Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol.

58, Pt 1, April 2007

NOTES AND STUDIES

THE CAREER OF CYRIL OF
J E RU S A L E M ( c . 3 4 8 8 7 ) : A
REASSESSMENT
Abstract

THE career of Cyril of Jerusalem was, like that of many of his

contemporaries, rocked by the doctrinal controversies of the
fourth century. Rarely explicitly discussed, it is usually construed
as a chain of depositions and exiles, until the bishop ended his
life after eight years of peace under Theodosius.1 In this essay I
will argue that previous reconstructions have not suYciently paid
attention to the diVerent traditions present in the sources, in
which we can identify two conflicting views on Cyrils later
career. Both views are grounded in the confused situation in the
church of Jerusalem during the reign of Valens, and can claim
part of the truth.
Sources for Cyrils career are sparse and mainly limited to two
notices in Jeromes work (De viris illustribus 112 and Chronicle
a.348), and to what the church historian Socrates tells us
1

E.g. G. Bardy, Cyrille de Jerusalem, in Dictionnaire dhistoire et de

geographie ecclesiastiques (Paris, 1952), cols. 11815; F. M. Young, From Nicaea to
Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and its Background (London, 1983),
pp. 1256; E. J. Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem (London and New York, 2000),
pp. 315; L. Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century
Trinitarian Theology (Oxford, 2004), p. 154; J. W. Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem:
Bishop and City (Leiden, 2004), pp. 3248. This last work has the merit of
discussing Cyrils career in detail, but, as we will see, I tend to disagree with
some of its conclusions.
The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
doi:10.1093/jts/fll105 Advance Access publication 12 October 2006

Downloaded from jts.oxfordjournals.org at University of Toronto Library on October 14, 2010

The career of Cyril of Jerusalem is usually reconstructed as a series of

depositions and exiles. By drawing attention to the different traditions
present in the sources and by eliminating some conceptual misgivings
concerning episcopal exiles, this paper shows that the numerous depositions
of Cyril attested during the reigns of Julian and Valens reflect a battle for
supremacy between Cyril and his Homoean opponents. It cannot be proven
that Cyril was really exiled or even deposed during this period. The internal
battle for the see of Jerusalem continued when Cyril, previously a member of
the Homoiousian party, accepted the Nicene orthodoxy under Theodosius I.
This time the true Nicenes regretted Cyrils opportunistic conversion and did
not accept him as the true bishop of the city. Although the sources assume
that Cyril was uncontested bishop of the city at this time, this does not seem
to have been the case.

Jerome

Epiphanius

Socrates

Maximus
Cyril
Eutychius
Cyril
Irenaeus
Cyril
Hilarius
Cyril

Maximus
Cyril

Maximus
Cyril

Herrenis
Cyril
Hilarion

Herrenius
Heraclius
Hilarius
Cyril

CYRILS EARLY CAREER

The first part of Cyrils career, from 348 until the council
of Constantinople of 360, does not cause any major problem.

2
The indications in Drijvers, Cyril, p. 43 are confused. He seems to say that
Jerome and Socrates oVer the same list of bishops.

Downloaded from jts.oxfordjournals.org at University of Toronto Library on October 14, 2010

THE CAREER OF CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

135
(HE 2.38.2, 2.40.3841, 2.42.6, 2.45.1618, 4.1.16, 5.3.1, 5.8.3).
His younger contemporary Sozomen is dependent on Socrates
or has used the same source as his predecessor. In his Church
History (2.267), Theodoret of Cyrus has drawn on an
independent source, without, however, adding anything relevant.
To this we must add a brief remark in Epiphanius Panarion
(66.20.3).
In Jerome, Epiphanius, and Socrates we find three diVerent
lists of succession for the see of Jerusalem. Jerome (Chronicle
a.348) has the following list of bishops: Maximus, Cyril,
Eutychius, Cyril again, Irenaeus, Cyril for the third time,
Hilarius, and Cyril for the fourth time (Post quem ecclesiam
arriani invaserunt, id est, Cyrillus, Eutychius, rursum Cyrillus,
Irenaeus, tertio Cyrillus, Hilarius, quarto Cyrillus). Epiphanius
(Panarion 66.20.3) gives as names Maximus, Cyril, Herrenis,
Cyril again, and Hilarion, who still occupied the see in his time.
Socrates (2.45.1718) knows of the following succession:
Maximus, Cyril, Herrenius, Heraclius, Hilarius, and finally
Cyril again.2

3
This is the date Jerome gives. T. D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius
(Cambridge, Mass., 1993), p. 107, puts Maximus death in 349. Drijvers, Cyril,
p. 34 defends 350, because Cyrils letter to Constantius of 351 refers to itself as
ptre de Cyrille de Jerusalem a`
pr0ta . . . gramm0twn 2parc0 (see E. Bihain, LE
Constance, Byzantion 43 [1973], pp. 26496, at 286). I do not think one can
conclude from this that the letter was the first written work by Cyril, as it does
not have to mean more than that it was his first letter to the emperor.
4
Socrates, HE 2.40.3940; Sozomen, HE 4.22.25, 4.25.24. Both are drawing
tude sur les
on Sabinos: cf. P. Van NuVelen, Un heritage de paix et de piete: E
Histoires ecclesiastiques de Socrate et de Sozome`ne (Leuven, Paris, and Dudley,
2004), p. 452. See also Theodoret, HE 2.27.12.

Downloaded from jts.oxfordjournals.org at University of Toronto Library on October 14, 2010

136
P E T E R VA N N U F F E L E N
Cyril succeeded Maximus, probably in 348,3 but not without
diYculties. According to Jerome (Chronicle a.348), he was
ordained by Acacius of Caesarea and other Arians. Cyril evicted
Heraclius, designated by the dying Maximus as his successor.
Jerome claims that Cyril even degraded Heraclius from bishop to
presbyter. According to Socrates, whose source is unknown,
Maximus was ousted by Acacius and Cyril ordained in his place
(2.38.2). The truth is well beyond our reach, but it is certain
that Cyril was ordained against Maximus will and that he sought
an alliance with Acacius, to become one of the leading
Homoeans.
Cyril was deposed by a local council in 357 for having sold
church property, which was, according to Sozomen (4.25.2) a
mere pretext for a dispute about metropolitan rights in Palestine
between Cyril and his former patron Acacius. For this reason,
Cyril changed his allegiance from the party of Acacius to that
headed by Basil of Ancyra. It is logical to assume that Eutychius,
the first name in the list of Jerome, succeeded Cyril in 357. This
Eutychius did not last long. On the demand of Cyril, the
emperor Constantius II ordered that the deposed bishop should
be judged again by the council of Seleucia (359).4 This council
was supposed to reach a reconciliation between Acacius and
Basil, but it utterly failed. During the council, Basil of Ancyra
and his supporters cleared Cyril of all of the charges against him
after Acacius and his supporters had left the proceedings.
Although the sources do not explicitly say that Cyril was
reinstalled as bishop of Jerusalem, it is a logical consequence of
the refusal of the Acacians to be present at this trial. No evidence
being given against Cyril, the earlier judgement was easily
overruled and his deposition declared invalid; the bishop could
recover his previous position.
J. W. Drijvers assumes that the Eutychius who succeeded Cyril
on the throne of Jerusalem is the Eutychius of Eleutheroupolis,

TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS

For all these doubts, Cyrils career up to now can be
reconstructed with some certainty. For the later events the
evidence is sparse and problematic. As noted above, we have
three conflicting versions for the occupants of the see of
Jerusalem. However, the diVerences between the three lists can
be reduced to reasonable proportions. First, it is clear that we
must identify Jeromes Irenaeus and the Herrenius named by the
other two.10 Most of the manuscripts of Jeromes Chronicle read
hirenius (OAPN), whereas the others read hireneus (BM).11
Hirenius is indeed much closer to Herrenius than Irenaeus,
5

Drijvers, Cyril, p. 39. Cf. Epiphanius, Panarion 73.23.7.

Epiphanius, Panarion 73.26.2.
Socrates, HE 2.42.6, Sozomen, HE 4.25.1.
8
Drijvers, Cyril, p. 41.
9
Theodoret, HE 2.27.2.
10
Drijvers, Cyril, p. 41 treats them as two diVerent persons.
11
R. Helm and U. Treu, Die Chronik des Hieronymus (3rd edn., Berlin, 1984),
p. 237.
6
7

Downloaded from jts.oxfordjournals.org at University of Toronto Library on October 14, 2010

THE CAREER OF CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

137
who in Epiphanius is styled an enemy of Cyrils.5 Originally an
orthodox follower of Maximus, this second Eutychius later
adhered to Acacius party in order to keep the see of
Eleutheroupolis. The identification is impossible. Eutychius
signed the synodal letter of Seleucia (359), written by Acacius
and his followers, as bishop of Eleutheroupolis.6 If he had been
elected bishop of Jerusalem in 357, he would have signed as
such, especially as Acacius did not recognize Cyrils return to
his see.
Acacius had left Seleucia for Constantinople and a synod under
his leadership held in the capital in 360 overturned the verdict of
Seleucia.7 It is assumed that Cyril was exiled by the emperor
after this deposition.8 There is, however, no evidence for this.
Sozomen writes that the Acacius chased all the deposed bishops
from Constantinople. The verb used is 2x0lasan, which can refer
to an exile, but does not have to. Even in the quite fanciful
version of Theodoret, who describes how Constantius became
furious when informed that Cyril had sold a cloth donated to
Maximus by Constantine the Great, Cyril and his companions
are threatened with death and not exile.9 It is also assumed that
Cyril returned to Jerusalem after he was reinstated at Seleucia.
This is more probable, although there is no evidence for the
whereabouts of the bishop.

12
Drijvers, Cyril, p. 35 supposes that Heraclius may have occupied the see of
Jerusalem for a couple of years before being ousted by Cyril. This cannot be
concluded from the available evidence.

Downloaded from jts.oxfordjournals.org at University of Toronto Library on October 14, 2010

138
P E T E R VA N N U F F E L E N
which is a modern conjecture based on a corrupt reading in the
manuscript. The name Irenaeus should consequently be
eliminated from the bishop lists of Jerusalem. Secondly,
Epiphanius list is identical to that of Jerome, apart from the
fact that he ends before Cyrils final return to his see and apart
from the omission of Eutychius as the first successor of Cyril.
This may point to a diVerent tradition, but is most probably a
simple omission (something no scholar can think Epiphanius
incapable of). Finally, the presence of Heraclius in Socrates is
puzzling, as the name does not recur in the other lists.
He probably is identical to the designated successor of Maximus,
whom Cyril ousted according to Jerome,12 in which case
Socrates or his source has mixed things up and inserted an
earlier name later on in the list. But we cannot rule out that
Jerome and Epiphanius have forgotten a name. The evidence
does not allow a choice between these options. It is consequently
wiser not to include Heraclius in further discussion.
Thus, the three diVerent lists can be reduced to two, that of
Jerome and Epiphanius and that of Socrates. Their fundamental
diVerence is that whereas the former suppose that Cyril was
deposed several times and returned each time to his see, Socrates
seems to consider him continuously deposed and succeeded by
three Arians in a row. These conflicting versions should be
understood as diVerent views on the local struggle for supremacy
in Jerusalem after 360 until the accession of Theodosius I (379).
The diVerent Arian and Nicene factions were engaged in a battle
for recognition as the real church of Jerusalemand their own
bishop as the leader of the local church. To understand this local
confused situation, one must be aware of two facts.
First, a usual tactic in the struggle between diVerent Christian
groups was to convene a council and depose their enemies as
bishops. However, an ecclesiastical deposition, decided by a
hostile faction in the church, was unlikely to be accepted by the
victim. Cyril was deposed in 360 by a hostile council, composed
of the same people his friends had deposed in Seleucia a couple
of months earlier. He hardly can have regarded this as an
instance to respect. Moreover, synodal decisions were not
automatically valid or enforced. Everything depended on the
recognition of the council, both by the emperor who might
enforce decisions, and by the actors who might or might not

THE EVIDENCE

FROM

SOCRATES

I will first examine the evidence from Socrates and that from
Sozomen, copying and completing that of his predecessor.
13
We know that Cyril was in Tarsus after his deposition in 357 (Theodoret,
HE 2.26.7) and once in Antioch (ibid. 3.14.10), but there is no indication that he
was exiled there.
14
Jerome, De viris illustribus 112, PL 23.3, col. 706.
15
This is argued in detail in P. Van NuVelen, Arius, Athanase et les autres:
Dimensions juridique et politique de lexil dans le quatrie`me sie`cle, forthcoming
in F. Blaudeau and F. Prevot (eds.), Exil et relegation, les tribulations du sage et du
saint dans lAntiquite romaine et chretienne (IIe s. avt. VIe s. ap. J.-C.) (Paris).

Downloaded from jts.oxfordjournals.org at University of Toronto Library on October 14, 2010

THE CAREER OF CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

139
acquiesce in the judgement. It is well known that Athanasius did
not think himself deposed, whereas his Arian enemies could
hardly keep up the count of all the councils that had confirmed
the decision of Tyre (335). This attitude led to the creation of
parallel hierarchies, each having its own bishop and recognizing
its own body of synodal decisions.
Secondly, even when a bishop was deposed by a council, he
was not automatically sent into exile and removed from the
scene. Rather he stayed and headed his own group of loyal
followers. For example, most scholars seem to assume that Cyril
was exiled and replaced by a new bishop after having been
deposed by a synod. I think this idea is incorrect. Whereas there
is clear proof that a council deposed Cyril, there is not a shred of
evidence that the emperor ever exiled him.13 Jeromes summary
of Cyrils career is quite clear: he was saepe pulsus ecclesia et
receptus ad extremum sub Theodosio principe octo annis inconcussum
episcopatum tenuitbut Cyril was never exiled.14 It is wrong to
assume that a deposition was always followed by an imperial
exile, or that an exile presupposed a deposition. Exile was an
imperial punishment, deposition an ecclesiastical decision, and
although both were very often tied to each other, this was not a
rule.15
These remarks show that we should not necessarily expect
Cyril to have been exiled after his depositions, and that he still
might have been bishop of Jerusalem for his own followers, even
after having been deposed by a council. This may have led to a
highly confusing situation, with diVerent individuals claiming to
be the bishop of this symbolically vital see. Bearing this in mind,
we may be able to understand the diVerent versions we found in
Jerome and Socrates.

16
In my book on Socrates and Sozomen (Un heritage, p. 461, n. 9), I allowed
for the possibility that Socrates used a list of bishops of Jerusalem. Although this
remains possible, one should note that at least two of the three passages where
Socrates may seem to be dependent on such a list are probably drawn from a
diVerent source: HE 5.15.9 is inspired by Rufinus, HE 11.21 and HE 5.3.1 can
be a simple inference from what he wrote in 3.20.7 and 4.1.16. This would leave
only the passage we are discussing here (2.45.1718) unaccounted for.
17
This is a common practice of Sozomen: cf. Van NuVelen, Un heritage,
pp. 37889.
18
This kind of contradiction is common in Sozomen: cf. Van NuVelen, Un
heritage, pp. 2836.

Downloaded from jts.oxfordjournals.org at University of Toronto Library on October 14, 2010

140
P E T E R VA N N U F F E L E N
Socrates information seems chronologically precise at first sight.
However, it can be shown that he has combined two diVerent
and contradictory sources.
In Socrates opinion, Cyril occupied his see again after three
Arian bishops (2.45.18). The text does not indicate when
precisely he could reoccupy his see, the expression 3st0rN cr0nN
being too general to admit any firm conclusions. He mentions
that Cyril was again bishop under Julian, when he protested
against the Apostates attempt to rebuild the Jewish temple
(3.20.7). At the beginning of Valens reign, Socrates writes that
Cyril was bishop of Jerusalem, and he still was when Theodosius
became emperor (4.1.16, 5.3.1). Whereas the first indication may
stem from a list of bishops of Jerusalem,16 the others are taken
from Rufinus Historia ecclesiastica (10.3840).
Sozomen, who is otherwise dependent on Socrates or on his
source, seems to have corrected Socrates first indication.17 He
states (4.30.3) that Cyril became bishop again after Herrenius,
Heraclius, and Hilarion, and this under Theodosius I. This
chronological precision is absent from Socrates. Sozomen seems
quite convinced of Cyrils having been deposed continuously
until Theodosius reign, as he completely disregards what
Socrates wrote about Cyril under the reign of Julian and Valens.
He betrays, however, his use of Socrates in one error: he copies
from Socrates (5.3.1) that Cyril was already bishop when
Theodosius succeeded to the throne (7.2.2).18
Socrates clearly has used two diVerent sources for his
indications about Cyril. On the one hand, he used the source
that informed him of the three Arian successors of Cyril, before
he could reclaim his see. (If we assume that Sozomen knew this
same source, it also said that this return took place under
Theodosius.) On the other hand, Socrates knew from Rufinus

THE STRUGGLE

FOR

SUPREMACY

IN JERUSALEM

Jeromes evidence seems to contradict Socrates unknown

source. He assumes that Cyril returned to his see once after his
deposition in 360, then was deposed again and succeeded by
Hilarius. Epiphanius supports this version. On Valens accession
or during his reign, Cyril may have been condemned again by a
council, which installed Hilarius. Valens death in Adrianople
and the reign of Theodosius finally brought relief to Cyril. This
is indeed the most traditional solution,20 which implies a
rejection of the evidence given by Socrates and Sozomen, who
suggest a continuous Arian occupation of the see.
I think it is possible to salvage both versions. We can take the
contrasting accounts of Cyrils career as diVerent views on the
confused situation in Jerusalem. As there is no evidence that
Cyril was exiled, he may have been most of the time in
Jerusalem as head of the Homoiousian faction, to which he had

19
For other examples, see P. Van NuVelen, Socrate le Scholastique et les
sterreichischen Byzantinistik 54 (2004), pp. 5375.
chroniques, Jahrbuch der O
20
See note 1.

Downloaded from jts.oxfordjournals.org at University of Toronto Library on October 14, 2010

THE CAREER OF CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

141
that Cyril exercised his functions under Julian and Valens. Both
indications conflict: if one reads Socrates as a continuous
narrative, one has to assume that the three Arian successors of
Cyril are to be dated between 360 (Cyrils deposition in
Constantinople) and at the latest May 363, when the attempt to
rebuild the Temple was made. This is clearly impossible. As in
other instances, the church historian has apparently made no
attempt to solve the contradictions of his sources.19 Sozomen
probably noted this problem and simply left out Cyrils activities
as bishop of Jerusalem under Julians reign. His version is
consequently more logical than that of his predecessor. Socrates
has combined two traditions, one of uncertain origin that posits
that Cyril was deposed from 360 until 379, and another drawn
from Rufinus who sees him acting as bishop of Jerusalem in 363
and later. As already Sozomen knew, it would be mistaken
simply to combine Socrates evidence and trust his chronological
indications.

21
One might find an indication of this in Socrates, HE 4.1.16, where the
church historian writes that Cyril was bishop of Jerusalem. Although this is
the way this passage is mostly read, Socrates may also mean that Cyril headed
the Homoousians in that city. Socrates writes: t8n d1 kat1 t1n Anti0ceian
Areian8n 3ge8to E2z0oi. diArhnto d1 ka1 o3 toA 3moous0ou. t8n m1n g1r Paul8no,
t8n d1 Mel0tio proei0keisan. T8n d1 per1 t1 Ieros0luma K0rillo aBqi 2kr0tei.
This may mean that Cyril was in possession of the church of Jerusalem, but also
that he was head of the Homoousians of Jerusalem. Both translations do not have
to mean the same thing: as the previous sentence concerning Antioch indicates,
the diVerent church factions could have their own bishop. If Socrates meant that
Cyril led the Homoousian faction, he is guilty of grave neglect, for Cyril was a
prominent member of the Homoiousians, and rejoined the Homoousians only
later, at the council of Constantinople of 381, as Socrates himself indicates
(5.8.3). Socrates has simply projected Cyrils later orthodoxy on his earlier career.
That Socrates is capable of such contradictions, has already been shown in this
paper: see note 19.
22
Other sources attest that deposed bishops often stayed in their city, causing
disturbances: Ambrose, Epistulae extra collectionem 7.45; Constitutio sirmondiana
2 Codex Theodosianus 16.2.35 Codex Justinianus 1.3.14 (4 Feb. 405).
23
The fundamental study is H. C. Brennecke, Studien zur Geschichte der
Homoer der Osten bis zum Ende der homoischen Reichskirche (Beitrage zur
historischen Theologie, 73; Tubingen, 1988).
24
Socrates, HE 4.12, Sozomen, HE 6.1012.

Downloaded from jts.oxfordjournals.org at University of Toronto Library on October 14, 2010

142
P E T E R VA N N U F F E L E N
been allied since he turned to Basil of Ancyra for help.21 At the
same time, Herrenius, Heraclius (?), and Hilarion headed the
Homoean faction. This is not surprising. Cyril could appeal to
the authority of Seleucia (359), which had cleared him of all the
charges against him, whereas the other bishops could appeal to
the synod of Constantinople (360), where Cyril was deposed by
the Homoeans.22
The idea that from the synod of Constantinople until the reign
of Theodosius Jerusalem was ruled by Homoean bishops, as
assumed by Socrates list, may represent the view that the
Homoeans were the oYcial bishops, in the sense that they were
supported by imperial power and occupied the symbolically most
important churches. The Homoeans were indeed supported by
the imperial policy of Constantius II and by Valens.23 The
fact that Cyril is said by Sozomen to have become bishop
again only under Theodosius I can also be explained by
imperial policy. Theodosius recognized the homoousion as the
true creed, and the Nicene church as the true one. The assurance
of imperial support may have led to Cyrils defection from
the Homoiousians, who, however, had already attempted
reconciliation with the Nicenes in 367.24 Cyril, who had
already changed his allegiance once, had no hesitation in doing

25
Drijvers, Cyril, p. 41 supposes that Irenaeus ( Herrenius) simply left the
see to Cyril. There is no evidence for this.
26
Socrates, HE 3.25.18.
27
Drijvers, Cyril, p. 42, n. 50, with reference to pp. 689, assumes that Cyril
had a large popular support.
28
S. P. Brock, A Letter Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem on the Rebuilding of
the Temple, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 40 (1977),
pp. 26786. In defence of its authenticity, see P. Wainwright, The Authenticity
of the Recently Discovered Letter Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem, Vigiliae
Christianae 40 (1986), pp. 28693.

Downloaded from jts.oxfordjournals.org at University of Toronto Library on October 14, 2010

THE CAREER OF CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

143
so a second time: he felt that this was his chance to gain the
upper hand.
The alternating list of Jerome and Epiphanius may hint at the
battle for supremacy between the two parties. Both authors
assume that Cyril returned once, then was deposed again and
succeeded by Hilarius. It is hard to tell when all of this
happened. One may think that Cyril used Julians politics of
non-interference to convoke a council and depose Herrenius.25
In a period when even Acacius of Caesarea and Eutychius of
Eleutheroupolis adhered to the homoousion,26 Herrenius may
have been in a very weak position. Cyril, whose long survival
indicates that he had a broad basis of support,27 may have been
able to occupy the central churches of the city. On Valens
accession or during his reign, one may surmise, the scales were
turned again, and Cyril lost his dominating position. But other
explanations are possible as well. Herrenius may have died and
Cyril may have tried to become recognized as bishop by all
parties. When this did not succeed, Hilarius was ordained by the
Homoeans. The evidence does not allow us to choose among
these hypotheses. When Theodosius laws ruled that the Nicenes
received all imperial support, Hilarius became the bishop of a
minority church, not recognized by the state. Cyril, changing his
creed again, seized the occasion, became Nicene and almost
uncontested bishop of Jerusalem. On this reading, Jeromes list
bears witness to the war for universal recognition fought in
Jerusalem. Of the battles, Cyril won one and lost another, before
winning the final one.
On this reading of the sources, no definite conclusions can be
drawn on the basis of other pieces of evidence, like the famous
letter by Cyril on the attempt to rebuild the Jewish temple (363).
Cyril styles himself indeed bishop of Jerusalem, writing to other
bishops.28 It may very well indicate that he had the upper hand
in Jerusalem at this time but, on the other hand, would we
expect Cyril to behave otherwise even if a Homoean bishop

29

Gregory of Nyssa, Epistula 2.12.

Rufinus, who had lived close to Jerusalem in this period, censured Cyril for
the fact that he aliquando in fide, saepius in communione variabat (HE 10.24,
p. 989, l. 4 [ed. Mommsen]).
31
See P. Maraval, Gregoire de Nysse: Lettres (Paris, 1990), pp. 357.
32
Theodoret, HE 5.9.17; trans. G. Alberigo and N.P. Tanner, Decrees of the
Ecumenical Councils (Washington, 1990), p. 30.
30

Downloaded from jts.oxfordjournals.org at University of Toronto Library on October 14, 2010

144
P E T E R VA N N U F F E L E N
prevailed at the time? The same can be said about Rufinus
indications (HE 10.3840), copied by Socrates. Rather than an
assessment of the real situation on the ground, they represent an
a posteriori reading by somebody who considered Cyril the
legitimate catholic bishop.
The struggle for supremacy did not end with the accession of
Theodosius I. A letter of Gregory of Nyssa relates his visit to
Jerusalem shortly after 381 in an attempt to reconcile the
diVerent heads of the local church: 3pesc0mhn 3 ka1 suskey0meno
to8 proest8si t8n 2n Ierosol0moi 3g0wn 2kklhsi8n di1 t1 e9 nai 2n
taracI t1 pr0gmata ka1 crAzein toA mesite0onto (I promised to
review the situation together with the heads of the holy churches
in Jerusalem as their aVairs were in disorder and they were in
need of a mediator).29 Gregory significantly uses the plural
proest8te, which can be taken to refer to diVerent bishops, or at
least implies that Cyrils leadership was contested. Clearly Cyril
was not the undisputed leader of the church of Jerusalem. The
most plausible explanation seems to be that the local Nicenes
were not very happy with Cyrils opportunistic conversion to
Theodosian orthodoxy, and refused to recognize him as their
bishop.30 Doctrinal diVerences may have played a role as well.31
Gregorys letter thus conveys an image similar to the one I have
sketched for the preceding years, when Cyril was competing with
the Homoeans for the see of Jerusalem, with the main diVerence
that Cyril was now in the stronger position.
That Cyril needed to have his authority confirmed is also clear
from a letter to Rome, emanating from a Nicene synod held in
Constantinople in 382. It aYrms at its end that it recognizes
Cyril as bishop of Jerusalem: We wish to inform you that the
most venerable and God-beloved Cyril is bishop of the Church
in Jerusalem, the mother of all the churches. He was canonically
ordained some time ago (p0lai) by those of the province and at
various times he has valiantly combatted the Arians.32 Turned
into a Nicene, Cyril is now considered to have been the true

THE CAREER OF CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

145
bishop of the city since his ordination, eVacing the struggle of
the intervening years and Cyrils wavering allegiance.

CONCLUSION

Downloaded from jts.oxfordjournals.org at University of Toronto Library on October 14, 2010

The career of Cyril can be summarized as follows. Cyril

became successor of Maximus in 348, in a disputed election.
In 357 he was deposed by his former patron Acacius at a local
synod. An otherwise unknown Eutychius was ordained in his
place. Cyril disputed his condemnation and had his case
reviewed by the synod of Seleucia (359). In absence of Acacius
and his followers, Cyrils new friends the Homoiousians annulled
his conviction and reinstalled him in the see of Jerusalem.
A couple of months later, the Acacian synod of Constantinople
(360) confirmed Cyrils deposition. From this point on and until
the beginning of Theodosius reign, the church of Jerusalem was
split between Cyril and his Homoean counterparts, Herrenius,
maybe Heraclius, and Hilarius. Each faction claimed the see and
refused to recognize the synodal decisions of the other. In the
ensuing battle for dominance, each of them would from time to
time have the upper hand; this explains why Jerome and
Epiphanius think Cyril was at times deposed and at times in
possession of his see. This should not, however, obscure the fact
that there was a continuous succession of Homoean bishops, just
as Cyril claimed to be bishop of Jerusalem during the entire
reign of Valens. To add to the complexity, it is likely there was
also a Nicene group with its own bishop, which expressed its
dissatisfaction when the opportunist Cyril converted to Nicene
orthodoxy under Theodosius I. From this point on, imperial
support guaranteed that Cyril would be seen as the undisputed
leader of the churcheven though we can assume that the
Homoeans did not suddenly disappear.
Any author writing about Jerusalem had to assess this
confused situation and to make a choice about whom he
considered to be the true bishop. The diVerent lists in, on the
one hand, Socrates and Sozomen, and, on the other, Jerome
and Epiphanius should be read as diVerent views on the
same events. The first think that Cyril was succeeded by a
continuous succession of Arian bishops, and stress that it was
only in the reign of Theodosius I that Cyril became uncontested
bishop of Jerusalem again. The second register a series of
depositions and returns, and consider Cyril to be entangled
in a war of depositions with his enemies. Both versions are

146
P E T E R VA N N U F F E L E N
correct in a sense, and the state of the evidence does not allow
deciding who is more right than the other.
According to Jerome, Cyril enjoyed eight years of
uninterrupted episcopacy under Theodosius. He died on
18 March 387.33

33
P. Nautin, La date du de viris illustribus de Jerome, de la mort de Cyrille
de Jerusalem, et de celle de Gregoire de Nazianze, Revue dhistoire ecclesiastique
56 (1961), pp. 335. I thank Dr J. Leemans and an anonymous reader for their
valuable comments on this essay.

Downloaded from jts.oxfordjournals.org at University of Toronto Library on October 14, 2010

PETER VAN NUFFELEN

University of Exeter
P.E.R.Van-NuVelen@exeter.ac.uk