. The precept of the conduct (politei,aj h`
nomikh,), that is, the vestibule (proau,lio,n) of the tabernacle, led to the
Gospel teaching (th/j euvaggelikh/j paideu,sew,j). 813 The tabernacle was holy,

807 In Jo. 2.156.

808 Ibid.
809 In Jo. 1.157.
810 Ibid.
811 Ibid.
812 In Jo. 3.98.
813 Ibid.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 229

but the holy of holies was even holier. So remains the Law, those who
follow it are holy, but the faith in Christ anoints and sanctifies one by the
Holy Spirit. The righteousness of the faith is greater than the righteousness
of the Law. 814 The veil of the temple was rent into two to signify the act of
revealing the holy of holies and that those who believe in Christ are led to
the most inner sanctuary. Now the knowledge of the divine mysteries was
not obscure, hidden, or revealed only in types, but revealed in truth and the
truth remains manifest. 815 Before the death of Christ the Law prevailed, but
once Christ overcame death, he rented the veil, that is, the letter of the Law,
and made the truth manifest to those who believe in him. 816 The veil was
rent entirely, not in part but totally from top to bottom, to signify the full
revelation of the mystery without any shadow. 817 Again, all the types
presented in the Old Testament are shadows of the truth that is in Christ.
Cyril contemplated the fact that Christ was buried in a new sepulchre
and conjectured that the Evangelist intentionally mentioned it to signify that
it was a type that Christ’s death will act as a guide to our entry into
paradise. 818 Though Cyril gave such an interpretation, the words following
this suggestion provided two more theological explanations for the newness
of the tomb. For Cyril, the newness of the tomb conveyed to us the
newness of life that was provided for us and, in addition, it took away any
suggestions for anyone to say that it was another person who rose from the
dead. 819 Theological consideration must be taken into account lest someone
suggest that Christ did not rise from the dead. The spiritual aspect should
not override the theological one.
For Cyril, the New Testament, the words, and the life of Christ
revealed the meaning of the type. Christ transformed the type into truth, the
shadow into reality. The Law was a type. It was not perfect and could not
lead to perfection, but when it was transferred to the truth, it was amended
to the revelation of Christ. The true meaning overrode the shadow. 820
In all of the previous examples, the term tu,poj was used in connection
with events and themes taken from daily life. For example, the event of the

814 Ibid.
815 In Jo. 3.99.
816 Ibid.
817 In Jo. 3.100.
818 In Jo. 3.105.
819 In Jo. 3.106.
820 As much as tu,poj is a key word in Cyril’s spiritual interpretation of the New

Testament, Kerrigan did not indicate in his study that it was used in the Old
Testament interpretation since he did not refer to it in his study.
230 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

rending of the veil of the temple is a type that now people are not kept at a
distance but rather those who believe in Christ are led to the inner
sanctuary. Not only events but locations such as mountains or fields can be
types of the elevation of heaven and the lowliness of the created earth. The
newness of the sepulchre is a type of the entry to paradise and most
importantly the newness of life. In addition to events and locations, time is
also used as a type. The Sabbath, is at the end of the week and is a type of
the end of times.
In all of the previous examples the tu,poj was never used in connection
with persons. Cyril did not consider any figure in the Old Testament to
represent a type of Christ. This will be even clearer when further on the
figure of Moses is discussed. The Moses comparison will focus on ministry,
where the ministry of Moses was meditative and stood as a type of Christ’s
mystical ministry.
When Cyril used type in connection with a person it is usually in
negative terms such as the example of the king of Babylon who is
considered a type of Satan. 821 He also used the two robbers as a type of the
two condemned nations, that is, the Jews and the Greeks. 822 These two
examples still illustrate the point that type is not used in connection with
Christ. On the other hand, we have Clement of Alexandria who compared
Isaac as a type of the Lord, the ancient righteous is a type of the new
righteous, where the comparison is between Abel and Christ. 823 Clement
also wrote that what is put forth in type conceals the truth. 824
Therefore, when we compare Cyril with his predecessor Clement of
Alexandria, we can easily conclude that Cyril was extremely selective in his
use of the term tu,poj. He intentionally avoided using the term tu,poj in
connection with persons, not following Clement of Alexandria’s example,
while at the same time he agreed with his predecessor that there was a
strong connection between type (tu,poj) and truth (avlh,qeia).
pneumatiko,j. Another word that occurred a number of times in Cyril’s
writings was pneumatiko,j. When Cyril began his lengthy exposition of the
tabernacle, he began his narration of the events by the text of Num 9:15–18
where the narrative begins with a cloud covering the tabernacle when it was

821 De Adoratione, 1(1.19E). Lampe, 1419.

822 In Jo. 3.82–83.
823 Auvto,j evstin ov I
, saa,k $kai. ga.r e[stin e`te,rwj e,klabei/n% tu,poj o[j e,sti tou/
kuri,ou( pai/j me.n w`j ui`oj, Å Clem. Paed. 1.5, PG 8.277A. o[ti de. ai-ma o` lo,goj
e,sti.n( marturei/ tou/ ;Abel tou/ dikai,ou to. ai-ma evntugca,non tw|/ Qew|Å/ Clem. Paed.
1.6, PG 8.305C.
824 ta. fuo,mena evn tu,pw| proku,ptei tw/n avlhqw/nÅ Clem. Str. 1.7, PG 8.732B.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 231

set up. Cyril commented that the Israelites were commanded to begin their
journey with the journey of the cloud and to halt when the cloud does not
journey any more. Cyril then informed his readers that the discourse will be
transferred from the narrative to the spiritual interpretation (th/j ivstori,aj o`
lo,goj evpi. to. pneumatiko,n). 825 He then went into a detailed account to
explain this transformation. Again, Cyril highlighted his ideas of exegesis
when he wrote that scriptures cannot be interested in the clouds, or be
interested in pure cosmological events, rather these events must transfer to
the reader a spiritual experience. 826
In Cyril’s lengthy treatment of the Sabbath, he insisted that Christ can
never transgress the Law. He was the promulgator of the Law and he could
transform it as he wills, he eliminated the overlying shadow to reveal the
truth of the Law and transform the dark and thick sense to spiritual
contemplation (eivj pneumatikh.n metaba,lloito qewri,an ta. pacu,tero,n). 827
The spiritual sense gives a new meaning to what was delivered of old in
darkness and thickness.
Cyril’s treatise on circumcision also contained the aim of transforming
the letter to a spiritual meaning. He spoke about the circumcision of the
Spirit (h` evn pneu,mati peritomh.) and noted that what is done in the flesh is
a symbol (su,mbolon). 828 Three out of the five treatises on the Old
Testament presented in The commentary on the Gospel of John were showcased
with the aim to transform and comprehend the event in a spiritual
meaning. 829
The tenth chapter of the Gospel of John speaks about Christ being the
good shepherd. It also speaks about the sheep who will not listen to the
thieves and robbers who enter the sheepfold stealthily. However, those
sheep who come to Christ, do not enter stealthily but from the door

825 In Jo. 1.564.

826 This could be contrasted with Philo’s great interest in interpreting all events,
especially that of the Exodus only from the cosmological perspective to prove the
harmony of the Jewish Law with the universe and that the promulgator of the Law
is the creator of the universe. A good example for such an effort on behalf of Philo
can be traced in, Philo, De Vita Mosis, The Loeb Classical Library, vol. 6
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1984).
827 In Jo. 1.617–8.
828 In Jo. 1.631.
829 The five Old Testament treatises found in the Johannine commentary are,

Moses, the manna, the tabernacle, Sabbath, and circumcision. Cyril used for the
tabernacle, Sabbath, and circumcision the term pneumatiko,j in the interpretation of
each of these discourses.
232 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

because I am the gate and they go straight to the owner of the sheepfold for I
am the good shepherd (Jn 10:9,11). Cyril commented that Christ molded the
form of the discourse (diapla,ttei tou/ lo,gou to. sch/ma) from the narrative
form (evx i`stori,aj) to spiritual contemplation (qewri,an pneumatikh.n). 830
The i`stori,a is simple. Those who enter unlawfully indicate by their
behavior that they are committing an unlawful act, while those who enter by
the door are welcomed by the lord of the sheep and he knows them and
opens the door for them. This is the type of the narrative (th/j i`stori,aj o`
tu,poj). 831 But as to our spiritual profit (wvfe,leian pneumatikh.n), those who
take leadership without having permission to enter from the door will
perish because they transgressed the divine judgment (kri/ma to. qei/on). 832
Nevertheless, those who are allotted leadership by God, and come forth to
it through Christ, will govern, through the help of grace, the most sacred
sheepfold. They will be greatly rewarded, since their aim is to benefit the
fold. 833 This is a parable of the good shepherd and transforming the type of
the sheep to the shepherds of the church is not unique. However, to focus
on those who stealthily enter the fold is most probably dictated by the
situation of the pervasiveness of the Arians for some time in leadership
positions. Also, it is part of the polemics against heretics to inform them,
that even if they have a leadership position, judgment of the Lord will take
place. The whole text is against heresy, and when he finds an opportunity to
attack those who conduct the heresy—though in this case never named—
Cyril used a double-edged sword against his opponents. Another aspect of
the spiritual exegesiswas that it is also an attack on the Jewish leadership at
the time of Christ who were eliminated from leading the fold because of
their refusal of Christ’s message.
The true vine is another example where Cyril took advantage of a
certain parable and transformed it to a spiritual interpretation and used it to
attack the Jewish leadership. He examined the parable spiritually
(pneumatikw/j). 834 In Cyril’s opinion, Christ must have wanted to convey
other meanings from the verse He removes every branch in me that does not bear
any fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes it to make it bear more fruit (Jn
15:2). Cyril wrote that the branch that is removed from the fellowship with
Christ and consequently severed from the Father referred to the Jewish
people. Those who were not cut off were the Jewish people who believed.

830 In Jo. 2.216.

831 Ibid.
832 In Jo. 2.216–7.
833 In Jo. 2.217.
834 In Jo. 1.551.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 233

The believers included Gentile converts. The Holy Spirit purified both, 835
but the Holy Spirit sanctified each differently. The Jewish converts were
sanctified by not accepting the Law to be what guided their lives, and the
Gentiles were purified from the worship of idols and following ignorant
customs. 836 Cyril used this parable to serve his polemics against the Jewish
leadership who refused Christ and were incapable of bearing fruit and thus
will be cut off the vine. Cyril used the word pneumatiko,j when he was
dealing with a narrative—i`stori,a—in which he thought a spiritual
interpretation was beneficial to the reader because the simple meaning did
not convey what was really meant and did not convey other possible
meanings.
When Cyril used the parables of the Good Shepherd and that of the
true vine to serve his polemics, he most probably considered this to be
beneficial to his readers as well. In Cyril’s opinion, what could have been
more beneficial than preserving the orthodox faith of his readers. This
coincides with the aim of a dogmatic exegetical work, to preserve the
orthodox faith.
In general, the use of pneumatiko,j in the meaning of a mystical or
spiritual sense of scripture was extremely common especially in the
Alexandrian Church. Origen was the first to use it in this sense in On First
Principle where Origen considered that all divine scripture had spiritual
meaning. 837 Didymus the Blind also spoke of the “mystical and spiritual
meaning of scripture” in Ps 1:3. 838 Actually, the spiritual meaning of
scripture originated with Origen and was used only by Didymus the Blind
and Cyril. Cyril was following the Alexandrian tradition.
musth,rion. Cyril used the term musth,rion more than once. When
Christ said where I am you cannot come (Jn 7:34) these words, in Cyril’s opinion,
were concealed in mystery (musth,rion). 839 The simple meaning would be
that Christ was beyond the grasp of the Jewish leaders since he was beside
the Father. The keyword that leads us to understand the verse is the word
‘seek’ (zhtou/sin) 840 for you will search [zhth,sete,] for me, but you will not find me
(Jn 7:34) because they could not go where he was going. For those who
seek him, and those who follow him will worship him in heaven and will be
with him. Those who do not seek him will be deprived of the divine

835 Ibid.
836 In Jo. 1.552.
837 De Principiis 4.3.5. PG 2.385B.
838 PG 14.313C
839 In Jo. 1.682.
840 Ibid.
234 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

glory. 841 The mystery is in the understanding that it is not physical inability
to reach him, but rather the spiritual deprivation from the divine glory that
will not enable the Jewish leaders to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my
commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s
commandments and abide in his love (Jn 15:9–10) are verses that Cyril regarded
as musth,ria and needed to be considered with an eye of understanding (tw|/
th/j dianoi,aj ovfqalmw|)/ . 842 This text has a deep (baqu.j) meaning and puts
before the readers the significance of the Incarnation (sarko.j
oivkonomi,aj). 843 This reveals to us that God the Father loved the Son and
the Son loves us with the same love by which he is loved. The Son
explained that the means by which we would be loved, with that same love,
is by abiding by his commandments. This really meant that Christ set
himself as a type (tu,pon) of the exalted condition (th/j euvgou/j politei,aj) of
humanity 844 where he accepted our poverty and our condition and was
under the Law because of his Incarnation. He did this to be a guide and
pattern in order for us to recover our original state. The mystery is revealed
once we understand the meaning of the Incarnation in light of Phil 2:7–9
and understand that the Son took our condition and set himself as a pattern
for us.
In these two examples, musth,rion was used in the sense of a secret
conveyed to the readers. This meaning was used by many in this sense and
did not represent the language of a specific school of scriptural or
theological thought.
ai;nigma. Cyril occasionally used the word ai;nigma in his exegesis. You
will search for me, but you will not find me; and where I am, you cannot come (Jn 7:34)
is a verse that Cyril divided into two parts and each part was considered a
riddle (ai;nigma). The first part of the verse, when interpreted by its obvious
meaning is simple but it contains a hidden ai;nigma within it. The simple
meaning is that he who has ascended into heaven cannot be taken by them
(auvtoi/j a`lw,simon). 845 However, the truer meaning is that which is shown
in riddles or enigmatically (to. de. avlhqe,stero,n te kai. aivnigmatwdw/j
u`podhlou,menon). 846 The true meaning is that Christ was sent to give life and
take away the death that has overcome us because of our transgression.

841 Ibid.
842 In Jo. 2.568.
843 Ibid.
844 Ibid.
845 In Jo. 1.680.
846 Ibid.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 235

Christ came to implant the divine and heavenly light in those who are in
darkness (parage,gona toi/j evn sko,tei to. qei/on evnqh,wn kai. ouvra,nion
fw/j). 847 For he came to preach the Gospel to the poor and those who are in
captivity (referring to Is 61:1,2). Nevertheless, those who do not repent and
accept the Gospel message and prefer to live in darkness, will not be able to
enjoy the heavenly light. Once they refuse Christ they will not be able to
reach him again and thus You will search for me, but you will not find me. As to
the second half of the verse, which also conceals a deep mystery which we
have referred to under musth,rion where it meant the deprivation from the
divine glory. At the end of the verse Cyril concluded that it is true the Lord
will say enigmatically (aivnigmati) to the Jews where I am, you cannot come. 848
Thus, Jn 7:34 is a verse that conveys a musth,rion in ai;nigma.
The parable of the good shepherd contains a certain ai;nigma
expressed within it. Cyril wrote that Christ introduced the parable of the
good shepherd to fight the inner thoughts of the Pharisees. The setting of
the parable came after Christ healed a blind man who was driven out of the
synagogue by the Pharisees. After Christ found the blind man and after he
acknowledged that Christ is the Son of Man, Christ said that he came into
this world for judgment, so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see
may become blind (Jn 9:39). Some of the Pharisees overheard him and asked if
it was they, the Pharisees, who were accused of being blind. In answer to
their question, Christ pronounced the parable of the good shepherd and
Cyril concluded that the answer contains a certain riddle or ai;nigma. If
Christ answered the Pharisees’ question and asserted that they were blind,
Christ would have been accused of reviling the authority of the synagogue
and that of God. Therefore, Cyril suggested that Christ answered them to
fight their thoughts and thus introduced the parable (parabolh.n)
enigmatically (evn aivnigmasin) implying the answer. 849 The answer was that
on account of their arrogance they did not firmly hold their leadership
(kaqhgei/sqai). 850 This was also to declare that leadership was given only to
those who were called to it. This was the ai;nigma in the parable. Christ
answered the Pharisees who asked him if he was accusing them of
blindness, and he answered enigmatically that they would not keep their
leadership posts any longer since leadership would be held by those who are
granted this position.

847 Ibid.
848 In Jo. 1.684.
849 In Jo. 2.209.
850 Ibid.
236 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Cyril explained that when the Jewish leaders heard what Christ
preached and that what he demanded of them was beyond and above the
Law, the Jewish leaders felt that their way of life was threatened. Cyril
continued that these leaders did not understand that the Law was pointed
out in darkness (dia. skia/j) and enigmatically (aivnigma,twn) to profit its
hearers. 851 As the sunlight is useless to those who cannot see, and as healthy
food is useless to those in bad health, so was Christ to those who heard him
since they refused to be saved. 852
Cyril used the term ai;nigma to refer to sayings or pronouncements
that were said in riddles and which were not undertstood by their hearers.
The message is conveyed sometimes in an intentionally covert manner since
the hearers were either unwilling to accept it or because the mystery within
it was best expressed in this form. 853
Cyril used ai;nigma to mean a hidden meaning or mystery and this
meaning has been used by many early Christian writers. Cyril uniquely used
ai;nigma to reflect the audience’s readiness.
kru,ptw. kru,ptw was also used to reveal a hidden meaning but in a way
different from that of ai;nigma. Cyril wrote that the multitudes that followed
Christ after they observed his miracles were not only spectators who loved

851 In Jo. 3.28.

852 In Jo. 3.28–9.
853 Kerrigan discussed Cyril’s use of ai;nigma in the Old Testament. In

Kerrigan’s opinion Cyril used ai;nigma together with parabolh, and para,deigma
synonymously. Kerrigan explains that “parabolh, and para,deigma are species of the
figure that is styled o`moi,wsij…. o`moi,wsij therefore corresponds to the simile of
English rhetoric; it is a simple comparison in which two realities are juxtaposed. In
the para,deigma one of these realities is an event of the past, which is compared
with some present event, with a view to persuading or dissuading one from a
determined course of action.” Kerrigan explained that para,deigma invokes two real
events, while parabolh, introduces fictitious things. Kerrigan, Cyril of Alexandria
Interpreter of the Old Testament, 61–2. If Kerrigan’s definition of para,deigma is valid,
then Cyril’s use of that term in the Old Testament exegesis is that of ai;nigma in the
New Testament where a real event of old, is transformed to understand the truth of
an event of the New Testament. Kerrigan defines ai;nigma according to Greek
rhetoric as “a figure of speech which is obscure both in expression and meaning.”
Ibid., 63. We understand from these observations that Kerrigan was comparing the
Greek rhetorical use of the words with that of Cyril’s. The question would then be,
how far did Cyril follow the rhetorical meanings of these terms, or did he
accommodate the meaning of these terms to the biblical use? O’Keefe mentioned
in his research that the term ai;nigma was mentioned only once in Cyril’s
interpretation of the Book of Malachi. O’Keefe, Interpreting the Angel, 198.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 237

watching (filoqea,monej) miracles but rather they were admiring miracles

done on the sick. 854 This gives us an insight of how different the multitudes
were from the Jewish leaders who were following him out of jealousy. For
Cyril this revealed a concealed interpretation (eivrhme,noij evgkekru,fqai). 855
Jn 6:2–4 just mentions the multitudes following Christ while he did his
miracles, but Cyril saw the concealed interpretation in the fact that the
following crowds were admirers and not people waiting to threaten the
wonderworker with an accusation.
Christ told the Jews who followed him that if they believed in him,
they would abide in his commandments and truly become his disciples (Jn
8:30). Thus, the obvious meaning is that if they follow his commandments
they were going to be his disciples. However, the hidden meaning
(kekrumme,non) is that he is trying to withdraw them from the Mosaic
teachings and remove them from adhering to the letter since the Law was
spoken in type (evn tu,pw| lalhqei/si,) in comparison to the clear words of
the Gospel. 856 Therefore, kru,ptw reveals the double entendre or the non-
obvious meaning in a statement or the actions of a person or a group of
persons. It is contemplating on the further meaning of a certain situation.
This is different from ai;nigma where the concealed meaning is intended.
In general, kru,ptw was not frequently used by Christian writers,
though, in contrast, Cyril used the term more often than other writers in his
writings primarily in connection with the Old Testament. 857 The distinctive
use by Cyril is that kru,ptw reveals the non-obvious meaning. It is a
meaning that might not be necessary but when explained gives a deeper
meaning to the interpretations.
skiagra,foj. Another word that was used only once in Cyril’s
commentary was skiagra,foj which is a type of sketching and drawing in
light and shade. The term was used in commenting on Ex 30:12,13 where
the children of Israel are ordered to give a ransom of half of a didrachm for
their souls. 858 Cyril explained that this shadowed Christ himself
(evskiagragei/to). 859 Cyril—with his use of this word—was insinuating in his
exegesis that the didracham and the double drachma represented Christ, not

854 In Jo. 1.405.

855 Ibid.
856 Ibid.
857 De Adoratione, 3, PG 1.82A. Glaphyra Dt., PG 1.425C. Lampe, 780.
858 This pericope was discussed in Chapter Two under “The Oneness of the

Trinity.”
859 In Jo. 1.450.
238 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

in total shadow nor in a clear type, but rather in a sketch that is visible and
comprehensible in the contrast of both the shadow and the light.
Skiagra,foj was not used by early Christian writers but rather more by
secular ones. Cyril was the only Christian writer to appropriate this term to
convey the exegetical meaning of looking at a verse in a different way.
diaskope,w. Cyril used another word diaskope,w to convey a similar
meaning to that of kru,ptw. Cyril wrote that he was going to pay close
attention to Jn 15: 11 I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you,
and that your joy may be complete since he believes Christ wanted to deliver a
message through this verse. Cyril thus wrote that we have to look at the
verse from a different way (diaske,yasqai). 860 Other than the obvious
meaning, Cyril posed the following question: does it mean that Christ was a
man like us, only without sin, ready to undergo all the suffering with joy?
Rather, it means that Christ considered the fulfilling of the Father’s will and
providing salvation to all those who come to him as his pleasure and joy. 861
Therefore, diaskope,w conveyed the meaning that the interpreter was
looking at a verse or passage in a different way in comparison to kru,ptw
where the meaning is in the verse but needs to be revealed and not
concealed.
baqu,j. Baqu,j was also used to denote a deeper meaning to the text.
Cyril commented that there must be a deeper (baqu,j) meaning to Christ’s
order to the blind man to go and wash in the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:6,7). The
deeper meaning was that Christ who gave the power to the withered eye to
be vivified was the one who formed us at the beginning. The deep meaning
of the miracle was to certify that Christ was the creator. Baqu,j did not
convey a hidden or enigmatic meaning but the word was used in a very
similar way to what diaskope,w means. Baqu,j was frequently used in the
Johannine commentary text.
The use of baqu,j to indicate the deeper or spiritual and profound
sense of scripture was first used by Origen. In Homily 19 on Jeremiah,
Origen acknowledged that he did not know the deep thought of this
pericope. 862 Cyril, together with any other early Christian writers used the
true baqu,j following Origen’s footsteps.
shmei/on. Shmei/on was also frequently used in the Cyrillian vocabulary.
When the soldiers came to arrest Christ in the garden he announced his
presence and once he uttered the words I am he, they stepped back and fell to the

860 In Jo. 2.572.

861 In Jo. 2.573.
862 th/j perikoph/j ))) to. no,hma to. baqu,jÅ PG 13.485C.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 239

ground (Jn 18:6). Cyril commented that the falling to the ground was a sign
(shmei/on) of the crouching down of the nations (tou/ e;qnouj
kataptw,sewj). 863 The falling down and humbling of nations was, according
to Cyril, prophesied by Jeremiah who wrote, Hear this word that I take up over
you in lamentations, O house of Israel: Fallen, no more to rise (Am 5:1–2). 864 Cyril
explained that that which happened is an eivkw,n that indicates that anyone
who opposes Christ is doomed to utter humiliation. 865 Shmei/on was used to
give meaning to an act that occurred and that meaning might contain a
beneficial spiritual message.
Christ’s clothes (i`mati,oij) were divided into four portions but his
tunic (citw,n) was without seam woven from top to bottom (Jn 19:23). Cyril
interpreted this to be a mystical sign (shmei/on mustikh/j) for the salvation of
the four quarters of the world. 866 The four quarters of the world divided
among themselves the clothes of the Word, that is, his body. Though the
Only-Begotten is divided into pieces and sanctifies the soul and the body of
every person, yet he is also one so is the Church undivided. Christ cannot
be divided. 867
The same pattern of interpretation was followed in the example of the
crucifixion of Christ among the two robbers. The two robbers signify
(shmei/on) the two nations—the children of Israel and the Gentiles—who
will come together to be close to Christ. 868 The two robbers are a type of
the two nations who are condemned. The Jews were condemned by the
Law and the Greeks by their idolatry. 869 In addition, the two robbers signify
(shmai,nei) the two nations dying with Christ and abandoning worldly
pleasures and refusing to live in the flesh. 870 Cyril added that the simile
(eivko,noj) did not falsify the fact nor the event itself. The sign does not
mean that the event or fact is not true. The previous examples present the
significance of two events that signified a theological and spiritual meaning
beyond the simple meaning.

863 In Jo. 3.19.

864 Cyril attributed the verse to Jeremiah though it is actually found in Amos.
The false attribution of a verse to another writer was likely due to memory error
and indicated the extraordinary erudition of the early church writers who
memorized scripture so commendably.
865 In Jo. 3.19.
866 In Jo. 3.88.
867 Ibid.
868 In Jo. 3.82.
869 In Jo. 3.82–3.
870 In Jo. 3.83.
240 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Cyril used the term shmei/on in the strict sense of “symbol.” This is in
contrast to Origen who suggested that a shmei/on must also be a te,raj
where something extraordinary happened to evoke the faith. 871 Athanasius
used shmei/on in the sense of “miracle” in his Vita Antonii. 872 The Gospel of
John denoted shmei/on to specifically mean a miracle. 873 Though Cyril was
working on the Johannine Gospel and is part of the Alexandrian tradition, it
is clear that he deliberately restricted his use of the term shmei/on to mean,
“symbol.”
eivkw,n. In addition to the previous example under shmei/on we can
demonstrate another example of how Cyril used the word eivkw,n in his
exegesis of Jn 19:32–37. The pericope described the death of Christ on the
cross and a spear piercing his side followed by a flow of blood and water
from the wound in his side. The blood and water in Cyril’s interpretation
was an eivkw,n of the Eucharist (th/j mustikh/j euvlogi,aj) and the holy
baptism (tou/ a`gi,ou bapti,smatoj). 874 The simile was directly represented
without much elaboration or explanation from Cyril. It was a clear eivkw,n
that did not need, in this case—even in Cyril’s elaborate style of writing—
further explanation. The use of eivkw,n to represent sacramental notions
became so common in the church by the time of Cyril that it became
common knowledge that did not need further elaboration. 875
sch/ma. Cyril gave a unique interpretation of the garden of
Gethsemane. The garden was a figure (sch/ma) of or means the paradise of
old (tou/ avrcai,ou paradei,sou). 876 In paradise the beginning of troubles that
affected humanity began, and in a garden the suffering of Christ began. It
was the place where humanity would regain its ancient condition (to.
avrcai/on). 877 Cyril considered the Gethsemane garden as a figure of the old

871 Lampe, 1231.

872 PG 26.925B.
873 The Gospel of John is sometimes named the “Gospel of Signs” since the

word shmei/on is used to mean “miracle” in the following verses: Jn 2:11, 18, 23; 3:2;
4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 20:30.
874 In Jo. 3.103.
875 Lampe, 412.7b. Lampe cited so many early Christian writers who used eivkw,n

in this sense proving Cyril’s unconcern with further elaboration.

876 In Jo. 3.15.
877 Ibid. R. Brown mentioned that Cyril and Aquinas were the only two who

alluded to the garden as a sch/ma of paradise. Brown, The Gospel According to John,
806. But most probably Cyril was the originator of the idea since Cyril was
historically prior to Aquinas. Refer to Bovon for Aquinas’ dependence on Cyril.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 241

one. In the first garden, humanity lost its condition and in the second the
beginning of regaining this condition occurred. In addition to the unique
interpretation, no other writer used the term sch/ma in this sense of
“meaning, interpretation.” 878 Therefore, Cyril used this term in a very
distinct manner.
qewri,a( qewre,w. qewri,a and qewre,w are two words that were used by
Cyril extensively. Since we cited many uses of the term we will suffice to
reference to the previous discussion of the term. 879
Cyril’s use of the terms just discussed indicates that he was extremely
meticulous and particular in his use of words. In addition, he allocated to
each word a special interpretative meaning, and he hardly interchanged the
use of words. A common exegetical term such as tu,poj was used in a very
specific sense of comparison. The figure of Christ was never used in any of
his types though this was a common practice among his predecessors as
well as his contemporaries. Cyril also uniquely appropriated diaskope,w as
an exegetical term while at the same time restricted his use of sch/ma where
the common usage of the term coincided with his exegetical one. In

François Bovon, “From St. Luke to St. Thomas by the Way of St. Cyril,” in Studies
in Early Christianity (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005).
878 Lampe, 1359. In the following two examples Cyril used the term sch/ma in its

strict linguistic sense to indicate “meaning.” In Jo. 1.647 Cyril wrote, sch/ma ga.r tw/|
lo,gw| perite,qeitai baqu,, for a deep meaning lies within this word. Also In Jo.
1.688, Cyril writes, ouvde. avlhqw/j th/j e`orth/j evn evki,noij evsti. to. sch/ma( ei;h d v a;n
ma/llon pragma,twn su,mbola nohtw/n( a[ doqh,setai toi/j euvsebou/si dia. Cristou/,
neither is the true meaning of the feast in these things, but rather is the symbol of
intellectual or spiritual things which shall be given to the pious through Christ. In
both of these examples Cyril used sch/ma in its strict sense of “meaning.” In
contrast to the above example, where it is used to serve an exegetical purpose.
879 Refer to the discussion of In Jo. 1.606; 1.236; 1.305–6; 2.216. In addition

there was a very detailed study regarding the use of the term qewri,a in the works of
Cyril of Alexandria in general, not only that of the Johannine commentary. Francis
Joseph Houdek, “Contemplation in the Life and Works of Saint Cyril of
Alexandria” (Ph.D. diss., University of California Los Angeles, 1979). Houdek
suggested that Cyril used qewri,a in a twofold sense. He used it to represent the act
of contemplation and the other meaning is that it “denotes the hidden mystery of
Scripture which could be only apprehended by the act of contemplation (qewri,a).”
Ibid., 278. This is very similar to what has been concluded in this research. Houdek
did not limit his investigation to exegetical works of Cyril but also the polemical
ones. Kerrigan gave great attention to qewri,a in his study. Kerrigan, Cyril of
Alexandria Interpreter of the Old Testament, 116–122. Due to Houdek’s detailed study
together with that of Kerrigan, this study will refer the reader to their research.
242 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

addition, he was very careful to avoid any miraculous connotation to the

term shmei/on. It is very noteworthy to mention that Cyril never used the
word avllhgore,w or avllhgori.a. 880 For Cyril, scriptures did not describe one

880 Kerrigan referred to a “German scholar, Rücker who remarked that St.
Cyril indulged in “allegorizing” explanations to a far less extent in his Commentary on
St. Luke, than in his Commentaries on the Old Testament and the Gospel of St. John.” He
further commented that the “Alexandrian School” has a “constant preoccupation
with the divinity rather than the humanity when treating the dual nature of Christ.”
Kerrigan, Objects of the Literal and Spiritual Senses, 367–8. It is clear that this comment
comes from a generalized theory that the Alexandrians are “allegorical” in their
interpretations which, in the case of Cyril, is hard to prove. Reuther was astute to
clarify the difference between allegory and type. She writes, “Allegory moves from
the concrete to the abstract, from the historical to the timeless and eternal, whereas
typology remains on the historical level, using past experiences as types of present
experiences, even though it commonly moves from the ‘bodily’ or what Gregory
calls the somatikos level to the inner level (pneumatikos).” She explained further that
allegory transforms past events into symbols of timeless truth. Reuther, Gregory of
Nazianzus as Rhetor, 105. This distinction between allegory and type makes it clear
that Cyril did not use allegory, since we did not find in any example a timeless
symbolic transposition. Any allegory in Cyril would be the exception not the norm.
Thus, the general labeling of the Alexandrian school as allegorical can be very
misleading. In addition, to attribute all dogmatic differences merely to the
hypothetical division of the two schools—the Alexandrian and the Antiochene—to
two competing schools of interpretation and, thus, the cause of many of the
theological problems is a theory that recently has undergone serious revision.
However, the vocabulary of this theory is in so many scholarly works that it will
take a long time to achieve a change. Mckinion summarizes the works of some
scholars and writes that Torrance and F. Young have “called into question the
traditional categories of “literal,” “typological,” and “allegorical” as descriptions of
exegetical systems.” McKinion, 22. F. Young made an interesting comment on
allegory. She writes, “Allegory in its rhetorical usage was a figure of speech among
other figures of speech: it was to speak so as to imply something other than what is
said, and included irony. Often to interpret something allegorically was simply to
recognise metaphor rather than taking something very woodenly according to the
letter. All language signified, and as sign was symbolic. The crucial question was
what it symbolised or referred to.” F. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of
Christian Culture, (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 120. Also refer to H. A.
Blair, “Allegory, Typology and Archetypes,” Studia Patristica 17/1 (1982): 263–8.
Kerrigan agreed that the term avllhgori,a was seldom used in Cyril’s Old Testament
interpretation and he cites only two references (PG 69.140A; 77.484D) of which he
knows that Cyril used the term. Kerrigan, Cyril of Alexandria Interpreter of the Old
Testament, 115. To my knowledge he did not use the term avllhgori,a even once in
his Commentary on John. Kerrigan quoted Danieléou as admitting that “the tendency
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 243

thing using the image of another; rather, the Old Testament was a type of
the truth that is unveiled in the New Testament. It is discovering the
transformation of the type to the truth. It is not an abstract image to convey
another image or message, but rather the type itself holds truth, and
transformation does not diminish or destroy the type. The theory that the
Alexandrian school of interpretation is allegorical does not hold in the case
of Cyril nor is the claim that the Alexandrian School is preoccupied with the
divinity rather than the humanity of the person of Christ.

Cyril’s use of the Old Testament Themes in his New Testament

Interpretation
Cyril’s exposition of the New Testament depended heavily on the use of the
Old Testament. In summation of what was discussed thus far, Cyril used
the Old Testament as reference for proof of his argument. In his polemics
against the heretics, taking the example of his defense against Origen, he
used the Old Testament persons as witnesses of credible characters to
prove his point. His witness characters were Isaiah, Abraham, Hannah,
Hezekiah, and Jeremiah through which he proved the invalidity of having
bodies as a punishment for our sins. His second use of the Old Testament
was a witness of literary authority, substituting for the ancient traditional
witness of Homer and other reputable Greek poets and philosophers. 881
The third use of the Old Testament was in his dogmatic arguments where
we take the example of his proof that the Son is God from God, that is, the
Son is equally divine. When Cyril commented on Jn 8:24 for you will die in
your sins unless you believe that I am he, he explained that if the Son maintains
the ability to redeem us, then he is the Savior. The Son is also light, healer,
forgiver of sins, shepherd, messenger of the covenant, sacrifice, and law.

to discover spiritual sense in every text of Scripture is contrary to true typology,

‘which regards as figures of the New Testament only such episodes as sketch in
broad outline the deeds that Christ will accomplish in their fullness.’ From
typology, thus understood, Père Daniélou distinguishes allegory, which, far from
being a sense of Scripture, is but Christian philosophy and ethics presented in
imagery borrowed from the Bible.” Quoted in Kerrigan, Cyril of Alexandria Interpreter
of the Old Testament, 447–8. Cyril did not have any notions to philosophize, maybe
that is why allegory was not to his taste.
881 The detailed discussion of these conclusions is in Chapter Three under the

subtitle “Argumentation with Heretics.”

244 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Through the discussion of this pericope we observed that all the titles used
to prove the divinity of the Son are Old Testament titles. 882
The last two means of use of the Old Testament in Cyril’s exegesis of
the New Testament was his use of some Old Testament motifs and
pericopes to prove the transference of the type in the Old Testament to the
truth as revealed in the New Testament. The last section in this chapter
revealed that through understanding how Cyril used his spiritual exegetical
terms to indicate such a practice. In addition, there was one more use of the
Old Testament to the same objective, and this was Cyril’s dedication of full
treatise to the following five motifs Moses, Manna, the Tabernacle, 883 the
Sabbath, 884 and circumcision. 885 These treatises were an elaborate means
that Cyril used to transform the type of the Old Testament into the truth of

882 Jn 8:24 was discussed in detail in Chapter Two under the subtitle, “The
Son.”
883 In Jo. 1.562–578. Book Four Chapter Four. The heading of the chapter reads,
“That a type of Christ was in the holy Tabernacle which led the people in the
wilderness, and that the ark was in it and the lamp and the alter, and the incense
signifying Christ himself” In Jo. 1.562. Cyril’s heading indicates the trajectory of the
whole chapter. Cyril also writes that “the historical discourse (will be transferred to)
the spiritual one” (th/j i`stori,aj o` lo,goj evpi. to. pneumatiko,n). In Jo. 1.564. The
heading shows his aim (skopo,j) in the discourse about the tabernacle and he
indicates his method, that is of transferring the i`stori,aj to pneumatiko,n, very
clearly. Holder writes that “both Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Alexandria
developed the christological sense, finding in the tabernacle intimations of the
union of human and divine natures in Christ.” Arthur Holder, “The Mosaic
Tabernacle in Early Christian Exegesis,” Studia Patristica 25 (1993): 104. Holder also
writes that Cyril is the only exegete “whose exposition of the tabernacle
degenerated into full-blown anti-Jewish polemic.” Ibid., 106. As discussed in
Chapter Two of this research if such treatises are taken out of context, they can be
interpreted as anti-Jewish but in context they are to be interpreted that the Jewish
leaders could not understand the truth of the type. Kerrigan made a comparative
study of Cyril’s interpretation of the Tabernacle with that of Philo, Josephus,
Pseudo-Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Pseudo-Athanasius, Jerome,
Pseudo-Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and Theodoret of Cyrus. Kerrigan, Cyril of
Alexandria Interpreter of the Old Testament, 390–419. Cyril wrote another discourse on
the tabernacle in De adoratione in spiritu et veritate 9–11, PG 68:587–782.
884 In Jo. 1.615–627. (Book IV Chapter VI) The heading of the chapter reads, “a

discourse (lo,goj) concerning the rest of the Sabbath, manifoldly showing what is
significant.”
885 In Jo. 1.628–644. (Book IV Chapter VII) Liebaert inaccurately described the

five treatises as “allegorical” treatises. Liébaert, La doctrine christologique, 73. As the

last section concluded that Cyril did not use the term “allegory” in his exegesis.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 245

the New Testament where Christ is the center figure. Following is a detailed
discussion of the two motifs, that of Moses and Manna, taken as an
example to explain Cyril’s way to incur the transformation of the type into
truth.
Moses. 886 The chapter heading reads “That Moses signified
(evsh,mainen) the coming of the Savior. From Deuteronomy concerning
Christ.” 887 The focus of the treaty is on Deut 18:15–19. Cyril considered the
book of Deuteronomy as a kind of repetition (evpana,lhyi,n) and summation
of the arguments (avnakefalai,wsin) of the Mosaic Law and Cyril added
that because of this he will not be able to extract a type (tu,pon) or simile
(eivko,na) of the legal priesthood (nomikh/j i`erougi,aj). 888 The Deuteronomy
passage conveys, in Cyril’s understanding, the mystery of Christ (h`mi/n to.
evpi. Cristw|/ lalei/tai musth,rion). This mystery is present through subtle
contemplation of the likeness of Moses (evx o`moio,thtoj th/j kata. Mwuse,a
dia. leptota,thj qewri,aj). 889 The passage from Deuteronomy conveys to us
that the Israelites could not bear to hear the voice of the Lord or to see the
great fire lest they should die. Therefore, God spoke through a mediator,
that is, Moses, since the elders or assembly or synagogue of the Jews could
not handle to be in a mediative role because these things were above their
power. Thus, the ministry and mediation of Moses was instituted to handle
the infirmity of the Jewish assembly who could not handle the power and
decrees of the Lord. Now that Cyril clarified the type, he proceeded to
transfer the type to the truth (metalh,yh| de. pa,lin to.n tu,pon evpi. th.n
avlh,qeian). 890 Therefore, the image of mediation (th.n th/j mesitei,aj

886 In Jo. 1.391–6. (Book III Chapter III). Cyril wrote another exposition on
Moses in the Glaphyra in Exod. 1.2–3. PG 69.386C–392B. This section will be
limited to the Johannine text. McGuckin mentioned that in the introduction of the
Glaphyra at the beginning of the treatise about Moses, Cyril “marks out three focal
points of interest in regard to the Moses-type, around which he organises most of
his material in the book.” John McGuckin, “Moses and the ‘Mystery of Christ’ in
St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Exegesis,” Coptic Church Review 21 (2000): 30. This side
comment indicates the system of “invention” and “arrangement” in Cyril’s writings
where he sets his thesis and begins to prove it. Cyril also referred to Moses with his
polemics against Nestorius in ACO I,1,6,39.4–48.31.
887 In Jo. 1.391.
888 Ibid. Cyril did not elaborate to explain more the connection between the

summary of the Law and his inability to find types and similes. But at least, we can
understand that he thought that he was expected to find such contemplations in
this text.
889 Ibid.
890 In Jo. 1.392.
246 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

eivko,na) presented by Cyril was that Moses is considered a type (tu,poj) of

Christ ministering to the children of Israel. The distinction was that Moses’
ministry was mediative while that of Christ was free and more mystical
(mustikwte,ra). 891
Another distinction in the type of Moses is that Christ was a Lawgiver
while Moses was a deliverer of the Law. When Moses writes, 892 I will raise up
for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the
mouth of the prophet who shall speak to them everything that I command (Deut 18:18)
it was Christ who was alluded to since he became flesh making himself like
us. 893 The text Cyril utilized reads the verse like me upon which he continues
his interpretation that the likeness between the prophet that will be raised is
that both, the prophet and God, are lawgivers. The proof that the prophet
mentioned in the verse is a Lawgiver is in the following verse, you have heard
that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you ….(Mt 5:27) thus
both God and Christ are lawgivers. If they believed Moses, they would have
believed Christ concerning whom all this prophecy is said. 894
Cyril concluded his treatise on Moses by stating that the writings of
Moses introduce a kind of instruction, for through them the typical form of
the mystery of Christ is revealed (ouvkou/n ta. me.n Mwuse,wj gra,mmata(
paidagwgi,an tina. kai. to.n dia. tu,pou schmatismo.n tw/n evpi. Cristw|/

891 In Jo. 1.393. McGuckin writes, “Christ, for Cyril, is certainly not a ‘New

Moses’, rather the supreme Mediator who displaces the outmoded and partial type
of Moses’ mediation.” John McGuckin, “Moses and the ‘Mystery of Christ’ in St.
Cyril of Alexandria’s Exegesis,” 29. McGuckin’s opinion might be in response or
have just taken into consideration Armendariz’ book whose thesis is Christ being
the new Moses. Luís M. Armendariz, El Nuevo Moises, Estudios ser. 3, vol. 5 (Madrid:
Ediciones Fax, 1962). There is a detailed discussion of Armendariz book in Cassel,
Cyril of Alexandria and the Science of the Grammarians, 25–29. Liébaert writes that
Moses’ mediation is ministerial while that of Christ is mystical. Liébaert, La Doctrine
Christologique, 221.
892 The general consensus of the early Church fathers considered Moses the

writer of the Pentateuch without considering any other options.

893 Textual criticism at this point is critical. The Cyrillian text of Deut 18:18

reads as follows, ovrqw/j pa,nta o[sa evla,lhsan( profh,thn auvtoi/j avnasth,sw w[sper
se. kai. qh,sw ta. r`h,mata, mou evp v auvtw/|( kai. lalh,sei auvtoi/j kata. pa,nta o[sa a;n
evntei,lwmai auvtw|./ The biblical verse says that God will raise a prophet like you
w[sper se, that is, like us human beings. While Cyril’s following comments
interprets the verse as if it is written “w`j evme” which implied that God will raise a
prophet like himself, that is, God.
894 In Jo. 1.393–4.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 247

mustihri,wn eivsfe,rei). 895 However, the fulfillment of the teachings of the

law is Christ (te,loj de. paideu,sewj nomikh/j o` Cristo.j). 896
All the terms used in this treatise were a combination of the terms we
discussed separately in the previous section. We can understand the
mechanism of Cyril’s reasoning in this treatise. Deut 18:15–19 is an Old
Testament verse written with a prophecy to promise a prophet. This
prophet was not Moses, though Moses provides a type. Both Christ and
Moses were mediators between God and the people. This mediation at the
same time conveyed the inferiority of the people to accept the words of
God. However, Christ is much more than Moses, he is a lawgiver, he is
equal to God, he is God. He is the fulfillment of the teachings of the Law.
He is the ultimate mediator who replaces those who preceded him, whether
Moses or other prophets. The argument in this treatise did not flow very
easily since Cyril was forced to change the verse’s text to follow the
argument. He made the text accommodate his logic, but at least we know
that he tried hard to make his logic plausible.
The Manna. 897 The heading of the chapter is “Concerning the Manna,
that it was a type (tu,poj) of Christ’s presence (parousi,aj) and of the
spiritual graces through him.” 898 Again Cyril sets the aim of his treatise
explicitly expressed in the heading, he was going to transfer the type into
reality, where the manna is a type of Christ. Cyril began his treatise with a
confirmation of the previous conclusion, from the treatise on Moses, that
Moses was a mediator and not a wonder worker. The performance of
miracles is reserved to the Son and to the Father. Moses is the minister of
the miracles, but not the bestower of them. It is not only that the small
miracles do not belong to Moses, it also should not be compared to the
greater miracle, that is, that of the bread from heaven (to.n a;rton evx

895 In Jo. 1.395.

896 In Jo. 1.395–6. Wilken reviewed the discussion of Deut 18 in connection with
Jn 5:46 and Jn 9:28–9 in Wilken, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind, 65–7 but, as
the title of the book indicates, within the context of Jewish polemics. Wilken also
referred to Moses being the “minister of types and shadows…. Christ a Son and
Lord became the arbitrator of a new covenant. I say new for it is renewing
[anamorgou,shj] man to newness of holy life and through the evangelical way of life
he is esteemed a true worshiper.” He adds, “Our Lord Jesus Christ transformed
[metacara,ttwn] the things which were in types into truth.” Ador. 17. PG 68:1097C–
D in Wilken, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind, 74.
897 In Jo. 1.456–481. Book III Chapter VI.
898 In Jo. 1.456.
248 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

ouvranou/). 899 The manna is nothing else than the Only-Begotten Word of
God himself who proceeds (evrco,menoj) from the essence of the Father
since he is by nature life and quickens all things. 900 To confirm his assertion,
Cyril decided to begin his proof that the manna is Christ, where Christ is
given under the type of manna (evn tu,pw| tw|/ ma,nna). 901 He declared his
thesis and began to prove it.
Cyril began with Ex 16:1–3 where the people of Israel are rallying
against Moses and preferring to have remained in Egypt eating from their
fleshpots and having their full of bread. Cyril considered the literal meaning
(ivstori,aj) clear and thus proceeded directly to the spiritual one (to.
pneumatiko,n). Egypt is darkness and can be considered as the condition of
the present life and the worldly state. Lusting for Egypt is lusting for the
pleasures of the flesh. 902 However, once the law of God (o` tou/ Qeou/
no,moj) speaks to our minds and hearts (nou/n) we abandon the bitter things
and get supply for our spiritual journey, that is, grace and security through
the precious blood (di v ai[matoj tou/ timi,ou) of Christ. 903
Cyril combined Ex 16:4 I am going to rain bread from heaven for you with Ps
78:24–5, he rained down on them manna to eat, and gave them the grain of heaven.
Mortals ate of the bread of angels: he sent them food in abundance. Cyril explained
that the reasonable power in heaven (o[ti tw/n evn toi/j ouvranoi/j duna,mewn
logikw/n) is the Son; he is then the manna. 904 He most probably connected
the “bread of angels” as the “powers” in heaven and from there he
connected them with the divine power. Within this line of interpretation
Cyril decided to digress for the second time and posed the question as to
why God, who loves virtue, delayed punishment to those who craved in
Num 11:34. His answer is that those who came out of Egypt had not yet
received the heavenly manna, that is why their punishment was delayed, but
those who already partook of the Lord’s bread and transgressed then they
were severely punished. 905 Here he was arguing for the divine powers
imbedded in the bread from heaven and that this bread has a power to
sustain against transgressing the law. Though Cyril said that he digressed, in
reality it was the continuation of the previous point, he seemed to be
apologizing for stretching it further.

899 In Jo. 1.457.

900 In Jo. 1.458.
901 In Jo. 1.459.
902 In Jo. 1.459–460.
903 In Jo. 1.460.
904 In Jo. 1.461.
905 In Jo. 1.462.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 249

The daily gathering of the manna as described in Ex 16:4 considers the

reasonable manna as a type of the perceptual or spiritual manna (eivj tu,pon
tou/ ma,nna tou/ nohtou/ to. aivsqhto.n logiou,meqa). 906 The spiritual manna
signifies (katashmai,nei) Christ himself. For this reason the gathering was
daily, so that nothing would be kept for the morrow; this shows through a
riddle (di v aivnigma,twn ))) u`podhlw/n) that when the time of salvation
comes and the Only-Begotten appears in the flesh in the world all legal
types will be abolished (katarghqh,sontai pa,ntwj oi` dia. tou/ no,mou
tu,poi). 907 Again, the type will be abolished, or transferred to the true flesh
and thus the old, that is, the old manna, need not be retained.
On the sixth day, the people gathered manna for two days (Ex 16:5).
On the seventh day, which signifies (shmai,nei) the time of the advent of
Christ, the true bread is among us and we do not need any further gathering
of manna. 908 Again, the manna is not needed when the true bread of life is
present; the truth replaces the type.
In Ex 16:6–8, the quail signifies (shmai,vei) the Law for birds fly low
over the earth. Therefore, those who are instructed through the Law (tou.j
dia. no,mou paidagwgoume,nouj) have a more earthly piety through types
(cqamalwte,ran dia. tu,pwn qeose,beian) such as the sacrifice and
purification rites. 909 The verse notes that the quail was given in the evening
therefore signifying (shmai,nontoj) the darkness of the letter (to. evn tw|/
gra,mmati skoteino.n). 910 In the morning, the people of Israel gathered the
manna; thus when the night disappears and the spiritual sun (h`li,ou tou/
nohtou/) rises, then we receive the bread from heaven, that is, Christ. 911 For
Christ is the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets (te.loj ga.r no,mou kai.
profhtw/n o` Cristo.j). 912 Cyril gave attention to the significance of every
detail in the Exodus narrative, even morning and evening played a role in
the transference of the type into truth.
Ex 16:13,14 describes the manna to be lying around the camp signifying
that the spiritual food is available for all nations, that is, the Church of the
Gentiles (th/j evx evqnw/n vEkklhsi,aj). 913 In Ex 16:15 Cyril used the literal
exegesis to work his spiritual one. In the verse, the children of Israel ask

906 In Jo. 1.463.

907 In Jo. 1.463.
908 Ibid.
909 In Jo. 1.464–5.
910 In Jo. 1.465.
911 Ibid.
912 In Jo. 1.466.
913 Ibid.
250 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

“what is it?” Cyril explained, most probably based on Ex 16:31, that what
was said in the form of a question is made the name of the thing and called
it in the Syriac tongue (kai. th|/ Zu,rwn avpokalou/si glw,tth| Ma,nna) manna,
that is, what is it? 914 To this question Cyril concluded that this proves that
the Jews did not know Christ. Even in his presence they ask, “who is he?”
It was not common for Cyril to comment on the literal meaning of a word
in this fashion, but it just shows that when he found an occasion to be
innovative in his style, though not very often, he did not hesitate to do so.
Ex 16:19,20 again mentions the manna being left to the morning,
where Cyril resumed the morning theme and wrote that this signifies the
bright light (to.n lampro.n) of the Savior. 915 When the bright light of the
morning appears, the shadow of the Law disappears. Those who kept the
manna till the morning are a type of the Jewish multitudes who did not
believe and desired to keep the Law to the letter and thus produced what is
rotten and eaten by worms. 916 Cyril was not only showing that the law is
transformed, but that even for those who cling to it, it does not do any
good; furthermore it will produce corruption. Nothing good will come out
of keeping the old law. Christ leads to incorruption, the law leads to utter
corruption.

914 In Jn. 1.466. The Harper Collins Study Bible footnotes manna to be the

Aramaic/Syriac (man hu) that is the literal meaning of “what is it?” (Translation
comments on Ex 16:15). This clarifies the meaning of Ex 16:31, The house of Israel
called it manna, thus naming the strange food given to them from heaven “what is
it,” that is, “man hu” (manna). Cyril’s knowledge of such Syriac linguistic nuances
was not common. Payne Smith commented on Lk 6:17 where Cyril gives a detailed
explanation for the meaning of the names of the Apostles. Smith followed the
theory that Cyril read Jerome and thus points out the Apostles’ names that Cyril
copied from Jerome. In addition, he commented that Cyril got some of the names
wrong. Commentary upon the Gospel According to S. Luke, by S. Cyril Patriarch of
Alexandria, 128. On another occasion Cyril commented on Lev 16:8 and explains
the meaning of the goat “sent away,” regarding which Smith seized an opportunity
to prove that Cyril did not know Hebrew. Smith writes, “Therefore, not being
acquainted with Hebrew, Cyril gives it another meaning of which the Greek may
possibly admit: namely, that two lots were written for the goats, inscribed with two
names.” Ibid., 234. On another note, these are two examples of Cyril following the
rhetorical principles of writing and giving an explanation of difficult words or
names.
915 In Jo. 1.467.
916 Ibid.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 251

Ex 16:33 And Moses said to Aaron, “Take a jar, 917 and put an omer of manna
in it, and place it before the Lord, to be kept throughout your generations, speaks about
the manna hidden in a jar. Cyril interpreted this to be the hidden wisdom in
the inspired scriptures. He who treasures this manna treasures Christ in his
heart. The point of comparison being as the manna is treasured in the jar,
so is the spiritual manna, which is a type of Christ himself, treasured in the
believer’s heart. Cyril explained that the golden jar is the pious soul that
works with the Word of God. Thus, the righteous person is described as
having in a golden vessel, the spiritual manna. This spiritual manna, that is
Christ, attained within us, leads us to incorruption. 918 This is where Cyril’s
theology that stressed that Christ’s salvific act leads humanity to the
newness of life and incorruption is fully manifested in his exegesis.
At this point Cyril ended his treatise on the manna. It is followed by Jn
6:34 where the disciples ask him to give them this bread. After some
explanation Cyril concluded that Christ was drawing his disciples away from
carnal imagination where they perceived themselves living on earth with a
filled belly. 919 At this point he compared the demand of the disciples for
bread, and the demand of the Samaritan woman for water. 920 Both thought
that when they asked for bread or water they would have no need to ever
worry again. Cyril commented that she did not understand the spiritual
fountain, nor did the disciples understand the spiritual manna. Though Cyril
ended the full treatise on the manna, that is, by explaining the Exodus text,
he still carried on the thought to the end of the chapter where he linked the
rest of the events with the manna.
For example, on Jn 6:35 Cyril wrote that God fed the people of Israel
with manna while Moses was alive. When Moses died, Joshua, his

917 Cyril wrote the verse describing the jar as a “golden jar” based on the LXX

text, not the Masoretic text, on the basis of which St. Paul writes in Heb 9:4, In it
stood the golden altar of incense and the ark of the convent overlaid on all sides with gold, in which
there were a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the
covenant. Both Cyril and Paul were Septuagint readers.
918 In Jo. 1.469.
919 In Jo. 1.470.
920 Cyril’s introduction of the comparison between the Samaritan woman and

her asking for water with the story of the disciples in this chapter asking for bread
was very interesting. For the Jewish tradition connected the manna as a heavenly
food to the “water of life” as in Rev 7:17; 21:6; 22:1,17. Balz, Exegetical Dictionary of
the New Testament, 2.384. Was Cyril aware of this tradition and connected the manna
to the water of life in the story of the Samaritan woman based on this tradition with
some emendations, or is it his own interpretive genius?
252 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

successor, guided the Israelites across the river Jordan and once they
reached the Promised Land the manna ceased. Joshua ( vIhsou/j) is the type
of the true Christ. 921 When Moses died, that meant the end of the Law and
Jesus (Joshua) appeared to us, the true Jesus (who saved his people from
sin) led us across the Jordan. 922 Once we enter the Promised Land we do
not need the manna but the Bread of Life. Finally, when Cyril interprets Jn
6:55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink he contrasts the mystic
blessing (th.n mustikh.n euvlogi,an) with the supply of manna. 923
The examples of Moses and manna give us a clear understanding of
the last form of Cyril’s use of the Old Testament. When he was explaining a
verse in the New Testament that can be clarified by elaborating on an Old
Testament type, he transformed it to the truth in the New Testament,
which mostly focuses on Christ being the truth of all Old Testament
types. 924

Conclusion
Cyril regards his spiritual exegesisas his te,loj: it does not represent merely
the exegete’s intention (his sko,poj), but the fulfillment, the realization of
that intention. He consistently began with the literal exegesis, or i`stori,a.
His use of the spiritual terms indicated that the interpretation that Cyril was
undertaking was not merely to explain the meaning of difficult words and
expand on the i`stori,a or clarify the names of geographical places and
detect grammatical problems as secular interpreters did. Rather, it was an

921 In Jo. 1.473. It has been written with this meaning, the humility (sunesta,lh)

of Moses, that is to say (toute,stin) the type that is obedient to the shining model
(o[te th/j kata. no,mon latrei,aj h;rghsan oi` tu,poi), is the true Joshua ( vIhsou/j),
that is, Christ. Toute,stin is the typical Cyrillian terminology to announce some sort
of definition or a matter of fact. Discussed in Cyril’s style Chapter III. Cyril was
trying to say that Moses, who is a very simple (sunesta,lh) type of Christ, was
followed by Joshua who was thus transferred to the true type of Christ.
922 In Jo. 1.473.
923 In Jo. 1.533.
924 R. Wilken, “St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Mystery of Christ in the Bible,” Pro

Ecclesia 4 (1995): 454–478. Wilken’s article is important for Cyril’s interpretation of

the Old Testament. McKinion adopted a different method of approach where he
focused on Cyril’s images such as the Ark of the Covenant, Burning Bush, Mercy
Seat, Rod of Moses to “demonstrate the supreme importance of reading these
images as analogies, and not Christological descriptions.” McKinion, 141. He later
on writes, “Cyril does not extract from analogies the faith but rather uses them to
demonstrate what he believes.” Ibid., 47.
 CYRIL’S SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS 253

undertaking, that included all the previously mentioned characteristics, but

in addition, the deeper, spiritual, hidden, and enigmatic meaning of the
passage. It was aimed at the spiritual meaning of the text. The text was a
sacred text and its aim was to reveal the nature of the divine and to lead the
believers to a spiritual and moral life. 925
A closer look at the arrangement and invention of the text clarifies this
point. The outward procedure of exegesis followed the rhetorical model
and might deceive the plain reader that it was an exercise in rhetoric.
However, a closer look revealed to the reader that Cyril constructs his
arrangement around revealing the hidden meaning of the text. His division
of chapters was geared to focus on the spiritual aspect. Within his general
arrangement of Book Three of the commentary, he set one chapter and part
of another to exclusively spiritual interpretation. He included them within
his arrangement to convey to the reader the best possible understanding of
the transference of the type to the truth. He even wrote in his introduction
to the chapter that we took as a working example—Chapter Three—to alert
his readers that he was “swimming in the deep and wide sea of divine
contemplation.” It was a special type of exegesis, not limited to i`stori,a but
reaching beyond to divine contemplation. The detailed analysis of Book
Three conducted in this chapter reveals how his exegesis was carefully
crafted to convey the spiritual message.
Cyril’s use of terms indicated his careful choice of terminology. He
completely avoided the terms avllhgore,w or avllhgori.a because he never
intended his spiritual exegesisto be an allegory. His choice of words
indicated that his spiritual exegesisfocuses on transferring the type tu,poj in
the Old Testament to the truth of Christ. This type was sometimes
shrouded in mystery (musth,rion) or was hidden (kru,ptw) and thus we have
to search and contemplate (qewri,a( qewre,w) to reach the true meaning.
The true meaning could also be written in the form of an enigma (ai;nigma)
purposely and Cyril’s attempt is to discover and unveil the type. Some texts
seem to be simple, but spiritual pneumatiko,j exegesis has to look for the

925 Cassel argued that there are three principles upon which Cyril’s exegesis is

based. First, he viewed the Bible as a unified book the culmination of which is in
the coming of Christ and this governs the interpretation. Second, he followed the
rules of the grammarians in his exegesis. Third, the grammar of the passage
regulated allegorical interpretation. J. D. Cassel, “Key Principles in Cyril of
Alexandria’s Exegesis,” Studia Patristica 37 (2001): 420. The third principle was hard
to prove, though the grammar of a passage was crucial and Cyril never forces a
meaning on the text, but the spiritual interpretation was based on the presence of a
type of Christ or not, not the grammar.
254 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

deeper ba,quj sense and know what it signifies shmei/on. He also explained
the simile eivkw,n and figures sch/ma in the text that pointed directly to the
person of Christ. His means to reach these spiritual meanings was through a
careful examination of the text in different ways diaskope,w. Cyril’s
terminology revealed his method and his method was shaped by his choice
of terms.
Cyril depended heavily on the Old Testament as his source for proving
his dogmas and the Christian faith. He is constantly facing the Jewish
opposition in the very heated situation in Alexandria, so his use of the Old
Testament is crucial in polemics. In addition, the Old Testament was his
credible source of proof, and witness to his arguments. In summary, Cyril
uses the Old Testament in four basic ways. The Old Testament was used to
provide the credible witness that testifies on Cyril’s behalf. The Old
Testament was the authoritative literary witness that substituted for the
ancient literary witness. Moreover, the Old Testament provided Cyril with
the dogmatic material to use in his polemics as in his use of the Old
Testament titles of the divine. Finally, the Old Testament was the very
fertile place that provided the types that reveal to us the true Christ when
we meet him in the New Testament.
Cyril’s spiritual exegesis was the aim of his endeavors. His use of
literary tools was his means of conveying this spiritual meaning to his
readers.
CONCLUSION

The early Christian writers were the archivists, formulators, and transmitters
of church dogma and history for the early years of Christianity. The literary
heritage that was handed down to us is the product of their arduous effort
to put this early world on paper. Though modern day Christians and
interested researchers would like to see more of this world presented and
recorded, we have to reconstruct the world of the early church through
what is presently available. This work has focused on one of these writers,
Cyril of Alexandria, and has paid close attention to his Commentary on the
Gospel of John. Since Cyril was a prolific writer and his literary activity
spanned his lifetime, the focus on the Johannine commentary served the
following interests.
Cyril’s fame arose from the Nestorian controversy, and most research
has been focused on this aspect of his life. However, this aspect of his
career is limited to the later Christological debate related to Nestorius, it
focuses on the latter part of Cyril’s life, whether existential or literary, and it
focused on the dogmatic aspect of his writings. Although those are
significant, Cyril was much more than that. He was primarily an exegete
who formed his theological understanding through lengthy studies of
biblical books and through erudite investigation of scripture. He
documented the outcome of this erudition in his commentaries that
constituted more than seventy percent of his writings. Most, if not all, of
these commentaries were written before the Nestorian controversy that
forced him to shift his literary attention to the more pressing demands of
his church—fighting heretical teachings—especially those of Nesotirus. To
remedy this deficiency in research, a closer look at an early commentary of
Cyril is expected to balance and fill some of the gaps of Cyrillian studies.
The first step of investigation is to suggest a date for the commentary
under investigation. This posed a greater question, at what stages of their
lives did early church writers actually begin writing? What were the factors
that contributed to their literary creation? Were these factors more secular
or ecclesial? Therefore, an investigation of the formative years of Cyril was
256 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

crucial to understanding the tradition and milieu within which Cyril’s mind
budded with these great biblical insights. The scanty information about
Cyril’s early years was able to provide us with the following depiction of
Cyril’s life.
Cyril’s family moved from the southern to the northern part of Egypt.
This move allowed his uncle Theophilus, from an early age, to be in close
contact with the church and receive special attention from St. Athanasius,
the archbishop of the Church of Alexandria at the time. When Theophilus
became archbishop, Cyril was still a child and Theophilus, following the
tradition of the time and the footsteps of his predecessors, took care of the
young Cyril’s upbringing. Cyril spent his formative years primarily in the
patriarchal residence in Alexandria. There he was able to take advantage of
great educational opportunities present in the patriarchate. For instance, he
received private tutoring in the residence—private education was a very
common practice of the time. His writings indicate that he reached a high
level of education; therefore, we can suggest that he went through the entire
curriculum of Greek paideia of his time. This curriculum consisted of three
seven-year periods. This also indicates that he would have finished his
secular education by the age of twenty-one at the latest. During the time of
Cyril, the part of the Greek paideia represented in the gymnasium and its
physical activity was replaced with spiritual education. This replacement
indicates the influence of Christianity on the Greek educational system.
Historical accounts inform us that Cyril attained his moral education when
he spent five years in the Nitrean desert. His stay in the desert inducted him
into biblical studies as historical accounts indicate to us. Serapion the Wise
was the most plausible mentor during his stay in the desert. When the
Origenist controversy broke out, Cyril’s spiritual education was abruptly
ended and he was summoned to Alexandria where he resumed and finished
his literary education. Therefore, he was ready to begin his career.
It is most probable that at this stage of his life he was appointed a
reader and the Gospel-exegete of the patriarchate. He had all the faculties
required for this position. Cyril completed his literary education and
received a scriptural insight during his stay in the Nitrean desert. Reading in
these early years required the reader to be a good exegete. He thus began
putting his thoughts in writing. This is when he began writing his first
commentary, his commentary on the Gospel of John. We know that around
year 406, at the age of twenty-eight, he began his literary activity. Therefore,
we can safely suggest that The Commentary on the Gospel of John was written
around that time.
 CONCLUSION 257

The commentary is a dogmatic exegetical work. Thus, an investigation

of the dogma and exegesis of the commentary is the first place to begin.
The Johannine Gospel is a theological Gospel and throughout church
history has been a major source of theological inquiry and statements.
Therefore, Cyril’s exegesis of John can give us a comprehensive and
representative idea of his theological beliefs. Cyril’s main theological
framework is the Trinity. A researcher cannot understand Cyril’s
Christology if there is no understanding of the Trinity. For Cyril, the
Christian God is a Trinitarian God. What distinguishes Christianity from
any other religions is its firm assertion of the Trinity. If the Trinity is not
important, the divinity would not have revealed itself in three persons nor
would it have been necessary to be baptized in the name of the Trinity, that
is, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The emphatic
revelation of the three persons through scripture obliges a Christian to
believe, contemplate, and publicly confess the Trinity. After explaining the
imperative belief in the Trinity, Cyril then presented his main thesis about
the interrelationship of the three persons. All things are from the Father
through the Son in the Holy Spirit. All activity of the Trinity is understood
within this formulation while maintaining an extremely strong emphasis on
the oneness of the Trinity and the oneness of its activity. Cyril spoke about
each person of the Trinity within this framework. Thus, Cyril explained
how the creation, Incarnation, and redemption are all Trinitarian activities.
Within this Trinitarian understanding, Cyril emphasized in his
commentary the equality of each person of the Trinity. The Son is equal to
the Father and the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and the Son. Therefore,
by affirming the equality of the Son he reduced even further the validity of
the Arian argument and, by affirming the equality and the divinity of the
Holy Spirit, he diminished the Macedonian argument (though he never
mentioned it by name).
In light of the oneness of the Trinity that Cyril affirmed, we
understand the Son’s work in the Incarnation and redemption. Cyril
explained that the aim of the Incarnation is to condemn sin in the flesh, to
overcome death, and through the regeneration of the Spirit become
children of God. The Son is the Creator and Life and when he is united
with the flesh and takes it as his own, he bestows life to those who believe
in him. The Son gives humanity the newness of life. The unity of the Word
with his body is not separated at any time after the Incarnation. Even after
the ascension one cannot divide Christ into two. This unity and the oneness
of Christ is not only preserved during the ascension, it still persists even
when the Son of Man descends from heaven. The indivisibility of the
258 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

humanity from the divinity of the Incarnate Word persists at all times and
under all conditions. The indivisibility and oneness of the Son has to be
preserved not only within his own nature but also within the Trinity. Thus,
the rise of the Nestorian duality of the nature of the Son was not only a
threat to the nature of the Son but also it has very serious implications on
the nature of the Trinity itself. Understanding the Trinitarian concept of
Cyril gives us a clear insight to Cyril’s relentless fight against Nestorius. He
was fighting not only to preserve the oneness of Christ, but also to preserve
the oneness of the Trinity. In effect, he was fighting to preserve the essence
of the Christian deity.
The nature and work of the Holy Spirit was greatly emphasized in the
Commentary on John. Cyril explained that the Holy Spirit is God and those
who partake of the Holy Spirit are partakers of God. Those who willingly
accept the Spirit to dwell in their hearts also intellectually perceive the
divine. The indwelling of the Spirit is the beginning of the newness of life.
Cyril clearly wrote that it is the Spirit of the Son and is in the Son. This is
different from saying that the Spirit is of the Son. The Spirit of the Son is
implanted in humanity and sanctifies it. Humanity received the Spirit during
creation, after the fall the sanctification of the Holy Spirit departed from
humanity but after the resurrection and after the ascension, the Father
bestowed the Holy Spirit, through the Son to humanity once again. The
restoration of humanity is the aim of the Incarnation, and is the aim of the
Trinity where all things were from the Father through the Son in the Holy
Spirit.
The Trinity is the main focus of the dogmatic aspect of the dogmatic
exegetical Johannine commentary. The second part of the work must deal
with the exegetical aspect of the commentary. Cyril followed the
conventional Greek secular method of commentaries. This included writing
the verse that is to be commented upon, and then proceeding to explain all
aspects of the text. However, the choice of the verse included exegesis as
well, for texts were written in continuous script and division of the text was
part of the exegetical procedure. After the division of the text was decided,
Cyril, as well as other secular professional commentators, began to
comment on the text following rhetorical rules. This procedure included
explaining grammatical problems, difficult words, or geographical locations
and historical facts, and all other complex aspects of the text. This was the
grammarians work. Applying these grammatical te,cnh to the Johannine
commentary we discovered that Cyril followed all the grammarian’s te,cnh.
He showed exceptional attention to verse division, grammar, great interest
in geography, and attention to historical aspects of the texts. These
 CONCLUSION 259

grammarian’s aspects also showed that the literary exercise in the

commentary had a great impact on the theological outcome of the exegesis.
For examples the effect of o[ ge,gonen on the division of Jn 1:3,4 or as in the
case of Jn 5:36–38 and Jn 6:27 where division is consequential on
interpretation. Another example is that of Jn 20:11–30 where the division
depended on the role of the character in the pericope. Cyril also paid great
attention to grammatical nuances, as in the case of the definite article, or
remarks on punctuation. His special attention to geography attracted the
attention of many researches and this literary aspect had its impact on his
exegetical understanding of texts.
Cyril’s literary style was complex and his arguments lengthy. His
vocabulary was difficult, and in addition he used unfamiliar words and
coined many composite words of his own. Because of this characteristic
style and because he was not an orator who used flowery expressions and
artistic imagery, there has been relatively little research devoted to the
literary aspect in his work. Attention was given to orators like the
Cappadocians, John Chrysostom, and others and the research on these
orators is primarily confined to a study of style. Nevertheless, style is only
one aspect of the five parts of speech in Greek rhetoric. Studying the
literary work of a writer should include the investigation of the five parts of
speech, that is, to investigate also his invention and arrangement.
Cyril proved to be extremely crafty in invention and arrangement.
Since the genre of the text is a commentary, he was bound to follow the
text closely but within this framework he exhibited great art in utilizing
different kinds of speech. Within the commentary framework the reader
can find full rhetorical treatises on different topics as if they form a separate
literary entity. In his argumentation with heretics he followed very closely
the forensic rhetoric, with a Christian flavor. In his arrangement and
invention he divided his text on a theological basis. In his division of a
scene, which was usually based on the exit of the characters from the scene,
Cyril used the exit theologically, to represent exit from the presence of the
Jewish leaders, or exit from the scene of Jewish locations such as Jerusalem
to indicate that this meant the departure of grace from the Jews who are
unwilling to accept his proclamation.
Even if Cyril’s exegesis was limited to the literary aspects just
enumerated, his work would still have been a literary masterpiece. But that
is not all that Cyril wanted to produce. He was a Christian teacher who was
appointed as a Gospel-exegete and he was working on a sacred text. The
aim of the sacred text was to give spiritual guidance to those who believe in
it and give the basic theological beliefs to the community. Thus, Cyril’s
260 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

commentary cannot be addressed within the confines of literary work. The

commentary set the foundation of a strong Trinitarian theology and in
addition this text provides a spiritual aspect. Cyril was aware of this aspect
and he constantly elaborated on the deeper spiritual meaning of the text.
After he explicated the text from the literary point of view, Cyril directed
the attention of his readers to the deeper, spiritual, hidden, and enigmatic
meaning of the passage. He completely avoided allegorical interpretation.
He constantly indicated that his spiritual exegesisfocused on transforming
the type in the Old Testament to the truth of Christ. Since such truths are
sometimes shrouded in mystery therefore the work of the Christian
interpreter, and any able person who could do that, was to contemplate the
true meaning and reveal it to others. The type of Christ is sometimes
shrouded in mystery or hidden and the true meaning is revealed through
contemplation. The true meaning could be written purposely enigmatically
or could be written in simple texts that need to be contemplated more in
depth to discover the deeper meaning and understand what it signifies. Old
Testament texts also reveal similes and figures of the person of Christ.
Cyril’s spiritual interpretation was aimed to reveal the type of Christ,
contemplate the mystery, and discover the deep and hidden meaning of
scripture.
Cyril depended greatly on the Old Testament in his exegesis. For Cyril
the Old Testament provided an authoritative source for reference, citations,
and credible characters in his argumentations. Furthermore, the Old
Testament provided Cyril the dogmatic material to use in his polemics. In
addition, the Old Testament gave Cyril the source of his types that reveal to
us the true Christ.
Once the true Christ is revealed, Cyril took his readers to the depth of
this revelation. Christ is the one who reveals the Father. Thus the true
significance of the revelation of the Son is to understand fully the aim of
the Incarnation and redemption. The Incarnation cannot be fully
comprehended without having a deeper understanding of the Trinity.
Because of that, Cyril presented a fully comprehensive understanding of
Christian dogma. This is the reason Cyril called his Johannine Commentary
a “dogmatic exegetical” work. His mastery of the art of rhetoric enabled
him to exegete the Gospel text. He took this art to a further level when he
delved into the deeper meaning of the text and revealed the truth of Christ.
This truth when elaborated in his exegesis led to a spiritual and dogmatic
output. The output is The Commentary on the Gospel of John.
The Commentary on the Gospel of John is the treasure that reveals Cyril’s
full Trinitarian theology and consequently his Christology and
 CONCLUSION 261

Pneumatology. It is an indispensable source for understanding Cyril’s

exegesis with its literary and spiritual aspects. Finally, it is the source to
understand the theological and exegetical framework by which Cyril
approached scripture, dogma, and later heretical confrontations.
APPENDIX

The aim of this appendix is to show the Johannine Gospel text upon which
Cyril worked. Since Cyril worked very closely on the text, it is necessary and
appropriate to present the text that is the focus of the interpretation. In
addition, the appendix gives some indications of Cyril’s exegetical methods.
As previously discussed, the division of the verses is one of the primary
steps in the process of interpretation, therefore, the appendix shows these
divisions. Each paragraph is an entry to an exegetical segment. The chapter
and verse numbers are those of the modern Nestle-Aland edition and are
kept in the text to give a comparative view of how Cyril differed or
coincided with the modern editions’ division. The square brackets indicate a
text missing from Cyril’s working text although present in Nestle-Aland.
The underlined text indicates variant readings.
The following are observations that can be extracted from the text.
Since the art of invention and arrangement are special characteristics of
Cyril’s exegetical work, the appendix shows how Cyril divided the text in his
commentary. It can be observed that John Chapter One and Chapter
Seventeen are chapters with great theological implications; thus, we find it
clear from the commentary division that Cyril gave very special attention to
these two chapters in his commentary. Jn 1:1–4 is interpreted in six
chapters. Jn 17:1–20 is interpreted in nine chapters where the first three
verses take three chapters on their own in comparison to Jn 17:22–18:23
that is interpreted in one chapter.
It should also be noted that in the last book—Book Twelve—the text
divisions are longer. As previously mentioned, Cyril explained, by the end
of the Gospel text, most of the major dogmatic issues and by the last three
chapters of the text he was commenting more briefly. For example, Jn
20:1–9; 21:1–6; 21:7–14 are longer biblical verses combined in one
interpretative segment in comparison to Cyril’s great precision in John 1
and John 17. The division of the biblical text, together with the division of
the commentary chapters are extremely indicative of Cyril’s invention and
arrangement.
264 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

The division of Gospel verses and chapters is meticulous. It is to be

observed that Jn 5:47 takes a chapter of its own in the commentary. Cyril
devoted the chapter to the writings of the Old Testament that the Jewish
leaders believe in and proves this through giving a detailed explanation of
Deut 18:15–18, while Jn 8:23 is divided and explained in two different
chapters.
As previously mentioned, Cyril also perceives the staging of the event
in a different manner. This can be noticed from his division of the text in
comparison to the Nestle-Aland text. If we take the example of Jn 4:13
where Jesus said to her [the Samaritan woman] is the beginning of verse thirteen
considering it as the beginning of the scene. In comparison Cyril puts this
same text at the end of the passage he is to explicate. For the ancient
division, or at least for Cyril, this is the end of a scene, in modern editions,
this is considered the beginning of the event. 926
Cyril, in his exegesis, gave great attention to the presence of the
definite article before the name of vIhsou/j. It should be observed the
number of articles attributed to the name in the Johannine text. It needs
further critical textual research to conclude whether this is Cyril’s addition
to the text or an Alexandrian textual variant. 927 The article in addition to the
name was added four times. 928 In two other instances, one article is added
to o` monogenh.j in Jn 1:18 and to the name of Joseph of Arimathea (o` vIwsh.f
o` avpo. `Arimaqai,aj) in Jn 19:38.

926 The same applies to the following: Jn 4:13, 19, 20, 25, 31, 34, 46 Jn 5:8, 11,
14. Jn 6:2, 7, 10, 53. Jn 8:25. Jn 11:34. Jn 19:15.
927 The following verses have an article added to the name vIhsou/j, Jn 5:1. Jn

6:14, 69. Jn 7:14, 21. Jn 8:58, 59. Jn 9: 35. Jn 11:9, 11, 38, 46, 51. Jn 12: 16, 30, 36.
Jn 13:8, 29, 31, 36, 38. Jn 14:6. Jn 17:1. Jn 18:1, 2, 20, 23. Jn 19:11, 19, 30. Jn 20:15,
16, 17, 24. Jn 21:13, 14.
928 Jn 4:16. Jn 6:6. Jn 18:5 and Jn 21:17.
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

Book One
Chapter One
1:1 VEn avrch/| h=n o` lo,goj(

Chapter Two
kai. o` lo,goj h=n pro.j to.n qeo,n(

Chapter Three
kai. qeo.j h=n o` lo,gojÅ

Chapter Four
1:2 ou-toj h=n evn avrch/| pro.j to.n qeo,nÅ

Chapter Five
1:3 pa,nta diV auvtou/ evge,neto( kai. cwri.j auvtou/ evge,neto ouvde. e[nÅ

Chapter Six
o] ge,gonen 1:4 evn auvtw/| zwh. h=n(

Chapter Seven
kai. h` zwh. h=n to. fw/j tw/n avnqrw,pwn\
1:5 kai. to. fw/j evn th/| skoti,a| fai,nei( kai. h` skoti,a auvto. ouv kate,labenÅ
1:6 VEge,neto a;nqrwpoj avpestalme,noj para. qeou/( o;noma auvtw/|
VIwa,nnhj\1:7 ou-toj h=lqen eivj marturi,an( i[na marturh,sh| peri.
tou/ fwto,j( 929
[i[na pa,ntej pisteu,swsin diV auvtou/Å]
1:8 ouvk h=n evkei/noj to. fw/j( avllV i[na marturh,sh| peri. tou/ fwto,jÅ

929 The first part of Jn 1:7a is repeated again and dealt with separately.
266 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Chapter Eight
1:9 +Hn to. fw/j to. avlhqino,n(

Chapter Nine
o] fwti,zei pa,nta a;nqrwpon( evrco,menon eivj to.n ko,smonÅ
1:10 evn tw/| ko,smw| h=n( 930
kai. o` ko,smoj diV auvtou/ evge,neto(
kai. o` ko,smoj auvto.n ouvk e;gnwÅ
1:11 eivj ta. i;dia h=lqe( kai. oi` i;dioi auvto.n ouv pare,labonÅ
1:12 o[soi de. e;labon auvto,n( e;dwken auvtoi/j evxousi,an te,kna qeou/
gene,sqai( toi/j pisteu,ousin eivj to. o;noma auvtou/(
1:13 oi] ouvk evx ai`ma,twn ouvde. evk qelh,matoj sarko.j ouvde. evk qelh,matoj
avndro.j avllV evk qeou/ evgennh,qhsanÅ
1:14 Kai. o` lo,goj sa.rx evge,neto
kai. evskh,nwsen evn h`mi/n(
kai. evqeasa,meqa th.n do,xan auvtou/( do,xan w`j monogenou/j para. patro,j(
plh,rhj ca,ritoj kai. avlhqei,ajÅ
1:15 VIwa,nnhj marturei/ peri. auvtou/ kai. ke,kragen [le,gwn(]
Ou-toj h=n o]n ei=pon( ~O ovpi,sw mou evrco,menoj e;mprosqe,n mou ge,gonen(
o[ti prw/to,j mou h=nÅ
1:16 o[ti evk tou/ plhrw,matoj auvtou/ h`mei/j pa,ntej evla,bomen
kai. ca,rin avnti. ca,ritoj\1:17 o[ti o` no,moj dia. Mwu?se,wj evdo,qh( h` ca,rij
kai. h` avlh,qeia dia. VIhsou/ Cristou/ evge,netoÅ

Chapter Ten
1:18 qeo.n ouvdei.j e`w,rake pw,pote\ o` monogenh.j qeo.j o` w'n eivj to.n ko,lpon
tou/ patro.j evkei/noj evxhgh,satoÅ
1:19 Kai. au[th evsti.n h` marturi,a tou/ VIwa,nnou( o[te avpe,steilan Îpro.j
auvto.nÐ oi` VIoudai/oi evx ~Ierosolu,mwn i`erei/j kai. Leui,taj i[na
evrwth,swsin auvto,n( Su. ti,j ei=È 1:20 kai. w`molo,ghse kai. ouvk
hvrnh,sato( kai. w`molo,ghsen o[ti VEgw. ouvk eivmi. o` Cristo,jÅ
1:21 kai. hvrw,thsan auvto,n( Ti, ou=nÈ [Su,] VHli,aj ei=È kai. le,gei( Ouvk eivmi,Å
~O profh,thj ei= su,È kai. avpekri,qh( Ou;Å
[1:22 ei=pan ou=n auvtw/|( Ti,j ei=È i[na avpo,krisin dw/men toi/j pe,myasin h`ma/j]
ti, su. le,geij peri. seautou/È1:23 [e;fh(] VEgw. fwnh. bow/ntoj evn th/| evrh,mw|(
[Euvqu,nate th.n o`do.n kuri,ou( kaqw.j ei=pen VHsai<aj o` profh,thjÅ]
1:24 Kai. avpestalme,noi h=san evk tw/n Farisai,wnÅ

930 Jn 1:10a is explained within the text of verse nine. In Jo. 1.112.
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 267

[1:25 kai. hvrw,thsan auvto.n kai. ei=pan auvtw/|( Ti, ou=n bapti,zeij eiv
su. ouvk ei= o` Cristo.j ouvde. VHli,aj ouvde. o` profh,thjÈ1:26
avpekri,qh auvtoi/j o` VIwa,nnhj le,gwn(] 931
VEgw. bapti,zw evn u[dati\
[me,soj u`mw/n e[sthke 932 o]n u`mei/j ouvk oi;date(1:27 o` ovpi,sw mou
evrco,menoj( ou- ouvk eivmi. Îevgw.Ð a;xioj i[na lu,sw auvtou/ to.n i`ma,nta
tou/ u`podh,matojÅ1:28 Tau/ta evn Bhqani,a| evge,neto pe,ran tou/
VIorda,nou( o[pou h=n o` VIwa,nnhj bapti,zwnÅ]

Book Two
1:29 Th/| evpau,rion ble,pei to.n VIhsou/n evrco,menon pro.j auvto,n
kai. le,gei( :Ide o` avmno.j tou/ qeou/ o` ai;rwn th.n a`marti,an tou/ ko,smouÅ
1:30 ou-to,j evsti peri. ou- [evgw.] ei=pon(
[VOpi,sw mou e;rcetai avnh.r o]j e;mprosqe,n mou ge,gonen( o[ti
prw/to,j mou h=nÅ] 933
1:31 kavgw. ouvk h;|dein auvto,n( avllV i[na fanerwqh/| tw/| VIsrah.l dia. tou/to
h=lqon evgw. evn u[dati bapti,zwnÅ

Chapter One
1:32 Kai. evmartu,rhsen VIwa,nnhj le,gwn o[ti Teqe,amai to. pneu/ma
katabai/non w`sei. peristera.n evx ouvranou/ kai. e;meinen evpV auvto,nÅ
1:33 kavgw. ouvk h;|dein auvto,n( avllV o` pe,myaj me bapti,zein evn
u[dati evkei/no,j moi ei=pen( VEfV o]n a'n i;dh|j to. pneu/ma katabai/non
kai. me,non evpV auvto,n( ou-to,j evstin o` bapti,zwn evn pneu,mati a`gi,w|Å
1:34 kavgw. e`w,raka( kai. memartu,rhka o[ti ou-to,j evstin o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/Å
1:35 Th/| evpau,rion pa,lin ei`sth,kei o` VIwa,nnhj kai. evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/
du,o 1:36 kai. evmble,yaj tw/| VIhsou/ peripatou/nti le,gei( :Ide o`
avmno.j tou/ qeou/Å o` ai;rwn th.n a`marti,an tou/ ko,smou
1:37[kai]. h;kousan auvtou/ oi` du,o maqhtai. [auvtou/] lalou/ntoj kai.
hvkolou,qhsan tw/| VIhsou/Å
1:38 strafei.j de. o` VIhsou/j kai. qeasa,menoj auvtou.j avkolouqou/ntaj le,gei
auvtoi/j( Ti, zhtei/teÈ

931 Jn 1:25,26 are not explicitly mentioned in the exegetical text but Cyril
insinuates to their meaning during his explanation of Jn 1:24.
932 me,soj u`mw/n e[sthke is mentioned within the exegetical text in In Jo. 1.164,

where it is written as e[sthken and Metzger has noted that only Origen and Cyril
have this variance among the fathers. Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 171.
933 Not mentioned explicitly but is insinuated within the text.
268 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

oi` de. ei=pon auvtw/|( ~Rabbi, ¿o] le,getai meqermhneuo,menon Dida,skaleÀ( pou/
me,neijÈ
1:39 le,gei auvtoi/j( :Ercesqe kai. o;yesqeÅ
h=lqan ou=n kai. ei=don pou/ me,nei kai. parV auvtw/| e;meinan th.n h`me,ran
evkei,nhn\ w[ra h=n w`j deka,thÅ
1:40 +Hn VAndre,aj o` avdelfo.j Si,mwnoj Pe,trou ei-j evk tw/n du,o tw/n
avkousa,ntwn para. VIwa,nnou kai. avkolouqhsa,ntwn auvtw/|\1:41
eu`ri,skei ou-toj prw/toj to.n avdelfo.n to.n i;dion Si,mwna kai.
le,gei auvtw/|( Eu`rh,kamen to.n Messi,an ¿o[ evstin
meqermhneuo,menon Cristo,jÀ\1:42 kai. h;gagen auvto.n pro.j to.n
VIhsou/nÅ
evmble,yaj auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j ei=pe( Su. ei= Si,mwn o` ui`o.j VIwna/( su. klhqh,sh|
Khfa/j o] e`rmhneu,etai Pe,trojÅ
1:43 Th/| evpau,rion hvqe,lhsen evxelqei/n eivj th.n Galilai,an kai. eu`ri,skei
Fi,lipponÅ kai. le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( VAkolou,qei moiÅ
[1:44 h=n de. o` Fi,lippoj avpo. Bhqsai?da,( evk th/j po,lewj VAndre,ou
kai. Pe,trouÅ]
1:45 eu`ri,skei Fi,lippoj to.n Naqanah.l kai. le,gei auvtw/|( }On e;grayen
Mwu?sh/j evn tw/| no,mw| kai. oi` profh/tai eu`rh,kamen( VIhsou/n ui`o.n
tou/ VIwsh.f to.n avpo. Nazare,tÅ
[1:46 kai. ei=pen auvtw/| Naqanah,l(]
VEk Nazare.t du,natai, ti avgaqo.n ei=naiÈ
[le,gei auvtw/| Îo`Ð Fi,lippoj(]
:Ercou kai. i;deÅ
[1:47 ei=den o` VIhsou/j to.n Naqanah.l evrco,menon pro.j auvto.n kai.
le,gei peri. auvtou/(]
:Ide avlhqw/j VIsrahli,thj evn w-| do,loj ouvk e;stinÅ
[1:48 le,gei auvtw/| Naqanah,l(]
Po,qen me ginw,skeijÈ
[avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtw/|(]
Pro. tou/ se Fi,lippon fwnh/sai o;nta u`po. th.n sukh/n ei=do,n seÅ
[1:49 avpekri,qh auvtw/| Naqanah,l(]
~Rabbi,( su. ei= o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/( su. basileu.j ei= tou/ VIsrah,lÅ
[1:50 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtw/|(]
{Oti ei=po,n soi o[ti ei=do,n se u`poka,tw th/j sukh/j( pisteu,eijÈ mei,zw
tou,twn o;yei|Å
[1:51 kai. le,gei auvtw/|(]
VAmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( o;yesqe to.n ouvrano.n avnew|go,ta kai. tou.j
avgge,louj tou/ qeou/ avnabai,nontaj kai. katabai,nontaj evpi. to.n
ui`o.n tou/ avnqrw,pouÅ
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 269

2:1 Kai. th/| h`me,ra| th/| tri,th| ga,moj evge,neto evn Kana. th/j Galilai,aj( kai.
h=n h` mh,thr tou/ VIhsou/ evkei/\ 2:2 evklh,qh de. kai. o` VIhsou/j kai. oi`
maqhtai. auvtou/ eivj to.n ga,monÅ 2:3 kai. u`sterh,santoj oi;nou le,gei
h` mh,thr tou/ VIhsou/ pro.j auvto,n( Oi=non ouvk e;cousiÅ 2:4 kai. le,gei
auvth/| o` VIhsou/j(
Ti, evmoi. kai. soi,( gu,naiÈ ou;pw h[kei h` w[ra mouÅ
2:5 le,gei h` mh,thr auvtou/ toi/j diako,noij( {O ti a'n le,gh| u`mi/n poih,sateÅ
[2:6 h=san de. evkei/ li,qinai u`dri,ai e]x kata. to.n kaqarismo.n tw/n
VIoudai,wn kei,menai( cwrou/sai avna. metrhta.j du,o h' trei/jÅ]
2:7 le,gei auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( Gemi,sate ta.j u`dri,aj u[datojÅ kai. evge,misan
[auvta.j] e[wj a;nwÅ
2:8 kai. le,gei auvtoi/j( VAntlh,sate nu/n kai. fe,rete tw/|
avrcitrikli,nw|\ oi` de. h;negkanÅ2:9 w`j de. evgeu,sato o`
avrcitri,klinoj to. u[dwr oi=non gegenhme,non kai. ouvk h;|dei po,qen
evsti,n( oi` de. dia,konoi h;|deisan oi` hvntlhko,tej to. u[dwr( fwnei/
to.n numfi,on o` avrcitri,klinoj 2:10 kai. le,gei auvtw/|( Pa/j
a;nqrwpoj prw/ton to.n kalo.n oi=non ti,qhsi kai. o[te mequsqw/si
to,te to.n evla,ssw\ su. teth,rhkaj to.n kalo.n oi=non e[wj a;rtiÅ
2:11 Tau,thn evpoi,hsen avrch.n tw/n shmei,wn o` VIhsou/j evn Kana. th/j
Galilai,aj kai. evfane,rwse th.n do,xan auvtou/ kai. evpi,steusan eivj
auvto.n oi` maqhtai. auvtou/Å
[2:12 Meta. tou/to kate,bh eivj Kafarnaou.m auvto.j kai. h` mh,thr
auvtou/ kai. oi` avdelfoi. Îauvtou/Ð kai. oi` maqhtai. auvtou/( kai. evkei/
e;meinan ouv polla.j h`me,rajÅ 2:13 Kai. evggu.j h=n to. pa,sca tw/n
VIoudai,wn( kai. avne,bh eivj ~Ieroso,luma o` VIhsou/jÅ]
2:14 kai. eu-ren evn tw/| i`erw/| tou.j pwlou/ntaj bo,aj kai. pro,bata kai.
peristera.j kai. tou.j kermatista.j kaqhme,nouj(
2:15 kai. poih,saj w`j frage,llion evk scoini,wn pa,ntaj evxe,balen evk
tou/ i`erou/
[ta, te pro,bata kai. tou.j bo,aj( kai. tw/n kollubistw/n evxe,ceen to.
ke,rma kai. ta.j trape,zaj avne,treyen( 2:16 kai. toi/j ta.j peristera.j
pwlou/sin ei=pen(]
:Arate tau/ta evnteu/qen( mh. poiei/te to.n oi=kon tou/ patro,j mou oi=kon
evmpori,ouÅ 934
2:17 VEmnh,sqhsan oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ o[ti gegramme,non evsti,n( ~O zh/loj
tou/ oi;kou sou katafa,getai, meÅ
[2:18 avpekri,qhsan ou=n oi` VIoudai/oi kai. ei=pan auvtw/|(]
Ti, shmei/on deiknu,eij h`mi/n o[ti tau/ta poiei/jÈ
[2:19 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j(]

934 Cyril repeats his exegesis of verse fourteen again.

270 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Lu,sate to.n nao.n tou/ton

[kai. evn trisi.n h`me,raij evgerw/ auvto,nÅ 2:20 ei=pan ou=n oi`
VIoudai/oi(]
Tessera,konta kai. e]x e;tesin w|vkodomh,qh o` nao.j ou-toj( kai. su. evn trisi.n
h`me,raij evgerei/j auvto,nÈ
2:21 evkei/noj de. e;lege peri. tou/ naou/ tou/ sw,matoj auvtou/Å 2:22 o[te ou=n
hvge,rqh evk nekrw/n( evmnh,sqhsan oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ o[ti tou/to
e;lege( kai. evpi,steusan th/| grafh/| kai. tw/| lo,gw| o]n ei=pen o`
VIhsou/jÅ
2:23 ~Wj de. h=n evn toi/j ~Ierosolu,moij evn tw/| pa,sca evn th/| e`orth/|( polloi.
evpi,steusan eivj to. o;noma auvtou/ qewrou/ntej auvtou/ ta. shmei/a a]
evpoi,ei\
2:24 auvto.j de. VIhsou/j ouvk evpi,steuen auvto.n auvtoi/j
dia. to. auvto.n ginw,skein pa,ntaj 2:25 kai. o[ti ouv crei,an ei=cen i[na tij
marturh,sh| peri. tou/ avnqrw,pou\ auvto.j ga.r evgi,nwsken ti, h=n evn
tw/| avnqrw,pw|Å
3:1 +Hn de. a;nqrwpoj evk tw/n Farisai,wn( Niko,dhmoj o;noma auvtw/|( a;rcwn
tw/n VIoudai,wn\ 3:2 ou-toj h=lqe pro.j auvto.n nukto.j kai. ei=pen
auvtw/|(
~Rabbi,( oi;damen o[ti avpo. qeou/ evlh,luqaj dida,skaloj\ ouvdei.j ga.r tau/ta ta.
shmei/a du,natai poiei/n a] su. poiei/j( eva.n mh. h=| o` qeo.j metV auvtou/Å
3:3 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtw/|(
VAmh.n avmh.n le,gw soi( eva.n mh, tij gennhqh/| a;nwqen( ouv du,natai ivdei/n
th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/Å 3:4 le,gei pro.j auvto.n Îo`Ð Niko,dhmoj(
Pw/j du,natai a;nqrwpoj gennhqh/nai ge,rwn w;nÈ mh. du,natai eivj th.n
koili,an th/j mhtro.j auvtou/ deu,teron eivselqei/n kai. gennhqh/naiÈ
3:5 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j(
[VAmh.n avmh.n le,gw soi(]
eva.n mh, tij gennhqh/| evx u[datoj kai. pneu,matoj( ouv du,natai eivselqei/n eivj
th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/Å
3:6 to. gegennhme,non evk th/j sarko.j sa,rx evsti( kai. to. gegennhme,non evk
tou/ pneu,matoj pneu/ma, evstinÅ
3:7 mh. qauma,sh|j o[ti ei=po,n soi( Dei/ u`ma/j gennhqh/nai a;nwqenÅ 3:8 to.
pneu/ma o[pou qe,lei pnei/ kai. th.n fwnh.n auvtou/ avkou,eij( avllV ouvk
oi=daj po,qen e;rcetai kai. pou/ u`pa,gei\ ou[twj evsti. pa/j o`
gegennhme,noj evk tou/ pneu,matojÅ
3:9 avpekri,qh Niko,dhmoj kai. ei=pen auvtw/|( Pw/j du,natai tau/ta gene,sqaiÈ
3:10 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtw/|(
Su. ei= o` dida,skaloj tou/ VIsrah.l kai. tau/ta ouv ginw,skeijÈ
3:11 avmh.n avmh.n le,gw soi o[ti o] oi;damen lalou/men kai. o] e`wra,kamen
marturou/men(
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 271

kai. th.n marturi,an h`mw/n ouv lamba,neteÅ

3:12 eiv ta. evpi,geia ei=pon u`mi/n kai. ouv pisteu,ete( pw/j eva.n ei;pw u`mi/n ta.
evpoura,nia pisteu,seteÈ 3:13 kai. ouvdei.j avnabe,bhken eivj to.n
ouvrano.n eiv mh. o` evk tou/ ouvranou/ kataba,j( o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pouÅ
o` w;n evn tw/| ouvranw/|
3:14 kai. kaqw.j Mwu?sh/j u[ywsen to.n o;fin evn th/| evrh,mw|( ou[twj
u`ywqh/nai dei/ to.n ui`o.n tou/ avnqrw,pou( 3:15 i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn
evn auvtw/| mh. avpo,lhtai( avll v e;ch| zwh.n aivw,nionÅ
3:16 Ou[twj ga.r hvga,phsen o` qeo.j to.n ko,smon( w[ste to.n ui`o.n auvtou/ to.n
monogenh/ e;dwken( i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn eivj auvto.n mh. avpo,lhtai
avllV e;ch| zwh.n aivw,nionÅ
3:17 ouv ga.r avpe,steilen o` qeo.j to.n ui`o.n auvtou/ eivj to.n ko,smon i[na
kri,nh| to.n ko,smon( avllV i[na swqh/| o` ko,smoj diV auvtou/Å
3:18 o` pisteu,wn eivj to.n ui`o.n ouv kri,netai\ o` de. mh. pisteu,wn h;dh
ke,kritai( o[ti mh. pepi,steuken eivj to. o;noma tou/ monogenou/j ui`ou/
tou/ qeou/Å
3:19 au[th de, evstin h` kri,sij o[ti to. fw/j evlh,luqen eivj to.n ko,smon kai.
hvga,phsan oi` a;nqrwpoi ma/llon to. sko,toj h' to. fw/j\
[h=n ga.r auvtw/n ponhra. ta. e;rgaÅ]
3:20 pa/j ga.r o` fau/la pra,sswn misei/ to. fw/j kai. ouvk e;rcetai pro.j to.
fw/j( i[na mh. evlegcqh/| ta. e;rga auvtou/\
[3:21 o` de. poiw/n th.n avlh,qeian e;rcetai pro.j to. fw/j( i[na
fanerwqh/| auvtou/ ta. e;rga o[ti evn qew/| evstin eivrgasme,naÅ]
3:22 kai. meta. tau/ta h=lqen o` VIhsou/j [kai. oi` maqhtai. auvtou/] eivj th.n
VIoudai,an gh/n meta. tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ [kai. evkei/ die,triben metV
auvtw/n kai. evba,ptizenÅ] 3:23 h=n de. [kai. o]` VIwa,nnhj bapti,zwn evn
Aivnw.n evggu.j tou/ Salei,m( o[ti u[data polla. h=n evkei/( kai.
paregi,nonto kai. evbapti,zonto\ 3:24 ou;pw ga.r h=n beblhme,noj eivj
th.n fulakh.n o` VIwa,nnhjÅ
3:25 VEge,neto ou=n zh,thsij evk tw/n maqhtw/n VIwa,nnou meta. VIoudai,ou
peri. kaqarismou/Å
3:26 kai. h=lqon pro.j to.n VIwa,nnhn kai. ei=pan auvtw/|(
~Rabbi,( o]j h=n meta. sou/ pe,ran tou/ VIorda,nou( w-| su. memartu,rhkaj( i;de ou-
toj bapti,zei kai. pa,ntej e;rcontai pro.j auvto,nÅ 3:27 avpekri,qh
VIwa,nnhj kai. ei=pen(
Ouv du,natai a;nqrwpoj lamba,nein ouvde. e]n eva.n mh. h=| dedome,non auvtw/| evk
tou/ ouvranou/Å
3:28 auvtoi. u`mei/j moi marturei/te o[ti ei=pon Îo[ti Ouvk eivmiÐ. evgw. Ouvk eivmi.
o` Cristo,j( avllV o[ti VApestalme,noj eivmi. e;mprosqen evkei,nouÅ
272 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

3:29 o` e;cwn th.n nu,mfhn numfi,oj evsti,n\ o` de. fi,loj tou/ numfi,ou o`
e`sthkw.j kai. avkou,wn auvtou/ cara/| cai,rei dia. th.n fwnh.n tou/
numfi,ouÅ au[th ou=n h` cara. h` evmh. peplh,rwtaiÅ
3:30 evkei/non dei/ auvxa,nein( evme. de. evlattou/sqaiÅ

Chapter Two
3:31 ~O a;nwqen evrco,menoj evpa,nw pa,ntwn evsti,n\
o` w'n evk th/j gh/j evk th/j gh/j evsti kai. evk th/j gh/j lalei/Å
o` evk tou/ ouvranou/ evrco,menoj evpa,nw pa,ntwn evsti,n\
[3:32 o] e`w,raken kai. h;kousen tou/to marturei/(]
kai. th.n marturi,an auvtou/ ouvdei.j lamba,neiÅ

Chapter Three
3:33 o` labw.n auvtou/ th.n marturi,an evsfra,gisen o[ti o` qeo.j avlhqh,j evstinÅ
3:34 o]n ga.r avpe,steilen o` qeo.j ta. r`h,mata tou/ qeou/ lalei/(
ouv ga.r evk me,trou di,dwsin to. pneu/maÅ

Chapter Four
3:35 o` path.r avgapa/| to.n ui`o,n kai. pa,nta de,dwken evn th/| ceiri.
auvtou/Å
3:36 o` pisteu,wn eivj to.n ui`o.n e;cei zwh.n aivw,nion\
o` de. avpeiqw/n tw/| ui`w/| ouvk o;yetai zwh,n(
avllV h` ovrgh. tou/ qeou/ me,nei evpV auvto,nÅ
4:1 ~Wj ou=n e;gnw o` Ku,rioj o[ti h;kousan oi` farisai/oi o[ti VIhsou/j
plei,onaj maqhta.j poiei/ kai. bapti,zei h' VIwa,nnhj 4:2 kai,toi ge
auvto.j VIhsou/j ouvk evba,ptizen avllV oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ 4:3 avfh/ken
th.n VIoudai,an kai. avph/lqen pa,lin eivj th.n Galilai,anÅ
4:4 e;dei de. auvto.n die,rcesqai dia. th/j Samarei,ajÅ 4:5 e;rcetai ou=n eivj
po,lin th/j Samarei,aj legome,nhn Suca.r plhsi,on tou/ cwri,ou o]
e;dwken VIakw.b VIwsh.f tw/| ui`w/| auvtou/\
4:6 h=n de. evkei/ phgh. tou/ VIakw,bÅ o` ou=n VIhsou/j kekopiakw.j evk th/j
o`doipori,aj evkaqe,zeto ou[twj evpi. th/| phgh/|\
w[ra h=n w`j e[kthÅ
4:7 :Ercetai gunh. evk th/j Samarei,aj avntlh/sai u[dwrÅ le,gei auvth/| o`
VIhsou/j( Do,j moi pei/n\ 4:8 oi` ga.r maqhtai. auvtou/ avpelhlu,qeisan
eivj th.n po,lin i[na trofa.j avgora,swsiÅ 4:9 le,gei ou=n auvtw/| h`
gunh. h` Samari/tij(
Pw/j su. VIoudai/oj w'n parV evmou/ zhtei/j pei/n aivtei/j u[dwr gunaiko.j
Samari,tidoj ou;shjÈ ouv ga.r sugcrw/ntai VIoudai/oi Samari,taijÅ
4:10 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvth/|(
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 273

Eiv h;|deij th.n dwrea.n tou/ qeou/ kai. ti,j evstin o` le,gwn soi( Do,j moi
pei/n( su. a'n h;|thsaj auvto.n kai. e;dwke, [a;n] soi u[dwr zw/nÅ 4:11
le,gei auvtw/| h` gunh,)
Ku,rie( ou;te a;ntlhma e;ceij kai. to. fre,ar evsti.n baqu,\ po,qen ou=n e;ceij
to. u[dwr to. zw/nÈ
4:12 mh. su. mei,zwn ei= tou/ patro.j h`mw/n VIakw,b( o]j e;dwken h`mi/n to.
fre,ar kai. auvto.j evx auvtou/ e;pie kai. oi` ui`oi. auvtou/ kai. ta.
qre,mmata auvtou/È 4:13 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvth/|(
Pa/j o` pi,nwn evk tou/ u[datoj tou,tou diyh,sei pa,lin\ 4:14 o]j dV a'n pi,h| evk
tou/ u[datoj ou- evgw. dw,sw auvtw/|( ouv mh. diyh,sei eivj to.n aivw/na(
avlla. to. u[dwr o] dw,sw auvtw/| genh,setai evn auvtw/| phgh. u[datoj
a`llome,nou eivj zwh.n aivw,nionÅ 4:15 le,gei pro.j auvto.n h` gunh,(
[Ku,rie(] do,j moi tou/to to. u[dwr( i[na mh. diyw/ mhde. die,rcwmai evnqa,de
avntlei/nÅ
4:16 Le,gei auvth/| o` vIhsou/j
{Upage fw,nhson to.n a;ndra sou kai. evlqe. evnqa,deÅ
4:17 [le,gei auvtw/| h` ;Andra ouvk e;cw] 935 le,gei auvth/| o` VIhsou/j( Kalw/j
ei=paj o[ti :Andra ouvk e;cw\ 4:18 pe,nte ga.r a;ndraj e;scej kai.
nu/n o]n e;ceij ouvk e;sti sou avnh,r\ tou/to avlhqe.j ei;rhkajÅ 4:19
le,gei auvtw/| h` gunh,(
Ku,rie( qewrw/ o[ti profh,thj ei= su,Å
4:20 oi` pate,rej h`mw/n evn tw/| o;rei tou,tw| proseku,nhsan\ kai. u`mei/j le,gete
o[ti evn ~Ierosolu,moij evsti.n o` to,poj o[pou proskunei/n dei/Å 4:21
le,gei auvth/| o` VIhsou/j(
Pi,steue, moi( gu,nai( o[ti e;rcetai w[ra o[te ou;te evn [tw/| o;rei tou,tw| ou;te]
evn ~Ierosolu,moij ou;te evn tw|/ o;rei tou,tw| proskunh,sete tw/|
patri,Å

Chapter Five
4:22 u`mei/j proskunei/te o] ouvk oi;date\ h`mei/j proskunou/men o] oi;damen(
o[ti h` swthri,a evk tw/n VIoudai,wn evsti,nÅ
4:23 avlla. e;rcetai w[ra kai. nu/n evstin( o[te oi` avlhqinoi. proskunhtai.
proskunh,sousin tw/| patri. evn pneu,mati kai. avlhqei,a|\ kai. ga.r o`
path.r toiou,touj zhtei/ tou.j proskunou/ntaj auvto,nÅ 4:24 pneu/ma o`
qeo,j( kai. tou.j proskunou/ntaj auvto.n evn pneu,mati kai. avlhqei,a|
dei/ proskunei/nÅ 4:25 le,gei auvtw/| h` gunh,(
Oi;damen o[ti Mes@s#i,aj e;rcetai o` lego,menoj Cristo,j\ o[tan e;lqh|
evkei/noj( avnaggelei/ h`mi/n a[pantaÅ

935 The variant reading from the Nestle Aland reads, avpekri,qh h` gunh. kai.
ei=pen auvtw/|( Ouvk e;cw a;ndraÅ
274 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

4:26 le,gei auvth/| o` VIhsou/j( VEgw, eivmi( o` lalw/n soiÅ

4:27 Kai. evpi. tou,tw| h=lqan oi` maqhtai. auvtou/
kai. evqau,mazon o[ti meta. gunaiko.j evla,lei\
ouvdei.j me,ntoi ei=pen( Ti, zhtei/j h; Ti, lalei/j metV auvth/jÈ
4:28 avfh/ken ou=n th.n u`dri,an auvth/j h` gunh. kai. avph/lqen eivj th.n po,lin
kai. le,gei toi/j avnqrw,poij( 4:29 Deu/te i;dete a;nqrwpon o]j ei=pe,n moi
pa,nta @o[sa# a[ evpoi,hsa( mh,ti ou-to,j evstin o` Cristo,jÈ
4:30 evxh/lqon evk th/j po,lewj kai. h;rconto pro.j auvto,nÅ
4:31 VEn tw/| metaxu. hvrw,twn auvto.n oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ le,gontej( ~Rabbi,(
fa,geÅ 4:32 o` de. ei=pen auvtoi/j(
VEgw. brw/sin e;cw fagei/n h]n u`mei/j ouvk oi;dateÅ
@o.n ko,pon auvtw/n eivselhlu,qateÅ#
4:33 e;legon ou=n oi` maqhtai. pro.j avllh,louj( Mh,tij h;negken auvtw/|
fagei/nÈ 4:34 le,gei auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j(
VEmo.n brw/ma, evstin i[na poih,sw to. qe,lhma tou/ pe,myanto,j me kai.
teleiw,sw auvtou/ to. e;rgonÅ
4:35 ouvc u`mei/j le,gete o[ti :Eti tetra,mhno,j evsti kai. o` qerismo.j e;rcetaiÈ
ivdou. le,gw u`mi/n( evpa,rate tou.j ovfqalmou.j u`mw/n kai. qea,sasqe ta.j cw,raj
o[ti leukai, eivsi pro.j qerismo,nÅ
h;dh 4:36 o` qeri,zwn misqo.n lamba,nei kai. suna,gei karpo.n eivj zwh.n
aivw,nion( i[na o` spei,rwn o`mou/ cai,rh| kai. o` qeri,zwnÅ 4:37 evn ga.r
tou,tw| o` lo,goj avlhqino.j evsti.n o[ti :Alloj evsti.n o` spei,rwn kai.
a;lloj o` qeri,zwnÅ
4:38 evgw. avpe,steila u`ma/j qeri,zein o] ouvc u`mei/j kekopia,kate\ a;lloi
kekopia,kasi kai. u`mei/j eivj to.n ko,pon auvtw/n eivselhlu,qateÅ
4:39 VEk de. th/j po,lewj evkei,nhj polloi. evpi,steusan eivj auvto.n tw/n
Samaritw/n dia. to.n lo,gon th/j gunaiko.j marturou,shj o[ti Ei=pe,n
moi pa,nta a] evpoi,hsaÅ
4:40 w`j ou=n h=lqon pro.j auvto.n oi` Samari/tai( hvrw,twn auvto.n mei/nai parV
auvtoi/j\ kai. e;meinen evkei/ du,o h`me,rajÅ 4:41 kai. pollw/| plei,ouj
evpi,steusan dia. to.n lo,gon auvtou/(
4:42 th/| te gunaiki. e;legon o[ti Ouvke,ti dia. th.n sh.n lalia.n pisteu,omen\
auvtoi. ga.r avkhko,amen kai. oi;damen o[ti ou-to,j evstin avlhqw/j o`
swth.r tou/ ko,smouÅ
4:43 Meta. de. ta.j du,o h`me,raj evxh/lqen evkei/qen eivj th.n Galilai,an\ 4:44
auvto.j ga.r VIhsou/j evmartu,rhsen o[ti profh,thj evn th/| ivdi,a|
patri,di timh.n ouvk e;ceiÅ
4:45 o[te ou=n h=lqen eivj th.n Galilai,an( evde,xanto auvto.n oi` Galilai/oi
pa,nta e`wrako,tej o[sa evpoi,hsen evn ~Ierosolu,moij evn th/| e`orth/|(
kai. auvtoi. ga.r h=lqon eivj th.n e`orth,nÅ
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 275

4:46 +Hlqen ou=n pa,lin eivj th.n Kana. th/j Galilai,aj( o[pou evpoi,hsen to.
u[dwr oi=nonÅ
@kai.# h=n de, tij basiliko.j ou- o` ui`o.j hvsqe,nei evn Kafarnaou,mÅ 4:47 ou-toj
avkou,saj o[ti VIhsou/j h[kei evk th/j VIoudai,aj eivj th.n Galilai,an
avph/lqen pro.j auvto.n kai. hvrw,ta i[na katabh/| kai. iva,shtai auvtou/
to.n ui`o,n( h;mellen ga.r avpoqnh,|skeinÅ 4:48 ei=pen ou=n o` VIhsou/j
pro.j auvto,n(
VEa.n mh. shmei/a kai. te,rata i;dhte( ouv mh. pisteu,shteÅ 4:49 le,gei pro.j
auvto.n o` basiliko,j(
Ku,rie( kata,bhqi pri.n avpoqanei/n to. paidi,on mouÅ
4:50 le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( Poreu,ou( o` ui`o,j sou zh/|Å
evpi,steusen o` a;nqrwpoj tw/| lo,gw| @o]n# w|- ei=pen auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j kai.
evporeu,etoÅ 4:51 h;dh de. auvtou/ katabai,nontoj oi` dou/loi auvtou/
u`ph,nthsan auvtw/| le,gontej o[ti o` ui`o,j sou zh/|Å
4:52 evpu,qeto ou=n par v auvtw/n th.n w[ran evkei,nhn( evn h-| komyo,teron e;sce(
kai. ei=pon @ou=n# auvtw/| o[ti cqe.j w[ran e`bdo,mhn avfh/ken auvto.n o`
pureto,jÅ 4:53 e;gnw ou=n o` path.r o[ti evn evkei,nh| th/| w[ra| evn h-|
ei=pen auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( o[ti ~O ui`o,j sou zh/|( kai. evpi,steusen auvto.j
kai. h` oivki,a auvtou/ o[lhÅ 4:54 Tou/to Îde.Ð pa,lin deu,teron shmei/on
evpoi,hsen o` VIhsou/j evlqw.n evk th/j VIoudai,aj eivj th.n Galilai,anÅ
5:1 Meta. tau/ta h=n e`orth. tw/n VIoudai,wn( kai. avne,bh o` VIhsou/j eivj
~Ieroso,lumaÅ 5:2 e;sti de. evn toi/j ~Ierosolu,moij evpi. @th/|
probatikh/| kolumbh,qra# h` evpilegome,nh ~Ebrai?sti. Bhqesda.( pe,nte
stoa.j e;cousaÅ 5:3 evn tau,taij kate,keito plh/qoj polu. tw/n
avsqenou,ntwn( tuflw/n( cwlw/n( xhrw/nÅ 5:4 evkdecome,nwn th.n tou/
u[datoj ki,nhsin) a;ggeloj ga.r Kuri,ou kata. kairo.n kate,bainen
evn th/| kolumbh,qra| kai. evta,rasse to. u[dwr) o` ou=n prw/toj evmba.j
meta. th.n tarach.n tou/ u[datoj u`gh.j evgi,neto( w|- dh,pote kaei,ceto
nosh,mati)
5:5 h=n de, tij a;nqrwpoj evkei/ tria,konta kai. ovktw. e;th e;cwn evn th/|
avsqenei,a| auvtou/\ 6:6 tou/ton ivdw.n o` VIhsou/j katakei,menon kai.
gnou.j o[ti polu.n h;dh cro,non e;cei(
le,gei auvtw/|( o` vIhsou/j Qe,leij u`gih.j gene,sqaiÈ 5:7 avpekri,qh auvtw/| o`
avsqenw/n(
Ku,rie( a;nqrwpon ouvk e;cw i[na o[tan taracqh/| to. u[dwr ba,lh| me eivj th.n
kolumbh,qran\ evn w-| de. e;rcomai evgw.( a;lloj pro. evmou/ katabai,neiÅ
5:8 le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( :Egeire
a=ron to.n kra,batto,n sou kai. peripa,teiÅ 5:9 kai. euvqe,wj evge,neto u`gih.j o`
a;nqrwpoj kai. h=re to.n kra,batton auvtou/ kai. periepa,teiÅ +Hn de.
sa,bbaton evn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra|Å
276 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

5:10 e;legon ou=n oi` VIoudai/oi tw/| teqerapeume,nw|( Sa,bbato,n evsti( kai. ouvk
e;xesti,n soi a=rai to.n kra,batto,n souÅ
5:11 o` de. avpekri,qh auvtoi/j( ~O poih,saj me u`gih/ evkei/no,j moi ei=pen( +Aron
to.n kra,batto,n sou kai. peripa,teiÅ 5:12 hvrw,thsan auvto,n(
Ti,j evstin o` a;nqrwpoj o` eivpw,n soi( +Aron to.n kra,bbato,n sou kai.
peripa,teiÈ 5:13 o` de. ivaqei.j ouvk h;|dei ti,j evstin( o` ga.r VIhsou/j
evxe,neusen o;clou o;ntoj evn tw/| to,pw|Å 5:14 meta. tau/ta eu`ri,skei
auvto.n o` VIhsou/j evn tw/| i`erw/| kai. ei=pen auvtw/|(
:Ide u`gih.j ge,gonajÅ mhke,ti a`ma,rtane( i[na mh. cei/ro,n soi, ti ge,nhtaiÅ
5:15 avph/lqen o` a;nqrwpoj kai. ei-pe @avnh,ggeilen# toi/j VIoudai,oij o[ti
VIhsou/j evstin o` poih,saj auvto.n u`gih/Å
5:16 kai. dia. tou/to evdi,wkon oi` VIoudai/oi to.n VIhsou/n( kai. evzh,toun auvto.n
avpoktei/nai( o[ti tau/ta evpoi,ei evn sabba,tw|Å 5:17 o` de. vIhsou/j
avpekri,nato auvtoi/j(
~O path,r mou e[wj a;rti evrga,zetai( kavgw. evrga,zomaiÅ
5:18 dia. tou/to ou=n ma/llon evzh,toun auvto.n oi` VIoudai/oi avpoktei/nai( o[ti
ouv mo,non e;lue to. sa,bbaton( avlla. kai. pate,ra i;dion e;lege to.n
qeo,n i;son e`auto.n poiw/n tw/| qew/|Å

Chapter Six
5:19 VApekri,nato ou=n o` VIhsou/j kai. ei-pen auvtoi/j( VAmh.n avmh.n le,gw
u`mi/n( ouv du,natai o` ui`o.j poiei/n avfV e`autou/ ouvde.n eva.n mh, ti
ble,ph| to.n pate,ra poiou/nta\ a] ga.r @a'n# evkei/noj poiei/( tau/ta kai.
o` ui`o.j o`moi,wj poiei/Å
5.20 o` ga.r path.r filei/ to.n ui`o.n
kai. pa,nta dei,knusin auvtw/| a] auvto.j poiei/(
kai. mei,zona tou,twn e;rga dei,xei auvtw/| ( i[na u`mei/j qauma,zhteÅ
5:21 w[sper ga.r o` path.r evgei,rei tou.j nekrou.j kai. zw|opoiei/( ou[twj kai.
o` ui`o.j ou]j qe,lei zw|opoiei/Å

Chapter Seven
5:22 ouvde. ga.r o` path.r kri,nei ouvde,na( avlla. th.n kri,sin pa/san de,dwken
tw/| ui`w/|(

Chapter Eight
5:23 i[na pa,ntej timw/si to.n ui`o.n kaqw.j timw/si to.n pate,raÅ o` mh. timw/n
to.n ui`o.n ouv tima/| to.n pate,ra to.n pe,myanta auvto,nÅ
5:24 VAmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti o` to.n lo,gon mou avkou,wn kai. pisteu,wn
tw/| pe,myanti, me e;cei zwh.n aivw,nion kai. eivj kri,sin ouvk e;rcetai(
avlla. metabe,bhken evk tou/ qana,tou eivj th.n zwh,nÅ
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 277

5:25 avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti e;rcetai w[ra kai. nu/n evstin o[te oi`
nekroi. avkou,swsi th/j fwnh/j tou/ ui`ou/ tou/ qeou/ kai. oi`
avkou,santej zh,sousinÅ
5:26 w[sper ga.r o` path.r e;cei zwh.n evn e`autw/|( ou[twj kai. tw/| ui`w/| e;dwke
zwh.n e;cein evn e`autw/|Å 5:27 kai. evxousi,an e;dwken auvtw/| kri,sin
poiei/n( o[ti ui`o.j avnqrw,pou evsti,nÅ
5:28 mh. qauma,zete tou/to( o[ti e;rcetai w[ra evn h-| pa,ntej oi` evn toi/j
mnhmei,oij avkou,sousi th/j fwnh/j auvtou/ 5:29 kai. evxeleu,sontai( oi`
ta. avgaqa. poih,santej eivj avna,stasin zwh/j( oi` de. ta. fau/la
pra,xantej eivj avna,stasin kri,sewjÅ

Chapter Nine
5:30 Ouv du,namai evgw. poiei/n avpV evmautou/ ouvde,n\ kaqw.j avkou,w kri,nw(
kai. h` kri,sij h` evmh. dikai,a evsti,n( o[ti ouv zhtw/ to. qe,lhma to.
evmo.n avlla. to. qe,lhma tou/ pe,myanto,j me Patro,j)
5:31 eva.n evgw. marturw/ peri. evmautou/( h` marturi,a mou ouvk e;stin avlhqh,j\
5:32 a;lloj evsti.n o` marturw/n peri. evmou/( kai. oi=da o[ti avlhqh,j
evstin h` marturi,a h]n marturei/ peri. evmou/Å
5:33 u`mei/j avpesta,lkate pro.j VIwa,nnhn( kai. memartu,rhken th/| avlhqei,a|\
5:34 evgw. de. ouv para. avnqrw,pou th.n marturi,an lamba,nw( avlla. tau/ta
le,gw i[na u`mei/j swqh/teÅ

Book Three
Chapter One
5:35 evkei/noj h=n o` lu,cnoj o` kaio,menoj kai. fai,nwn( u`mei/j de. hvqelh,sate
avgalliaqh/nai pro.j w[ran evn tw/| fwti. auvtou/Å
5:36 evgw. de. e;cw th.n marturi,an mei,zw tou/ VIwa,nnou\ ta. ga.r e;rga a]
de,dwke,n moi o` path.r i[na teleiw,sw auvta,( auvta. ta. e;rga a] poiw/
marturei/ peri. evmou/ o[ti o` path,r me avpe,stalke\ 5:37 kai. o`
pe,myaj me path.r @evkei/noj# auvto.j memartu,rhke peri. evmou/Å

Chapter Two
ou;te fwnh.n auvtou/ pw,pote avkhko,ate ou;te ei=doj auvtou/ e`wra,kate( 5:38
kai. to.n lo,gon auvtou/ ouvk e;cete evn u`mi/n me,nonta( o[ti o]n
avpe,stalken evkei/noj( tou,tw| u`mei/j ouv pisteu,eteÅ
5:39 evrauna/te ta.j grafa,j( o[ti evn auvtai/j dokei/te u`mei/j zwh.n aivw,nion
e;cein\ kai. @evkei/nai,# au eivsin ai` marturou/sai peri. evmou/\ 5:40
kai. ouv qe,lete evlqei/n pro,j me i[na zwh.n e;chteÅ
278 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

5:41 Do,xan para. avnqrw,pou ouv lamba,nw( 5:42 avlla. e;gnwka u`ma/j o[ti th.n
avga,phn tou/ qeou/ ouvk e;cete evn e`autoi/jÅ
5:43 evgw. evlh,luqa evn tw/| ovno,mati tou/ patro,j mou( kai. ouv lamba,nete, me\
eva.n a;lloj e;lqh| evn tw/| ovno,mati tw/| ivdi,w|( evkei/non lh,myesqeÅ
5:44 pw/j du,nasqe @u`mei/j# pisteu,ein( do,xan para. @avllh,lwn# avnqrw,pwn
lamba,nontej( @kai.# th.n de. do,xan th.n para. tou/ mo,nou qeou/ ouv
zhtei/teÈ
5:45 mh. dokei/te o[ti evgw. kathgorh,sw u`mw/n pro.j to.n pate,ra\ e;stin o`
kathgorw/n u`mw/n Mwu?sh/j( eivj o]n u`mei/j hvlpi,kateÅ
5:46 eiv ga.r evpisteu,ete Mwu?sei/( evpisteu,ete a'n evmoi,\ peri. ga.r evmou/
evkei/noj e;grayenÅ

Chapter Three
5:47 eiv de. toi/j evkei,nou gra,mmasin ouv pisteu,ete( pw/j toi/j evmoi/j r`h,masin
pisteu,seteÈ

Chapter Four
6:1 Kai. meta. tau/ta avph/lqen o` VIhsou/j pe,ran th/j qala,sshj @th/j
Galilai,aj# th/j Tiberia,dojÅ
6:2 hvkolou,qei de. auvtw/| o;cloj polu,j( o[ti evqew,roun ta. shmei/a a] evpoi,ei
evpi. tw/n avsqenou,ntwnÅ 6:3 avnh/lqe de. eivj to. o;roj o` VIhsou/j kai.
evkei/ evka,qhto meta. tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/Å 6:4 h=n de. evggu.j to.
pa,sca( h` e`orth. tw/n VIoudai,wnÅ
6:5 evpa,raj ou=n tou.j ovfqalmou.j o` VIhsou/j kai. qeasa,menoj o[ti polu.j
o;cloj e;rcetai pro.j auvto.n le,gei pro.j Fi,lippon( Po,qen
avgora,swmen a;rtouj i[na fa,gwsin ou-toiÈ 6:6 tou/to de. e;lege
peira,zwn auvto,n\ auvto.j ga.r h;|dei ti, e;mellen poiei/nÅ 6:7
avpekri,qh auvtw/| Fi,lippoj(
Diakosi,wn dhnari,wn a;rtoi ouvk avrkou/sin auvtoi/j i[na e[kastoj bracu, ti
la,bh|Å
6:8 le,gei auvtw/| ei-j evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/( VAndre,aj o` avdelfo.j Si,mwnoj
Pe,trou( 6:9 :Estin paida,rion w-de o] e;cei pe,nte a;rtouj
kriqi,nouj kai. du,o ovya,ria\ avlla. tau/ta ti, evstin eivj tosou,toujÈ
6:10 ei=pen o` VIhsou/j(
Poih,sate tou.j avnqrw,pouj avnapesei/nÅ h=n de. co,rtoj polu.j evn tw/| to,pw|Å
avne,pesan ou=n oi` a;ndrej to.n avriqmo.n w`j pentakisci,lioiÅ
6:11 e;laben ou=n tou.j a;rtouj o` VIhsou/j kai. euvcaristh,saj die,dwke toi/j
avnakeime,noij o`moi,wj de. kai. evk tw/n ovyari,wn o[son h;qelonÅ
6:12 w`j de. evneplh,sqhsan( le,gei toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/( Sunaga,gete ta.
perisseu,santa kla,smata( i[na mh, ti avpo,lhtaiÅ 6:13 sunh,gagon
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 279

ou=n kai. evge,misan dw,deka kofi,nouj klasma,twn evk tw/n pe,nte

a;rtwn tw/n kriqi,nwn a] evperi,sseusan toi/j bebrwko,siÅ
6:14 Oi` ou=n a;nqrwpoi ivdo,ntej o] evpoi,hsen shmei/on o` vIhsou/j e;legon o[ti
Ou-to,j evstin avlhqw/j o` profh,thj o` evrco,menoj eivj to.n ko,smonÅ
6:15 VIhsou/j ou=n gnou.j o[ti me,llousin e;rcesqai kai. a`rpa,zein auvto.n i[na
poih,swsi basile,a( avnecw,rhse pa,lin eivj to. o;roj auvto.j mo,nojÅ
6:16 ~Wj de. ovyi,a evge,neto kate,bhsan oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ evpi. th.n qa,lassan
6:17 kai. evmba,ntej eivj ploi/on h;rconto pe,ran th/j qala,sshj eivj
Kafarnaou,mÅ
kai. skoti,a h;dh evgego,nei kai. ou;pw evlhlu,qei pro.j auvtou.j o` VIhsou/j( 6:18
h[ te qa,lassa avne,mou mega,lou pne,ontoj diegei,retoÅ
6:19 evlhlako,tej ou=n w`j stadi,ouj ei;kosipe,nte h' tria,konta qewrou/si to.n
VIhsou/n peripatou/nta evpi. th/j qala,sshj kai. evggu.j tou/ ploi,ou
gino,menon( kai. evfobh,qhsanÅ 6:20 o` de. ei-pen auvtoi/j( VEgw, eivmi(
mh. fobei/sqeÅ
6:21 h;qelon ou=n labei/n auvto.n eivj to. ploi/on( kai. euvqe,wj evge,neto to.
ploi/on evpi. th/j gh/j eivj h]n u`ph/gonÅ
6:22 Th/| evpau,rion o` o;cloj o` e`sthkw.j pe,ran th/j qala,sshj ivdw.n o[ti
ploia,rion a;llo ouvk h=n evkei/ eiv mh. e[n evkei/no eivj o[ avne,bhsan oi`
maqhtai. auvtou/( kai. o[ti ouv sunh/lqe @kai. o[ti ouv suneish/lqen#
toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/ eivj to. ploi/on o` VIhsou/j avll v @mo,noi# oi`
maqhtai. auvtou/ avph/lqon\ 6:23 a;lla de. h=lqe ploia,ria evk
Tiberia,doj evggu.j tou/ to,pou o[pou e;fagon to.n a;rton
euvcaristh,santoj tou/ kuri,ouÅ
6:24 o[te ou=n ei=den o` o;cloj o[ti VIhsou/j ouvk e;stin evkei/ ouvde. oi` maqhtai.
auvtou/( evne,bhsan auvtoi. eivj ta. ploia,ria kai. h=lqon eivj
Kafarnaou.m zhtou/ntej to.n VIhsou/nÅ
6:25 kai. eu`ro,ntej auvto.n pe,ran th/j qala,sshj ei=pon auvtw/|( ~Rabbi,( po,te
w-de ge,gonajÈ
6:26 avpekri,qh auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen( VAmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n(
zhtei/te, me ouvc o[ti ei;dete shmei/on( avllV o[ti evfa,gete evk tw/n
a;rtwn kai. evcorta,sqhteÅ
6:27 evrga,zesqe mh. th.n brw/sin th.n avpollume,nhn avlla. th.n brw/sin th.n
me,nousan eivj zwh.n aivw,nion(

Chapter Five
h]n o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou u`mi/n dw,sei\ tou/ton ga.r o` path.r evsfra,gisen o`
qeo,jÅ
6:28 ei=pon ou=n @pro.j auvto,n# auvtw|/( Ti, poiw/men i[na evrgazw,meqa to.
e;rgon tou/ qeou/È 6:29 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j(
280 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Tou/to, evsti to. e;rgon tou/ qeou/( i[na pisteu,hte eivj o]n avpe,steilen
evkei/nojÅ
6:30 ei=pon ou=n auvtw/|( Ti, ou=n poiei/j su. shmei/on( i[na i;dwmen kai.
pisteu,swme,n soiÈ ti, evrga,zh|È 6:31 oi` pate,rej h`mw/n e;fagon to.
ma,nna evn th/| evrh,mw|( kaqw,j evsti gegramme,non( :Arton evk tou/
ouvranou/ e;dwken auvtoi/j fagei/nÅ

Chapter Six
6:32 ei=pen ou=n auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( VAmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( ouv Mwu?sh/j
de,dwken u`mi/n to.n a;rton evk tou/ ouvranou/(
avllV o` path,r mou di,dwsin u`mi/n to.n a;rton evk tou/ ouvranou/ to.n
avlhqino,n\ 6:33 o` ga.r a;rtoj tou/ qeou/ evstin o` katabai,nwn evk
tou/ ouvranou/ kai. zwh.n didou.j tw/| ko,smw|Å
6:34 Ei=pon ou=n pro.j auvto,n( Ku,rie( pa,ntote do.j h`mi/n to.n a;rton tou/tonÅ
6:35 ei=pe de. auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j(
VEgw, eivmi o` a;rtoj th/j zwh/j\
o` evrco,menoj pro,j evme. ouv mh. peina,sh|( kai. o` pisteu,wn eivj evme. ouv mh.
diyh,sei pw,poteÅ
6:36 avllV ei=pon u`mi/n o[ti kai. e`wra,kate, me kai. ouv pisteu,eteÅ
6:37 Pa/n o] di,dwsi,n moi o` path.r pro.j evme. h[xei(
kai. to.n evrco,menon pro.j evme. ouv mh. evkba,lw e;xw(

Book Four
Chapter One
6:38 o[ti katabe,bhka avpo. tou/ ouvranou/ ouvc i[na poiw/ to. qe,lhma to. evmo.n
avlla. to. qe,lhma tou/ pe,myanto,j me Patro,jÅ 6:39 tou/to de, evsti
to. qe,lhma tou/ pe,myanto,j me( i[na pa/n o] de,dwke, moi mh. avpole,sw
evx auvtou/( avlla. avnasth,sw auvto. evn th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra|Å
6:40 tou/to ga,r evstin to. qe,lhma tou/ patro,j mou( i[na pa/j o` qewrw/n to.n
ui`o.n kai. pisteu,wn eivj auvto.n e;ch| zwh.n aivw,nion( kai. avnasth,sw
auvto.n evgw. th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra|Å
6:41 VEgo,gguzon ou=n oi` VIoudai/oi peri. auvtou/ o[ti ei=pen( VEgw, eivmi o`
a;rtoj o` kataba.j evk tou/ ouvranou/(
6:42 kai. e;legon( Ouvc ou-to,j evstin VIhsou/j o` ui`o.j VIwsh,f( ou- h`mei/j
oi;damen to.n pate,ra kai. th.n mhte,raÈ pw/j nu/n le,gei o[ti VEk tou/
ouvranou/ katabe,bhkaÈ
6:43 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j( Mh. goggu,zete metV avllh,lwnÅ
6:44 ouvdei.j du,natai evlqei/n pro,j me eva.n mh. o` path.r o` pe,myaj me
e`lku,sh| auvto,n( kavgw. avnasth,sw auvto.n evn th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra|Å
6:45 e;stin gegramme,non evn toi/j profh,taij( Kai. e;sontai pa,ntej
didaktoi. qeou/\
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 281

pa/j o` avkou,saj para. tou/ patro.j kai. maqw.n e;rcetai pro.j evme,Å
6:46 ouvc o[ti to.n pate,ra e`w,rake, tij eiv mh. o` w'n para. tou/ qeou/( ou-toj
e`w,raken to.n pate,raÅ
6:47 avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( o` pisteu,wn eivj evme. e;cei zwh.n aivw,nionÅ

Chapter Two
6:48 evgw, eivmi o` a;rtoj th/j zwh/jÅ 6:49 oi` pate,rej u`mw/n e;fagon | to.
ma,nna evn th/| evrh,mw kai. avpe,qanon\ 6:50 ou-to,j evstin o` a;rtoj o`
evk tou/ ouvranou/ katabai,nwn( i[na tij evx auvtou/ fa,gh| kai. mh.
avpoqa,nh|Å
6:51 evgw, eivmi o` a;rtoj o` zw/n o` evk tou/ ouvranou/ kataba,j\ eva,n tij fa,gh|
evk tou,tou tou/ a;rtou zh,sei eivj to.n aivw/na(
kai. o` a;rtoj de. o]n evgw. dw,sw h` sa,rx mou, evstin u`pe.r th/j tou/ ko,smou
zwh/jÅ
6:52 vema,conto ou=n pro.j avllh,louj oi` vIoudai/oi le,gontej pw/j du,natai
h`mi/n ou-toj dou/nai th.n sa,rka fagei/n* 6:53 ei=pen ou=n auvtoi/jj o`
vIsou/j
avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( eva.n mh. fa,ghte th.n sa,rka tou/ ui`ou/ tou/
avnqrw,pou kai. pi,the auvtou/ to. ai-ma( ouvk e;cete zwh.n evn e`autoi/j
6:54 o` trw,gwn mou th.n sa,rka kai/ pi,nwn mou to. ai-ma e;cei zwh.n
aivw,nion( kavgw. avnasth,sw auvto.n evn th|/ evsca,th| h`me,ra|
6:55 h` ga.r sa,rx mou avlhqh,j evsti brw/sij( kai. to. ai-ma, mou avlhqh,j evsti
po,sij
6:56 o` trw,pwn mou th.n sa,rka kai. pi,nwn mou to. ai-ma evn evmoi. me,nei(
kavgw. auvtw/|

Chapter Three
6:57 kaqw.j avpe,steile, me o` zw/n path.r kavgw. zw/ dia. to.n pate,ra( kai. o`
trw,gwn me kavkei/noj zh,sei diV evme,Å
6:58 ou-to,j evstin o` a;rtoj o` evx ouvranou/ kataba,j( ouv kaqw.j e;fagon oi`
pate,rej u`mw/n to. ma,nna kai. avpe,qanon\ o` trw,gwn mou tou/ton
to.n a;rton zh,sei eivj to.n aivw/naÅ
6:59 Tau/ta ei=pen evn sunagwgh/| dida,skwn evn Kafarnaou,mÅ
6:60 Polloi. ou=n avkou,santej evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ ei=pan( Sklhro,j
evstin o` lo,goj ou-toj\ ti,j du,natai auvtou/ avkou,einÈ 6:61 eivdw.j de.
o` VIhsou/j evn e`autw/| o[ti goggu,zousi peri. tou,tou oi` maqhtai.
auvtou/ ei=pen auvtoi/j(
Tou/to u`ma/j skandali,ze 6:62 eva.n ou=n qewrh/te to.n ui`o.n tou/ avnqrw,pou
avnabai,nonta o[pou h=n to. pro,teronÈ
6:63 to. pneu/ma, evsti to. zw|opoiou/n( h` sa.rx ouvk wvfelei/ ouvde,n\
ta. r`h,mata a] @evgw#. lela,lhka u`mi/n pneu/ma, evsti kai. zwh, evstinÅ
282 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

6:64 avllV eivsi.n evx u`mw/n tinej oi] ouv pisteu,ousinÅ h;|dei ga.r evx avrch/j o`
VIhsou/j ti,nej eivsi.n oi` mh. pisteu,ontej kai. ti,j evstin o`
paradw,swn auvto,nÅ 6:65 kai. e;legen( Dia. tou/to ei;rhka u`mi/n o[ti
ouvdei.j du,natai evlqei/n pro,j me eva.n mh. h=| dedome,non auvtw/| evk tou/
patro,j mouÅ
6:66 VEk tou,tou polloi. tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ avph/lqon eivj ta. ovpi,sw kai.
ouvke,ti metV auvtou/ periepa,tounÅ
6:67 ei=pen ou=n toi/j dw,deka o` VIhsou/j ( Mh. kai. u`mei/j qe,lete u`pa,geinÈ

Chapter Four
6:68 avpekri,qh auvtw/| Si,mwn Pe,troj( Ku,rie( pro.j ti,na avpeleuso,meqaÈ
r`h,mata zwh/j aivwni,ou e;ceij(
6:69 kai. h`mei/j pepisteu,kamen kai. evgnw,kamen @o[ti# su. ei= o` Cristo.j o`
a[gioj tou/ qeou/Å
6:70 avpekri,qh auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( Ouvk evgw. u`ma/j tou.j dw,deka evxelexa,mhnÈ
kai. evx u`mw/n ei-j dia,bolo,j evstinÅ 6:71 e;lege de. to.n VIou,dan
Si,mwnoj VIskariw,tou\ ou-toj ga.r e;mellen auvto,n paradido,nai(
ei-j evk tw/n dw,dekaÅ

Chapter Five
7:1 Kai. meta. tau/ta periepa,tei o` VIhsou/j evn th/| Galilai,a|\ ouv ga.r h;qelen
evn th/| VIoudai,a| peripatei/n( o[ti evzh,toun auvto.n oi` VIoudai/oi
avpoktei/naiÅ
7:2 @h=n de. evggu.j h` e`orth. tw/n VIoudai,wn h` skhnophgi,aÅ#
7:3 ei=pon ou=n pro.j auvto.n oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/( Meta,bhqi evnteu/qen kai.
u[page eivj th.n VIoudai,an( i[na kai. oi` maqhtai, sou qewrh,sousi
@sou#/ ta. e;rga a] poiei/j\ 7:4 ouvdei.j ga,r ti evn kruptw/| poiei/ kai.
zhtei/ auvto.j evn parrhsi,a| ei=naiÅ eiv tau/ta poiei/j( fane,rwson
seauto.n tw/| ko,smw|Å 7:5 ouvde. ga.r oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/ evpi,steuon eivj
auvto,nÅ
7:6 le,gei ou=n auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( ~O kairo.j o` evmo.j ou;pw pa,restin( o` de.
kairo.j o` u`me,teroj pa,ntote, evstin e[toimojÅ
7:7 ouv du,natai o` ko,smoj misei/n u`ma/j( evme. de. misei/( o[ti evgw. marturw/
peri. auvtou/ o[ti ta. e;rga auvtou/ ponhra, evstinÅ
7:8 u`mei/j avna,bhte eivj th.n e`orth,n\ tau,thn evgw. ouvk avnabai,nw eivj th.n
e`orth.n tau,thn( o[ti o` evmo.j kairo.j ou;pw peplh,rwtaiÅ
7:9 tau/ta @de#. eivpw.n auvto.j e;meinen evn th/| Galilai,a|Å 7:10 ~Wj de.
avne,bhsan oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/ eivj th.n e`orth,n( to,te kai. auvto.j
avne,bh ouv fanerw/j avll v w`j evn kruptw/|
7:11 oi` ou=n VIoudai/oi evzh,toun auvto.n evn th/| e`orth/| kai. e;legon( Pou/ evstin
evkei/nojÈ
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 283

7:12 kai. goggusmo.j peri. auvtou/ h=n polu.j evn toi/j o;cloij\ oi` me.n e;legon
o[ti VAgaqo,j evstin( a;lloi de. e;legon( Ou;( avlla. plana/| to.n o;clonÅ
7:13 ouvdei.j me,ntoi parrhsi,a| evla,lei peri. auvtou/ dia. to.n fo,bon tw/n
VIoudai,wnÅ
7:14 :Hdh de. th/j e`orth/j mesou,shj avne,bh o` VIhsou/j eivj to. i`ero.n kai.
evdi,daskenÅ
7:15 evqau,mazon ou=n oi` VIoudai/oi le,gontej( Pw/j ou-toj gra,mmata oi=den
mh. memaqhkw,jÈ
7:16 avpekri,qh @ou=n auvtoi/j o`Ð VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j( ~H evmh. didach.
ouvk e;stin evmh. avlla. tou/ pe,myanto,j me\
7:17 eva,n tij @qe,lh#| to. qe,lhma auvtou/ poih/|( gnw,setai peri. th/j didach/j
po,teron evk tou/ qeou/ evstin h' evgw. avpV evmautou/ lalw/Å
7:18 o` avfV e`autou/ lalw/n th.n do,xan th.n ivdi,an zhtei/\
@o` de. zhtw/n th.n do,xan tou/ pe,myantoj auvto,n ou-toj avlhqh,j evsti kai.
avdiki,a evn auvtw/| ouvk e;stinÅ# 936
7:19 ouv Mwu?sh/j de,dwken u`mi/n to.n no,monÈ kai. ouvdei.j evx u`mw/n poiei/ to.n
no,monÅ ti, me zhtei/te avpoktei/naiÈ
7:20 avpekri,qh o` o;cloj( Daimo,nion e;ceij\ ti,j se zhtei/ avpoktei/naiÈ 7:21
avpekri,qh o VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j(
}En e;rgon evpoi,hsa kai. pa,ntej qauma,zeteÅ
7:22 dia. tou/to Mwu?sh/j de,dwken u`mi/n th.n peritomh,n ouvc o[ti evk tou/
Mwu?se,wj evsti.n avllV evk tw/n pate,rwn kai. evn sabba,tw|
perite,mnete a;nqrwponÅ

Chapter Six
7:23 eiv peritomh.n lamba,nei a;nqrwpoj evn sabba,tw| i[na mh. luqh/| o` no,moj
Mwu?se,wj( evmoi. cola/te o[ti o[lon a;nqrwpon u`gih/ evpoi,hsa evn
sabba,tw|È
7:24 mh. kri,nete katV o;yin( avlla. th.n dikai,an kri,sin kri,neteÅ

Chapter Seven 937

Book Five
7:25 :Elegon ou=n tinej evk tw/n ~Ierosolumitw/n( Ouvc ou-to,j evstin o]n
zhtou/sin avpoktei/naiÈ
7:26 @kai#. i;de parrhsi,a| lalei/ kai. ouvde.n auvtw/| le,gousinÅ

936 Mentioned within the interpretation of the first half of Jn 7:18. Quoted in In

Jo. 1.608.
937 Chapter Seven is dedicated to continuing the explication of Jn 7:24.
284 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

mh,pote avlhqw/j e;gnwsan oi` a;rcontej o[ti ou-to,j evstin o` Cristo,jÈ

7:27 avlla. tou/ton oi;damen po,qen evsti,n\ o` de. Cristo.j o[tan e;rchtai
@ouvdei.j ginw,skei# o[tan e;rcatai( po,qen evsti,nÅ
7:28 e;kraxen ou=n o` VIhsou/j dida,skwn evn tw/| i`erw|/ kai. le,gwn( Kavme.
oi;date kai. oi;date po,qen eivmi,\
kai. avpV evmautou/ ouvk evlh,luqa( avllV e;stin avlhqino.j o` pe,myaj me(
o]n u`mei/j ouvk oi;date\ 7:29 evgw. de. oi=da auvto,n( o[ti parV auvtou/ eivmi
kavkei/no,j me avpe,steilenÅ

Chapter One
7:30 VEzh,toun ou=n auvto.n pia,sai vIoudai/oi( kai. ouvdei.j evpe,balen @evpV# eivj
auvto.n th.n cei/ra( o[ti ou;pw evlhlu,qei h` w[ra auvtou/Å
7:31 VEk tou/ o;clou @de.# ou=n polloi. evpi,steusan eivj auvto,n kai. e;legon( ~O
Cristo.j o[tan e;lqh| mh. plei,ona shmei/a poih,sei w-n ou-toj
evpoi,hsenÈ
7:32 :Hkousan oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` Farisai/oi tou/ o;clou goggu,zontoj
peri. auvtou/ tau/ta(
kai. avpe,steilan oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` Farisai/oi u`phre,taj i[na pia,swsin
auvto,nÅ
7:33 ei=pen ou=n o` VIhsou/j( :Eti mikro.n cro,non meqV u`mw/n eivmi kai.
u`pa,gw pro.j to.n pe,myanta, meÅ
7:34 zhth,sete, me kai. ouvc eu`rh,sete,(
kai. o[pou eivmi. evgw. u`mei/j ouv du,nasqe evlqei/nÅ
7:35 ei=pon ou=n oi` VIoudai/oi pro.j e`autou,j( Pou/ ou-toj me,llei poreu,esqai
o[ti h`mei/j ouvc eu`rh,somen auvto,nÈ mh. eivj th.n diaspora.n tw/n
~Ellh,nwn me,llei poreu,esqai kai. dida,skein tou.j {EllhnajÈ
7:36 @ti,j evstin o` lo,goj ou-toj o]n ei=pen( Zhth,sete, me kai. ouvc eu`rh,sete,
ÎmeÐ( kai. o[pou eivmi. evgw. u`mei/j ouv du,nasqe evlqei/nÈ#
7:37 VEn de. th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra| th/j e`orth/j th/| mega,lh| ei`sth,kei o` VIhsou/j
kai. e;kraxen le,gwn( VEa,n tij diya/| evrce,sqw pro,j me kai. pine,twÅ
7:38 o` pisteu,wn eivj evme,( kaqw.j ei=pen h` grafh,( potamoi. evk th/j koili,aj
auvtou/ r`eu,sousin u[datoj zw/ntojÅ

Chapter Two
7:39 tou/to de. e;lege peri. tou/ pneu,matoj @o]# ou- e;mellon lamba,nein oi`
pisteu,santej eivj auvto,n\ ou;pw ga.r h=n pneu/ma( o[ti VIhsou/j
ouvde,pw evdoxa,sqhÅ
7:40 VEk tou/ o;clou ou=n avkou,santej tinej to.n lo,gon tou/ton e;legon( Ou-
to,j evstin avlhqw/j o` profh,thj\ 7:41 a;lloi e;legon( o[ti ou-to,j
evstin avlhqw/j o` Cristo,j(
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 285

oi` de. e;legon( Mh. ga.r evk th/j Galilai,aj o` Cristo.j e;rcetaiÈ 7:42 ouvc h`
grafh. ei=pen o[ti evk tou/ spe,rmatoj Daui,d kai. avpo. Bhqle,em th/j
kw,mhj o[pou h=n Daui,d e;rcetai o` Cristo.jÈ
7:43 sci,sma ou=n evge,neto evn tw/| o;clw| diV auvto,n\
7:44 tine.j de. evx auvtw/n h;qelon pia,sai auvto,n( avllV ouvdei.j evpe,balen evpV
auvto.n ta.j cei/rajÅ
7:45 +Hlqon ou=n oi` u`phre,tai pro.j tou.j avrcierei/j kai. Farisai,ouj( kai.
ei=pon auvtoi/j evkei/noi( Dia. ti, ouvk hvga,gete auvto,nÈ
7:46 avpekri,qhsan oi` u`phre,tai( Ouvde,pote evla,lhsen ou[twj a;nqrwpojÅ
7:47 avpekri,qhsan @ou=n# auvtoi/j oi` Farisai/oi( Mh. kai. u`mei/j pepla,nhsqeÈ
7:48 mh, tij evk tw/n avrco,ntwn evpi,steusen eivj auvto.n h' evk tw/n
Farisai,wnÈ 7:49 avll v o` o;cloj ou-toj o` mh. ginw,skwn to.n no,mon
evpikata,ratoi, eivsinÅ
7:50 le,gei pro.j auvtou,j Niko,dhmoj ( o` evlqw.n pro.j auvto.n pro,teron( ei-j
w'n evx auvtw/n( 7:51 Mh. o` no,moj h`mw/n kri,nei to.n a;nqrwpon eva.n
mh. avkou,sh| prw/ton parV auvtou/ kai. gnw/| ti, poiei/È
7:52 avpekri,qhsan kai. ei=pan auvtw/|( Mh. kai. su. evk th/j Galilai,aj ei=È
evrau,nhson kai. i;de o[ti evk th/j Galilai,aj profh,thj ouvk
evgei,retaiÅ
7:53 ÎÎKai. evporeu,qhsan e[kastoj eivj to.n oi=kon auvtou/(
8:1 VIhsou/j de. evporeu,qh eivj to. :Oroj tw/n VElaiw/nÅ
8:2 :Orqrou de. pa,lin parege,neto eivj to. i`ero,n kai. pa/j o` lao.j h;rceto
pro.j auvto,n( kai. kaqi,saj evdi,dasken auvtou,jÅ
8:3 a;gousin de. oi` grammatei/j kai. oi` Farisai/oi gunai/ka evpi. moicei,a|
kateilhmme,nhn( kai. sth,santej auvth.n evn me,sw|
8:4 le,gousin auvtw/|( Dida,skale( au[th h` gunh. katei,lhptai evpV auvtofw,rw|
moiceuome,nh\
8:5 evn de. tw/| no,mw| h`mi/n Mwu?sh/j evnetei,lato ta.j toiau,taj liqa,zein( su.
ou=n ti, le,geijÈ
8:6 tou/to de. e;legon peira,zontej auvto,n( i[na e;cwsin kathgorei/n auvtou/Å o`
de. VIhsou/j ka,tw ku,yaj tw/| daktu,lw| kate,grafen eivj th.n gh/nÅ
8:7 w`j de. evpe,menon evrwtw/ntej auvto,n( avne,kuyen kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j( ~O
avnama,rthtoj u`mw/n prw/toj evpV auvth.n bale,tw li,qon
8:8 kai. pa,lin kataku,yaj e;grafen eivj th.n gh/nÅ
8:9 oi` de. avkou,santej evxh,rconto ei-j kaqV ei-j avrxa,menoi avpo. tw/n
presbute,rwn kai. katelei,fqh mo,noj kai. h` gunh. evn me,sw| ou=saÅ
8:10 avnaku,yaj de. o` VIhsou/j ei=pen auvth/|( Gu,nai( pou/ eivsinÈ ouvdei,j se
kate,krinenÈ
286 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

8:11 h` de. ei=pen( Ouvdei,j( ku,rieÅ ei=pen de. o` VIhsou/j( Ouvde. evgw, se
katakri,nw\ poreu,ou( Îkai.Ð avpo. tou/ nu/n mhke,ti a`ma,rtaneÅÐÐ 938
8:12 Pa,lin ou=n evla,lhsen auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j le,gwn( VEgw, eivmi to. fw/j tou/
ko,smou\
o` avkolouqw/n evmoi. ouv mh. peripath,sh| evn th/| skoti,a|( avllV e[xei to. fw/j th/j
zwh/jÅ
8:13 ei=pon ou=n @auvtw/#| oi` Farisai/oi( Su. peri. seautou/ marturei/j\ h`
marturi,a sou ouvk e;stin avlhqh,jÅ
8:14 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j( Ka'n evgw. marturw/ peri.
evmautou/( avlhqh,j evstin h` marturi,a mou( o[ti oi=da po,qen h=lqon
kai. pou/ u`pa,gw\
u`mei/j de. ouvk oi;date po,qen e;rcomai h' pou/ u`pa,gwÅ
8:15 u`mei/j kata. th.n sa,rka kri,nete( evgw. @ou#v kri,nw ouvde,naÅ
8:16 @kai.eva.n kri,nw de. evgw,( h` kri,sij h` evmh. avlhqinh, evstin( o[ti mo,noj
ouvk eivmi,( avllV evgw. kai. o` pe,myaj me path,rÅ#
8:17 kai. evn tw/| no,mw| de. tw/| u`mete,rw| ge,graptai o[ti du,o avnqrw,pwn h`
marturi,a avlhqh,j evstinÅ 8:18 evgw, eivmi o` marturw/n peri. evmautou/
kai. marturei/ peri. evmou/ o` pe,myaj me path,rÅ
8:19 e;legon ou=n auvtw/|( Pou/ evstin o` path,r souÈ
avpekri,qh VIhsou/j( Ou;te evme. oi;date ou;te to.n pate,ra mou\ eiv evme. h;|deite(
kai. to.n pate,ra mou a'n h;|deiteÅ

Chapter Three
8:20 Tau/ta ta. r`h,mata evla,lhsen evn tw/| gazofulaki,w| dida,skwn evn tw/|
i`erw/|\ kai. ouvdei.j evpi,asen auvto,n( o[ti ou;pw evlhlu,qei h` w[ra
auvtou/Å
8:21 Ei=pen ou=n pa,lin auvtoi/j( VEgw. u`pa,gw kai. zhth,sete, me( kai. evn th/|
a`marti,a| u`mw/n avpoqanei/sqe\
kai. o[pou evgw. u`pa,gw u`mei/j ouv du,nasqe evlqei/nÅ
8:22 @e;legon ou=n oi` VIoudai/oi( Mh,ti avpoktenei/ e`auto,n( o[ti le,gei( {Opou
evgw. u`pa,gw u`mei/j ouv du,nasqe evlqei/nÈ#
8:23 kai. e;legen auvtoi/j( ~Umei/j evk tw/n ka,tw evste,( evgw. evk tw/n a;nw eivmi,\

Chapter Four
u`mei/j evk tou,tou tou/ ko,smou evste,( evgw. ouvk eivmi. evk tou/ ko,smou tou,touÅ
8:24 ei=pon ou=n u`mi/n o[ti avpoqanei/sqe evn tai/j a`marti,aij u`mw/n\
eva.n ga.r mh. pisteu,shte o[ti evgw, eivmi( avpoqanei/sqe evn tai/j a`marti,aij
u`mw/nÅ
8:25 e;legon ou=n auvtw/|( Su. ti,j ei=È

938 Jn 7:53–8:11 is missing from Cyril’s commentary.

 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 287

ei=pen auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( Th.n avrch.n o[ ti kai. lalw/ u`mi/nÈ

8:26 polla. e;cw peri. u`mw/n lalei/n kai. kri,nein(
avllV o` pe,myaj me avlhqh,j evsti( kavgw. a] h;kousa parV auvtou/ tau/ta lalw/
eivj to.n ko,smonÅ
8:27 ouvk e;gnwsan o[ti to.n pate,ra auvtoi/j e;legeÅ
8:28 @ei=pen ou=n Îauvtoi/jÐ o` VIhsou/j(#
{Otan u`yw,shte to.n ui`o.n tou/ avnqrw,pou( to,te gnw,sesqe o[ti evgw, eivmi(

Chapter Five
kai. avpV evmautou/ poiw/ ouvde,n( avlla. kaqw.j evdi,daxe, me o` path.r tau/ta
lalw/Å
8:29 kai. o` pe,myaj me metV evmou/ evsti\ kai. ouvk avfh/ke, me mo,non(
o[ti evgw. ta. avresta. auvtw/| poiw/ pa,ntoteÅ
8:30 Tau/ta auvtou/ lalou/ntoj polloi. evpi,steusan eivj auvto,nÅ
8:31 :Elegen ou=n o` VIhsou/j pro.j tou.j pepisteuko,taj auvtw/| VIoudai,ouj(
VEa.n u`mei/j mei,nhte evn tw/| lo,gw| tw/| evmw/|( avlhqw/j maqhtai, mou,
evste
8:32 kai. gnw,sesqe th.n avlh,qeian( kai. h` avlh,qeia evleuqerw,sei u`ma/jÅ
8:33 @avpekri,qhsan pro.j auvto,n(#
Spe,rma VAbraa,m evsmen kai. ouvdeni. dedouleu,kamen pw,pote\ pw/j su. le,geij
o[ti VEleu,qeroi genh,sesqeÈ
8:34 avpekri,qh auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( VAmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti pa/j o` poiw/n
th.n a`marti,an dou/lo,j evstin th/j a`marti,ajÅ
8:35 o` @de.# dou/loj ouv me,nei evn th/| oivki,a| eivj to.n aivw/na( o` ui`o.j me,nei eivj
to.n aivw/naÅ
8:36 eva.n @ou=n# o` ui`o.j u`ma/j evleuqerw,sh|( o;ntwj evleu,qeroi e;sesqeÅ
8:37 oi=da o[ti spe,rma VAbraa,m evste\ avlla. zhtei/te, me avpoktei/nai( o[ti o`
lo,goj o` evmo.j ouv cwrei/ evn u`mi/nÅ
8:38 evgw. a] e`w,raka para. tw/| patri. lalw/\ kai. u`mei/j ou=n a] hvkou,sate
para. tou/ patro.j poiei/teÅ
8:39 VApekri,qhsan auvtw/| kai. ei=pan ( ~O path.r h`mw/n VAbraa,m evstinÅ
le,gei auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( Eiv te,kna tou/ VAbraa,m @evste# h-te( ta. e;rga tou/
VAbraa.m evpoiei/te\a;n 8:40 nu/n de. zhtei/te, me avpoktei/nai
a;nqrwpon o]j th.n avlh,qeian u`mi/n lela,lhka h]n h;kousa para. tou/
qeou/\ tou/to VAbraa.m ouvk evpoi,hseÅ
8:41 u`mei/j poiei/te ta. e;rga tou/ patro.j u`mw/nÅ
ei=pon ou=n auvtw/|( ~Hmei/j evk pornei,aj ouv gegennh,meqa\ e[na pate,ra e;comen
to.n qeo,nÅ
8:42 ei=pen auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( Eiv o` qeo.j path.r u`mw/n @h=n# ei;h( hvgapa/te a'n
evme,( evgw. ga.r evk tou/ qeou/ evxh/lqon kai. h[kw\
@ouvde. ga.r avpV evmautou/ evlh,luqa( avllV evkei/no,j me avpe,steilenÅ#
288 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

8:43 dia. ti, th.n lalia.n th.n evmh.n ouv ginw,sketeÈ o[ti ouv du,nasqe avkou,ein
to.n lo,gon to.n evmo,nÅ

Book Six
8:44 u`mei/j evk tou/ patro.j tou/ diabo,lou evste. kai. ta.j evpiqumi,aj tou/
patro.j u`mw/n qe,lete poiei/nÅ evkei/noj avnqrwpokto,noj evsti.n @h=n#
avpV avrch/j kai. evn th/| avlhqei,a| ouvk e;sthken( o[ti ouvk e;stin
avlh,qeia evn auvtw/|Å
@o[tan lalh/| to. yeu/doj( evk tw/n ivdi,wn lalei/( o[ti yeu,sthj evsti.n kai. o`
path.r auvtou/Å
8:45 evgw. de. o[ti th.n avlh,qeian le,gw( ouv pisteu,ete, moiÅ#
8:46 ti,j evx u`mw/n evle,gcei me peri. a`marti,ajÈ
eiv avlh,qeian le,gw( dia. ti, u`mei/j ouv pisteu,ete, moiÈ
8:47 o` w'n evk tou/ qeou/ ta. r`h,mata tou/ qeou/ avkou,ei\ dia. tou/to u`mei/j ouvk
avkou,ete( o[ti evk tou/ qeou/ ouvk evste,Å
8:48 VApekri,qhsan oi` VIoudai/oi kai. ei=pan auvtw/|( Ouv kalw/j le,gomen
h`mei/j o[ti Samari,thj ei= su. kai. daimo,nion e;ceijÈ
8:49 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j( VEgw. daimo,nion ouvk e;cw( avlla. timw/ to.n pate,ra
mou( kai. u`mei/j avtima,zete, meÅ
8:50 evgw. @de#. ouv zhtw/ th.n do,xan mou\ e;stin o` zhtw/n kai. kri,nwnÅ
8:51 avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( eva,n tij to.n evmo.n lo,gon mou thrh/| @thrh,sh#|(
qa,naton ouv mh. @qewrh,sh|# i;dh| eivj to.n aivwn/ aÅ
8:52 ei=pon @ou=n# auvtw/| oi` VIoudai/oi( Nu/n evgnw,kamen o[ti daimo,nion e;ceijÅ
VAbraa.m avpe,qane kai. oi` profh/tai avpe,qanon( kai. su. le,geij( VEa,n tij
to.n lo,gon mou thrh,sh|( qana,ton ouv mh. geu,shtai eivj to.n aivw/naÅ
8:53 mh. su. mei,zwn ei= tou/ patro.j h`mw/n VAbraa,m( o[stij avpe,qanenÈ kai. oi`
profh/tai avpe,qanon\ @ti,na seauto.n poiei/jÈ# 939
8:54 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j( VEa.n evgw. doxa,sw evmauto,n( h` do,xa mou ouvde,n
evsti\
e;stin o` path,r mou o` doxa,zwn me(
o]n u`mei/j le,gete o[ti qeo.j h`mw/n evsti( 8:55 kai. ouvk evgnw,kate auvto,n(
evgw. de. oi=da auvto,nÅ @ka'n# kai. eva.n ei;pw o[ti ouvk oi=da auvto,n( e;somai
o[moioj u`mi/n yeu,sthj\
avlla. oi=da auvto.n kai. to.n lo,gon auvtou/ thrw/Å
8:56 VAbraa.m o` path.r u`mw/n hvgallia,sato i[na i;dh| th.n h`me,ran th.n evmh,n(
kai. ei=den kai. evca,rhÅ
8:57 ei=pon ou=n @oi`# VIoudai/oi pro.j auvto,n( Penth,konta e;th ou;pw e;ceij
kai. VAbraa.m e`w,rakajÈ

939 The verse text is mentioned within the interpretation In Jo. 2.120.
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 289

8:58 ei=pen auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( VAmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( pri.n VAbraa.m
gene,sqai evgw. eivmi,Å
8:59 h=ran ou=n li,qouj i[na ba,lwsin evpV auvto,n\ o` de. VIhsou/j @de#. evkru,bh
kai. evxh/lqen evk tou/ i`erou/Å
9:1 Kai. para,gwn ei=den a;nqrwpon tuflo.n evk geneth/jÅ

Chapter One
9:2 kai. hvrw,thsan auvto.n oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ le,gontej( ~Rabbi,( ti,j
h[marten( ou-toj h' oi` gonei/j auvtou/( i[na tuflo.j gennhqh/È| 9:3
avpekri,qh VIhsou/j( Ou;te ou-toj h[marten ou;te oi` gonei/j auvtou/(
avllV i[na fanerwqh/| ta. e;rga tou/ qeou/ evn auvtw/|Å 940
9:4 h`ma/j dei/ evrga,zesqai ta. e;rga tou/ pe,myanto,j @me# h`ma/j e[wj h`me,ra
evsti,n\ e;rcetai nu.x o[te ouvdei.j du,natai evrga,zesqaiÅ
9:5 o[tan evn tw/| ko,smw| w=( fw/j eivmi tou/ ko,smouÅ
9:6 tau/ta eivpw.n e;ptuse camai. kai. evpoi,hse phlo.n evk tou/ ptu,smatoj kai.
evpe,crisen auvtou/ to.n phlo.n evpi. tou.j ovfqalmou.j 9:7 kai. ei=pen
auvtw/|( {Upage ni,yai tou/ Silwa,m eivj th.n kolumbh,qran o]
e`rmhneu,etai VApestalme,nojÅ avph/lqen ou=n kai. evni,yato kai. h=lqen
ble,pwnÅ
9:8 Oi` ou=n gei,tonej kai. oi` qewrou/ntej auvto.n to. pro,teron o[ti
prosai,thj h=n e;legon( Ouvc ou-to,j evstin o` kaqh,menoj kai.
prosaitw/nÈ 9:9 a;lloj e;legon ouvci.( @o[ti Ou-to,j evstin( a;lloi
e;legon( Ouvci,(# avll v o[moioj auvtw/| evstinÅ evkei/noj e;legen o[ti VEgw,
eivmiÅ
9:10 e;legon ou=n auvtw/|( Pw/j hvnew,|cqhsa,n sou oi` ovfqalmoi,È
9:11 avpekri,qh evkei/noj( @~O# a;nqrwpoj o` lego,menoj VIhsou/j phlo.n evpoi,hse
kai. evpe,crise, mou tou.j ovfqalmou.j kai. ei=pe, moi o[ti {Upage @kai.#
ni,yai eivj to.n Silwa.m \ avpelqw.n ou=n kai. niya,menoj avne,bleyaÅ
9:12 kai. ei=pon auvtw/|( Pou/ evstin evkei/nojÈ le,gei( Ouvk oi=daÅ
9:13 :Agousin auvto.n pro.j tou.j Farisai,ouj to,n pote tuflo,nÅ 9:14 h=n de.
sa,bbaton evn h-| h`me,ra| to.n phlo.n evpoi,hsen o` VIhsou/j kai. avne,w|xen
auvtou/ tou.j ovfqalmou,jÅ
9:15 pa,lin ou=n hvrw,twn auvto.n kai. oi` Farisai/oi pw/j avne,bleyenÅ
o` de. ei=pen auvtoi/j( Phlo.n evpe,qhke, mou evpi. tou.j ovfqalmou,j( kai.
evniya,mhn( kai. ble,pwÅ
9:16 e;legon ou=n evk tw/n Farisai,wn tine,j( Ouvk e;stin ou-toj para. qeou/ o`
a;nqrwpoj( o[ti to. sa,bbaton ouv threi/Å

940 avllV i[na fanerwqh/| ta. e;rga tou/ qeou/ evn auvtw/| was further reinterpreted on
its own in In Jo. 2.148.
290 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

a;lloi de. e;legon( Pw/j du,natai a;nqrwpoj a`martwlo.j toiau/ta shmei/a

poiei/nÈ kai. sci,sma h=n evn auvtoi/jÅ
9:17 le,gousin ou=n tw/| tuflw/| pa,lin( Ti, su. le,geij peri. auvtou/( o[ti
hvne,w|xe,n sou tou.j ovfqalmou,jÈ
o` de. ei=pen o[ti Profh,thj evsti,nÅ
9:18 Ouvk evpi,steusan @ou=n# oi` VIoudai/oi peri. auvtou/ o[ti h=n tuflo.j kai.
avne,bleyen e[wj o[tou evfw,nhsan tou.j gonei/j auvtou/ tou/
avnable,yantoj 9:19 kai. hvrw,thsan auvtou.j le,gontej( Ou-to,j evstin
o` ui`o.j u`mw/n( o]n u`mei/j le,gete o[ti tuflo.j evgennh,qhÈ pw/j ou=n
ble,pei a;rtiÈ
9:20 avpekri,qhsan @ou=n# oi` gonei/j auvtou/ kai. ei=pan( Oi;damen o[ti ou-to,j
evstin o` ui`o.j h`mw/n kai. o[ti tuflo.j evgennh,qh\ 9:21 pw/j de. nu/n
ble,pei ouvk oi;damen( h' ti,j @h;noixen# avne,w|xen auvtou/ tou.j
ovfqalmou.j h`mei/j ouvk oi;damen\ auvto.n evrwth,sate( h`liki,an e;cei(
auvto.j peri. e`autou/ lalh,seiÅ
9:22 tau/ta ei=pan oi` gonei/j auvtou/ o[ti evfobou/nto tou.j VIoudai,ouj\ h;dh
ga.r sunete,qeinto oi` VIoudai/oi i[na eva,n tij auvto.n o`mologh,sh|
Cristo,n( auvto.n ei=nai avposuna,gwgoj ge,nhtaiÅ
9:23 @dia. tou/to oi` gonei/j auvtou/ ei=pan o[ti ~Hliki,an e;cei( auvto.n
evperwth,sateÅ#
9:24 VEfw,nhsan ou=n to.n a;nqrwpon evk deute,rou o]j h=n tuflo.j kai. ei=pon
auvtw/|( Do.j do,xan tw/| qew/|\ h`mei/j oi;damen o[ti ou-toj o` a;nqrwpoj
a`martwlo,j evstinÅ
9:25 avpekri,qh ou=n evkei/noj( Eiv a`martwlo,j evstin ouvk oi=da\ e]n oi=da o[ti
tuflo.j w'n a;rti ble,pwÅ
9:26 ei=pon ou=n auvtw/|( pa,lin Ti, evpoi,hse, soiÈ pw/j @h;noixe,n# avne,w|xe, sou
tou.j ovfqalmou,jÈ
9:27 avpekri,qh auvtoi/j( Ei=pon u`mi/n h;dh kai. ouvk hvkou,sate\ ti, pa,lin
qe,lete avkou,einÈ
mh. kai. u`mei/j qe,lete auvtou/ maqhtai. gene,sqaiÈ
9:28 kai. evloido,rhsan auvto.n kai. ei=pan( Su. maqhth.j ei= evkei,nou( h`mei/j de.
tou/ Mwu?se,wj evsme.n maqhtai,\
9:29 h`mei/j oi;damen o[ti Mwu?sei/ lela,lhken o` qeo,j( tou/ton de. ouvk
oi;damen po,qen evsti,nÅ
9:30 avpekri,qh o` a;nqrwpoj kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j( VEn tou,tw| ga.r to.
qaumasto,n evstin( o[ti u`mei/j ouvk oi;date po,qen evsti,( kai. h;noixe,
mou tou.j ovfqalmou,jÅ
9:31 oi;damen o[ti a`martwlw/n o` qeo.j ouvk avkou,ei( avllV eva,n tij qeosebh.j h=|
kai. to. qe,lhma auvtou/ poih/| tou,tou avkou,eiÅ
9:32 evk tou/ aivw/noj ouvk hvkou,sqh o[ti hvne,w|xe,n tij ovfqalmou.j tuflou/
gegennhme,nou\
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 291

9:33 eiv mh. h=n ou-toj para. qeou/( ouvk hvdu,nato poiei/n ouvde,nÅ
9:34 avpekri,qhsan kai. ei=pon auvtw/|( VEn a`marti,aij su. evgennh,qhj o[loj kai.
su. dida,skeij h`ma/jÈ kai. evxe,balon auvto.n e;xwÅ
9:35 :Hkousen o` VIhsou/j o[ti evxe,balon auvto.n e;xw
kai. eu`rw.n auvto.n ei=pen( Su. pisteu,eij eivj to.n ui`o.n @tou/ avnqrw,pouÈ# tou/
Qeou/
9:36 @avpekri,qh evkei/noj kai. ei=pen(# Kai. ti,j evsti( ku,rie( fhsi.n( i[na
pisteu,sw eivj auvto,nÈ
9:37 kai. ei=pen @auvtw/|# o` VIhsou/j( Kai. e`w,rakaj auvto.n kai. o` lalw/n meta.
sou/ evkei/no,j evstinÅ
9:38 o` de. @e;fh(# ei==pe Pisteu,w( ku,rie\ kai. proseku,nhsen @auvtw/|# auvto,nÅ
9:39 kai. ei=pen o` VIhsou/j( Eivj kri,ma evgw. eivj to.n ko,smon tou/ton h=lqon(
i[na oi` mh. ble,pontej ble,pwsi kai. oi` ble,pontej tufloi.
ge,nwntaiÅ
9:40 :Hkousan evk tw/n Farisai,wn tau/ta oi` metV auvtou/ o;ntej kai. ei=pon
auvtw/|( Mh. kai. h`mei/j tufloi, evsmenÈ
9:41 ei=pen auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( Eiv tufloi. h=te( ouvk a'n ei;cete a`marti,an\
nu/n de. le,gete o[ti Ble,pomen( h` a`marti,a u`mw/n @me,nei# menou/siÅ
10:1 VAmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( o` mh. eivserco,menoj dia. th/j qu,raj eivj th.n
auvlh.n tw/n proba,twn avlla. avnabai,nwn avllaco,qen evkei/noj
kle,pthj evsti.n kai. lh|sth,j\ 10:2 o` de. eivserco,menoj dia. th/j qu,raj
poimh,n evstin tw/n proba,twnÅ 10:3 tou,tw| o` qurwro.j avnoi,gei( kai.
ta. pro,bata th/j fwnh/j auvtou/ avkou,ei kai. ta. i;dia pro,bata fwnei/
katV o;noma kai. evxa,gei auvta,Å 10:4 o[tan ta. i;dia pa,nta evkba,lh|(
e;mprosqen auvtw/n poreu,etai( kai. ta. pro,bata auvtw/| avkolouqei/(
o[ti oi;dasin th.n fwnh.n auvtou/\ 10:5 avllotri,w| de. ouv mh.
avkolouqh,sousin( avlla. feu,xontai avpV auvtou/( o[ti ouvk oi;dasin
tw/n avllotri,wn th.n fwnh,nÅ
10:6 Tau,thn th.n paroimi,an ei=pen auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( evkei/noi de. ouvk
e;gnwsan ti,na h=n a] evla,lei auvtoi/jÅ
10:7 Ei=pen ou=n @pa,lin# auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( VAmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n @o[ti#
evgw, eivmi h` qu,ra tw/n proba,twnÅ
10:8 pa,ntej o[soi h=lqon kle,ptai eivsi. kai. lh|stai,( avllV ouvk h;kousan
auvtw/n ta. pro,bataÅ
10:9 evgw, eivmi h` qu,ra\ diV evmou/ eva,n tij eivse,lqh| swqh,setai kai.
eivseleu,setai kai. evxeleu,setai kai. nomh.n eu`rh,seiÅ
10:10 o` kle,pthj ouvk e;rcetai eiv mh. i[na kle,yh| kai. qu,sh| kai. avpole,sh|\
evgw. h=lqon i[na zwh.n e;cwsi kai. perisso.n e;cwsinÅ
10:11 VEgw, eivmi o` poimh.n o` kalo,j\
o` poimh.n o` kalo.j th.n yuch.n auvtou/ ti,qhsin u`pe.r tw/n proba,twn\ 10:12
o` de. misqwto.j kai. ouvk w'n poimh,n( ou- ouvk e;sti ta. pro,bata
292 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

i;dia( qewrei/ to.n lu,kon evrco,menon kai. avfi,hsi ta. pro,bata kai.
feu,gei kai. o` lu,koj a`rpa,zei auvta. kai. skorpi,zei 10:13 o[ti
misqwto,j evsti kai. ouv me,lei auvtw/| peri. tw/n proba,twnÅ
10:14 VEgw, eivmi o` poimh.n o` kalo,j
kai. ginw,skw ta. evma. kai. ginw,skousi, me ta. evma,( 10:15 kaqw.j ginw,skei
me o` path.r kavgw. ginw,skw to.n pate,ra(
kai. th.n yuch,n mou ti,qhmi u`pe.r tw/n proba,twnÅ
10:16 kai. a;lla pro,bata e;cw a] ouvk e;stin evk th/j auvlh/j tau,thj\ kavkei/na
dei/ me avgagei/n kai. th/j fwnh/j mou avkou,sousi( kai. genh,sontai
mi,a poi,mnh( ei-j poimh,nÅ
10:17 dia. tou/to, me o` path.r avgapa/| o[ti @evgw.# ti,qhmi th.n yuch,n @mou#(
i[na pa,lin la,bw auvth,nÅ

Book Seven 941

10:18 ouvdei.j ai;rei auvth.n avpV evmou/( avllV evgw. ti,qhmi auvth.n avpV evmautou/Å
evxousi,an e;cw qei/nai auvth,n( kai. evxousi,an e;cw pa,lin labei/n
auvth,n\
tau,thn th.n evntolh.n e;labon para. tou/ patro,j mouÅ
10:19 Sci,sma pa,lin evge,neto evn toi/j VIoudai,oij dia. tou.j lo,gouj tou,toujÅ
10:20 e;legon de. polloi. evx auvtw/n( Daimo,nion e;cei kai. mai,netai\
ti, auvtou/ avkou,eteÈ 10:21 a;lloi e;legon( Tau/ta ta. r`h,mata ouvk
e;sti daimonizome,nou\ mh. daimo,nion du,natai tuflw/n ovfqalmou.j
avnoi/xaiÈ
10:22 VEge,neto @to,te# de. ta. evgkai,nia evn @toi/j# ~Ierosolu,moij( kai. ceimw.n
h=n( 10:23 kai. periepa,tei o` VIhsou/j evn tw/| i`erw/| evn th/| stoa/| @tou/#
Solomw/nojÅ
10:24 evku,klwsan ou=n auvto.n oi` VIoudai/oi kai. e;legon auvtw/|( {Ewj po,te
th.n yuch.n h`mw/n ai;reijÈ eiv su. ei= o` Cristo,j( eivpe. h`mi/n
parrhsi,a|Å
10:25 avpekri,qh auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( Ei=pon u`mi/n kai. ouv pisteu,ete\ ta. e;rga
a] evgw. poiw/ evn tw/| ovno,mati tou/ patro,j mou tau/ta marturei/ peri.
evmou/\
10:26 avlla. u`mei/j ouv pisteu,ete moi( o[ti ouvk evste. evk tw/n proba,twn tw/n
evmw/nÅ 10:27 kaqw.j de. ei=pon u`mi/n( ta. pro,bata ta. evma. th/j fwnh/j
mou avkou,ousi( kavgw. ginw,skw auvta, kai. avkolouqou/si, moi( 10:28
kavgw. di,dwmi auvtoi/j zwh.n aivw,nion kai. ouv mh. avpo,lwntai eivj
to.n aivw/na

941 Book Seven is collected from fragments; therefore the chapter division, and

some verses, are missing from the available texts but not necessarily from Cyril’s
manuscript.
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 293

kai. ouvc a`rpa,sei tij auvta. evk th/j ceiro,j mouÅ 10:29 o` path,r mou o]
de,dwke, moi pa,ntwn mei/zo,n evsti( kai. ouvdei.j du,natai a`rpa,zein
evk th/j ceiro.j tou/ patro,jÅ 10:30 evgw. kai. o` path.r e[n evsmenÅ
10:31 VEba,stasan ou=n pa,lin oi` VIoudai/oi li,qouj( i[na liqa,swsin auvto,nÅ
10:32 @avpekri,qh auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( Polla. e;rga kala. e;deixa u`mi/n evk tou/
patro,j\ dia. poi/on auvtw/n e;rgon evme. liqa,zeteÈ 10:33 avpekri,qhsan
auvtw/| oi` VIoudai/oi(#
Peri. kalou/ e;rgou ouv liqa,zome,n se avlla. peri. blasfhmi,aj(
@kai. o[ti su. a;nqrwpoj w'n poiei/j seauto.n qeo,nÅ 10:34 avpekri,qh auvtoi/j
Îo`Ð VIhsou/j( Ouvk e;stin gegramme,non evn tw/| no,mw| u`mw/n o[ti #
VEgw. ei=pa( Qeoi, evsteÈ kai. ta. e`xh/j)
10:35 @eiv evkei,nouj ei=pen qeou.j pro.j ou]j o` lo,goj tou/ qeou/ evge,neto( kai.
ouv du,natai luqh/nai h` grafh,( 10:36 o]n o` path.r h`gi,asen kai.
avpe,steilen eivj to.n ko,smon u`mei/j le,gete o[ti Blasfhmei/j( o[ti
ei=pon( Ui`o.j tou/ qeou/ eivmiÈ#
10:37 eiv ouv poiw/ ta. e;rga tou/ patro,j mou( mh. pisteu,ete, moi\ 10:38 eiv de.
poiw/( ka'n evmoi. mh. pisteu,hte( toi/j e;rgoij pisteu,ete( i[na gnw/te
kai. @ginw,skhte# pisteu,shte o[ti evn evmoi. o` path.r kavgw. evn tw/|
@patri,Å#
10:39 @VEzh,toun Îou=nÐ auvto.n pa,lin pia,sai( kai. evxh/lqen evk th/j ceiro.j
auvtw/nÅ#
10:40 Kai. avph/lqe pa,lin pe,ran tou/ VIorda,nou eivj to.n to,pon o[pou h=n
VIwa,nnhj to. prw/ton bapti,zwn kai. e;meinen evkei/Å 10:41 kai.
polloi. h=lqon pro.j auvto.n kai. e;legon o[ti VIwa,nnhj me.n evpoi,hsen
shmei/on ouvde,n( pa,nta de. o[sa ei=pen VIwa,nnhj peri. tou,tou avlhqh/
h=nÅ 10:42 kai. polloi. evpi,steusan eivj auvto.n evkei/Å
11:1 +Hn de, tij avsqenw/n( La,zaroj avpo. Bhqani,aj( evk th/j kw,mhj Mari,aj
kai. Ma,rqaj th/j avdelfh/j auvth/jÅ 11:2 h=n de. Maria.m h` avlei,yasa
to.n ku,rion mu,rw| kai. evkma,xasa tou.j po,daj auvtou/ tai/j qrixi.n
auvth/j( h`j o` avdelfo.j La,zaroj hvsqe,neiÅ
11:3 avpe,steilan ou=n pro.j auvto.n ai` avdelfai. auvtou/ le,gousai( Ku,rie( i;de
o]n filei/j avsqenei/Å
11:4 avkou,saj de. o` VIhsou/j ei=pen(h` avsqe,neia au[th ouvk e;sti ouvk e;sti pro.j
qa,naton avllV u`pe.r th/j do,xhj tou/ qeou/( i[na doxasqh/| o` ui`o.j tou/
qeou/ diV auvth/jÅ
11:5 @hvga,pa de. o` VIhsou/j th.n Ma,rqan kai. th.n avdelfh.n auvth/j kai. to.n
La,zaronÅ#
11:6 w`j ou=n h;kousen o[ti avsqenei/( to,te me.n e;meinen evn w-| h=n to,pw| du,o
h`me,raj(
11:7 meta. de. @e;peita# tou/to le,gei toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/( :Agwmen eivj th.n
VIoudai,an pa,linÅ 11:8 le,gousin auvtw/| oi` maqhtai, auvtou/( ~Rabbi,(
294 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

nu/n evzh,toun se liqa,sai oi` VIoudai/oi liqa,sai( kai. pa,lin

u`pa,geij evkei/È
11:9 avpekri,qh o` VIhsou/j( Ouvci. dw,deka w-rai, eivsi th/j h`me,rajÈ eva,n ou=n
tij peripath/| evn th/| h`me,ra|( ouv prosko,ptei( o[ti to. fw/j tou/
ko,smou tou,tou ble,pei\ 11:10 eva.n de, tij peripath/| evn th/| nukti,(
prosko,ptei( o[ti to. fw/j ouvk e;stin evn auvtw/|Å
11:11 tau/ta ei=pe( kai. meta. tou/to le,gei auvtoi/j( La,zaroj o` fi,loj h`mw/n
kekoi,mhtai\ avlla. poreu,omai i[na evxupni,sw auvto,nÅ
11:12 ei=pon ou=n oi` maqhtai. auvtou/( Ku,rie( eiv kekoi,mhtai swqh,setaiÅ
11:13 eivrh,kei de. o` VIhsou/j peri. tou/ qana,tou auvtou/( evkei/noi de.
e;doxan o[ti peri. th/j koimh,sewj tou/ u[pnou le,geiÅ
11:14 to,te @ou=n# ei=pen auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j parrhsi,a|( La,zaroj avpe,qanen(
11:15 kai. cai,rw diV u`ma/j i[na pisteu,shte( o[ti ouvk h;mhn evkei/\
avlla. a;gwmen pro.j auvto,nÅ
11:16 ei=pen ou=n Qwma/j o` lego,menoj Di,dumoj toi/j summaqhtai/j auvtou/(
:Agwmen kai. h`mei/j i[na avpoqa,nwmen metV auvtou/Å
11:17 VElqw.n ou=n o` VIhsou/j eivj Bhqani,an( eu-ren auvto.n te,ssaraj h;dh
h`me,raj e;conta evn tw/| mnhmei,w|Å 11:18 h=n de. h` Bhqani,a evggu.j
tw/n ~Ierosolu,mwn @w`j# avpo. stadi,wn dekape,nteÅ 11:19 polloi. de.
evk tw/n VIoudai,wn evlhlu,qeisan pro.j th.n Ma,rqan kai. th.n
Maria.m i[na paramuqh,swntai auvta.j peri. tou/ avdelfou/ auvtw/nÅ
11:20 h` ou=n Ma,rqa w`j h;kousen o[ti VIhsou/j e;rcetai u`ph,nthsen auvtw/|\
Maria.m de. evn tw/| oi;kw| evkaqe,zetoÅ
11:21 ei=pen ou=n h` Ma,rqa pro.j to.n VIhsou/n( Ku,rie( eiv h=j w-de ouvk a'n
avpe,qanen o` avdelfo,j mou\ 11:22 kai. nu/n oi=da o[ti o[sa a'n aivth,sh|
to.n qeo.n dw,sei soi o` qeo,jÅ 11:23 le,gei auvth/| o` VIhsou/j(
VAnasth,setai o` avdelfo,j souÅ 11:24 @le,gei# auvtw/| h` Ma,rqa( Oi=da
o[ti avnasth,setai @evn th/| avnasta,sei# evn th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra|Å
11:25 ei=pen auvth/| o` VIhsou/j( VEgw, eivmi h` avna,stasij kai. h` zwh,\ o`
pisteu,wn eivj evme. ka'n avpoqa,nh| zh,setai( 11:26 kai. pa/j o` zw/n
kai. pisteu,wn eivj evme. ouv mh. avpoqa,nh| eivj to.n aivw/na\ pisteu,eij
tou/toÈ 11:27 le,gei auvtw/|( Nai,( ku,rie( evgw. pepi,steuka o[ti su. ei=
o` Cristo.j o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/ o` eivj to.n ko,smon evrco,menojÅ
11:28 Kai. tau/to eivpou/sa avph/lqe kai. evfw,nhse Maria.m th.n avdelfh.n
auvth/j la,qra| eivpou/sa( ~O dida,skaloj pa,restin kai. fwnei/ seÅ
11:29 evkei,nh de. w`j h;kousen hvge,rqh @tacu.# kai. h;rceto pro.j
auvto,n\
11:30 ou;pw de. evlhlu,qei o` VIhsou/j eivj th.n kw,mhn( avllV h=n e;ti evn tw/|
to,pw| o[pou @u`ph,nthsen# prosuphvnthsen auvtw/| h` Ma,rqaÅ 11:31 oi`
ou=n VIoudai/oi oi` o;ntej metV auvth/j evn th/| oivki,a| kai.
paramuqou,menoi auvth,n( ivdo,ntej th.n Maria.m o[ti tace,wj avne,sth
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 295

kai. evxh/lqen( hvkolou,qhsan auvth/| do,xantej o[ti u`pa,gei eivj to.

@mnhmei/on# mnh/ma i[na klau,sh| evkei/Å
11:32 h` ou=n Maria.m w`j h=lqen o[pou h=n o` VIhsou/j ivdou/sa auvto.n e;pese
@auvtou/# pro.j tou.j po,daj auvtou/ le,gousa @auvtw/|#( Ku,rie( eiv h=j w-de
ouvk a;n mou avpe,qanen o` avdelfo,j mouÅ
11:33 ou=n VIhsou/j w`j ei=den auvth.n klai,ousan kai. tou.j sunelqo,ntaj auvth/|
VIoudai,ouj klai,ontaj( evnebrimh,sato tw/| pneu,mati kai. evta,raxen
e`auto,n\ 11:34 kai. ei=pe( Pou/ teqei,kate auvto,nÈ
@le,gousin auvtw/|( Ku,rie( e;rcou kai. i;deÅ 11:35 evda,krusen o` VIhsou/jÅ#
11:36 e;legon ou=n oi` VIoudai/oi( :Ide pw/j evfi,lei auvto,nÅ 11:37 tine.j de. evx
auvtw/n ei=pon( Ouvk evdu,nato ou-toj o` avnoi,xaj tou.j ovfqalmou.j tou/
tuflou/ poih/sai i[na kai. ou-toj mh. avpoqa,nh|È
11:38 `O ou=n VIhsou/j pa,lin evmbrimw,menoj evn e`autw/| e;rcetai eivj to.
mnhmei/on\ h=n de. sph,laion kai. li,qoj evpe,keito evpV auvtw/|Å 11:39
le,gei de. o` VIhsou/j( :Arate to.n li,qonÅ
le,gei auvtw/| h` avdelfh. tou/ teteleuthko,toj Ma,rqa( Ku,rie( h;dh o;zei(
tetartai/oj ga,r evstiÅ
11:40 le,gei auvth/| o` VIhsou/j( Ouvk ei=po,n soi o[ti eva.n pisteu,sh|j o;yh| th.n
do,xan tou/ qeou/È
11:41 @h=ran ou=n to.n li,qonÅ# o` de. VIhsou/j h=re tou.j ovfqalmou.j a;nw kai.
ei=pen( Pa,ter( euvcaristw/ soi o[ti h;kousa,j mouÅ 11:42 evgw. de.
h;|dein o[ti pa,ntote, mou avkou,eij( avlla. dia. to.n o;clon to.n
periestw/ta ei=pon( i[na pisteu,swsin o[ti su, me avpe,steilajÅ
11:43 kai. tau/ta eivpw.n fwnh/| mega,lh| evkrau,gase( La,zare( deu/ro e;xwÅ
11:44 kai. evxh/lqen o` teqnhkw.j dedeme,noj tou.j po,daj kai. ta.j
cei/raj keiri,aij( kai. h` o;yij auvtou/ soudari,w| periede,detoÅ
le,gei auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( Lu,sate auvto.n kai. a;fete auvto.n u`pa,geinÅ
11:45 Polloi. ou=n evk tw/n VIoudai,wn oi` evlqo,ntej pro.j th.n Maria.m kai.
qeasa,menoi a] evpoi,hsen( evpi,steusan o` vIsou/j evpi,steusan eivj
auvto,n\ 11:46 tine.j de. evx auvtw/n avph/lqon pro.j tou.j Farisai,ouj
kai. ei=pon auvtoi/j a] evpoi,hsen o` VIhsou/jÅ
11:47 sunh,gagon ou=n oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` Farisai/oi sune,drion kai.
e;legon( Ti, poiou/men o[ti ou-toj o` a;nqrwpoj ou-toj shmei/a polla.
poiei/* 11:48 eva.n avfw/men auvto.n ou[twj( pa,ntej pisteu,sousin eivj
auvto,n( kai. evleu,sontai oi` ~Rwmai/oi kai. avrou/sin h`mw/n kai. to.n
to,pon kai. to. e;qnojÅ
11:49 ei-j de, tij evx auvtw/n Kai?a,faj( avrciereu.j w'n tou/ evniautou/ evkei,nou(
ei=pen auvtoi/j( ~Umei/j ouvk oi;date ouvde,n( 11:50 ouvde. @logi,zesqe#
dialogi.zesqe o[ti sumfe,rei u`mi/n i[na ei-j a;nqrwpoj avpoqa,nh|
u`pe.r tou/ laou/ kai. mh. o[lon to. e;qnoj avpo,lhtaiÅ 11:51 tou/to de.
avfV e`autou/ ouvk ei=pen( avlla. avrciereu.j w'n tou/ evniautou/ evkei,nou
296 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

evprofh,teusen o[ti e;mellen o` VIhsou/j avpoqnh,|skein u`pe.r tou/

e;qnouj( 11:52 kai. ouvc u`pe.r tou/ e;qnouj mo,non avllV i[na kai. ta.
te,kna tou/ qeou/ ta. dieskorpisme,na sunaga,gh| eivj e[nÅ
11:53 avpV evkei,nhj ou=n th/j @h`me,raj# w[raj sunevbouleu,santo i[na
avpoktei,nwsin auvto,nÅ
11:54 ~O ou=n VIhsou/j ouvk e,ti parrhsi,a| periepa,tei evn toi/j VIoudai,oij(
avlla. avph/lqen evkei/qen @eivj th.n cw,ran# evggu.j th/j evrh,mou( eivj
VEfrai.m legome,nhn po,lin( @kavkei/# kai. evkei/ e;meinen meta. tw/n
maqhtw/n auvtou/Å
11:55 +Hn de. evggu.j to. pa,sca tw/n VIoudai,wn( kai. avne,bhsan polloi. eivj
~Ieroso,luma evk th/j cw,raj pro. tou/ pa,sca i[na a`gni,swsin
e`autou,jÅ
11:56 evzh,toun ou=n to.n VIhsou/n kai. e;legon metV avllh,lwn e`sthko,tej evn
tw/| i`erw/| ( Ti, u`mi/n dokei/È o[ti ouv mh. e;lqh| eivj th.n e`orth,nÈ 11:57
evdedw,keisan de. oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` Farisai/oi evntola.j i[na eva,n
tij gnw/| pou/ evsti mhnu,sh|( o[pwj pia,swsin auvto,nÅ
12:1 ~O ou=n VIhsou/j pro. e]x h`merw/n tou/ pa,sca h=lqen eivj Bhqani,an( o[pou
h=n La,zaroj( o` teqnhkw.j o]n h;geiren evk nekrw/n @VIhsou/jÅ# 12:2
evpoi,hsan ou=n auvtw/| dei/pnon evkei/( kai. h` Ma,rqa dihko,nei( o` de.
La,zaroj ei-j h=n evk tw/n avnakeime,nwn @su.n# auvtw/|Å

Book Eight 942

12:3 h` ou=n Maria.m labou/sa li,tran mu,rou na,rdou pistikh/j poluti,mou
h;leiye tou.j po,daj tou/ VIhsou/ kai. evxe,maxen tai/j qrixi.n auvth/j
tou.j po,daj auvtou/\ h` de. oivki,a evplhrw,qh evk th/j ovsmh/j tou/
mu,rouÅ
12:4 le,gei @de#. VIou,daj o` VIskariw,thj ei-j ÎevkÐ tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/( o`
me,llwn auvto.n paradido,nai( 12:5 Dia.ti, tou/to to. mu,ron ouvk
evpra,qh triakosi,wn dhnari,wn kai. evdo,qh ptwcoi/jÈ 12:6 ei=pe de.
tou/to ouvc o[ti peri. tw/n ptwcw/n e;melen auvtw/|( avllV o[ti kle,pthj
h=n kai. to. glwsso,komon @e;cwn# ei=ce ta. ballo,mena evba,stazenÅ
12:7 ei=pen ou=n o` VIhsou/j( :Afej auvth,n( i[na eivj th.n h`me,ran tou/
evntafiasmou/ mou @thrh,sh|# teth,rken auvto,\ 12:8 tou.j ptwcou.j
ga.r pa,ntote e;cete meqV e`autw/n( evme. de. ouv pa,ntote e;ceteÅ
12:9 :Egnw ou=n Îo`Ð o;cloj polu.j evk tw/n VIoudai,wn o[ti evkei/ evsti kai.
h=lqon ouv dia. to.n VIhsou/n mo,non( avllV i[na kai. to.n La,zaron
i;dwsin o]n h;geiren evk nekrw/nÅ

942 Book Eight is also reconstructed from fragments; therefore, the chapter

division is missing together with some verses, but not neccesarily from Cyril’s
manuscript
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 297

12:10 evbouleu,santo de. oi` avrcierei/j i[na kai. to.n La,zaron avpoktei,nwsin(
12:11 o[ti polloi. diV auvto.n u`ph/gon tw/n VIoudai,wn kai. evpi,steuon
eivj to.n VIhsou/nÅ
12:12 Th/| evpau,rion o` o;cloj polu.j o` evlqw.n eivj th.n e`orth,n( avkou,santej
o[ti e;rcetai o` VIhsou/j eivj ~Ieroso,luma 12:13 e;labon ta. bai<a tw/n
foini,kwn kai. evxh/lqon eivj u`pa,nthsin auvtou/ kai. @evkrau,gazon#
e;krazon le,gontej( ~Wsanna,\ euvloghme,noj o` evrco,menoj evn
ovno,mati kuri,ou( Îkai.Ð @o`# basileu.j tou/ VIsrah,lÅ
12:14 eu`rw.n de. o` VIhsou/j ovna,rion evka,qisen evpV auvto,( kaqw,j evsti
gegramme,non( 12:15 Mh. fobou/( quga,thr Siw,n\ ivdou. o` basileu,j
sou e;rcetai( kaqh,menoj evpi. pw/lon o;nouÅ
12:16 tau/ta de. ouvk e;gnwsan / oi` maqhtai. auvtou to. prw/ton( avllV o[te
evdoxa,sqh o` VIhsou/j to,te evmnh,sqhsan o[ti tau/ta h=n evpV auvtw/|
gegramme,na kai. tau/ta evpoi,hsan auvtw/|Å
12:17 evmartu,rei ou=n o` o;cloj o` w'n metV auvtou/ o[te to.n La,zaron
evfw,nhsen evk tou/ mnhmei,ou kai. h;geiren auvto.n evk nekrw/nÅ 12:18
dia. tou/to kai. u`ph,nthsen auvtw/| o` o;cloj( o[ti h;kousan tou/to
auvto.n pepoihke,nai to. shmei/onÅ
12:19 oi` ou=n Farisai/oi ei=pon pro.j e`autou,j( Qewrei/te o[ti ouvk wvfelei/te
ouvde,n\ i;de o` ko,smoj ovpi,sw auvtou/ avph/lqenÅ
12:20 +Hsan de. {Ellhne,j tinej evk tw/n avnabaino,ntwn i[na
proskunh,swsin evn th/| e`orth/|\
12:21 ou-toi ou=n prosh/lqon Fili,ppw| tw/| avpo. Bhqsai?da. th/j Galilai,aj(
kai. @hvrw,twn# hvrw,thsan auvto.n le,gontej( Ku,rie( qe,lomen to.n
VIhsou/n ivdei/nÅ 12:22 e;rcetai o` Fi,lippoj kai. le,gei tw/| VAndre,a|(
e;rcetai VAndre,aj kai. Fi,lippoj kai. le,gousin tw/| VIhsou/Å
12:23 o` de. VIhsou/j avpokri,nato auvtoi/j le,gwn( VElh,luqen h` w[ra i[na
doxasqh/| o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pouÅ
12:24 avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( eva.n mh. o` ko,kkoj tou/ si,tou pesw.n eivj th.n
gh/n avpoqa,nh|( auvto.j mo,noj me,nei\ eva.n de. avpoqa,nh|( polu.n karpo.n
fe,reiÅ
12:25 o` filw/n th.n yuch.n auvtou/ @avpollu,ei# avpole,sei auvth,n( kai. o`
misw/n th.n yuch.n auvtou/ evn tw/| ko,smw| tou,tw| eivj zwh.n aivw,nion
fula,xei auvth,nÅ
12:26 eva.n evmoi, tij diakonh/|( evmoi. avkolouqei,tw(
kai. o[pou eivmi. evgw. evkei/ kai. o` dia,konoj o` evmo.j e;stai\
eva,n tij evmoi. diakonh/| timh,sei auvto.n o` path,rÅ
12:27 Nu/n h` yuch, mou teta,raktai( kai. ti, ei;pwÈ Pa,ter( sw/so,n me evk
th/j w[raj tau,thjÈ avlla. dia. tou/to @h=lqon# eivj th.n w[ran tau,thnÅ
12:28 pa,ter( do,xaso,n sou to. @o;noma# ui`o,nÅ
h=lqen ou=n fwnh. @evk tou/# evx ouvranou/( Kai. evdo,xasa kai. pa,lin doxa,swÅ
298 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

12:29 @o` ou=n o;cloj o` e`stw.j kai. avkou,saj e;legen bronth.n gegone,nai(
a;lloi e;legon( :Aggeloj auvtw/| lela,lhkenÅ#
12:30 avpekri,qh o` VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j( Ouv diV evme. h` fwnh. au[th
ge,gonen avlla. diV u`ma/jÅ
12:31 nu/n kri,sij evsti. tou/ ko,smou tou,tou( nu/n o` a;rcwn tou/ ko,smou
tou,tou evkblhqh,setai e;xw\
12:32 kavgw. evan. u`ywqw/ evk th/j gh/j(e`lku,sw pa,ntaj pro.j evmauto,nÅ
12:33 tou/to de. e;lege shmai,nwn poi,w| qana,tw| h;mellen avpoqnh,|skeinÅ
12:34 avpekri,qh ou=n auvtw/| o` o;cloj( ~Hmei/j hvkou,samen evk tou/ no,mou o[ti o`
Cristo.j @me,nei# eivj to.n aivw/na( kai. pw/j su. le,geij o[ti dei/
u`ywqh/nai to.n ui`o.n tou/ avnqrw,pouÈ ti,j evstin ou-toj o` ui`o.j tou/
avnqrw,pouÈ
12:35 ei=pen ou=n auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( :Eti mikro.n cro,non to. fw/j evn u`mi/n
evstiÅ peripatei/te e[wj to. fw/j e;cete( i[na mh. skoti,a u`ma/j
katala,bh|\ kai. o` peripatw/n evn th/| skoti,a| ouvk oi=den pou/ u`pa,geiÅ
12:36 e[wj to. fw/j e;cete( pisteu,ete eivj to. fw/j( i[na ui`oi. fwto.j ge,nhsqeÅ
Tau/ta evla,lhsen o` VIhsou/j( kai. avpelqw.n evkru,bh avpV auvtw/nÅ
12:37 Tosau/ta de. auvtou/ shmei/a pepoihko,toj e;mprosqen auvtw/n ouvk
evpi,steuon eivj auvto,n(
12:38 i[na o` lo,goj VHsai<ou @tou/ profh,tou# plhrwqh/| o]n ei=pe( Ku,rie( ti,j
evpi,steuse th/| avkoh/| h`mw/nÈ kai. o` braci,wn kuri,ou ti,ni
avpekalu,fqhÈ 12:39 dia. tou/to ouvk hvdu,nanto pisteu,ein( o[ti pa,lai
VHsai<aj ei=pe ( 12:40 Tetu,flwken auvtw/n tou.j ovfqalmou.j kai.
evpw,rwsen auvtw/n th.n kardi,an( i[na mh. i;dwsi toi/j ovfqalmoi/j
kai. noh,swsi th/| kardi,a| kai. strafw/si( kai. iva,somai auvtou,jÅ
12:41 @tau/ta ei=pen VHsai<aj o[ti ei=den th.n do,xan auvtou/( kai. evla,lhsen
peri. auvtou/Å#
12:42 o[mwj me,ntoi kai. evk tw/n avrco,ntwn polloi. evpi,steusan eivj auvto,n(
avlla. dia. tou.j Farisai,ouj ouvc w`molo,goun i[na mh.
avposuna,gwgoi ge,nwntai\ 12:43 hvga,phsan ga.r th.n do,xan tw/n
avnqrw,pwn ma/llon h;per th.n do,xan tou/ qeou/Å
12:44 VIhsou/j de. e;kraxe kai. ei=pen( ~O pisteu,wn eivj evme. ouv pisteu,ei eivj
evme. avll v eivj to.n pe,myanta, me( 12:45 kai. o` qewrw/n evme. qewrei/
to.n pe,myanta, meÅ
12:46 evgw. fw/j eivj to.n ko,smon evlh,luqa( i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn eivj evme. evn
th/| skoti,a| mh. mei,nh|Å
12:47 @ kai. eva,n ti,j mou avkou,sh| tw/n r`hma,twn kai. mh. fula,xh|( evgw. ouv
kri,nw auvto,n ouv ga.r h=lqon i[na kri,nw to.n ko,smon( avllV i[na
sw,sw to.n ko,smonÅ#
12:48 @o` avqetw/n evme. kai. mh. lamba,nwn ta. r`h,mata, mou e;cei to.n kri,nonta
auvto,n\#
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 299

o` lo,goj o]n evla,lhsa evkei/noj krinei/ auvto.n evn th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra|Å

Book Nine
12:49 o[ti evgw. evx evmautou/ ouvk evla,lhsa( avllV o` pe,myaj me path.r auvto,j
moi evntolh.n de,dwken ti, ei;pw kai. ti, lalh,swÅ 12:50 kai. oi=da o[ti
h` evntolh. auvtou/ zwh. aivw,nio,j evstinÅ a] ou=n evgw. lalw/( kaqw.j
ei;rhke, moi o` path,r( ou[twj lalw/Å
13:1 Pro. de. th/j e`orth/j tou/ pa,sca eivdw.j o` VIhsou/j o[ti h=lqen auvtou/ h`
w[ra i[na metabh/| evk tou/ ko,smou tou,tou pro.j to.n pate,ra(
avgaph,saj tou.j ivdi,ouj tou.j evn tw/| ko,smw| eivj te,loj hvga,phsen
auvtou,jÅ
13:2 kai. dei,pnou ginome,nou( tou/ diabo,lou h;dh beblhko,toj eivj th.n
kardi,an VIou,daj Si,mwnoj tou/ VIskariw,tou i[na paradoi/ auvto.n(
13:3 eivdw.j o[ti pa,nta e;dwken auvtw/| o` path.r eivj ta.j cei/raj kai.
o[ti avpo. qeou/ evxh/lqe kai. pro.j to.n qeo.n u`pa,gei( 13:4 evgei,retai
evk tou/ dei,pnou kai. ti,qhsi ta. i`ma,tia kai. labw.n le,ntion
die,zwsen e`auto,n\ 13:5 ei=ta ba,llei u[dwr eivj to.n nipth/ra kai.
h;rxato ni,ptein tou.j po,daj tw/n maqhtw/n kai. evkma,ssein tw/|
lenti,w| w-| h=n diezwsme,nojÅ
13:6 e;rcetai ou=n @pro.j# eivj Si,mwna Pe,tron\ kai. le,gei auvtw/|( Ku,rie( su,
mou ni,pteij tou.j po,dajÈ 13:7 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtw/|(
}O evgw. poiw/ su. ouvk oi=daj a;rti( gnw,sh| de. meta. tau/taÅ 13:8
le,gei auvtw/| Pe,troj( Ouv mh. ni,yh|j mou tou.j po,daj eivj to.n aivw/naÅ
avpekri,qh auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j VEa.n mh. ni,yw se( ouvk e;ceij me,roj metV evmou/Å
13:9 le,gei auvtw/| Si,mwn Pe,troj( Ku,rie( mh. tou.j po,daj mou mo,non avlla.
kai. ta.j cei/raj kai. th.n kefalh,nÅ
13:10 le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( ~O leloume,noj ouvk crei,an e;cei eiv mh. tou.j
po,daj ni,yasqai( avllV e;stin kaqaro.j o[loj\ kai. u`mei/j kaqaroi,
evste( avllV ouvci. pa,ntejÅ 13:11 h;|dei ga.r to.n paradido,nta auvto,n\
dia. tou/to ei=pen o[ti Ouvci. pa,ntej kaqaroi, evsteÅ
13:12 {Ote ou=n e;niye tou.j po,daj @auvtw/n# Îkai.Ð tw/n maqhtw/n kai. e;labe
ta. i`ma,tia auvtou/ kai. avne,pese pa,lin( ei=pen auvtoi/j( Ginw,skete ti,
pepoi,hka u`mi/nÈ 13:13 u`mei/j fwnei/te, me ~O ku,rioj kai ~O
dida,skaloj. ( kai. kalw/j le,gete( eivmi. ga,rÅ 13:14 eiv ou=n evgw.
e;niya u`mw/n tou.j po,daj o` ku,rioj kai. o` dida,skaloj( kai. u`mei/j
ovfei,lete avllh,lwn ni,ptein tou.j po,daj\ 13:15 u`po,deigma ga.r
e;dwka u`mi/n i[na kaqw.j evgw. evpoi,hsa u`mi/n evgw. kai. u`mei/j poih/teÅ
13:16 avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( ouvk e;sti dou/loj mei,zwn tou/ kuri,ou auvtou/
ouvde. avpo,stoloj mei,zwn tou/ pe,myantoj auvto,nÅ 13:17 eiv tau/ta
oi;date( maka,rioi, evste evan. poih/te auvta,Å
300 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

13:18 ouv peri. pa,ntwn u`mw/n le,gw\ evgw. ga.r oi=da ti,naj evxelexa,mhn\ avllV
I[na h` grafh. Plhrwqh/|( ~O trw,gwn met v evmou/ to.n a;rton evph/ren
evpV evme. th.n pte,rnan auvtou/Å
13:19 avpa,rti le,gw u`mi/n pro. tou/ gene,sqai( i[na pisteu,shte o[tan ge,nhtai
o[ti evgw, eivmiÅ
13:20 avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( o` lamba,nwn a;n tina pe,myw evme. lamba,nei(
o` de. evme. lamba,nwn lamba,nei to.n pe,myanta, meÅ
13:21 Tau/ta eivpw.n o` VIhsou/j evtara,cqh tw/| pneu,mati kai. evmartu,rhse kai.
ei=pen( VAmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti ei-j evx u`mw/n paradw,sei meÅ
13:22 e;blepon eivj avllh,louj oi` maqhtai. avporou,menoi peri. ti,noj le,geiÅ
13:23 h=n avnakei,menoj ei-j evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ evn tw/| ko,lpw| tou/
VIhsou/( o]n hvga,pa o` VIhsou/j\ 13:24 neu,ei ou=n tou,tw| Si,mwn
Pe,troj puqe,sqai ti,j a'n ei;h peri. ou- le,geiÅ 13:25 avnapesw.n
@ou=n# de. evkei/noj ou[twj evpi. to. sth/qoj tou/ VIhsou/ le,gei auvtw/|(
Ku,rie( ti,j evstinÈ 13:26 avpokri,netai ou=n o` VIhsou/j( VEkei/no,j
evstin w-| evgw. ba,yw to. ywmi,on kai. dw,sw auvtw/|Å
ba,yaj ou=n to. ywmi,on di,dwsin VIou,da| Si,mwnoj VIskariw,touÅ 13:27 kai.
meta. to. ywmi,on to,te eivsh/lqen eivj evkei/non o` Satana/jÅ
le,gei @ou=n# auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( }O poiei/j poi,hson ta,cionÅ 13:28 tou/to de.
ouvdei.j e;gnw tw/n avnakeime,nwn pro.j ti, ei=pen auvtw/|\
13:29 tine.j @ga.r# de. evdo,koun( evpei. to. glwsso,komon ei=cen o` VIou,daj( o[ti
@le,gei# ei=pen auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( VAgo,rason w-n crei,an e;comen eivj
th.n e`orth,n( h' toi/j ptwcoi/j i[na ti dw/|Å
13:30 labw.n @ou=n# de. to. ywmi,on @evkei/noj# euvqu,jÅ evxh/lqen h=n de. nu,xÅ
13:31 {Ote ou=n evxh/lqe( le,gei o` VIhsou/j( Nu/n evdoxa,sqh o` ui`o.j tou/
avnqrw,pou( kai. o` qeo.j evdoxa,sqh evn auvtw/|\ 13:32 Îeiv o` qeo.j
evdoxa,sqh evn auvtw/|Ð kai. @o` qeo.j# auvto.j doxa,sei auvto.n evn @auvtw/|(#
e`autw/| kai. euvqu.j doxa,sei auvto,nÅ
13:33 tekni,a( e;ti mikro.n meqV u`mw/n eivmi\
zhth,sete, me( kai. kaqw.j ei=pon toi/j VIoudai,oij @o[ti# {Opou evgw. u`pa,gw
u`mei/j ouv du,nasqe evlqei/n( kai. u`mi/n le,gw a;rti le,gwÅ
13:34 evntolh.n kainh.n di,dwmi u`mi/n( i[na avgapa/te avllh,louj( kaqw.j evgw.
hvga,phsa u`ma/j i[na kai. u`mei/j avgapa/te avllh,loujÅ
13:35 evn tou,tw| gnw,sontai pa,ntej o[ti evmoi. maqhtai, evste( eva.n avga,pa/te
@e;chte evn# avllh,loujÅ
13:36 Le,gei auvtw/| Si,mwn Pe,troj( Ku,rie( pou/ u`pa,geijÈ
avpekri,qh auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( {Opou u`pa,gw ouv du,nasai, moi nu/n avkolouqei/n(
avkolouqh,seij de. u[steronÅ
13:37 le,gei auvtw/| o` Pe,troj( Ku,rie( dia.ti, ouv du,namai, soi avkolouqh/sai
a;rtiÈ th.n yuch,n mou u`pe.r sou/ qh,swÅ
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 301

13:38 avpokri,netai o` VIhsou/j( Th.n yuch,n sou u`pe.r evmou/ qh,seijÈ avmh.n
avmh.n le,gw soi( ouv mh. avle,ktwr fwnh,sh| e[wj ou- avrnh,sh| me tri,jÅ
14:1 Mh. tarasse,sqw u`mw/n h` kardi,a\
pisteu,ete eivj to.n qeo,n kai. eivj evme. pisteu,eteÅ
14:2 evn th/| oivki,a| tou/ patro,j mou monai. pollai, eivsin\ eiv de. mh,( ei=pon
a'n u`mi/n o[ti poreu,omai e`toima,sai to,pon u`mi/nÈ 14:3 kai. evan.
poreuqw/ kai. e`toima,sw to,pon u`mi/n( pa,lin e;rcomai kai.
paralh,myomai u`ma/j @pro.j evmauto,n# met v evmautou/( i[na o[pou eivmi.
evgw. kai. u`mei/j h=teÅ
14:4 kai. o[pou evgw. u`pa,gw oi;date kai. th.n o`do,n oi;dateÅ
14:5 Le,gei auvtw/| Qwma/j( @Ku,rie(# ouvk oi;damen pou/ u`pa,geij\ kai. pw/j
oi;damen @duna,meqa# th.n o`do.n @eivde,naiÈ# 14:6 le,gei auvtw/| o`
VIhsou/j( VEgw, eivmi h` o`do.j kai. h` avlh,qeia kai. h` zwh,\ ouvdei.j
e;rcetai pro.j to.n pate,ra eiv mh. diV evmou/Å
14:7 eiv evgnw,kate, me( kai. to.n pate,ra mou @gnw,sesqe# a;n h;|deite\
kai. avpa,rti ginw,skete auvto.n kai. e`wra,kate auvto,nÅ
14:8 le,gei auvtw/| Fi,lippoj( Ku,rie( dei/xon h`mi/n to.n pate,ra( kai. avrkei/
h`mi/nÅ
14:9 le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( Tosou,tw| cro,nw| meqV u`mw/n eivmi kai. ouvk
e;gnwka,j me( Fi,lippeÈ o` e`wrakw.j evme. e`w,rake to.n pate,ra\
@pw/j su. le,geij( Dei/xon h`mi/n to.n pate,raÈ#
14:10 ouv pisteu,eij o[ti evgw. evn tw/| patri. kai. o` path.r evn evmoi, evstinÈ
ta. r`h,mata a] evgw. @le,gw u`mi/n# lalw/ avp v evmautou/ ouv lalw/( o` @de.# path.r
evn evmoi. me,nwn poiei/ ta. e;rga @auvtou/Å#

Chapter One
14:11 pisteu,ete, @moi# o[ti evgw. evn tw/| patri. kai. o` path.r evn evmoi,\evstin
eiv de. mh,( dia. ta. e;rga auvta. pisteu,eteÅ
14:12 avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( o` pisteu,wn eivj evme. ta. e;rga a] evgw. poiw/
kavkei/noj poih,sei kai. mei,zona tou,twn poih,sei( o[ti evgw. pro.j
to.n pate,ra poreu,omai\ 14:13 kai. o[ ti a'n aivth,shte evn tw/|
ovno,mati, mou tou/to poih,sw( i[na doxasqh/| o` path.r evn tw/| ui`w/|\
14:14 eva,n ti aivth,shte, @me# evn tw/| ovno,mati, mou evgw. poih,swÅ
14:15 VEa.n avgapa/te, me( ta.j evntola.j @ta.j evma.j# mou thrh,sete\
14:16 kavgw. evrwth,sw to.n pate,ra kai. a;llon para,klhton dw,sei u`mi/n( i[na
meqV u`mw/n eivj to.n aivw/na @h=|(# 14:17 to. pneu/ma th/j avlhqei,aj( o] o`
ko,smoj ouv du,natai labei/n( o[ti ouv qewrei/ auvto. ouvde. ginw,skei
auvto,\ u`mei/j ginw,skete auvto,( o[ti parV u`mi/n me,nei kai. evn u`mi/n
e;staiÅ
14:18 Ouvk avfh,sw u`ma/j ovrfanou,j( e;rcomai pro.j u`ma/jÅ
302 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

14:19 e;ti mikro.n kai. o` ko,smoj me ouvke,ti qewrei/( u`mei/j de. qewrei/te, me(
o[ti evgw. zw/ kai. u`mei/j zh,sesqeÅ
14:20 evn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra| u`mei/j gnw,sesqe u`mei/j o[ti evgw. evn tw/| patri,
mou kai. u`mei/j evn evmoi. kavgw. evn u`mi/nÅ

Book Ten
14:21 o` e;cwn ta.j evntola,j mou kai. thrw/n auvta.j evkei/no,j evstin o` avgapw/n
me\ o` de. avgapw/n me avgaphqh,setai u`po. tou/ patro,j mou( kavgw.
avgaph,sw auvto.n kai. evmfani,sw auvtw/| evmauto,nÅ
14:22 Le,gei auvtw/| VIou,daj( ouvc o` VIskariw,thj( Ku,rie( ti, ge,gonen o[ti
h`mi/n me,lleij evmfani,zein seauto.n kai. ouvci. tw/| ko,smw|È
14:23 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtw/|( VEa,n tij avgapa/| me to.n lo,gon
mou thrh,sei( kai. o` path,r mou avgaph,sei auvto,n kai. pro.j auvto.n
evleuso,meqa kai. monh.n parV auvtw/| poihso,meqaÅ
14:24 o` mh. avgapw/n me tou.j lo,gouj mou ouv threi/\
kai. o` lo,goj o]n avkou,ete ouvk e;stin evmo.j avlla. tou/ pe,myanto,j me patro,jÅ
14:25 Tau/ta lela,lhka u`mi/n parV u`mi/n me,nwn\ 14:26 o` de. para,klhtoj( to.
pneu/ma to. a[gion o] pe,myei u`mi/n o` path.r evn tw/| ovno,mati, mou(
evkei/noj u`ma/j dida,xei pa,nta kai. u`pomnh,sei u`ma/j pa,nta a] ei=pon
@u`mi/n# evgw,Å
14:27 Eivrh,nhn avfi,hmi u`mi/n( eivrh,nhn th.n evmh.n di,dwmi u`mi/n\ ouv kaqw.j o`
ko,smoj di,dwsin evgw. di,dwmi u`mi/nÅ mh. tarasse,sqw u`mw/n h`
kardi,a mhde. deilia,twÅ
14:28 hvkou,sate o[ti evgw. ei=pon u`mi/n( ~Upa,gw kai. e;rcomai pro.j u`ma/jÅ

Chapter One
eiv hvgapa/te, me evca,rhte a;n o[ti poreu,omai pro.j to.n pate,ra( o[ti o` path.r
mou mei,zwn mou, evstinÅ
14:29 kai. nu/n ei;rhka u`mi/n pri.n gene,sqai( i[na o[tan ge,nhtai pisteu,shteÅ
14:30 ouvke,ti polla. lalh,sw meqV u`mw/n( e;rcetai ga.r o` tou/ ko,smou
a;rcwn\ kai. evn evmoi. ouvk e;cei ouvde,n( 14:31 avllV i[na gnw/| o`
ko,smoj o[ti avgapw/ to.n pate,ra( kai. kaqw.j @evnetei,lato# evntolh,n
moi de,dwken o` path,r( ou[tw poiw/Å
VEgei,resqe( a;gwmen evnteu/qenÅ

Chapter Two
15:1 VEgw, eivmi h` a;mpeloj h` avlhqinh,( kai. o` path,r mou o` gewrgo,j evstinÅ
15:2 pa/n klh/ma evn evmoi. mh. fe,ron karpo,n ai;rei auvto,( kai. pa/n to.
karpo.n fe,ron kaqai,rei auvto. i[na karpo.n plei,ona fe,rh|Å
15:3 h;dh u`mei/j kaqaroi, evste dia. to.n lo,gon o]n lela,lhka u`mi/n\
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 303

15:4 mei,nate evn evmoi,( kavgw. evn u`mi/nÅ kaqw.j to. klh/ma ouv du,natai fe,rein
karpo.n avfV e`autou/ eva.n mh. me,nh| evn th/| avmpe,lw|( ou[twj ouvde. u`mei/j
eva.n mh. evn evmoi. me,nhteÅ
15:5 evgw, eivmi h` a;mpeloj( u`mei/j ta. klh,mataÅ o` me,nwn evn evmoi. kavgw. evn
auvtw/| ou-toj fe,rei karpo.n polu,n( o[ti cwri.j evmou/ ouv du,nasqe
poiei/n ouvde,nÅ 15:6 eva.n mh, tij me,nh| evn evmoi,( evblh,qh e;xw w`j to.
klh/ma kai. evxhra,nqh kai. suna,gousin auvta. kai. eivj to. pu/r
ba,llousin kai. kai,etaiÅ
15:7 eva.n mei,nhte evn evmoi. kai. ta. r`h,mata, mou evn u`mi/n mei,nh|( o] eva.n
qe,lhte aivth,sasqe( kai. genh,setai u`mi/nÅ
15:8 evn tou,tw| evdoxa,sqh o` path,r mou( i[na karpo.n polu.n fe,rhte kai.
ge,nhsqe evmoi. maqhtai,Å
15:9 kaqw.j hvga,phse, me o` path,r( kavgw. hvga,phsa u`ma/j \ mei,nate evn th/|
avga,ph| th/| evmh/|Å 15:10 eva.n ta.j evntola,j mou thrh,shte( me,nete evn
th/| avga,ph| mou( kaqw.j kavgw. ta.j evntola.j tou/ patro,j mou
teth,rhka kai. me,nw auvtou/ evn th/| avga,ph|Å
15:11 Tau/ta lela,lhka u`mi/n i[na h` cara. h` evmh. evn u`mi/n @h=|# mei,nh| kai. h`
cara. u`mw/n plhrwqh/|Å
15:12 au[th evsti.n h` evntolh. h` evmh,( i[na avgapa/te avllh,louj kaqw.j kavgw.
hvga,phsa u`ma/jÅ 15:13 mei,zona tau,thj avga,phn ouvdei.j e;cei( i[na
tij th.n yuch.n auvtou/ qh/| u`pe.r tw/n fi,lwn auvtou/Å
15:14 u`mei/j fi,loi mou, evste eva.n poih/te @a]# o[sa evgw. evnte,llomai u`mi/nÅ
15:15 ouvke,ti le,gw u`ma/j dou,louj( o[ti o` dou/loj ouvk oi=de ti, poiei/
auvtou/ o` ku,rioj\ u`ma/j de. ei;rhka fi,louj( o[ti pa,nta a] h;kousa
para. tou/ patro,j mou evgnw,risa u`mi/nÅ
15:16 ouvc u`mei/j me evxele,xasqe( avllV evgw. evxelexa,mhn u`ma/j kai. @e;qhka#
te,qeika u`ma/j i[na @u`mei/j# u`pa,ghte kai. karpo.n fe,rhte kai. o`
karpo.j u`mw/n me,nh|( i[na o[ ti a'n aivth,shte to.n pate,ra evn tw/|
ovno,mati, mou dw/| u`mi/nÅ
15:17 @tau/ta ga,r @evnte,llomai# u`mi/n( i[na avgapa/te avllh,loujÅ# 943
15:18 Eiv o` ko,smoj u`ma/j misei/( ginw,skete o[ti evme. prw/ton u`mw/n
memi,shkenÅ
15:19 eiv evk tou/ ko,smou h=te( o` ko,smoj a'n to. i;dion evfi,lei\ o[ti de. evk tou/
ko,smou ouvk evste,( avllV evgw. evxelexa,mhn u`ma/j evk tou/ ko,smou( dia.
tou/to misei/ u`ma/j o` ko,smojÅ
15:20 mnhmoneu,ete tou/ lo,gou ou- evgw. ei=pon u`mi/n( Ouvk e;sti dou/loj
mei,zwn tou/ kuri,ou auvtou/Å eiv evme. evdi,wxan( kai. u`ma/j diw,xousin\
eiv to.n lo,gon mou evth,rhsan( kai. to.n u`me,teron thrh,sousiÅ

943 Mentioned within the interpretation of verse seventeen In Jo. 2.584.

304 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

15:21 avlla. tau/ta pa,nta poih,sousin eivj u`ma/j dia. to. o;noma, mou( o[ti ouvk
oi;dasi to.n pe,myanta, meÅ
15:22 eiv mh. h=lqon kai. evla,lhsa auvtoi/j( a`marti,an ouvk ei;cosan\ nu/n de.
pro,fasin ouvk e;cousi peri. th/j a`marti,aj auvtw/nÅ
15:23 o` evme. misw/n kai. to.n pate,ra mou misei/Å
15:24 eiv ta. e;rga mh. evpoi,hsa evn auvtoi/j a] ouvdei.j a;lloj evpoi,hsen(
a`marti,an ouvk ei;cosan\ nu/n de. kai. e`wra,kasi kai. memish,kasi
kai. evme. kai. to.n pate,ra mouÅ
15:25 avllV i[na plhrwqh/| o` lo,goj o` evn tw/| no,mw| auvtw/n gegramme,noj o[ti
VEmi,shsa,n me dwrea,nÅ
15:26 {Otan de. e;lqh| o` para,klhtoj o]n evgw. pe,myw u`mi/n para. tou/
patro,j( to. pneu/ma th/j avlhqei,aj o] para. tou/ patro.j evkporeu,etai(
evkei/noj marturh,sei peri. evmou/\ 15:27 kai. u`mei/j de. marturei/te(
o[ti avpV avrch/j metV evmou/ evsteÅ
16:1 Tau/ta lela,lhka u`mi/n i[na mh. skandalisqh/teÅ
16:2 avposunagw,gouj poih,sousin u`ma/j\ avllV e;rcetai w[ra i[na pa/j o`
avpoktei,naj u`ma/j do,xh| latrei,an prosfe,rein tw/| qew/|Å
16:3 kai. tau/ta poih,sousin o[ti ouvk e;gnwsan to.n pate,ra ouvde. evme,Å
16:4 avlla. tau/ta lela,lhka u`mi/n i[na o[tan e;lqh| h` w[ra auvtw/n
mnhmoneu,hte auvtw/n o[ti evgw. ei=pon u`mi/nÅ
Tau/ta de. @u`mi/n# evx avrch/j ouvk ei=pon u`mi/n( o[ti meqV u`mw/n h;mhnÅ 16:5 nu/n
de. u`pa,gw pro.j to.n pe,myanta, me( kai. ouvdei.j evx u`mw/n evrwta/| me(
Pou/ u`pa,geijÈ 16:6 avllV o[ti tau/ta lela,lhka u`mi/n h` lu,ph
peplh,rwken u`mw/n th.n kardi,anÅ
16:7 avllV evgw. th.n avlh,qeian u`mi/n le,gw ( sumfe,rei u`mi/n i[na @evgw.#
avpe,lqwÅ eva.n ga.r mh. avpe,lqw( o` para,klhtoj @ouvk# ouv mh, e;lqh|
@evleu,setai# pro.j u`ma/j\
@eva.n de. poreuqw/( pe,myw auvto.n pro.j u`ma/jÅ#
16:8 kai. evlqw.n evkei/noj evle,gxei to.n ko,smon peri. a`marti,aj kai. peri.
dikaiosu,nhj kai. peri. kri,sewj\ 16:9 peri. a`marti,aj me,n( o[ti ouv
pisteu,ousin eivj evme,\ 16:10 peri. dikaiosu,nhj de,( o[ti pro.j to.n
pate,ra u`pa,gw kai. ouvke,ti qewrei/te, me\ 16:11 peri. kri,sewj de. (
o[ti o` a;rcwn tou/ ko,smou tou,tou ke,kritaiÅ
16:12 :Eti polla. u`mi/n e;cw le,gein( avllV ouv du,nasqe basta,zein a;rti\
16:13 o[tan de. e;lqh| evkei/noj( to. pneu/ma th/j avlhqei,aj( o`dhgh,sei
u`ma/j eivj pa/san @evn# @th/| avlhqei,a|# th.n avlh,qeian @pa,sh|#\ ouv ga.r
lalh,sei avfV e`autou/( avllV o[sa a;n avkou,sh| lalh,sei kai. ta.
evrco,mena avnaggelei/ u`mi/nÅ
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 305

Book Eleven
Chapter One
16:14 evkei/noj evme. doxa,sei( o[ti evk tou/ evmou/ lh,myetai kai. avnaggelei/
u`mi/nÅ

Chapter Two
16:15 pa,nta o[sa e;cei o` path.r evma, evsti\ kai. dia. tou/to ei=pon u`mi/n o[ti
evk tou/ evmou/ lamba,nei kai. avnaggelei/ u`mi/nÅ
16:16 Mikro.n kai. ouvke,ti qewrei/te, me( kai. pa,lin mikro.n kai. o;yesqe, meÅ
16:17 ei=pon ou=n evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ pro.j avllh,louj( Ti, evsti tou/to o]
le,gei h`mi/n( Mikro.n kai. ouv qewrei/te, me( kai. pa,lin mikro.n kai.
o;yesqe, meÈ kai,( {Oti evgw. u`pa,gw pro.j to.n pate,raÈ 16:18 e;legon
ou=n( Ti, evsti tou/to o] le,gei to. mikro,nÈ ouvk oi;damen ti, lalei/Å
16:19 e;gnw o` VIhsou/j o[ti h;qelon auvto.n evrwta/n( kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j( Peri.
tou,tou zhtei/te metV avllh,lwn o[ti ei=pon( Mikro.n kai. ouv
qewrei/te, me( kai. pa,lin mikro.n kai. o;yesqe, meÈ 16:20 avmh.n avmh.n
le,gw u`mi/n o[ti klau,sete kai. qrhnh,sete u`mei/j( o` de. ko,smoj
carh,setaiÅ u`mei/j luphqh,sesqe( avllV h` lu,ph u`mw/n eivj cara.n
genh,setaiÅ
16:21 h` gunh. o[tan ti,kth| lu,phn e;cei( o[ti h=lqen h` w[ra auvth/j\ o[tan de.
gennh,sh| to. paidi,on( ouvke,ti mnhmoneu,ei th/j qli,yewj dia. th.n
cara.n o[ti evgennh,qh a;nqrwpoj eivj to.n ko,smonÅ 16:22 kai. u`mei/j
ou=n lu,phn me.n nu/n @e;cete# e;xete\ pa,lin de. o;yomai u`ma/j( kai.
carh,setai u`mw/n h` kardi,a( kai. th.n cara.n u`mw/n ouvdei.j ai;rei
avfV u`mw/nÅ
16:23 kai. evn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra| evme. ouvk evrwth,sete ouvde,nÅ avmh.n avmh.n le,gw
u`mi/n( a;n ti aivth,shte to.n pate,ra dw,sei u`mi/n evn tw/| ovno,mati,
mou) 16:24 e[wj a;rti ouvk hv|th,sate ouvde.n evn tw/| ovno,mati, mou\
aivtei/te kai. lh,myesqe( i[na h` cara. u`mw/n h=| peplhrwme,nhÅ
16:25 Tau/ta evn paroimi,aij lela,lhka u`mi/n\ e;rcetai w[ra o[te ouvke,ti evn
paroimi,aij lalh,sw u`mi/n( avlla. parrhsi,a| peri. tou/ patro.j
avpaggelw/ u`mi/nÅ
16:26 evn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra| evn tw/| ovno,mati, mou aivth,sesqe( kai. ouv le,gw
u`mi/n o[ti evgw. evrwth,sw to.n pate,ra peri. u`mw/n\ 16:27 auvto.j ga.r
o` path.r filei/ u`ma/j( o[ti u`mei/j evme. pefilh,kate kai. pepisteu,kate
o[ti evgw. para. tou/ qeou/ evxh/lqonÅ
16:28 evxh/lqon @para.# evk tou/ patro.j kai. evlh,luqa eivj to.n ko,smon\ pa,lin
avfi,hmi to.n ko,smon kai. poreu,omai pro.j to.n pate,raÅ
16:29 Le,gousin auvtw/| oi` maqhtai. auvtou/( :Ide nu/n evn parrhsi,a| lalei/j
kai. paroimi,an ouvdemi,an le,geijÅ 16:30 nu/n oi;damen o[ti oi=daj
306 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

pa,nta kai. ouv crei,an e;ceij i[na ti,j se evrwta/|\ evn tou,tw|
pisteu,omen o[ti avpo. qeou/ evxh/lqejÅ
16:31 avpekri,qh auvtoi/j VIhsou/j( :Arti pisteu,eteÈ 16:32 ivdou. e;rcetai w[ra
kai. nu/n evlh,luqen i[na skorpisqh/te e[kastoj eivj ta. i;dia kavme.
mo,non avfh/te\ kai. ouvk eivmi. mo,noj( o[ti o` path.r metV evmou/ evstinÅ
16:33 tau/ta lela,lhka u`mi/n i[na evn evmoi. eivrh,nhn e;chte\ evn tw/| ko,smw|
qli/yin e;cete( avlla. qarsei/te( evgw. neni,khka to.n ko,smonÅ

Chapter Three
17:1 Tau/ta evla,lhsen o` VIhsou/j( kai. evpa,raj tou.j ovfqalmou.j auvtou/ eivj
to.n ouvrano.n ei=pe( Pa,ter( evlh,luqen h` w[ra\ do,xaso,n sou to.n
ui`o,n( i[na o` ui`o.j sou doxa,sh| se,(

Chapter Four
17:2 kaqw.j e;dwkaj auvtw/| evxousi,an pa,shj sarko,j( i[na pa/n o] de,dwkaj
auvtw/| dw,sh| auvtoi/j zwh.n aivw,nionÅ

Chapter Five
17:3 au[th de, evstin h` aivw,nioj zwh, i[na ginw,skwsi, se. to.n mo,non
avlhqino.n qeo.n kai. o]n avpe,steilaj VIhsou/n Cristo,nÅ

Chapter Six
17:4 evgw, se evdo,xasa evpi. th/j gh/j to. e;rgon teleiw,saj o] de,dwka,j moi i[na
poih,sw auvto,\ 17:5 kai. nu/n do,xaso,n me su,( pa,ter( para. seautw/|
th/| do,xh| h-| ei=con pro. tou/ to.n ko,smon ei=nai para. soi,Å

Chapter Seven
17:6 VEfane,rwsa, sou to. o;noma toi/j avnqrw,poij ou]j e;dwka,j moi evk tou/
ko,smouÅ soi. h=san kavmoi. auvtou.j de,dwkaj kai. to.n lo,gon sou
teth,rhkanÅ 17:7 nu/n e;gnwkan o[ti pa,nta o[sa de,dwka,j moi para.
sou/ eivsin\ 17:8 o[ti ta. r`h,mata a] de,dwka,j moi de,dwka auvtoi/j(
kai. auvtoi. e;labon kai. e;gnwsan avlhqw/j o[ti para. sou/ evxh/lqon(
kai. evpi,steusan o[ti su, me avpe,steilajÅ

Chapter Eight
17:9 evgw. peri. auvtw/n evrwtw/( ouv peri. tou/ ko,smou evrwtw/ avlla. peri. w-n
de,dwka,j moi( o[ti soi, eivsin( 17:10 kai. ta. evma. pa,nta sa, evsti kai.
ta. sa. evma,( kai. dedo,xasmai evn auvtoi/jÅ 17:11 kai. ouvk e;ti eivmi. evn
tw/| ko,smw|( kai. auvtoi. evn tw/| ko,smw| eivsi.( kavgw. pro.j se. e;rcomaiÅ
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 307

Chapter Nine
Pa,ter a[gie( th,rhson auvtou.j evn tw/| ovno,mati, sou w-| de,dwka,j moi( i[na
w=sin e]n kaqw.j h`mei/jÅ
17:12 o[te h;mhn metV auvtw/n evgw. evth,roun auvtou.j evn tw/| ovno,mati, sou w-|
de,dwka,j moi( kai. evfu,laxa auvtou.j( kai. ouvdei.j evx auvtw/n avpw,leto
eiv mh. o` ui`o.j th/j avpwlei,aj( i[na h` grafh. plhrwqh/|Å 17:13 nu/n de.
pro.j se. e;rcomai
kai. tau/ta lalw/ evn tw/| ko,smw| i[na e;cwsi th.n cara.n th.n evmh.n
peplhrwme,nhn evn e`autoi/jÅ
17:14 evgw. de,dwka auvtoi/j to.n lo,gon sou kai. o` ko,smoj evmi,shsen auvtou,j(
o[ti ouvk eivsi.n evk tou/ ko,smou kaqw.j evgw. ouvk eivmi. evk tou/
ko,smouÅ 17:15 ouvk evrwtw/ i[na a;rh|j auvtou.j evk tou/ ko,smou( avllV
i[na thrh,sh|j auvtou.j evk tou/ ponhrou/Å
17:16 evk tou/ ko,smou ouvk eivsi. kaqw.j evgw. ouvk eivmi. evk tou/ ko,smouÅ
17:17 @a`gi,ason# Pa,ter a[gie th,rhson auvtou.j evn th/| avlhqei,a|\ o` lo,goj o`
so.j avlh,qeia, evstinÅ

Chapter Ten
17:18 kaqw.j evme. avpe,steilaj eivj to.n ko,smon( kavgw. avpe,steila auvtou.j eivj
to.n ko,smon\ 17:19 kai. u`pe.r auvtw/n evgw. a`gia,zw evmauto,n( i[na
w=sin kai. auvtoi. h`giasme,noi evn avlhqei,a|Å

Chapter Eleven
17:20 Ouv peri. tou,twn de. evrwtw/ mo,non( avlla. kai. peri. tw/n pisteuo,ntwn
dia. tou/ lo,gou auvtw/n eivj evme,( 17:21 i[na pa,ntej e]n w=sin( kaqw.j
su,( pa,ter( evn evmoi. kavgw. evn soi,( i[na kai. auvtoi. evn h`mi/n w=sin(
i[na o` ko,smoj pisteu,h| o[ti su, me avpe,steilajÅ

Chapter Twelve
17:22 kavgw. th.n do,xan h]n de,dwka,j moi de,dwka auvtoi/j( i[na w=sin e]n
kaqw.j h`mei/j e[n\ 17:23 evgw. evn auvtoi/j kai. su. evn evmoi,( i[na w=si
teteleiwme,noi eivj e[n( i[na ginw,skh| o` ko,smoj o[ti su, me
avpe,steilaj kai. hvga,phsaj auvtou.j kaqw.j evme. hvga,phsajÅ
17:24 Pa,ter( ou]j de,dwka,j moi( qe,lw i[na o[pou eivmi. evgw. @kavkei/noi# kai.
auvtoi. w=si metV evmou/( i[na qewrw/si th.n do,xan th.n evmh.n( h]n
de,dwka,j moi o[ti hvga,phsa,j me pro. katabolh/j ko,smouÅ
17:25 pa,ter di,kaie( kai. o` ko,smoj se ouvk e;gnw( evgw. de, se e;gnwn( kai. ou-
toi e;gnwsan o[ti su, me avpe,steilaj\
17:26 kai. evgnw,risa auvtoi/j to. o;noma, sou kai. gnwri,sw( i[na h` avga,ph h]n
hvga,phsa,j me evn auvtoi/j h=| kavgw. evn auvtoi/jÅ
308 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

18:1 Tau/ta eivpw.n o` VIhsou/j evxh/lqen su.n toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/ pe,ran tou/
ceima,rrou tw/n Kedrw.n o[pou h=n kh/poj( eivj o]n eivsh/lqen auvto.j
kai. oi` maqhtai. auvtou/Å 18:2 h;|dei de. kai. VIou,daj o` paradidou.j
auvto.n to.n to,pon( o[ti polla,kij sunh,cqh o` VIhsou/j evkei/ meta.
tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/Å
18:3 o` ou=n VIou,daj paralabw.n th.n spei/ran kai. evk tw/n avrciere,wn kai.
evk tw/n Farisai,wn u`phre,taj e;rcetai evkei/ meta. fanw/n kai.
lampa,dwn kai. o[plwnÅ
18:4 VIhsou/j ou=n eivdw.j pa,nta ta. evrco,mena evpV auvto.n evxh/lqe kai. le,gei
auvtoi/j( Ti,na zhtei/teÈ 18:5 avpekri,qhsan auvtw/|( VIhsou/n to.n
Nazwrai/onÅ le,gei auvtoi/j o` vIhsou/j( VEgw, eivmiÅ ei`sth,kei de. kai.
VIou,daj o` paradidou.j auvto.n metV auvtw/nÅ 18:6 w`j ou=n ei=pen
auvtoi/j( o[ti evgw, eivmi( avph/lqon eivj ta. ovpi,sw kai. e;pesan camai,Å
18:7 pa,lin ou=n evphrw,thsen auvtou,j( Ti,na zhtei/teÈ oi` de. ei=pan( VIhsou/n
to.n Nazwrai/onÅ 18:8 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j( Ei=pon u`mi/n o[ti evgw,
eivmi\ eiv ou=n evme. zhtei/te( a;fete tou,touj u`pa,gein\ 18:9 i[na
plhrwqh/| o` lo,goj o]n ei=pen o[ti Ou]j de,dwka,j moi ouvk avpw,lesa evx
auvtw/n ouvde,naÅ
18:10 Si,mwn ou=n Pe,troj e;cwn ma,cairan ei[lkusen auvth.n kai. e;paise to.n
tou/ avrciere,wj dou/lon kai. avpe,koyen auvtou/ to. @wvta,rion# wvti,on
to. dexio,n\ h=n de. o;noma tw/| dou,lw| Ma,lcojÅ
18:11 ei=pen ou=n o` VIhsou/j tw/| Pe,trw|( Ba,le th.n ma,cairan eivj th.n qh,khn\
auvth/j to. poth,rion o] de,dwke,n moi o` path.r ouv mh. pi,w auvto,È
18:12 ~H ou=n spei/ra kai. o` cili,arcoj kai. oi` u`phre,tai tw/n VIoudai,wn
sune,labon to.n VIhsou/n kai. e;dhsan auvto.n 18:13 kai. avph,gagon
pro.j {Annan prw/ton\ h=n ga.r penqero.j tou/ Kai?a,fa( o]j h=n
avrciereu.j tou/ evniautou/ evkei,nou\ 18:14 h=n de. Kai?a,faj o`
sumbouleu,saj toi/j VIoudai,oij o[ti sumfe,rei e[na a;nqrwpon
avpoqanei/n u`pe.r tou/ laou/Å
18:15 VHkolou,qei de. tw/| VIhsou/ Si,mwn Pe,troj kai. a;lloj maqhth,jÅ
o` de. maqhth.j evkei/noj gnwsto.j h=n tw/| avrcierei/ kai. suneish/lqe tw/| VIhsou/
eivj th.n auvlh.n tou/ avrciere,wj(
18:16 o` de. Pe,troj ei`sth,kei pro.j th/| qu,ra| e;xwÅ evxh/lqen ou=n o` maqhth.j o`
a;lloj o[j h=n gnwsto.j tou/ avrciere,wj kai. ei=pe th/| qurwrw/| kai.
eivsh,gagen to.n Pe,tronÅ
18:17 le,gei ou=n tw/| Pe,trw| h` paidi,skh h` qurwro,j( Mh. kai. su. evk tw/n
maqhtw/n ei= tou/ avnqrw,pou tou,touÈ le,gei evkei/noj( Ouvk eivmi,Å
18:18 ei`sth,keisan de. oi` dou/loi kai. oi` u`phre,tai avnqrakia.n pepoihko,tej(
o[ti yu/coj h=n( kai. evqermai,nonto\ h=n de. kai. o` Pe,troj e`stw.j metV
auvtw/n kai. qermaino,menojÅ
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 309

18:19 ~O ou=n avrciereu.j hvrw,thsen to.n VIhsou/n peri. tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/
kai. peri. th/j didach/j auvtou/Å
18:20 avpekri,qh auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( VEgw. parrhsi,a| lela,lhka tw/| ko,smw|(
evgw. pa,ntote evdi,daxa evn sunagwgh/| kai. evn tw/| i`erw/|( o[pou pa,ntej
@oi`# VIoudai/oi sune,rcontai( kai. evn kruptw/| evla,lhsa ouvde,nÅ
18:21 ti, me evrwta/|jÈ evrw,thson tou.j avkhkoo,taj ti, evla,lhsa auvtoi/j\ i;de ou-
toi oi;dasin a] ei=pon evgw,Å
18:22 tau/ta de. auvtou/ eivpo,ntoj ei-j paresthkw.j tw/n u`phretw/n e;dwke
r`a,pisma tw/| VIhsou/ eivpw,n auvtw|/( Ou[twj avpokri,nh| tw/| avrcierei/È
18:23 avpekri,qh auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( Eiv kakw/j evla,lhsa( martu,rhson peri.
tou/ kakou/\ eiv de. kalw/j( ti, me de,reijÈ

Book Twelve
18:24 avpe,steilen ou=n auvto.n o` {Annaj dedeme,non pro.j Kai?a,fan to.n
avrciere,aÅ 18:25 +Hn de. Si,mwn Pe,troj e`stw.j kai. qermaino,menojÅ
ei=pon ou=n auvtw/|( Mh. kai. su. evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ ei=È
hvrnh,sato evkei/noj kai. ei=pen( Ouvk eivmi,Å 18:26 le,gei ei-j evk tw/n
dou,lwn tou/ avrciere,wj( suggenh.j w'n ou- avpe,koyen Pe,troj to.
wvti,on( Ouvk evgw, se ei=don evn tw/| kh,pw| metV auvtou/È 18:27 pa,lin
ou=n hvrnh,sato Pe,troj( kai. euvqe,wj avle,ktwr evfw,nhsenÅ
18:28 :Agousin ou=n to.n VIhsou/n avpo. tou/ Kai?a,fa eivj to. praitw,rion\ h=n
de. prwi<\ kai. auvtoi. ouvk eivsh/lqon eivj to. praitw,rion( i[na mh.
mianqw/sin avlla. fa,gwsin to. pa,scaÅ
18:29 evxh/lqen ou=n o` Pila/toj e;xw pro.j auvtou.j kai. fhsi,( Ti,na
kathgori,an fe,rete kata. tou/ avnqrw,pou tou,touÈ
18:30 avpekri,qhsan kai. ei=pan auvtw/|( Eiv mh. h=n ou-toj @kako.n poiw/n#
kakopoio.j( ouvk a;n soi paredw,kamen auvto,nÅ
18:31 ei=pen ou=n auvtoi/j o` Pila/toj( La,bete auvto.n u`mei/j kai. kata. to.n
no,mon u`mw/n kri,nate auvto,nÅ
ei=pon ou=n auvtw/| oi` VIoudai/oi( ~Hmi/n ouvk e;xestin avpoktei/nai ouvde,na\
18:32 i[na o` lo,goj tou/ VIhsou/ plhrwqh/| o]n ei=pe shmai,nwn poi,w|
qana,tw| h;mellen avpoqnh,|skeinÅ
18:33 Eivsh/lqen ou=n pa,lin eivj to. praitw,rion o` Pila/toj kai. evfw,nhsen
to.n VIhsou/n kai. ei=pen auvtw/|( Su. ei= o` basileu.j tw/n VIoudai,wnÈ
18:34 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j( VApo. seautou/ su. tou/to le,geij h' a;lloi ei=po,n
soi peri. evmou/È
18:35 avpekri,qh o` Pila/toj( Mh,ti evgw. VIoudai/o,j eivmiÈ to. e;qnoj to. so.n
kai. oi` avrcierei/j pare,dwka,n se evmoi,\ ti, evpoi,hsajÈ
18:36 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j( ~H basilei,a h` evmh. ouvk e;stin evk tou/ ko,smou
tou,tou\ eiv evk tou/ ko,smou tou,tou h=n h` basilei,a h` evmh,( oi`
310 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

u`phre,tai oi` evmoi. hvgwni,zonto a;n( i[na mh. paradoqw/ toi/j

VIoudai,oij\ nu/n de. h` basilei,a h` evmh. ouvk e;stin evnteu/qenÅ
18:37 ei=pen ou=n auvtw/| o` Pila/toj( Ouvkou/n basileu.j ei= su,È
avpekri,qh auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( Su. le,geij o[ti basileu,j eivmiÅ evgw. eivj tou/to
gege,nnhmai kai. eivj tou/to evlh,luqa eivj to.n ko,smon( i[na
marturh,sw th/| avlhqei,a|\ pa/j o` w'n evk th/j avlhqei,aj avkou,ei mou
th/j fwnh/jÅ 18:38 le,gei auvtw/| o` Pila/toj( Ti, evstin avlh,qeiaÈ
Kai. tou/to eivpw.n pa,lin evxh/lqe pro.j tou.j VIoudai,ouj kai. le,gei auvtoi/j(
VEgw. ouvdemi,an eu`ri,skw evn auvtw/| aivti,anÅ 18:39 e;sti de. sunh,qeia
u`mi/n i[na e[na de,smion avpolu,sw u`mi/n evn tw/| pa,sca\ bou,lesqe ou=n
avpolu,sw u`mi/n to.n basile,a tw/n VIoudai,wnÈ
18:40 evkrau,gasan ou=n pa,lin le,gontej( Mh. tou/ton avlla. to.n Barabba/nÅ
h=n de. o` Barabba/j lh|sth,jÅ
19:1 To,te ou=n e;laben o` Pila/toj to.n VIhsou/n kai. evmasti,gwseÅ 19:2 kai.
oi` stratiw/tai ple,xantej ste,fanon evx avkanqw/n evpe,qhkan auvtou/
th/| kefalh/(| kai. i`ma,tion porfurou/n perie,balon auvto,n 19:3 kai.
h;rconto pro.j auvto.n kai. e;legon( Cai/re o` basileu.j tw/n
VIoudai,wn\ kai. evdi,dosan auvtw/| r`api,smataÅ
19:4 Kai. evxh/lqe pa,lin e;xw o` Pila/toj kai. le,gei auvtoi/j( :Ide a;gw u`mi/n
auvto.n e;xw( i[na gnw/te o[ti ouvdemi,an aivti,an eu`ri,skw evn auvtw/|Å
19:5 evxh/lqen ou=n o` VIhsou/j e;xw( forw/n to.n avka,nqinon ste,fanon kai. to.
porfurou/n i`ma,tionÅ kai. le,gei auvtoi/j( VIdou. o` a;nqrwpojÅ 19:6
o[te ou=n ei=don auvto.n oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` u`phre,tai evkrau,gasan
le,gontej( Stau,rwson stau,rwsonÅ
le,gei auvtoi/j o` Pila/toj( La,bete u`mei/j auvto.n kai. staurw,sate\ evgw. ga.r
ouvc eu`ri,skw evn auvtw/| aivti,anÅ
19:7 avpekri,qhsan auvtw/| oi` VIoudai/oi( ~Hmei/j no,mon e;comen\ kai. kata. to.n
no,mon ovfei,lei avpoqanei/n( o[ti ui`o.n qeou/ e`auto.n evpoi,hsenÅ
19:8 {Ote ou=n h;kousen o` Pila/toj tou/ton to.n lo,gon( ma/llon evfobh,qh(
19:9 kai. eivsh/lqen eivj to. praitw,rion pa,lin kai. le,gei tw/| VIhsou/(
Po,qen ei= su,È o` de. VIhsou/j avpo,krisin ouvk e;dwken auvtw/|Å
19:10 le,gei ou=n auvtw/| o` Pila/toj( VEmoi. ouv lalei/jÈ ouvk oi=daj o[ti
evxousi,an e;cw staurw/sai, @avpolu/sai,# se kai. evxousi,an e;cw
staurw/sai, seÈ
19:11 avpekri,qh auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( Ouvk ei=cej evxousi,an / ouvdemi,an katV evmou
eiv mh. h=n soi dedome,non a;nwqen\ dia. tou/to o` paradou,j me, soi
mei,zona a`marti,an e;ceiÅ
19:12 evk tou,tou o` Pila/toj evzh,tei auvto,n avpolu/sai \ oi` de. VIoudai/oi
@evkrau,gasan# e;krazon le,gontej( VEa.n tou/ton avpolu,sh|j( ouvk ei=
fi,loj tou/ Kai,saroj\ pa/j o` basile,a e`auto.n poiw/n avntile,gei tw/|
Kai,sariÅ
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 311

19:13 ~O ou=n Pila/toj avkou,saj tw/n lo,gwn tou,twn h;gagen e;xw to.n
VIhsou/n kai. evka,qisen evpi. bh,matoj eivj to,pon lego,menon
Liqo,strwton( ~Ebrai?sti. de. GabbaqaÅ 19:14 h=n de. paraskeuh. tou/
pa,sca( w[ra h=n w`jei. e[kthÅ kai. le,gei toi/j VIoudai,oij( :Ide o`
basileu.j u`mw/nÅ
19:15 evkrau,gasan ou=n evkei/noi( +Aron a=ron( stau,rwson auvto,nÅ le,gei
auvtoi/j o` Pila/toj( To.n basile,a u`mw/n staurw,swÈ
avpekri,qhsan oi` avrcierei/j( Ouvk e;comen basile,a eiv mh. Kai,saraÅ
19:16 to,te ou=n pare,dwken auvto.n auvtoi/j i[na staurwqh/|Å
Pare,labon ou=n to.n VIhsou/n( 19:17 kai. basta,zwn e`autw/| to.n stauro.n
evxh/lqen eivj to.n lego,menon Krani,ou To,pon( o] le,getai ~Ebrai?sti.
Golgoqa( 19:18 o[pou auvto.n evstau,rwsan( kai. metV auvtou/ a;llouj
du,o evnteu/qen kai. evnteu/qen( me,son de. to.n VIhsou/nÅ
19:19 e;grayen de. kai. ti,tlon o` Pila/toj kai. e;qhken evpi. tou/ staurou/\ h=n
de. gegramme,non\ VIhsou/j o` Nazwrai/oj o` basileu.j tw/n
VIoudai,wnÅ
19:20 tou/ton ou=n to.n ti,tlon polloi. avne,gnwsan tw/n VIoudai,wn( o[ti
evggu.j h=n o` to,poj th/j po,lewj o[pou evstaurw,qh o` VIhsou/j\ kai. h=n
gegramme,non ~Ebrai?sti,( ~Rwmai?sti,( ~Ellhnisti,Å
19:21 e;legon ou=n tw/| Pila,tw| oi` avrcierei/j tw/n VIoudai,wn( Mh. gra,fe\ ~O
basileu.j tw/n VIoudai,wn( avllV o[ti evkei/noj ei=pen( Basileu,j eivmi
tw/n VIoudai,wnÅ 19:22 avpekri,qh o` Pila/toj( }O ge,grafa(
ge,grafaÅ
19:23 Oi` ou=n stratiw/tai o[te evstau,rwsan to.n VIhsou/n( e;labon ta. i`ma,tia
auvtou/ kai. evpoi,hsan te,ssara me,rh( e`ka,stw| stratiw,th| me,roj(
kai. to.n citw/naÅ h=n de. o` citw.n a;rafoj( evk tw/n a;nwqen u`fanto.j
diV o[louÅ 19:24 ei=pon ou=n pro.j avllh,louj( Mh. sci,swmen auvto,n(
avlla. la,cwmen peri. auvtou/ ti,noj e;stai\ i[na h` grafh. plhrwqh/| h`
le,gouja\ Diemeri,santo ta. i`ma,tia, mou e`autoi/j kai. evpi. to.n
i`matismo,n mou e;balon klh/ronÅ Oi` me.n ou=n stratiw/tai tau/ta
evpoi,hsanÅ
19:25 ei`sth,keisan de. para. tw/| staurw/| tou/ VIhsou/ h` mh,thr auvtou/ kai. h`
avdelfh. th/j mhtro.j auvtou/( Mari,a h` tou/ Klwpa/ kai. Mari,a h`
Magdalhnh,Å
19:26 VIhsou/j ou=n ivdw.n th.n mhte,ra kai. to.n maqhth.n parestw/ta o]n
hvga,pa( le,gei th/| mhtri,( Gu,nai( i;de o` ui`o,j souÅ 19:27 ei=ta le,gei
tw/| maqhth/(| :Ide h` mh,thr souÅ kai. avpV evkei,nhj th/j w[raj e;laben
o` maqhth.j auvth.n eivj ta. i;diaÅ
19:28 Meta. tou/to vIhsou/j ivdw.n h;dh o[ti @eivdw.j o` VIhsou/j o[ti h;dh# pa,nta
tete,lestai( i[na teleiwqh/| h` grafh,( le,gei( Diyw/Å 19:29 skeu/oj
312 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

e;keito o;xouj mesto,n\ spo,ggon ou=n mesto.n @tou/# o;xouj u`ssw,pw|

periqe,ntej prosh,negkan auvtou/ tw/| sto,matiÅ
19:30 o[te ou=n e;labe to. o;xoj o` VIhsou/j ei=pe( Tete,lestai( kai. kli,naj th.n
kefalh.n pare,dwken to. pneu/maÅ
19:31 Oi` ou=n VIoudai/oi( evpei. paraskeuh. h=n( i[na mh. mei,nh| evpi. tou/
staurou/ ta. sw,mata evn tw/| sabba,tw|( h=n ga.r mega,lh h` h`me,ra
evkei,nou tou/ sabba,tou( hvrw,thsan to.n Pila/ton i[na kateagw/sin
auvtw/n ta. ske,lh kai. avrqw/sinÅ
19:32 h=lqon ou=n oi` stratiw/tai kai. tou/ me.n prw,tou kate,axan ta. ske,lh
kai. tou/ a;llou tou/ sustaurwqe,ntoj auvtw/|\ 19:33 evpi. de. to.n
VIhsou/n evlqo,ntej( w`j ei=don auvto.n h;dh teqnhko,ta( ouv kate,axan
auvtou/ ta. ske,lh( 19:34 avllV ei-j tw/n stratiwtw/n lo,gch| auvtou/
th.n pleura.n e;nuxe( kai. evxh/lqen euvqu.j ai-ma kai. u[dwrÅ 19:35 kai.
o` e`wrakw.j memartu,rhken( kai. avlhqinh. auvtou/ evstin h` marturi,a(
kai. evkei/noj oi=den o[ti avlhqh/ le,gei( i[na kai. u`mei/j pisteu,shteÅ
19:36 evge,neto ga.r tau/ta i[na plhrwqh h` grafh. /|( VOstou/n ouv
suntribh,setai avp v auvtou/Å 19:37 kai. pa,lin e`te,ra grafh. le,gei(
:Oyontai eivj o]n evxeke,nthsanÅ
19:38 Meta. de. tau/ta hvrw,thse to.n Pila/ton o` VIwsh.f o` avpo.
~Arimaqai,aj( w'n maqhth.j tou/ VIhsou/ kekrumme,noj de. dia. to.n
fo,bon tw/n VIoudai,wn( i[na a;rh| to. sw/ma tou/ VIhsou/\ kai.
evpe,treyen o` Pila/tojÅ h=lqen ou=n kai. h=ren to. sw/ma auvtou/Å
19:39 h=lqe de. kai. Niko,dhmoj( o` evlqw.n pro.j auvto.n nukto.j to. prw/ton(
fe,rwn mi,gma smu,rnhj kai. avlo,hj w`jei. li,traj e`kato,nÅ
19:40 e;labon ou=n to. sw/ma tou/ VIhsou/ kai. e;dhsan auvto. ovqoni,oij meta.
tw/n avrwma,twn( kaqw.j e;qoj evsti. toi/j VIoudai,oij evntafia,zeinÅ
19:41 h=n de. evn tw/| to,pw| o[pou evstaurw,qh kh/poj( kai. evn tw/| kh,pw|
mnhmei/on kaino.n evn w-| ouvde,pw ouvdei.j h=n teqeime,noj\
19:42 evkei/ ou=n dia. th.n paraskeuh.n tw/n VIoudai,wn( o[ti evggu.j h=n to.
mnhmei/on( e;qhkan to.n VIhsou/nÅ
20:1 Th/| de. mia/| tw/n sabba,twn Mari,a h` Magdalhnh. e;rcetai prwi>
skoti,aj e;ti ou;shj eivj to. mnhmei/on kai. ble,pei to.n li,qon
hvrme,non evk tou/ mnhmei,ouÅ 20:2 tre,cei ou=n kai. e;rcetai pro.j
Si,mwna Pe,tron kai. pro.j to.n a;llon maqhth.n o]n evfi,lei o`
VIhsou/j kai. le,gei auvtoi/j( +Hran to.n ku,rion evk tou/ mnhmei,ou(
kai. ouvk oi;damen pou/ e;qhkan auvto,nÅ 20:3 VExh/lqen ou=n o` Pe,troj
kai. o` a;lloj maqhth,j( kai. h;rconto eivj to. mnhmei/onÅ 20:4
e;trecon de. oi` du,o o`mou/\ kai. o` a;lloj maqhth.j proe,dramen
ta,cion tou/ Pe,trou kai. h=lqen prw/toj eivj to. mnhmei/on( 20:5 kai.
paraku,yaj ble,pei kei,mena ta. ovqo,nia( ouv me,ntoi eivsh/lqenÅ 20:6
e;rcetai ou=n kai. Si,mwn Pe,troj avkolouqw/n auvtw/| kai. eivsh/lqen
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 313

eivj to. mnhmei/on( kai. qewrei/ ta. ovqo,nia kei,mena( 20:7 kai. to.
souda,rion( o] h=n evpi. th/j kefalh/j auvtou/( ouv meta. tw/n ovqoni,wn
kei,menon avlla. cwri.j evntetuligme,non eivj e[na to,ponÅ 20:8 to,te
ou=n eivsh/lqe kai. o` a;lloj maqhth.j o` evlqw.n prw/toj eivj to.
mnhmei/on kai. ei=de kai. evpi,steusen\ 20:9 ouvde,pw ga.r h;|deisan th.n
grafh.n o[ti dei/ auvto.n evk nekrw/n avnasth/naiÅ
20:10 avph/lqon ou=n pa,lin pro.j auvtou.j oi` maqhtai,Å 20:11 Mari,a de.
ei`sth,kei pro.j tw/| mnhmei,w| e;xw klai,ousaÅ
w`j ou=n e;klaie( pare,kuyen eivj to. mnhmei/on 20:12 kai. qewrei/ du,o
avgge,louj evn leukoi/j kaqezome,nouj( e[na pro.j th/| kefalh/| kai. e[na
pro.j toi/j posi,n( o[pou e;keito to. sw/ma tou/ VIhsou/Å 20:13 kai.
le,gousin auvth/| evkei/noi( Gu,nai( ti, klai,eijÈ
le,gei auvtoi/j o[ti +Hran to.n ku,rio,n mou( kai. ouvk oi=da pou/ e;qhkan
auvto,nÅ 20:14 tau/ta eivpou/sa evstra,fh eivj ta. ovpi,sw( kai. qewrei/
to.n VIhsou/n e`stw/ta( kai. ouvk h;|dei o[ti VIhsou/j evstiÅ
20:15 le,gei auvth/| o` VIhsou/j( Gu,nai( ti, klai,eijÈ ti,na zhtei/jÈ evkei,nh
dokou/sa o[ti o` khpouro,j evsti le,gei auvtw/|( Ku,rie( eiv su.
evba,stasaj auvto,n( eivpe, moi pou/ e;qhkaj auvto,n( kavgw. avrw/ auvto.n Å
20:16 le,gei auvth/| o` VIhsou/j( Maria,mÅ strafei/sa evkei,nh le,gei auvtw/|
~Ebrai?sti,( ~Rabbouni o] le,getai Dida,skale( kai. prose,dramen
a[yasqai auvtou/)
20:17 le,gei auvth/| o` VIhsou/j( Mh, mou a[ptou( ou;pw ga.r avnabe,bhka pro.j
to.n pate,ra mou\

Chapter One
poreu,ou de. pro.j tou.j avdelfou,j mou kai. eivpe. auvtoi/j( VAnabai,nw pro.j
to.n pate,ra mou kai. pate,ra u`mw/n kai. qeo,n mou kai. qeo.n u`mw/nÅ
20:18 e;rcetai Maria.m h` Magdalhnh. a`pagge,llousa toi/j maqhtai/j o[ti
~Ew,raka to.n ku,rion( kai. tau/ta ei=pen auvth/|Å
20:19 Ou;shj ou=n ovyi,aj th/| h`me,ra| evkei,nh| th/| mia/| sabba,twn kai. tw/n
qurw/n kekleisme,nwn o[pou h=san oi` maqhtai. ouvtou/ sunhgme,noi
dia. to.n fo,bon tw/n VIoudai,wn( h=lqen o` VIhsou/j kai. e;sth eivj to.
me,son kai. le,gei auvtoi/j( Eivrh,nh u`mi/nÅ 20:20 kai. tou/to eivpw.n
e;deixen auvtoi/j ta.j cei/raj kai. th.n pleura.n auvtou/Å
evca,rhsan ou=n oi` maqhtai. ivdo,ntej to.n ku,rionÅ
20:21 @kai.# ei=pen @ou=n# auvtoi/j @pa,lin#( Eivrh,nh u`mi/n\ kaqw.j avpe,stalke, me
o` zw/n path,r( kavgw. @pe,mpw# avposte,llw u`ma/jÅ
20:22 kai. tou/to eivpw.n evnefu,shse kai. le,gei auvtoi/j( La,bete pneu/ma
a[gion\ 20:23 a;n tinwn avfh/te ta.j a`marti,aj avfe,wntai auvtoi/j( a;n
tinwn krath/te kekra,thntaiÅ
314 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

20:24 Qwma/j de. ei-j evk tw/n dw,deka( o` lego,menoj Di,dumoj( ouvk h=n metV
auvtw/n o[te h=lqen o` VIhsou/jÅ 20:25 e;legon ou=n auvtw/| oi` a;lloi
maqhtai,( ~Ewra,kamen to.n ku,rionÅ o` de. ei=pen auvtoi/j( VEa.n mh.
i;dw evn tai/j cersi.n auvtou/ to.n tu,pon tw/n h[lwn kai. ba,lw to.n
da,ktulo,n mou eivj to.n tu,pon tw/n h[lwn kai. ba,lw mou th.n cei/ra
eivj th.n pleura.n auvtou/( ouv mh. pisteu,swÅ
20:26 Kai. meqV h`me,raj ovktw. pa,lin e;sw h=san oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ kai.
Qwma/j metV auvtw/nÅ e;rcetai o` VIhsou/j tw/n qurw/n kekleisme,nwn
kai. e;sth eivj to. me,son kai. ei=pen( Eivrh,nh u`mi/nÅ 20:27 ei=ta le,gei
tw/| Qwma/|( Fe,re to.n da,ktulo,n sou w-de kai. i;de ta.j cei/ra,j mou(
kai. fe,re th.n cei/ra, sou kai. ba,le eivj th.n pleura,n mou( kai. mh.
gi,nou a;pistoj avlla. pisto,jÅ
20:28 avpekri,qh auvtw/| Qwma/j kai. @ei=pen# le,gei auvtw/|( ~O ku,rio,j mou kai.
o` qeo,j mouÅ
20:29 le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( {Oti e`w,raka,j me pepi,steukajÈ maka,rioi oi`
mh. ivdo,ntej kai. pisteu,santejÅ
20:30 Polla. me.n ou=n kai. a;lla shmei/a evpoi,hsen o` VIhsou/j evnw,pion tw/n
maqhtw/n auvtou/( a] ouvk e;sti gegramme,na evn tw/| bibli,w| tou,tw|\
20:31 tau/ta de. ge,graptai i[na pisteu,shte o[ti VIhsou/j evstin o`
Cristo.j o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/( kai. i[na pisteu,ontej zwh.n e;chte evn
tw/| ovno,mati auvtou/Å
21:1 Meta. tau/ta evfane,rwsen e`auto.n pa,lin o` VIhsou/j toi/j maqhtai/j evpi.
th/j qala,sshj th/j Tiberia,doj\ evfane,rwsen de. ou[twjÅ 21:2 h=san
o`mou/ Si,mwn Pe,troj kai. Qwma/j o` lego,menoj Di,dumoj kai.
Naqanah.l o` avpo. Kana. th/j Galilai,aj kai. oi` tou/ Zebedai,ou kai.
a;lloi evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ du,oÅ 21:3 le,gei auvtoi/j Si,mwn
Pe,troj( ~Upa,gw a`lieu,einÅ le,gousin auvtw/|( VErco,meqa kai. h`mei/j
su.n soi,Å evxh/lqon kai. evne,bhsan eivj to. ploi/on( kai. evn evkei,nh| th/|
nukti. evpi,asan ouvde,nÅ 21:4 prwi<aj de. h;dh genome,nhj e;sth
VIhsou/j @eivj# evpi. to.n aivgialo,n( ouv me,ntoi @h;|deisan# e;gvwsan oi`
maqhtai. o[ti VIhsou/j evstiÅ 21:5 le,gei @ou=n# auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j(
Paidi,a( mh, ti prosfa,gion e;ceteÈ avpekri,qhsan auvtw/|( Ou;Å 21:6 o`
de. ei=pen auvtoi/j( Ba,lete eivj ta. dexia. me,rh tou/ ploi,ou to.
di,ktuon( kai. eu`rh,seteÅ oi` de. ei=pon di v o[lhj th/j nukyo.j
kopia,santej ouvde.n evla,bomen( evpi. de. tw/| sw/| ovno,mati balou/men)
e;balon ou=n( kai. ouvke,ti auvto. e`lku,sai i;scuon avpo. tou/ plh,qouj
tw/n ivcqu,wnÅ
21:7 le,gei ou=n o` maqhth.j evkei/noj o]n hvga,pa o` VIhsou/j tw/| Pe,trw|( ~O
ku,rio,j evstiÅ Si,mwn ou=n Pe,troj avkou,saj o[ti o` ku,rio,j evsti to.n
evpendu,thn diezw,sato( h=n ga.r gumno,j( kai. e;balen e`auto.n eivj th.n
qa,lassan( 21:8 oi` de. a;lloi maqhtai. tw/| ploiari,w| h=lqon( ouv ga.r
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 315

h=san makra.n avpo. th/j gh/j avlla. w`j avpo. phcw/n diakosi,wn(
su,rontej to. di,ktuon tw/n ivcqu,wnÅ 21:9 w`j ou=n avpe,bhsan eivj th.n
gh/n ble,pousin avnqrakia.n keime,nhn kai. ovya,rion evpikei,menon
kai. a;rtonÅ 21:10 le,gei auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( VEne,gkate avpo. tw/n
ovyari,wn w-n evpia,sate nu/nÅ 21:11 avne,bh ou=n Si,mwn Pe,troj kai.
ei[lkuse to. di,ktuon eivj th.n gh/n mesto.n ivcqu,wn mega,lwn e`kato.n
penth,kontatriw/n\ kai. tosou,twn o;ntwn ouvk evsci,sqh to. di,ktuonÅ
21:12 le,gei auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( Deu/te avristh,sateÅ ouvdei.j de.
evto,lma tw/n maqhtw/n evxeta,sai auvto,n( Su. ti,j ei=È eivdo,tej o[ti o`
ku,rio,j evstinÅ 21:13 e;rcetai o` VIhsou/j kai. lamba,nei to.n a;rton
kai. di,dwsin auvtoi/j( kai. to. ovya,rion o`moi,wjÅ 21:14 tou/to h;dh
tri,ton evfanerw,qh o` VIhsou/j toi/j maqhtai/j evgerqei.j evk nekrw/nÅ
21:15 {Ote ou=n hvri,sthsan le,gei tw/| Si,mwni Pe,trw| o` VIhsou/j( Si,mwn
VIwa,nnou( avgapa/|j me ple,on tou,twnÈ le,gei auvtw/|( Nai,( ku,rie( su.
oi=daj o[ti filw/ seÅ le,gei auvtw/|( Bo,ske ta. avrni,a mouÅ 21:16
le,gei auvtw/| pa,lin deu,teron( Si,mwn VIwa,nnou( avgapa/|j meÈ le,gei
auvtw/|( Nai,( ku,rie( su. oi=daj o[ti filw/ seÅ le,gei auvtw/|( Poi,maine
ta. pro,bata, mouÅ 21:17 le,gei auvtw/| to. tri,ton( Si,mwn @VIwa,nnou#
vIwna/( filei/j meÈ evluph,qh o` Pe,troj o[ti ei=pen auvtw/| to. tri,ton(
Filei/j meÈ kai. @le,gei# ei=pen auvtw/|( su oi=daj Ku,rie( pa,nta @su.
oi=daj#( su. ginw,skeij o[ti filw/ seÅ le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( Bo,ske
ta. pro,bata, mouÅ
21:18 avmh.n avmh.n le,gw soi( o[te h=j new,teroj( evzw,nnuej seauto.n kai.
periepa,teij o[pou h;qelej\ o[tan de. ghra,sh|j( evktenei/j ta.j cei/ra,j
sou( kai. a;lloi zw,sousi, se @zw,sei kai. oi;sei# o[pou ouv qe,leijÅ
21:19 tou/to de. ei=pe shmai,nwn poi,w| qana,tw| doxa,sei to.n qeo,nÅ
kai. tou/to eivpw.n le,gei auvtw/|( VAkolou,qei moiÅ
21:20 VEpistrafei.j de. o` Pe,troj ble,pei to.n maqhth.n o]n hvga,pa o` VIhsou/j
avkolouqou/nta( o]j kai. avne,pesen evn tw/| dei,pnw| evpi. to. sth/qoj
auvtou/ kai. ei=pen( Ku,rie( ti,j evstin o` paradidou,j seÈ 21:21
tou/ton ou=n ivdw.n o` Pe,troj le,gei tw/| VIhsou/( Ku,rie( ou-toj de. ti,È
21:22 le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( VEa.n auvto.n qe,lw me,nein e[wj
e;rcomai( ti, pro.j se,È su, moi avkolou,qeiÅ 21:23 evxh/lqen ou=n ou-toj
o` lo,goj eivj tou.j avdelfou.j o[ti o` maqhth.j evkei/noj ouvk
avpoqnh,|skeiÅ ouvk ei=pe de. auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j o[ti ouvk avpoqnh,|skei\
avllV( VEa.n auvto.n qe,lw me,nein e[wj e;rcomai( ti, pro.j se,*
21:24 Ou-to,j evstin o` maqhth.j o` marturw/n peri. tou,twn. o` kai gra,yaj
tau/ta( kai. oi;damen o[ti avlhqh.j auvtou/ h` marturi,a @evsti,n#Å
21:25 :Esti de. kai. a;lla polla. a] evpoi,hsen o` VIhsou/j( a[tina eva.n
gra,fhtai kaqV e[n( ouvdV auvto.n oi=mai to.n ko,smon cwrh/sai ta.
grafo,mena bibli,aÅ avmh,n)
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary sources including translations:

Alla, Waheed H. “Discours pour la fête de la croix attribué à Saint Cyrille
d’Alexandrie.” Oriens Christianus Bd 75 (1991): 166–197.
Augustine. Homilies on the Gospel of John. Edited by Philip Schaff and
Translated by John Gibb. NPNF, First series: vol. 7. Massachusetts:
Hendrickson, 1995.
. In Johannis Evangelium Tractus. Edited by J. P. Migne. Patrologiae
Cursus Completus, Series Latina. Vol. 35. Paris: 1845.
Bindley, T. H. The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith. Westport, Connecticut:
Greenwood Press, 1950.
Bouriant, U. Fragments coptes relatifs au concile d’ Éphèse. Mémoires publiés par
les membres de la Mission archéologique française au Caire. Vol. 8.
Paris: 1892.
Chabot, J. B. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Vol. 70. Paris,
1912. Latin Translation by R. Tonneau, CSCO 140, Louvain: 1953.
Chaîne, P. M. “Sermon sur la pénitence attribué à saint Cyrille
d’Alexandrie.” In Mélanges de la Faculté Orientale de Beyrouth VI (1913):
493–519.
Charles, Robert Henry, ed. The Chronicle of John, Coptic Bishop of Nikiu (c.690
A.D.) Being the History of Egypt Before and During the Arab Conquest. Text
and Translation Society, London, vol. 3. Amsterdam: Philo Press,
1916.
Conybeare, Fred C., ed. The Armenian Version of Revelation, Apocalypse of John
Followed by Cyril of Alexandria’s Scholia on the Incarnation and Epistle on
Easter. Text and Translation Society, London, vol. 5. Amsterdam:
Philo Press, 1907.
Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on the Gospel According to S. John by S. Cyril
Archbishop of Alexandria. Translated by P. E. Pussey. Vol. 1. A Library
of the Holy Catholic Church, vol. 43. London: 1874.
318 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

. Commentary on the Gospel According to S. John by S. Cyril of Alexandria.

Translated by T. Randell. Vol. 2. A Library of the Holy Catholic
Church, vol. 48. London: 1885.
. Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Translated by R. Payne Smith.
Studion, 1983.
. A Commentary upon the Gospel According to S. Luke, by S. Cyril Patriarch of
Alexandria. Translated by R. Payne Smith. 2 vols. Oxford: At the
University Press, 1859.
. Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Deux dialogues Christologiques. Edited and Translated
by G. M. De Durand. SC, vol. 97. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1964.
. Cyrille d’Alexandrie: Dialogues sur la Trinité. Edited and Translated by G.
M. De Durand. SC, vols. 231, 237, and 246. Paris: Les Éditions du
Cerf, 1976, 1977, 1978.
. Cyrille d’Alexandrie: Contre Julien. Vol. 1, SC, vol. 322. Paris: Les
Éditions du Cerf, 1985.
. Cyrille d’Alexandrie: Lettres festales (I-VI). Intord. P. Évieux, texte W. H.
Burns, trad. et notes L. Arragon, M. O. Boulnois, P. Évieux, M. Forrat, B.
Meunier. SC, vol 372. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1991.
. Cyrille d’Alexandrie: Lettres festales (VII-XI). Texte W. H. Burns, Trad.
et notes L. Arragon et R. Monnier, sous la direction de P. Evieux. SC,
vol 392. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1993.
. Cyrille d’Alexandrie: Lettres festales (XII-XVII). Texte W. H. Burns, trad.
et notes Marie-Odile Boulnois et B. Meunier. SC, vol 434. Paris: Les
Éditions du Cerf, 1998.
. Edited by Migne, J. P. Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca.
Vols. 68–77. Paris: 1859.
. Five Tomes against Nestorius: Scholia on the Incarnation: Christ is One:
Fragments against Diodore of Tarsus: Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Synousiasts.
Translated by E. B. Pussey. The Library of Fathers of the Holy
Catholic Church. Oxford: James Parker, 1881.
. “Homilia in s. Mariam uirginem.” In Miscellaneous Coptic Texts in the
Dialect of Upper Egypt, ed. E. A. W. Budge, 139–146 (Text), 717–724
(Translation). London: 1915.
. Later Treatises of S. Athanasius Archbishop of Alexandria with Notes and an
Appendix on S. Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret. Translated by E. B.
Pussey. The Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church. Oxford:
James Parker, 1881.
. Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis
Evangelium. Accedunt Fragmenta varia necnon Tractatus Ad Tierium Diaconum
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 319

Duo. Edited by P. E. Pussey. 3 vols. Bruxelles: Impression Anastatique

Culture et Civilisation, 1965.
. Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini in XII Prophetas.
Edited by P. E. Pussey. 2 vols. Bruxelles: Impression Anastatique
Culture et Civilisation, 1965.
. Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini. Epistolae Tres
Oecumenicae. Libri Quinque Contra Nestorium. XII Capitum Explanatio. XII
Capitum Defensio Utraque. Scholia De Incarnatione Unigenti. Edited by P. E.
Pussey. Bruxelles: Impression Anastatique Culture et Civilisation,
1965.
. Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini. De Recta Fide Ad
Imperatorem. De Incarnatione Unigeniti Dialogus. De Recta Fide Ad
Principissas. De Recta Fide Ad Augustas. Quod Unus Christus Dialogus.
Apologeticus Ad Imperatorem. Edited by P. E. Pussey. Bruxelles:
Impression Anastatique Culture et Civilisation, 1965.
. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letters. Translated by John E. McEnerney. The
Fathers of the Church, vols. 76 and 77. Washington D.C.: The
Catholic University of America Press, 1985.
. The Three Epistles of St. Cyril (The Dogmatic Letters to Nestorius).
Oxford: 1872.
Didymus the Blind. De Spiritu Sancto. Traite du Saint-Esprit. Didyme l’Aveugle.
Introduction, texte critique, traduction notes et index, Louis
Doutreleau. SC, vol. 386. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1992.
Ebied, R. Y, and L. R. Wickham, eds. A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters
of Cyril of Alexandria. CSCO. Vols. 359–360. Louvain: 1975.
. “The Letter of Cyril of Alexandria to Tiberius the Deacon. Syriac
Version.” Le Museon 83 (1970): 433–482.
. “An unknown Letter of Cyril of Alexandria in Syriac.” The Journal of
Theological Studies, n.s. 22 (1971): 420–434.
Evetts, B., trans. History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria. Vol.
1, Patrologia Orientalis. Edited by R. Graffin and E. Nau. Paris: Librairie
de Paris, 1907.
Grohmann, Adolf. “Die im Äthiopischen, Arabischen und Koptischen
erhaltenen Visionen Apa Schenute’s von Atripe. II. Die arabische
Homilie des Cyrillus.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft 68 (1914): 1–46.
Geerard, Mauritti. Clavis Patrum Graecorum. 4 vols. Turnhout: Brepols,
1974–.
Heurtley, C. A. On the Faith and The Creed. Dogmatic Teaching of the Church of the
Fourth and Fifth Centuries. Oxford: 1886.
320 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

John Chrysostom. In Iohannem homiliae. Edited by J. P. Migne. Patrologiae

Cursus Completus: Series Graeca. Vol. 59. Paris: 1862.
McEnerney, J. I., trans. St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters. Fathers of the Church,
vols. 76–77. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America
Press, 1987.
McGuckin, J. A., trans. St. Cyril of Alexandria On the Unity of Christ.
Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995.
Nestorius. The Bazaar of Heracleides. Edited and translated by G. R. Driver
and Leonard Hodgson. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1925.
Origen. Commentary on the Gospel According to John. Translated by Ronald
Hiene. The Fathers of the Church, vols. 80 and 89. Washington D.C.:
The Catholic University of America Press, 1989, 1993.
.Origène: Commentaire sur Saint Jean. Edited and Translated by C. Blanc.
SC vols. 120, 157 and 222. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1966, 1970, 1975.
Pharr, Clyde. The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions.
New York: Greenwood Press, 1969.
Quintilian, Institutio Oratio. Text and translation by H. E. Butler, 4 vols.,
Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1920–2.
Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson. Ante-Nicene and Nicene and Post
Nicene Fathers Series. Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1995.
Schwartz, E. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. Concilium universale
Ephesinum Bk. I. Vols. 1–5. Berlin/Leipzig: 1927–1930.
Severus Bishop of El-Ashmunien. Al-Dur Al-Thamyn fy Idah Al-Dyn. Cairo:
Egypt, The New Bookstore, 1925.
Severus of Antioch. Le florilège Cyrillien réfuté par Sévère d’Antioche. Étude et
édition critique par Robert Hespel. Bibliothèque du Muséon, vol. 37.
Louvain: Université Catholique de Louvain, 1955.
Theodore of Mopsuestia. In Evangelium Joannis Commentarii Fragmenta (1).
Edited by J. P. Migne. Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca.
Vol. 66. Paris, 1864. 727–786.
Weischer, B. M. Qerellos IV 1: Homilien und Briefe zum Konzil von Ephesos.
Wiesbaden: 1979.

Secondary sources:
“A Sermon on the Last Supper attributed to St. Cyril of Alexandria.” St.
Mark (May 1999): 12–18.
Abel, F. M. “La géographie sacrée chez S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie.” Revue
Biblique 31 (1922): 407–427.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 321

. “Parallélisme éxégetique entre S. Jérôme et S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie.”

Vivre et Penser. Recherches d’exégèse et d’histoire, 1re série, 94–119, 212–30.
Paris: J. Gabalda, 1941.
. “Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie dans ses rapports avec la Palestine.” In
Kyrilliana: Études variées à l’occasion du XVe centenaire de Saint Cyrille
d’Alexandrie (444–1944), 205–230. Le Caire: Les Éditions du Scribe
Egyptien, 1947.
Adshead, K. “Pharaoh and Patriarch: A Lexical Approach.” In Ancient
History in a Modern University, vol. 2, ed. T. Hillard, 350–356. Cambridge,
U.K.: Eerdmans, 1998.
. “De Civitate Dei: le vocabulaire politique de Saint Cyrille
D’Alexandrie.” Recherches de Science Religieuse 78 (1990): 233–240.
Anastos, M. V. “Nestorius was orthodox.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16 (1962):
119–40.
Andersen, G. “The Integration of Platonism into Early Christian
Theology.” Studia Patristica 15 (1975): 399–414.
Armendariz, Luis M. El Nuevo Moises. Estudios Onienses Ser. 3, Vol.5.
Madrid: Ediciones Fax, 1962.
Arzoumanian, Zaven. Eznik of Kolb; Cyril of Alexandria; Constantine
Porphyrogenitus. New York: Diocese of the Armenian Church of
America, 1976.
Aubineau, M. “Deux Homélies de S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie.” Analecta
Bollandiana 90 (1972): 100.
Balz, Horst and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New
Testament. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994.
Bagnall, R. S. Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1993.
Barkhuizen, J. H. “A Short Note on John 1:17 in Patristic Exegesis.” Acta
Patristica et Byzantina 8 (1997):18–25.
Batiffol, P. “Les Présents de Saint Cyrille à la cour de Constantinople.”
Études de Liturgie et d’Archéologie Chrétienne. Paris: J. Gabalda, (1919):
154–76.
. “Un épisode du concile d’Ephèse (juillet 431) d’après les actes copte
de Bouriant.” In Mélanges offerts G. Schlümberger, vol. 1, 28–39. Paris:
1924.
Bebis, George S. The Mind of the Fathers. Brookline, Massachusetts: Holy
Cross Orthodox Press, 1994.
Beck, Hans-Georg. Kirche und Theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich.
München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1959.
322 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Bell, H. I. Jews and Christians in Egypt: The Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the
Athanasian Controversy. Oxford University Press, 1924.
Bernard, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St.
John. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999.
Berthold, G. C. “Cyril of Alexandria and the Filioque.” Studia Patristica 19
(1989): 143–47.
Bethune-Baker, J. F. An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine.
London: Methuen, 1962.
Bettazzi, Don Luigi. Miracolo e Fede in S. Cirillo d’Alessandria. Roma: Marietti,
Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1951.
Bettenson, Henry. The Later Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the
Fathers from St. Cyril of Jerusalem to St. Leo the Great. London: Oxford
University Press, 1970.
Blair, H. A. “Allegory, Typology and Archetypes.” Studia Patristica 17/1
(1982): 263–68.
Blanchette, O. “Saint Cyril of Alexandria’s Idea of the Redemption.” Sciences
Ecclésiastique 16 (1964): 455–80.
Borgen, Peder. Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna
in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo. Leiden: Brill, 1965.
Boulnois, Marie Odile. Le paradoxe trinitaire chez Cyrille d’Alexandrie.
Herméneutique, analyses philosophiques et argumentation théologique. Paris:
Institut d’Études Augustiniennes. Collections des Études
Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité 143 (1994).
. “Liberté et théodicée selon Cyrille d’Alexandrie.” Studia Patristica 37
(2001): 378–388.
. “Platon entre Moïse et Arius selon le Contre Julien de Cyrille
d’Alexandrie.” Studia Patristica 32 (1997): 264–71.
. “L’eucharistie, mystère d’union chez Cyrille d’Alexandrie: Les
modéles d’union Trinitaire et Christologique.” Revue des Sciences
Religieuses 74 (2000): 147–172.
Bovon, François. “From St. Luke to St. Thomas by Way of St. Cyril.” In
Studies in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Backer
Academic, 2005.
Brakke, David. Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism. Oxford and New York:
1995.
Bright, W. “Saint Cyril of Alexandria.” Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol.
1. 763–773.
Brock, S. P. “Origen’s aims as a Textual Critic of the Old Testament.”
Studia Patristica 10 (1970): 215–218.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 323

Brown, Peter. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian

Empire. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1992.
Brown, R. A. The Gospel According to John. The Anchor Bible, vols. 29 and
29A. New Doubleday, 1966.
Browning, Robert. Education in the Roman Empire. The Cambridge Ancient
History, ed. Avril Cameron, vol. 14, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Bultmann, R. The Gospel of John. A Commentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley-
Murray. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971.
Burghardt, Walter J. The Image of God in Man According to Cyril of Alexandria.
Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1957.
. “Cyril of Alexandria on ‘Wool and Linen.’” Traditio 2 (1944): 484–86.
Burns, W. H. “The Festal Letters of Saint Cyril of Alexandria.” Ph.D. Diss.,
Southampton: 1988.
Burton-Christie, Douglas. The Word in the Desert: Scripture and the Quest for
Holiness in Early Christian Monasticism. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1993.
Cameron, Avril. Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1991.
Cassel, J. D. “Cyril of Alexandria and the science of the grammarians: a
study in the setting, purpose and emphasis of Cyril’s Commentary on
Isaiah.” Ph.D. diss., Charlottesville: University of Virginia, 1992.
. “Key Principles in Cyril of Alexandria’s Exegesis.” Studia Patristica 37
(2001): 413–420.
. “Cyril of Alexandria as Educator.” In In Dominico Eloquio: In Lordly
Eloquence, eds. Paul Blowers, Angela Russell Christman, David G.
Hunter, and Robin Darling Young, 348–68. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 2002.
Casurella, Anthony. The Johannine Paraclete in the Church Fathers: A Study in the
History of Exegesis. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1983.
Cattaneo, E. “Formule di fede nelle Lettere Pasquali di Cirillo d’Alessandria.”
Koinonia 7 (1983): 31–5.
Chadwick, H. “Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy.”
Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 2 (1951): 145–64.
Charlier N. “La doctrine sur le Saint Esprit dans le ‘Thesaurus’ de S. Cyrille
d’Alexandrie.” Studia Patristica II Berlin (1957): 187–193.
. “Le Thesaurus de Trinitate de S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie.” Revue d’Histoire
Ecclésiastique 45 (1950): 25–81.
Chestnut, R. C. “The Two Prosopa in Nestorius’ Bazaar of Heracleides.”
Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 29 (1978): 392–408.
324 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Chuvin P. A Chronicle of the Last Pagan. Translated by B. A. Archer.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990.
Clark, Donald Lemen. Rhetoric in the Greco-Roman Education. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1959.
Cribiore, Raffaella. Gymnastics of the Mind, Greek Education in Hellenistic and
Roman Egypt. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001.
Cross, F. L. and E. A. Livingstone, eds. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church. New York: The Oxford University Press, 1998.
. “The Projected Lexicon of Patristic Greek.” In Actes du VIe Congrès
International d’Études Byzantines, 389–392. Paris: 1950.
Crouzel, Henri. Origen. Translated by A. S. Worrall. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1998.
D’Ales, A. “Le symbole d’union de 433.” Recherches de Science Religieuse 3
(1931): 257–268.
. “Le Concile d’Ephèse.” Gregorianum 12 (1981):200–266.
Daniélou, J. The Bible and the Liturgy. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1987.
. Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture. Translated by J. A. Baker.
Philadelphia: the Westminster Press, 1973.
. Sacramentum futuri. Études sur les origines de la typologie biblique. Paris:
1950.
. From Shadows to Reality: Studies in the Biblical Typology of the Fathers.
Westminster, Md., 1960.
. “The Problem of Symbolism.” Thought 25 (1950):422–44.
Darrouzès, J. Recherches sur les OFFIKIA de l’Église Byzantine. Archives de
l’Orient Chrétien 11. Paris: Institute Français d’Études Byzantines,
1970.
Datema, C. “Classical quotations in the work of Cyril of Alexandria.” Studia
Patristica 17/1 (1982): 422–5.
Davids, Adalbert. “Cyril of Alexandria’s First Episcopal Years.” In The
Impact of Scripture in Early Christianity, eds. J. den Boeft and M. L. van
Poll-van de Lisdonk, 187–202. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
De Durand, G. M. “Les trois fêtes.” Théologie Historique 88 (1992): 103–117.
. “Une Lettre méconnue de Cyrille d’Alexandrie.” In Alexandrina:
Mélanges offèrts à C. Mondésert. Les Éditions du Cerf: Paris, 1987.
. “Un prologue inédit au De adoratione de Cyrille d’Alexandrie?” Studia
Patristica 20 (1989): 3–7.
De Halleux, A. “Cyrille, Théodoret et le ‘Filioque.’” Revue d’Histoire
Ecclésiastique 74 (1979): 597–625.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 325

. “’Hypostase’ et ‘personne’ dans la Formation du dogme trinitaire ca.

375–391.” Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 79 (1984): 314–69; 625–70.
. “Les douze chapitres cyrilliens au concile d’Ephèse (430–433).” Revue
Théologique de Louvain 23 (1992): 425–58.
. “La première session du Concile d’Ephèse (22 juin 431).” Ephemerides
Theologicae Lovanienses 69 (1993): 48–87.
. “Nestorius, histoire et doctrine.” Irénikon 56 (1993b): 38–51, 163–77.
De Juaye, Hubert du Manoir. Dogme et Spiritualité chez Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie.
Paris: 1944.
De Lubac, Henri. Medieval Exegesis, vol 1: The Four Senses of Scripture.
Translated by Mark Sebanc. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.
De Margerie, Bernard. “L’exégèse christologique de S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie.”
Nouvelle Revue Théologique 102 (1980): 400–425.
. “Saint Cyril of Alexandria Develops a Christocentric Exegesis.” In
An Introduction to the History of Exegesis. Translated by Leonard Maluf,
vol. 1, 241–73. Petersham, Mass.: Saint Bede’s Publications, 1993.
Den Heijer, Johannes. Mawhub Ibn Mansur Mufarrig et l’historiographie copto-
arabe: Étude sur la composition de l’Histoire des Patriarches d’Alexandrie.
CSCO 83. Louvain: Peeters, 1989.
Devreesse, Robert. “Les actes du concile d’Ephèse.” Revue des Sciences
Philosophiques et Théologiques 18 (1929): 223–242, 408–431.
. “Après le concile d’Ephèse. Le retour des Orientaux à l’unité.” Echos
d’Orient 38 (1939): 271–92.
Dewart, J. M. The Theology of Grace of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Washington D.C.:
1971.
Diepen, H. M. Aux Origines de l’anthropologie de Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie.
Paris: 1957.
. “La christologie de S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie et l’anthropologie néo-
platonicienne.” Euntes Docete 9 (1956): 20–63.
. “Les Douze Anathématismes au Concile d’Ephèse et jusqu’en 519.”
Revue Thomiste 55 (1955): 300–38.
. “Stratagèmes contre la théologie de l’Emmanuel. À propos d’une
nouvelle comparaison entre S. Cyrille et Apollinaire.” Divinitas 1
(1957): 444–478.
Dillon, J. The Middle Platonists. London: Duckworth, 1977.
Discroll, Jeremy. “Exegetical Procedures in the Desert Monk Poemen.”
Studia Anselmiana 116 (1995): 155–178.
Dragas G. D. St. Athanasius Contra Apollinarem. Church and Theology vol. 6.
Athens: 1985.
326 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

. “‘St Athanasius’ Two Treatise Contra Apollinarem.” Abba Salama 6

(1974): 84–96.
. “A note concerning Athanasius’ soteriology.” Ekklesiastikos Pharos 61
(1979): 210–220.
Draguet, R. “Pour l’édition du Philalèthe de Sévère d’Antioche.”
Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30: 274–9.
Dratsellas, C. Questions of the soteriological teaching of the Greek Fathers with special
reference to St. Cyril of Alexandria. Athens: 1967–1968.
. Man in his Original State and in the State of Sin According to Cyril of
Alexandria. Athens: 1970–1971.
. “Questions on Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria.” Abba Salama 6
(1974): 203–232.
Drioton, Etienne. “Cyrille d’Alexandrie et l’ancienne religion égyptienne.”
In Kyrilliana: Études variées à l’occasion du XVe centenaire de Saint Cyrille
d’Alexandrie (444–1944), 231–46. Le Caire: Les Éditions du Scribe
Egyptien, 1947.
Dubarle, A. M. “Les conditions du salut avant la venue du Sauveur chez S.
Cyrille d’Alexandrie.” Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 32
(1948): 359–62.
. “L’ignorance du Christ dans S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie.” Ephemerides
Theologicae Lovanienses 16 (1939): 111–120.
Du Manoir, H. “L’argumentation patristique dans la controverse
nestorienne.” Recherches de Science Religieuse 25 (1935): 441–461, 531–
560.
. Dogme et Spiritualité chez S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Paris: J. Vrin, 1944.
. “L’ Église Corps du Christ chez S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie.”
Gregorianum 19 (1938): 573–603; 20 (1939): 83–100, 161–88.
. “Le problème de Dieu chez Cyrille d’Alexandrie.” Recherches de
Science Religieuse 27 (1937): 385–407.
. “Les premiers versets du quatrième évangile commentés par Cyrille
d’Alexandrie.” Studia mediaevalia et mariologica. Rome: Ed Antonianum
(1971): 101–19.
. “Le Symbole de Nicée au concile d’Ephèse.” Gregorianum 12 (1931):
104–37.
Dupré la Tour, A. “La doxa du Christ dans les oeuvres exégétiques de saint
Cyrille d’Alexandrie.” Recherches de Science Religieuse 48 (1960): 521–43;
49 (1961): 68–94.
Dzielska, M. Hypatia of Alexandria. Translated by F. Lyra. Revealing
Antiquity 8, ed. G. W. Bowersock. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press, 1995.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 327

Ebeid, Rifaat. Y. and Wickham, L. R. “Timothy Aelurus: Against the

Council of Chalcedon.” In C. Lage et al., eds, After Chalcedon: Studies in
Theology and Church History offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his
Seventieth Birthday. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 18 (1985): 115–66.
Eberle, A. Die Mariologie des hl. Cyrillus von Alexandrien. Freiburg: 1921.
Ehrman, Bart D. Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospel. Society of
Biblical Literature: The New Testament in the Greek Fathers, ed.
Gordon D. Fee, Number 1. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986.
. The Text of the Fourth Gospel in the Writings of Origin. Atlanta, Ga.:
Scholars Press, 1992.
. “The use and Significance of Patristic Evidence for NT Textual
Criticism.” New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Early Church
History. Kampen: Pharos, 1994, 118–135.
Elliott, James Keith. A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts.
Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Fatica, L. I commentari a Giovanni di Teodoro di Mopsuestia e di Cirillo di
Alessandria. Confronto fra metodi esegetici et teologici. Rome: Studia
ephemeridis Augustinianum, 29, 1988.
Fee, Gordon D. “The Text of John in Origen and Cyril of Alexandria. A
contribution of Methodology in the Recovery and Analysis of Patristic
Editions.” Biblica 52 (1971): 357–394.
. “The Text of John and Mark in the writings of Chrysostom:” New
Testament Studies 26 (1980): 525–547.
Fernández, Lois, A. H. A. La cristologia en los commentarios a Isaias de Cirilo de
Alejandria y Teodoreto de Ciro. Rome: Ponticia Universitas Lateranensis,
Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1998.
Festugière, A. J., trans. Éphèse et Chalcédoine. Actes des Conciles. Paris:
Beauchesne, 1982.
Finan, Thomas and Vincent Twomey, eds. Scriptural Interpretation in the
Fathers: Letter and Spirit. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1995.
Fishbane, Michael A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1988.
Fink, John F. “Saint Cyril of Alexandria.” In The Doctors of the Church: An
Introduction to the Church’s Great Teachers. New York: Alba House, 2000.
Fowden, G. “Bishops and Temples in the Eastern Roman Empire 320–425
AD.” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 29 (1978): 53–78.
Fraigneau-Julien, B. “L’efficacité de l’humanité du Christ selon S. Cyrille
d’Alexandrie.” Revue Thomiste 55 (1955): 615–28.
. “L’inhabitation de la sainte Trinité dans l’âme selon S. Cyrille
d’Alexandrie.” Recherches de Science Religieuse 30 (1956): 135–156.
328 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

. “Un traité anonyme de la S. Trinité attribué à S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie.”

Recherches de Science Religieuse 49 (1961): 188–211, 386–405.
Franses, D. “Cyrille au Concile d’Ephèse.” Studia Catholica 7 (1931): 369–
398.
Frend, W. H. C. “Monks and the End of Greco-Roman Paganism in Syria
and Egypt.” Cristianesimo nella Storia 11, part 3. (1990): 469–84.
. “Popular religion and christological controversy in the Fifth
Century.” Studies in Church History 8 (1972): 19–29.
. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: 1984.
. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Chapters in the History of the Church
in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries. Cambridge: At the University Press,
1972.
Froehlich, Karfried. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church. Sources of Early
Christian Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Galtier, P. “Le Centenaire d’Ephèse.” Recherches de Science Religieuse 21 (1931):
169–99, 269–98.
. “Les anathématismes de S. Cyrille et le Concile de Chalcédoine.”
Recherches de Science Religieuse 23 (1933): 45–57.
. L’Unité du Christ. Paris: 1939.
. “Unité ontologique et unité psychologique dans le Christ.” Bulletin de
Littérature Ecclésiastique 42 (1941): 161–175, 216–232.
. “Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie et Saint Léon le Grand à Chalcédoine.” In
Das Konzil von Chalkedon ed. A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht, vol. 1, 345–87.
Würzburg, 1951–2.
. “Saint Cyrille et Apollinaire.” Gregorianum 37 (1956): 584–609.
Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church. New Haven and
London: Yale University Press, 1995.
Gaudel, A. “Kenose.” In Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique 8 (1925): 2339–
2349.
Gebremedhin, E. Life-Giving Blessing: An Inquiry into the Eucharistic Doctrine of
Cyril of Alexandria. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1977.
Gero, Stephen. “Cyril of Alexandria, image worship, and the vita of Rabban
Hormizd.” Oriens Christianus (1978): 77–97.
Giudici, Giovanni. La Dottrina Della Grazia nel commento alla Lettera ai Romani
di S. Cirillo di Al. Rome: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1951.
Gleason, Maud. “Visiting and News: Gossip and Reputation-Management
in the Desert.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6:3 (Fall 1998): 501–521.
Globe, Alexander. “Serapion of Thmuis as witness to the Gospel text used
by Origen in Caesarea:[Complete list of quotes from Gospels; lists of
variants; tables]” Novum Testamentum 26 (1984): 97–127.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 329

Goppelt, Leonhard. Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in

the New. Translated by Donald H. Madvig. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1982.
Gould, Graham. “Cyril of Alexandria and the Formula of Reunion.”
Downside Review 106 (1988): 235–52.
Grant, R. M. “Greek Literature in the Treatise De Trinitate and Cyril’s Contra
Julianum.” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 15 (1964): 265–99.
. The Letter and the Spirit. London: SPCK, 1957.
and David Tracey. A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible.
Fortress Press, 1984.
Gray, P. T. R. The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451–553). Studies in the
History of Christian Thought, 20. Leiden: Brill, 1979.
Greer, Rowan A. The Captain of our Salvation: A Study in the Patristic Exegesis of
Hebrews. Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1973.
. Theodore of Mopsuestia: Exegete and Theologian. London: The Faith Press,
1961.
Gregory T. E. Vox Populi. Popular Opinion and Violence in the Religious
Controversies of the fifth century AD. Columbus: Ohio State University
Press, 1979.
Grillmeier, A. Christ in the Christian Tradition: From the Apostolic Age to the
Council of Chalcedon (451). Translated by John Bowden. Vol. 1. Atlanta:
John Knox Press, 1975.
Grillmeier, A., and H. Bacht, eds. Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Geschichte und
Gegenwart. 3 vols. Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1951–2.
Gross, J. La divinisation du chrétien d’après les Pères grecs: contribution historique à la
doctrine de grace. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1938.
. The Divinization of the Christian according to the Greek Fathers. Translated
by Paul A. Onica. Anaheim, California: A&C Press, 2002.
Guillet, J. “Les exégèses d’Alexandrie et d’Antioche. Conflict ou
malentendu?” Recherches de Science Religieuse 34 (1947): 257–302.
Hall, Christopher A. Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers. Illinois:
InterVarsity Press, 1998.
Hallman, Joseph M. “The Seed of Fire: Divine Suffering in the Christology
of Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople.” Journal of
Early Christian Studies 5 (1997): 369–91.
Hanson, R. C. P. Allegory and Event. Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press,
1959.
Hardy, E. R. Christian Egypt: Church and People. New York: 1952.
. “The further Education of Cyril of Alexandria (412–444). Questions
and Problems.” Studia Patristica 17/1. (1982): 116–22.
330 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Haring, N. M. “The character and range of influence of St. Cyril of

Alexandria on Latin Theology, 430–1260.” Medieval Studies 12 (1950):
1–19.
Hart, David. “No Shadow of Turning: On Divine Impassibility.” Pro Ecclesia
vol. 11. No.2 (Spring 2002): 184–206.
Hatch, Edwin. The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity. New York: Harper
Torchbooks, 1957.
Hausherr, Irénée. Spiritual Direction in the Early Christian East. Translated by
Anthony P. Gythiel. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1990.
Hawthorne, Gerald, ed. Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation.
Eerdmans, 1975.
Heath, Malcolm. “Invention.” In Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the
Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400, ed. Stanley Porter, 89–119. Leiden:
Brill, 1997.
Hebensperger, J. N. Die Denkwelt des hl. Cyrill von Alexandrien. Ein analyse ihres
philosphischen Ertrags. Augsburg: 1927.
Hefele, Charles, J. A History of the Councils of the Church. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1883.
Holder, Arthur. “The Mosaic Tabernacle in Early Christian Exegesis.”
Studia Patristica 25 (1993): 101–106.
Hollerich, M. J. Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentary on Isaiah. Christian Exegesis in
the Age of Constantine. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.
Holum, K. Theodosian Empress: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.
Houdek, Francis Joseph. “Contemplation in the Life and Works of Saint
Cyril of Alexandria.” Ph.D. diss., University of California Los Angeles,
1979.
Hughes, Philip. The Church in Crisis. A History of the General Councils 325–
1870. Garden City, N.Y.: Hanover House, 1961.
Imhof, P. and B. Lorenz. Maria Theotokos bei Cyrill von Alexandrien. München:
1981.
Jaeger, Werner, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia. London: Oxford
University Press, 1961.
Janssens, L. “Notre filiation divine d’après S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie.”
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 15 (1938): 233–78.
Jennings, Willie James. “Undoing Our Abandonment: Reading Scripture
Through the Sinlessness of Jesus: A Meditation on Cyril of
Alexandria’s On the Unity of Christ.” Ex Auditu 14 (1998): 85–96.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 331

Johnson, D. W. “Coptic Sources of the Arabic History of the Patriarchs of

Alexandria.” Ph.D. diss., The Catholic University of America,
Washington D.C., 1974.
. “Further Remarks on the Arabic History of the Patriarchs of
Alexandria.” OC 61 (1977): 103–116.
Jones, A. H. M. The Later Roman Empire, 284–602. 2 vols. Baltimore, Md.:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.
Jorgensen, John S., ed. and trans. “A Sermon on Penitence attributed to St.
Cyril of Alexandria.” Coptic Church Review 9 (1988): 9–14, 45–49.
Jouassard, G. “L’Abandon du Christ en croix dans la tradition grecque des
IVe et Ve siècles.” Revue des sciences religieuses 5 (1925):609–33.
. “Cyril von Alexandrien.” Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum, vol. 3,
499–516.
. . “Impassibilité du Logos et impassibilité de l’âme humaine chez
Cyrille d’Alexandrie.” Recherches de Science Religieuse 45 (1957): 209–244.
. “La date des écrits antiariens de saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie.”Revue
Bénédictine 87, Maresouds (1977): 172–78.
. “L’activité littéraire de saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie jusqu’à 428.”
Mélanges E. Podechard. Lyons: Facultes Catholiques (1945): 159–174.
. “Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie aux prises avec la “communication des
idiomes” avant 428 dans ses ouvrages Anti-ariens.” Studia Patristica 6
(1962) Berlin: 112–121.
. “S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie et le schema de l’incarnation Verbe-Chair.”
Recherches de Science Religieuse 44 (1956): 234–242.
. “Un problème d’anthropologie et de christologie chez S. Cyrille
d’Alexandrie.” Recherches de Science Religieuse 43 (1955): 361–378.
. “Une intuition fondamentale de S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie en
christologie dans les premières années de son épiscopat. Revue des
Études Byzantines 11 (1953): 175–186.
Jugie, Martin. “La Terminologie christologique de saint Cyrille
d’Alexandrie.” Echos d’Orient 15 (1912): 12–27.
Kakosy, Laszlo. “A Christian Interpretation of the Sun Disk.” In Studies in
Egyptian Religion, ed. M. Van Voss, 70–75. Leiden: Brill, 1982.
Kalantzis, George. “The Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia as
expressed in the Greek fragments of his ‘Commentarius in Evangelium
Ioannis Apostoli.” Ph.D. Diss., Northwestern University, 1997.
Kannengiesser, C. “Athanasius of Alexandria and the foundation of
traditional Christology.” In Arius and Athanasius: Two Alexandrian
Theologians. Great Britain: Variorum, 1991.
332 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

. “Athanasius von Alexandrien als Exeget.” Stimuli. Munster, Germany:

Aschendorff, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum Ergänzungsband;
23 (1996): 336–343.
. “The Bible as Read in the Early Church: Patristic Exegesis and its
Presuppositions.” In The Bible and its Readers. London: SCM, 1991, 29–
36.
Kaster, R. Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Kearsley, Roy. “The Impact of Greek Concepts of God on the Christology
of Cyril of Alexandria.” Tyndale Bulletin 43 (1992): 307–29.
Keating, Daniel. “The Baptism of Jesus in Cyril of Alexandria: The Re-
creation of the Human Race.” Pro Ecclesia 8 (1999): 201–222.
. “The Twofold Manner of Divine Indwelling in Cyril of Alexandria:
Redressing an Imbalance.” Studia Patristica 37 (2001): 543–549.
. The Appropriation of Divine Life in Cyril of Alexandria. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004.
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. New York: Harper San Francisco,
1978.
. Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies. New York: Harper & Row,
1975.
Kennedy, George A. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1963.
. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1972.
. “The Genres of Rhetoric.” In Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the
Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400, ed. Stanley Porter, 43–50. Leiden:
Brill, 1997.
. Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1983.
. “Historical Survey of Rhetoric.” In Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the
Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400, ed. Stanley Porter, 3–41. Leiden:
Brill, 1997.
. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1994.
. Quintilian. New York: Twayne, 1969.
Kerrigan, A. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Interpreter of the Old Testament. Rome,
Institutum Pontificum Biblicum, 1952.
. “The Objects of the Literal and Spiritual Senses of the New
Testament according to St. Cyril of Alexandria.” Studia Patristica 1 (63),
Berlin (1957): 354–74.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 333

Kesich, Veselin. “Hypostatic and Prosopic Union in the Exegesis of

Christ’s Temptation.” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 9, no. 3 (1965):
118–37.
Koen, Lars. “Partitive Exegesis of Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on the
Gospel according to St. John.” Studia Patristica 25 (1993): 115–121.
. The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of
Alexandria’s Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. Studia
Doctrinae Christianae Upsaliensia, 31. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis
Upsaliensis, 1991.
Kolp A. L. “Partakers of the Divine Nature. The Use of II Peter 1:4 by
Athanasius.” Studia Patristica XVII-3. Oxford (1982): 1018–1023.
Kopallik, J. Cyrillus von Alexandrien: eine Biographie nach den Quellen gearbeitet.
Mayence: 1881.
. Kyrilliana: Études variées à l’occasion du XVe centenaire de Saint Cyrille
d’Alexandrie (444–1944). Le Caire: Les Éditions du Scribe Egyptien,
1947.
Labelle, J. M. “S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie: témoin de la langue et de la pensée
philosophiques au Ve siècle.” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 52 (1978):
135–158; 53 (1979): 23–42.
Ladner, Gerhart B. The Idea of Reform. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1967.
Lampe, G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press,
1994.
Langevin, G. “Le Thème de l’incorruptibilité dans le commentaire de saint
Cyrille d’Alexandrie sur l’évangile selon saint Jean.” Science ecclésiastiques
8 (1956): 295–316.
. “La Doxa du Christ dans Cyrille.” Recherches de Science Religeuse 39
(1961): 69–94.
Lavaud, B. “S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie: court traité contre ceux qui ne veulent
pas reconnaître Marie Mère de Dieu.” Revue Thomiste 56 (1956): 688–
712.
Lebon, J. Le monophysisme Séverien. Louvain: 1909.
. “La christologie du monophysisme syrien.” In Das Konzil von
Chalkedon, ed. A. Grillmeier, vol. 1, 425–580. Wüzburg: Echter-Verlag,
1951.
Lebourlier, J. “Union selon l’hypostase: ébauche de la formule dans le
premier livre pseudo-athanasien Contre Apollinaire.” Revue des Sciences
Philosphiques et Théologiques 44 (1960): 470–476.
Leclercq, H. “Lecteur.” In Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, 1929.
Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford:
At the Clarendon Press, 1968.
334 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Liébaert, J. La doctrine christologique de S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie avant la querelle

nestorienne. Lille: Facultés Catholiques, 1951.
. “L’évolution de la christologie de S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie à partir de la
controverse nestorienne (428–429).” Mélanges de Science Religieuse 27
(1970): 27–48.
. L’Incarnation. Vol. 1, Des Origines au Concile de Chalcédoine. Paris:
1966.
. “S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie et la culture antique.” Mélanges de Science
Religieuse 12 (1955): 5–26.
. S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie et l’Arianisme: Les sources et la doctrine christologique
du Thesaurus et des Dialogues sur La Trinité. Lille: 1948.
Lieu, J. Image and Reality. The Jews in the World of the Christians in the Second
Century. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.
Lim, Richard. Public Disputations, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.
Limberis, V. Divine Heiress. The Virgin Mary and the Creation of Christian
Constantinople. London and New York: Routledge, 1994.
Löhr, Winrich. “The Theft of the Greeks: Christian Self Definition in the
Age of the Schools.” Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 95.3 (2000): 403–26.
Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
Loofs, Friedrich Arnim. Nestoriana: Die Fragmente des Nestorius gesammelt,
untersucht und herausgegeben. Halle: Miemeyer, 1905.
Löss, Josef. “One as the Same: Elements of an Ethiopian Christology.”
Ostkirchlichen Studien 42, no. 4 (1993): 288–302.
Louth, A. “Reason and Revelation in S. Athanasius.” Scottish Journal of
Theology 23 (1970): 385–396.
. “The Concept of the Soul in Athanasius’ Contra Gentes – De
Incarnatione.” Studia Patristica 13 (1975): 227–31.
. “The use of the term ‘idios’ in Alexandrian theology from Alexander
to Cyril.” Studia Patristica 19 (1989): 198–202.
Lynch, J. J. “Leontius Byzantium: A Cyrillian Christology.” Theological Studies
36 (1975): 455–471.
Lyonnet, S. “S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie et 2 Cor 3:17.” Biblica 32 (1951): 25–31.
MacCoull, Leslie S. B. “Pierpont Morgan MS. Copt. 591: The Apocalypse
Commentary of Pseudo-Cyril of Alexandria.” Studia Patristica 20
(1989): 33–39.
Mack, Burton L. Rhetoric and the New Testament. Guides to Biblical
Scholarship, ed. Dan O. Via. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 335

MacLead, Roy, ed. The Library of Alexandria. Centre of Learning in the

Ancient World. London, New York: L. B. Tauris, 2000.
Mahé, J. “Les anathématismes de S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie et les évêques
orientaux du patriarchat d’Antioche.” Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 7
(1906): 505–42.
. “La date du Commentaire de S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie sur l’Evangile
selon S. Jean.” Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique 8 (1907): 41–5.
. “L’Eucharistie d’après S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie.” Revue d’Histoire
Ecclésiastique 8 (1907): 677–696.
. “La sanctification d’après S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie.” Revue d’Histoire
Écclésiastique 10 (1909): 30–40, 469–92.
Mahien, L. “L’abandon du Christ sur la croix.” Mélanges de Science Religieuse 2
(1945): 209–42.
Malley, William. J. Hellenism and Christianity: The Conflict between Hellenic and
Christian Wisdom in the “Contra Galilaeos” of Julian the Apostate and the
“Contra Julianum” of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Rome: Università
Gregoriana, 1978.
. “The Contra Julianum of St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Peter
Canisius.” Theological Studies 25 (1964): 70–74.
Marcovich, Miroslav. Patristic Textual Criticism: Part 1, vol. 1. Scholars Press,
1994.
Marrou, H. I. A History of Education in Antiquity. Translated by G. Lamb.
London: Sheed and Ward, 1956.
Matta-El-Meskeen. Coptic Monasticism in the Age of St. Macarius. Nitrean
Desert: Monastery of St. Macarius Press, 1984.
Mazur, G. O. “Introduction to St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentaries on
the Fourth Gospel: Preface, Chapter I-II.” Orthodox Life, no. 49 (1999):
17–29.
McCoy, J. D. “Philosophical Influences on the Doctrine of the Incarnation
in Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria.” Encounter 38 (1977): 362–391.
McGuckin, John. “Christian Asceticism and the Early School of
Alexandria.” Studies in Church History, vol. 22 (1985): 25–39.
. “The Concept of Orthodoxy in Ancient Christianity.” Patristic and
Byzantine Review 8,1 (1989): 5–23.
. “The influence of the Isis Cult on St. Cyril of Alexandria’s
Christology.” Studia Patristica 24 (1992): 191–9.
. “Homily on the Feast of St. John the Theologian.” Sourozh no. 51
(1993): 34–35.
. “Moses and the ‘Mystery of Christ’ in St. Cyril of Alexandria’s
Exegesis.” Coptic Church Review 21 (2000): 24–32; 98–114.
336 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

. “Nestorius and the political factions of the fifth-century Byzantium:

factors in his personal downfall.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 78,
part 3 (1996): 7–21.
. “Origen on the Jews.” Studies in Church History, vol. 29 (1992): 1–13.
. St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy. Its History, Theology,
and Texts. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
. “A Synopsis of St. Cyril’s Christological Doctrine.” Coptic Church
Review 19 (1998): 42–51.
. “The ‘Theopaschite Confession’ (Text and Historical Context): A
Study in the Cyrilline Re-interpretation of Chalcedon.” Journal of
Ecclesiastical History 35 (1984): 239–55.
. The Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition. New York: 1987.
McInerney, J. L. “Soteriological Commonplaces in Cyril of Alexandria’s
Commentary on John.” In Disciplina Nostra, ed. D. F. Winslow, 179–
85. Philadelphia: 1979.
McKenzie. “The Commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on John.”
Theological Studies 14 (1953): 73–83.
McKinion, Steven A. Words, Imagery and the Mystery of Christ: A Reconstruction
of Cyril of Alexandria’s Christology. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2000.
McLead, Fredrick G. The Image of God in the Antiochene Tradition. Washington,
D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1999.
Mehlmann, John. “John 8:48 in some Patristic Quotations.” Biblica 44, no. 2
(1963): 206–209.
Meijerin, E. P. “Cyril of Alexandria on the Platonists and the Trinity.” In
God Being History, 114–127. Amsterdam: Oxford, 1975.
. “Some reflections on Cyril of Alexandria’s Rejection of
Anthropomorphism.” In God Being History, 128–132. Amsterdam:
Oxford, 1975.
Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. New York:
American Bible Society, 1994.
Meunier, B. “Cyrille d’Alexandrie au Concile de Florence.” Annuarium
Historiae Conciliorum 21 (1989): 147–74.
. Le Christ de Cyrille d’Alexandrie. L’humanité, le salut et la question
monophysite. Théologie historique 104. Paris: Beauchesne, 1997.
Meyendorff, John. “Chalcedonians and Monophysites after Chalcedon.”
Greek Orthodox Theological Review 10, no. 2 (1964–5): 16–30.
. Christ in Eastern Christian Thought. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 1987.
. “‘Ef w|-’(Rom 5:12) chez Cyrille d’Alexandrie et Théodoret.” Studia
Patristica 4 (1961): 157–161.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 337

Meyer, R. T. “Palladius and the Study of Scripture.” Studia Patristica 13

(1975): 487–90.
., trans. Palladius: The Lausiac History. Vol. 43. Ancient Christian
Writers. New York: The Paulist Press, n.d.
Michel, A. “Idiomes (Communication des).” Dictionnaire de Théologie
Catholique, vol. 7 (1922): 595–602.
Michaud, E. “S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie et l’Eucharistie.” Revue Internationale de
Théologie 10 (1902): 599–614, 675–92.
Millar, F. “The Jews of the Graeco-Roman Diaspora between Paganism and
Christianity AD 312–438.” In The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the
Roman Empire, ed. J. Lieu, J. North and T. Rajak, 97–123. London:
Routledge, 1992.
Moeller, C. “Le chalcédonisme et le néo-chalcédonisme en Orient de 451 à
la fin du VIe siècle.” In Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Edited by A.
Grillmeier. Vol. 1, 637–720. Wüzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1951.
Moignt, Joseph. “La réception du Prologue de Jean au IIe siècle.” Recherches
de Sciences Religieuses 83 (1995): 249–282.
Morgan, Robert, and John Barton, ed. and trans. Biblical Interpretation. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Muddiman, John. “The New Testament: The Tradition of Interpretation.”
Companion Encyclopedia of Theology (1995): 102–121.
Munier, H. “Le lieu de naissance de Saint Cyril d’Alexandrie.” In Kyrilliana,
199–201. Le Caire: Les Éditions du Scribe Egyptien, 1947.
Murphy, James, ed. A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric. New York:
Random House, 1972.
Nau, F. “Saint Cyrille et Nestorius: Contribution à l’histoire des origines des
schismes monophysite et nestorien.” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 15 (1910):
365–91; (1911): 1–54.
Nédoncelle, M. “Prosopon et persona dans l’antiquité classique.” Revue des
Sciences Religieuses 22 (1948): 277–299.
Neeb, John H. C. “Essays in the History of Interpretation.” Consensus 23,
no. 1 (1997): 7–49.
Neg, K. K. “The Soul of Christ in Athanasius.” Coptic Church Review 22
(Spring 2000): 23–31.
Newman, J. H. “On St. Cyril’s formula: Mia Physis Sesarkomene.” In Tracts
Theological and Ecclesiastical, 328–382. Westminster, MD.: Christian
Classics, 1974.
Norris, R. A. “Christological Models in Cyril of Alexandria.” Studia Patristica
13 (1975): 255–68.
338 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

. Manhood in Christ: A Study in the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Oxford: At Clarendon University Press, 1963.
. “The Problem of Human Identity in Patristic Christological
Speculation.” Studia Patristica 17/1 (1982): 147–59.
O’Keefe, John. “Christianizing Malachi: Fifth-Century Insights from Cyril
of Alexandria.” Vigiliae Christianae 50 no. 2 (1996): 136–58.
. “Impassible Suffering? Divine Passion and Fifth-Century
Christology.” Theological Studies 58 (1997): 39–60.
. “Interpreting the Angel. Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret of Cyrus:
Commentators on the Book of Malachi.” Ph.D. Diss., The Catholic
University of America, 1993.
. “Kenosis or Impassibility: Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret of
Cyrus on the Problem of Divine Pathos.” Studia Patristica 32 (1997):
358–65.
. “‘A Letter that Killeth’: Toward a Reassessment of Antiochene
Exegesis, or Diodore, Theodore, and Theodoret on the Psalms.”
Journal of Early Christian Studies 8, no. 1 (Spring 2000): 83–104.
. “The Peril and the Promise of Patristic Exegesis.” In Practical Theology:
Perspectives from the Plains, ed. Michael G. Lawler and Gail R. Risch.
144–161. Omaha, Nev.: Creighton University Press, 2000.
Olbright, Thomas. “Delivery and Memory.” In Handbook of Classical Rhetoric
in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400, ed. Stanley Porter, 159–167.
Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Old, Hughes Oliphant. The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship
of the Christian Church, Volume 1, the Biblical Period. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1998.
The Order of the Fraction of the Priesthood and Consecrating the Altar Utensils.
Diocese of Beni Suef and Bahnasa, 1992.
Orientalis ecclesiae decus: encyclical letter of Pope Pius XII on St. Cyril,
Patriarch of Alexandria, on the fifteenth centenary of his most holy
death. Washington D.C.: National Catholic Welfare Conference, 1944.
Pagels, E. The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis. Heracleon’s Commentary on
John. Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1989.
Pancaro, Severino. The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel,
Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity according to John. Leiden: Brill,
1975.
Papadopoulos, Chr. Ho Hagios Kyrillos Alexandreias. Alexandria: Patriarchal
Press, 1995.
Paradise of the Fathers. Diocese of Beni Suef and Bahnasa, 1977.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 339

Parson, Peter, ed. and trans. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Vol. 33. London: Egypt
Exploration Society, 1968.
Parvis, P. M. “The Commentary on Hebrews and the Contra Theodorum
of Cyril of Alexandria.” Journal of Theological Studies 26 (1975): 415–19.
Pazzini, Domenico. “Il Prologo di Giovanni in Cirillo di Alessandria.”Studi
Biblici, no. 116. Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1997.
Pelikan, Yaroslav. “Exegesis and the History of Theology.” In Luther’s
Works. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1959.
Petit, F. La chaîne sur la Genèse. Édition intégrale I-IV. Traditio Exegetica
Graeca 4. 1996.
Philipsborn, A. “La compagnie d’ambulanciers ‘Parabalani’ d’Alexandrie.”
Byzantion 20 (1950): 185–90.
Poffet, Jean-Michael. La méthode exégétique d’Héracléon et d’Origine:
commentateurs de Jn 4. Jésus, la Samaritaine et les samaritains. Freiburg:
Éditions Universitaires Freiburg Suisse, 1985.
Pollard, T. E. “The Exegesis of Scripture and the Arian Controversy.”
Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 41 (1958–59): 414–29.
Porter, Stanley, ed. Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330
B.C.–A.D. 400. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Prestige, G. L. Fathers and Heretics. Six Studies in Dogmatic Faith with Prologue
and Epilogue. London: SPCK, 1940.
. God in Patristic Thought. London: SPCK, 1977.
Quasten, J. Patrology. 4 vols. Texas: Christian Classics, A Division of
Thomas More Publishing, n.d.
Rand, Laurence. Flesh and Spirit, a Study of Eucharistic Deification in Cyril of
Alexandria. MA. Thesis, University of California Berkley, 1983.
Rehrmann, A. Die Christologie des hl. Cyrillus von Alexandrien. Hildesheim:
1902.
Renaudin, P. La Théologie de saint Cyrille. Tongerloo: 1937.
Reuss, Joseph. “Cyril von Alexandrien und sein Kommentar zum Johannes
Evangelium.” Biblica 25 (1944): 207–209.
Richard, M. “Deux lettres perdues de S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie.” Studia
Patristica 7 (1966): 274–277.
. “Le pape Léon le Grand et les Scholia de Incarnatione Unigeniti de S.
Cyrille d’Alexandrie.” Recherches de Science Religieuse 40 (1952): 116–128.
. “Les Traités de Cyrille d’Alexandrie contre Diodore et Thédore et les
fragments dogmatiques de Diodore de Tarse.” Mélanges dédiés à la
mémoire de Félix Grat, 1 (1946): 99–116, Paris: En dépôt chez Mme
Pecqueur-Grat.
340 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

. “L’introduction du mot ‘Hypostase’ dans la théologie de

l’Incarnation.” Mélanges de Science Religieuse 2 (1945): 5–32, 243–70.
. “Proclus de Constantinople et la théopaschisme.” Revue d’Histoire
Ecclésiastique 38 (1942): 303–331.
Roberts, W. Rhys. Greek Rhetoric and Library Cristicism. New York: Cooper
Square, 1963.
Romanides, J. S. “St. Cyril’s ‘One physis or hypostasis of God the Logos
incarnate’ and Chalcedon.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 10 (1964–
65): 82–107.
Rosa, Pietro. Gli Occhi del Corpo. Gli Occhi della Mente. Cirillo Alessandrino: testi
ermeneutici. Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1994.
Rougé, J. “Les débuts de l’épiscopat de Cyrille d’Alexandrie et le Code
Théodosien.” In Alexandrina. Hellénisme, judaisme et christianisme à
Alexandrie. Mélanges offerts au P. Claude Mondesert, 339–49. Paris: Les
Éditions du Cerf, 1987.
. “La politique de Cyrille d’Alexandrie et le meurtre d’Hypatie.”
Cristianesimo nella storia 11/3 (1990): 485–504.
Rowe, Galen. “Style.” In Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period
330 B.C.–A.D. 400, ed. Stanley Porter, 121–157. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Russell, Norman. Cyril of Alexandria. The Early Church Fathers, ed. Carol
Harrison. New York: Routledge, 2000.
. “’Partakers of the divine nature’ (2 Peter 1:4) in the Byzantine
Tradition.” In Kathegetria. Essays Presented to Joan Hussey for her 80th
Birthday, 51–67. Camberley: Porphyrogenitus, 1988.
Saddington, D. B. “The Function of Education according to Christian
Writers of the Later Part of the Fourth Century A.D.” Acta Classica, 3
(1996): 86–101.
Samuel, V. C. “One Incarnate Nature of God the Word.” Greek Orthodox
Theological Review 10 (1964): 37–53.
Santer, H. “The Authorship and Occasion of Cyril of Alexandria’s Sermon
on the Virgin (Hom. Diversae iv).” Studia Patristica 12 (1975): 144–50.
Sauer, J. Die Exegese des Cyrill von Alexandrien nach seinem Kommentar zum
Johannesevangelium. Freiburg: 1965.
Sauget, Joseph-Marie. “Nouvelles homélies du Commentaire sur l’Évangile
de S. Luc de Cyrille d’Alexandrie dans leur traduction syriaque.”
Orientalia Christiana Analecta 197 (1974): 439–456.
Schafer, A. “Die Christologie des hl. Cyrillus von Alexandrien in der
römischen Kirche (432–534).” Theologische Quartalschrift 77 (1895): 421–
47.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 341

Schäferdiek, K. “Theodor von Mopsuestia als Exeget des vierten

Evangeliums.” Studia Patristica 10 (1970): 242–247.
Schenkeveld, Dirk. “Philosophical Prose.” In Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in
the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400. Ed. Stanley Porter, 195–264.
Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Schmidt, Margot and Carl Geyer, eds. Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den Östlichen
Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter. Friedrich Pustet, 1982.
Schubart, W. “Parabalani,“ Journal of Egyptian Archaelogy 40 (1954): 47–57.
Schwartz, H. Cyrill und der Mönch Viktor. Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der
Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 208,4.
Vienna: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1928.
Sellers, R. V. Two Ancient Christologies. A Study in the Christological Thought of the
Schools of Alexandria and Antioch in the Early History of Christian Doctrine.
London: SPCK, 1954.
. The Council of Chalcedon. A Historical and Doctrinal Survey. London:
SPCK, 1961.
Siddals, R. M. “Oness and Difference in the Christology of Cyril of
Alexandria.” Studia Patristica 18 (1985): 207–11.
. “Logic and Christology in Cyril of Alexandria.” Journal of Theological
Studies 38, (1987): 341–67.
. “Logic and Christology in Cyril of Alexandria.” Ph.D. diss.,
University of Cambridge, 1984.
Siedlecki, Edmund J. “A Patristic synthesis of John VI, 54–55.” S.T.D.
Thesis, Saint Mary of the Lake Seminary, 1956.
Simonetti, Manlio. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church. Translated by
John A. Hughes. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.
Slusser, Michael. “The Exegetical Roots of Trinitarian Theology.” Theological
Studies 49 (1988): 461–76.
Smith, Robert W. The Art of Rhetoric in Alexandria. Its Theory and Practice in the
Ancient World. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974.
Soro, A. Bawai. “La condamnation de Nestorius au concile d’Ephèse.”
Istina 43, no. 2 (1998): 179–213.
Spira, Andreas. “The Impact of Christianity on Ancient Rhetoric.” Studia
Patristica 18.2 (1989): 137–53.
Starowieyski, M. “Le titre theotokos avant le concile d’Ephèse.” Studia
Patristica 19 (1989): 236–42.
Stead, C. “The Significance of the Homoousios,” Studia Patristica 3 (1961):
397–412.
------. “The Concept of Divine Substance.” Vigiliae Christianae 29 (1975): 1–
14.
342 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Takács, Sarolta A. “Hypatia’s murder – The Sacrifice of a Virgin and Its

Implications.” In The Formulation of Christianity by Conflict through the
Ages, ed. Katharine B. Free. Lewiston, N.Y.: E. Mellen Press, 1995.
Telfer, William. “The Fourth Century Greek Fathers as Exegetes.” Harvard
Theological Review 50 (1957): 91–105.
Torannce, I. R. Christology after Chalcedon: Severus of Antioch and Sergius the
Monophysite. Norwich: The Canterbury Press, 1988.
Trigg, Joseph Wilson. Biblical Interpretation. Message of the Fathers of the
Church. Wilmington, Del.: M. Glazier, 1988.
. “Origen and Cyril of Alexandria: Continuities and Discontinuities in
their Approach to the Gospel of John.” Origeniana Octava II (2003):
955–965.
Trispanlis, C. “Christological aspects of the thought of St. Cyril of
Alexandria.” In Greek Patristic Theology, 1–24. New York: 1979.
Turner, H. E. W. “Nestorius reconsidered.” Studia Patristica 13 (1975): 306–
21.
Van den Dries, J. The formula of Saint Cyril of Alexandria mi,a fu,sij tou/ Qeou/
lo,gou sesarkqme,nh Rome: 1939.
Veilleux, Armand., trans. Pachomian Koinonia. Vol. 1, The Life of Saint
Pachomius. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian, 1980.
Visotzky, Burton L. “Jots and Tittles: On Scriptural Interpretation in
Rabbinic and Patristic Literatures.” Prooftexts 8 (1988): 257–269.
Voobus, A. Discoveries of great import on the Commentary on Luke by Cyril of
Alexandria: The emergence of new manuscripts sources for the Syriac version.
Stockholm: 1973.
Wace, Henry and William C. Piercy. A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography.
Hendrickson, 1999.
Walker, Jeffrey. Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2000.
Wallis, R. T. Neo-Platonism. London: Duckworth, 1972.
Ward, Benedicta., trans. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical
Collection. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian, 1984.
Weinandy, Thomas G. “The Soul/Body Analogy and the Incarnation: Cyril
of Alexandria.” Coptic Church Review 17 (1996): 59–66.
, and Daniel Keating, eds. The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. New
York: T&T Clark, 2003.
Welch, Lawrence, J. Christology and Eucharist in the Early Thought of Cyril of
Alexandria. San Francisco and London: Catholic Scholars Press, 1994.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 343

. “Logos-Sarx? Sarx and the Soul of Christ in the Early Thought of

Cyril of Alexandria.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 271–
92.
Wessel, Susan. Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy, The Making of a
Saint and of a Heretic. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Wickham, Lionel R., ed. and trans. Cyril of Alexandria: Select Letters. Oxford
Early Christian Texts, ed. Henry Chadwick. Oxford: At the Clarendon
Press, 1983.
. “Cyril of Alexandria and the apple of discord.” Studia Patristica 15
(1984): 379–392.
. “Symbols of the Incarnation in Cyril of Alexandria.” In Typus, Symbol,
Allegorie bie den Östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter, eds. M.
Schmidt and C. F. Geyer, 41–53. Regensburg: 1982.
Wiles, Maurice F. The Spiritual Gospel. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in
the Early Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.
. “The Nature of the Early Debate about Christ’s Human Soul.” Journal
of Ecclesiastical History 16 (1965): 139–51.
Wilken, R. L. “Cyril of Alexandria’s Contra Iulianum.” In The Limits of Ancient
Christianity, ed. W. Klingshirn, 42–55. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1999.
. “Exegesis and History.” Church History 34 (1966): 139–56.
. “Exegesis and the History of Theology: Some Reflections on the
Adam-Christ Typology in Cyril of Alexandria.” Church History 35
(1966): 139–156.
. “In Dominico Eloquio: Learning the Lord’s Style of Language, Cyril
of Alexandria on messianic prophecy in Isaiah.” Communio 24 (1997):
846–866.
. Judaism and the Early Christian Mind. A Study of Cyril of Alexandria’s
Exegesis and Theology. New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
1971.
. “St. Cyril of Alexandria: Biblical Expositor.” Coptic Church Review 19
(1998): 30–41.
. “St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Mystery of Christ in the Bible.” Pro
Ecclesia 4 (1995): 454–478.
. “Tradition, Exegesis, and the Christological Controversies.” Church
History 34 (1965): 123–145.
Williams, R., ed. The making of Orthodoxy. Essays in Honor of Henry Chadwick.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Wolfson, H. A. The Philosophy of the Church Fathers. Vol. 1. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1976.
344 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Wuellner, Wilhelm. “Arrangement.” In Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the

Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400, ed. Stanley Porter, 51–87. Leiden:
Brill, 1997.
Yanney, Rodolph. “Life and Work of Saint Cyril of Alexandria.” Coptic
Church Review 19 (1998): 17–29.
. “Saint Cyril of Alexandria: Pillar of Faith.” Coptic Church Review 19
(1998).
Young, Frances M. “A Reconsideration of Alexandrian Christology.” Journal
of Ecclesiastical History 22 (1971): 103–14.
. “Allegory and the Ethics of Reading.” In The Open Text, ed. Francis
Watson, 103–120. London: SCM Press, 1993.
. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 2002.
. “Exegetical Method and Scriptural Proof: The Bible in Doctrinal
Debate.” Studia Patristica 19 (1989): 291–304.
. From Nicaea to Chalcedon. London: SCM Press, 1983.
. “The Rhetorical Schools and their Influence on Patristic Exegesis.”
In The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honor of Henry Chadwick, ed.
Rowan Williams, 182–199. CUP, 1989.
. Virtuoso Theology: The Bible and Interpretation. Cleveland, Ohio: The
Pilgrim Press, 1993.
Zaharopoulos, Dimitri. Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Bible. New York: Paulist
Press, 1989.
INDEX

Aeschylus, 44 Arian, 7, 17, 22, 57, 62, 71, 85,

Aim/skopo,j, 110, 127, 164, 244 88, 93, 97, 101, 106, 113, 144,
Alexander of Alexandria, 51, 72 158, 159, 198, 219, 257
Alexandria, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, Arianism, 17, 102
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, Arius, 1, 71, 75, 77, 112, 166,
22, 24, 27, 30, 31, 33, 36, 38, 181, 188, 198
42, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, Ascetic, 1, 2, 3, 17, 23, 26, 30, 55
56, 57, 59, 65, 67, 71, 72, 73, Athanasius, Bishop of
75, 79, 99, 109, 112, 121, 123, Alexandria, 1, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17,
129, 134, 143, 152, 170, 175, 18, 19, 22, 31, 38, 50, 51, 57,
181, 183, 184, 186, 196, 205, 58, 59, 61, 67, 71, 72, 74, 75,
218, 236, 241, 242, 244, 245, 76, 77, 99, 100, 109, 110, 112,
246, 250, 252, 253, 254, 255, 118, 121, 124, 129, 133, 135,
256 145, 194, 197, 240, 244, 256
Church of, 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 13, Augustine, Saint, 49, 60, 65, 66,
14, 22, 31, 33, 35, 51, 59, 72, 151, 152, 196
75, 256 Basil, Bishop of Cappadocia, 15,
School of, 47, 55, 56, 59, 68, 50, 54, 74, 82, 151, 194
72 Begotten, 63, 81, 84, 87, 89, 101,
See of, 22, 55 104, 116, 125, 163, 189, 239,
Ambrose of Milan, 50 248, 249
Anthropomorphite, 18 Bible/Biblical, 47, 68, 71, 72, 145,
Antony, 16, 17, 19, 22, 28, 55 149, 154, 162, 171, 174, 188,
Apollinaris, 47 195, 199, 222, 242, 250, 252,
Apologetic, 78 253
Apostolic Constitution, 34, 35 Body, 76, 130, 221
Appollinarian, 57 Bread, 25, 158, 163, 216, 219,
Argumentation, 8, 10, 53, 74, 220, 221, 222, 247, 248, 249,
136, 174, 181, 186, 188, 194, 251, 252
197, 219, 243, 259 Byzantium, 33, 35
346 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Catholic, 1, 12, 13, 14, 22, 107, Coptic, 1, 3, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18,
121, 160 30, 35, 40, 41, 61, 112, 121,
Child, 3, 13, 41, 42, 43, 122, 136, 130, 185, 245
191, 256 Corruption, 75, 76, 116, 118, 125,
Christ, 1, 2, 9, 10, 19, 21, 24, 26, 134, 135, 141, 221, 250
35, 46, 47, 57, 58, 61, 73, 79, Creation, 76, 77, 88, 89, 90, 91,
80, 81, 83, 86, 89, 91, 94, 95, 92, 96, 98, 102, 103, 109, 110,
96, 98, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 122, 123, 132, 134, 135, 140,
106, 108, 109, 111, 112, 115, 141, 145, 147, 172, 189, 255,
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 257, 258
123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, Creator, 91, 257
131, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, Culture, 24, 25, 46, 47, 48, 59,
139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 146, 153, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178,
158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 197,
167, 168, 170, 173, 174, 178, 209, 242
179, 182, 186, 189, 190, 191, Christian, 59
192, 196, 200, 204, 207, 208, Greek, 47, 174, 175, 176, 177,
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 181, 182, 197
216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, Hellenistic, 25, 48
224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, Cyprian of Carthage, 32, 33, 34,
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 36, 37, 50
237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, Cyril of Alexandria, Pope,
244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, Bishop, Patriarch,
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 257, Deacon, 30
260 Exegete/interpreter, 1, 2, 4, 9,
Clement of Alexandria, 15, 72, 68, 150, 157, 244, 255, 256
152, 178, 181, 230, 244 Priest, 40
Climados, 23 Theologian, 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11,
Commentary on the Gospel of John, 114, 140, 184, 185
Johannine Commentary, 7, 8, De Adoratione, 60, 62, 187, 230,
9, 10, 12, 25, 50, 57, 60, 61, 62, 237
64, 65, 68, 71, 73, 75, 85, 98, De Trinitate Dialogi VII, 62, 187
99, 123, 150, 154, 160, 171, Death, 4, 6, 11, 13, 17, 19, 30, 36,
174, 178, 182, 255, 256, 260 47, 52, 55, 63, 67, 76, 77, 104,
Consubstantial, 63, 78, 81, 85, 87, 109, 111, 114, 116, 117, 118,
89, 90, 95, 100, 108 125, 131, 134, 135, 141, 146,
Contra Iulianum, 177, 180, 182, 171, 175, 190, 191, 192, 193,
183 221, 229, 234, 240, 257
Deification/Deify, 87, 93, 100,
118, 145
 INDEX 347

Didymus the Blind, 8, 38, 50, 52, Memphis, 12, 67

55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 72, 74, 113, Pelusium, 16, 20
129, 156, 171, 194, 233 Empire, 2, 3, 5, 6, 40, 41, 46, 47,
dih,ghsij, 193, 197, 201, 206 48, 50, 153, 161, 184
Dionysius Thrax of Alexandria, Eastern, 46
15, 45, 72, 161, 162, 166, 169, Enigma, enigmatic, enigmatically,
170, 174 10, 202, 205, 212, 215, 220,
Disciple/Discipleship, 3, 13, 15, 226, 234, 235, 236, 238, 253,
23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33, 52, 53, 260
55, 56, 57, 58, 181, 213 Epiphanius, 23, 74, 194
Divinity/Divine, 1, 2, 16, 25, 26, Eucharist/Eucharistic, 25, 53,
38, 71, 77, 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 122, 123, 131, 134, 208, 222,
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 99, 240
100, 101, 103, 105, 106, 107, Eunomius, 71, 158, 187, 194
108, 109, 112, 114, 115, 116, Eusebius of Caesarea, 15, 20, 54,
117, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125, 65, 66, 152, 171
126, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, Exegesis, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 24, 44,
135, 136, 139, 140, 144, 146, 45, 65, 68, 73, 80, 87, 101, 107,
159, 166, 171, 177, 179, 193, 109, 118, 123, 136, 144, 149,
202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 150, 151, 153, 156, 157, 159,
212, 213, 215, 220, 222, 229, 161, 165, 170, 174, 175, 181,
232, 233, 235, 242, 243, 244, 183, 199, 200, 201, 203, 205,
248, 253, 254, 257, 258 208, 212, 213, 214, 216, 218,
Doctrine, 15, 46, 56, 64, 71, 72, 219, 220, 222, 231, 234, 236,
74, 77, 97, 98, 112, 119, 121, 237, 240, 242, 244, 245, 246,
123, 128, 135, 185, 187, 194, 249, 251, 252, 253, 258, 259,
195, 244, 246 260, 261, 264, 269
Duality, 85, 93, 109, 123, 258 Dogmatic, 8, 71, 155, 158, 190,
Education 197, 257
Primary Education, 40, 42, 43, Spiritual, 8, 149, 159, 197, 199,
64, 67 201, 202, 203, 206, 208, 220,
Secondary Education, 40, 44, 223, 232, 252, 253, 254, 260
45, 64 Exodus, 98, 155, 203, 207, 215,
Egypt, 3, 9, 13, 16, 17, 35, 37, 40, 227, 231, 249, 251
41, 43, 44, 52, 53, 55, 67, 157, Faith, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, 17, 19, 22,
161, 170, 171, 172, 248, 256 25, 26, 33, 36, 71, 74, 78, 79,
Egyptian, 2, 3, 5, 12, 17, 22, 41, 82, 83, 90, 108, 120, 145, 158,
46, 67, 171, 172, 182 167, 177, 186, 195, 200, 204,
Egyptian Cities 218, 226, 229, 233, 240, 252,
Mahalle, 13, 67 254
348 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Father (Power of Father, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102,
Wisdom of Father), 5, 10, 18, 103, 105, 106, 108, 109, 111,
29, 63, 71, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 112, 115, 116, 117, 119, 122,
82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 132,
91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138,
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145,
106, 107, 108, 109, 115, 118, 146, 163, 166, 167, 179, 181,
119, 127, 131, 132, 134, 135, 183, 186, 188, 189, 191, 192,
136, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 193, 202, 203, 212, 215, 218,
143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 163, 219, 222, 224, 227, 232, 234,
166, 170, 178, 183, 186, 202, 235, 243, 245, 246, 247, 248,
203, 207, 211, 212, 213, 219, 251, 257, 258
220, 222, 224, 232, 233, 234, Gospel, 7, 8, 10, 15, 24, 25, 33,
238, 247, 257, 258, 260 34, 54, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68,
Felix of Rome, 50 69, 71, 73, 76, 82, 99, 103, 107,
Festal Letters, 11, 50 117, 120, 124, 142, 143, 150,
Figure/sch/ma, 240, 254 156, 158, 159, 160, 162, 166,
First Apology, 32 174, 200, 204, 205, 206, 208,
Flesh, 79, 86, 87, 97, 100, 102, 214, 222, 228, 231, 235, 237,
110, 111, 114, 115, 117, 120, 240, 242, 250, 256, 257, 259,
124, 126, 127, 130, 131, 132, 260, 263, 264, 265
137, 138, 141, 145, 146, 147, Gospel of Luke, 7, 62, 65, 69,
167, 190, 192, 231, 239, 246, 73, 91, 118, 120, 124, 155,
248, 249, 252, 257 156, 212, 241, 242, 250
Free Choice, 73, 94 Gospel of Mark, 7
Free Will, 76, 94 Gospel of Matthew, 7, 34, 62,
fu,sij/Nature, 81, 184 156
Fullness, 74, 82, 103, 111, 118, Gospel-exegete, 68, 256, 259
133, 137, 203, 243 Grammar, 10, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47,
Gabriel, 91 51, 150, 154, 166, 167, 183,
Galilee, 164, 172, 173, 200, 207, 196, 253, 258
213, 217, 226, 227 Grammarian(s), 41, 43, 44, 45,
Geography, 10, 154, 170, 171, 46, 47, 56, 68, 150, 152, 157,
172, 174, 196, 213, 258 159, 161, 162, 166, 168, 169,
Glaphyres, 60 170, 172, 174, 182, 196, 199,
God/Godhead, 1, 2, 7, 10, 12, 218, 246, 253, 258
14, 15, 21, 23, 24, 25, 29, 34, Greek, 1, 4, 8, 17, 20, 33, 37, 40,
37, 58, 63, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 41, 44, 46, 47, 77, 98, 105, 129,
78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 150, 151, 152, 154, 162, 174,
87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180,
 INDEX 349

181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 194, 110, 111, 112, 116, 117, 118,
197, 206, 236, 243, 250, 256, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125,
258, 259 128, 131, 132, 134, 137, 140,
Greek Philosophy, 4, 154, 175, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147,
178, 181 178, 200, 201, 202, 205, 215,
Gregory Nazianzen, 50, 100, 112 221, 224, 234, 240, 242, 243,
Gregory of Nyssa, 50, 74, 105, 244, 246, 251, 257, 258
194, 244 Image, 27, 28, 76, 77, 80, 81, 84,
Hellenistic, 25, 40, 41, 42, 45, 48, 102, 104, 112, 133, 134, 137,
49, 150, 154, 176, 177, 183, 140, 142, 144, 164, 180, 183,
187, 206 202, 209, 212, 215, 223, 224,
Heresy, 7, 8, 21, 22, 50, 71, 115, 243, 245
144, 158, 159, 194, 232 Immaterial, 76
Heretic/Heretics/Heretical, 2, 4, Immutable, 58
5, 8, 17, 26, 32, 40, 50, 57, 71, Impassable/Impassibility, 116
73, 75, 85, 97, 102, 154, 155, Impress/carakth.r, 84, 93, 104,
158, 162, 166, 186, 187, 189, 142, 163, 207, 219
194, 195, 197, 206, 207, 219, Incarnate, 1, 2, 57, 76, 77, 78, 79,
232, 243, 255, 259, 261 91, 103, 113, 115, 117, 119,
His own/i;dion, 79, 80, 112, 115, 122, 124, 125, 127, 129, 131,
126, 138, 140, 169 132, 135, 145, 146, 147, 258
Historical Discourse, 200, 244 Incarnation, 1, 2, 10, 25, 57, 63,
i`stori,aj, 220, 244 75, 76, 77, 78, 86, 87, 89, 91,
i`stori,aj lo,goj, 200 92, 93, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103,
Holy Spirit/Spirit/Paraclete, 5, 108, 109, 111, 112, 115, 116,
10, 16, 35, 73, 74, 78, 79, 80, 117, 121, 122, 123, 126, 127,
82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 137,
91, 92, 95, 96, 99, 100, 101, 141, 145, 146, 147, 186, 189,
105, 108, 110, 111, 115, 117, 193, 203, 222, 224, 225, 234,
118, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 257, 258, 260
136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, Incorporeal, 76, 97, 130
142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 159, Incorruptible/Incorruptibility,
160, 162, 177, 189, 201, 210, Incorruption, 76, 77, 116, 117,
211, 225, 228, 231, 233, 257, 118, 131, 135, 141, 193, 222,
258 250, 251
Homer, 44, 45, 46, 47, 173, 180, Intellectual/Intellectuality, 2, 4,
195, 199, 209, 243 12, 19, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59,
Humanity/Human, 1, 2, 25, 57, 94, 149, 241
76, 77, 83, 85, 86, 87, 90, 91, Isidore of Pelusium, 16, 20, 21
92, 94, 96, 100, 101, 104, 109, Isocrates, 176
350 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Jerome, 18, 19, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, Libanius, 3, 40, 42, 44
59, 60, 74, 155, 171, 244, 250 Library/Libraries, 9, 49, 50, 61,
Jew/Judaism/Jewish, 4, 5, 8, 24, 68, 150, 153, 231
78, 79, 107, 109, 136, 143, 163, Life, 22, 27, 53, 59, 106, 114, 123,
165, 168, 187, 200, 211, 213, 125, 146, 152, 158, 163, 222,
217, 231, 232, 233, 236, 237, 241, 252, 257
244, 245, 247, 250, 251, 254, Literal Sense, 60, 205, 224
259, 264 Literary (style), 152, 154, 183,
John Chrysostom, 3, 8, 11, 13, 185, 186, 194, 197, 206, 259
17, 37, 44, 49, 52, 53, 60, 105, Lot, Abba, 29
151, 152, 155, 158, 174, 196, Luke/Lukan, 7, 62, 65, 69, 73, 91,
244, 259 118, 120, 124, 155, 156, 212,
Tall Brothers, 53 241, 242, 250
John of Nikiu, 13, 30, 51 Macarius, Saint, 3, 14, 16, 18, 19,
Joseph, Abba, 25, 28, 29, 67, 97, 27, 28, 30, 67
112, 241, 264 Manna, 159, 207, 208, 215, 219,
Josephus, 182, 244 220, 221, 231, 244, 247, 248,
Julian of Rome, 50 249, 250, 251, 252, See also
Julian, the Apostate, 46, 47, 180 Bread
Justin Martyr, 32, 187 Mark, 7, 27, 30, 51
Kenosis, 87 Mary, 1, 24, 100, 136, 143, 164
Knowledge, 3, 4, 18, 24, 36, 38, Matthew, 7, 34, 62, 156
39, 44, 45, 47, 55, 72, 75, 80, Meaning
81, 84, 94, 96, 101, 102, 104, Deep(er), 207, 209, 210, 211,
118, 119, 120, 152, 154, 170, 216, 217, 228, 237, 238, 241,
171, 173, 174, 176, 177, 178, 260
212, 226, 229, 240, 242, 250 Hidden, 10, 204, 207, 212, 224,
Latin, translation, 18, 53, 54, 55, 236, 237, 253, 260
59 Menander, 41, 44
Law, 5, 35, 48, 50, 60, 76, 80, 98, Mental contemplation, 103
103, 106, 110, 111, 143, 146, Mental knowledge, 103
169, 179, 181, 187, 190, 201, Monastery, 18
203, 207, 210, 211, 212, 213, Monastic, 3, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22,
216, 220, 225, 228, 229, 231, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 52, 59,
233, 234, 236, 237, 239, 243, 67
245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, Monk(s), 1, 3, 6, 16, 17, 19, 21,
252 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 54, 59,
Letters/Epistles, 11, 12, 14, 15, 67, 68, 75, 153
18, 19, 20, 22, 32, 33, 37, 50, Moral, 42, 43, 45, 47, 52, 117,
53, 62, 68, 105, 155 150, 176, 177, 180, 194, 195,
 INDEX 351

197, 199, 207, 214, 216, 223, Operation/Activity/evne,rgeiai/

253, 256 evne,rgei,aj/evne,rgeia, 94, 96,
Moses, 27, 62, 80, 98, 103, 107, 129, 131, 139
133, 159, 163, 169, 192, 199, Oration, 100, 194
202, 207, 208, 212, 213, 215, Origen, 8, 15, 18, 38, 53, 54, 55,
216, 219, 221, 230, 231, 244, 57, 65, 71, 72, 105, 107, 136,
245, 246, 247, 248, 251, 252 155, 156, 158, 160, 173, 174,
Nature/fu,sij 178, 188, 189, 195, 201, 233,
one nature, 2, 61, 82, 91, 129, 238, 240, 243, 244, 267
130 Origenist, 3, 7, 36, 52, 53, 55,
two natures, 2, 79, 100 67, 68, 256
Neologism, 184, 186 Orthodox, 1, 129
Nestorius/Nestorian, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, ouvsi,a/Essence, 81, 87, 91, 94, 97
7, 11, 13, 21, 22, 60, 61, 62, 65, Pachomian/Pachomius, 18, 20,
67, 69, 73, 77, 98, 99, 112, 114, 22, 27, 59
119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, Paideia, 17, 153, 178, 256
128, 131, 139, 156, 170, 175, Palladius, 17, 59, 72
181, 187, 245, 255, 258 Paphnotius, 27
Newness, 10, 73, 90, 110, 116, Parabalani, 5, 50
117, 118, 122, 131, 132, 135, Paschal, 4, 53, 54, 62, 68, 129
136, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, Paschal canon, 53
146, 229, 230, 247, 251, 257, Paschal Letter(s), 4, 53, 54, 62,
258 68, 129
Newness of life, 10, 73, 110, Patriarchate, 13, 14, 19, 37, 47,
116, 117, 118, 122, 131, 132, 50, 51, 59, 65, 66, 256
135, 136, 140, 141, 142, 144, Patriarchal Residence, 10, 33,
145, 146, 229, 230, 251, 257, 43, 45, 48, 51, 52, 59, 65, 66,
258 67, 68, 256
Nicea/Nicean, 19, 75, 112 Paul/Pauline, 14, 25, 77, 81, 83,
Nitria 95, 111, 126, 133, 137, 138,
Desert, 19, 26 153, 156, 167, 194, 203, 223,
Scetis, 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 18, 19 225, 228, 251
Oneness, 2, 9, 10, 73, 86, 92, 93, Paula, 19, 53
94, 97, 98, 100, 115, 123, 128, Pedagogue/paidagwgo,j, 42, 43
130, 131, 136, 138, 144, 145, Person, 103
146, 163, 167, 237, 257 Peter of Alexandria, 50, 51, 72
Only-Begotten, 81, 87, 116, 125, Philosopher, 6, 40, 151, 195
189, 239, 248, 249 Philosophy/filosofi,a, 177
Plato, 55, 112, 129, 176, 180, 181
Properties/ivdiwma,twn, 81, 85
352 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Pulcheria, 21 School
Punctuation, 45, 161, 162, 166, Primary, 40, 42, 43
167, 168, 196, 259 Secondary, 46
Quaternity, 145 Scriptures, 3, 13, 14, 31, 50, 55,
Quintilian, 40, 150, 153, 161, 177, 56, 64, 65, 127, 161, 166, 168,
183, 187, 194 171, 177, 222, 231, 242, 251
Quod Unus sit Christus, 187 Seal/Impress, 163
Reader/anagnostes/avnagnw,sthj, 4, Serapion of Thmuis, 16
9, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 68 Serapion the Wise, 9, 14, 15, 16,
Renewal, 110, 116, 118, 140, 141, 17, 18, 19, 28, 30, 67, 256
142, 143, 146 Serapium/Temple of Serapis, 52
Resurrection, 59 Severus, Bishop of El-
Rhetor, 3, 4, 40, 47, 48, 150, 151, Ashmunien, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
152, 217, 242 16, 30, 36, 37, 45, 48, 59, 67,
Rhetoric, 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 36, 41, 42, 189
46, 47, 48, 51, 65, 68, 150, 151, History of the Patriarchs, 3, 11,
152, 153, 154, 161, 176, 177, 12, 13, 14, 30, 189
181, 182, 183, 186, 187, 193, Shadow, 116, 176, 177, 210, 225,
194, 195, 196, 197, 205, 206, 229, 231, 238, 250
209, 236, 253, 259, 260 Sign, 125, 239
Rhetorical School, 151, 161, 198 Silvanus, Abba, 27, 81
Roman, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 40, 41, 47, Sin, 23, 57, 58, 111, 116, 135,
150, 153, 161, 184 138, 146, 190, 192, 193, 204,
Rome, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 17, 50, 152 238, 252, 257
Rufinus of Aquileia, 52, 55 Sinlessness (of Christ), 58
Sacrifice, 106, 146, 192, 226, 228, Son/Word, i, 1, 2, 5, 10, 23, 63,
243, 249 71, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81,
Salvation, 1, 2, 27, 28, 77, 86, 87, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89,
89, 90, 92, 93, 100, 106, 108, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98,
109, 110, 111, 113, 115, 121, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104,
124, 125, 131, 135, 141, 142, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111,
186, 226, 228, 238, 239, 249 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118,
Sanctification, Sanctify, 87, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125,
118, 120, 121, 125, 133, 134, 126, 127, 129, 131, 132, 133,
135, 137, 139, 140, 142, 144, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139,
147, 258 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146,
Savior, 38, 90, 106, 142, 160, 191, 163, 166, 167, 170, 178, 186,
192, 193, 210, 213, 220, 222, 188, 189, 193, 200, 202, 203,
228, 243, 245, 250 207, 211, 212, 219, 222, 234,
Scholastic, 16, 19, 42
 INDEX 353

235, 239, 243, 244, 247, 248, 118, 133, 141, 143, 152, 156,
251, 257, 258, 260 159, 172, 174, 175, 181, 188,
Sophocles, 44 191, 194, 197, 200, 205, 206,
Soul, 8, 20, 23, 24, 57, 91, 94, 207, 208, 211, 212, 213, 216,
111, 112, 115, 121, 125, 130, 219, 220, 223, 224, 225, 229,
131, 135, 137, 140, 142, 160, 230, 231, 236, 237, 242, 243,
163, 190, 191, 211, 239, 251 244, 247, 252, 253, 254, 260,
Sozomen, 11, 17, 19, 51 264
Spiritual Epistles, 7, 14, 32, 156, 216
Exegesis, 8, 159, 197, 199, 201, New Testament, 6, 7, 8, 14, 24,
202, 203, 206, 208, 220, 223, 31, 44, 47, 49, 68, 72, 98,
232, 252, 253, 254, 260 105, 107, 118, 133, 154, 162,
Interpretation, 8, 10, 197, 204, 174, 191, 193, 194, 200, 205,
205, 208, 218, 222, 223, 229, 206, 207, 211, 213, 216, 217,
231, 232, 253, 260 220, 224, 225, 229, 236, 243,
Meaning, 174, 205, 214, 217, 244, 251, 252, 254
218, 223, 225, 226, 228, 231, Old Testament, 6, 8, 10, 16,
233, 239, 253, 254, 260 32, 54, 63, 68, 72, 98, 107,
Spirituality, 3, 25, 26, 27, 29, 67, 127, 133, 141, 143, 152, 156,
73, 149, 155, 159, 197, 201, 159, 170, 172, 174, 175, 181,
204 188, 191, 197, 200, 205, 206,
Style, 10, 20, 45, 48, 69, 74, 144, 207, 208, 211, 212, 213, 219,
149, 151, 152, 153, 160, 180, 220, 223, 225, 229, 230, 231,
182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 193, 236, 237, 241, 242, 243, 244,
196, 197, 220, 240, 250, 252, 247, 252, 253, 254, 260, 264
259 Theophilus, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14,
Syllogism, 193, 194, 206 17, 18, 19, 22, 27, 30, 31, 33,
Synod at Hippo, 39 36, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52,
Synod of the Oaks, 11, 30, 33, 37, 53, 55, 59, 64, 65, 67, 72, 74,
65, 68 75, 170, 256
Teach, 14, 38, 39, 56, 120, 157, Theotokos/qeotoko,koj, 1
185 Thesaurus, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 74,
Teacher/didaska,loj, 3, 9, 14, 15, 75, 98, 113, 128, 145, 180, 183,
16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 28, 29, 32, 194
37, 38, 45, 48, 54, 55, 57, 67, Thought/evpinoi.a, 93
68, 99, 149, 174, 185, 186, 188, Timothy Ailuros, 53
197, 199, 259 Timothy, archdeacon, 30
Tertullian, 32, 152, 154, 187 Title
Testament, 6, 7, 8, 10, 31, 32, 44, Almighty, 124
54, 63, 68, 72, 98, 105, 107, King, 20, 217
354 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Life, 22, 27, 53, 59, 106, 114, 144, 145, 146, 147, 161, 178,
123, 125, 146, 152, 158, 163, 228, 237, 257, 258, 260
222, 241, 252, 257 Truth, 95, 136, 138, 139, 141,
Light, 107, 167, 188, 189, 193, 142, 144
210 Type/tu,poj, 225
Lord, 26, 31, 38, 39, 79, 83, 98, Unchangeable/Unchangeablenes
103, 106, 112, 120, 124, 126, s, 71, 116, 146
137, 164, 167, 200, 201, 203, Union, 130, 134
217, 219, 223, 230, 232, 235, Unity, 123
245, 247, 248, 251 of the Godhead, 82, 88, 91
Transgression, 76, 109, 141, 192, Unity of Nature, 79
234 Will/boula,j, 73, 95
Trinity/Triune, 2, 7, 9, 10, 36, 57, Free Choice, 73, 94
63, 71, 73, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, Free Will, 76, 94
84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, Wisdom, 89, 94, 193
93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, Work/evne,rgeia, 94, 96, 129, 131,
101, 103, 104, 108, 115, 127, 139
128, 131, 134, 135, 138, 139,