Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T15:55:16.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exegesis and the History of Theology: Reflections on the Adam-Christ Typology in Cyril of Alexandria*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Robert L. Wilken
Robert L. Wilken
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Church History, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Gettysburg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The history of exegesis as a discipline is one of the stepchildren of Church History. As such it has not only been neglected by Church historians, but even if studied, it has received inferior treatment. Surely there is something ironical about an age of theological scholarship which has so self-consciously bought the historical method to study the Bible, but which nevertheless allows scholars to be so un-historical in their approach to the history of its interpretation. Consider that much of the material in the history of exegesis has been mined by scholars whose proper business is the study of the Old and New Testaments; or that the history of interpretation is usually considered a part of biblical studies. Inevitably the question asked by biblical scholars sounds something like this: how does a man, a school, or epoch interpret such and such a passage? Frequently this question issues in monographs tracing the history of interpretations of the chosen passage. The result is usually a catena of citations classifying and cataloguing the answers given to problems in the text. Most often the perspective brought to the material is that of the contemporary exegete, who, either explicitly or implicitly thinks he knows what the passage meant—or at least what it could not mean.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , June 1966 , pp. 139 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. In his article, “Luthers Bedeutung für den Fortschritt der Auslegungskunst (“Gesammelté Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte 1,” 6 Aufl., 1932), p. 544,Google Scholar Holl writes: “Die Geschichte der Auslegung gehört bei uns zu den allervernaehlässigsten Gebieten.” See also the introductory comments in Schelkle, Karl, Paulus Lehrer der Väter (Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1956), 11–14;Google Scholar he cites Bardy, writing in 1934, who deplores the state or research in the history of exegesis. See also Pelikan, Jaroslav J., “Exegesis and the History of Theology,” Luther the Expositor (St. Louis: Concordia, 1959), pp. 5–31Google Scholar, and his bibliography.

2. Two examples should suffice, one from the nineteenth century and the other from several years ago. Merx, A.. Die Prophetie Joel und ihre Ausleger (1879), p. 112Google Scholar: “Wo die Allegorie und ihre Abarten, die Anagoge und die moralische Deutung auftreten, ist das Textverständnisse gemordet.” Cf. his comments on Ephraem, Theodoret, and Cyril, p. 156, and on Jerome, 168–9. He praises Jerome above the other three because he learned Hebrew and “damit die elementaren Vorkenntnisse des Exegeten sich anzueignen.” In the recent work by Köppen, Klaus-Peter, Die Auslegung der Versuchungsgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Alten Kirche (“Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese,” 4; Tübingen, 1961)Google Scholar, the history of exegesis is examined to aid the present day interpreter: “In den modernen Kommentaren findet man nur selten Quellenangaben oder Zitate, in denen die Kirchenväter zu Wort kommen. Es muss aber geprüft werden, ob nicht in diesem oder jenem Falle die Auslegung der Väter auch zur modernen Exegese etwas Bemerkenswertes oder Förderliches beizutragen hat.” (p.2).

3. The history of the writing of the history of exegesis would make a fascinating story. Even a brief foray into the first major and comprehensive work by Rosenmüller, Georg, Historia Interpretationis Librorum Sacrorum in Ecclesia Christiana (Hildburghusae, 1795; 4Google Scholar Vols), reveals a much more interesting approach to the field than was current in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. R. believes that the history of interpretation is part of Church History and has close ties with the history of theology. As proof he notes that the “condition of the Christian religion and Church in every time to be dependent on the fate of the interpretation of the sacred Scriptures,” (p.5) For a useful bibliography see Elze, Martin, “Schritftauslegung,” RGG, V, 1526–28.Google Scholar

4. Grant, Robert M., The Letter and the Spirit (London: SPCK, 1957);Google ScholarThe Earliest Lives of Jesus (New York: Harper, 1962).Google ScholarPelikan, Jaroslav, op. cit.Google ScholarDaniélou, Jean, From Shadows to Reality (Westminster: Newman Press, 1960);Google Scholar Bible and Liturgy (Notre Dame Press, 1956). deLubae, Henri, Histoire et Esprit: L'intelligence de l'Écriture d'après Origène (Paris: Aubier, 1950).Google Scholar

5. See Guillet, J.“Les exégèses d'Alexandrie et d'Antioche. Conflit ou malentendul,” Recherches de science religieuse, XXXW (1947), 257–302,Google Scholar for a persuasive argument minimizing the differences between the. Alexandrian and Antioehene schools; also the works of Daniélou and deLubac cited above.

6. Pelikan, , op. cit., p. 7.Google Scholar

7. Prestige, G. L., Fathers and Heretics (London: SPCK, 1958), p. 150.Google Scholar

8. On this subject see Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire (Oxford: Blackwell, 1964). p. 905.Google Scholar He refers here to A.C.O., I, iv, 222–25.

9. Grillmeier, Aloys., Christ in Christian Tradition (New York, 1965), pp. 400–412.Google Scholar

10. Recherches de Science Religieuse XXXVIII (1952), 272Google Scholar; also Jouassard, RSR, LXIV (1956), 235.Google Scholar

11. There is an extensive monograph on Cyril's exegesis of the Old Testament: Kerrigan, Alexander, St. Cyril of Alexandria. Interpreter of the Old Testament (Roma, 1952);Google Scholar we also his article: “The Objects of the Literal and Spiritural Senses of the New Testament according to St. Cyril of Alexandria,” Studia Patristica, Vol. IGoogle Scholar(“Texte und Untersuchungen,” Vol. LXIII; BeBerlin, 1957), 354–74.Google Scholar See also Abel, F. M., “Parellélisme exégétique entre s. Jérôme et s. Cyrille d'Alexandrie,” Vivre et Penser, I (1941), 94–119; 212–230;Google Scholarla Tour, Augustine Dupre, “La Doxa du Christ dans les oeuvres exégètiques de saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie,” Recherches de Science Religieuse, LXVIII (1960), 521–543; (1961), 68–94;Google ScholarDhotel, J.-C, “La ‘sanctification’ du Christ d'aprés Hebreux II, 11,” RSR, XLVII (1959), 515–43; XLVIII (1960), 520–52;Google ScholarDurand, G. M., Deux Dialogues Chrlstologiques (“Sources Chrétiennes,” No. 97; Paris, 1964)Google Scholar is also valuable for Cyril's exegesis because of the many footnotes referring to his exegetical writings. See my review in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte LXXVII 1966.Google Scholar

12. The recent work of Egon Brandenburger, Adam und Christus (“Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament,” Band VII; Neukirchen, 1962), argues that the “two Adams” entered Christianity through hellenistic Judaism. Cf. Philo, Leg. Alleg. I, 31.Google Scholar

13. In general, cf. , J. Daniélou, Shadows, pp. 11 –65;Google ScholarStaerk, W., “Anakephalaiosis” in RAO, I, 411–414.Google Scholar For the relevant passages in Methodius, ef. his Symposium, III, 3–6.Google Scholar For Irenaeus see Wingren, Gustaf., Man and the Incarnation (Philadelphia: Muhlenburg Prese, 1959).Google Scholar Also Ladner, Gerhart B., The Idea of Reform. Its Impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the Fathers (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959), pp. 79–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Glaphyra in Genesim i. PG LXIX, eol. 17b.Google Scholar

15. Burghardt, Walter., The Image of God in Man according to Cyril of Alexandria (The Catholic University of America Press, 1957);Google Scholar for a more complete study of Cyril's under-standing of redemption Weigl, cf. Eduard, Die Heilslehre des heiligen Cyril von Alexandrien (“Forschungen zur christlichen Literatur-und Dogmengeschichte,” Vol. V, Nos. 2 and 3; Mainz: Verlag von Kirchenheim & Co., 1905), particularly pp. 52–83Google Scholar where he discusses the second Adam and pp. 344ff. for his summary of Cyril's understanding of recapitulation; cf. also Mahé, J., “La sanctification d'après saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie,” Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, X (1909), 30–40, 469–92;Google Scholar, L. Janssens, “Notre filiation divine d'après saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniemsis, XI (1938), 233–78.Google Scholar

16. Cf. the following examples: “In Christ we are reelemented (anestoicheiömetha) to that which was in the beginning,” Glaphyra in Genesim i, PG, LXIX, eol. 16Google Scholar; “Reforming (anamorphoun) into that which is better,” In Isaiam iv. 2 (45:9), PG LXX, col. 96 lb; “Trans-elemented (metastoicheioun) again into the ancient human image,” In Joannem ii.1 (John 1:34),Google ScholarPusey, P. E. (ed.), Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrin d. Joannis evangelium. Accedunt fragmenta varia necnon tractatus Ad Tiberium Diaconum duo, edidit post Aubertum (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1872), Vol. I, 183, 21.23.Google Scholar “Since he became man he had the whole human nature in himself that he might reestablish (epanorthösé) human nature transforming it (metaskeuasas) into what it was in ancient times,” In Joannem v. 2 (John 7:39), Pusey, I, 692 24ff.

17. For Cyril's writings consult Quasten, Johannes, Patrology (Westminster, 1960), III, 116 ff.Google Scholar

18. Fragmenta in Epistolam ad Romanos v. 15, Pusey, Vol. III, 184, 15–30.Google Scholar

19. In Joannem i. 9 (John 1:14), Pusey, I, 138, 4.Google Scholar

20. In Joannem 1.9, Pusey, I, 123, 14 ff.Google Scholar For verse 4a, see pp. 74ff.

21. Ibid. p. 141, 6–11. The rigor of Cyril's parallelism between Christ and Adam is worth noting. He writes elsewhere: “We therefore became diseased (nenosekanen) through the disobedience of the first Adam and his curse, but we have become rich (peploutēkamen) through no obedience of the second and his blessing.” (In Joannem xii [John 19:4] Pusey, , III, 63, 3–17Google Scholar) Cf. also passages such as the following: “our forefather Adam …did not preserve (diesöse) the grace of the Spirit. …it was necessary that God the Word. …become man, in order that. …he might preserve (diasösë) the good permanently to our nature.” (In Joannem v.2 [John 7: 39], Pusey, , I, 693, 13–19Google Scholar); similar construction with the verb parapempō: the first man “transmits (parapempei) the penalty to his whole race (In Joannem ii 1 [John 1:32,33], Pusey, , I, 184Google Scholar, 4). The heavenly man came to earth that he might “transmit (parapempsë) through himself good gifts to the whole race.” (In Joannem xi, 1 [John 17: 18, 19], Posey, , II, 725, 11–12Google Scholar).

22. In Joannem i.9 (John 1:12), Pusey, I, 133, 15–19.Google Scholar

23. Ibid. xi.2 (John 16:33), Pusey, II, 657, 6–14.

24. Ibid. xii (John 19:4), Pusey, III, 63, 3–17.

25. Chr. Un., 756e (Durand, Deux Dialogues, 474); see also Recta Fide Ad Augustas, 18 (PG 76, 1356e). Frequently Cyril refers to Christ as the second Adam in dogmatic or polemical writings. See Against Nestorius III “Human nature was condemned in Adam, but it appeared most righteous and worthy in Christ. One was of the earth, the other of heaven. The first brought disobedience and sin; in the second the first fruit of our race appeared invulnerable to sin and superior to curse, death, judgment and corruption” (A.C.O. I, 1,6, 74, 11–16).

26. In Joannem xii (John 19:19), Pusey, III, 84, 25ff.Google Scholar

27. Ibid. (John 19:40,41), Pusey, III, 106, 11–25.

28. For statements on the gospels, especially the difference between the synopties and John see In Joannem i (Preface), Pusey, I, 12, 13ff. Cf. Wiles, Maurice, The Spiritual Gospel (Cambridge, 1960), pp. 13ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar and , Oscar Cullman, “The Plurality of the Gospels as a Theological Problem in Antiquity,” The Early Church (Philadelphia, 1956), 39–54.Google Scholar

29. See Braun, Herbert, “Entscheidende Motive in den Berichten über die Taufe Jesus von Markus bis Justin,” ZTHK 50 (1953), 39–43.Google Scholar Braun overstates his case, but his point is well taken. On interpretation of Baptism of Jesus in the second century, especially among gnostics and Jewish Christians, see Bauer, Walter, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (1909), 114ffGoogle Scholar; also Lampe, G. W. H., The Seal of the Spirit (London, 1951).Google Scholar

30. This is not the place to enter on an exegesis of the synoptic and Johannine accounts of the Baptism of Jesus. I have consulted the work of E. Lohmeyer on Matthew and Mark, and W. C. Allen on Matthew in the ICC. The difference between Matthew and Mark may perhaps be accounted for by the addition of the birth narratives. How could one who was begotten of the Holy Spirit receive the Spirit at Baptisml (Allen, p. 28); see also Hahn, Ferdinand., Christologische Hoheitstitel (Göttingen, 1963), 340–346.Google Scholar

31. Dialogue with Trypho, 88, 4.Google Scholar

32. Hegemonius Acta Archelai, 60 (Ed. by Beeson, Charles H., GCS, Bd. 16 [Leipzig, 1906], pp. 88–9.Google Scholar

33. Oratio Contra Arianos I, 47ff.Google Scholar On general problem, cf. Wiles, , op. cit., 112–147.Google Scholar

34. In Baptismum Christi (PG 46, 580e).

35. Ambrose, , Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, II, 83ff.Google ScholarChsysostom, , Homilies on Matthew, XII (PG 47, 201ff.).Google ScholarAugustine, , Homilies on John, IV, 13.Google Scholar

36. In Joannem ii. 1Google Scholar (John 1: 32,33), Pusey, I, 179 (20–23).Google Scholar

37. Ibid., Pusey, I, 183, 12ff.

38. Ibid., Ins. 18ff.

39. Ibid., 184, 10–12.

40. Ibid., lns. 13ff.

41. Ibid., lns. 21ff.

42. Ibid., Pusey I, 693, 13–19.

43. Ibid., Pusey I, 184, 30–185,11.

44. Earlier I noted some examples from the history of the interpretation of the Baptism of Jesus. Space does not allow a fuller discussion of this tradition but the exegesis of Theodore of Mopsuestia should be noted. See Vosté, J.-M, (ed.) Theodori Mopsuesteni Commentarius in Evangelium Johannis Apostoli, p. 47; Versio, p. 33.Google Scholar

45. On the exegesis of Romans 5 see Sehelkle, Karl H., Paulus Lehrer der Väter, 162ff.Google Scholar Schelkle is, however, interested primarily in questions of original sin.

46. H. E., vii, 13.

47. Kerrigan, , op. cit., 385–387;Google ScholarJouassard, , “Cyril von Alexandrien,” RAC, III, 506–508.Google Scholar

48. Philo, , In Flaccum 8Google Scholar; on Alexandria see Bell, H. I., “Alexandria” JEA 13 (1927), 171ffGoogle Scholar; Sehubart, , “Alexandria,” RAC I, 271–283Google Scholar; on Jews in Roman Empire, Sehuerer, E., A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (New York; 1891)Google Scholar; Jester, Jean, Les Juifs dans l'Empire Bomain (Paris, 1914)Google Scholar; for Alexandria, , Vol. II, 226–230Google Scholar of Schuerer, and Vol. I, 209ff. of Jester; for a more recent study, see Avi-Yonah, Michael, Geschichte der Juden im Zeitalter des Talmud in den Tagen von Rom and Byzans (Berlin, 1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49. For example: Eusebius' Demonstration; Chrysostom's Homilies against the Jews. In this connection see Simon, Marcel, Veres Israel (“Bibliothèque des Eeoles Française D'Athenes et de Rome,” no. 166; Paris, 1948), 166ff.;Google Scholar, Leipoldt, “Antisemitismus,” RAC, I, 473–476.Google Scholar

50. Goodenough, Erwin., Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (New York, 1953ff.)Google Scholar; on the synagogue at Sardis see American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin, No. 170 (04, 1963), 38ffGoogle Scholar; also the newsletter from Sardis by the ASOR, August 10, 1965 which dates the building of the synagogue between 175–210 A.D.; it was later rebuilt between 350–400 A.D.

51. Hom. pasch. I, (PG} 77, 420aff.)Google Scholar; Hom. parch. 6, 6–12Google Scholar (PG 77, 513dff.), Hom. pasch. 20, 4Google Scholar (PG 77, 848bff.).

52. PG 68, 133ff.

53. Aamendariz, Luis M., El Nuevo Moises, Dinamica Cristocentrica en la Tipologia de Cirilo Alejandrino (“Estudios Onienses,” Series III. Vol. 5; Madrid, 1962).Google Scholar

54. Homilies on Luke, 11 (ed. Payne Smith, R.; Oxford, 1859), pp. 47–8.Google Scholar

55. For the passage on John 13:36, we Pusey II, 392, 12–17. On the Resurrection, In Joannem xii (John 19:40,41), Pusey, , III, 105, 27–106Google Scholar, 7. It may be that this accent on newness is more characteristic of Cyril's view of recapitulation than that of Irenaeus. As Wingren observes ( Man and the Incarnation, p. 152Google Scholar, “Irenaeus fights shy of such passages as II Cor. 5:17 and Gal. 6:15 (which speak of new creation) and hardly even uses them.” But he goes on to say that Irenaeus had other ways of working these ideas into his thought.

56. PG, 77, 581a-d. See Rahner, Hugo, “Osterliche Frühlingslyrik bei Kyrillos von Alexandreia,” Paschatis Sollemnia ed. by Balthasar, Fischer & Johannes, Wagner (Basel, 1959), 68–75.Google Scholar

57. PG, 77, 581e-d.

58. Doutreleau, Louis (ed.) Didyme L'Aveugle, Sur Zachaharie (“Sources Chrétiennes,” No. 83; Paris, 1962), p. 38.Google Scholar

59. Eliade, Mireea, Patterns in Comparative Religion, trans. Sheed, Rosemary (New York: Shoed and Ward, 1958), p. xi.Google Scholar