0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
48 visualizzazioni40 pagine
L. Perrone: did late antique Palestine play a role in development of patristic Christology? he says Grillmeier's summa on ancient Christology is a masterpiece of early Christian studies. He says theologians, churchmen, and monks played a major role in the development of christology.
L. Perrone: did late antique Palestine play a role in development of patristic Christology? he says Grillmeier's summa on ancient Christology is a masterpiece of early Christian studies. He says theologians, churchmen, and monks played a major role in the development of christology.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formati disponibili
Scarica in formato PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
L. Perrone: did late antique Palestine play a role in development of patristic Christology? he says Grillmeier's summa on ancient Christology is a masterpiece of early Christian studies. He says theologians, churchmen, and monks played a major role in the development of christology.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formati disponibili
Scarica in formato PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
The Patristic Developments of Christology within the Church of Palestine L. Perrone In grateful memory of don Giuseppe Dossetti and don Umberto Neri To what extent did the Palestinian Fathers (that is, as we shall see, theolo- gians, churchmen, and monks) play a role in the development of patristic Christology? Was late antique Palestine, despite its special religious signifi- cance, a less important area when compared with other, apparently more active parts of the Christian East? A glance at the valuable source book on ancient Christology (which includes both theological and spiritual texts), published by two distinguished scholars like Antonio Orbe and Manlio Simonetti may at first convey the impression that the Palestinian contribution was indeed a marginal one, since it receives only a couple of mentions. 1 To obtain a more precise picture, we should look further in the well-known summa on ancient Christology, a masterpiece of early Chris- tian studies: Alois Grillmeiers Christ in Christian Tradition. 2 Here things begin to become more encouraging for us, although in order to appreciate this properly we should not forget how Grillmeiers magnum opus has evolved and grown to its present state. Since it was originally conceived as a review of patristic Christology with the aim of retracing the preparation of the formula of Chalcedon, in its 1. See Il Cristo, 1: Testi teologici e spirituali dal I al IV secolo, a cura di A. Orbe; 2: Testi teologici e spirituali in lingua greca dal IV al VII secolo, a cura di M. Simonetti, Milano 1985, 1986. The latters anthology reports only two texts of Eusebius (the prologue to the Eccle- siastical History HE I 1, 7 - I 4, 15 and his letter to the Church of Caesarea after the decision of Nicaea) and one of Leontius of Byzantium (from the Contra Nestorianos et Eutichianos). 2. I shall refer to the latest edition of the original work and to its continuation (quoting only the volume): A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, I: Von der apostolischen Zeit bis zum Konzil von Chalkedon (451), Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1990 3 ; II/1: Das Konzil von Chalkedon (451). Rezeption und Widerspruch (451-518), Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1986; II/2: Die Kirche von Konstantinopel im 6. Jahrhundert, unter Mitarbeit von T. Hainthaler, Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1989; II/4: Die Kirche von Alexandrien mit Nubien und thiopien nach 451, unter Mitarbeit von T. Hainthaler, Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1990. LA 49 (1999) 357-396 L. PERRONE 358 previous form it responded essentially to concerns of a dogmatic nature and reflected a finalistic view of the christological developments within patristic thought, seen as leading ultimately to the dogma of two natures in one person. In time, especially as Grillmeier started to describe the long proc- ess of the reception of the Fourth Council, he introduced a wider perspec- tive than formerly, considering ancient Christology now not only from the strictly dogmatic point of view but rather as a matter of the whole Church. Thanks to this different orientation, while the first historical-systematic approach left little room for the Palestinian contribution before Chalcedon, the new context of a christological thought related to local churches or to different ecclesiastical regions leads Grillmeier to pay more attention to the specificity of the Church of Palestine next to the other sister-churches of the East. 3 We should gain a methodological lesson from this new model of re- search for our present study: in my opinion (and insofar as I am a historian of early Christian literature and doctrines, and not exactly a theologian), patristic Christology cannot be restricted to systematic theology alone, but one has to take into account also the christological features expressed in several insights by the life of the Church. 4 With regard to the case of Chris- tian Palestine, one should highlight them within the broader context of lit- urgy, pilgrimage and monasticism, which is typical of the Holy Land in the heyday of the Byzantine domination. Starting from these aspects, a survey aiming at a more adequate presentation of Palestinian Christology is called upon to reflect more generally on the historical setting of the Holy Land in late antique and Byzantine times, to ascertain the kind of influences it ex- erted upon the expression of Christology. 3. As has been announced, the third volume on the history of the reception of Chalcedon will deal with the Churches of Antioch and of Jerusalem in the sixth century together with Armenia, Georgia and Persia. Already in vol. II/1 (see above n. 2) Grillmeier concerned himself on a larger scale with the situation of Palestine after 451. Still depending on his initial approach, Grillmeiers synthesis is a little disappointing for the crucial period from the third to the fifth century, during which he reviews to a certain extent first Origen and then, perhaps even with greater relevance, Eusebius of Caesarea, while he reserves to Cyril of Jerusalem only very brief treatment. 4. A further step in this direction is made, for instance, by B. Studer, Gott und unsere Erlsung im Glauben der Alten Kirche, Dsseldorf 1985, who not only unites quite happily in his exposition Trinity, Christology, and Soteriology, but tries also to include aspects both of the liturgical life and of the cultural and political contexts, while retracing the development of Christian dogma. I tried myself to assume this stance, so to say, program- matically in my book La chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche. Dal concilio di Efeso (431) al secondo concilio di Costantinopoli (553), Brescia 1980. FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 359 5. The importance of such historical implications has been eloquently shown by R. Wilken, The Land Called Holy. Palestine in Christian History and Thought, Yale 1992, regarding for example the interpretation of the biblical promises of the land by Christian authors like Origen, faced with their Jewish counterpart. 6. See Origen, Contra Celsum I, 55, where he mentions a disputation with Jewish sages. These explained Isaiahs passage in a collective sense, as pointing to the condition of the people of Israel in the diaspora and to the missionary task connected with it. How important the Jewish-Christian debate could be for the elaboration of a christological perspective, will be best appreciated further on, when we shall examine the case of Cyril of Jerusalem. We should never forget that even under the Christian Empire this land still maintained a pluralistic appearance from the ethnic and religious point of view. External factors, such as the presence of considerable Jewish and Samaritan communities, and also of an influential pagan population at least for a while even after the victory of Christianity, are not to be seen as irrel- evant for the ways in which faith in Jesus Christ was here announced and formulated in thought. 5 Let me just mention an example: due to these par- ticular conditions, the interpretation of the prophetic figure of the suffer- ing servant (Is 53) was not at all simply an academic question or even an inner matter of discussion for the Christian exegetes alone, since in the third century the same topic was debated also among the Rabbis and be- came occasionally an object of the Jewish-Christian dialogue, as we hear from Origen. 6 I wont be able to provide such a wide horizon, although it would be helpful and opportune, but at all events I cannot refrain from remarking beforehand what kind of requisites a thorough investigation of our theme should fulfil to be really satisfactory. I shall therefore restrict myself to a summary description of the main lines of the theological evolution only with some hints at these further aspects to give at least an idea of the rich- ness of both the theological and the spiritual life within the ancient Church of Palestine. We can already guess at this from the mere chronological se- quence of my exposition, with its variety of periods and personalities: I shall set its starting-point in the Christology of Origen, towards the middle of the third century, and then proceed to the fourth century, first with Eusebius of Caesarea and after him with Cyril of Jerusalem. For the fifth century, I shall introduce into this gallery of Palestinian authors one for- eigner from the West, who established himself in the Holy Land and par- ticipated very energetically in the problems of the local Church: the monk Jerome of Bethlehem. After him, who already set such a tone, the atmos- phere of doctrinal controversy will increase more and more, especially in the aftermath of the council of Chalcedon. From the years around 431 up L. PERRONE 360 7. See at last, respectively, E. Clark, The Origenist Controversy. The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate, Princeton 1992 and B.E. Daley, What did Origenism mean in the Sixth Century?, in A. Le Boulluec - G. Dorival (ed.), Origeniana Sexta. Origne et la Bible/ Origen and the Bible. Actes du Colloquium Origenianum Sextum. Chantilly, 30 aot - 3 septembre 1993, Leuven 1995, 627-638. The width of Origens influence among Palestinian authors of the following centuries still awaits for extensive inquiries. There is evidence of his presence not only in the representatives of the school of Caesarea, like Eusebius or Acacius, or of course in Rufinus and Jerome, but also both in Cyril of Jerusalem and his successor John, in the presbyter Hesychius of Jerusalem and in the authors of the sixth century, first of all in Leontius of Byzantium. to the seventh century the dominating theological debate will focus on the christological question. We shall see how the Palestinian contribution to it has been, as a matter of fact, politically, theologically, and to a certain ex- tent also spiritually, one of the most important factors for the formation of Byzantine orthodoxy. The Path from Biblical to Ontological Christology: Origen It may not be too inappropriate to locate in the first instance Origens position in the complex and long path leading from the initially biblical and kerygmatic Christology to its later ontological and dogmatic elaborations. There is no need, I think, to justify the insertion of the great Alexandrian doctor in our overview: apart from his staying in Caesarea Maritima for the two last decades of his life, the most fruitful ones in his very rich literary productivity, Origen remains for a long time, more or less openly, an inspiring force of theological thinking and of spiritual life inside the Holy Land, as demonstrated symptomatically, among other things, by the two origenistic controversies at the beginning of the fifth and in the first half of the sixth century, both having Palestine as their original scene. 7 Before Origen, if we except the traces of Judaeo-Christianity, we have no clear indications of a distinctive Palestinian theological atmosphere, despite the efforts made first by Hegesippus and subsequently by Eusebius of Caesarea to fix some points in a map which for the most part remains a terra incognita. With Origen, officially engaged also in public disputations (witness his Dia- logue with Heracleides), things start to change. After him, the Church of Pal- estine will be prepared to intervene in its own voice in the theological discussions of the time, beginning with the response to the doctrines of Paul of Samosata (in short, a mixture of Wisdom Christology and adoptianism) in FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 361 8. Origens interventions in favour of the Church doctrine were especially directed at the Church of Arabia (see G. Kretschmar, Origenes und die Araber, Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche 50 [1953] 258-279). The case of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch (261-268/269), is admittedly one of the most significant debates before Nicaea. The Letter of the six bishops, also called Letter of Hymenaeus from the name of its first signatory, the bishop of Jerusalem, is a good witness to the influence ensured by Origens Christology within the Palestinian Church of the third century. On this major episode see L. Perrone, Lenigma di Paolo di Samosata. Dogma, chiesa e societ nella Siria del III secolo: prospettive di un ventennio di studi, Cristianesimo nella storia 13 (1992) 253-327. 9. M. Fdou, La Sagesse et le monde. Le Christ dOrigne, Paris 1994. As for the christological treaties in De principiis, see I, 2 (On the Son) and II, 6 (On the Incarnation of the Lord). Origens decisive role for the recognition of the Bible as the book of Christ has been put forth by H. von Campenhausen, Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel, Tbingen 1968. 10. See J. Rius-Camps, El dinamismo trinitario en la divinizacin de los seres racionales segn Orgenes, Roma 1970, 378-382; F. Cocchini, Il Paolo di Origene. Contributo alla storia della recezione delle epistole paoline nel III secolo, Roma 1992, 50. Fdou summarizes well this reciprocity between the regula fidei and the Bible, with regard to the christological interpretation, in the following words: Il faut avoir la pense du Christ pour tre en mesure de lire la lettre comme prophtie du Christ, et lon acquiert justement cette pense du Christ par le chemin de la foi (La Sagesse et le monde, 53). the sixties of the third century. 8 To complete briefly the historical background of Origens Christology, besides the many challenges to the ecclesiastical preaching which he had to answer on the part of the gnostics and other her- etics, one has to record also the reply he gave to pagan criticisms brought against the person of Christ in his monumental apology Against Celsus. As is well known, when we approach Origen, the most impressive fea- ture we are faced with immediately is his deep and all-pervasive biblic- ism. This means that also his Christology has to be seen first and foremost in this light. Despite the strong speculative inclinations and the ensuing ontological formulations which found their way specifically in the short christological treaties contained in his major systematic work, the De prin- cipiis, we are dealing essentially with a scriptural Christology, that is with a thinking intimately rooted in the continuous meditation on the Word of God. For this reason, Michel Fdou, reconstructing quite recently Origens image of Jesus Christ in a superb and very readable book, helps us to see from the first how he interpreted the Bible as the book of Christ. 9 The mystery of Jesus Christ, as proclaimed by the Church, is the key to the understanding of the Scriptures, both the Old and the New Testament, be- ing mirrored by them in all its inexhaustible richness. Such interplay can otherwise be guaranteed only if the reader of the inspired Scriptures him- self possesses the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2, 16), according to the very often repeated hermeneutical guideline. 10 L. PERRONE 362 11. De princ. I, Praef. 4. 12. See Origne. Homlies sur Josu, texte latin, introduction, traduction et notes par A. Jaubert (SCh 71), Paris 1960 and J. Danilou, Sacramentum futuri. tudes sur les origines de la typologie biblique, Paris 1950, 212-215; Fdou, La Sagesse et le monde, 89-96. 13. The centrality of this topic in Origens exegesis of the Old Testament has been stressed by M. Fdou, Christianisme et religions paennes dans le Contre Celse dOrigne, Paris 1988, 447-470. For more details about the history of interpretation, before and after Origen, see now G. Dorival, Un astre se lvera de Jacob. Linterprtation ancienne de Nombres 24, 17, Annali di storia dellesegesi 13 (1996) 295-352. Through his christological reading, Origen discovers within the Bible the various contents of the ecclesiastical doctrine on Christ, as he summa- rized them in the Preface to the De principiis. 11 Jesus Christ is the divine Wisdom, existing eternally with the Father as his Only-Begotten Son. He is his minister and agent in the work first of creation and then of revelation and redemption, which ultimately culminates in the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of Jesus. The history of salvation is thus led by the conde- scension of the Logos, who manifests himself to men and guides them to the final salvation through the communication of Gods love. It is a long way to the coming of Jesus, but starting with the figures of the patriarchs Origen is able to point always to this final goal: the economy of the Old Testament is for him an economy of figures (typoi), which anticipate their true and full model the person and the event of Jesus Christ. This economy of types reaches its peak in the person of Joshua, who alone with his name already announces the mistery of the true Saviour, Jesus Christ, and with his coming into the Land of promise indicates the final substitution of the Law by the Gospel, as was developed by Origen in his Homilies on the Book of Joshua, on the line originally traced by the Letter to the Hebrews (4, 8-9). 12 In order to present more fully the Bible as the book of Christ, Origen does not restrict himself to the typological method of interpretation as ap- plied to historical persons and events. He also reads the prophetic and the sapiential books as an overall prophecy of Jesus Christ. Moreover, the dis- closure of his mystery is not an exclusive privilege of the prophets of Is- rael, inasmuch as the oracle of Balaam (Num 23-24) which particularly attracted the attention of Origen witnesses to its recognition also on the part of the pagans and emphasizes the universal call to redemption. 13 Nor should one think that this kind of christological interpretation runs the risk of confining itself to a somewhat schematic and exterior economic per- spective, without providing clues for a deeper understanding of the personal being of the God-Man. As shown, for instance, in his exegesis of the FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 363 14. Com. Ioh. I, 28, 191-196. I follow the judgment of Fdou, La Sagesse et le monde, 114, who sees here un dveloppement sur lidentit du Sauveur qui se laisse tantt percevoir dans sa divinit et tantt dans son humanit lune et lautre ntant dailleurs pas spares, mais au contraire unies dans la personne du Logos. Nest-ce pas dj, en substance, la fameuse doctrine du concile de Chalcdoine sur le Fils de Dieu qui doit tre reconnu en deux natures, sans confusion et sans sparation? Psalms by means of the so-called prosopological approach, Origen points to the mysterious unity of divine and human aspects in the person of Jesus Christ, anticipating by the way the later conceptuality of the two natures and one person. So, commenting upon Psalm 44 in the Commentary on the Gospel of John, Origen distinguishes between the titles of King and of Christ (Ps 44, 7-8), the first of them indicating his divinity and the second one his humanity, while stressing at the same time their unity in the person of the Logos. 14 If this pronouncement already seems to evoke the peculiar accents of the formula of Chalcedon, Origens christological interests were usually stimulated by different concerns linked to the problems of his time, espe- cially since he reacted to marcionism and gnosticism, both compromising the idea of the incarnation of God and of the full humanity of Jesus. In- sofar as he is himself a representative of the theology of the Logos, which after the important premises set out by Philo of Alexandria and by the Prologue of John had steadily developed in the works of the Apolo- gists during the second century and then in the Alexandrian school, Origen is very sensitive to the universal presence of the Logos within creation and history. Yet, this does not mean that he is led to partly re- duce the significance and novelty of his incarnation, as will rather be the case with Eusebius. Furthermore, as is proved by the emphasis on the fact that Jesus was a real and complete man (that is, for him, consisting of body, soul, and spirit), we can guess how Origen was conscious of the soteriological postulate which was common among the Church Fathers when they reflected on the assumptus homo: quod non est assumptum, non est sanatum. Though this axiom will be acknowledged in its most classical form only in the course of the fourth century with Athanasius, its content was already present in Origens thought, including its related implications of deification later so current in Greek patristic and Byz- antine theology. I have so far recalled mostly the biblical imprint of origenian Christology. This should not be forgotten, if we try now to discover some of its ontological dimensions. These are indeed considerable, as we were L. PERRONE 364 15. On this well-known point see recently J. Wolinski, Le recours aux r ri voioi du Christ dans le Commentaire sur Jean dOrigne, in Le Boulluec - Dorival (ed.), Origeniana Sexta, 465-492. 16. Wolinski sums up both aspects well: De mme que chez Irne le Verbe saccoutume lhomme pour que lhomme puisse saccoutumer Dieu, de mme, chez Origne, il se montre lhomme selon la diversit des r ri voioi et des formes (opoi ) pour sadapter lhomme. Ce mouvement nest pas seulement une vue de lesprit. Nous savons dj que les r ri voioi ont un fondement rel dans le devenir chair du Christ. Elles en ont un galement dans lhomme vers lequel vient le Verbe: elles sidentifient avec le devenir de lhomme qui reoit le Verbe selon tel ou tel aspect, selon tel ou tel degr (ibid., 483-484). already able to infer from some occasional hints, but they have properly to be seen as an effort to transpose coherently the biblical indications into the language and the categories of a more systematic, and therefore also nec- essarily philosophical, approach. We see this mutual dependence in what probably represents the most peculiar element in Origens christological thought: his doctrine of the epinoiai (let us translate it, for the sake of con- venience, with the word titles or aspects) of Christ. 15 Collecting on several occasions the wealth of names and titles attributed to Jesus Christ by the Scriptures (the most impressive of them is the exposition to be found in the first book of the Commentary on John), Origen sees the epinoiai in a double perspective, with regard to Christ himself and with regard to man. On the one hand, names and titles express the objective perfections of Christ, to be conceived hierarchically up to his culminating aspect as Wis- dom (Sophia); on the other hand, they represent the subjective perceptions of the different aspects of his being, according to the varying spiritual de- grees or situations of man. As is clear from this last remark, the origenian doctrine of epinoiai implies a dynamic component, which is not limited to the part of man, who is called to grow spiritually and to appropriate by the way the several dimensions of Christs being, becoming himself a son of God. Yet, as a matter of fact, this growth is possible only because Christ in his turn establishes a dynamic relation with man, brought about by him in his multiple manifestations thanks to the initiating condescension of rev- elation and incarnation. 16 With his view of the epinoiai of Christ, Origen also reflects a crucial metaphysical question of Greek philosophy: the traditional problem of the one and the many. Due to the plurality of his objective perfections or epinoiai, the Son is seen by Origen as multiplex in constitutione, while the Father is absolute simplicity. It is thanks to his being multiple that Christ can assume, as original and eternal Wisdom, the mediating role between God the Father and the creation. By combining both Proverbs 8, 22 and FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 365 17. On the distinction between the Son as Wisdom and Logos, see R.D. Williams, The Sons Knowledge of the Father in Origen, in Origeniana Quarta, Innsbruck - Wien 1987, 146: The Son is Wisdom, perfectly realising that contemplative vision that perceives the wholeness and unity of the cosmos i.e., presumably, he mediates the intelligible unity of all things as they exist in the mind of the Father, by perfectly contemplating and attuning himself to the Fathers mind so that all things that come into being do so in rational and intelligible, harmonious and congruous ideal form. So as Word, he is the ground of our understanding of things in their ideal and rational nature. It is the Fathers will that the Son should include... perfectly the intelligible forms of all things, realising in each concrete existent its proper measure of participation in the noetic world. 18. According to Fdou, through his idea of Wisdom, Origen sefforce de penser du mme mouvement la diffrence de lordre cr avec le Crateur et linscription de cet ordre cr dans le dessein originel de la Divinit (La Sagesse et le monde, 267). John 1, 1, Origen assumes as the supreme epinoia of Christ the idea of Wisdom, which as exemplary cause of the world contains preformed in itself eternally the archetypes and the ideal patterns of all creatures. This conception at first resembles closely the Platonic world of ideas, but we have to remember that here Wisdom is not primarily an impersonal being. Instead, it is the Only-Begotten Son, which is the object of the perennial love of the Father, deposing so to say in him the germs of the future crea- tion. 17 This further act, in its turn, depends on the intervention of the Son as the Logos or Word of God, operating extra Deum as instrumental cause, the agent of the Fathers will. 18 We reach here the delicate and controversial realm of Origens disputed conformity to Christian dogma. Of course we have to avoid the anachro- nistic accusations later brought against him by his most virulent adversar- ies, who stressed the deficiencies in his theology with regard to the faith of Nicaea. We should instead appreciate the substance of his trinitarian and christological thought in the light of his own time. Now, seen in this per- spective, we have first and foremost to recognize the remarkable progress made by Origen through his outspoken trinitarian model of God. His oppo- sition to every form of monarchianism or modalism is directed to reinforce the idea of God as Father, Son and Spirit. It is perhaps true that within this pluralistic pattern of the divinity there might be less room for the person of the Spirit, but this should not surprise us, if we keep in mind the slower development of patristic pneumatology as compared with Christology (the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan symbol of faith is still an eloquent witness to that). So Origen, as we saw before, devotes himself to a closer examina- tion of the relation between the Father and the Son, which otherwise ac- cording to his critics would not have escaped the danger of subordin- ationism. Though such an opinion can still be heard today, several scholars L. PERRONE 366 have convincingly shown to what limited extent these criticisms should be accepted as valid. Despite Origens terminological difficulties as to the dis- tinction between hypostasis and ousia, Henri Crouzel has insisted on the effective affirmation of the consubstantiality between the Father and the Son, which is dynamically implied by their unity of will, goodness, love and light. 19 On the other hand, with regard specifically to the question of subordinationism, Crouzel offers a more balanced evaluation, which shows how hierarchical elements mix together with egalitarian ones, while other scholars have stressed Origens independence from the plotinian scheme of the three hypostaseis with its strong subordinationist pattern. 20 In a more positive sense, Fdou has finally taught us to understand the apparently subordinationist pronouncements of Origen in the perspective both of the Logos kenosis in the Incarnation and of the Fathers self-communication ab aeterno to the Son. 21 Origen is thus no precursor of Arius in a true sense, nor is he in some other respect the predecessor of the christological deviations which will afflict the Church from the fifth century onwards: i.e., the opposite empha- sis put respectively on the divine or the human aspects in the unique mys- tery of Jesus Christ. Instead of that, the model elaborated by Origen for thinking the unity of the Logos with the man Jesus prepares in some way the later solutions of post-chalcedonian theologians. It is an ontological and at the same time mystical approach, in correspondence with that fundamen- tal spiritual dynamism which is typical of Origens theology. For him, the union of the Logos with the sarx is made possible through the soul of 19. H. Crouzel, Limage de Dieu dans la thologie dOrigne, SP II, Berlin 1957, 194-201. For this view of a dynamic unity, see for instance Contra Celsum VIII, 12: Opqoxr orv o v :o v ro:r po :q o iq0ri o xoi :o v i o v :q v o iq 0riov. o v:o o o :q roo:o ori rpo yo:o. r v or :q o ovoi o xoi :q ocvi o xoi :q :o:o :q:i :o oiq o:o. 20. See, for instance, H. Ziebritzki, Heiliger Geist und Weltseele. Das Problem der dritten Hypostase bei Origenes, Plotin und ihren Vorlufern, Tbingen 1994, for whom Origen tends instead to break the rigid subordinationism which is typical of the neoplatonic system. 21. Ce qui dans un premier temps se donne lire comme infriorit du Fils dsigne en fait, selon les cas, le mystre du Verbe qui sest fait chair ou le mystre de Dieu qui de toute ternit se communique au Fils. Et cette ternelle communication peut-tre elle-mme envisage selon deux points de vue: si le Pre est plus grand que le Fils, cest dabord que le Fils se reoit totalement du Pre en tant quil est depuis toujours engendr; et cest en outre que le Fils nest pas simplement tourn vers le Pre mais aussi vers le monde qui, lui, est infrieur Dieu. Mais les deux points de vue sont en fait insparables car le Fils ternellement engendr nest autre que la Sagesse du Trs-Haut, elle-mme mdiatrice entre Dieu et le monde (Fdou, La Sagesse et le monde, 309-310). FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 367 Christ. 22 Let us leave aside the view according to which this soul is the pre- existent nous, which alone did not deflect from the love of God, as the con- troversial hypothesis of the pre-existence of intellects would have it. In the face of the mystery of the God-man (and Origen is admittedly the first to employ this expression), 23 the loving bond of the soul with the Logos en- sures the full participation in the divinity of the man Jesus. As exemplified by the vivid image of the iron burning in the midst of fire, the intimacy of the union between God and man in Jesus Christ leads Origen to assert that they, though remaining different in substance, are in fact no longer distin- guishable, thus anticipating the later doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum. The Fourth Century: Christological Perspectives within the Trinitarian Debate No other figure, among the Palestinian theologians of the following centu- ries, can compete in his own presentation of Christ with the width and depth of Origens christological reflection, distinguished by a remarkable balance of scriptural, ontological and spiritual elements. A result of this kind was moreover made possible also in the absence of definite dogmatic constraints. On the contrary, the urgency of conformity to a norm of ortho- doxy will be increasingly felt afterwards, at first during the arian contro- versy of the fourth century and subsequently in the christological conflicts of the fifth and sixth centuries, determining in this way a progressive im- poverishment of the biblical and kerygmatic substance in favour of a rather abstract, essentially metaphysical refinement of dogmatic formulations about Jesus Christ. Yet such a development will require more time before we can observe its full consequences, so that even in the fourth century we continue to face a certain variety of christological expressions, as can be documented by two personalities as different as Eusebius of Caesarea and Cyril of Jerusalem. Both of them, despite their difference of outlook, seem at first to attest more to the continuity of christological thinking in Pales- tine at the time than to a really changing and innovative response to the new problems. But this impression is only a part of the truth: as a matter of fact, both Eusebius and Cyril are in their own ways actively reacting to a 22. De princ. II, 6, 3: hac ergo substantia animae inter deum carnemque mediante. 23. See Grillmeier, I, 343-344. L. PERRONE 368 new political and religious atmosphere, which is not without effect also on their expressions of Christology. 24 1. Eusebius of Caesarea: a Political Christology We can say this initially of Eusebius, also in view of his peculiar biographi- cal situation, at the junction between the period of the persecuted Church and the new epoch of Constantines Christian Empire, which in its turn rep- resents the closest context for the council of Nicaea and its dogmatic for- mulations. The most common judgment on the bishop of Caesarea insists upon his theological conservatism, meaning by that essentially his attach- ment to the heritage of Origen. There is indeed no doubt as to the deep in- fluence exerted on Eusebius by the great doctor of Alexandria and Caesarea, who had also left his library in the capital city of Palestine, al- beit this does not imply an absolute fidelity on the part of his disciple. Nor should one undervalue Eusebius autonomous capacity for choosing differ- ent fields and cultivating his own interests, as is shown by his many works of historiography, apologetics, theology and exegesis, which together point to a changed cultural atmosphere. 25 In this sense, Eusebius Christology represents a good point of observation, since it displays motifs of continu- ity and at the same time of differentiation from the previous scene. As for Eusebius theology of the Logos, which he inherited from the Apologists and the Alexandrian school, there is apparently no substantial difference in it before or after Nicaea, that is even after he had to reckon with the homousios. The characteristic impact of this established tradition 24. The question of continuity and innovation becomes central, when we try to assess Eusebius and Cyrils respective attitudes towards the Holy Places, but this point is of course not without connections with their theological opinions. For a discussion of this topic see P.W.L. Walker, Holy City, Holy Places? Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the Fourth Century, Oxford 1990 and R. Wilken, The Land Called Holy. I stressed their practical convergence in Sacramentum Iudaeae (Gerolamo, Ep. 46): Gerusalemme e la Terra Santa nel pensiero cristiano dei primi secoli. Continuit e trasformazioni, in A. Melloni - D. Menozzi - G. Ruggieri - M. Toschi (ed.), Cristianesimo nella storia. Saggi in onore di Giuseppe Alberigo, Bologna 1996, 460-464. 25. On Eusebius creative origenist fellowship see recently C. Kannengiesser, Eusebius of Caesarea, Origenist, in H.W. Attridge - G. Hata (ed.), Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism, Detroit 1992, 435-466. For his remarkable literary performance, which should also be seen as a clue to a different intellectual atmosphere, see my article: Eusebius of Caesarea as a Christian Writer, in A. Raban - K.G. Holum (ed.), Caesarea Maritima. A Retrospective after Two Millennia, Leiden etc. 1996, 515-530. FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 369 on Eusebius christological and apologetic approach can be measured, for instance, from a very famous page the Preface he wrote to the Ecclesias- tical History , where he traces the theological foundation to the history of salvation culminating in the Church as its final stage. Notwithstanding Origens intense recognition of the three hypostaseis of the Trinity, Eusebius here reveals himself to be rather sensitive to a form of binitarian subordinationism, as a consequence of the absolute centrality of the Logos in the work of creation and in history. The presupposition to that was obvi- ously the recognition of the Logos independent existence, in other words the acceptance of his full hypostatical character, which Eusebius stressed anew even after the council of Nicaea, when he had to oppose in Marcellus of Ancyra one of the latest forms of monarchianism. Nevertheless, his af- firmation of the hypostatical character of the Logos is accompanied as I already remarked by the emphasis laid on his subordinate role in coop- eration with the Father. It is difficult, with Eusebius, to escape the impression of confronting a more developed and rigid form of subordinationism than it was still the case with Origen, though not everybody agrees with such a conclusion. 26 We have, however, unmistakable indications of this direction in Eusebius language, due to his overt preference for expressions like the second God or similar designations, when indicating the person of the Logos who acts as the servant and the agent of God the Father. It is the same line of thought which originated the first attempts at a theology of the Logos, since Eusebius view is analogously meant to provide a model for thinking the cosmological relation between the transcendent God and his creatures. Therefore, the Logos is called on to play this intermediary role, filling a gap between God and the world which otherwise would remain unbridgeable. This approach clearly resembles the philosophical perspec- tive drawn by Middle Platonism with its soul of the world, a contact which in the case of Eusebius is even more difficult to deny, because of his extensive reading of authors belonging to that tradition. 27 26. The more common judgment is expressed by Grillmeier, I, 393 (see also its most drastic form at p. 402: Eusebius is much more distant from Nicaea than Origen himself!). A more positive evaluation of Eusebius subordinationism has been proposed recently by J.R. Lyman, Christology and Cosmology. Models of Divine Activity in Origen, Eusebius, and Athanasius, Oxford 1993. 27. On the other hand, we should not forget the apologetic needs underlying Eusebius efforts, as is properly observed by J.R. Lyman: In his apologetic works Eusebius set out to prove from philosophy and Scripture that Jesus, the incarnate Logos, was the unique agent of the Fathers will foretold by the Hebrew prophets and mirrored in Platonic L. PERRONE 370 Despite this, Eusebius is fundamentally concerned to express the rela- tion of the Logos to the Father according to the ecclesial conscience of his own time. It is not at all a coincidence that he originally intended his most famous work, the Ecclesiastical History, as the description of the apos- tolic successions (the diadochai tn apostoln, according to the initial words of the book). If he appears to be quite reserved towards the homousios, also Cyril of Jerusalem and many other churchmen and theolo- gians of the fourth century shared his feelings towards a formulation which could not be found directly in the Scriptures and moreover was suspected of depending on a materialist conception of God. Therefore, apart from such terminological doubts, he admits with the Church that the Son is him- self God, of the same nature as the Father, and rejects the ideas of Arius, for whom there was a time in which the Son was not, though Eusebius differentiates himself from the form given by Origen to his doctrine of eter- nal generation. Not only does he underline, on this point, the will of the Father who gives birth to the Son from eternity avoiding images which would insinuate a certain automatism in his generation (as the well-known analogy of the sun and the ray of light), but he considers also the Son as one in himself, like the Father, thus distancing himself from a peculiar aspect of Origens Christology. 28 Inasmuch as for Eusebius the Logos re- ceives his existence from the Father and is his perfect image, his being as Son can be said to partake of an essential likeness to the Father. To sum up, notwithstanding his theological conservatism and his subordinationist penchant, Eusebius is able to rethink some aspects of the theological tradi- tion to which he is attached, in order to better formulate his view of the Son of God. Eusebius was also attentive to the christological debate at the begin- ning of the fourth century, as is shown by the Apology of Origen, a book written together with his teacher Pamphilus, before the latter was put to death as a martyr during the Great Persecution (310). In the rich catalogue of accusations made by Origens critics, the majority point to old and re- writings. Hence he deliberately considered the theology of Christ from both historical and philosophical viewpoints (ibid., 108). 28. Both distinctions have been pointed out by J.R. Lyman (see ibid., 109 ff.). See, for example, how Eusebius presents the Sons generation in Dem. Ev. IV, 3 (GCS 23, 152-153). Regarding the oneness of the Logos, as attested to in Dem. Ev. IV, 10, Lyman observes that in Origen and the Middle Platonists the single essence of the highest god was commonly contrasted with the lower multiplicity of the second god, whose cosmological mediation required a multiple essence (ibid., 111). FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 371 cent problems of Christology, these last being those discussed in the half century after the death of Origen and the condemnation of Paul of Samosata. 29 Once again, we are able to detect in Eusebius a mixing of tra- ditional and novel perspectives. The derived elements mainly go back to his view of the finality of the Incarnation, though the accent laid on it by Eusebius reveals unmistakably his specific concerns. The salvific design, whose protagonist throughout history is the Logos, is aimed at communi- cating to men the true knowledge about God, the Father. Thus, the inter- vention of the Logos responds essentially to pedagogic aims; it is directed towards the education of humanity, a goal which had already been attained by earlier men, the God-loving Hebrews, as represented by Abraham and the other patriarchs, before Moses established the people of the Jews, in order to stop the spread of idolatry and to prevent further corruption. As is clear from Eusebius view of the origins, his idea of salvation runs in a certain sense the risk of underrating the unique meaning of the Incarnation, that is insofar as it implies the simple restoration of the knowledge origi- nally shared by humanity. On the other hand, Eusebius elaborates a pro- gressive view of history, in which the coming of the Logos represents a peak and a final point, inaugurating his effective sovereignty on history. This final kingdom is attested to both by the diffusion of the Church and the conversion of the Empire to Christianity, so that we are faced here for the first time with a form of political Christology, undoubtedly Eusebius most characteristic contribution. 30 As is witnessed to by his Constantinian writings, the ultimate elaboration of such political Christology introduces us to the person of the Emperor, as the representative of the Logos on earth, who in his behaviour towards the world is called on to establish a sort of mimetic relation with the Son of God. 31 Against this ideological background, for the bishop of Caesarea the In- carnation of the Logos responds primarily to the necessity of adapting the 29. PG 17, 578 ff. The first five among the nine items mentioned by the authors concern christological matters (1. the Son of God is innatus; 2. his existence is per prolationem, as believed by the Valentinians; 3. Christ is a simple man, in conformity with the doctrine of Paul of Samosata; 4. the Saviour acted in appearence and not in reality; 5. Origen preaches two Christs). 30. The originality of Eusebius approach has been stressed anew by W. Kinzig, Novitas Christiana. Die Idee des Fortschritts in der Alten Kirche bis Eusebius, Gttingen 1994, 517 ff., while Kannengiesser (Eusebius of Caesarea, 452 ff.), also with regard to Eusebius political Christology, argues for a fundamental continuity with the origenist tradition. 31. See especially H.A. Drake, In Praise of Constantine. A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius Tricennial Orations, Berkeley etc. 1976. L. PERRONE 372 divine teaching to men in the most successful form, though his coming had already been prepared for by a long history of education which included both Jews and pagans, biblical revelation and Greek wisdom. With regard then to the person of the Incarnate, the man Jesus is seen by Eusebius as the instrument, the interpreter and the image of the Logos dwelling in him. The sovereignty of the Logos finds thus in the man Jesus its own temple, wholly illuminated and deified by its own presence. It is this insistence on the active part played by the Logos within the Incarnate that brings about the loss of another significant component of Origens Christology, the rec- ognition of the anima mediatrix of Christ. Eusebius is not alone, but again represents a wider trend of thought, which will lead in the course of the fourth century to a developed Logos-sarx Christology, to be paralleled by the second major pattern before Chalcedon, the Logos-anthropos Christology. Within this Logos-sarx scheme, the responsibility for redemp- tion is entirely taken on by the Logos, while the sarx as such has no soteriological relevance. Though the absence of a human soul in Jesus points already to the later expressions of Apollinarianism, it is not possible to envisage Eusebius as an Apollinarianist ante litteram, because he re- mains attentive to the distinction of natures in Jesus Christ and avoids the language and the idea of a mingling of them, which on the contrary was typical of Apollinarianism and later on in its wake, at least verbally, of Monophysitism. 32 2. Cyril of Jerusalem: a Testimonial Christology A few decades after Eusebius we encounter another dominant personality of the Palestinian Church in the fourth century: Cyril of Jerusalem, the bishop of the newly established Christian Holy City for the most part of its second half (348-387), and the author of the famous Prebaptismal catecheses. When compared with Eusebius apologetic and political Christology, his deeply scriptural and catechetical view of the mystery of Jesus Christ impresses us at first with the weight of its evident diversity. It is indeed a rather different approach, due also to the pastoral occasion for, and the didascalic finality of Cyrils pronouncements, though we should not 32. The rejection of a human soul is explicitly stated by Eusebius, in his polemic against Marcellus of Ancyra, in de eccl. theol. (GCS 14, 88. 15-22). See H. de Riedmatten, Les actes du procs de Paul de Samosate. tude sur la christologie du IIIe au IVe sicle, Fribourg 1952, 71. FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 373 hide some similarities in outlook between the two authors, as we have al- ready noticed regarding the homousios. It was not by chance that the bishop of Jerusalem was installed on his throne with the help of the doctrinal party to which Eusebius belonged, though he had afterwards to suffer from these semi-arian connections as from the growing rivalry between Caesarea and Jerusalem. Besides that, even if he is not a politician of the same sort as Eusebius, we can discover in Cyrils preaching more attention to the prob- lems and expectations of his own time, than we might suppose at a super- ficial glance. We then see very well what I already hinted at at first: in order to appreciate the real import of an exposition of Christology, we should take into account the historical context in all its dimensions. At all events, Cyril himself has offered us some clues to that in the in- troductory lecture to his Catecheses, where he invites the catechumens to take hold of his teachings so that they may become a weapon for their own faith in face of the several enemies who threaten it. As the bishop of Jeru- salem lists them, these dangers come from the heretics, the Jews, the Sa- maritans and the pagans. 33 The listing may appear stereotyped, but its order significantly corresponds to the situation of conflict described fifty years later (400) by the bishops of Palestine in a letter to Theophilus of Alexan- dria, which emphasizes anew the difficulties facing the Church in such a mixed religious milieu. 34 Moreover, it can be shown that the concerns ex- pressed by Cyril in the Procatechesis were particularly exemplified, in the course of his lectures, with regard to the Jews. We have thus to do with a Christology which, among the other polemical aims, fulfils first and fore- most a deliberate anti-Judaic intention. It does so by means of repeated in- structions and exhortations aimed at confuting the possible objections on the part of the Jews. We find this element as a structural component in all 33. Cyril of Jerusalem, Procat. 10. For O. Irshai, Cyril of Jerusalem: The Apparition of the Cross and the Jews, in O. Limor - G.G. Stroumsa (ed.), Contra Iudaeos. Ancient and Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews, Tbingen 1996, 99, this list was not arrived at by chance, and although it did include all the enemies of the Church, a careful study of Cyrils lectures shows that this classification reflected the relative strengths, according to him, of those who stood against the Church. The Jews were close to the top of that list. Moreover, Cyrils direct and indirect polemic with the outstanding representatives of heresy in his time, the Marcellians, Sabellians and neo-Arians, shows that the influence of the Jews and their thinking on these groups was for him most grievous of all. We should furthermore remark how Cyril, explaining the prophecies on the coming of Christ (especially Gen 49), opposes the actual vindication of a continuity in Jewish authority through the person of the patriarch (Cat. XII, 17). 34. The letter, sent to the bishop of Alexandria in response to his warnings against origenism, is preserved by Jerome, Ep. 93, ed. Hilberg, CSEL 55, 155.9-19. L. PERRONE 374 the catecheses specifically devoted to explain the doctrines of the Creed concerning Jesus Christ. 35 The method applied by Cyril remains through- out identical: he claims support for his teaching on Christ from the testi- monies of the prophetic writings, convinced as he is that the Jews, at least in principle, will not be able to reject them as devoid of authority. 36 Among the numerous instances of such a polemical device, one may point to the confutation addressed by the bishop of Jerusalem to the objections usually brought against the Virgins birth or against the resurrection of Jesus: the Old Testament displays for him enough episodes which mention a sign or a wonder made by God in men; so, why should this not be possible in the case of Jesus, inasmuch as he truly is the Son of the omnipotent God who became man? 37 This argumentative approach may justify my definition of Cyrils teach- ing as a testimonial Christology. As a matter of fact, we discern through it the persistence of an ancient tradition of early Christian preaching and thinking, to which Cyril remains ostensibly faithful, even in the midst of the more sophisticated theology of his own period: that is, the recourse to testimonia normally taken from the Old Testament in order to prove the truth of the faith in Christ. Cyril is a real virtuoso of typological corre- spondences, exploited by him to such a large extent, that he is able to sus- tain every main point of his discourse with a whole mosaic of scriptural passages. Precisely in view of that, Cyrils christological presentation re- mains quite traditional, though he is aware of aspects and formulations which recall the more developed expressions of Christology. We find, among other things, some traces of the origenian doctrine of the epinoiai, albeit in a simplified form: speaking of the one Lord, Jesus Christ, Cyril reviews the names and titles of Christ and remarks how their multiplicity is meant to answer the spiritual needs of men according to their different 35. Cat. X-XV. The anti-judaic polemic had a quite concrete ground a few years later, because of the attempt to reconstruct the Temple made by the Jews with the support of Emperor Julian. On this point see L. Lugaresi, Non su questo monte, n in Gerusalemme: modelli di localizzazione del sacro nel IV secolo. Il tentativo di ricostruzione del Tempio nel 363 d.C., Cassiodorus 2 (1996) 245-265. 36. Cyrils argumentation essentially rests upon the idea of such scriptural witnesses, as noted by P. Jackson, Cyril of Jerusalems Use of Scripture in Catechesis, Theological Studies 52 (1991) 438-442. 37. With regard to the Virgins birth, see Cat. XII, 2 (where Is 7, 14 is played against the Jews rejection of Jesus Christ) and XII, 21 (containing a disputation with the Jews as to the interpretation of the Isaianic passage). XII, 16 proposes then a summary catechesis in polemical form, so to explain the possibility of Incarnation by means of the Old Testament theophanies. For the objections to Jesus resurrection see XIV, 15 ff. FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 375 conditions. 38 Also Cyril continues to elaborate upon the well-established scheme provided by the theology of the Logos, reviewing the biblical his- tory in the light of his salvific interventions. Yet, out of a sense of the mys- tery which the doctrinal conflicts of his century had rendered even more urgent -, when he deals with the theme of eternal generation, he underlines the fact that it is properly unknowable to men, since there are no suitable human analogies to explain it, not even the most popular equivalence of mind and word. 39 Furthermore, the agency of the Son with regard to the world is described by Cyril in terms rather of egalitarian cooperation than of instrumental subordination. This mirrors, on the other hand, a keener sense of the unity and equality between Father and Son, who are one, be- cause as Cyril says God generated God. 40 Cyrils teaching on the Incarnate represents, in its turn, a good summary of the traditional doctrine of the Church and of contemporary orthodox the- ology. The bishop of Jerusalem reminds his hearers that both God and man, their distinction and unity, should be fully preserved in the mystery of Je- sus Christ, warning them in this way against the errors of docetists and adoptianists, as also against the new danger posed by the manichaeans. 41 To explain the necessity of the Incarnation, Cyril provides as usually a scriptural foundation, going back to Adams fall which brought about the 38. Cat. X, 3-5. Cyrils appreciation of the Son of God as a good doctor and patient teacher betrays an origenian cast of mind (X, 5). For M. Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo, Roma 1975, Cyrils theology is allineata con quella che potremmo definire la pi rigida ortodossia prenicena nel solco della tradizione origeniana (p. 209). 39. For the doctrine of the eternal generation, see Cat. XI, 4. 8. As to its form, this eternal Sonship is the fruit of a process inexplicable to men (XI, 7); more positively, it is of spiritual character, and not a physical generation (XI, 7). For the warning against excessive curiosity, see XI, 12: You dont know what is written and you try to investigate what has not been written? The image of mind and word is not satisfactory for explaining the idea of eternal generation, because for Cyril a temporal distance between the human mind and words cannot be completely avoided (XI, 14). On this point M. Simonetti stresses again Cyrils fidelity to Alexandrian tradition: A differenza di Ario e di Eusebio di Cesarea, e unica testimonianza per noi in tal senso nel gruppo eusebiano, Cirillo dimostra di aver ben inteso la distinzione tipicamente alessandrina fra arch ontologica e arch cronologica in rife- rimento al Figlio (La crisi ariana nel IV secolo, 208). 40. Cat. XI, 16. 18. For V. Saxer, Cyrils idea of the Son represents a middle position, distant both from the arian theology and from the nicene view of Athanasius (Cirillo e Giovanni di Gerusalemme. Catechesi prebattesimali e mistagogiche, Milano 1994, 60-61). Cyril refrains from speaking of a unity of nature between the Son and the Father, pre- ferring to assert a dynamic unity and harmony of will (Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo,208). 41. Cat. IV, 9; XII, 1 ff. The polemic against the manichaeans is especially developed by Cat. VI, 21 ff. L. PERRONE 376 subsequent and overall corruption of mankind but also initiated Gods salvific design. As we already saw in Eusebius, for Cyril too the mediation of Christs humanity is indispensable in order to know God, since men in their weakness are incapable of seeing him. Therefore, they need a Saviour in the form of a man, so that they may be more easily educated, though for Cyril the Incarnation does not respond only to a pedagogical aim. More than it was the case with Eusebius, the bishop of Jerusalem is aware of its redemptive finality, which implies the deletion of sin and death in man. This is how the Cross of Christ comes to assume a central place for him, since it is the guarantee of redemption for all men: to underline that, Cyril speaks of the Golgotha as the center of the earth, where Jesus opened his arms so to embrace symbolically the entire human race. 42 Such a centrality of the Cross should be wonderfully displayed, and once again locally proved, shortly afterwards by the apparition of the Cross in the skies of Jerusalem on the 7th of May 351, encompassing in its extension the Golgotha and the Mount of Olives a symbolic link between the two holy places stressing anew the universal kingship of Jesus Christ both through his death and resurrection and his future coming as a triumphant judge of the living and dead. 43 We approach here another distinctive feature of Cyrils testimonial Christology, which displays a further and unprecedented dimension of ac- tuality in his Catecheses. In the newly established context of a Holy City and a Holy Land of the Christians, the witnesses to the truth of the Creed against both Jews and pagans are not contained anymore only in the Scrip- tures but are also accompanied by a different kind of proof, appealing now more directly to the senses and the piety of the faithful. This further proof consists in the testimonies to the events of Jesus life, death and resurrec- tion which are furnished by the physical setting of the Holy Places and by the precious relics connected with them, first and foremost the tomb of Je- sus and the holy wood of the Cross. As Cyril states, if he would try to deny the reality of Jesus suffering, the Golgotha itself and the fragments of the Cross would convince him, with all the weight of their concrete and imme- diate witness to the passion of Jesus. 44 The bishop of Jerusalem, claiming 42. Cat. XIII, 28. The christological foundation is provided in XIII, 23 with the help of Col 1, 18 (Christ is the head in the body of the Church) and 2, 10 (he is the chief over every power). 43. See Ep. ad Constantium, PG 33, 1165-1176; E. Bihain, Lptre de Cyrille de Jrusalem Constance sur la vision de la croix, Byzantion 43 (1973) 264-296. 44. Cat. XIII, 4. For further use of local testimonies with regard to Golgotha see IV, 10; X, 19. FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 377 on several occasions the testimony of the Holy Places, introduces us for the first time to a kind of experimental, devotional if not altogether sac- ramental Christology, nourished together with the biblical memories by the local setting of Christs earthly life and events. 45 A new epoch had be- gun for christological thinking in Palestine: the framework of the Holy Places and pilgrimage becomes inevitably from now on a component, more or less explicitly, for the subsequent expressions of Christology. To follow its impact would require a further investigation into the devotional life of the Holy Land from the fourth century onwards. With regard to Cyril, I can only point to his decisive role in the first organisation of the Jerusalem stational liturgy, which will be centered more and more on the actualisa- tion of Jesus historical events. To enforce such a re-enactment, these are normally celebrated by the local community precisely on the spot where they had happened, as we already catch in the eighties of that same cen- tury in the Itinerary of the pilgrim nun Egeria. 46 On the Threshold of the Christological Controversies: Jerome, the Monk of Bethlehem We can deal more briefly with our next witness to the Palestinian Christology, though not because he is a less important figure or because he is a Latin emigrant. Even if Jerome came from abroad, he was not the first to find his new country in the Holy Land, and his story is as such a quite common one at the turn of the fourth and the fifth century and later on too. Among the pilgrims who came to pray at the holy places, many stayed on there as monks and with this decision profited from the spiritual life of the 45. I dont think that we need to speak here of sacramental ways of thinking, as affirmed by P. Walker, Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the 4th Century, in A. O Mahony et al. (ed.), The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land, London 1995, 32. Cyrils attitude recalls rather the idea of the Holy Places as a fifth gospel. 46. R. Wilken (who sees furthermore this development already starting with Eusebius) observes that for the first time... sight begins to be a component of Christian faith. As this new fact penetrated Christian consciousness in the fourth and fifth centuries, Christian realised that seeing the holy places was a way of renewing the image of what had happened, that is, re-presenting the saving events of the past in the present (The Land Called Holy, 90-91). For the evolution of the Jerusalem liturgy, and its underlying theological conception, see A. Renoux, Le codex armnien Jrusalem 121. I. Introduction: Aux origines de la liturgie hirosolymitaine, PO 35/1, Turnhout 1969; G. Kretschmar, Festkalender und Memorialsttten Jerusalems in altkirchlicher Zeit, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palstina-Vereins 87 (1971) 167-205. L. PERRONE 378 local church and in their turn contributed themselves to it. Melania the Elder, Rufinus and Jerome are typical representatives of this international society, involved in the situation of the Jerusalem church, at the time of bishop John (386-417), as will subsequently be the case with the monks of the Judaean Desert like Euthymius, Sabas or Theodosius, who originally were all foreigners. We have here thus the first reason why we would like to introduce the testimony of Jerome: through him we begin to observe another essential trait of the religious landscape of Christian Palestine in Late Antiquity, which now becomes not only the land of pilgrims but also a major centre of eastern monasticism. We cannot leave aside this new component of ecclesiastical life, if we want to approach correctly the christological controversies. Palestinian monasticism, both autochthonous and international, is a fundamental factor for the following developments of Christology. After having said that, we still need to justify our summary treatment of an author, who for the reasons just mentioned appears to be only the first in a long series of representatives. As a matter of fact, Jerome is not prop- erly speaking a theologian. His most salient literary occupation makes him instead a biblical scholar, but precisely this activity as translator and inter- preter of the Bible brought him in touch with Origen, his most significant predecessor and model as philologist and exegete. Despite his subsequent attacks on Rufinus, John of Jerusalem and the origenist party in the first controversy about the orthodoxy of the great Alexandrian, Jerome remained largely indebted to Origen. Therefore, we can measure once more his in- fluence on christological thought and at the same time perceive Jeromes new accents on the eve of the dramatic conflicts over the dogma of Jesus Christ, God and man. For this analysis we have emblematic evidence in the mixed text represented by the Homilies on the Psalms, circulating under the name of Jerome but for some scholars to a large extent merely trans- lated and adapted by him from a corresponding work of Origen. 47 At all events, these homilies presumably preached by Jerome in the church of the 47. Tractatus sive homiliae in Psalmos, ed. G. Morin, CCL 78, Turnhout 1958. For the scholarly discussion on the authorship see lately Origene - Gerolamo. 74 omelie sul libro dei salmi, intr., trad. e note di G. Coppa, Milano 1993, 13-32. Their overall dependence on Origen was especially asserted by V. Peri, Omelie origeniane sui Salmi. Contributo allidentificazione del testo latino, Citt del Vaticano 1980. His thesis has been rejected by P. Jay, Les Tractatus in Psalmos, in Jrme entre lOccident et lOrient. Actes du colloque de Chantilly publis par Y.-M. Duval, Paris 1988, 367-380, for whom the clear origenian inspiration of the homilies should not be an obstacle for considering them a work of Jerome, as is shown by their many actual connections. FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 379 Nativity around 400, for an audience generally consisting of monks and nuns, pilgrims and local inhabitants, reveal his actual concerns towards the trinitarian and christological heresies which challenged the teaching of the Church. Moreover, they offer another eloquent proof of the new contex- tual Christology, because of Jeromes particular attachment to the holy places. 48 For Jerome too, who follows faithfully in the footsteps of Origen, the Bible is the book of Christ. Being situated at the centre of both the Old and the New Testament, Jesus Christ has to be regarded as the protagonist also of the Psalms. Out of this conviction, Jerome commits himself to the method of prosopological exegesis, which from time to time prompts him to develop some insights into the personal being of Christ. Within the trinitarian perspective, the Sons relation with the Father and the Holy Spirit is viewed by Jerome as a mystery inexplicable to the human mind and only attainable by faith. 49 We meet anew the same emphasis we ob- served shortly above in Cyril of Jerusalem regarding the mysterious gen- eration of the Son, but its underlying inspiration seems in this case more directly deriving from the polemic against the Eunomians, who encouraged a rationalistic approach to the trinitarian problem. Conforming himself to the final theological result of the long struggle against Arianism, Jerome insists upon the mutual relation between the Father and the Son: in a move- ment of reciprocal attraction, the Son leads to the Father, and the Father in his turn leads himself to the Son, since they are both of one nature and one substance, the one being inseparably in the other. 50 However, these homi- lies, much more than for their echo of the trinitarian debate, are for us first of all an interesting document of the contemporary situation, since they provide some revealing clues to the evolution of christological thought at the beginning of the fifth century. 48. The Homilies on the Psalms are not the only evidence of Jeromes activity as preacher. He held some further homilies, dealing with the gospels or particular festivities (like the Tractatus in Marci Evang., CCL 78, Turnhout 1958). See finally also Y.-M. Duval, LIn Esaiam paruula adbreuiatio de capitulis paucis de Jrme. Une homlie (tronque) et une leon de mthode aux moines de Bthlem, in R. Gryson (ed.), Philologia Sacra. Biblische und patristische Studien fr Hermann J. Frede und W. Thiele zu ihrem siebzigsten Geburtstag, II, Freiburg i.Br. 1993, 422-482. 49. See especially Tract. in Ps. (series altera) 91, 6 (Ital. transl., pp. 660-665). Tract. in Ps. 98, 5 opposes the faithful to the dialecticians, emphasising again the mystery of God and man (p. 323). A violent criticism of Arius and Eunomius is introduced in Tract. in Ps. 5, 11 (p. 110). 50. Tract. in Ps. 109, 3 (p. 393); Tract. in Ps. 66, 5 (p. 140). L. PERRONE 380 Its most recent stage had been marked by the dispute over Apollinar- ianism. This new crisis had broken out already in the seventies of the fourth century, as the arian controversy was reaching its final phase. Jerome had frequented the school of Apollinaris of Laodicea, a biblical scholar and a vigorous adversary of Arianism, but he felt bound to the Roman Church in questions of orthodoxy and on the other hand stood under the influence of the great Cappadocian doctors. From both pope Damasus and Gregory of Nazianzus he had heard a clear condemnation of Apollinaris thesis, which denied the presence of a rational soul in Christ, while stressing in him the unity between God and man through the idea of the one nature of the incarnate Logos, later on to become very controversial as a christological formula, also because of such a dubious authorship. 51 Jeromes answer to this new deviation develops from the point of view of the traditional doc- trine on Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. His developments aim indeed at a more precise understanding of Christs humanity, but he con- siders also the way in which God and man are united in him. We have thus a first and somehow still uncertain approach to the future dogma of Chalcedon, in so far as Jerome already points to the one person in two natures. This happens when he rejects the accusation, launched by apol- linarianists also in contrast with the first manifestations of Antiochene Christology, according to which the acceptance of God and man in Christ as two complete realities may imply two Sons. 52 However, his use of the term person is not yet definite and steady, due to his occasional leaning towards its assimilation with the concept of nature, as displayed by its 51. Both the Roman and the Cappadocian sources of Jeromes position, together with the influence of Didymus the Blind, are stressed by M.-J. Rondeau, Les commentaires patristiques du psautier (IIIe-Ve sicles). Vol. II: Exgse prosopologique et thologie, Roma 1985, 152 ff. 52. Tract. in Ps. 109, 1: Nobis ergo qui filius Dei est, ipse est et filius Dauid: non alius filius et alius filius, non facio duas personas in Deo et homine (p. 222). See also Ep. 120, 9, ed. Hilberg, CSEL 55, 497.22-498.10: Crucifigitur ut homo, glorificatur ut deus... Haec dicimus, non quod alium deum et alium hominem esse credamus et duas personas faciamus in uno filio dei, sicut nova haeresis calumniatur, sed unus atque idem filius dei et filius hominis est, et quicquid loquitur, aliud referimus ad divinam eius gloriam, aliud ad nostram salutem. Other important passages can be found in Comm. in Zach. 2, 6 (CCL 76 A, 799) and in Comm. in Hier. 3, 52 (CCL 74, 148). For Grillmeier, I, 589, Jeromes christological thinking is sustained by the effort of proposing a via media: In der Mitte zwischen dem apolinaristisch-arianischen Monophysitismus und der adoptianischen Christologie der alten Adoptianer und des Photin hindurch legt sich Hieronymus seine christologische Formel zurecht, die aber nicht die Vollstndigkeit und Klarheit anderer Lateiner erreicht. FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 381 occurrence within the same homilies in relation to the assumptus homo. 53 We get here a first glimpse of the difficult field of dogmatic formularity with regard to the mystery of Jesus Christ, which will occupy for centuries also the theological efforts of the Palestinian authors. As for the human component of the Incarnate, the recognition of a com- plete humanity implies for Jerome that Christ not only is endowed in prin- ciple with a soul and a body like all men, but also (with a rather concrete and, to a certain extent, quite modern view) that he participates of the same affections and feelings as them. In this way, Jerome does not restrict him- self only to a generic declaration of christological orthodoxy in the face of Apollinarianism, but he is able, also encouraged by the psychological situ- ation of the Christ he is faced with in the Psalms, to stress the experience of the passions in him. At first, since the new heresy (as Apollinarianism is called by Jerome) pretended to simplify the anthropological structure in Christ, asserting that he was devoid of his intellectual component (the nous), the monk of Bethlehem responded to that by opposing his idea of the man as a composite being (homo compositus). 54 Then, commenting upon Ps 108, 31, Jerome proceeds to describe the emotions felt by Christ at the moment of his passion. With Mt 26, 38, he sees him as oppressed by sadness. Now, the fact that Christ experiences such feelings demonstrates for Jerome that he possessed a soul capable of suffering from the passions and the desires of the body, though he did not commit sin. 55 Moreover, Jerome supports his view with the help of the already mentioned 53. See again Tract. in Ps. 109, 1: Omnia euangelia personant de persona hominis (p. 222). Jeromes oscillation with regard to persona has been noted by Rondeau, Les commentaires patristiques du psautier, II, 140 ff. 54. Tract. in Ps. 15, 9-10 (pp. 381-383). The anti-apollinarianist connection of this exegesis has been brought to light by Rondeau, Les commentaires patristiques du psautier, II, 145- 147: Dire que le Christ est un tre compos, en entendant par l non pas quil est Dieu et homme cest en ce sens quOrigne dit de lui quil est o v0r:o v :i pq o mais que comme homme, il est, conformment lanthropologie aristotlicienne, compos dune me et dun corps, a sans doute une porte antiapollinariste (pp. 146-147). 55. Tract. in Ps. 108, 31 (pp. 220-221): Qui tristis est, sensum habuit. Insensibilis enim anima sensum non habet, insensibilis anima non habet sensum neque dolorem: ubi enim dolor est et tristitia, ibi sensus est. (...) Si ergo uoluerint nobis dicere: Propterea non dicimus eum habuisse sensum, ut non uideatur habere peccatum; nos illis respondeamus: Habuit corpus sicut et nos, aut non habuit? Si dixerint, habuit, respondeamus illis: Ergo habuit et passiones corporis nostri. For the equivalence between sensus and vo . see Rondeau, Les commentaires patristiques du psautier, II, 151. With regard to the impeccability of the Lord and the problem of the rporo 0rio, Jerome is open to the influence of Didymus, though he refrains in the homilies from applying it to the person of Christ (see ibid., 160-161). L. PERRONE 382 soteriological postulate: man, consisting of soul and body, would not be saved, if Christ had not taken on both a soul and a body. 56 Jeromes commitment to the recognition of the full humanity of Jesus Christ is attested to by another side of his Christology, which after its bib- lical and ontological features invites us to discover more immediately the impact of its spiritual dimensions. Here the redemptive value of the Cross comes into the foreground thanks to a view linking Christology and ecclesiology, and pointing at the same time to the universality of salvation through the image of Christ who extends his arms as protective wings over the world. 57 On the path already opened up by Origen, Jerome finds his own way to a warm and intimate devotion to Jesus, contemplated in the fragility and humbleness of his human existence. 58 This renewed Jesus mysticism is, however, nourished by an element which was rather marginal, if not totally absent in Origens thought: the connection with the holy places and among them especially with Bethlehem. It is true that Jerome also on this point was rather inconsistent, since he seemingly changed his mind after he had first sponsored enthusiastically the dwelling in the Holy Land as a privileged setting for monastic life. 59 Despite that, even in his most reserved statements, he is still disposed to make an exception for Bethlehem, where he had deliberately decided to settle. 60 We can try to combine and, in a certain sense, to reconcile both opposite reactions through the evidence furnished by the Homilies on the Psalms. On the one hand, they mention, as a matter of fact, quite a lot of places related to the life of Jesus, the village of Bethlehem being as I have already hinted 56. Tract. in Ps. 108, 31: Si enim non suscepit Dominus cuncta quae hominis sunt, non saluauit hominem. Si autem suscepit corpus, animam autem non suscepit: ergo corpus saluauit, animam autem non saluauit (p. 221). 57. According to Tract. in Ps. 95, 10 (p. 154) the Cross is the column of humankind, upon which the Church was built. For G. Coppa (see above n. 47), who speaks of a soteriological Christology, la passione e la croce suscitano le ininterrotte riflessioni dellomileta: esaltato sulla croce, Cristo ha esaltato noi, ci ha elevati fino a s e sollevati fino al cielo; morto per farci vivere; il Crocifisso il cantico nuovo poich il Figlio di Dio morto come uomo, affinch gli uomini avessero la vita (pp. 40-41). As for the image of Christs arms on the cross, see Tract. in Ps. 90, 4; Tract. in Ps. 90, 4 series altera. 58. See especially Tract. in Ps. 98, 5. Prayer to Jesus plays an important part in Jeromes devotion to him, as remarked by K. Baus, Das Gebet zu Christus beim heiligen Hiero- nymus, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 60 (1951) 178-188. 59. Compare Ep. 46 (around 386) with Ep. 58 (395) and see my remarks in Sacramentum Iudaeae (Gerolamo, Ep. 46), 467-477. 60. On Jeromes attitude towards the birthplace of Jesus, see P. Antin, La ville chez saint Jrme, in Id., Recueil sur saint Jrme, Bruxelles 1968, 375-389. FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 383 the main object of Jeromes attention; on the other hand, this physical land- scape, which is evoked through so many details, should be innerly re-en- acted and should be lived everyday as a personal experience of spiritual life. As Jerome says, blessed he who carries within himself the Cross, the resurrection, the place of Christs birth and of his ascension! Blessed he who carries Bethlehem within his heart, and Christ is born every day in it! 61 In this way, the fact of living in the Holy Land has to be seen just as a help and the starting-point for a deeper sequel and imitation of Christ, which is likewise a common goal for all believers. Jeromes attitude, there- fore, does not merely reflect the attempt at an overall spiritualisation which should shake off the concrete links to the places. This fact is even more evident when he speaks of Bethlehem: Jeromes preferential option for the birthplace of Jesus leads him to recognise in the manger a primary symbol for the essential truth of Christianity: the message of the God who became himself man out of his loving mercy for humankind and chose to come precisely among the poor and simple people. 62 The Christological Controversies of the Fifth and Sixth Centuries: the Palestinian Contribution to a Definition of the Ontology of Christ 1. The response of the Church of Palestine to the christological controversies I have so far retraced a series of approaches to Christology which were developed in the period preceding the long struggle over the definition of an ontology of Jesus Christ, God and man. The necessity of dogmatic pro- nouncements began to be felt in the first decades of the fifth century, ini- tially still in the wake of Apollinarianism and then during the discussions about the term of Theotokos (Mother of God), already employed by Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem but rejected by the bishop of Constantino- ple, Nestorius. Such controversy brought to light, much more than it had been the case during the apollinarianist crisis, the sharp contrast between the two major christological schemes developed up to then, with their dif- ferent ways of solving the problem of union in Christ: the Logos-sarx, 61. Tract. in Ps. 95, 10. 62. Tract. in Ps. 131, 6. L. PERRONE 384 mainly represented by the Alexandrian theology, and the Logos-anthropos, whose principal exponent was the Antiochene school, though western thought also showed itself closer to this second approach. In short, the Logos-sarx scheme insisted on the Logos as the principle of the union be- tween God and man, while the Logos-anthropos was more concerned with preserving the distinction of the two natures in Christ, both the divine and the human. Faced with these alternative solutions, the choice of the Pales- tinian church was in a certain sense predetermined, since the influence en- joyed by Alexandrian theology from the third century on at first brought Palestine into the camp of the allies of Cyril of Alexandria, as we see from the support given to him by the Palestinian bishops at Ephesus (431). This alliance would last until the beginning of the council of Chalcedon, twenty years later, when Juvenal of Jerusalem, who was striving for the recogni- tion of patriarchal status for the see of the Holy City, decided to go over to the opposite side, now formed by Constantinople, Rome and the Antioch- enes, thus abandoning Dioscorus of Alexandria and the monophysite party. Thanks to this dramatic change, the Church of Palestine was able to asso- ciate itself officially with the dogmatic decision of Chalcedon, which pro- claimed Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect man, to be recognised in two natures without confusion and separation, forming one person and one hypostasis. 63 This summary presentation of such a crucial stage for the christological dogma should not lead us to consider its political aspects as ultimately de- cisive and therefore to view it in a negative light. The dogmatic allegiance of the Palestinian Church during this period was of course also a matter of politics (even in its most dubious sense), first and foremost because of the unavoidable context of Constantinian Christianity with its mutual relation between Church and state. Yet, doctrinal affiliation cannot be seen only as the consequence of an interplay between different political forces. On the one hand, Christology is no longer a thing for theologians or churchmen alone: as had happened during the fourth century with the trinitarian ques- tion, the Christian masses are now alert and reactive to the christological problems of their own days. On the other hand, though it may be less vis- 63. For more details about the Palestinian participation in these events, see L. Perrone, I vescovi palestinesi ai concili cristologici della prima met del V secolo, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 10 (1978) 16-52. As to the dogmatic evolution during this period, I refer to my sketch in Da Nicea (325) a Calcedonia (451). I primi quattro concili ecumenici: Istituzioni, dottrine, processi di ricezione, in G. Alberigo (ed.), Storia dei concili ecumenici, Brescia 1993 2 , 71-107. FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 385 ible and at times problematic, there is indeed an intrinsic connection of the dogmatic debate with the inner life of the Church both passively and ac- tively, that is as a subsequent or as an initiating factor. It is not by chance that from now on the most engaged participants in the christological con- troversies within the Palestinian Church were the monks, who devoted themselves specifically to the goal of spiritual perfection. Once more, for our description of Palestinian Christology, we should take into account the whole complex of factors. To give at least some perception of their rich- ness and variety, let us mention two noteworthy episodes of the liturgical life of the Jerusalem church in the first half of the fifth century: the feast of the Theotokos on the 15th of August, whose institution around the time of the council of Ephesus is attested to by the Armenian Lectionary, and the distinct celebration of Christmas on the 25th of December, imposed for a while by bishop Juvenal. The two festivities, despite their dissimilar suc- cess, witness to the interaction between dogmatic development and devo- tional life, since the first is a clear celebration of Mary as Mother of God and the second was probably aimed at underlining the Nativity of God as man in conformity with the concerns which led to Chalcedon. 64 Moreover, theological reflection also accompanied the dogmatic debate, though this was at first approached through a distinctive perspective, as we may guess from the works of Hesychius of Jerusalem, the most remarkable figure in the first half of the fifth century. Known as a teacher of the Church of the Holy City, that is as an official preacher in it, Hesychius alternates homiletic activity with his role as exegete, covering in his or- ganic effort of explanation biblical books such as the Leviticus which had only partly attracted the attention of previous interpreters. Although Hesychius does not appear to be at the same level as the authors who pre- ceded him, he deserves to be examined for himself as a characteristic wit- ness to the theological atmosphere of the Palestinian Church of his time. 65 It is no accident that the Scriptures, commented on in the festal assemblies or in several exegetical writings, represent the undisputed centre of 64. I have dealt with both episodes, discussing their eventual chronology and their connections respectively with council of Ephesus and the council of Chalcedon in La chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche, 51-59. 65. Hesychius relative independence and originality, with regard especially to his Commentary on the Leviticus, has recently been asserted by E. Zocca, La lebbra e la sua purificazione nel Commentario al Levitico di Esichio: un tentativo di confronto con la tradizione esegetica precedente e contemporanea, Annali di storia dellesegesi 13 (1996) 179-199. She exemplifies it quite interestingly in relation to Origen (see pp. 186-187). L. PERRONE 386 Hesychius literary activity. Through his efforts, the Palestinian scene again seems to guarantee its fidelity to a great tradition of biblical studies, from Origen through Eusebius up to Jerome, or to reflect the priority of pastoral concerns, as manifested by the Catecheses of Cyril and John of Jerusalem. In view of the new dogmatic issues emerging, this means that we do not yet face a production of polemical works, which in the long run will con- stitute the main contribution of Palestinian theologians to Christology after Chalcedon. Instead of that, the answer given by Hesychius to the problems raised by the nestorian controversy continues to be sought in scriptural in- terpretation and in connection with the categories provided long since by the Alexandrian Christology. To tell the truth, Hesychius tends to refrain from a speculative approach to the mystery of the God-man and warns against what he regards as an excessive curiosity towards it. 66 His adhesion to the Logos-sarx Christology does not moreover imply an appropriation of the christological formulations which had become characteristic of the time and quite common after the arian and apollinarianist controversies, so that he may appear from this point of view somehow outdated. 67 But it is precisely this traditionalism which to a large extent can account for the vio- lent reaction of Palestinian monks to the dogma of Chalcedon, without urg- ing us to think that they were all fanatic monophysites. They were instead not yet prepared to understand the difficult balance, induced by the search of a viable compromise, which the council had tried to reach between Alexandrian, Antiochene and western Christology. 68 The acceptance of such a complex synthesis among different christo- logical traditions was the delicate task to which the Palestinian Church would apply itself for most of the century after Chalcedon. If the dogma of 451 was at first perceived as a betrayal of the true faith, not only for its 66. See Comm. in Lev. V, PG 93, 984 C: Curiose utique non inquirant (scil. doctores), quemadmodum verbum caro factum est: quomodo, qui in forma Dei erat, in forma servi factus est, quomodo exinanivit semetipsum, et in coelis mansit. Horum enim fides salutem affert, periculum inquisitio. 67. Hesychius typically Alexandrian orientation, in the sense of his compliance with the Logos-sarx scheme, has been noted by M. Aubineau, Homlies pascales (cinq homlies indites), SC 187, Paris 1972, 94-95, 109-110; Id., Les homlies festales dHsychius de Jrusalem, I: Les homlies I-XV, Bruxelles 1978, XLI-XLIV. 68. Hesychius himself seems later to have reacted very critically, as we may infer from a fragment of his lost Ecclesiastical History, directed against the Antiochene school (ACO IV I, 90). For the evaluation of the chalcedonian definition as a synthesis of the christological traditions of the fifth century see L. Perrone, Limpatto del dogma di Calcedonia sulla riflessione teologica fra IV e V Concilio Ecumenico, in A. Di Berardino - B. Studer (ed.), Storia della teologia. I: Epoca patristica, Casale M.to 1993, 539-554. FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 387 assertion of two natures but also because it had taken the form of a new horos (a definition), in contrast with the norm of Ephesus reasserting the sufficiency of the symbol of Nicaea, afterwards it was inserted in the har- mony (symphnia) of the first four ecumenical councils; all of them had as a matter of fact assured the Church of the correct expression of its own faith in the Trinity and in Jesus Christ, God and man. For this reason, the monastic masses revolting for almost two years after Chalcedon would be succeeded at the beginning of the sixth century by other masses of monks, now defending the council against the attempts to condemn it made by the monophysites under the guidance of Severus of Antioch (512-518). The peak of this tenacious resistance was the famous demonstration in the church of St. Stephen just outside the walls of Jerusalem (516/517), where thousands of monks, coming especially from the monasteries of the Judaean Desert, assembled with their archimandrites, Sabas and Theo- dosius, to hear the decisive slogan proclaimed by the second, the great coenobiarch, which marks the final appropriation of Chalcedon within the Palestinian Church: four gospels, four councils! In this way, the converg- ing witnesses to the one Lord Jesus Christ provided by the different evan- gelical versions were paralleled by the cumulative attestation to the faith of the Church in his mystery which was contained in the texts of the four normative councils. 69 2. The contribution of the Palestinian Theologians to Chalcedonian Christology The long process of reception necessarily implied a new interpretation of the chalcedonian dogma, which would answer the criticisms brought against it by the monophysites, irremovably clinging to the originally 69. I have described the gradual transition from rejection of Chalcedon to its acceptance and interpretation in La chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche, 89-222. The period up to the chalcedonian restoration under Emperor Justinus was lately dealt with by Grillmeier, II/1. For the primacy of the first four councils in the ancient church, as stated first by Theodosius (Cyril of Scythopolis, V. Sab. 56, ed. Schwartz, TU 49/2, Leipzig 1939, 151- 152), see Y.M. Congar, La primaut des quatre premiers conciles oecumniques, in Le concile et les conciles. Contributions lhistoire de la vie conciliaire de lglise, Paris 1960, 75-110. The commitment of the monks of the Judaean Desert to chalcedonian orthodoxy has been retraced by J. Patrich, Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism. A Comparative Study in Eastern Monasticism, Fourth to Seventh Centuries, Washington 1995, 301-310. It is important to notice that the monastic statements in favour of Chalcedon were supported also by the call to the witness of the holy places (see Cyril of Scythopolis, V. Sab. 57). L. PERRONE 388 apollinarianist and then cyrillian formula of the one nature (mia physis) of the incarnate Logos. To escape their suspicion of a divisive Christology, of the kind professed by Nestorius and the Antiochenes, there was practi- cally only one possibility: to show how the contents of the chalcedonian definition were potentially reconcilable with Cyril of Alexandria, up to 451 regarded as an undisputed doctrinal authority also by the Church of Pales- tine. 70 A similar method had already been adopted during the council, when the Palestinian bishops had shown their perplexity towards the Tome of pope Leo the Great, which afterwards would contribute itself to formulat- ing the final dogmatic decision. On that occasion, the controversial pas- sages of the Tomus had been associated with corresponding texts of Cyril to indicate their ultimate convergence. This manner of solving the apparent antagonism between two different Christologies already anticipates the es- sential inspiration for what would subsequently represent the main current among the Palestinian theologians up to the second council of Constanti- nople (553), which in its turn marked the official consecration of this ori- entation. Such a cyrillian-minded reappropriation of Chalcedon, because of its analogies with a similar phenomenon experienced by the Creed of Nicaea in the fourth century finally resulting in the so-called neo-nicene theology, has been given the name of neo-chalcedonianism, to better characterize its concordist approach. 71 We should notice that its success did not depend alone on the conciliatory approach as such: as a matter of fact, this could have been exploited merely as a tactical stratagem or as an external device, not to enable an effective encounter between the formula- tion of the Chalcedonian dogma and that of the cyrillian tradition, as we may still observe in some of the earliest attempts made in Palestine. On the contrary, a true synthesis could be realized only when the asserted com- patibility between the two distinct terminologies would be accompanied by the effort to rethink and clarify their respective concepts (first of all those 70. Cyrils doctrinal interventions on the Palestinian stage are attested to particularly by his Ep. 41, addressed to Acacius of Scythopolis short after Ephesus, and by the Responsiones ad Tiberium; De dogmatum solutione, answering questions put by Palestinian monks. 71. For the definition of neo-chalcedonianism and the simultaneous use of both termi- nologies as its most peculiar aspect, see M. Richard, Le No-chalcdonisme, Mlanges de Science Religieuse 3 (1946) 156-161. S. Helmer, Der Neuchalkedonismus. Geschichte, Berechtigung und Bedeutung eines dogmengeschichtlichen Begriffes, Bonn (Diss.) 1962, stresses instead, as its main feature, the solution given to the problem of the hypostatical union. See also A. Grillmeier, Der Neu-Chalkedonismus. Um die Berechtigung eines neuen Kapitels in der Dogmengeschichte, in Id., Mit ihm und in ihm. Christologische Forschungen und Perspektiven, Freiburg i.Br. 1975, 371-385; II/2, 450 ff. FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 389 of physis and hypostasis) and to apply them anew to the problem of the union of God and man in Christ. It was precisely through this further en- gagement that the Palestinian theologians were able to propose a new con- ceptual foundation for the dogma of 451, enlarging its understanding with the help of cyrillian Christology and leading it to the new idea of the hy- postatical union. 72 The theological movement of neo-chalcedonianism was for the most part supported by exponents of the Church of Palestine, who intervened as writers of mere works of controversy or of theological treaties, being nor- mally themselves too polemical rather than systematic, because of the apologetic pressures they were under. Such authors, by their critique of the two extremes of monophysitism and nestorianism, often evoked by them in rather schematic terms, aimed at establishing the middle course of chalcedonian theology. It is not possible here to introduce the whole series of these theologians, from the fifth to the sixth century, all the more so as in many cases their individual profile is not well-defined. We have indeed to do with a collective work of theological elaboration, rather than with independent and original personalities. In this sense, we may not improperly speak of a school or of a scholastic theology. Yet these often modest and also partly anonymous enterprises succeeded, as a combined effort, in providing a new lasting approach to the long-debated question, an approach not to be substantially modified even in the final phase of the christological controversies, that is during the conflict of the seventh century over monoenergism and monotheletism. For this rea- son I shall close my presentation of Palestinian Christology with the pic- ture of this theological evolution, without hinting at its further manifestations on the eve of the Arab conquest, when we meet again a major author in the person of Sophronius of Jerusalem. Such a substantial continuity of the chalcedonian tradition within the Church of Palestine was guaranteed first of all by the monasticism of the Judaean Desert, which for many centuries acted as a decisive influence in eastern Christi- anity, thanks especially to the contribution of Mar Saba to dogma, liturgy and hymnography. 73 72. The neo-chalcedonian component is moreover a part of a larger complex, in which the synthesis of 451 becomes the dominant theme of theology up to the third council of Constantinople (680-681). I tried to retrace its main elements until 553 in Limpatto del dogma di Calcedonia sulla riflessione teologica fra IV e V Concilio Ecumenico, 554-579. 73. See Patrich, Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism, 323-352, who follows the history of the Great Laura up to the iconoclast Controversy. L. PERRONE 390 The initial approach of neo-chalcedonian theologians, as displayed by Nephalius, who wrote a Defense of the council and led a campaign against the monophysites of Gaza (around 508) with the support of the Jerusalem church, is still largely affected by the search for a diplomacy of the dogmatic formulations, to overcome the resistance of adversaries. To this effect, diphysite and cyrillian Christology are simply juxtaposed by him, while their different terminologies are held as equally legitimate, without making yet a real step towards clarification of the hypostatical union. 74 A slightly more developed stage was reached by John of Scythopolis, a fine theological and philosophical mind as commentator of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, who committed himself also to being an apologete of Chalcedon from the second to the fourth decade of the sixth century, writing against both monophysites and nestorians. Criticizing the intransi- gent diphysites, John accepted the theopaschite formula (One of the Trin- ity was crucified), which had been drawn, as its characteristic corollary, from the strong unitive Christology exhibited by Cyril of Alexandria in his much-discussed Anathematisms. On the other hand, John, opposing Severus of Antioch, clearly stated the persistence in Christ of the two operations or activities (energeiai), both the human and the divine. These seemingly contrasting aspects of Johns Christology show how the full neo-chalcedonian synthesis had still to be sought. Nevertheless, we can observe the weight of the cyrillian influence on him also through the emphasis laid upon the Logos as the subject of the union between God and man, this union being expressed with the formula according to the hypostasis. 75 74. Nephalius position is known to us through the confutation written by Severus of Antioch (Orationes ad Nephalium, ed. Lebon, CSCO 119-120, Louvain 1949). See further C. Moeller, Un reprsentant de la christologie nochalcdonienne au dbut du sixime sicle en Orient: Nephalius dAlexandrie, Revue dhistoire ecclsiastique 40 (1944-45) 73- 140; P.T.R. Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451-553), Leiden 1979, 105-111; Perrone, La chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche, 148-151, 234-240; Grillmeier II/2, 48-54. 75. The importance of John in the theological scene of the sixth century, specifically with regard to his Scholia on the Corpus Areopagiticum, was originally indicated by H.U. von Balthasar, Das Scholienwerk des Johannes von Scythopolis, Scholastik 15 (1940) 16-38 and has more recently been reaffirmed by W. Beierwaltes, Johannes von Skythopolis und Plotin, SP XI/2, Berlin 1972, 3-7, and by P. Rorem, John of Scytopolis and the Dionysian Corpus, Oxford 1998. See also B. Flusin, Miracle et histoire dans luvre de Cyrille de Scythopolis, Paris 1983, 17-29. For his christological ideas, see Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East, 111-115; Perrone, La chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche, 240-249. FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 391 The political and theological programme of neo-chalcedonianism was proposed again, at a more elaborate level, by the grammarian John of Caesarea, whom his opponent Severus of Antioch ironically calls a new reconciliator and mediator of contrasting words, rightly catching a char- acteristic aspect of his position. 76 However, the Grammarians purpose did not confine itself to the pure synthesis of two alternative terminologies, though we may feel in him a deeper sense of the inadequacy of christo- logical formulations, never to be taken singly as truly satisfactory defini- tions, before the transcending mystery of Jesus Christ. At all events, the arguments put forth by John of Caesarea on behalf of Chalcedon rested upon a wider basis, as we may guess from the organic plan of his defense, uniting the preliminary definition of ontological notions with a historical apology of the two natures and concluding, after the direct confutation of the monophysites, with the quotation of patristic authorities. 77 Within such a varied framework, John searched first for a distinction between the concepts of ousia (a common or general substance or nature) and hy- postasis (an individual existence or person), thus asserting both the two natures of Christ and his personal unity: that is, according to the dogmatic formula preferred by John, two ousiai in one hypostasis. Despite the limi- tations still contained in this distinction (particularly with regard to the humanity of the Incarnate), it undoubtedly represented a progress in onto- logical conceptuality as applied to the christological dogma. Furthermore, this advance was reinforced by Johns initial recognition of a more sophis- ticated notion of hypostasis, which did no longer point just to the idi- omatic or individual characteristics but already included the idea of self-existence. John also arrived apparently at proposing a model for thinking the individual character of the human nature in Christ through his idea of the enhypostasia: in other words, for him the hypostasis of the in- carnate Logos conferred its individual traits on human nature as a result of the hypostatic union. As we may perhaps realise from this last insight, we should not be too disconcerted by the abstractly metaphysical language of this Christology, since behind it we can hear again, as its dominant con- cern, the words of Johns Prologue: the Word became flesh. Finally, the initiative of the Logos towards his humanity implies a process of deifica- 76. Severus of Antioch, Contra impium grammaticum, II 12, ed. J. Lebon, CSCO 112, 89. 77. On Johns literary activity see Iohannis Caes. Opera quae supersunt, ed. M. Richard, append. supped. M. Aubineau, CCG 1, Turnhout 1977, XIII-LVIII. As for his contribution to Christology, see Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East, 115-121; Perrone, La chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche, 249-260; Grillmeier, II/2, 54 ff. L. PERRONE 392 tion, though John does not yet exploit this motif in the same way that we shall soon see in Leontius of Jerusalem, the main exponent of neo- chalcedonianism. 78 Keeping in mind these growing scholastic aspects of chalcedonian theology, we may now introduce a much-disputed personality, who is not properly a neo-chalcedonian theologian but rather the interpreter of a more refined diphysism. I refer to Leontius of Byzantium, a monk of the Nea Laura and a leader of the origenist movement, which stirred up a great con- troversy in the monasteries of the Judaean Desert after the death of Sabas (532) until its condemnation by the council of 553. 79 Notwithstanding this party affiliation, Leontius of Byzantium did not elaborate an origenist or, more precisely, evagrian Christology, since he faced the same problems with which the other Palestinian authors were confronted and tried to a large extent to solve them by means of a similar conceptuality. 80 The es- sential question raised by the dogma of Chalcedon, regarding the ontologi- cal definition of Christ, continued to be the distinction between the concepts of physis and hypostasis. Nevertheless, Leontius of Byzantium took as the Leitmotiv of his Christology its assertion of the two natures in Christ, which were united without confusion and separation. For this reason he preferred to speak of one union according to the essence (katousian), though he did not ignore the role played by the hypostasis of the Logos. 81 Therefore, despite his somehow symmetrical presentation of 78. Johns contribution to the understanding of hypostasis and enhypostasia is subject to different evaluations. While S. Otto, Person und Subsistenz. Die philosophische Anthropologie des Leontios von Byzanz. Ein Beitrag zur sptantiken Geistesgeschichte, Mnchen 1968, 182- 187, sees in Johns thought both the idiomatic connotation of hypostasis and its meaning as self- existence, Grillmeier, II/2, 69, manifests some reservations as to his real assertion of enhypostasia. For the portrait traced above, I refer to my conclusions in Limpatto del dogma di Calcedonia sulla riflessione teologica fra IV e V Concilio Ecumenico, 572-574. 79. A recent profile of this major figure has been drawn by D.B. Evans, Leontius von Byzanz, in Theologische Realenzyklopdie, XXI, Berlin 1991, 5-10. See also Grillmeier, II/2, 193 ff. 80. An attempt at reconstructing the supposedly evagrian Christology of Leontius has been made by D.B. Evans, Leontius of Byzantium. An Origenist Christology, Washington 1970. His thesis was convincingly rejected by B. Daley, The Origenism of Leontius of Byzan- tium, Journal of Theological Studies 27 (1976) 333-369. See also his more recent article quoted above (n. 7). 81. He also employs occasionally (in the Dialogus contra aphthartodocetas) the formula of the union according to the hypostasis: L. Perrone, Il Dialogo contro gli aftartodoceti di Leonzio di Bisanzio e Severo di Antiochia, Cristianesimo nella storia 1 (1980) 430-431. A. Grillmeier, II/2, 197-198 and 209, emphasizes the limitations of Leontius Christology regarding both the notion of hypostasis and enhypostasia. FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 393 82. I may repeat here the conclusion I proposed in a previous contribution: Se le formule concettuali elaborate attraverso un approccio eminentemente razionale al problema dellontologia di Cristo risultavano ancora inadeguate a risolvere i nodi contenuti nella sintesi di Calcedonia, con questa prospettiva biblico-soteriologica il Bizantino torna a riappropriarsi della vicenda storica del Signore incarnato, ma tracciando al tempo stesso un collegamento pi immediato fra limmagine evangelica di Cristo e il senza confusione e senza separazione della definizione conciliare (Limpatto del dogma di Calcedonia sulla riflessione teologica fra IV e V Concilio Ecumenico, 576-577). 83. Such a distinction was worked out by M. Richard, Lonce de Jrusalem et Lonce de Byzance, Mlanges de Science Religieuse 1 (1944) 35-88. For recent studies, see Perrone, La chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche, 275-285; Grillmeier, II/2, 286-327. 84. There are doubts as to his full acceptance of the double terminology, both diphysite and monophysite (so, for instance, Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East, 126), or of the theopaschite formula (M. Richard, Lonce de Jrusalem et Lonce de Byzance, 58-60). divinity and humanity in Christ, we do not find in him the idea of a tertium quid uniting both. But what strikes us more, in the midst of an apparent reduction of Christology to the ontological perspective, is Leontius strong reaffirmation of a biblical and soteriological view of Christ in his Dialogue against the Aphthartodocetes. Rejecting here a further doctrinal develop- ment within the monophysite movement (which gained apparently some favour also among chalcedonians but was opposed by Severus himself), Leontius clearly stated that the identity of Christs human nature and of the way he suffered not only establish the Kyrios as a model for men but also guarantee our possibility to imitate and to follow him. 82 Finally, in the fourth and fifth decades of the sixth century the neo- chalcedonian synthesis finds its most remarkable exponent in Leontius of Jerusalem, whose distinctive profile was definitively vindicated after he had previously been identified with his homonymous Leontius of Byzantium. 83 As an interpreter of the via media of Chalcedon, Leontius of Jerusalem op- posed both monophysism and nestorianism, although his prevailing effort addressed rather the second of these two christological errors. Instead of developing Chalcedons notion of the two natures, as his namesake did es- pecially against the severan monophysites, Leontius of Jerusalem, who was sensitive to the cyrillian tradition, emphasized first of all the mia hypostasis in the formula of 451. This is his primary contribution, besides the already mentioned features of neo-chalcedonianism and despite some persisting ten- sions deriving from this approach. 84 For the Jerusalemite, the subject of the Incarnation is the Logos, who assumes a human nature, devoid in itself of a hypostatical character, that is of a self-existence, this being provided by L. PERRONE 394 the Logos himself. In this way, the man in Christ is en-hypostasized through the hypostasis of the Logos. 85 Now, to what extent can the ontologi- cal solution envisaged by Leontius of Jerusalem solve the problem of the individual character of Jesus human nature? Also for him hypostasis main- tains its idiomatic or individual meaning, according to the definition for- merly given by the Cappadocian Fathers within the trinitarian perspective. On the other hand, to contrast the idea that the Logos assumed a generic humanity, without individual traits, Leontius of Jerusalem elaborates the idea of an individual nature of the man in Christ, receiving a hypostatical char- acter through the hypostasis of the Logos. Thus, the union of God and man in Christ leads to a cumulation of divine and human idiomata, the idioms of the second person of the Trinity being added to those pertaining to the man Jesus. 86 Once more, despite our difficulties with such an ontological model, we should try to get a glimpse of the soteriological implications of Leontius Christology. Though it may appear so more or less explicitely, christological ontology cannot be viewed only as an abstract pattern of thought, worked out for mere dogmatic reasons without any connections with the needs and feelings of the Christian life. We can ascertain the truth of this observation in Leontius of Jerusalem more clearly than in all the other neo-chalcedonian theologians, since his approach to the problem of the union in Christ is closely connected with the motif of theosis, that is a process of deification which, starting with the action displayed by the Logos towards his humanity, extends itself to all men and finally to the whole crea- tion. The symbol of this deifying action, which at the same time exemplifies at best how the union of God and man should be thought of, is taken by Leontius from the example of the burning iron, thus going back to an image already used by Origen to illustrate the mystery of divinity and humanity in the Incarnate. 87 85. For Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East, 127, Leontius primary contribution to the Neo-Chalcedonian programme thus seems to be his absolute insistence that Chalcedons one hypostasis is the Word itself, in which the natures subsist. See also K.P. Wesche, The Christology of Leontius of Jerusalem: Monophysite or Chalcedonian?, St. Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 31 (1987) 65-95. 86. The inner tensions of this model are brought to light by Grillmeier, II/2, 315: Der Einbau des basilianischen Hypostase-Begriffs mit seiner Idiomenlehre war dazu angetan, die neuen Einsichten des Leontius von Jerusalem nicht ausreichend zur Geltung kommen zu lassen. 87. See above. The link between ontology and soteriology is inculcated especially through the exploitation of the patristic theme of the xpioxo o v0pcro to indicate Christ's humanity (A. Grillmeier, O xpioxo o v0pcro. Eine Studie zu einer christologischen Bezeichnung der Vterzeit, Traditio 33 [1977] 47-51). FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST 395 Conclusion We may indeed find other interesting indications of a continuity between the first stage of the theological evolution here described and the last phase, despite its almost exclusive concentration on the ontological definition of Christ and the undeniable impoverishment of the christological perspec- tives resulting from this. Yet it is time to conclude my presentation and to answer the initial question. I think that after all this there is no further need to underline how the Palestinian contribution to patristic Christology deserves to be considered among the most remarkable voices of eastern theology. If this does not mean, at least with Origen and Eusebius, a local peculiarity (due to the contacts with Alexandrian theology and its ensuing influence), in the time the response of the Palestinian Church to the developments of theology and dogma assumed its own distinctive features. They thus enable us to speak of a Palestinian Christology in a more defined regional sense. This particular view was fostered, among other things, by the special conditions of the Holy Land, as we have seen at first in the fourth century with Cyril of Jerusalem, then with Jerome in the fifth and later on with the monks who opposed Severus in the sixth century. The final commitment of the Palestinian Church to chalcedonian ortho- doxy was aided by this peculiar religious context, which preserved the traces of Jesus life and thanks precisely to the holy places experienced an international atmosphere, in itself more favourable to a process of synthe- sis among different traditions. It was, however, not only a question of local factors, but also the capacity to assume a theological leadership, which played an important role for the dogmatic conclusion taken in 553 by the century-old christological struggle. As I already remarked, the scholastic language of this final period should moreover not be isolated from the former theological tradition nor from the larger context of ecclesial life in Palestine, lest we catch a too pale and abstract picture of its spiritual relevance. If we could follow the ech- oes of chalcedonian Christology, for instance, in monastic hagiography as represented in the time of Emperor Justinian by Cyril of Scythopolis, we may perhaps better perceive also its impact on the spiritual life of the monks. 88 88. See L. Perrone, Il deserto e lorizzonte della citt. Le Storie monastiche di Cirillo di Scitopoli, in Cirillo di Scitopoli, Storie monastiche del deserto di Gerusalemme, Abbazia di Praglia 1990, 78-86. L. PERRONE 396 Yet to explore more generally this chapter of monastic and ascetic lit- erature, would also mean for us to discover other points of view. The disci- pleship of Christ embraced by monks (without ignoring or contrasting the opportunity of an ontological definition of his mystery and of the corre- sponding dogmatic exactness) brought into the foreground also other di- mensions. These aspects compensate in our eyes the speculative abstractness of post-chalcedonian Christologies, providing us with the warmth and depth of an always new and living encounter with Christ. 89 Lorenzo Perrone Universit di Pisa 89. I refer here especially to the monasticism of Gaza, from Abba Isaiah to Barsanuphius and Dorotheus. I dealt with it in La chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche, 285- 311 and more recently in I Padri del monachesimo di Gaza (IV-VI sec.): la fedelt allo spirito delle origini, La chiesa nel tempo 13 (1997) 87-116.
" ": " - : - (Mikra'ot Gedolot "Haketer": A Revised and Augmented Scientific Edition of "Mikra'ot Gedolot" Based On The Aleppo Codex and Early Medieval MSS: Joshua-Judges)