Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem: Sacramental Theosis as a Means of Constructing Relational Identity [1 ed.] 9042939230, 9789042939233, 9789042939240

Citation preview

STUDIA PATRISTICA SUPPLEMENT 8

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem Sacramental Theōsis as a Means of Constructing Relational Identity by

DONNA R. HAWK-REINHARD

PEETERS 2020

CHRISTIAN IDENTITY FORMATION ACCORDING TO CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

STUDIA PATRISTICA SUPPLEMENTS

edited by Allen Brent and Markus Vinzent

STUDIA PATRISTICA SUPPLEMENT 8

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem Sacramental Theōsis as a Means of Constructing Relational Identity by DONNA R. HAWK-REINHARD

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2020

© Peeters Publishers — Louvain — Belgium 2020 All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. D/2020/0602/60 ISBN: 978-90-429-3923-3 ISBNe: 978-90-429-3924-0 A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in Belgium by Peeters, Leuven

Table of Contents PREFACE .......................................................................................................

xi

CHAPTER 1: THE QUESTION OF CHRISTIAN IDENTITY FORMATION ..............

1

What Constitutes a Fourth-Century Description of Christian Identity as Articulated in the Jerusalem Program? ..................................................... Fourth-Century Jerusalem: Pilgrimage Center with a Rich Liturgical Tradition, Nexus of Ecclesiastical and Political Intrigue........................... Jerusalem, Pilgrimage City ................................................................ Jerusalem’s Bishops from 314-387 ..................................................... Cyril of Jerusalem’s Works ................................................................ The Jerusalem Liturgy........................................................................ The Jerusalem Catechetical Program................................................. Status Quaestionis: Cyrillian Studies to Date ........................................... Cyrillian Studies to Date .................................................................... Cyril’s Mystagogic Catecheses: Issues of Genre ...................... Cyril as Mystagogue: Sacramental Theology ........................... Cyril as Teacher: Pedagogical Methods ................................... Identity Formation in the Early Church: the Use of Doctrinal Disputes, Christian Formation Texts, Pilgrimages, Liturgical Analysis, and Mystagogical Texts in the Study of Identity Formation .................... Doctrinal Development as Culture Formation .......................... Formative Texts ......................................................................... Pilgrimages as Formative Places............................................... Liturgical Texts and Practices ................................................... Mystagogic Texts in Identity Studies ........................................ Methodology and Organization of the Work ............................................. Methodology ....................................................................................... Terminology, Transliteration, and Translation Style .......................... Organization .......................................................................................

3 5 5 7 12 13 15 18 18 20 22 24 28 29 30 31 32 36 39 40 41 42

PART I: THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE MYSTAGOGIC CATECHESES State of the Question of the Authorship of the Texts ................................ Approach to Assessing Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses ...........

47 52

vi CHAPTER 2: HISTORY

Table of Contents

LITURGY AND CODICOLOGICAL ANALYSIS ............

55

Arguments Regarding Authorship from the Liturgical Tradition ............. Liturgical Theology Perspective......................................................... The Recent Challenge to Cyrillian Authorship ................................. Recent Support for Cyrillian Authorship ........................................... Assessment of the Challenges to Cyrillian Authorship Based in the Liturgical Theology Perspective .................................................. Was Cyril of Jerusalem a Liturgical Innovator or a Synthesizer of the Jerusalem Liturgy? ....................................................................... Authorship Information from Codicological Analysis .............................. Description of the Manuscript Tradition............................................ Analysis of Codicological Information .............................................. Examining the Arrangement of Cyril’s Works within the Codices .. Codices with Lists of Works .............................................................. Manuscripts without Explicit Authorial Attribution .......................... Examining the Foliation of the Codices with More than One Author Summary of the Codicological Evaluation ........................................ Summary of the Authorship Based Upon the History of Liturgy and Codicological Analyses ..............................................................................

55 55 56 57

OF

CHAPTER 3: TEXTUAL CRITICAL ANALYSIS

59 71 73 73 75 76 78 79 80 82 85

MYSTAGOGIC CATECHESES....

87

Characteristics of the Redactor .................................................................. Text-critical Issues ...................................................................................... Text-critical Issues in the Title of Mystagogic Catecheses 1............. Text-critical Issues in which the Sequential Redaction Begins in Manuscript Tradition β+..................................................................... M4.4 lines 5 and 6 ..................................................................... M4.5 lines 4-5 ............................................................................ M4.1 line 11 ............................................................................... M4.3 line 2................................................................................. Summary of Text-critical Issues which Exhibit Sequential Redaction Starting in Sub-family β+ ........................................ Text-critical Issues in which the Sequential Redaction Begins in Manuscript Tradition γ ....................................................................... M4.8 lines 11-14 ......................................................................... M1.8 line 5 ................................................................................. M4.2 lines 1-3 ............................................................................ M4.8 line 9................................................................................. M4.3 lines 6-7 ............................................................................ M5.3 line 6.................................................................................

87 89 90

OF

96 96 98 99 101 102 103 103 105 105 110 111 114

Table of Contents

M4.1 lines 2-3 ............................................................................ M5.1 line 7 ................................................................................. M5.7 lines 4-5 ............................................................................ Summary of Text-critical Issues in which the Sequential Redaction Begins in Manuscript Tradition γ ............................ Text-critical Issues in which the Redaction is Only in Manuscript Tradition α .......................................................................................... Piédnagel’s “la leçon célèbre”, M1.9 line 2 .............................. M3.1 line 6 ................................................................................. Summary of Additional Significant Variants Found Only in Manuscript Tradition α .............................................................. Text-critical Issues: Scribal Errors in Manuscript Tradition β.......... M2.6 line 11 ............................................................................... M2.4 line 18............................................................................... Summary of Text-critical Issues and Analysis of the Revised Stemma Summary: Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses ...............................

vii 116 117 120 122 124 124 125 126 127 127 128 129 130

PART II: CYRIL OF JERUSALEM’S SACRAMENTAL THEŌSIS AS THE ORGANIZING THEME OF CYRIL’S CATACHETICAL INSTRUCTIONS CHAPTER 4: CYRIL OF JERUSALEM’S EUCHARISTIC THEOLOGY: A VICTIM OF FOURTH-CENTURY THEOLOGICAL CHANGES OR THE PRODUCT OF SACRAMENTAL THEŌSIS? .................................................... 137 State of the Question .................................................................................. Prevalent Understandings of Cyril’s Eucharistic Theology ....................... Insights from the Hypothesis that μίμησις-εἰκών Typology is the Interpretive Key to Cyril’s Eucharistic Theology .............................. Insights from Examining the Distinctions between Cyril’s Theology of Baptism and the Post-Baptismal Anointing................................... Methodological Insight: Look for What is Common, Not What is Unique Insights from Edward Yarnold, David Power, William Crockett, and Georges Dragas ........................................................................... Doctrinal Presuppositions .................................................................. An Alternate Reading of Cyril’s Eucharistic Theology: Sacramental Theōsis ........................................................................................................ A Brief Overview of Pertinent Aspects of Theōsis ........................... Vocabulary of Theōsis ................................................................ Scriptural Passages Used in Describing Theōsis ....................... Sacramental Dimension of Theōsis ............................................ Conclusion ..................................................................................

138 139 140 148 149 151 155 159 161 162 163 165 167

viii

Table of Contents

Cyril of Jerusalem’s Explicit Use of Theōsis Terminology and Significant Scriptural Passages Related to Theōsis ........................... 168 Explicit Use of Theōsis Terminology ......................................... 168 Cyril’s Use of Three Key Scriptural Passages........................... 173 Conclusion................................................................................................... 178 CHAPTER 5: CYRIL’S THEME OF FELLOWSHIP AS THE FOUNDATION OF HIS SACRAMENTAL THEŌSIS ...........................................................

181

Examining the Macro-structure of Cyril’s Catechetical Teachings .......... 181 Use of Concepts Associated with Theōsis ......................................... 181 Cognates of κοινωνεῖν ................................................................ 183 Cyril’s Use of Selected Relational Terms Beginning with μετ-: Cognates of μετέχω, μεταλαμβάνω, μετάδοσις, and μεταδίδωμι 193 Cyril’s Use of συν-terms: σύμφυτος, σύμμορφος, σύσσωμος, and σύναιμος............................................................................... 201 Cyril’s Progressive Building of a Structure ....................................... 204 Reading Cyril’s Catechetical Texts through the Lens of Theōsis/Κοινωνία 213 The Relationship between the Incarnation, Theōsis, and Restoration of Creation .......................................................................................... 213 Salvation, Sacraments, and Κοινωνία: Cyril of Jerusalem’s Sacramental Theōsis ................................................................................................ 214 The Implications of Reading Cyril’s Eucharistic Theology as a Part of his Sacramental Theōsis ................................................................. 217 PART III: CYRIL’S TEACHING ON IDENTITY TRANSFORMATION THROUGH THE HOLY MYSTERIES CHAPTER 6: SACRAMENTAL THEŌSIS

AND IDENTITY

TRANSFORMATION ......

231

Sacramental Theōsis as Restoration to Wholeness with a New Identity... Cyril’s Teachings on What it Means to Be Human, the Effects of Sin, and the Expectations of Being Restored through the Sacraments .... Expectations of Transformation ................................................. Expectations of What it Means to Be a Christian, One of the Πιστοί (Faithful)......................................................................... Cyril’s Use of Descriptors to Denote Transformation with Each Sacrament ........................................................................................... The Order of the Catechumen and the Transitory State of Being Enlightened ...................................................................... Descriptive Terminology for Layering Christian Identity ......... Summary of Restoration through the Sacraments .............................

231 232 235 237 239 240 245 266

Table of Contents

Sacramental Theōsis, Virtue, and the Common Life of the Church ......... Sacramental Theōsis: the Means for Entering into Full Community (Ecclesiology) .............................................................................................. Relationship Changes through the Sacraments .................................. Entering Fully into Κοινωνία through Worship................................. Sacramental Theōsis Integrates the Christian into the Divine Economy.. Cyril’s Use of τύπος, ἀλήθεια, νοητός and ἀντίτυπος as Indications of Incorporation into the Divine Economy through the Sacraments Τύπος, Ἀλήθεια, and Ἀντίτυπος in Baptism .............................. Τυπικός, Νοητός, Ἀλήθεια, and Ἀντίτυπος in the Post-baptismal Anointing .................................................................................... Τύπος, Νοητός, and Ἀντίτυπος in the Eucharist........................ Summary of Cyril’s Use of Τύπος, Ἀλήθεια, Νοητός and Ἀντίτυπος .................................................................................... Cyril’s Narrative of How the Sacraments Integrate the Christian into the Divine Economy ........................................................................... Conclusion...................................................................................................

ix 272 275 275 276 279 280 280 281 283 289 291 292

CHAPTER 7: CYRIL’S EUCHARISTIC THEOLOGY AS A VITAL COMPONENT OF IDENTITY FORMATION THROUGH SACRAMENTAL THEŌSIS ........ 295 Summary of The Work ............................................................................... Analysis of the εἰκών-μίμησις Model and Cyril’s Use of τύπος ...... The Difficulties Inherent in the εἰκών-μίμησις Sacramental Model .......................................................................................... An Alternative Reading of Cyril’s Use of τύπος ............................... Cyril’s Eucharistic Theology from the Context of Identity Formation as One Dimension of Sacramental Theōsis .................................................... Conclusions and Observations .................................................................... APPENDIX A: TITLES OF

THE

295 297 298 299 302 303

CATECHESES ................................................... 307

APPENDIX B: WORD STUDIES FOR CHAPTER FIVE ....................................... 309 LIST

OF

ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................... 329

BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................

331

Preface How do we know who we are? In particular, how do we have confidence in knowing who we are in relation to the Divine? As the child of two teachers, I learned early in life that simple questions usually do not have simple answers. The love of learning and the joy of discovery that my parents and extended family who serve the community as teachers, craftsmen, and artisans encouraged in me has led me to discover that the best questions often are the beginning of a journey. The introduction to the short-lived science fiction television show Babylon 5: Crusade began with the technomage, Galen, asking Interstellar Alliance starship Captian Matthew Gideon a series of questions that, depending upon Gideon’s answers, would determine whether or not the technomage would travel with Gideon on his quest. Galen asked Gideon, “Who are you? … What do you want? … Where are you going? … Who [sic] do you trust and who [sic] do you serve?” Gideon’s answers, both the answers which were easy and the ones which were unanswered, were sufficient for Galen to decide to be Gideon’s companion on his journey.1 My quest for discovering how other Christians have answered these same questions has led me through personal studies in Christian spirituality, a career change to continue this quest full time, and a long wandering with several Christian communities. I was delighted when, in his graduate level class on theological methods at Saint Louis University, James Voiss, S.J. recommended that I examine Cyril of Jerusalem’s Mystagogic Catecheses as a text which engages cognitive, affective, volitional, and sensible dimensions of identity discovery. After reading the text, I realized that this text needed to become the focus of my dissertation. Two major issues arose as I began working with the Jerusalem mystagogical text. First, the Mystagogic Catecheses have been traditionally considered to be the culminating texts of the fourth century Jerusalem catechetical program, which means that in order to attempt, as much as possible, to enter into the same textual community as the fourth-century hearers of these texts, the Mystagogic Catecheses needs to be read in the context of the Procatechesis and Catecheses which Cyril delivered prior to the mystagogic texts. However, while the authorship of the preceeding catechetical lectures has not been debated, the authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses has been debated vigorously in academic circles. This led me on a journey of examining the manuscript tradition, especially how the critical edition characterized the redactor who has been

1 From the opening credits to J. Michael Straczynski’s Babylon 5: Crusade (Babylonian Productions, 1999).

xii

Preface

identified as John, the bishop of Jerusalem immediately after Cyril. Cyril’s text needed to be sorted out from John’s redactions. Along this part of the journey, I am grateful for the guidance of Kenneth Steinhauser through both his seminar on ancient manuscripts and textual transmission as well as his supervision of my doctoral dissertation. The questions that he asked as I wrestled with issues of authorship provided a much needed focus. I also benefitted greatly from the ongoing conversation with C. John Collins on textual critical issues in texts that we began when I was a seminarian at Covenant Seminary. Another dimension of this part of the journey was examining issues from the perspective of the history of liturgical theology; the conversation with dissertation readers Nicholas Denysenko and David Meconi were invaluable as I worked through several difficult issues. Second, Cyril of Jerusalem placed the new Christians within the context of the history of redemption and in fellowship with all three persons of the Trinity, characteristics of theōsis. However, Cyril’s sacramental theology, especially his eucharistic theology, has not been adequately examined in the light of the growing development of sacramental theōsis during the fourth century. This work is an attempt to begin this discussion. The present stage of my journey with Cyril of Jerusalem has taken me through his catechetical and mystagogical curriculum in order to discover how he provided a vocabulary of Christian identity which not only articulated their new relationship to the church and thus to each other, but also their new relationship with each person of the Trinity, all within the context of the economy of salvation through the grace received in each of the sacramental mysteries. Along the way, Marilyn Kincaid and Felicity Dorset, OSF sharpened my prose as well as the presentation and organization of my argument. I am grateful to the careful attention Markus Vinzent has paid to the last stages of this work’s journey. My husband, Doug, has lovingly sand consistently encouraged me throughout this journey. As a wise man who knows his wife well, he recognized the direction of my path before I was aware that I had started this journey. Others who have supported this journey are too many to name, but all are deeply appreciated. Like Captain Gideon, I do not yet have answers to all of Galen’s questions. What follows are the answers which I have gleaned from my journey with St. Cyril’s texts. All errors and mistakes are my own in spite of the careful work of those who have traveled with me; the beauty of the cognitive, affective, volitional, and multi-sensory formation of Christian identity presented in this text are, to the best of my ability, Cyril’s.

Chapter 1 The Question of Christian Identity Formation When Egeria arrived in Jerusalem in 381 and wrote to her sisters about her pilgrimage experiences, she described the things that any visitor to a new place would to those back home. She wrote about her experiences at the holy places and the people she met, providing details about what was different liturgically from the way things were done at home.1 Strikingly, what she did not mention in her travelogue was any concerns or problems about being accepted as a fellow Christian. In a time of tense theological controversies among rival Christian communities, Egeria was apparently able to participate in the liturgical celebrations in both Jerusalem and the other cities in the region without any concern about having to prove that she was a Christian. Furthermore, she never seemed to question whether the people who claimed to be Christians in Jerusalem were actually Christians even though they had differences in their liturgical practices. How did Egeria, who was not a native of the Palestinian area, the clergy, the ascetics, and other pilgrims recognize each other as Christians? How did this fourth-century woman think about and describe being a Christian in such a way that others, especially those who did not know her history or character, recognized her identity claim? Unfortunately, Egeria does not provide these kinds of details; this was not the type of information that her sisters back home would have expected. In the same year that Egeria arrived in Jerusalem, the ecumenical council of Constantinople vindicated Cyril, the city’s bishop of the previous thirty years, as an orthodox (Nicene) Christian. While Egeria did not mention the bishop of Jerusalem by name, Cyril’s identity as the undisputed bishop of Jerusalem was not challenged after 381, so he was most likely the bishop that Egeria referred to when she described the Jerusalem catechetical program. During the three decades preceding Egeria’s arrival, Cyril had been deposed three times in the tangle of political machinations and theological controversies. For the clergy, and especially the bishops, being recognized as an orthodox Christian was more complicated than what Egeria had experienced as a pilgrim, as might be expected for the difference between leaders and laity. The late fourth century is typically viewed through the lens of theological controversy and divisions; that is, from the vantage point of the political and theological struggles of the ecclesial leaders. Because of this, studies of 1

Most likely, Egeria was from the region which today is Spain. Her “sisters” may have been fellow Christians or they may have been members of a religious community. Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels (1999), 1.

2

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Christian identity need to differentiate between the Christian self-definition of the clergy, who might be held to a higher standard or write from a polemical position, and the self-definition of the laity. As demonstrated by Egeria’s pilgrimage and the travels of countless others, a common and foundational Christian identity was apparently present which allowed the traveling Christian to be accepted and welcomed into the local Christian communities either at the holy sites or in the area churches. Taken together, the writings of Cyril and Egeria provide a unique opportunity to examine the formation of Christian identity in the laity in the late fourth century.2 Cyril’s writings provide the contents of the catechetical program for adults entering the church as new Christians; Egeria’s travelogue for her sisters provides observations about the catechetical program, as well as the emotional responses of the hearers of this program, which are not available within the catechetical lectures themselves. While the travelogue that Egeria left does not provide us with sufficient data to evaluate how she described her Christian identity, she appears to have been accepted as a Christian without question in the Jerusalem area in the last decade of Cyril’s episcopacy. For this reason, an examination of Christian identity formation contained within Cyril’s catechetical instruction provides an insight into a common Christian identity which was recognizable by the pilgrim visitors to the city and which allowed Christians in Jerusalem to recognize at least some of the pilgrims as Christians. This book examines how Cyril’s catechetical curriculum provided the adults who had just been baptized with a vocabulary of Christian identity which not only articulated their new relationship to the church and thus to each other, but also their new relationship with each person of the Trinity. Of special interest is how, through the sacraments, Cyril provided a means of articulating Christian identity that was grounded in the economy of salvation. Participating in the liturgy and receiving the eucharist at the pilgrimage sites was of importance to Egeria; the probability is high that some of the clergy and laity at the holy sites had their understanding of Christian identity shaped by Cyril’s catechetical and mystagogical homilies, and these Christians recognized Egeria’s Christian identity, which had not been formed in Jerusalem. This recognition of each other as Christian implies a common, albeit implicit, understanding and articulation of what constituted Christian identity. Explicating which aspects of Christian identity were unique to the Jerusalem community and

2 Defining identity, while necessary, is not sufficient for identity formation of new members of a community. Epistemological issues of how does one know who one is and what or who provides confidence in knowing one’s identity are also critical dimensions in becoming part of a new community. Thus, issues of authority (who or what decides what is orthodox belief and behavior), how one comes to know this identity which is expressed by orthodox belief and behavior, and upon what or whom should one base his or her confidence in knowing all of these things are also either explicitly or implicitly engaged in formational texts.

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

3

which were commonly accepted as basic Christian identity would require a comparative study which is beyond the scope of this study. However, the first step to such a comparative study is to examine the means used to describe Christian identity in specific locations and traditions. Ecumenical dialogue and fellowship across Christian traditions and denominations in the twenty-first century continues to live in the tension between the acceptance into Christian community that Egeria experienced on her pilgrimage and the distrust and questioning of Christian identity and loyalties that Cyril experienced as a bishop. What constitutes a necessary and sufficient Christian identity that transcends the schisms that have fractured the body of Christ—the church—and how this Christian identity is formed are questions that still beg to be answered. What Constitutes a Fourth-Century Description of Christian Identity as Articulated in the Jerusalem Catechetical Program? The central purpose of the Mystagogic Catechesis was not only to assure the newly baptized of their changed relationship with God so that they could fully participate in the life of the Church, but also to provide a means of articulating their new identity as Christians. Studies of Cyril’s Mystagogic Catecheses have not fully addressed this central purpose. While the modern concept of “identity” and especially the idea of “self-identity” were not concepts that a fourth-century person would have discussed, the importance of naming and knowing what descriptors were used within a community were important to pilgrims like Egeria as they visited the pilgrimage sites. Cyril of Jerusalem addressed these same concerns in his catechetical instruction to adult converts to Christianity. For fourth-century Christians, identity boundaries were drawn liturgically from two different perspectives: 1) from a sacramental perspective, Christians were those who could remain after the catechumens were dismissed and participate in the eucharistic liturgy3 and 2) from a creedal perspective, the ability to participate in the eucharistic liturgy was based in knowing and living according to the creed.4 With respect to the latter aspect of Christian identity formation, Jonathan Malesic argues that for Ambrose of Milan and Cyril of Jerusalem, “the creed stands as the basis for the candidates to form their collective identity; it is a pact that they

3 The catechumen had been attending corporate public worship but they were dismissed from the assembly after the readings and homily. Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem (2000), 35. See also Martos, Doors to the Sacred (2001), 223. Note that Cyril uses the term differently than what might be expected: the catechumen are those who are being prepared to hear the catechetical lectures but are not yet ready for this stage of their theological and spiritual training. Those who actually hear the catechetical lectures are those who are being enlightened. 4 Malesic, Secret Faith in the Public Square (2009), 50.

4

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

enter into and mutually agree to uphold.”5 If Egeria’s Christian identity was based upon this latter perspective, she does not provide information about the use of the creeds as identity markers within her travelogue. The former aspect of this liturgical identity boundary—who can participate in the eucharistic liturgy—is described by Egeria.6 Of particular interest to this study is Cyril of Jerusalem’s teaching that the new Christians were worthy of distinctive titles (attributions or names) in four of the five post-baptismal mystagogical lectures. Each of these titles is given in association with either a sacramental or liturgical reality which, I propose, provides a means of articulating Christian identity. To date, the expression of identity through this progressive layering of titles in the Jerusalem mystagogical instruction has not been examined. Since the articulation of Christian identity is related to the sacraments, a clear understanding of the sacramental theology that Cyril described to the new Christians is critical. Yet when considering Cyril’s pre- and post-baptismal catecheses in light of preparation for receiving the sacraments, views on Jerusalem catechetical program vary significantly among scholars. According to Tomaš Špidlik, [i]t would be hard to find anyone among the Fathers who more diligently prepared the faithful to partake of the mysteries of the christian [sic] liturgy and to receive the Body and Blood of Christ worthily than did Cyril of Jerusalem (c 386/387) in his mystagogic Catechetical Lectures.7

Yet Enrico Mazza argues that Cyril’s mystagogical typology broke down within these very same texts, ostensibly because of a change in typology and an abandonment of μίμησις (imitation) when explaining the eucharist, two central aspects of his explanation of baptism and the post-baptismal anointing. These two very different interpretations of Cyril of Jerusalem’s post-baptismal instructions indicate that something intriguingly unexpected is either absent or present in Cyril’s fourth Mystagogic Catechesis on the eucharist. Both scholars cannot be correct in their reading of the texts. Since, for Cyril, receiving the eucharist provides a means of describing Christian identity, this difference in scholarly opinion about Cyril’s teachings on the eucharist requires resolution in order to understand this aspect of Christian identity.

5 Ibid. 50-1. The bulk of the Jerusalem pre-baptismal Catecheses is exposition of the creed that those enrolled to be baptized were to memorize and recite back to the bishop prior to their baptism. Working from the pedagogical function of secrets, Malesic says that “[t]he creed, like a secret, sifts or sorts people out. It demarcates the Christian community from the non-Christian; it is thus a source of the Christian’s identity, for without a real or imagined ‘them’ to set one’s own group in opposition to, there can be no ‘us’, no collective identity.” See also Young, The Making of the Creeds (2002), 12-3 as a means of formation of the convert through story and affirmation. 6 For examples, see Egeria, Itinerarium (IE, English translation by John Wilkinson in Egeria’s Travels [1999], 46.1 and 47.1-2). 7 Špidlík, Prayer (2005), 2: 4-5.

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

5

In particular, I argue that Cyril’s expression of his eucharistic theology in Mystagogic Catechesis 4 is better understood as a means of entering into κοινωνοί (becoming sharers) in Christ’s divinity through his humanity and therefore a means of mediating theōsis rather than participating in the μίμησις of Christ’s sacrifice. Thus, a function of the eucharist, for Cyril, should be understood as the identity-transforming act within the sequence of mysteries which culminate in the Χριστιανοί (Christians) becoming Χριστοφόροι (Christ-bearers). This identity change is a result of the κοινωνία (fellowship) of reconciliation which is not only between individual Christians and each person of the Trinity but expands to the κοινωνία of the Church. Christians then participate as Οὐρανοί (heavens, those in whom God dwells) in the eucharistic liturgy in which all the company of heaven are present. Before reviewing the secondary literature on Cyril of Jerusalem and his catechetical program as well as the myriad of methods used to examine Christian identity formation, a brief overview of the background of Jerusalem as a Christian center in the fourth century is helpful. Fourth-Century Jerusalem: Pilgrimage Center with a Rich Liturgical Tradition, Nexus of Ecclesiastical and Political Intrigue The backdrop of theological and political strife experienced by the bishops of Jerusalem from 314 to 387 provides some of Cyril of Jerusalem’s context. I begin with a short description of the rapid changes experienced by Jerusalem during Cyril’s lifetime which offers the context for the rise of Jerusalem as a significant center of Christianity. I then provide a short review of the hagiopolite liturgical practices and the catechetical program that developed during Cyril’s lifetime. Jerusalem, Pilgrimage City Peter Brown has argued that the “Mediterranean sensibility that longed for invisible and ideal companions” and the increasing importance in late Roman society about the types of relationships between people combined in the rise of the Holy person and the cult of relics.8 In Jerusalem, these longings were met by the holy places: they figure significantly not only in drawing pilgrims to Jerusalem, but also in Cyril of Jerusalem’s theology.9 After 325, Christian Palestine, which had “borne the brunt of the persecution in the early years of the fourth century,” became the place to demonstrate the

8

Brown, Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity (1982), 13. Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 57 states that “[Cyril’s] devotion to the Holy Places, especially Golgotha, and a special interest in a theology of the Incarnation also marked his catechetical style, which regarded learning by experience as being as important as learning by simple instruction.” 9

6

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

triumph of Christianity.10 In a very short period of time, the region was “no longer a backwater, but a historic and inspirational source; no longer marginal but central, the object of endless attention.” 11 Pilgrimages to Jerusalem increased, especially after Helena’s 326/7 celebrated trip and the building program of her son, Emperor Constantine, who instituted the construction of imperial churches on historical sites.12 With this shift toward Jerusalem as a major center of Christian pilgrimage, the bishops of the city were drawn into the theological debates of the day as well as political positioning and maneuvering. Although the see of Jerusalem was under the jurisdiction of Caesarea, the bishops of the two cities strove against each other for political, ecclesiastical, and theological power.13 Changes in sacred topography and pilgrimage itineraries have been examined by comparing the different descriptions provided by the 333 travelogue of the anonymous Bordeaux pilgrim and what Egeria described in 381-384.14 Through the building program under Constantine, a magnificent basilica complex was constructed at the site of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.15 Descriptions of the exact arrangement and design of the complex during the time of Cyril and Egeria vary.16 In general, the complex was oriented east to west, with the Rock of Calvary (Golgotha) in the southeast corner, and the Anastasis, the rotunda built over the tomb-chapel, toward the west end.17 The Martyrium was the arcaded courtyard between the entrance of the building complex from the cardo maximus, the main street of Jerusalem, and the basilica.18 The baptistery was most likely on the south side of the church complex, adjoining the outer wall on the west end, near the Anastasis

10

Walker, Holy City, Holy Places (1990), 15. Ibid. 16-7. See also Drijvers, ‘Promoting Jerusalem’, (1999), 81-82. 12 Walker, Holy City, Holy Places (1990), 16-7. For a description of the building program, see Baldovin’s The Urban Character of Christian Worship (1987), 46-54. 13 For details, see Walker’s ‘Eusebius, Cyril and the Holy Places’ (1989) and his ‘Gospel Sites and “Holy Places”’ (1990), 89-108, as well as Drijvers’ Cyril of Jerusalem (2004), and Rubin’s ‘The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Conflict between the Sees of Jerusalem and Caesarea’ (1982). 14 Anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux, Itinerary from Bordeaux to Jerusalem. See also Rivers (‘Pattern and Process in Early Christian Pilgrimage’ [1983]) for an analysis of the pilgrimage system that developed during fourth century. 15 Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem (2004), 12-7, 21. 16 Compare the diagrams and descriptions presented by Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship (1987), 46-9; Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 26-7; ‘The Location and Structure of the Baptistery in the Mystagogic Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1993), 1-13; and Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem (2004), 1-24. 17 Ibid. 17; Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels (1999), 35; Doval, ‘The Location and Structure of the Baptistery in the Mystagogic Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1993), 6. 18 Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem (2004), 17 and Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels (1999), 20-1 described the Martyrium as a courtyard. Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship (1987), 47 describes it as a small, irregular rectangular basilica. 11

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

7

rotunda.19 “During the excavation work of uncovering the Tomb, the Cross was found, or at least a chunk of wood held to be the Cross.”20 Holy sites within Jerusalem included: Sion, where the house of Caiaphas’ once stood and the column at which Jesus was scourged; the Praetorium where Jesus’ case was heard; the rock in the vineyards of the valley of Jehoshaphat where Judas betrayed Christ; the palm tree from which branches had been taken for Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem; the tomb of Lazarus in Bethany [the Lazarium].21

The Ascension was commemorated at the Imbomon which was on a “hillock”;22 the Eleona Church was built over the cave on the Mount of Olives where Jesus delivered his apocalyptic discourse.23 At the foot of the Mount of Olives a church was built within the garden of Gethsemane to enshrine the location of Jesus’ agony before his arrest.24 Jerusalem’s Bishops from 314-387 Cyril was born shortly after Constantine’s vision of the cross in 312,25 around 315 in or near Jerusalem,26 during Macarius’ episcopacy (314 until 335/6) which corresponded with the period of Emperor Constantine’s massive building program in Jerusalem.27 In 326, Constantine placed Macarius in charge of building the basilica on the location of the Holy Sepulchre.28 Macarius was present at the Council of Nicaea (325) and “was one of the foremost signatories,” in contrast to his metropolitan, Eusebius, who was censured.29 Furthermore, Macarius took advantage of the opportunity at this council to score a victory in “the long-running 19 Ibid. 18; Doval, ‘The Location and Structure of the Baptistery in the Mystagogic Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1993), 7. Doval provides schematics, as does Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels (1999), 21, 34-35, 39 and Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship (1987), 272. 20 Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem (2004), 20. For the role of the cross in Cyril’s theology and political strategy as well as in the Jerusalem liturgy, see Drijvers’ ‘Promoting Jerusalem’ (1999), 85-93 and Cyril of Jerusalem, 26 as well as Doval’s Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 176-87. 21 Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem (2004), 12, 22. 22 Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels (1999), 14 notes that this same hillock had been the site of commemorating the Transfiguration when the Bordeaux Pilgrim had visited fifty years early. Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem (2000), 19 refers to this church as the Church of the Ascension. 23 Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem (2004), 12-7, 21. Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship (1987), 51. 24 Ibid. 52. 25 Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem (2000), 3. 26 Venables, s.v. ‘Cyrillus (2)’, in A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D. (1911), 234. Dragas, The Holy Sacraments of Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion (2008), 5. 27 Terian, Macarius of Jerusalem (2008), 13. 28 Venables, s.v. ‘Macarius (1)’, in A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D. (1911), 674. 29 Terian, Macarius of Jerusalem (2008), 13.

8

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

battle of ecclesiastical jurisdiction between Caesarea and Jerusalem” to gain for Jerusalem an unspecified special status for the bishop of Jerusalem.30 Macarius acted upon this status to name Maximus as his episcopal successor without consent or approval by the other bishops of the area.31 Cyril was ordained to the diaconate around 335, ten years after Macarius’ prominent Nicene statement and challenge of Caesarean primacy over Jerusalem.32 Cyril was ordained to the priesthood under the next bishop of Jerusalem, Maximus, (bishop from 335/6 until 350/351) in either 345 or 348,33 within three to five years of Maximus’ stand against Acacius, bishop of Caesarea and metropolitan over Maximus, at the Synod of Serda (342).34 In either 350 or 351, Maximus followed the precedent of his own appointment to the episcopacy and named Heraclius as his successor without consulting either the other bishops in the area or his metropolitan.35 Thus, like Macarius before him, he attempted to prevent the appointment of an Arian bishop for Jerusalem36 and continued the struggle with Caesarea over ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The end of Maximus’ episcopacy was either due to his death37 or through the efforts of Acacius.38 Instead of accepting Heraclius’ appointment, Acacius appointed Cyril as bishop of Jerusalem in response to the perceived challenge of Caesarean jurisdiction, which placed Cyril in the position of being suspected of having Arian sympathies.39 William Telfer argues that Cyril had not agreed with Maximus’ 30 Walker, Holy City, Holy Places (1990), 94-5 states that Macarius was opportunistic and took advantage of Eusebius’ censure to “gain the ear of the emperor both for the removal of the Venus Temple and for an imperial recognition of his rightful honour as bishop of Christianity’s founding city.” 31 Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 18. 32 Venables, s.v. ‘Cyrillus (2)’, in A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D. (1911), 234. 33 Earlier date: ibid. 234. Later date: Van Nuffelen, ‘The Career of Cyril of Jerusalem (c.348– 87)’, (2007), 145. According to Venables, s.v. ‘Maximus (10)’, in A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D. (1911), 713, Maximus “had lost one eye and the sinews of one arm and one thigh severed while serving as a presbyter at Jerusalem” during a time of persecution by Galerius Valerius Maximinus. 34 Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 17-8 notes that Maximus’ earlier decision most likely was more in loyalty to his emperor and fellow bishops than in opposition to Athanasius. Venables, s.v. ‘Maximus (10)’, in A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D. (1911), 713 provides a detailed account of Maximus’ wavering regarding Athanasius’ position. In 342, Maximus was one of the fifteen Palestinian bishops to sit with the anti-Arian western bishops, in opposition to Acacius, who supported the Arian position. 35 Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 18 notes that Maximus’ decision to choose Heraclius over Cyril may have been made based upon the age difference between Heraclius and Cyril, the latter being about 35 at the time. However, Doval did not provide the age of Heraclius at the time of his appointment. 36 Ibid. 18. 37 Venables, s.v. ‘Maximus (10)’, in A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D. (1911), 713. 38 Dragas, The Holy Sacraments of Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion (2008), 5. 39 Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 18-9.

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

9

actions and, in a bold stance against the local congregation, complied with Acacius’ decision while Doval argues that Cyril was not disloyal to the local community, but, by accepting the appointment was serving the local church as one who understood them and was understood by them.40 Discrepancies among the biographies of Cyril by his contemporaries (as well as among modern scholars) center around concerns over Cyril’s controversial elevation to the bishopric, questions about his allegiance with the Nicene articulation of the Christian faith, as well as inconsistencies about the reasons behind his three depositions between 350 and 381.41 As already noted in the assessments of Telfer and Doval, scholars continue to be divided with respect to Cyril’s motivations for his theological position at various times throughout his episcopacy.42 Robert Gregg provides an analysis of Cyril’s orthodoxy as presented in his Catecheses which, when considered in the context of when these lessons were given, situates Cyril as at least teaching from an anti-Arian perspective during his priesthood.43 However, Van Nufflen, examining the discrepancies among Cyril’s contemporaries as to his Christological position, argues that Cyril accepted Nicene Christology as a means to gain power within the Jerusalem church.44 E. Venables asserts that the various positions regarding Cyril’s Christological orthodoxy presented by his contemporaries may be the result of a combination of Maximus’ tendency to waiver, Cyril’s association with semi-Arians including Acacius who elected him as bishop, and Cyril’s support of Meletius when

40 Telfer, ‘General Introduction’, in Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa (1956), 24. Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 19-20. 41 Venables, s.v. ‘Cyrillus (2)’, in A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D. (1911), 234; Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem (2000), 4. 42 According to Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem (2004), 35, “[a]lthough he evidently had Acacius’ support when he was nominated to the Jerusalem see, the initial good relations between Cyril and his metropolitan bishop soon became strained. Cyril’s episcopacy was dominated and characterized by his difficult relations with Caesarea and its bishop. The problems between the two most important sees in Palestine centered around two main issues. One was about doctrine and the other, from Cyril’s perspective more important one, about authority in the church-province.” 43 Gregg, ‘Cyril of Jerusalem and the Arians’, in Arianism (1985), 85-109. 44 Van Nuffelen, in ‘The Career of Cyril of Jerusalem (c.348–87)’ (2007), 138, 145-6, describes a complex, divided ecclesial situation within Jerusalem: from the beginning of Cyril’s episcopacy until 381 there were at least two if not three rival Christian communities within the Jerusalem church reflecting the three main Christological positions of the day, each with its own bishop and each bishop striving for to be recognized as the bishop of Jerusalem: “Any author writing about Jerusalem had to assess this confused situation and to make a choice about whom he considered to be the true bishop. The different lists in, on the one hand, Socrates and Sozomen, and, on the other, Jerome and Epiphanius should be read as different views on the same events. The first think that Cyril was succeeded by a continuous succession of Arian bishops, and stress that it was only in the reign of Theodosius I that Cyril became uncontested bishop of Jerusalem again. The second register a series of depositions and returns, and consider Cyril to be entangled in a war of depositions with his enemies. Both versions are correct in a sense, and the state of the evidence does not allow deciding who is more right than the other.”

10

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Jerome supported Paulinus in the Meletian Schism.45 Further complicating this issue was Cyril’s preference not to use Nicene Christological slogans or terminology, which has some scholars arguing for Cyril’s agreement with the Nicene position at the Council of Constantinople as a political ploy, others as development in his theology, and still others as an indication of some bishops who did not use the terminology for other reasons.46 Most recently, Sébastien Grignon 45 Venables, s.v. ‘Cyrillus (2)’, in A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D. (1911), 234. 46 Van Nuffelen, ‘The Career of Cyril of Jerusalem (c.348–87)’ (2007), 134-46 considers Cyril’s acceptance of the Nicene position strictly as a means of regaining control of the See. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988), 412-3 states that Cyril’s Christology is not typical pro-Nicene due to his rejection of the terminology and slogans. As already discussed in a previous footnote, Van Nufflen is representative of scholars who consider Cyril’s “conversion” to Nicene Christology as a political ploy. Hanson posits that “[t]he Cyril of 350 [at the time of the Catecheses] was a long way from being pro-Nicene, in spite of his high doctrine of the natural unity between the Father and the Son and his uncompromising views on the divinity of the Spirit, which render him something of a pioneer in pneumatology in the fourth century.” According to Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (1972), 183, “[a] point worth noting is that St Cyril, although prepared to do battle with Acacius of Caesarea over the privileges granted by the council of Nicea to the see of Jerusalem, declined to incorporate anything of the Nicene doctrine into the creed which he handed down to his catechumens. Like many others he was suspicious, at this time of his life at any rate, of the new-fangled Nicene term OF ONE SUBSTANCE, and shunned the new orthodoxy almost as much as Arianism.” (Emphasis is his). Presenting a different perspective, Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy (2006), 153-7 examines Cyril’s Christological position in relationship to his pastoral concern for the catechumens. From a more cautious approach in evaluating the bishop’s allegiances, Ayres proposes that in the time between the councils of Nicea and Constantinople, “many bishops would have found themselves without direct ‘party’ commitment and able to shift allegiances as long as they felt their favourite terminologies and principles were upheld. Cyril’s theology also shows us something further of how many could find themselves against the Athanasian/Marcellan theologies in the 340s and 350s—and thus suspicious of Nicea’s terms—but would eventually shift allegiances with the emergence of a more clearly expressed Homoian position and particularly with the emergence of Heterousian theology.” Ayres argues that Cyril’s Christology was more Nicene than the Eusebiuses since, unlike either of the Eusebiuses, Cyril promoted the eternal generation of the Son. Dragas, The Holy Sacraments of Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion (2008), 3 holds a similar position: “due to his pastoral tactics in confronting the Arian plots …”, Cyril hesitated in using the term homoousious. As I demonstrate in chapter five, Cyril’s theme of theōsis is highly relational and supports Ayres’ and Dragas’ position that Cyril’s pedagogical and pastoral goals may have been more important to Cyril than what might have been perceived as some bishops as ecclesiastical-political driven terminology changes. By taking C6.5 and C11.12 together, Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem (2000), 59 notes that Cyril recognized the inadequacy of language to discuss God’s nature and that this theme is prevalent throughout Cyril’s works. It may well be that Cyril’s lack of using the Nicene catch-phrases was a result of his understanding that the divine nature (ὑπόστασις) is both indescribable (C6.5 lines 1-2: Ἀλλ’ ἐρεῖ τις, εἰ ἀκατάληπτός [ἐστιν] ἡ ὑπόστασις ἡ θεία...; But some say, if God’s nature [is] incomprehensible, ...) and outside the content of Scripture (C11.12). I have recently argued that Cyril used ὅμοιος in a particular way to support Trinitarian sacramental theōsis, in particular the ontological change of persons through the sacraments of initiation (see Hawk-Reinhard, ‘The Role of the Holy Spirit in Cyril of Jerusalem’s Sacramental Theology’ [2017]) which may have also influenced his choice to not include this Nicene catch-phrase.

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

11

has argued that Cyril’s Trinitarian theology is dynamic, in contradistinction to Athanasius’ more static understanding of the relationship between the persons of the Godhead.47 This Trinitarian distinction from Athanasius, as well as Cyril’s emphasis upon the work and person of the Holy Spirit in the Jerusalem creed which is more developed than either the Nicene or Caesarean creed, may have also caused theological tension with his biographers.48 Alexis Doval proposes that Cyril was “an orthodox yet non-partisan, independent thinker” who “steered a cautious middle path through [his] controversial times,”49 echoing Venables’ analysis.50 Peter Van Nuffelen reads the same synodical letter not as an affirmation of Cyril’s orthodoxy, but a means to resolve contested leadership in Jerusalem in 381; that is, “Cyril needed to have his authority confirmed …”51 Whatever Cyril’s motivation for his actions and his personal theological position, the anti-Arianism themes present in the catechetical lectures are peripheral to the content within the Jerusalem catecheses.52 As Doval notes, this lack of emphasis should not be surprising, given that “these sermons are catechesis for beginners, they are non-speculative and orthodox; hence, we should not expect to find theological ideas or positions unique to the catechist.”53

47 Grignon, ‘La coherénce de la foi’ (2003), 235. According to Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy (2006), 153-7 Cyril’s catechetical goal is focused on “shaping patterns of thought and speech that will promote continual awareness of where and how we speak, following Scripture of that which is beyond comprehension.” Because of this, “[Cyril] makes little use of any technical terminology for distinguishing Father and Son, but focuses on repeating the logic of the relationship.” 48 In his study of the Catecheses, Grignon, ‘La coherénce de la foi’ (2003), 472-3 states that Cyril’s pneumatology is one of the richest and most complex of this time period. Juliette Day, ‘Cyril of Jerusalem on the Holy Spirit’, in The Holy Spirit in the Fathers of the Church (2010), 85 also proposes that the influence of Cyril’s pneumatology requires additional study. For a comparison with the Caesarean Creed and the Nicene Creed, see Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (2006), 182 and 216. 49 Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 57, 24. 50 According to Venables, s.v. ‘Cyrillus (2)’, in A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D. (1911), 234, “Acacius was the metropolitan of Cyril’s province. He and his fellow-bishops were, notwithstanding their heretical bias, the legitimate authorities for conferring the episcopate. Cyril’s election and consecration was therefore strictly canonical. Besides, the silence of the members of the synod as to facts occurring 30 years before does not disprove them. Whatever might have been Cyril’s earlier heretical failings, he was on the orthodox side then [when he was listed in the 382 synodical letter of Constantinople to pope Damascus “as a champion of the orthodox faith against the Arian heresy, and affirms his canonical election to the see of Jerusalem”]. His adhesion was valuable, and it would have been as impolitic as it was needless to revive an almost forgotten scandal. Yet Cyril’s own writings quite forbid us to follow Jerome’s authority in classing him with the Arians, or charging him with heretical tenets.” 51 Van Nuffelen, ‘The Career of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (2007), 144. 52 Gregg, ‘Cyril of Jerusalem and the Arians’, in Arianism (1985), 98. 53 Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 162. For additional information on these issues and their interdependence, see Drijvers’s ‘Promoting Jerusalem’ (1999), and Rubin’s ‘The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Conflict between the Sees of Jerusalem and Caesarea’ (1982), 79-105.

12

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Grignon also notes that, due to his audience, Cyril does not present speculative theology, but focuses on the needs of his audience.54 John II succeeded Cyril and served as bishop of Jerusalem from 386 to 417. He met opposition from Jerome due to his refusal to condemn Origenism and his hospitality toward Pelagius.55 John’s extant works include an Armenian sermon on the Church and a brief Syriac profession of the faith.56 Quotations of John’s Apology have been extracted from Jerome’s Against John and his translation of Ephiphanius’ letter to John.57 Cyril of Jerusalem’s Works The undisputed texts by Cyril include his Procatechesis, Catechesis, Homily on the Paralytic and his letter addressed to Emperor Constantius. The Letter to Constantius and the Catecheses are typically dated to early in Cyril’s episcopacy, with some scholars arguing that the Catecheses are from before his episcopacy and others dating it to the very early years of his episcopacy, providing a terminus ante quem of 350.58 The Letter to Constantius is typically dated to 351.59 The authorship, and consequentially the dating, of Mystagogic Catecheses continues to be debated. Four main issues have fueled this debate: 1) attribution of authorship within the manuscript tradition itself; 2) liturgical practices described or alluded to in this text, especially when compared to the descriptions provided by Egeria; 3) theological presuppositions that are linked to the liturgical practices; and 4) literary style. With respect to authorship, if the text should be attributed to John of Jerusalem, then the dating of the text is late fourth-century and after Cyril’s death in 387. If some of the manuscript tradition is attributed to Cyril (as I argue in Part I, chapters two and three), then the dating of the text is between 350 and 387 with subsequent redactions by John 54 “Cyrille tient donc parfaitement, nous semble-t-il, la bonne distance entre ces trois exigences qui pourraient se contredire l’une l’autre : l’exigence parénétique guidée par la perspective du sacrement, l’exigence dogmatique imposée par le commentaire du symbole, et la nécessité d’insérer la prédication dans un ordo liturgique défini à l’avance et balisé par des lectures. Cela est d’autant plus remarquable que, ce faisant, il sait se montrer, contrairement à l’idée couramment reçue à son encontre, un véritable théologien.” Grignon, ‘La coherénce de la foi’ (2003), 472-3. 55 Walker, Holy City, Holy Places (1990), 17. 56 Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 206. 57 Jerome’s Letter 51.3 is his translation of the letter from Ephiphanius. Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 206-7. 58 Day, The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem (2007). 59 Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem (2000), 22. For information about the manuscript traditions of the Procatechesis, Catecheses, and the Homily on the Paralytic see W.C. Reischl and J. Rupp (eds), S. patris nostri Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi Opera quae supersunt omnia, I: cxlvii-cxlix. For the text of the Letter to Constantius, see Ernest Bihain, “L’Épître de Cyrille de Jérusalem à Constance sur la vison de la Croix (BHG3 413)”, (1973), 264-94.

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

13

of Jerusalem dating to after 387. While the exact dating of this text is not critical to my argument, authorship is. A brief literature review of the most current aspects of the debate is found in Part I, chapter two. The Jerusalem Liturgy Since Jerusalem was a major pilgrimage site in the fourth century, considerable work has been done to describe the city of Jerusalem and the holy sites as they were used in the Jerusalem lectionary.60 Within thirty years after the dedication of the Anastasis, the pilgrimage liturgy of Jerusalem was in place.61 As Peter Walker notes: [t]he pilgrim’s appetite, once awakened, was seemingly insatiable. Liturgical celebrations in Jerusalem became more and more complex (not to say exhausting), while holy sites proliferated. Within two generations, by the time the nun Egeria came from Spain and Jerome’s friend Paula made her great tour of the ‘holy places’, the list of sites was endless.62

The stationary liturgy of the fourth century has four essential elements: 1) the worship service was led by the city’s bishop or his representative, 2) the services were celebrated at different shrines or sanctuaries which were 3) chosen based upon the “feast, fast, or commemoration being celebrated” and 4) “was the urban liturgical celebration of the day.”63 Accordingly, the liturgy of the Jerusalem Church in the late fourth century combined regular services with pilgrimage prayers64 so that “story and text, liturgical action, and a unique place are brought together in relations of equivalence.”65 60

Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels (1999), 50 notes that the Armenian lectionary (Armenian Manuscript 121, Library of the Armenian Convent, Jerusalem) was translated from a Greek lectionary which was used in Jerusalem and dates from between 417 and 439. In particular, see Baldovin’s The Urban Character of Christian Worship (1987), 282-4; Wilkinson’s Egeria’s Travels (1999), 50-60; Taft’s The Byzantine Rite (1992), and Yarnold’s Cyril of Jerusalem (2000), 33-55. Other sources include Saxer’s ‘Cyrille de Jerusalem et les lieux saints de son temps’ (1996), 8-18; Doval’s ‘The Location and Structure of the Baptistery in the Mystagogic Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1993), 1-13; Wharton’s ‘The Baptistery of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and the Politics of Sacred Landscape’ (1992), 313-25; Walker’s Holy City, Holy Places (1990); ‘Gospel Sites And “Holy Places”’ (1990), 89-108, and ‘Eusebius, Cyril and the Holy Places’ (1989), 30614; Hellemo’s Adventus Domini: Eschatological Thought in the 4th-Century Apses and Catecheses (1989); and Coüasnon’s The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (1974). 61 Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels (1999), 35. 62 Walker, Holy City, Holy Places (1990), 17. 63 The services of the Saturday before the Great Week as well as the octave of Epiphany were held in the Lazarium. “The Eleona was used as a stational church during the important octaves as well as on the Tuesday and Thursday evenings of Holy Week, and for an afternoon service every day of Easter Week.” The Imbomon was used, according to Egeria, as a stationary church for Pentecost Sunday and in the Holy Week processions. Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship (1987), 36-7, 50-2. Italics are his. 64 Ibid. 50. 65 Smith, To Take Place (1987), 89-90 notes that when an “overload” occurs at a place (see IE 5.8), “[i]t is at this point that formal, liturgical ordering takes hold, establishing a

14

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

For Cyril, the sites were more than merely places where historically significant events had taken place. Walker summarizes Cyril’s sacramental view of the holy sites: for those with faith [these sites] had a certain spiritual potency or even ‘sacramental’ significance, as places which God might use to convey a special sense of his presence. … these ‘holy places’ did not just confirm facts and inspire faith. They themselves were an appropriate medium for faith, places where the divine had touched the human and the physical, places where through the physical means of touch, of sight and liturgical action human beings could now in return come close to the divine.66

Cyril considered the “Gospel sites [to be] in a true sense ‘holy’”; this, combined with a pastoral sensitivity to the needs of pilgrims and “the skill of novel biblical interpretation,”67 provide the background for Cyril’s use of sacred space within his catechetical lectures. Peter Walker provides an analysis of Cyril’s use of the unique geographical setting for the catecheses: “Christian Jerusalem for Cyril was … distinct, holy and pre-eminent.”68 In Jerusalem, the liturgy included both spatial and temporal dimensions.69 Baldovin, working from Egeria’s letters, states that in this holy city, “[t]here is a mobile aspect to even the ordinary daily services within the complex of buildings around the Holy Sepulchre and Golgotha.”70 Dorothea French summarizes that: [Cyril] as a pilgrim-pastor, … recognized the need for pilgrims to have a fixed place at which to commemorate specific events in the life of Christ, for the places to conform to their expectations, and if possible, for them to be conveniently located. For these reasons he took a strategic role in the mapping of Christian topoi in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and the three caves associated with the birth, death and ascension of Christ.71

hierarchy of significance that focuses the devout attention, chiefly achieved by adding a temporal dimension to the locative experience.” Jerusalem’s fourth and fifth century scripture readings for the liturgical celebrations throughout the year are given in the Armenian Lectionary; Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 37; Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship (1987), 94-100. For a discussion of the relationship between Cyril’s and Egeria’s descriptions of the catechetical program of Jerusalem, see Johnson’s ‘Reconciling Cyril and Egeria on the Catechetical Process in Fourth-Century Jerusalem’, in Essays in Early Eastern Initiation (1988), 18-30. 66 Walker, Holy City, Holy Places (1990), 37-8. According to Miller, The Corporeal Imagination (2009), 110: “… Cyril of Jerusalem believed that the ‘power’ that resided in relics was what remained of the soul that once inhabited the saint’s body.” See C18.16, in which Cyril described how the dead was raised both by the living and the dead body of Elijah (2Kings 4:34; 13:21). 67 Walker, Holy City, Holy Places (1990), 38. 68 Ibid. 312-46. 69 Smith, To Take Place (1987), 91. 70 Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship (1987), 58. 71 French, ‘Mapping Sacred Centers’, in Akten des XII. internationalen Kongresses für christliche Archäologie (1995), 797.

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

15

The stational practice of worship in Jerusalem, however, was not merely a product of the holy topography, but was also influenced by “the now public nature of the ecclesia and its means of incorporating new members.”72 As Malesic notes, “the physical actions performed in the liturgy were not entirely secret even to non-Christians in the fourth century.”73 While Drijvers posits that the disciplina arcani is fiction, Malesic argues that the restricted use of physical space and control of who had access to specific spaces was used as a means “to promote the reputation that [Cyril] and his church held secrets.”74 The Jerusalem Catechetical Program During the eight weeks before Easter (five days of fasting in each of the eight weeks making up the forty days of Lent),75 those who had been enrolled were prepared for baptism.76 Egeria provided an eye-witness description of the program, which Wilkinson summarizes. After giving their names prior to Lent, the catechumens were examined by the clergy, with their godparents as character witnesses. For the next seven weeks, those preparing to be baptized were daily exorcized, then received three hours of instruction by the bishop. During the first five weeks, the instructional content was scriptural; the sixth and seventh week included instruction on the creed, which they were to memorize and recite

72

Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship (1987), 87. Malesic, Secret Faith in the Public Square (2009), 25, 37, 40-1 argues that Cyril’s “practice of the so-called disciplina arcani, or “discipline of the secret,” in his rite of initiation, is very open about the fact that he is keeping secrets from the unbaptized, frequently tantalizing them with hints about the sacramental rites they will receive when they are initiated.” He argues that “[t]he reputation of secrecy lures catechumens to baptism, and then, after they have become stakeholders in the faith, Cyril charges them with the responsibility to remain sinless and to protect the faith against pagans and heretics by holding it in reserve.” 74 See Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem (2004), 89 n 101. Malesic, Secret Faith in the Public Square (2009), 40-1, 43 argues that secrecy was used for “theological, pedagogical, political, and managerial purposes” as well as for liturgical and social reasons. For example, Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship (1987), 58 notes that on Sundays, after the dismissal of the catechumens, the faithful followed the bishop to the Anastasis Rotunda. Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels (1999), 54-5 proposes that Egeria provided descriptions of the first part (the synaxis) of the two-part service, which was public and not always followed by the second part of the service, but not the second part of the service, since the eucharistic liturgy was not revealed to the catechumen. 75 Telfer, Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa (1956), 32. 76 For general works on catechesis in the early church, see Johnson’s The Rites of Christian Initiation Revised and Expanded ed. (2007); Mitchell’s ‘The Development of Catechesis in the Third and Fourth Centuries’, in A Faithful Church (1981); Finn’s Early Christian Baptism and the Catechumenate (1992) and Early Christian Baptism and the Catechumenate: Italy, North Africa, and Egypt (1992). Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 32-57 provides a concise discussion of the catechetical program of Jerusalem. 73

16

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

back to the bishop on the Saturday prior to Palm Sunday, their last day of instruction.77 The Lenten catechetical lectures were given in a court that stood between the Holy Sepulchre complex’s major church, the Martyrium, and the Anastasis, the chapel centered on the cave of the Resurrection. The candidates, then, received instruction in a place that highlighted their transitional status within the Catholic Church. They were physically separated from the more public Martyrium, which was close to the street and which catechumens could enter, and the more secret Anastasis, a site they would not visit until after they were baptized.78

Those who were present for these lectures were those preparing to be baptized, some of their friends and witnesses, as well as ascetics and “other devout persons.”79 As Drijvers summarizes, not much is known about the audience: they were mostly adults from a variety of provenances, geographic regions, religious backgrounds, and intellectual abilities.80 According to Egeria, those enrolled to be baptized went for exorcism by the presbyters after the dismissal in the morning worship. Then, the bishop was seated in his chair in the Martyrium and those to be baptized sit on the floor around him, their godparents standing in a specific place, and the faithful who come to listen are also seated for the Catechesis for that day.81 She wrote that the faithful gave louder exclamations during the Catechesis than during the regular service and asked questions on each point of the lecture.82 Egeria’s commentary on the enthusiastic involvement of the faithful during the Catechesis indicates that the instructions were a means of ongoing teaching for the entire Christian community, including pilgrims, not just those preparing for baptism. 77 Egeria describes that the neighbors of the catechumens are asked questions about “all the serious human vices” as well as questions such as “Is this person leading a good life? Does he respect his parents? Is he a drunkard or a boaster?” Only those who pass scrutiny have their name recorded. Even visitors coming for baptism had to have witnesses who knew the catechumen. IE 45.3-4, Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels (1999), 162. See also ibid. 57-8. See also IE 44 and 46. 78 Malesic, Secret Faith in the Public Square (2009), 43. Egeria reports that daily services were held at the Anastasis and at the Cross (IE 24.1-7). In IE 25.2, she states that only the Faithful, not the catechumens, go into the Anastasis bascilica for Sunday services. 79 Telfer, Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa (1956), 34. 80 Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem (2004), 112-3 states that “[m]ost of them, if not all, were adults, since infant baptism had become uncommon, and it is likely that their provenance intellectually, geographically, as well as religiously, varied considerably. Cyril admonishes his listeners from time to time to read the Scriptures, implying that some of them were educated, or at least could read. [C4.33, 9.13, 17.34] However, uneducated people were also among the candidates for baptism, as Cyril reports: “not everyone has both the education and the leisure required to read and know the Scriptures.” [C5.12] Presumably, the candidates came not only from Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity but from all over the Roman world, and perhaps even beyond, although it is likely that most of them came from the eastern provinces of the empire.” 81 IE 46.1. 82 IE 46.4.

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

17

Wilkinson summarizes Egeria’s description of the liturgy of Holy Week which would provide the final preparatory context for those hearing the Mystagogic Catecheses for the first time. For those preparing for baptism, Holy Week would be the last week of being excluded from the eucharistic liturgy. During the Great Week, which started on the Friday evening before Palm Sunday and continued through Easter, the worship services were held at appropriate holy sites in the area. The Thursday prior to the beginning of the Great Week, a morning vigil was held in Sion in commemoration of the Last Supper followed by a one o’clock synaxis at the Lazarium in Bethany. On Friday, services were conducted at the Eleona and Imbomon on the Mount of Olives from one o’clock until five, with this service ending with the Gospel reading about Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem. “Then they went off down the Mount of Olives. They escorted the bishop into the city, carrying palms, and arrived for Lucernare … at the Anastasis.”83 On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of the Great Week, the regular weekday services were augmented with an additional four hour afternoon synaxis in the Martyrium followed by Lucernare. Monday’s and Tuesday’s services ended at the Anastasis with a psalm and dismissal. Thursday’s services began at two in the afternoon and continued until dawn on Friday morning. These services began in the Martyrium and, after a break for dinner, continued on the Mount of Olives, focusing on Jesus’ betrayal, arrest, and trial.84 Friday services continued at seven in the morning “on Golgotha, Behind the Cross” where the cross was venerated, one person at a time. Then, “they gathered in the courtyard before the Cross for a three-hour series of synaxes on the passion” which was followed by “a synaxis of the normal form,” after which they went into the Martyrium and then the Anastasis for another overnight vigil.85 The paschal vigil began in the evening of Saturday before Easter in the Martyrium.86 Then, [w]hile the congregation (and Egeria) kept the paschal vigil in the Martyrium, the candidates went into the baptistery and were baptized. Then they were clothed in white, and went with the bishop to the Anastasis, where there was a psalm, and he said a prayer for them. After that they went to join the congregation of the faithful in the Martyrium, and received Holy Communion for the first time.87

Then, after the eucharist during Easter week, the new Christians remained with the bishop in the Anastasis where he delivered the mystagogical instruction to them.88 Egeria wrote that the Mystagogic Catecheses were given by the bishop in Greek with presbyters translating into the languages of the people who had

83 84 85 86 87 88

Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels (1999), 74-5. Ibid. 76. Ibid. 76-7. Ibid. Ibid. 58-9. Ibid. 59.

18

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

come to listen.89 Those who were allowed to listen were the newly baptized as well as any of the faithful who wanted to hear the teaching again; Egeria explicitly states that the catechumens were not allowed to hear the homilies on the mysteries.90 She also reported that the homilies were enthusiastically received: “As the bishop preaches on each point and speaks about it, the applause is so loud that it can be heard outside the church. Indeed the way he expounds the mysteries and interprets them cannot fail to move his hearers.”91 In summary, the audience of the Jerusalem catechetical instructions was twofold: those who were enrolled to be baptized and had already made a commitment to the Christian way of life that could be attested by witnesses92 and those who had already been baptized and were present as pilgrims, ascetics, sponsors and friends of those who going to be baptized, and other Christians who wanted to hear the instructions again. Those who were hearing the instructions for the first time were being prepared spiritually by daily exorcism. They had received a five-week short course on the entire Bible which met for three hours each day.93 Throughout the Lenten preparation and during the mystagogical instruction, the faithful, and presumably those enrolled to be baptized, were asking the bishop questions as he explained first the scriptures, then the creed, and finally the mysteries. Status quaestionis: Cyrillian Studies to Date Jonathan Malesic has provided one means of examining Christian identity formation as constructed by the Jerusalem mystagogue: those who knew, kept, and lived according to the secrets of the faith were able to participate in the eucharistic liturgy.94 In order to examine the liturgical/sacramental dimension of Christian identity formation through the Jerusalem catecheses, insights from the secondary literature about the genre of mystagogy, Cyril’s pedagogical strategies, and doctrinal presuppositions need to be accounted for when examining his teaching on the sacraments. Cyrillian Studies to Date According to Emmanuel Cutrone, in his 1975 survey of the literature, the literature on the theology of Cyril of Jerusalem has concentrated its efforts on the Baptismal Catecheses while investigations of the Mystagogical Catecheses are primarily concerned with reestablishing the rituals of the catechumenate, baptism and eucharist. 89

IE 47.3-5. IE 47.2. 91 Ibid. 92 Most recently, Grignon, ‘La coherénce de la foi’ (2003), 358-75 has described the constitution of the audience as well as Cyril’s careful attention to his audience. 93 IE 46.2-3. 94 Malesic, ‘Disciplines of the Secret’ (2004) and Secret Faith in the Public Square (2009). 90

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

19

Theological inquiry into the Mystagogical Catecheses is usually limited to questions of the place of confirmation, real presence, the role of the epiclesis in the eucharistic prayer. In this manner Cyril is presented as theologian and liturgist.”95

Since Cutrone’s work, the secondary literature has expanded to include not only a re-engagement of the issue of whether or not the Mystagogic Catecheses are Cyril’s work or that of the bishop immediately after him, John of Jerusalem. I explore the authorship issue in Part I, chapter two. Other studies of the Jerusalem catechetical program include work on the underlying pedagogical and spiritual formation practices employed by the author of the text,96 the use of rhetoric in the Catecheses,97 the use of scripture in the formation of new Christians,98 exploration of the creed used in the Jerusalem liturgy,99 as well as the soteriology,100

95

Cutrone, ‘Saving Presence in the “Mystagogical Catechesis” of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1975), 12. Important studies on Cyril’s pedagogical methods include McDonald’s ‘Paideia and Gnosis’ (1998), Malesic’s ‘Disciplines of the Secret’ (2004), and Stephenson’s ‘St Cyril of Jerusalem and the Alexandrian Heritage’ (1954), 573-93 and ‘The Lenten Catechetical Syllabus in Fourth-Century Jerusalem’ (1954), 103-16. Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 176-87 and Pasquato, ‘Spirituality and Prayer in the Baptismal Catecheses of St Cyril of Jerusalem’, in Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church (1998) have each studied Cyril of Jerusalem’s spirituality. 97 Grignon, ‘La coherénce de la foi’ (2003). 98 For studies on Cyril’s use of scripture and which manuscript traditions that he followed, see Greenlee’s The Gospel Text of Cyril of Jerusalem (1955); Elder’s ‘Contextual Impact on the Use of Scriptures in the Post-Baptismal Homilies of John Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1987); Jackson’s ‘Cyril of Jerusalem’s Treatment of Scriptural Texts Concerning the Holy Spirit’ (1991), 1-31 and her ‘Cyril of Jerusalem’s Use of Scripture in Catechesis’ (1991), 431-50; Mullen’s ‘Cyril of Jerusalem and the Text of the New Testament in Fourth-century Palestine’ (1994), and Saxer’s ‘Cyrill von Jerusalem und die Heilige Schrift’, in Stimuli (1996). 99 For the most recent work on the Jerusalem Creed, see Grignon’s ‘La coherénce de la foi’ (2003), 176-7. See also Doval’s ‘The Fourth Century Jerusalem Catechesis and the Development of the Creed’ (1997), 296-305; Staats’s ‘The Eternal Kingdom of Christ: the Apocalyptic Tradition in the “Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople”’ (1990), 19-30. Moroziuk’s ‘Meaning of Katholikos in Greek Fathers and Its Implications for Ecclesiology and Ecumenism’ (1985), 90-104 and ‘Some Thoughts on the Meaning of Katholikē in the Eighteenth Catechetical Lecture of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1985), 169; and Stephenson’s ‘The Text of the Jerusalem Creed’ (1961), 303-13. Egeria does not explain what she means by “the creed” when she mentions the Jerusalem Creed to her sisters nor does she appear to consider there to be anything unusual about the creed which is taught or recited in Jerusalem (IE 46.5). Because the Φωτιζόμενοι were instructed to not write down the creed, but commit it to memory (C5.12), the Catecheses also does not contain the Creed in one place. Stephenson, ‘The Text of the Jerusalem Creed’ (1961), 303-13 and Grignon, ‘La coherénce de la foi’ (2003), 176-8 provide the most recent attempts to reconstruct the creed that Cyril taught in Jerusalem. The difficulties lie in the manuscript tradition, in particular determining whether or not the titles were in the original manuscript or added later, and scouring the text for citations and allusions to the creed. 100 These two studies on Cyril’s soteriology, Hess’s ‘Soteriological Motifs in the Catechetical Lectures of St Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1997), 314-9 and Doval’s ‘Cyril of Jerusalem’s Theology of Salvation’ (2001), 452-61 are discussed later in this chapter. 96

20

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

pneumatology,101 Christology,102 and Trinitarian theology103 expressed within the text.104 Cyril’s Mystagogic Catecheses: Issues of Genre An examination of the methods used to study the Jerusalem mystagogies indicates that the genre of mystagogical texts has presented a challenge. In general, two assumptions about the genre are most prevalent: either the text is primarily liturgical or sacramental theology instruction or the text is primarily aimed at the formation of the Christian life in general and focuses on the sacraments and liturgy as part of this formation. The first approach focuses on the content of the instructions: an examination of the sacraments and the liturgy of the church with less emphasis on the audience. The work of Enrico Mazza provides an 101 For a comprehensive study of Cyril’s pneumatology in the entirety of his work, see Jackson’s ‘Cyril of Jerusalem’s Treatment of Scriptural Texts Concerning the Holy Spirit’ (1991) as well as her dissertation, ‘The Holy Spirit in the Catechesis and Mystagogy of Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, and John Chrysostom’ (1987). Day, ‘Cyril of Jerusalem on the Holy Spirit’ (2010), 71-85 has posited that the importance of Cyril’s pneumatology has been underestimated. Grignon, ‘La coherénce de la foi’ (2003), 180 also discusses the emphasis on the person and work of the Holy Spirit in the Jerusalem Creed. See also Hawk-Reinhard, ‘The Role of the Holy Spirit in Cyril of Jersualem’s Sacramental Theology’ (2017) for a discussion of how the Holy Spirit is active in each of the rites of initiation. 102 Both Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy (2006), 154 and Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988), 412 posit that Alexander of Alexandria and Origen are Cyril’s ancestors in his Christology. Neither of them considers Cyril to be a supporter of Arianism, yet both note that since Cyril refused to use the terminology and slogan phrases of the pro-Nicene party, he is not considered to be a typical pro-Nicene theologian. Gregg, ‘Cyril of Jerusalem and the Arians’, in Arianism (1985) provides a thorough analysis of Cyril’s anti-Arian teaching in context. Wolfson, ‘Philosophical Implications of the Theology of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1957), 1-19 offers philosophical reasons for why Cyril might have chosen to not use the philosophical slogan phrases. Perrone, ‘Four Gospels, Four Councils’ (1999), 375, 377 notes that Cyril’s doctrine of the Incarnation is “a good summary of the traditional doctrine of the Church” and is a “testimonial” Christology that is interwoven with his epistemology, anthropology, and soteriology. Cyril’s Christology is, “for the first time … a kind of ‘experimental’, devotional if not altogether ‘sacramental’ Christology, nourished together with the biblical memories by the local setting of Christ’s earthly life and events” with the holy places functioning as a “fifth gospel.” This analysis is in contrast with Walker’s ‘Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the 4th Century’, in The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land (1995), 32 assessment of Cyril’s Christology as “sacramental ways of thinking,” which, according to Perrone, goes too far. However, Steenberg, Of God and Man (2009), 144 proposes that Cyril’s sacramental focus is at the root of how Cyril’s trinitarian and anthropological theologies differ from those of his contemporaries as fourth-century theologians wrestled with articulating the relationship between the Father and the Son (and for Cyril, their relationship with the Holy Spirit) which resulted from the Arian controversy. 103 See Grignon’s ‘La coherénce de la foi’ (2003), 175-200 and Stephenson’s ‘S Cyril of Jerusalem’s Trinitarian Theology’ (1972), 234-41. 104 Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem (2000), 22-64 provides the most recent summary of the theological studies on Cyril’s works.

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

21

exemplar of this narrower approach with respect to the Jerusalem Mystagogic Catecheses. Mazza states that “mystagogy, or typology applied to the liturgy, is a way of constructing a theology of the sacraments.”105 Thus, Mazza states that the purpose of mystagogy is to give the baptized the understanding and motivation that will enable them to live the life in Christ that has been bestowed in them in the liturgical celebration. To this end, the Fathers develop a theology of this liturgy wherein the new life of the neophytes has its origin.106

While the purpose of mystagogy clearly includes giving a motivation to live a Christian life as a result of the liturgical celebration, mystagogy as “typology applied to liturgy” is, as noted by Paul Bradshaw, too narrow a definition.107 Furthermore, without keeping the focus on the audience and the context of the instruction, one might mistakenly infer that the mystagogy contains a bishop’s full expression of his theology of the liturgy. Promoting the second approach for understanding the genre of mystagogy, Alexis Doval rightly states that “Mystagogia, a ‘leading into mystery,’ connotes more than just explanation or abstract understanding.” Doval asserts that because Cyril’s listeners have, by the time they receive the Mystagogic Catecheses, experienced the sacraments, “[t]he interest of the mystagogue is now to draw attention to the rites in a more contemplative than discursive way.”108 Because of this more contemplative focus, the fourth-century mystagogical texts do not necessarily provide a full statement of the bishop’s sacramental or liturgical theology. The second approach is not only more robust, but also more nuanced. Craig Alan Satterlee provides a description of mystagogical texts that is foundational for my approach to working with this text: Mystagogy is scripturally based, takes place within a liturgical setting, is addressed exclusively to the Christian community, and has as its goal the formation of Christians rather than providing religious information to Christians. Mystagogy draws the hearers into the mysteries, moving them to enter spiritually and intellectually into the rites in which they have previously participated but may have understood only in terms of sense-perception. Thus, the ultimate goal of this sustained reflection is to have a persuasive, enlightening, deepening effect on the hearer’s understanding of the Church’s rites of initiation so that their experience of the mysteries leads them to live the Christian life.109

Satterlee notes that “explaining” the liturgical actions includes “probing, deepening, intensifying, and illuminating rather than defining and making plain.”110 105 106 107

Mazza, Mystagogy (1989), 167. Ibid. 165. Bradshaw, ‘Review of Mystagogy: A Theology of Liturgy in the Patristic Age’ (1990),

382. 108 109 110

Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 55. Satterlee, Ambrose of Milan’s Mystagogical Preaching (2002), xxiii. Italics are his. Ibid. 4, fn 9.

22

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

The difference in focus between the two definitions of mystagogy reflects the use and intended audience of the text: this text was intended for new Christians. Peter Walker, in his comparison of the theological convictions of Cyril of Jerusalem with Eusebius of Caesarea, notes Cyril’s “greater understanding of the person of Christ and the person of the Holy Spirit; his fuller acceptance of the Incarnation as the central tenet of the faith; and his stronger affirmation of the primacy of salvation,” and thus a theology that is deeply “personal, incarnational, and soteriological,” is most likely the result of Cyril’s catechetical and geographic context.111 Cyril’s catechetical emphasis upon a real encounter with Christ is the result of Cyril’s “easy acceptance of Christ’s humanity,”112 but also may reflect a lifetime living in the presence of the holy places. As Walker succinctly states, “[t]heology coloured the places and the places coloured theology.”113 Cyril as Mystagogue: Sacramental Theology Cyril’s baptismal theology has been thoroughly evaluated. Everett Ferguson’s recent contribution to baptismal theology contains a comprehensive overview of the scholarship on Cyril’s baptismal theology to date as well as a thorough analysis of Cyril’s construction of identity through baptism. The landmark works prior to Ferguson’s recent contribution include Edward Yarnold’s The Awe-Inspiring Rites of Initiation and Hugh Riley’s Christian Initiation, both comparing the baptismal theologies of the four fourth century mystagogues.114 Edward Yarnold has proposed that Cyril’s sacramental theology utilized a “double sacramental causality.” While this application of Thomistic sacramental terminology is anachronistic, the observation is insightful. Yarnold notes that, like Tertullian, Cyril had a view of the sacraments that was based upon his theological anthropology: because of the dual composition of the human person—the corporeal and the incorporeal—the sacrament purifies the soul through the body through the intimate relationship between the body and the soul.115 M. C. Steenberg has described Cyril’s theological anthropology from the perspective of his baptismal theology and has placed it within the context of the theological controversies of Cyril’s day.116 However, Steenberg has 111

Walker, Holy City, Holy Places (1990), 118-21. Italics are his. Ibid. 118-21. 113 Ibid. 121. 114 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church (2009), 473-522; Yarnold, The Awe-Inspiring Rites of Initiation (1994); Riley, Christian Initiation (1974). 115 Yarnold, ‘The Body-Soul Relationship Mainly in Connection with Sacramental Causality’, (2001), 338, 341. 116 Steenberg, Of God and Man (2009), 128-57. See also Jenkinson’s ‘The Image and the Likeness of God in Man in the Eighteen Lectures on the Credo of Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315387)’ (1964), 48-71. 112

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

23

focused on the “baptized life,”117 while my focus is on what might be called in Steenberg’s terms as the “eucharistic life.” This aspect of Cyril’s sacramental theology will be explored in more detail in Part III, chapter six. Relatively little work has been published on Cyril’s theology of the postbaptismal anointing apart from his baptismal theology. Just as with Cyril’s eucharistic theology, scholars disagree over the coherence of his “chrismational” theology.118 Cyrille Argenti states that Cyril’s “chrismation” theology was fully developed and continues to be the main expression for the Orthodox Church.119 However, N. Joseph Torchia argues that Cyril’s “chrismation” theology presents “a significant theological problem” since through baptism and anointing with the holy μύρον (myron), the Holy Spirit is received. Torchia rightly notes that Cyril’s rite of initiation, then, must be viewed as an organic whole in which each phase endows the recipient with its own special gifts. In its pivotal position in the middle of this rite, chrismation consummates the entry into Christian life by effecting the parousia of the Holy Spirit, and likewise, prepares the recipient for the reception of the Eucharist. While Baptism confers an adoption by God, chrismation makes us “Christians” in the fullest sense.120

This observation provides additional support for the importance of working with the entire corpus when studying any aspect of Cyril’s sacramental theology.121 Christina M. Gschwandtner is one of many scholars who notes that, according to Cyril, by partaking of the eucharist the Christian “becomes part of the body of Christ, the church”122 and one is properly called a Christ-bearer, a unique name given to those who are communicating members of the church. However, I have not found an analysis of the progression of titles or attributions that Cyril provides to the new Christians and why this naming might be significant to Cyril’s community. An analysis of this progression of attributions is presented in Part III, chapter six. Hugh Riley’s comparative study of the baptismal theology of the four fourthcentury mystagogues provides considerable insight into not only Cyril’s baptismal theology, but also his sacramental theology in general.123 However, Riley 117

Ibid. 154. “Chrismation” refers to the post-baptismal anointing with the oil of chrismα (χρῖσμα). 119 Argenti, ‘Chrismation’, in Ecumenical Perspectives on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1983), 57. 120 Torchia, ‘The Significance of Chrismation in the Mystagogical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1999), 139, 142. 121 Ibid. 122 Gschwandtner, ‘Pious Doctrines and Virtuous Actions’ (2005), 36-57. The mention of the unique name Cyril provides as a valid means of describing communing Christians is found in most descriptions of the Jerusalem mystagogy, but an analysis is lacking. 123 Riley, Christian Initiation (1974). 118

24

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

addresses neither Cyril’s eucharistic theology nor the connection between the sacraments and identity, which I argue in Part II, chapter 5 is theōsis. Paul Bradshaw’s exploration of Cyril’s eucharistic theology does not discuss Cyril’s use of 2Peter 1:4, a passage that becomes central to some early Greek fathers’ articulation of theōsis.124 Furthermore, recent works on deification do not examine Cyril of Jerusalem’s expression of theōsis.125 In Part II, chapter four, I provide a detailed analysis of the state of the secondary literature regarding Cyril’s eucharistic theology. This book is an attempt to fill this lacuna in order to examine the implications of Cyril’s expression of theōsis in his sacramental theology and in his teachings on Christian identity. As already noted, Malesic does examine the Cyrillian corpus as specifically identity forming, but from the perspective of the creed, not the sacraments and liturgy. Cyril as Teacher: Pedagogical Methods Inherent in any discussion of pedagogy and epistemology is the author’s understanding of what it means to be a human person in a community and how one learns within that community. Frances Young, working from Cyril’s Catecheses, stated that Cyril promoted “a more practical and less rarefied Christian life-style than that in the ascetic treatises of the period.” Young’s summary is as follows: Cyril follows St Paul in his advice on chastity and marriage, even allowing a second marriage. Bodily needs are not to be despised. True, self-indulgence and luxury are to be avoided, but meat is not taboo, nor are riches accursed. To suggest such things belongs to the heretics. God is the source of all and to be worshipped as such, his gifts are to be put to good use. … The extreme otherworldliness so often attributed to this period of monastic upsurge was certainly tempered by the continued use of the biblical traditions once employed to uphold the goodness of creation against the Gnostics.126

Cyril’s practical views of the body are woven into his implicit epistemology,127 as noted by Georgia Frank, Dayna S. Kalleres, and Susan Ashbrook Harvey. Frank explores the role of both taste and sight in Cyril’s epistemology.128 Kalleres examines the role of scripture as a lens for seeing the world properly 124 Bradshaw, Eucharistic Origins (2004), 22-3. See also his The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship (2002). 125 See Gross’s The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers (2002); Russell’s The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (2006) and Fellow Workers with God (2009); and Christensen and Wittung (eds), Partakers of the Divine Nature (2008). 126 Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon (1996), 127-8. 127 While Cyril did not write a text on pedagogy or on epistemology, much work has been done to explore the assumptions which seem to undergird his approaches. 128 Frank, ‘Taste and See’ (2001), 619-43.

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

25

according to Cyril’s baptismal theology and the importance of the holy sites as means of cultivating this newly-acquired, post-baptismal vision. 129 Harvey focuses on the role of the sense of smell in coming to know.130 Both Kalleres and Frank explored the use of ekphrasis, the rhetorical technique which used “abundant visual as well as other sensual detail” to animate a narrative,131 in Cyril’s mystagogic pedagogical strategy. As succinctly stated by Kalleres, a critical aspect of examining fourth-century mystagogic text is the understanding that “the divide between language and visibility was a thin one in antiquity,” especially when considering the use of the rhetorical technique of ekphrasis. She argues that, during the fourth century, developments within Christian literature supported and provided “attempt[s] to ‘reframe physical perception’.”132 She posits that … Cyril understood his baptismal preparation primarily as a necessary adjustment to the baptizands’ mode of vision: the cultivation of a new sight enabling a Christian to apprehend the truth in these locations. Cyril offered the baptizands the Bible as a sixth sense through which they came to know reality. Or more properly, through the catechetical lectures, Cyril instructed baptizands as to the manner in which Scripture could be used to remold their vision, giving them a spiritual sight.133

By exploring Cyril’s catechetical instructions with respect to “curricula and ritual practice” and comparing them with the instructions used by Ambrose, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and John Chrysostom, she argues that each bishop’s particularities in Christian identity formation can be explored in terms of location as well as political and ecclesial contingencies that affected Christian identity formation.134 Georgia Frank examines the confluence of the genre of ekphrasis, the change in the legal status of Christianity, and the shift to outdoor worship in the fourthcentury in the shift in emphasis within church literature from defense of rites and matters of protocol to the perceptions of new Christians.135 She argues that the change in emphasis of the fourth-century “liturgical revolution” was due to a change in the understanding of worship space. This led to “an increasingly elaborate pre-baptismal process” with “the need for more detailed instructions about post-baptismal rites.”136 According to Frank, the late fourth-century 129

Kalleres, ‘Cultivating True Sight at the Center of the World’ (2005), 431-59. Harvey, Scenting Salvation (2006). 131 Kalleres, ‘Cultivating True Sight at the Center of the World’ (2005), 422-3. 132 Ibid. 444. 133 Ibid. 449. 134 Kalleres also accounts for the possibility of a polemic edge to Cyril’s catechetical work. She argues that Cyril’s catechetical instructions were “a mode of protest against this prevailing conceptualization of sacred topography within the Holy Sepulchre.” Ibid. 433, 435. 135 Frank, ‘Taste and See’ (2001), 621-2. 136 Frank continues the critique of Dix’s claim that the fourth century “liturgical revolution” in which “the historical process of redemption” became the greater emphasis in Christian liturgy, is being re-evaluated with respect to time. Ibid. 622, 649. 130

26

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

catechists worked diligently to help new Christians “re-perceive” with the “eyes of their hearts” (also called “spiritual eyes” or “eyes of faith”). 137 Because “[n]ew experiences demanded new eyes,” the mystagogues taught “a variety of mental images and visual processes … [which] prepare[d] them to receive the eucharistic bread and wine. Rather than look away, neophytes were taught to look closer at the liturgy unfolding.”138 Thus, [t]he eyes of faith became the tools by which neophytes constructed imaginal bodies to serve as new spaces for the Eucharist. In this regard the workings of the senses—both exterior and interior—were interwoven in their efforts to forge a deeper relation to time and place through ritual.139

In the rest of her article, Frank discusses the means by which the participants were instructed to engage in the liturgy with their whole being.140 Thus, Frank and Kalleres point to sensory data as an important part of Cyril’s means of inculcating the new identity that the Christians receive. In Part III, chapter 6, I examine the role of the body and especially the senses in the new Christians’ coming to know who they are with each layering of sacramental identity. Anthony Stephenson’s work on Cyril’s pedagogical method explored the similarities and differences between Alexandrian pedagogical strategies and those employed by Cyril.141 In particular, Stephenson found three major affinities between the Jerusalem pedagogical strategies and those of the Alexandrians. First, Stephenson proposes that the thoroughness and scale of the Jerusalem pre-baptismal pedagogical program is reminiscent of the general concepts about Christian education found in the writings of Clement (d 215) and Origen (c 185-254).142 Second, Stephenson notes “Cyril’s emphatic assertion in the Procatechesis that the Lenten teaching forms a single systematic whole, a body

137

Ibid. 620-1. Ibid. 621. 139 Ibid. 649. 140 Frank explores not only Cyril’s catechetical text, but also those of Theodore of Mopsuestia and John Chrysostom through this lens, being careful to allow each bishop’s text to represent the voices of distinct communities of faith. She takes into account the ongoing change in the liturgical practices, noting that commentaries on the eucharist dating from the fifth to the seventh centuries, such as the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius (ca. 500) and Mystagogy by Maximus the Confessor (ca. 630), were written to assist in explaining the mysteries to those who “habituated the Eucharist, for whom the physical, sensory perceptions would hardly have seemed new or noteworthy,” not for those for whom the eucharist was a hidden mystery. Ibid. 623. 141 According to Abdelsayed, ‘Liturgical Exodus in Reverse’, in Issues in Eucharistic Prayer in East and West (2011), 154-5, this connection and the frequent correspondence between the See of Alexandria and Jerusalem is not unexpected given the trade routes. In particular, he notes that Macarius of Jerusalem is mentioned by name in Alexander of Alexandria’s letter warning of the Arian controversy (Haer. 69.4, 730) and Athanasius commended Macarius’ character in Cont. Ar 1 291. 142 Stephenson, ‘St Cyril of Jerusalem and the Alexandrian Heritage’ (1954), 581. 138

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

27

of doctrines as interlocked and unitary as a building.”143 Stephenson proposed that Cyril’s systematic approach to doctrine provided a worldview for the new Christians: ... the Procatechesis, together with Catechesis IV and the very title of the Lenten course, suggests that the knowledge imparted to the ‘candidates for enlightenment’ was regarded, in the spirit of St. Paul and of Clement, as a world view, a profound revealed system which, antiquating heathen philosophies and religion, provided the key to cosmic and personal problems and admitted the initiates to sublime mysteries.144

Third, both Cyril and Clement of Alexandria distinguish between two kinds of faith, doctrine and gnosis (the second of which is a gift), “describing both kinds in very similar terms, and, when the passages are read in their wider contexts, both roughly equate the higher faith with gnosis.”145 William McDonald has argued that the Alexandrian “gnosis theology” made the sacramental mystagogy of the fourth-century “intellectually possible.”146 However, in contrast to both Clement’s and Origen’s differentiation between the simple and enlightened faith of Christians, Cyril’s distinction was between the baptized and unbaptized because he believed all Christians possessed “the supreme wisdom revealed in Christ.”147 As a consequence of Cyril’s distinction between the baptized and unbaptized, an examination of Cyril’s catechetical program provides insights into what a bishop considered to be basic Christian knowledge and an articulation of what he considered to be a lay person’s understanding of Christian identity.148 Stephenson has also pointed to the importance of examining the entire Jerusalem catechetical program—Procatechesis, Catecheses, and Mystagogic Catecheses—for common themes that each Christian, whether highly educated or not, would recognize as the means by which the teachings were interlocked into a systematic whole. In Part II, chapter five, I demonstrate that the theme of fellowship (κοινωνία) is sufficiently interwoven throughout the texts to serve as such an interlocking concept. 143 Ibid. 583. He argues that this cohesive syllabus echoes “the Alexandrian ambition to overcome false gnosis and rival systems by presenting Christianity as a transcendent revealed synthesis.” The creed was not only Cyril’s syllabus, but it was also his means for unfolding the church’s gnosis, the true gnosis. 144 Ibid. 587. 145 Ibid. 588. 146 McDonald, ‘Paideia and Gnosis’ (1998), 94-105. 147 Stephenson, ‘St Cyril of Jerusalem and the Alexandrian Heritage’ (1954), 590. 148 In contrast to Stephenson, Pauline, Saint Cyrille de Jérusalem (1959), 39-40 notes the importance of internal truth and honesty to Cyril, which is in direct contrast with the Alexandrians’ willingness to use deceit as a pedagogical tool; Satran, ‘Pedgagogy and Deceit in the Alexandrian Theological Tradition’, in Origeniana Quinta (2002), 119-23. Given Malesic’s emphasis upon trust in the catechist as integral to Cyril’s use of secrecy, Secret Faith in the Public Square (2009), 61, the differences between the pedagogical styles may be greater than Stephenson proposes.

28

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

MacDonald examines the role of right desires and affections in orthodox beliefs in Cyril’s catechesis. He looks at “an overall dynamic at work in the whole sweep of the catechetical and mystagogical lectures” as “the connection between the procatechetical exhortation to sincerity: the doctrinal instructions disclosing the objective tradition: the final liturgical renunciation of Satan.”149 However, this is not the pinnacle of Christian identity formation for Cyril; the renouncing of Satan is renouncing the old identity and loyalties so that the new identity can be forged through the sacraments. Additional works which consider Cyril’s pedagogical practices include Pamela Jackson’s study of Cyril’s use of scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit in knowing, as well as Malesic’s work regarding the use of secrecy in religious knowing.150 While these works provide important insights into the pedagogical strategies used within the Catecheses and Mystagogic Catecheses, with the exception of Malesic’s work, the implications of these pedagogical strategies in forming Christian identity have not been examined. These works, combined with the more recent contributions on the role of the senses and the use of holy places in Cyril’s understanding of how the human person comes to know have been instrumental for developing an understanding of how Cyril expected a Christian identity to be instilled into the adult converts under his care. As Doval states, Cyril was providing more than “just rational understanding; [this course of study] includes the broader intuitive dimension of experience, the forming of character and values.”151 Yet none of these scholars has addressed the issue of the goal of the Cyril’s pedagogy, which I contend is the formation of Christian identity in such a way that the new Christians have a vocabulary of identity that is tied to the sacraments, the liturgy, and salvation history. Identity Formation in the Early Church: the Use of Doctrinal Disputes, Christian Formation Texts, Pilgrimages, Liturgical Analysis, and Mystagogical Texts in the Study of Identity Formation Four primary areas of research have provided most of the literature on early Christian identity formation and articulation: exploration of the development of doctrine that arose as a result of theological controversies, examination of early Christian pedagogical methods and texts, studies of pilgrimage as identity 149

McDonald, ‘Paideia and Gnosis’ (1998), 99. Jackson, ‘The Holy Spirit in the Catechesis and Mystagogy of Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, and John Chrysostom’ (1987); Malesic, ‘Disciplines of the Secret: Concealing and Revealing Religious Knowledge in Kierkegaardian Ethics and Fourth-Century Christian Initiation Rites’ (2004); Stephenson, ‘St Cyril of Jerusalem and the Alexandrian Heritage’ (1954), 573-93 and ‘The Lenten Catechetical Syllabus in Fourth-Century Jerusalem’ (1954), 103-16. 151 Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 55. 150

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

29

forming activities, and investigation of ritual and liturgy in identity formation. I surveyed representatives from these areas in order to evaluate potential methodological strategies as well as to glean insights from these studies. The potential for mystagogic texts as means for examining identity formation as well as an overlooked doctrinal assumption, theōsis, and its role in investigating identity articulation and instruction are presented last, pulling from observations and insights from the other three areas of research. Doctrinal Development as Culture Formation In the first category, doctrinal development, Lewis Ayres proposes that the development of a “pro-Nicene culture” was fundamental in forming fourth-century Christian identity.152 This theological culture had three major emphases: Trinitarian theology; questions around what are now described as epistemology, psychology, and anthropology (and how Scripture is used to address these questions); and Christological debates.153 Ayres takes what can, arguably, be the most common method of looking at identity formation in fourth-century Christianity: doctrinal disputes.154 Doctrinal disputes lead to group associations and disassociations, and these inclusions and exclusions within a community provide insights into identity formation and articulation. In this same category of investigation, Philip Harland builds his methods of examining self-identity from those of sociological and ethnical studies.155 While Cyril did discuss heretical beliefs and why they are not to be accepted as sound teaching by those preparing to be baptized, these discussions are found in his Catecheses and not in his Mystagogic Catecheses, the text in which Cyril provides the means for articulating identity associated with the sacraments. Also within this category of identity formation is the development and use of creedal statements, as noted by Malesic.156 152 Ayres, ‘Articulating Identity’, in The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature (2004), 444. 153 Ibid. 445-6. 154 Ibid. 155 Harland, Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians (2009), 6. Harland notes the importance of examining identity formation with respect to the community and the individual. 156 When reconstructing the creedal structure from the Catecheses, it is not surprising that the creed that Cyril used is very similar to the Nicene Creed, considering that what was at stake in the fourth-century was loyalty to the Creed of Nicea, not exact repetition; Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (1972), 345. As stated by Young, “[a]fter the adoption of the Nicene Creed, the local creeds survived, and became Nicene” through inclusion of these key formulations, Young, The Making of the Creeds (2002), 3. Given the function of the creed in local liturgy as doxological “‘confessions’ summarizing the Christian story, or affirmations of the three ‘characters’ in the story [which] tell who God is and what he has done” (Ibid. 12-3), variations are not unexpected. For a discussion of the most notable variation in the Christological section of the Jerusalem Creed as presented in the Catecheses, see Hawk-Reinhard, ‘The Role of the Holy Spirit in Cyril of Jerusalem’s Sacramental Theology’ (2017).

30

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Formative Texts Christian identity is not limited to examining who is excluded from one community’s self-understanding of Christianity and why, but also by exploring how one is formed within a given Christian community. In late antique Christianity, positive statements of Christian identity are also present even though these texts have not been explored as answers to this specific question. These formational texts range from sermons157 and liturgical texts to Alexandrian “Christian gnosticism” texts,158 martyrdom and hagiographic accounts from the pre-Constantine period of persecution to the catechetical and mystagogical lectures of the fourth century when Christianity enjoyed the favor of the Roman Empire, as well as ascetical literature.159 The genre of autobiography also provides insights into an individual’s articulation of his or her identity. Kenneth Steinhauser’s application of “narrative criticism and reader response criticism” to Augustine’s Confessions provides an example of exploring Christian identity in this more personal genre. Steinhauser’s methodology works with the tension of recognizing that “[a]utobiography is the intense personal act not of discovering but of creating oneself in the process of writing” and, since the author intends for others to read this text, the “tacit agreement or contract with his reader at the moment he begins to write … [which] requires that the autobiographer not deceive his reader but With respect to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, Staats, ‘The Eternal Kingdom of Christ’ (1990), 21 states that “[T]he Jerusalem Creed ... has been almost completely included in that of Constantinople. A statistical comparison of words shows that of the 117 words of the Jerusalem Creed 100 are identical with those of that of Constantinople. Of these 53 have been carried over from the original Nicaenum (which has passed on most of its stock to the Constantinople Creed).” Cyril’s use of the Jerusalem Creed, which he had been teaching from for years, at the Council of Constantinople would move the creed from a “private creed” to a “synodal creed”, see Vinzent, ‘Die Entstehung des “Römischen Glaubensbekenntnisses”’, in Tauffragen und Bekenntnis (1999), 235-382 and Westra, The Apostles’ Creed (2002), 42-3. Grignon, ‘La coherénce de la foi’ (2003), 175-6 has provided the reconstruction from Cyril’s Catecheses. See also Stephenson, ‘The Text of the Jerusalem Creed’ (1961), 303-13. 157 For an example of work that examines the role of homilies as intentionally identity forming, see Silke Sitzler’s study on John Chrysostom’s homilies. Sitzler demonstrates that Chrysostom accommodated yet nuanced the existing function and form of the Graeco-Roman social structure to articulate a Christian identity that was both coherent and comprehensible to his listeners and a means of motivating them to live as virtuous Christians as a result of the articulation of this identity. Sitzler, ‘Identity’ (2007), 468-79. 158 The Alexandrian pedagogues would include, but are not limited to, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Didymus the Blind. Some of the recent works that discuss the pedagogical methods of the Alexandrian pedagogues include Torjensin’s ‘Pedagogical Soteriology from Clement to Origen’, in Origeniana Quarta (2002), 370-8; Niculescu’s ‘Origen’s Mystagogic Paideia’ (2003); Layton’s Didymus the Blind and His Circle in Late-Antique Alexandria (2004); and Kovacs’ ‘Divine Pedagogy and the Gnostic Teacher according to Clement of Alexandria’ (2001), 3-25. 159 An example of exploring ascetical texts as identity forming is found in Valantasis, The Making of the Self: Ancient and Modern Asceticism (2008).

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

31

write the truth because that is what the reader expects.”160 Steinhauser proposes that Augustine’s Confessions is innovative in that “[Augustine’s] autobiography is a conversation with God, a prayer to God, which confronts the reader” such that Augustine has entered a triadic autobiographical covenant.161 While pedagogical and mystagogical texts are not autobiographical, Steinhauser’s recognition of the unnamed but always present listener and witness to Augustine’s autobiographical work provides an important contextual insight into Christian formative texts. In particular, the catechist is accountable for his teaching to not just himself and his listeners, but ultimately to God. The primary difference between autobiography and mystagogy is that in mystagogy the human listeners are being instructed in the liturgy in which (if they remain in that specific Christian community) they will be participating. As Augustine allows the reader “to witness [him] establishing, defining, and developing his relationship with God” in his Confessions ,162 the Mystagogue instructs the new Christians in their relationship with God and one another in the context of the liturgy. Pilgrimages as Formative Places Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony has examined the role of pilgrimage in identity formation. She proposed that pilgrimage is a means of meeting the perceived need to be holy, to encounter the sacred through appearances of the sacred (hierophany) and power (kratophany) through the senses: Christian pilgrimage in late antiquity … was an expression of basically similar religious phenomena that evolved in the third and fourth centuries in Christian societies… the substance of sanctity was made tangible and available for one seeking to capture the sacred by viewing and touching these various centers of hierophany and kratophany.163

In the Cyrillian texts, she noted that Cyril “developed a collective sense of identity based on the visual.” That is, for Cyril “history, myth, and geography are intertwined; he is exploiting the memory of the past and the local setting— both visual and the imaginative—to prove the truth of Christianity, thus he consistently promotes the idea of earthly sacred space on his home ground, in Jerusalem.” 164 Imbedded in the idea of pilgrimage as identity forming is what Jonathan Z. Smith articulates as the assumption that place shapes the person (and not the other way around, that is, the person does not shape the place)— “place is not the creation of personality; it is what forms or imprints

160 161 162 163 164

Steinhauser, “Augustine’s Autobiographical Covenant” (1991), 235. Ibid. 236-7. Ibid. 239 Bitton-Ashkelony, Encountering the Sacred (2005), 5-6. Ibid. 61.

32

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

personality.”165 As with the Jewish Temple, sacerdotal area is sacred because it belongs to God. Degrees of holiness are reflected in places.166 One of the impulses that pilgrimages to holy places met was the desire to minimize the remoteness between the pilgrim and Christ.167 As Walker summarized, Cyril was pastorally sensitive to the needs of the pilgrims and those seeking to become Christians; Smith notes that “[o]nly Cyril in Jerusalem” could weave “story, ritual, and place” as one.168 Christian ritual, once brought into contact in the fourth century with the loca sancta of Palestine, turned from the vertical dimension of the associative to the linear dimension of the syntagmatic, to an emphasis on narrative and temporal relations.169

In Jerusalem, the place itself provided a means of forming Christian identity. The Catecheses took place at Golgotha, the site of Christ’s crucifixion, while the Mystagogic Catecheses were given in the Anastasis, the site of the resurrection where only the faithful were allowed to worship.170 Liturgical Texts and Practices A fourth means of examining identity and its formation is found in liturgical theology. Recent scholarship in this field explores how the liturgy, both ancient and contemporary, offers a salvific narrative171 for corporate and/or personal self-definition. While “identity formation” is not always indexed in books on liturgical theology, this theme is an underlying assumption and increasingly appears in literature regarding liturgical reform. Mark Searle states that [t]hrough … ritual acts [referring to liturgy], verbal and non-verbal, the collective acts corporately and affirms its corporate identity, while the individual participants temporarily subordinate their individuality to the constraints of the joint undertaking.172

Rituals “make a difference by creating, modifying, or sustaining relationships.”173 Consequentially, as the Christians “live through the encounter with the paschal mystery” they talk about God, not the ritual. 165

Smith, To Take Place (1987), 29-31. Ibid. 68-77. 167 Egeria described biblical places so that her sisters could combine descriptions of places with biblical events for greater understanding (IE 5.8-9). 168 Smith, To Take Place (1987), 86. Emphasis are his. 169 Ibid. 88. 170 Malesic, Secret Faith in the Public Square (2009), 63. 171 From his study of the Didache, Lange, ‘The Didache (2004), 214 notes that the communion of the community is where one finds salvation, life, knowledge, faith, and immortality. See also Crichton, ‘A Theology of Worship’, in The Study of Liturgy (1992), 19. 172 Searle, ‘Ritual’, in The Study of Liturgy (1992), 56. Liturgy, according to Searle, Called to Participate, 12, should be “an objective, communitarian rehearsal of our common identity ...” 173 Searle, Called to Participate (2006), 23. Italics are his. 166

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

33

Christian liturgy “forms a believer whose life is theological” and the liturgy’s structure preserves the community’s lex orandi.174 Hence, prayer is rightly thought of as “maintaining a relationship with God in which we are committed to certain attitudes” with liturgy then described as “the rehearsal or appropriate enactment of relationships: our relationship to God, to one another, to those who have gone before us, to those who come after us, and to the world as a whole.”175 These findings provide support for the importance of examining Christian identity formation in the mystagogical texts, since in this specific genre the bishop connects the liturgy, the sacramental actions, and Christian identity to the economy of salvation. A variety of methods have been used to examine identity formation through the liturgy, including anthropological methods, socio-linguistics and other social science methods, semiotics, and ritual studies. The findings of these studies provide the background for the ongoing examination of identity formation of Christians in any era. Insights from these studies that have been helpful in reading Cyril’s texts are as follows. Kevin Seasoltz argued that anthropological methods, on their own, were too limited for sacramental theology and liturgical studies because these methods explore “the function of symbols rather than the inner meaning expressed.”176 Lawrence Hoffman promoted taking advantage of the myriad of social science methodologies to explore liturgical texts.177 In response to both Seasoltz and Hoffman, Kieran Flanagan used sociological methodologies to examine how “both sanctification and profanation are mediated by body language.”178 This observation highlights the importance of Cyril’s mystagogical instruction which calls attention to the role of the body in the new Christian’s coming to know his or her new identity. Frank 174 Fagerberg, Theologia Prima (2004), 3-4. See also essays by Larson-Miller, ‘Worship in Spirit and Truth’, in The Formulation of Christianity by Conflict Through the Ages (1995), 83-100 and Eric Stoddart, ‘What is Our Liturgy Doing to Us?’ (2005), 100-10. Hoffman’s Beyond the Text (1987) began moving the discussion of sacramental and liturgical studies from origins and history of texts to the exploration of use and reception of the text by the worshipping communities who actually used the texts as liturgy. Hoffman noted that the work of detailing origins and history of a text must be thoroughly completed before this next stage of research can begin. Bradshaw’s The Search for Origins of Christian Worship (2002) provided a paradigm shift from Dix’s search for a liturgical archetype that was the origin for later liturgical diversity to a focus on the diversity of late antique Christian liturgy, The Shape of the Liturgy (1945). This paradigm shift provided an opportunity to move forward with the type of research Hoffman proposed. 175 Searle, Called to Participate (2006), 25. 176 Seasoltz, ‘Anthropology and Liturgical Theology’, in Liturgy and Human Passage (1979), 12. 177 Hoffman, ‘Reconstructing Ritual as Identity and Culture’, in The Making of Jewish and Christian Worship (1991). 178 Flanagan, Sociology and Liturgy (1991), ix; Blasi et. al. (eds), The Handbook of Early Christianity (2002) provides examples of twenty-four different social science based methodologies used in Christian studies.

34

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Senn explored the importance of specific cultural implications upon ritual. His assumption, based in an anthropological approach, was that the combination of ritual (behavior patterns) and myth (“pattern of conceptualization”) transmit worldview and shape lifestyle.179 This work provides a theoretical basis for assuming that the mystagogic catecheses should not only provide a new identity, but that there should also be a moral component present. Catherine Bell’s exploration of ritual setting apart place and people reinforces Malesic’s work on the role of secrecy and restricted access to places in identity formation in the fourth century.180 Richard Valantasis’s study of the role of ascetical practices in identity formation provides additional insights in how ritual practices construct new social identities.181 With respect to socio-linguistics studies, Ronald and David Jasper consider the use of rhetoric in liturgical forms. This volume of essays explores the use of rhetoric in early Christian liturgy and hymns, the implications of philosophical constructs contained within the liturgy, and the use of sociolinguistic methodology on liturgy.182 While Sébastien Grignon has applied the rhetorical study methods to Cyril’s Catecheses, his emphasis was not on identity formation nor were the Mystagogic Catecheses included in his study.183 The use of sociolinguistics to study identity formation in Cyril’s corpus could provide additional insights into how Cyril attempted to shape identity, but would not answer the question of what that identity consisted of, how this identity was related to the sacraments and the economy of salvation, and what vocabulary was given to the new Christian to describe this identity.

179

Senn, Christian Worship and Its Cultural Setting (1983), 3. Searle, ‘Ritual’ in The Study of Liturgy (1992), 51-60 provides a brief summary of the history of the use of this method through 1992. Any mention of ritual theory must include noting the importance of Turner’s The Anthropology of Performance (1986) and Bell’s Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (1992). Bell critiques the concept of ideology-as-worldview and ideology-of-thedominant-class perspectives: no group “is dominated by a single, holistic set of ideas, which is the cement for the society,” and especially not through single ideas or symbols nor is ideology pushed down on the masses without negotiation and consent (Ibid. 188-90). According to Parmentier, ‘Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice’ (1994), 93, Bell prefers to move the focus of the discussion of ritual to the “ritualization of activity” and proposes that “ritual practices are culturally devised schemes—regardless of whether they are instrumental or semiotic—they empower or disempower social agents through the agent’s ritual participation in daily life contexts. This “ritualization of activity” is defined as “a strategic and power-laden process of differentiation involving, for example, demarcated space, regulated periodicity, restricted codes of expression and emblematization, and specialized roles and constituencies. Such marked spheres of social life create patterns of action such that the very bodies of ritual participants generate in action the very structures that govern them and homologize schemas of significance that orchestrate oppositions into hierarchical regimes of dominance.” 181 Valantasis, The Making of the Self (2008). 182 Jasper and Jasper (eds), Language and the Worship of the Church (1990). 183 Grignon, ‘La coherénce de la foi’ (2003). 180

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

35

Of particular interest to my study are the insights from semiotics. According to Jan Michael Joncas, taking liturgical worship as humanly significant behavior demands accounting for a vast number of codes interacting in a variety of ways to produce meaning. [Searle] recognized that earlier forms of liturgical studies had concentrated almost totally on the texts of worship (their historical development and theological content) without recognizing that the meaning of these texts can be reinforced, interacted with, or subverted by other codes operating in the same event …184

In order to explore these additional codes being transmitted by a liturgical text, Searle employs semiotics, which provides “a general theory of signification” which “take[s] seriously the multidimensionality of ritual behavior,” through which one hopes to get to the “deeper meaning” of the text.185 Mystagogical instruction, by its very nature, provides signification to the ritual actions of the sacraments and the liturgy. By examining the entirety of the Jerusalem catechetical program, and not just the Mystagogic Catecheses, I demonstrate that Cyril laid the foundation for the deeper meaning of the sacraments in the Lenten catechesis. Sacramental practices and liturgical expressions varied between Christian communities for a multitude of reasons, and even though the liturgical practices of a given community are unique, the insights into the articulation of Christian selfidentity which can be provided from these texts should not be underestimated. Lizette Larson-Miller provides an example of exploring the ability of corporate worship to function as “flexibility around stability” in which a local congregation is able to both express its own local identity while still participating in the common identity of the larger community. She notes that corporate prayer and praise by a particular community in a given location in time and space will, inevitably, have a unique expression of faith. The liturgy functions as an expression and vehicle for group identity because of its “flexibility around stability”; that is, the unique liturgical expressions of a community communicates how it lived in the “tensions between context and tradition, between plurality and form and unity of belief.”186 For these reasons, Larson-Miller proposes that liturgy as self-definition was probably nowhere more important than in the first four or five centuries of this era, when Christian groups were trying to establish the boundaries between themselves and others, often by articulating who they were not.187

The particularization of practices and beliefs expressed in worship determines boundaries between religious groups, and thus it is not simply the ritual or the practice but what a group thought was being done by these acts that form self-identity.188 That 184 185 186 187 188

Joncas’ introduction to Searle’s ‘Fons Vitae’ in Vision (2004), 206. Ibid. 210. Larson-Miller, ‘Worship in Spirit and Truth’ (1995), 84. Ibid. Ibid. 88.

36

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

is, “liturgy [is] an articulation of who they were.”189 Since liturgy provides a means of articulating identity, mystagogical instruction on the sacraments and the liturgy will also provide insights into identity formation as well as insights into how identity was discussed within the community of faith. Mystagogic Texts in Identity Studies Mark Searle has already noted that the majority of ritual analyses of liturgical texts have focused on the texts, not on the actions of the body in participating in the liturgy. Yet, “[l]iturgy is uniquely a matter of the body; both the individual body and the collective body.”190 According to Searle, the ritual symbol is an enacted symbol: it is an embodied parable, whose meaning is not so much conceptualized and then expressed in gesture, as something that dawns upon those who carry it out. For that reason, ritual will always be more than doctrinein-action, as encounter will always be more than its description.191

Thus, the prescribed liturgical and ritual use of the body must be accounted for when studying not only liturgy in general, but liturgy as identity formation and identity articulation. In his earlier essay “Liturgy as Metaphor,” Searle describes metaphor as “involv[ing] not so much the nonliteral use of a word, as if a word could ever stand alone, but rather the use of language proper to one area of human experience to refer to a different realm of experience.” Liturgy is an invitation to put on this metaphor. Yet, Searle notes that recovery of the literal reference of the metaphor is not sufficient by itself—the metaphorical character of the discourse that occurs in liturgy must also be explored.192 Searle’s insights demonstrate the importance of mystagogic texts as uniquely providing a means of examining identity formation through the liturgy since ritual actions, bodily sensations, and phrases from the liturgy are unpacked and examined by the mystagogue to provide a foundation for the ongoing experience of the liturgy. Furthermore, mystagogic texts provide insights into the rich metaphorical discourse of a community. Through these texts, the bishop has provided an articulation of some of the meanings that a given community associates with 189 Ibid. 89. Larson-Miller’s work focuses on three case studies of boundary-making, looking at Christian nuances on common cultural practices, intra-Christian debates on the work of the Holy Spirit in baptism, and the development of rituals which distinguish Christians from other religions. Thus, the issues she focuses on are self-identity through difference from the “other.” From her second case study, she summarizes that, for John Chrysostom, “the primary arena of the conflict was ritual and liturgical practice, not theology per se.” Ibid. 92-3. Harvey’s ‘The Stylite’s Liturgy’ (1998), 523-39 demonstration of the importance of liturgy in understanding the identity of holy men within a Christian community is using this same methodological approach. 190 Searle, ‘Ritual’ in The Study of Liturgy (1992), 56. 191 Ibid. 57. 192 Searle, ‘Liturgy as Metaphor’, in Vision (2004), 34-5.

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

37

the liturgical practices and especially the sacramental rites as they are practiced by that community. These texts, then, provide a unique means of examining the foundation of both community and individual Christian self-definition. However, previous examinations of mystagogic texts for insights into identity formation have not been as helpful as one might expect, given the purpose of the genre. Mark Chapman’s 1994 essay brought mystagogical texts into conversation with Christian identity formation studies and used a narrative approach to explore and compare Ambrose of Milan’s and John Chrysostom’s mystagogical writings. Chapman noted that these works were intended to construct a new world for the catechumens and that liturgy must be seen as the interpretive key to the understanding of scripture for a community. While he states that Ambrose saw a “coherent unity of salvation history,” Chapman does not present this salvific narrative.193 Instead, he reduces both mystagogical collections to a single focus, which he states was cultural for Ambrose and moral for Chrysostom. Chapman’s study demonstrates the value of a narrative approach to examining identity formation in the mystagogical texts, but that one must remain open to the multidimensional aspect of the teaching. Searle argued for liturgy as metaphor, which means that for the metaphor to be understood, the text under consideration must be from either a known community with sufficient information available to understand the metaphors of the text or the selection of the text must be such that the metaphors are defined within the text.194 Lawrence Hoffman argues that a group defines its religious identity through “the attempt … to use liturgy to explain its origins, its sacred history, how it came to be what it is, and why it deserves continued existence.”195 Liturgy connects the group with the past by giving the community assurance that it does not stand alone and functions as a sacred historiography.196 Thus, [t]he mythic history [“the subjective and selective perception of our background that we choose to remember and to enshrine as our official ‘history’”] is recited liturgically not for its accuracy—thus differentiating it from normal historical narrative—but for its power to galvanize group identity…. the liturgical act function[s] to convey a sense of the ultimate significance of the worshiping group, by providing a sacred myth.197

193

Chapman, ‘Early Christian Mystagogy and the Formation of Modern Christians’ (1994), 289. In 1996, Draper published the first of two articles, ‘Christian Self-Definition against the “Hypocrites” in Didache 8’, in The Didache in Modern Research (1996), 223-43 exploring self-definition as found in the Didache. Draper’s analysis suffers from working with too small of a text as well as a text without a known community associated with the text (see also ‘Ritual Process and Ritual Symbol in “Didache”’ [2000], 121-58). Lange’s look at the effects of liturgy on lifestyle through the lens of the Didache (‘The Didache’ [2004] 203-55) suffers from the same problem of not having a known community from which to draw insights into how the text actually functioned to promote a given lifestyle. 195 Hoffman, Beyond the Text (1987), 74. 196 Ibid. 76-8. 197 Ibid. 78, 98. Examination of a modern community’s integration of their identity with their history is exemplified in Clark’s ‘Faith and Identity in Nisei Self-Narratives’ (1998), 279-94 in which 194

38

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Two studies on memory and self-definition provide case studies from ancient texts for Searle’s and Hoffman’s theories. Elizabeth Castelli’s text on memory in selfdefinition, Martyrdom and Memory, examines the effect of collective memory, specifically the memory of persecution and suffering, on Christian identity. She begins with a discussion of Maurice Halbwach’s theory of social memory which posits that Christianity’s liturgy not only functions to give meaning to the present through connections with the past, but it also, paradoxically, orients the participants in the historical and ahistorical temporal dimensions by connecting them with the eternal. Castelli updates and expands Halbwach’s theory in order to navigate through the modernist quest to separate “legend” from “history” by focusing on how the memories of a community are received and utilized in the development of a unified corporate history (myth) which informs identity.198 April DeConick has recently examined the Gospel of Thomas through the lens of community identity formation.199 These studies provide theoretical support that Christian identity is more than embodying and identifying with the collective memory of the local community, but also includes being caught up into the larger history of salvation. Instruction in and embodiment of this larger narrative through both creed and sacraments through catecheses provide a window into Christian identity formation. The role of mystagogical reflection as a means of examining the influence of the liturgy on Christian identity formation has been studied by Robert Marrone. Marrone focused on the corporeal and corporate expression of the liturgy as a means of formation and transformation.200 He proposes that: All liturgical experiences are rooted in the patterns established by the Rites of Initiation, rites which are essentially bodily and sensual actions of a community who invites, forms, and incorporates new members through ritual symbols, movements and gestures. The experience of these rites creates a deep sense of communitas through the common experience of liminality, creating an intense experience of presence and bonding. These rites are not merely expressions of a set of previously “learned” and “cognitively determined”

he evaluates self-narrative as a means to understanding corporate identity among Japanese-Americans interned during WWII. Specifically, Clark noted the impact of community history on a community’s redemptive history and came to similar conclusions that Hoffman had made two decades before. 198 Castelli’s thesis is that “the memory work done by early Christians on the historical experience of persecution and martyrdom was a form of culture making, whereby Christian identity was indelibly marked by the collective memory of the religious suffering of others.” Castelli, Martyrdom and Memory (2004), 4. 199 DeConick, ‘Reading the Gospel of Thomas as a Repository of Early Christian Communal Memory’, in Memory, Tradition, and Text (2005), 207-20. 200 Marrone, ‘Liturgy Identity and the Body’ (2005), 108 rightly notes the difficulties of collecting this type of data. He focused on which parts of the liturgy appeared to be most meaningful to each person, which neglects to account for the effect of the liturgy as a whole, even the parts that seem to be without meaning or are even difficult or awkward are also formative. To analyze the multi-sensory data of worship, recognizing all that serves as subsidiary data for knowing, is ultimately beyond our ability. The problem with such analysis is that, as Michael Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension (1967), 4 has said, because knowing has a tacit dimension, “[w]e know more than we can tell.”

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

39

beliefs. Rather, participants in these rites come to a particular kind of meaning and memory that is encoded, first in their bodies, and later understood conceptually through mystagogical reflection. Initiatory rites provide the “template” for the church’s entire liturgy through which the story-myth of salvation is enacted by the corporate body of the worshipping community and realized in its embodied ritual action.201

Marrone defines mystagogical insights as those which “emerge from reflection on bodily and sensual experienced, actions which have provided a deep sense of being formed or transformed in the process of doing them.”202 He surveyed parishioners to investigate how the liturgy formed a specific community, examining not only lex orandi-lex credendi but also lex vivendi and lex corporalis, being careful to examine what the liturgical experiences meant for the person, rather than what the person thought that the meaning of the experience was about.203 Three observations from his survey are most relevant to my project. First, the rites of initiation, when experienced communally, not only form individual Christian identity, but also provide intangible, deep connections between the sacraments, identity, and community.204 Liturgy, and the rites of initiation in particular, “is an act of ‘primary theology.’”205 Second, The rites of initiation create liminality and communitas, demand movement and touch, and depend upon smell and taste. Through bathing, anointing and feeding, the initiate is formed and incorporated. Death and resurrection are made known not through words in a book, but through a body immersed in water. The gifts of the Spirit are revealed not in a listings on a page, but in the rich smearing of scented oil and the sight of glistening flesh. The real presence is recognized not through mental assent to a doctrine but in the gathering of the Body of Christ at the table and in the sharing of one bread and one cup as a foretaste of eternity.206

Third, the gathering at the altar for the eucharist not only generated feelings of awe and reverence but also community.207 Methodology and Organization of the Work Since contemporary liturgical theologians note how modern Christian liturgy offers a salvific narrative208 for corporate and/or personal self-definition, it seems reasonable to ask what mystagogical instruction in the early church reveals about early Christian self-definition. In this project, the self-definition

201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208

Marrone, ‘Liturgy Identity and the Body’ (2005), ii. Ibid. 1. Ibid. 107, 120. Emphases are his. Ibid. 148. Ibid. 146. Ibid. 148-9. Ibid. 122. Lange, ‘The Didache’ (2004), 214. Crichton, ‘A Theology of Worship’ (1992), 19.

40

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

that I examine is the language that Cyril of Jerusalem provided for new Christians to think about and use to describe themselves. Methodology A variety of methods has been developed and explored for contemporary liturgical studies through the impetus of the liturgical renewal movement. These methods can be divided into six broad categories: 1) identity of the author,209 2) symbolism and sensory experience,210 3) self-narrative and collective memory,211 4) social sciences approach,212 5) similarities and conflicts,213 and 6) literary and narrative theology.214 Mystagogical texts provide a unique opportunity to examine how a bishop described the formative and transformative nature of both the sacraments and the liturgy with the newly baptized. This genre of texts offers insights into how a bishop taught the laity to articulate and 209 Examples of this method, all focusing on the Apostle Paul, are found in Dunn’s, ‘Who Did Paul Think He Was?’ (1999), 174-93; Duling’s ‘Whatever Gain I Had…’ in Fabrics of Discourse (2003), 222-41; and Taylor’s ‘Conflicting Bases of Identity in Early Christianity’ in Handbook of Early Christianity (2002), 577-98. 210 Examples of examination of the use of the senses include the works by Frank, ‘Taste and See’, (2001); Kalleres, ‘Cultivating True Sight at the Center of the World’ (2005), and Power, Unsearchable Riches (1984). Christofordis argues from patristic sources (Cyril of Jerusalem, John of Damascus, Dionysius the Areopagite, and Gregory of Nyssa) that the fathers had no difficulty starting with common, universal rituals and symbols of everyday life and instilling them with nuances that reflect “the cultural, philosophical and theological context of his time.” At the heart of the discussion in the Orthodox circles seems to be the distinction between “a sacramental interpretation of symbols” and “a symbolic reading of the Mysteries.” A Mystery is defined as “an act of transformation and sanctifying matter … [that] takes place not because the action refers to another reality and is symbolic, but because the Holy Spirit is invoked and sent down.” Christofordis, ‘The Nature of Symbols and the Created Order’ (2004), 18-24. The issue seems to lie in preserving the exclusive nature of the Mysteries, which can only be found within the church, from the symbols, which, while of great value, are not exclusive. 211 Works by Castelli, Martyrdom and Memory (2004) and Clark, ‘Faith and Identity in Nisei Self-Narratives’ (1998) are examples of this methodology. 212 Examples of social science methods are found in Anderson’s study of United Methodist practices (Worship and Christian Identity [2003]) and those who apply Bell’s method, such as Draper, ‘Christian Self-Definition against the “Hypocrites” in Didache 8’ (1996) and Scharen, ‘Ideology, Ritual, and Christian Subjectivity’ (1996), 406-22. Bird examines identity formation from a performative model (‘Ritual as Communicative Action’, in Ritual and Ethnic Identity [1995], 23-52). As noted above, Blasi, Duhaime, and Turcotte have edited a collection of essays on social science approaches to examining early Christian texts (Handbook of Early Christianity [2002]). See also Flanagan, Sociology and Liturgy (1991); Harvey, ‘The Stylite’s Liturgy’ (1998), 523-39; Hoffman, ‘Reconstructing Ritual as Identity and Culture’, in The Making of Jewish and Christian Worship (1991), 22-39; Stoddard, ‘What is Our Liturgy Doing to Us?’ (2005), 100-10; Larson-Miller, ‘Worship in Spirit and Truth’, in The Formulation of Christianity by Conflict through the Ages (1995), 83-100; Senn, Christian Worship and Its Cultural Setting (1983); and Harland, Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians (2003). 213 Examples of exploring identity formation through similarities and differences are Harland, ‘Christ-bearers and Fellow-initiates’ (2003), 481-99; and Horrell, ‘Becoming Christian’, in Handbook of Early Christianity (2002), 309-36. 214 The works by Chapman, ‘Early Christian Mystagogy and the Formation of Modern Christians’ (1994), 284-93; Lange, ‘The Didache’ (2004), 203-55; and Steinhauser, ‘Augustine’s Autobiographical Covenant’ (1991), 233-40 were discussed above.

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

41

live out their identity as Christians. In both catechesis and mystagogy, the bishop is implicitly held accountable for his teaching by two audiences: God and the community of established Christians (the faithful) who are present with those enrolled to be baptized. The faithful expect the bishop to teach the tradition of the community as expressed in the creed and liturgy. In this sense, the creed and the liturgy form the text for which catechesis and mystagogy is a commentary. Cyril stated in the Procatechesis that he was building a structure through his Lenten instruction to those who were enrolled to be baptized on the eve of Easter. The listeners were responsible for paying careful attention and working to understand each lesson’s content in order to build upon what has already been taught. Because of Cyril’s stated pedagogical method, even though my question is most clearly answered in the Mystagogic Catecheses, I have worked from the presupposition that Cyril presented the hermeneutical keys for understanding the Mystagogic Catecheses in the Procatechesis and Catecheses. Thus, my approach is to take the Procatechesis, Catecheses, and Mystagogic Catecheses as a unit, with the expectation that what is presented in each lesson builds upon what came previously and is foundational for what is yet to come. I have taken a literary approach, examining concepts and key themes as a progression of ideas that form a whole, focusing on how the content of the mystagogical unit is intended to form the identity of those who are preparing for the divine mysteries and the fullness of Christian community life. Details pertinent to the methodology applied in each section are provided in the section itself. Terminology, Transliteration, and Translation Style In an attempt to minimize an anachronistic reading of Cyril’s theology, I have chosen not to use contemporary doctrinal descriptions in the main text unless the use of these terms is already present in the secondary literature. For example, even though I provide a description of Cyril’s theological anthropology in chapter six, I have not titled the section as such. Also, while deification, divinization, and theōsis are often used interchangeably in the secondary literature, I have used theōsis whenever possible as a reflection of Cyril’s use of θεοποιεῖν (theopoiein). For Greek words that are present within Cyril’s texts, I do not provide a transliteration of the word unless quoting from the secondary literature. This will allow the reader to quickly assess whether Greek terminology used in this book can be found within the fourth century text. With respect to translations, I have worked from my own translation except where noted. I have followed a more literal translation style, consistently using the same English word or phrase to translate the same Greek word, in order to demonstrate repetition of words that the listeners would have heard unless the

42

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

context requires that a different nuance of the Greek word be provided in the English text. Organization An overview of my approach is as follows. First, in order to examine the liturgical and sacramental metaphors that Cyril communicated in his Procatechesis and Catecheses, the authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses is examined (Part I). This re-examination is in two parts. In chapter two, I establish the viability of Cyrillian authorship of the text through an examination of the argument from the history of liturgical development and manuscript transmission data as provided through codicology. To demonstrate that Cyril could have written the Mystagogic Catecheses, I show that the foundations for the baptismal theology in the Mystagogic Catecheses were present in a letter from the bishop of Cyril’s childhood and diaconate, Macarius. By examining the data provided by the codices in which the extant Greek manuscripts of the Mystagogic Catecheses reside, I show that the Mystagogic Catecheses have been treated as part of the Jerusalem catechesis by the communities who copied the manuscripts. Then, in chapter three, I review the present critical edition’s stemma of the Greek text’s manuscript tradition and argue that the text in the critical edition has been redacted by John of Jerusalem, the bishop who succeeded Cyril. Through textcritical analysis, I have attempted to provide a version of the Greek text which is less highly redacted and thus closer to Cyril’s original text. This revised Mystagogic Catecheses text, which is the closest to a Cyrillian version of the Mystagogic Catecheses available, provides the culminating lectures to a Jerusalem catechetical program composed by a single bishop. In order to examine a Christian identity that is integrally tied to the bishop’s teachings about the sacraments, I next examine the primary critique of Cyril’s eucharistic theology and provide a solution to what some have argued is an apparent lack of cohesiveness within his sacramental theology (Part II). In chapter four, I critique the more prevalent readings of Cyril’s eucharistic theology and propose a new hermeneutical lens through which to explore Cyril’s sacramental theology: theōsis. I demonstrate evidence of a doctrine of theōsis within Cyril’s texts by examining his use of terminology and specific scripture passages that other Greek fathers, both preceding and contemporaneous, used in their articulation of theōsis. Having provided proof that a doctrine of theōsis can resolve the issues that scholars have puzzled over with respect to his eucharistic theology, in chapter five I use word studies to elucidate what I argue is the unifying framework for Cyril’s sacramental theology (and thus the context for his eucharistic theology) and also his teaching on Christian identity: κοινωνία with the Triune God. In Part III, chapter six, I demonstrate that the identity Cyril constructs for the new Christians which utilized specific attributions associated with each

Chapter 1: The Question of Christian Identity Formation

43

sacrament is inextricably connected with his doctrine of theōsis and therefore is a sacramental form of theōsis. Norman Russell’s definition of theōsis provides the hermeneutical lens through which I analyze Cyril’s sacramental theōsis. Theōsis, according to Russell, can be summarized as our restoration as persons to integrity and wholeness by participation in Christ through the Holy Spirit, in a process which is initiated in this world through our life of ecclesial communion and moral striving and finds ultimate fulfillment in our union with the Father—all within the broad context of the divine economy [“the whole of God’s plan of salvation”].215

In order to demonstrate that Christian identity, according to Cyril, is the result of sacramental theōsis, I separate Russell’s definition into four parts: restoration of the whole person; cultivation of virtue within Christian community; entering into communion with the Trinity, the church, and creation; and all within the context of the divine economy. Using these concepts as a hermeneutical lens, I examine the descriptors (titles) of Christians that Cyril associated with each of the sacraments and the liturgy. I argue that these descriptors provided a means for the laity to articulate and meditate upon their identity as Christians and to continue growing into this identity through the ongoing participation in the eucharistic liturgy. As I have already noted above, Egeria reported that the bishop’s presentation of the Mystagogic Catecheses was met with cheers from Christians who were deeply moved by these instructions.216 Egeria reported the need for translators, but only to overcome language barriers, not identity barriers; the emotional responses Egeria reported to this identity-forming mystagogy were signs of inclusion in a common identity and a deepening or broadening of the understanding of this identity. The goal of my present work is to examine the description of Christianity identity and identity transformation over which Egeria and the other pilgrims to Jerusalem rejoiced.

215

Russell, Fellow Workers with God (2009), 21. Given the details she provided on where the bishop stood, his posture as he gave the Mystagogic Catecheses, and her comment on translators, it is reasonable to conclude that she attended these teachings. 216

PART I The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses

Since the method I use to evaluate Cyril’s teaching about Christian identity requires studying his catechetical curriculum as a whole (the pre-Easter Procatechesis and Catecheses1 in combination with the post-Easter Mystagogic Catecheses), the authorship of these three works must be ascertained. In Part I, the issue of authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses is examined in detail. In this prologue to chapters two and three, I provide an overview of the issues and my approach to assessing authorship. State of the Question of the Authorship of the Texts While the Procatechesis and the eighteen pre-baptismal Catecheses have always been clearly attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem,2 the authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses has been contested since the sixteenth century. Part of the difficulty regarding authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses lies within the manuscript tradition: none of the incipits of Mystagogical Catechesis 1 attribute the Mystagogic Catecheses to Cyril alone; some attribute the authorship to both Cyril and his successor to the Jerusalem episcopacy, John; and some name John alone as the author. Yet the external evidence for Cyrillian authorship, while scant, is unanimously in favor of Cyrillian authorship.3 The beginning of the current authorial debate is rooted in the textual transmission history: the debate began in 1574 when Josias Simmler discovered a bill of sale for manuscripts that attributed authorship of both the Catecheses and the Mystagogic Catecheses to John of Jerusalem.4 This discovery fueled the Calvinist-supported liturgical challenge to the text; specifically, whether or not the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation was present in the fourth century Jerusalem eucharistic theology.5 Alexis Doval notes that the more recent revival of the authorship debate stems from W. J. Swaans’ 1942 article in Le Muséon 1

The most recent critical edition of the Procatechesis and the Catecheses is from the late nineteenth century by Reischl and Rupp (S. patris nostri Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi Opera quae supersunt omnia [1967]). The Procatechesis and Catecheses Greek text used throughout this book are from Reichel and Rupp’s edition, as found in the TLG. The critical edition of Toutée of both works, as well as that of the Mystagogic Catecheses, is contained in PG 33 (1886). Grignon is presently working on an updated critical edition for Sources chrétiennes (http://umr8230.vjf.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article77&lang=fr, accessed 30 January 2019). 2 Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 1-7. Day, The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem (2007), 23. 3 Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 72 has provided an analysis of the external evidence for Cyrillian authorship: all six references cite Cyril as the author. 4 Ibid. 18-28. Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 18-9 notes that the manuscript in question was Codex Vindobonensis 9734. 5 In the sixteenth century, the debate was primarily based on content and its influence on the liturgical tradition and was driven by debates on eucharistic theology between Calvinist and Roman Catholics. Part of Huguenot Edmeé Aubertin’s argument to distance the patristic tradition from a doctrine of “real presence” was to attribute the Mystagogic Catecheses to the “Origenist” John of Jerusalem rather than to Cyril. See de Félice’s History of the Protestants of France (1851),

48

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

that focused attention on the oldest manuscript’s clear attribution of authorship to John II of Jerusalem, the bishop immediately following Cyril.6 Swaans argues that the addition of John’s name on the Mystagogic Catecheses, if they were 285; van de Schoor’s The Irenical Theology of Théophile Brachet de la Milletière (1588-1655) (1995), 39-51; and Hamilton’s The Copts and the West, 1439-1822 (2006), 153. Touttée, in his 1720 critical edition (which is reprinted in Patrologia Graeca volume 33), numbered the two sets of catechetical lectures consecutively as 1-23 rather than following the numbering in the manuscripts, which, according to Stephenson (‘Introduction’, in The Works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem [1970], 2:143-4), “encouraged the belief in Cyril’s authorship” in spite of Aubertin’s disputations. A generation ago, Quasten, Patrology (1950), 3:375 stated that Cyril “is the first theologian to interpret this transformation [of the eucharistic elements] in the sense of a transubstantiation.” 6 Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 5; Swaans, ‘À propos des «Catéchèses Mystagogiques» attribuées à S. Cyrille de Jérusalem’ (1942), 3-4; Cross, St Cyril of Jerusalem’s Lectures on the Christian Sacraments (1951), xxxvi notes that the recent discussion actually began with Theodor Schermann’s essay. As early as 1944, Altaner’s Patrologie noted the possibility that the Mystagogical Catecheses were John’s due to evidence in the transmission history. Richard, ‘Cronique de patrologie’ (1948), 281-2, in his review of the 1944 edition, notes that “[l]a note 1 de la page 224 fait allusion aux doutes concernant l’authenticité des cinq homélies mystagogiques éditées sous le nom de Cyrille de Jérusalem. L’article de W. J. Swaans, A propos des «  Catéchèses mystagogiques  » attribuées à Cyrille de Jérusalem …, paraît bien avoir définitivement résolu la question en faveur du successeur de Cyrille, Jean de Jérusalem.” According to Altaner in his 1950 edition of Patrologie, 268-9, “[m]anche überlieferungsgeschichtliche Gründe sprechen dafür, daß die 5 mystagogischen Katechesen von B. Johannes von Jerusalem, dem Nachfolger Cyrills (386417), verfaßt sind.” While Swaan’s 1948 study may be the essay that called considerable attention to the authorship issue, his essay was not the only work to describe the bill of sale. He cites Salaville’s 1915 article, “Une question de critique littéraire. Les catéchèses de Saint Cyrille de Jérusalem” in Échos d’Orient 27, which is a response to Schermann’s two essays in 1911 essays, one in Theologische Revue and the article ‘Compte-rendu de l’ouvrage’ in Die Brotbitte des Vaterunsers. Swaans follows the debate from Simmler’s 1955 essay, ‘l’Epitome bibliotecae Conradi Gesneri’ which was reprinted in Bibliotheca instituta et collecta primum a Conrado Gesnero deinde in Epitomen redacta et novorum Librorum accessione locupletata, iam vero postremum recognita, et in duplum post priores editiones aucta, per Iosiam Simlerum Tigurinum. Those who, following Swaans, attribute the work to John of Jerusalem or a “pseudo-Cyril” include Greenlee, The Gospel Text of Cyril of Jerusalem (1955); Telfer, Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa (1956), 39-42; Bihain, ‘Une vie arménienne de saint Cyrille de Jérusalem’ (1963), 319-48; Renoux, ‘Les catéchèses mystagogiques dans l’organisation liturgique hierosolymitaine du IVe et du Ve siécle’ (1965), 355-9; Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels (1981); Richard, ‘Cronique de patrologie’ (1948), 281; Kretschmar, ‘Die frühe Geschichte der Jerusalemer Liturgie’ (1956-57), 22-7; and Bihain, ‘Une vie arménienne de saint Cyrille de Jérusalem’ (1963), 340, fn 73. Cutrone notes that Renoux questions Cyrillian authorship based upon comparison with Egeria and that Camelot, ‘Note sur la théologie baptismale des catéchèses attribuées à saint Cyrille de Jérusalem’, in Kyriakon (1970), 724-9 argues on differences between the sacramental theology found in the two Catecheses. Saxer, Catechesi Prebattesimali e Mistagogiche (1994), 31-44, 82-98 argues from variations from Egeria’s witness and apparent differences in theology between what is found in the Procatechesis and Catecheses and what is presented in the Mystagogic Catecheses. In his Italian translation of the texts, he lists John of Jerusalem as one of the authors in the title. Röwekamp, ‘Einleitung’, in Cyrill von Jerusalem. Mystagogicae Catecheses (1992), 8-15 states that the text, as we have it, is John’s. Most recently, Day, Baptism in Early Byzantine Palestine 325-451 (1999); ‘Lent and the Catechetical Program in Mid-fourth-century Jerusalem’

Part I: The Autorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses

49

given in the same year as the Catecheses, does not seem plausible: collaboration between the two authors is not probable, but neither is the addition of John’s name if the Mystagogic Catecheses is from Cyril’s episcopacy.7 Swaan’s assessment is true only if the Mystagogic Catecheses circulated during Cyril’s episcopacy; if the Mystagogic Catecheses circulated after Cyril’s episcopacy, when John was the bishop, this might account for confusion of authorship in some manuscripts.8 The question of why some manuscripts have no authorial attribution, some have both Cyril and John as authors, and some have John alone must be addressed in order to properly identify the author of the text. In the 2004 critical edition of the Mystagogic Catecheses, Piédnagel states that—after considering the arguments from textual transmission, literary analysis, and liturgical analysis—he agrees with Quasten that to either establish or

(2005), 129-47; and The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem (2007) has argued for Johannine authorship from liturgical development. Those who hold to the traditional view of Cyrillian authorship include Milles, Τοῦ ἐν ἁγιοις πατρος ἡμῶν Κυριλλου ... τα σωζομενα. S. patris nostri Cyrilli … (1703); Touttée, ‘De Scriptis S. Cyrilli ac potissimum de Catechesibus’, in PG 33 (1886), 123-69; Paulin, Saint Cyrille de Jérusalem (1956), 52-3; Cross, St Cyril of Jerusalem’s Lectures on the Christian Sacraments (1951), xxxvi-xxxix; and Gifford, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures (1893). Cutrone also lists Fruytier, ‘Cyrillus’ autheurschap can de mystagogische catechesen toch nog te redden?’ (1951), 282-8; Beukers, ‘For Our Emperors, Soldiers and Allies’ (1961), 177-84 dates Mystagogical Catecheses 5 from 383, toward the end of Cyril’s episcopacy. Yarnold proposes that the Mystagogical Catecheses are from late in Cyril’s episcopacy and thus providing an explanation for developments in liturgy and theology, so ‘The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1978), 143-60; Doval, ‘The Fourth Century Jerusalem Catechesis and the Development of the Creed’ (1997), 296-305; ‘The Date of Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catecheses’ (1997), 129-32; and Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001) has also focused considerable effort to resolve the authorship issue. Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church (2009), 474 finds Doval’s argument more persuasive than Day’s. Most recently, Terian has entered the debate from the liturgical development aspect, Terian, Macarius of Jerusalem (2008), 48-9, fn 96. 7 Swaans, ‘À propos des ‘Catéchèses Mystagogiques’ attribuées à S. Cyrille de Jérusalem’ (1942), 41. 8 Swaans (ibid. 29) also posits that a fifth-century Armenian manuscript has only the Catecheses (with neither the Procatechesis nor the Mystagogical Lectures) because the scribe did not know of Cyril’s other works. As summarized by Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 23, “Swaans fait encore appel à une version arménienne des Catéchèses. On pense qu’elle aurait été élaborée au ve siècle. Elle ne contient non plus aucun texte ni de la Procatéchèse, ni des cinq Mystagogiques. Pourquoi n’y a-t-il ainsi aucune trace, dans ces deux versions anciennes, des Mystagogiques, sinon, conclut Swaans, parce que leur auteur ne les trouvait pas dans son modèle sous le nom de Cyrille.” To argue what a scribe had available to copy or why one text was chosen rather than another is, at best, speculative. One could just as easily argue that the Catecheses circulated independently because of the content, instruction on the Creed, or that a transcriber of the Catecheses chose not to include the Mystagogical Catecheses due to the sacramental content of the Mystagogical Catecheses. This argument does require that the disciplina arcana, which recent scholarship has challenged, was actually in place at this time. See Malesic’s ‘Disciplines of the Secret’ (2004) as well as McDonald’s ‘Paideia and Gnosis’ (1998) on the use of secrecy in ancient pedagogy.

50

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

disprove Cyrillian authorship is difficult.9 Piédnagel summarizes the current explanations for how both John’s and Cyril’s names have been associated with the Mystagogic Catecheses: 1) William Telfer argues that the Mystagogies were John’s and were added to the Catecheses in order to complete the text.10 2) Cross proposes that the lectures were repeated many times and “[i]f John succeeded Cyril in the office of Catechist as he later followed him in the episcopate, is it possible that he too catechized his candidates with the same series of splendid addresses?”11 3) Quasten, Yarnold, Stephenson, and Piédnagel have each proposed that the original lectures were Cyril’s and later revised by John.12 This 9 Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 38-40 states that, with the data available in 2004, “Il ne semble pas qu’on puisse, pour l’instant, trancher nettement ce débat. C’est pourquoi j’ai gardé à ce livre le titre traditionnel de « Catéchèses Mystagogiques de saint Cyrille de Jérusalem».” He retained the traditional attribution for the title of the text and included supplementary information on John as a possible author. Thus, while the title of the volume lists Cyril of Jerusalem as the author, the text itself attributes the authorship to both bishops: M1, t lines 1-5: ΜΥΣΤΑΓΩΓΙΑ ΠΡΩΤΗ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΝΕΟΦΩΤΙΣΤΟΥΣ Καὶ ἀνάγνωσις ἐκ τῆς Πέτρου ἐπιστολῆς αʹ καθολικῆς, ἀπὸ τοῦ· Νήψατε, γρηγορήσατε, ἕως τέλους τῆς ἐπιστολῆς· τοῦ αὐτοῦ Κυρίλλου καὶ Ἰωάννου ἐπισκόπου. Quasten, Patrology (1950), 366 offers that “the manuscript evidence could be explained in a different way: The fact that the mystagogic lectures were attributed to John in one of the codices and to Cyril and John in three of them, could indicate that Cyril prepared and delivered them first, but that later his successor John revised them.” Quasten’s analysis is that “[u]nder these circumstances it seems that neither the manuscript tradition nor the allusions suffice to establish or to disprove Cyril’s authorship. The liturgy described by the author of the mystagogic lectures is equally inconclusive as an argument. That it contains an Epiclesis, a recitation of the Our Father and a prayer for the Emperor in the plural does not demonstrate that these five lectures were wrongly attributed to Cyril and must be ascribed to John of Jerusalem. Nor does the fact that the author assigns the virtue of Chrism to the Third Person of the Trinity and teaches a Eucharistic presence of Christ by metabolism of the elements.” 10 “There was thus strong reason for supposing that Cyril’s lectures were transcribed but the once, and only those which he gave before Easter; that by the 390s the absence of mystagogic lectures was felt to be a defect in the book in circulation, and so a copy of five short mystagogic lectures given by John was added, but without the attribution to John being always copied; so that eventually these five lectures were wrongly attributed to Cyril.” Telfer, Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa (1956), 40. 11 Cross, St Cyril of Jerusalem’s Lectures on the Christian Sacraments (1951), xxxix is a representative of those scholars who argue for common authorship due to common allusions found in both texts. 12 Quasten, Patrology (1950), 366. This argument is elaborated upon by Yarnold, ‘The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1978), 145: “If I am right in suggesting that the original MS of M bore no author’s name, the ascription to John may have been a conjecture based on the fact that the MS was found in Jerusalem after Cyril’s death. The dual ascription to Cyril and John would have a similar explanation. The MS may have been the work of Cyril, come into John’s possession, and been used by him in his own preaching.” According to Stephenson (WCJ 2: 147), “... the double ascription may contain an element of truth. John is likely to have used the work of his predecessor. Catechizing is the responsibility of the bishop, so that there may well have been something like a diocesan script, subject to continuing revision.”

Part I: The Autorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses

51

third option, which has not been thoroughly explored through textual criticism of the text, combined with Paulin’s hypothesis that the mystagogical texts might only have been published after Cyril’s death by John, seems to make the most sense of the manuscripts that we have.13 As noted by Paulin, this would account for a separate circulation of the Catecheses. Since 2001, three major works have been published which directly address the debate over authorship. Each provides a detailed discussion of the history of the debate. In 2008, Juliette Day produced what appeared to be a very strong case for a later date and for Johannine authorship which could have settled the authorship issue. However, due to the previous misdating of Macarius’s Letter to the Armenians which Abraham Terian corrected in 2009, a text which was critical to Day’s analysis was, unfortunately, outside the scope of her analysis. The omission of Macarius’s text is a serious weakness in her 2008 work.14 Day had dismissed the arguments from the 2001 literary analysis by Alexis Doval, which, while providing an analysis of ancient witnesses to Cyrillian authorship of the Mystagogies as well as continuing the comparison of style, spirituality, and theology started by Yarnold, was ultimately unable to persuade Auguste

Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 40 recognized that John as the redactor is a very real possibility. In both the 1966 and the 2004 printings of the critical edition, Piédnagel states that because of the possibility of John as the final redactor of the text, he provided the reader with bibliographic information about John as well as Cyril: “Toutefois, étant donné soit l’incertitude qui subsiste encoure sur la paternité de Cyrille, soit la possibilité assez sérieuse que Jean y ait mis la dernière main, …” 13 “Voici en deux mots l’hypothèse que nous proposerions, et qui a d’ailleurs déjà été plus ou moins ébauchée par F. L. Cross: les catéchèses mystagogiques n’ont pas été publiées en même temps que les dix-huit autres. La note de Cyrille à la fin de la procatéchèse ne parle due des catéchèses aux « photizomenoi » à ne pas livrer aux simples catéchumènes ou à tout non chrétien. D’autre part le témoignage d’Éthérie relevé précédemment nous révèle que la loi de l’arcane était encore beaucoup plus stricte pour les mystagogiques: ce serait là la raison pour laquelle elles ne furent d’abord pas publiées ; le successeur de Cyrille les aurait fait publier plus tard, en un temps où la loi de l’arcane tendait à s’élargir et à disparaître, au début du ve siècle. Cette hypothèse expliquerait pourquoi les dix-huit premières catéchèses sont en style oral et donc plus développées, parce que prises par un auditeur, alors que les mystagogiques sont en style écrit, ce qui paraît assez évident, et courtes, parce qu’il s’agirait de simples canevas écrits laissés par S. Cyrille et publiés après sa mort. Cette hypothèse expliquerait aussi pourquoi les versions les plus primitives, syriaque et arménienne, n’avaient sans doute pas les mystagogiques, qui n’auraient été ajoutées que plus tard à l’original, et pourquoi les mystagogiqes ont été attribuées à la fois à Cyrille et à Jean dans plusieurs manuscrits ou même à Jean tout seul dans un manuscrit grec.” Paulin, Saint Cyrille de Jérusalem (1959), 53, fn 3. 14 Johnson, ‘Review of The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem’ (2008), 89-91 noted that the then forthcoming publication of Terian’s work would pose a significant challenge to Day’s dating of the Mystagogic Catechesis. In Terian’s 2009 monograph, Macarius’ Letter to the Armenians has been re-dated to prior to Cyril’s episcopacy and Terian has argued that this letter substantiates that the baptismal liturgy present in Mystagogical Catecheses 1-3 can be dated to, at the latest, the time of Cyril’s episcopacy, if not prior to his episcopacy.

52

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Piédnagel that the text in his critical edition is Cyril’s.15 Piédnagel has provided a critical edition of the text which includes a stemma for the first time, but, as I will argue later, this stemma requires further modification based upon his analysis of the redactor’s characteristic emendations and the manuscripts within which the most redaction is expressed. Approach to Assessing Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses The primary concerns about authorship can be divided into three categories: 1) liturgical practices and theological presuppositions linked to those practices described in the text, 2) attribution of authorship within the manuscript tradition, and 3) literary style. Resolution of the concerns arising from the first two categories is still needed in order to interpret the Procatechesis, Catecheses, and Mystagogic Catecheses as a textual unit; the secondary literature has adequately accounted for differences in literary style between Catecheses and Mystagogic Catecheses.16 In the first category, the liturgical challenge to Cyrillian authorship is based in issues within the pre-baptismal practices and the baptismal theology presented in Mystagogic Catecheses 2 and 3. The associated theological issue revolves around the development of the ἐπίκλησις (epiklēsis) as presented in Mystagogic Catechesis 5. These concerns are addressed together in the first half of chapter two. The problem at the root of the third category is

15

Yarnold, ‘The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1978), 143-60 and Cyril of Jerusalem (2000), 56-64. While Piédnagel acknowledges Doval’s work, he did not change his assessment of authorship (Catéchèses mystagogiques [2004], 40). Doval’s stylometric analysis, as will be discussed later, was helpful, but not conclusive. 16 Stephenson (‘Introduction’, in The Works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem [1970], 2: 145-6) states that “[a]ll scholars have recognized a difference in style between the two series. ... [i]t is hard to believe that the theological expositions, always pedestrian and often threadbare, of the Mystagogiae are the product of the same mind as the Lenten Lectures, whose theological texture is commonly quite rich and whose moving piety intermittently blazes into something like poetry.” However, as Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem (2000), 24 rightly notes, the majority of the titles to individual lectures within the Catecheses state that they are “improvised” (σχεδιάζω). Working from the note appended at the end of C18 in manuscript Monacensis gr. 278, in Yarnold, ‘The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses’ (1978), 144-5 argues that the Catecheses “were made from the shorthand-writer’s text” which was taken during the lectures. “The terseness [of Mystagogic Catecheses] suggests that it is the notes on which the preacher based his sermon, rather than the full text. Because of the disciplina arcani these notes would not be intended for publication ...” Furthermore, “C contains several signs of improvisation which are not found in M. Thus C contains many asides expressing apologies for the length of the addresses, or concern at the hearers’ weariness (e.g. 15,33); there are none such in M. M is devoid of the speaker’s tricks commonly found in C, such as the invention of objections (e.g. C2, 16) ... and the rhetorical figure of praeteritio (e.g. C17, 31) ...” Yarnold suggests “that M is notes which [Cyril] expanded as he went along. Some rhetorical passages he elaborated in the notes; others he was content to indicate by a phrase like ‘keep this unspotted.’”

Part I: The Autorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses

53

a textual-critical issue in Mystagogic Catechesis 1, which I address in the second half of chapter two and the entirety of chapter three. To address the primary arguments against Cyrillian authorship from the history of liturgical developments, both practices and theology, I examine the two most pressing issues. From the perspective of liturgical practices, the argument against Cyrillian authorship has most recently focused on the baptismal practices and theology. Abram Terian has recently re-dated Letter to the Armenians to 325 AD which indicates that the author of the letter is Macarius I, the bishop of Jerusalem immediately prior to Cyril’s episcopacy. I argue that this letter provides sufficient historical evidence that the baptismal theology described in the Catecheses and Mystagogical Catecheses were possible under Macarius’ episcopacy. Since Cyril was ordained to the deaconate by Macarius and served the Jerusalem church as priest then bishop, the baptismal theology that Cyril taught is most likely a synthesis of the Jerusalem practice. Therefore, there is no reason, from a baptismal theology perspective, to require that the Mystagogical Catecheses be dated to later than Cyril. The other ongoing question about Cyril’s theology center around whether the Spirit ἐπίκλησις in Mystagogic Catechesis 3 and alluded to in Mystagogic Catechesis 5 is best dated to after Cyril’s episcopacy.17 Most recently, John Paul Abdelsayed has summarized the arguments regarding the sources and dating of the liturgy in M5. He provides a cogent argument for Egyptian influence and demonstrates significant similarities between the epiclesis in M5 with Egyptian anaphoras dating from the mid-350s,18 which, like Terian’s recent contribution to the conversation, eliminates the need to date the Mystagogic Catecheses to later than the mid-350s. To resolve the issue of authorship from the manuscript transmission, the third category of problems associated with authorship, I take a two-fold approach. In the second half of chapter two, I examine the information that can be gleaned from codicology. By examining the contents of the codices in which the Greek texts for the Mystagogic Catecheses are bound, I argue that the communities which used the Mystagogic Catecheses have considered this text as the culmination of the Jerusalem catechetical program. This argument is based upon the order in which Cyril’s catechetical texts are placed within the codices as well as which other Cyrillian texts are bound with the catechetical works. While the argument from codicology alone does not prove that the Mystagogic Catecheses are Cyril’s, it does present the history of how the text has been received. That is, based upon the foliation and other manuscripts which have been transmitted in the same codices as the Mystagogical Catecheses, the inference is that the Mystagogical Catecheses were not only received as part of the

17 18

Day, The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem (2007), 94-6. Abdelsayed, ‘Liturgical Exodus in Reverse’ (2011), 146-7.

54

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

fourth-century Jerusalem catechesis, but were also considered to be Cyril’s work. This finding accords with Doval’s analysis of the external evidence from citation attributions In the second part of my analysis of authorship, found in chapter 3, I propose a revised stemma which assumes sequential redaction by the principal redactor described by Piédnagel, who is suspected to be John. Piédnagel’s most significant variants, variants in the title of M1, as well as several variants that are in text that affect the rhetoric or theology related to my area of exploration, are evaluated in light of this modified stemma, demonstrating that it is quite possible that the authorial attribution can be explained as successive revisions by John as he was taking Cyril’s lecture notes and making them his own.

Chapter 2 History of Liturgy and Codicological Analysis In this chapter I begin by using intertextual evidence, Abdelsayed’s recent work comparing fourth-century Spirit ἐπικλήσεις, and Terian’s translation and redating of Macarius’ Letter to the Armenians to establish that the sacramental theology and liturgical practice described in the Mystagogic Catecheses were present during or prior to Cyril’s episcopacy. Next, I argue that the manuscript tradition provides sufficient data not only to state that the Mystagogic Catecheses have been received as the final instructions in the Jerusalem catechesis, but also to imply Cyrillian authorship. While necessary for evaluating the authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses, neither resolving the liturgical history question nor providing codicological analysis addresses the text-critical issue of how this collection of post-baptismal lectures came to be associated with two different authors. My method for exploring the formation of identity through the Jerusalem texts requires a high degree of confidence that the text I am working with is, as best as can be determined, Cyril’s text and not John’s nor John’s redaction of Cyril’s text. In particular, while Piédnagel and Doval both discuss transmission history and provide details about the codicology, and while Doval makes a very helpful critique of Piédnagel’s stemma that was developed for the critical edition of the text, as far as I am aware, no one has fully engaged the codicological data from the perspective of answering the question of how John’s name became associated with the text. In chapter 3, I present an analysis of Piédnagel’s stemma and preferred manuscript tradition and I propose a slight modification to the stemma which provides a possible solution to the dual-authorship issue. Arguments Regarding Authorship from the Liturgical Tradition Two liturgical arguments against Cyril’s authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses need to be addressed, both of which hinge upon whether or not the liturgical practices presented or alluded to in the Mystagogic Catecheses must be dated to after 387. One question regards the baptismal liturgy as found in Mystagogic Catecheses 3, the other is the ἐπίκλησις in the eucharistic liturgy as found in Mystagogic Catecheses 5. Liturgical Theology Perspective Juliette Day’s 2007 monograph summarizes the state of the question of authorship from the liturgical perspective. Her concern is whether the baptismal liturgy of Jerusalem is a result of the influence of other baptismal liturgies on the Jerusalem

56

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

practice (her hypothesis) or whether the Jerusalem baptismal liturgy is the impetus for the adoption of a Romans 6 baptismal theology by other communities.1 The Recent Challenge to Cyrillian Authorship In particular, Day argues that the Mystagogic Catecheses “is later than has been thought and that it was subject to influences which also affected the neighboring provinces.”2 In summary, her argument for Johannine authorship rests upon three points: • “the more developed rite in [the Mystagogic Catecheses] places it after [The Apostolic Constitutions] and most possibly contemporary with Theodore’s episcopate;” • “the initiation rite in [the Mystagogic Catecheses] was not used in Jerusalem by 397;” and • “the number of lectures in [the Mystagogic Catecheses] is the same as that in [The Armenian Lectionary as presented in Erevan 985].”3 She supports her conclusion by a seven part thesis: 1) “the manuscript evidence does not provide convincing evidence for either Cyrillian or Johannine authorship;” 2) “the number and syllabus of [the Mystagogic Catecheses] would seem to indicate the final form was reached before the terminus ad quem of [the Armenian Lectionary as found in manuscript Erevan 985];” 3) “there is no evidence for the theological positions attributed to Cyril and John;”4 1 Portions of this chapter have been previously published in Hawk-Reinhard, ‘Transmission Implications Regarding the Authorship of Cyril of Jerusalem’s Mystagogic Catecheses’, in The Use of Textual Criticism for the Interpretation of Patristic Texts (2013), 37-75. Permission to reprint sections of this chapter has been graciously granted by Edwin Mellon Press. The traditional understanding that Dix summarized, as quoted by Cross, St Cyril of Jerusalem’s Lectures on the Christian Sacraments (1951), xxviii-xxix, quoting Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (1945), 350 ff., is that Cyril “gave to christendom the first outline of the public organisation of the divine office; and the first development of the proper of the seasons as well as of the saints. He was certainly the great propagator, if not the originator, of the later theory of eucharistic consecration by the invocation of the Holy Ghost, with its important effects in the subsequent liturgical divergence of East and West. … Above all, to him more than any other single man is due the successful carrying through of that universal transposition of the liturgy from an eschatological to an historical interpretation of redemption, which is the outstanding mark left by the fourth century on the history of Christian worship.” 2 Day, The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem (2007), 10. 3 Ibid. 140. The full text title has replaced Day’s abbreviations in her quotation. 4 Day, The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem (2007), 16-21, 139. This argument addresses three aspects: 1) Yarnold’s ‘The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1978) assessment of continuity and yet discontinuity within the theology of the Catecheses and Mystagogic Catecheses, 2) descriptions of Cyril’s and John’s theological positions by their contemporaries

Chapter 2: History of Liturgy and Codicological Anlysis

57

4) the omission of an exhortation of the spiritual nature of the water for immersion, an unexpected change in describing when the Holy Spirit is received, what appears to be a double recitation of the Trinitarian formula (both bishop and baptizand), and the use of a Spirit ἐπίκλησις which is indicative of later liturgical developments;5 5) there is “no explicit reference to pre-immersion anointing in other Palestinian sources” and “other Palestinian sources are silent” with regards to post-immersion anointing;”6 6) the issue of whether or not there was both an interrogatory and a declarative formula before baptism;7 and, as a result, 7) “the distinctive sacramental theology of [the Mystagogic Catecheses] cannot be convincingly ascribed to Cyril’s evolving thought process and it would appear to demonstrate later composition by a different author.”8 Day’s analysis has led her to the conclusion “that [the Mystagogic Catecheses] is more likely to date from the early fifth century and therefore to be by John.”9 With respect to her first and third parts of her seven-fold thesis, the small corpus of texts for both Cyril and John of Jerusalem,10 and the current state of the authorship debate from the textual-critical and codicological positions, she has come to a reasonable conclusion. Her argument for Johannine authorship rests upon the veracity of the last four parts of her argument. Recent Support for Cyrillian Authorship Recent support for an earlier dating of the Mystagogic Catecheses and thus Cyrillian authorship comes from Abraham Terian’s redating of the Letter to the Armenians and John Abdelsayed’s comparative study of Spirit ἐπίκλησις in the fourth-century. According to Terian’s analysis, Macarius of Jerusalem’s Letter to the Armenians is the response of bishops gathered in Jerusalem in 335 to the report of Armenian priests on baptismal, eucharistic, and hierarchy differences between what these Armenian priests practiced and what they observed in Jerusalem.11 that range from less than flattering to being “Origenists,” and 3) Camelot’s ‘Note sur la théologie baptismale des catéchèses attribuées à saint Cyrille de Jérusalem’ (1970) evaluation of Cyril’s baptismal theology as stated in the Catecheses and what is present in the Mystagogical Catecheses. 5 Day, The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem (2007), 94-6. 6 Ibid. 68, 111, 118-9. 7 Ibid. 103. 8 Ibid. 22. 9 Day, The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem (2007), 140. 10 This very dilemma handicaps Doval’s literary analysis: without Greek texts from John on similar topics, it is very difficult to use stylometric analysis to differentiate between their writings. See Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 243. 11 Terian, Macarius of Jerusalem (2008).

58

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, provided a response to the petition from Vrt’anēs, Chief-bishop of Armenia, requesting information on the Jerusalem practices which the Armenian priests delivered. The letter is addressed to Vrt’anēs and the clergy of Armenia and is from Macarius on behalf of the bishops gathered in Jerusalem. This letter had been attributed to the sixth century Macarius II of Jerusalem, but Terian demonstrates from multiple arguments that this text rightly belongs to Macarius I of Jerusalem, Cyril’s predecessor. Terian dates the visit of the Armenian clergy to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre’s dedication in 335, which coincides with the reaffirmation of the privileged status of the Archbishop of Jerusalem at the Council of Jerusalem.12 As noted by Day, conclusions regarding the use of this text must be cautious due to redactions in the manuscripts.13 Maxwell Johnson has summarized that Terian’s work challenges Day’s late dating of the Jerusalem baptismal liturgy since this letter from Macarius contains documentation of a rite “which is later described in the Mystagogical Catecheses, including a Romans 6 theology of baptism and both pre- and postbaptismal anointing, was already in existence at that time!”14 Terian’s recent work is not alone in providing additional information that is helpful in assessing whether aspects found in the Jerusalem liturgy either pre- or post-date Cyril’s episcopacy. As noted in the literature review in chapter one, John Abdelsayed has summarized the recent work that has been examining Egyptian sources for the Jerusalem liturgy. He has found that the ἐπίκλησις described in M5.7 is “virtually identical to the Egyptian tripartite request found in the Barcelona Papyrus, Louvain Papyrus, and Deir Balyzeh.” The Barcelona Papyrus is dated to approximately 350.15 Since both of these works were published after Day’s monograph, bringing them into the conversation with her argument against Cyrillian authorship updates the analysis of the state of the question regarding Cyrillian authorship from the history of liturgy perspective. 12 Ibid. 23, 44-62, 127. Terian demonstrates the earlier dating through supporting texts (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Egeria’s Travels, and the Pilgrim of Bordeaux’s Itinerarium Burdigalense), the debate about Arianism is couched in a way that by the sixth century would be anachronistic, archeological evidence, the early Syrian baptismal rite which is denounced, and liturgical use of the term μύρον (myron). Terian states that “[a]t the time of Macarius’ writings, as also when the document was translated into Armenian early in the fifth century, no distinction was yet made between the use of olive oil and the use of substitutes, usually blended oils in lands where olive oil was not available—a burning issue between the Byzantine and Armenian churches in post-Chalcedonian times (more so when the word myron was used by Armenians for their substituted, sanctified oil.).” He also notes that the first use of the term myron is found in Mystagogical Catecheses 3.2. 13 Day, ‘The Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem’, in Further Essays in Early Eastern Initiation (2014), 27. See Terian, Macarius of Jerusalem (2008), 43, 68, 71, and 73. 14 His emphasis. Johnson, ‘Review of The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalm’ (2008), 90. Furthermore, Johnson proposes that the lack of an institutional narrative in the anaphora in Mystagogic Catechesis 5 indicates a date prior to 397. See Johnson, ‘Baptismal Liturgy in Fourth-Century Jerusalem in Light of Recent Scholarship’, in Inquiries into Eastern Christian Worship (2008), 96-7. 15 Abdelsayed, ‘Liturgical Exodus in Reverse’ (2001), 146-7.

Chapter 2: History of Liturgy and Codicological Anlysis

59

Assessment of the Challenges to Cyrillian Authorship Based in the Liturgical Theology Perspective Using the work of Terian and Abdelsayed as well as further analysis of the text, each of Day’s last four points in her argument is addressed below. An Unexpected Change in Describing When the Holy Spirit is Received, the Omission of an Exhortation regarding the Spiritual Nature of the Baptismal Water, and the Use of a Spirit Ἐπίκλησις

Due to differences between the baptismal and the post-baptismal anointing rites reconstructed from the Catecheses and Mystagogic Catecheses, Day concludes that these two documents “testify to different initiatory rites, and that the latter was not in place in Jerusalem until the very last years of the fifth century at the earliest.”16 According to Day [w]hat distinguishes MC from Cats is that the immersion does not result in the reception of the Holy Spirit and thus any prayer over the water is highly unlikely to have included a specific epiklesis of Spirit alone. MC reserves the bestowal of the Holy Spirit to the post-immersion anointing and, interestingly, uses almost identical terms to warn the candidates about mistaking the nature of consecrated oil as those given in Cat 3.3 about the water; no such warnings about the water are given.17

At issue are 1) in the Mystagogic Catecheses, reception of the Holy Spirit is not at baptism, but during the post-baptismal anointing; 2) it is unlikely that a ἐπίκλησις of the Holy Spirit alone is used for consecrating the water; and 3) no warnings about the nature of the water is provided in the Mystagogic Catecheses. 1) With respect to Cyril’s statement in the Catecheses regarding when the Holy Spirit is received, the audience and purpose of the texts must be taken into account. Day states, “... Cyril hints strongly in this lecture (C3) that by the immersion the candidates receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” yet in the Mystagogic Catecheses the gift of the Holy Spirit is received not with baptism but with the post-baptismal anointing.18 As noted by Pamela Jackson, the development of Cyril’s exposition of the work of the Holy Spirit and its progressive revelation to his hearers takes into account the original audience’s increased knowledge and experience.19 Furthermore, as argued by Malesic, Cyril used secrecy as a pedagogical strategy: he used hints and allusions to

16

Day, The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem (2007), 134. Ibid. 82. 18 Ibid. 81. Emphasis is mine. 19 Jackson, ‘The Holy Spirit in the Catechesis and Mystagogy of Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, and John Chrysostom’ (1987), 205-9 analyzes the complex role that the Holy Spirit has in the life and transformation of Christians and the necessary unfolding of the progressive work of the Holy Spirit in their lives. 17

60

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

content that would be developed later as a means of keeping his listeners actively pursuing knowledge. This apparent discrepancy may simply be a case of Cyril choosing when to provide specifics, especially when considering that, as Day says, he hinted, not explicitly stated, that the Holy Spirit was received at the moment of baptism. More importantly, Cyril may not have perceived of the initiatory rites as completely distinct rites as we are wont to do, but a continuum of one sacred event: with baptism comes the gift of the Holy Spirit (M2.6), with the post-baptismal anointing comes anointing with the Holy Spirit (M3.1) and reception of the fellowship with the Holy Spirit (M3.3).20 2) While Day discusses the lack of explanation regarding the consecration of the water in the Mystagogic Catecheses, her main concern appears to be whether or not the ἐπίκλησις was Trinitarian or of the Spirit alone. In contrast to Day’s assessment, John McKenna takes the teaching on the ἐπίκλησις found in Mystagogic Catecheses to be “one of the most ancient and most complete witnesses to a socalled ‘consecratory’ Spirit epiclesis in the strict sense.”21 He states that in both M1 and M5, the invocation of the Holy Spirit alone, not the Trinity, effects the consecration of the eucharistic elements.22 In his more recent work, McKenna argues that “Cyril of Jerusalem ... witnesses to a stage where old and new, Epiclesis in the sense of the whole Canon as consecratory and ‘epiclesis’ in the strict sense (with an appeal for the Logos or Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood) stood side by side.”23 However, Day argues that advancements in the liturgy between the writing of the Catecheses and the Mystagogic Catecheses are indicated when examining the Trinitarian ἐπίκλησις in C3.3 in the light of the ἐπίκλησις of M3.3 which is addressed only to the Holy Spirit.24 By looking at all of Cyril’s twelve uses of ἐπίκλησις in the two texts, minor difficulties with both McKenna’s and Day’s assessments become evident. In these two texts, the explicit references to ἐπίκλησις are limited: of those that are in the context of a sacrament, two instances occur in the context of the prebaptismal anointing, two are in the context of baptism, two are in the context of the eucharist with reference to God, and three are in the context of table fellowship with demons or idols.25 The sacramental uses in which a divine person is named are summarized in Table 2-1. 20 For a detailed exploration of Cyril’s pneumatology in relationship to his sacramental theology, see Hawk-Reinhard, ‘The Role of the Holy Spirit in Cyril of Jerusalem’s Sacramental Theology’ (2017). 21 McKenna, Eucharist and Holy Spirit (1975), 54. 22 Ibid. 55-6. 23 McKenna, The Eucharistic Epiclesis (2009), 116. 24 Day, The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem (2007), 83. See also fn 6. 25 The other invocations either do not repeat who is invoked (M1.7 line 6 and M3.3 line 5), are invocations of demons (C3.3 line 10, M1.7 line 3, M1.7 line 9), or is an invocation of the name of Christ but not in a sacramental situation (C4.13 line 10).

Chapter 2: History of Liturgy and Codicological Anlysis

61

Table 2-1: Persons Called Upon in the ἐπίκλησις for Each of the Sacraments Sacrament

Catecheses

Pre-baptismal anointing

Baptism

Mystagogic Catecheses Name of God ἡ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπίκλησις (M2.3 line 9) God ἐπικλήσει Θεοῦ (M2.3 line 10)

Holy Spirit, Christ, and Father Πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Χριστοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς τὴν ἐπίκλησιν (C3.3 lines 11-12) grace ἡ τῆς χάριτος ἐπίκλησις (C3.12 line 2)

Post-baptismal anointing

No name provided in either instance (M3.3 line 5)

Eucharist

Holy and Worshipped Trinity τῆς ἁγίας ἐπικλήσεως τῆς προσκυνητῆς Τριάδος (M1.7 line 5) Holy Spirit τὴν ἐπίκλησιν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος (M3.3 line 2)

From Table 2-1, a pattern emerges: in M2, Cyril’s first description of the ἐπίκλησις for the pre-baptismal anointing is the more complete phrase (invocation of the name of God) which is then shortened in the next sentence to an invocation of God. In M1, the first reference to the eucharistic ἐπίκλησις is a prayer addressed to the Trinity and then the second reference, in M3, is to the Holy Spirit, whose work is the focus of M3.3. These apparent inconsistencies are, actually, abbreviated second or third reference to the prayer in which the first reference provides a more detailed description.26 In contrast to McKenna’s assessment, the ἐπίκλησις in M1 is Trinitarian, not Spirit only. This Trinitarian eucharistic ἐπίκλησις provides the context for the Spirit ἐπίκλησις of M3.3 and is the analogy to the baptismal ἐπίκλησις in 26

This is in contrast to Day, The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem (2007), 110, in which she argues that “the prayer over the myron [in the Mystagogic Catecheses) includes or consists of an epiklesis of the Holy Spirit alone ...”

62

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

C3.3 rather than the ἐπίκλησις of M3.3. Additional insight into the prayer and the activity of the Godhead is revealed in M5.7, which fits into McKenna’s description of “an appeal for the Logos or Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood.” Then, having sanctified ourselves through these spiritual hymns, we ask the benevolent God to send the Holy Spirit upon the gifts in order that he might make the bread [to be] the body of Christ, and the wine [to be] the blood of Christ, for whenever the Holy Spirit lays hold of them, he has sanctified and changed them.27

This Spirit ἐπίκλησις is, as demonstrated by Abdelsayed, in the tradition of Egyptian ἐπίκλησις. This Egyptian form provides an explanation for the hearers of the Mystagogic Catecheses on how to resolve any potential dissonance between the two earlier references to the eucharistic ἐπίκλησις in M1.7 and M3.3: the Holy Spirit does not act alone, but is sent by God to act.28 Additional support, while not as illustrative as the parallels with the Egyptian form of the eucharistic ἐπίκλησις, comes from Macarius’ description of the positioning of the table for the eucharist. The statement that “[t]he table of expiation is behind the veil, where the Holy Spirit descends; ...”29 provides historical context to Cyril’s second reference to the ἐπίκλησις for the eucharist in M3.3 as an invocation of the Holy Spirit (see Table 2-1, above) as well as Cyril’s statement in M5.7 that the Holy Spirit sanctifies and changes the bread and wine.30 While my analysis does not answer all of the questions about the dating of the eucharistic liturgy, it does provide support for dating the ἐπίκλησις in Mystagogic Catechesis 5 to within Cyril’s episcopacy. Furthermore, this Egyptian ἐπίκλησις provides a means to harmonize the ἐπίκλησις in M1.7 and M3.3. Finally, while a Spirit ἐπίκλησις does not appear to be present in the Catecheses, it is in concert with Cyril’s teachings on the work of the Holy Spirit, especially as presented in C17. As I discuss in chapter four, M5.7 contains a near parallel statement in C4.16 regarding the work of the Holy Spirit, which, with the two Trinitarian invocations of C3.3 and M1.7, is indicative of theological consistency rather than inconsistency. Since most scholars date the Catecheses to early in Cyril’s episcopacy at the latest, this parallel statement 27 M5.7 lines 1-6: Εἶτα ἁγιάσαντες ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τῶν πνευματικῶν τούτων ὕμνων, παρακαλοῦμεν τὸν φιλάνθρωπον Θεὸν τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα ἐξαποστεῖλαι ἐπὶ τὰ προκείμενα, ἵνα ποιήσῃ τὸν μὲν ἄρτον σῶμα Χριστοῦ, τὸν δὲ οἶνον αἷμα Χριστοῦ· παντὸς γὰρ οὗ ἐὰν ἐφάψηται τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, τοῦτο ἡγίασται καὶ μεταβέβληται. (For the discussion of the textual critical issue in this sentence, see chapter three.) 28 Whether this prayer is addressed to the Father alone or to the Trinity is not specified in the text. 29 Macarius, LArm 227:5, Terian, Macarius of Jerusalem (2008), 91. 30 Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 88-109 provides a more detailed comparative analysis of the ἐπίκλησις in the two works and argues that the “differences in circumstances” accounts for the differences between the theology of the ἐπίκλησις between the two texts. Furthermore, he argues that “the number and nature of the similarities and correspondences can be counted as a strong indication of common authorship.”

Chapter 2: History of Liturgy and Codicological Anlysis

63

provides additional support for an earlier dating of the Mystagogic Catecheses. Ultimately, it is important to remember McKenna’s assessment that “Cyril is not attempting to give a detailed commentary on each element in the anaphora.”31 Day’s desire to reconstruct the liturgy from a mystagogical text is admirable, but appears not to take into consideration that the text was not intended to be an instruction on the liturgy per se but rather an instruction on Christian identity for the newly baptized, an identity which is formed through the sacraments and informed by the liturgy. 3) With respect to the “warnings” regarding the water not being present in the Mystagogic Catecheses: as demonstrated in Table 2-2, Cyril does provide a “warning” for each of the sacramental elements, including the water, using nearly identical phrases (identical words are bolded, words in the same semantic range are underlined). However, as Day has noted, the exhortations about the water are only in the pre-baptismal catechesis. Table 2-2: Cyril’s Exhortations to Look beyond the Plain Physical Elements Text

Translation

C3.3 lines 7-12

Μὴ ὡς ὕδατι λιτῷ πρόσεχε τῷ λουτρῷ·ἀλλὰ τῇ μετὰ τοῦ ὕδατος δεδομένῃ πνευματικῇ χάριτι. Ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ τοῖς βωμοῖς προσφερόμενα, τῇ φύσει ὄντα λιτὰ, μεμολυσμένα γίγνεται τῇ ἐπικλήσει τῶν εἰδώλων· οὕτως ἀπεναντίας τὸ λιτὸν ὕδωρ Πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Χριστοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς τὴν ἐπίκλησιν λαβὸν, δύναμιν ἁγιότητος ἐπικτᾶται.

Do not be intent upon (μὴ προσέχω) the Laver (λουτρόν) as plain (λιτός) water but (rather consider) the spiritual grace which is given with the water. For just as the offerings on the altars, which are plain (λιτός) in nature, are defiled by the invocation (ἐπίκλησις) of idols, in the same way the plain (λιτός) water having received the invocation (ἐπίκλησις) of the Holy Spirit and Christ and the Father, acquires additional (ἐπικτάομαι) ability of sanctity (to sanctify).

C3.4 lines 6-8

Μέλλων τοίνυν εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ καταβαίνειν, μὴ τῷ ψιλῷ τοῦ ὕδατος πρόσεχε· ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐνεργείᾳ τὴν σωτηρίαν ἐκδέχου· ἄνευ γὰρ ἀμφοτέρων ἀδύνατόν σε τελειωθῆναι.

Do not be intent upon (μὴ προσέχω) the mere (ψιλός) water, but (look) to receive from the Holy Spirit the supernatural work of salvation, for without both it is impossible for you to be perfected.

31

McKenna, Eucharist and Holy Spirit (1975), 57.

64

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 2-2 (continued) Text

Translation

M3.3 lines 1-7

Ἀλλ’ ὅρα μὴ ὑπονοήσῃς ἐκεῖνο τὸ μύρον ψιλὸν εἶναι. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ ἄρτος τῆς εὐχαριστίας, μετὰ τὴν ἐπίκλησιν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, οὐκ ἔτι ἄρτος λιτός, ἀλλὰ σῶμα Χριστοῦ, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἅγιον τοῦτο μύρον οὐκ ἔτι ψιλόν, οὐδ’ ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις κοινὸν μετ’ ἐπικλήσεως, ἀλλὰ Χριστοῦ χάρισμα, καὶ Πνεύματος ἁγίου παρουσίας τῆς αὐτοῦ θεότητος ἐνεργητικὸν γινόμενον.

But see that you do not suppose (μὴ ὑπονοέω) that this myron is mere (ψιλός) [ointment]. For just as the bread of the eucharist, with the invocation (ἐπίκλησις) of the Holy Spirit, is not still plain (λιτός) bread, but the body of Christ, also in the same way this holy myron [is] no longer plain (λιτός) [ointment], nor (as might be said) common after the invocation (ἐπίκλησις), but the gift of Christ (Χριστοῦ χάρισμα), and by the presence of the Holy Spirit becomes efficacious by his divine nature.

M4.6 lines 1-2

Μὴ πρόσεχε οὖν ὡς ψιλοῖς τῷ ἄρτῳ καὶ τῷ οἴνῳ σῶμα γὰρ καὶ αἷμα κατὰ τὴν δεσποτικὴν τυγχάνει ἀπόφασιν.

Therefore, do not be intent upon (μὴ προσέχω) the bread and wine as mere (ψιλός) [bread and wine], for they are the body and blood according to imperial decree.

Thus, while the exhortation about the baptismal water is not present in the Mystagogic Catecheses, the exhortations in M3 and M4 are clearly echoes of the rhetorical pattern presented in C3. A lack of repetition of these instructions in M2 is most likely linked to the lack of discussion of the ἐπίκλησις for consecrating the water which, in turn, may be simply due to Cyril’s pedagogical strategy. The Presence of Distinct Pre- and Post-Baptismal Anointings With respect to the presence of a pre-baptismal and a post-baptismal anointing, Macarius’ Letter provides details that demonstrate that, at least in Jerusalem in 335, two different oils were used for two separate types of anointings. The “oil of sealing,” which Terian argues is also called the “oil of anointing” and the “oil of holiness” in Macarius’ Letter,32 was used to anoint the sensory organs of the newly baptized, the “infants.” The other oil, which could be consecrated by clergy other than the chief-bishop, was used for anointing the sick, dead,

32

Terian, Macarius of Jerusalem (2008), 104.

Chapter 2: History of Liturgy and Codicological Anlysis

65

and “those to be baptized.” The types of oils have been marked in bold in Table 2-3. Table 2-3: Anointing Oils and Their Purposes According to Macarius

LArm 218.12-219.933

LArm 225.9-226.2 34

Text

Analysis

Upon seeing the very careful ordering of the life-giving baptism in the Holy City, they were amazed with astonishment that the regions of the East are wanting in carefulness in many such matters. ... And bishops and priests independently hallow the oil of anointing. And since they do not have sufficient oil of sealing, which is from the Apostles and kept here, they do not anoint the infant’s entire organs of sense.

The oil of anointing is not to be blessed independently by bishops and priests.

... the laying on of hands in holy baptism is for bishops and priests alone to administer, and the chief-bishop (alone) shall bless the oil of holiness. But by reason of distance and weighty circumstances, at the command of the archbishop, two or three bishops may meet together (to bless it). As for deacons, they are attendants to the sacrament. And the oil of anointing for the dead and the sick and for those to be baptized, the priests and the bishops shall individually bless.

The chief-bishop alone blesses the oil of holiness.

The oil of sealing is used to anoint the sense organs.

The bishops and priests independently bless the oil of anointing the dead, sick, and those to be baptized.

Thus, while Day posits that pre-immersion anointing is not attested explicitly in other Palestinian sources, the Letter to the Armenians makes just such a claim: a specific oil, which was consecrated differently than the “oil of sealing” used to anoint the senses, was used to anoint “those to be baptized.” This

33 34

Ibid. 79. Ibid. 89.

66

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

evidence does not provide liturgical details of the pre-baptismal anointing or the length of time between the anointing and immersion, but it does indicate that two separate anointings, one before and one after baptism, with different oils used in the two anointings, was practiced in Jerusalem the year that Cyril was ordained as a deacon. In Table 2-4, excerpts from the Letter to the Armenians are compared with excerpts from the Mystagogic Catecheses with the descriptions of the oils in bold and, for the post-baptismal anointing, the parts of the body which are anointed are underlined. Table 2-4: Comparison of Use of Oils Macarius, LArm35 Pre-baptismal anointing

226.1-2... “And the oil of anointing for the dead and the sick and for those to be baptized, the priests and the bishops shall individually bless.”

Post-baptismal anointing

219.4-6 “And bishops and priests independently hallow the oil of anointing. And since they do not have sufficient oil of sealing, which is from the Apostles and kept here, they do not anoint the infant’s entire organs of sense.”

35

Mystagogic Catecheses M2.3 lines 1-2 Next you were stripped, anointed with the exorcised oil from the top of the hairs on your forehead to the lowest (feet)36...

M3.3 lines 4, 7-10... and this holy myron37 is not a plain (ointment) ... Which is symbolically smeared upon your forehead and the other sense organs. And while your body is smeared with the visible myron, your soul is sanctified by the 223.9-11 “And thus when we lay Holy and lifegiving Spirit.38 hands with right confession of faith, the Holy Spirit is bestowed for our salvation, illuminating those who are called to adoption; and in faith we are anointed with the oil of holiness.”

Ibid. 79, 87. M2.3 lines 1-2: Εἶτα ἀποδυθέντες, ἐλαίῳ ἠλείφεσθε ἐπορκιστῷ ἀπ’ ἄκρων κορυφῆς τριχῶν ἕως τῶν κατωτάτων, .... 37 All nine instances of μύρον in the Jerusalem Catechesis are found in M3. 38 M3.3 lines 4, 7-10: οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἅγιον τοῦτο μύρον οὐκ ἔτι ψιλόν ...Ὅπερ συμβολικῶς ἐπὶ μετώπου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων σου χρίεται αἰσθητηρίων. Καὶ τῷ μὲν φαινομένῳ μύρῳ τὸ σῶμα χρίεται, τῷ δὲ ἁγίῳ καὶ ζωοποιῷ Πνεύματι ἡ ψυχὴ ἁγιάζεται. 36

Chapter 2: History of Liturgy and Codicological Anlysis

67

Macarius states that the practice is from the ruling of the holy fathers with associated anathemas for those who violate the ecclesiastical order of which clergy can baptize, which clergy can anoint, and which clergy can bless the oil of anointing.39 While, as Day has pointed out, this practice is not well documented, Macarius’ argument demonstrates that, at a minimum, he considered this practice to be normative within the Jerusalem See. How widespread this practice was, is still a question. Johnson points to three parallels, with a potential fourth, to this portion of the Letter of Macarius: the Canons of Hippolytus (from the 330s), Sarapion’s Prayer 16 (dated to the 350s), and the so-called Apostolic Constitutions (Book VII.22, dated from the 380s) as well as Day’s discussion of possible parallel ritual of sealing with the holy Chrism for the reception of the Holy Spirit in the receiving of heretics at Constantinople as found in the The Life of Porphyrius.40 If this portion of Macarius’s Letter has not been redacted, it provides additional insight into the practice of the postbaptismal anointing in Jerusalem prior to Cyril’s episcopacy. The Interrogatory Formula Prior to Baptism Day concludes that “[t]here is no implication that the interrogation in Jerusalem was creedal, and we have concluded that the candidates were asked to assent to their faith in each person of the Trinity by a simple response.”41 With respect to whether or not there was an interrogatory formula prior to baptism, Macarius states that through baptism forgiveness of sins and salvation of souls are granted out of the grace of the Spirit to those who are baptized in the holy font. And the Holy Spirit does not despise those who yearn for piety, but, bending low, descends and sanctifies through right confession of faith (and) by means of the water of the holy font.42

Terian notes that the “right confession of faith” could refer to either “the short trinitarian baptismal confessions … or the Nicene Creed.”43 Based upon this text, the baptizand’s confession of faith took place prior to the rite, indicating that confession of the faith was part of the Jerusalem tradition prior to Cyril’s

39 Macarius, LArm 225.3-226.4; Terian, Macarius of Jerusalem (2008), 87-9. In particular, in lines 2-4, Macarius wrote: “This our holy Fathers ruled, and let no one decree to change the rule rightly laid down, lest the binding of their anathemas be upon him, which shall be determined by God.” 40 Johnson, ‘Baptismal Liturgy in Fourth-Century Jerusalem in Light of Recent Studies’, in Inquiries into Eastern Christian Worship (2008), 87, 91-4, referring to Day, The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem (2007), 28-9. Day argues that the ritual for the reception of heretics does not provide proof for the baptismal liturgy. 41 Day, The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem (2007), 103. 42 Macarius, LArm 220.3-7, 79. 43 Ibid. 110.

68

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

ordination as a priest. The descriptions in the Mystagogic Catecheses are more explicit: prior to immersion, those to be baptized confessed belief in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (M2.4) and in baptism for the remission of sin (M1.9). At issue for Day is whether or not, based upon the Mystagogic Catecheses, the baptismal liturgy contained both a declaratory formula as well as an interrogatory formula.44 Her support for the declatory formula is based upon C16.4 and C16.19 in which she states that Cyril “hints at the recitation of a Trinitarian formula to accompany the immersion.”45 Her focus is on whether or not the recitation occurs “when being immersed”46 and who said the formula. Macarius’ text, as translated, does not provide sufficient information to resolve the question of exactly when and how much of the creed that the baptizand confessed, but the focus is clearly on the baptizand making a profession of faith. Must the “Distinctive Sacramental Theology of the Mystagogic Catecheses” be Attributed to a Different Author than the Author of the Catecheses? With respect to her fourth point, that “the distinctive sacramental theology of [the Mystagogic Catecheses] cannot be convincingly ascribed to Cyril’s evolving thought process and it would appear to demonstrate later composition by a different author,” the Letter to the Armenians settles this concern. Terian posits that 1) the Jerusalem church had a tradition of catechesis prior to Cyril’s advancement to the episcopate in 348, and 2) that parallels between the sacramental theology in Macarius’ Letter to the Armenians and the Mystagogic Catecheses can be attributed to Cyril’s upbringing in the Jerusalem church and subsequent service in the diaconate under Macarius.47 As summarized by Terian, “[o]ne can only surmise as to how much of Cyril’s catechesis is received tradition.”48 In particular, while Day notes that Cyril does exegete Romans 6 in Catechesis 3,49 she is concerned with the theology of baptism and post-baptismal anointing that are based upon Romans 6,50 which she found in the neighboring provinces at later dates.51 Johnson has found an earlier source of a Romans 6 baptismal theology that could have been accessible to the Jerusalem bishops: Origen is the first and, to [Johnson’s] knowledge, only Eastern theologian to refer to the text of Romans 6 in relationship to Christian baptism in the first four centuries. ... 44

Day, The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem (2007), 102. Ibid. 94. Emphasis is mine. 46 Ibid. 95. 47 Terian, Macarius of Jerusalem (2008), 112 and 122. 48 Ibid. 122. See also 159 fn 27. 49 Day, ‘The Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem’, in Further Essays in Early Eastern Initation (2014), 30. 50 See her discussion in Day, ‘The Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem’, in Further Essays in Early Eastern Initation (2014), 31. 51 Day, The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem (2007), 12. 45

Chapter 2: History of Liturgy and Codicological Anlysis

69

what Origen does theologically is to combine the traditional emphasis on the dominant event in Jesus’ baptism with the theology of Romans 6. But even in doing so, the Jordan itself, both as baptism and symbol for Christ himself, remains a primary model in his overall approach.52

Given the connections between Alexandria and Jerusalem, and especially, as Johnson states, Origen’s influence on Greek patristic theology, finding influences of Origen’s work in the “fourth-century rediscovery of this orientation in the initiation and practice throughout the Christian East” would not be unexpected.53 To this early third-century Alexandrian witness is added the early fourthcentury Jerusalem witness: it appears that the earliest evidence of Romans 6 baptismal theology in the Jerusalem liturgy dates, not from the Mystagogic Catecheses, but, in The Letter to the Armenians. According to Terian, While this notion [“of baptism as participation in Christ’s death (burial and resurrection …)”] was commonplace in the early churches in the West, it was not as common in the churches in the East, where the font and water were perceived more as a womb or an embryonic sack … The Letter shows that the two notions were part of the baptismal theology of the Jerusalem Church before Cyril, but that it remained for the latter to articulate them in his exceptional way.”54

Cyril’s use of Rom 6:5 is clearly indicated in C3.12, as demonstrated in Table 2-5. Table 2-5: Cyril’s Quotation from Rom 6:5 in Catechesis 3.12 NA 28

C3.12 lines 4-6

εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόμεθα.

Εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτος ἐγένου τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ Σωτῆρος, καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως καταξιωθήσῃ.

For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, certainly we will be [planted together] in the resurrection.

For if you have been planted together in the likeness of the Savior’s death, you are also worthy of resurrection.

Having demonstrated Cyril’s quotation in his earlier text, the comparison between this citation and the application of this citation in the Jerusalem baptismal liturgy can be shown by comparing a section from Macarius’ Letter to 52 Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation (2007), 64-5. Emphasis are his. See also Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church (2009), 414-26. 53 Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation (2007), 65. 54 Terian, Macarius of Jerusalem (2008), 123.

70

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

the Armenians with excerpts from Mystagogic Catecheses 2. In Table 2-6, I indicate similarities between the three passages: the bolded text highlights the likeness of Christ’s death, the three days in the tomb, the single underline emphasizes the concept of imitation through the ritual immersion, and the double underline indicates the concept of resurrection. This demonstrates that the baptismal theology of Macarius from 335, which is based in Rom 6:5, is found in both the Catecheses as well as the Mystagogic Catecheses. Table 2-6: Comparison of the Use of Rom 6:5 in Macarius’ and Cyril’s Texts The Letter to the Armenians

Catecheses

Mystagogic Catecheses

223.4-9: “And by the triple immersion, being buried in the water of the holy font, we signify in the persons of those who are being baptized the three-day burial of the Lord. And this also the divine Apostle shows clearly, when he says: ‘We were buried with him through baptism; let us (therefore) become imitators of the likeness of his death, so that by the renewal of the resurrection we may become partakers of him in the life eternal.”55

3.12 lines 4-6: For if you have been planted together in the likeness of the Savior’s death, you are also worthy of resurrection.

M2.4 lines 3-7: And each one was asked if you believe in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And you confessed the saving profession, and went down three times into the water and came up again, and herein hinting through symbol the three days of Christ’s burial.56 M2.5 lines 1-3: O strange and incredible deed! We did not truly die, nor were we truly buried, nor truly crucified [and] raised again, but in image [is] the imitation and, in truth [is] salvation.57

This analysis demonstrates that the aspects of Cyril’s baptismal theology which are based in a liturgical application of Rom 6:5 are not innovative, but continue the 55

Terian, Macarius of Jerusalem (2008), 85. M2.4 lines 3-7: Καὶ ἠρωτᾶτο ἕκαστος εἰ πιστεύει εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρός, καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος. Καὶ ὡμολογεῖτε τὴν σωτήριον ὁμολογίαν, καὶ κατεδύετε τρίτον εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ πάλιν ἀνεδύετε, καὶ ἐνταῦθα διὰ συμβόλου τὴν τριήμερον τοῦ Χριστοῦ αἰνιττόμενοι ταφήν. 57 M2.5 lines 1-3: Ὢ ξένου καὶ παραδόξου πράγματος· οὐκ ἀληθῶς ἀπεθάνομεν, οὐδ’ ἀληθῶς ἐτάφημεν, οὐδ’ ἀληθῶς σταυρωθέντες ἀνέστημεν, ἀλλ’ ἐν εἰκόνι ἡ μίμησις, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ δὲ ἡ σωτηρία. 56

Chapter 2: History of Liturgy and Codicological Anlysis

71

tradition of the bishop who ordained him. In agreement with Terian, in light of the above analysis, Day’s challenge to Cyrillian authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses on this count “is to be dismissed in the light of The Letter of Macarius …”58 Was Cyril of Jerusalem a Liturgical Innovator or a Synthesizer of the Jerusalem Liturgy? The argument against Cyrillian authorship based upon continuity between the texts rests in the literary and theological differences between the Catecheses and the Mystagogic Catecheses. Day has provided the most recent summary of the argument against Cyrillian authorship. She questions whether “the distinctions between Catecheses and Mystagogic Catecheses which Camelot exposed [can] be explained by ‘a development of thought such as would be expected over several decades of a man’s life’” as proposed by Yarnold.59 She continues: Yarnold’s exploration of the sacramental theology of both noted the similarities: they both make a distinction between ‘figure and reality’; they both expound the ‘double sacramental effect’ on body and soul; they both have ‘epiklesis theology;’ they both connect Christian baptism to Christ’s in the Jordan. There are though some significant differences: in Cats ‘figure and reality’ refer to Old Testament ‘types’ and Christ, whereas in MC the type is Christ, the ‘anti-type’ the candidate’s experience; as Camelot has shown, the ‘double sacramental effect’ in Cats is produced by parallelism, whereas in MC it is by imitation; the epiclesis theology of MC is much more explicit; and, although in MC there is reference to the Jordan event, the primary Christological model is the death and resurrection of Christ.60

While the differences in Cyril’s use of “types” and “anti-types” and “double sacramental effect” can be explained as pedagogical and contextual differences, these subjects will be treated in detail in chapter six. The differences in ἐπίκλησις formulations have been addressed above and demonstrated to follow a consistent pattern of providing a more robust formulation followed by an abbreviated formula. Day concludes her argument against Cyrillian authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses by stating that Cyril’s “contemporaries did not know him as a theologian and given the innovative sacramental theology of MC it seems increasingly unlikely that MC are the product of a lifetime’s theological reflection, but rather that of a different mind.”61 Day states that … Cyril’s reputation was preserved in Jerome’s De viris illustribus as an author of (unspecified) catechetical lectures, and by the Council of Constantinople (381) as someone who had battled against the Arians. His contemporaries did not know him as a theologian and given the innovative sacramental theology of [the Mystagogic 58 59 60 61

Terian, Macarius of Jerusalem (2008), 48-9, fn 96. Day, The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem (2007), 16-21. Ibid. 21. Ibid.

72

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Catecheses] it seems increasingly unlikely that [the Mystagogic Catecheses] are the product of a lifetime theological reflection, but rather that of a different mind.62

At issue in this statement are two concepts: 1) whether the author of the Mystagogic Catecheses produced an innovative text63 or, as asserted by Terian, transmitted the tradition faithfully,64 and 2) whether a bishop who wrote catechetical lectures and battled against the Arians is a theologian. Since we do not have catechetical materials from Macarius, it is not possible to evaluate how much of Cyril’s text is synthesis, but it is clear that major parts of the tradition that he described and which has been contested in the secondary literature was actually already in place before Cyril’s ordination to the diaconate. Arguably, synthesis, especially for the sake of teaching others, is a form of innovation.65 The second concept at issue is what constituted a “theologian” in the late fourth century. It appears that Day may be making a distinction between ecclesiastical authority and status as a theologian which would be foreign to fourth century Christians. Furthermore, recent scholarship has indicated that Cyril’s theology of the Holy Spirit and his theology of angels were both innovative; innovation in two areas may be an indication of innovation in other areas of theology as well.66 62

Ibid. Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (1945), 124, 171. See also Malesic’s argument in Secret Faith in the Public Square (2009), 35-74 in which he says that “… Cyril’s genius was in his ability to use the discipline of the secret to accomplish theological, pedagogical, political, and managerial purposes.” 64 This position has also been argued by Atchley in his essay ‘The Epiclesis’ (1921), 95. If, as Atchley has argued, the Mystagogic Catecheses was from 347-348 when Cyril was a junior presbyter, then Cyril would not have innovated (and certainly not to the newly baptized) but would have presented the Jerusalem tradition. 65 Cyril was canonized by the Eastern Church in the fifth century. Cyril was declared a Doctor of the Church in 1883 by Pope Leo XIII specifically for the enduring work that he accomplished as a catechist as well as his defense of the faith. However, many modern scholars do not consider Cyril to “belong to the major league of late-antique Fathers.” Rather, some, like Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem (2004), xiv, 48 consider Cyril to be a great teacher and crafter of the liturgy as well as an ambitious politician, but not a major theologian. Yet, as Drijvers also notes, “he was the only fourth-century bishop of Jerusalem who earned a reputation as an ecclesiastical writer.” 66 Stramara, ‘The Angelology of Cyril of Jerusalem as Source for Pseudo-Dionysius’ Celestial Hierarchy’ (2009), 11 notes, with regards to Cyril’s angelology, that since “[t]hroughout his sermons Cyril laments his need for brevity, thus one should not expect a theological treatise on the subject.” In this article, Stramara argues for a Cyrillian foundation for Pseudo-Dionysius’ Celestial Hierarchy. Jackson, ‘Cyril of Jerusalem’s Treatment of Scriptural Texts Concerning the Holy Spirit’ (1991), 30 provides a detailed analysis of Cyril’s theology of the Holy Spirit and states that “while it is true that Cyril’s teaching on the Holy Spirit does not go beyond what may be found in Scripture, this does not mean that there is nothing to be learned from his catecheses concerning how the understanding of the Holy Spirit was developing in the mid-fourth century.” Day, ‘Cyril of Jerusalem on the Holy Spirit’, in The Holy Spirit in the Fathers of the Church (2010), 85 also has recently commented on how scholarship has overlooked Cyril’s pneumatology. 63

Chapter 2: History of Liturgy and Codicological Anlysis

73

Authorship Information from Codicological Analysis As described in the introduction to this section, confidence in the authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses requires not only addressing the issues raised from the study of liturgical history, but also addressing the attribution of authorship that is found in the manuscripts themselves. In this section, I examine the external evidence presented through how and with what other manuscripts the Mystagogic Catecheses were collated. First, however, I provide a summary of the manuscript tradition. Description of the Manuscript Tradition Piédnagel has established the critical edition’s text from the ten extant Greek witnesses which he has classified into three families. Alexis Doval has noted that two of the manuscripts in Piédnagel’s tradition β have an influence from family α that is not present in the rest of family β. These two manuscripts will be treated as a sub-family of tradition β, denoted as β+.67 Table 2-7 summarizes the manuscripts in the stemma, arranged by family, and distinguishes the texts that are within the sub-family β+. The letters in brackets next to each codex are Piédnagel’s sigla that will be used in the reproduction of the diagram of his stemma. Table 2-7: Manuscripts in Piédnagel’s Stemma Family α

β

Manuscript

Date (century)

Locations

Monacensis gr. 394 [A]

10

Munich, Bibl. Nat.

NeapolitanusVinobonensis gr. 8 [B]

11

Naples, Bibl. Nat., Vindobonensis, Suppl. gr. 61

Bodleianus Roe 25 [D]

11

Oxford, Bodleian Library; fonds Roe

Coislinianus 227 [C]

11

Paris, Bibl. Nat.; fonds Coislin

Vindobonensis 55 [F]

11?68

Vienna, Bibl. Nat.

67 I agree with Doval’s analysis that the stemma has a sub-family within family β that requires additional attention so that text-critical and codicological analyses are not biased toward family α unintentionally. Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 59-60. 68 Piédnagel lists this manuscript with a question on the dating. Piédnagel (ed.), Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 55.

74

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 2-7 (continued) Family β+

γ

Manuscript

Date (century)

Locations

Marcianus gr. II.35 [H]

11

Venice, Bibl. Saint-Mark

Ottobonianus gr. 220 [I]

16-17

Rome, Vatican Library Ottoboni gr.

Ottobonianus gr. 86 [K]

10 or 11

Rome, Vatican Library; Ottoboni gr.

Ottobonianus gr. 446 [L] 15

Rome, Vatican Library Ottoboni gr.

Monacensis gr. 278 [M]

Munich, Bibl. Nat.

16

Piédnagel has proposed an open recension, tripartite stemma with the third hyparchetype, γ, formed from the horizontal transmission between the primary hyparchetypes α and β, with family γ closer to family α than β. Family α is based on the tenth century Monacensis gr. 394 and the fragmentary, eleventh century Neapolitanus-Vinobonensis gr. 8. Piédnagel describes family β as comprised of five manuscripts. However, his stemma indicates that within this family there is an unnamed archetype which is the source for eleventh century Bodleianus Roe 25 and a second unnamed archetype which, due to horizontal transmission of family α, is the source for the mostly eleventh to twelfth century Marcianus gr. II.3569 and sixteenth-seventeenth century Ottobonianus gr. 220. As noted above, these two manuscripts will be referred to as a sub-family of tradition β, denoted as β+. Thus, the manuscripts of family β that were not influenced by family α are the eleventh century manuscripts Coislinianus 227, Vindobonensis 55, and Bodleianus Roe 25. Family γ contains the three manuscripts that are closest to family α but influenced by family β: tenth or eleventh century Ottobonianus gr. 86, fifteenth century Ottobonianus gr. 446, and sixteenth century Monacensis gr. 278.70 Figure 2-1 is a slightly modified reproduction of Piédnagel’s stemma, indicating sub-family β+.71

69 This manuscript is primarily eleventh to twelfth century, but is sixteenth century near the end. The manuscript portion that is under consideration for the text-critical issue of this essay is from the older, parchment section. Ibid. 56. 70 Ibid. 52-58. 71 See ibid. 59.

Chapter 2: History of Liturgy and Codicological Anlysis

75

Figure 2-1: Piednagel's stemma, modified to indicate sub-family β+

Analysis of Codicological Information In his discussion of the codicological support for Cyrillian authorship, Piédnagel notes that in five codices, the scribes seem to consider Cyril as the author of the Mystagogical Catecheses.72 However, Piédnagel does not thoroughly evaluate the order of texts within the codices nor the other authors 72 Bodleianus Roe 25, Vindobonensis 55, Coislinianus 227, Marcianus gr. II.35, Ottobonianus 220 Piédnagel (ed.), Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 28-9.

76

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

within the codices in his analysis.73 I contend that by examining both the order of texts and whether or not texts by other authors were included in the codices provides additional support that Mystagogical Catecheses were, at the time the codices were put together, considered by the compilers to be Cyril’s work. Both Piédnagel and Doval provide a brief description of the codices that contain the Mystagogic Catecheses. From Piédnagel’s descriptions, it is possible to evaluate which other texts were bound with the Mystagogic Catecheses and the order of these works within each codex. In order to evaluate the information about authorship provided from the codices, I first examine the order in which the Cyrillian texts are bound within each codex. A consistent ordering of the texts in their pedagogical order of Procatechesis, Catecheses, and Mystagogic Catecheses is an indication that the texts were understood as a unit with a specific order of presentation. Second, I evaluate those codices with lists of works as part of the codex to determine if authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses is explicitly stated in these tables of context. Third, I rate the information gleaned from each codex as strong, moderate, and weak implications of Cyrillian authorship. The category of “strong implications” for Cyrillian authorship is assigned to codices which contain other undisputed works by Cyril, Cyril is named as author, and works by other authors are not included in the codex. “Moderate implication” for Cyrillian authorship is assigned to codices with other undisputed texts by Cyril yet contain no explicit association of Cyril’s name with the Mystagogic Catecheses. “Weakest implication” for Cyrillian authorship is assigned to codices without Cyril’s name explicitly associated with the Mystagogic Catecheses, not all of Cyril’s works are included in the codex, and works by other authors are contained within the codex. Fourth, the codices with works by more than one author are examined to see if the scribes started the works by a different author on a new folio and, if so, whether they started the works by Cyril on new folios. Collection of all of Cyril’s works in the codex, without works by other authors interspersed, and the Cyrillian works separated from other author’s texts by a space in the foliation are assessed as indications of implicit recognition of Cyrillian authorship of the texts without explicit authorial attribution. Examining the Arrangement of Cyril’s Works within the Codices According to Piédnagel, of the ten manuscripts of the Mystagogic Catecheses, seven are circulated with both Cyril’s Procatechesis and Catecheses, while the other three are bound with the Catecheses. The order of the manuscripts within the codices, with only one exception, is always in the order of the historical

73

Ibid. 21-3.

77

Chapter 2: History of Liturgy and Codicological Anlysis

presentation: first the Procatechesis, if it is in the codex, then the Catecheses, followed by the Mystagogic Catecheses. Consequentially, the texts are presented as a unit, beginning with the introductory Procatechesis, then the prebaptismal Catecheses followed by the post-baptismal Mystagogic Catecheses. The exception is Marcianus gr. II.35 in which the last three Mystagogic Catecheses follow the Catecheses, followed by the scholion, the Letter to Constantius and finally the first two Mystagogic Catecheses.74 Five of the codices also contain Cyril’s Letter to Constantius, which always follows the fifth mystagogical lecture, even in the case of Marcianus gr. II. 35. In the three manuscripts that have a scholion at the end of the Mystagogic Catecheses, the scholion is between the fifth mystagogical lecture and the Letter to Constantius.75 Thus, the codices demonstrate a consistent ordering of not only the Jerusalem catechetical texts, but also a consistent ordering of these texts when they are in combination with Cyril’s two other uncontested works. Thus, this consistent order—the Mystagogic Catecheses between the undisputed works of the pre-baptismal catechesis and the Letter to Constantius— possibly indicates that the community using the texts assumed that these texts were by the same author. Table 2-8 provides a summary of these observations. In this table and the next, under Cyrillian works, L represents the Letter to Constantius and H denotes the Homily on the Paralytic. As is demonstrated in Table 2-8, half of the codices contain only the Mystagogic Catecheses and Cyril’s undisputed works, with one codex containing even Cyril’s Homily on the Paralytic, providing a codex with Cyril’s entire corpus. Table 2-8: Foliation of Cyrillian Texts76 Family

α

74

Manuscript

folios

Procatechesis and Catecheses

Mystagogic Catecheses

Other Cyrillian Works

Monacensis gr. 394 [A]

261

1-198v P, C, followed by scholion

199r – 212v ends at M5.17

—

NeapolitanusVindobonensis 8 [B]

170

87-166v P, C

167r-170v77 incomplete

—

Ibid. 51-7. Ibid. 76 Ibid. 52-7. In Bodleianus Roe 25, Piédnagel lists the Mystagogic Catecheses beginning on folio 201 when it actually begins on folio 200. 77 This manuscript has been damaged. It begins with M1, 1, line 13 and continues to 168v. M2 is complete, but M3 ends at M3, 4 line 4. Ibid., 53. 75

78

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 2-8 (continued) Family

β

Manuscript

folios

Procatechesis and Catecheses

Bodleianus Roe 25 (ol. 271) [D]

223

1-200r P, C

200r-215r

215r-217v: L 217v -223v: H

Coislinianus 227 (ol. 101) [C]

230

1-218v C

218v-230

—

Vindobonensis 55 [F]

249

155r-245 C

245v-249v incomplete78

—

Marcianus gr. II.3579 [H]

189

4-175: P, C

175v-176v: M3 176v-178r: M4 178r-181v: M5

181v-182r: scholion

β+

γ

Mystagogic Catecheses

Other Cyrillian Works

182r-184r: L 184v-186v: M1 186v-189r: M2

Ottobonianus 220 [I]

173

1-158r: P, C 170r: scholion

158v-169v80

170-173: L

Ottobonianus 86 [K]

232

1-190r incomplete P

190v-206r

206-209r: L

Ottobonianus 446 [L]

273

1-189r: P, C

189-204r

204v-208: L

Monacensis gr. 278 [M]

473

1-433v: C

433v-468r

468r-473: L

Codices with Lists of Works Three codices have lists of works: 1) in I (Ottobonianus 220), all three of the catechetical works have Cyril of Jerusalem listed as the author for each work in the table of contents, which provides the only explicit evidence for Cyril as author of the Mystagogic Catecheses.81 2) In L (Ottobonianus 446), the table of contents is only for the Catecheses, which are attributed to Cyril, and 3) in A (Monacensis 394), the table of contents does not provide an author for the Procatechesis and Catecheses on folios 1-2r, but on 2v, John of Jerusalem is named as the author of the Mystagogic Catecheses.82 Thus, the data from the table of contents provide 78

Ends with M5, 6 lines 7-8. Ibid., 55. Piédnagel notes that the same hand or a contemporary wrote M1, but there is a change in hand, which dates to the seventeenth century in M2. 80 Missing text: M2, 6, line 2 to the end; M5, 7, line 1 to 16 line 12. 81 The Mystagogical Lectures are preceded by a note: πίναξ τῶν πρὸς τοὺς νεοφωτίστους μυσταγωγικῶν κατηχήσεων Κυρίλλου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἰεροσολύμων· εἴσι μυσταγωγίαι ε΄. Ibid. 57. 82 Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 245-51. 79

Chapter 2: History of Liturgy and Codicological Anlysis

79

explicit evidence for both Cyril as author and John as author, although the evidence for John as author is in the same codex where John was listed as the only author in the manuscript under investigation, family α’s Monacensis 394. Manuscripts without Explicit Authorial Attribution The manuscripts without explicit authorial attribution associated with the Mystagogic Catechesis can be ranked according to the implied authorship into three groups, from the weakest implication to the strongest. (1) The weakest implication of Cyril’s authorship is assigned to one codex which has only catechetical works for the Cyrillian texts, Cyril’s name is not explicitly found in the codex, and other texts are in the codex, B (Neapolitanus-Vinobonensis gr 8) from family α. A slightly stronger, but still weak implication for Cyrillian authorship is manuscript C (Coislinianus 227 ), which contains only the pre-baptismal Catechesis and the Mystagogic Catechesis. Without a name associated with the text, the argument for Cyrillian authorship is, like for B, ex silencio, which, by itself, could be argued as a strong case for the same author in the text in C. (2) Moderate implication supporting Cyril’s authorship is found in three codices which contain other undisputed works by Cyril with the catechetical lectures but none has Cyril’s name explicitly in the codex. Of these, one codex from family γ, L (Ottobonianus gr. 446) contains works by other authors. The other two codices—M (Monacensis gr. 278), also from family γ and H (Marcianus gr. II.35) from family β+ —do not contain works by other authors. (3) The strongest implication of Cyril’s authorship is found in three codices which contain other undisputed works by Cyril and Cyril is named as author at the beginning of the first or second catechetical work in the codex. Of these three codices, two—D (Bodleianus Roe 25) from family β and K (Ottobonianus gr. 86) from family γ—contain only Cyrillian works, with D as the only codex that contains the complete Cyrillian corpus. K from family γ contains another work. An examination of D provided additional codicological information. In Bodleianus Roe 25, Cyril is explicitly named in three of the five texts: the Procatechesis, the Catecheses, and the Letter to Constantius. Due to the ordering of the texts in this codex, the Mystagogic Catecheses is between two texts which explicitly attribute authorship to Cyril of Jerusalem. While decorative borders and red lettered introductions separate each text within the codex, with each Catechesis and Mystagogic Catechesis also beginning with a border and a red letter miniscule introduction, more elaborate introductory borders or decorate first letters are found only at the beginning of the Procatechesis and the Mystagogic Catecheses and less decorative borders are at the beginning of the two non-catechetical texts. Only the beginning of the Procatechesis is unique within

80

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

the codex with the decorative first letter in-column, filled with the red lettered miniscule introduction, and taking up six lines of text rather than the one-line decorative border followed by red lettered miniscule introduction and then a 2.5 to 4 line first letter that is in the right margin or between the two columns. M1 has a more elaborate border than is typically used, with a similar use of blue filled border at the introduction of C6, the beginning of the lessons on the creed, (which has a half-border which surrounds the last words of C5 which are centered and may indicate that a blank line had not been left for the border) and at the introduction of C16, which is the first of the two lessons on the Holy Spirit. There are no blank lines or pages within the codex and no indication of the scribe taking into account where quires began or ended. Based upon this close examination of the codex, I conclude that this codex provides strongly implied Cyrillian authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses. Since both B (Neapolitanus-Vinobonensis gr. 8) and C (Coislinianus 227) have sustained damage in the areas that one would expect to find a preface or table of contents, any witness that might have been left by the scribes of these manuscripts has been lost. Examining the Foliation of the Codices with More than One Author While neither Piédnagel nor Doval include information regarding whether the codices were the work of one scribe or many, Piédnagel does provide foliation data. Among the five codices that do not contain works attributed to someone other than Cyril, the Mystagogic Catecheses in M (Monacensis gr. 278), and C (Coislinianus 227) both begin on the same folio on which the Catecheses end,83 possibly indicating that the scribes considered the two texts to be a unit. The rest begins on the next folio. Both manuscripts in family α are in codices with more than one author. A (Monacensis gr. 394) begins with the catechetical works and ends with works from Ignatius of Antioch. The Catecheses ends on the verso of folio 198 and the Mystagogic Catecheses begins on the recto of folio 199. Piédnagel does not indicate whether this is a natural break or an intentional break, which might be indicated by empty parchment. The Mystagogic Catecheses end on the verso of folio 212 and the works of Ignatius of Antioch begin on folio 214.84 No indication is provided regarding what is on folio 213. However, Doval notes differences in format between the Catecheses and Mystagogic Catecheses, indicating that different scribes might have copied the texts.85 Whether or not the 83 Ibid. Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 51-7 does not provide sufficient information to evaluate Marcianus gr. II. 35 and Bodleianus Roe 25, the other codex that contains only Cyril’s works. 84 Ibid. 52. 85 Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 62.

Chapter 2: History of Liturgy and Codicological Anlysis

81

space between the catechetical works and Ignatius’ is significant is uncertain. The foliation for the rest of the codices does not provide additional information that is helpful in discerning evidence on the authorship issue.86 For each of the other codices, foliation appears to be continuous, which may indicate that the same hand copied all of the texts. Examination of the catalogues for each codex may provide additional information, but at this point, the foliation does not provide additional evidence regarding authorship. In the other five codices with works by other authors, these works are placed either at the beginning or at the end of the codex so that the catechetical works and Cyril’s letter and homily, if present, are not separated. Table 2-9 provides a summary of the contents of each codex with foliation. Table 2-9: Foliation of Each Codex87 Family

α

Manuscript

Works by Cyril

Other works

Monacensis. gr. 394 [A]

1-212v P, C, M

214-261: letters of Ignatius of Antioch

NeapolitanusVindobonensis 8 [B]

87-170v P, C, M,

1-86v: Pauline Epistles

86 According to Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 53, B (Neapolitanus-Vinobonensis gr 8) begins with the Pauline epistles, which continue to the verso of folio 86. The Procatechesis begins on folio 87 and the Catecheses ends on the recto of folio 166. The Mystagogic Catecheses begins on the recto of folio 167. This level of foliation detail does not provide additional evidence on authorship of the mystagogical lectures, other than the general observation that the Jerusalem catechetical works were kept together. Family β, including the sub-family, has only one codex with multiple authors, F (Vindobonensis 55). This codex begins with Eusebius of Pamphilia’s Libri IV eclogarum propheticarum de Christo from folio 1 to the recto of folio 61. The first of John Philopon’s works in this codex, Libri VII in Hexamaeron, begins on the verso of folio 61 and ends on the verso of folio 141. The second of Philopon’s works, Disputatio de tempore celebrandi Paschatis, begins on the recto of folio 142 and ends on the recto of folio 146. Philo’s Liber de creatione mundi follows on the verso of folio 146 and ends on the verso of 154. The Catecheses follows on the recto of folio 155 and ends on 245 with the incomplete Mystagogical Catecheses contained between the verso of folio 245 and the verso of 249. Ibid. 55. The one codex in family γ with multiple authors, L (Ottobonianus gr. 446), begins with the Procatechesis, with the Catecheses ending on the recto of folio 189. The Mystagogical Catecheses begins on folio 189 and continues through the recto of folio 204. The Letter to Constantius begins on the verso of folio 204 and continues to 208. Athanasius’ “Dialogue I and II” from contra Macedonianum are on folios 208 through 230. The letters and theological treatises which are not attributed to an author are on folios 230 through 273. Ibid. 56. 87 Ibid. 52-7.

82

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 2-9 (continued) Family

Manuscript

Works by Cyril

Bodleianus Roe 25 (ol. 271) 1-223 C, P, M, L, H [D] Coislinianus 227 (ol. 101) [C] β

1-230 C, M

Other works — — 1-61r: Eusebius of Caesarea: Libri IV eclogarum propheticarum de Christo (PG 22, 1021-1262) 61v-141v: John Philopon: Disputatio de tempore celebrandi Paschatis 146v-154v: John Philopon: Liber de creatione mundi

Vindobonensis 55 [F]

155r-245 C, M

β+

γ

Marcianus gr. II.35 [H]

4-189 P, C, M, L

—

Ottobonianus 220 [I]

1-173 P, C, M, L

—

Ottobonianus 86 [K]

1-209r C, M, L

209-232v: a text titled τοῦ ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κ. πόλεως Γερμάνου πρὸς Μαρῖνον

Ottobonianus 446 [L]

1-208

208-230: Dialogues 1 and 2 contra Macedonianum attributed to Athanasius (PG 28, 1292 s, 1330 s) 230-273: unidentified theological treatises

Monacensis gr. 278 [M]

1-473

—

Summary of the Codicological Evaluation Analysis of the codicological data indicates that regardless of attribution of the Mystagogic Catecheses to John (A: Monacensis gr. 394) or to Cyril and John (family γ), the texts were perceived as a collection of works that belonged together. In family β, the family that does not have the name of the author in the text immediately prior to the Mystagogic Catecheses, the two codices with intact initial folios provide a witness in the prefaces that the first catechetical work is Cyril’s. If the codices were copied as entire works, then this might account for why the introduction to the Mystagogic Catecheses in

83

Chapter 2: History of Liturgy and Codicological Anlysis

family β is without a statement of authorship: it might have been assumed that the attribution at the beginning of the text was sufficient to denote authorship of the collection of works. Further evaluation of the foliation is required in order to move beyond speculation. However, I (Ottobonianus gr. 220) provides a strong witness for Cyrillian authorship, even if it is a late copy of the text: not only does this codex have a list of contents for both the Catecheses and the Mystagogic Catecheses, but each list attributes authorship to Cyril of Jerusalem. Furthermore, this work has the rubric before the text of the Mystagogic Catecheses that seems to imply that the same catechist had delivered the pre-baptismal and post-baptismal lectures. Since this codex is from the sub-family β+, this provides another instance of a tradition of attribution of authorship to Cyril that is not perturbed by influence from texts that attribute authorship to John. A summary of this codicological information is presented in Table 2-10. The order of the manuscripts within the codices is reflected in the order of the abbreviations. This table also contains data regarding which codices named Cyril as author in introductions to either the Procatechesis or Catecheses. The last entry for each family group is the culminate evaluation for that specific family of manuscripts.

Table 2-10: Summary of Codicological Information about Authorship Family

Mss.

date

Cyrillian Texts

Other Authors

Authorship Information

Summary of Authorship Analysis

D

11th c

P, C, M, L, H

none

Cyril, archbishop of Jerusalem stated prior to P

Strongest inference for Cyril

F

11th c?

C, M

Eusebius of Pamphilia John Philopon

Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem stated prior to C

Strongest inference for Cyril

C

11th c

C, M

none

β

Weak inference for Cyril

Family β’s codicological data presents very strong inferential support for Cyrillian authorship.

84

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 2-10 (continued) Family

β+

Mss.

date

Cyrillian Texts

Other Authors

H

11th c

P, C, M, L88

none

I

16-17th

P, C, M, L

none

Authorship Information

Summary of Authorship Analysis Moderate inference for Cyril

Cyril as author of P, C, and M in table of contents

Cyrillian authorship is explicit

Family β+’s codicological data presents explicit support for Cyrillian authorship. K

10th or 11th

P, C, M, L

uncertain89

L

15th

P, C, M, L

Athanasius anonymous

Moderate inference for Cyril

M

16th

C, M, L

none

Moderate inference for Cyril

γ

Marginal note that the damaged first catechetical work is Cyril’s

Strongest inference for Cyril

Family γ’s codicological data presents moderate to strong inferential support for Cyrillian authorship. A

10th c

P, C, M

Ignatius of Antioch

B

11th c

P, C, M

Pauline epistles

α

no authorship for C, John as author of M in table of contents

John explicitly stated as author yet bound with P and C Weakest inference for Cyril

Family α’s codicological data presents mixed authorship data. While one codex explicitly states that John is the author of the Mystagogic Catechesis, the other provides a weak inference for Cyrillian authorship.

88 The texts of the Mystagogical Lectures are out of order: the Mystagogic Catecheses are M3, M4, M5, then the scholion, the Letter to Constantius, followed by M1, and then M2, with M2 partially on paper and in seventeenth century hand. Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 55-6. 89 Codex K appears to end with a text by another Cyril. Folios 209-232r contain a treatise which has the title τοῦ ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κ. πόλεως Γερμάνου πρός Μαρῖνον. Ibid. 52-3 and 56.

Chapter 2: History of Liturgy and Codicological Anlysis

85

From the codicological assessment, most telling for my methodology in approaching the Mystagogic Catecheses is the short note preceding the title in Ottobonianus 220 (I): Χρὴ γινώσκειν ὅτι αὗται αἱ μυσταγωγικαὶ κατηχήσεις ὕστερον πάντων τῶν κατηχήσεων ἀναγινώσκοωται· “It should be known that these mystagogical catecheses are to be read after all the catecheses.” As Cyril stated in Procatechesis 11, he intended to build a complete theological structure in an orderly manner. To understand the Mystagogic Catechesis, this structure, which was provided in the Catecheses, is not merely important, but foundational. The extant manuscript tradition has maintained this order consistently. I examine this structure in more detail in Part II. Summary of Authorship Based Upon the History of Liturgy and Codicological Analyses In the first half of this chapter, I brought recent scholarship by Abraham Terian and John Abdelsayed into conversation with Juliette Day’s argument against Cyrillian authorship based upon the history of the development of the liturgy. From Terian’s re-dating and translation of Macarius I’s Letter to the Armenians, a letter written from one chief-bishop to another about differences in liturgical practices, several issues regarding Jerusalem baptismal practices in the mid-fourth century have been resolved. In particular, distinct pre- and postbaptismal anointings were known by Macarius and the post-baptismal anointing that Macarius considered to be normative was of the sensory organs. While evidence for the baptizand’s pre-baptismal confession is tentative in Macarius’ Letter, documentation for a baptismal theology based in part on Romans 6:5 is clearly present. From both Macarius’ Letter and Abdelsayed’s comparison of the Spirit ἐπίκλησις found in M5.7 with Egyptian ἐπικλήσεις from the mid-fourth century, the Spirit ἐπίκλησις of M5.7 is well within the tradition that Macarius hinted at and which is present in the three Egyptian anaphoras, at least one of which was contemporary to Macarius’s Letter. From these findings, I agree with Terian that the liturgy which underlies the Mystagogic Catecheses is not a late fourth-century innovation, but a continuation of the mid-fourth century practices that Cyril learned from Macarius. Hence, it is not necessary to date the Mystagogic Catecheses to after Cyril’s episcopacy based upon the liturgical practices evidenced in the text. A summary of the codicological examination is as follows. As noted by Piédnagel, the scribes of his family β (here, family β and sub-family β+) consider Cyril as the author.90 Of these five codices, only one, Vindobonensis 55, 90

28-9.

The five manuscripts are listed individually in his text, and not referred to by family. Ibid.

86

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

contains material from another author. One manuscript, Bodleianus Roe 25, contains Cyril’s entire corpus. The two codices identified as β+ contain all of Cyril’s works except the Homily on the Paralytic without the inclusion of works by other authors and therefore appear to be an intentional opera omnia. Two other works include all but the Homily on the Paralytic while including works by other authors. Thus the overall picture of the codicological data indicates that the Catecheses and Mystagogic catecheses were considered to be a unit, regardless of stated authorship in family α, with the Procatechesis typically understood as the introductory material to these two texts in seven of the ten Greek manuscripts. Further, at least one codex contains a direct attribution of Cyril’s authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses through a table of contents that is separate from the text within the codex.91 While this evidence does not prove Cyrillian authorship, it is consistent with other external evidence from ancient citations that the Mystagogic Catecheses was considered to be of one unit with the Jerusalem catechesis. Next, I assess the last and most confounding part of the authorship debate: the double attribution of authorship within the title of the text itself.

91

As noted by Piédnagel, ibid. 38.

Chapter 3 Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses In this chapter, I analyze the primary source of the dispute over authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses: the textual variant in the title to the first lecture of the Mystagogic Catecheses. The manuscripts were described in the previous chapter; in this chapter, I examine the textual variants within the manuscript traditions, with special attention given to the Piédnagel’s description of the characteristics of redactor’s hand in the manuscripts.1 Characteristics of the Redactor In the critical edition, while Piédnagel accepts manuscript family α, the only manuscript family which witnesses to John alone as the author, to be the preferred tradition in most instances,2 he accepts the witness of family γ, which has both John and Cyril as authors, as the best reading for the introduction to the Mystagogic Catechesis (see Figure 2-1 for Piédnagel’s stemma). This priority confirms his assessment of authorship: it is very likely that the finalized form of the Mystagogic Catecheses is attributed to revisions made by John of Jerusalem since the title to Mystagogic Catechesis 1 in family γ names both Cyril and John as the authors of the text.3 In accord with my approach to understanding Cyril’s teaching about Christian identity formation, a Cyrillian text of the Mystagogic Catecheses is more desirable than a Johannine redaction: a Cyrillian text would provide a complete set of catechetical instruction from one bishop, but a Johannine redaction would not necessarily provide the culmination of the foundation Cyril built in his Catecheses. In the previous chapter, I demonstrated that the codicological data supports Cyrillian authorship and this support is most clearly seen in family β. In this

1 Portions of this chapter have been previously published in Hawk-Reinhard, ‘Transmission Implications Regarding the Authorship of Cyril of Jerusalem’s Mystagogic Catecheses’, in The Use of Textual Criticism for the Interpretation of Patristic Texts (2013), 37-75. Permission to reprint sections of this chapter has been graciously granted by Edwin Mellon Press. 2 Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 60 states that “Je n’ai pas cru pouvoir choisir à proprement parler le Monacensis 394 comme manuscrit de base. En effet, ce manuscrit, parfois accompagné de Neapolitanus-Vindobonensis 8, parfois seul, présente un certain nombre de leçons propres, où l’on peut reconnaître, semble-t-il, en plus des fautes habituelles de copie, soit des corrections personnelles du copiste, soit des divergences qui peuvent provenir d’un manuscrit antérieur, soucieux d’offrir un texte d’une langue plus pure ou plus expressive.” 3 “A notre avis, l’attribution à Jean de Jérusalem de la rédaction définitive des Catéchèses, dans la teneur que nous livrent les manuscrits, apparaît probable.” Ibid. 186.

88

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

chapter, I propose that the text-critical issue of the title of Mystagogic Catechesis 1, in which authorship is attributed, can be resolved if one assumes a sequential Johannine redaction of the Cyrillian text, such that archetype β is redacted, producing a new archetype β+. Further redaction of archetype β+ resulted in archetype γ. Still further redaction produced archetype α. My challenge to Piédnagel’s proposal that the oldest manuscript, A (Monacensis gr. 394) from family α, presents a better tradition but not necessarily the best reading in every case4 comes from a combination of the codicological analysis presented in chapter 2, which would indicate a preference for family β as Cyril’s original text, and an examination of the characteristic emendations that Piédnagel described. According to Piédnagel, these characteristic emendations are summarized by nine characteristics: 1) abridgement, addition of words in quotations, and blending of scriptural texts, all as an attempt to improve on the author’s style; 5 2) a very free interaction in the employment of the article;6 3) addition or change in location of the demonstrative pronouns;7 4) displacement of adjectives or adverbs;8 5) substitution of prepositions;9 6) the use of a composite verb in lieu of a simple verb or vice-versa,10 4 “Il faut donc dire que si le Monacensis 394 (appuyé par le Neapolitanus-Vindobonensis 8, malheureusement mutilé) n’apporte pas toujours la meilleure leçon, il représente pourtant dans l’ensemble une tradition meilleure que celle des autres manuscrits.” Ibid. 63. In his inventory of the texts, “Les Catéchèses mystagogiques de Saint Cyrille de Jérusalem: inventaire de la tradition manuscrite grecque”, SP 10 (1970), 143, Piédnagel wrote: “En collationnant le Monacensis 394, j’ai eu l’impression immédiate et constante qu’il présentait un texte de grande qualité.” He noted the presence of a redactor’s hand in the work (“En effet, ce manuscrit présente d’abord un certain nombre de leçons propres où l’on peut reconnaître des corrections personnelles du copiste.”), but despite this and other concerns, he determined this text to be the superior text: “Cependant, malgré ces réserves, le Monacensis 394 est un manuscrit de grande valeur, et il apparaît bien qu’il faut conclure à sa supériorité.” 5 With respect to manuscript A, Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 61 wrote: “Il y a donc d’abord les fautes ordinaires de copie: par exemple des mottes sautés ..., une confusion de mots par assimilation ...; quelques doublets ...; ou encore simplement des fautes de graphie .... Enfin le scribe du Monacensis 394—ou peut-être déjà son modèle—reproduit parfois les textes de l’Écriture à sa manière : ... Si ce dernier groupe de fautes peut être encore le fait du scribe lui-même, un certain nombre de leçons propres au Monacensis 394 semblent provenir d’un correcteur antérieur qui aurait voulu améliorer le style de l’auteur.” 6 “—un jeu très libre dans l’emploi de l’article ;” ibid. 61. 7 “—l’addition ou le changement de place des pronoms démonstratifs ;” ibid. 61. 8 “—le déplacement des épithètes ou des adverbes ;” ibid. 62. 9 “—la substitution des prépositions” such as in M2.2 line 10: family A has “σὺν au lieu de ἐν;” M2.4 line 13 and M2.8 line 5: manuscript A has “ὡσε͂ι au lieu de ὡς.” Ibid. 62, 106, 12. 10 “—l’emploi d’un verbe composé au lieu du verbe simple ou inversement” such as in M1.5 line 8 where manuscript A attests ἐγγραφόμενα instead of γραφόμενα; Μ2.2 line 5 in which family α has ἀποδυσάμενον instead of ἀπεκδυσάμενον; Μ2.3 line 11 in which family α attests προσλαμβάνει instead of λαμβάνει; and Μ2.7 line 14 where manuscript A used ἐνείλητο instead of εἰλῆτο. Ibid. 62, 90, 106, 08, 16.

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

89

7) employment of the plural definite article where other manuscripts have the singular or vice-versa,11 and 8) a special place given to the subject or the complement of the direct object,12 9) particular grammatical constructions, including a) a penchant for the infinitive proposition, b) the use of particular terms which are not found in the other manuscripts, and c) the addition of words that intensify the text or make it more expressive.13 Of these characteristic emendations, manuscript A (Monacensis gr. 394) provides Piédnagel’s examples of the redactor’s hand. Piédnagel states that in instances where A presented these characteristic emendations, he followed the other manuscript traditions. Yet, in the nine most significant variant readings through which Piédnagel was convinced that hyparchetype α, and manuscript A in particular, provide the best readings,14 I contend that not only does hyparchetype β provides acceptable readings in all but one of his examples, but also hyparchetypes γ and α typically demonstrate the redactor’s characteristic emendations. Text-critical Issues In the next section, I examine seventeen text-critical issues that were selected according to three criteria: 1) the variants which affect attribution of authorship, that is, the title to Mystagogic Catechesis 1, 11 “—l’emploi du pluriel là où les autres manuscrits ont le singulier ou inversement” such as M2.3 lines 8-9, where manuscript A attests αἱ ... ἐπικλήσεις instead of ἠ ... ἐπικλήσις; Μ3.1 line 8, where A attests εἰκών instead of εἰκωόνες; Μ5.4 line 6, where A has τὰς καρδίας instead of τὴν καρδίαν; Μ5.6 line 13: where A used τῇ ὑπερκοσμίᾳ … στρατιᾷ instead of ταῖς ὑπερκοσμίοις... στρατιαῖς; and Μ5.10 line 6, where A used στεφάνους is used instead of στεφάνον. Ibid. 62, 109, 20, 52, 54, 58. 12 “—une place spéciale donnée au sujet ou au complément d’objet direct” such as in M3.1 lines 5-6, where family α has ὁ θεὸς ἔλεγεν instead of ἔλεγεν ὁ θεὸς; in Μ5.4 lines 2-3, where A has ἄνω τὴν καρδίαν ἔχειν instead of ἄνω ἔχειν τὴν καρδίαν [and manuscript I of sub-family β+ has ἔχειν ἄνω τὴν καρδίαν]; and in Μ5.4 line11, where A has φροντίδας ἔχειν τὸν νοῦν instead of ἔχειν τὸν νοῦν φροντίδας. Ibid. 62, 120, 48, 52. 13 “—ou encore une construction grammaticale particulière, entre autres un penchant pour les propositions infinitives …” Characteristic emendation 9c, a very important distinction between the manuscripts, is reported as: “On trouve enfin des mots qui semblent bien avoir été ajoutés pour que le texte soit plus expressif ou plus intensif…” Ibid. 62. 14 In these cases, Piédnagel finds that the only admissible or the most satisfying reading is in either Monacencis 394 or Neapolitanus-Vindobonensis 8: mais encore, pour certains passages importants, qui comportent des leçons divergentes selon les familles, le Monacencis 394, soit appuyé par le Neapolitanus-Vindobonensis 8, soit même seul, présente la leçon la plus satisfaisante ou même le seule recevable. Voice quelques exemples, parmi les plus significatifs, dont quelques-uns ont été déjà retenus ou tout au moins aperçus par Rupp, G. Rauschen, J. Quasten, et F. L. Cross.” Ibid. 63-4.

90

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

2) the nine text-critical issue identified by Piédnagel as the readings which led him to present family α as the preferred manuscript15 or 3) the variant significantly affects a reading that is important to this present study.16 These variants are arranged by six categories: 1) the text-critical issues in the title of Mystagogic Catechesis 1, 2) additional text-critical issues in which sequential redaction can be observed starting in sub-family β+, 3) those in which sequential redaction can be observed starting in family γ, 4) text-critical issues in which the variants are found only in family α, 5) scribal errors in family β, and 6) those variants which are found only in family β or appear to be merely scribal errors. In this analysis, I assume that redacted emendations reflect an aspect of the redactor’s characteristic changes (especially making the reading more elegant or intensify the rhetoric), change the text such that the reading is smoother or easier, or add material to the text. Text-critical Issues in the Title of Mystagogic Catechesis 1 In the critical edition, Piédnagel follows his principle of using what is attested in at least two families and proposes that the differences between the families are minimal.17 However, this principle does not take into account sequential redaction that begins in either sub-family β+ or family γ. Neither family β nor β+ provides attribution of authorship in the first lines of the text. However, the variants do provide insights into the authorship and 15 These seven readings are: M1.9 line 2, M2.4 line 18, M4.3 lines 6-7, M4.8 line 9, M5.3 line 6, M5.3 line 6, M5.7 lines 4-5, M5.7 lines 4-5, and M5.10 line 7. Ibid. 64-5. 16 These readings are: M1.9 line 2, M2.6 line 11, M3.1 line 6, M4.1 line 11, M4.1 lines 2-3, M4.2 lines 1-3, M4.3 line 2, M4.5 lines 4-6, and M4.8 lines 11-14. 17 Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 82-3: “Les titres de chaque Catéchèse varient avec les familles de manuscrites: α, β, γ. Les divergences entre les manuscrits d’une même famille sont infimes, et ne paraissent être que des omissions ou mauvaises lectures; elles ne méritent guère d’être retenues. Nous nous contentons donc d’indiquer pour chaque Catéchèse le titre propre à chacune des trois familles, d’après les manuscrits: A pour la famille α; D pour la famille β; K pour la famille γ. Conformément au principe que nous avons suivi pour l’établissement du texte, nous adoptons le titre qui se rencontre dans deux familles plutôt que celui qui ne se trouve que dans une seule. Or les titres de γ sont presque toujours identiques soit à ceux de α soit à ceux de β; ils nous semblent présenter la formule sans doute la mieux attestée. Aussi les plaçons-nous au début du texte de chaque Catéchèse: et nous donnons dans l’apparat critique celui des deux autres familles. Le fait que dans le titre de la Ire Catéchèse la famille γ (pour laquelle nous avons opté) introduit les noms de Cyrille et de Jean ne signifie nullement que, par là, nous tranchons la question délicate de l’authenticité; …”

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

91

stemma issues. In family β, the differences between the manuscripts are minimal: D uses πρώτης (first) while F has ά (as a numerical) to refer to the first catholic epistle of Peter, the scriptural reading for the lecture. The title is: “First Mystagogy to the newly-baptized and a reading of Peter’s first catholic epistle.” Table 3-1 provides a summary and comparison of the titles as attested in family β, with the differences in bold. Table 3-1: Title to the Mystagogic Catecheses, family β Manuscript Text

Coislinianus 227 (C)18

Vindobonensis 55 (F)19

Bodleianus Roe 25 (D)20

μυσταγωγία πρώτη πρὸς τοὺς νεοφωτίστους, καὶ ἀνάγνωσις Πέτρου ἐπιστολῆς …

μυσταγωγία πρώτη πρὸς τοὺς νεοφωτίστους καὶ ἀνάγνωσις Πέτρου ἐπιστολῆς ά καθολικῆς

μυσταγωγία πρώτη πρὸς τοὺς νεοφωτίστους καὶ ἀνάγνωσις Πέτρου ἐπιστολῆς πρώτης καθολικῆς

In sub-family β+, H does not have the Mystagogic Catecheses in their normal arrangement and Piédnagel does not provide the title to this text.21 After the short note about the order of the catecheses, pre-baptismal then post-baptismal, the title to the text is: μυσταγωγικὴ ά κατήχησις πρὸς τοὺς νεοφωτίστους, καὶ ἀνάγνωσις ἐκ τῆς καθολικῆς ἐπιστολῆς Πέτρου (First mystagogic catechesis to the newly-baptized, and a reading from the catholic epistle of Peter).22 There are significant variations in this title beyond what is attested in family β; these variants will be examined in the context of the other manuscripts. All three manuscripts in family γ attribute the Mystagogic Catecheses to Cyril and John without significant variants among the witnesses.23 In family α, only A provides a witness, since B begins with line 13 of chapter 1.24 A provides 18 Unfortunately, Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 54 does not provide the full title, so evaluation of whether πρώτης or ά is used is indeterminate. However, as mentioned above, this is a very minor variant. The title in the codex reads: κατήχησις μυσταγωγική ε΄ ἐκ τῆς Πέτρου ἐπιστολῆς. Διὸ ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν. 19 Ibid. 55. 20 Ibid. 54. 21 Ibid. 55-6. 22 Ibid. 57. 23 Ibid. 53, 56-7. 24 Ibid. 53.

92

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

the only witness to John alone as the author.25 Table 3-2 provides a comparison of the variants. Again, presupposing a sequential redaction by John, the variants will be discussed as changes from family β. Between β and the one representative of β+, the description of the genre has shifted slightly from μυσταγωγία (mystagogy) to μυσταγωγική ... κατήχησις (mystagogic catechesis). It appears that family γ continued this latter description with a scribe replacing ά with πρώτη and omitting κατήχησις, although it is possible that a scribe mistook the final –α in μυσταγωγία for –κή to μυσταγωγική. Manuscript A returns to the shorter description of family β, μυσταγωγία, but uses the shorter term to denote that this is the first mystagogy. Family β+, γ, and the representative from family α all include ἐκ τῆς, which, while not changing the meaning of the text, is a characteristic of Piédnagel’s redactor—the free employment of articles and substitution (albeit in this case the addition) of prepositions. I concur with Swaans that the possibility of John and Cyril working together to update the Mystagogic Catecheses is very small.26 However, it is not hard to imagine that as John, the new bishop, took over the traditional text of the community, he added his name as an author to the text that he was slowly making his own and added what was implicit, “the same Cyril,” which may refer to the authorship of the Catecheses, as proposed by Stephenson.27 Furthermore, beginning in sub-family β+ and continuing through γ and on into α, the characteristic displacement of adjectives, characteristics that Piédnagel found in the redactor, is also present. However, based upon his stemma, Piédnagel posits that the presence of this characteristic Johannine redaction in sub-family β+ and family γ is the result of horizontal transmission, not from John himself. Two changes between family γ and the representative from family α are most striking: the first is the addition of attribution to John, bishop of Jerusalem alone, early in the title of A, especially when compared to the location of the attribution in family γ, where the attribution was at the end of the title.28 Second, the audience has been omitted in A, which, considering the different audiences that had access to the two sets of lectures, at least according to Cyril, also seems to point to a later redaction.

25

Ibid. 52. “Swaans, ‘À propos des ‘Catéchèses Mystagogiques’ attribuées à S. Cyrille de Jérusalem’ (1942), 41. 27 As proposed by Stephenson, WCJ 2: 147. 28 It is possible that moving the attribution to the beginning of the title changes the emphasis from the audience of the texts to the author or that this may just reflect a style difference. Insufficient evidence is present in the text to evaluate the significance of this change. 26

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

93

Table 3-2: Text-critical issues in the title to M1 Manuscript Text

family β μυσταγωγία πρώτη

πρὸς τοὺς νεοφωτίστους καὶ ἀνάγνωσις Πέτρου ἐπιστολῆς πρώτης καθολικῆς

Variants

Translation First mystagogy to the newly-baptized and a reading of Peter’s first catholic epistle

family β+ (H)

family γ

μυσταγωγική ά κατήχησις

μυσταγωγικὴ πρώτη

πρὸς τοὺς νεοφωτίστους, καὶ ἀνάγνωσις ἐκ τῆς

πρὸς τοὺς νεοφωτίστους καὶ ἀνάγνωσις ἐκ τῆς Πέτρου ἐπιστολῆς …

καθολικῆς ἐπιστολῆς Πέτρου.

μυσταγωγική ά κατήχησις where the others all have μυσταγωγία πρώτη (β) or μυσταγωγία ά (A)

τοῦ αὐτοῦ Κυρίλλου καὶ Ἰωννου ἐπισκόποῦ

family α (A) μυσταγωγία ά Ἰωάννου έπισκόπου Ἰεροσολύμων· καὶ ἀνάγνωσις ἐκ τῆς Πέτρου ά καθολικῆς ἐπιστολῆς

Attribution to both Attribution to Cyril and John at John given early in the title end of title Omission of audience

Added ἐκ τῆς

Omission of κατήχησις Added ἐκ τῆς

Displacement of adjectives

Displacement of adjectives

Displacement of adjectives

First mystagogic catecheses to the newly-baptized, and a reading from the catholic epistle of Peter

First mystagogic to the newlybaptized, and a reading from the epistle of Peter … of the same Cyril and John, bishop

First mystagogy of John, bishop of Jerusalem. Also a reading from the first catholic epistle of Peter

Table 3-3 presents a summary of the text-critical issues.

Added ἐκ τῆς

94

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 3-3: Summary and Assessment of Text-critical Issues in M1, t Text

Assessment

M1, t

1) β omitted or did not originally have authorship in the title, μυσταγωγία πρώτη 2) β+ omitted or did not originally have attribution of authorship in the title, μυσταγωγική ά κατήχησις, added prepositional phrase 3) γ attributes authorship to both Cyril and John, μυσταγωγικὴ πρώτη, retains prepositional phrase 4) α (A only) attributes authorship to John alone, μυσταγωγία ά, retains prepositional phrase Appears to be a sequential revision from β+ through α in the few manuscripts with data

A slight modification to Piédnagel’s stemma, which is shown in Figure 3-1, can account for what appears to be a sequential redaction: hyparchetype β is the oldest (and the closest to the original Cyrillian text); John modified hyparchetype β to form hyparchetype β+; and successive modifications by John produced hyparchetype γ, which he ascribed to both himself and to Cyril due to the extent of his redaction of the text. John’s final emendations produced the text that he considered to be his own curriculum content, hyparchetype α. Thus, I propose that since Piédnagel’s hyparchetype β has no authorship attribution, it is the oldest manuscript tradition, and is the closest to Cyril’s original text that we have. Hyparchetype γ is attributed to both John and Cyril of Jerusalem, reflects John’s early redactions of Cyril’s original text (hyparchetype β+), and the double attribution indicates that John began to take ownership of the text. Manuscript family α has John’s name alone, which, in this scenario, would be John’s final redaction of the text. Having taught from this modified text as the bishop of Jerusalem, he felt that he had revised the text to such an extent that he could now consider it his text. Figure 3-1 reflects, through a slight modification to Piédnagel’s stemma, the sequential redaction based upon the attribution of authorship in the manuscripts. This theory builds upon Piédnagel’s proposal, combined with the proposition from Cross, Quasten, Stephenson and Yarnold, that the redacting hand was John’s.29 29

Cross, St Cyril of Jerusalem’s Lectures on the Christian Sacraments (1951), xxxix, proposes that the lectures were repeated many times and “[i]f John succeeded Cyril in the office of Catechist as he later followed him in the episcopate, is it possible that he too catechized his candidates with the same series of splendid addresses?” Quasten, Patrology (1950), 366, proposes that the original lectures were originally Cyril’s and later revised by John. This argument is elaborated upon by Stephenson (WCJ 2:147) and finally by Yarnold, ‘The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1978), 145: “If I am right in suggesting that the original MS of [the Mystagogic Catecheses] bore no author’s name, the ascription to John may

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

95

Figure 3-1: Proposed revision to Piédnagel’s stemma which reflects my proposed sequential redaction by John of Jerusalem in the late fourth to early fifth century

As already noted, I have selected sixteen additional text critical issues to evaluate this revised stemma. The purpose in working through this level of detail is to determine, if possible, which text is Cyril’s, and not a redactor’s changes, so that only one bishop’s teachings on identity are evaluated without subtle shifts in theology that a second catechist has added to the text. have been a conjecture based on the fact that the MS was found in Jerusalem after Cyril’s death. The dual ascription to Cyril and John would have a similar explanation. The MS may have been the work of Cyril, come into John’s possession, and been used by him in his own preaching.”

96

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Text-critical Issues in which the Sequential Redaction Begins in Manuscript Tradition β+ Four additional text-critical issues provide instances of sequential changes that begin in family β+: M4.1 line 11, M4.3 line 2, M4.4 lines 5-6, and M4.5 lines 4-6. The variant at M4.4 lines 5-6 is one of Piédnagel’s exemplars of why he has used manuscript tradition α as the preferred tradition. Of these four texts, M4.4 lines 5-6 presents the clearest examples of sequential redaction, followed by M4.5 lines 4-6, M4.1 line 11, and then M4.3 line 2. M4.4 lines 5 and 6 The issues in chapter 4 of Mystagogical Catechesis 4 can be summarized by six major variants: 1) a variation in the spelling of the active aorist third person plural of ἀπέρχομαι, 2) the addition of δὲ, 3) the addition of τὸν Σωτῆρα, 4) the addition and omission of ὅτι, 5) the change from the middle passive indicative third singular of προτρέπω to the middle passive infinitive, and 6) omission of a significant portion of the sentence.30 These will be addressed in the order listed, with variants 4 and 5 taken together. 1) Manuscripts D and F of family β both have the spelling of the active aorist third person plural of ἀπέρχομαι that is less well attested in the New Testament, ἀπῆλθαν, rather than ἀπῆλθον, which is found in manuscript C of family β, and families β+, γ, and α.31 A scribe would more likely harmonize with the more common reading than the less common reading, indicating that the majority reading from family β most likely indicates the original reading. This type of an emendation is not necessarily a scribal error since both spellings were acceptable. 2) One manuscript family alone, γ, includes the intensifier δὲ after Ἐκεῖνοι, which may indicate the redactor’s hand in the addition of a word that makes the text more expressive. If this is the case, then this would support my hypothesis of sequential redaction by John. 3) With respect to the addition of τὸν Σωτῆρα, family β+, the marginal correction in family γ’s manuscript L, and family α all include this additional accusative, which, compared to family β, clarify and intensify the text. 4) Family β+ and the marginal correction in family γ’s manuscript Ottobonianus 86 (L) include ὅτι after the participle νομίζοντες, while families β and 30

Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 138. The use of ἀπῆλθαν is found in three instances in the Nestle-Aland text (28th edition), Matt 22:22, Rev 21:1 and 4. The more commonly attested spelling, ἀπῆλθον, is found in fifteen instances: Matt 8:32. 20:5, 22:5; Mark 1:20, 3:13, 6:32; Luke 2:15, 10:30, 24:24; John 6:22, 66, 18:6, 20:10; and Gal 1:17. Within the Greek texts included in the TLG in 2010, the α-form occurs forty times while the ο-form is used 1222 times. 31

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

97

α do not. This appears to be an attempt to resolve the difficult reading of family β, where either an ὅτι with the finite verb of the participial phrase or an infinitive is expected. 5) Families β+, α, and the marginal correction in family γ’s manuscript L all have the present middle infinitive of προτρέπω while family β has the present middle indicative third person singular. As with the addition and omission of ὅτι of variant 4, this variant appears to be an attempt to resolve the difficult reading of family β. Family α, with the infinitive and without ὅτι, provides the best reading, following the pattern of the redactor to correct the syntax of the author. Family β+ and γ’s manuscript L appear to be intermediate forms of moving to the final resolution of family α, indicating a sequential redaction starting in family β+ with a final resolution in family α. In addition, since Piédnagel noted that the redactor had a penchant for infinitives, this change appears to indicate (as in the other variants mentioned for this sentence) that family β may be the original text. 6) The last variant in family γ appears to be an omission that the scribe of manuscript L corrected in the margins. The summary of this omission is demonstrated in the Table 3-4. Table 3-4: Summary of omission in M 4.4 lines 5 and 6 Manuscripts family β+

family γ K, M

Text

Discussion of variants

Ἐκεῖνοι, μὴ ἀκηκοότες πνευματικῶς τῶν λεγομένων, σκανδαλισθέντες ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω, νομίζοντες ὅτι τὸν Σωτῆρα ἐπὶ σαρκοφαγίαν αὐτοὺς προτρέπεσθαι.

L (adscr. marg.)

Ἐκεῖνοι δὲ, μὴ ἀκηκοότες πνευματικῶς τῶν λεγομένων, σκανδαλισθέντες ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω, νομίζοντες ὅτι τὸν Σωτῆρα ἐπὶ τὸν Σωτῆρα ἐπὶ σαρκοφαγίαν σαρκοφαγίαν αὐτοὺς προτρέπεσθαι. αὐτοὺς προτρέπεσθαι. Ἐκεῖνοι δὲ, μὴ

addition of δὲ omission between μὴ and τὸν when compared to β+

addition of δὲ otherwise, same reading as β+

Table 3-5 summarizes the analysis of this sentence’s text-critical concerns, omitting the details that are contained in Table 3-4, using bold text to highlight differences.

98

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 3-5: Text-critical issue at M 4.4 lines 5 and 6 family β (* C follows α)

family β+

family γ (marginal notes from L) K: follows β

family α: A

Ἐκεῖνοι, μὴ ἀκηκοότες πνευματικῶς τῶν λεγομένων, σκανδαλισθέντες ἀπῆλθαν* εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω, νομίζοντες

Ἐκεῖνοι, μὴ ἀκηκοότες πνευματικῶς τῶν λεγομένων, σκανδαλισθέντες ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω, νομίζοντες ὅτι τὸν Σωτῆρα ἐπὶ σαρκοφαγίαν αὐτοὺς προτρέπεσθαι.

Ἐκεῖνοι δὲ, μὴ ἀκηκοότες πνευματικῶς τῶν λεγομένων, σκανδαλισθέντες ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω, ______ ὅτι τὸν Σωτῆρα ἐπὶ σαρκοφαγίαν αὐτοὺς προτρέπεσθαι.

Ἐκεῖνοι, μὴ ἀκηκοότες πνευματικῶς τῶν λεγομένων, σκανδαλισθέντες ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω, νομίζοντες

Manuscripts

Text

ἐπὶ σαρκοφαγίαν αὐτοὺς προτρέπεται. Discussion of variants

ἀπῆλθαν in all but addition of ὅτι C addition of τὸν Σωτῆρα changed PMI3pl into PMInf

Translation They, not having heard his saying spiritually, being offended they went back, thinking he

urged them to eat flesh.

They, not having heard his saying spiritually, being offended they went back, thinking that the Savior urged them to eat flesh.

addition of δὲ otherwise, same reading as β+

But, they, not having heard his saying spiritually, being offended they went back, thinking that the Savior urged them to eat flesh.

τὸν Σωτῆρα ἐπὶ σαρκοφαγίαν αὐτοὺς προτρέπεσθαι. same reading as β+ except omission of ὅτι, could be scribal error They, not having heard his saying spiritually, being offended they went back, thinking the Savior urged them to eat flesh.

In summary, the first five text-critical issues of this sentence appear to be the hand of the redactor. The primary redaction of the text appears between families β and β+, with an additional minor flourish added in γ and then removed from α. M4.5 lines 4-5 Family β and K of γ omit the definite article before σώματι and uses ἁρμόνιος to describe the relationship between the Word (Λόγος) and the soul.32 The critical edition attests the definite article, which is a trait of the redactor described by Piédnagel. The addition of the definite article, while producing a parallel reading, also moves the first half of the sentence from a gnomic statement to a particular: 32

Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 138.

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

99

“bread is appropriate for the body” to “the [this eucharistic] bread is appropriate for the body.” The change from ἁρμόνιος to ἁρμόδιος, while merely a change of one letter, is an unlikely scribal error, especially given the addition of the definite article earlier in the sentence.33 Of the two words, even though ἁρμόνιος provides the more elegant reading, it is also the less commonly used word and could indicate a scribal correction.34 Since Cyril used ἁρμόνιος in Procatechesis 11 line 20 to describe the cohesive whole of his teachings and did not use ἁρμόδιος in any other text, the family β reading is probably the more Cyrillian. Table 3-6 provides a summary of these variants. Table 3-6: Text-critical Issue at M4.5 lines 4 and 5 Manuscripts family β and K of γ Text Ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ ἄρτος _ σώματι κατάλληλος, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Λόγος τῇ ψυχῇ ἁρμόνιος. Discussion of ἁρμόνιος variants Translation For just as __ bread [is] appropriate for the body, so the Word [is] harmonious with the soul.

majority manuscripts35 Ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ ἄρτος τῷ σώματι κατάλληλος, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Λόγος τῇ ψυχῇ ἁρμόδιος. ἁρμόδιος For just as the bread [is] appropriate for the body, so the Word [is] appropriate to the soul.

The inclusion of the definite article intensifies the sentence, making it most likely an addition by the redactor. The reading of ἁρμόδιος in the majority manuscripts is most likely a scribal correction but not of the kind that implicates the redactor’s hand. M4.1 line 1136 Two changes are present in the participle: the tense and the verb itself. Family β and β+ (manuscripts not listed individually) attest the masculine genitive aorist active participle of εἶπον, which places the action of this participle as contemporary with the aorist middle participle (masculine genitive) of διαβεβαιόω and antecedent 33 The difference between the two words, both of which refer to the fittingness or appropriateness of something, is that ἁρμόνιος is defined as “adapted, well-fitting; suitable; agreeable, conformable” and, with respect to music theory, means “of harmony” (PGL sv ‘ἁρμόνιος’, 227) while ἁρμόδιος is defined as “fitting, appropriate” (PGL sv ‘ἁρμόδιως’, 227) or “fitting together” (LSJ sv ‘ἁρμόδιος’, 243). In context, ἁρμόνιος makes more sense. 34 Based upon a search in the TLG, ἁρμόδιος is significantly more common and much more commonly used (1185 instances in the entire database) than ἁρμόνιος (58 instances in the same database). 35 Piédnagel does not provide which manuscripts have the majority reading. 36 Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 134.

100

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

to the controlling verb, the future active indicative of ἐνδοιάζω. The use of the genitive τούτου in family β+ shifts the translation slightly, but the general sense is the same. Piédnagel’s preferred reading, however, has the perfect active participle of ἐρῶ, εἰρηκότος, which does not appear to be simply a scribal error of changing a letter or two by accident. This emendation both intensifies the meaning (“saying” versus “proclaiming”) and places this action prior to the participle of διαβεβαιόω, providing additional rhetorical force to this statement, which indicates that this is work characteristic of the redactor as described by Piédnagel. The variation in the use of the personal pronoun οὗτος, which is the accusative in family β (C, D, F), the genitive in sub-family β+ (H, I), and omitted in the other manuscripts (unspecified) can be seen as either a scribal error between β and β+ or an omission in the other manuscript families. While the shorter text is typically the older text, it appears that in this case, the scribe of β+ duplicated the ending of the adverb, αὐτοῦ, transforming the accusative τοῦτο into the genitive, τούτου. The scribes of the other manuscripts (unspecified manuscripts from family γ and α) either omitted τούτου due to the similarity with the preceding αὐτοῦ or to emphasize the connection between the affirmation and the scriptural citation. These text-critical variants are summarized in Table 3-7. Table 3-7: Text-critical Issue at M4.1 line 1137 Manuscripts Text

family β

family β+

family γ and α

Καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦτο διαβεβαιωσαμένου καὶ εἰπόντος· “Τοῦτό μού ἐστι τὸ αἷμα,” τίς ἐνδοιάσει ποτὲ λέγων μὴ εἶναι αὐτοῦ αἷμα;

Καὶ αὐτοῦ τούτου διαβεβαιωσαμένου καὶ εἰπόντος· “Τοῦτό μού ἐστι τὸ αἷμα,” τίς ἐνδοιάσει ποτὲ λέγων μὴ εἶναι αὐτοῦ αἷμα;

Καὶ αὐτοῦ _____ διαβεβαιωσαμένου καὶ εἰρηκότος· “Τοῦτό μού ἐστι τὸ αἷμα,” τίς ἐνδοιάσει ποτὲ λέγων μὴ εἶναι αὐτοῦ αἷμα;

Discussion of accusative of οὗτος genitive of οὗτος variants AAPtc m g sg of AAPtc m g sg of εἶπον (to speak or say) εἶπον

omission

Translation

And here having confirmed ___ and (previously) having proclaimed “This is my blood,” who will ever doubt, saying it is not his blood?

37

And here having confirmed this, even saying “This is my blood,” who will ever doubt, saying say it is not his blood?

And here having confirmation of this, even saying “This is my blood,” who will ever doubt, saying say it is not his blood?

PfAPtc m g sg of ἐρῶ (I will say)

The text-critical issues that are in family γ only have been omitted.

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

101

The variants of οὗτος are most likely sequential scribal errors (addition to the ending through dittography between family β and family β+, omission of the word due to homeoteleuton in families γ and α). The variation in the verb occurs only in families γ and α. Because this change intensifies the meaning of the sentence, this change is consistent with the redactor’s stylistic emendations. M4.3 line 2 Family β (C, D, and F) attests μεταλάβωμεν, the aorist active subjunctive first person plural of μεταλαμβάνω while the critical edition presents the present active indicative, μεταλαμβάνομεν.38 This change is not a simple change of a few letters, but appears to be an intentional change in mood by the scribe. The first person plural subjunctive is often used in a hortatory way,39 which would build upon the rhetorical structure of the first two paragraphs and requires an implicit commitment from the listener. The indicative, on the other hand, functions more as a statement of fact, indicating the common consensus to the prior arguments to the listeners with an implicit imperative that they are to also receive with full assurance. The difference between the two readings appears to indicate a deliberate difference in rhetorical style between the original text, which is assumed to be the shorter reading from β, and the redacted text. Table 3-8: Text-critical issue at M4.3 line 2 family β

majority reading

Text

Ὥστε μετὰ πάσης πληροφορίας ὡς σώματος καὶ αἵματος μεταλάβωμεν Χριστοῦ.

Ὥστε μετὰ πάσης πληροφορίας ὡς σώματος καὶ αἵματος μεταλαμβάνομεν Χριστοῦ.

Discussion of variants

AAS 1pl

PAI 1pl

Translation

Therefore let us receive [them] with every full assurance as the body and blood of Christ40

Therefore we receive [them] with every full assurance as the body and blood of Christ.

Manuscripts

38

Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 136. BDF § 364. 40 While “with every full assurance” is stilted, since I take up πληροφορία and its cognate πληροφορεῖν in chapter six, I have translated the terms consistently to reflect the repetition of these words in Mystagogic Catechesis 4. 39

102

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Summary of Text-critical Issues in which the Sequential Redaction Begins in Manuscript Tradition β+ Table 3-9 provides a summary of the text-critical issues which exhibit sequential redaction characteristic of Piédnagel’s redactor starting in sub-family β+, with the exception of M1.t which has already been presented in Table 3-3.

Table 3-9: Summary of Text-Critical Issues which Exhibit Sequential Redaction Starting in Sub-family β+ Text M4.4 lines 5-6

Assessment 1) D and F of β have less common spelling, could be scribal error or emendation without change in meaning 2) β uses present middle indicative third person singular, while β+, marginal correction in γ’s L, and α use infinitive, indicative of redactor’s hand in β+ 2) γ alone includes intensifying δὲ at the beginning of the sentence 3) β+ and marginal correction in γ’s L add ὅτι – clarification or intensification 4) β+, marginal correction in γ’s L, and α include implied noun, intensifying the sentence 5) γ omits part of the sentence, which is corrected in the margin of L The primary intensification of the text appears between families β and β+, with an additional minor flourish added in γ and then removed from α. Use of the infinitive in α indicates the redactor’s hand.

M4.5 lines 4-6

1) β and K of γ use of ἁρμόνιος 2) other manuscripts include definite article and use ἁρμόδιος Mark of redactor and potential scribal error or redaction to modify theological statement.

M4.1 line 11

1) β have accusative of personal pronoun; ptc of εἶπον used 2) β+ have genitive of personal pronoun; like β, ptc of εἶπον is used 3) γ and α omit the personal pronoun; ptc of ἐρῶ rather than ptc of εἶπον Intensification starting in family γ and continuing in family α

M4.3 line 2

1) β presents subjunctive 2) other manuscripts present indicative Change in rhetorical style. Indeterminate in which group this change began, but possibly in β+

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

103

Text-critical Issues in which the Sequential Redaction Begins in Manuscript Tradition γ Eight text-critical issues present sequential redaction beginning in family γ, five of which are from Piédnagel’s exemplars for choosing tradition α as the preferred manuscript: M1.8 line 5, M4.1 lines 2-3, M4.2 lines 1-3, M4.8 line 9, M4.8 lines 11-14, M5.3 line 6, M5.7 lines 4-5, and M5.10 line 7.41 Four of these involve an added phrase or sentence: M4.8 lines 11-14, M1.8 line 5, M4.2 lines 1-3, and M4.8 line 9; these four will be discussed first. M4.8 lines 11-14 Several minor variants are present in family β+ and family γ, both changes in last letters and variations of word order that are most likely scribal errors.42 The more important variants are the addition of νῦν δὲ at the beginning of the sentence in family α, and the addition of the modifier καὶ πνευματικὰ in family γ, reminding the newly baptized that the white and bright garments under discussion are spiritual garments, which is continued into family α. Assuming that longer readings are emended readings, these two emendations serve as a demonstration of the subtle, sequential modification of the text from β to γ and then to α. This addition is in harmony with Cyril’s earlier teaching that white robes signify the clear conscience of the soul.43 Other textual variants include word order changes which are signature changes of the redactor (item 4: displacement of adjectives or adverbs) and what is most likely a scribal error of changing the ending of πνευματικῶς from -ῶς to –α, which duplicates the ending of the next word, λευκά, in family β+. Two scribal errors also occur in family γ: replacing the ending ς of two participles with ν, which changes them from nominative to accusative cases, as well as transforming the ending of ἀναγκαῖος from -αῖον (the adjectival form) to –αίως (the adverbial form). Table 3-10 provides a summary of the analysis of the text-critical issues in this sentence.

41 M1.8 line 5, M4.8 line 9, M5.3 line 6, M5.7 lines 4-5, and M5.10 line 7 all contain variants in manuscript tradition α that Piédnagel found to be the best reading. 42 Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 142. 43 See C3.3, C3.16, C15.25 and 26.

104

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 3-10: Text-critical Issue at M4.8 line 11 and 14 Manuscripts Text

Discussion of variants

family β

family β+

family γ

family α

____ ἀποδυσάμενος τὰ παλαιὰ ἱμάτια καὶ ἐνδυσάμενος τὰ πνευματικῶς λευκά, χρὴ λευχειμονεῖν διαπαντός. Οὐ πάντως τοῦτο λέγομεν, ὅτι σε δεῖ λευκὰ περιβεβλῆσθαι ἱμάτια ἀεί, ἀλλὰ τὰ ὄντως λευκὰ καὶ λαμπρὰ ___________ ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι περιβεβλῆσθαι, …·

____ ἀποδυσάμενος τὰ παλαιὰ ἱμάτια καὶ ἐνδυσάμενος τὰ πνευματικὰ λευκά, χρὴ λευχειμονεῖν διαπαντός. Οὐ πάντως τοῦτο λέγομεν, ὅτι σε δεῖ λευκὰ ἱμάτια περιβεβλῆσθαι ἀεί, ἀλλὰ τὰ λευκὰ ὄντως καὶ λαμπρὰ ___________ ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι περιβεβλῆσθαι, …

____ ἀποδυσάμενον τὰ παλαιὰ ἱμάτια καὶ ἐνδυσάμενον τὰ πνευματικῶς λευκά, χρὴ λευχειμονεῖν διαπαντός. Οὐ πάντως τοῦτο λέγομεν, ὅτι σε δεῖ λευκὰ περιβεβλῆσθαι ἱμάτια ἀεί, ἀλλὰ τὰ ὄντως λευκὰ καὶ λαμπρὰ καὶ πνευματικὰ ἀναγκαίως σε ἐστι περιβεβλῆσθαι, …

Νῦν δὲ ἀποδυσάμενος τὰ παλαιὰ ἱμάτια καὶ ἐνδυσάμενος τὰ πνευματικῶς λευκά, χρὴ λευχειμονεῖν διαπαντός. Οὐ πάντως τοῦτο λέγομεν, ὅτι σε δεῖ λευκὰ περιβεβλῆσθαι ἱμάτια ἀεί, ἀλλὰ τὰ ὄντως λευκὰ καὶ λαμπρὰ καὶ πνευματικὰ ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι περιβεβλῆσθαι, … addition of Νῦν δὲ

ἱμάτια and περιβεβλῆσθαι reversed

pl adj (n or acc) rather than adv of πνευματικῶς

λευκὰ and ὄντως reversed

acc instead of nom AMPtc of ἀποδύω and ἑνδύω

καὶ πνευματικὰ added plural rather than singular of ἀναγκαῖος addition of σε

καὶ πνευματικὰ added

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

105

M1.8 line 5 The clause found in family α, ἐπὶ τοῦτο διέβησαν, is omitted in family β and β+.44 This same clause has τοῦτου (neuter genitive singular of οὗτος) in family γ instead of the neuter accusative singular, τοῦτο, found in family α.45 The difficulty is determining the referent of the neuter singular of οὗτος. Following Piédnagel’s stemma, hyparchetype α had the phrase, and the scribe of hyparchetype γ added the final υ, transforming the neuter accusative singular of οὗτος, which corresponds to the gender of the neuter referent, διαμόνιον, to the masculine genitive singular. Τhe scribe of hyparchetype β omitted the phrase. Given the propensity of the redactor to add words that intensify the text, the addition of this little aside to the sentence supplies additional information about the activities of demons than is implied in the shorter reading. Following my modified stemma, I propose that hyparchetype β originally did not have the three-word phrase and the redactor added the phrase first with the pronoun that agrees with the antecedent, and then either the redactor further modified the phrase, changing the pronoun either by scribal omission or in an attempt to resolve the referent of the pronoun. Table 3-11 summarizes this text-critical issue, assuming that the original text did not have the added phrase. M4.2 lines 1-3 Working from the assumption that the longer text is the emended one, the omission of the first sentence in the second chapter in Mystagogic Catechesis 4 as it has been presented in the critical editions dramatically changes the argument for assurance that the sacrament of the eucharist is as Cyril has taught.46 Manuscript families β and β+ omit this sentence and present εἰ γὰρ (for if) rather than εἰς γάμον (into marriage) as found in the other (unspecified) manuscripts in the second sentence. The change of εἰ γὰρ to εἰς γάμον is a small change that harmonizes the addition into the existing text. The phrase εἰς γὰρ 44 According to Piédnagel (ibid. 64, 94), “ἐπὶ τοῦτο διέζησαν, où ἐπὶ τοῦτο est attesté par la famille α, tandis qu’on trouve ἐπι τοῦτο dans la famille γ, ces deux mots étant omis d’autre part dans la famille β”. The sentence in question begins on line 1 and continues through line 6: Λατρεία δέ ἐστι διαβόλου, ἡ ἐν εἰδωλίοις εὐχή·τὰ πρὸς τιμὴν γινόμενα τῶν ἀψύχων εἰδώλων· τὸ ἅπτειν πρὸς λύχνους, ἢ θυμιᾶν παρὰ πηγὰς ἢ, ὥς τινες ἀπ’ ὀνειράτων ἢ ἐκ δαιμόνων ἀπατηθέντες, [ἐπὶ τοῦτο διέβησαν,] οἰόμενοι καὶ σωματικῶν παθῶν τὴν ἴασιν εὑρίσκειν·μὴ τοιαῦτα μετέλθῃς. Now service to (worship of) the devil is this: prayer in idol temples, things done to the honor of lifeless idols; the lighting of lamps or incense by springs or rivers, as some are deceived by dreams or by the demons, [they cross over among this,] and imagine to find healing of bodily suffering; not like such might happen. [my translation, text in question in brackets]. 45 Piédnagel (ibid.) indicates that in both cases, the entire family gives this reading since individual manuscripts are not listed. 46 Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 136. This passage, as presented in the critical edition, is the source of much debate over whether or not Cyril taught transubstantiation.

106

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 3-11: Summary of variants on inserted text at Μ1.8 line 5 Manuscripts Text

family β family β+

family γ

family α

ὥς τινες ἀπ’ ὀνειράτων ἢ ἐκ δαιμόνων ἀπατηθέντες, ---οἰόμενοι καὶ σωματικῶν παθῶν τὴν ἴασιν εὑρίσκειν·μὴ τοιαῦτα μετέλθῃς

ὥς τινες ἀπ’ ὀνειράτων ἢ ἐκ δαιμόνων ἀπατηθέντες, ἐπὶ τοῦτου διέβησαν, οἰόμενοι καὶ σωματικῶν παθῶν τὴν ἴασιν εὑρίσκειν·μὴ τοιαῦτα μετέλθῃς

ὥς τινες ἀπ’ ὀνειράτων ἢ ἐκ δαιμόνων ἀπατηθέντες, ἐπὶ τοῦτο διέβησαν, οἰόμενοι καὶ σωματικῶν παθῶν τὴν ἴασιν εὑρίσκειν·μὴ τοιαῦτα μετέλθῃς

Inserts phrase which provides additional information about demonic activity, however exactly what the n g sg pronoun refers to is unclear

Inserted phrase modified either through omission of the υ or purposefully transforms the n g sg pronoun into a n a sg, changing the use of the preposition but without resolving the referent of the pronoun

as some are deceived by dreams or by the demons, they cross over on this, and imagine to find healing of bodily suffering

as some are deceived by dreams or by the demons, they cross over among this, and imagine to find healing of bodily suffering

Discussion of variants

Translation

as some are deceived by dreams or by the demons, ________ ________, and imagine to find healing of bodily suffering

σωματικὸν κληθεὶς is the more difficult reading. With γάμον instead of γὰρ, the phrase is, as translated by Yarnold, “When he was invited to a human wedding...” With εἰ γὰρ, the phrase appears to be a reference to the incarnation and provides the protasis (“For when he was called into corporality he performed this marvelous miracle”) for the apodosis of the sentence (“isn’t it more believable …”). In this reading, instead of the specific miracle at the wedding of Cana as the reference for the eucharist, the reference of the miracle is in the preceding chapter and refers to the institution of the eucharist in the Upper Room, clearly a much more difficult reading. The addition of the specific reference to the wedding at Cana not only makes the argument more emphatic, but it is an understandable addition with the reference to the “sons of the bridegroom” in this chapter and the previous wedding analogies that Cyril wove into

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

107

the Catecheses.47 Given Cyril’s use of σωματικός in his four other uses, twice to refer to the material or physical realm in general and twice for physical ailments or uncleanliness, the use in families β and β+ is more consistent with Cyril’s use of the word than what is presented in the critical edition since Cyril does not appear to differentiate between physical and spiritual marriages.48 In M4.1, Cyril began by arguing for assurance of the reality of contact with Christ’s body and blood based upon Christ’s words. In M4.4, Cyril said that the bread and the wine that the new Christians received in their first eucharist were Christ’s body and blood according to Christ’s imperial decree (κατὰ τὴν δεσποτικὴν τυγχάνει ἀπόφασιν). The addition of the wedding feast miracle, while it does simplify the seemingly awkwardness of the beginning of the sentence and fits nicely with the end of the sentence, does not advance the argument of Mystagogic Catechesis 4. Table 3-12 provides the summary of this text critical issue. Table 3-12: Text-critical Issue at M4.2 lines 1 and 3 Manuscripts Text

Discussion of variants

family β and β+

critical edition

Τὸ ὕδωρ ποτὲ εἰς οἶνον οἰκείῳ νεύματι μεταβέβληκεν ἐν Κανᾶ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ οὐκ ἀξιόπιστός ἐστιν οἶνον εἰς αἷμα μεταβαλών; Εἰ γὰρ σωματικὸν49 κληθεὶς Εἰς γάμον σωματικὸν κληθεὶς ταύτην ἐθαυματούργησε τὴν ταύτην ἐθαυματούργησε τὴν παραδοξοποΐαν, καὶ50 τοῖς υἱοῖς παραδοξοποΐαν, καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς τοῦ νυμφῶνος οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον τοῦ νυμφῶνος οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν τοῦ σώματος τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος δωρησάμενος ὁμολογηθήσεται; δωρησάμενος ὁμολογηθήσεται; addition change of Εἰ γὰρ to Εἰς γάμον

47 Cyril’s use of marriage or bridal imagery began in the Procatechesis (P1 and 3) and continued in the Catecheses (C1.1, C3.2, C3.16) with an intriguing use of Canticles in C14.12. 48 Cyril uses σωματικόν or other forms in four other places. In C3.4 line 3 it is with regard to the twofold nature of humanity and the twofold nature of cleansing, the material—water—is for the body (τὸ δὲ σωματικὸν, τῷ σώματι). C10.13 line 11 refers to physical ailments (σωματικοῖς περιβέβληται πάθεσι). In C17.14 line 9, the term refers to the physical or material: (λάβε ὑπόδειγμα σωματικόν, μικρὸν μὲν καὶ εὐτελές, χρήσιμον δὲ τοῖς ἀφελεστέροις.). In M5.2 line 3, the reference is to physical uncleanliness (σωματικὸν ῥύπον). 49 Manuscripts H and I (sub-family β+) have σωματικῶς instead of σωματικὸν. Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 136. 50 Manuscripts H and I (sub-family β+) omit this καὶ. Ibid.

108

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 3-12 (continued) Manuscripts

family β and β+

critical edition

For when he was called into corporality he worked this marvelous miracle, will not his giving the fruition of his body and his blood to the sons of the bride chamber be much more granted by common consent?

“Once at Cana in Galilee Jesus changed the water into wine by his own will. Isn’t it reasonable then to believe that he changed wine into blood?”51 When he was invited to a human wedding he worked this marvelous miracle, will not his giving the fruition of his body and his blood to the sons of the bride chamber be much more granted by common consent?”

Translation

This change in two sentences of the text demonstrates the subtle differences between the eucharistic teachings of two different theologians: for the redactor (John), the assurance of the eucharist becoming the transformative body and blood of Christ rested on the veracity of the miracle of transformation of water into wine at Cana. At Cana, the water was transformed in such a way that faith was not needed to understand what had happened—the senses were able to confirm the transformation of the water into wine. Thus, assurance of transformation of those who receive the eucharist into Christ-bearers, the primary theme of this lecture to the post-resurrection Christians, comes from Jesus’ pre-crucifixion ability to transform the sensible. Since he transformed the sensible aspects of the water into those of wine at an earthly wedding, how much more would he be able to transform the real (intelligible) aspects for those who are the bridegroom’s children? The emphasis here is the transformation of the elements, with the lesser miracle being the transformation of the sensible and the greater miracle being the transformation of the real (intelligible).52 In terms of theological significance, Johannes Quasten states that Cyril “is the first theologian to interpret this transformation [of the eucharistic elements] in the sense of a transubstantiation.”53 51

Translation by Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem (2000), 179. Cyril’s use of the “sensible” and “intelligible” is examined in chapter six. 53 Quasten, Patrology (1950), 375. Piédnagel cites and agrees with Quasten, Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 136, fn 2: “J. Quasten (p 94, n 1) fait judicieusement remarquer que le verbe μεταβάλλειν employé au début de ce paragraphe (cf. aussi Ve Mystagogique, 7 l. 5-6, p.154), pour comparer ici le changement du pain et du vin au corps et au sang du Christ avec celui de l’eau en vin aux noces de Cana signifie par conséquent une transformation véritablement substantielle des espèces eucharistiques. Ailleurs, en effet, il est question de l’eau baptismale qui, “ayant reçu l’invocation de l’Esprit-Saint, du Christ et du Père”, acquiert un pouvoir 52

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

109

However, this proposition does not fit within the argument that Cyril presents in this lecture in which he instructed his listeners to trust faith over their senses and to pay attention to the spiritual meanings of the transformed bread and wine.54 In the shorter reading, the assurance of the ongoing transformative nature of the eucharist resides in the miracle of the institution of the eucharist. He emphasizes the continuity of Christ’s ministry and care for his disciples while also acknowledging, implicitly, the change in the work of the Holy Spirit post-Pentecost.55 Thus, with Hugh Riley, I am convinced that the focus of Cyril’s sacramental theology, including his eucharistic theology, is not an early form of transubstantiation, but the transformation of the person into a Christbearer. According to Riley, “Cyril is thinking in the theology of dynamic transformation rather than in the static terms of transubstantiated object …” 56 Furthermore, to approach this text with a late medieval-Reformation question moves the focus away from the Mystagogue’s emphasis: through the eucharist, the Christian is transformed. sanctificateur: δύναμιν ἁγιότητος ἐπικτᾶται (cf. IIIe Prébaptismale, 3, PG 33, 429A), ou de l’huile chrismale qui, avec l’épiclese, devient par la présence de l’Esprit-Saint efficace de sa divinité: Πνεύματος ἁγίου παρουσίας τῆς αὐτοῦ θεότητος ἐνεργητικὸν γινόμενον (cf. IIIe Mystagogique, 3, l. 6-7, p/ 124). Mais en ces passages aucun terme n’indique la transformation substantielle désignée ici.” According to Pasquato (‘Spirituality and Prayer in the Baptismal Catecheses of St Cyril of Jerusalem’ [1998], 48), the inclusion of the miracle at the wedding feast of Cana is a “sign of transubstantiation.” 54 See M4.6, 8, and 9. 55 The Holy Spirit dwelt in the apostles more fully than in the prophets. See C14.25, C16.28, and C17.18. 56 Riley, Christian Initiation (1974), 370, fn 64. Riley states that for each of the sacraments, “[o]ne must, of course, avoid applying the framework of later “transubstantiation” theology in this context. Cyril’s primary interest is not in explaining the oil as object, but rather its dynamic use in conjunction with the operation of the Holy Spirit. One must compare Cyril’s thinking in this passage with other examples where mention of the epiclesis occur. In M1.7, for example, Cyril compares bread and wine which has through the epiclesis become the body and blood of Christ with the transformation which takes place in other foods such as bread or meat when idolatrous invocations are made over them. They become then part of the impure ‘pomps of Satan.’ That Cyril is thinking in the theology of dynamic transformation rather than in the static terms of transubstantiated object may also be seen in his remarks in M5.7, 19. Speaking of the epiclesis over the bread and wine he says: “Whatever the Holy Spirit touches is sanctified and changed … Even more revealing of the transformation theology which lies at the heart of Cyril’s mystagogy are his remarks in the same catechesis prior to receiving Holy Communion, apropos of the liturgical admonition which he cites, “Holy things to the holy …” [M5.19]. To the objection that One alone is holy, the One Lord Jesus Christ, Cyril answers that this is true, but the people also may be called holy, not by ‘nature (φύσει)’ as is Jesus Christ, but by ‘participation (μετοχῂ)’ as well as by effort and prayer. The word ‘μετοχῂ’ is the same word which Cyril uses to describe what takes place in the post-baptismal anointing where the neophytes become “companions and participants of Christ (κοινωνοὶ καὶ μέτοχοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ).” Hall, Worshiping with the Church Fathers (2009), 73 uses the term “transformation of the elements” to describe Cyril’s teaching on the eucharist and notes that Cyril “refrains from trying to explain how such a transformation occurs.”

110

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

M4.8 line 9 Family γ and sub-family β+ omit what appears to be an addition of νῦν followed by a repeat of part of the quote from Ecclesiastes, “ηὐδόκησε Κύριος τὰ ποιήματά σου,” which is found in both families β and α.57 Since both families β and α contain this additional phrase, this may indicate duplication error. Family β and H of sub-family β+ do not include the next sentence, Πρὶν γὰρ προσελθεῖν τῇ χάριτι, “ματαιότης ματαιοτήτων” ἦν τὰ ποιήματά σου (For before coming to grace, your works were “vanity of vanities”), and the witness from family γ has the aorist active subjunctive second singular of προσέρχομαι while family α has the aorist active infinitive, a signature trademark of Piédnagel’s redactor. Manuscript I has the text of family γ in the margin. The variants for this text-critical issue are summarized in Table 3-13. Table 3-13: Text-Critical issue at M 4.8 line 9 Manuscripts

Text

family β

family β+ (H)

family γ and marginal reading of I (family β+)

family α (A)

Καὶ “διαπαντὸς ἔστω σου τὰ ἱμάτια λευκά, ὅτι ηὐδόκησε Κύριος τὰ ποιήματά σου·” νῦν ηὐδόκησε Κύριος τὰ ποιήματά σου.

Καὶ “διαπαντὸς ἔστω σου τὰ ἱμάτια λευκά, ὅτι ηὐδόκησε Κύριος τὰ ποιήματά σου·”

Καὶ “διαπαντὸς ἔστω σου τὰ ἱμάτια λευκά, ὅτι ηὐδόκησε Κύριος τὰ ποιήματά σου·”

Καὶ “διαπαντὸς ἔστω σου τὰ ἱμάτια λευκά, ὅτι ηὐδόκησε Κύριος τὰ ποιήματά σου·” νῦν ηὐδόκησε Κύριος τὰ ποιήματά σου. Πρὶν γὰρ προσελθεῖν τῇ χάριτι, “ματαιότης ματαιοτήτων” ἦν τὰ ποιήματά σου.

Πρὶν γὰρ προσέλθῃς τῇ χάριτι, “ματαιότης ματαιοτήτων” ἦν τὰ ποιήματά σου.

57 Lines 7-10 in the critical edition read as follows: Καὶ “διαπαντὸς ἔστω σου τὰ ἱμάτια λευκά, ὅτι ηὐδόκησε Κύριος τὰ ποιήματά σου” νῦν ηὐδόκησε Κύριος τὰ ποιήματά σου. Πρὶν γὰρ προσελθεῖν τῇ χάριτι, “ματαιότης ματαιοτήτων” ἦν τὰ ποιήματά σου. Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 64 states that “πρίν γὰρ προσελθεῖν τῇ χάριτι attesté par le seul Monac. 394, leçon qui parait préférable à προσέλθῃς de γ (passage omis dans β, sauf par l’Ott. 220, qui récrit dans la marge προσέλθῃς).”

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

111

Table 3-13 (continued) family β

Manuscripts

Discussion of variants

family β+ (H)

family γ and marginal reading of I (family β+)

Addition of νῦν Duplication of ηὐδόκησε … σου. Addition of second sentence

family α (A)

Addition of νῦν Duplication of ηὐδόκησε … σου. Addition of second sentence

While there are other textual variations in lines 7 and 8, Piédnagel follows the majority readings, which includes the paraphrase from Ecclesiastes 9:7-8 (reversing the order of the clauses and replacing ὁ θεός with Κύριος): “And ‘Keep your garment white throughout, because the Lord is pleased with your works.’” He has also retained what, arguably, is a duplication error in both family β and α, which adds “now the Lord is pleased with your works.” The next line, with the quote from Ecclesiastes 1:2, is omitted in all of the manuscripts for family β (including sub-family β+), with the exception of I, which has the text, using προσέλθῃς instead of προσελθεῖν, in the margin. Since content supplied by the added sentence is implied in the immediately preceding sentence, this addition serves to intensify the text, which is a trademark of Piédnagel’s redactor. Furthermore, it includes the redactor’s trademark use of the infinitive. M4.3 lines 6-7 In this textual issue, the readings differ in word choice and in participle form, which follows from the difference in the verbs used.58 Family β (my notation of both β and β+) has the perfect middle masculine nominative plural participle of ἀναδέχομαι while family γ and A from family α have participles of ἀναδίδωμι, with family γ employing the present middle nominative plural participle and A using the present middle genitive singular participle. With respect to the verbs, β and the marginal correction of L, the use of ἀναδέχομαι focuses 58 According to Piédnagel (ibid. 64, 136), “τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος εἰς τὰ ἡμέτερα ἀναδιδομένου est attesté par le seul Monac. 394, meilleur, semble-t-il, que le ἀναδεδεγμένοι de la famille β (la famille γ présentant pour sa part une faute, soit ἀναδιδόμενα, corrigée par l’Ott. 446, en ἀναδεδεγμένοι).” The full sentence in the critical edition is: Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ χριστοφόροι γινόμεθα, τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος εἰς τὰ ἡμέτερα ἀναδιδομένου μέλη.

112

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

on the action and attitude of the receiver: “to experience something by being accepting” or “to extend hospitality to” as in “receiving or welcoming.”59 This would place the emphasis upon the attitude of the communicants: “Certainly, in this way you have also been made Christ-bearers, having received (or welcomed) his body and blood into our bodily frame.” If this is the correct reading, this is Cyril’s only use of this verb. The other verb choice, ἀναδίδωμι, focuses on the action of the giver: to deliver or hand over.60 Cyril uses ἀναδίδωμι in one other instance, in M5.15 line 6 to describe how the sanctified and transformed bread circulates into the very limbs, or bodily frame (μέλος) of the human person so that both the body and the soul are nourished, which would provide a re-iteration of this passage. Gifford used this parallel to argue for ἀναδίδωμι in the sentence under investigation.61 However, the context of M5.15 is different. In M5.15 the context is less about the action of partaking and being assured about what is being consumed, but about how the eucharistic bread is different from ordinary bread. While ordinary bread nourishes the body and what is not digestible is eliminated through bodily waste, the daily bread petitioned in the Our Father—the eucharistic bread—nourishes both body and soul without biological waste.62 Not only do the variants differ by the verb choice, but also in person doing the action. As already noted, in the reading for family β, the subject of the participle is the communicants. However, the reading of the rest of family γ which has not been corrected takes the referent of the participle as the body and blood of Christ which has been received, τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος, so that the second half of the sentence would be translated as “having his body and blood delivered into our bodily frame.” In the reading of A, which uses the genitive masculine singular, Christ is the referent of the participle, so that the second half of the sentence would be translated as “having delivered his body and blood into our limbs.” Table 3-14 provides a summary of this text-critical issue.

59 BDAG sv ‘ἀναδέχομαι’, 62. The nuance of this word is more specialized in Lampe’s lexicon (PGL sv “ἀναδέχομαι,” 101B), the first gloss is “take upon oneself, take responsibility for, stand in surety for” in situations of a) God’s atonement, b) repentance, c) confession, and d) receive as a sponsor in baptism. 60 BDAG sv ‘ἀναδίδωμι’, 62. In Lampe’s lexicon (PGL, 101B), the glosses are “give, deliver”; “distribute, impart” with respect to the eucharist (Cyril’s text is given as the exemplar); and “give away.” 61 BDAG sv ‘ἀναδίδωμι’, 62. Gifford proposes that this reading is supported by M5.15, “This Bread goeth not into the belly and is not cast out into the draught, but is distributed (ἀναδίδοται) into thy whole system for the benefit of body and soul.” (Emphasis his) NPNF2.7:xlv. 62 Cyril’s comment in M5.15 about the body completely using the consecrated elements of the eucharistic meal has its context in C9.15, in which he describes the digestive system.

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

113

Table 3-14: Text-critical issues at M4.3 lines 6 and 7 Manuscripts Text

family β and β+ Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ χριστοφόροι γινόμεθα, τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος εἰς τὰ ἡμέτερα ἀναδεδεγμένοι μέλη.

family γ Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ χριστοφόροι γινόμεθα, τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος εἰς τὰ ἡμέτερα ἀναδιδόμενα μέλη.

family α: A only Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ χριστοφόροι γινόμεθα, τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος εἰς τὰ ἡμέτερα ἀναδιδομένου μέλη.

Discussion of PfMPtc mnpl from variants ἀναδέχομαι

PfMPtc nnpl of PfMPtc m/ngsg from ἀναδίδωμι (L corrected ἀναδίδωμι to reading of β)

Translation

For in this way we become Christ-bearers, having his body and blood distributed into our limbs

For in this way we become Christ-bearers, having welcomed his body and blood into our limbs63

For in this way we become Christ-bearers, having his body and blood distributed into our limbs

Since these textual variants reflect different emphasis in the sacramental theology—whether the emphasis is upon the disposition of the recipient or upon the activity of the eucharistic elements—the choice for the “best reading” should reflect the themes and emphasis of the text. In the immediate context, the focus is on the action of the communicants with μεταβάλλειν (partake of)64 used twice in this chapter, with the subject of the verb being the body and blood of Christ in each instance. Family γ seems to be an intermediate step in a theological shift in which the action moves from the receptivity of the communicants (family β), to the action of Christ’s body and blood as present in the consecrated elements (family γ), to finally the action of Christ himself (A). While this type of textual issue does not fit into one of Piédnagel’s nine characteristics of the redactor other than possibly intensifying the transformative nature of the sacramental elements, the reading of family β appears to be a better fit into the emphasis of the entire corpus since it continues to stress of the need for the communicants’ volition 63 Gifford (NPNF 2.7: xlv-xlvii) translates this variant as “having received of his Body and His blood into our members.” 64 According to Lampe (PGL 852-3), μεταλαμβάνω has the glosses of “partake of, participate in” and, while it can merely refer to partaking of food (definition B), this use, in Christian writings, can take the direct object of Christ (see C4.27) and baptism; it is used by Justin Martyr, John Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa as well as others to describe receiving the eucharist. Definition H is “transfer” as “from literal to spiritual level.”

114

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

and cognition to focus on faith for their assurance, and the assurance that they are indeed now Christ-bearers. Thus, I argue for the reading of β as the more difficult, yet more consistent, reading rather than the attestation of the single instance in Monacensis gr. 278. M5.3 line 6 The major issue in this text critical issue, as highlighted by Piédnagel, is the use of the articular infinitive, ἀνακραθῆναι. Piédnagel states that attestation for τοῦ ἀνακραθῆναι is only found in A.65 In the critical apparatus, he provides an alternate reading of ἀνακραθῆναι, the aorist passive infinitive of ἀνακεράννυμι, only for family γ, which has ἀνακερασθῆναι, an attested but less frequently used form of the aorist passive infinitive of the verb;66 no alternate reading, other than τὸ instead of τοῦ, is offered for family β at this part of the reading.67 An additional textual variant is the use of κακίαν in family β+ instead of μνησικακίαν in family β+, which appears to be a scribal omission. Manuscript A also has the addition of τοῦτο before τὸ φίλημα, placing additional emphasis on which kiss. The nominative articular infinitive is typically the subject, but, while rare, it can also have an appositional use, but the genitive articular infinitive has a wider range of use since it can function as an adverb of purpose, result, or, rarely, cause, as well as an epexegetical or appositional substantival.68 Because of its flexibility, the genitive article is the easier reading: “Therefore this kiss is the sign that our souls are mingled together, and have banished all remembrances of wrongs.”69 If the appositional use of both articles is employed, then the sentence translates as: “Therefore the kiss which is the mingling of souls is the sign to banish the remembrance of wrongs.”70 While this is a more difficult reading, it offers two theological implications that are noteworthy: first, this translation requires keeping the articular infinite phrase (τοῦ ἀνακραθῆναι τὰς ψυχὰς) with the articular nominative which is also the closest nominative (τὸ φίλημα). Second, this variant presents a different theological implication that is in harmony with the next sentence and the pedagogical goal threaded throughout the lecture. The grammatically more difficult reading appears to 65 Piédnagel (ibid. 64) states that “τοῦ ἀνακραθῆναι attesté seulement, dans cette teneur précise, par le Monac. 394.” 66 This term appears twice in the TLG, once in Pseudo-Macarius’ fourth century Homily 14.1 line 27 and the second in the seventh century Scholia in Hippocratis prognosticon (2.8 line 200) by physician Stephanus. 67 Ibid. 148. 68 Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996), 590-611. 69 As translated by Cross, St Cyril of Jerusalem’s Lectures on the Christian Sacraments (1951), 72. 70 This translation assumes that the anarthrous infinitive is epexegetical.

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

115

continue the emphasis of the lecture. The quotation from Matthew 5:23 about being reconciled before coming to the altar is an imperative to set aside differences, not an indicative stating that reconciliation has happened. Since Cyril is concerned with the disposition of his listeners throughout this lecture, the instruction that the sign is not about what has been accomplished, but about what continues to require work to stay in right relationship within the community, appears to be more consistent with the immediate context. While the use of τὸ could be the result of a copy error (the scribe would have just written the τὸ before φίλημα), arguably, the reading from A is more expressive, has a different theological emphasis than the rest of the text, and is therefore more likely the work of a redactor. With respect to the addition of τοῦτο in A, longer readings are typically emendations. In this case, the addition makes the sentence more expressive, and thus is most likely the work of the redactor. These variants are summarized in Table 3-15.

Table 3-15: Text-critical issue at M 5.3 line 6 Manuscripts Text

family β Σημεῖον τοίνυν ἐστὶ

Σημεῖον τοίνυν ἐστὶ

τὸ φίλημα τὸ ἀνακραθῆναι τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξορίζειν μνησικακίαν.

τὸ φίλημα τὸ ἀνακραθῆναι τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξορίζειν κακίαν. κακίαν instead of μνησικακίαν; scribal error

Discussion of variants

Translation

family β+

Therefore the kiss which is the mingling of souls is the sign to banish all remembrance of wrongs.

Therefore the kiss which is the mingling of souls is the sign to banish all badness.

family γ

family α (A)

Σημεῖον τοίνυν ἐστὶ τοῦτο τὸ φίλημα τὸ φίλημα τοῦ ἀνακερασθῆναι τοῦ ἀνακραθῆναι τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξορίζειν πᾶσαν ἐξορίζειν μνησικακίαν. μνησικακίαν. Σημεῖον τοίνυν ἐστὶ

Addition of τοῦτο; ἀνακερασθῆναι instead of ἀνακραθῆναι

ἀνακραθῆναι instead of ἀνακερασθῆναι

Therefore the kiss is the sign that our souls are mingled together, and have banished all remembrances of wrongs.

Therefore this kiss is the sign that our souls are mingled together, and have banished all remembrances of wrongs.

116

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

M4.1 lines 2-3 Two text critical issues are listed in the first sentence of Mystagogic Catechesis 4, chapter 1.71 In line 2, manuscripts in families β and β+ attest the contracted preposition κατά, καθ’, with the feminine singular adjective ἕκαστος, while unspecified other manuscripts from families γ and α have the perfect active indicative third singular of καθίστημι, κατηξιώθητε. In line 3, manuscripts from families β and β+ have the masculine genitive singular aorist passive participle of καταξιόω, κατηξιωθέντες, where unspecified manuscripts of families γ and α present the aorist passive indicative, second person plural, κατηξιώθητε. The difference between the two readings can be explained by the scribe of family γ combining the preposition κατά and the adjective ἕκαστος, which, in families β and β+ have the contracted form of κατά, καθ’, with the adjective and then placing the κ from ἕκαστος at the end and transforming the α to an ε in a scribal error. This scribal error, however, does change the text. With the finite verb of family γ and α, the infinitive of πληροφέρω, is complementary: “to set down (establish) full assurance.” The reading of the β families requires inserting an implicit copulative and serves to explain the purpose: “to fully assure” with the words in question, καθ’ ἑκάστην modifying the object of the phrase, ὑμᾶς. The reading of the β families emphasizes the individuals that Cyril was addressing—the words of the blessed Paul are sufficient to fully assure each person—while the reading from families α and γ places the emphasis in the past statement of Paul, which provides the smoother, easier read and thus making it the candidate for the emendation or error. The second text-critical issue of this sentence is the verb following the masculine nominative singular present active participle of εἰμί, ὧν. Families β and β+ have the singular masculine genitive active present participle of καταξιόω, κατηξιωθέντες, rather than the second person active present indicative, κατηξιώθητε, attested in families γ and α. This change from the reading in families β and β+ to family γ would require changing the εν to η and dropping the final ς. Yarnold takes the final participle in the sentence, γενόμενοι, as a temporal adverbial participle because of the finite verb.72 Without the finite verb, the final participle might be read as participle of attendant circumstance,73 emphasizing the transformation which is the topic of this catechetical lesson, and the genitive ὧν would be read as an adverbial genitive of time, “the divine mysteries during which,” instead of an objective genitive, “the divine mysteries of which.” A summary of these text-critical issues are in Table 3-16. 71 72 73

Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 134. Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem (2000), 179. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996), 640-5.

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

117

Table 3-16: Text-critical Issue at M4.1 lines 2 and 3 Manuscripts

family β and β+

family γ and α

Text

Καὶ αὕτη τοῦ μακαρίου Παύλου ἡ διδασκαλία ἱκανὴ καθ’ ἑκάστην πληροφορῆσαι ὑμᾶς περὶ τῶν θείων μυστηρίων ὧν κατηξιωθέντες, σύσσωμοι καὶ σύναιμοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενόμενοι.

Καὶ αὕτη τοῦ μακαρίου Παύλου ἡ διδασκαλία ἱκανὴ καθέστηκε πληροφορῆσαι ὑμᾶς περὶ τῶν θείων μυστηρίων ὧν κατηξιώθητε, σύσσωμοι καὶ σύναιμοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενόμενοι.

Discussion of variants

adj κατά ἕκαστος: according to each one;

PfAI 3sg καθίστημι: to set down

APPtc mgsg καταξιόω

API2pl καταξιόω

This teaching of the blessed Paul [is] sufficient to fully assure each one of us concerning the divine mysteries during which, having been deemed worthy, and became of the same body and blood as Christ.

This teaching of the blessed Paul has sufficiently established full assurance to us concerning the divine mysteries to which you were deemed worthy when you became of the same body and blood as Christ.

Translation

In this example, the reading from the β manuscripts emphasizes Cyril’s recognition of each individual’s present need for assurance. Through participation in the earlier mysteries of the pre-baptismal anointing, baptism, and the postbaptismal anointing were the signs, the new Christians were deemed worthy of receiving this next mystery: the eucharist. The use of scripture in this persuasive reading is to summarize that what Paul has taught continues to be sufficient to assure his listeners. The reading from families α and γ, however, has a different rhetorical tone. The use of indicatives rather than participles is more declarative than persuasive, which seems to be in discord with the tone of the Procatechesis and Catecheses. Also worthy of note in this example is that families α and γ have the same reading; if redaction began in γ as I have proposed, then this redaction was retained in the final hyparchetype, α. M5.10 line 7 Piédnagel points to the use of προσενέγκοιεν, the aorist active optative third singular in A, which he states is necessary for the context, as the better reading rather than the aorist third person subjunctive, προσενέγκωσιν, in D of β and

118

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Η of β+ or the aorist active infinitive attested in family γ.74 Given the use of the aorist optative third person singular in this sentence (both ποιήσειεν and δῴη), use of the optative is expected. However, the subjunctive was often used in place of the optative in Koine,75 so the issue is not necessarily the use of the subjunctive, but the third person plural in D and H. At issue is determining who is the subject of the aorist active finite verb. With the third person plural of D and H, the emphasis of the sentence is on the sacrifice of the many, the διαφέροντες who are different from the one who has been banished and thus superior to that one who has offended the king,76 and they offer the plaited crown for the sake of the one who has offended the king so that this one’s punishments are reduced. That is, the intercessory prayers of the faithful (in this case, the faithful who are asleep in Christ, M5.9) are efficacious for the one in need (the faithful who are living). With the aorist active optative of A which is third person singular, the emphasis is upon the one who presents the crown. With the subjunctive infinitive, the emphasis of the sentence is on the action of presenting the plaited crown rather than who presents the crown. The redactor had a propensity to change finite verbs to infinitives, so the reading of family γ was most likely due to the redactor’s hand, changing either προσενέγκωσιν from D and H to γ’s προσενεγκεῖν by changing –ωσιν to -εῖν or the reading of A from προσενέγκοιεν to γ’s προσενεγκεῖν by adding an ο. If the reading of D and H is the older reading, then the shift from aorist active subjunctive third person plural to family γ’s aorist active infinitive is a shift from specifics of who offers the crown of Cyril’s example to less specificity by dropping an ω and changing a σ to an ι. Then, the shift from family γ’s aorist active infinitive to A’s aorist active optative third singular would be to use a more classical Greek form rather than the Koine and to place the emphasis upon a person who must be specified by the next sentence. This next sentence provides the implicit subject of the third person singular for A as well as the meaning of the example: “In this way also we offer petitions for those who have fallen asleep, even if they are sinners; we plait no crown but we offer Christ sacrificed for our sins, propitiating the merciful God for them and ourselves.”77 The people offer petitions, and these

74 Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 64-5 states that “προσενέγκοιεν attesté par le seul Monac 394, et que demande le contexte, au lieu du προσενέγκωσιν du Bodleianus et du Marchianus et du προσεωεγκεῖν de la famille γ.” The sentence under investigation is : Ἆρα γάρ, εἴ τις βασιλεὺς προσκεκρουκότας αὐτῷ ἐξορίστους ποιήσειεν, εἶτα οἱ τούτοις διαφέροντες, στέφανον πλέξαντες, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐν τιμωρίαις αὐτῷ τοῦτον προσενέγκοιεν, οὐκ ἂν αὐτοῖς ἄνεσιν δῴη τῶν κολάσεων; 75 Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996), 480. BDF §385. 76 BDAG sv ‘διαφέρω’, 239, third and fourth definition. 77 M5.10 lines 8-13: Τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ἡμεῖς, ὑπὲρ τῶν κεκοιμημένων αὐτῷ τὰς δεήσεις προσφέροντες, κἂν ἁμαρτωλοὶ ὦσιν, οὐ στέφανον πλέκομεν, ἀλλὰ Χριστὸν ἐσφαγιασμένον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁμαρτημάτων προσφέρομεν, ἐξιλεούμενοι ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἡμῶν τὸν φιλάνθρωπον Θεόν.

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

119

petitions are such that what they actually offer is Christ for the remission of sins of both those who pray and those for whom they pray; Christ is the crown which is offered in order to loosen the punishments of those who are both praying and the sinners for whom supplication is made. In summary, the referent for the third person singular in family α is Christ. The referent for the third person plural in family β is the people who pray. These observations are presented in Table 3-17. Table 3-17: Text-critical Issue at M5.10 line 7 family β and β+ (D, H)

family γ

family α (A)

ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐν τιμωρίαις αὐτῷ τοῦτον προσενεγκωσιν, οὐκ ἂν αὐτοῖς ἄνεσιν δῴη τῶν κολάσεων;

ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐν τιμωρίαις αὐτῷ τοῦτον προσενεγκεῖν, οὐκ ἂν αὐτοῖς ἄνεσιν δῴη τῶν κολάσεων;

ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐν τιμωρίαις αὐτῷ τοῦτον προσενεγκοιεν, οὐκ ἂν αὐτοῖς ἄνεσιν δῴη τῶν κολάσεων;

Discussion of AAS3pl variants

AAInf

AAO3sg

Translation

Therefore if, after a king had banished someone, then the ones who were superior (better off) plaited a crown to present for the sake of helping the one, would he not give to them a loosening of the punishments?

Therefore if, after a king had banished someone then the ones who were superior (better off), plaiting a crown, [that] he might present [it] for the sake of helping himself, would he not give to them a loosening of the punishments?

Manuscripts Text

Therefore if, after a king had banished someone, then the ones who were superior (better off) plaited a crown, [that] they might present [it] for the sake of helping the one, would he not give to them a loosening of the punishments?

The question at the beginning of the chapter provides the remaining information for attempting to evaluate the best reading: the question that Cyril is answering is how is the soul of the departed helped by the prayers of the people.78 The emphasis of the question, as well as the focus of Mystagogical Catechesis 5, is about what the people do and why. In the reading attested by A, the people’s role in the liturgical prayer is minimized: Christ is the one who 78 M5.10 lines 1-4: Καὶ βούλομαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ ὑποδείγματος πεῖσαι. Οἶδα γὰρ πολλοὺς τοῦτο λέγοντας ὅτι· Τί ὠφελεῖται ψυχή, μετὰ ἁμαρτημάτων ἀπαλλασσομένη τοῦδε τοῦ κόσμου, ἢ οὐ μεθ’ ἁμαρτημάτων, ἐὰν ἐπὶ τῆς προσφορᾶς μνημονεύηται; And I wish to persuade you with an example. For I know that many say: how is the soul which has departed from this world helped from sins, whether with sins or without sins, by the commemoration offering?

120

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

presents himself for the loosening of the punishments. In the reading attested in D and H, the reason for the people’s prayers is put into the larger context of Christ’s propitiatory role and may, because of the people’s prayers being instrumental for Christ’s propitiatory role may have seemed, to some later scribe, to need correcting. While, at first glance, the use of the optative in the reading attested by A appears more attractive theologically, it seems to be at odds with the overarching pedagogical purpose of the chapter. The use of the infinitive in family γ can be attributed to the work of Piédnagel’s redactor and could be formed from either reading. This appears to be a sequential redaction, but insufficient theological differences between Cyril and John are available to verify which reading is more Cyrillian and which is more Johannine. M5.7 lines 4-5 Piédnagel states that οὗ ἂν ἐφάψηται is the best reading in line 5 of M5.7. Monacensis gr. 394 (A) provides οὗ ἂν ἀφάψηται; he proposes that ἀφάψηται is a scribal error in which the ε of ἐφάψηται was replaced with an α. Family γ has οὗ ἐὰν ἐφάψαιτο, which Piédnagel states is an unacceptable reading79 and therefore the attestation of the aorist optative middle, third person singular of ἐφάπτω must be a scribal error. Bodleianus Roe (D) from family β and Marcianus II. 35 (H) from sub-family β+ have οὗ ἐὰν ἐφάψηται.80 Piédnagel prefers the reading of ἐφάπτω over ἀφάπτω and the particle ἂν over the subordinating conjunction ἐὰν, resulting in the critical edition using a variant not present in the manuscripts. With respect to the verbs, as already stated in the discussion of M5.10, line 7, the sense of the sentence might not vary significantly with the shift from subjunctive to optative or vice versa. Since optatives are present in M5.10, the change from a subjunctive (β, β+) to an optative (γ) may be simply an attempt to harmonize the verbal mood of the text. If, however, the optative was an intentional change, the sentence is intensified, which would indicate the hand of the redactor. 79 Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 64 states that the correct reading is “οὗ ἂν ἐφάψηται (en réalité, on lit dans le Monac. 394 : ἀφάψηται où l’α initial semble une erreur de lecture du copiste) ; mais la rectification une fois admise, cette leçon se présente comme la seule recevable, au lieu de οὗ ἐὰν ἐφάψαιτο de la famille γ, — et de οὗ ἐὰν ἐφάψηται du Bodleianus Roe 25, et du Marcianus II.35  ;” The sentence in question, as found in the critical edition, is Εἶτα ἁγιάσαντες ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τῶν πνευματικῶν τούτων ὕμνων, παρακαλοῦμεν τὸν φιλάνθρωπον Θεὸν τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα ἐξαποστεῖλαι ἐπὶ τὰ προκείμενα, ἵνα ποιήσῃ τὸν μὲν ἄρτον ἐξαποστεῖλαι ἐπὶ τὰ προκείμενα, ἵνα ποιήσῃ τὸν μὲν ἄρτον σῶμα Χριστοῦ, τὸν δὲ οἶνον αἷμα Χριστοῦ· παντὸς γὰρ οὗ ἂν ἐφάψηται τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, τοῦτο ἡγίασται καὶ μεταβέβληται. 80 Only one use of οὗ ἐὰν is found in Cyril’s works as presented in the TLG, C6.15 line 9 : Ὅτι ἐὰν δύο ἐξ ὑμῶν συμφωνήσωσι, περὶ παντὸς πράγματος οὗ ἐὰν αἰτήσωνται, γενήσεται αὐτοῖς· τὸ τῆς ὁμονοίας βέλος διὰ τῆς προσευχῆς πέμψαντες κατὰ τοῦ μάγου, κατέβαλον αὐτὸν εἰς. It is of note that the verb in the phrase of interest is an aorist middle subjunctive, third person plural.

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

121

The change from γ to α contains both a shift in mood and verb. The emphasis of the verb from ἐφάπτω, with the sense of “to lay hold of” in the middle tense, is intensified with ἀφάπτω, “to fasten upon.”81 The reading found in family α (A) could, then, be the redactor’s intensification of the reading found in family β (D and H) or family γ. A theological change may also be indicated in the change from ἐὰν to ἂν. The context of Mystagogic Catechesis 5 is temporal; in this catechetical lecture, Cyril provided instructions on the sequence of the liturgy. The conditional, ἐὰν, rather than the indefinite relative clause using ἂν, places the contingency upon the timing of the action of the Holy Spirit (whenever the Holy Spirit lays hold of), rather than focusing the contingency on the subject of the verb (whatsoever the Holy Spirit fastens upon).82 The reading in manuscripts D and H is the easier read since it fits within the theme and structure of the text; the reading of A may be intensification and a continuation of the subtle theological shift by the redactor demonstrated in M4.2, lines 1-3. However, it is not unusual for ἐὰν to be used instead of ἂν with the subjunctive mood even though they can be used for slightly different nuances,83 and, as noted by Piédnagel, both could be scribal errors. However, these changes could be sequential redactions since both families β and γ attest to the conditional use of either a subjunctive or optative form of ἐφάπτω. Table 3-18 provides a summary and translation of these variants. Table 3-18: Text-Critical issue at M5.7 line 5 Manuscripts

family β and β+ (D, H)

family α (A)

παντὸς γὰρ οὗ ἐὰν ἐφάψαιτο τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, τοῦτο ἡγίασται καὶ μεταβέβληται

παντὸς γὰρ οὗ ἂν ἀφάψηται τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, τοῦτο ἡγίασται καὶ μεταβέβληται.

Discussion of subjunctive mood of variants ἐφάπτω in a conditional phrase

optative mood of ἐφάπτω in a conditional phrase

subjunctive mood of ἀφάπτω in an indefinite relative clause

Translation

For whenever the Holy Spirit lays hold of, he sanctifies and transforms them.

for whatever the Holy Spirit fastens upon, he has sanctified and transformed them.

Text

81 82 83

παντὸς γὰρ οὗ ἐὰν ἐφάψηται τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, τοῦτο ἡγίασται καὶ μεταβέβληται.

family γ

for whenever the Holy Spirit lays hold of, he has sanctified and transformed them.

LSJ, 622. See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996), 478. BDAG 56-7, 267-8.

122

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Summary of Text-critical Issues in which the Sequential Redaction Begins in Manuscript Tradition γ As would be expected if John’s name is added as one of the authors to hyparchetype γ, more evidence of Piédnagel’s redactor should be apparent in this manuscript family than in the sub-family β+, and, even without an exhaustive study, this appears to be the case. In these few examples, half include significant additions to the text. Table 3-19 provides a summary of the analysis of the eight sentences with variants in the manuscript families that provide evidence of sequential redaction that begins in family γ and is either continued in manuscript family α or is further redacted in α. The readings have been organized according to their presentation in the Mystagogic Catechesis. Table 3-19: Summary Assessment of Text-critical Issues that Provide Evidence of Sequential Redaction that Begins in Manuscript Family γ Text M1.8 line 5

Assessment 1) β and β+ omit or did not originally have the prepositional phrase in question, 2) γ has the phrase with a genitive, 3) α has the phrase with the accusative Addition in γ which intensifies by adding information about demonic activity

M4.1 lines 2-3

1) β and β+ have καθ’ ἑκάστην and κατηξιωθέντες 2) γ and α have καθέστηκε (scribal error) and κατηξιώθητε (intensification?) Scribal error and intensification in family γ and continues in α

M4.2 lines 1-3

1) β and β+ omit the first sentence, begin the paragraph with εἰ γὰρ. 2) γ and α add a sentence about the wedding at Cana, begin next sentence with εἰς γάμον Intensification starting with family γ and continuing in family α

M4.3 lines 6-7

1) β and β+ have the perfect masculine nominative plural participle of ἀναδέχομαι, L of family γ has this correction in the margin—action and attitude of the hearers (recipients) in view 2) γ has the present masculine nominative plural participle of ἀναδίδωμι, which shifts the focus from the hearers (recipients) to what is given

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

Table 3-19 Text M4.3 lines 6-7 (continued)

123

(continued) Assessment

3) A of α has the present masculine or neuter genitive singular participle of ἀναδίδωμι which shifts the focus from what is given to the one giving Significant theological changes from 1) the recipients in β and β+, to 2) what is given in γ, then to 3) the one giving. Theological redaction indicated in both γ and A of α

M4.8 line 9

1) β and α have duplication of text, possible scribal error, 2) β and H of β+ do not include a second sentence 3) γ, the marginal reading of I of β+, and α include a second sentence which intensifies the text 4) α’s additional sentence uses the infinitive instead of the finite verb of γ Intensification which began in γ is further redacted with a characteristic preference for the infinitive

M4.8 lines 11-14 1) γ introduces the modifier καὶ πνευματικὰ which continues into α 2) α continues καὶ πνευματικὰ and adds Νῦν δὲ Intensification begins in γ and continues into α M5.3 line 6

1) β and β+ use nominative articular infinitive (substantival use) 2) scribal error in β+ (omission of part of a word resulting in a slight change in theological nuance) 2) γ attests genitive articular infinitive (causal use), unusual spelling 3) A of α also attests genitive articular infinitive (causal use), expected spelling Theological shift from implied imperative (required action of the listeners) to indicative that what was required in β and β+ has already been accomplished in γ and A of α Theological redaction begins in γ

M5.10 line 7

1) β and β+ aorist subjunctive, third person plural 2) γ shifts the aorist subjunctive of β and β+ to the subjunctive infinitive indicative of the redactor’s hand 3) α shifts the verb to the aorist optative, third person singular, causing a theological change in the text Theological shift of subject from hearers doing the action in β and β+ (presenting the crown), to an indeterminate reading in γ of who does the presenting, to the subject being Christ presenting the crown. Theological redaction possibly started in γ

124

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Text-critical Issues in which the Redaction is Only in Manuscript Tradition α Piédnagel has indicated through his examples of the characteristic emendations of the redactor that significant variants are present only in manuscript family α, as would be expected in a manuscript tradition in which authorship is attested to only John, assuming that John is this redactor.84 Two additional readings demonstrate changes in family α alone that affect this present study: M1.9 line 2 and M3.1 line 6. Piédnagel’s “la leçon célèbre,” M1.9 line 2 Piédnagel describes the text-critical issue at M1.9 line 2 as “the famous reading.”85 In this sentence, there are six variants on the word given in the critical edition as πατῶν. While A has the most attractive reading, πατῶν, the nominative singular form of the present active participle of πατεῖν, five manuscripts from three families, including the other manuscript from family α, have the masculine genitive plural of πᾶς, πάντων. Manuscript D from family β omits the word, and the two manuscripts from sub-family β+, H and I have πάτως, which is clearly a scribal error.86 The expressive use of the present active participle of πατεῖν in A is an attractive reading: it resolves the issue of the unexpected plural in the majority reading. However, it is difficult to explain how a textual error could result in a change from the reading of A to that of the majority reading. This appears to be more in agreement with the redactor’s tendency to intensify87 and, although Piédnagel argues that B usually corresponds with the other manuscript of family α, A,88 here B joins family β, which may indicate that A is more redacted than B. Given the propensity of the scribe of family α to intensify, that manuscripts from three families provide the majority reading that is the most difficult, and that the reading of A could be a copy error of omitting a ν from the center of πάντων making it πατῶν, this “celebrated reading” is either a scribal error unique to A or is the sign of the redactor’s hand. Table 3-20 provides a summary of this text-critical issue. 84

See footnotes 9, 10, 11, and 12 of this chapter. “Ainsi, très certainement, dans I, 9, 1. 2, la leçon célèbre : πατῶν, la seule satisfaisante, est attestée par le seul Monacensis 394, alors que les autres manuscrits présentent ou πάτων ou πάντως;” The sentence in question is given in the critical edition as: Ὅτε οὖν τῷ Σατανᾷ ἀποτάττῃ, πᾶσαν τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν πατῶν διαθήκην, λύεις τὰς παλαιὰς πρὸς τὸν ᾅδην συνθήκας, ἀνοίγεταί σοι ὁ παράδεισος τοῦ, ὃν ἐφύτευσε κατὰ ἀνατολάς, ὅθεν διὰ τὴν παράβασιν ἐξόριστος γέγονεν ὁ ἡμέτερος προπάτωρ. Καὶ τούτου σύμβολον τὸ στραφῆναί σε ἀπὸ δυσμῶν πρὸς ἀνατολάς, τοῦ φωτὸς τὸ χωρίον. Τότε σοι ἐλέγετο εἰπεῖν· Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 64, 98. 86 This term does not show up in a TLG search and thus is assumed to be a scribal error rather than a variant spelling. 87 This aligns with Piédnagel’s characteristic emendation 9c. 88 Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 62. 85

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

125

Table 3-20: Summary of variants on at M1.9 line 2 family α: B family β: D family β: C and F family γ: K and M

family β+: H and I

family α: A

Text

πᾶσαν τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν πάντων διαθήκην

πᾶσαν τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν ____ διαθήκην

πᾶσαν τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν πάτως διαθήκην

πᾶσαν τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν πατῶν διαθήκην

Discussion of Variant

Unexpected genitive plural modifying the accusative singular διαθήκην

Omission, possibly scribal error

scribal error

resolution of unexpected plural and lack of verb with participle or scribal error

Translation

of all the entire covenant with him

the entire covenant with him

the entire (uncertain) covenant with him

trampling the entire covenant with him

Manuscript

M3.1 line 6 Manuscripts D and F from family β and K from family γ have the future middle indicative second person plural of ἅπτω, ἅψεσθε. Only A from family α has the present middle imperative second person plural, ἅπτεσθε, which is what is attested in the psalm that Cyril is quoting here (Ps 104:15).89 If family α contains the older reading, then this variation could be merely a scribal substitution of the ψ in manuscript A’s ἅψεσθε with πτ, resulting in ἅπτεσθε in family β and γ. However, two factors must be taken into account before assuming that family α has the older reading. First, in Catechesis 17.18, Cyril emphasized the historically unique way in which the Holy Spirit interacts with human persons after Pentecost through the giving of the fellowship of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. Based on this earlier context, it seems more likely that Cyril would have modified the quote to a future prophetical sense “you will not touch my christs,” as opposed to the present imperative found in the Psalm, which would apply to the prophets, whom he argued did not experience the fullness of the Holy Spirit’s presence. Second, given the tendency of scribes to correct to biblical phrases and the context of the sentence, it seems more likely, contra Piédnagel, that the modified quote

89

Ibid. 120.

126

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

of the psalm would be the older reading. The variant is presented in context in Table 3-21. Table 3-21: Text-critical Issue at M3.1 line 6 Manuscripts

family β (D and F) and family γ (K)

family α (A)

Text

Μέτοχοι οὖν τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενόμενοι, χριστοὶ εἰκότως καλεῖσθε, καὶ περὶ ὑμῶν ἔλεγεν ὁ Θεός· “Μὴ ἅψεσθε τῶν χριστῶν μου.”

Μέτοχοι οὖν τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενόμενοι, χριστοὶ εἰκότως καλεῖσθε, καὶ περὶ ὑμῶν ἔλεγεν ὁ Θεός· “Μὴ ἅπτεσθε τῶν χριστῶν μου.”

Discussion of variants

FMI 2pl of ἅπτω

PMI 2pl of ἅπτω

Translation

Then having become partakers of Christ, you are naturally (rightly) called christs, and concerning you God said “You will not touch my christs.”

Then having become partakers of Christ, you are naturally (rightly) called christs, and concerning you God said “Touch not my christs.”

Summary of Additional Significant Variants Found Only in Manuscript Tradition α The evidence presented by Piédnagel provides the most striking analysis of the redacting hand present in hyparchetype α alone: of the nine categories of emendations characteristic of the redactor, Piédnagel provides examples from manuscript A.90 My analysis provides additional evidence that what Piédnagel has offered as the only and the best reading from manuscript A at line 2 of M1.9 also fits the description of his redactor. The additional evidence from M3.1 is a similar example of the subtle nuances that can be missed when the redactor’s hand is not removed from Cyril’s text. Table 3-22 provides a summary of these two sets of variants.

90 These four are items five through eight in the list provided earlier in this chapter: 5) substitution of prepositions, 6) the use of a composite verb in lieu of a simple verb or vice-versa, 7) the employment of the plural definite article where other manuscripts have the singular or viceversa, and 8) a special place given to the subject or the complement of the direct object. For his exemplars, see footnotes 9, 10, 11, and 12 in this chapter.

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

127

Table 3-22: Assessment of Significant Variants Found Only in Manuscript Tradition α Text M1.9 line 2

Assessment 1) majority of β and γ and B of family α have the same reading: unexpected plural; 2) different scribal errors in D of family β and family β+, omission of unexpected plural; 3) A of α resolved the unexpected plural demonstrating the redactor’s hand through intensification Redaction to intensify only in A of α

M3.1 line 6

1) β (D and F) and γ (K) have future of verb rather than present attested in Psalm 2) α (A) have present of verb Scribal harmonization to Scripture quote in A of α

Text-critical Issues: Scribal Errors in Manuscript Tradition β In this final section, two additional variants are examined: one in which, oddly, the text of family β alone has text that intensifies the reading (M2.6 line 11) and the final variant listed by Piédnagel as significant in his acceptance of manuscript tradition α as the best tradition (M2.4 line 18), which I argue appears to be a scribal error in family α. M2.6 line 11 In line 11 of M2.6, manuscripts C, D, and F of family β have two additional words that are not found in family α, adding emphasis to the sentence.91 Table 3-23 provides a summary of the analysis of these two variants. Typically, the longer reading is the emended reading. Since this chapter has the phrase ἁμαρτιῶν μόνον in the first sentence, the addition of μόνον after ἁμαρτημάτων later in the same text is most likely a reduplication error. Further, in Catechesis 3.14, Cyril has already taught that baptism is for the forgiveness of sin and adoption as God’s children (λαμβάνεις υἱοθεσίαν, you receive adoption as a son); the emphasis in this catechesis is fellowship in Christ’s suffering. Here, Piédnagel has rightly followed the majority reading and rejected the reading from family β, which most likely has two later additions.

91

Piédnagel, Catéchèses mystagogiques (2004), 114.

128

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 3-23: Text-critical Issue at M2.6 line 11 family β (C, D, F)

critical edition92

Text

Ἴσως γὰρ πρός τινας ταῦτα ἔλεγε διατεθέντας, ὡς ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτημάτων μόνον καὶ οὐχ υἱοθεσίας προξενητικὸν τὸ βάπτισμα, οὐκ ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀληθινῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων ἐν μιμήσει ἔχον τὴν κοινωνίαν.

Ἴσως γὰρ πρός τινας ταῦτα ἔλεγε διατεθέντας, ὡς ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτημάτων __ καὶ __ υἱοθεσίας προξενητικὸν τὸ βάπτισμα, οὐκ ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀληθινῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων ἐν μιμήσει ἔχον τὴν κοινωνίαν.

Discussion of variants

additional words

Translation

Perhaps he composed this for someone who said that baptism brokers forgiveness of sins only and not adoption, but did not yet [know] that [through baptism] one has, through imitation, fellowship of the reality of Christ’s suffering.

Manuscripts

Perhaps he composed this for someone who said that baptism brokers forgiveness of sins __ and __ adoption, but did not yet [know] that [through baptism] one has, through imitation, fellowship of the reality of Christ’s suffering.

M2.4 line 18 Piédnagel lists the text-critical issue in M2.4 line 18 as one of the reasons that manuscript A provides the best readings.93 A attests ἐφ’ ὑμῖν but families β, β+ and γ all have ἐφ’ ὑμῶν,94 while the other text in family α, B, which typically agrees with A, omits the line where this text occurs.95 The preposition ἐπί can take either dative or genitive in most of its uses; both uses are 92 Piédnagel (ibid. 111) does not indicate which of the other manuscripts, including those from sub-family β+, attest to this reading. 93 “Si ce dernier groupe de fautes peut être encore le fait du scribe lui-même, un certain nombre de leçons propres au Monacensis 394 semblent provenir d’un correcteur anterieur qui aurait voulu améliorer le style de l’auteur.” Ibid. 61. This is the first of the nine characteristic emendations noted previously. 94 Piédnagel (ibid.) does not list exceptions within either family group. 95 According to Piédnagel (ibid., 64, 112), “ἐφ’ὑμῖν, attesté par le seul Monac. 394, meilleur que le ἐφ’ὑμῶν des familles β et γ (le Neapolitanus-Vindobonensis 8 omet une ligne à cet endroit);” The full sentence comes after a quote of Eccl 3:2: Καὶ ὅπερ Σολομὼν ἐπὶ ἄλλων εἴρηκε, τοῦτο ἁρμόσαι ἂν ὑμῖν· ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ ἔλεγε· “Καιρὸς τοῦ τεκεῖν, καὶ καιρὸς τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν.” The text in question reads as: Ἐφ’ ὑμῖν δὲ τὸ ἀνάπαλιν· καιρὸς τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν, καὶ καιρὸς τοῦ γεννηθῆναι. But to you, in reverse; a time to die, and a time to be born. The majority reading would be, instead, But about you ...

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

129

attested in scripture (with the dative more prominent), and each phrase is attested once more in Cyril’s corpus.96 In the sentence just prior to this sentence, the dative form, ὑμῖν, is present, which means that a copy error must be considered as a viable explanation for the dative use. Thus, if this is a simple example of a copy error, the mistake would be to change the ὑμῶν of families β and γ to the ὑμῖν of A as a duplication of the use in the previous line. Furthermore, the use of the genitive in Mystagogic Catechesis 3.1, which has a similar context of speaking of transformation, provides additional reason for retaining the majority reading rather than the reading supported by Piédnagel and used in the critical edition. Table 3-24 provides a summary of the variant at M2.4. Table 3-24: Analysis of Variant at M2.4 line 18 Text

Assessment

M2.4 line 18

1) β, β+, and γ read the same (genitive), 2) A of α has the dative, which could be a scribal error of duplicating previous dative Scribal error in A of α

For this textual variant, there does not appear to be a theological or grammatical benefit gained by either reading. Instead, the variant in A is more likely to be a scribal error. Summary of Text-critical Issues and Analysis of the Revised Stemma Of the nine instances in which Piédnagel proposed that family α presents the best reading, I have demonstrated that while one of these instances appears to be a scribal error (M2.4 line 18), the other eight exhibit characteristics of the 96 The dative use is attested in sixteen instances in the text-critical editions of scripture: Lev 10:7, Num 17:20, Deut 9:8, 19 11:17, 28:63 (twice), Judg 9:19, 1Chr 13:2, 2Chr 28:11; Rom 16:19, 2Cor 7:7, and 1Thess 3:7. In Cyril’s corpus, ἐφ’ ὑμῖν is found twice, once in the text under consideration and once in Catechesis 18, 35 line 1: Εἴη δὲ καὶ ἐφ’ ὑμῖν λεχθῆναι καὶ νῦν· εὐφράνθητε οὐρανοὶ καὶ ἀγαλλιάσθω ἡ γῆ, καὶ ἑξῆς, ὅτι ἠλέησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ τοὺς ταπεινοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ παρεκάλεσεν. ταῦτα δὲ ἔσται διὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ φιλανθρωπίαν τοῦ πρὸς ὑμᾶς λέγοντος·… The genitive is found once in Cyril, but later in the text at Mystagogical Catechesis 3, 1 line 8, uncontested: Χριστοὶ δὲ γεγόνατε, τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος τὸ ἀντίτυπον δεξάμενοι, καὶ πάντα εἰκονικῶς ἐφ’ ὑμῶν γεγένηται, ἐπειδὴ εἰκόνες ἐστὲ Χριστοῦ. Genitive constructs in the critical editions of scripture include Deut 1:13, 15; Judg 9:15; 1Sam 12:14; 2Sam 3:17; Isa 8:6; Act 24:21, 25:26.

130

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

redactor, three of which include significant theological changes (M4.3, M5.7, and M5.10). I have provided five examples of sequential redaction beginning in manuscript family β+ and eight examples of sequential redaction beginning in manuscript family γ, four of which include an added phrase or sentence that intensify or change the rhetoric of the text found in manuscript tradition β. Based upon these examples and the examples that Piédnagel provides for characteristic redaction in manuscript family α, it appears that the variants in the title to Mystagogic Catechesis 1 are identifying markers placed by the redactor, John, to indicate the degree of redaction he has made in each successive redaction of the hyparchetype. Summary: Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses In order to evaluate Cyril of Jerusalem’s method of Christian identity formation, it is essential to have a complete set of catechetical instructions that, with a reasonable level of confidence, accurately reflect Cyril’s teachings. The goal of chapters two and three has been to determine whether it is possible to have sufficient confidence in Cyrillian authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses. In chapter two, I examined the liturgical evidence for the rituals as described in the Mystagogic Catecheses and determined that there is no reason to set the terminus post quem to after Cyril’s episcopacy. Rather, there is sufficient evidence to argue that the liturgy that is described in Mystagogic Catecheses predates Cyril. Also in chapter two, I brought the codicological evidence into the discussion and concluded that the Mystagogic Catecheses, regardless of stated authorship in the manuscript tradition, has been understood by those collating the codices to be the culmination of the Jerusalem catechesis during Cyril’s episcopacy. In the present chapter, I have demonstrated that the attribution of authorship in the title of Mystagogic Catechesis 1 reflects the sequential redaction of John of Jerusalem, Cyril’s successor. Through evaluation of seventeen text-critical issues, combined with Piédnagel’s assessment of a redactor whom he proposed might be John, I have argued that a slight modification to Piédnagel’s stemma which shifts the best reading from the more redacted manuscript tradition, α, to manuscript tradition β, provides a text that is less redacted and therefore more likely to be Cyril’s. Figure 3-2 combines the codicological and text-critical analysis. As demonstrated in Figure 3-2, seven of the ten manuscripts that Piédnagel has used for the critical edition contain all three of the Jerusalem catechetical texts (Procatechesis, Catecheses, and Mystagogic Catecheses): D of family β, both H and I of sub-family β+, K and L of family γ, and both A and B of family α. Five codices contain only Cyril’s works: D and C of family β, both H and I of sub-family β+, and M of family γ.

Chapter 3: Textual Critical Analysis of Mystagogic Catecheses

Figure 3-2: Modified stemma, indicating authorship within the text and also denoting which have all three catechetical works (circled) and which have only works by Cyril in the codex (bolded)

131

PART II Cyril of Jerusalem’s Sacramental Theōsis as the Organizing Theme of Cyril’s Catechetical Instructions

In order to use the Procatechesis and Catecheses with the Mystagogic Catecheses in my examination of Christian identity formation in fourth-century Jerusalem, I needed to demonstrate a reasonable case for accepting a common authorship of the texts. In Part I, I presented my arguments for accepting the Mystagogic Catecheses as Cyrillian, with a few caveats through a three part evaluation. In the first half of chapter two, I demonstrated that recent contributions to the study of the development of the Jerusalem liturgy advance the argument for Cyrillian authorship by removing the need to date the Mystagogic Catecheses to either late in Cyril’s lifetime or after based upon liturgical developments. Then, in the second half of chapter two, I examined the manuscript transmission history to show that the Mystagogical Catecheses has been received as a continuation of Cyril’s Catecheses. Finally, in chapter three, I applied textual criticism to not only propose an explanation for how John of Jerusalem’s name became associated with the Mystagogical Catecheses, but also a revised stemma of the manuscript traditions which provides a means for analyzing which textual variants are most likely from John’s redactions of Cyril’s original texts. In Part II, I examine the problems associated with the most prevalant study of Cyril’s eucharistic theology and offer an alternative interpretation. In the first half of chapter four, I analyze Enrico Mazza’s explication of Cyril’s eucharistic theology and challenge doctrinal presuppositions that are present in his work. Then, building from the observations of several scholars, in the second half of chapter four, I scrutinize the texts for indications of an undergirding doctrine of theōsis by examining Cyril’s use of terminology and specific scriptural passages associated with theōsis in the writings of his predecessors and contemporaries. After having demonstrated that sufficient evidence is present in Cyril’s works to assume a doctrine of theōsis is present, I evaluate my hypothesis that a foundational aspect of theōsis, the concept of κοινωνία with the Trinity, is a better hermeneutical lens for describing Cyril’s sacramental theology, including his eucharistic theology. In this section, I demonstrate that through this hermeneutical lens of κοινωνία, the underlying theme of the transformation of those preparing for baptism from those who are at enmity with God to Christians who are in right relationship with God and each other can be examined. Salvation, participation in the sacraments, and holistic κοινωνία are shown to be integral to each other; because of this interconnection, Christian identity is, in Cyril’s teachings, grounded in his sacramental theōsis.

Chapter 4 Cyril of Jerusalem’s Eucharistic Theology: A Victim of Fourth-Century Theological Changes or the Product of Sacramental Theōsis? Cyril of Jerusalem’s sacramental theology and his explanation of the changes in identity during the experience of the sacraments are intertwined through the unique names that he associates with baptism, the post-baptismal anointing, and the eucharist. Because of this connection between attributions and sacraments, how and why Cyril connected these specific title changes need to be examined in the light of his sacramental theology. While Cyril’s baptismal and “chrismational” theologies have been explored independently, the use of names associated with each sacramental rite have not been explored specifically in the context of identity formation.1 Furthermore, the change between his baptismal and eucharistic theology that Mazza has identified has not been adequately addressed and is troubling: if Cyril’s instructions on the mysteries are not cohesive, then his teaching on identity is also fragmented. In the previous two chapters, I have demonstrated that Cyrillian authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses can be supported by internal evidence from the manuscript traditions as well as external evidence from the codicology of the manuscripts and the hagiopolite liturgical tradition. Because of the work accomplished in those chapters, the Catecheses and Mystagogic Catecheses can be used in conjunction to explicate Cyril’s understanding of sacramental theōsis—progressive union with Christ that occurs, by the work of the Holy Spirit, through the sacraments which ultimately results in union with the Father and other Christians, contextualized by the divine economy—which I propose is the corrective necessary to understand Cyril’s eucharistic theology, and thus his teaching on the sacraments in general.2 In order to elucidate Cyril’s concept of theōsis, in this chapter I examine 1

While the post-baptism anointing was not necessarily understood as a separate sacrament in the fourth-century, some of the secondary literature refers to this sacramental rite as “chrismation.” My reference to “chrismation” or “chrismational theology” is not intended to be anachronistic but to reflect accurately the use of terminology within modern scholarship. Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church (2009), 50-1; Torchia, ‘The Significance of Chrismation in the Mystagogical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1999), 128-42; Riley, Christian Initiation (1974). 2 In particular, I will argue that the doctrine of theōsis as the underpinning for Cyril’s teachings which culminate in the Mystagogic Catecheses will, when combined with the recognition that this work is a lecturer’s notes, not the recorded lectures themselves, provide a reasonable response to critiques such as Stephenson’s (WCJ, 2: 146-7.): “... the Mystagogiae, both as a theological and a literary work, seem unworthy of Cyril. Compared with the praises of Baptism in the Lenten Lectures, set in a rich context of biblical theology, the Mystagogiae seem somewhat jejune and

138

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

two components of his catechetical texts: his use of a technical term for theōsis and his use of scriptural passages that have been indicated in the secondary literature as important theōsis texts among his contemporaries and earlier theologians. In chapter five, I demonstrate how Cyril’s sacramental theōsis is the natural culmination of his catechetical teachings and conclude with an analysis of his expression of sacramental theōsis. Before this, however, I review some of the more prevalent theories about Cyril’s eucharistic theology to examine both deficiencies as well as useful insights. State of the Question As discussed in chapter one, Tomaš Špidlik and Enrico Mazza have markedly different rhetorical evaluations of Cyril’s Mystagogical Catecheses. While Špidlik finds the texts to be an excellent preparation of the newly baptized for receiving the eucharist, Mazza sees a discontinuity between Cyril’s rhetorical and metaphysical structure. Mazza explains this “difficulty” in Cyril’s eucharistic theology as an indication that fourth-century eucharistic theologies were in the process of moving from a foundation based loosely in a Platonic ontology to a “sacramental realism” that he described as a naïve realism and physicality.3 He characterizes Cyril’s eucharistic theology as an unsuccessful attempt to combine a sacramental theology grounded entirely upon μίμησις-εἰκών pedagogy4 with two additional movements in the understanding of the eucharist: the “normative” eucharistic theologies of the second and third centuries which intertwined martyrdom, eucharist, and imitation of Christ’s passion and lame, as well as obscure. Awe and exclamations of pious wonder have taken the place of understanding. Cyril, on the other hand, commanded considerable biblical and theological resources, to which corresponded a notable mastery of language, a quite rich vocabulary and some imagination. The diction of the Mystagogiae is, by comparison, poverty-stricken; ...” 3 Mazza, The Celebration of the Eucharist (1989), 147-51, translated from La Celebratione eucharistica, 177: “In Cyril, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Ambrose, there are two different and clearly defined ways of asserting sacramental realism. (a) A typological interpretation of the Eucharist is the principal basis on which the entire theology of the rite is built, with the help especially of the biblical figures that are applied to the Christian celebration; the method for using these figures is based on Platonic dialectic. (b) Alongside this first method of interpretation, which I wish to call traditional, there is another, a new one, wholly devoted to expounding sacramental realism; it ends up with a naive and physicist realism: Jesus is incarnated once again, but this time in the bread and wine; in practice, the bread and wine are a new, physical manifestation of the incarnation of Christ. That is what I mean when I speak of a naive and physicist realism (realismo ingenuo e fisicista).” 4 Cutrone, ‘Saving Presence in the “Mystagogical Catechesis” of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1975), 53, whose work Mazza builds upon, proposes that Cyril introduced the μίμησις-εἰκών typology as a means of interpreting the liturgy in such a way that “sacramental activity is the place where the individual is identified with Christ to such an extent that what is true of Christ is also true of the Christian.” Through imitation of Christ, the individual becomes an image of Christ.

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

139

the physical realist impulse in understanding the presence of Christ in the eucharist.5 However, I maintain that Špidlik’s reading of the text seems to rest on the assumption that Cyril provided, as promised in P11, a thematic structure that justifies his apparent change in pedagogical strategy which occurred between his discussion of the post-baptismal anointing (M3) and his lecture on the eucharist (M4). By starting with the assumption that Cyril has provided a structure in which this shift in explanation would not be unexpected to those who have journeyed with him through the Lenten lectures (the Procatechesis and the Catecheses), I argue that the concept of theōsis, which Mazza and Cutrone neglected to take into account, undergirds Cyril’s theology and that it is this unifying concept which provides the key to understanding his theology of the eucharist. Prevalent Understandings of Cyril’s Eucharistic Theology While Cyril’s eucharistic theology is discussed in nearly every major history of the sacraments, history of the eucharist, and development of eucharistic prayers, I have not found a monograph that is dedicated to Cyril’s eucharistic theology. Two popular works demonstrate the range of interpretations of Cyril’s eucharistic theology for the church. Some overstate Cyril’s mystagogical instruction in their quick overviews. Dennis Billy, for example, states that Cyril specifically addresses “the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist” and that “the bread and wine cease to exist during the Eucharistic celebration and become Jesus’ body and blood.”6 While transformation of the elements is certainly in the text, this is not the focus of the M4. Further, to state that Cyril is a “realist” in the sense of the phrase used in Roman Catholic-Protestant polemics misses the subtleties of his teaching.7 At the other end of the spectrum, Georg Röwenkamp reads Cyril’s eucharistic theology as a symbolic celebration of theōsis at a time when symbolic thinking was being lost, leading to a theatrical reenactment of the Passion.8 Others, like Owen Cummings, attend more

5 For a discussion of the development of this Eucharistic theology, see Mazza, The Celebration of the Eucharist (1999), 134-7. 6 Billy, The Beauty of the Eucharist (2010), 141, 145. 7 Ibid. 142, 146-7. Billy emphasizes the polemical nature of his approach when he states that “When taken in conjunction with all that he says regarding Jesus’ real presence in the Eucharist, Cyril’s writings contain the main three elements of Catholic belief concerning the Eucharist: true presence, bloodless sacrifice, and spiritual banquet.” The latter two elements are clearly present in Cyril’s teaching, but are not the major thrust of his presentation. The first is a theologically loaded phrase that Cyril did not use. While Billy does discuss the transformative nature of the sacrament and the name change which are central to Cyril’s discussion of the eucharist as found in M4, this is not Billy’s emphasis. 8 Röwekamp, ‘Einleitung’, in Cyrill von Jerusalem (1992), 84-5.

140

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

carefully to the emphasis that Cyril placed on how the eucharistic elements are transformed in order to be transformative. Cummings rightly sees the link between the Christological controversies that plagued Cyril and the relationship between the incarnation, the eucharist, and salvation.9 Yet how this eucharistic theology fits into the rest of Cyril’s teachings is outside of his scope. To look only at Cyril’s eucharistic theology is to miss the larger project that Cyril was undertaking: to provide a doctrinal, ethical, and identity formation for the church’s newest Christians. The most influential analysis of Cyril’s sacramental theology is Emmanuel Cutrone’s unpublished dissertation which was foundational for Enrico Mazza’s comparative work on fourth-century mystagogical texts. In this section, I evaluate Cutrone’s and Mazza’s presentation of μίμησις-εἰκών typology as the hermeneutical key for understanding all of Cyril’s eucharistic theology, bring their analysis into conversation with analysis of the theology of Cyril’s postbaptismal anointing, and then summarize some of the key insights and doctrinal presuppositions that need to be addressed as part of my proposal of an alternative hermeneutical lens. Insights from the Hypothesis that μίμησις-εἰκών Typology is the Interpretive Key to Cyril’s Eucharistic Theology Emmanuel Cutrone’s dissertation examines how [t]he Mystagogue, whoever he may be, views the totality of Christian initiation as an encounter with God’s saving presence. That saving presence is described in the categories of typology and a doctrine of εἰκών-μίμησις.10

Cutrone builds upon Daniélou’s definition of sacramental typology as an “attempt[] to establish the theological analogy between the great moments of sacred history.”11 This methodology appears to work well for baptism and the post-baptismal anointing. To address why he thought that Cyril did not continue with this methodology in the eucharistic mystagogies, Cutrone proposes that the eucharistic ritual, and especially the anaphora, that were in use during Cyril’s day did not cohere with Cyril’s εἰκών theology.12 In particular, 9

Cummings, Eucharistic Doctors (2005), 50-2. Cutrone, ‘Saving Presence in the “Mystagogical Catechesis” of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1975), 153. By stating that the authorship is uncertain, Cutrone necessarily limits his analysis of Cyril’s texts to the Mystagogic Catecheses. 11 Ibid. 46, quoting Daniélou’s From Shadows to Reality (1960), 6. These “great moments” are, in this case, Christ’s death and resurrection for baptism and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Christ at his baptism. 12 Cutrone posits that “[i]t is consistent with this dissertation to suggest that it was necessary for Cyril to first explain eucharist in terms of typology and εἰκών theology (Mys. Cat. IV) before he examined the rituals of the eucharist, because the eucharistic rituals which he knew, and espe10

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

141

he speculates that Cyril did not comment on the anaphora or the ritual due to this disconnect between Cyril’s sacramental theology and the practiced liturgy.13 Enrico Mazza used a methodology which is similar to Cutrone’s. Both Cutrone and Mazza connect Cyril’s concept of imitation with the formation of a new identity.14 In particular, Mazza states that Cyril regards the rite as the place where the individual achieves identification with Christ in the central moment of his salvific activity. Imitation does not consist in a reactualization of the historical events of Christ’s life. … imitation (mimesis) is a very carefully defined sacramental concept, the content of which can be understood only through a study of his vocabulary, since he is very careful to use an appropriate terminology. When he speaks of mimesis, he is not referring to the external, ritual, visible aspect of the celebration, but to its sacramentality, that is, its internal and invisible dimension.15

Mazza continues with his assessment and argues that the discontinuity in Cyril’s eucharistic theology was, ultimately due to the failings of “biblical typology to ensure the connection between saving event and liturgical rite.”16 cially the anaphora, were not easily reinterpreted according to this theology. Therefore, he first explained the eucharist according to his theology (Mys. Cat. IV) and then, according to his announced plan proceeded with the rituals of the eucharist giving only brief explanations, and wherever possible (V, 11, 20) introducing the theology of εἰκών and typology.” Ibid. 126-7. 13 Ibid. 127. See also Cutrone’s ‘Cyril’s Mystagogical Catecheses and the Evolution of the Jerusalem Anaphora’ (1978), 52-64. However, such speculation neglects to take into account the purpose of the text, which is not to provide a commentary on the liturgy to fellow clergy, but to provide instruction on the divine mysteries that built upon and completed the cohesive catechesis on the creed such that the new Christians were able to live distinctively Christian lives that were faithful to the Triune God and the church. 14 Cutrone’s research emphasis is on the new Christian’s encounter with God’s presence, not identity formation as such. Since, as I argue in chapter six, Christian identity formation is the result of encountering the Triune God in a unique way through the sacraments, the two research areas—encountering God and Christian identity formation—necessarily overlap but are not identical in scope. According to Cutrone, ‘Saving Presence in the “Mystagogical Catechesis” of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1975), 138; see also Mazza, Mystagogy (1989), 154: “[w]hen one received communion he achieves identity with Christ. In his explanation of this fact Cyril relies heavily on typology.” Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation (2007), 122, citing Cutrone, continues along this line of reasoning, “... Cyril describes the process of Christian initiation itself as a close imitation, an image or icon, of the saving events in the life of Christ.” 15 Symbol, on the other hand, according to Mazza, is not used in a sacramental sense, but only in an explanatory sense. Mazza, Mystagogy (1989), 154-6. This conclusion, however, requires further investigation, given the subtle nuances that Cyril employed with other philosophical terms. 16 According to Mazza (ibid. 164), “we may conclude that Cyril’s biblical typology can serve to explain the meaning of the rites, but not to ensure the connection between saving event and liturgical rite. The reason is that his biblical typology operates on the level of symbolism and that he does not use this hermeneutical method to support sacramental realism. He does forcefully maintain sacramental realism, but he backs it up, so to speak, with the theory of ‘image’ and ‘imitation’ of the saving action of Christ.”

142

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

However, because of this focus on the concepts of typology and imitation, which, for Cyril, was limited to baptism and the post-baptismal anointing, Mazza is partially correct when he posits that “Cyril is well acquainted with the method of typology commentary that interprets the liturgy as an imitation of the saving work performed by Christ, as we shall see [in] his instructions on baptism.”17 However, when applying his methodology to Cyril’s eucharistic theology, he states that the image has become a representation rather than an analogy based on the internal contents of the Eucharist. This may be the reason why Cyril departs from this method, that is, why after applying it to baptism, he carefully avoids it in his catechesis on the Eucharist.18

Another possibility is that Cyril’s sacramental theology is not so easily categorized. The Mystagogue utilized the genre of mystagogical teaching to demonstrate the multifaceted nature of the mysteries of initiation;19 I propose that, with the eucharist, a subtle shift in emphasis has occurred, but that this shift is anticipated through the foundation that Cyril laid through the Catecheses. Mazza states that Cyril used Plato’s entire technical vocabulary for relating the sensible with the intelligible reality, however, Cyril adapted the language to sacramental reality and its relationship with the real.20 Mazza sees the patristic itinerary as: (a) the starting point is the assertion that participation, imitation, likeness, and type explain the relationship of identity between events and sacraments, but then (b) the

17

Ibid. 154. Italics are Mazza’s. Ibid. 154. Italics are Mazza’s. 19 Satterlee presents a very helpful summary of the genre of mystagogical homilies in Ambrose of Milan’s Mystagogical Preaching (2002), 1-10. 20 Mazza, Mystagogy (1989), 169. The other three relationships are 1) mimesis, which he interprets as imitation, 2) methexis, which is translated as participation, and 3) parousia, which he takes as presence. Hence, quoting G. Reale’s Per una nuova interpretatione di Platone, 218: “The sensible is a mimesis of the intelligible because it imitates it, though without ever attaining equality with it. … to the extent that the sensible achieves its own essence, it participates, that is, it shares in the intelligible (and, in particular, through this ‘sharing’ in the Idea the sensible reality is and is knowable).” According to Cutrone, ‘Saving Presence in the “Mystagogical Catechesis” of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1975), 138 “it must be concluded that the Mystagogical Catecheses demonstrate the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic elements. Such a presence is brought about through the power of the Holy Spirit.” Power, The Eucharistic Mystery (1992), 149 nicely summarizes that considerable work has been done in the secondary literature to explore the influence of Neoplatonism within the patristic writings, specifically in examining “how church teachers share in the perception that symbols participate in the reality symbolized. It seems at first a simple explanation, but the issue is complicated because of questions about the type of Neoplatonism that was in vogue in those centuries. Not all church writers were necessarily linked up with the same school of thought.” For examples of further exploration of Platonic thought in Cyril’s Catecheses, see McCauley and Stephenson, WCJ 2: 182, 85-90 and Cutrone, ‘Saving Presence in the “Mystagogical Catechesis” of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1975), 135-8. 18

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

143

authors change course and end with a doctrine of events that become sacraments. The object of the sacrament becomes identical with the sacrament in the sense that it is immanentized and is henceforth within the sacrament.21

Mazza’s overlaying of Platonism, while not completely unjustified, leads him to the conclusion that the fourth-century mystagogues, “who did not have full mastery of the ontological ‘second voyage’ and the ‘unwritten teachings,’ finally abandoned typology as a doctrine of the sacraments, because they felt the need of a greater sacramental realism.”22 Mazza argues that Cyril used the particular form of sacramental realism, that of “eikōn-homoiōma-mimēsis.”23 However, when examining Cyril’s use of εἰκών and μίμησις, it appears that the sacramental theology that Cyril develops using these terms is not as simple as Cutrone and Mazza propose. Pierre-Thomas Camelot, in his work on authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses, had compared the vocabulary in C3 and M2, the two lectures which focus on baptism.24 Camelot identifies five terms that are used in M2 but not in C3: μίμησις (imitation), εἰκών (icon or image), σύμβολον (symbol), ἀντίτυπον (antitype), and ὁμοίωμα (likeness).25 While these terms are not found in C3, most are found elsewhere in the Catecheses and Mystagogical Catecheses. The exception is μίμησις; while the verb or the noun form is used five times in the Procatechesis and Catecheses,26 in the Mystagogic Catecheses it occurs only four times, three of which are in M2.27 Εἰκών, like μίμησις, does not occur in M1, 21

Mazza, Mystagogy (1989), 171. Mazza’s argument seems to verge on speculation about which texts or teachings were or were not available to the fourth-century theologians. Ibid. 171-2. 23 Ibid. 159. 24 Camelot, ‘Note sur la théologie baptismale des catéchèses attribuées à saint Cyrille de Jérusalem’, in Kyriakon (1970), 729 argues for Cyrillian authorship, but notes that the Mystagogical Catecheses presents a more developed sacramental theology than that which was present in the Catecheses. While he proposed that this was mostly due to development in Cyril’s thoughts, he also pointed to the difference in the ability of the listeners to understand a more detailed instruction. Based upon the dating of Macarius’ Letter to the Armenians as discussed in chapter two, the difference is due to the latter and not the former. 25 “Mais il y a plus important. Il faut en effet relever le vocabulaire employé ici avec insistance, qu’on n’avait pas rencontré dans la catéchèse précédente : σύμβολον, εἰκών, μίμησις, ἀντίτυπον, ὁμοίωμα—et d’autre part ἀλήθεια, ἀληθῶς, et encore κοινωνία. Le rite baptismal est le symbole, l’image, l’imitation, l’antitype, la ressemblance, de la mort et de la résurrection du Christ.” Ibid. 727. 26 Cyril’s use of μίμησις and μιμέομαι in the Procatechesis and Catecheses are as follows: P1 line 13 (do not imitate the Faithful who appear to not be fully participating in worship), C6.22 line 4 (Scythianus imitated Aristotle); C6.26 line 14 (Manes did not imitate Jesus), C9.13 line 8 (animals serve as representatives of human characteristics), and C15.22 line 2 (hostile powers will try to imitate the sign of Christ’s coming). 27 The terms μίμησις and μιμέομαι are found in M2.5 lines 3 and 5 and M2.6 line 13. The lack of these terms in C3, which is on baptism, is most striking. It can be argued that Cyril’s use of μίμησις and μιμέομαι in M2 is after the Great Week, in which the relic of the cross has been venerated, as well as after the entire pre-baptismal catecheses for foundation, is for pedagogical purposes—the presentation of sacramental imitation of Christ properly comes after both the theological presentation and the lived experience of receiving the sacrament. 22

144

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

but occurs twice in M2, and once each in M3 and M5.28 Εἰκών, as would be expected for a term that is central to Greek patristic theological anthropology, is used slightly more than μίμησις—eleven times—in the pre-baptismal catecheses.29 Cyril uses this term four times in the Mystagogic Catecheses, but it does not occur in either M1 or M4. Σύμβολον is used six times in the pre-baptismal catecheses (once each in C1, C3, and C5 and three times in C14), twice in M1, three times in M2 and M3, and once in M5.30 The uses of ὁμοίωμα in both the Catecheses and Mystagogic Catecheses are very specific and limited.31 Strikingly, σύμβολον, like μίμησις and εἰκών, occurs also in M3 and M5, but not in the lecture on the eucharist, M4. Similarly, ὁμοίωμα is found in M2 and M3, but not in M4 or M5. Each of these is also found in the Catecheses other than C3, which was outside the scope of Camelot’s study. These terms are, however, more frequently in M2 (and in the case of σύμβολον, also in M3), than in M4 and M5, with no occurrences in M4. The other word highlighted by Camelot, ἀντίτυπον, does not occur in the Catecheses and is not present in either M1 or M4.32 Thus, not only has Cyril changed vocabulary between the introductory instructions on baptism presented to those enrolled

28 M2.2 line 2 and 5 line 3, the second of which is where the phrase that Mazza uses as the catchphrase for Cyril’s sacramental theology (Ὢ ξένου καὶ παραδόξου πράγματος· οὐκ ἀληθῶς ἀπεθάνομεν, οὐδ’ ἀληθῶς ἐτάφημεν, οὐδ’ ἀληθῶς σταυρωθέντες ἀνέστημεν, ἀλλ’ ἐν εἰκόνι ἡ μίμησις, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ δὲ ἡ σωτηρία), M3.1 line 8, and M5.11 line 9. The adverbial form is used in M4.7 line 11, but is used in the context of a comparison between communal meals. 29 Cyril uses εἰκών eleven times in the Catecheses: seven are quotes or allusions to Gen 1:267, describing human beings as made in the image of God: C4.18 line 6, C6.6 line 7 and 8, C12.5 lines 17 and 19, C14.10 lines 17-18, and C18.13 line 11; two are used to describe a statue or image in a dream, both in discussion of the book of Daniel: C12.18 line 7 and C16.31 line 18; and one instance in which Christ is described as the image of the invisible God: C13.23 line 18. The last use, in C18.13 line 11, regarding the resurrection, is in a discussion of how humans bear God’s image. For a discussion of Cyril’s use of this concept in his Catecheses, see Jenkinson’s ‘The Image and the Likeness of God in Man in the Eighteen Lectures on the Credo of Cyril of Jerusalem (C. 315-387)’ (1964), 48-71. For an overview of fourth-century theological anthropology of several Greek Fathers, see Harrison’s God’s Many Splendored Image (2010) and Steenberg’s Of God and Man (2009). 30 Σύμβολον is used in C1.11 line 3; C3.5 line 19; C5.3 line 7; C14.5 line 4, 7 line 6, and 11 line 10; M1.4 line 5 and 9 line 5; M2.1 line 5, 3 line 6, and 4 line 7. This term also appears in M3.3 line 7, 6 line 2, and 2 line 5; as well as M5.2 line 7. In M5, the word is used in the discussion of the washing of the Priest’s and Presbyters’ hands. 31 In the Mystagogies, all five uses of ὁμοίωμα comprise either a quotation, allusion, or reference to Rom 6:5 and the relationship between baptism and Christ’s passion; in the Catecheses, the eight uses are limited to three topics: one quote of Rom 6:5, one attribute of God’s nature, and the rest are concentrated in one chapter in an exposition of the glory of God as described in Ez 1:28. M2.7 lines 5, 11, twice in line 16; and M3.2 line 11. In the Catecheses, the uses are found in C3.12 line 5 (quoting Rom 6:5, baptism into the likeness of Christ’s death), C6.7 line 22 (nature of God), C9.1 lines 6, 7, 8, 10, 19, and 21 (all in exposition of Ez 1:28, referring to the glory of God). 32 The uses of ἀντίτυπον are found at M2.6 line 6, M3.1 lines 7 and 14, and M5.20 line 6.

145

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

for baptism, C3, and his final instructions in M2, he also used specialized vocabulary in M2 that is not used as frequently in the other mystagogic catecheses. This indicates that Cyril’s sacramental theology cannot be neatly summarized by a detailed exploration of only one sacramental rite. Table 4-1 presents a summary of the frequency of the terms in the Mystagogic Catecheses. Table 4-1: Frequency of terms related to sacramental realism Word

μίμησις

Frequency of Use P

C

M1

M2

M3

M4

M5

1

4

0

2

0

0

0

33

1

εἰκών

0

11

0

2

1

σύμβολον

0

6

2

3

3

0

1

ἀντίτυŸον

0

0

0

1

2

0

1

ὁμοίωμα

0

8

0

3

1

0

0

1

The use of μίμησις or its cognate in M1.5 is when those preparing to be baptized were instructed that part of the life they were giving up was imitating the fanatics of the theater. Then, prior to baptism, being stripped naked is first described as being an image (εἰκών) of having the old person and his or her deeds stripped away in the Pauline “put off the old person” in order to “put on Christ” motif (M2, “On Baptism”). Cyril then described being stripped naked as imitating (μιμέεσθαι) Christ’s nakedness on the cross (M2) and Adam’s innocent nakedness in paradise. With this one action of being stripped naked, the imitation motif connects the baptizand with the divine economy: paradise is being opened and the newly baptized will enter paradise naked and unashamed because of Christ’s victory on the cross, which was accomplished while Christ was naked. The fullness of the imitation-image motif is found in M2, on baptism: here, imaging Christ’s suffering through μίμησις (by baptism) is the means of receiving salvation (M2.5). Then, in M3 (“On Chrism”), εἰκών is the focus: by the employment of images, the Christians have become images of Christ. Imitation is implied, but the term is not used. Imitation language is missing from both M4 (“On the Body and Blood of Christ”) and M5 (on the liturgy of the eucharist). Finally, in the last use of εἰκών, the concept of imitation is neither explicitly nor implicitly employed: Christians are now images of heaven because God dwells and walks among them. The culmination of the trajectory is beyond imaging through imita33 As noted in footnote 28 above, the one use in M4 is in reference to pagan idols, not the Christian as an icon of Christ.

146

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

tion to becoming an image-bearer: an image of Christ, an image of the heavenlies. Both Cutrone and Mazza argue that the motif breaks down, yet another explanation is possible: while the motif is part of the structure, it is not the structure that sets the capstone on Cyril’s catechetical structure. While Cyril only used μίμησις and its cognates in M1 and M2, his use of εἰκών continued without the discussion of a bodily imitation of an event in Christ’s life. The progression of the use of μίμησις is once in M1 (in a prohibition), five times in M2, then an implicit use of the concept in M3. The progression of the use of εἰκών is two uses in M2, two uses in M3, and one use in M5. As can be seen from the sequential use of εἰκών and μίμησις in the Mystagogic Catecheses which are presented in Table 4-2, Cyril’s culminating use of εἰκών is in the context of no imitation at all, indicating not that the motif fails, but that the motif provides only part of the sacramental theology. Table 4-2: Cyril’s Use of the Cognates of εἰκών and μίμησις34 Text

Translation

M1.5-8

Μὴ περισπούδαστόν σοι ἔστω Do not be an overt fanatic about ἡ θεατρομανία, ἔνθα αἱ ἀσελγεῖς the theater, where the εἰσι τῶν μίμων [μῖμος] ὄψεις, ... licentiousness of the imitators are seen ...

M2.2 lines 1-3

Εὐθύς γ’οὖν εἰσελθόντες, ἀπεδύεσθε τὸν χιτῶνα· καὶ τοῦτο ἦν εἰκὼν τοῦ τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀπεκδύσασθαι σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν.

Then as soon as you came in, your tunic was stripped off. And this was an image of the old person being stripped off along with its deeds.

M2.2 lines 3-6

Ἀποδυθέντες γυμνοὶ ἦτε, μιμούμενοι καὶ ἐν τούτῳ τὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ γυμνωθέντα Χριστόν, καὶ τῇ γυμνότητι ἀπεκδυσάμενον τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας, καὶ μετὰ παρρησίας ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ θριαμβεύσαντα.

Having been stripped naked you were imitating also in this [action] Christ’s nakedness on the cross, and by this nakedness [he was] disarming the rulers and authorities, and publicly triumphed over them by the tree.

Ἀληθῶς γὰρ μίμημα ἐφέρετε τοῦ M2.2 lines 15-17 πρωτοπλάστου Ἀδάμ, ὃς ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ γυμνὸς ἦν καὶ οὐκ ᾐσχύνετο.

For you were truly bearing an imitation of the first-formed Adam, whom in paradise was naked and not ashamed.

34 Cyril’s uses of εἰκών and its cognates are single underlined and his uses of μίμησις and its cognates are double underlined.

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

Table 4-2

147

(continued)

Text

translation

M2.5 lines 1-3

Ὢ ξένου καὶ παραδόξου πράγματος· οὐκ ἀληθῶς ἀπεθάνομεν, οὐδ’ ἀληθῶς ἐτάφημεν, οὐδ’ ἀληθῶς σταυρωθέντες ἀνέστημεν, ἀλλ’ ἐν εἰκόνι ἡ μίμησις, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ δὲ ἡ σωτηρία.

O strange and incredible deed! We did not truly die, nor were we truly buried, nor truly crucified [and] raised again, but in image [is] the imitation and yet in truth [is] salvation.

M2.5 lines 4-7

Χριστὸς ὄντως ἐσταυρώθη καὶ ὄντως ἐτάφη καὶ ἀληθῶς ἀνέστη· καὶ πάντα ἡμῖν ταῦτα εχάρισται, ἵνα μιμήσει τῶν παθῶν αὐτοῦ κοινωνήσαντες, ἀληθείᾳ τὴν σωτηρίαν κερδήσωμεν.

Christ was crucified and was buried and truly rose again. And these he has gifted to us, in order that by imitation we share in his suffering, [so that] we might, in truth, gain salvation.

Ἴσως γὰρ πρός τινας ταῦτα M2.6 lines 10-13 ἔλεγε διατεθέντας, ὡς ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ υἱοθεσίας προξενητικὸν τὸ βάπτισμα, οὐκ ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀληθινῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων ἐν μιμήσει ἔχον τὴν κοινωνίαν.

For in like manner he said to some who were disposed [to consider] baptism, as forgiveness of sin and brokering adoption as sons, yet not also truly having a share of Christ’s suffering by imitation.

M3.1 lines 6-8

Χριστοὶ δὲ γεγόνατε, τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος τὸ ἀντίτυπον δεξάμενοι, καὶ πάντα εἰκονικῶς ἐφ’ ὑμῶν γεγένηται, ἐπειδὴ εἰκόνες ἐστὲ Χριστοῦ.

And you have become Christs, having received the antitype of the Holy Spirit, and all things concerning you have been done by employing images, when you became images of Christ.

M5.11 lines 8-9

Οὐρανοὶ δὲ εἶεν ἂν καὶ οἱ τὴν τοῦ ἐπουρανίου φοροῦντες εἰκόνα, ἐν οἷς ἐστὶν ὁ Θεὸς ἐνοικῶν καὶ ἐμπεριπατῶν

And they also are Heavens who bear the image of the heavenlies, in whom God dwells within and walks among.

While I disagree with Cutrone and Mazza about the relative importance of the εἰκών-μίμησις motif as a hermeneutical key to Cyril’s sacramental theology, they are right to note that there is a clear distinction that sets the eucharist apart from baptism and the post-baptismal anointing in Cyril’s pedagogical strategy. This distinction, as is discussed in chapter six, is indicated by Cyril’s repeated use of assurance language to indicate that the bread and the wine become Christ’s body and blood as well as his lack of use of the εἰκών-μίμησις motif. However, I propose that the key to understanding this pedagogical shift is a

148

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

different theological transition than argued by Cutrone and Mazza, a shift that is anticipated by the larger structure that Cyril began in the Catecheses. My analysis of Cyril’s use of τύπος or τυπικός (type), ἀλήθεια (truth), and ἀντίτυπος (anti-type) within this larger framework is presented in chapter six. Insights from Examining the Distinctions between Cyril’s Theology of Baptism and the Post-Baptismal Anointing Joseph Torchia has explored the distinctions between Cyril’s theology of baptism and the post-baptismal anointing; his analysis provides another indication that the εἰκών-μίμησις typology is too restrictive to capture the multifaceted sacramental theology of the Mystagogue.35 Torchia demonstrates the uniqueness of Cyril’s baptismal and post-baptismal anointing theology, indicating that one motif cannot be expected to encapsulate Cyril’s understanding of each sacramental rite. Each sacrament must be explored individually; only then should common themes or motifs be proposed. Without using Platonic metaphysics as a means of examining the reality that Cyril is describing, Torchia notes that “real,” for Cyril, has two senses: 1) the historical reality of Christ’s passion and 2) the real spiritual benefits received through the sacraments.36 With respect to the post-baptismal anointing, Torchia states In keeping with the symbolism of Mystagogical Lecture II, whereby Baptism entails a sharing in Christ’s crucifixion, burial, and resurrection, chrismation establishes an intimate fellowship with Christ, as a visible sign of his own anointing with that ‘oil of gladness’ which is the Holy Spirit.37

Yet, Cyril’s sacramental theology is not without difficulties for those desiring a systematic and linear progression of transformation: Torchia notes that “… Cyril’s teaching that both Baptism and chrismation are instrumental in imparting the gift of the Holy Spirit generates a significant theological problem.”38 He observes that Cyril’s understanding of the rites of initiation ought to be considered as an organic whole in which each phase endows the recipient with its own special gifts. In its pivotal position in the middle of this rite, chrismation consummates the entry into 35 According to Torchia, ‘The Significance of Chrismation in the Mystagogical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1999), 128: “One of the most illuminating treatments of the rite of chrismation in the early Church, and possibly the strongest patristic statement regarding its distinctness from the baptismal rite is found in the Mystagogical Lectures of St Cyril of Jerusalem.” 36 Ibid. 133. The reality of Christ’s passion was heightened due to the testimony of the location of the catechesis, between the Martyrium and the Anastasis—between the places of the crucifixion and the resurrection—and the events of the Great Week leading up to Easter, including the veneration of the relic of the cross. 37 Ibid. 134. 38 Ibid. 139.

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

149

Christian life by effecting the parousia of the Holy Spirit, and likewise, prepares the recipient for the reception of the Eucharist. While Baptism confers an adoption by God, chrismation makes us “Christians” in the fullest sense.39

Torchia has examined the uniqueness of Cyril’s baptismal and post-baptismal anointing theologies, which leads one to expect that Cyril’s eucharistic theology is also, in some ways, distinct from his baptismal theology. Camelot provides a more specific insight into the problem with Cutrone’s and Mazza’s analysis: their analyses both focused on terminology that is unique to a given Mystagogic Catechesis which led to imposing one sacrament’s theology onto a second sacrament in a way that does not adequately express Cyril’s understanding of the second sacrament.40 Camelot also points to a solution: he rightly notes that the theology of communion (κοινωνία) encompasses all of the sacraments and points to the centrality of the incarnation in Cyril’s understanding of salvation. Camelot’s “more penetrating reflection on the economy of the sacraments” is an implicit observation that Mazza’s and Cutrone’s methodology is not irreparably flawed; the terms that they highlighted were unique to one sacrament.41 It appears that Mazza and Cutrone focused on individual building blocks within the theological structure that Cyril built rather than the mortar that connects all of the building blocks to the foundation, which, as I explain in chapter five, is the theology of communion (κοινωνία). Methodological Insight: Look for What is Common, Not What is Unique Cutrone, Mazza, Camelot, and Torchia have all focused on what is distinctive with each of the sacraments. However, Cyril promised a cohesive theology, which means that while there could be differences between the sacraments, there should also be a common theme that unites them. While Cyril does not 39

Ibid. 142. The issue is not that the pedagogical principle is not present. Clearly, εἰκών-μίμησις is a major component of Cyril’s baptismal theology. The use of μίμησις as formation was clearly present in Platonic thought, as Mazza describes. Heldt, ‘Constructing Christian Communal Identity in Early Patristic Writers’, in One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism (2006), 31 examines the use of μίμησις in second and third century exegesis, Heldt quotes Preston’s essay, ‘Roman Questions, Greek Answers’, in Being Greek under Rome, 87 that “[p]resenting identity is … ‘a complex process of construction, negotiation, and contestation’, fully employing mimesis and paidea for creative imitation and ultimately altering culture.” 41 Camelot, ‘Note sur la théologie baptismale des catéchèses attribuées à saint Cyrille de Jérusalem’, in Kyriakon (1970), 726. “Mais plus intéressante que ces vues quelque peu imaginatives, voire mythiques, est l’esquisse d’une théologie de la communion (κοινωνία) ou participation, que Cyrille tire encore d’un texte biblique (Heb 2:14). Le Christ a participé comme les hommes à la chair et au sang pour nous faire participer à sa divinité. De même, participant avec lui au baptême, nous en recevons le salut. Il y a là, ici aussi à peine ébauchée, une réflexion plus pénétrante sur l’économie des sacrements, rattachée à l’incarnation : par le sacrement l’âme reçoit participation et communion aux gestes salutaires du Christ.” 40

150

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

include εἰκών or μίμησις in each of the Mystagogic Catecheses, cognates of κοινωνεῖν are found in all five of them.42 Mazza, however, states that [t]he Pauline words homoiōma and koinōnia do not occur verbatim in the texts of Cyril, but, because of their influence on the formulas he uses to express sacramental realism, they are to be regarded as the direct foundation of Cyril’s sacramental teaching, which he neatly expressed in the words ‘imitation in an image.’43

Yet, κοινωνία does occur in Cyril’s catechetical instruction on the eucharist (M4).44 Mazza addresses this, but dismisses the use as taken directly from the passage on the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. In these verses, Paul does not say, strictly speaking, that the cup is the blood of Christ and the bread his body; he says rather that the eucharistic cup is a communion in the blood of Christ and the eucharist bread a communion in his body.45

Mazza’s statements about κοινωνία are quite puzzling; κοινωνεῖν and its cognates—the noun forms κοινωνός and κοινωνία—are used seventeen times in the Mystagogical Catecheses alone, with only one of these instances in a quotation, which is from 2Peter, not 1Corinthians. Furthermore, as noted by Mazza, the use of κοινωνία with respect to the eucharist is better aligned with the biblical use, not the Platonic philosophical gloss. Considering that Cyril has used scripture as his authority throughout the Catecheses as well as the Mystagogical Catecheses, even if some of his audience might have been swayed by philosophical arguments, it is not surprising that the Mystagogue used biblical definitions and terms in lieu of philosophical glosses.46 Unfortunately, the typology-focused analysis of Cyril’s eucharistic theology, even though Paul Bradshaw has noted its deficiency, continues to serve as the interpretive key to Cyril’s sacramental theology.47 The inclusion of theōsis and In particular, the highest concentration of the cognates of κοινωνεῖν are in Mystagogical Catecheses 2, which is Cyril’s discussion of baptism. 43 Mazza, Mystagogy (1989), 159-60. 44 Κοινωνία is found in M2.3 line 6, M2.5 line 9, and M2.6 line 13. The related words κοινωνός and κοινωνεῖν are also present in M2: κοινωνός is found at M2.3 line 2, M2.3 line 4, and M2.7 line 8, while κοινωνεῖν is used in M2.5 line 6. The frequency and use of these terms are discussed in the next chapter. In M4, words in the κοινωνεῖν cognate group are found in M4.3 line 7, M4.7 line 11 and 12. 45 Mazza, Mystagogy (1989), 159. 46 Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem (2000), 56 applies “sola scriptura” to Cyril’s emphasis upon the primacy of scripture’s authority in catechetical instruction (see C4.17). While the terminology is anachronistic, it does capture Cyril’s use of scripture succinctly. 47 In his review of Mazza’s text, Bradshaw, ‘Review of Mystagogy’ (1990), 382 questioned Mazza’s methodology. Specifically, Bradshaw asked if it was “appropriate for mystagogy to be judged exclusively in terms of the use of typology: does not this a priori assumption distort one’s perception by excluding from consideration aspects which do not fit into this particular category, with the result that, for example, Cyril gets relatively little attention because he made less use of the typological method than the other three?” 42

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

151

its implications upon his eucharistic theology has not been undertaken to date.48 While Kent Burreson, Francis Young, and George Röwekamp offer hints that point to a theōsis-based theology, none develops these insights. Burreson stated that Cyril’s soteriology includes theōsis; Young referred to Cyril’s sacramental soteriology as “Christification;” and Röwekamp states that divinization is present in Cyril’s eucharistic theology, none discussed how and where Cyril’s doctrine points to theōsis or Christification.49 Furthermore, the surveys of theōsis in the Greek Fathers by Jules Gross and, most recently, by Russell, have very little about Cyril’s teaching on theōsis.50 Camelot and Power both point to the concept of communion (κοινωνία) as a central element of Cyril’s sacramental theology, which, as is discussed in the next chapter, is also central to his understanding of identity formation. Insights from Edward Yarnold, David Power, William Crockett, and George Dragas Edward Yarnold’s summary of Cyril’s eucharistic theology emphasizes the explicit teachings of M5 in which Christ’s crucifixion is clearly stated to be propitiatory (M5.8-10) and the epiclesis of the Holy Spirit to transform the bread and the wine into Christ’s body and blood (M4.6, 9; M5.7) to the exclusion of the rich language of table fellowship and a minimization of the transformation of the communicant

Even after Bradshaw’s concern, this method of interpreting Cyril’s eucharistic theology continues to be the primary hermeneutic. For example, Doval assumes that “ritual mimēsis lies at the heart of Cyril’s sacramental theology.” Doval, ‘Cyril of Jerusalem’s Theology of Salvation’ (2001), 459-60. 48 For example, Bradshaw’s treatment of Cyril of Jerusalem’s Eucharistic theology in Eucharistic Origins (2004) is in two places: under “Last Supper and Institution Narratives” and “Transformation in the Fourth Century.” In the first section, he works with Cyril’s “very adapted version of the Pauline narrative” and does not treat Cyril’s use of the 2Peter passage. Since Bradshaw does not have the 2Peter passage indexed as a major scriptural text, theōsis was most likely beyond the scope of his work. 49 “The author presents the sacraments as a means by which the believer is transformed into Christ. … The idea of salvation is one of what we might call ‘Christification’ conveyed in and through the mystery-sacraments.” Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon (1996), 131. See also Burreson, ‘The Anaphora of the Mystagogical Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem’, in Essays on Early Eastern Eucharistic Prayers (1997), 131-51. Röwekamp, ‘Einleitung’ in Cyril von Jerusalem (1992), 84 states that “Die Eucharistiefeier ist nun ein dramatischer, symbolischer Prozeß der ‘Vergöttlichung’, dessen Mitfeier verwandelt.” 50 While the connection between theōsis and the eucharistic theology of Cyril’s contemporaries, Athanasius and the Cappadocians, is discussed in Russell’s The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (2006), 236, 339, Cyril of Jerusalem was not within the scope of Russell’s work and thus is not mentioned in his more recent Fellow Workers with God. Jules Gross mentions Cyril of Jerusalem in footnote 67 in his The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers (2002), 197.

152

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

found in M4.51 Yarnold rightly noted that Cyril’s exegetical method is undergirded by an understanding that salvation history is one continuous action of God’s saving work, such that “what [God] has accomplished in the Old Testament gains its true significance as a preparation for his work in the New.”52 However, Yarnold’s analysis of Cyril’s use of τύπος does not capture Cyril’s use of the different glosses of the term, resulting in Yarnold arguing that, for Cyril, the Old Testament events are “less ‘real’ or ‘true’ than its application in the life of the church.”53 David Power provides a very brief exploration of Cyril’s eucharistic theology, and even though his analysis mingles his observations of Cyril’s eucharistic teachings with those of both other fourth-century mystagogues as well as their teachings on the other sacraments, he adds considerable insights into the discussion. He points to the difficulty faced by all mystagogues: the struggle to “connect different orders of reality, relating time to eternity, and connecting present rites with events of the past.”54 The fourth century theologians clearly felt “a tension between the language of symbol, intended to connect the original and its sacramental participation, and the more realistic or material language of straightforward predication.”55 He helpfully notes that in Mystagogic Catechesis 4 Cyril is … graphic in identifying the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ and even declares that in communion “his body and blood spread through our limbs,” so that in this way we become “partakers of the divine nature.” Since this participation in divine nature is obviously the point of sacramental mediation, he calls it “spiritual bread,” thus removing the possible note of capharnaitic understanding.56

51

Yarnold, The Awe-Inspiring Rites of Initiation (1994), 68. In M5, after the epiclesis over the eucharist (M5.4), the eucharist is described as a spiritual sacrifice, bloodless worship, and a sacrifice of propitiation (M5.8). In M5.9, the eucharist is the holy and awe-inspiring sacrifice. In M5.10, the eucharist is referred to as Christ slaughtered for our sins. M5.8 lines 1-2: Εἶτα μετὰ τὸ ἀπαρτισθῆναι τὴν πνευματικὴν θυσίαν, τὴν ἀναίμακτον λατρείαν, ἐπὶ τῆς θυσίας ἐκείνης τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ (“Then after the completed spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, in the presence of this sacrifice of propitiation ...”); M5.9 line7 the eucharist is referred to as “τῆς ἁγίας καὶ φρικωδεστάτης ... θυσίας” (the holy and inspiring of religious awe sacrifice); in M5.10 lines 10-12, we offer Christ slaughtered for our sins (Χριστὸν ἐσφαγιασμένον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁμαρτημάτων προσφέρομεν). 52 Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem (2000), 57. 53 Ibid. 58. 54 Power, The Eucharistic Mystery (1984), 146. Like Riley and Mazza, Power compares the works of the four mystagogues: Ambrose of Milan, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, and Cyril of Jerusalem. 55 Ibid. 146. 56 Ibid. 146-7. Yarnold considers Cyril’s eucharistic theology, as presented in M4, to “open the way to an extreme sacramental realism.” Yarnold, ‘The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1978), 151. Walking the thin line between over-spiritualizing the transformation of the bread and wine (and thus de-emphasizing the importance of the effects of the sacrament on the body as well as disconnecting the consecrated elements from the resurrected body of Christ) and over-emphasizing the mysterious connection between the consecrated bread and wine with Christ’s body and blood (and thus allowing the newly-initiated to drift into questions of spiritual or even physical cannibalism) has been a difficulty throughout church history.

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

153

Then, in Mystagogic Catechesis 5, where Cyril focuses on Christ’s passion as the sacrifice of atonement, “more realism seems to be employed in regard to the offering of Christ’s own sacrifice in the Eucharist” than in Mystagogic Catechesis 4.57 Power notes the relationship between baptism, eucharist, and the moral life for Cyril: for [Cyril] in the baptismal act the faithful die and rise in Christ, not in reality (alethia) but in mystery (mysterion). This is then the basis for participation in the Eucharist and eucharistic nourishment is nourishment of this new life in Christ.58

Central to the eucharistic theology presented in fourth century mystagogy, according to Power, is the church’s communion with and in Christ. … One of the problems of this catechesis was to find a way of expressing sacramental mediation in bringing about this communion. … Communion with Christ in his human nature is also communion with his sacrifice, both in the effects of the shedding of his blood and in its worshipful reality. It is in bringing this out that we find a tendency to see the rites as a mimesis of the historical events of passion, death, entombment, and rising, coupled however with a representation of the heavenly intercession and the second coming.59

In his brief treatment of fourth-century eucharistic theology, Power presents a nuanced and reasonably balanced assessment of Cyril’s eucharistic theology. However, he does not address the undergirding theme of theōsis which integrates communion with the Godhead, communion with the ecclesial body, and the divine economy of salvation for the restoration of human persons to wholeness in such a way that Cyril can speak of salvation as already entering into a present experience of paradise, which (as I demonstrate in the next chapter), is inherent in the language of communion for Cyril. As will be demonstrated in chapter six, for Cyril, communion with Christ in his suffering is discussed in terms of baptism, not the eucharist. As discussed in chapter one, William Crockett provides a means for understanding why this might be so by examining connections between patristic eucharistic theology and Jewish fellowship meals. Furthermore, Crockett may provide an insight necessary to explain how the term sacrifice (θυσία) in Mystagogic Catechesis 5 does not necessarily require, as Power has suggested, a greater focus on realism in Mystagogic Catechesis 5 than in 4. Arguing from the ancient Jewish understandings of sacrifice and the meal blessings, Crockett proposes that the earliest accounts of the eucharist connect sacrifice and thanksgiving using this Jewish mindset: Sacrifice is not something added to the thanksgiving, but a way of describing the meaning of the act of thanksgiving itself. There is an analogy to the act of thanksgiving. The anamnesis is not something added to the act of thanksgiving. Rather, it is a way of

57 58 59

Power, The Eucharistic Mystery (1992), 147. Ibid. 148-9. Ibid. 150.

154

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

describing how the thanksgiving is made, i.e., by making memorial of the mighty deeds of God in creation and redemption. The same holds true for the description of the eucharist as sacrifice. Thanksgiving is made by offering sacrifice. The eucharist action as a whole, an action of thanksgiving memorial, is here being described as a sacrifice of thanksgiving on the model of a gift-sacrifice.60

In order to examine the identity formation that is integral to the spiritual formation that Cyril provided to the newly baptized Christians, a re-examination of Cyril’s eucharistic theology is required, taking into account the doctrinal presuppositions of the presence of a sacramental theōsis which allows for a eucharistic theology that emphasizes table fellowship. Recently, George Dion Dragas has provided an important nuance to where the emphasis needs to be placed when speaking of “realism” in Cyril’s sacramental theology. In contrast to Mazza’s “physical realism,” Dragas discusses a “sacramental realism.” Above all, [Cyril] was a Father of sacramental realism. The way he expounded the three sacraments of Christian initiation reveals the real way of participation in salvation. This is possible, as he explained, because of the elements of water, oil, bread and wine are imbued with the saving power of the Holy Spirit. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon these elements and upon those who partake of them in the sacramental celebrations effect true sanctification and transform human recipients into sons of God, christs, and saved people. Through Baptism, believers receive divine sonship by adoption and partake in the death and resurrection of Christ. Through Chrismation, they receive from Christ the gift of the indwelling Spirit. Through the Eucharist, they become one body and one blood (syssomoi kai synaimoi) with Christ, a dwelling place of God.61

For Dragas, the emphasis is upon the “way of participation in salvation” rather than upon Christ’s presence through the work of the Holy Spirit. This does not minimize the importance of Christ’s presence, but follows Cyril’s emphasis upon transformation and sanctification that I demonstrate is central to understanding his sacramental theology. However, as I argue in chapter 6, becoming dwelling places of God is more sophisticated than merely occurring through the eucharist and thus needs to be explicated in more detail to capture the importance of the corporate nature of worship. Also, while Dragas has provided the best summary of Cyril’s sacramental theology that I have found, the scope of his work included neither an elucidation of Cyril’s sacramental theology nor an examination of the role of the sacraments in Cyril’s doctrine of theōsis. 60 Crockett, Eucharist (1989), 67. On the other hand, Gelston, ‘Cyril of Jerusalem’s Eucharistic Prayer’ (2010), 304-5 argues that “Cyril was ... citing and commenting on the Institution Narrative of the Eucharistic Prayer in his general introduction to the Eucharist in M-C 4:1.” Thus the referent of the sacrifice is the “solemn act of anamnesis and oblation in connection with the consecration of the elements as the body and blood of Christ through the invocation of the Holy Spirit.” 61 Dragas, The Holy Sacraments of Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion (2008), 15, 17.

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

155

While Yarnold places Cyril’s sacramental theology within the divine economy, Power rightly focuses on the centrality of communion and the sacramental mediation of communion with Christ, and Crockett provides a means of understanding the eucharist as not related to the imitation of Christ’s passion, the influence of εἰκών-μίμησης from Mazza and Cutrone continues to dominate the secondary literature, with the exception of Dragas’ 2008 introduction to the text. Furthermore, for Cyril, communion, as I demonstrate in the second half of this chapter, is about more than mere communion with Christ’s human nature. Doctrinal Presuppositions In the last section, several doctrinal presuppositions have been challenged. Two major doctrinal presuppositions are central to my argument: the possibility of the presence of theōsis as a unifying theme throughout Cyril’s catechetical works and the expectations of what constitutes a proper doctrine of the eucharist. As I have already noted, scholars view Cyril’s catechetical work, especially his teachings on the eucharist, as either a masterpiece, an enigma, or at worst, a failure. I contend that undergirding the latter two assessments of Cyril’s mystagogical work are these two doctrinal presuppositions. With respect to the first presupposition, Petro Bilaniuk identifies what he considers to be a subtle yet profound difference between Eastern and Western Christian traditions that Western Christians often overlook: The hamartiocentric and thanatocentric mentality of Western Christianity, that is a mentality which is profoundly pessimistic and almost pathologically obsessed by its primary concentration of the problem and the mystery of evil, sin and death, is alien to the spiritual optimism of Eastern Christianity and especially to its Alexandrian tradition, the chief concern of which was eternal life, light and love of the Triadic God and His loving presence to His creatures. … The central and characteristic part of the cornerstone of the Eastern Christian optimism is a very lively awareness of and an intense contemplation of the complex of ideas pertaining to the mystery of theosis (θείωσις [sic]) or divinization in its creational, Triadic, Christological, Pneumatological, anthropological, ecclesial, cosmological and eschatological dimensions.62

While this characterization may be more accurately situated in later developments that differentiate Eastern and Western Christian traditions, the temptation to expect one’s own tradition’s expression of Christianity in the theology of another must constantly be guarded against. The idea that Cyril of Jerusalem’s soteriology includes theōsis has already been proposed by Burreson and Young. However, neither discusses how Cyril’s doctrine 62 Bilaniuk, ‘The Mystery of Theosis or Divinization’, in Heritage of the Early Church (1973), 337-8.

156

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

is articulated as theōsis. I propose that when one considers the conjunction of what Young has described as Cyril’s less ascetic view of the Christian life, the more practical theological anthropology that I describe in chapter six, and the “double sacramental causality” which Edward Yarnold described as being inherent in Cyril’s sacramental theology,63 an expression of a sacramental theōsis coalesces, as I demonstrate in this chapter and develop further in chapters five and six. In particular, I argue against the imposition of a North African presupposition regarding what constitutes a proper articulation of eucharistic theology upon Cyril’s mystagogical text. In particular, Mazza, whose comparative study of the sacramental theologies of the four fourth-century mystagogues has been foundational for subsequent Cyrillian studies, appears to favor a pre-Nicene eucharistic theology as normative. He states that: The pre-Nicene Fathers assigned a great importance to martyrdom, not only because of the factual situation (many had suffered from martyrdom during the persecutions, and martyrdom was still a real possibility for so many), but above all because they conceived of Christian life as a following and imitation of Christ in his death. … Since martyrdom is an imitation of the passion of Christ and since the Eucharist too is an imitation of the passion, it follows that there should be a special connection between the Eucharist and martyrdom.64

John D. Laurence provides a detailed exposition of what Mazza seems to take as the normative eucharistic theology. According to Laurence: Among the various predications properly given to the Eucharist, then, only ‘imitation of Christ’ directly names its most fundamental theological identity. Although the Eucharist is indeed a thanksgiving, a blessing, a sacrifice, etc., it is so only because the passover of Christ imitated at the Eucharist can also be seen as the greatest of all acts of thanksgiving, blessing, or sacrifice. Now if one simply affirms greatness within each of these categories of human activity, the conclusion is inescapable that it is also possible for other true thanksgivings, blessings, and sacrifices to exist in this world apart from Christ. However, if the Eucharist is seen as fundamentally the imitation of Christ, then the Church remains committed in principle to receive only from Christ himself the true definitions of all things, including that of thanksgiving, blessing, or sacrifice.65

This understanding of the Eucharist is based in Cyprian of Carthage’s (d. 258) work. As Laurence states: In his Epistle 63, Cyprian is called on to set down what is absolutely required for a true and valid Eucharistic celebration. In doing so, he bases his arguments on Col 1:15-20:

63 Yarnold, ‘The Body-Soul Relationship Mainly in Connection with Sacramental Causality’ (2001), 338-42. While the term “causality” in this phrase may seem to imply an Aristotelian imposition upon Cyril’s sacramental teachings, for the purpose of this study, my emphasis is upon the term “double,” as is seen in my treatment of this concept in Part III, chapter six. 64 Mazza, The Celebration of the Eucharist (1999), 135-7. 65 Laurence, ‘The Eucharist as the Imitation of Christ’ (1986), 294-5. Emphasis his.

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

157

because Christ is the ‘fullness’ of all reality (1:19), and the ‘first-born’ of all creation (1:15), then only if the Eucharist imitates the events of Christ’s ‘passions’ will it actually participate in their saving power. In other words, for Cyprian, sacramental imitation of Christ is effective precisely because it is actually the fullest expression of Christ already present and active in the sacramental world of God’s creation. Furthermore, because Christ is ‘Truth,’ only if he is evident in the Church’s liturgical imitation will he be ‘truly’ present in the Eucharistic celebration.66

In summary, while Cyril clearly taught sacramental imitation of Christ’s anointing, passion, and resurrection in his sacramental theology, this sacramental imitation is found only in his mystagogy regarding the pre-baptismal anointing, baptism, and post-baptismal anointing. Since Mazza focuses on the imitation of Christ’s passion as the hermeneutical key for unlocking the entirety of the mystagogical teachings of the four mystagogues, he ultimately finds Cyril’s eucharistic theology to be deficient because Cyril’s main discussion of the eucharist, Mystagogy 4, does not follow this pattern. A proper understanding of Cyril’s eucharistic theology and its place within his sacramental theology is critical for examining Cyril’s theology, pedagogy, and spirituality. Two examples from the secondary literature provide case studies for the interdependence of Cyril’s sacramental theology and the rest of his theology, demonstrating the importance of examining Cyril’s teachings with a clear view of the scholar’s doctrinal presuppositions which may not be the same as Cyril’s. The first case study is from Ottorino Pasquato’s examination of the spirituality in Cyril’s Mystagogic Catecheses. Pasquato rightly notes that the “[m]ystical contemplation reaches its height” in the liturgy of the eucharist.67 While he posits that divinization is important to Cyril’s spirituality, he only points to one phrase in M5.22 as the proof for this insight without providing sufficient explanation for this insight.68 Furthermore, he describes the emphasis of Cyril’s eucharistic theology as equally split between the “sacramental participation in the sacrifice of the cross” as well as “sacramental participation in the celestial liturgy.”69 The latter is emphasized in M5; however, as I demonstrate in chapter six, Cyril’s teaching on the eucharist in M4 does not mention “the sacrifice of the cross.” Furthermore, only one mention of the “awe-inspiring sacrifice” is made in M5.9. The emphasis of sacramental participation in Christ’s death and resurrection is found in M2, on baptism, and even there, the emphasis is on participation in the likeness of Christ’s death, not on the cross itself. Pasquato overemphasizes the place of Christ’s crucifixion in Cyril’s teachings on 66

Ibid. 294, 295. Pasquato, ‘Spirituality and Prayer in the Baptismal Catecheses of St Cyril of Jerusalem’, in Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church (1998), 48. 68 Ibid. 58. 69 Ibid. 48. 67

158

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

the eucharist at the expense of Cyril’s emphasis on the eucharist as table fellowship with God. Like Mazza, Pasquato’s emphasis aligns more closely with Cyprian’s eucharistic theology, not Cyril’s. The second case study is formed from the two studies on Cyril’s soteriology. The first of these two essays, Hamilton Hess’ study of Cyril’s soteriology as found in the Catechetical Lectures, expresses the presupposition that the deliverance theme of soteriology ought to center on the motif of sacrifice. He summarizes: Cyril’s soteriology is fundamentally rooted in and formed by biblical texts and teaching, and it is expressed in a rich array of motifs and imagery. It shows heavy indebtedness to the teachings of Paul, but diverges from Paul, and also from the mainstream of Patristic soteriology, in its virtual omission of sacrificial imagery and the sacrificial motif in its treatment of the deliverance theme.70

Of particular interest is the last part of the last sentence in the above quotation which betrays Hess’ Western expectation of sacrificial imagery to be central in soteriology. The second essay, which provides insights that support my argument that the theme of theōsis is foundational to understanding Cyril’s theology, is Alexis Doval’s examination of Cyril’s soteriology in both the Catecheses and Mystagogic Catecheses. Doval categorizes Cyril’s atonement model into four categories: “solidarity, conflict, transaction [satisfaction], and enlightenment,” and demonstrates that the bishop’s preferred model was solidarity.71 This preference to speak of salvation through the theme of Christ’s solidarity with humanity is foundational for the doctrine of theōsis. Yet Doval follows Mazza and states that “ritual mimesis lies at the heart of Cyril’s sacramental theology,”72 even though Cyril’s eucharistic theology does not include ritual μίμησις. At issue is not whether or not Cyril has a sacrificial theology of atonement and whether or not ritual μίμησις of Christ’s passion is present in Cyril’s sacramental theology since both of these are clearly present in Cyril’s baptismal theology. However, like Mazza, Doval focuses on Cyril’s baptismal theology as the normative sacramental theology. If one is not expecting a sacramental theōsis motif, then, as stated by Doval, Christ’s solidarity with humanity is seen most clearly in his baptismal doctrine. While Christ’s solidarity with humanity is very clearly expressed in Cyril’s baptism, I argue in chapter six that the fullness of Christ’s solidarity with humanity and the explicit goal of this solidarity is most fully expressed in the eucharist: it is in the celebration of the eucharist that, through Christ’s humanity, Christians partake of the divine nature. 70

Hess, ‘Soteriological Motifs in the Catechetical Lectures of St Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1997),

319. 71

Doval, ‘Cyril of Jerusalem’s Theology of Salvation’ (2001), 454. Like Mazza, Doval focuses on Cyril’s baptismal theology as the normative sacramental theology. He states that, for Cyril, Christ’s solidarity is seen most clearly in his baptismal doctrine. Ibid. 454, 459. 72

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

159

In contrast to a normative eucharistic theology with a sacrificial motif as exemplified by Mazza, William Crockett provides a different motif for examining eucharistic theology from the early church. His thesis is that [t]he roots of the Christian eucharist lie in the tradition of Jewish meal fellowship and, in particular, in the meals that Jesus shared with his disciples and others. The continuation of this meal fellowship in the earliest Christian communities, together with reflection on its meaning, gave rise to the earliest Christian eucharistic traditions. A meal in Jewish tradition has a much richer meaning than it has in our modern western culture. Every common meal as well as the meals held on festivals and other special occasions reflect Israelite faith. They are eaten in the context of thanksgiving for Yahweh’s gifts given in creation and in Israel’s history. ... Moreover, table fellowship for the Jew is a sign of peace and community. ... Against the background of Jesus’ message, table fellowship with him constituted the offer of a share in the blessing of the future reign of God.73

Crockett contends that “the history of the interpretation of the eucharist in the early Church … needs to be seen in relation to the wider context of the variety of meal traditions reflected in the New Testament writings.”74 The recent study by John Paul Abdelsayed notes that, based upon Egyptian sources for the Jerusalem liturgy, the liturgy itself is the sacrifice of thanksgiving.75 As I demonstrate in chapters five and six, this motif of eucharist as fellowship meal with the Father through the fellowship of the Holy Spirit and sharing in Christ’s passion is central to Cyril’s mystagogic instruction on the eucharist as well as one of the primary themes of his articulation of theōsis: salvation as restored fellowship (κοινωνία). An Alternate Reading of Cyril’s Eucharistic Theology: Sacramental Theōsis Enrico Mazza has argued that a shift in understanding of the sacraments in the fourth-century as well as a loss in ability to utilize the ontological aspects of Platonic philosophy explain what he has determined to be a flaw in Cyril’s sacramental theology.76 I have already presented my reasons for disagreeing 73

Crockett, Eucharist (1989), 1. So also Chilton, ‘Sacrificial Mimesis’ (1997), 226-7. Crockett, Eucharist (1989), 3. 75 Abdelsayed, ‘Liturgical Exodus in Reverse’, in Issues in Eucharistic Prayer in East and West (2011), 151-2. 76 Mazza, The Celebration of the Eucharist (1999), 146-50. Mazza argues for an irreversible crisis in eucharistic theology within the fourth century due to Athanasius’ influence upon the non-Platonic understanding of image that was used to describe Christ’s consubstantial relationship to the Father. He proposes that Ambrose of Milan’s use of methexis as a means of explaining how the Eucharistic elements are the image of Christ is a further development of this so-called naïve 74

160

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

with Mazza’s hypothesis that the fourth-century Mystagogues’ eucharistic theology is weakened by their incomplete grasp of Platonic ontology. Nevertheless, I agree with his insight that something was rapidly changing in the fourthcentury understanding of the sacraments, and that this change may well have been related to an adaptation of Platonic philosophy among the Greek Fathers. By reading the Mystagogic Catecheses as the culmination and completion of the Catecheses, Catechesis 4.16 provides the hermeneutical key to understanding not only Cyril’s eucharistic theology, but also his sacramental theology in general as well as his teaching on Christian identity: the developments in the understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in the Christian life. Specifically, for Cyril, the work of the Holy Spirit includes theōsis.77 Vladimir Kharlamov states that Cyril uses this term without providing an explanation; Jules Gross argues that while none of the fourth-century Greek fathers defines this type of terminology, this concept is central to their understanding of salvation.78 Petro Bilaniuk notes that “[p]atristic piety, liturgical hymnology and theology are deeply permeated and profoundly influenced by the doctrine of theosis or theopoiesis, and it constitutes one of their distinctive characteristics.”79 Thus, it seems quite reasonable to evaluate whether a doctrine of theōsis is interwoven into Cyril’s sacramental theology and provides a means of better understanding his eucharistic theology. As noted previously, Russell provides a modern description of theōsis that will be helpful in orienting my evaluation of how Cyril’s use of theōsis informed and shaped his eucharistic theology as well as his articulation of Christian identity formation.80 realism and physicality. Mazza also notes that devotional practices were in place which most likely underscored Theodore of Mopsuestia’s statement that equates kissing the bread of the Eucharist with kissing Christ, and praying to Christ is the same as praying to Christ in the Eucharist (Homily 16.28). In the fourth century mystagogues, Mazza finds “two different and clearly defined ways of asserting sacramental realism.” The first is built upon a Platonic dialectic in which a typological interpretation of the sacramental rite is formed from the biblical figures. This he calls the traditional interpretation. The second is a newer method of interpretation which is “wholly devoted to expounding sacramental realism; it ends up with a naïve [realism and physicality]: Jesus is incarnated once again, but this time in the bread and wine; in practice, the bread and wine are a new, physical manifestation of the incarnation of Christ.” This new sacramental method builds upon the sacramental terminology of the traditional method yet “end[s] in the assertion of a complete physical identity between the bread and the Body of Christ and between the wine and the Blood of Christ.” 77 In Cyril, this is expressed in Catechesis 4.16, lines 14-8. 78 Kharlamov, ‘Rhetorical Applications of Theosis in Greek Patristic Thought’, in Partakers of the Divine Nature (2008), 115. Gross, The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers (2002), 271-2. 79 Bilaniuk, ‘The Mystery of Theosis or Divinization’, in Heritage of the Early Church (1973), 352. 80 “Theosis is our restoration as persons to integrity and wholeness by participation in Christ through the Holy Spirit, in a process which is initiated in this world through our life of ecclesial communion and moral striving and finds ultimate fulfillment in our union with the Father—all within the broad context of the divine economy.” Russell, Fellow Workers with God (2009), 21.

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

161

My approach in what follows is first to demonstrate some of the more overt instances of the presence of a doctrine of theōsis in Cyril’s catechetical instructions in the rest of this chapter. Then, after explicating how Cyril’s expression of theōsis is developed within the flow of thought of his catechetical instructions (in chapter five), I will use Russell’s definition of theōsis to examine not only the breadth of this teaching in Cyril, but also how theōsis, sacraments, and Christian identity are inseparable in his theology (chapter six). A Brief Overview of Pertinent Aspects of Theōsis While a detailed survey of the history of theōsis to the time of Cyril or a comparison of Cyril’s teachings on theōsis with those of his contemporaries is beyond the scope of this book, an overview of significant aspects of the doctrine is necessary in order to demonstrate that what is present in Cyril is within the boundaries of how the doctrine was being discussed in his time.81 The development of the concept of theōsis occurred amidst theological controversies which, at first glance, do not appear to be related to the issues involved in theōsis. Athanasius (c 293-373) defended Christian theōsis and differentiated it from other views because he understood theōsis to be integral to his understanding of the person of Christ as well as his understanding of salvation.82 The Cappadocians, with theological anthropologies that stressed the created goodness of the human body, combined their understandings of Christ’s uniqueness of being fully human and fully divine, their sacramental theology, and their soteriology such that they, and especially Gregory of Nyssa, discussed sacramental participation in Christ as deifying.83 Because of the prevalence of 81 For surveys of the topic, see Meconi, ‘The Consummation of the Christian Promise’ (2006), 3-12; Gross, The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers (2002); Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (2006); Finlan and Kharlamov (eds), Theōsis (2006); Bilaniuk, ‘The Mystery of Theosis or Divinization’, in Heritage of the Early Church (1973), 337-59; Drewery, ‘Deification’, in Christian Spirituality (1975), 33-62; Christensen and Wittung (eds), Partakers of the Divine Nature (2008); and Russell, Fellow Workers with God (2009). 82 Deification, as summarized by Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (2006), 187-8, is further developed among the Alexandrian Fathers due to the Arian controversy: in particular, Athanasius’ “realistic approach to deification” is a modification of Origen’s doctrine. In order for the Son to deify, he must have the same nature as the Father. Christ’s solidarity with humanity allows humans, in principle, to be deified. Athanasius advances Origen’s concept of dynamic participation—that by participating in Christ’s flesh, Christians “are raised to participate in the immortal and incorrupt divine life. Moreover, participation in the deified flesh demands the development of the sacramental side of deification, which will only be accomplished by Cyril of Alexandria.” 83 See Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (2006); Gross, The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers (2002); Winslow, The Dynamics of Salvation (1979); Ayres, ‘Deification and the Dynamics of Nicene Theology’ (2005), 37594; Alfeyev, ‘The Deification of Man in Eastern Patristic Tradition’ (2004), 109-22.

162

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

theōsis, and especially sacramental theōsis, among some of Cyril’s contemporaries, it should not be surprising that Cyril also would have a theology that at least includes theōsis. In the following sections, I explore some of the technical vocabulary used to denote the concept of theōsis, key scriptural passages used as starting places to describe theōsis, and the role of the sacraments in theōsis in the works of church fathers contemporary to Cyril of Jerusalem in order to situate Cyril’s sacramental theōsis within the theological context of the fourth century. Vocabulary of Theōsis In essence, Platonic concepts of theōsis84 intersected with aspects of Jewish theology85 which, when explored by the early Christian theologians, developed into a uniquely Christian concept of identity and telos.86 Yet, while the concept appears to be widespread among the early church fathers, by the fourth-century multiple technical terms were used to convey the concept of theōsis and the means by which one was understood to prepare oneself and participate in the process also varied among the theologians.87 Norman Russell has provided a concise analysis of what he calls the “vocabulary of deification,” none of which is found in Scripture. These terms include the following word groups: ἀποθειάζω and ἐκθειάζω; ἀποθεόω/ἀποθειόω, ἐκθεόω/ἐκθέωσις, ἐκθέωσις, ἐκθέωσις, ἐκθεωτικός; θεοποιέω, θεοποιΐα, θεοποίησις, θεοποιός; and θεόω, θέωσις.88 Of these words, Cyril uses only one: θεοποιός.89 Bilaniuk provides a few additional words coined earlier by Ignatius of Antioch which demonstrate the realized eschatology of theōsis: θεοφόροι, χριστοφόροι, and ἁγιοφόροι.90 Of these terms, Cyril uses one: χριστοφόροι. 84 As Russell notes in The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (2006), 16, the crowd’s response to the miraculous healing in Acts 14 provoked a response by the crowd in which some had assumed that the gods had taken the form of men and were among them (Acts 14:11-3). This is an example of the prevalence of the concept of deification within Greco-Roman thought. 85 Glazov provides a concise overview of Jewish concepts of divinization and its roots in the Hebrew Scriptures in ‘Theōsis, Judaism, and Old Testament Anthropology’, in Theōsis (2006), 16-31. 86 As Glazov (ibid. 21) succinctly states, in order for Christian claims of Jesus as the Messiah to be comprehensible, “the Christian understanding of theōsis must … be intrinsically linked to a participation in Jesus’ via dolorosa, to a concrete, organic immersion in His passion, in a way that grants a redemptive role to suffering and removes the scandal of what usually looks like a bloody mess.” 87 Drewery, ‘Deification’, in Christian Spirituality (1975), 39 lists several pathways: ecclesiastical (through the sacraments or “ministrations of the priesthood”), personal study (the reading of Scripture or γνῶσις), and praxis (charitable works, virginity, or the higher virtues). 88 Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (2006), 333-42. 89 Bilaniuk, ‘The Mystery of Theosis or Divinization’, in Heritage of the Early Church (1973), 351 notes that this is the same word that Athanasius used in defense of the divinity of Christ. Cyril’s use is discussed in chapter six. 90 Ibid. 347.

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

163

Scriptural Passages Used in Describing Theōsis While the early church theologians developed a rich vocabulary of non-biblical terminology for theōsis, many of which were also used in non-Christian communities, biblical concepts were the starting point for the development of the Christian concepts underlying the use of these words. While concepts from the Pauline corpus are not the only scriptural basis supporting the doctrine of theōsis, Russell states that “‘[d]eification’ as a theological term only emerges when the Pauline metaphors are re-expressed in metaphysical terms.” 91 Several key passages or scriptural concepts are noted in the secondary literature as starting points for the Greek father’s discussions of theōsis: 1) 2Peter 1:4 (γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως—to become sharers of the divine nature);92 2) Heb 2:14 (Ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν αἵματος καὶ σαρκός, καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μετέσχεν τῶν αὐτῶν… Since therefore the children share in blood and flesh, he himself likewise partook of the same); 3) the language of μεταμορφόομαι93 found in Rom 12:2 and 2Cor 3:18 which results in Christians becoming a new creation in Christ in 2Cor 5:17 and the use of the passive of μορφόω, Christ being formed in Christians, in Gal 4:19;94 4) the use of Ps 82:6 (81:6 LXX) (“ἐγὼ εἶπα θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ὑψίστου πάντες”, I say, “you are gods and all [of you are] sons of the Most High”),95 and

91 Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (2006), 85, 339 notes that Cyril’s use of Ps 82:6 in Procatecheses 6 and Catecheses 11.4 is “simply a titular appellation” rather than a statement of deification. Given Cyril’s use of names, this analysis needs to be reconsidered. 92 This passage has been thoroughly studied by James Starr in its relationship to theōsis. Starr presents a detailed account of this verse within its literary context of 2Peter as well as its Old Testament, Stoic, Hellenistic Judaism, Platonic, and Early Christian setting. In its context, Starr states that this phrase is “theological shorthand for a constellation of ideas” which do not include “apotheosis in the sense of becoming a part of God’s essence or ceasing to be human, but of the partaking of divine righteousness, seen perfectly in Christ. The participation in divine righteousness begins now in the progressive moral transformation experienced by the one who knows Christ … but perfect righteousness will only be enjoyed in the new creation … The concern of the present life is to see the knowledge of Christ bear fruit in one’s moral dealings”, see his ‘Does 2 Peter 1:4 Speak of Deification?’, in Partakers of the Divine Nature (2008), 84-5. See also his Sharers in Divine Nature (2000). 93 Cyril uses μεταμορφόομαι twice, both in the Catecheses. In Catechesis 6.11 line 4 it is used in the context of Jupiter transforming into a swan. In Catechesis 12.16 line 17, the word is used to describe Jesus’ transfiguration (Lk 9:30-1). 94 Finlan, ‘Can We Speak of Theosis in Paul?’, in Partakers of the Divine Nature (2008), 75-7. 95 Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (2006), 85.

164

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

5) the quote of Psalm 45 in Heb 1:9 such that Heb 3:1, 6:4, 12:8 become especially relevant with respect to μέτοχοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ (companions of Christ).96 These few passages are, by no means, the fullness of the Septuagint and New Testament passages from which the Fathers drew their concept of theōsis, but they are starting places to provide insight into Cyril’s understanding of theōsis. The first three of these passages and concepts are discussed in this chapter, the fourth and fifth are taken up in the next chapter. Since Cyril’s use of 2Peter 1:4 is the most direct evidence of theōsis based upon his use of Scripture, a brief examination of how this passage became a text associated with theōsis is helpful. According to Russell, the first theologian who is known to have quoted 2Peter 1:4 was Origen.97 Origen understood the implications of participatory union with Christ in what Russell divides into three categories, the third of which is linked to his use of the 2Peter quotation: (i) the non-corporeal nature of participation;98 (ii) the fundamental kinship between participant and participated;99 (iii) the distinction between a participation which is natural or ontological and one which is supernatural or dynamic.100

This distinction between the supernatural and the natural is both a critical aspect of theōsis and the means by which Origen was able to interact with 2Peter 1:4.101 However, while Origen provided the means to engage 2Peter 1:4, a sacramental dimension to theōsis is lacking in Origen’s teachings due to his attitude toward the body.102 Cyril, however, along with the Cappadocians,

96

Ibid. 54, 73, 99, 339. Ibid. 151. 98 According to Russell, the use of metaphysical—not corporeal, yet physical—images are helpful in expressing the effects of participation. Ibid. 147. 99 Both horizontal and vertical dimension of relationship are expressed; there must be some similarity in nature for participation while maintaining a distinction between (sharing of attributes, but not identity with each other), but the participated in must be superior to the participants. Ibid. 148. 100 According to Russell (ibid. 147-9), here, natural refers to the relationship between the specific, which is contingent, and the universal, which is not contingent while supernatural is “the result of the free human response to the operations of the Trinity and the power to transform.” Russell notes that “[t]his dynamic, supernatural participation is wholly trinitarian.” 101 Ibid. 151. 102 In particular, Origen equated embodiment with the result of sin. Ibid. 153. So also McGuckin, ‘The Strategic Adaptation of Deification in the Cappadocians’, in Partakers of the Divine Nature (2008), 105. According to Russell, Fellow Workers with God (2009), 67, Athanasius “use[d] this verse to support the idea of the believer’s dynamic participation in a personal God”, linking this verse to baptism. 97

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

165

held to a higher view of the human body and being embodied,103 thus a sacramental dimension to theōsis would be a natural component to his understanding of salvation. Sacramental Dimension of Theōsis This sacramental dimension of theōsis is found in the Johannine canonical texts: participation in Christ is through faith and the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist. This participation includes experiencing the fullness of Christ and the inaugural stages of eternal life in the present age, with consummation of this life yet to come.104 However, while Russell proposes that the culmination of the sacramental dimension of theōsis did not reach its fullness until the works of Cyril of Alexandria (c 375-444),105 precursors to this expression are present in the works of the Cappadocian Fathers.106 Among the Cappadocians, the emphasis of sacramental theōsis varied. For Basil (330-379), while the eucharist was the means by which the believer communes with God, his emphasis, according to Russell, was more eschatological.107 Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329-390) focused more on the role of the priest rather

103 For a discussion of the theological anthropologies of the Cappadocians, see Harrison’s God’s Many Splendored Image (2010). 104 See John 3:15, 6:54 and 1John 5:12. Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (2006), 87-9. 105 Ibid. 187-8. 106 “Suffice it to say that they are probably best understood as the theologians who successfully transformed this largely Alexandrian theologoumenon into a universalized tradition of the church. In spite of the fact that Syrians at large sternly refused to employ the notion (referring instead terms of adoptive sonship), the Cappadocians were collectively taken by the idea; led there in no small part by Gregory of Nazianzus’s enthusiastic reading of Origen, and his equal determination to take Athanasian theology as a standard on which to build the neo-Nicene settlement in the late fourth century.” McGuckin, ‘The Strategic Adaptation of Deification in the Cappadocians’, in Partakers of the Divine Nature (2008), 97. Overviews of the Cappadocian views on divinization can be found in McGuckin’s ‘The Strategic Adaptation of Deification in the Cappadocians’, in Partakers of the Divine Nature (2008), 95-114 and Russell’s The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (2006), 206-34. 107 Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (2006), 212: “The eucharistic bread is the bread of life through which the believer comes to enjoy communion with God. The Eucharist is a symbol and real pledge of the ‘taste’ of God in heaven (Hom in Ps 33.6, PG 29.364C).” According to Hilaron, ‘The Deification of Man in Eastern Patristic Tradition (with special reference to Gregory Nazianzen, Symeon the New Theologian and Gregory Palamas)’ (2004), 113-4, Gregory of Nyssa’s understanding of deification was that it is “a gift of divine grace and … an effect of the reception of the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist.” However, in the citation that he provides, he notes that Gregory only specifies baptism as deifying (Discourse 31.28.10).

166

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

than the sacrament.108 His sacramental dimension of theōsis, like Athanasius’ non-sacramental theōsis, was in defense of the Incarnation.109 The works of Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – after 384), however, provide insights that seem to be the most helpful for understanding Cyril’s eucharistic theology. According to Russell, “[i]n his earlier works when Gregory mentions theōsis it is as a product of participation in the divine attributes.”110 In particular, Gregory wrote: … and the God who made himself manifest by mingling himself into perishable nature, in order that by fellowship with his divinity (ἵνα τῇ τῆς θεότητος κοινωνίᾳ), humanity might be deified together (συναποθεωθῇ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον), by this plan of his grace he plants himself in all who have believed (πᾶσι τοῖς πεπιστευκόσι) through the flesh, of which the subsistence of this is from the wine and the bread, mingling [himself] with the bodies of those who have believed for the sake of uniting the undying with them and humanity might partake (μέτοχος) of the incorruptible.111

According to Russell: When [Gregory] turns to the Eucharist in the thirty-seventh chapter of the Great Catechetical Oration, [he] extends the deification of Christ’s body in the Incarnation to the rest of humanity in a similar fashion through the operation of the second sacrament. The union of divine and human in Christ endowed his flesh with true life. … The humanity that was deified was the flesh of Christ. But that same flesh is the same flesh that believers receive in communion. The Eucharist thus enables them to participate in the deifying effect of the Incarnation.112

Thus, through a real encounter with the Christ through the eucharist, the human person participates in the divine attributes of incorruptibility and immortality through Christ’s body and blood mingling with the human body. 108 Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (2006), 219. Russell summarizes Gregory’s view on the role of the priest in theōsis as “[t]he Liturgy complements the spiritual life as a parallel mode of raising human life to the level of the divine. The priest is the mediator, deified and deifying, through sharing in Christ’s priesthood.” 109 Ibid. 221. Russell, in Fellow Workers with God (2009), 68, states that the final development of this concept in Cyril of Alexandria is a result of Jewish accusations regarding Christian worship (see his Festal Letter, 425) and the controversy with Nestorius (Against Nestorius II.8), so that by “the mid-420s he prefers to use the phrase ‘partakers of the divine nature’ which neatly balances his emphasis on Christ’s partaking of our human nature.” 110 Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (2006), 226. 111 Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio catechetica magna, 37.116-126, translation by J. Strawley in The Catechetical Oration of Gregory of Nyssa. TLG 2017.046: ἐπεὶ οὖν καὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος ἡ θεοδόχος ἐκείνη σὰρξ πρὸς τὴν σύστασιν ἑαυτῆς παρεδέξατο, ὁ δὲ φανερωθεὶς θεὸς διὰ τοῦτο κατέμιξεν ἑαυτὸν τῇ ἐπικήρῳ φύσει, ἵνα τῇ τῆς θεότητος κοινωνίᾳ συναποθεωθῇ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, τούτουχάριν πᾶσι τοῖς πεπιστευκόσι τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ τῆς χάριτος ἑαυτὸν ἐνσπείρει διὰ τῆς σαρκός, ἧς ἡ σύστασις ἐξ οἴνου τε καὶ ἄρτου ἐστί, τοῖς σώμασι τῶν πεπιστευκότων κατακιρνάμενος, ὡς ἂν τῇ πρὸς τὸ ἀθάνατον ἑνώσει καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀφθαρσίας μέτοχος γένοιτο. ταῦτα δὲ δίδωσι τῇ τῆς εὐλογίας δυνάμει πρὸς ἐκεῖνο μεταστοιχειώσας τῶν φαινομένων τὴν φύσιν. 112 Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (2006), 228.

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

167

Russell summarizes Gregory of Nyssa’s understanding of theōsis under three categories: 1) Theōsis is, first and foremost, Christological. Only in this sense is the term used literally. 2) By bringing about participation in Christ’s deified body, the sacraments extend theōsis to human persons.113 3) This extension of theōsis to human persons through “participation in the divine attributes is deification in a strictly analogous sense.”114 Russell states that, for the Cappadocians, theōsis is proper to Christ’s human flesh alone; human persons are metaphorically or ethically deified.115 The sacraments are a means of theōsis, as is the moral life.116 The eucharist, in particular, is deifying because of the intermingling of Christ’s body and blood with those of the communicants.117 Conclusion Having demonstrated that the concept of theōsis is present among diverse theologians who preceded and were contemporaries of Cyril and that while the concept has the same goal, it is nonetheless uniquely expressed in each theologian’s teachings, it is not unreasonable to expect Cyril of Jerusalem to have

113 Ibid. 230. Russell summarizes: “Faith and baptism are the necessary means of laying hold of the new humanity brought about in the risen and transfigured Christ because we are not disembodied spirits but twofold creatures ‘compounded of soul and body’ (Or. Cat. 37). Baptism inserts us into the saving action of Christ by our imitating in the threefold immersion the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection. It is described by Gregory as a recovery of ‘the tunic of incorruption’, a realization in the individual of the effects of Christ’s defeat of death and corruption (Bapt diff, PG 46 420C). The Eucharist is expounded on similar lines. Since the sacramental elements are identical with the glorified flesh of Christ, they are the source of life for us, the remedy which makes our bodies immortal. Through the Eucharist our bodies participate in incorruption by mingling with Christ’s body, for only in this way can the grace of immortality, which belongs properly to Christ alone, be transmitted to others (Or. Cat. 37, PG 45 97).” 114 “In all of Gregory’s extensive spiritual writings he refers to such participation as θεοποιοῦσα only twice, and in both cases he qualifies it with τρόπον τινά, ‘so to speak.’” Ibid. 229. 115 Russell states that “the emphasis being as much on the ascent of the soul to God as on the transformation of the believer through baptism.” For the two Gregories, the realistic dimension of deification pertains uniquely to Christ’s human body—“the purpose of the Incarnation being to enable us to return to the likeness we have lost.” Ibid. 233. 116 “Both baptism and the moral life are said to deify.” Ibid. 233. 117 “All three Cappadocians mention the role of the Eucharist in deification, but only Gregory of Nyssa develops it. In his realistic view of the Eucharist he anticipates Cyril of Alexandria, although he supports it with a different christology. The Godhead deifies the flesh at the Incarnation by commingling with it; this flesh in turn deifies believers by commingling with them when they receive it in eucharistic communion.” Ibid. 233.

168

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

aspects of theōsis interwoven in his teaching, as some scholars have already been noted but left unexamined. Further, because of Cyril’s rich and robust understanding of the goodness of being embodied,118 it is also reasonable to expect that, like the Cappadocians, Cyril’s sacramental theology expressed concepts of theōsis. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Explicit Use of Theōsis Terminology and Significant Scriptural Passages Related to Theōsis I propose that Cyril’s teachings on theōsis, while not using the explicit language of theōsis found in some of his contemporaries, undergird his catechetical instruction.119 The doctrine is observable, as described at the beginning of this chapter, through his use of technical theōsis terminology and his use of Scriptural passages that were used by other church fathers to provide a biblical basis for the doctrine of theōsis.120 Explicit Use of Theōsis Terminology Since Cyril was careful to use Scripture as his authoritative text and his undergirding terminology for his catechetical instructions and chose not to use the 118 Cyril’s theological anthropology is most clearly taught in Catechesis 4.18-31. Cyril’s anthropology has not been a major concern in the literature, although Steenberg, in Of God and Man ([2009], 128-57) has provided a description that focuses on Cyril’s baptismal theology as a means of explicating Cyril’s anthropology. Young, in From Nicaea to Chalcedon (1996), 127-8 summarizes that Cyril promoted “a more practical and less rarefied Christian life-style than that in the ascetic treatises of the period.” In particular, “Cyril follows St Paul in his advice on chastity and marriage, even allowing a second marriage. Bodily needs are not to be despised. True, self-indulgence and luxury are to be avoided, but meat is not taboo, nor are riches accursed. To suggest such things belongs to the heretics. God is the source of all and to be worshipped as such, his gifts are to be put to good use. … The extreme otherworldliness so often attributed to this period of monastic upsurge was certainly tempered by the continued use of the biblical traditions once employed to uphold the goodness of creation against the Gnostics.” Cyril’s practical views of the body are woven into his epistemology, as noted by Frank, Kalleres, and Harvey. Frank’s ‘Taste and See’ (2001), 619-43 explored the role of both taste and sight in Cyril’s epistemology. Kalleres’s ‘Cultivating True Sight at the Center of the World’ (2005), 431-59 explores the role of scripture as a lens for seeing the world properly according to Cyril’s baptismal theology and the importance of the holy sites as means of cultivating this newlyacquired, post-baptismal vision. Harvey’s Scenting Salvation (2006) focuses on the role of the sense of smell in coming to know. Cyril’s theological anthropology is taken up again in chapter six. 119 Differences in audience and genre must be taken into account when comparing Cyril’s teachings to those of his contemporaries. 120 Brent’s work on Ignatius of Antioch provides additional background for why theōsis would serve as a foundation for Cyril’s sacramental theology. In Ignatius of Antioch and the Second Sophistic (2006), Brent demonstrates Ignatius’s use of Hellenistic terms to provide an argument for ecclesiology and the role of the bishop within that ecclesiology.

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

169

theologically loaded terms of the different Christological factions of the church, the use of theōsis terminology is striking. Of the terms that Russell lists, Cyril uses only one: the verb θεοποιεῖν (to make divine, deifying) and its adjectival form, θεοποιός (deifying), all of which are found in the Catecheses.121 Cyril also uses one of the words coined by Ignatius of Antioch, χριστοφόροι, that Bilaniuk highlighted, once in the Procatechesis and once in the Mystagogic Catecheses. Thus, through the use of these two terms, a technical term used by the Greek fathers to articulate the doctrine of theōsis is present in each of Cyril’s catechetical works. Cyril’s use of χριστοφόροι will be addressed in chapter six; his uses of θεοποιεῖν and its cognate will be treated here. While the terminology of θεοποιεῖν does not occur in the Mystagogic Catecheses, since I am following Cyril’s assertion that the catechetical instruction is to be taken as a whole and thus the Mystagogic Catecheses was built upon the concepts developed in the Catecheses, an echo or allusion to this concept in the Mystagogic Catecheses would be sufficient to call the original concept back into focus. This would especially be the case if the term and the echo are both used in the same rhetorical context, as is the case for a parallel phrase in Mystagogic Catecheses 4.7. First, however, an exploration of the use of this word in the Catecheses is necessary to determine the foundational use upon which the parallel structure is built. The verb θεοποιεῖν is used in a polemical sense four times: in three of the four instances, the verb’s subject is human persons who consider something other than God to be divine. In Catechesis 4.6, lines 2 and 9, the verb is used twice to describe the actions of those who have strayed from the one God: they have chosen to take things which God created things to be their god, such as the sun, the moon, the arts, food, and gold, to name a few. The third instance, found in Catechesis 12.3 line 12, is in the context of a Christological heresy: some heretics say that Christ was not God made human, but a man who was deified.122 Finally, in Catechesis 15.3 line 30, 121 Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (2006), 236 notes that the phrase that Cyril uses is similar to Athanasius’s expression of the work of the Holy Spirit. According to Russell, θεοποιός is a term first used in Christian writing by Clement of Alexandria, who Christianized the term from “a maker of statues of the gods” in early non-Christian texts to “deifying.” By the fourth century, this term is rarely used. Russell notes that the earliest use of this adjectival noun is in Aristophanes (frag. 786/7) and the context is uncertain. The definition provided above is what Russell takes the Aristophanes use to be, but he is certain of this use in Lucian’s Lover of Lies (Philopseudes 20) and Julius Pollux’s Onomasticon 1.13. The term is used in the Christian sense in the following: Clement of Alexandria (Prot. 4.51.6 and QDS 19), “Origen (Sel. in Exod. 1.3), Methodius (Symposium 9.4), Athanasius (De Syn. 51), Apollinarius (Kata meros pistis 27), Ps.-Basil of Caesarea (Adv. Enom. 5.732B),… Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. 3.1; Carm. II.2.7), … Cyril of Alexandria (Dial. Trin. V.567e; VII.644d), and … Ps.-Dionysius (CH 1.1.120B; DN 2.1.637B; EP. 2.1068A).” Russell also notes that some of the late Neo-Platonists also used the term in the same sense as Clement of Alexandria: “Proclus (In Tim. 5.308d (ed. Diehl, iii. 226 28)[)], Hieroclus (In Carm. Aur. 19.10 (84.1)), and Damascius (V. Isidori, ed. Zintzen, 207.8).” Ibid. 339. 122 C12.3 lines 9-10: οἱ δὲ λέγουσιν οὐ θεὸν ἐνηνθρωπηκέναι τὸν Χριστόν, ἀλλ’ ἄνθρωπόν τινα τεθεοποιῆσθαι.

170

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

the use again differentiates the word’s Christian use from non-Christian use: converts from Manicheanism are exhorted to no longer deify the lights.123 The positive application of the term in Cyril’s text has a distinctly different subject: in Catecheses 4.16 lines 14-17, it is the Holy Spirit who deifies persons (καὶ ἓν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ πάντων ἁγιαστικὸν καὶ θεοποιόν, …).124 As noted by Kharlamov, the rhetorical use of θεοποιός in Catechesis 4.16 distances the Christian use from the pagan practices described earlier in the same catechesis (4.3).125 In Mystagogic Catechesis 4.7 lines 11 and 12, Cyril takes a similar rhetorical strategy, noting the similarity and difference between the eucharist, which Cyril understands to be pre-figured in Psalm 23, and the table of the Psalmist’s enemies: both are tables, but one is prepared by God and the other is prepared by demons; one is communion with God (κοινωνία Θεοῦ) and the other is communion with demons (κοινωνία δαιμόνων).126 The near-parallel construct of the theōsis sentence found in M5.7 may have served as a rhetorical echo to C4.16. In C4.16, the direct object is people, Christians in particular. In the Mystagogic Catechesis the direct object of the sentence is not the Christian, but the bread and the wine of the eucharist: παντὸς γὰρ οὗ ἐὰν ἐφάψηται τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, τοῦτο ἡγίασται καὶ μεταβέβληται (for whenever the Holy Spirit has laid hold of [the bread and wine] he has sanctified and changed them).127 While Cyril’s understanding of work of the Holy Spirit’s activity in people and on the eucharistic bread and wine is, in some ways, similar (ἁγιαστικὸν and ἡγίασται are, respectively, the adjectival form and the perfect 123 C15.3 lines 29-32: παιδευέσθωσαν οἱ ἐκ Μανιχαίων ἐπιστρέψαντες, καὶ τοὺς φωστῆρας μηκέτι θεοποιείτωσαν, μηδὲ τὸν σκοτισθησόμενον τοῦτον ἥλιον τὸν Χριστὸν εἶναι δυσσεβῶς νομιζέτωσαν. 124 The entire sentence is: Εἷς γάρ ἐστι Θεός, ὁ τοῦ Χπριστοῦ πατήρ˙ καὶ εἷς Κύριος ʼΙησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ τοῦ μόνου Θεοῦ μονογενὴς Υἱός, καὶ ἓν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ πάντων ἁγιαστικὸν καὶ θεοποιόν, τὸ ἐν νόμῳ καὶ προφήταις, παλαιᾷ τε καὶ καινῇ διαθήκῃ λαλῆσαν. 125 Kharlamov, ‘Rhetorical Applications of Theosis in Greek Patristic Thought’, in Partakers of the Divine Nature (2008), 117 does not discuss the other instances of the term outside of Catecheses 4. It is quite provocative that while Athanasius argued for the full divinity of Christ based upon his ability to deify through the Christian’s union with him, here, Cyril states that it is the Holy Spirit who deifies. If he was using the same logic as Athanasius, then he may well have understood that the Holy Spirit, too, was fully divine. The divinity of the Holy Spirit wasn’t formalized until the Council of Constantinople (381). In her dissertation, “The Holy Spirit in the Catechesis and Mystagogy of Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, and John Chrysostom” (1987), Jackson states that Cyril’s Catecheses has been dated before Basil’s On the Holy Spirit (374). “Cyril’s bold assertions, based on Scriptural precedent, of the powerful things the Holy Spirit will do in his hearers’ lives, and his reference to the Spirit as θειατοιον [diacritical marks omitted in the original], plant the seeds of a question which was soon to germinate in the doctrinal disputes later in the century: how can one who makes us God, not be God?” Jackson did not, as far as I can discern, engage the deification aspect in her discussion of Cyril’s teachings on the Holy Spirit. 126 Cyril described these two tables also in M1.7. 127 See chapter three for a discussion of the text critical issue in this sentence.

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

171

passive third person singular of ἁγιάζω, to sanctify), the Spirit’s work is also in some ways different: persons are deified (θεοποιὸν, the adjectival form of θεοποιεῖν, to make God-like) yet the sacramental elements of bread and wine have been changed by the Spirit (μεταβέβληται, the perfect passive indicative, third person of μεταβάλλω).128 A comparison of these phrases are summarized in Table 4-3. Table 4-4 presents the phrases in context. Table 4-3: Comparison of C4.16 lines 16-7 and M5.7 lines 5-6 Text

Phrase

Verb Forms

Direct Object of the Holy Spirit’s Work

C4.16 lines 16-7

τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ πάντων ἁγιαστικὸν καὶ θεοποιὸν

adjectival forms of Christians ἁγιάζω and θεοποιεῖν

M5.7 lines 5-6

τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, τοῦτο ἡγίασται καὶ μεταβέβληται

Perfect Passive Indicative, third singular of ἁγιάζω and μεταβάλλω

eucharistic elements (bread and wine)

Table 4-4: Context of Parallel Statements in C4.16 lines 14-7 and M5.7 lines 1-6 Text

Text in Context

C4.16 lines 14-7

Εἷς γάρ ἐστι Θεός, ὁ τοῦ Χπριστοῦ πατήρ˙ καὶ εἷς Κύριος ʼΙησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ τοῦ μόνου Θεοῦ μονογεὴς Υἱός, καὶ ἓν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ πάντων ἁγιαστικὸν καὶ θεοποιόν, τὸ ἐν νόμῳ καὶ προφήταις, παλαιᾷ τε καὶ καινῇ διαθήκῃ λαλῆσαν.

Translation

Direct Object of the Holy Spirit’s Work

For there is one God, Christians the Father of Christ. And one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God; and one Holy Spirit, who sanctifies and deifies all, who spoke in the Law and the Prophets and the old and new covenants.

128 This appears to be, in some ways, similar to Augustine’s Sermon 272, in which Christ is present in the consecrated Eucharistic elements as he is present in the people.

172

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 4-4 (continued) Text

M5.7 lines 1-6

Text in Context

Εἶτα ἁγιάσαντες ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τῶν πνευματικῶν τούτων ὕμνων, παρακαλοῦμεν τὸν φιλάνθρωπον Θεὸν τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα ἐξαποστεῖλαι ἐπὶ τὰ προκείμενα, ἵνα ποιήσῃ τὸν μὲν ἄρτον σῶμα Χριστοῦ, τὸν δὲ οἶνον αἷμα Χριστοῦ· παντὸς γὰρ οὗ ἐὰν ἐφάψηται τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, τοῦτο ἡγίασται καὶ μεταβέβληται.

Translation

Direct Object of the Holy Spirit’s Work

Then, having bread and wine of the sanctified ourselves eucharist through these spiritual hymns, we ask the benevolent God to send the Holy Spirit upon the gifts in order that he might make the bread [to be] the body of Christ, and the wine [to be] the blood of Christ, for whenever the Holy Spirit lays hold of them, he has sanctified and changed them.

While the two sentences are not exact parallels, the similarity, with its very intriguing distinction between the result of the work of the Holy Spirit on people and on sacramental elements, provides insight into Cyril’s understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit as the proper Christian subject of θεοποιεῖν (as opposed to people making idols out of things), and, potentially, people as the proper object of θεοποιεῖν (as opposed to things, in which the verb is μεταβάλλω).129 For Cyril, the giver of the gift of theōsis, as well as the one who transforms the eucharistic bread and wine, is the Holy Spirit. The action of theōsis is not properly a human activity, but something which a person receives from God—and, for Cyril, this is specifically the work of the Holy Spirit within the corporate liturgical context.130 The parallel structure serves to teach that theōsis is synergistic without being symmetrical: while it is the In order to more confidently posit this assertion, more uses of θεοποιέω and its cognates, especially in the positive sense, are required. Unfortunately, in the texts that I am working with, no additional instances are present. 130 In the pagan uses, which Cyril argues against, people deify things. Here, in both cases, the Holy Spirit is the subject of both verbs in the parallel statements. However, Cyril teaches that the proper subject of θεοποιέω for the Christian is human beings (rather than things, for which he used μεταβάλλω to describe the effect of being sanctified by the Holy Spirit on things). Only the Holy Spirit sanctifies and deifies. 129

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

173

sanctifying action (ἁγιάζω) of the Holy Spirit that is transformative, the people are sanctified and divinized through the divinely appointed means of partaking of the sanctified and changed bread and wine. Cyril’s Use of Three Key Scriptural Passages As previously mentioned, Cyril employed five passages of Scripture that are associated with theōsis among the Church Fathers. Three of these are addressed in the order in which Cyril presents them in the Mystagogic Catecheses. The clearest use of the passage in a theōsis context comes later due to the content of the catecheses. “Sharers of Christ’s Grace”: Heb 2:14-5 Of the passages from Hebrews that Drewery listed, only one is used by Cyril in the Mystagogic Catecheses. In M1.4, lines 10-2, Cyril alluded to Heb 2:145.131 The context of this allusion is Cyril’s explanation to the new Christians why, prior to their baptism, they renounced Satan and no longer needed to fear death or slavery to Satan. According to Cyril, Christ abolished Satan’s power by allowing the individual Christian to share in his flesh and blood, that is, his humanity.132 Taken by itself, this phrase in the Mystagogic Catecheses could be merely a reference to Christ’s incarnation. However, when taken in conjunction with Cyril’s citation of the passage in Catechesis 3.11 line 6, this allusion takes on more significance. In Catechesis 3.11 the context is baptism: Jesus sanctified baptism through his own baptism (Ἡγίασε τὸ βάπτισμα ὁ Ἰησοῦς βαπτισθεὶς αὐτός.) (C3.11 line 1). Starting with the first half of Hebrews 2:14, Cyril moves from the Incarnation and Christ’s baptism to an affirmation that Christ’s incarnation was for the purpose of Christians sharing in his divine grace. This statement echoes the theōsis statements of Athanasius: Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐνηνθρώπησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς θεοποιηθῶμεν·(“[The Logos] became human, in order that we might be divinized”) and Γέγονε γὰρ ἄνθρωπος, ἵν’ ἡμᾶς ἐν ἑαυτῷ θεοποιήσῃ (“[The Son of God] became human, in order to divinize us

131 Ἐπεὶ οὗν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν αἵματος καὶ σαρκός, καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μέτεσχεν τῶν αὐτῶν, ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν τὸν διάβολον, καὶ ἀπαλλάξῃ τούτους, ὅσοι φόβῳ θανάτου διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ζῆν ἔνοχοι ἦσαν δουλείας (NA28) “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who were through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery” (ESV). 132 Κατέλυσε γὰρ ταύτην ὁ Χριστός, αἵματός μοι καὶ σαρκὸς κοινωνήσας, ἵνα διὰ τούτων τῶν παθημάτων καταργήσῃ θανάτῳ τὸν θάνατον, ὅπως μὴ διὰ παντὸς ἔνοχος γένωμαι δουλείας.

174

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

in Himself”).133 By itself, Cyril’s statement in Catechesis 3.11 lines 5-10, Ὥσπερ γάρ, ἐπειδὴ τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν αἵματος καὶ σαρκός, καὶ αὐτὸς [παραπλησίως] μέτεσχε τῶν αὐτῶν, ἵνα τῆς ἐνσάρκου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ κοινωνοὶ γενόμενοι, καὶ τῆς θείας αὐτοῦ χάριτος κοινωνοὶ γενώμεθα· (For since the children have shared in blood and flesh, he [likewise] partook of them, in order that by our sharing in his embodied presence, also we might share in his divine grace) is not an explicit theōsis statement. However, given the historical context of the theological advances in theōsis that have been documented prior to Cyril’s time as well as among his contemporaries, and taking into account Cyril’s positive use of θεοποιεῖν in the next Catechesis, this appears to be one step in Cyril’s progressive unfolding of his doctrine of theōsis. The context of C3 is baptism: here, it is through the shared baptism by water that Christians are touched by the divinity that Christ shared with the water through his own baptism and they share in Christ’s divine grace. This is not Cyril’s only use of this scripture passage. In M1, Cyril builds upon his teaching in M3 by what appears to be a continuation of his exegesis of Hebrews 2:14-5. In C3 he used the first half of Hebrews 2:14; in M1, individual fellowship in Christ’s blood and body provides the power to abolish slavery to the devil and to provide victory over death in each Christian. Table 4-5 provides a comparison of C3.11 line 5-10, M1.4 lines 10-12, and Heb 2:145. The bolded text indicates the portion of Heb 2:14 used in C3.11 and the underlined text indicates the portion of Heb 2:14-5 used in M1.4. Table 4-5: Cyril’s Use of Heb 2:14-5 Text Heb 2:14-5 Ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν αἵματος καὶ σαρκός, καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μέτεσχεν τῶν αὐτῶν, ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν τὸν διάβολον, καὶ ἀπαλλάξῃ τούτους, ὅσοι φόβῳ θανάτου διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ζῆν ἔνοχοι ἦσαν δουλείας.

133

Translation Since therefore the children share in blood and flesh, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who were through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.

Athanasius, De incarnatione verbi 54.3.2 and Epistula ad Adelphium 26.1077.12 (TLG) Translations are from Gross’s The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers as translated by Paul Onica (166).

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

Table 4-5

175

(continued)

Text

Translation

C3.11 lines 5-10

Ὥσπερ γάρ, ἐπειδὴ τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν αἵματος καὶ σαρκός, καὶ αὐτὸς [παραπλησίως] μέτεσχε τῶν αὐτῶν, ἵνα τῆς ἐνσάρκου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ κοινωνοὶ γενόμενοι, καὶ τῆς θείας αὐτοῦ χάριτος κοινωνοὶ γενώμεθα· οὕτως ἐβαπτίσθη Ἰησοῦς, ἵνα καὶ διὰ τούτου πάλιν ἡμεῖς τῇ κοινωνίᾳ λάβωμεν μετὰ τῆς σωτηρίας τὴν ἀξίαν·

For since just as the children shared in blood and flesh, he [likewise] partook of them, in order that by becoming sharers in his embodied presence, also we might be sharers in his divine grace; in the same way Jesus was baptized in order that with him again we might by fellowship receive worth with salvation.

M1.4 lines 9-12

Κατέλυσε γὰρ ταύτην ὁ Χριστός, αἵματός μοι καὶ σαρκὸς κοινωνήσας, ἵνα διὰ τούτων τῶν παθημάτων καταργήσῃ θανάτῳ τὸν θάνατον, ὅπως μὴ διὰ παντὸς ἔνοχος γένωμαι δουλείας.

For Christ destroyed [Satan’s strength] by sharing my blood and flesh, in order that through his sufferings he might destroy death by death, so that through these I might no longer be held in slavery.

Cyril’s use of Heb 2:14-5 shows that baptism is a means by which Christians share in Christ’s divine grace. While this may not be a fully-expressed theōsis motif, the persons being baptized would shortly be receiving eucharist for the first time, which, as discussed in the following section on Cyril’s use of 2Peter 2:4, is deifying. I pick up the discussion of whether or not baptism in itself is deifying in chapter six. “Transformation into the Form of Christ’s Glorious Body:” Cyril’s Use of Phil 3:21 with Gal 3:27 and Eph 1:5 While Cyril does not quote Phil 3:21 in Mystagogic Catechesis 3.1, the catechesis on the post-baptismal anointing, he combines the concepts found in Phil 3:21—the human body of the Christian being transformed (μετασχημάτισις) into the same form (σύμμορφος) as Christ’s glorious body (σῶμα δόξης)—with the concept of putting on Christ (Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε) in baptism found in Galatians 3:27. While the two instances of σύμμορφος in M3.1.2 and 3 are the only occurrences of this term in Cyril’s catechetical works, they provide insight not only into his sacramental theōsis, but also into his understanding of the human body (it, too, will be saved),134 and the telos 134 In C4.30, Cyril cautions his listeners to be careful with their bodies since it will be these same bodies that their souls will occupy when they are raised and judged.

176

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

of theōsis: to be like Christ not only as sons of God (albeit adopted and not natural sons), but to be the temple of God through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit (C4.23) who also have glorified bodies. Table 4-6 provides a comparison of Gal 3:27, Phil 3:21, Eph 1:5, and M3.1. The allusion to Galatians is underlined, the terms from Philippians are bolded, and the allusion to Ephesians is double underlined. Table 4-6: Cyril’s Use of Gal 3:27, Phil 3:21, and Eph 1:5 Text135

Translation

Galatians 3:27

ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε.

For whomever has been baptized into Christ has put on Christ

Philippians 3:21

ὃς μετασχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργιαν τοῦ δύνασθαι αὐτὸν καὶ ὑποτάξαι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα

who [Christ] will transform our humble body to be like his glorious body, according to the supernatural power that enables him even to put all things in subjection to himself.

Ephesians 1:5

προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς αὐτόν, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ,

he [the Father] predestined us into adoption as his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the pleasure of his will

M3.1 lines 1-4

Εἰς Χριστὸν βεβαπτισμένοι καὶ Χριστὸν ἐνδυσάμενοι σύμμορφοι γεγόνατε τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Προορίσας γὰρ ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν, συμμόρφους ἐποίησε τοῦ σώματος τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Into Christ you have been baptized and Christ you have put on, having the same form as the Son of God. For when God predestined us to adoption as sons, he made us of the same form as the glorious body of Christ.

“Sharers of the Divine” from 2Peter 1:4 In Mystagogic Catecheses 4.3, lines 7 and 8, Cyril quotes a section of 2Peter 1:4. While the reading prior to this catechesis on the eucharist is from 1Cor 11:23 and following, as would be expected since it provides the historical institution of the sacrament, Cyril moves quickly from the institution in 4.1 to 135

The biblical passages are from NA28.

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

177

an assurance that this miraculous work continues to the present day in 4.2136 then to the 1Peter quote in 4.3. Rhetorically, Cyril’s argument begins in M4.1 with Jesus’ explicit teaching that the bread and wine become his body and blood, and therefore there is no need to doubt that this happens during the eucharist since Cyril argues that Jesus himself has clearly declared that it will happen.137 In M4.2, Cyril adds the lesser-to-greater argument that since Jesus worked the miracle of the first eucharist during his earthly life for his disciples, most certainly he will provide the υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος (the sons of the bride chamber), Christians, τῆς ἀπόλαυσις τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος (the enjoyment of his body and blood). These two arguments, that Christ has promised and has already demonstrated the power to fulfill this promise, provide the certainty (πληροφορία) of the new teaching in M4.3 that, through the eucharist, Christians receive a share in Christ’s body and blood (σώματος καὶ αἵματος μεταλάβωμεν Χριστοῦ),138 become of one body and one blood with Christ (σύσσωμος καὶ σύναιμος Χριστοῦ), and are now Christ-bearers (χριστοφόροι) who share in Christ’s divine nature (θείας κοινωνοὶ γινόμεθα φύσεως).139 Within this context, the next day’s lesson on the divine liturgy, in which the invitation to receive communion—holy things for holy people (M5.19)—would have, undoubtedly, increased the awe-inspiring aspects of the liturgy as well as the moral imperatives that accompanied this last mystagogical lesson.140 From Cyril’s use of 2Peter 1:4, in which he associated sharing in Christ’s divine nature with partaking of the eucharist, it is clear that he, like his contemporary Gregory of Nazianzus (as described above) linked theōsis with the eucharist. This rich section of M4 provides a list of words that will be examined in detail in chapter five: κοινωνία and its cognates, μεταλαμβάνω, σύσσωμοως, and σύναιμα.

136 The critical edition has an additional sentence, which, as I have argued in chapter three, is not in manuscripts from family β and sub-family β+ and appears to be emendations to the text by the redactor. 137 M4.1 lines 11-12: Καὶ αὐτοῦ διαβεβαιωσαμένου καὶ εἰρηκότος· «Τοῦτό μού ἐστι τὸ αἷμα», τίς ἐνδοιάσει ποτὲ λέγων μὴ εἶναι αὐτοῦ αἷμα; And he [Jesus] has confirmed and said, “This is my blood”, who will doubt saying “this is not his blood?” See chapter three for a discussion of the text critical issues in this sentence. 138 The text critical issue: family β (C, D, and F) attests μεταλάβωμεν (AAS 1pl) rather than μεταλαμβάνομεν, the ImpfAI 1 pl of μεταλαμβάνω, which is in the critical edition. For a discussion of this text-critical issue, see chapter three. 139 This last phrase Cyril identifies as a quote from the blessed Peter. The phrase from 2Peter 1:4 in NA28 is γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως. 140 According to Taft, The Byzantine Rite (1992), 142, 232, 234, 237, this phrase is an oblique reference to the eucharist through the “bread bidding.” Taft states that “by the end of the 4th century, the Sancta sanctis had become the common acclamation inviting to communion throughout the Christian East.” This phrase will be explored in more detail in chapter five.

178

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Summary of Cyril’s Use of Three Key Scripture Passages Only by examining Cyril’s application of these scriptural passages in the light of his use of θεοποιεῖν and θεοποιός does his use of these texts as foundations within his teaching on theōsis become apparent. In C3 and M1, using Heb 2:14-5, Cyril taught that through the incarnation, Christ not only destroyed death and released Christians from slavery to the devil, but also, through baptism, Christians share in Christ’s divine grace. Likewise, Cyril’s use of Phil 3:21 in M3 continued to build a picture of Christification, an integral part of theōsis:141 through baptism, Christians have the same form as Christ’s resurrection (glorious) body (M3.1). Cyril used 2Peter 1:4 to describe the transformation which occurs through the eucharist: Christians share in Christ’s body and blood in such a way that they are of one body and blood with Christ, resulting in their having become Christ-bearers who share in Christ’s divine nature. Thus, through baptism, Christians are transformed to the same glorious body as Christ has, as has been clearly argued by Cutrone and Mazza, through imitation of Christ’s death and resurrection. Through the eucharist, however, Christians share in Christ’s divine nature, which is clearly a theōsis statement. In C12.1, Cyril stated that Christians share in both Christ’s human and divine nature; the Φωτιζόμενοι must wait until the mystagogic instructions to receive the details on when and by what means this has occurred. Conclusion In this chapter, while the difficulties with the present understandings of Cyril’s eucharistic theology have been presented, insights from the scholars who have analyzed Cyril’s sacramental theology have been taken into account as part of the foundation for a new inquiry. Most notable is the use and development of the Christian application of the Platonic concept of theōsis that had already been taken up by Jewish as well as Christian theologians before Cyril’s time. Allen Brent’s study of the use of divinization language in Ignatius of Antioch’s ecclesiology provides an important foundation for a comparative study, which is beyond the scope of this text.142 By examining the technical theological 141 While, as noted by Russell, Fellow Workers with God (2009), 52, for some Orthodox theologians Christification is equivalent to theōsis, I am distinguishing between the two terms based upon whether the teaching presented is Christocentric (which resonates with modern Reformed teachings on union with Christ as an overarching means of discussing salvation) or Trinitarian focused. 142 Brent’s Ignatius of Antioch and the Second Sophistic provides a direct application of the language of theōsis and ecclesiology. Brent has demonstrated that “Ignatius claim[ed] to be the θεοφόρος in a mystery procession, so that he is ‘pre-eminently in front of’ … other θεοφόροι, χριστοφόροι, ἁγιοφόροι, and ναοφόροι. Brent, Ignatius of Antioch and the Second Sophistic (2006), 321.

Chapter 4: Cyril of Jerusalem's Eucharistic Theology

179

terminology for theōsis found in Cyril’s catechetical works as well as his use of scripture passages that many of his predecessors and contemporaries saw as foundational for the concept of theōsis, I have demonstrated that a sacramental theōsis reading of the text provides a new hermeneutical grid for examining Cyril’s eucharistic theology. Cyril taught that solidarity with Christ is not only through his taking on blood and flesh in the incarnation, but also the transformation of Christians into the same glorious body through baptism and sharing in Christ’s divine nature through the eucharist. Here, an expression of Nicene Orthodoxy is expressed sacramentally: sacramental theōsis, for Cyril, involved union with Christ in his humanity and in his divinity, the first through the baptism and the second through the eucharist. Union with Christ in his humanity is through imitation of his death and resurrection, union with Christ in his divinity is not by imitation, but by the means of receiving the eucharistic elements. I have not demonstrated that this model fully accounts for the shift between Cyril’s baptismal and eucharistic theology which Mazza noted but could not account for with his application of Cutrone’s εἴκων-μίμησις theory based in Cyril’s baptismal theology. Demonstrating that this sacramental theōsis fits neatly into the structure of ideas that Cyril was building up in his catechetical sermons is covered in chapter five, and it is in this context that the fifth scriptural reference regarding μέτοχοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ (companions of Christ) is examined. In chapter six, I demonstrate, using the names that Cyril applies to the new Christians in M2, 3, 4, and 5 with Russell’s definition of theōsis, that this reading of Cyril’s sacramental theology provides a means of understanding Cyril’s overall theology—including his eucharistic theology—as well as his use of this theology to provide the new Christians a way of describing their new identity. In this context, Russell’s analysis of Cyril’s use of Ps 82:6 as “simply a titular appellation” rather than a statement of theōsis is examined.143

A comparison of Brent’s work on Ignatius (and how it was transmitted by Irenaeus of Lyons, whom Cyril references by name in C16.6) with what follows could provide insights not only regarding whether Cyril knew of this work against heretics by reputation alone or through reading the work itself, but also on Cyril’s application of the language of theōsis, especially εἴκωνμίμησις, in the sacramental identity construction of all members of the church. 143 Ibid. 339.

Chapter 5 Cyril’s Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of His Sacramental Theōsis In the previous chapter, I provided a description of the most obvious entry into Cyril’s theology of theōsis: his use of the technical term θεοποιεῖν and his use of three scriptural passages that some church fathers used as starting points to discuss theōsis. This micro-structure analysis of specific words and biblical phrases provided an insight into how Cyril described the transformation that begins during the time of catecheses and the rites of initiation into the Christian faith. His understanding of the Christian’s participation in the divine life—theōsis—was shown to be connected to the sacraments and the work of the Holy Spirit. However, this connection between the sacraments and theōsis was not fully explicated. In this chapter, I demonstrate that the concept of theōsis is present throughout Cyril’s catechetical works in such a way that, when Cyril’s Procatechesis, Catechesis, and Mystagogic Catecheses are read as a whole, it is clear that Cyril used this concept to link together the teachings. Furthermore, Cyril’s articulation of sacramental theōsis also provides an explanation of the shift that Mazza noted between Cyril’s baptismal and eucharistic theologies. In order to demonstrate this overarching theme, I first briefly examine some of the concepts associated with theōsis in other patristic texts. Then I explore Cyril’s use of one of these concepts, fellowship, in his catechetical works in order to demonstrate how this concept not only permeates his teachings, but provides an overarching structure in his instructions on both salvation and theōsis. In the second part of this chapter, I summarize Cyril’s use of these texts on salvation and the sacraments highlighted by this theme of κοινωνία, which I argue is intrinsic to his sacramental theōsis. Examining the Macro-structure of Cyril’s Catechetical Teachings Use of Concepts Associated with Theōsis Stephen Finlan and Vladimir Kharlamov provide a useful list of “conceptual equivalents for deification” which includes “union, participation, partaking, communion [or] partnership, divine filiation, adoption, recreation, intertwined with the divine, similitude with God, transformation, elevation, transmutation, commingling, assimilation, intermingling, rebirth, regeneration, [and] transformation.”1 They note that 1

According to Finlan and Kharlamov, ‘Introduction’, in Theōsis (2006), 1, 4, 6, “[t]heologians now use theōsis to designate all instances where any idea of taking on God’s character or being ‘divinized’ occurs, even when the term θέωσις is not used.” Yet, in spite of the fascination that the

182

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

the following word groups are especially worth evaluating: “union: ἕνωσις; participation: μετουσία (from μετέχω), μέθεξις, μετάληψις (from μεταλαμβάνω); partaking: μέτοχος; communion: κοινωνία.”2 Of these terms, Cyril used ἕνωσις once in a non-theōsis context3 and he does not use μέθεξις. However, as noted in the previous chapter, Cyril has a rich use of κοινωνία and its cognates. In his monograph on the concept of κοινωνοὶ θείας φύσεως (sharers of the divine nature), James M. Starr notes that the theme of κοινωνία with God was developed by Philo (20BC-50AD), with Moses as the exemplar.4 Starr proposes that Josephus (37-100), using the same terminology as found in 2Peter 1:4, provided the vision of κοινωνία with God as “a picture of the same formal relationship between God’s nature and human sharing in it, specifically that human virtue or character comes to resemble God’s character.”5 Thus, the relationship between knowledge of the divine and sharing in God’s attributes is present within Jewish (Philo and Josephus) and Christian (2Peter 1:4) thought in such a way that κοινωνία became a concept that may indicate a deifying relationship by the end of the first century, well before Cyril’s time. Because of this early adoption among some Christian and Jewish circles, the use of cognates of κοινωνία within Cyril’s texts to convey aspects of his teaching on theōsis would not have been surprising to fourth-century Christians. Because of the frequency of Cyril’s use of this concept—forty-five instances, with Cyril using at least one of these cognates in the Procatechesis, eleven of the eighteen pre-baptismal Catecheses,6 and all of the Mystagogic Catecheses—κοινωνία and its cognates are examined in detail first. Other terms from the same semantic range in Cyril’s texts are then examined as supplementary vocabulary that helped to bind together the concepts of his catecheses into the harmonious edifice that he promised in Procatechesis 11.7 These additional terms are divided into two categories: 1) those with the prefix μετ-, which includes cognates of μετέχω, cognates of μεταλαμβάνω, and uses of μετάδοσις and μεταδίδωμι; and 2) those with the prefix συν-, which includes σύμφυτος, σύμμορφος, σύσσωμος, and σύναιμος. Since I examine Cyril’s fathers had with the concept of deification, they neither “developed a ‘doctrine’ of theōsis” nor explicitly discuss this concept as part of the doctrinal controversies discussed at church councils. 2 Ibid. 6. 3 C17.17 line 5: the minds of the multitude at Pentecost were united through the use of different languages, contrary to the division between people groups at the tower of Babel. While this use is clearly within Cyril’s redemptive historical framework of the restorative work of the Holy Spirit and may contribute to his overarching exposition, it does not appear to be sufficiently significant to address further at this point. 4 Starr, Sharers in Divine Nature (2000), 113-7. 5 Emphasis is Starr’s. Starr (ibid. 85-92) continues his summary with “And finally Josephus presents a belief that human beings can share in the divine nature of incorruptibility based on their having acquired a set of moral qualities that correspond sufficiently with a ‘similar’ set of qualities on God’s part.” 6 Only C2, C7, C8, C9, C10, C13, and C15 do not have one of the cognates. 7 In the case of κοινωνία, two semantic ranges are given: Associate (LN §34.1-34.21) under “Association” for which the gloss is “fellowship” (LN §34.5) and Give (LN §57.71-57.124) under “Possess, Transfer, Exchange” for which the gloss is “share”(LN §57.98) or “willling contributions” (LN §57.101).

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

183

use of these words in the order that his listeners would have heard them, based upon the content of the catecheses, a brief overview of the content of the texts are in order. The purpose of the Procatechesis is to ensure that those enrolled to be baptized have resolved to enter the church for the right reasons. In P11, Cyril provides his pedagogical goal: catechizing is like building a structure in which all of the concepts fit together into a harmonious whole, from digging out the foundation to final completion. In the Procatechesis, Cyril instructs those now enrolled for baptism about their tasks as those who are being illumined (φωτιζόμενοι), which includes studying the content of the catecheses and striving to understand the connections between topics (P11). In the Catecheses, Cyril first describes the intent and preparation for baptism (C1), then instruction on repentance (C2), baptism (C3), an overview of Christian doctrine (C4), and faith (C5) before working systematically through the creed (C6-18). After the experience of the divine mysteries at Easter, Cyril continued his instruction of the same group of people (who are now no longer φωτιζόμενοι, but are now νεοφώτιζους—the newly enlightened) with the Mystagogic Catecheses. He begins by explaining the pre-baptismal rites (M1) and the rites of initiation in the order experienced: baptism (M2), post-baptismal anointing (M3), and the eucharist (M4). He concludes with instruction on the liturgy, including the Lord’s Prayer (M5). The titles of the catecheses are listed in Appendix A. Cognates of κοινωνεῖν Cyril used words from the stem κοινων-, which include the verb, κοινωνεῖν (to share),8 and the nouns κοινωνία (fellowship, communion)9 and κοινωνός 8 Κοινωνέω, in the LXX, conveyed the meaning of “to have in common with, to share, to take part in, to have fellowship with, to enter into alliance with, to communicate with.” LSJ (969-970) provides the glosses of “share,” “have/do in common with” or “take part in a thing or with another” or, with a direct object, “have a share of, take part in” in definition I, which seems to best fit Cyril’s use. BDAG (522) provides the meanings found in the New Testament as “share, have a share; participation in something [which] can reach such a degree that one claims a part in it for oneself; give/contribute a share; make (ritually) unclean, defile.” Κοινωνέω, entry 3769 in LN, has three glosses. It is one of fifty-three entries for the category of “give” and is listed with the definition of “to share.” It is also listed among twenty-one word groups related to “do, perform” with the meaning of “do together with.” Finally, it is also in the category of “human beings” in which twenty-two other words are related. The meaning under the first nuance is “to share one’s possessions, with the implication of some kind of joint participation and mutual interest – ‘to share.’” The second meaning is “to join with others in some activity – ‘to join in doing, to share in doing.’” The last is used with αἵματος καὶ σαρκός in an idiom which means ‘to have the characteristics and nature of a human being – ‘to be a person, to be a physical being.’” The patristic uses include six nuances: 1) “take part, be involved, participate in”, 2) with the genitive, “ receive a share of, partake of”; 3) with dative, “associate, have fellowship with one (in),” including administer communion; 4) with the accusative, “admit to communion”; 5) abstract concept of “be associated, united,” and abstract concept of “communicate, receive communion” (PGL, 762) 9 LSJ (969-970) defines κοινωνία as “communion, association, partnership”; and “joint-ownership”; and notes that latter the term is used specifically as receiving Holy Communion. BDAG (552-3) provides the four definitions: 1) “close association involving mutual interests and sharing”

184

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

(partner),10 forty-five times.11 Appendix B, Table B-1 contains a list of all instances, in the order they occur in the texts, as well as an indication of how each term has been used. In an inclusio, Cyril begins and ends his catechetical program with an exhortation about fellowship with the holy mysteries: in P16 lines 12-13 the φωτιζόμενοι are exhorted to prepare their hearts for fellowship in the holy mysteries and, in M5.23 lines 1-4, the last chapter of the last catechesis, the new Christians are exhorted not to sever themselves from the holy mysteries through sin or loss of the tradition.12 The immediate context of fellowship in M5.23 is instruction in the ongoing partaking of the eucharist post-Easter but may, as a plural, refer to full participation in corporate worship, the context of M5.13 Table 5-1 provides the text, with the cognates of κοινωνεῖν in bold, what is being shared in underlined. with the glosses of “association, communion, fellowship, close relationship”; 2) “attitude of good will that manifests an interest in a close relationship” with the glosses of “generosity, fellow-feeling, altruism”; 3) abstractum pro concreto for “sign of fellowship, proof of brotherly unity” including “gift, contribution”; 4) “participation, sharing” in something. In entry 3770 in LN, it has three definitions. It is listed under Association: Associate with twenty other words, and twice under Possess, Transfer, Exchange (Give and Willing Contribution) with fifty-two other word groups. In the first gloss, the definition is “an association involving close mutual relations and involvement – ‘close association, fellowship.” In the second, the meaning is “to share one’s possessions, with the implication of some kind of joint participation and mutual interest – ‘to share.’” The third meaning is “‘to share’ that which is readily shared – ‘willing gift, ready contribution.’” Κοινωνία, in PGL (762-4), has four major definitions: “communion,” the “act of sharing,” eucharistic glosses, and “communication, distribution, imparting.” Under communion, the following glosses are given: 1: “association, connexion”; 2 “combination, mingling”; 3 relationship, 4 “communion, fellowship.” Under the definition of “act of sharing,” the following glosses are attested: 1: “community of life,” 2: “participation in,” 3: “community of essense,” 4: in the Christolological sense of “participation in, taking of human nature”; 5: “union of faithful with Christ.” For the eucharistic use, the two glosses are “partaking in, receiving” and “communion.” 10 Kοινωνός is defined as “a companion, partner” (LSJ 970). BDAG (553-4) provides two definitions: 1) “one who takes part in something with someone” with the glosses of “companion, partner, sharer” and 2) “one who permits someone else to share in something” with the gloss of “sharer.” Κοινωνός is entry 3772 in LN and falls under the semantic range of 34.6, Partner (one of twenty-one word groups); Louw and Nida define it as “one who participates with another in some enterprise or matter of joint concern – ‘partner, associate, one who joins in with.’” In patristic sources, two definitions are provided by PGL (764), “participant, one who shares” and “partner.”... 11 Kοινωνία is found twenty-two times in the critical editions of the text: once each in P, C1, C3, C4, C5, C6, C11, twice in C16, three times in C14, twice in C16, three times in C17, once in C18, four times in M2, and twice each in M4 and M5. Cyril used κοινωνεῖν seven times: once in C3, twice in C6, and once each in C16, M1, M2, and M5. Cyril used κοινωνός thirteen times: twice each in C1, C3, and C6, then once each in C6, C12, C17, and C18, three times in M2, and then once each in M3, M4, and M5. 12 The Φωτιζόμενοι are instructed to keep the traditions undefiled and guard themselves so that they are blameless (Ταύτας κατέχετε τὰς μαραδόσεις ἀσπίλους, καὶ ἀπροσκόπους ἑαυτοὺς διαφυλάξατε·) in order to remain in fellowship with the mysteries. 13 Since baptism and the post-baptismal anointing as well as the new Christians’ first eucharist have already taken place by the time of the final exhortation, the only mysteries that can now be denied due to sin would be participation in the liturgy of the eucharist and the eucharist itself.

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

185

Through the use of repetition of initial content in the penultimate chapter of his preliminary instructions and as a final instruction, Cyril’s exhortations indicate the focus of the entire catechetical instruction: the spiritual, volitional, and doctrinal preparation necessary for participation in the fellowship of the holy mysteries.14 Table 5-1: Cyril’s beginning and ending exhortations about the Holy Mysteries Text

Translation

P16 lines 12-13

Τὴν σαυτοῦ καρδίαν ἑτοίμασον εἰς ὑποδοχὴν διδασκαλίας, εἰς κοινωνίαν ἁγίων μυστηρίων.

Prepare your heart to receive the teachings, the fellowship of the holy mysteries.

M5.23 lines 1-4

Ταύτας κατέχετε τὰς παραδόσεις ἀσπίλους, καὶ ἀπροσκόπους ἑαυτοὺς διαφυλάξατε· τῆς κοινωνίας ἑαυτοὺς μὴ ἀπορρήξητε, μὴ διὰ μολυσμὸν ἁμαρτίας τῶν ἱερῶν15 τούτων καὶ πνευματικῶν16 ἑαυτοὺς ἀποστερήσητε μυστηρίων.

Keep these traditions spotlessly, and guard yourself [to be] without offense; do not rob yourself of this fellowship, do not deprive yourself, through defilement by sin, of these sacred and spiritual mysteries.

In Catechesis 1, which is about the preparation that the φωτιζόμενοι will undergo and their need for the proper mindset17 for their coming transformation, κοινωνός is used twice (C1.1 line 2 and C1.4 line 6), and κοινωνία once (C1.5 line 19). Cyril addresses his listeners, the φωτιζόμενοι, by a description of what they are in name only but soon, by grace, will be in actuality: “Καινῆς διαθήκης μαθηταί, καὶ Χριστοῦ Μυστηρίων κοινωνοί” (disciples of the New Testament and sharers in the mysteries of Christ). The next use of a κοινων-term is a summary of John 15:1-6 to encourage the φωτιζόμενοι in their preparations: because they are sharers in Christ, the holy vine (Γίνῃ κοινωνὸς τῆς ἁγίας ἀμπέλου.), they must choose either to remain connected to Christ, the 14

The last chapter is the final benediction of the catechetical instructions. The verb ἱερόω has the glosses of “to consecrate, or dedicate” (LSJ 823), and thus could be translated, as an adjectival participle, as “holy.” However, in order not to overstate my point and to allow that this term carries with it the nuance of being associated with the temple and thus has a sacrificial dimension, I have differentiated between ἁγίων in P13 and ἱερῶν in M5 by translating ἱερῶν as “sacred.” 16 That Cyril describes the mysteries as πνευματικῶν (spiritual), is another indication that he was not a physical realist in the post-Reformation polemical sense, but was working within a sacramental structure of relating spiritual truths to real transformation in the lives of Christians through the sacraments. 17 Cyril’s exhortations are based in his understanding of the freedom of the immortal soul (C4.7). 15

186

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

vine, or be consumed by fire. Cyril used κοινωνία in his explanation of why diligent preparation is required: while the remission of sin is given to all, the degree of fellowship in the Holy Spirit (τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου κοινωνία) is a function of each person’s faith (C1.5). Thus, in C1, this word group is used to express fellowship or sharing in Christ’s mysteries, in Christ (the vine), and in the Holy Spirit. Sharing in the mysteries is a gift of grace to all Christians, but continued sharing in Christ is dependent upon the ongoing, active choice of each individual. Likewise, the degree of fellowship in the Holy Spirit is dependent upon faith. Cyril uses all three instances of these fellowship words to encourage the φωτιζόμενοι to participate fully in the catechetical process. Cyril did not use any of the cognates of κοινωνεῖν in Catechesis 2, “On Repentance.” Catechesis 3, “On Baptism,” has one instance of κοινωνεῖν, two of κοινωνός, and one of κοινωνία all in one sentence in chapter 11, lines 5-10. This sentence contains a quotation of Hebrews 2:14-5 and was already discussed in chapter 4 as a potential use of this scriptural passage to denote deification. In this passage, the first use of the verb refers to people being human (sharing in blood and flesh). The second and third uses are κοινωνός and refer to Christians having a share of Christ’s presence and his grace. The fourth instance is κοινωνία, and Cyril uses it to describe how Christians receive not only salvation, but also dignity: through fellowship in Christ’s baptism. The quotation from Hebrews, as discussed in chapter 4, does not necessarily indicate deification by itself. However, when the rest of the sentence is taken into account, the use of the κοινων-terms builds to a sacramental theōsis: salvation, by the gift of fellowship, is made possible by Christ’s incarnation and received through baptism. Table 5-2 contains this sentence from C3.11 with the densest use of κοινων-terms. The cognates of κοινωνεῖν are in bold, what is being shared in is underlined, and the use of μετέχω, another word used to denote relationship, which will be examined in the next section, is in italics. Table 5-2: Cyril’s Densest Use of Cognates of Κοινωνεῖν Text of C3.11 lines 5-10

Translation

Ὥσπερ γάρ, ἐπειδὴ τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν αἵματος καὶ σαρκός, καὶ αὐτὸς [παραπλησίως] μέτεσχε τῶν αὐτῶν, ἵνα τῆς ἐνσάρκου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ κοινωνοὶ γενόμενοι, καὶ τῆς θείας αὐτοῦ χάριτος κοινωνοὶ γενώμεθα· οὕτως ἐβαπτίσθη Ἰησοῦς, ἵνα καὶ διὰ τούτου πάλιν ἡμεῖς τῇ κοινωνίᾳ λάβωμεν μετὰ τῆς σωτηρίας τὴν ἀξίαν·

For since just as the children shared in blood and flesh, he [likewise] partook of them, in order that by becoming sharers in his embodied presence, also we might be sharers in his divine grace; again, in the same way Jesus was baptized in order that with him we might by fellowship receive dignity with salvation.

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

187

Catechesis 4 has one instance of κοινωνία in chapter 22 line 21. The topic of Catechesis 4.22 is the human body; Cyril teaches that God, through fellowship with humanity, unites the mortal bodies of humanity with immortality through a simple fellowship. In Catechesis 5, “On Faith,” Cyril uses κοινωνία once (C5.1) and κοινωνός twice (C5.1 and C5.3). In chapter 1, the context is the great dignity that the φωτιζόμενοι will be receiving when they are transferred to the order of the faithful.18 The instance of κοινωνία is in a quotation of 1Cor 1:9: Πιστὸς ὁ Θεός, δι’ οὗ ἐκλήθητε εἰς κοινωνίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (God is faithful, by whom you have been called into the fellowship of his son, Jesus Christ). The first use of κοινωνός explains why this name is a great honor: to have this name is to share one of God’s titles (Θεοῦ μέλλων προσηγορίας γίνεσθαι κοινωνός, soon to be sharing a title of God’s). With the second use of κοινωνός, Cyril explained that faith is required for society to function. He used several examples from everyday life to demonstrate how faith is required in all aspects of life (farming, sailing, and other everyday matters) for Christian as well as non-Christians. He uses κοινωνός in his example of marriage: through faith in marriage contracts, people who were unknown to each other become sharers of one another (διὰ τὴν ἐν γαμικοῖς συμβολαίοις πίστιν, γίνεται κοινωνός). Cyril uses κοινωνός and κοινωνία once each19 and κοινωνεῖν twice20 in Catechesis 6, “On the Unity of God.” Chapter 6 discusses the various levels of ability to comprehend the Father’s nature: even the highest creature cannot fully know God’s dignity. Only the Son and the Holy Spirit can fully know and see him, because they share the Father’s divinity (… ἐπειδὴ καὶ τῆς θεότητός ἐστι τῆς πατρικῆς σὺν τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ κοινωνὸς ὁ Υἱὸς ὁ μονογενής; since the paternal divinity is shared together by the Holy Spirit and the unique Son, C6.6 lines 16-7). The next three instances of κοινων-terms in this Catechesis, all in the section on heresies, describe separation, not union: Cyril used 2Cor 6:14 (Τίς γὰρ κοινωνία φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος; For what fellowship does light have with darkness?, C6.13 lines 5-6) to refute the idea that there are two gods, one good and one evil. The other two uses of κοινωνεῖν are both exhortations to the φωτιζόμενοι: 1) to flee wickedness, not even greeting those who do wickedness so that the φωτιζόμενοι do not even appear to share in unfruitful and wicked works (ἵνα μὴ κοινωνήσῃς τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις τοῦ σκότους, C6.19 lines 9-10) and 2) to beware of associates who might lead them to fall in with blasphemers (C6.25). Cyril used κοινωνία once in Catechesis 11, his instruction on Christ’s divinity. In Chapter 19, Cyril used John 20:17 as an opportunity to distinguish 18 19 20

The name “Faithful” is discussed in detail in chapter six. C6.6 line 17 and C6.13 line 5, respectively. C6.19 line 8 and C6.25 line 4.

188

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

carefully between the relationship of God the Father with the Son (a son by nature, κατὰ φύσιν) and the relationship between God the Father and his creatures (sons21 by adoption, κατὰ θέσιν). Thus, according to Cyril, Jesus said “I ascend to my father and to yours” so that Christians might understand that the common fatherhood of God did not negate the unique relationship that the Father has with Christ, the Unique Son (μονογενής),22 and thus prevent them from mistakenly thinking that Christians are in a fellowship with Christ on an equal standing (ἵνα μὴ κοινωνία γένηται τῶν ποιημάτων πρὸς τὸν μονογενῆ). The fellowship between the Father and the Son is based upon nature rather than legal status, the latter of which is the basis for the fellowship between the Father and Christians. Catechesis 12, on the Incarnation, has one instance of κοινωνός in chapter 15. Cyril explains that the Son took on human blood and flesh was so that through the Son’s solidarity with humanity, sinful humans might become sharers of God (ἵνα ἡ ἀνθρωπότης ἡ ἁμαρτωλὸς θεοῦ γένηται κοινωνός, C12.15) by grace. In Catechesis 14, on Christ’s resurrection, ascension, and exaltation, Cyril uses κοινωνία once, in chapter 25. The immediate context is Cyril’s discussion of Christ’s ascension and how it differs from the transportations of Habakkuk, Enoch, and Elijah.23 Cyril then contrasts Elisha’s request that a double portion in the Holy Spirit be given to Elisha, Elijah’s disciple, with the great abundance of the Holy Spirit’s grace Christ gave to his disciples. Furthermore, the Apostles are given the ability to give a share (μεταδίδωμι)24 of the fellowship (κοινωνία) of the Holy Spirit to the faithful, something that the prophets were not given. Cyril uses κοινωνία twice (C16.6 line 15 and C16.10 line 4) and κοινωνεῖν (C16.12 line 16) once in Catechesis 16, “On the Holy Spirit.” Cyril began 21 Cyril cited Ephesians and Galatians in which the right to inherit is explicitly the gift to all Christians. By my use of “sons” to describe all Christians, male and female, I am assuming that Cyril would have used the biblical language of sonship which is not as much about gender as it is about the right to inherit. See James Scott’s discussion in Adoption as Sons of God (1992), 121-86. 22 Recognizing that μονογενής is from μονο and γένος and thus is translated as “the only member of a kin or kind: hence, generally” translated as “only, single παῖς” but that it can also be translated as “unique” (LSJ, 1114; see also BDAG, 658) rather than being derived from μονο with γεννάω, I have translated μονογενής as “unique” in this instance since Cyril appears to be focusing more on the unique nature of the father-son relationship between the Father and the Son in contrast with the relationship between the Father and Christians (adopted heirs). 23 Newman, The Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, translated, with Notes and Indices (1839), 179 notes that this reference to Habakkuk is from Bel and the Dragon, verse 33 and following, or Daniel 14:35 (LXX). The point that Cyril makes is one of differentiation: while Habakkuk was transported (μετατίθημι) by an angel by his hair, Christ, through his own power, went up into the heavens. 24 Μεταδίδωμι is discussed in detail below.

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

189

this catechesis cautioning about speaking against the Holy Spirit, for which there is no forgiveness. Thus, it is not surprising that in C16.10, Cyril exhorted the φωτιζόμενοι to flee from those who teach error with respect to the Holy Spirit. In chapter 10, Cyril explained why Simon Magus was condemned: he wanted the power to give the Holy Spirit (so that he could sell what not only he did not have, and, even if he did, could not be sold), rather than desiring the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. By chapter 12, Cyril has completed his discussion of the errors of the heretics and returned to his presentation of orthodox teaching. He compares a dry plant’s sharing in water and then producing a new shoot to the Holy Spirit’s work in the repentant soul: this soul which is in fellowship with the Holy Spirit is found worthy to bear the fruits of righteousness. Catechesis 17, a continuation of Cyril’s teachings on the Holy Spirit, contains three uses of κοινωνία (C17.12 line 1, C17.25 line 7, and C17.33 line 20) and one instance of κοινωνός (C17.27 line 15). Cyril used scripture to provide names and a brief history of the Holy Spirit’s work. This history includes the fellowship of the Holy Spirit given to the apostles (17.12 lines 1-2), the fellowship of the Holy Spirit being extended to others through the laying on of hands by Peter and John, with the exception of Simon Magus (17.25 lines 1-8), and the extension of sharing in the Holy Spirit to Gentile believers (17.27 line 20). Then Cyril turned to the expectations that the φωτιζόμενοι should have about the Holy Spirit in their own lives. His quotation of 2Cor 13:13 in C17.33 line 20 is among these scriptural proofs. Catechesis 18, regarding the one holy catholic church, the resurrection of the body, and eternal life, has one use each of κοινωνία (C18.33 line 12) and κοινωνός (C18.33 line 11). Chapter 33 is the penultimate chapter of the last pre-baptismal Catechesis, and the nouns of interest are in the middle of Cyril’s preview of what will happen after Easter. When, as νεοφώτιζους (newly enlightened ones), they become priests of the Lord, they will also become sharers in Christ’s name (καὶ ὅπως ἱερατικῶς τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ προσηγορίας γεγόνατε κοινωνοί), having been given the seal of fellowship of the Holy Spirit (καὶ ὅπως ἡ σφραγὶς ὑμῖν ἐδόθη τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος). Cyril used κοινωνεῖν once in Mystagogic Catechesis 1, regarding the rites before baptism (M1.4 line 10). In his description of the renouncing of Satan, he explains that those who are about to be baptized are able to renounce Satan and turn toward Christ because Christ shared in humanity with the intent that by his death, death would be destroyed and freedom would be given to those in slavery to sin. This passage, as discussed in chapter 4, continues Cyril’s exposition of Heb 2:14-5, which he began in C3.11 lines 5-10. However, here, instead of using μετέχειν when referring to the incarnation, as he did in his quotation of the Hebrews passage in C3.11, he used κοινωνεῖν.

190

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

In Mystagogic Catechesis 2, on baptism, Cyril uses cognates of κοινωνεῖν in four chapters. In chapter 3, Cyril explained the pre-baptismal anointing: through anointing of the body from head to toe, they became sharers (κοινωνός) in the cultivated olive tree, which is Christ. This engrafting into the cultivated (as opposed to the wild olive tree from whence they came) includes becoming sharers (κοινωνός) in the richness (πιότητος)25 of the true oil. Thus, the prebaptismal anointing is a symbol of fellowship in the wealth of Christ (σύμβολον … τῆς κοινωνίας τῆς πιότητος τοῦ Χριστοῦ). In chapter 5, the focus has shifted from participating in the riches of Christ to participating in his suffering. Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection were for our forgiveness, and thus, through imitation of his suffering without our personally suffering, Christ grants salvation through this fellowship. Cyril, to emphasize this point, repeats this critical doctrine: fellowship (κοινωνία) in Christ’s suffering, through baptism—sharing his suffering without enduring any personal suffering by ritual imitation—is the means of salvation (M2.5 lines 4-9). In chapter 6, Cyril repeats this concept: by imitation of Christ’s suffering through baptism, the Christian has not only forgiveness of sins and adoption, but also fellowship in the reality of Christ’s suffering (δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀληθινῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων ἐν μιμήσει ἔχον τὴν κοινωνίαν, M2.6 line 3).26 Chapter 7 continues this theme: Christians have become sharers (κοινωνός) in Christ’s suffering (M2.7 line 3), having been planted with (σύμφυτος) Christ in his death through fellowship (κοινωνία) in his suffering in order to also be planted with him in his resurrection (M2.7 line 8).27 In Mystagogic Catechesis 3, Cyril used κοινωνός once, in conjunction with μέτοχος: when the newly baptized were anointed with myron they became sharers (κοινωνός) and fellows (μέτοχος) of Christ (M3.2 line 16). Cyril used both κοινωνός and κοινωνία in Mystagogic Catechesis 4. The use of κοινωνός in line 7 of chapter 3 is in his quotation of 2Peter 1:4: through the eucharist, Christians become sharers of Christ’s divine nature (θείας κοινωνοὶ γινόμεθα φύσεως).28 Kοινωνία is used twice in chapter 7 in Cyril’s exposition of Psalm 23 (22 LXX). He explained that David is referring to two tables: one, prepared by demons before the Lord’s coming, offered fellowship (κοινωνία) with these enemies. After the Lord’s coming, God prepared a mystical and intelligible table (μυστικός καὶ νοητὸς τράπαζα)29 for his people in the presence of their demonic enemies. This Πιότητος, which literally means “fattiness,” is used metaphorically as “richness” or “wealth” (LSJ, 1406). BDAG (814) does not provide the metaphorical definition. 26 See chapter three for the discussion of the text-critical issue in this sentence. 27 Here, Cyril interacts with Rom 6:5. Cyril’s use of σύμφυτος is discussed later in this chapter. 28 As discussed in the previous chapter, this is one of Cyril’s statements of theōsis. 29 Gifford (NPNF2-7: 1 fn 395) notes that this “word is much used by Plato to distinguish things which can be discerned only by the mind from the objects of sight and sense.” He uses 25

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

191

table, the eucharist, offers fellowship (κοινωνία) with God (M4.7 lines 11 and 12). In the final catechesis, Mystagogic Catechesis 5, the content covered includes the liturgy that the new Christians will now be able to participate in on a regular basis, including an exposition on the Our Father (M5.11-8) and instructions on how to properly receive the eucharist. Cyril uses each of the cognates of κοινωνεῖν in this final catechetical address. The first use instructs about the expansiveness of this new community of which the communing Christians are now part: they are now sharers (κοινωνός) in the heavenly worship (M5.6 line 12). After praying the Our Father with the community, the cantor will urge them into fellowship (κοινωνία) with the holy mysteries (M5.20 line 2). The next usage describes receiving the bread: sharing (κοινωνεῖν) in the body of Christ (M5.22 line 1). The final use, as already discussed earlier in this chapter, is an exhortation to not deny themselves fellowship (κοινωνία) in the sacred mysteries through immoral activities. In summary, Cyril describes sixteen types of relationships with the κοινωνword group which can be categorized into six major categories: 1) fellowship in the holy mysteries, 2) being human or incarnate, 3) fellowship with a divine person or sharing in a divine attribute, 4) fellowship with other persons of like nature, 5) human fellowship with other heavenly or spiritual beings, and 6) the restriction of fellowship (separation). Table 5-3 provides a summary of the relationships that Cyril used the κοινων-word group to define or describe by topic, with a tally of the number of times this description of the relationship is found in his catechetical works.

“mental” as a parenthetical translation to “spiritual,” which he uses in the text itself. Yarnold, ‘The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1978), 150 and Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue (2001), 203 continue the tradition of translating νοητός as “spiritual” In LSJ (1178), νοητός is is defined as “falling within the province of nous, mental, opposite of φατός, ὁρατός” (ineffable, visible). Cyril does use the phrase “ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα” (C4.4, C11.21, C11.24, for example), so Cyril’s use of this word is not necessarily in opposition to ὁρατός.” In patristic sources, four definitions are attested (PGL 917), 1: “intelligible, falling within the sphere of nous, apprehended by the intellect.” 2: “spiritual, belonging to the supra-sensible and spiritual order (a sense often combined with or scarcely differentiated from 1 supra)” with five uses a) with respect to God, b: a gnostic sense that is not relevant to the text in question, c: with respect to angels, d: with respect to “spiritual things in general” and e: in “opposition to physical or material.” 3: “intelligent, thinking.” and 4: “belonging to the mind.” Thus, while “spiritual” is a valid translation of νοητός, even the “spiritual” gloss in the patristic use points to the gloss presented in LSJ. To consider only two categories, spiritual and figurative or physical and literal, which is implied in Yarnold’s and Doval’s translation, does not seem to capture the nuance that Cyril discussed. To translate the term as “spiritual” might obfuscate the distinction that Cyril appears to be making between “spiritual” (πνευματικός) and “intelligible” (νοητός). Cyril’s use of νοητός is discussed further in chapter six.

192

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 5-3: Relationships described using cognates of κοινωνεῖν Topic

Text

Number of instances

Fellowship in the holy mysteries

P16, C1.1, M5.20, M5.22, M5.23

5

Being human, including the incarnation

C3.11, M1.4

2

Fellowship with a Divine Person or Sharing in a Divine Attribute Fellowship or sharing with Christ Christ

C1.4, C5.1, M3.2

3

Christ’s presence

C3.11

1

Christ’s grace

C3.11

1

Christ’s baptism

C3.11, M2.7

2

Christ’s title

C18.33

1

Christ’s riches

M2.3 (three times)

3

Christ’s suffering

M2.5 (twice), M2.6, M2.7

4

Fellowship or Sharing with God God

C4.22, C12.15, M4.7

3

Sharing one of God’s names

C5.1

1

Fellowship with the Holy Spirit

C1.5, C14.25, C16.10, C16.12, C17.12, C17.25, C17.27, C17.27, C18.33

9

Sharing in the divine nature

M4.3

1

Fellowship with Other Persons of Like Nature Among human persons

C5.3

1

Among the divine persons

C6.6

1

Human Fellowship with Heavenly or Spiritual Beings With demons

M4.7

1

With heavenly beings through worship

M5.6

1

Separation (fellowship restricted) Orthodox view of God from heretical

C6.13

1

Between the Son and God’s adopted children

C11.19

1

From heretics or blasphemers

C6.19, C6.25, C16.6

3

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

193

Thus, Cyril not only uses these terms to describe the focus of the catecheses, fellowship in the holy mysteries, but also to define the means of salvation: it is through fellowship with God that humanity is saved (C4.22). This fellowship with God is with each of the persons of the Godhead: with Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Father. Fellowship with or sharing in Christ’s presence, grace, baptism, title, riches, and suffering are described using κοινων-terms. Sharing a title of God, Faithful, is also highlighted using this word group. Additionally, Cyril used this word group to describe being human, including the Incarnation, as well as interpersonal relationships among equals, among human persons and among divine persons, and as a means of reinforcing differences between persons (separating the Son by nature and heirs by adoption as well as between Christians and heretics or blasphemers). Cyril also used κοινωνία to describe table fellowship with demons in contrast with table fellowship with God. Christians share in the divine hymns. Finally, and most strikingly, while only the Son and the Holy Spirit share in the divine nature of the Father in such a way that they fully understand and bear the full weight of his glory, Christians, through the eucharist, mysteriously share in the divine nature. Through Cyril’s use of κοινων-terminology, the Trinitarian nature of theōsis in Cyril’s presentation is clearly present.30 Cyril’s Use of Selected Relational Terms Beginning with μετ-: Cognates of μετέχω, μεταλαμβάνω, μετάδοσις, and μεταδίδωμι While Cyril used forty-five instances of κοινωνεῖν cognates, he supplemented his rhetorical structure with twenty-nine instances of these relational words that begin with the prefix μετα. Each of these words or word groups will be discussed separately. A combined summary table of the uses of all of these terms, Table 5-7, follows the discussion of each word. Cognates of μετέχω Cyril used μετέχω and its cognates, μέτοχος and μετοχή, nine times, with two uses of μετοχή, three uses of μετέχω, and four instances of μέτοχος.31 Each 30 According to Russell, Fellow Workers with God (2009), 23: “Against pagans, Jews, and Gnostic Christians, the teachers of what we might call primitive orthodoxy taught that through Christ, as encountered in baptism and the Eucharist, human beings could attain a community of life with God in a manner which allowed them to be thought of as ‘gods.’” 31 Cyril uses μετέχω in C3.11 line 7, C16.28 line 13, and C17.18 line 11; μετοχή in C6.35 line 10 and M5.19 line 6; and μέτοχος in C11.15 line 13, M3.1 line 4, M3.2 line 9, and M3.2 line 17. Μετέχω is defined by Liddell and Scott as “partake of, enjoy a share of, share in, take part in” (LSJ, “μετέχω,” 1120). In BDAG (“μετέχω,” 642), two definitions are given: “to have a part or share in something” with the glosses of “share, have a share, participate,” and “to partake

194

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

use comes within a catecheses where Cyril also used a cognate of κοινωνεῖν. Table B-2 of Appendix B provides a detailed analysis of the text and translation. Cyril’s first use of μετέχω in Catechesis 3.11 line 7 brings the total of relational terms in this one sentence to five. This use is in a quotation of Heb 2:14-5, and describes Christ’s incarnation: “For since just as the children shared in blood and flesh—that is, were human persons—, he [likewise] partook of blood and flesh—that is, became human (Ὥσπερ γάρ, ἐπειδὴ τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν αἵματος καὶ σαρκός, καὶ αὐτὸς [παραπλησίως] μέτεσχε τῶν αὐτῶν).” Like the author of Hebrews, Cyril used the phrase κοινωνεῖν αἵματος καὶ σαρκός for “being human” with respect to humanity but used μετέχω αἵματος καὶ σαρκός to describe the incarnation of the Son. The next two μετοχ-terms do not provide additional information about Cyril’s teaching about theōsis. In Catechesis 6, On the Unity of God, Cyril contrasts the church with the Manicheans. He uses μετοχή to describe the eating of food. His emphasis is that in the church, meals are eaten with thanksgiving. Cyril’s use of μέτοχος in Catechesis 11, chapter 15 (On the Divinity of Christ) is in a quotation of Heb 1:9 in which μέτοχος refers to the companions of Christ. Cyril uses this verse to describe Christ as the anointed one of God. This distinction between Christ and his fellows (μέτοχος) is related to Cyril’s distinction between Christians’ relationship with God: as will be revealed in M3, Christians are also anointed, but because they are children by adoption, not by nature, they are lower ranking than Christ. The two uses in the catecheses on the Holy Spirit (C16 and C17), both μετέχω, describe empowerment by the Holy Spirit: first, in C16.28, specific Old Testament prophets are described as having partaken of the Holy Spirit (ἁγίου πνεύματος μετέσχον), yet what they received was not the fullness that of something in common with someone” with the glosses of “eat, drink, enjoy, especially with foods.” In LN, it is listed under three categories: 1) §57: “Possess, Transfer, Exchange,” where it has the meaning of “to share in the possession of something – ‘to share in, to have a share of.’ (§57.6); 2) §23: “Physiological Processes and States, Eat, Drink” when in the context of food and “is probably more formal than ἑσθίω” and means “to partake of or to consume food, whether solid or liquid” (§23.2); and 3) §34: “Association, Belonging to, Be Included in the Members” with the nuance of “to be included in the membership of a group – ‘to belong to’” (§34.31). Μετοχή, in Liddell and Scott (LSJ, 1121), means “participation, communion” with an astrological sense, as well as two more terrestrial uses: “partaking of food” and “partnership.” BDAG (643) provides “sharing, participation” as the glosses. In LN, it is in category 34: Association, with the definition of “a relationship involving shared purposes and activity – ‘partnership, sharing.’” In Lampe (PGL, 866), one gloss is given: “participation.” Μέτοχος, in Liddell and Scott (LSJ, 1122), has the nuance of “sharing in, partaking of.” BDAG (643) provides two definitions: “sharing/participating in” and “(business) partner, companion.” In Louw-Nida, μέτοχος is entry 4246 and is categorized in 34: Association, and is defined as “one who shares with someone else as an associate in an enterprise or undertaking – ‘companion, partner.’” In Lampe (PGL, 866), the glosses are “partaking, sharing.”

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

195

the baptized receive, which is new fruit from the same vine (C17.18). Here, Cyril argues for continuity in the work of the Holy Spirit between the Old and New Testament. In Mystagogic Catechesis 3, Cyril explains that because the newly baptized have become partakers of Christ (Μέτοχοι οὖν τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενόμενοι), they are now called Christs. In chapter 2, the quotation from Hebrews quoted in C11.15 is repeated, this time not as a proof of Christ’s divinity, but as a reminder that because Christ was anointed by God, Christians are also anointed.32 Cyril completed his teaching on why Christians are anointed at the end of the chapter: the newly baptized Christians are anointed because they have been made sharers and partakers of Christ (κοινωνοὶ καὶ μέτοχοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενόμενοι). Cyril’s last use of μετοχή, in chapter 19 of Mystagogic Catechesis 5, differentiates the source of holiness in Christians from that of Christ: Christ is holy by nature, but Christians are holy by participation, askesis, and prayer (μετοχῇ καὶ ἀσκήσει καὶ εὐχῇ). Cognates of μεταλαμβάνω Cyril uses μεταλαμβάνω eight times and μετάληψις33 twice, all of which are found in catechetical lectures in which, at least once, he used a cognate of 32 Based upon my reading of the text-critical issue (see the discussion of this in chapter three), Cyril taught that the “anointed ones” of Ps 104:15 LXX (105:15), which appear to be in apposition to the prophets in the second half of this verse, actually is prophetic and refers to those who have been anointed in fellowship with Christ and are thus “Christs.” Thus, the phrase has a prophetic, future dimension that he promoted by using the future tense of ἅπτω rather than the imperative as found in the Psalm. 33 In LSJ (1113), μεταλαμβάνω has four definitions: 1) “have or get a share of,” with the specific glosses of “in Platonic Philosophy, with a genitive, participate in the universal;” “have part in, share in;” “receive notice or information;” and “ understand.” 2) “(receive in succession or afterwards) including the abstract of “come after, come on.” 3) “take instead, take in exchange, substitute”; which includes the medical gloss with respect to blood: “to be transferred, conveyed” and the grammatical gloss of “to be changed, altered.” 4) “take words in another sense.” BDAG (639) provides two definitions: “to share or participate in something” as in “have a share in” and “to come into possession of something” with the gloss of “receive.” In Louw-Nida it is listed as entry 4220 with two semantic ranges: Receive, under category 57: “Possess, Transfer, Exchange” in which it is defined as “to receive as one’s share in or as one’s part of – ‘to receive a share in, to have a share of.’” Under category 90: Case: Experience, it is defined as “to experience some event or state, often with the implication of something negatively valued. In Lampe (PGL, 852-3), it has eight glosses: 1) “partake of, participate in”; 2) “partake of food” including receiving baptism, with respect to the eucharist, and in a figurative sense; 3) “suppose”; 4) “receive next, later”; 5) “receive instead” or “understand instead”; 6) “translate”; 7) “interpret, render”; and 8) “transfer from literal to spiritual level.” Μετάληψις has two primary definitions: 1: participation and 2: alteration, with the nuances of “succession, taking one thing instead of another, in rhetoric the use of one word for another, objection [as in] counterplea,” and other grammatical specific uses (LSJ , 1113). BDAG (639)

196

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

κοινωνεῖν. Hence, cognates of μεταλαμβάνω, like the cognates of μετέχω, apparently were either used for variance in language or to augment the key theme of κοινωνεῖν. A detailed analysis of the text is included in Appendix B, Table B-3. Cyril used the first instance, in Catechesis 3 on baptism, to teach what Yarnold has described as the “double sacramental effect:” the soul is born again through faith; baptism with water is so that the body might also take a share (μεταλάβῃ) in the gift of regeneration (C3.4 line 25). The second use in C3 is using Simon Magus as an exemplar of hypocrisy—pretending but not believing—which the φωτιζόμενοι must not imitate. The use of μεταλαμβάνω is in the context of why one would come to be baptized: that one might partake of grace (ἵνα μεταλάβῃ τῆς χάριτος προσελθών). Cyril’s use of μεταλαμβάνω in Catechesis 4 is in the section on food and is used in the sense of eating. In this case, the term is used in conjunction with those whose weakness prevents them from fasting from wine and meat. In the same paragraph, he continued to discuss the proper use of the human body, which includes not despising it by unhealthy fasting or requiring celibacy; both food and marriage were made by God and are to be received (μετάληψις) with thanksgiving by the faithful. In the catechesis on the Incarnation (C12), μεταλαμβάνω is used twice in one sentence. While the use in C4 was clearly an everyday use of the word, here is a sacramental theōsis use: those who are counted worthy to participate in (μεταλαβεῖν) the flesh of the “non-visible yet intelligible” (νοητός) Lamb do so that they might participate (μεταλάβωμεν) in both Christ’s humanity and his divinity (C12.1 lines 3-4).34 The next three instances of μεταλαμβάνω are all in Mystagogic Catechesis 4, on the eucharist. In chapter 4, Cyril instructed the newly-baptized to participate (μεταλαμβάνειν) in the eucharist with the rest of the worshiping community. They are instructed to recognize, with full assurance, that the bread and the wine, now sanctified and transformed, are the body and blood of Christ (ὡς σώματος καὶ αἵματος Χριστοῦ) with the bread as a figure (τύπος) of his body and the wine as a figure (τύπος) of his blood (Ἐν τύπῳ γὰρ ἄρτου δίδοταί σοι τὸ σῶμα, καὶ ἐν τύπῳ οἴνου δίδοταί σοι τὸ αἷμα).35 At the end of this catechesis, in chapter 9, Cyril explained from Psalm 104:15 that the spiritual has one definition: “the condition of having a share in something,” that is, “sharing.” It does not have a separate entry in LN. In Lampe (PGL, 853) it has two definitions: 1) “participation” and 2) “transference of meaning.” 34 The eucharistic teaching here becomes clear in M1.2 and 3, where Christ is compared to the paschal lamb. In the next teaching, Cyril refers to Christ as the Lamb of God who comes to take away the sins of the world (C13.19 line 16). 35 Cyril’s use of τύπος is treated in chapter six. Here, Lampe’s (PGL, 1418-1420) definition B, “representation, image” including “representation of a heavenly reality” seems to best fit the context.

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

197

participation (μεταλαμβάνων αὐτοῦ ὡς πνευματικοῦ) in the eucharist strengthens the heart and makes the face of the soul glad. The context of the use of μετάληψις in Mystagogic Catechesis 5 chapter 1 refers to the newly enlightened having heard, by God’s benevolence, not only about baptism and chrismation but also about participating in the body and blood of Christ. The two uses of μεταλαμβάνω occur with respect to instruction on how to comport oneself physically and spiritually when receiving the eucharist. In both instances, the sanctified and transformed elements are referred to as the “holy body” or “the body of Christ” for the bread and “the blood” for the wine. In M5.21 line 6 the verb is in the imperative form and describes what the communicants are to do, partake, after first touching the holy body to their eyes to sanctify them. They are cautioned to not lose any of the sanctified and transformed bread, because what they lose is a loss to their own body. While some, like Mazza, argue that this concern about any loss is because of physical realism, the context of M4 and M5 is sanctification of the person as well as the sensory organs of the person. Furthermore, in the chapter immediately preceding these two instances of μεταλαμβάνω, chapter 20, the communicants are instructed that while the sanctified and transformed wine and bread may still taste like wine and bread, they are correspondences (ἀντίτυπος) of the body and blood of Christ.36 Thus, it is more probable that Cyril’s concern for loss is due to the transformative nature of the consecrated bread—if some is lost, then the full measure of what has been given is not received and thus not available to sanctify and deify. The loss, then, is to their own body, since the individual’s transformation is through the means of the physical elements. The next use of μεταλαμβάνω (M5.22 line 5) supports this reading: the communicants are also sanctified by means of partaking of Christ’s blood. They are instructed to touch the moisture that remains on their lips after receiving the cup with their fingers and then sanctifying their eyes and other senses with that small amount of wine.37 36 M5.20 lines 4-6: Μὴ τῷ λάρυγγι τῷ σωματικῷ ἐπιτρέπητε τὸ κριτικόν, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἀνενδοιάστῳ πίστει· γευόμενοι γὰρ οὐκ ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου γεύεσθε, ἀλλὰ ἀντιτύπου σώματος καὶ αἵματος Χριστοῦ. (Do not trust the discernment of the throat of [your] physical body, but on unhesitating faith. For it is not the taste of bread and the wine you are tasting, but the correspondence of the body and blood of Christ.) Cyril’s use of ἀντίτυπος is discussed in chapter six. 37 M5.22 lines 5-9: Ἔτι δὲ τῆς νοτίδος ἐνούσης τοῖς χείλεσι χερσὶν ἐπαφώμενος καὶ ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ μέτωπον καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἁγίαζε αἰσθητήρια. Εἶτα ἀναμείνας τὴν εὐχήν, εὐχαρίστει τῷ Θεῷ τῷ καταξιώσαντί σε τῶν τηλικούτων μυστηρίων. (And while the moisture is still on the lips, touch [it] with your hand and sanctify your eyes and forehead and the remainder of your sensory organs. Then await the prayer, giving thanks to God for counting you worthy of such great mysteries). This instruction in liturgical piety is in the context of the awe inspiring sacrifice (M5.9 line7: “τῆς ἁγίας καὶ φρικωδεστάτης ... θυσίας,” the holy and inspiring of religious awe sacrifice) and

198

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Cyril’s Use of μετάδοσις Cyril used μετάδοσις (give a share in, impart)38 four times.39 In Catechesis 3, On Baptism, Cyril quoted Luke 3:11 in his discussion of the fruit of repentance: the one having two cloaks should share with (μετάδοσις) the one who has none (C3.8 line 2). The next two instances are located in Catechesis 10, “On the One Lord Jesus Christ.” In C10.9, in the context of Cyril’s exposition on or allusion to Phil 2:6, he explained that neither the Son grasped at what he received from the Father nor did the Father grudgingly share (μετάδοσις). In C10.18, Christ, in contradistinction to earthly royalty, counts Christians worthy to share his title, and thus to be given a share in the name “Christian” is a high honor. In Mystagogic Catechesis 3.1, “On Chrism,” the context of the first chapter is rich in the language of identity transformation. The term μετάδοσις is found in the description of Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan River and is used to describe Christ’s imparting (μετάδοσις) the touch of his divinity to the water when he was baptized. A detailed analysis of each use with the text and translation can be found in Appendix B, Table B-4. Cyril’s Use of μεταδίδωμι Cyril used μεταδίδωμι (give a share of, give a part of)40 four times.41 In Catechesis 3, “On Baptism,” the context of μεταδίδωμι is the same as for that of the use of μετάδοσις: the fruit of repentance includes not denying (οὐ μεταδίδωμι) a share in food with those who are hungry, a smaller thing, while striving for the greater things (grace).42 The second use, in Catechesis 14,

is in the historical context of a shift in emphasis in liturgical piety that caused both John Chrysostom and Ambrose of Milan to express concern about the movement in the laity to infrequent communion (Martos, Doors to the Sacred [2001], 229). Here, however, Cyril instructed the laity to not only come forward to partake of the eucharist, but to literally rub parts of their faces with the body and blood of Christ, making the encounter with the divine a very intimate and physical encounter which would have filled their senses with the texture, taste, and smell of the consecrated bread and wine. 38 Μετάδοσις is defined in Liddell and Scott (LSJ, 1111) as “the giving of a share, imparting.” No entry is present in either LN or BDAG. In PGL (851) it is defined as “imparting” or “distribution.” 39 C3.8 line 2, C10.9 line 10, C10.16 line 3 and M3.1 line 10. 40 Μεταδίδωμι, in LSJ (1111), is defined as “to give part of, give a share of.” In LN, it is listed under §57: “Possess, Transfer, Exchange—Give” and is defined as “to share with someone else what one has – ‘to give, to share.’” BDAG (638) provides one definition, “give (a part of), impart, share.” In PGL (851) it is defined as “give a share of, impart” when used with the genitive and 2) “impart,” “hand over,” “hand down,” “communicate” or “give” with the accusative. 41 C3.8 line 7, C14.25 line 21, C15.18 line 3, C16.24 line 4 42 Πνεύματος ἁγίου χάριτος ἀπολαῦσαι θέλεις, καὶ βρωμάτων αἰσθητῶν πένητας οὐκ ἀξιοῖς; τὰ μεγάλα ζητεῖς, καὶ μικρῶν οὐ μεταδίδως; κἂν τελώνης, κἂν πόρνος ᾖς, ἔλπιζε τὴν σωτηρίαν.

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

199

“On Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension,” a share in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit is given to the faithful by the laying on of hands. This instance includes a use of κοινωνία and provides a careful nuance since it is not the fellowship of the Holy Spirit itself that is given, but a share in this fellowship. In Catechesis 15, Cyril uses μεταδίδωμι to exhort his listeners to share with others the signs of the Anti-Christ; Cyril has differentiated for his hearers which information is to be held secret and which teachings can be shared. The last use, in chapter 24 of Catechesis 16, “On the Holy Spirit,” is in the context of the unity of the Godhead. In this use, an exposition on Matthew 11:27 with John 16:13-4, the Father gives (δίδωμι) to the Son and the Son shares with (μεταδίδωμι) the Holy Spirit. This term is not used in the Mystagogic Catecheses. A detailed analysis of each use of μεταδίδωμι can be found in Appendix B, Table B-5. Summary of Cyril’s Use of μετ-terms Two catecheses, Procatechesis and Catechesis 1, have instances of κοινωνεῖν cognates without the μετ-terms under consideration. However, once all four of these terms are introduced in Catechesis 3, most of the pre-baptismal Catecheses which have at least one κοινων-term also have at least one μετ-word, with the exception of Catechesis 10, in which Cyril did not use any of the cognates of κοινωνεῖν. Further, Cyril did not use any of these four μετ-terms to describe relationships in the first two Mystagogic Catecheses. How Cyril used these words in the five main categories of relationship are highlighted in Table 5-4. As indicated in Table 5-4, Cyril used the μετ-words to continue developing his view of salvation and theōsis: the body participates in the rebirth of the soul and, through partaking of Christ’s flesh, his humanity, Christians also partake in his divinity. These terms are also used to continue Cyril’s discussion of sharing in the divine nature and to elaborate on how one receives a share in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, he used these words to explicate the difference between the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit in the lives of God’s people prior to and after the historical event of Pentecost.

200

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 5-4: Cyril’s relational uses of μετ-terms Topic

Text

Number of instances

Sharing/Partaking of the Holy Mysteries Partaking of the eucharist

M4.9, M5.21, M5.22

3

Being Human, including the Incarnation The body participates in rebirth

C3.4

1

Wine and meat can be consumed

C4.27

1

Food and marriage to be participated in with thanksgiving

C4.27, C6.35

2

Incarnation

C3.11

1

Fellowship with a Divine Person or Sharing in a Divine Attribute Fellowship or sharing with Christ Christ

M3.1, M3.2

2

Christ’s body and blood

C12.1,43 M4.3 (twice), M5.1

4

Christ’s title

C10.16

1

Christ’s humanity and divinity

C12.1

1

Fellowship with the Holy Spirit Partaking of grace required

C3.7

1

Shared by the laying on of hands

C14.25

1

Partaking of the Holy Spirit

C16.28, C17.18

Sharing in the divine nature

44

C12.1, M3.1, M5.19

1 45

3

Fellowship with Other Persons of Like Nature Among human persons fruit of repentance is demonstrated by C3.8 (twice) sharing

2

sharing information

C15.18

1

C10.9, C16.24

2

Among the divine persons

Separation (fellowship restricted) Between the Son and God’s adopted children 43

C11.15, M3.2

2

This use could, arguably, be listed under partaking of the eucharist. Unlike C12.1, in which human persons partake of Christ’s divinity, in M3.1, Christ imparts the touch of his divinity to the water of his baptism. 45 The third reference is to holiness, not explicitly the divine nature as in the other two. 44

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

201

Cyril also employed these terms to provide more information about right living within the human community—addressing issues of marriage, what could be eaten and drunk as well as the proper disposition when consuming, and sharing with others—and providing additional insights into the divine life. He also used these words to develop his explication of the distinction between Christians and Christ. Cyril’s Use of συν-terms: σύμφυτος, σύμμορφος, σύσσωμος, and σύναιμος Cyril used four terms that use the prefix of συν- that are of interest in examining his development of identity formation through this rhetorical structure of fellowship. Three of these words, σύμμορφος, σύσσωμος, and σύναιμος, are found only in the Mystagogic Catecheses. Cyril introduced σύμφυτος46 in Catechesis 3, On Baptism, in his quotation of Rom 6:5 in chapter 12 lines 4-6: Εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτος ἐγένου τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ Σωτῆρος, καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως καταξιωθήσῃ (For if you have become planted together in the likeness of the Savior’s death, you are also worthy of resurrection). Cyril explained that Jesus’ death in taking on the world’s sins was so that he might not only end death, but also raise up those who are baptized into him. Baptism, for Cyril, is not only into the likeness of Christ’s death, but also into his resurrection and thus the power to wrestle with temptation as Christ wrestled in the wilderness (C3.13). The next four instances of σύμφυτος are all in Mystagogic Catechesis 2 (On Baptism) and, like the use in C3, are all related to Cyril’s exegesis of Rom 6:5. The first use is a quotation of the Scripture passage (M2.7 line 5). The second is his making explicit the implied parallelism of the Scripture passage: because Christians are planted in the likeness of Christ’s death, Christians are also planted with Christ in his resurrection (M2.7 line 6). The third use is Cyril’s comment on Paul’s word choice and the appropriateness of the term (M.7.7). The fourth use is further clarification: Paul did not say that 46 Σύμφυτος has three definitions in LSJ (1689), 1: “born with one, congenital, innate; natural to; like by nature, cognate, kindred”; 2: “grown together”; and 3: “thickly wooded” as in “fully cultivated.” BDAG (960) provides the definition of “pertinent to being associated in a related experience” as in “grown together” or “identified with something.” In LN, σύμφυτος is listed under Association in category 89: Relationships and is defined as “pertaining to being closely associated in a similar experience – ‘to be like, to be one with.’” In Liddell and Scott, it is defined as “born with one, congenital, innate, natural, inborn, inbred” or “natural to.” (1469). In PGL (1292), the three definitions are 1: “born in, innate”; 2: “natural; cognate, kindred”; 3: “grown together, united.” The Vulgate has “conplantati” in Romans 6:5 while in other instances of this word (all in the LXX, since it is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament), “conplantati” or a cognate is not used. Because of the horticultural motif Cyril used (see C3.8: fruits of righteousness and repentance; C16.12: the metaphor of the dry tree sharing in water as a means of explaining the work of the Holy Spirit in the Faithful; and M2.3: sharing in the good olive tree as a metaphor of sharing in Christ), I have chosen to follow Jerome’s translation of the word. I am grateful to Sr. Felicity Dorsett for pointing out the horticulture motif and to Marilyn Kincaid for her insight into the Latin translation.

202

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Christians are planted in Christ’s death, but in the likeness of his death (M2.7 line 22). This exposition is in the context of explaining that while Christ’s suffering and death was very real, the Christian’s imitation of Christ’s death (without suffering) brings fellowship in the baptism of his death and real participation in Christ’s resurrection. Cyril used this word only in the context of baptism, specifically in the context of relating Christ’s death with Christian baptism. In Mystagogic Catechesis 3, “On Chrism,” Cyril used σύμμορφος (having the same form, sharing the same likeness)47 twice, both in his concatenation of Gal 3:27, Rom 8:29, and Eph 1:5 as discussed in chapter four. Baptism is, for Cyril, putting on Christ, which includes being made (ποιέω) to have the same form (σύμμορφος) as Christ’s glorious body. Cyril’s use of this word is only in the context of the post-baptismal anointing. The next two terms, σύσσωμος (of the same body)48 and σύναιμος (of the same blood),49 are both used together, and both instances of these two terms are in Mystagogic Catechesis 4. Cyril’s use of σύσσωμος is not unexpected, since its one use in the New Testament is in Eph 3:6, which is rich in κοινωνία concepts: fellow heirs, members of the same body (σύσσωμος), partakers (συμμέτοχα) of the promise in Christ Jesus.50 However, Cyril does not use συμμέτοχα, but σύναιμος (of the same blood), which is not found in the New Testament and is not used by church fathers until the fourth century.51 47 In LSJ (1680), σύμμορφος is defined as “united in the same.” BDAG (958) defines the word as “pertinent to having a similar form, nature, or style” with the gloss of “similar in form.” In LN, σύμμορφος is listed in category 58: “Nature, Class, Example, subcategory Nature, Character” and is defined as “pertaining to that which has a similar form or nature – ‘similar in form, of the same form.” PGL (1284) has two definitions: 1) “of similar form or shape,” 2) “possessing one form,” 3) “conformed,” and 4) “congenial, agreeable.” 48 Σύσσωμος is listed in LN’s category 11: “Groups and Classes of Persons and Members of Such Groups and Classes” under the General subcategory and is defined as “a person who is a member of a group, with emphasis upon his coordinate relationship to other members of the group – ‘co-member.’” In PGL (1348), it has two definitions: 1) “body to body, in bodily contact” and 2) in reference to Eph 3:6: “one body with” with a) “union with Christ through [the] Incarnation,” b) “of union of members of Church as Christ’s body, with Christ, with each other, of BMV with Christ in Glory, of eucharistic union, [and] mysticism: of the soul with Christ.” 49 Σύναιμος is not used in the New Testament nor in the LXX. The definition in LSJ (1692) is “a substitution for kinman, kinswoman, especially brother or sister” which means “of common blood, kindred.” No entry is present in BDAG, LN, or PGL. 50 εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη συγκληρονόμα καὶ σύσσωμα καὶ συμμέτοχα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, “the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (NA28, ESV). Gifford, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 151, n 2446 proposes that Cyril’s use of σύσσωμος is in a different sense than the scripture passage. Nevertheless, in both instances, those who were outside of salvation (Gentiles, in Ephesians, non-Christians in M4) are now part of the body of Christ. More intriguing, however, is that Cyril does not use συμμέτοχα. 51 In the TLG, only two church fathers up through the fourth century use this word: Cyril of Jerusalem and John Chrysostom (In romanum martyrem 614 line 14), however, Chrysostom does not use it with σύσσωμος.

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

203

While a detailed analysis of each word in its context can be found in Appendix B, Table B-6, Table 5-5 demonstrates the use of these συν-terms with respect to the Catecheses and Mystagogic Catecheses in which they occur. Table 5-5: Cyril’s use of συν-terms in context of the sacraments Context

Text

Term

Use

Theme

C3: On Baptism

C3.12 line 5

σύμφυτος

being planted together with Christ in the likeness of his death is being counted worthy of his resurrection

planted together in the likeness of Christ’s death and resurrection

M2: On Baptism

M2.7 line 5

σύμφυτος

planted with Christ – death

M2.7 line 6

σύμφυτος

M2.7 line 7 M2.7 line 8

σύμφυτος κοινωνία

planted with Christ in the likeness of his death planted with Christ in his resurrection comment on use of term clarification of teaching

M2.7 line 11

σύμφυτος

not planted with him in his death

M3.1 line 2

σύμμορφος

through baptism, put on the same form as same form as Christ the Son bodies are of the same same form as Christ’s form as Christ’s glorious body glorious body

M3: On Chrism

σύμμορφος

M4: M4.1 line 3 σύσσωμος Through the eucharist, On the Body σύναιμος Christians are of the and Blood same body and same of Christ blood as Christ (On the M4.3 lines 2-4 μεταλαμβάνω become partakers of Eucharist) the body and blood of Christ, σύσσωμος having the same body σύναιμος and blood as Christ

planted with Christ – resurrection -fellowship in the baptism of Christ’s death not planted with his death literally

same body, same blood as Christ

partakers of Christ’s body and blood same body and blood as Christ

Table 5-6 presents the use of these words in terms of relationships. Clearly, Cyril used these terms to continue developing the relationship between Christians and Christ. Here, fellowship becomes more intense: it is not merely

204

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

fellowship with Christ, but receiving the same form, the same glorious body, resurrection, and becoming so closely identified with Christ that Christians are described as having the same body and the same blood as Christ. This close relationship between Christians and Christ must be held in tension with Cyril’s teachings on the uniqueness of Christ and the differences between Christ’s and the Christian’s relationship with the Father as well as participation in the divine nature. Table 5-6: Cyril’s relational uses of συν-terms Topic

Text

Number of instances

Fellowship with a Divine Person or Sharing in a Divine Attribute Sharing with Christ or Having the Same as Christ In the likeness of his death (not his actual death)

C3.12, M2.7 (twice)

3

Christ’s resurrection

M2.7

1

Christ’s form, glorious body

M3.1 (twice)

2

Christ’s body

M4.1, M4.3

2

Christ’s blood

M4.1, M4.3

2

M2.7

1

Other commentary on word choice

Cyril’s Progressive Building of a Structure Having already described each use of these key terms within the larger structure of the content of the catechetical instruction, I now summarize the use of these terms as they would have been heard, in order, by the original audience. Table 5-8 at the end of this chapter provides a list of the words in chronological order, according to the sequence of delivery of the catecheses. In the first catechetical address, the Procatechesis, fellowship in the holy mysteries is Cyril’s first use of a cognate of κοινωνία (P16 line 13). In the next meeting, Cyril begins with the same concept, being sharers in the mysteries of Christ (C1.1 lines 1-2), then adds fellowship with Christ (C1.4 lines 6-7) and fellowship with the Holy Spirit (C1.5 line 19) . While Cyril did not use any of these words in the lesson on repentance (third meeting), in the fourth meeting he revisits a concept from the second meeting and combines it with the content of the third meeting. In C1.2, he

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

205

instructed the φωτιζόμενοι that the rebirth that they will be experiencing is spiritual, not physical, but he augments this teaching by explaining that their bodies will participate with their souls in this rebirth (C3.4 line 25), using μεταλαμβάνειν. Using the same verb, they are warned not to be hypocritical (that is, to profess beliefs but not desire to partake of grace, 3.7 line 22). Then, using μετάδοσις and μεταδιδόναι, they are instructed that the fruit of repentance, the topic of the previous meeting’s catechesis, involves sharing clothing and food with those who are in need (C3.8 lines 2 and 7). Cyril returns to cognates of κοινωνία for a tightly constructed teaching that relates the listeners’ humanity (sharing in blood and flesh) and Christ’s incarnation (using μετέχειν rather than κοινωνία in this one instance, partaking of blood and flesh, emphasizing Christ’s uniqueness as one who was able to choose to become embodied) so that the φωτιζόμενοι can grasp that through the incarnation they will become sharers in Christ’s presence and his divine grace since salvation (with dignity) is received through fellowship with Christ in his baptism (C3.11 lines 6-10). In the next chapter (C3.12), this fellowship expands beyond the present implications of Christ’s past, since those who have been planted with (σύμφυτος) Christ in the likeness of his death will be counted worthy of his resurrection. This gift provides the means by which Christians wrestle against temptation in their life after baptism (C3.13). In the next three meetings (their fifth, sixth, and seventh meetings), Cyril uses μεταλαμβάνειν in Catechesis 4 (fifth meeting) to correct possible misunderstandings about the Christian life: those who need to partake of wine and meat for the sake of their health are not to be looked down upon and marriage as well as eating are to be participated in with thanksgiving (C4.27 lines 13 and 18), reflecting Cyril’s understanding of embodiment to be both natural and good. In the next two catecheses (sixth and seventh meetings), the language of κοινωνία returns: at the beginning of C5, Cyril states that it is God who calls people in to fellowship with Christ (C5.1 lines 1-4) and dignity is added by sharing one of God’s titles, Faithful (Πιστοί) (C5.1 lines 8-9).52 Yet the language of κοινωνία is not limited to Christians: all of human society results from κοινωνία. He specifically uses the term κοινωνός to describe how, through faith in marriage vows, strangers become sharers in each other’s bodies and possessions (C5.1 lines 8-9). This same cognate of κοινωνία is used in the next catechesis to describe the relationship within the Godhead: only the Son and the Holy Spirit fully know and behold the Father in his glory since they alone share in the Father’s divine nature (θεότης) (C6.6 lines 14-17). The next three uses of κοινωνία cognates describe separation from heresies: first, since light does not have fellowship with darkness (C6.13 lines 5-6), the

52

This term is discussed in chapter six.

206

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Manichean heresy53 of two Gods is to be rejected. Further, they, those who are being enlightened, are not to have fellowship with those who do evil deeds (C6.19 lines 7-10) or with the Manicheans (C6.25 lines 3-5). To differentiate Christians from Manicheans further, Cyril used the next instance of μετοχή (C6.35 line 10) to describe how food is partaken of with thanksgiving among Christians. Cyril does not use any of the relational terms in the next three catecheses (his doctrine of God: C7, 8, and 9), but the following three (C10, 11, and 12) do contain this language of relationship and sharing. In Catechesis 10, Cyril used μετάδοσις to describe how the Father gave a share in (imparted) Lordship to the Son of his own will (C10.9 line 10) and how the Son gives Christians a share in (imparts) his title, Christ (C10.16 line 3). In the next catechesis, Christ is distinguished from Christians: in his quotation of Hebrews 1:9, Cyril states that Christ is anointed above his companions (μέτοχος, C11.15 lines 1-3) and that humanity’s fellowship (κοινωνία) is not with the unique Son (μονογενής)54 due to the difference in natures: the Unique Son is son by nature, Christians are sons55 by adoption (C11.19 lines 2-6). In the following meeting, Cyril augments the previous day’s teaching by stating that those who are counted worthy to partake (μεταλαμβάνω) of the flesh of the Lamb do so in order to partake (μεταλαμβάνω) of Christ’s divinity (θεότης) as well as his humanity (C12.1 lines 3-4). Thus, while the Son by nature (C11.19) is a sharer (κοινωνός) of the Father’s divinity (C6.6), the sons by adoption partake (μεταλαμβάνω) of the Son’s divinity (C12.1). Cyril then summarized the role of the incarnation in theōsis: the Son took up human nature, in order that human nature might be saved and by giving the greater grace to those who lacked, humans are able to become a sharer (κοινωνός) in God.56 While the next catechesis (C13) does not use the key terms, the rest of the Catecheses (C14-C18) as well as all of the Mystagogic Catecheses do. A share in the fellowship (κοινωνία) with the Holy Spirit is given (μεταδίδωμι) through the laying on of hands (C14.25 lines 16-21). In the next catechesis meeting, μεταδίδωμι is repeated, this time in Cyril’s exhortation for his listeners to share the information that he has given them about the Anti-Christ (C15.18 line 3), which contrasts with his exhortation at the beginning of the catechetical lectures 53

Newman, The Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril (1839), 66, fn b. While μονογενής can be translated as “only begotten,” the nuance of “unique” better fits the context that Cyril is discussing. The issue is not merely Christ’s relationship to the Father (only begotten), but Christ’s relationship to the Father relative to the relationship of Christians to the Father. Christ is the son of God in a unique way. 55 My use of the masculine is intended to convey the concept of heirs within the culture of Cyril’s audience. 56 C12.15 lines 21-26: ἵνα δι’ ἀνθρωπότητος σωθῶμεν. ἀνέλαβε τὸ ὅμοιον ἡμῶν, ἵνα τῷ λείποντι μείζονα δῷ τὴν χάριν, ἵνα ἡ ἀνθρωπότης ἡ ἁμαρτωλὸς θεοῦ γένηται κοινωνός. ὅπου γὰρ ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἁμαρτία, ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἡ χάρις. 54

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

207

not to share the content of their catechetical instruction with either Catechumen or a stranger (P12). The seventeenth catechesis in the series, C16, Cyril returned to the use of these terms in the context of relationships with the persons of the Godhead. He began with a metaphor describing the work of grace given through the Holy Spirit in the life of the repentant soul: like a dry tree sharing (κοινωνεῖν) in water and then being able to put forth new shoots, so also the repentant soul is able, through the Holy Spirit, to bear fruits of righteousness (C16.12 lines 15-8). Cyril returned to a concept of the Holy Spirit as the giver of the seal of salvation (introduced in C1.2 and 3) and connected the work of the Holy Spirit throughout redemptive history57 to the seal of salvation which his listeners are about to receive. He then connected the work of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son: the Father gives (δίδωμι) to the Son and the Son gives a share (μεταδίδωμι) to the Holy Spirit (C16.24 line 4). He then connected what he began in the introduction to this chapter: in C16.28 line 13, he used μετέχω to describe how the prophets partook of the Holy Spirit. In the next meeting, he continued his exposition of the work of the Holy Spirit through time. The use of κοινωνία describes the fellowship of the Holy Spirit which was bestowed (χαρίζω) to the apostles (C17.12 lines 1-2) in a fullness which Cyril contrasted to what the prophets experienced when they partook (μετέχω) of the Holy Spirit (C17.18 line 11). The fellowship (κοινωνία) of the Holy Spirit is received through the apostles’ laying on hands, but Simon Magus was declared an alien and did not receive this fellowship even though hands were laid upon him (C17.25). Based upon Cyril’s use of Simon Magus in the catecheses, this would serve as a warning that echoed his exhortations in the Procatechesis and Catechesis 1 to ensure that the φωτιζόμενοι were coming to baptism with a disposition of desiring relationship with the Holy Spirit.58 Cornelius and his household became sharers (κοινωνός) in the Holy Spirit, demonstrating that the fellowship of the Holy Spirit included Gentiles (C17.27 line 15). The next use of κοινωνός is in a quotation of 2Cor 13:14 that Cyril placed at the end of a series of Scripture quotations that demonstrate that the Holy Spirit exists, lives, speaks, and foretells and, through this last quotation, is active in the lives of Christians through the Lord Jesus Christ, who gives grace and the Father, who loves, and the companionship (κοινωνός) of the Holy Spirit.59 57 In the distant past, the Holy Spirit preached through the Prophets; in the more recent past, he worked through the Apostles. His work continues most intimately with Cyril’s hearers through the seal of baptism, which they are about to receive. (C16.24) 58 See Jackson’s examination of the relationship with the Holy Spirit into which Cyril seeks to draw the φωτιζόμενοι in ‘Cyril of Jerusalem’s Treatment of Scriptural Texts Concerning the Holy Spirit’ (1991), 25-9. 59 The thesis statement of this presentation is Ὅτι δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὑφέστηκε καὶ ζῇ καὶ λαλεῖ καὶ προλέγει, πολλάκις μὲν ἡμῖν ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν εἴρηται, ... Cyril cites 1Tim 4:1, Eph 3:5, Heb 3:7, 10:15; Eph 6:17, 5:18, 19, and ends with 2Cor 13:14.

208

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Toward the end of the last pre-Easter, and thus pre-baptismal catechesis, when Cyril promised to teach the reason behind the mysteries of initiation, he told them that during these mysteries that they would become partakers (κοινωνός) of Christ’s name and will receive the seal of fellowship (κοινωνία) of the Holy Spirit (C18.33.11-2). This echoes themes from the second catechetical meeting, C1. The first instance of κοινωνεῖν in the post-Easter Mystagogic Catechesis is an explanation of how, through Christ’s incarnation and his sharing in blood and flesh with those about to be baptized, he overcame death so that they were able to renounce Satan (M1.4 line 10). In Mystagogic Catechesis 2, Cyril used eight cognates of κοινωνεῖν. The first three describe the relationship between the ones who were about to be baptized to Christ’s riches through the prebaptismal anointing: this anointing symbolizes their fellowship (κοινωνία) in the riches of Christ (M2.3 line 6) since they have now been make sharers (κοινωνός) of Christ, the good olive tree (M2.3 line 2), and in his wealth (M2.3 line 4). In baptism, however, they shared (κοινωνεῖν) in Christ’s suffering through imitation and thus have fellowship (κοινωνία) in these suffering which grants salvation (M2.5.6 and 9). Cyril repeated this concept three more times in this catechesis because of the importance that this participation in reality through imitation has real benefits in their lives. In M2.6 line 13, by baptism, through imitation, Christians have fellowship (κοινωνία) in Christ’s suffering, in M2.7 line 3, he used κοινωνός (sharers in) to describe the relationship between the baptized’s non-painful experience and Christ’s very real suffering. Cyril clarified, however, using σύμφυτος from the same quotation he used in C3, Rom 6:5: Christians are planted with Christ in the likeness (ὁμοίωμα) of his death and his resurrection (M2.5-7). In M2.7 line 8, Cyril returned to the concept of fellowship (κοινωνία) of the baptism of Christ’s death. He continued by emphasizing that we are not planted with Christ in his death (M2.7 line 11), but the likeness of the reality of his death. However, while participation in the likeness of Christ’s death is by imitation, participation in his resurrection is not in likeness, but in reality. In Mystagogic Catechesis 3, Cyril introduced the concept of σύμμορφος: not only are the baptized sharers in Christ’s riches and his crucifixion (M2), but now, through baptism, Cyril revealed to them that they have also put on the same form (σύμμορφος) as Christ’s glorious body (M3.1 lines 2, 4). After having become partakers (μέτοχος) in Christ, they are now also anointed ones (Christs) (M3.1 line 4). When Christ was baptized, he shared (μετάδοσις) the touch of his divinity with the water of the Jordan River (M3.1 line 10) and, after his immersion, the Holy Spirit descended upon him. In like manner, immediately after baptism, they were anointed as a “sacramental sign” (ἀντίτυπος) of Christ’s anointing with the Holy Spirit. While this is distinct from what happened to Christ, who was crucified, buried, and then rose in reality, and who was anointed above his partakers (μέτοχος), through anointing

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

209

with the holy μύρον the newly baptized became sharers (κοινωνός) and partakers (μέτοχος) of Christ (M3.2 lines 16-7).60 Cyril began Mystagogic Catechesis 4 with the introduction of two more relational terms: through the eucharist, Christians become of the same body (σύσσωμος) and same blood (σύναιμος) as Christ (M4.1). Cyril took care to assure his listeners that by being partakers (μεταλαμβάνειν) of Christ’s body and blood, they have the same body (σύσσωμος) and same blood (σύναιμος) as Christ and thus are Christ-bearers (Χριστοφόροι) who share (κοινωνός) in the divine nature (M4.3). Table fellowship (κοινωνία) in the past was offered by demons, but now, through the eucharist, table fellowship (κοινωνία) with God is possible (M4.7). Cyril ends this catechesis with another assurance that by partaking (μεταλαμβάνειν) of the eucharist in a spiritual manner, they receive Christ’s body and blood (M4.9). At the beginning of Mystagogic Catechesis 5, Cyril reviewed the contents of the last three lessons (Baptism, Chrism, and Eucharist). He described the eucharist as participating (μετάληυψις) in the body and blood of Christ (M5.1). In the description of the liturgy, Cyril explained to these new Christians that they now are sharers (κοινωνός) in the heavenly worship (M5.6). Cyril explained that Christians are holy by participation (μετοχή), discipline and prayer (M5.19) and are urged to have fellowship (κοινωνία) with the holy mysteries (M5.20 line 2). He then specified how to partake (μεταλαμβάνειν) of the bread (M5.22), share (κοινωνεῖν) the eucharistic elements (M5.22), and partake (μεταλαμβάνειν) of the wine (M5.22). His final exhortation to the new Christians, just prior to the benediction, is the second half of the inclusio that began in the Procatechesis: now that they have been prepared for fellowship (κοινωνία) in the holy mysteries, they ought not sever themselves from this fellowship in these mysteries through the defilement of sin (M5.23).61 In summary, Cyril used the cognates of κοινωνία, μεταλαμβάνειν, and μετέχειν, as well as the words μετάδοσις and μεταδίδωμι to provide a structure through which he taught that salvation comes through God entering into fellowship (κοινωνία) with humanity (C4.22 line 20-1). This fellowship is made through Christ’s incarnation (his partaking [μετέχω] of blood and flesh), so that through his death and resurrection, Christians become sharers (κοινωνός) in Christ’s presence, his divine grace, and salvation through fellowship (κοινωνία) in his baptism (C3.11). Faith in relationships and vows, upon which 60

Here, the reason for Cyril’s use of Heb 2:14-5 and his insistence upon the uniqueness of Christ’s anointing relative to the anointing of his companions becomes clear. The Christians, who are now Christs (anointed ones) are not equal to the unique Christ. 61 M5.23 lines 1-4: Ταύτας κατέχετε τὰς παραδόσεις ἀσπίλους, καὶ ἀπροσκόπους ἑαυτοὺς διαφυλάξατε· τῆς κοινωνίας ἑαυτοὺς μὴ ἀπορρήξητε, μὴ διὰ μολυσμὸν ἁμαρτίας τῶν ἱερῶν τούτων καὶ πνευματικῶν ἑαυτοὺς ἀποστερήσητε μυστηρίων. Hold fast to these faultless traditions and guard yourself carefully against offense. Do not sever yourself from fellowship. Do not rob yourself of the holy and spiritual mysteries through defilement of sin.

210

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

all of human society is built, is a critical component of salvation (C5.3). And, as in other relationships, those who do not enter for the right reasons do not partake (μεταλαμβάνειν) of the fullness of the relationship; here, what is at stake is receiving God’s grace. Those who do not desire fellowship with the Holy Spirit (like Simon Magus, C3.7), shortchange themselves and might be Christian in name, but not in reality. Cyril also used these terms to describe the relationship between the persons of the Trinity62 (C6.6) as well as salvation through the Triune God: the seal of the fellowship in the Holy Spirit; sharers in the riches, death, and resurrection of Christ; called by the Father into fellowship with Christ that results in sharing in God. Yet, merely saving people from death and slavery to death is not the only concern that Cyril addressed: when human persons partake of Christ’s humanity, they also partake (μεταλαμβάνειν) of his divinity (C12.1). Through the incarnation, humans have the opportunity to become a sharer (κοινωνός) of God (C12.15) and sharers in the divine nature (M4.3). Yet, a distinction always remains between the Son by nature and the heirs by adoption (C11.19). This structure, which Cyril introduced at the very beginning of the catecheses in the Procatechesis, continues into the Mystagogic Catecheses and reaches a climax in these teachings. This is demonstrated by the additional terms that Cyril used to adorn the building that he has carefully constructed as he prepared his listeners for fellowship in the sacred mysteries: σύμφυτος—planted together with Christ—in M2 (“On Baptism”), σύμμορφος—of the same form as Christ—in M3 (“On Chrism”), and σύσσωμος and σύναιμος—of the same body and blood as Christ—in M4 (“On the Eucharist”). While this structure does not contain the entire contents of the text nor does it capture all of the rich subtleness of Cyril’s teaching, it does demonstrate a theme that provided two major pedagogical structures. First, it served as a mortar linking the content (Cyril’s building material) into the building that Cyril described. Second, it also served as a means to summarize the basics of salvation, which is fellowship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit through faith, desire of fellowship, and the Son’s incarnation. By fellowship in the likeness of Christ’s death in baptism, Christians have fellowship in Christ’s resurrection. By becoming partakers of Christ, even partaking of Christ’s body and blood through the sacred mysteries, Christians not only have become of the same body and blood of Christ, but they also have table fellowship with God. Christians are sharers of the divine nature, are sealed by the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, and are holy by participation, discipline, and prayer. Because of this fellowship with the divine, Christians are warned against fellowship with heretics. In the light of this structure, especially since Cyril teaches that Christians partake of Christ’s humanity and his divinity (C12.1), this mortar of fellowship language explicates how

62

Cyril uses the term τριάς in three instances: in C16.4 lines 5 and 13 and in M1.7 line 5.

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

211

Cyril’s theology of the eucharist is in harmony with his baptismal theology: through baptism, Christians share in the humanity of Christ, having fellowship in his suffering; through the eucharist, by partaking of the eucharist’s bread and wine, the ἀντίτυπος of his body and blood, Christians share in his divine nature. Thus, contrary to Mazza and Cutrone and in agreement with Špidlik, Cyril’s listeners would not have heard a disconnect between Cyril’s teaching on baptism and the eucharist; Cyril’s listeners responded with joy and loud applause during his teaching on the mysteries63 since they received the final, glorious completion of the grand conceptual building that Cyril had promised. In terms of relationships, Table 5-7 provides an overview of how Cyril used each word group to build this relational matrix. As already discussed, Cyril’s use of κοινωνία and its cognates provide his primary language of relationship, which he highlights through his inclusio. His use of μετ-terms provides additional information in all but one of the five relational categories, including clarification of his understanding of theōsis. In the Mystagogic Catecheses, the addition of the συν-words focus on union or likeness to Christ, from which it is easy to see why Young considered Cyril’s theōsis motif to be more Christification than deification. However, given that Cyril has such a rich understanding of the Christian’s relationship with all three persons of the Trinity, to limit his understanding of thēosis to Christification seems too narrow. Instead, it seems more appropriate to speak of Cyril’s teaching on thēosis as occurring through Christification by the means of fellowship in the Holy Spirit so that fellowship with both Christ and the Father is received. Table 5-7: Summary of Cyril’s uses of relational terms κοινων-

Topic

μετ-

Fellowship in the Holy Mysteries Fellowship in the holy mysteries

5

Partaking of the eucharist

3 Being Human

Being human

1

the body participates in rebirth

1

wine and meat can be consumed

2

food and marriage with thanksgiving

2

Incarnation

63

IE 46.4.

1

1

συν-

212

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 5-7 (continued) Topic

κοινων-

μετ-

συν-

Fellowship with a Divine Person or Sharing in a Divine Attribute Fellowship or sharing with Christ Christ

3

Christ’s presence

1

Christ’s grace

1

Christ’s baptism

2

Christ’s title

1

Christ’s riches

3

Christ’s suffering

4

2

1

Christ’s body and blood

3

Christ’s humanity and divinity

1

4

likeness of his death

3

Christ’s resurrection

1

Christ’s form, glorious body

2

Christ’s resurrection

1

Fellowship or Sharing with God God

3

Sharing one of God’s names

1

Fellowship with or partaking of the Holy Spirit fellowship of the Holy Spirit

9

partaking of the Holy Spirit

2

partaking of grace required

1

by the laying on of hands

1

Sharing in the divine nature and holiness

1

2

Fellowship with Other Persons of Like Nature Among human persons

1

sharing material goods or information Among the divine persons

3 1

2

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

Table 5-7

213

(continued)

Human Fellowship with Heavenly or Spiritual Beings With demons

1

With heavenly beings through worship

1

Separation (fellowship restricted) Orthodox view of God from heretical

1

Between the Son and God’s adopted children

1

From heretics or blasphemers

3

2

Reading Cyril’s Catechetical Texts through the Lens of Theōsis/Κοινωνία While demonstrating how Cyril used κοινωνία and a cluster of words in the same semantic range to provide the mortar that connects the conceptual building blocks in his catechetical instructions, I have pointed to several places where he has provided insights into his expression of theōsis and how it is integrated into his understanding of salvation and the sacraments through the concept of fellowship (κοινωνία). The Relationship between the Incarnation, Theōsis, and Restoration of Creation While the poetic expressions of theōsis which are most widely known do not include statements by Cyril of Jerusalem, the following six statements are representative quotations, demonstrating both Cyril’s poetic expression of the doctrine as well as the extent of restoration. The connection between Christ’s full humanity and full divinity is necessary for our salvation: “For if Christ is God, as in fact he is, but did not take up humanity, we are rendered strangers to salvation.”64 Cyril spoke in the relational terms of enjoying the fellowship of Christ: “For since we were not able to look him in the face or to enjoy him according to who he was, he became like us in order that in this way we might be considered worthy to enjoy [him].”65 Cyril also connected salvation through the Incarnation 64 C12.1 line 11: εἰ γὰρ θεὸς ὁ Χριστός, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ ἔστι, μὴ ἀνέλαβε δὲ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, τῆς σωτηρίας ἀλλότριοι καθεστήκαμεν. 65 C12.13 lines 4-7: ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἡμεῖς καθ’ ὃ ἦν ἐκεῖνος ἐμβλέπειν ἢ ἀπολαῦσαι οὐκ ἠδυνάμεθα, ἐγένετο ἐκεῖνος ὅπερ ἡμεῖς, ἵνα οὕτως ἀπολαῦσαι καταξιωθῶμεν.

214

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

with fellowship with God the Father: “The Lord took up our likeness onto Himself, in order that He might save humanity. He took up our likeness, in order that He might give greater grace to that which lacked; in order that sinful humanity might become companions of God.”66 Theōsis, for Cyril, was also stated in terms of a return to paradise: “And if [humanity] was cast out of paradise through a tree of food, so then will not the ones who believe easily enter into paradise through the Tree of Jesus?” (C13.2).67 Also, “That one [Adam] through the tree fell, but you, through the Tree, are led into paradise” (C13.31).68 Furthermore, restoration was not just for human persons, but for all of creation: “Therefore the Tree of Life was planted in the earth, so that the earth which had been cursed might enjoy the blessing and so that the dead might be set free” (C13.35).69 Thus, for Cyril, the Incarnation of the Son is not only the means for the salvation of sinful humanity but is also the means for fellowship with both Christ and the Father through the Holy Spirit as has already been discussed in detail and thus is Trinitarian. This fellowship with Christ is, in particular, entering into the type of fellowship in which Christians are given the privilege of enjoying Christ. Furthermore, just as humanity’s sinfulness damaged creation, the same means through which humanity is restored into right relationship with the Triune God is also the means through which Creation is healed—as humanity is healed, so also is the Creation. Salvation, Sacraments, and Κοινωνία: Cyril of Jerusalem’s Sacramental Theōsis In Chapter four, I described Cyril’s uses of θεοποιός as well as his exposition of three biblical passages often used as the foundation for discussion of theōsis. To summarize, in C3.11, Cyril used Hebrews 2:14-5 to teach that through baptism, Christians share in divine grace.70 Cyril’s one positive use of θεοποιός 66 C12.15 lines 20-5: δι’ ὧν οὖν ὅπλων ὁ διάβολος ἡμᾶς κατηγωνίζετο, διὰ τούτων αὐτῶν ἐσώθημεν. ἀνέλαβε τὸ ὅμοιον ἡμῶν ἐξ ἡμῶν ὁ κύριος, ἵνα δι’ ἀνθρωπότητος σωθῶμεν. ἀνέλαβε τὸ ὅμοιον ἡμῶν, ἵνα τῷ λείποντι μείζονα δῷ τὴν χάριν, ἵνα ἡ ἀνθρωπότης ἡ ἁμαρτωλὸς θεοῦ γένηται κοινωνός. 67 C13.2 lines 6-8: καὶ εἰ τότε διὰ τὸ ξύλον τῆς βρώσεως ἐξεβλήθησαν ἐκ παραδείσου, ἆρα διὰ τὸ ξύλον Ἰησοῦ νῦν εὐκοπώτερον οἱ πιστεύοντες εἰς παράδεισον οὐκ εἰσελεύσονται; I have translated οἱ πιστεύοντες as “the ones who believe” rather than “the Faithful” to highlight the participle. 68 C13.31 lines 12-3: ἐκεῖνος διὰ τοῦ ξύλου ἀπέπεσε, καὶ σὺ διὰ τοῦ ξύλου εἰσάγῃ εἰς τὸν παράδεισον. 69 C13.35 lines 13-5: ἐνεφυτεύθη τοίνυν τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς ἐν τῇ γῇ, ἵνα ἀπολαύσῃ τῆς εὐλογίας ἡ καταραθεῖσα γῆ καὶ ἵνα λυθῶσιν οἱ νεκροί. See also C14.11. 70 The context of Catechesis 3 is baptism. Ὥσπερ γάρ, ἐπειδὴ τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν αἵματος καὶ σαρκός, καὶ αὐτὸς [παραπλησίως] μέτεσχε τῶν αὐτῶν, ἵνα τῆς ἐνσάρκου

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

215

in C4.16 is used to teach that the Holy Spirit deifies persons (καὶ ἓν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ πάντων ἁγιαστικὸν καὶ θεοποιόν …). Cyril used a combination of Phil 3:21 with Gal 3:27 and Eph 1:5 in M3 to express both his sacramental theōsis and his high view of embodiment—through baptism, Christians, as adopted sons of God, are made to have the same form as Christ’s glorious body. In M4.3, Cyril used 2Peter 1:4 to explain that through partaking of the eucharist, Christians are sharers of the divine. Taken together, I argued that these four passages, especially in light of the use of 2Peter 1:4, determine that Cyril’s theology includes theōsis and that this theōsis is mediated by the sacraments. In particular, I posited that while union with Christ in his humanity is through the imitation (of his death through baptism), union with Christ in his divinity is not by imitation but by the means of receiving the eucharistic elements. In this chapter, by focusing on Cyril’s emphasis on fellowship, supporting materials for Cyril’s construction of a sacramental theōsis are clearly present. By looking at each sacrament in turn, the movement from sharing in Christ’s humanity to sharing in his divinity can be observed. First, the pre-baptismal anointing makes them sharers in Christ such that they share in his riches (M2.3). Then, fellowship in Christ’s sufferings is given through the means of imitating the reality of his death in baptism, so that by fellowship with the likeness of Christ’s death, being planted with him in his death, Christians also have fellowship in his resurrection by being planted with him in this, also (M2.5-7). Through baptism the baptized partake of grace (C3.4). Earlier in his catechesis, Cyril introduced what Yarnold has called a “double sacramental effect”—when the soul has been born again by faith, the body shares in this gift of regeneration through baptism (C3.4). After baptism, Christians have been transformed so that they have the same form as Christ (M3.1), by faith and grace. Through anointing with the holy μύρον, the newly baptized become Christs, those who have been anointed because they are sharers and fellows of Christ (M3.2, also C11.15). Fellowship with the Holy Spirit is shared through the laying on of hands (C14.25). Up to this point, sharing in Christ is in his humanity. However, Cyril taught that those who are counted worthy to participate in Christ’s flesh participate in both Christ’s humanity and his divinity (C12.1). Through the eucharist, Christians become sharers in the divine nature (M4.3), having fellowship with God (M4.7), by recognizing Christ’s transforming presence in the sanctified and transformed bread and wine so that spiritual participation in the eucharist strengthens the heart and makes the face of the soul glad (M4.9). This sanctified and transformed meal is the media of sanctification: to touch the holy body παρουσίας αὐτοῦ κοινωνοὶ γενόμενοι, καὶ τῆς θείας αὐτοῦ χάριτος κοινωνοὶ γενώμεθα·(For since the children have shared in blood and flesh, he [likewise] partook of them, in order that by our sharing in his embodied presence, also we might share in his divine grace).

216

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

to the eyes will sanctify the eyes (M5.21) and to dab even a small amount of the Christ’s blood on the eyes or other senses will sanctify those sensory organs (M5.22). Ingestion of this sanctified food and drink transforms the person such that the communicant is of the same body and the same blood as Christ (M4.1). So that the entire person, body and soul, can be transformed, the crumbs are precious and ought not be wasted (M5.22). Through the eucharist, contact with Christ’s divinity through his humanity which is made present by the work of the Holy Spirit, divinizes. Cyril emphasized to his listeners that they can be assured that what was said to happen in the divine liturgy really took place (M4.1, 3, 6 and 9), and it is no wonder that he felt the need to do so. As Mazza has argued, Platonic thought was no stranger to the idea that one participated in the real (the spiritual) by physical imitation. From Mazza’s exploration of Cyril’s use of typology, the pre-baptismal anointing, baptism, and post-baptismal anointing make sense in a Platonic worldview. The symbol of Christ’s riches (fattiness) is oil; to be anointed with olive oil is, according to Cyril, a means of gaining fellowship in the riches of Christ. One can feel the richness of the moisturizing oil as it is applied and for a time afterwards. Cyril’s explanation of the baptismal waters as both tomb and womb (M2.4) and the reality of being under water where one cannot breathe would clearly bring the association of dying and rebirth. Through robing, having the senses awakened with the fragrant μύρον, and the weight of the laying on of hands after coming up from the waters of baptism, the symbolic connection between the “Oil of Gladness” which is the Holy Spirit and the reception of the fellowship with the Holy Spirit would not only be memorable, but would be comprehensible in this Platonic framework. But, how can one imitate Christ in his divinity? Cyril cautioned about thinking that one is an equal fellow of Christ: while Christ is divine by nature, Christians are holy by participation (M5.19); Christ is the Father’s unique Son, Christians are adopted (C11.19). Thus, I propose that Cyril moved beyond the μίμησις-εἰκών paradigm he used in his mystagogic teachings on the pre-baptismal anointing, baptism, and the post-baptismal anointing when he taught on the eucharist because his eucharistic-based theōsis required it. In the first three Mystagogic Catecheses, Cyril was providing meditations on how the Christian partook of Christ’s humanity, which can be imitated. In the last two Mystagogic Catecheses, with their focus on the eucharist, Cyril focused the newly-enlightened on partaking of Christ’s divinity, which cannot be imitated. The assurances that Cyril provided in M4 are supported by concepts that he had carefully introduced early in the catechetical curriculum and were necessary within his formation of Christian identity and teaching on theōsis, his pedagogical capstone he had been building. While Cyril’s sacramental theōsis is particular to eucharist, the other sacramental rites of initiation are necessary since it is through partaking of Christ’s humanity that we partake of his divinity. Further, each of the sacramental rites

Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

217

are necessary in order to share in the fullness of Christ: his humanity—specifically his riches, his suffering and resurrection, and his anointing with the Holy Spirit—and his divinity. Cyril’s explanation of the Jerusalem tradition has taken the apostle Paul’s successive stages of participatory union with Christ: “liberation from demonic powers, sharing in the suffering of Christ, and finally sharing in his glory,”71 and developed it. The Jerusalem tradition follows this basic pattern: 1) exorcism throughout the period of catechesis (P14) and finally renouncing Satan (M1) and being liberated from the demonic, 2) entering into fellowship with Christ’s suffering through baptism (M2.5-7), in order to 3) share in his resurrection (M2.7) and glorified body (M3.1) as christs, the anointed ones, after receiving the chrism. While the Jerusalem tradition clearly contains this Pauline participatory union with Christ trajectory, Cyril augments this tradition in two ways: first, the participatory union does not end at the post-baptismal anointing but reaches its climax in partaking of Christ’s body and blood, his humanity, in order to partake of his divinity (M4.3). Second, while Cyril’s sacramental theōsis is clearly Christocentric, it is also highly Trinitarian. In C3.11, salvation and dignity are possible because of Christ’s incarnation, and these are received through fellowship with Christ. Cyril used 1Cor 1:9 in C5.1 to teach that Christians are called into fellowship with Christ by God (the Father). Through Christ’s incarnation, not only are we saved, but we also become sharers in God (C12.15). Fellowship with the Holy Spirit is required for salvation (C16.10)—it is through this fellowship that Christians are able to produce the fruit of righteousness (C16.12). Cyril’s use of 2Cor 13:13 serves as a summary of his understanding of how the Christian life is characterized: life is lived in the grace of Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit; the Christian life—salvation and deification—is through the fellowship with divine persons. The seal of the fellowship of the Holy Spirit is given to those who share in Christ’s name (C18:33). The Implications of Reading Cyril’s Eucharistic Theology as a Part of his Sacramental Theōsis For Cyril, salvation is through fellowship with God, thus salvation and κοινωνία cannot be discussed independently without missing important nuances of this soteriology. Since salvation is dependent upon κοινωνία with the Holy Spirit— the one who seals, sanctifies, and deifies—salvation, κοινωνία, and theōsis cannot be separated. Then, finally, since sharing in the divine, that is, partaking of Christ’s divinity, is through the medium of partaking of Christ’s humanity in the sanctified and transformed bread and wine of the eucharist, and since the

71

Scott, Adoption as Sons of God (1992), 211-3, 265-70.

218

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

eucharist properly follows the pre-baptismal anointing, baptism, and post-baptismal anointing, theōsis is mediated through the sacraments. Therefore, for Cyril, salvation, sacraments, theōsis, and fellowship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are inseparable concepts. Cyril had already discussed that κοινωνία with the Father and Christ includes the dignity of sharing in one of God’s titles, Faithful, and one of the Son’s titles, Christ (Christians), in the pre-Easter Catecheses. However, it is only after Easter, in the Mystagogical Catecheses, that Cyril gradually explained the transformation that occurred on Easter when his listeners were made new (M2.1), layering new name upon new name in each day’s catechesis as a means of articulating their new identity as sharers and partakers of Christ. Cyril’s use of names, the relationship of names to identity, and especially the relationship between the new names the baptized and communing Christians bear and the sacraments are discussed in the next chapter.

On Baptism

C3.11 lines 6-10

C3.8 line 7

μετάδοσις

C3.8 line 2

what it means to be human (shared in blood and flesh) Christology linked to soteriology: Incarnation being human, Incarnation, sharing sharers in Christ’s presence in Christ’s presence and grace, sharers in Christ’s divine grace dignity and salvation dignity with salvation received through fellowship with Christ in his baptism

κοινωνεῖν μετέχω κοινωνός κοινωνός κοινωνία

the fruit of repentance is giving these lesser things while seeking the greater (grace)

sharing clothing and food with the poor

partake of grace

body participates in rebirth with the soul

fellowship of the Holy Spirit

sharers in the holy vine (Christ)

sharers in the mysteries of Christ

fellowship of the holy mysteries

Theme

μεταδίδωμι

the fruit of repentance is giving a share of your abundance (clothing)

μεταλαμβάνω Simon Magus did not want to partake of grace

C3.7 line 22

exhortation to prepare diligently

κοινωνία

C1.5 lines 18-20 μεταλαμβάνω baptism is so that the body might also participate in the gift

description of what they are with exhortation to remain in Christ

κοινωνός

C1.4 lines 6-7

C3.4 line 25

description of what they are becoming

κοινωνός

C1.1 lines 1-2

On Repentance

Use exhortation to prepare for catecheses

P16 line 13

preparatory teachings

Term κοινωνία

Text

Topic

Table 5-8: Summary of Relational Terms and Their Uses Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

219

On the Monarchy of God, the Unity of God, and Choice

On Faith

Trinity doctrine of God

exhortation to remain separate from do not even greet, so that you do heretics not share in their wicked works exhortation to remain separate from do not share (have fellowship) with Manicheans blasphemers

κοινωνός κοινωνία κοινωνεῖν κοινωνεῖν μετοχή

C6.6 lines 14-7

C6.13 lines 5-6

C6.19 lines 7-10

C6.25 lines 3-5

C6.35 line 10

food is partaken of with thanksgiving

the natural way human society works

κοινωνός

C5.3 lines 4-7

different from Manicheans

light does not have fellowship with darkness

the Son and the Holy Spirit share in the Father’s divinity

through faith in marriage vows, strangers become sharers in each other’s bodies and possessions

sharing a title of God’s (Faithful)

κοινωνός

fellowship with Christ

C5.1 lines 8-9

soteriology: God calls people into fellowship with Christ (dignity) identity: name change (dignity)

κοινωνία

C5.1 lines 1-4

C4.27 line 18

μεταλαμβάνω the weak partake of wine and meat partaking food and drink, marriage and food to be participating in marriage μετάληψις participated in with thanksgiving participating in marriage and food

C4.27 line 13

fellowship with God

soteriology: God, through fellowship with humanity, saves humanity from ceasing to exist

κοινωνία

Theme

C4.22 lines 20-1

On the Ten Dogmas

Use being planted together with Christ planted together in the likeness of in the likeness of his death is being Christ’s death and resurrection counted worthy of his resurrection

C3.12 line 5

On Baptism (continued)

Term σύμφυτος

Text

Topic

Table 5-8 (continued)

220 Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

C15.18 line 3

C16.6 lines 13-6

On Final Judgment and the Antichrist

On the Holy Spirit (I)

sharing (imparting) the signs of the Antichrist freely with others exhortation to separate from heretics

κοινωνία

a share of the fellowship with the Holy Spirit is through the laying on of hands

Christology, theōsis – sharer of God through the Incarnation

μεταδίδωμι

μεταδίδωμι

κοινωνία

C12.15 lines 21-6 κοινωνός

μεταλαμβάνω

those who are to be baptized into the Holy Spirit should not have fellowship with blasphemers

sharing (imparting) information

giving a share of the fellowship with the Holy Spirit

sharer of God

partaking of the divinity and humanity of Christ

partaking of the elements

those counted worthy to partake of the meat of the lamb might partake in his divinity and his humanity

μεταλαμβάνω

C12.1 lines 3, 4

distinction between humanity’s humanity’s fellowship is not with relationship with God (by adoption) the Only Begotten and the Son’s (by nature)

κοινωνία

C11.19 lines 2-6

Christ is anointed above fellows/ companions

Christ imparts his title to Christians

quote of Hebrews 1:9, on Christ’s divinity

Christ gives a share in (imparts) his name to Christians

relationship within the Godhead

Theme

μέτοχος

μετάδοσις

C10.16 line 3

the Father did not give (impart) grudgingly to the Son

Use

C11.15 line 13

μετάδοσις

Term

C10.9 line 10

Text

C14.25 lines Resurrection and Ascension 16-21 of Christ

On the Incarnation of the Son

The Son of God (the Divinity of Christ)

On the One Lord Jesus Christ

Topic

Table 5-8 (continued) Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

221

On the Holy Spirit (II)

On the Holy Spirit (I) (continued)

Topic

historical—prophets partook of the Holy Spirit historical—fellowship of the Holy Spirit given to the Apostles historical—patriarchs partook of the Holy Spirit historical—fellowship of the Holy Spirit received via the laying on of hands, except for Simon Magus historical—Gentiles (Cornelius and family) also receive the Holy Spirit quote of 2Corinthians 13:13

μετέχω κοινωνία μετέχω κοινωνία

κοινωνός κοινωνός

C16.28 line 13

C17.12 lines 1-2

C17.18 line 11

C17.25 lines 5-8

C17.27 line 15

C17.33 line 20

fellowship of the Holy Spirit

fellowship of the Holy Spirit

partakers of the Holy Spirit

fellowship of the Holy Spirit

partakers of the Holy Spirit

the Son gives a share (imparts) to the relationship within the Godhead Holy Spirit

μεταδίδωμι

fellowship with the Holy Spirit

Theme

C16.24 line 4

soteriology as relationship: Simon Magus wanted power, not fellowship with the Holy Spirit and was condemned

Use

metaphor for how the Holy Spirit sharer of water (Holy Spirit as works in the life of the Faithful: the sharer of fruit of righteousness) repentant soul is able to bear fruit of righteousness in the same way that a dry tree sharing in water is able to put forth new shoots

κοινωνία

Term

C16.12 lines 15-8 κοινωνεῖν

C16.10 lines 1-5

Text

Table 5-8 (continued)

222 Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Topic

(on the rites before baptism) On Baptism

On the One Holy Catholic Church, ... through the incarnation, Christ’s suffering destroyed death identity: sharing in Christ’s riches

κοινωνεῖν κοινωνός κοινωνός κοινωνία κοινωνεῖν κοινωνία κοινωνία κοινωνός σύμφυτος σύμφυτος σύμφυτος κοινωνία σύμφυτος

M1.4 line 10

M2.3 line 2

M2.3 line 4 M2.3 line 6

M2.5 line 6

M2.5 line 9 M2.6 line 13 M2.7 line 3

M2.7 line 5

M2.7 line 6

M2.7 line 7-8

M2.7 line 11

Theme

sharers of the good olive tree (Christ) sharers in the fattiness of Christ symbol of fellowship in the fatness of Christ sharing in Christ’s suffering

receive the seal of the fellowship of the Holy Spirit Incarnation

sharers in Christ’s name

fellowship in Christ’s suffering identity: sharing in Christ’s suffering fellowship in Christ’s suffering identity: sharing in Christ’s suffering sharers of Christ’ very real suffering identity: planted with Christ in the planted with Christ—death likeness of his death identity: planted with Christ in his planted with Christ—resurrection resurrection -good use of term fellowship in the baptism of clarification of teaching Christ’s death not planted with him in his death not planted with his death literally

identity: sharing in Christ’s suffering

identity: sealed

κοινωνία

C18.33 line 12

Use identity: name change

Term κοινωνός

C18.33 line 11

Text

Table 5-8 (continued) Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

223

identity through table fellowship

κοινωνία κοινωνία μεταλαμβάνω

M4.7 line 11 M4.7 line 12

M4.9 line 7

spiritual partaking

theōsis

κοινωνός

M4.3 line 7

σύσσωμος σύναιμος

μεταλαμβάνω

partaking of eucharist in spiritual manner

table fellowship with God vs table fellowship with demons

sharers in the divine nature

same body and blood as Christ

partakers of Christ

participate in Christ

identity: participate as in the body and blood of Christ identity: become partakers of the body and blood of Christ identity: have same body and blood as Christ

μεταλαμβάνω

On the Body M4.1 line 3 and Blood of Christ (the Eucharist) M4.3 line 2-4

identity: through the eucharist, same body, same blood as Christ Christians are of the same body and same blood as Christ

sharers and partakers of Christ

Christ anointed above his fellows/ companions

Christ imparted the touch of his divinity with water

same form as Christ’s glorious body partakers of Christ

same form as Christ

Theme

σύσσωμος σύναιμος

M3.2 lines 16, 17 κοινωνός μέτοχος Christification

quotation of Hebrews 1:9

μέτοχος

M3.2 line 9

μετάδοσις

μέτοχος

σύμμορφος

M3.1 line 4

M3.1 line 10

identity: through baptism, put on the same form as the Son identity: bodies are of the same form as Christ’s glorious body identity: Christians called Christs because they are partakers of Christ identity: Christ imparted the touch of his divinity to the water of the Jordan River

σύμμορφος

M3.1 line 2

Use

On Chrism

Term

Text

Topic

Table 5-8 (continued)

224 Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

expansion of community

Christ is holy by nature, Christians participation in holiness are holy by participation, discipline, and prayer invitation partake of the bread how one participates in the mystery of the eucharist partake of the wine

κοινωνός μετοχή

κοινωνία μεταλαμβάνω κοινωνεῖν μεταλαμβάνω κοινωνία

M5.6 line 12

M5.19 line 6

M5.20 line 2

M5.21 line 6

M5.22 line 1

M5.22 line 5

M5.23 line 2

exhortation to not sever self from the fellowship in the sacred and holy mysteries by sin or loss of holy mysteries tradition

sharing (consuming) the eucharistic elements drinking the wine

eating the bread

fellowship in the holy mysteries

sharers in the heavenly hymns

participating in the body and blood of Christ

μετάληψις

theme

(on the liturgy) M5.1 line 3

use

term

text

Topic

Table 5-8 (continued) Chapter 5: Cyril's Theme of Fellowship as the Foundation of his Sacramental Theōsis

225

PART III: Cyril’s Teaching on Identity Transformation through the Holy Mysteries

My methodology for studying the means by which Christian identity was described and defined for newly baptized Christians in fourth century Jerusalem depends upon examining the catechetical texts in their historical and literary context. The literary context as well as the context of the audience for the Mystagogic Catecheses was shaped by the Procatechesis and Catecheses, and the teachings found in the Procatechesis and Catecheses are incomplete without the Mystagogic Catecheses. Thus, authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses is a critical component of this study: having the text that most closely approximates Cyril’s concluding instructions to these new Christians allows me to examine the pedagogical themes and concepts that he introduced in his Lenten lectures and completed during the week after Easter. Without the foundation of both doctrine and terminology that Cyril used in the Procatechesis and Catecheses, it is much easier to misunderstand and misappropriate Cyril’s teachings in the Mystagogic Catecheses. In Part I, chapters two and three, I provided a cumulative argument for Cyrillian authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses. In chapter two, I demonstrated that the recent re-dating of Macarius’ Letter to the Armenians provides at least one witness to the baptismal theology presented in the Mystagogic Catecheses that predates Cyril’s episcopacy and was an expression of the sacramental theology of the bishop who ordained Cyril as a deacon. In the codicological investigation presented in chapter three, I examined the witness of those who collected and copied the texts, which shows that the Mystagogic Catecheses have been considered to be the culminating instructions for newly baptized Christians in fourth century Jerusalem. In chapter three, I examined Piédnagel’s preferred manuscript tradition and his stemma in light of his analysis of the characteristic emendations of a redactor whom he states was most likely John of Jerusalem. Through the evaluation of seventeen text-critical issues, including the title to the Mystagogic Catecheses, I provided sufficient evidence of successive emendations to warrant recommending an alternative stemma for the manuscript tradition so that this redactor’s hand is less prevalent. This alternate stemma provides what I propose is a text which contains, as close as possible, the content of Cyril’s original manuscript. In Part II (chapters four and five), I demonstrated that Cyril of Jerusalem’s teachings in these three texts (Procatechesis, Catecheses, and Mystagogic Catecheses) exhibit a mostly implicit doctrine of theōsis that is woven throughout the three texts that not only would be recognizable as such by his contemporaries but also is integral to his sacramental theology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and understanding of what it means to be a Christian. Exploring Cyril’s doctrine of theōsis is critical to my argument since I have proposed that, according to Cyril’s teachings, the full expression of Christian identity is to be a Christbearer who partakes of the divine nature and, through restoration of his or her humanity through sacramental theōsis, reflects Christ’s glory to the world. In chapter four, I used the issues raised by several scholars about an apparent discontinuity in Cyril’s sacramental theology as the starting point for evaluating

230

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

sacramental theōsis as a theological thread that is woven throughout Cyril’s teachings and provides a means of exploring Cyril’s sacramental theology as a cohesive whole. I argued that, while Cyril only used the verb θεοποιεῖν (to deify) once in a non-polemic sense, and then only in the Catecheses, a parallel phrase in Mystagogic Catechesis 5 connects Cyril’s understanding of Christian transformation with the mystery of the eucharist: Christians are sanctified and deified (θεοποιεῖν) by the Holy Spirit (C4.16) and the eucharistic bread and wine are sanctified (ἁγιάζειν) and changed (μεταβάλλειν) by the Holy Spirit (M5.7) so that Christians, through partaking of the eucharist, become sharers (κοινωνός) in the divine nature (θείας φύσεως) (M4.3). Consequently, the combination of the concept of becoming sharers in the divine nature and the explicit use of θεοποιεῖν to describe the transformative work of the Holy Spirit was seen as sufficient evidence to examine a theme of theōsis within Cyril’s catechetical teachings. In chapter five, through word studies and flow of thought analysis on concepts related to κοινωνός, I demonstrated that what Cyril offers to those who were coming to be baptized was a new and profound relationship with all three persons of the Godhead and the Christian community. This communion with the Trinity is ultimately based on sharing in Christ’s humanity in order to share in his divinity. In this chapter I also highlighted several poetic statements of theōsis that, while not as explicit as those found in the works of Gregory of Nyssa or Athanasius, are equally compelling summaries of Cyril’s particular expression of theōsis that would have been memorable to his listeners. What remains is to explicate how Cyril used the layering of appellations with each sacrament and how each sacrament was used as a means of integrating the new Christians into the divine economy. These physical, sacramental, and theological orientation markers were instrumental in helping the Νεοφώτιζοι (newly enlightened) understand how they were new persons with new identities and new relationships after Easter. As most scholars who have discussed Cyril’s Mystagogic Catecheses have noted, in the second, third, and fourth catechetical lectures in this series, Cyril identified a title change that coordinates with the sacramental experience discussed in the lecture. Several detailed studies of the sacred space in which these mysteries took place are also readily available in the secondary literature. However, a study of the transformation that the new Christians have experienced through the sacraments, Cyril’s use of titles to signify these changes, and the relationship of the transformation to the location within sacred space is needed in order to examine Cyril’s mystagogical goals in the entire catechetical process. This is the topic of the following section, Part III. In Part III, chapter six, I examine Cyril’s description of identity transformation and demonstrate that Cyril’s teaching on the sacraments, Christian identity, salvation, and the divine economy, when taken as a whole, clearly articulates a doctrine of sacramental theōsis. In chapter 7, I provide a summary of the work completed and address specific issues related to Christ’s transformative presence in the eucharist.

Chapter 6 Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation Having shown in Part II that salvation, sacraments, theōsis, and fellowship with the Trinity are inseparable concepts for Cyril, in this chapter I establish the connection Cyril made between sacraments and Christian identity formation in his catechetical instructions. To demonstrate that sacramental identity formation is an integral aspect of his teaching of theōsis, I examine Cyril’s teaching concerning 1) how Christian transformation through the sacraments restores what was damaged by sin to wholeness,1 2) that this transformation is accomplished by contact with the divine nature through the sacraments, and that 3) Christian identity is inseparable from the sacraments since Cyril links identity, transformation, and sacraments through his use of unique descriptors, or titles, associated with each sacrament as signposts for the transformation via theōsis. In order to identify how Cyril’s doctrine of theōsis and his sacramental theology are connected, I use Norman Russell’s definition of theōsis2 as a means of organizing Cyril’s teachings about the sacraments into four categories: a) by sharing in Jesus Christ’s redemptive work and two-fold nature through the sanctifying and deifying activity of the Holy Spirit, human persons are restored to wholeness through the sacraments; b) the process of restoration begins in striving toward living a virtuous life and is found in the common life of the church through the sacraments and corporate worship; c) the sacraments are the means through which the Christian experienced union with the Triune God; and d) the sacraments are the means through which the new Christians are integrated into redemptive history. To demonstrate that Christian identity formation is, for Cyril, inextricably linked to this sacramental theōsis, I examine Cyril’s articulation of Christian identity as a layering of titles associated with each of the sacraments, identifying how Cyril expected these titles to help the new Christian understand how they have been transformed. Sacramental Theōsis as Restoration to Wholeness with a New Identity In order to examine Cyril’s teaching on the restorative, healing dimensions of Christianity, his teaching on what it means to be human and how sin affects the body needs to be explored in order to evaluate how restoration to wholeness 1

Cyril does not appear to explicitly state that the condition of Christians is superior to the condition of Adam and Eve prior to the Fall. 2 Russell, Fellow Workers with God (2009), 21.

232

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

occurs. By first describing what the Christian is transformed from, it will be possible to detail the transformation that Cyril instructed his listeners to expect and why he believed that this transformation was not just desirable, but also necessary to experience the fullness of Christian life. Cyril used descriptors, or titles, in four of the five Mystagogic Catecheses as a means of layering the new identity of the Christian in correspondence with the successive experience of the sacraments. These layered descriptors are examined in order of Cyril’s presentation. Next, I examine Cyril’s explanation of the two orders in the church: the Catechumen and the Faithful. Then, Cyril’s descriptions of transformation of those enrolled to be baptized is categorized in terms of specific names or descriptors associated with each sacrament, the physical places where the sacramental celebrations occur within the Jerusalem church, aspects of the divine economy that are connected to each sacrament, as well as general discussions of transformation that Cyril associated with each sacrament. The place of paradise is treated separately. Cyril’s Teachings on What it Means to Be Human, the Effects of Sin, and the Expectations of Being Restored through the Sacraments Cyril stated that humanity is the greatest of God’s creation because only humans are made in the image and likeness of God (C4.18 lines 6-7, C12.5);3 and are the rational image of God (μᾶλλον εἰκὼν λογικὴ θεοῦ), made by God’s own hand (C12.5). The rest of creation was created for the service and enjoyment of humanity (C12.5).4 The human person has an intelligible nature (νοητὴ φύσις: C4.16, C16.31), but not a nature that is naturally holy (M5.19). Cyril stated that most things in Christ are twofold (διπλόος, C15.1)5 and likewise, human persons are also twofold: soul and body, both of which were made by God (C4.18 lines 1-5). The human soul is immortal (C4.18 lines 5-6; C4.20 line 1) and is the most beautiful of God’s work because it was made in the image of God (C4.18). All souls are alike, whether in men or women (C4.20 lines 1-3).6 The human soul is without sin at birth and is self-determining with 3 See Jenkinson, ‘The Image and the Likeness of God in Man in the Eighteen Lectures on the Credo of Cyril of Jerusalem (C. 315-387)’ (1964), 48-71. 4 C12.5 lines 11-13: ἐν ἓξ ἡμέραις ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον. ἀλλ’ ὁ κόσμος διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον (In six days God made the world. But yet the world [was made] for the sake of humanity). 5 Here, Cyril’s Christology informs his anthropology. 6 As noted in footnote 29 in chapter four, Cyril quoted or alluded to Gen 1:26-7 seven times (C4.18 line 6, C6.6 line 7, C6.6 line 8, C12.5 line 17, C12.5 line 19, C14.10 lines 17-18, and C18.13 line 11). In C4.20 lines 1-3: Ἀθάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή· καὶ ὁμοῖαι πᾶσαι αἱ ψυχαί εἰσιν ἀνδρῶν τε καὶ γυναικῶν τὰ γὰρ μέλη τοῦ σώματος διακέκριται μόνον (The soul is immortal. All souls are alike, male or female—for the only differentiation is of the bodily frame). Because

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

233

freedom (αὐτεξούσιος, C4.18, 21). While Satan can tempt, he does not have the power to coerce (C4.21), and thus each human person is responsible for his or her actions.7 The human body, according to Cyril, is wonderfully made (C4.22, C9.15, and C18.9), the soul’s garment and instrument, and not the cause of sin (C4.23 and C9.15).8 Cyril led his listeners in marveling at the wonders of the human body, including the digestive process (C9.15). To be human is to share in blood and flesh (C3.11, C5.7, M1.4).9 Because of the connection between body and soul, Cyril cautions his listeners to be careful with what they do with their bodies: eating food offered to idols is to be avoided for the health of the soul (C4.28), the body is to be appropriately covered for warmth and modesty (C4.29), and the body is to be tenderly cared for (C18.20). Faith affects the body: when Peter believed, his body was made buoyant by faith; when he doubted, he sank (C5.7). The immortal body which will be raised has continuity with the present mortal body yet also is different: it will no longer be weak or in need of nourishment (C18.18).10 Because of his understanding of this connection between the soul and the body, Cyril also described the human body after the general resurrection at the end of time: the raised body of the righteous will be heavenly, the raised body of the sinner will be made to endure eternal pain and suffering without being consumed. Cyril summarized this teaching: “Therefore since then the body has served in all things, it enjoys together (συναπολαύειν) in

Cyril does not make differences with respect to gender when he discusses faith or knowledge (aspects of the soul and mind), it is thus possible for Cyril to describe a woman’s mind (φρόνημα) as courageous (ἀνδρεῖος) with respect to the women who went to Jesus’ tomb: ἀσθενὲς μὲν ἦν τῆς γυναικὸς τὸ σῶμα, ἀνδρεῖον δὲ τὸ φρόνημα (C14.13 lines 5-6). According to Cyril, gender differences reside in the bodily frame (C4.20). Furthermore, Cyril was very clear that women are saved in the same way that men are, through Christ’s death on the cross: in C13.21, Cyril stated that women’s salvation through Christ’s death was demonstrated when Jesus was pierced in his side, connecting the spear thrust into Christ’s side with God’s making Eve from Adam’s rib (taken from his side). 7 According to Cyril, this statement is contra determinism from either birth or astrology. By freedom, Cyril argues against sin as a necessity (C4.21). Furthermore, sin is not caused by God: Cyril states that the planting (creation) of humanity was good, but the plant (human persons) bears bad fruit of its own will and has become a strange vine (C2.1). C2.1 line 7: Ἡ φυτεία καλή, ὁ δὲ καρπὸς ἐκ προαιρέσεως κακός. 8 C9.15 lines 5-8: Ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὁ Ἀδὰμ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ γυμνὸς ἦν μετὰ τῆς Εὔας, ἀλλ’ οὐ διὰ τὰ μέλη ἦν ἀπόβλητος. Οὐκ ἄρα τὰ μέλη τῆς ἁμαρτίας αἴτια, ἀλλ’ οἱ χρώμενοι τοῖς μέλεσι κακῶς· σοφὸς δὲ ὁ τῶν μελῶν ποιητής. In paradise, Adam, with Eve, at first was naked, but he was not despised for his bodily frame (τὰ μέλη). So then the limbs are not guilty of sin, but the ones who misuse their bodily frame. And [of this] the Maker is wise. 9 See page 234, footnote 8. 10 C18.18 lines 8-12: Ἐγείρεται μὲν οὖν τοῦτο τὸ σῶμα· ἀλλ’ οὐ μένει τοιοῦτον, ἀλλὰ μένει αἰώνιον. οὐκέτι τροφῶν τοιούτων χρείαν ἔχει πρὸς ζωήν, οὐδὲ κλιμάκων πρὸς ἀνάβασιν· γίνεται γὰρ πνευματικόν, θαυμάσιόν τι καὶ οἷον εἰπεῖν κατ’ ἀξίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν.

234

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

what is to come.”11 For this reason, Cyril cautioned his listeners to be tender with their bodies, especially after baptism (C18.20).12 While God made the human soul in his image and likeness, human disobedience has obscured the likeness of God in the human person (C14.10).13 Cyril described sin as a fearful yet self-chosen evil; transgression is a grievous affliction of the soul (C2.1). Sin is an evil shoot growing from within each person (C2.2). This evil begins with forgetting God (C2.2) and has two sources: willful conduct by human persons (C2.1)14 and promptings from the devil (C2.3), who is the founder of sin (C2.4). This enemy’s envy has caused trauma (τραῦμα) to the entire human person (ἀνθρωπότης), from head to toe (C12.5, 12.7).15 The intelligible nature (νοητὴ φύσις) of humanity needs sanctification by the Holy Spirit (C4.16, C16.31). As a result of this wounding of humanity, Cyril described sinful humans as deceived (ἀπατηθῆναι) and lost (ἀπολλύειν), fallen (πίπτειν), blinded (τυφλωθῆναι), lame (χωλοί), and dead, but not without hope of restoration (C2.5). Sin wounds the person, burning the sinews of the soul with eternal fire (C2.1), causing scarring in both the soul and the body (C18.20). Through sin, human persons become enemies of God and thus are appointed to die (C13.33).16 Because of Adam’s sin (which was the result of the devil’s envy, C12.5), humanity was no longer fit to live in paradise and was thus cast out (M2.7). Furthermore, adverse powers have made a home for themselves within the very limbs of sinful human persons (M2.2) and Cyril speaks of those C18.19 lines 11-2: ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν εἰς πάντα ὑπηρετήσατο τὸ σῶμα, καὶ ἐν τοῖς μέλλουσι συναπολαύει τῶν γενομένων. 12 This high view of the body fits well with the character sketch provided by Paulin, Saint Cyrille de Jérusalem (1959), 20. See also 117, fn 77. 13 C14.10 lines 17-8: τότε εἶπεν ὁ θεός· ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ’ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν. καὶ τὸ μὲν κατ’ εἰκόνα ἔλαβε, τὸ δὲ καθ’ ὁμοιότητα διὰ τὴν παρακοὴν ἠμαύρωσεν (Then God said, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness.” And on the one hand, [that which is] according to the image he kept, but through disobedience, [that which is] according to the likeness was obscured). 14 C2.1 lines 3-4: Κακὸν αὐτεξούσιον, βλάστημα προαιρέσεως· Gifford translated this phrase as “an evil of a man’s own choosing, and offspring of the will” (NPNF2-7: 8). However, αὐτεξούσιος is defined as “in one’s own power, free” and προαίρεσις means “choosing one thing before another” and includes the nuances of “plan,” “deliberate course of action” or “conduct” (LSJ, sv ‘αὐτέκμαγμα’, 279 and sv ‘προαίρεσις’, 1466). I have chosen not to translate this as “offspring of the will” since this is a theologically loaded translation and Cyril’s word choice of προαίρεσις is more than just deciding to do something, but includes planning and acting on the choice, which involves the whole person, body and soul. This seems to fit better with Cyril’s teaching that both body and soul are affected by sin. 15 C12.7 lines 1-4: Μέγιστον οὖν τὸ τραῦμα τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος. ἀπὸ ποδῶν ἕως κεφαλῆς οὐκ ἦν ἐν αὐτῷ ὁλοκληρία (Very great then [is] the wound of humanity, from foot to head there is no soundness in him [the generic human]). 16 C13.33 lines 2-4: ἐχθροὶ γὰρ ἦμεν θεοῦ δι’ ἁμαρτίας, καὶ ὥρισεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἁμαρτάνοντα ἀποθνήσκειν. 11

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

235

who are coming for baptism as being in a contract with Satan (C2.1-9). Thus, because of the effects of disobedience, sinful humanity cannot partake of the divine nor enjoy the Son (C12.15). Furthermore, human sinfulness affects the rest of God’s creation (C13.25, C14.11). Sinfulness is not merely individualized; Cyril recognized communal sin and the need for an intercessor for the community: as Moses interceded for the Hebrews in Exodus 32, so Christ intercedes for Christians (C2.10). God’s love for humanity and the hope of restoration has been evident since humanity’s first transgression: because of God’s love, Adam was placed opposite to paradise so that he might see what has been lost and repent (C2.7). Repentance is the human activity which is required for the cure of sin (C2.1) so that human persons might be saved (C2.7) through Christ who, being able to raise Lazarus who was physically dead for four days, can more easily raise the living who are dead in sin (C2.5). With Cyril’s understanding of the connection between body and soul, it is not surprising that Cyril’s sacramental theology contains what Edward Yarnold anachronistically refers to as “a theory of double sacramental causality.”17 Sin scars body and soul, therefore sacraments are applied to the body to heal and restore both body and soul. Thus Cyril could tell those enrolled to be baptized that they will enter into paradise as stars of the church with beaming bodies and bright souls (ὥσπερ ἀστέρες τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, εἰσέλθητε φαιδροὶ τῷ σώματι, καὶ φωτεινοὶ τῇ ψυχῇ) (P15 lines 19-20). The ailments that Cyril had described as afflicting the sinful person—being deceived and lost, fallen, blinded, lame, and ultimately dead—can all be rectified by the One who raised Lazarus from being physically dead for four days through repentance of sin (C2.5). Expectations of Transformation Cyril set the expectation of ongoing transformation in the opening greeting of the Procatechesis: Already the scent of blessedness is about you, O Φωτιζόμενοι [you who are to be enlightened], already you are gathering together the mentally perceptible (νοητά) blossoms for twining heavenly crowns. Already the sweet fragrance of the Holy Spirit has blown [upon you]. Already you are at the entrance to the kingdom: and so may the King lead you into it. For now the blossoms of the tree have appeared; may the fruit also [be perfect].18

17 Yarnold, ‘The Body-Soul Relationship Mainly in Connection with Sacramental Causality’ (2001), 340-1. Yarnold cites C3.3, M3.3, and M4.5 as the sections with this relationship explicitly detailed. 18 P1 lines 1-6 Ἤδη μακαριότητος ὀσμὴ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ὦ ΦΩΤΙΖΟΜΕΝΟΙ, ἤδη τὰ νοητὰ ἄνθη συλλέγετε πρὸς πλοκὴν ἐπουρανίων στεφάνων· ἤδη τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου ἔπνευσεν ἡ εὐωδία. Ἤδη περὶ τὸ προαύλιον τῶν βασιλείων γεγόνατε· γένοιτο δὲ καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως εἰσαχθῆτε. Ἄνθη γὰρ νῦν ἐφάνη τῶν δένδρων· γένοιτο δὲ ἵνα καὶ ὁ καρπὸς [τέλειος ᾖ].

236

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Transformation had already begun in those who had submitted their names for baptism.19 At the beginning of their catechetical training, they were told that they do not yet have the faithful’s security (ἀσφαλής) and freedom from anxiety (ἀμέριμνος), but are to cherish the fear of uncertainty as to whether or not they will be received into the church (P13) so that they will diligently strive toward confident faith prior to baptism (C17.35). While Cyril provided some information about the transformation that they should expect to occur prior to their eve of Easter initiation, only after they have experienced the mysteries of the faith did they receive a fuller explanation about the meanings of the sacramental experiences. Since Cyril did not reveal the mysteries that follow baptism prior to the new Christians’ experience of receiving the chrism and eucharist, the delineation of expected transformation as a result of each sacrament is less straightforward in Cyril’s pre-baptismal catechesis than in the Mystagogic Catecheses. That is, the transformation that Cyril discussed in the pre-baptismal Procatechesis and Catecheses may appear to be associated with baptism, but he may attribute these same transformations to either chrism or eucharist in the Mystagogic Catecheses. In some instances, this apparent confusion or change in theology may, in fact, be a result of his secrecy about the post-baptismal anointing and eucharist in his Catecheses and thus part of his pedagogical strategy.20 Because of this, I allow the final and fuller instruction found in the Mystagogic Catecheses to delineate the transformative aspects of each sacrament. In the final pre-baptismal catechetical instruction, the Φωτιζόμενοι are told to prepare their souls for the reception of the heavenly chrism (ἐπουράνιος χάρισμα) that they were about to receive (C18.32). This call to preparation echoes the exhortation that Cyril had been making throughout the pre-Easter preparation: they must set aside their old ways in order to become a Christian (C2, C3.8, C3.15, C18.28). In the pre-baptismal rites, they were told that they will be grafted into the good olive tree, the holy vine which is Christ, transplanted from sinfulness into righteousness, from defilement to moral purity (C1.4). They will receive cleansing of their sins and have fellowship in Christ’s name (τοῦ Χριστοῦ προσηγορίας γεγόνατε κοινωνοί), and they will receive the seal of fellowship with the Holy Spirit (ἡ σφραγὶς ὑμῖν ἐδόθη τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος) (C18.33). They will be instructed on how they are to live in order to enjoy (ἀπολαύειν) everlasting life (C18.33). This eternal life and the kingdom of heaven are found 19 Cyril’s proleptic application of descriptions of salvation is not limited to the Procatechesis but continues throughout the Catecheses. Most striking is that the fellowship of Christ with Christians is applied to the Φωτιζόμενοί in their last few moments prior to baptism as the means by which they are able to renounce Satan (M1.4). 20 For an analysis of Cyril’s pedagogical strategy of secrecy, see Malesic, Secret Faith in the Public Square (2009), 35-48.

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

237

only in the holy catholic church, specifically as part of the Christian’s inheritance through Christ (C18.28).21 Those who will be counted worthy of the new name of Faithful (Πιστοί)22 will experience God’s merciful blotting out of their sins through Christ’s redeeming blood on the eve of Easter when their love of Christ is illumined (φωτίζειν) by the laver of rebirth (διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας, C18.32 and 35), that is, baptism. Souls which had previously been enlightened (προφωτιζομένης) through the teaching of the word will, in the journey that starts at the baptismal font and continues on to the holy altar, become aware of the greatness of each of God’s gifts to them (C18.32). Expectations of What it Means to Be a Christian, One of the Πιστοί (Faithful) In his pre-baptismal instructions, Cyril used a variety of titles and descriptions to describe the new identity that his hearers will receive. While the following list is not exhaustive, it captures the variety of relational aspects that the Φωτιζόμενοι are taught to anticipate that they will receive. Cyril contrasted the fears and uncertainty of the Φωτιζόμενοι with the confidence of the Christians: the Πιστοί have a sense of security because they know the grace that they have received (P13). In familial terms, those who were once counted among the enemies of God (C13.33) will become sons and daughters of one mother (P13 line 1: μιᾶς μητρὸς γεγόνατε υἱοὶ καὶ θυγατέρες),23 children (παιδία) given to Christ (C1.6),24 and children of righteousness (τέκνα δικαιοσύνης, C3.2). They are among those who will sing the bridal song (τὸ νυμφικὸν ὑμῖν ᾆσαι παράσχοι μέλος) (C1.1 line 20). 21 Inheritance (κληρονομεῖν) is mentioned in P16 line 25, C1.2 line 5, C1.2 line 13, C2.20 line 5, C3.8 line 11, twice in C3.15 line 2, C3.15 line 2, C4.32 line 4, C6.23 line 1, C6.24 line 2, C6.24 line 8, C11.24 line 13, C13.15 line 11, C15.17 line 22, C15.33 line 16, C16.17 line 19, C18.28 line 3, C18.30 line 17 and C18.35 line 24. 22 Πιστοί is the nominative plural of the adjective πιστός, which Cyril used as a substantive. Like the noun from which it derives, πίστις, the adjective can have both a subjective and objective sense. The two nuances for this word are: “pertaining to being worthy of belief or trust”—faithful or, in the second sense, “pertaining to being trusting”—believer (BDAG, sv ‘πίστις’, 820-1). Typically, the substantival use of this word is translated using the objective nuance, focusing on the faith of the Christians: believers, as in believers in Christ. However, Cyril stated in C5.1 line 8 that Christians are actually sharing in an attribute of God, his faithfulness. Hence, I have translated this word as the “Faithful” rather than the “Believers.” My supposition is that Cyril intended for the double meaning of this attribution to serve pedagogically as both identity and moral instruction. 23 Cyril does not clearly identify that the “one mother” is the church, but, based upon context, this appears to be the referent. In C18.18, Cyril stated that only through the catholic church can one enter into eternal life and the kingdom of heaven. The use of this perfect active indicative appears to be proleptic, since Cyril considered the baptismal waters as that which is both tomb and mother (Καὶ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ἀπεθνῄσκετε καὶ ἐγεννᾶσθε, καὶ τὸ σωτήριον ἐκεῖνο ὕδωρ καὶ τάφος ὑμῖν ἐγίνετο καὶ μήτηρ. M2.4 lines 14-16). 24 C1.6 line 18: Cyril quoted from Heb 2:13, where Christ says, “ἐγὼ καὶ τὰ παιδία, ἅ μοι ἔδωκεν ὁ Θεός.”

238

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Cyril used the full semantic range of “children” to describe Christians in relationship to God and the church (υἱοὶ καὶ θυγατέρες, παιδία, and τέκνα). When he used legal terms, especially when discussing inheritance, he often used the singular masculine to address all of the Φωτιζόμενοι: they are heirs of everlasting salvation (P16 line 25); they each, whether male or female, would soon become a son of God (υἱὸς Θεοῦ), an heir of God (κληρονόμος Θεοῦ), and joint-heir with Christ (συγκληρονόμος Χριστοῦ) (C3.15 lines 1-2).25 This legal status of sonship is through adoption, not nature (C11.9). Those who are included among the holy and rational flock of Christ (ἅγιος καὶ λογικὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ποίμνη) will inherit the life prepared for them (C1.2). In terms of being students, they are described as those who newly have the disposition of disciples (καινῆς διαθήκης μαθηταί) and who are sharers in the mysteries of Christ (Χριστοῦ Μυστηρίων κοινωνοί, C1.1), nurslings of purity and disciples of sobriety (C12.1), and hearers of the Holy Gospels (C12.1). They were promised that, through practice of what they are taught in the catechetical program, they will understand what they had been unworthy to hear as mere Catechumens (P12). With regard to nationality, they long for heavenly citizenship (P1) and will become a public friend of the kingdom (βασιλείας πρόξενος, P16). This second title, in the ancient world, would have been understood as having required official state action on behalf of the person and could even indicate that the person was “representing the interests of a foreign state in their own 25 While Cyril does not make an emphasis on the gender of his listeners, based upon instructions in the Procatechesis, both male and female were present for the lectures. His quotation of scripture here appears to be a combination of Rom 8:17 with Gal 4:7. From the context of the Galatians passage, especially Gal 3:26-8, this may be a continuation of the Pauline countercultural statement within Christianity regarding inheritance in Christ in contrast with the Jewish practice of women not inheriting in the same way that sons inherit (Num 36:5-12). The Galatian inheritance passage states that all are sons of God (υἱοὶ θεοῦ, Gal 3:26), having put on Christ through baptism (Gal 3:27), and now “[t]here is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor (οὐδέ) free, there is neither male [and (καί)] female, for you are all one in Christ.” (ESV). From Rom 8:17, the progression of inheritance begins with the generic term for children (τέκνον), which Cyril does not use, but continues through heirs and joint-heirs, which Cyril does quote. I have concluded that the phrase may be a combination of Rom 8:17 (εἰ δὲ τέκνα, καὶ κληρονόμοι· κληρονόμοι μὲν θεοῦ, συγκληρονόμοι δὲ Χριστοῦ ...) with Gal 4:7 (ὥστε οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος ἀλλὰ υἱός· εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόμος διὰ θεοῦ). Thus, I assume that Cyril used the masculine, υἱός, rather than the non-gender specific, τέκνον, for a specific purpose, since in other places he used τέκνον as well as the gender specific in the plural, υἱοὶ καὶ θυγατέρες. In particular, in C11.19 he compares the sonship of Christians with the sonship of Christ. Given Cyril’s theological anthropology, which is discussed later in this chapter, Cyril was not a misogynist. My translation of υἱός consistently as “son” is not an implication that I think otherwise, but merely an attempt to faithfully translate his terminology, assuming that he has a theological reason for using the words he does when he does. On the other hand, it is possible that he has simply combined the two scriptural passages in his mind and nothing more is intended.

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

239

community.”26 Yet, this declaration of citizenship carries a greater honor than what is typically bestowed upon citizens of the state: the Christian shares in the king’s name (C10.18). They will share Christ’s title (P1, C18.33), God’s title of Faithful (P6, P12, P13, C1.4, C4.1), and the name promised by the Lord through the Holy Spirit which was bestowed at Antioch: Christian (C7.14, C10.20, C17.28). They will be enrolled in the army of the king (C3.3).27 In the post-Easter instructions, Cyril continued to build upon his teachings of what it means to be a Christian. He began the Mystagogic Catecheses by addressing the newly baptized and communing Christians as longed-for, legitimately born and adopted children (M3.1). They are children of the bride chamber (υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος) (M4.3),28 a teaching which serves an echo of the promise of Catechesis 1, when they were told that they would be those who sing the bridal song (C1.1). They no longer need fear Satan who devours the unprotected, since Christ has overthrown him (M1.1). God has wiped away all of their tears of mourning (M1.10) and now they have the joy of salvation and a pure conscience (M4.9). They are reconciled with one another within the Christian community (M5.3) and with God (M5.11). Cyril’s Use of Descriptors to Denote Transformation with Each Sacrament Identity formation, for Cyril, is a layered process. Those who enrolled for baptism at the beginning of Lent and then entered the church on the eve of Easter are, in the week following Easter, taught the nomenclature that defined their new identity: they are not merely Christians (Xριστιανοί), but they are also Christs (“anointed ones,” Χριστοί). Furthermore, they are not merely those who have been anointed (Χριστοί), but, even more foundational to their identity, is that they have become Christ-bearers (Χριστοφόροι). Finally, as they take their place in worship, the fullness of their new status is revealed: they are now “Heavens” (Οὐρανοί). Since the Christians are baptized, are anointed (receive chrism), and receive first eucharist all on the eve of Easter in Jerusalem during Cyril’s episcopacy, on Easter morning there would not be any Faithful (Christians) who were only baptized, or Faithful who were baptized and anointed but who had not received eucharist. Thus, in some ways, to distinguish between Christians, Christs, Christ-bearers, and Heavens is difficult since the 26 LSJ (sv ‘προξενέω’, 1491), first definition: “public guest or friend, made so by an act of the state” and can refer to “persons representing the interests of a foreign state in their own community” or “the function was exercises by a community.” (See also PGL sv ‘πρόξενος’, 1159) 27 For more on the cosmic warfare that Cyril described, see Kalleres’s ‘Exorcising the Devil to Silence Christ’s Enemies’ (2002). 28 In the plural, υἱοί could be either generic (children) or gendered and implying inheritance language, in which, as stated in the preceding footnote, I would denote by translating as “sons.” Since I have connected this phrase with Catechesis 1, in which the context is familial and not inheritance specifically, I have used the non-gender specific English plural.

240

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Mystagogic Catecheses were delivered to people who could rightly be described as having all four descriptors. Yet Cyril used these titles to teach the new Christians what they had become and to give them assurance that they are now new people with a new identity. Furthermore, because the Mystagogic Catecheses are given on different days, the new Christians had at least a day to reflect upon each successive layer of the names which explicated their new identity before the next title is explained. In order to examine the Christian formation and transformation that Cyril described as the result of sacramental theōsis, I detail the transformation that Cyril taught happened with each sacrament and then I examine the name that Cyril uses to encapsulate these transformations associated with each sacrament. First, however, I detail Cyril’s descriptions of the order of the Κατηχούμενοι (catechumens) and the Lenten transitory state between being a catechumen and a Christian, the Φωτιζόμενοι (those who are being enlightened). The Order of the Catechumen and the Transitory State of Being Enlightened In C5.1, Cyril defines two distinct orders (τάγμα) within the church: the Catechumen (Kατηχούμενοι) and the Faithful (Πιστοί): “The Lord gives you a great honor in transferring you from the order of Catechumen to that of the Faithful.”29 Kατηχούμενοι Before they started the Lenten journey into the church, Cyril’s listeners had been of the order of catechumen (κατηχούμενοι).30 In P6, Cyril defined what it meant to be a catechumen: “You were called a catechumen, the ones outside what is being celebrated (ἔξωθεν περιηχούμενος),31 hearing hope and not experiencing (μὴ οἶδα) it, hearing a mystery and not understanding, hearing Scripture but not perceiving (μὴ οἶδα)32 its depth” (P6 lines 2-4). In C1.4, it is clear that the Kατηχούμενοι were outside of paradise, not planted with the cultivated olive tree (Christ), nor grafted into the vine (Christ). Cyril explained 29 C5.1 lines 1-2: Ἡλίκον ὑμῖν ἀξίωμα δίδωσιν ὁ Κύριος, ἀπὸ [τοῦ] Κατηχουμένων τάγματος εἰς τὸ τῶν Πιστῶν μετατιθεμένοις. Note that the attributions are capitalized in the critical edition. 30 Cyril used the title Kατηχούμενοι a total of twelve times: P6 line 2; P12 line 1, 8 (twice), 13 and 15; P17 line 24; C1.4 line 3; C5.1 line 2; C5.12 line 11; C6.29 lines 22 and 25. 31 Gifford (NPNF2-7: 2 fn 422) notes that this is a word play on catechumen, from κατηχέω and translates this as “while the word echoed round thee from without.” This play on words is also noted by Paulin (Saint Cyrille de Jérusalem, 47). The word περιηχέω has the definition of “ring all around” in the active, but in the passive can have the definitions of “to be noised abroad, to be celebrated” and “get wind of” or “noise all around” (PGL sv ‘περιηχέω’, 1374). 32 The word οἶδα is highly nuanced; while I normally translate the same Greek word with the same English word, in this instance it appears that the more nuanced approach provides a better translation.

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

241

that the contents of the catechetical lectures were withheld from the Catechumens for their own spiritual health (P12 and P17). What was withheld was the contents and meaning of the creed (C5.12) and especially the mystery of the Trinity (C6.29).33 However, because the fragrance of the Holy Spirit is about them (P1), Cyril admonished them to pay close attention to and study diligently the content of the catechetical instruction (P4, P6, P9, P10, P11, P16, P17) and to submit to the daily exorcisms (P9, P13). Φωτιζόμενοι Cyril began his catechetical instruction by addressing his listeners as Φωτιζόμενοι (P1 line 1).34 In P12 and 13, Cyril described the present state of his listeners: no longer Kατηχούμενοι, they stood in the border between the two orders (Ἤδη δὲ σὺ ἐν μεθορίῳ στήκεις) of Kατηχούμενοι and the Πιστοί (P12 line 11). They stood on the edge of the balance (σὺ δὲ ἀκμὴν ἐν ζυγῷ στήκεις), not knowing for certain whether they will be received (ἢ δεχθῆναι, ἢ μὴ δεχθῆναι) (P13) into the church.35 They were those who have been enrolled (ἀπογράφω) to become sons and daughters of the church (P13 line 1-2), who had just kindled the torches of faith (C1.1)36 and who were preparing, by faith, for new birth into freedom and adoption by confessing sin (C1.2). When they were merely Kατηχούμενοι, they were not instructed in what lay before them (P12), but now that they were leaving the order of the Catechumen, Cyril explained the mysteries of the faith (the creed, including the mystery of the Trinity) (C6.29).37 Paulin notes that as Φωτιζόμενοι, they are being enlightened by the Holy Spirit, through faith, so 33 The mystery of the Trinity is among the many things which were spoken of in a veiled way so as not to injure those who do not understand: Οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ ἐθνικῷ τὰ περὶ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος διηγούμεθα μυστήρια, οὐδὲ περὶ τῶν μυστηρίων ἐπὶ κατηχουμένων λευκῶς λαλοῦμεν· ἀλλὰ [πολλὰ] πολλάκις λέγομεν ἐπικεκαλυμμένως, ἵνα οἱ εἰδότες πιστοὶ νοήσωσι, καὶ οἱ μὴ εἰδότες μὴ βλαβῶσι (C6.29 lines 23-8). 34 This term is in the titles of all of the Catecheses and also in P1 line 1, P17 line 21, C1.4 line 3, C11.9 line 6, and C13.21 line 6. In LSJ (1969), second definition, the passive form means either “enlighten, instruct, teach” or “illuminate with spiritual light.” According to Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (from BC 146 to AD 1100), 2.1156-7, Justin Martyr, the author of the Concilium Laodicenum 48 (AD 347), as well as Cyril of Jerusalem, use this term specifically for “candidate for baptism.” Clement of Alexandria, the author of the Concilium Laodicenum, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Didymus of Alexandria use the term to refer to baptism itself. According to Conzelmann (“φῶς” in TDNT 9: 357-8), “The technical use of φωτισμός for baptism ... is developed by Justin.” For a discussion of who was included in this group of people, see chapter one, “The Jerusalem Catechetical Program”, pages 24-9. 35 Kalleres, ‘Exorcising the Devil to Silence Christ’s Enemies’ (2002), 144-5 provides insights into the precarious status of the Φωτιζόμενοι in the context of the cosmic warfare that Cyril taught. 36 C1.1 line 17: Οἱ τὰς τῆς πίστεως λαμπάδας ἐξάψαντες ἀρτίως 37 C6.29 line 22: Ταῦτα τὰ μυστήρια, ἃ νῦν ἡ Ἐκκλησία διηγεῖταί σοι τῷ ἐκ κατηχουμένων μεταβαλλομένῳ, οὐκ ἔστιν ἔθος ἐθνικοῖς διηγεῖσθαι.

242

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

that they are able to understand the mysteries.38 Thus, only those who were coming for baptism (the Φωτιζόμενοι) and those who already had the bath of faith (the Πιστοί) were allowed to read the Catecheses (τοῖς μὲν τῷ βαπτίσματι προσερχομένοις καὶ τοῖς τὸ λουτρὸν ἔχουσιν ἤδη πιστοῖς, P17).39 Cyril explained that the Φωτιζόμενοι are saved through the water of baptism while the holy martyrs are saved by blood (C13.21).40 Because Cyril stated that there are only two orders in the church, that of the Catechumen and of the Faithful, the category of Φωτιζόμενοι has presented some difficulties. Gifford takes C1.4 to mean that the Φωτιζόμενοι were referred to proleptically (specifically, in an honorary sense) as the Faithful, a title which they would receive officially at Easter.41 Yarnold, however, argues that “Faithful” is only applied to those who have been baptized.42 The difficulty resides in three issues: 1) whether the present tense indicative of λαμβάνειν should be read as instantaneous (aorist present tense) or progressive (futuristic use of the present tense),43 2) whether the present passives of καταφυτεύειν, μεταφυτεύειν, and γίνεσθαι were intended to be read as indicatives or subjunctives (the latter of which can be translated with a sense of potential44), 3) the use of λοιπός, which can be translated as “from now on, in the future” or even “finally.”45 Potential 38

Paulin, Saint Cyrille de Jérusalem (1959), 47. Whether this is authentically Cyril’s or the tradition of the community, it clearly is in line with the contents of the Catecheses. 40 C13.21 lines 14-6. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ διπλῆ τίς ἐστι τοῦ σωτηρίου βαπτίσματος ἐν εὐαγγελίοις ἡ δύναμις, μία μὲν ἡ τοῖς φωτιζομένοις δωρουμένη δι’ ὕδατος. 41 Gifford (NPNF 2-7: xxiii, italics his) summarizes the debate: some argue that, based upon C10.16, 10.20, and M3.1, it is unclear whether Cyril considers those undergoing catechesis as Christians, yet in P6 and C1.4, it appears that they were already numbered among the Faithful. “Whether Cyril calls his hearers Christians before they have been baptized is not very clear: in Cat. x. § 16, he seems to include them among those who are called by the ‘new name;’ but in § 20 of the same Lecture he assumes that there may be present some one who ‘was before a believer (πιστός)’, and to him he says ‘Thou wert called a Christian; be tender of the name’, and in Lect. xxi. I, speaking to those who had now been baptized, he says, ‘Having therefore become partakers of Christ, ye are properly called Christs. Now ye have been made Christs by receiving the antitype of the Holy Ghost’, that is, Chrism.” Yet, he states that they were numbered among the Faithful in P6 and C1.4. Gifford is following the tradition of Toutée (PG 33, 343, n 1). This use of the term has been called the ‘Milanese’ use of πιστός as an order in the church. Paulin, Saint Cyrille de Jérusalem (1959), 47 seems to come to a similar conclusion. 42 Yarnold presents a cogent case that Cyril used this term only to those who have been baptized. In C5.12, Cyril contrasted the Faithful to the catechumens. In C1.4, Cyril used the term in the future sense: his listeners would receive this title at a later date. In P6, C5.1, and C6.29, the listeners are on their way to receiving this new name. In P12, the listeners are in the place in between the orders of catechumen and the Faithful. Furthermore, Yarnold argues against a Milanese (honorary) use in the texts of Niceta and Ambrose which were the starting points of this interpretation of the use of πιστός. E. J. Yarnold, ‘Ideo et Romae fideles dicuntur qui baptizati sunt’ (1973), 202-7. 43 See BDF §320 and 323. 44 See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996), 497. 45 BDAG’s (sv ‘λοιπός’, 602) temporal adverbial use is employed. 39

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

243

translations of the text is summarized in Table 6-1, the verbs which are either present or subjunctive based upon their forms are underlined and the temporally ambiguous indicative and adjective are in bold. Table 6-1: Temporal Issues in C1.4 lines 1-7 Text

Instantaneous Present Tense

Progressive Present Tense

C1.4 Καταφυτεύῃ λοιπὸν εἰς lines 1-2 τὸν νοητὸν παράδεισον.

From now on you are planted near the intelligible paradise.

In the future you will be planted in the intelligible paradise.

C1.4 Λαμβάνεις ὄνομα lines 2-4 καινόν, ὃ πρότερον οὐκ εἶχες. Πρὸ τούτου Κατηχούμενος ἦς, νῦν δὲ κληθήσῃ Πιστός.

You receive a new name, which formerly you did not have. Before you were a Catechumen, but now you will [immediately] be called Faithful.

You are receiving a new name, which formerly you did not have. Before you were a Catechumen, but now you will [in the future] be called Faithful.

C1.4 Μεταφυτεύῃ λοιπὸν εἰς From now on you are lines 4-5 τὰς ἐλαίας τὰς νοητάς transplanted into the holy vine

In the future you will be transplanted into the holy vine

C1.4 Γίνῃ κοινωνὸς τῆς lines 6-7 ἁγίας ἀμπέλου.

You will have become a sharer in the holy vine.

You have become a sharer in the holy vine.

In order to determine the best translation, the context of the Procatechesis, which was given just prior to the Catechesis under investigation, as well as the rest of the Catecheses must be taken into account. In the Procatechesis, Cyril had exhorted his listeners to attend to their fear and not imitate the security of the Faithful, since they were standing on the edge of the balance regarding whether or not they would be received (P13). Likewise, at the end of the Catecheses the Φωτιζόμενοι are encouraged to evaluate their faith and to cast off doubts before they approach baptism (C17.35-6). Throughout the pre-baptismal catechetical instruction, there is a sense of tenuousness to their position within the church which generated fear. In agreement with Yarnold, the progressive present tense and the subjunctive mood translations provide a more cohesive translation. This analysis is supported by the recent work by Kalleres in which she argues that “[i]f the soul is worthy, the seal [of baptism] authenticates the creed incarnate within the candidate”; this seal is inscribed by the Holy Spirit “if and only if He judged the candidate’s soul to possess a steadfast stronghold of credal proofs.”46 The 46

Kalleres, ‘Exorcising the Devil to Silence Christ’s Enemies’ (2002), 149-54 provides the historical context for the understanding that the concepts of sealing and inscribing and how they relate to memory.

244

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

entirety of the creedal content is not available to the Φωτιζόμενοι until the last catechetical instruction; according to Egeria, they professed the creed to the bishop just prior to the Great Week.47 Egeria stated that the bishop explained to the Φωτιζόμενοι that they could not be taught the mysteries of the faith (the deeper mysteries) beyond the creed while they are still Catechumens.48 Based upon Egeria’s statement in conjunction with Cyril’s teachings, the Φωτιζόμενοι appear to be in transition between the two orders during Lent. The name “Faithful” only belongs to the baptized. In summary, Cyril clearly defined two orders of the church: the Catechumen (Kατηχούμενοι) and the Faithful (Πιστοί) which is consistent with his emphasis upon the two-fold nature of all things as a result of Christ’s two-fold nature. The Φωτιζόμενοι, those being enlightened, were in a transitory state during Lent: they were no longer Catechumens when they were enrolled to be baptized49 but they were not properly numbered among the Faithful until after baptism, anointing, and reception of the eucharist on Easter. They knew part of the mysteries of the faith, the creed, but not the deeper mysteries of the faith. Table 6-2 provides a comparison of the Kατηχούμενοι and Φωτιζόμενοι. Table 6-2: Distinctions between Kατηχούμενοι and Φωτιζόμενοι Those of the Catechumenate (Kατηχούμενοι)

Those Being Enlightened (Φωτιζόμενοι)

Ability to learn

Hearing yet not experiencing hope, hearing mysteries but not understanding, hearing Scripture but not understanding its depth (P6)

Instruction given

Not allowed access to catechetical Access to catechetical instruction instruction (P12, P17, C5.12, (P17) C6.29, IE46.6) Mysteries of the faith explained to them (C6.29)

Order of the Church

Yes, clearly defined as an order (C5.1)

47

Implied: fragrance of the Holy Spirit about them (P1) and Cyril exhorts them to learn what he is teaching them (P4, P6, P9, P10, P11, P16, P17)

Not described as an order; a transitory state between Catechumens and the Faithful during Lent (P12, P13) Enrolled to be Christians (C1.1)

IE 46.5. IE 46.6. For a discussion of the Jerusalem Creed, see page 31, fn 100. 49 P12 line 13: ἦς καὶ σύ ποτε κατηχούμενος, ... And when you were a catechumen ...; see also C1.4. 48

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

245

Descriptive Terminology for Layering Christian Identity Having determined that Φωτιζόμενοι is a temporary status which was only present within the Jerusalem church during Lent, the permanent layers of Christian identity are discussed in the order presented in the Mystagogic Catecheses. For simplicity, I have combined pre-baptismal and baptismal transformational descriptions into one section. Cyril’s Use of “Xριστιανοί” (Christian) to Describe Those Who Have Been Baptized For Cyril, the title of Christian50 belongs to those who are robed with salvation, having put on Christ (M1.10) when they received the new birth of baptism through faith (C1.2).51 The name of Christian is verified by their anointing (with the holy χρῖσμα) and thus Cyril stated that the name is only properly theirs after this moment in the Easter eve sacramental events. Until the time of their anointing with the holy oil, they were progressing toward this moment when they were worthy of the name Christian (M3.5). The Φωτιζόμενοι began the Easter eve transformation in the vestibule of the Baptistery (προαυλία τοῦ βαπτίσματος οἶκος), the “outer chamber.”52 This is where they renounced Satan and broke their contract with him (M1.2, 9).53 When this contract had been broken, the gate to paradise was opened to them (M1.9) so that baptism served as a chariot into heaven and the splendor of paradise (P16). From the outer chamber, or vestibule of the Baptistery, those who were being prepared for baptism were lead into the inner chamber of the Baptistery (M2.1). After renouncing Satan and literally turning their back on him (M1.1-8), they affirmed their belief in the Triune God (M1.9). Then, they were stripped naked not only in solidarity with Christ in his suffering and Adam in his innocence, but also as a symbolic action of putting off the old person with its deeds (M2.2). This was the final act of breaking the old relationship with the devil, removing Lampe (PGL, 1530) provides seven uses for the substantive Χπριστιανός. It can denote “a Christian person” or it can refer to only the orthodox of the Christian faith. Some ancient authors used it generically in opposition to Greeks and Jews. 51 C1.2 lines 17-20: Cyril stated that is not the birth of bodies but the spiritual new birth of souls, begotten by faith (Ἀναγέννησιν δὲ οὐ σωμάτων λέγω, ἀλλὰ ψυχῆς τὴν πνευματικὴν ἀναγέννησιν. Τὰ μὲν γὰρ σώματα διὰ τῶν φαινομένων γονέων γεννᾶται, αἱ δὲ ψυχαὶ διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἀναγεννῶνται· τὸ γὰρ Πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ). 52 M1.1 lines 1-2: Εἰσῄειτε πρῶτον εἰς τὸν προαύλιον τοῦ βαπτίσματος οἶκον … For an overview of the Church of the Sepulchre, see the section titled “Jerusalem, Pilgrimage City” in chapter one, pages 8-12. 53 Kalleres, ‘Exorcising the Devil to Silence Christ’s Enemies’ (2002) provides a comparison of John Chrysostom’s and Cyril of Jerusalem’s teachings on demonology and the cosmic warfare that both bishops presented in their catechetical instructions. 50

246

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

even the traces of the adverse powers that were at home in the limbs (μέλος) of the Φωτιζόμενοι (M2.2). Then, through the exorcised pre-baptismal anointing oil, all traces of sin were burned and cleansed away and the powers of the evil one chased away (M2.3), which prepared the Φωτιζόμενοι for the formation of new relationships with the Triune God and the church.54 Through the head-to-toe pre-baptismal anointing, the soon-to-be Christians were made partakers of the good and true olive tree (Christ), and were grafted in and sharing in his riches (M2.3). Cyril’s layering of the meaning of Christian identity began in the Procatechesis. Cyril had told the Φωτιζόμενοι that on the night of their baptism, after the opening of the door of paradise, those who were enrolled to be baptized would enter into the Christ-bearing waters,55 receive Christ’s name and the energy of divine things (P15). Those who receive this divine and life-giving baptism (M1.1) receive a great gift: Great is the baptism which lies before [you]: ransom of captives, forgiveness of sins, death to sin, new birth of the soul, a bright garment, an indissoluble holy seal, a chariot to heaven, splendor of paradise, public friend of the kingdom, the gift of adoption.56

This description of baptism contains several elements upon which Cyril developed in the rest of his catechetical teachings. Cyril’s teaching on the gift of adoption (υἱοθεσίας χάρισμα) and public friend of the kingdom (βασιλείας πρόξενον) have been addressed earlier.57 I now examine some of these other descriptions more fully. Ransom of Captives: αἰχμαλώτοις λύτρον. In C3.16, Cyril taught that, through baptism, those souls which were once slaves have adopted their Master as kinsman. Through Christ’s crucifixion, the whole world was ransomed (C13.2). Cyril worked from the general—Jesus suffered for all of humanity (C13.4), to the specific—Jesus was crucified for Cyril and his audience (C13.24). Through Christ’s burial, peace is made between sinners and God (C14.3). Through his resurrection, the saints who were in Hades (ᾅδης) were raised with him; “all the just were ransomed” (C14.18-9).

54 Cyril’s explicit teaching on the article from the creed, “in One Holy Catholic Church” (C18.22), is found in C18.23-8. Here, he refers to the universal, world-wide (C18.23) assembly of Christians (C18.24-5), properly understood as the second church since the first church (of the Jews) has been cast aside due to its rejection of Jesus (C18.25). 55 The term “Christ-bearer” is discussed in the section on transformation through the eucharist. 56 P16 lines 1-5: Μέγα, τὸ προκείμενον βάπτισμα· αἰχμαλώτοις λύτρον· ἁμαρτημάτων ἄφεσις· θάνατος ἁμαρτίας· παλιγγενεσία ψυχῆς· ἔνδυμα φωτεινόν· σφραγὶς ἁγία ἀκατάλυτος· ὄχημα πρὸς οὐρανόν· παραδείσου τρυφή· βασιλείας πρόξενον· υἱοθεσίας χάρισμα. 57 For adoption, see above under the discussion of expectations of what it means to be a Christian in familial and legal terms. In M2.6 Cyril stated that baptism includes but is more than adoption and the remission of sin. For friendship with the kingdom, also see above.

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

247

Forgiveness of Sins: Ἁμαρτημάτων Ἄφεσις. With respect to the forgiveness of sin, the ones who descend into the water dead in sin are raised up having been made alive in righteousness (C3.12) and, because they have been united in the likeness of Christ’s death, they will rise from the waters worthy of resurrection (C3.12). This purification (καθάρσιος) through baptism required that the ones being baptized were, through the Lenten time of preparation, in a state of repentance for past sin when they approached the baptismal font. By washing with water and the word (ῥῆμα),58 they have been cleansed of sin (C18.33); even the deep scars caused by past sin, which affects both soul and body, are healed (C18.20). Those who are baptized in the name of Jesus not only receive a share of divine and excellent grace (C3.11) but also received remission of the whole burden of one’s sins (C3.15, C4.32, M2.6). The sting of death is destroyed by baptism (C3.11). Cyril stated that the baptismal water envelops outwardly while the Holy Spirit baptizes the soul within the body perfectly (C17.14). Death to Sin: θάνατος ἁμαρτίας. In M2.2, Cyril taught that by stripping prior to baptism they have put off the old person and that they may no longer put it back on. With the pre-baptismal anointing, all remaining vestiges of sin have been burned away (M2.3) then in baptism, sin is purged from the baptizand (M2.6). One of the benefits given through baptism is, according to Cyril, the strength to wrestle against adversity (C3.13), which implies that while the Christian is dead to sin, temptation to sin is still a reality. New Birth of the Soul: παλιγγενεσία ψυχῆς. Regarding the new state of the soul after baptism, in M2.1, Cyril told the newly baptized that they are those who have been renewed from old to new. They went into the baptismal font dead in sin, but left the font alive to righteousness (C3.12).59 The newly baptized are raised up to walk in newness of life (C3.12). A Bright Garment: ἔνδυμα φωτεινόν. In C3.2, the wedding garments of Matthew 22 and the bridal chamber of Canticles 1 were described as the garment of salvation and the robe of gladness. In C3.16, the souls, which were no longer slaves but adopted, wore white clothes. In M4.8, Cyril described the spiritual garments which cloth the new Christians as white and contrasted them with the old, pre-baptismal spiritual garments which were cast off; the new Christians are exhorted to always wear these truly white, shining, and spiritual garments.60 In M3.1, Cyril quoted from Gal 3:27: those who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. By putting on Christ, Christians are made to have the same form as Christ’s glorious body. 58 In many English translations, “word” is capitalized here. However, this is a quotation from Ephesians and is not a reference to the Johannine divine λόγος, but a reference to the gospel message (ῥῆμα). 59 Through the invocation of grace, the soul is sealed and through this seal the soul is now protected from the enemy (C3.12). 60 For a discussion of the textual critical issues in this phrase, see pages 152-4.

248

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

An Indissolute Holy Seal: σφραγὶς ἁγία ἀκατάλυτος. Cyril explained that those enrolled to be baptized would receive the seal of the Holy Spirit (C4.32): the soul of the sinner is sealed at baptism (C3.12). In C3.10-2, Cyril taught that this seal given through baptism is required to enter the kingdom of heaven and that this seal protects the Christian from the terrible dragon, Satan. In C3.15, Cyril cited John 3:3 to teach that baptism with water alone was not sufficient to enter the kingdom of heaven: the person who was baptized must also be found worthy of receiving the Holy Spirit so that he or she is born of both water and the Spirit. Chariot to Heaven: ὄχημα πρὸς οὐρανόν.61 Cyril does not appear to unpack this phrase, but there are two ways of understanding “chariot to heaven” within Cyril’s theology, both of which point to the Cyril’s teaching on the trinitarian nature of Christian identity. First, by emphasizing the means of transportation, the chariot, the focus is on baptism as the sacramental act upon which the other sacraments depend. Then, second, by focusing the destination, heaven, the emphasis is on the identity formative actions of each of the divine persons. As the chariot to heaven, baptism is required for the remission of sin and is the precursor to receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (C3.15). This phrase also serves to remind Cyril’s audience that baptism is not merely being united to Christ in his death, but also being united to Christ in his resurrection (Rom 6:4). Cyril taught that in the general resurrection, the physical body of the righteous will be raised as a heavenly body. Baptism also preceded participation in the eucharistic liturgy, which culminates in table fellowship with God and is the means of entering into the holy catholic church in which the kingdom of heaven is found (C18.28). Cyril described heaven as where God walks and dwells (M5.11). As the chariot to heaven, Cyril’s teachings about the normative nature of Jesus’ own baptism come to the fore. Cyril taught that Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan 1) sanctified the rite (C3.11), 2) is the normative precursor to receiving the Holy Spirit in the post-baptismal anointing, and 3) is prior to receiving the pronouncement of the Father as having been adopted (C3.14). In this way, the emphasis upon heaven is a statement that Christian identity is based upon entering into relationship with all three persons of the Triune God. Kilian McDonald has rightly argued that Jesus’ baptism, a “major mystery in the life of the early Church,” is foundational not only to the “trinitarian pedigree” of Jesus’ identity, but also that of Christians.62 Only those who have been baptized eat the 61 Cyril uses the term “chariot” (ὄχημα) twice: here and in C6.15 line 5 in which Simon Magus is described as riding in a demon’s chariot. 62 McDonell, The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation (1996), x, 218-24, 234, 236 states that the combination of the “two mysteries, the baptism of Jesus and the death/resurrection” is curious since the Jordan event did not happen in Jerusalem and Cyril capitalized on the connection between place and sacred history to spur the “sacramental imagination.” He proposes that

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

249

eucharistic bread of heaven (M4.5) and participate in the heavenly worship of the eucharistic liturgy (M5.6). Splendor of Paradise, παραδείσου τρυφή: because the descriptor “the splendor of paradise” follows immediately after “chariot to heaven,” it is fitting to examine the distinctly Trinitarian gift of paradise, especially since the activity of all three persons of the Trinity is present in Cyril’s discussion of this place. The Father, as Creator and planter of the garden, is the one who cast humanity out due to our unworthiness to remain in paradise because of disobedience (C2.7, C6.10, M1.9). Through the crucifixion of Christ, paradise is opened (C13.31) and he is the Faithful One who was carried into paradise because of his obedience (C14.10). Christ is the one who led the first merely-human person (the thief who made the profession of faith) into paradise (C1.1, C5.10, C13.31) and is the one who transfers (μετατίθημι) Christians into paradise (C5.10).63 The Holy Spirit uses glimpses of paradise to comfort the distressed (C16.20). Through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the gift of paradise has been restored (C17.15). Cyril’s teaching on the specific work of each person of the Trinity is detailed in Table 6-3.64 Table 6-3: The Activity of Each Person of the Trinity with respect to Paradise Person of Godhead Father

Text (explicit)

Text (implicit)

Action

C2.7

The Lord who cast humanity out of paradise established them in sight of paradise

C6.10

The Creator planted paradise

M1.9

The paradise of God

the combination of these two mysteries in Cyril’s baptismal theology is impressive given the proported rise of Rom 6:4 baptismal theology, especially if the Mystagogic Catecheses are from late in Cyril’s episcopacy. Terian’s assertion that the Rom 6:4 baptismal theology was already present in Jerusalem in 325 moves the timeline of the merging of these two traditions to possibly earlier in Cyril’s episcopacy and highlights McDonell’s call to ongoing investigation of the relationship between these two baptismal motifs. 63 This is the same term Cyril used to describe Enoch’s transportation into heaven (C14.25). See fn 22, chapter five. 64 While not as prevalent a theme as κοινωνία, Cyril’s use of paradise is threaded throughout his teachings: he used the term παράδεισος thirty-five times, twice in Procatechesis, thirty times in Catecheses and three times in Mystagogic Catecheses. Cyril used the word twice in C1, four times in C2, twice in C5, five times in C6, twice in C12, eight times in C13, twice in C14, three times in C16, once in C18, twice in M1, and once in M2. These uses are examined in detail in Appendix C.

250

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 6-3 (continued) Person of Godhead Christ

Text (explicit)

Text (implicit)

C1.1

Paradise opened on the cross to the thief

C5.10

Christians transferred into paradise by Christ who brought the thief into paradise

C13.2

The Faithful enter into paradise through the tree of Jesus

C13.19

Thief led into paradise by Christ

C13.31

Christ told the thief on the cross that he would be with Christ in paradise that day C13.31

Holy Spirit

Action

Through the tree [of Christ], Christians are brought into paradise

C14.10

The Faithful One was carried into paradise through obedience

C16.20

To comfort the distressed, the Holy Spirit provides glimpses of paradise C17.15

The fiery tongues [at Pentecost] restored the gift

Thus, Cyril’s teaching on paradise provides insights into how and where right relationship with the Triune God is restored and developed. Cyril taught that, at some level, Christians are already entering into paradise through baptism.65 From these descriptions, the Christian, those who are Xριστιανοί, are ransomed, forgiven, dead to their old sinful ways and alive to righteousness; wearing bright wedding garments; sealed; adopted; have been transported into God’s presence, are enjoying the splendor of paradise, and are participating in the divine life of the Trinity; are citizens and public friends of this heavenly kingdom. Cyril’s Use of “Χριστοί” (Christs) to Describe Those Who Have Been Anointed Cyril stated that while there are examples (τυπικός) of Christ, such as Aaron, David, and Saul (C11.1 and C16.13), there is only one true Christ (ὁ ἀληθινὸς 65

Yet, the bodies of the martyrs are not in paradise yet even though their souls are (C16.20); since body and soul make up a person in Cyril’s understanding of what it means to be human, it appears that the resurrection body is the body that is properly at home in paradise.

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

251

Χριστός) (C16.13).66 The term “Christs” is reserved as a title for those who have been found worthy of the holy anointing (M3.5). In Mystagogic Catechesis 3, Cyril explained that through imitation of Christ’s baptism and reception of the Holy Spirit, the Christian now has become an “image of Christ” (ἐπειδὴ εἰκόνες ἐστὲ Χριστοῦ, M3.1). These “images of Christ” receive their corresponding anointing (ἀντίτυπος) through the anointing with the sacred chrism (χρῖσμα).67 Thus, Christians are naturally called “Christs” (χριστοὶ εἰκότως καλεῖσθε). This title is appropriate since, through baptism and the post-baptismal anointing, Christians have become partakers of Christ (Μέτοχοι οὖν τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενόμενοι, M3.1 lines 1-2). This holy ointment, which has been transformed through the invocation of the Holy Spirit (ἐπίκλησις τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος), is, through the presence of the Holy Spirit, made able to impart the Holy Spirit’s divine nature as Christ’s gift of grace (Χριστοῦ χάρισμα) (M3.3).68 Therefore, according to Cyril “and in truth, when the body is smeared with the visible myron, the soul is made holy by the Holy and life-giving Spirit.”69 Cyril is careful to make the distinction between the anointing of Christ and the anointing received by the new Christians: Christ’s anointing was by the Father with the Holy Spirit whereas Christians are anointed by human hands with oil (M3.2 lines 1-3). Cyril described Christ’s reception of the Holy Spirit as the reality of “like substance resting upon like substance” (τῷ ὁμοίῳ ἐπαναπαυομένου τοῦ ὁμοίου, M3.1).70 Just as Christ was, in reality (ἀληθής), crucified, buried and raised, he was anointed in reality with the ‘perceptible to the mind’ (νοητός) oil of great joy (ἔλαιον ἀγαλλίασις), which is the Holy Spirit (M3.2). Christians, however, were not in reality dead, buried, crucified, and raised again (οὐκ ἀληθῶς ἀπεθάνομεν, οὐδ’ ἀληθῶς ἐτάφημεν, οὐδ’ ἀληθῶς σταυρωθέντες ἀνέστημεν) as Christ was, but are nonetheless counted worthy of being crucified and raised with Christ in baptism through imaging and imitating (ἐν εἰκόνι ἡ μίμησις) Christ’s actions sacramentally (M2.5). When the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ, his eternal sonship was announced (“This is my son”); when the Holy Spirit descends upon the newly baptized, the corresponding announcement is that “this has now been made my son” by adoption (C3.14). Since Cyril stated 66 See also C10.11 for Cyril’s discussion of the two offices of Christ, king and high priest, which were prefigured in Joshua and Aaron, respectively. 67 Cyril appears to use chrism (χρῖσμα) and myron (μύρον) interchangeably. This oil is distinguished from the pre-baptismal oil as had been the tradition since the time of Macarius, if not prior to that (See chapter two, “The Presence of Distinct Pre- and Post-Baptismal Anointings”). 68 The closest possible referent to the personal pronoun is the Holy Spirit: καὶ Πνεύματος ἁγίου παρουσίας τῆς αὐτοῦ θεότητος ἐνεργητικὸν γινόμενον (M3.3 lines 6-7). 69 M3.3 lines 8-10: Καὶ τῷ μὲν φαινομένῳ μύρῳ τὸ σῶμα χρίεται, τῷ δὲ ἁγίῳ καὶ ζωοποιῷ Πνεύματι ἡ ψυχὴ ἁγιάζεται. 70 Here, the context appears to emphasize the divinity of both Christ and the Holy Spirit, such that the meaning is “divinity resting upon divinity.”

252

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

in C4.20 that the soul is not gendered, both male and female Christians are equally “sons”—those who can inherit fully the spiritual and material benefits of salvation. Christians are then, since they have been made partakers and fellows of Christ (κοινωνοὶ καὶ μέτοχοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενόμενοι, M3.2), in correspondence (ἀντίτυπος) with Christ’s anointing with the oil of joy by the Holy Spirit, anointed with myron by human hands (M3.1).71 The “like substance resting upon like” of Christ’s anointing has an undeveloped parallel in Christian identity formation which, while hinted at, is not developed in M4 or M5. Cyril explained that the anointing started on the forehead to deliver the Christian from dishonor (αἰσχύνη) and so that with an unveiled face, the Christian can reflect the glory of the Lord (M3.4, quoting 2Cor 3:18). This anointing of the forehead allows them to become a figure in relief of the signet ring, holy unto God.72 Next, the ears were anointed, so that they would be the receptive ears that Isaiah and Jesus described (M3.4, Isa 50:4; Matt 11:15).73 Then the nostrils were anointed so that they could say “we are the sweet fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved” (M3.4, 2Cor 2:15). Finally the chest was anointed, which signified that they had put on the breastplate of righteousness and could henceforth stand against the trickery of the devil (M3.4, Eph 6:11). Taken together, baptism and the mystical chrism (μυστικὸς χρῖσμα) were, for Cyril, the means for putting on of the full armor of the Holy Spirit (M3.4).74 What Cyril described in C3.13 had now become a reality: the armor of righteousness provided the ability to wrestle against the powers which work against the Christian. They can do all things through Christ who strengthens them (M3.4).75 Yet it is still possible to sin: Cyril cautioned the new Christians to keep their anointing unspotted because it is through this spiritual safeguard of their soul, which is the means of their salvation, that they will be taught (M3.7). Cyril’s Use of “Χριστοφόροι” (Christ-bearers) to Describe Those Who are Communing Cyril of Jerusalem uses the term χριστοφόρος twice: once in P15 line 9, referring to the baptismal water, and once in M4.3 line 5, in which the term is used 71 Cyril’s use of ἀντίτυπος and this concept of imitation in kind are examined later in this chapter. 72 M4.7 appears to be a reference to Exodus 28:36 and, as such, the priesthood. 73 M3.4 lines 5-7: Ἡσαΐας ἔλεγε· “Καὶ προσέθηκέ μοι Κύριος ὠτίον ἀκούειν,” καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἐν Εὐαγγελίοις· “Ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν, ἀκουέτω.” 74 This is an allusion to Eph 6:11, with the “armor of Holy Spirit” instead of the “armor of the God”. 75 C3.13 lines 1-2: Εἶθ’ ὅταν τῆς χάριτος καταξιωθῇς, τότε σοι πρὸς τὰς ἀντικειμένας δυνάμεις παλαίειν δίδωσι τὴν ἐξουσίαν. C3.13 lines 5-8: οὕτω καὶ σὺ πρὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος τοῖς ἀντικειμένοις παλαίειν μὴ τολμήσας, λαβὼν δὲ τὴν χάριν καὶ λοιπὸν θαρσῶν, τοῖς τῆς δικαιοσύνης ὅπλοις ἀγωνίζου τότε, καὶ εἰ θέλεις, εὐαγγελίζου.

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

253

as a title for those who partake of the eucharist. According to Lampe, the general meaning of the term is “filled or inspired by Christ.” 76 Cyril’s use in P15 aligns with Lampe’s fourth nuance of the term, the impersonal use. Here, Cyril used the term to describe the waters of baptism. Lampe notes that Cyril’s contemporaries Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom also used the term in this general way, although the examples cited by Lampe do not involve sacraments. In M4.3, Cyril used the word in the same way as the term was first used by Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Ephesians to refer to Christians in general.77 76 PGL sv ‘Χριστοφόρος’, 1533. The term has been used to describe the soul or heart, “the mouth of those who praise God,” love, the water of baptism (only Cyril of Jerusalem is given as an example), metaphysically to describe a martyr’s body, and of the boat in Luke 8:22. The second is “of especially inspired persons” such as apostles, martyrs, and consecrated virgins. This is the use by Valeria in her greeting to Paphnutius in her letter dated to the midfourth century: Τῷ τιμιοτάῳ και χριστοφόρῳ καὶ πάσης ἀρετῆς κεκοσμηένῳ Ἂππα Παφνούθις. Papyrus 1926, in H. Idris Bell (ed.), Jews and Christians in Egypt (1924), 108-9. The third use as a courtesy title. Omitted from this list is the use of the noun as a proper name, as used in the Martyrdom of Ignatius (AD 2). Martyrium Ignatii 5.1.3. TLG 2657.001. 77 Based on TLG search. “Χριστοφόρος” (see also PGL, 1533), In chapter 9 of Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians, the term is in a list of other terms used to describe Christians and has the rhetorical function of reminding the members of the Ephesian church who they are and to praise them for acting accordingly, stopping up their ears and not listening to the heretics who came among them. Because of their action, they have demonstrated that they are “God-bearers (θεοφόροι) and temple-bearers (ναοφόροι), Christ-bearers (χριστοφόροι), bearers of holy things (ἁγιοφόροι), each having been equipped in the commandments of Jesus Christ.” (Ἐστὲ οὖν καὶ σύνοδοι πάντες, θεοφόροι καὶ ναοφόροι, χριστοφόροι, ἁγιοφόροι, κατὰ πάντα κεκοσμημένοι ἐν ταῖς ἐντολαῖς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Ignatius of Antioch, Epistulae vii genuinae 1.9.2.1-3, in Camelot, Ignace d’Antioche, Polycarpe de Smyrne, Lettres, Martyre de Polycarpe (1969). The term is also found in six of the inauthentic letters: Epistule interpolatae et epistulae suppositiciae 1.p.1.3, 3.3.6.1, 6.6.5.4, 7.12.2.2, 10.p.1.2, and 11.6.3.2. Harland argues from archeological evidence that the use of the term in Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians 9.2 refers to “a procession in honor of their patron deity, bearing images and sacred objects as groups of ‘God-bearers’ … and ‘Christ-bearers’.” Harland, ‘Christ-bearers and Fellowinitiates’ (2003), 481-2. Harland also argues for this use in 12.2 of the same letter. However, the word is not found in either the shorter or the longer recension in the critical editions of the letter. The shorter recension is found in Camelot, Ignace d’Antioche, Polycarpe de Smyrne, Lettres, Martyre de Polycarpe. The longer recension is found in Diekamp and Funk, Patres apostolici, vol. 2. Accessed via TLG March 17, 2011. As Harland argues, during this time “[b]oth Jews and Christians, too, identified their groups using common terminology for associations, and several authors, including Philo and Tertullian, explicitly compare the activities of Jewish or Christian associations with their ‘inferior’, ‘pagan’ counterparts.” These comparisons were means of “describing oneself in terms drawn from the world of associations might simultaneously establish a sense of place within local culture or society while also forming a basis from which to assert distinctiveness and even preeminence (for the group or its God). Harland, ‘Christ-bearers and Fellow-initiates’ (2003), 498-9. Harland is right in noting the archeological evidence and the imagery that Ignatius evokes is clearly identity shaping, it is not necessary to take the reading of these titles literally when a metaphysical or metaphorical reading is also possible,

254

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Cyril defined how he used the term in both instances. In P15, the context is baptism. Cyril explained that water, through the invocation of the Trinity, acquires an additional ability to be the means of sanctification holiness (C3.3).78 Because the water is the means of receiving sanctification, Cyril instructed the Φωτιζόμενοι not to be focused on the water itself, but on receiving salvation by the working of the Holy Spirit.79 Later, in Catechesis 3.11 lines 5-10, Cyril stated that For since the children [Christians] have shared in blood and flesh, [the Son] [likewise] partook of them [blood and flesh], in order that by our sharing in his embodied presence, also we might share in his divine grace [καὶ τῆς θείας αὐτοῦ χάριτος κοινωνοὶ γενώμεθα]; again, in the same way Jesus was baptized in order that with him we might by fellowship receive, with salvation, worth.80

Cyril built upon his explanation of the understanding of the Christ-bearing waters in M3.1: Christ transmitted a share of his divinity to the water (καὶ τῶν χρωτῶν τῆς θεότητος μεταδοὺς τοῖς ὕδασιν) when he was baptized. Thus, Christians come in contact with the divinity of Christ through the Christ-bearing water of baptism. The baptismal water became Christ-bearing through Christ’s own historical baptism and the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit. In Cyril’s second use of χριστοφόρος, he stated that through partaking of the eucharist, Christians become Christ-bearers, “having welcomed his body and blood into our bodily frame” (M4.3).81 Through partaking of Christ’s humanity,

especially if the context of the letter does not support a literal reading. If one does not take the literal sense that Harland argues for, Ignatius’ use fits into Lampe’s first definition of Χριστοφόρος: “filled or inspired by Christ,” or “Christians in general.” 78 Ἐπικτάομαι is defined as “to gain or win besides,” “extend” or “add to,” or “acquire additional” as in property (LSJ sv ‘ἐπικτάομαι’, 641). This is Cyril’s only use of this word. C3.3 lines 10-2: οὕτως ἀπεναντίας τὸ λιτὸν ὕδωρ Πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Χριστοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς τὴν ἐπίκλησιν λαβόν, δύναμιν ἁγιότητος ἐπικτᾶται. For just as the offerings on the altars, which are plain (λιτός) in nature, are defiled by the invocation (ἐπίκλησις) of idols, in the same way the plain (λιτός) water having received the invocation (ἐπίκλησις) of the Holy Spirit and Christ and the Father, acquires additional (ἐπικτάομαι) ability of sanctity (to sanctify). 79 C3.4 lines 6-8: Μέλλων τοίνυν εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ καταβαίνειν, μὴ τῷ ψιλῷ τοῦ ὕδατος πρόσεχε· ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐνεργείᾳ τὴν σωτηρίαν ἐκδέχου· ἄνευ γὰρ ἀμφοτέρων ἀδύνατόν σε τελειωθῆναι. Do not be intent upon (μὴ προσέχω) the mere (ψιλός) water, but (look) to receive from the Holy Spirit the supernatural work of salvation, for without both it is impossible for you to be perfected. 80 C3.11 lines 5-10: Ὥσπερ γάρ, ἐπειδὴ τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν αἵματος καὶ σαρκός, καὶ αὐτὸς [παραπλησίως] μέτεσχε τῶν αὐτῶν ἵνα τῆς ἐνσάρκου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ κοινωνοὶ γενόμενοι, καὶ τῆς θείας αὐτοῦ χάριτος κοινωνοὶ γενώμεθα· οὕτως ἐβαπτίσθη Ἰησοῦς, ἵνα καὶ διὰ τούτου πάλιν ἡμεῖς τῇ κοινωνίᾳ λάβωμεν μετὰ τῆς σωτηρίας τὴν ἀξίαν· 81 This reading, as discussed in chapter three, follows the reading from manuscript family β: Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ χριστοφόροι γινόμεθα, τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος εἰς τὰ ἡμέτερα ἀναδεδεγμένοι μέλη.

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

255

Christians are sharers (κοινωνοί) in the divine nature (θείας φύσεως) (M4.3).82 In M4, Cyril’s teaching in C3.11 and C12.1 about partaking of Christ’s divinity through his humanity is explicated. The concept of “like substance resting upon like” of M3.1 appears to also be implicit in M4.3: in M3.3, Cyril taught that the holy myron was, through the Holy Spirit’s presence, able to impart the Spirit’s divinity as Christ’s gift of grace which sanctifies the soul. In M4.3, the soul which has been sanctified by the divinity of the Holy Spirit is, after the eucharist, in a body which has partaken of Christ’s divinity though the reception of his humanity.83 For Cyril, both consecrated baptismal water and communing Christians are properly referred to as Christ-bearers (P15.9 and M4.3), with the placement of these two uses serving as an inclusio before the greater mystery of corporate worship is revealed.84 As has already been noted, the Holy Spirit sanctifies and changes (ἁγιάζω and μεταβάλλω) the bread and wine (M5.7) and sanctifies and deifies (ἁγιάζω and θεοποιεῖν) Christians (C4.16). Since Cyril had already described the baptismal waters as Christ-bearing in the Procatechesis, it is quite provocative that he does not refer to the eucharistic elements as Christ-bearing, but only to the communicants themselves as Christ-bearers. Instead, the sanctified and changed elements are (εἶναι) Christ’s body and blood and those who have partaken of Christ’s body and blood through the eucharist have become Christbearers. In Mystagogic Catechesis 4, the eucharist is the topic of the entire instructional period, with the focus on assurance that the Christians are coming into direct contact with Christ’s body and blood. In Mystagogic Catechesis 5, the topic is corporate worship, given from the perspective of instructing the new laity, and thus additional instruction on the ongoing participation in the eucharist is an integral part of this set of instructions. In the last day of instruction, the focus of transformation is on the work of the Holy Spirit. Because of the difference in focus of these two lessons, I examine them separately.

M4.3 lines 7-8: Οὕτω κατὰ τὸν μακάριον Πέτρον θείας “κοινωνοὶ γινόμεθα φύσεως”. While Christ’s divinity is the “like” upon which the “like” divinity of the Holy Spirit rests, for the Christian it is the divinity of the Holy Spirit, partaken of in the post-baptismal anointing, which is the “like” upon which the “like” divinity of Christ rests. For the Christian, the divinity in which he or she partakes will always be something which is not inherently part of human nature (human nature is not naturally holy) while for Christ (and, by inference, the Holy Spirit), divinity is part of his nature. For a detailed discussion of Cyril’s use of this phrase as he applied it to sacramental theōsis, see Hawk-Reinhard, ‘Cyril of Jerusalem’s Sacramental Theōsis’, SP 66 (2013), 247-56. 84 In M5.1, Cyril explained that the final instruction, which is on the Lord’s Prayer and the liturgy, is the crown of the spiritual edifice that he has been building. 82 83

256

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Mystagogic Catechesis 4: Assurance of Transformation through the Eucharist In Mystagogic Catechesis 4, Cyril’s use of πληροφορία (“fullness, full reality”)85 and its cognate, πληροφορεῖν (“give assurance to”),86 provides a means of evaluating the focal point of this mystagogical instruction and its importance in Christian identity formation. In all of his works, Cyril used these words a total of five times, four of which are in M4.87 By examining what is being assured and upon what Cyril based this assurance, insights into this particular aspect of Christian identity formation is possible. In M4.1, Cyril stated that the scripture reading for the day, which began in 1Cor 11:23, is sufficient to assure (πληροφορεῖν) the new Christians that they have, indeed, become of the same body and same blood as Christ (σύσσωμος καὶ σύναιμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ) through the divine mystery (θεῖον μυστήριον).88 Their confidence is to rest in Christ’s actions as well as his own teachings as interpreted by Paul: since Christ himself told his disciples at the Last Supper that the broken bread was his body, and the wine was his blood, Cyril asked “who shall henceforth dare to doubt? (τίς τολμήσει ἀμφιβάλλειν λοιπόν;) Who shall doubt saying that it is not his blood? (τίς ἐνδοιάσει ποτὲ λέγων μὴ εἶναι αὐτοῦ αἷμα;)” (M4.1 lines 9-12). Thus, the Christian’s confidence in the sanctity and transformation of the eucharistic elements as well as their own transformation into being of the same body and blood as Christ is based on Christ’s person, actions, and words during the Last Supper.89 85

PGL sv ‘πληροφορία’, 1093. PGL sv ‘πληροφορέω’, 1093. Other glosses include “fulfill,” “fulfill a demand, satisfy,” in passive “be convinced, fully assured” and “give someone full assurance or confidence.” 87 M4.1 line 2, M4.3 line 1, and M4.6 line 5, M4.9 line 1. Of these five instances, Cyril used the noun twice (M4.3 line 1 and M4.6 line 5). Cyril’s only other use of this word is in C17.35, in the context of approaching baptism with hearts fully assured of their faith so that they will receive the seal of the Holy Spirit. In C17.35, the context is in Cyril’s admonition for the Φωτιζόμενοι to be fully confident in their hearts they are not approaching baptism as hypocrites like Simon Magus. If they are struggling with doubt, they should hurl away their unbelief and be fully assured (C17.35 lines 4-6: εἰ πέπτωκας ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ, ῥίψον τὴν ἀπιστίαν ἀπὸ τῆς σήμερον καὶ πληροφορήθητι). Πληροφορήθητι is the second person singular, aorist passive imperative of πληροφορεῖν. 88 Μ4.1 lines 1-3, updated to reflect family β as the oldest reading (see chapter three for discussion), Καὶ αὕτη τοῦ μακαρίου Παύλου ἡ διδασκαλία ἱκανὴ καθ’ ἑκάστην πληροφορῆσαι ὑμᾶς περὶ τῶν θείων μυστηρίων ὧν κατηξιωθέντες, σύσσωμοι καὶ σύναιμοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενόμενοι (This teaching of the blessed Paul [is] sufficient to fully assure each one of us concerning the divine mysteries during which, having been deemed worthy, and became of the same body and blood as Christ). 89 Undergirding this confidence is the assurance of Christ’s divinity, humanity, and the historical events in his life (his miracles, passion, resurrection, and ascension), the latter of which Cyril took care to use the holy places of Jerusalem itself as witnesses. See French, ‘Mapping Sacred Centers’, in Akten des XII. internationalen Kongresses für christliche Archäologie (1995), 797; Bitton-Ashkelony, Encountering the Sacred (2005), 5-6, 61; Smith, To Take Place (1987), 29-31, all of which Cyril developed throughout the catechetical program. Also implicit in this trust is the trustworthiness of Christ, the Faithful One, himself. 86

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

257

In the next chapter, M4.2, Cyril argued that since Christ worked the “marvelous miracle” of giving his body and blood to the apostles at the Last Supper while he was yet in his pre-resurrection body, how much more will his giving of the fruition of his body and blood to the sons of the bride-chamber be commonly acknowledged after his resurrection and ascension?90 Because of the confidence that the resurrected Christ will give more through the eucharist than he gave to his disciples at the institution of the eucharist prior to his death, Cyril continued his argument in M4.3 that the reception of the eucharistic bread and wine should be received with full assurance (πληροφορία) that they are the body and blood of Christ.91 By welcoming Christ’s body and blood into themselves, the transformation that began in the outer chamber, before baptism, is now complete. The last act of the Φωτιζόμενοι was to renounce Satan and be stripped naked, breaking the old covenant that they had with Satan and putting off the old person so that they could enter paradise naked and unashamed. When they cast off the old person, Cyril had explained that this meant that the adverse powers that had taken up residence in their bodily frame (μέλος) were finally exorcised through the pre-baptismal oil and their final renunciation of Satan (M2.2). Now, in M4, Cyril taught that their bodily frames (μέλος) were filled by welcoming Christ’s body and blood into themselves when they partook of the eucharist. In M4.4 and 5 Cyril continued his explanation of the sanctification and change of the bread and the wine: from John 6:53, he explained that the lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus spoke of was spiritual flesh and blood.92 Both body and soul are nourished by the eucharist: “In the New Testament the bread of heaven93 and cup of salvation sanctify body and soul. For just as the bread [is] appropriate to (κατάλληλος) the body, so also the Word (Λόγος) is harmonious with our soul” (M4.5).94 Cyril instructed his listeners to use their faith, 90 M4.2: Εἰ γὰρ σωματικὸν κληθεὶς ταύτην ἐθαυματούργησε τὴν παραδοξοποΐαν, καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς τοῦ νυμφῶνος οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος δωρησάμενος ὁμολογηθήσεται; (For if when he was called into corporality he worked this marvelous miracle, will not his giving the fruition of his body and his blood to the sons of the bride-chamber be much more granted by common consent?). 91 As discussed in chapter three, two significant text-critical issues must be accounted for in M4.3. 92 As discussed in chapter three, the reading of M4.4 from family β is Ἐκεῖνοι, μὴ ἀκηκοότες πνευματικῶς τῶν λεγομένων, σκανδαλισθέντες ἀπῆλθαν* εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω, νομίζοντες ἐπὶ σαρκοφαγίαν αὐτοὺς προτρέπεται (They, not having heard his saying spiritually, being offended they went back, thinking he urged them to eat flesh). 93 Cyril, using John 6, taught that Jesus is the Bread of Heaven who came down to feed the hungry in C12.1. 94 As discussed in chapter three, the reading of M4.5 from family β is Ἦσαν καὶ ἐν παλαιᾷ διαθήκῃ ἄρτοι προθέσεως· ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνοι παλαιᾶς ὄντες διαθήκης τέλος εἰλήφασιν. Ἐν δὲ τῇ καινῇ διαθήκῃ ἄρτος οὐράνιος καὶ ποτήριον σωτηρίου, ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα ἁγιάζοντα. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ ἄρτος σώματι κατάλληλος, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Λόγος τῇ ψυχῇ ἁρμόνιος. While this

258

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

which had been fully assured by Christ’s very words (M4.1) and the miracle of the Last Supper (M4.2) that they were receiving Christ’s body and blood in the eucharist (M4.6).95 Because the bread and the wine are not what they appear to be to the senses, even their newly sanctified senses (M3.4), Cyril explained that they can be assured that they receive the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist because of three things, two directly commented on and one implied: 1) Christ’s words, here described as his imperial decree (κατὰ τὴν δεσποτικὴν τυγχάνει ἀπόφασιν) from the institution of the eucharist in the Last Supper; 2) their faith, which is both gift and acceptance of doctrine (the creed); and 3) implicstatement does not seem to be parallel, it is, in fact, a parallel with Cyril’s statement about baptism in C18.33. Cyril does not speak of the communicants receiving only the bread in M5, so it appears that when he speaks of the bread in correspondence of the body, he is not making an argument against receiving the cup. In fact, since receiving the cup provides sanctification for different senses than the bread, it can be argued that he would expect the eucharist to be received as bread and wine together. As is argued later in this chapter, because of Cyril’s use of τύπος in M4 in which the bread is a τύπος of the body of Christ in the sense of a representation based upon form, in order to produce a somewhat parallel structure to C18.33, the reference to the wine would be omitted. However, this is not a direct parallel with C18.33, since here Cyril used Λόγος rather than ῥῆμα, as found in the quotation from Eph 5:26 that Cyril was working from in C18.33. 95 M4.6: Μὴ πρόσεχε οὖν ὡς ψιλοῖς τῷ ἄρτῳ καὶ τῷ οἴνῳ· σῶμα γὰρ καὶ αἷμα κατὰ τὴν δεσποτικὴν τυγχάνει ἀπόφασιν. Εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἡ αἴσθησίς σοι τοῦτο ὑποβάλλει, ἀλλὰ ἡ πίστις σε βεβαιούτω. Μὴ ἀπὸ τῆς γεύσεως κρίνῃς τὸ πρᾶγμα, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως πληροφοροῦ ἀνενδοιάστως, σώματος καὶ αἵματος Χριστοῦ καταξιωθείς (Therefore, do not be intent upon the bread and wine as mere (ψιλός) [bread and wine], for they are the body and blood according to imperial decree. For even if the sensory perceptions suggests this to you, let faith sustain you. Do not judge the event by [your] sense of taste, but unhesitatingly [judge] from fully assured (πληροφορία) faith, having been made worthy of the body and blood of Christ). Note: I have translated καταξιωθείς, the nominative singular aorist passive participle of καταξιόω, as “having been made worthy.” The two genitive phrases in the second half of this sentence complicate the translation. Whereas Gifford (NPNF2, 7:151) translates the last sentence as “Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to thee”, on the other hand, Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem (2000), 180 has “Do not judge by taste, but draw from your faith unhesitating confidence that you have been granted Christ’s body and blood.” In both cases, a verb parallel to the negative imperative has been supplied, with Gifford using the genitive πληροφοροῦ as the verb and Yarnold seems to follow this same logic, using “draw” as a paraphrase of Gifford. However, since the second genitive “πληροφοροῦ” can be used as an adjective, “fully confident,” this second genitive could be an attributive genitive (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [1996], 87). The next word in the phrase, ἀνενδοιάστως, is either a plural accusative adjective (which does not fit with the construct of the sentence) or an adverb. I have assumed that the sentence is a parallel construct, with the instruction on how not to judge in the first half and how to judge rightly in the second half of the sentence. While I prefer Gifford’s translation of τὸ πρᾶγμα as “the matter” in a paragraph that already has a metaphysically loaded term (ψιλοῖς), I have translated the word as “event” to emphasize the eucharistic activity, to which I think the word refers.

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

259

itly, their ability to discern beyond their senses through their now sanctified and enlightened intelligible (νοητός) nature. The gift of the eucharist and its transformative effects are guaranteed by the giver’s past and present actions and the communicant’s faith. Cyril’s focus on what is knowable through the intelligible rather than through the senses is continued in M4.7. Through the eucharist, Christians are invited to the mystical (μυστικός) and ‘intelligible’ (νοητός) table that God has prepared (M4.7).96 Next, in M4.8, using Eccl 9:7 as a foreshadowing (αἰνίττομαι)97 of the grace given through the eucharist, Cyril interpreted “Δεῦρο, φάγε ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ ἄρτον σου” (Come, eat your bread with good cheer) as the call to salvation and blessedness through the spiritual bread (πνευματικὸς ἄρτος). The next line, “καὶ πίε ἐν καρδίᾳ ἀγαθῇ οἶνόν σου” (and drink your wine with a good heart) he took as a foreshadowing of the spiritual wine (πνευματικὸς οἶνος).98 The Christian is now clothed with the spiritual, white garment of salvation (ἱμάτιον σωτηρίου) and the robe of gladness (χιτῶνα εὐφροσύνης) (M4.8), the wedding garments that Cyril explained would be theirs in C3.2.99 The reference to the wedding garments in C3.2 is the wedding feast of Matthew 22 and the bridal chamber of Canticles 1. By taking the Catecheses as the precursor to the Mystagogic Catecheses, C3.2 provides an explanation for the reference to the sons of the bride-chamber in M4.2 that might otherwise seem oddly out of place.100 For Cyril, the eucharist is a foretaste of the wedding feast of the Lamb, in which bread and wine are consumed in good cheer with a good heart while wearing wedding garments.101 Cyril’s final use of πληροφορεῖν is in M4.9, the last section of M4.102 Here, Cyril instructed the new Christians not to let the taste of the eucharistic 96 The two tables that of fellowship with demons or of God, are also referenced in M1.7. Kalleres, ‘Exorcising the Devil to Silence Christ’s Enemies’ (2002) provides the context from the Catecheses for this cosmic dualism in her dissertation, but because she does not include the Mystagogic Catecheses, she does not discuss Cyril’s continuation of this motif in his discussion of the two tables of fellowship. 97 This same word is used to describe the symbolism of the triple immersion as hinting at Christ’s three days in the tomb (M2.4 line 7), the washing of the hands of the Priest and Presbyters as hinting at blamelessness (M5.2 line 9), Solomon hinted at the mystical chrism (M4.8.7) and the grace offered in the eucharist (M4.8 line 1), and Paul, in 2Thess 2:9, hinted at the Antichrist as one who is used by Satan (C15.14 line 4). 98 Just as Cyril took Ps 23:5 as a reference to chrismation (M4.7), he also interpreted the rest of Eccl 9:7 as a foreshadowing of chrismation, M4.8 lines 5-7: καὶ ἔλαιον ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς σου ἐκχείσθω ὁρᾷς αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ μυστικὸν αἰνιττόμενον χρῖσμα. 99 See the discussion on the text critical issues in lines 9 and 11-4 in chapter three. 100 See the discussion of the text critical issue in M4.2 in chapter three. 101 See also C3.16, angels will dance over the Christians wearing white garments. These souls, who were once slaves, have adopted their Master as kinsman. 102 M4.9: Ταῦτα μαθὼν καὶ πληροφορηθείς, ὡς ὁ φαινόμενος ἄρτος οὐκ ἄρτος ἐστίν, εἰ καὶ τοιοῦτός ἐστι τῇ γεύσει, ἀλλὰ σῶμα Χριστοῦ, καὶ ὁ φαινόμενος οἶνος οὐκ οἶνός ἐστιν,

260

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

elements take away their full assurance that the bread which they see (ὁ φαινόμενος ἄρτος) is no longer bread, but the body of Christ, and that the wine that they see (ὁ φαινόμενος οἶνος) is no longer wine, but the blood of Christ. They are instructed to partake spiritually of the sensible meal which has been set before them on the mystical and intelligible eucharistic table. If they share in the bread and wine as spiritual (μεταλαμβάνων αὐτοῦ ὡς πνευματικοῦ, M4.9 lines 7-8), then their hearts will be strengthened and the soul of their faces will shine so that they can reflect the glory of Christ (M4.9). All of the uses of the cognates of πληροφορία in M4 are in the context of assuring the new Christians that they are receiving the body and blood of Christ in spite of what their senses indicate. As with the water of baptism and the μύρον, the sacramental elements are no longer mere water, oil, or bread and wine after the prayer of invocation (ἐπίκλησις) (C3.4, M3.3, M4.6).103 Because they have received the body and blood of Christ, they have become Christbearers who are of the same body and blood as Christ (M4.3) throughout their bodily frames (M4.3). Furthermore, they have the ability to judge without hesitation that the sanctified bread and wine are indeed Christ’s body and blood (M4.6), even though the bread and wine look like mere bread and wine and taste like bread and wine. By sharing in the food at the mystical and intelligible table, they are being transformed.104 Cyril’s uses of πληροφορία and πληροφορεῖν are summarized in Table 6-4.

εἰ καὶ ἡ γεῦσις τοῦτο βούλεται, ἀλλὰ αἷμα Χριστοῦ, καὶ ὅτι περὶ τούτου ἔλεγε ψάλλων πάλαι ὁ Δαβίδ· “Καὶ ἄρτος καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου στηρίζει, τοῦ ἱλαρῦναι πρόσωπον ἐν ἐλαίῳ·” στηρίζου τὴν καρδίαν, μεταλαμβάνων αὐτοῦ ὡς νευματικοῦ, καὶ ἱλαρύνου τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς πρόσωπον. Ὃ γένοιτό σε ἀνακεκαλυμμένον ἔχοντα ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει, τὴν δόξαν Κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενον, ἔρχεσθαι ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν, ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν (Having learned these things, also be fully assured on the grounds that the bread which is seen is not bread, even though it tastes as such, but [that it is] the body of Christ, and the wine which is seen is not wine, even though the taste will have it so, but [that it is] the blood of Christ, and that concerning this David sang of old: “And bread strengthens the heart of a person, so that the face shines with oil” strengthen your heart by sharing in it as spiritual, and make the face of your soul to shine. Having been unveiled with a clear conscience, may you reflect the glory of the Lord, to go from glory into glory, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be the glory for evermore, Amen). 103 The parallel structure of these paragraphs and the implications are taken up later in this chapter. 104 In C9.16, Cyril uses the phrase “τῶν αἰσθητῶν ... καὶ νοητῶν, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων,” things perceptible by the senses and the intelligible, all things visible and invisible” to summarize all things. Based upon this, and Cyril’s other uses of νοητός (which are discussed below), it is best to not translate this phrase as “mystical and spiritual table.”

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

261

Table 6-4: Cyril’s Uses of Πληροφορία and Πληροφορεῖν Text

Context

What is assured

How it is assured

C17.35

If they are struggling with Faith doubt, they should hurl away their unbelief and be fully assured prior to baptism.

By casting off unbelief (implied that the content of the Catecheses, their desire to receive the Holy Spirit, and the work of the Holy Spirit will provide assurance).

M4.1

Receive eucharistic elements as Christ’s body and blood with full assurance because of Christ’s words to the disciples.

Christ’s words from That they are receiving the Last Supper. Christ’s body and blood in the eucharist and thus having the same body and blood as Christ.

M4.3

Receive eucharistic elements with full assurance that they are Christ’s body and blood.

That they are receiving Christ’s body and blood in the eucharist and thus becoming Christ-bearers of the same body and blood of Christ.

The eucharist is a greater miracle than the Last Supper (M4.2).

M4.6

They are to perceive the eucharistic elements as the body and blood of Christ, not merely bread and wine.

They have the ability to judge without hesitation that the eucharistic bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood by faith.

Christ’s words (his imperial decree), confident faith, and having been made worthy of the body and blood of Christ through baptism and the post-baptismal anointing.

M4.9

They are to perceive the eucharistic elements in spite of their taste. They are to recognize the intelligible dimension of the bread and the wine and the effects upon the heart and soul.

They are assured that even though the elements taste like bread and wine, they are Christ’s body and blood and thus are transformative because of their spiritual nature.

What they have learned in this mystagogic instruction and that David and Solomon prophesied about the transformative nature of the elements.

Mystagogic Catechesis 5: Being Christ-bearers within the Worshiping Community In Mystagogic Catechesis 5, the actions of the Holy Spirit come to the foreground. Here, as has already been discussed, Cyril stated that through the action of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine are sanctified and changed into the body

262

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

and blood of Christ (M5.7).105 Thus, it is through the actions of the Holy Spirit who makes (ποιέω) the bread and wine to be the body and blood of Christ that Christians become Christ-bearers. In his discussion of the phrase “Give us this day our ‘necessary for existence’ bread” from the Our Father (which Cyril was giving first instructions on in this lesson), Cyril builds upon his description of the double sacramental effect of the eucharist that he began in M4.5. This holy bread is metabolized by the body in the same way as normal food since it is through the eucharist that Christ’s body and blood are distributed throughout and incorporated into the limbs (bodily frame) of the new Christians (M4.3, M5.15). This sacramental meal provides nourishment, yet, unlike ordinary bread and wine, this consecrated meal is not lost through the normal digestive process.106 Rather, this sanctified and transformed bread107 is arranged in consideration of the substance (οὐσία) of the soul (ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς ψυχῆς κατατασσόμενος) (M5.15). In Mystagogic Catechesis 5.19, Cyril used the phrase from the hagiopolite liturgy “holy things [the consecrated bread and wine of the eucharist] for holy people” (Μετὰ ταῦτα λέγει ὁ ἱερεύς· “Τὰ ἅγια τοῖς ἁγίοις.”) as the occasion to describe the difference between Christ’s holiness and the Christians’ holiness: Christ’s holiness is a natural property (φύσις) of his being.108 In contrast,

105 McKenna, Eucharist and Holy Spirit (1975), 57 states that Atchley noted that the anaphora, as described by Cyril, does not include the transformative work of the Holy Spirit on the people. However, Cyril had already discussed the transformative work of the Holy Spirit in the people (sanctifies and deifies) in C4.16 and M5.7, as a parallel construct. Through this parallelism, Cyril connected the sanctifying and transformative work of the Holy Spirit in the people (C6.16 lines 16-7, the Holy Spirit sanctifies and deifies) with the Holy Spirit’s sanctifying and transformative work in the eucharistic elements (M5.7 lines 5-6, the Holy Spirit sanctifies and changes). 106 M5.15 lines 4-6 Οὗτος ὁ ἄρτος οὐκ εἰς κοιλίαν χωρεῖ καὶ εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκβάλλεται, ἀλλ’ εἰς πᾶσάν σου τὴν σύστασιν ἀναδίδοται εἰς ὠφέλειαν ψυχῆς τε καὶ σώματος (This bread is not drawn through the belly and then cast out into the privy, but it is distributed into your entire constitution [σύστασις] for the advantage of both soul and body). Compare this description with how normal food is, according to Cyril, digested: it is changed into blood and excrement (C9.15). 107 While the bread is the focus here because of the form of the prayer, this does not necessarily preclude the same argument being made for the consecrated wine. 108 Taft proposes that Cyril’s teaching about the “holy ones” is still the older, Pauline, understanding—they are holy because they have been baptized and received the Holy Spirit, The Byzantine Rite (1992), 234—rather than the later emphasis on personal holiness as seen in the works of John Chrysostom (ibid., 237). However, Taft’s interpretation neglects to take into account Cyril’s teachings on personal morality. As I demonstrate in chapter six, in continuity with Gschwandtner, ‘Pious Doctrines and Virtuous Actions’ (2005), 36-57, Cyril consistently calls for Christians to pursue a holy life and this passage summarizes his teachings: personal holiness (and thus community holiness) begins with participation in the divine and is completed through prayer, both of which are activities that the human person fully participates in (participating in the sacramental activity and act of praying), but ultimately, it is the work of the Holy Spirit which brings holiness. Asceticism is the human activity of choosing to live according to the transformation that the Holy Spirit has worked.

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

263

holiness of Christians is not a natural property (οὐ φύσις), but is achieved through participation (μετοχή), asceticism (ἄσκησις), and prayer (εὐχή).109 In M5.20, Cyril continued his exhortation from the previous day’s instruction: when receiving the eucharist in corporate worship, they were to continue to rely upon the unhesitating faith that they are not tasting bread and wine but the correspondence (ἀντίτυπος)110 of Christ’s body and blood.111 In the next two paragraphs, Cyril instructed the new Christians in the sanctifying properties of the eucharistic bread and wine. With respect to the bread, after receiving the bread in their hands, between saying “Ἀμήν” (Amen) and consuming the bread, Cyril instructed them to first carefully (μετ’ ἀσφαλείας) sanctify (ἁγιάζω) their eyes by touching them with the holy body [of Christ] and then eat, being careful not to lose a share in the fruits of any of it. Losing [it] is the same as suffering a loss from one’s own bodily frame (μέλος).112

The new Christians are taught to consider the crumbs of the eucharistic bread are to be considered more precious than gold or precious stones (M5.21). With respect to receiving the cup, Cyril exhorted the Christians to sanctify (ἁγίαζειν) themselves by partaking (μεταλαμβάνειν) of the consecrated wine. He instructed them to sanctify (ἁγίαζειν) their eyes, forehead, and their other sensory organs by dabbing the remnant of wine on their lips onto them (M5.22). Cyril’s Use of “Οὐρανοί” (Heavens) to Describe Christians as Those in Whom God Dwells Cyril taught that Christians were rightfully called the “ones who bear the image of the Heavenly One”—οἱ τὴν τοῦ ἐπουρανίου φοροῦντες εἰκόνα—and are “heavens”—Οὐρανοί—because God dwells within them (ἐν οἷς ἐστὶν ὁ Θεὸς 109 M5.19: Μετὰ ταῦτα λέγει ὁ ἱερεύς· “Τὰ ἅγια τοῖς ἁγίοις.” Ἅγια τὰ προκείμενα, ἐπιφοίτησιν δεξάμενα ἁγίου Πνεύματος· ἅγιοι καὶ ὑμεῖς, Πνεύματος ἁγίου καταξιωθέντες. Τὰ ἅγια οὖν τοῖς ἁγίοις κατάλληλα. Εἶτα ὑμεῖς λέγετε· “Εἷς ἅγιος, εἷς Κύριος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός.” Ἀληθῶς γὰρ εἷς ἅγιος, φύσει ἅγιος· ἡμεῖς γάρ, εἰ καὶ ἅγιοι, ἀλλ’ οὐ φύσει, ἀλλὰ μετοχῇ καὶ ἀσκήσει καὶ εὐχῇ. 110 Cyril’s use of ἀντίτυπος is discussed later in this chapter. 111 M5.20: Μετὰ ταῦτα ἀκούετε τοῦ ψάλλοντος μετὰ μέλους θείου προτρεπομένου ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν κοινωνίαν τῶν ἁγίων μυστηρίων καὶ λέγοντος· “Γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι χρηστὸς ὁ Κύριος.” Μὴ τῷ λάρυγγι τῷ σωματικῷ ἐπιτρέπητε τὸ κριτικόν, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἀνενδοιάστῳ πίστει· γευόμενοι γὰρ οὐκ ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου γεύεσθε, ἀλλὰ ἀντιτύπου σώματος καὶ αἵματος Χριστοῦ (With this you hear the chanter urging you into communion of the holy mystery with the sacred melody and saying “Taste and see that the Lord [is] good.” Do not rely upon the judgment of the bodily palate, but [rely upon] unhesitating faith. For you all who are tasting are not tasting bread and wine but the representation (ἀντίτυπος) of the body and blood of Christ). 112 M5.21 lines 5-8: Μετ’ ἀσφαλείας οὖν ἁγιάσας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τῇ ἐπαφῇ τοῦ ἁγίου σώματος μεταλάμβανε, προσέχων μὴ παραπολέσῃς τι ἐκ τούτου· ὅπερ γὰρ ἐὰν ἀπολέσῃς, τοῦτο ὡς ἀπὸ οἰκείου ἐζημιώθης μέλους.

264

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

ἐνοικῶν καὶ ἐμπεριπατῶν, M5.11).113 The first phrase, which is an allusion to 1Cor 15:49, builds upon his description of the Christian’s new identity formed through baptism and the post-baptismal anointing (M3.1). Steenberg rightly notes that this is a completion of the description in C4.23: the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit when it is joined to a holy soul.114 However, given the theme of theōsis in Cyril’s catechetical and mystagogical instructions, Cyril’s high view of the body which was discussed earlier in this chapter, and the transformation of the person through the sacraments which will be summarized in the next section, Steenberg’s analysis does not completely unpack the depth of this title and its place in Cyril’s exposition of the Our Father. A further evaluation of this title demonstrates how this final title fits within the structure of Cyril’s teachings on theōsis, provides a holistic view of the redeemed human person, echos the Trinitarian dimension of Cyril’s understanding of salvation, and encourages the Christian to live according to this multifaceted new identity that they have received as the culmination of the Easter vigil. The title of Heavens is bestowed in the context of Cyril’s exposition of the phrase “Our Father, who is in heaven.” His theme of theōsis is continued in this exposition through his use of μετουσία which is in the semantic range of participation (see Part II). Through the Christians’ μετουσία (participation) in grace, God mercifully forgives their sins and adopts them as children (M5.11). Cyril added and explained the final identity title in this context of restoration of relationship through theōsis by partaking of grace: because heaven is where God dwells and since God dwells within Christians and walks among them, especially in the eucharistic liturgy, Christians are extensions of God’s dwelling place115 and are rightly called Heavens. As will be summarized and developed in the section on the restoration of the entire person through the sacraments in this chapter, Christians are images of the Heavenly One in both body and soul. In agreement with Steenberg, through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, even while the Christian’s body is on earth, the Christian’s soul mirrors the heavens (οὐρανός), God’s dwelling place (C16.16). The soul of the Christian is made holy through the post-baptismal anointing (M3.3). However, through the partaking of the eucharist, the body of the Christian is also sanctified (M4.5); it is the entire 113 M5.11 lines 9-10: Οὐρανοὶ δὲ εἶεν ἂν καὶ οἱ τὴν τοῦ ἐπουρανίου φοροῦντες εἰκόνα, ἐν οἷς ἐστὶν ὁ Θεὸς ἐνοικῶν καὶ ἐμπεριπατῶν. 114 Steenberg, Of God and Man (2009), 150 states that and “only in such a state of received holiness ... is [there] authenticity to the bishop’s words in the Liturgy, ‘the holy things are for the holy’, …” This brief analysis appears to place too much emphasis upon the soul and isolates the liturgical implications from the pedagogical and moral function of this title. 115 Cyril used the full semantic range of “heaven”: as a part of the created order (“universe” or “sky”) (see C6.4, C12.23 for but two of many examples) and where God, with the Angels, dwells (for a few examples, see C3.9, C4.9, C6.8, C12.7-8, and M5.14). Human persons can enter heaven (C3.5 and C16.23).

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

265

Christian—body and soul—that is holy through the ongoing participation in the sacraments, adhering to the doctrines of the church, and living accordingly through grace. The ability to fully be an icon of the Heavenly One will become complete after Christ’s return when Christians will receive heavenly (σῶμα ἐπουράνιον) bodies (C18.19 line 3), but Christ is imaged through the earthly body through holy works (M5.12). Thus, not only is the Christian’s body the temple of the Holy Spirit and the soul a mirror of God’s dwelling place, but the Christian—body and soul—is an earthly image of Christ who is the Heavenly One (ἐπουράνιος). By partaking of the Holy Spirit’s divine nature through the post-baptismal anointing (M3.3) and Christ’s divine nature (θεῖος) through the eucharist (Μ4.3), those who are sons by adoption and not by nature (C3.14) are being made to be like the true Son in a way that would be, in Cyril’s terminology, to be deifed (θεοποιεῖν) through participation. As a culminating title, Heavens is inherently Trinitarian: this name is possible through the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit who sanctifies and deifies (C4.16) so that Christians are icons of Christ and are those whom the Father has adopted as sons. Because Christians bear God’s name (Faithful) which is holy, Cyril instructed the new Christians that when they pray that God make his name holy in the Our Father, they are praying that they would become holy and that their actions would be holy (M5.12). For this reason, Cyril instructs the Christians to not let sin reign in their bodies—only through the holiness of the entire person, body and soul (see Table 6-5), can the Christian boldly pray for God’s kingdom to come (M5.13). Because Cyril connects this aspect of Christian identity with the Our Father, each time the Christian prays, whether in the liturgy or as part of his or her private devotions, the Christian has the opportunity to meditate on the fullness of this new identity. Cyril’s Use of Ps 82:6 in Procatecheses 6 and Catecheses 11.4 Having examined Cyril’s teachings on theōsis and the titles that Cyril bestowed upon the Christians in the Mystagogic Catecheses, Cyril’s use of Ps 82:6 can finally be examined. In Procatecheses 6, Cyril used Ps 82:6 in the context of the Christians receiving the title of Faithful, a name of God. In Catecheses 11.4, the context is the uniqueness of the relationship of the Son with the Father. While these two uses of Ps 82:6 may, as Russell has proposed, be merely titular, given the other titles that Cyril has provided to the newly baptized to help understand and articulate their new identity, this title may have been more meaningful than their brief explanations might indicate. Given that Cyril has argued that Christians have been adopted (υἱοθεσία) as sons and deified (θεοποιεῖν) through the work of the Holy Spirit, it is plausible that both of Cyril’s quotations of this passage may actually be making statements regarding theōsis. However, identification of

266

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Cyril’s use of Ps 82:6 as a deification statement is only possible after having first established his doctrine of theōsis. By reading the Procatechesis and last Mystagogic Catechesis as the beginning and conclusion to a unified document, those who are gods are those who bear the name of God, Faithful, (P6) and are able to call God their Father because of their participation in his grace (M5.11). In his second use of the quotation in C11.4, Cyril applied Ps 82:6 (you are gods, … sons of the Most High) to those who are not divine by nature to distinguish between the unique relationship between the Father and Christ (both divine by nature)116 and the adopted sonship of Christians (not divine by nature) through participation in the divine nature of both the Holy Spirit (M3.3) and Christ (M4.3). The Holy Spirit sanctifies and deifies all (C4.16) and this sanctification occurs most discernably through the sacraments: in the eucharist, Christians partake of Christ’s humanity in order to participate in his divinity—by sharing Christ’s body and blood, Christians are made to be of the same body and blood as him (M4.3) who has both a human (ἀνθρωπότης) and divine (ἐπουράνιος) nature.117 When those who bear God’s name are making God’s name holy by being sanctified and deified by the Holy Spirit and then, through the divine grace in which they participate, doing deeds that are worthy of holiness, they are demonstrating that they are indeed gods, sons of the Most High. In summary, Christians, are not only those who are in right relationship (communion) with the Triune God through faith, deeds, and the deifying sacraments received in faith, but are also images (icons) of the Heavenly One (Christ) and bear his name (Christs). They are those whom the Holy Spirit sanctifies, deifies, and dwells within. They are those who bear Christ’s body and blood within their own bodies (Christ-bearers). They are those in whom God dwells and with whom God walks (Heavens). They are those whom God declares to be gods, sons of the Most High. Of the five proper names that Cyril uses of Christians, three (Christian, Christs, and Christbearers) are all Christocentric. I have argued that the last name given, Heavens, is Trinitarian. Summary of Restoration through the Sacraments In C3.4, Cyril stated that because of the two-fold (διπλόος) nature of humanity, purification through baptism is also two-fold: the corporeal is for the body and the incorporeal is for the soul (τὸ μὲν ἀσώματον, τῷ ἀσωμάτῳ, τὸ δὲ σωματικόν, τῷ σώματι). Thus, water cleanses the body (ὕδωρ καθαίρει τὸ 116

Christ is the only begotten Son, divine by nature (C15.20 and C18.19). Using Ps 72:6, Christ’s dual nature is described as “heavenly” and “humanity” (ἐπουράνιος in contrast with ἀνθρωπότης). In this instance, Cyril used ἐπουράνος according to Lampe’s first definition, divine (PGL 542). 117

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

267

σῶμα) and the Spirit seals the soul (Πνεῦμα σφραγίζει τὴν ψυχήν), enabling the Christian to go before God with purified hearts and clean bodies (C3.4). While the soul had already begun partaking of grace prior to baptism, in baptism, the body is given a share of grace (C3.4). Through the body’s envelopment by the baptismal water, the soul is perfectly baptized by the Holy Spirit (C17.14). The body is washed with water and the soul is cleansed of sin by the word (ῥῆμα) (C18.33), which in context refers to the instructions they have received.118 Yarnold argues that, for Cyril, this double sacramental effect is present in each sacrament: both body and soul receive benefit, the soul receiving its benefit through the body.119 Cyril developed this understanding of how the sacraments work on the soul through the body in the Catecheses when discussing baptism. His explication of this double effect for the other sacraments was reserved until after the experience of these mysteries and built upon the foundation laid in the Catecheses. Even in the pre-baptismal anointing, what is done to the body affects the soul: the oil that anoints the body removes the influence of adverse powers and the devil from both body and soul (M2.2, 3). The oil which anoints the body symbolizes partaking of the richness of Christ (M2.2). Likewise, when the body is anointed with the oil of chrism, the soul is made holy (M3.3). With the eucharist, the bread (and wine) are appropriate for the body and are used to sanctify the sensory organs of the body (M4.5, M5.21 and 22) while the Word (Λόγος) has been made harmonious to the soul (M4.5). Thus, what looks like a parallel in English actually has a subtle but important distinction: the Holy Spirit uses words of instruction (ῥῆμα) to cleanse the soul in baptism, but through the eucharist the Holy Spirit applies the Word (Λόγος) made harmonious to the soul so that both the body and soul of the Christian are Christ-bearing. The Christian’s body has been conformed to Christ’s body’s form in baptism (M3.1). Then, through the eucharist, the Christian becomes a Christ-bearer, not only having the same form as Christ’s body, but also having the same body and blood as Christ (M4.3). Table 6-5 provides a summary of the effects of the sacraments and the pre-baptismal anointing upon the body and soul that Cyril specifically noted as have corresponding effects in body and soul.

118 C18.32 lines 17-9: … ἵνα τῆς ὑμετέρας ψυχῆς διὰ τοῦ τῆς διδασκαλίας λόγου προφωτιζομένης εἰς ἕκαστον γνωρίζητε τῶν ἐκ θεοῦ δωρουμένων ὑμῖν χαρισμάτων τὸ μέγεθος (… in order that your souls through the word of instruction have been enlightened into each which has been made known to you). 119 Yarnold, ‘The Body-Soul Relationship Mainly in Connection with Sacramental Causality’ (2005), 338-42.

268

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 6-5: Sacramental Effects upon Body and Soul Sacrament Prebaptismal anointing

Effect upon the Body Adverse powers removed from the bodily frame (M2.2) Oil anoints the body (M2.3) Taking off the old garment (M2.2)

Effect upon the Soul All influences of the devil removed (M2.3) Sharing in the riches (fattiness) of Christ (M2.2) Putting off the old person (M2.2)

Baptism

Partakes of grace (C3.4) Enveloped in water (C17.14)

Postbaptismal anointing

Anointed with holy oil (M3.3)

Made holy (M3.3)

Eucharist

Sanctified with bread which is appropriate to the body (M4.5), including the sensory organs (M5.21, 22) Nourished (M4.5) without waste (M5.15)

Sanctified with the Λόγος (Word) made harmonious with the soul (M4.5)

Alive and righteous (C3.12) Baptized by the Holy Spirit (C17.14) Washed with water C18.33) Cleansed of sin by the ῥῆμα (word) (C18.33) Wounds and scars from sin healed Wounds and scars from sin healed (C18.20) (C18.20) Putting on the new white garment Clothed in the garment of (M4.8) salvation (M1.10)

Nourished (M4.5) by being arranged in consideration of the soul (M5.15)

Table 6-5 does not catalog all of the restorative changes that Cyril described; Table 6-6 provides a more complete overview of Cyril’s teachings on the restoration of the human person through the sacraments. Table 6-6: Restorative Transformation through the Sacraments Event Pre-baptism

Title No new title given; still Φωτιζόμενοι

Transformation Renounced Satan, breaking covenant with him (M1.2, 9) Putting off of the old person (M2.2) Adverse powers at home in their limbs removed (M2.2)

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

Table 6-6 Event

Title

269

(continued) Transformation

Baptism

Christians Xριστιανοί

Planted with Christ in the likeness of his death and in his resurrection (M2.7) Cleansed of sin, sins forgiven (M2.3, M2.6, C3.12, C3.15, C18.33) Ransomed (C13.2, C14.18-9) and now at peace with God (C14.3) Adopted (C3.16) Have put on Christ (M1.10, M3.1) Dead to sin (M2.2, M2.3, P16) New birth of soul (C1.2) Alive in righteousness (C3.12) with a new life (C3.12, M2.1) Healed of deep scars of past sin (C18.20) Sting of death destroyed (C3.11) Sealing of soul by Holy Spirit (C3.12, C3.10, C3.15, C4.32) Receive a share of divine and excellent grace (C3.11) Attired in a bright garment (C3.2, C3.16, M3.1, M4.8) Enlightened (P2) Able to wrestle against adversity (C3.13) Same form as Christ’s glorious body (M3.1) Worthy of resurrection (C3.12)

Post-baptism and pre-eucharist

Christs Χριστοί

Worthy of the name “Christian” (M3.5) Image of Christ (M3.1) Declared adopted (M3.1) Soul is made holy through reception of the Holy Spirit’s divine nature via the myron (M3.3) Delivered from dishonor, able to reflect the glory of Christ with unveiled face (M3.4) Ears made receptive (M3.4) Become the sweet fragrance of Christ to God (M3.4) Wearing the breastplate of righteousness and can stand against the trickery of Satan (M3.4) Teachable through the Holy Spirit’s safeguarding of their soul (M3.7) Able to become a figure in relief of the signet ring which is the sanctuary of God (M4.6) Anointed because of the seal (M4.6) received in baptism (C4.32)

270

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 6-6 (continued) Event

Title

Transformation

Eucharist

Christ-bearers Χριστοφόροι

Of the same body and blood as Christ (M4.1, M4.3) Having Christ’s body and blood distributed into their bodily frame (M4.3) Body and soul sanctified (M4.5) Works are now pleasing to the Lord (M4.8) Clothed in the garment of salvation and wrapped in the robe of gladness (M4.8) Hearts are strengthened, faces shine with oil (M4.9) Unveiled with clear conscience, able to reflect Christ’s glory (M4.9) Christians are holy, but not by the same means as Christ (M5.19)

Worship

Heavens Οὐρανοί

Ongoing sanctification of the Christian by singing hymns (M5.6) and contact with the eucharistic elements (M5.21, M5.22)

This transformation of identity occurred within the sacred space of the hagiopolite ecclesial complex and the timespan of Lent and Holy Week. By using Egeria’s Travels to fill in some of the details not found in Cyril’s text, it is possible to present an overview of Cyril’s description of name changes in relationship to which sacrament he associated with each title change, when and where this happened in the catechetical program, and the relationship of the Christian to paradise at each stage. This analysis is presented in Table 6-7.

271

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

Table 6-7: The Relationship Between Title, Place, and Sacramental Actions in the Jerusalem Rites of Initiation Title Φωτιζόμενοι (continued)

When/What

Physical Place and Relationship to Paradise

IE 45.1-4 Give name for baptism, sponsor vouches for, lives are examined

Catechesis, during Lent

Exorcism, instruction on the creed, prayer

IE 46.1, C1.4

week prior to Easter

recite creed to bishop

IE 46.5-6

Vestibule of the Baptistery Gate to Paradise Opened with Breaking of Covenant with Satan Inner Chamber of the Baptistery

Χριστοί

Text

In the Martyrium Enrollment for baptism, beginning of Outside of Paradise Lent

Prebaptismal rites

Xριστιανοί

Actions

Baptism

Post-Baptismal Anointing

M1 Facing west, renounce Satan, then turn so that Satan is behind them (and face east) Stripped

M2.2

pre-baptismal anointing

M2.3

At the Baptismal Font (in Sight of the Sepulchre)

Led to the font, profess Trinitarian faith

M2.4

In the Font In the Chariot to Heaven and the Splendor of Paradise

Descend and ascend from water of font three times

P16, M1.9, M2.4, M3.1, M3.5

[Near the Font?]

Robed in white

IE 38.2, M4.8

Anastasis

Anointed with holy myron (M3.1) on forehead and other senses (M3.3)

IE 38.1, M3.1, M3.3, M3.4, M4.7

272

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 6-7 (continued) Title Χριστοφόροι

When/What Eucharist

Physical Place and Relationship to Paradise Martyrium

Οὐρανοί

Actions Partaking of the eucharist and Joining in the Ecclesial and Heavenly Community’s Worship

Text IE 38.1 M5.3, M5.6-7, M5.19, M5.21-22

Ongoing sanctification Mystagogic Catechesis in week after Easter

Anastasis Brighter Meadows of Paradise

IE 47.1-2, Instruction on M1.1 the deeper mysteries of the faith

Baptism, in line of sight of the Sepulchre, would have been poignant after the veneration of the True Cross less than two days prior.120 Receiving their first eucharist in the Martyrium would have also brought Cyril’s teachings on Christ’s passion for the sake of their salvation to mind. The events which took place in the Anastasis, from which the newly-baptized had limited experience prior to the Easter of their baptism, most likely also had special significance to them: not only was this a place from which they had always before been dismissed and excluded, but this also was the traditional location of Christ’s resurrection which they now could hope to also experience. For Cyril, restoration to wholeness as persons is not sufficient to describe the changes that occur through the sacraments. Relational changes, including entering fully into Christian community, also are critical for understanding the Christian’s new identity. Part of remaining in community is living a life of virtue, which is addressed next. Sacramental Theōsis, Virtue, and the Common Life of the Church In the Procatechesis, Cyril asked the Φωτιζόμενοι if, while they were merely Kατηχούμενοι, they had noticed the order, knowledge, and conformity to instructions that was present among the Faithful.121 Cyril stated that every kind 120 Egeria (IE 37.7) described how, on the Friday of the Great Week, everyone weeped during the three hour service in which the True Cross was venerated. 121 P4 lines 5-9: Βλέπεις μοι τὸ σεμνὸν τοῦτο τῆς ἐκκλησίας κατάστημα; θεωρεῖς μοι τάξιν καὶ ἐπιστήμην; γραφῶν ἀνάγνωσιν, κανονικῶν παρουσίαν, διδασκαλίας ἀκολουθίαν;

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

273

of virtue is found in the church (C18.27) and the church gives instruction on how to live a virtuous life (C18.28). Repentance, one of the critical dispositions Φωτιζόμενοι needed to cultivate prior to baptism if it was not already present, included maintaining a good conscience by both acts of charity and refraining from sin (C3.3). While baptism, according to Cyril, is necessary for salvation (C3.10), faith and good works are also integral to the Christian life. The work of the Holy Spirit through faith is first evidenced by a virtuous life, even before baptism (C3.4); the life of repentance is evidenced by generosity and virtue (C3.8). The clerics’ washing of their hands at the beginning of each eucharistic celebration is symbolic of the blameless conduct of all members of the Christian community and thus serves as a reminder to live a life that is in coherence with this liturgical action.122 Christians are not expected to live a virtuous life in their own strength: through the grace received in baptism, Christians are empowered to wrestle against temptation (C3.13); through the post-baptismal anointing, Christians put on the full armor of the Holy Spirit so that they can stand against the devil’s trickery (M3.4). This struggle to live a virtuous life is not an abstraction. Cyril taught the newly-baptized to watch over their souls for small sins and seek forgiveness from God, to be quick to forgive each other, and to take very seriously the petitions in the prayer Christ taught the disciples for both protection from temptation and deliverance from the evil one (M5.16-8). For Cyril, moral virtue is the result of guarding and living according to the true faith.123 The true faith has two parts, the ascent of the soul to doctrinal truth (C5.10) and that which is a gift from Christ (C5.11).124 The doctrinal dimension of the true faith is taught by the church in the form of the creed, which is a summary of scripture.125 Those who are Christians, and thus in fellowship with δυσωπήθητι καὶ τὸν τόπον, καὶ παιδεύθητι ἐκ τῶν φαινομένων· ([Tell] me, do you see the honorable constitution of the church? [Tell] me, do you behold the order and knowledge? [Do you behold] the reading of scriptures, the presence of the canons, the conformity with instructions? Be shamed by this place and be instructed by what is seen). 122 M5.2 lines 12-3: Οὐκοῦν τὸ νίψασθαι τὰς χεῖρας, τὸ ἀνυπεύθυνον εἶναι ἁμαρτημάτων ἐστίν. Accordingly, to wash the hands, is to be innocent of sin. 123 C5.7 lines 1-2: Ταύτην ἐὰν τηρήσωμεν τὴν πίστιν, ἀκατάγνωστοι ἐσόμεθα, καὶ παντοίοις ἀρετῶν εἴδεσι κοσμηθησόμεθα (If we guard this faith [the kind which pleases God, C5.4], we will be above criticism, and we will be adorned with the form of all kinds of moral excellence). 124 C5.10 lines 2-4: Ἔστι μὲν γὰρ ἓν εἶδος τῆς πίστεως, τὸ δογματικόν, συγκατάθεσιν [τῆς] ψυχῆς ἔχον περὶ τοῦδέ τινος…· (For, on the one hand, there is the one kind of faith, the didactic, which is approval the soul holds concerning something …). 125 C5.12 lines 3-6: Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ οὐ πάντες δύνανται τὰς γραφὰς ἀναγινώσκειν, ἀλλὰ τοὺς μὲν ἰδιωτεία, τοὺς δὲ ἀσχολία τις ἐμποδίζει πρὸς τὴν γνῶσιν· ὑπὲρ τοῦ, μὴ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐξ ἀμαθίας ἀπολέσθαι, ἐν ὀλίγοις τοῖς στίχοις τὸ πᾶν δόγμα τῆς πίστεως περιλαμβάνομεν· (For not all are able to know the scriptures, … in order that the soul might not be destroyed by ignorance, in a few lines all of the teaching of the faith is encompassed).

274

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

God and each other, are able to please God through their works (M4.5). Eternal life, even though it is a gift from the Triune God, is given only to those who have departed from evil works and serve God (C18.29) with good works (C18.35).126 Gschwandtner has summarized that, for each of the four fourthcentury Mystagogues, theology is an introduction to practice: part of this practice—the sacraments—had been hidden from the catechumens.127 In particular, she notes that for Cyril, as for the other Mystagogues that [d]octrine is absolutely essential for holy living and a repeated vigilant attention to thorough theological instruction and careful explication must be part of any Christian’s growth in holiness. Such doctrine, however, is both grounded in Scripture and inseparably connected to the real life of the Christian community.128

In particular, for the fourth-century Mystagogue, Gschwandtner states that “[t]he lectures almost always conclude with emphasizing this extreme importance of the Eucharist as the highest of mysteries and the core and apex of every Christian experience. Knowledge culminates not in theory but in Eucharistic communion.”129 Gschwandtner rightly posits that only through continued participation in the common life of the church, which includes the virtuous life and eucharistic communion, can Christians fully practice holy living.130 In his examination of Cyril’s pedagogical practices, McDonald summarizes that: Cyril interweaves a paraenetic exhortation as he imparts doctrinal truths. Hence, Cyril is able to sublimate moral teaching into apologetics and dogmatics, so that the end product of the catechumenate is a neophyte whose sincerity is grounded in the orthodox faith which he is confident will produce virtuous behavior in stark contrast to that of the errorists.131

The relationship between sacraments and virtue is clearly stated by Cyril in M4 and 5. Cyril linked his admonition to remain blameless to the symbolism of the white baptismal robe the new Christians received after their baptism and wore throughout Easter week: the white gown represented their spiritual attire (M4.8). Cyril’s final admonition to the new Christians included the need to hold 126

Because of his love for humanity (φιλανθρωπία), eternal life is given by the Father, who is the real life and truth (Ἡ μὲν οὖν ὄντως ζωὴ καὶ ἀληθῶς ἐστιν ὁ πατήρ), through the Son in the Holy Spirit (ὁ δι’ υἱοῦ τοῖς ἅπασιν ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι) (C18.29 lines 1-4). 127 Gschwandtner, ‘Pious Doctrines and Virtuous Actions’ (2005), 50-1, see also footnotes 63 and 64, in her exploration of the relationship between doctrine and practice, compared the relationship between holy living and the sacraments in the four Mystagogues. She noted that, for Ambrose, participating in the eucharist is a means of sharing in Christ’s divinity for nourishment. For Cyril, “one becomes part of the body of Christ, of the church, by partaking of his body in the mystery of the Eucharist.” 128 Ibid. 45. 129 Ibid. 51. 130 Ibid. 46. 131 McDonald, ‘Paideia and Gnosis’ (1998), 99.

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

275

fast to the tradition of the church, to keep themselves blameless and undefiled by sin. To disregard either aspect of the teachings of the church—doctrine or practice—offends God and other people by sin, and breaks fellowship that would exclude the person from the sacred mysteries of the divine liturgy (M5.23). To blur the boundaries of praxis and doctrine excluded the Christian from the divine mysteries that nourish the faith and sanctify both body and soul. Cyril stated that sin begins by forgetting God (C2.2). By explicitly linking Christian identity with sharing the names of Christ (Christians most explicitly, but also as Christs and Christ-bearers) and God (the Faithful, Heavens) in the Catecheses, Cyril connected moral conduct with Christian identity and sacraments. Those who have the right to pray the Our Father pray for God’s name to be made holy and for his kingdom to come within their own lives. For Cyril, participation in the liturgy of the eucharist defines who is a Christian since only those who are communing are properly called Christ-bearers and Heavens.132 Sacramental Theōsis: the Means for Entering into Full Community (Ecclesiology) Cyril’s theme of κοινωνία was examined in detail in chapter five and, by examining this theme, I demonstrated that Cyril’s expression of sacramental theōsis resulted in fellowship with the Triune God. In this section, the interpersonal dimension of Christian identity is examined in terms of the sacraments and worship in order to demonstrate the layering of not only names, but also of the expansion of relationships. Relationship Changes through the Sacraments Cyril began the Mystagogic Catecheses by explaining the change in familial relationship that the new Christians now had with the church: after Easter, they were now “lawfully begotten and yearned for children of the church” (ὦ 132 M5.23 lines 1-4: Ταύτας κατέχετε τὰς παραδόσεις ἀσπίλους, καὶ ἀπροσκόπους ἑαυτοὺς διαφυλάξατε· τῆς κοινωνίας ἑαυτοὺς μὴ ἀπορρήξητε, μὴ διὰ μολυσμὸν ἁμαρτίας τῶν ἱερῶν τούτων καὶ πνευματικῶν ἑαυτοὺς ἀποστερήσητε μυστηρίων (Hold fast to these faultless traditions and guard yourself carefully against offense. Do not sever yourself from fellowship. Do not rob yourself of the holy and spiritual mysteries through defilement of sin). Kalleres, ‘Exorcising the Devil to Silence Christ’s Enemies’ (2002), 135 defines the boundary between Christians and non-Christians as the creedal content which, through the Lenten catechetical process, they have come to embody. Violation of the creedal identity boundary led to serious consequences: those who broke fellowship by disregarding this boundary suffered exclusion from the greater mysteries of community worship and it is in the context of the liturgy, in which the eucharist is central, that ongoing sanctification and nourishment for spiritual warfare is provided, the very things needed for recovery of identity.

276

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

γνήσια καὶ ἐπιπόθητα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τέκνα) (M1.1). Once enemies of God (C13.33) who could neither partake of the divine nor enjoy the Son (C12.15), the covenant with the devil had been broken in the pre-baptismal rites (M1.1). Those who have come to the baptismal font with a good purpose, willing to be enlightened, trusting that this transformation was possible (P8) through their desire to be in relationship with the Holy Spirit (P2), were enlightened. By sharing in Christ’s suffering through the imitation of his death in baptism (M2.5, 6, 7), they have put on Christ (M3.1) and are fellows of Christ (M2.3). Those who were once unable to enjoy the Son (C12.15) now have received his riches and have been planted with him in paradise (M2.3). They became public friends of the kingdom (P16), were adopted as sons (P16, M1.1), and were sealed by the Holy Spirit and made worthy to receive him (C3.14) Through the post-baptismal anointing, as Christs—God’s anointed ones (M3.1)—their adoption was completed and their status as those who inherit was declared (C3.14). The Holy Spirit’s divine nature was imparted to the Christs as a gift of Christ (M3.3). These Christs were now images of Christ (M3.1), the sweet fragrance of Christ to God (M3.4). Through the eucharist, the Christ-bearers dined with God (M4.7). Finally, through the eucharist, as Christ-bearers they became partakers of the divine nature (M4.3). This partaking of Christ’s divine nature is through partaking of Christ’s humanity (C3.11). By Christ’s sharing in humanity—taking on body and blood—his riches were shared with those who are to be baptized through the pre-baptismal anointing (M2.3). Through the eucharist, Christ-bearers become of the same body and blood as Christ (M4.1), are sanctified in both body and soul (M4.5), and, by partaking of this spiritual food are strengthened and reflect Christ’s glory through the shining faces of their souls (M4.9). Thus, only through the sacraments does the rich theme of fellowship with the Trinity (described in chapter 5) come to fruition. Table 6-8 at the end of this section provides a summary of the relationship changes that occur through sacramental theōsis. Entering Fully into Κοινωνία through Worship Cyril explained that the instruction given in the final mystagogical lesson is the crown (στεφάνη) of the spiritual edifice that he has been building through the catechetical program (M5.1). In this final teaching, Cyril not only taught how to pray the prayer given by Christ to his disciples (M5.11-8) and participate in the other portions of the liturgy from which that they had previously been excluded (M5.2-10, 12-22), he also explained how their new identity as Christians is maintained and sustained through corporate worship. The new relationships that are being formed through common worship include what is, arguably, the most provocative dimension of their new identity—becoming Heavens. Cyril explained that as Christians gather for the eucharist, the washing of the priest’s and presbyters’ hands symbolized the clean consciences of the

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

277

community (M5.2) which is the result of striving to live lives which are not characterized by sinfulness. This symbolic act stressed the fellowship (κοινωνία) with the Triune God which, for Cyril, is the foundational and structural support for understanding Christian identity (and the catechetical instruction as a whole). The kiss of peace, a sign of reconciliation and charity (ἀγάπη) among the members of the community (M5.3), stressed the fellowship among Christians. Only those who are communing share the kiss of peace and bodily express the unity of the church by the mingling of souls through this holy kiss.133 After signifying right relationship with both God and one another at the beginning of the worship service, Cyril ended the instructions with an admonition to hold fast to the traditions he has taught and to guard themselves so that they remain blameless for the purpose of being able to continue participating in this most holy mystery (M5.23). Through the use of relational language in Cyril’s catechetical instructions as a whole (as described in chapter 5), a significant aspect of Christian identity is understood to be restored relationship with the Triune God as well as with whom one should be in community—other Christians and the Kατηχούμενοι,

133 Penn, in Kissing Christians (2005), 14, 15, 17, 51, 58, 71-2, 121-2, examined the role of kissing in both the Greco-Roman society and early Christian sources to create communities and establish hierarchies. While both relate “the kiss with spiritual exchange,” he found that Christianity is unique in its ritual use of “a widely exchanged ritual kiss.” He posits that “what makes the ritual kiss a ritual is that early Christians distinguish this action (a ritual) from everyday kisses (a gesture).” Penn argues for ritual kissing as a means of identity formation. He states that: “The ritual kiss emphasized that one is a member of the community. Just as through the kiss participants physically joined each other, so, too, did they unite with the community as a whole. To be kissed by another Christian was not merely an action between two individuals, it also affirmed one’s membership in a larger social body; the kiss did not simply express this parallel union between individual and social bodies, it also helped create it.” On the other side of social construction is what he describes as the “exclusive kissing” which “divided group from non-group (us from them), separated certain subgroups from each other (some of us from others of us), and helped Christian communities transfer individuals across these divides.” In particular, the exclusion of catechumens from the kiss of peace helped create the social boundaries within Christianity: “by ritually excluding the catechumens from full participation in the Christian community, the kiss positioned the catechumens in a liminal state between insider and outsider.” This weekly expression of the boundary through the ritual kiss reinforced the boundary between both catechumen and the Faithful as well as the Faithful from the rest of the Greco-Roman society. Of particular interest in Cyrillian studies, the role of the body in identity formation through kissing is intriguing. According to Penn, “Kissing is a particularly body-centered action. Because of the prevalent connection between kissing and spiritual exchange, kissing was an especially appropriate symbol of entry into another body. This link between individual bodies often was associated with entry into a social body. As Christian leaders regulated who could kiss whom, ritual participants periodically acted out these emerging social boundaries before the entire community, helping create a collective reality.” Unfortunately, Penn assumes that the author of the Mystagogic Catecheses is, like Chrysostom, describing an action that the listener has not yet experienced.

278

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

although being careful concerning what one tells the latter about the sacred mysteries—and with whom one should no longer associate, heretics in particular. In Mystagogic Catechesis 5, the new Christians’ community is extended beyond fellowship with all three persons of the Trinity and with other Christians. Through the liturgical use of Psalm 34, all of creation is remembered in worship. Cyril had taught that all of creation suffers as a result of human sin (C13.35); here, all of creation is remembered in prayer (M5.6) after thanking God for adoption and restoration of relationship with those who had once been his enemies (M5.5, C13.33). Then, through the liturgical use of the Seraphim’s trisagion (Isaiah 6:2-3) as a confession of faith, Christians become sharers (κοινωνός) in the ongoing heavenly worship through their hymn of praise (M5.6).134 In M5.9-10, the community is further extended to those who have already died in Christ, whom Cyril said pray for those who are gathered for the eucharist and for whom supplication ought to be offered. In M5.11, Cyril provides his last insight into Christian identity: Christians bear the image of the heavenly and are themselves Heavens (Οὐρανοί) since God dwells within them. When Christians share in the ancient, biblical hymns with the angels, archangels, and the rest of the heavenly hosts (M5.6), they are sharing in the heavenly worship not as interlopers, but as those who are already heavenly beings.135 These findings are summarized in Table 6-8. Table 6-8: Relationship Changes as a Result of Identity Change Event

Title

Relational Changes

Pre-baptismal anointing

No new title given; still Φωτιζόμενοι

No longer in covenant with Satan (M2.2) Partakers of Christ, the good olive tree (M2.3) Sharing in Christ’s riches (M2.3)

Baptism

Christians Xριστιανοί

Public friend of the kingdom (P16) Sons by adoption (C3.14) Lawfully begotten children of the church (M1.1) Share in Christ’s grace (C3.11) Have fellowship in Christ’s suffering (M2.5, 6, 7) Have the same form as Christ’s body (M3.1)

134 These sacred hymns sanctify the singers (M5.7), preparing them to be intercessors for the welfare of the world (M5.8). This intercession occurs after the consecration of the eucharistic bread and wine (M5.10), so that through the sanctifying and transformative power of the Holy Spirit, Christ is present through the τύπος of his body and blood. 135 While Cyril refers to more than one hymn, the only hymn mentioned in the text is the Trisagion found in M5.5.

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

Table 6-8 Event

Title

279

(continued) Relational Changes

Post-baptismal Christs anointing Χριστοί

Partakers of Christ (M3.1) Fellows of Christ (M3.2) Images of Christ (M3.1) Worthy of fellowship with the Holy Spirit (M3.4)

Eucharist

Christ-bearers Χριστοφόροι

Of the same body and blood as Christ (M4.1) Table fellowship with God at the mystical and intelligible table (M4.7, 8) Christians made holy through reception of the Holy Spirit (M5.19)

Worship

Heavens Οὐρανοί

Right relationship with the Trinity symbolized through washing of hands (M5.2) Reconciliation with each other demonstrated through the kiss of peace (M5.3) Intercessors for all of creation (M5.4, M5.8) Sharers in heavenly worship with all the company of heaven (M5.6) In community with those who have died in Christ (M5.9-10) Bearers of the image of the heavenly (M5.11) God dwells within them (M5.11) Able to pray the Lord’s Prayer with the congregation (M5.11-8)

For Cyril, the earthly Christian community extended beyond the confines of the Jerusalem Church. Cyril warned the Φωτιζόμενοι to take care when they traveled, asking specifically for directions to the catholic church (καθολικὸς ἐκκλησία), the name by which the true church is differentiated from that of heretics (C18.26). We can only speculate whether Egeria received the same counsel before she left home on her travels.

Sacramental Theōsis Integrates the Christian into the Divine Economy As already discussed in chapter one, Cyril’s teachings rest on the authority of Scripture and, as such, are filled with not only dogmatic truths, but also are interwoven with the narrative of redemption. From the Procatechesis through the Catecheses, the Φωτιζόμενοι were challenged to decide if they would be like Simon Magus, who came for baptism but did not desire relationship with the Holy Spirit and thus became the father of all heresies, or whether they

280

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

would be like the good thief who recognized Christ and pleaded for mercy even as they were both dying on their crosses. The Φωτιζόμενοι were called to repentance and provided numerous biblical examples from both the Old and the New Testament of people who repented of their sins and were accepted by God (C3). As noted above, Cyril provided foreshadowing of the sacraments in the prophetical writings of Isaiah, David, and Solomon. But knowing redemptive history is not the same as being restored into right relationship with the Trinity through the context of divine economy. By examining Cyril’s use of τύπος, ἀλήθεια, νοητός, and ἀντίτυπος, I demonstrate how Cyril presented the sacraments as means of being brought into participation in the reality of the divine economy. Cyril’s Use of τύπος, ἀλήθεια, νοητός and ἀντίτυπος as Indications of Incorporation into the Divine Economy through the Sacraments Cyril used a combination of τύπος or τυπικός, ἀλήθεια, νοητός, and ἀντίτυπος as a means of describing the incorporation of Christians, through Christ and by the work of the Holy Spirit, into the divine economy of salvation. Each sacrament will be examined in the order of Cyril’s presentation. Τύπος, Ἀλήθεια, and Ἀντίτυπος in Baptism In baptism, the prefiguring historical event for Cyril was the blood of the Passover lambs sacrificed just before the Exodus from Egypt (M1.3), with both Moses and Pharaoh serving as historical archetypes (τύπος)136 who prefigure Christ and Satan, respectively. However, while Moses prefigured Christ as the deliverer of his people, the blood of the Passover lambs that was smeared on the doorpost is the historical archetype (τύπος) of the truth (ἀλήθεια) of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb without blemish (M1.3). Christ’s suffering (M2.6) and dying on the cross is the historical event (ἀλήθεια) that corresponds to the salvific and deifying sacramental sign (ἀντίτυπος) of baptism. Cutrone has argued that the term ἀντίτυπος is used consistently to refer to the deeper reality operating through the sacramental sign (water, chrism, eucharistic elements) in the rite and as a result, the reference of ἀντίτυπος is not the 136

This use corresponds to LSJ use VI, BDAG use 6, and Lampe’s use F: “an archetype serving as a model, type, pattern or model” which, in BDAG can also have the added nuance of “an indication of the future” (LSJ sv ‘τύπος’, 1835; BDAG sv ‘τύπος’, 1019-1020; and PGL sv ‘τύπος’, 1418-1420). Lampe states that in C14.20, in reference to Jonah, that Cyril used τύπος to refer to “type, representation, figure” including “of things to come” (ibid. D1). Lampe states that in M2.6 and M5.30, Cyril used ἀντίτυπος in the sense of a “sign” (PGL sv ‘ἀντίτυπος’, 159, definition A7). In BDAG (sv ‘ἀντίτυπος’, 90-91), the adjectival form is defined as “corresponding to” and “copy, antitype, and representation” when substantival.

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

281

passion of Christ but the water bath.137 However, in M2.6 the focus is clearly on the entire ritual as that which provides fellowship with Christ’s suffering; and thus Jackson has rightly identified the ἀντίτυπος as baptism itself.138 However, the correspondences that Cyril taught is more nuanced that what is presented in the literature: the sacramental rite (ἀντίτυπος) corresponds to the truth (ἀλήθεια) of Christ’s suffering (M2.6), which is also described as his blood poured out for deliverance, the truth (ἀλήθεια) to which the Passover lamb of the Exodus are the “types of things to come” (τύπος). In this manner, the blood of the Passover lamb is the τύπος of the ἀλήθεια of the blood of Christ; Christ’s suffering (which is summarized to “the blood of Christ”) is the ἀλήθεια of the ἀντίτυπος which is baptism.139 This relationship is summarized in Table 6-9. Table 6-9: The Relationship between Τύπος, Ἀλήθεια, and Ἀντίτυπος in Baptism τύπος (type “of things to come” or a “prescribed form”) Blood of the Passover lamb prior to the Exodus (M1.2 and 3)

ἀλήθεια (truth)

ἀντίτυπος (sacramental rite or “fulfillment of type”)

Blood of Christ, the unblemished Lamb (M1.3) Christ’s suffering (his crucifixion, death, and burial) (M2.5, 2.7)

baptism (M2.6)

Tυπικός, Νοητός, Ἀλήθεια, and Ἀντίτυπος in the Post-baptismal Anointing The post-baptismal anointing, like baptism, has two truths (ἀλήθεια and ἀληθής) under consideration. One truth (ἀλήθεια) is Christ’s anointing by the 137

Cutrone, ‘Saving Presence in the “Mystagogical Catechesis” of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1975),

50-2. 138 Jackson, ‘The Holy Spirit in the Catechesis and Mystagogy of Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, and John Chrysostom’ (1987), 256 note 54. In particular, the subject of the sentence in M2.6.1-6 is baptism and is thus the ἀντίτυπος of Christ’s suffering (in the following, the subject of the sentences are in bold), Μηδεὶς οὖν νομιζέτω τὸ βάπτισμα ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτιῶν μόνον, καὶ υἱοθεσίας χάριν τυγχάνειν, ὡς τὸ Ἰωάννου ἐτύγχανε βάπτισμα μόνης ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτημάτων παρεκτικόν· ἀλλ’ ἀκριβῶς εἰδότων ἡμῶν, ὅτι ὡς ἔστιν ἁμαρτημάτων καθαρτήριον καὶ Πνεύματος ἁγίου δωρεᾶς πρόξενον, οὕτω καὶ τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων ἀντίτυπον. 139 In the Mystagogic Catecheses, the highest concentration of ἀλήθεια and ἀληθής is in M2 (11 of the 19 instances), focusing on the relationship between the reality of Christ’s suffering and how, by not really suffering but through imitation, the Christian, through baptism, is saved.

282

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Holy Spirit, which is followed by the other true event (ἀληθής), the subsequent reception of the Holy Spirit by all Christians (M3.6). The connection between the truth (ἀλήθεια), the historical precursor that is according to a form or pattern or is an example (τυπικός),140 and the sacramental event (ἀντίτυπος) is oil: Christ is anointed with the true “oil of joy” (ἔλαιον νοητὰ ἀγαλλιάσεως) (M3.2) and Christians are anointed with the holy myron as a sign of receiving the true (ἀληθής) anointing of the Holy Spirit (M3.6). In M3, the use of τυπικός as substantive rather than τύπος reflects a focus on the process of an anointing which was not a unique, one-time occurrence in redemptive history (in contrast to the one Passover before the Exodus) but was, instead, an ongoing rite that happened only once in a person’s life. Cyril used this same pattern of τυπικός and ἀλήθεια to differentiate between the ongoing, highly-ritualized Jewish commemoration of the Passover relative to the unique historical event of the first Passover (C10.14). The post-baptismal anointing’s truth (ἀλήθεια) occurred when Christ was anointed by the Father with the Holy Spirit, who is the “oil of joy,” at his baptism. Christians were anointed with holy oil (myron), which is the sacramental correspondence (ἀντίτυπος) to the “oil of joy” (M3.1), while Aaron and Solomon, as τυπικός, were anointed with oil (M3.6) prior to Christ’s incarnation.141 Thus, the historical anointings of Aaron and Solomon, Christ’s anointing with the “oil of joy,” and the Christians’ anointing with myron function as τυπικῶς-ἀλήθεια-ἀντίτυπος. A distinction that Cyril appears to be making between baptism and the post-baptismal anointing is indicated through his sacramental economy: in baptism, the ἀλήθεια of the divine economy (Christ’s very real water baptism and baptism into death) is both physically imitated and sacramentally imitated. Physically imitating Christ’s water baptism in the Jordan provides the means for sacramentally imitating Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection in likeness, not reality (ἀλήθεια), so that real (ἀληθής) effects of grace are manifested in the life of the believer. In the post-baptismal anointing, physical imitation of Christ’s anointing provides the means of sacramental imitation of the reality (ἀλήθεια)—being anointed with the Holy Spirit by the Father—so that both Jesus and Christians 140 Here, in M3.9 lines 8-20, Cyril uses the adjective τυπικός as a substantival. According to Lampe, τυπικός is an “expressive of an intrinsic reality, symbolical” and τυπικῶς also means “symbolically” (sv ‘τυπικός’, 1418), but the sense seems to be more along the lines of τύπος as a prescribed form (Ibid., definition I), or that which is “conforming to type” (LSJ sv ‘τῠπίδιον’, 1835) : Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἐκείνοις συνέβαινε τυπικῶς, ὑμῖν δὲ οὐ τυπικῶς, ἀλλ’ ἀληθῶς, ἐπειδὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι χρισθέντος ἀληθῶς ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς ὑμετέρας σωτηρίας· (But this on one hand corresponds to that [the anointings of Aaron and Solomon] in type, but to you not in type, but in truth, the beginning of your salvation [was] when by the Holy Spirit you were truly anointed). 141 Aaron and Solomon were, for Cyril, the exemplars as scripture records that both men bathed prior to their anointing.

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

283

are properly called Χριστός (anointed ones). Table 6-10 provides a summary of the relationships between τυπικός, ἀλήθεια, and ἀντίτυπος for the postbaptismal anointing. Table 6-10: Cyril’s Relationship between Tυπικός, Ἀλήθεια, Ἀληθής and Ἀντίτυπος in the Post-baptismal Anointing Tυπικός (“conforming to pattern”) Aaron’s and Solomon’s anointings (M3.6)

ἀλήθεια / ἀληθής (truth)

ἀντίτυπος (sacramental rite or “fulfillment of type”)

Christ’s anointing by the Father with the oil of joy, which is the Holy Spirit (M3.2) Anointing with the Holy Spirit; first of Christ, then of Christians (M3.6)

anointing with holy oil (myron) (M3.1, 14)

Τύπος, Νοητός, and Ἀντίτυπος in the Eucharist The gloss of τύπος which Cyril used when discussing the eucharist in M4 is different from that employed in his discussion of baptism and the post-baptismal anointing. Mazza proposes that with respect to the eucharist, τύπος is equivalent to that of ἀντίτυπος since the eucharistic bread and wine, after the ἐπίκλησις, are both τύπος (M4.3) and ἀντίτυπος (M5.20).142 Cutrone states that in M4.3, where Cyril uses τύπος to relate the bread to Christ’s body and the wine to Christ’s blood, Cyril “is not referring to an Old Testament type that finds fulfillment in the sacraments.”143 While I agree with Cutrone that the gloss of τύπος which Cyril used is different for the eucharist than what he employed for his teaching on baptism,144 I propose an alternative explanation for the distinctive use with respect to the 142 Mazza, Mystagogy (1989), 160 states that, for Cyril, “typos has the same meaning as antitypos. This accounts for his peculiar sacramental use of typos and antitypos that do not form a pair, with one referring to the event and the other to the sacrament of the event. No, the two are now treated as synonyms and no longer represent the application of typology to the theology of the sacraments. But this shift was not due to any ignorance of biblical typology on Cyril’s part; in fact, his other two uses of typos are located in that area.” 143 Cutrone, ‘Saving Presence in the “Mystagogical Catechesis” of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1975), 53. 144 See the previous discussion on the pre-baptismal anointing regarding Cyril’s use of τυπικός rather than τύπος.

284

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

eucharist. This explanation has two parts. First, because of the similarity of bread to flesh and wine to blood, Cyril used the word in the sense of “outward form” or “representation of a heavenly reality” rather than as a “type of things to come” as he had in terms of baptism. To read τύπος with the exact same gloss in M4.3 as in M1.2 and 3 provides an awkward reading; in M1.2 and 3 the referent is a past event but, since Christ is risen, Christ’s body and blood are present realities.145 Second, I propose that Cyril’s decision not to use the τύπος/τυπικός-ἀλήθεια explanation he developed for his baptismal and post-baptismal anointing theology is more striking than his choice not to use the εἰκών-μίμησις motif. Even though Cyril continued his pattern of turning from the Old Testament to the New Testament in each of his discussions of the sacramental rites of initiation,146 only in M4 does Cyril not use τύπος and ἀλήθεια in the paragraph that begins with this divine economy pattern. Yet, with the referent to Cyril’s identification of the τύπος/τυπικός of the eucharist, it becomes clear that one of the referents of the eucharistic τύπος is very different from the τύπος/τυπικός of the other two rites. The eucharist functions differently in integrating the Christian into the divine economy of salvation than either baptism or the post-baptismal anointing. Only in M4.3 is the τύπος the physical elements that represent an ongoing event that is based in a stable inter-personal relationship rather than a one-time event that indicates a change in inter-personal relationships. For Cyril, the eucharistic τύπος of the Old Testament is the bread of the Presence (ἄρτοι προθέσεως) of the Old Testament, which he said had come to an end. The bread of heaven and cup of salvation of the eucharist are of the New Testament (M4.5). This bread of heaven and cup of salvation is a meal both provided for and eaten with God (M4.7 and M4.8) about which Cyril states that both David and Solomon hinted. The τύπος of baptism and the τυπικός of the post-baptismal anointing were both one-time events which served as archetypes of onetime events (ἀντίτυπος) in the lives of Christians: baptism and the post-baptismal anointing.147 In contradistinction to both baptism and the post-baptismal anointing, the eucharist was not a one-time event in the lives of fourth-century Christians, but part of the Divine Liturgy from which Cyril cautioned them not to sever themselves (M5.23). Cyril’s employment of a different gloss of τύπος in M4 is not the only break from his τύπος/τυπικῶς-ἀλήθεια sacramental model: Cyril does not use the term ἀλήθεια in his teaching on the eucharist. Mazza is correct in rejecting the application of Lampe’s definition of τύπος when it is in contradistinction to 145

PGL (sv ‘τύπος’, 1418-1420) definitions C4 or B rather than D2. This pattern is followed in each of the mystagogical lectures. 147 Cyril did not discuss the commandment to continue the Passover feast, but referred to the one time event of the Exodus. Likewise, the anointing of a high priest or a king is a one time event in the life of that high priest or that king. 146

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

285

ἀλήθεια in which the τύπος is a spiritual representation of a real (ἀλήθεια) thing148 as the correct reading of Cyril’s eucharistic use of τύπος. Cyril’s use of τύπος in M4.3 occurs in the context of assuring the new Christians that they are receiving Christ’s body and blood and becoming Christ-bearers. The redemptive-historical context is the miracle of the Last Supper; using a lesserto-greater argument, Cyril asks how, since Christ gave his body and blood to his disciples prior to his crucifixion, will the benefit of his body and blood not be greater to Christians since they receive his body and blood after his resurrection and ascension. Mazza argues that Cyril has accepted a physically real presence of Christ in the eucharist (and thus his “typology” breaks down).149 Yet I argue that something else is at work in Cyril’s eucharistic theology. The entire argument of M4 focuses on the need for the new Christian’s intelligible nature (νοητὴ φύσις) to be assured that Christ’s humanity (his blood and body) is present in spite of what is perceived by the senses (αἰσθητός). 150 This intelligible nature had been enlightened by the Holy Spirit, steeped in the catechetical instructions on the creed, and transformed through the sacraments of initiation. By examining Cyril’s description of the eucharist, I argue that Cyril described the real aspect of the eucharist not as ἀλήθεια (truth) but νοητός (in the intelligible realm of reality) based upon three observations: 1) Cyril’s use of νοητός in the Catecheses which indicates that one of the glosses of 148 PGL sv ‘τύπος’, 1418-1420, D. “type, representation, figure” 3. especially in contrast to ἡ ἀλήθεια, τὰ πνευματικά. 149 Mazza’s discussion of Cyril’s sacramental theology was limited to the Mystagogic Catechesis. Of Cyril’s thirty one uses, only four instances of τύπος are found in the Mystagogic Catecheses. Cyril uses τύπος to refer to exemplars (C2.11 lines 1 and 2, C2.16 line 12, C2.20 line 1, C3.6 line 21, C5.5 line 3, C5.6 line 5, C13.18 line 9, C13.18 lines 15-6), scars (C13.29 line 7, C14.11 line 17, C14.22 line 11, C18.20 line 12), as a historical figure that is a precursor to reality (M1.3 line 2; Pharoah: M1.2 line 5; Joshua: C10.11 line 11; Moses: C13.20 lines 1, 7, 9; Jonah: C14.20 lines 1, 5, 9, 11; Noah’s dove: C17.10 line 1; animals in the Ark: C17.10 line 8; the church: C18.26 line 19); figurative actions (C17.9 line 16, C13.17 line 4); the eucharist in relationship to Christ’s body and blood (C13.19 line 21, M4.3 lines 2 and 3); and he describes how these types are related to reality (C13.19 line 2). Cutrone (‘Saving Presence in the “Mystagogical Catechesis” of Cyril of Jerusalem’, [1975], 47) using Jean Daniélou’s definition of sacramental typology, states that “[i]n the discussion of baptism and chrismation, Cyril is operating from the framework of sacramental typology. In his use of the word for communion, there is another concern present.” 150 As discussed in foonote 29 on page 271, Cyril distinquished between spiritual, material, and intelligible with the term νοητός. See Frank’s ‘Taste and See’ (2001), 623-30 for a discussion of how Cyril taught that the spiritual eyes of faith were opened during the rites of initiation yet still needed to be trained to see rightly. The instruction on seeing rightly, and allowing the sensory data provided by the spiritual senses working in conjunction with the theologically-trained mind to take precidence over the sanctified sense of touch, taste, and smell is not a denigration of the material, neither is it a call to “blind faith.” Here, Cyril is working with newly activated senses that need training to function properly so that the working of the Holy Spirit and the presence of Christ can be discerned.

286

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

νοητός is in opposition to αἰσθητός and another is specifically to describe attributes of heavenly creatures or divine beings, 2) Cyril’s repeated use of the negation of αἰσθητός to teach that Christ’s body and blood in the eucharistic bread and wine are not discernable by the senses, and 3) Cyril stated that the eucharist is a mystical and ideal table (μυστικὴ καὶ νοητὰ τράπεζα)151 which God has prepared for his people. Cyril’s twenty-eight uses of νοητός provide insight into his use of the word. I have categorized these uses into seven categories: 1) as a contrast to αἰσθητός (one use with αἰσθητός implied), 2) metaphorically, 3) as a description of a deeper reality, 4) in a comparison between the sensible (physical, historical) and ideal (divine economy), 5) to describe an aspect of human nature, 6) to describe a heavenly or divine person, and 7) in an allusion to the eucharist. Table 6-11 provides a summary of these uses.

Table 6-11: Cyril’s Uses of Νοητός in the Catecheses Use

Referent

in contrast with what is perceivable by the senses (αἰσθητός)

C1.4: Olive-tree (Christ) perceived not by senses but by the mind C2.17: the real Cherubim (αἰσθητός implied) C9.16: all things (perceptible by senses and intelligible, visible and invisible)

in a metaphor

P1: intellectual flowers as transforming spiritual knowledge C14.23: Peter was commanded to feed intelligible sheep (τὰ νοητὰ πρόβατα) C17:10 the rulers of the world compared to the people of the church (the wolves, οἱ νοητοὶ λύκοι, and lambs of Isa 11:6) C17.19: Peter’s words at Pentecost as an ideal net

description of a deeper reality

C1.4: paradise, ideal olive tree grove C3.1: ideal hyssop (Ps 51:7) C13.21: the deeper meaning of the water and blood which flowed from Christ’s side

151 M4.7. This is the same description that Cyril used in C4.27 in his instructions on fasting: Christians were to fast from good things in order to enjoy this very table.

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

287

Table 6-11 (continued) Use comparison between the physical (sensible) and the ideal realm

Referent C3.1, C3.16: in contrast with the bridegroom of an earthly marriage, Christ is the ideal bridegroom C13.28: comparison of Christ’s human hands and his hands with which he made the world C13.24: physical rocks split when Christ, the νοητὰ πέτρα, was crucified C14.17: Jonah went down into the whale’s belly, Christ went down to the whale of death, νοητὸν τοῦ θανάτου κῆτος C17.10: dove returned to Noah, Holy Spirit descending as a dove upon Christ at his baptism

description of what C4.16, C16.31: intelligible nature (νοητὴ φύσις) kind of nature needs the holiness of the Holy Spirit to describe a divine person or a heavenly being

to describe Christ: C1.4: Ideal Olive Tree C12.1: Ideal Lamb (νοητὸν πρόβατον), C17.18, C17.19: Ideal Vine to describe the Holy Spirit C17.15: Acts 2:2 house filled with νοητοῦ ὕδατος (ideal water) when the disciples were baptized with fire M3.2: the Holy Spirit as the ideal oil of gladness to describe the Cherubim (C2.17)

description of the eucharist

C4.27 (twice): comparison of two tables, one of good earthly indulgences and one that is better yet (allusion to the eucharist)

From this analysis of his use of νοητός, it appears that Cyril had a rich understanding of deeper truths which were accessible by the mind but not by the physical senses. This coheres with his exhortations to look beyond the sensible aspects of each of the sacramental elements (see Table 2-2): even though Cyril does not use the contrast of αἰσθητός and νοητός in these passages. By including the Catecheses in the discussion of Cyril’s ontology and epistemology, Mazza’s assessment of Cyril’s application of a form of Platonic metaphysics seems to fall short of capturing the depth and sophistication of Cyril’s text.152 Cyril described a table which was both mystical (μυστικός) and intelligible 152 This is from the definition of the sensible and the intelligible that Mazza works with in his Mystagogy (169). See footnote 3, page 175.

288

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

(νοητός), in which the food is to be understood spiritually (πνευματικός) as Christ’s body and blood (his humanity), not a literal eating of his flesh (M4.4) and therefore it is not surprising that discernment of Christ’s humanity is not through the senses (αἰσθητός). In response to Mazza’s and Cutrone’s analysis of Cyril’s use of τύπος in M4, I argue that neither Mazza nor Cutrone have accounted for the different pedagogical thrust of M4 relative to that in M5. The context of the discussion of the eucharist in M4 is assurance of the transformation of both elements and persons and, within this text, the bread and the wine are referred to as τύπος in relationship with the νοητός of the reception of Christ’s body and blood. The eucharistic bread and wine are not referred to as ἀντίτυπος until discussed within the liturgical setting in M5. This would indicate that, as with baptism and the post-baptismal anointing, Cyril used ἀντίτυπος to refer not to the elements of the rite, but to the rite itself as the sign, as Lampe and Jackson have both rightly noted.153 For the eucharist, the eucharistic bread and wine are the spiritual figure (τύπος) of Christ’s body and blood (humanity) made present by the work of the Holy Spirit (νοητός) and received in the sacramental rite (ἀντίτυπος) of the eucharist. Table 6-12 provides a summary of Cyril’s use of τύπος, νοητός, and ἀντίτυπος in his discussion of the eucharist. Table 6-12: Cyril’s use of τύπος, νοητός, and ἀντίτυπος τύπος as type or figure of a spiritual reality

νοητός (deeper truth)

The Bread of Presence*

The bread of heaven and the cup of salvation*

Eucharistic bread and wine (M4.3)

Christ’s body and blood* (his humanity)

ἀντίτυπος as sacramental rite or “fulfillment of type” eucharist (M5.20)

* Cyril does not explicitly use the terms τύπος and νοητός with respect to these terms, but the meaning is clear from the context.

PGL sv ‘ἀντίτυπος’, 159, A7. Pamela Jackson notes that Cyril uses ἀντίτυπος in three of the Mystagogic Catecheses and in each it is never paired with τύπος (which is paired with ἀλήθεια). In these three instances, “each connected with God’s saving action through a sacramental rite: Baptism is the antitype of the Passion of Christ (M2.6), the chrism is the antitype of the Holy Spirit (M3.1), the bread and the wine are antitype of the Body and Blood of Christ (M5.20). Thus, for Cyril, an antitype provides a connection to a saving reality and mediates its power.” Jackson, ‘The Holy Spirit in the Catechesis and Mystagogy of Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, and John Chrysostom’ (1987), 256 note 54. 153

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

289

Summary of Cyril’s Use of Τύπος, Ἀλήθεια, Νοητός and Ἀντίτυπος In this section, I have examined how, through the imitation of Christ’s baptism and anointing, Christians participated in the truth (ἀλήθεια) of Christ’s actions through the sacramental rite (ἀντίτυπος). Through imitation (μίμησις), the Christian has become an image (εἰκών) of the one imitated, Christ, by participating in the real (ἀλήθεια). What has been done in the sacramental rite, while an imitation, has, for those who partook of the sacraments in faith (through both the gift and the assent to doctrine), been the means of transformation. Baptism, death, and receiving an anointing are all things that a human person can do and can imitate (death, by likeness and not truth, as Cyril carefully pointed out); imitation (μίμησις) is the means by which the imitator has access to the real (ἀλήθεια). In the pre-baptismal anointing, baptism, and the post-baptismal anointing, the Christians had participated in the mysteries of Christ’s actions, in his humanity, in time and physical place, in order to receive salvation through solidarity with Christ and to receive the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Cyril’s sacramental theology shifted when he came to the eucharist. He used neither μίμησις nor ἀλήθεια in his teachings on the sacramental act. Neither did he use the gloss of τύπος as a type of things to come or as a prescribed form nor τυπικός as conforming to a pattern applied to the eucharist. In the eucharist, the Christians continue to partake of the mystery of Christ’s incarnation in order to partake of his divinity. The eucharistic meal is not a one time event, but an ongoing sign of restored community and new identity. The culmination of Cyril’s τύπος-ἀλήθεια/νοητός-ἀντίτυπος model is found in Cyril’s eucharistic theology where, by partaking of the type of the spiritual reality (τύπος) which is also the sacramental rite (ἀντίτυπος)—the eucharistic bread and wine as the sensible elements representing Christ’s humanity—the Christian partakes of the intelligible (νοητός) truth, that is, Christ’s divinity, which is also present yet beyond what can be perceived by the senses (αἰσθητός). Table 6-13 provides a comparison and summary of Cyril’s sacramental theology as expressed through the terms of τύπος, ἀλήθεια, νοητός and ἀντίτυπος.

Aaron’s and Solomon’s anointings (M3.6)

Tυπικός as “conforming to pattern”

* Implied use of νοητός.

Blood of the Passover lamb prior to the Exodus (M1.2 and 3)

Tύπος as a type “of things to come” or a “prescribed form”

Type

Christ’s body and blood*

the Holy Spirit (M3.2)

Νοητός

Eucharistic bread and wine (M4.3)

Anointed with the Holy Spirit (M3.6)

Ἀληθής

The bread of heaven and the cup of salvation*

Christ’s anointing with the Holy Spirit (M3.2)

Christ’s suffering (his crucifixion, death, and burial) (M2.5, 2.7)

Blood of Christ, the Lamb (M1.3)

Ἀλήθεια

The Bread of Presence*

Tύπος as type or figure of a spiritual reality

Truth / Reality

eucharist (M5.20)

anointing with holy oil (myron) (M3.1, 14)

baptism (M2.6)

Ἀντίτυπος as sacramental rite or “fulfillment of type”

Sacramental Rite

Table 6-13: Summary of Cyril’s Uses of Τύπος, Ἀλήθεια, Νοητός and Ἀντίτυπος with Respect to the Divine Mysteries of Initiation

290 Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

291

Cyril’s Narrative of How the Sacraments Integrate the Christian into the Divine Economy Cyril’s doctrine of theōsis provides the hermeneutical key to unlock what has seemed, to some, as surprising shifts in word usage and sacramental theology. Now, having resolved the issue of Cyril’s “typological problem,” it is possible to look at the larger narrative in which Cyril masterfully integrated the Christian, through Christ, into the whole of redemptive history.154 Table 6-14 provides an overview of the relationship between the sacraments and the divine economy. Table 6-14: Integration into the Divine Economy Through the Sacraments Event Pre-baptismal renouncing of Satan and being stripped Baptism

Participation in the Divine Economy Like Adam, naked and unashamed (M2.2) Like Christ, naked on the cross (M2.2) The Exodus as a type of salvation that is fulfilled in Christ’s crucifixion (M1.2-3); Moses and Pharaoh as types (τύπος): As Moses came to free the Hebrews from Pharaoh, Christ came to free Christians; as Pharaoh drowns in the Red Sea, the demons drown in the baptismal font. The blood of the paschal lamb which saved the people from the destroyer is the type (τύπος) of Christ’s suffering and death on the cross (M1.3). Led to the font as Christ was carried to the tomb (M2.4) Like Christ, Christians are baptized (M3.1) Descended and ascended three times from the water in imitation of Christ’s three days in the tomb and his resurrection (M2.4, M2.7) Baptism is in correspondence (ἀντίτυπος) of Christ’s suffering (M2.6).

154 Cutrone, ‘Saving Presence in the “Mystagogical Catechesis” of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1975), 56, 58, by focusing on Christians becoming images of Christ through imitation, omits significant aspects of Cyril’s exposition of redemptive history. For example, Cutrone does not discuss the significance of the dual imitation of nakedness. He discusses the imitation of Christ, but omits the imitation of Adam in paradise. Cutrone argues in his dissertation that “By the use of these doctrines [typology and εικωνμιμησις], [Cyril] explains how it is that the neophytes came to God’s saving presence. Certain acts of salvation history find their fulfillment in the sacramental rites of baptism and it is in this sacramental activity that one receives the reality of the Holy Spirit who affects in each one the Image of Christ. By virtue of that Image the individual shares in the reality of the saving presence activity of Christ.” Ibid. 62-3. But this does not explain Cyril’s use of τύπος with respect to the eucharist and to the church, nor does it answer why he uses both τύπος and ἀντίτυπος with respect to the eucharist. Τύπος seems to be used when something is going to be fulfilled. The church and deification are yet to be completed.

292

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table 6-14 (continued) Event

Participation in the Divine Economy

Post-baptismal anointing

Aaron bathed then was anointed as the first high priest, Solomon bathed and then was anointed as king as forms of the rite (τυπικός) that are fulfilled in Christ (M3.6) Foretold by Isaiah (M3.1, M3.7) Christ’s anointing with the Holy Spirit at his baptism (M3.2) In correspondence (ἀντίτυπος) of Christ’s anointing by the Holy Spirit, the Images of Christ are anointed with myron (M3.2)

Eucharist

Assurance of the reality of the eucharist is based upon Christ’s words of institution (M4.1, 2, 6), prophesy in Ecclesiastes (M4.8) and David’s prophesy (M4.9) Old Testament “Loaves of Presence” of the Tabernacle and Temple; New Testament bread of heaven and cup of salvation Christ’s Last Supper with his disciples becomes their first experience of table fellowship with God The eucharistic bread and wine are both representations (τύπος) and correspondences (ἀντίτυπος) of Christ’s body and blood

The return to paradise as adopted sons, entering the heavenly worship, and sitting at the table prepared by God for his children are all relational aspects of being integrated, salvificially, into the divine economy. Conclusion In this chapter, I have demonstrated that Cyril’s sacramental theology is the foundation for his teachings on Christian identity. Within Cyril’s teachings on each sacramental rite, a new layer of Christian identity is provided and explained. Through the means of the sacraments, Christians are restored to wholeness that includes repaired relationships within the human community, the heavenly community, and the divine community. This restoration occurs only within the context of the church and is accomplished through the divine economy. Moral conduct and faith (both doctrinal orthodoxy and trust in the Triune God, which includes being able to discern the intelligible reality which is contained and shared through the sacramental elements) are necessary components of remaining in community. Since Cyril’s expression of theōsis is integral to his teachings on salvation and sacraments, theōsis, for Cyril, is sacramental and the larger category

Chapter 6: Sacramental Theōsis and Identity Transformation

293

through which to examine his soteriology.155 Because Cyril integrates Christian identity into his teachings on theōsis and Christian identity is dependent upon divine character qualities, theōsis and ethics are integrated. Cyril’s understanding of theōsis is the foundation through which all human relationships are to be discussed: with each person of the Trinity, with other Christians, with the rest of creation including the heavenly beings, and with those who are outside the church (the devil, demonic forces, heretics, and Jews). Thus, studies of Cyril’s ecclesiology and theological anthropology, and in particular on his sacramental theology, must take into account his doctrine of theōsis. In particular, Cutrone’s εἰκών-μίμησις model, as well as Mazza’s expression of the same, leaves Christians as images of Christ and neglects the last part of Christian identity formation. I have proposed a reading of Cyril’s sacramental theology that is more than merely being brought into God’s saving presence, but is the beginning of the eternal life of fellowship with the Triune God by being Christ-bearers who share in the divine nature and are Heavens on earth. Cyril’s ecclesiology, based in his sacramental theōsis, was understandable and livable in the fourth-century Jerusalem pilgrimage context. Egeria provides us with a pilgrim’s analysis that substantiates this claim: she does not comment on different Christian identities, but seemed to feel welcomed as a fellow Christian in the holy city of Jerusalem. If Cyril’s teachings regarding the mysteries were unusual or unexpected, she would not have reported excitement from those who listened to the bishop as he taught the newly baptized. While Russell proposes that Cyril of Alexandria’s sacramental theōsis is considered to be the first expression of a trinitarian articulation of theōsis, I have argued for a clearly trinitarian doctrine of theōsis in an earlier Cyril’s works.156 However, as I have demonstrated, it is only when Cyril of Jerusalem’s

155

Cutrone, ‘Saving Presence in the “Mystagogical Catechesis” of Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1975), 62-3 has argued that: “[b]y the use of these doctrines [typology and εἰκών-μίμησις], [Cyril] explains how it is that the neophytes came to God’s saving presence. Certain acts of salvation history find their fulfillment in the sacramental rites of baptism and it is in this sacramental activity that one receives the reality of the Holy Spirit who effects in each one the Image of Christ. By virtue of that Image the individual shares in the reality of the saving presence activity of Christ.” While I do not disagree that, for Cyril, it is through the sacraments that the Christian is brought into God’s saving presence, Cutrone’s reading stops short of the description of salvation that Cyril taught. 156 Russell, Fellow Workers with God (2009), 27. “… Cyril [of Alexandria] resorts to a text largely ignored by the earlier Fathers: ‘partakers of the divine nature’ (2Pet 1:4). Using this text as a concise way of expressing how Christians can appropriate the divine life, he connects deification for the first time with the Trinity as a whole. When we partake of the divine nature we achieve a relationship with the Father through the Spirit in the Son.” See also Miller’s The Corporeal Imagination (2009), 13 in which she states that Cyril of Alexandria’s sacramental theōsis can be summarized as: “By taking on flesh, the Word had made possible the transfiguration of human nature, guaranteeing the resurrection of the body. Hence it was essential that the Eucharistic elements be truly the body and blood of Christ because, just as Christ represented a

294

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

complete catechetical works are taken as a literary and theological unit that we find a trinitarian sacramental theōsis in Jerusalem in the mid to late fourth century, well before Cyril of Alexandria’s episcopacy between 412 and 444 (born c 376, two years before Cyril of Jerusalem’s death).

transformed humanity, so also the sacramental elements were the vehicle through which the process of deification occurred.

Chapter 7 Cyril’s Eucharistic Theology as a Vital Component of Identity Formation through Sacramental Theōsis Summary of The Work My goal has been to examine how, through the Lenten catechetical teachings and especially the post-Easter mystagogical instructions, Cyril of Jerusalem provided new Christians with a means of articulating their identity in a nonpolemic fashion. Within the Mystagogic Catecheses, Cyril used a series of three attributions associated with the mysteries which are sacraments: “Christian” with baptism, “Christs” with the post-baptismal anointing, and “Christ-bearers” with the eucharist. These three descriptors are layered, one upon the next, over four days of instructions. A fourth name was added on the fifth day of the mystagogic instruction, “Heavens,” in Cyril’s instructions upon the final mystery: corporate worship in which the new Christians would be entering into the ongoing worship of the Triune God with the full company of heaven. Taken together, this layering of identity descriptors, all based upon the Christian’s relationship with the Divine, are facets of knowing what it means to be among the Faithful, the people who share God’s name. Because of this connection between identity and the mysteries of the faith (the sacraments and corporate worship), Cyril’s sacramental theology needed to be examined in detail. In particular, Cyril’s eucharistic theology had been identified in the secondary literature as problematic in that it did not follow the expected pattern identified in his baptismal and “chrismational” theology. Yet, some of the secondary literature looked at only Cyril’s Mystagogic Catecheses, or the Mystagogic Catecheses with Catechesis 3 (the lecture on baptism) to examine Cyril’s sacramental theology. However, Cyril had promised his listeners in the Procatechesis that he was building up a structure of teachings which would continue after Easter in the Mystagogic Catecheses. My methodological assumption was that insights into Cyril’s sacramental theology which could explain some of the “problematic” aspects of his eucharistic theology were in his Procatechesis and Catecheses. That is, to fully understand how Cyril built up Christian identity, his sacramental theology needed to be examined; to understand his sacramental theology, the entire catechetical program needed to be examined. However, questions about the authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses required analysis of this set of instructions in order to ensure that the text I used as the culmination of Cyril’s building up of identity was actually Cyril’s, as best as could be determined. To resolve these questions, in Part I, chapters two and three, I examined the major concerns about the authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses. In chapter two, I used codicological evidence and a comparison

296

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

with Macarius I’s baptismal theology as presented in the recently re-dated Letter to the Armenians to support the case for Cyrillian authorship. Based upon codicology, I demonstrated that because all of the extant Greek copies of the Mystagogic Catecheses have circulated with other works of Cyril’s and not with texts by the author whose name is also associated with the text, John of Jerusalem, this evidence provides additional support for Cyrillian authorship of the text. From Macarius I’s letter, I demonstrated that the baptismal theology present in the Mystagogic Catecheses was at least articulated, if not practiced, by the bishop who had ordained Cyril as a deacon in Jerusalem. In chapter three, I argued that the text of the Mystagogic Catecheses with the highest confidence of being Cyril’s is presented in a different manuscript tradition than what is used as the primary tradition used in the critical edition. This analysis was based upon the assessment of the editor of the critical edition that his preferred manuscript has been redacted, and that redactor was most likely John of Jerusalem. This led to revisions of some of the text based upon my analysis of several text-critical issues in order to reduce the modifications to the text by John, some of which are highly significant in understanding Cyril’s eucharistic theology. Having determined that the manuscript tradition β, which was not the preferred manuscript tradition in the critical edition, provides a text of the Mystagogic Catecheses that has been less redacted and thus is closer to the Cyrillian text, the next stage of analysis was to examine what could serve as the hermeneutical key which would allow the modern reader to see the support structure that Cyril presented to his listeners. Part II was devoted to examining Cyril’s sacramental theōsis, first from the perspective of his use of key concepts and biblical passages that were common among other Greek church fathers with known doctrines of theōsis (chapter four) and then from the perspective of word and concept studies in the semantic range of “fellowship” (κοινωνία) in chapter five. In the concept and word study analysis, I demonstrated that Cyril’s understanding of identity was based upon with whom one has fellowship. Furthermore, I demonstrated that Cyril wove this concept throughout the entire catechetical instruction series, especially in the Mystagogic Catecheses, and that this concept served as an inclusio for the entire pedagogical structure. In Part III, chapter six, I demonstrated that this undergirding structure of fellowship (κοινωνία) coheres with the names that Cyril uses to describe Christians: Christians, Christs, and Christ-bearers are all attributions related to aspects of a unique relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit which is mediated through the sacraments of the church. The common attribution of “the Faithful” is, for Cyril, sharing in the name of God since this is an attribute of God’s character. Finally, Cyril taught that Christians are Heavens because God dwells within them and walks among them. In this chapter, I also demonstrated that Cyril’s sacramental theōsis, as presented in the full catechetical program, is a fully developed doctrine of theōsis. That is, Cyril taught that through union with Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit, persons are restored to wholeness

Chapter 7: Cyril’s Eucharistic Theology

297

of both body and soul and right relationship with the Father through the church and the practice of virtue within the context of the divine economy of salvation. Furthermore, this restoration extends beyond humanity and God to encompass all of creation, both the seen and the unseen. Fellowship with each person of the Trinity and sharing in the ongoing heavenly worship with fellow Christians is the pinnacle of Cyril’s instruction on what it means to become a Christian. Thus, in order to understand Cyril’s teaching on Christian identity, I found that to discuss Christian identity formation or the sacraments without beginning with Cyril’s doctrine of theōsis and how this gift is given and nurtured through the divine mysteries of Christ—the sacraments and corporate worship—would entail examining the capstone of Cyril’s teaching without first understanding the supporting structure of the building in all of its strength and glory. Through the course of my argument, I have critiqued some of the secondary literature’s presentations of Cyril’s eucharistic theology, most notably those of Enrico Mazza and Emanuel Cutrone. In chapter four, I critiqued their respective proposals of an εἰκών-μίμησις model of sacramental theology. In chapter six, I critiqued their respective analysis of Cyril’s use of τύπος and related words. However, only after demonstrating that the hermeneutical key to understanding Cyril’s eucharistic theology derives from his pedagogical goal of spiritual formation of new Christians (of which identity formation is a facet) that rests upon an implicit doctrine of theōsis is it possible to fully address the issues concerning Cyril’s eucharistic theology. In the next section I summarize and complete my critique of Mazza’s and Cutrone’s interpretations of Cyril’s eucharistic theology and present my alternative interpretations of Cyril’s eucharistic theology that places the eucharist within the context of his doctrine of sacramental theōsis and Christian identity formation. Analysis of the εἰκών-μίμησις Model and Cyril’s Use of τύπος Mazza and Cutrone have both used an εἰκών-μίμησις model (imitation in order to become an image) and Cyril’s use of the word τύπος to summarize Cyril’s sacramental theology. However, as they both have rightly noted, Cyril’s eucharistic theology is distinct from his baptismal and “chrismational” theology. Both scholars assumed that Cyril would consistently apply a single model across all three sacraments and found it odd that Cyril did not use this same model in either of his two lectures on the eucharist. Mazza has argued that this unexpected shift occurs for several reasons, most notably from a less than sophisticated use of Platonic metaphysics and a shift to a more physical realism with regards to Christ’s presence in the eucharist.1 However, I have argued that 1

Yarnold, ‘The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem’ (1978), 151 proposes that “elements of this exaggeratedly realistic doctrine are already present in P and C, where the waters are said to be Christophora (P15) ...”

298

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Cyril’s use of Platonic metaphysics as described by Mazza is actually quite consistent and more sophisticated than previously understood. The Difficulties Inherent in the Εἰκών-Μίμησις Sacramental Model As I demonstrated above, while Cyril clearly describes sacramental imitation (μίμησις) of events in Christ’s life in both baptism and post-baptismal anointing, Christians do not properly become an image (εἰκών) of Christ until after they have received the χρῖσμα. Thus, there is not an εἰκών-μίμησις dimension of both baptism and post-baptismal anointing individually; instead, the εἰκώνμίμησις aspect of Christian formation is through the sequence of baptism followed by post-baptismal anointing.2 Furthermore, Cyril uses the term εἰκών to describe Christians one additional time that both Mazza and Cutrone neglect to discuss: Christians have become, through the divine mysteries, images (εἰκών) of the heavenly because God dwells within and walks among them. This second use of εἰκών cannot be sacramentally accomplished through imitation (μίμησις) of Christ but is the result of the restoration of relationships that is at the core of Cyril’s understanding of theōsis. In C12.1, Cyril stated that by partaking (μεταβάλλειν) in the humanity of Christ, Christians also partake (μεταβάλλειν) of his divinity. Partaking of Christ’s humanity occurs through imitation (μίμησις) for the first two mysteries, baptism and the post-baptismal anointing. Yet, as explicated as a major theme of M4, partaking of the divine nature is through faith that Christ will accomplish what he has promised and understanding where one is within redemptive history. The key to understanding Cyril’s eucharistic theology is holding together two things: 1) the ancient colloquial phrase of sharing in blood and flesh is a way of speaking of being human and 2) according to Cyril, by partaking of Christ’s humanity, Christians partake of his divinity. Before his death, resurrection, and ascension, Jesus said that the bread and wine of the Last Supper were his body and blood. Cyril argued that since Christ gave his body and blood to his disciples prior to his ascension and because these new Christians receive the sacred meal after Christ has ascended, Christ is even more able to give the benefits of his body and blood to his followers after his ascension. Thus, the eucharistic bread and wine are the means by which Christians partake of Christ’s humanity in order to partake of his divinity. The question then becomes, what does Cyril mean by “partaking of Christ’s humanity”? Is this a physical realism or a mystical, spiritual, and intelligible (in the Platonic sense, real) presence? Given Cyril’s insistence in both M4 and 5 upon looking beyond the senses; not interpreting this statement literally as some Jews were reported in John 6

2

See Table 4-2: Cyril’s Use of the Cognates of εἰκών and μίμησις for details.

Chapter 7: Cyril’s Eucharistic Theology

299

to have done, thinking that this was a form of cannibalism; treating this meal as spiritual, mystical, and intelligible; Christ’s very real presence is not, for Cyril, physical. However, while Christ’s presence is not “real” in the physical sense, Christians are to be fully assured (πληροφορεῖν) that the sanctified and transformed bread and wine of the eucharist are Christ’s body and blood, otherwise they would not become Christ-bearers. This mystical, intelligible meal is real and clearly transformative; while Cyril referred to the eucharist as the spiritual sacrifice (πνευματικὰ θυσία), the bloodless rite (ἀναίμακτος λατρεία), the sacrifice which is a sin offering (θυσία ἐκείνης τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ) in M5.8 and as the most awe-inspiring sacrifice (φρικωδέστατα θυσία) in M5.9, all this terminology is in the context of his discussion of the transformative work of the Holy Spirit. For Cyril, while imitation of Christ is an integral part of understanding baptism and the post-baptismal anointing, imitation of Christ is not how the Christian becomes a Christ-bearer and an image (εἰκών) of the heavenly. If one is expecting either an atonement-sacrifice motif or an imitation motif in the eucharist, then Cyril’s eucharistic theology is an enigma. An Alternative Reading of Cyril’s Use of τύπος Before addressing the question of Cyril’s teaching on Christ’s presence in the eucharist, my critique of Mazza’s and Cutrone’s explication of Cyril’s use of τύπος needs to be summarized. By examining the Catecheses and the Mystagogic Catecheses as a unit, I have found that Cyril’s use of τύπος is more expansive than either Mazza or Cutrone accounted for in their focus on Cyril’s Mystagogic Catecheses alone. While I agree that Cyril does use τύπος differently in his eucharistic theology, I also argue that Cyril does not use τύπος, but rather τυπικός, in his post-baptismal anointing theology. Cyril’s use of τύπος/ τυπικός is slightly different for each sacrament. For baptism, the blood of the Passover lambs of the Exodus is the “type of the thing to come” (τύπος) of the reality (ἀλήθεια) of Christ’s sacrificial death, the blood of the unblemished Lamb who takes away the sins of the world. Baptism is the sacramental rite (ἀντίτυπος) that corresponds to the reality (ἀλήθεια) of Christ’s death, so that by imitation (μίμησις) of the likeness of Christ’s death, Christians share (κοινωνός) in Christ’s suffering and, through this fellowship (κοινωνία) of being planted in (σύμφυτος) the likeness of Christ’s death, Christians are planted with (σύμφυτος) him in his resurrection. Thus, in baptism, the τύπος and both aspects of the ἀλήθεια all involve the spilling of blood to the point of death, while the ἀντίτυπος is in imitation of death, which, as Cyril repeatedly pointed out, baptism is participation in the likeness of Christ’s death. For the post-baptismal anointing, the pattern (τυπικός) is Aaron’s and Solomon’s anointing with oil after having bathed, which changed their status within the community (Aaron was anointed as high priest of the community, Solomon

300

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

as king). The reality (ἀλήθεια) is Christ’s and the real (ἀληθής) anointing of Christians with the Holy Spirit, yet Christ’s anointing was with the reality (ἀλήθεια) of the Holy Spirit, the Oil of Joy, while Christians’ anointing is the sacramental correspondence (ἀντίτυπος) of anointing with the holy myron. Cyril noted the different instances of anointings which follow ritual bathing and used them as his τυπικός rather than including Saul and David who were also anointed as kings of Israel. This differentiation appears to be based upon the scriptural details of the full sequence of actions, anointing after ritual bathing, indicating that the referent to τυπικός is a prescribed series of actions which follows a different but related ritual action. While it is possible to read both τύπος and τυπικός as having equivalent meanings, an example of Cyril’s use of τυπικός in the Catecheses provides insight into his specific use of this term. When discussing the ongoing Jewish commemoration of the Passover in relationship to the historical event that the ongoing ritual celebrates, Cyril used τυπικός to refer to the symbolic ritual and ἀλήθεια to refer to the event. Thus, the reality (ἀλήθεια) in both cases is the one-time historical event within the divine economy of salvation (the first Passover, Christ’s anointing with the Holy Spirit) and τυπικός refers to the symbolic ritual (the annual Passover feast and the anointing of Aaron and Solomon). In distinction from the symbolic ritual (τυπικός), the sacramental rite which is transformative in the life of the Christian through the work of the Holy Spirit (ἀντίτυπος) is the anointing with holy oil that corresponds to the reality of Christ’s anointing with the ideal (νοητός) Oil of Joy. Thus, the τυπικός-ἀλήθεια/ἀληθής -ἀντίτυπος of the post-baptismal anointing all involve anointing with oil after bathing or baptism, with the oil of the ἀλήθεια being the νοητός Oil of Joy—the Holy Spirit. This is in contrast with baptism, in which the ἀντίτυπος is in likeness to the τύπος and ἀλήθεια. Clearly, even between the post-baptismal anointing and baptism, Cyril’s use of τύπος has at least two significant differences. 1) Cyril tailored his language to reflect the distinctions between the τύπος of baptism (a historical event that prefigured an event in Jesus Christ’s life) and the τυπικός of the post-baptismal anointing (a symbolic ritual that was already a custom which prefigured an event in Jesus Christ’s life). 2) The relationship between the sacramental ἀντίτυπος and the reality (ἀλήθεια) differ between the two mysteries, with the post-baptismal anointing sharing the same ritual act, the action in Christ’s life, and sacramental rite (anointing) and the sacramental ἀντίτυπος of baptism being a likeness of the reality (ἀλήθεια) in the τύπος. Given these subtle differences between Cyril’s teaching on the post-baptismal anointing and baptism, it is not unexpected that Cyril’s eucharistic theology would also differ from both the post-baptismal anointing and baptism. Yet, Cyril’s use of τύπος in M4 has proven to be the most troublesome for both Cutrone and Mazza. Several similarities between baptism and the post-baptismal anointing provide difficulties in following Cyril’s shifting patterns in his sacramental theology.

Chapter 7: Cyril’s Eucharistic Theology

301

For both baptism and the post-baptismal anointing, when Cyril instructed his listeners to consider how the Old Testament related to the New Testament, he used τύπος or τυπικός to describe the Old Testament historical event or ritual, and ἀλήθεια to describe the corresponding reality in Christ’s life (and, for the post-baptismal anointing, the reality in the life of the Christian). However, while τύπος or τυπικός and ἀλήθεια are expected at this point in his presentation, Cyril simply used the copulative “to be” (εἶναι) to relate the Bread of Presence to the Old Testament prefiguration and an implied parallel copulative to relate the Bread of Heaven and cup of salvation to the New Testament reality. Cyril explained that the Old Testament symbolic meal with the Divine has been replaced with the New Testament eucharistic meal; the use of the copulative provides the continuity and fulfillment between the figure of the spiritual reality, the τύπος, and the ideal itself, the νοητός.3 Cyril also used τύπος to denote similarity in physical form in the eucharist: bread is similar to the human body, wine is similar to blood, and thus the physical forms (τύπος) of the elements represent the truth that Cyril spent the whole of M4 assuring his listeners was true without using the word ἀλήθεια: Christ’s humanity, his body and blood, is made available to Christians at the mystical, spiritual, intelligible table. Cyril used this nuance of τύπος in the Catecheses, but not in the Mystagogic Catecheses; only by reading the Mystagogic Catecheses with the Catecheses does this use of τύπος become a viable possibility. Furthermore, it is only through reading the Mystagogic Catecheses with the Catecheses that connections between Cyril’s insistence in looking beyond the sensible (αἰσθητός) to the ideal (νοητός) comes into focus. Christ’s humanity and, because of his nature, also his divinity, is present in the eucharist in the deepest and most profound way possible (νοητός). Because of this, the table prepared by the Triune God is the mystical and ideal table (μυστικὴ καὶ νοητὰ τράπεζα). My reading of Cyril’s eucharistic theology, then, is that the Old Testament prefiguration—the Bread of Presence—has been replaced with the New Testament Bread of Heaven and cup of salvation, Christ’s humanity (body and blood). The eucharistic elements are similar in form (τύπος) to the ideal (νοητός) of Christ’s body and blood, and thus all three aspects: Old Testament prefiguration, New Testament reality, and form (τύπος) are all bread (and, in the case of the New Testament reality, cup as well), providing a pattern of τύπος-νοητός that builds upon yet surpasses Cyril’s τύπος-ἀλήθεια baptismal theology and his τυπικός-ἀλήθεια “chrismational” theology. Cyril’s sacramental theology, as I have discussed it, is more sophisticated than that proposed by Mazza and Cutrone, and even that summarized by 3

Cyril stated that the Old Testament prefigurement, the Bread of Presence, has now come to an end, something that was not mentioned in the discussion of baptism and the post-baptismal anointing.

302

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Powers. What I have proposed is that Cyril had a more robust and nuanced sacramental theology than that for which he has typically been given credit. By recognizing that Cyril’s sacramental theology is highly nuanced in order to accommodate the distinctiveness of each sacrament, one need not argue that Cyril’s sacramental theology failed when he began discussing the eucharist simply because his description of the eucharist did not fit into a less nuanced model. Each sacrament has its own unique aspects for which one must account, because each sacrament has a unique role in incorporating the new Christians into the divine economy and thus into their new identity in Christ. Cyril’s Eucharistic Theology from the Context of Identity Formation as One Dimension of Sacramental Theōsis In order to begin to examine the beauty of Cyril’s eucharistic theology and the identity formation that is associated with it, the eucharist must be kept within the context of sacramental theōsis. By working through all three texts (Procatecheses, Catecheses, Mystagogic Catecheses) as a whole in the same manner as those going through the instructions as new Christians would, the cohesive foundation and structure for his theology, theōsis, becomes evident. The goal of theōsis is not merely redemption and restoration, but fellowship with each person of the Trinity. As I presented in chapter one, some Western scholars of patristic eucharistic theology assume that the primary focus of the eucharist should be Christ’s passion, following Cyprian’s eucharistic theology as the “proper” articulation of the sacrament. However, for Cyril, the sacrament in which the Christian participates in Christ’s death and resurrection is not the eucharist, but baptism. The central theme for Cyril’s eucharistic theology is dining with God. This theme not only coheres with his use of fellowship language as the undergirding structure for his catechetical instruction (as demonstrated in chapter five) but is evident in his use of Psalm 23 (LXX 24) and Eccl 9:7-8, both referring to joyful meals in God’s presence, as prophetic foreshadowing of the eucharist. Thus, the eucharistic τύπος, Old Testament prefiguration and New Testament truth, all are stated in terms of bread or bread and wine—the foundation of a meal. This does not preclude describing the eucharist as a sacrifice as Cyril does in M5; Cyril used the genre of mystagogy for a reason. It is not only possible, but appropriate, for a given action to carry multiple meanings, as he demonstrated with the pre-baptismal stripping which simultaneously represented Christ’s humiliating nakedness on the cross, Adam’s innocent nakedness in paradise before his disobedience, and the putting off of the old person with his or her old sinful ways. One can argue that Cyril spent more time developing the fellowship meal concept in M4 in order to echo the Passover. The Passover lambs were consumed (physically) on the night of the salvation of the Israelites

Chapter 7: Cyril’s Eucharistic Theology

303

from Egyptian slavery; similarly the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world is also consumed (spiritually) on the night of the Christian’s reception of life-giving baptism. Thus, the prayers of intercession are heard by the Father because Christians offer up Christ’s sacrificial death as the crown offered to the King on behalf of those who have displeased him (M5.10). For Cyril, the True Cross, Golgotha, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre were witnesses to Christ’s death and resurrection that those preparing for baptism would have visited during Holy Week. The new Christians’ first eucharist (as well as the eucharistic celebration of the entire church) was in the Martyrium so that the focus of the greatest mystery—the ongoing participation in eucharistic celebration within the context of the divine liturgy—was both Christ’s passion (implicitly) and the fellowship with the Triune God that is available to Christians through Christ’s passion and the work of the Holy Spirit. In order for Christians to become Christ-bearers, Christ’s humanity must fill the void within the bodies of the Christians that remained for the short time between the pre-baptismal anointing and the eucharist. “Like rests upon like” in the eucharist: the holy myron had brought the new Christians into contact with the divinity of the Holy Spirit (through fellowship) and contact with the humanity of Christ (his body and blood) allowed them to partake of Christ’s divinity. Hence Cyril cautioned the new Christians on two fronts: 1) against lack of confidence in Christ’s humanity being made available to them for their sanctification and deification due to the taste, texture, and smell of the bread and wine, 2) or by missing the spiritual and intelligible significance and thinking that they were eating real flesh. Just as the baptismal water and holy χρῖσμα were made vessels capable of transferring holiness through the work of the Holy Spirit, so too was the sanctified bread and wine. For all three mysteries, Cyril urged the new Christians not to consider the sacramental elements as merely physical, but to discern with their minds, through faith, the spiritual realities which are transformative. According to Cyril, the same Holy Spirit who sanctifies and transforms both bread and wine so that Christ’s body and blood (humanity) is present is the one who also sanctifies and deifies Christians so that they are also Christs and Christ-bearers. In this way, those who came forward at the beginning of Lent seeking fellowship with the Triune God have become Heavens, those within whom God dwells. Conclusions and Observations For Cyril, Christian spiritual formation, including the call to living a virtuous life, is based upon the restoration of relationship with the divine and, with this, a return to humanity’s home, paradise. Healing of the human person and of creation, restoration of relationships among persons human and divine, and sharing in the divine life and thus becoming heavenly and eternal creatures are

304

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

all the results of the Trinity’s love of humanity (φιλανθρωπία). Ultimately, for Cyril, it all comes down to a simple question: with whom does one have table fellowship? Cyril gave two options: either one dines at the table of demons or one dines at the table prepared by God. The eucharist, for Cyril, was not merely a re-enactment of Christ’s passion, but it is a fulfillment of the promise God made in Exodus through the Bread of Presence. The prophecy of David, who ate the Bread of Presence, has been fulfilled: the eucharist is the table of Psalm 23 (LXX 24), the table that the Lord prepares for his people in the presence of their enemies. This ongoing meal is a foretaste of the wedding feast of the Lamb. But, to attend a wedding one needs to be properly dressed. Just as the Passover lambs had been slain and their blood smeared on the lintels to save God’s people from death, Christians participate in the likeness of spotless Lamb’s death and resurrection in order to put on the new person, Christ, who is the garment of salvation. Baptism serves as the means for being cleansed and putting on the wedding garment that allows Christians to enjoy the heavenly, mysterious banquet of the eucharist, and eventually the wedding feast as sons of the bridal-chamber when Christ comes again. Just as the Bread of Presence was given after salvation from Egypt, the Bread of Heaven (eucharist) is received for the first time after salvation from sin (baptism). I propose that through Cyril’s diligent work to connect baptism with Christ’s death and resurrection and the eucharist with a celebratory meal in God’s presence, the sacrificial language within the liturgy would then serve to remind the new Christians that they were able to dine at God’s table with joy and a cheerful heart because of Christ’s atoning sacrifice on their behalf. For the feast which is yet to come, Cyril exhorted those who bear the name of Christ to live according to the traditions of the church so that their wedding garments (baptismal gowns as symbols of their purity and righteousness through Christ’s passion and the sanctification of the Holy Spirit) remain white and shining. When one thinks of oneself as beloved, being the sweet fragrance of Christ to the Father, and one who stands to inherit the fullness of redemption and restoration, in fellowship with the Triune God, then living a virtuous life for the sake of the joy yet to come is a powerful motivator. When the ecclesial community extends beyond the living to those who have died in Christ and are already joining in the heavenly worship with the rest of the hosts of heaven, it is not surprising that pilgrims and sojourners like Egeria found a place to worship in the catholic church of Jerusalem. Cyril described the incredible dignity of partaking of the humanity of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son, made present by the sanctifying and transforming work of the Holy Spirit in the eucharistic meal. This meal provides nourishment, sanctity, and deification by partaking of Christ’s divinity at the fellowship meal with the Triune God. As the spiritual leader of his community, he trusted that by the new Christians knowing their full, multi-layered identity and

Chapter 7: Cyril’s Eucharistic Theology

305

what it means to be Christian, Christ, Christ-bearer, Heaven, and Faithful; recognizing other Christians as those with whom one is in fellowship with as demonstrated each Lord’s day through the holy kiss; and knowing that the Son became like them and died for them so that they could enjoy him they would have a powerful motivation to live out the Christian life. Cyril completed his promise made at the beginning of Lent: to those who studied diligently and cooperated with him, he bequeathed the beautiful building of his teachings. This building’s structural framework is a trinitarian sacramental theōsis that provides a pathway for new Christians to enter into the more fragrant meadows of paradise with the knowledge that as Christs, Christ-bearers, and Heavens, they, with the rest of the church and the company of heaven, dine with the Triune God. Based upon Egeria’s description of the reception of Cyril’s mystagogical instructions by those who heard them, this theological and spiritual edifice was not only intelligible to Cyril’s listeners, but also delighted their souls in a way that demanded an embodied response of joy.

Appendix A Titles of the Catecheses Table A-1: Titles of the Catecheses Topic as Provided in the Text1

Text

Translation

P

—

(Preparatory teaching)

C1

ΕΙΣΑΓΩΓΙΚΗ τοῖς τῷ βαπτίσματι προσελθοῦσι.

Introduction for those who are coming for baptism

C2

ΠΕΡΙ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΙΑΣ

On Repentance

C3

ΠΕΡΙ ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜΑΤΟΣ

On Baptism

C4

ΠΕΡΙ ΤΩΝ ΔΕΚΑ ΔΟΓΜΑΤΩΝ

On the Ten Dogmas

C5

ΠΕΡΙ ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ

On Faith

C6

περὶ ΘΕΟΥ ΜΟΝΑΡΧΙΑΣ, εἰς τό, ΠΙΣΤΕΥΩ ΕΙΣ ΕΝΑ ΘΕΟΝ· καὶ ΠΕΡΙ ΑΙΡΕΣΕΩΝ.

On the Monarchy of God, the Unity of God, and on Free Choice

C7

ΠΑΤΕΡΑ

On [God] the Father

C8

ΠΑΝΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΑ

On [God], the Creator of All

C9

ΠΟΙΗΤΗΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΓΗΣ, On [God], the Maker of Heaven and ὉΡΑΤΩΝ ΤΕ ΠΑΝΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ Earth, All Things Seen and Unseen ΑΟΡΑΤΩΝ

C10

ΚΑΙ ΕΙΣ ἙΝΑ ΚΥΡΙΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ And the One Lord Jesus Christ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΝ

C11

ΤΟΝ ὙΙΟΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΤΟΝ ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗ, ΤΟΝ ΕΚ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΕΝΤΑ ΘΕΟΝ ΑΛΗΘΙΝΟΝ ΠΡΟ ΠΑΝΤΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΑΙΩΝΩΝ, ΔΙ’ ὉΥ ΤΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ.

The Son of God, Only Begotten of the Father, Born True God before All Ages, Through Whom All Things Were Made (On the Divinity of Christ)

C12

εἰς τὸ τὸν σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα·

Who was incarnate and became human

C13

εἰς τὸ τὸν σταυρωθέντα καὶ ταφέντα

Who was crucified and buried

1

Capitalizations are from the respective critical editions.

308

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table A-1

(continued)

Topic as Provided in the Text2

Text

Translation

C14

εἰς τὸ καὶ ἀναστάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, καὶ καθίσαντα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρός.

Who was raised from the dead on the third day and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father

C15

εἰς τὸ καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος. καὶ περὶ τοῦ Ἀντιχρίστου.

Who will come in glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom will not end, and concerning the antichrist

C16

εἰς τό· καὶ εἰς ἓν ἅγιον πνεῦμα, τὸν On the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, παράκλητον, τὸ λαλῆσαν ἐν τοῖς who spoke through the Prophets προφήταις.

C17

τῶν περὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος τὰ λοιπά.

the remainder on the Holy Spirit

C18

τὸ καὶ εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ εἰς σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν, καὶ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

the one holy catholic church, the resurrection of the body, and eternal life

M1

—

(on the rites before baptism)

M2

ΠΕΡΙ ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜΑΤΟΣ

On Baptism

M3

ΠΕΡΙ ΧΡΙΣΜΑΤΟΣ

On Chrism

M4

ΠΕΡΙ ΣΩΜΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΙΜΑΤΟΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ

On the Body and Blood of Christ (Eucharist)

M5

—

(on the worship service, including the Lord’s Prayer)

2

Capitalizations are from the respective critical editions.

κοινωνία

κοινωνεῖν

κοινωνία

κοινωνός

κοινωνός

μετέχω

C1.5 Ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἄφεσις τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἐξ lines 18-20 ἴσου δίδοται τοῖς πᾶσιν· ἡ δὲ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου κοινωνία, κατ’ ἀναλογίαν δεδώρηται τῆς ἑκάστου πίστεως.

Ὥσπερ γάρ, ἐπειδὴ τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν αἵματος καὶ σαρκός, καὶ αὐτὸς [παραπλησίως] μέτεσχε τῶν αὐτῶν, ἵνα τῆς ἐνσάρκου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ κοινωνοὶ γενόμενοι, καὶ τῆς θείας αὐτοῦ χάριτος κοινωνοὶ γενώμεθα· οὕτως ἐβαπτίσθη Ἰησοῦς, ἵνα καὶ διὰ τούτου πάλιν ἡμεῖς τῇ κοινωνίᾳ λάβωμεν μετὰ τῆς σωτηρίας τὴν ἀξίαν·

C1.4 lines 6-7

κοινωνός

C3.11 lines 6-10

C1.1 lines 1-2

κοινωνός

Γίνῃ κοινωνὸς τῆς ἁγίας ἀμπέλου. Ἀλλ’ ἐὰν μὲν ἐπιμείνῃς ἐν τῇ ἀμπέλῳ, αὔξῃ ὡς κλῆμα καρποφόρον· ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἐπιμείνῃς, ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς καταναλωθήσῃ.

Καινῆς διαθήκης μαθηταὶ, καὶ Χριστοῦ Μυστηρίων κοινωνοὶ, νῦν μὲν τῇ κλήσει, μετ’ ὀλίγον δὲ καὶ τῇ χάριτι, …

Τὴν σαυτοῦ καρδίαν ἑτοίμασον εἰς ὑποδοχὴν διδασκαλίας, εἰς κοινωνίαν ἁγίων μυστηρίων.

P16 line 13

κοινωνία

text

text

term

description – sharers in the Holy Vine

description of what they will be: “sharers in the mysteries of Christ”

exhortation to prepare heart to have fellowship in the holy mysteries

description

For since just as the children shared in blood and flesh, he [likewise] partook of them, in order that by becoming sharers in his embodied presence, also we might be sharers in his divine grace; in the same way Jesus was baptized in order that with him again we might by fellowship receive dignity with salvation.

by fellowship, receive salvation and dignity

incarnation sharing in Christ’s presence sharing in Christ’s grace

description of being human

For the remission of sin is given out exhortation to prepare for fellowship with the Holy Spirit equally to all, but the fellowship of the Holy Spirit is given in proportion to each person’s faith.

You are sharers in the holy vine. If you remain in the vine, [you will] increase as the branch bears fruit. But if you do not remain, you will be consumed by fire.

Disciples of the New Testament and sharers in the mysteries of Christ, now by calling, but in a little while by grace, …

Prepare your heart to receive the teachings, the fellowship of the holy mysteries.

translation

Table B-1: Cyril’s Use of the Cognates of κοινωνεῖν

Word Studies for Chapter Five

Appendix B

Text

C4.22 lines 20-1

C5.1 lines 1-4

C5.1 lines 8-9

C5.3 lines 4-7

C6.6 lines 14-7

C6.13 lines 5-6

Term

κοινωνία

κοινωνία

κοινωνός

κοινωνός

κοινωνός

κοινωνία

Τίς γὰρ κοινωνία φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος; φησὶν ὁ Ἀπόστολος.

Description

sharing God’s title (Faithful)

God calls them into fellowship of Christ

For what fellowship does light have with darkness? said the Apostle.

separation of the two gods of the heretics, one the source of good, the other the source of evil

description of relationship within the Trinity

By faith, marriage laws join together description of marriage those who are unknown to one another: and people who are strangers [to each other], through faith in marriage contracts, become sharers in [each other’s] bodies and possessions

Therefore consider what sort of dignity into which you ascend, soon to be sharing a title of God’s.

How great is the dignity the Lord gives to you by transferring [you] from the order of the Catechumen to that of the Faithful, Paul the Apostle presents [to you], saying “God is Faithful, by whom you have been called into the fellowship of his son, Jesus Christ.”

God, through fellowship, renders Who, when the nature of humanity was going to cease, through a simple humanity [specifically, the body] fellowship united it to the ceaseless? eternal (based upon C4.4, the referent is the Father)

Translation

… ἐπειδὴ καὶ τῆς θεότητός ἐστι … since the unique Son along with τῆς πατρικῆς σὺν τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ the Holy Spirit share the paternal ἁγίῳ κοινωνὸς ὁ Υἱὸς ὁ μονογενής. divinity.

Πίστει γαμικοὶ νόμοι τοὺς ἀπεξενωμένους συνάπτουσιν εἰς ταὐτόν· καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἀλλότριος σωμάτων καὶ χρημάτων [ἀλλοτρίων], διὰ τὴν ἐν γαμικοῖς συμβολαίοις πίστιν, γίνεται κοινωνός.

Λόγισαι τοίνυν εἰς ὁποῖον ἀξίωμα ἀναβαίνεις, Θεοῦ μέλλων προσηγορίας γίνεσθαι κοινωνός.

Ἡλίκον ὑμῖν ἀξίωμα δίδωσιν ὁ Κύριος, ἀπὸ [τοῦ] Κατηχουμένων τάγματος εἰς τὸ τῶν Πιστῶν μετατιθεμένοις, Παῦλος ὁ ἀπόστολος παριστάς φησι, Πιστὸς ὁ Θεός, δι’ οὗ ἐκλήθητε εἰς κοινωνίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Τίς μέλλουσαν ἐκλείπειν τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων φύσιν, δι’ εὐτελοῦς κοινωνίας ἀκατάπαυστον συνεστήσατο;

Text

Table B-1 (continued)

310 Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

C6.25 lines 3-5

C11.19 lines 2-6

C12.15 lines 21-6

C14.25 καὶ ὅτι ἐκεῖνος μὲν εἶπε δοθήσεσθαι lines 16-21 διπλᾶ ἐν πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ μαθητῇ, Χριστὸς δὲ τοσαύτην παρέσχε τοῖς ἰδίοις μαθηταῖς ἀπόλαυσιν χάριτος τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, ὥστε μὴ μόνον αὐτοὺς ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν τῆς κοινωνίας αὐτοῦ μεταδιδόναι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.

κοινωνεῖν

κοινωνία

κοινωνός

κοινωνία

ἀνέλαβε τὸ ὅμοιον ἡμῶν ἐξ ἡμῶν ὁ κύριος, ἵνα δι’ ἀνθρωπότητος σωθῶμεν. ἀνέλαβε τὸ ὅμοιον ἡμῶν, ἵνα τῷ λείποντι μείζονα δῷ τὴν χάριν, ἵνα ἡ ἀνθρωπότης ἡ ἁμαρτωλὸς θεοῦ γένηται κοινωνός.

Οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν, ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα ἡμῶν, ἵνα μὴ κοινωνία γένηται τῶν ποιημάτων πρὸς τὸν μονογενῆ· ἀλλά, Πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν, εἶπεν. Ἄλλως ἐμοῦ, κατὰ φύσιν· καὶ ἄλλως ὑμῶν, κατὰ θέσιν.

Ἐβλασφήμησεν οὖν, Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἑαυτὸν εἰπών. Ὁ ἐκείνοις κοινωνῶν, βλεπέτω μετὰ τίνων ἑαυτὸν ἐντάσσει.

Φεῦγε οὖν τὴν ἀσέβειαν, μηδὲ χαίρειν λέγε τῷ τοιούτῳ, ἵνα μὴ κοινωνήσῃς τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις τοῦ σκότους·…

C6.19 lines 8-11

κοινωνεῖν

Text

Text

Term

Description

the Christian’s status of children of the Father is distinct from Christ’s status as son

by laying on of hands, fellowship of That on the one hand you say “the Holy Spirit is imparted through the disciple will be given double in the disciples Holy Spirit,” but Christ provides so much enjoyment of the grace of the Holy Spirit to his own disciples, with the result that not only do they have in themselves but also through the laying on of their hands to give a share of the fellowship to the Faithful.

The Lord took up the same nature as made a sharer of God us, in order that by becoming human we might be saved. He took up the same nature as us, in order that to what is lacking he might give the greater grace; in order that sinful humanity might become a sharer of God.

For he did not say, “I ascend to our Father,” in order that the created ones should not have fellowship with the only-begotten, but “my father and yours,” he said. Mine in one way, according to nature and yours in another, by adoption.

Then he [Mani] blasphemed, saying that exhortation against sharing (having he was the Holy Spirit. To the one who fellowship) with blasphemers, such shares [with them, the Manicheans] as the Manicheans beware of whom you associate.

exhortation to not even appear to be Then flee wickedness, do not say a involved in wicked deeds (2John 11 greeting to these, so that you might not share in their unfruitful and dark and Eph 5:11) works.

Translation

Table B-1 (continued)

Appendix B

311

Text

C16.6 lines 13-6

C16.10 lines 1-5

C16.12 lines 15-8

C17.12 lines 1-2

Term

κοινωνία

κοινωνία

κοινωνεῖν

κοινωνία

Text

Translation

Description

Τούτου τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος τὴν κοινωνίαν ἐχαρίσατο τοῖς ἀποστόλοις.

The fellowship of the Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles.

fellowship of HS bestowed upon the Apostles

And in this way the Holy Spirit, who metaphor, work of the Holy Spirit is one and undivided, divides to each grace according to what he wills. And just as dry tree brings forth a shoot when it shares in water, in the same way the soul in sin through repentance is counted worthy to bear the fruit of righteousness.

Οὕτω καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἓν ὂν καὶ μονοειδὲς καὶ ἀδιαίρετον, ἑκάστῳ διαιρεῖ τὴν χάριν καθὼς βούλεται. καὶ ὥσπερ τὸ ξηρὸν ξύλον ὕδατι κοινωνῆσαν βλαστοὺς ἐκδίδωσιν, οὕτω καὶ ἡ ἐν ἁμαρτίαις ψυχὴ διὰ μετανοίας ἁγίου πνεύματος καταξιωθεῖσα βότρυας ἐκφέρει δικαιοσύνης.

exhortation against fellowship with blasphemers

For what reason was Simon the Simon Magus wanted power, not Magician judged? Did he not come to fellowship with the Holy Spirit the apostles and say, “give to me this power, so that whomever I might lay hands on might receive the Holy Spirit.” For he did not say, “give to me the fellowship of the Holy Spirit,” but “power,” in order that he might sell to another that which cannot be sold, which he did not possess.

Therefore hate such as these [heretics] and flee from those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit and do not have forgiveness. What fellowship with you, the soon to be baptized and into the Holy Spirit, do the hopeless have?

Διὰ τί κατεκρίθη Σίμων ὁ μάγος; ἆρ’ οὐ προσελθὼν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις καὶ εἰπών· δότε κἀμοὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην, ἵνα ᾧ ἂν ἐπιθῶ τὰς χεῖρας λαμβάνῃ πνεῦμα ἅγιον; οὐ γὰρ εἶπε, δότε κἀμοὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου κοινωνίαν, ἀλλ’ ἐξουσίαν, ἵνα ἄλλοις πιπράσκῃ τὸ ἄπρατον, ὃ αὐτὸς μὴ ἐκέκτητο.

μίσησον τοίνυν τοὺς τοιούτους καὶ φεῦγε τοὺς βλασφημοῦντας τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ἄφεσιν οὐκ ἔχοντας. τίς σοι πρὸς τοὺς ἀνελπίστους κοινωνία τῷ βαπτισθησομένῳ νῦν καὶ εἰς πνεῦμα ἅγιον;

Table B-1 (continued)

312 Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

“sharers of Christ’s name”

… ἔπειτα δὲ πῶς ἐκαθαρίσθητε τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι, καὶ ὅπως ἱερατικῶς τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ προσηγορίας γεγόνατε κοινωνοὶ καὶ ὅπως ἡ σφραγὶς ὑμῖν ἐδόθη τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, …

C18.33 lines 11-2

κοινωνία

κοινωνός

quote of 2Cor 13:13

ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἡ the grace of the Lord Jesus and the ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ love of God and the fellowship of ἁγίου πνεύματος μετὰ πάντων the Holy Spirit be with you all. ὑμῶν.

C17.33 line 20

κοινωνός

Description

Καὶ ἵνα δειχθῇ τοῦτο φανερῶς, ὅτι καὶ οἱ ἐξ ἐθνῶν πιστεύοντες τῆς χάριτος τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος κοινωνοὶ γίνονται, Πέτρου παραγενομένου εἰς τὴν Καισάρειαν καὶ τὰ περὶ Χριστοῦ διδάσκοντος ἡ γραφὴ λέγει περὶ Κορνηλίου καὶ τῶν συμπαρόντων·

… and then how you have been cleansed from sins by the Lord, by the bath of water by the word, and how as priests of the Lord you have become sharers in Christ’s name and how the seal of fellowship of the Holy Spirit has been given to you …

seal of the fellowship of the Holy Spirit

Gentiles became sharers in the Holy And in order that he might display this publicly since believers from the Spirit Gentiles became sharers in the Holy Spirit, the Scripture speaks about Cornelius and those present with him when Peter was present in Caesarea.

fellowship of the Holy Spirit shared through the laying on of hands and prayer of the Apostles, except to Simon Magus.

C17.27 line 15

Translation To whom came down to Peter and John, and they gave a share of the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, with prayer and the laying on of hands, of which only Simon the Magician appeared rightly different.

κοινωνός

Text

οἷς κατελθόντες Πέτρος καὶ Ἰωάννης μετὰ προσευχῆς καὶ τῆς τῶν χειρῶν ἐπιθέσεως μετεδίδοσαν τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος κοινωνίας, ἧς μόνος Σίμων ὁ μάγος ἀλλότριος ἐπεφάνθη δικαίως.

Text

C17.25 lines 5-8

Term

κοινωνία

Table B-1 (continued)

Appendix B

313

M2.3 lines 1-7

κοινωνός

κοινωνία

κοινωνεῖν

κοινωνία

M2.5 lines 4-9

M1.4 lines 9-12

κοινωνεῖν

κοινωνός

Text

Term

Χριστὸς ὄντως ἐσταυρώθη καὶ ὄντως ἐτάφη καὶ ἀληθῶς ἀνέστη· καὶ πάντα ἡμῖν ταῦτα κεχάρισται, ἵνα μιμήσει τῶν παθῶν αὐτοῦ κοινωνήσαντες, ἀληθείᾳ τὴν σωτηρίαν κερδήσωμεν. Ὢ φιλανθρωπίας ὑπερβαλλούσης· Χριστὸς ἐδέξατο ἐπὶ τῶν ἀχράντων χειρῶν ἥλους καὶ ἤλγησε, κἀμοὶ ἀναλγητικαὶ ἀπονητὶ χαρίζεται διὰ τῆς κοινωνίας τὴν σωτηρίαν.

Christ was crucified and was buried and truly rose again. And these he has endowed to us, in order that by imitation we share in his suffering, [so that] we might, in truth, gain salvation. O the immeasurable benevolence! Christ received the nails in his hands and suffered, and ours—free from pain, without fatigue—salvation he endowed through fellowship.

Next you were stripped, anointed with the exorcised oil from the top of the hairs on your forehead to the lowest (feet), and you became sharers in the good olive tree of Jesus Christ. For you were cut from the wild olive tree and grafted into the good olive tree, and became sharers of the fattiness of the real olive tree. Now the exorcised oil is a symbol of the fellowship of the wealth of Christ, it is a place of refuge from all traces of opposing power.

For Christ destroyed [Satan’s strength] by sharing my blood and flesh, in order that through his sufferings he might destroy death by death, so that through these I might no longer be held in slavery.

Κατέλυσε γὰρ ταύτην ὁ Χριστός, αἵματός μοι καὶ σαρκὸς κοινωνήσας, ἵνα διὰ τούτων τῶν παθημάτων καταργήσῃ θανάτῳ τὸν θάνατον, ὅπως μὴ διὰ παντὸς ἔνοχος γένωμαι δουλείας.

Εἶτα ἀποδυθέντες, ἐλαίῳ ἠλείφεσθε ἐπορκιστῷ ἀπ’ ἄκρων κορυφῆς τριχῶν ἕως τῶν κατωτάτων, καὶ κοινωνοὶ ἐγίνεσθε τῆς καλλιελαίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Ἐκκοπέντες γὰρ ἐκ τῆς ἀγριελαίου, ἐνεκεντρίζεσθε εἰς τὴν καλλιέλαιον, καὶ κοινωνοὶ ἐγίνεσθε τῆς πιότητος τῆς ἀληθινῆς ἐλαίας. Τὸ οὖν ἐπορκιστὸν ἔλαιον σύμβολον ἦν τῆς κοινωνίας τῆς πιότητος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, φυγαδευτήριον τυγχάνον παντὸς ἴχνους ἀντικειμένης ἐνεργείας.

Translation

Text

Table B-1 (continued)

salvation given through fellowship in Christ’s suffering

sharing in Christ’s suffering

exorcised oil as symbol of fellowship in the fatness of Christ

sharers in the wealth of Christ

sharers of the good olive tree, Christ through pre-baptismal anointing

(Hebrews 2:14-5, continuing teaching in C3.11.5-10)

incarnation

Description

314 Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

M2.7 lines 1-9

M3.2 lines 13-6

κοινωνός

κοινωνός

κοινωνία

M2.6 line 13

Text

κοινωνία

Term

Ἐκεῖνος ἐλαίῳ νοητῷ ἀγαλλιάσεως ἐχρίετο, τοῦτ’ ἔστι Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, ἀγαλλιάσεως καλουμένῳ ἐλαίῳ, διὰ τὸ αἴτιον αὐτὸ τῆς πνευματικῆς ἀγαλλιάσεως τυγχάνειν· ὑμεῖς δὲ μύρῳ ἐχρίσθητε, κοινωνοὶ καὶ μέτοχοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενόμενοι.

fellowship in Christ’s suffering

Description

That intelligible oil of gladness with which he was smeared, this is the Holy Spirit, called the oil of gladness, because he [is] the source of spiritual gladness. But you are smeared with myron, and become sharers and fellows of Christ.

made sharers of Christ

In order that we might come to know made sharers of his suffering how much Christ endured for us and fellowship in his suffering for our salvation in reality and that he did not [merely] appear to suffer, and we are becoming sharers of his sufferings, Paul shouted with all precision, “for if we have been planted with him in the likeness of his death, and also we will be [planted with him] in his resurrection.” “Planted with” is well [said]. For when the true olive tree was planted hither, we were planted with him in the fellowship of the baptism of his death.”

Perhaps he composed this for someone who said that baptism [is] for forgiveness of sins and adoption, but did not yet [know] that [through baptism] one has, through imitation, fellowship in the reality of Christ’s suffering.

Ἴσως γὰρ πρός τινας ταῦτα ἔλεγε διατεθέντας, ὡς ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ υἱοθεσίας προξενητικὸν τὸ βάπτισμα, οὐκ ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀληθινῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων ἐν μιμήσει ἔχον τὴν κοινωνίαν.

Ἵνα οὖν μάθωμεν, ὅτι ὅσα ὁ Χριστὸς ὑπέμεινε, δι’ ἡμᾶς καὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ οὐκ ἐν δοκήσει ταῦτα πέπονθε, καὶ ἡμεῖς κοινωνοὶ αὐτοῦ τῶν παθημάτων γινόμεθα· μετὰ πάσης ἐβόα Παῦλος τῆς ἀκριβείας· “Εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόμεθα.” Καλῶς δὲ καὶ τὸ “σύμφυτοι”. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα πεφύτευται ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή, καὶ ἡμεῖς κοινωνίᾳ τοῦ βαπτίσματος τοῦ θανάτου “σύμφυτοι” αὐτοῦ γεγόναμεν.

Translation

Text

Table B-1 (continued)

Appendix B

315

M4.7 lines 11-2

M5.6 lines 11-3

M5.20 lines 1-3

M5.22 lines 1-5

κοινωνία

κοινωνός

κοινωνία

κοινωνεῖν

κοινωνία

Text

M4.3 lines 6-7

Term

κοινωνός

Text

Translation In this way, according to the blessed Peter, “we become sharers in the divine nature.”

Description quote from 2Peter 1:4

Εἶτα μετὰ τὸ κοινωνῆσαί σε τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, προσέρχου καὶ τῷ ποτηρίῳ τοῦ αἵματος, μὴ ἀνατείνων τᾶς χεῖρας, ἀλλὰ κύπτων, καὶ τρόπῳ προσκυνήσεως καὶ σεβάσματος λέγων τὸ «Ἀμήν», ἁγιάζου καὶ ἐκ τοῦ αἵματος μεταλαμβάνων Χριστοῦ.

Μετὰ ταῦτα ἀκούετε τοῦ ψάλλοντος μετὰ μέλους θείου προτρεπρομένου ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν κοινωνίαν τῶν ἁγίων μυστηρίων καὶ λέγοντος· “Γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι χρηστὸς ὁ Κύριος.”

Διὰ τὸ γὰρ τὴν παραδοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν ἐκ τῶν σεραφὶμ δοξολογίαν ταύτην λέγομεν, ὅπως κοινωνοὶ τῆς ὑμνῳδίας ταῖς ὑπερκοσμίοις γενώμεθα στρατιαῖς.

sharers in the heavenly hymns

Then after having shared in the body of Christ, approach also the cup of blood, not reaching out your hands, but bending and in the manner of worship and reverence, saying “Amen,” being sanctified also by means of partaking of the blood of Christ.

partaking of the elements

invitation to fellowship in the Holy With this you hear the chanter Mysteries urging you into communion of the holy mystery with the sacred melody and saying “Taste and see that the Lord [is] good.”

For through the Seraphim handing over to us these words of praise, in order that we become sharers of the hymns of the upperworld’s hosts.

ἐκείνη μὲν γὰρ κοινωνίαν εἶχε that on the one hand have fellowship table fellowship with God δαιμόνων, αὕτη δὲ κοινωνίαν Θεοῦ. with demons but, on the other, fellowship with God. table fellowship with demons

Οὕτω κατὰ τὸν μακάριον Πέτρον θείας “κοινωνοὶ γινόμεθα φύσεως”.

Table B-1 (continued)

316 Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

κοινωνία

Term

M5.23 line 2

Text

Ταύτας κατέχετε τὰς παραδόσεις ἀσπίλους, καὶ ἀπροσκόπους ἑαυτοὺς διαφυλάξατε· τῆς κοινωνίας ἑαυτοὺς μὴ ἀπορρήξητε, μὴ διὰ μολυσμὸν ἁμαρτίας τῶν ἱερῶν τούτων καὶ πνευματικῶν ἑαυτοὺς ἀποστερήσητε μυστηρίων.

Text Keep these traditions spotlessly, and guard yourself [to be] without offense; do not rob yourself of this fellowship, do not deprive yourself, through defilement by sin, these of sacred and spiritual mysteries.

Translation

Table B-1 (continued)

exhortation to not sever self from the Holy Mysteries

Description

Appendix B

317

C3.11 lines 6-10

κοινωνεῖν

C6.35 lines 6-11

C11.15 lines 11-4

μετοχή

μετόχος

κοινωνία

κοινωνός

κοινωνός

μετέχω

Text

Term

Διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέ σε, ὁ Θεός, ὁ Θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου. Βλέπεις Χριστὸν Θεὸν ὑπὸ Πατρὸς Θεοῦ χριόμενον;

by fellowship, receive salvation and dignity

incarnation sharing in Christ’s presence sharing in Christ’s grace

description of being human

Description

On account of this, God, your God, has anointed you with great joy above your fellows. Do you see Christ as God, anointed by God the Father?

quote of Hebrews 1:9

Testimony of Christ’s divinity

Here [within the church, in contrast eating food with thanksgiving is the to the Manichean communities] [is] normal practice for Christians order, here knowledge, here majesty, here moral purity, and here to look upon a woman [is] lust. Here marriage has gravity, here self-control [and] perserverance, here virginity [is] an angelic honor; here food is partaken of with thanksgiving;

For since just as the children shared in blood and flesh, he [likewise] partook of them, in order that by becoming sharers in his embodied presence, also we might be sharers in his divine grace; in the same way Jesus was baptized in order that with him again we might by fellowship receive dignity with salvation.

Ὥσπερ γάρ, ἐπειδὴ τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν αἵματος καὶ σαρκός, καὶ αὐτὸς [παραπλησίως] μέτεσχε τῶν αὐτῶν, ἵνα τῆς ἐνσάρκου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ κοινωνοὶ γενόμενοι, καὶ τῆς θείας αὐτοῦ χάριτος κοινωνοὶ γενώμεθα· οὕτως ἐβαπτίσθη Ἰησοῦς, ἵνα καὶ διὰ τούτου πάλιν ἡμεῖς τῇ κοινωνίᾳ λάβωμεν μετὰ τῆς σωτηρίας τὴν ἀξίαν·

Ὧδε τάξις, ὧδε ἐπιστήμη, ὧδε σεμνότης, ὧδε ἁγνεία· ὧδε καὶ τὸ ἐμβλέψαι γυναικὶ πρὸς ἐπιθυμίαν, κατάγνωσις. Ὧδε γάμος σεμνότητος, ὧδε ἐγκρατείας ὑπομονή, ὧδε παρθενίας ἰσάγγελον ἀξίωμα· ὧδε βρωμάτων μετοχὴ μετὰ εὐχαριστίας·….

Translation

Text

Table B-2: Cyril’s Use of Cognates of μετέχω

318 Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

C17.18 line 11

M3.1 line 4

M3.2 line 9

M3.2 line 17

μετέχω

μέτοχος

μέτοχος

μέτοχος

Text

C16.28 lines 12-5

Term

μετέχω

Then having become partakers of Christ, you are naturally (rightly) called Christs, and concerning you God said “You will not touch my Christs.” You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness through this God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows. That intelligible oil of gladness with which he was smeared, this is the Holy Spirit, called the oil of gladness, because he [is] the source of spiritual gladness. But you are smeared with myron, and become sharers and fellows of Christ.

Μέτοχοι οὖν τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενόμενοι, χριστοὶ εἰκότως καλεῖσθε, καὶ περὶ ὑμῶν ἔλεγεν ὁ Θεός· “Μὴ ἅπτεσθε τῶν χριστῶν μου.”

Ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν· διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέ σε ὁ Θεός, ὁ Θεός σου, ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου.»

Ἐκεῖνος ἐλαίῳ νοητῷ ἀγαλλιάσεως ἐχρίετο, τοῦτ’ ἔστι Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, ἀγαλλιάσεως καλουμένῳ ἐλαίῳ, διὰ τὸ αἴτιον αὐτὸ τῆς πνευματικῆς ἀγαλλιάσεως τυγχάνειν· ὑμεῖς δὲ μύρῳ ἐχρίσθητε, κοινωνοὶ καὶ μέτοχοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενόμενοι.

For while they [the patriarchs], on the difference between patriarchs’ and one hand, partook of the Holy Spirit, disciples’ partaking of the Holy on the other hand, here [at Pentecost] Spirit they were completely baptized.

ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ μετέσχον ἁγίου πνεύματος, ὧδε δὲ αὐτοτελῶς ἐβαπτίσθησαν.

Description

fellows of Christ through the post-baptismal anointing

quotation of Hebrews 1:9

quotation of Psalm 105:15

in explaining the presence of the Holy Spirit in the OT

Translation And as we have in the book of Chronicles, Azariah partook of the Holy Spirit in the time of king Asa and Uzziel in the time of king Jehosaphat, and furthermore Azaiah who was stoned.

Text

Καὶ ὡς ἐν παραλειπομένοις ἔχομεν, ἁγίου πνεύματος μετέσχον Ἀζαρίας μὲν ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἀσὰφ βασιλέως καὶ Ὀζιὴλ ἐπὶ Ἰωσαφὰτ βασιλέως, καὶ πάλιν ἄλλος Ἀζαρίας ὁ λιθασθείς.

Table B-2 (continued)

Appendix B

319

μετοχή

Term

M5.19 line 6

Text

Translation Then you say “One is Holy, One is the Lord, Jesus Christ.” For truly one is holy, holy by nature. We also are holy, but not by nature, but by participation, asceticism, and prayer.

Text

Εἶτα ὑμεῖς λέγετε· «Εἷς ἅγιος, εἷς Κύριος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός». Ἀληθῶς γὰρ εἷς ἅγιος, φύσει ἅγιος· ἡμεῖς γάρ, εἰ καὶ ἅγιοι, ἀλλ’ οὐ φύσει, ἀλλὰ μετοχῇ καὶ ἀσκήσει καὶ εὐχῇ.

Table B-2 (continued)

Christians are holy by participation

Description

320 Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

C3.7 line 22

C4.27 lines 13-8

μεταλαμβάνω

μεταλαμβάνω

μετάληψις

C3.4 line 25

Text

μεταλαμβάνω

Term

Μὴ τοίνυν καταφρόνει τῶν ἐσθιόντων καὶ διὰ τῶν σωμάτων ἀσθένειαν μεταλαμβανόντων. Μήτε ὡς ἀλλότρια μίσει τὰ κρέα· οἶδε γάρ τινας τοιούτους ὁ Ἀπόστολος λέγων· Κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων, ἃ ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισεν εἰς μετάληψιν μετ’ εὐχαριστίας τοῖς πιστοῖς.

Therefore, do not look down upon those who eat and through weakness of the body partake (of wine or meat). Neither hate the flesh as foreign, for the Apostle knew some such as these and said: “forbidding quote from 1Tim 4:3 to marry, abstaining from food, which God made to be participated in with thanksgiving by the faithful.”

But perhaps someone among you is Simon Magus was baptized with wrong motives a hypocrite, a man pleaser, pretending religion but not believing from the heart, having the hypocrisy of Simon the Magician: coming not so that he might partake in grace, but that he might trade what is given.

Ἀλλ’ ἴσως ἐστί τις ἐν ὑμῖν ὑποκριτής, ἀνθρωπάρεσκος, καὶ τὸ μὲν εὐλαβὲς ὑποκρινόμενος, μὴ ἀπὸ καρδίας δὲ πιστεύων, Σίμωνος ἔχων τοῦ μάγου τὴν ὑπόκρισιν· οὐχ ἵνα μεταλάβῃ τῆς χάριτος προσελθών, ἀλλ’ ἵνα πολυπραγμονήσῃ τὸ διδόμενον·

Description

body partakes of the gift of baptism Peter came and the Spirit was after the soul does. poured out on those who believed, and they spoke in different languages, and prophesied. And after the gift of the Spirit, Scripture says, that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ: in order that the soul, having been born again through faith, also the body might participate in the gift through water.

Translation

Ἦλθεν ὁ Πέτρος, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐπεχύθη τοῖς πιστεύσασι, καὶ ἐλάλησαν γλώσσαις ἑτέραις, καὶ προεφήτευσαν· καὶ μετὰ τὴν τοῦ Πνεύματος χάριν ἡ γραφή φησιν, ὅτι προσέταξεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Πέτρος ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ βαπτισθῆναι· ἵνα τῆς ψυχῆς διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἀναγεννηθείσης, μεταλάβῃ καὶ τὸ σῶμα διὰ τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς χάριτος.

Text

Table B-3: Cyril’s Use of the Cognates of μεταλαμβάνω

Appendix B

321

C12.1 lines 3, 4

M4.3 lines 2, 4

M4.9 line 7

μεταλαμβάνω

μεταλαμβάνω

Text

μεταλαμβάνω

Term

assurance of communion in Christ Therefore with full assurance let through the eucharist participate in as of the body and blood of Christ. For in the bread he gives a type of his body, and in the wine he gives a type of his blood, so that we might become partakers of the body and blood of Christ, [having] the same body and same blood as Christ. For in this way we become Christ-bears, having welcomed his body and blood into our members. In this way, according to the blessed Peter, “we become sharers in the divine nature.” quote of Ps 104:15 “And bread which strengthens a man’s heart, oil which gladdens the face”: “strengthens the heart” partaking of as spiritual, and gladdening the face of the soul.

Ὥστε μετὰ πάσης πληροφορίας ὡς σώματος καὶ αἵματος μεταλαμβάνομεν Χριστοῦ. Ἐν τύπῳ γὰρ ἄρτου δίδοταί σοι τὸ σῶμα, καὶ ἐν τύπῳ οἴνου δίδοταί σοι τὸ αἷμα, ἵνα γένῃ, μεταλαβὼν σώματος καὶ αἵματος Χριστοῦ, σύσσωμος καὶ σύναιμος Χριστοῦ. Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ χριστοφόροι γινόμεθα, τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος εἰς τὰ ἡμέτερα ἀναδεδεγμένοι μέλη. Οὕτω κατὰ τὸν μακάριον Πέτρον θείας «κοινωνοὶ γινόμεθα φύσεως».

«Καὶ ἄρτος καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου στηρίζει, τοῦ ἱλαρῦναι πρόσωπον ἐν ἐλαίῳ·» στηρίζου τὴν καρδίαν, μεταλαμβάνων αὐτοῦ ὡς πνευματικοῦ, καὶ ἱλαρύνου τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς πρόσωπον.

partaking of Jesus’ divinity through partaking of his humanity

We, who are counted worthy to partake in the flesh discernable Lamb, might partake in the head with the feet: the head, on the one hand, is understood as his divinity, while his feet is taken as his humanity.

οἱ τοῦ νοητοῦ προβάτου τῶν κρεῶν μεταλαβεῖν καταξιούμενοι κεφαλὴν μετὰ τῶν ποδῶν μεταλάβωμεν, κεφαλῆς μὲν τῆς θεότητος νοουμένης, ποδῶν δὲ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ἐκλαμβανομένης.

Description

Translation

(continued)

Text

Table B-3

322 Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

M5.1 line 3

M5.21 line 6

M5.22 line 5

μεταλαμβάνω

μεταλαμβάνω

Text

μετάληψις

Term

after consuming the consecrated bread, then consume the consecrated wine

Εἶτα μετὰ τὸ κοινωνῆσαί σε τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, προσέρχου καὶ τῷ ποτηρίῳ τοῦ αἵματος, μὴ ἀνατείνων τᾶς χεῖρας, ἀλλὰ κύπτων, καὶ τρόπῳ προσκυνήσεως καὶ σεβάσματος λέγων τὸ «Ἀμήν», ἁγιάζου καὶ ἐκ τοῦ αἵματος μεταλαμβάνων Χριστοῦ.

Then after having shared in the body of Christ, approach also the cup of blood, not reaching out your hands, but bending and in the manner of worship and reverence, saying “Amen,” being sanctified also by means of partaking of the blood of Christ.

after sanctifying eyes with the Then after you sanctify your eyes consecrated bread, consume the by the careful touch of the holy bread. body, partake; being eager that you do not share any of it. For what you lose, this like suffering great loss from your own [body].

Μετ’ ἀσφαλείας οὖν ἁγιάσας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τῇ ἐπαφῇ τοῦ ἁγίου σώματος μεταλάμβανε, προσέχων μὴ παραπολέσῃς τι ἐκ τούτου· ὅπερ γὰρ ἐὰν ἀπολέσῃς, τοῦτο ὡς ἀπὸ οἰκείου ἐζημιώθης μέλους.

Description

By the benevolence of God, in the Eucharist is the means by which one participates in the humanity of earlier gathering together, you heard abundantly about baptism and Christ. the anointing and participating in the body and blood of Christ.

Translation

(continued)

Τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ φιλανθρωπίᾳ, ἐν ταῖς προλαβούσαις συνάξεσιν, ἀρκούντως ἀκηκόατε περί τε βαπτίσματος καὶ χρίσματος καὶ μεταλήψεως σώματος καὶ αἵματος Χριστοῦ.

Text

Table B-3

Appendix B

323

C3.8 line 2

C10.9 line 10

C10.16 line 3

M3.1 line 10

μετάδοσις

μετάδοσις

μετάδοσις

Text

μετάδοσις

Term Whoever has two tunics should share with the one who does not have [one]

Translation quote of Luke 3:11

Description

even as divine high priest, Jesus This Jesus Christ is the one who came as the high priest of the good shares his name (Christ) with us which is about to be. Through his bounteous divinity he gives a share of his appellation to us. That one in the Jordan River bathed when Jesus was baptized in the Jordan, the water received a share and he gave a share of his divinity’s touch to the water, rising of his divinity up from it and the real Holy Spirit came upon him, like resting upon like.

Οὗτος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός ἐστιν, ὁ παραγενόμενος ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν· ὁ διὰ τὸ ἄφθονον τῆς θεότητος πᾶσιν ἡμῖν μεταδοὺς τῆς ἑαυτοῦ προσηγορίας.

Κἀκεῖνος μὲν ἐν Ἰορδάνῃ λουσάμενος ποταμῷ καὶ τῶν χρωτῶν τῆς θεότητος μεταδοὺς τοῖς ὕδασιν, ἀνέβαινεν ἐκ τούτων, καὶ Πνεύματος ἁγίου οὐσιώδης ἐπιφοίτησις αὐτῷ ἐγίνετο, τῷ ὁμοίῳ ἐπαναπαυομένου τοῦ ὁμοίου.

Οὔτε γὰρ ὁ Υἱὸς ἥρπασεν, οὔτε For the Son neither grasped [at all exposition of or allusion to Phil 2:6 Πατὴρ ἐφθόνησε τῆς μεταδόσεως. the things he received from the Father], nor did the Father grudgingly impart [give a share in] it.

Ὁ ἔχων δύο χιτῶνας μεταδότω τῷ μὴ ἔχοντι· ...

Text

Table B-4: Cyril’s Use of μετάδοσις

324 Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

C3.8 line 7

C14.25 line 21

C15.18 line 3

C16.24 line 4

μεταδίδωμι

μεταδίδωμι

μεταδίδωμι

Text

μεταδίδωμι

Term

That on the one hand you say “the giving a share of fellowship to the disciple will be given double in the faithful by the laying on of hands Holy Spirit,” but Christ provides so much enjoyment of the grace of the Holy Spirit to his own disciples, with the result that not only do they have in themselves but also through the laying on of their hands to give a share of the fellowship to the Faithful.

καὶ ὅτι ἐκεῖνος μὲν εἶπε δοθήσεσθαι διπλᾶ ἐν πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ μαθητῇ, Χριστὸς δὲ τοσαύτην παρέσχε τοῖς ἰδίοις μαθηταῖς ἀπόλαυσιν χάριτος τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, ὥστε μὴ μόνον αὐτοὺς ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν τῆς κοινωνίας αὐτοῦ μεταδιδόναι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.

and the Father gives to the Son, and the Father gives to the Son and the the Son gives a share (imparts) to Son shares with the Spirit the Holy Spirit

καὶ πατὴρ μὲν δίδωσιν υἱῷ, καὶ υἱὸς μεταδίδωσιν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι.

sharing the signs of the antiChrist freely with others

Therefore make yourself secure, man! You regard the signs of the Anti-Christ. And not only remember them, but ungrudgingly give a share to everyone.

Ἀσφάλιζε τοίνυν σεαυτόν, ἄνθρωπε. ἔχεις τὰ σημεῖα τοῦ Ἀντιχρίστου. καὶ μὴ μόνος μνημόνευε τούτων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀφθόνως πᾶσι μεταδίδου.

the fruit of repentance: giving your coat to someone who has none (see above), seeking great things (grace), don’t deny others small things (sharing food)

You choose to have enjoyment of the grace/gift of the Holy Spirit, yet you do not think a day-laborer is worthy of food discernable by the senses? You seek the greater, yet the smaller you do not give a share of?

Πνεύματος ἁγίου χάριτος ἀπολαῦσαι θέλεις, καὶ βρωμάτων αἰσθητῶν πένητας οὐκ ἀξιοῖς; τὰ μεγάλα ζητεῖς, καὶ μικρῶν οὐ μεταδίδως;

Description

Translation

Text

Table B-5: Cyril’s Use of μεταδίδωμι

Appendix B

325

326

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Table B-6: Cyril’s Use of σύμφυτος Text

Translation

σύμφυτος

Term

C3.12 line .5

Text

Εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτος ἐγένου τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ Σωτῆρος, καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως καταξιωθήσῃ.

For if you have become planted together in the likeness of the Savior’s death, you might also be worthy of resurrection

σύμφυτος

M2.7 lines 5-11

Ἵνα οὖν μάθωμεν, ὅτι ὅσα ὁ Χριστὸς ὑπέμεινε, δι’ ἡμᾶς καὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ οὐκ ἐν δοκήσει ταῦτα πέπονθε, καὶ ἡμεῖς κοινωνοὶ αὐτοῦ τῶν παθημάτων γινόμεθα·μετὰ πάσης ἐβόα Παῦλος τῆς ἀκριβείας· «Εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόμεθα.» Καλῶς δὲ καὶ τὸ «σύμφυτοι». Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα πεφύτευται ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή, καὶ ἡμεῖς κοινωνίᾳ τοῦ βαπτίσματος τοῦ θανάτου «σύμφυτοι» αὐτοῦ γεγόναμεν. Ἐπίστησον δὲ μετὰ πολλῆς προσοχῆς τὸν νοῦν τοῖς τοῦ ἀποστόλου λόγοις. Οὐκ εἶπεν, εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ θανάτῳ, ἀλλά, τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου.

In order that we might come to know how much Christ endured for us and for our salvation in reality and that he did not [merely] appear to suffer, and we are becoming sharers of his sufferings, Paul shouted with all precision, “for if we have been planted with him in the likeness of his death, and also we will be [planted with him] in his resurrection.” “Planted with” is well [said]. For when the true olive tree was planted hither, we were planted with him in the fellowship of the baptism of his death. And possess this knowledge which the apostle said with all attention of your mind: He did not say, “for if you have been planted with his death, but the likeness of his death.”

327

Appendix B

Table B-7: Cyril’s Use of σύμμορφος, σύσσωμα, and σύναιμα Text

Translation

σύμμορφος M3.1 lines 2-3

Term

Text

Εἰς Χριστὸν βεβαπτισμένοι καὶ Χριστὸν ἐνδυσάμενοι σύμμορφοι γεγόνατε τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Προορίσας γὰρ ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν, συμμόρφους ἐποίησε τοῦ σώματος τῆς δόξης τοῦ vΧριστοῦ.

Into Christ you have been baptized and Christ you have put on, having the same form as the Son of God. For when God predestined us to adoption as sons, he made us of the same form as the glorious body of Christ.

σύσσωμα σύναιμα

M4.1 line 3

Καὶ αὕτη τοῦ μακαρίου Παύλου ἡ διδασκαλία ἱκανὴ καθέστηκε πληροφορῆσαι ὑμᾶς περὶ τῶν θείων μυστηρίων ὧν κατηξιωθέντες, σύσσωμοι καὶ σύναιμοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενόμενοι.

This teaching of the blessed Paul [is] sufficient to fully assure each one of us concerning the divine mysteries during which, having been deemed worthy, and became of the same body and blood as Christ.

σύσσωμα σύναιμα

M4.3 lines 4-5

Ἐν τύπῳ γὰρ ἄρτου δίδοταί σοι τὸ σῶμα, καὶ ἐν τύπῳ οἴνου δίδοταί σοι τὸ αἷμα, ἵνα γένῃ, μεταλαβὼν σώματος καὶ αἵματος Χριστοῦ, σύσσωμος καὶ σύναιμος Χριστοῦ.

For in the bread he gives a type of his body, and in the wine he gives a type of his blood, so that we might become partakers of the body and blood of Christ, [having] the same body and same blood as Christ.

List of Abbreviations Works by Cyril P C M L H

Procatechesis Catecheses Mystagogic Catecheses Letter to Constantinus Homily on the Paralytic

Other Ancient Texts IE LXX NA28 LArm

Egeria, Itinerarium, Itineraria et Alia Geographica (CChr.SL 175), 28-90. English translation by John Wilkinson in Egeria’s Travels. Warminster, England, 1999. Septuaginta, ed. A. Rahlfs. Stuttgart, 1935. Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. E. Nestle and K. Aland. 28th ed. Stuttgart, 2012. Macarius I, Letter to the Armenians. Abraham Terian, Macarius of Jerusalem: Letter to the Armenians, A.D. 335. Crestwood, New York, 2008.

Modern Works BDAG BDF CChr.SL ESV HeyJ LN LSJ JECS JTS SC StLit SP

Danker, F. W., W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago, 2000. Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, 1961. Corpus Christianorum: series latina. Turnhout, 1953English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL, 2001. Heythrop Journal Louw, J. P. and E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. New York, 1988. Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996. Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal of Theological Studies Sources chrétiennes Studia Liturgica Studia Patristica

330

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

TS TDNT NPNF2 PGL PG

Theological Studies Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2 Patristic Greek Lexicon, edited by G. W. H. Lampe. Oxford, 1968. Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca, edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857-1886. Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina, edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844-1864. Vigiliae Christianae Thesaurus Linguae Graecae The Works of St Cyril of Jerusalem. The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Patristic Series, vol 64, edited by Leo P. McCauley and Anthony A. Stephenson. New York, 2000.

PL VC TLG WCJ

Bibliography Critical Editions Piédnagel, Auguste, ed. Catéchèses mystagogiques. second ed. Vol. 126 bis, SC. Paris, 2004. Reischl, W.C., and J. Rupp, eds. S. patris nostri Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi Opera quae supersunt omnia. Reprint ed. Hildesheim, 1848-60; 1967. Toutée, Augustine. PG 33. English Translations Cross, Frank Leslie, ed. St Cyril of Jerusalem’s Lectures on the Christian Sacraments: The Procatechesis and the Five Mystagogical Catecheses. Third printing. London, 1951. Gifford, E. H. S. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures. Edited by Phillip Schaff and Henry Wace. Vol. 7, NPNF2. Oxford, 1893. Newman, John Henry. The Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, Translated, with Notes and Indices. Library of the Fathers, vol 2. Oxford, 1839. Reprint, LaVerge, TN, 2010. Yarnold, Edward J. Cyril of Jerusalem. The Early Church Fathers. London, 2000. Other Ancient Texts Anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux, Itinerary from Bordeaux to Jerusalem. Translated by Aubrey Stewart. London, 1887. Athanasius, De incarnatione verbi (TLG). Athanasius, Epistula ad Adelphium (TLG). Egeria, Travels. John Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels. Warminster, England, 1999. Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio catechetica magna. J. Strawley, The Catechetical Oration of Gregory of Nyssa. TLG 2017 Ignatius of Antioch, Epistulae vii genuinae. P. Th. Camelot, SC 10: Ignace d’Antioche, Polycarpe de Smyrne, Lettres, Martyre de Polycarpe. Paris, 1969. Epistule interpolatae et epistulae suppositiciae (TLG). Macarius of Jerusalem, Letter to the Armenians. Abraham Terian, Macarius of Jerusalem: Letter to the Armenians, A.D. 335. Crestwood, New York, 2008. Martyrium Ignatii Antiocheni. In F. Diekamp and F.X. Funk, ed. Patres apostolici, vol. 2, 3rd ed., 324-38. Tübingen, 1913. Papyrus 1926, in H. Idris Bell, ed. Jews and Christians in Egypt: The Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy, 108-9. Westport, CT, 1924. Pseudo-Macarius, ‘Homily 14’. H. Berthold and E. Klostermann, Neue Homilien des Makarius/Symeon. Texte und Untersuchungen 72. Berlin, 1961 Stephanus, ‘Scholia in Hippocratis prognosticon.’ J.M. Duffy, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Prognosticon. PhD Diss. SUNY Buffalo, 1975. Secondary Sources Abdelsayed, John Paul. ‘Liturgical Exodus in Reverse: a Reevaluation of the Egyptian Elements in the Jerusalem Liturgy.’ In Issues in Eucharistic Prayer in East and

332

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

West: Essays in Liturgical and Theological Analysis, edited by Maxwell E. Johnson. Collegeville, MN, 2011. Alfeyev, Hilarion. ‘The Deification of Man in Eastern Patristic Tradition (with special reference to Gregory Nazianzen, Symeon the New Theologian and Gregory Palamas).’ Colloquium 36, no. 2 (2004), 109-22. Altaner, Berthold. Patrologie; Leben, Schriften und Lehre der Kirchenväter. Freiburg, 1950. Anderson, E. Byron. Worship and Christian Identity: Practicing Ourselves. Collegeville, 2003. Argenti, Cyrille. ‘Chrismation.’ In Ecumenical Perspectives on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, 46-67. Geneva, Switzerland, 1983. Atchley, E. G. C. F. ‘The Epiclesis.’ Theology 3, no. 14 (1921), 90-8. Ayres, Lewis. ‘Articulating Identity.’ In The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, edited by Frances Young, Lewis Ayres and Andrew Louth. Cambridge, 2004. —. ‘Deification and the Dynamics of Nicene Theology: the Contribution of Gregory of Nyssa.’ St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49, no. 4 (2005), 375-94. —. Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford, 2006. Baldovin, John F. The Urban Character of Christian Worship: The Origins, Development, and Meaning of Stational Liturgy. OCA. Rome, 1987. Bell, Catherine. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York, 1992. Bell, H. Idris, ed. Jews and Christians in Egypt: The Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy. Westport, CT, 1924. Beukers, Clement. ‘“For Our Emperors, Soldiers and Allies”: An Attempt at Dating the Twenty-third Catechesis by Cyrillus of Jerusalem.’ VC 15, no. 3 (1961), 17784. Bihain, Ernest. ‘Une vie arménienne de saint Cyrille de Jérusalem.’ Le Muséon 76 (1963), 319-32. —. ‘L’Épître de Cyrille de Jérusalem à Constance sur la vison de la Croix (BHG3 413).’ Byzantion 43 (1973), 264-94. Bilaniuk, Petro B. T. ‘The Mystery of Theosis or Divinization.’ In Heritage of the Early Church, 337-59. Rome, 1973. Billy, Dennis. The Beauty of the Eucharist: Voices from the Church Fathers. Hyde Park, NY, 2010. Bird, Frederick B. ‘Ritual as Communicative Action.’ In Ritual and Ethnic Identity, edited by Jack N. Livingstone and Frederick B. Bird. Waterloo, WI, 1995. Bitton-Ashkelony, Brouria. Encountering the Sacred: The Debate on Christian Pilgrimage in Late Antiquity. Berkeley, 2005. Blasi, Anthony, Jean Duhaime, and Paul-André Turcotte, eds. Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Sciences Approach. Walnut Creek, 2002. Blass, F., and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Translation and revision of the ninth-tenth German, incorporating supplementary notes of A. Debrunner. Chicago, 1961. Bradshaw, Paul F. ‘Review of Mystagogy: A Theology of Liturgy in the Patristic Age.’ Worship 64, no. 4 (1990), 381-2.

Bibliography

333

—. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of the Early Liturgy. Second ed. New York, 2002. —. Eucharistic Origins. Oxford, 2004. Brent, Allen. Ignatius of Antioch and the Second Sophistic. Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 36. Tübingen, 2006. Brown, Peter. Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity. Berkeley, 1982. Burreson, Kent J. ‘The Anaphora of the Mystagogical Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem.’ In Essays on Early Eastern Eucharistic Prayers, 131-51. Collegeville, MI, 1997. Camelot, Pierre-Thomas. Ignace d’Antioche, Polycarpe de Smyrne, Lettres, Martyre de Polycarpe. 4th ed. Vol. 10, SC. Paris, 1969. —. ‘Note sur la théologie baptismale des catéchèses attribuées à saint Cyrille de Jérusalem.’ In Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten, 724-9. Münster Westfalen, Germany, 1970. Castelli, Elizabeth. Martyrdom and Memory: Early Christian Culture Making. New York, 2004. Chapman, Mark E. ‘Early Christian Mystagogy and the Formation of Modern Christians.’ Currents in Theology and Mission 21, no. 4 (1994), 284-93. Chilton, Bruce D. ‘Sacrificial Mimesis.’ Religion 27, no. 3 (1997), 225-30. Christensen, Michael J., and Jeffery A. Wittung, eds. Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions. Grand Rapids, MI, 2008. Christofordis, Christos. ‘The Nature of Symbols and the Created Order.’ Sourozh 98 (2004), 13-33. Clark, Peter Yuichi. ‘Faith and Identity in Nisei Self-Narratives.’ Princeton Seminary Bulletin 19, no. 3 (1998), 279-94. Coüasnon, Charles. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Translated by J.-P. B. and Claude Ross. London, 1974. Crichton, J. D. ‘A Theology of Worship.’ In The Study of Liturgy, edited by Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright, Edward Yarnold and Paul Bradshaw, 3-30. London, 1992. Crockett, William R. Eucharist: Symbol of Transformation. New York, 1989. Cummings, Owen F. Eucharistic Doctors: A Theological History. New York, 2005. Cutrone, Emmanuel Joseph. ‘Saving Presence in the “Mystagogical Catechesis” of Cyril of Jerusalem.’ PhD Diss., University of Notre Dame, 1975. —. ‘Cyril’s Mystagogical Catecheses and the Evolution of the Jerusalem Anaphora.’ Orientalia christiana periodica 44 (1978), 52-64. Daniélou, Jean. From Shadows to Reality: Studies in Biblical Typology of the Fathers, London, 1960. Day, Juliette. Baptism in Early Byzantine Palestine 325-451. Bramcote, 1999. —. ‘Lent and the Catechetical Program in Mid-fourth-century Jerusalem.’ StLit 35, no. 2 (2005), 129-47. —. The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem: Fourth- and Fifth-century Evidence from Palestine, Syria and Egypt. Burlington, VT, 2007. —. ‘Cyril of Jerusalem on the Holy Spirit.’ In The Holy Spirit in the Fathers of the Church: the Proceedings of the Seventh International Patristic Conference, edited by D. Vincent Twomey and Janet E. Rutherford, 71-85. Dublin, 2010.

334

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

—. ‘The Catechetical Lectures of Cyril in Jerusalem: A Source for the Baptismal Liturgy Mid-Fourth Century Jerusalem’, in Further Essays in Early Eastern Initation: Early Syrian Baptismal Liturgy, 24-56. Norwich, 2014. de Félice, Guillaume. History of the Protestants of France: From the Commencement of the Reformation to the Present Time. Translated by Henry Lobdell. New York, 1851. DeConick, April D. ‘Reading the Gospel of Thomas as a Repository of Early Christian Communal Memory.’ In Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, edited by Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher, 207-20. Atlanta, 2005. Dix, Gregory. The Shape of the Liturgy. London, 1945. Doval, Alexis. ‘The Location and Structure of the Baptistery in the Mystagogic Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem.’ SP 26 (1993), 1-13. —. ‘The Date of Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catecheses.’ JTS 48, no. 1 (1997), 129-32. —. ‘The Fourth Century Jerusalem Catechesis and the Development of the Creed.’ SP 30 (1997), 296-305. —. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue: the Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses. Vol. 17, PMS. Washington, DC, 2001. —. ‘Cyril of Jerusalem’s Theology of Salvation.’ SP 37 (2001), 452-61. Dragas, George Dion. The Holy Sacraments of Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion: The Five Mystagogical Catechisms of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Orthodox Spirituality. Rollinsford, NH, 2008. Draper, J. A. ‘Christian Self-Definition against the “Hypocrites” in Didache 8.’ In The Didache in Modern Research, edited by J. A. Draper, 223-43. Leiden, 1996. —. ‘Ritual Process and Ritual Symbol in “Didache”.’ VC 54, no. 2 (2000), 121-58. Drewery, Benjamin. ‘Deification.’ In Christian Spirituality: Essays in Honour of Gordon Rupp, edited by Peter Brooks, 33-62. London, 1975. Drijvers, Jan Willem. ‘Promoting Jerusalem: Cyril and the True Cross.’ In Portraits of Spiritual Authority: Religious Power in Early Christianity, Byzantium, and the Christian Orient, edited by Jan Willem Drijvers and John W. Watt, 79-95. Leiden, 1999. —. Cyril of Jerusalem: Bishop and City. Supplements to VC. Leiden; Boston, 2004. Duling, Dennis C. ‘“Whatever Gain I Had ...” Ethnicity and Paul’s Self-Identification in Philippians 3:5-6.’ In Fabrics of Discourse: Essays in Honor of Vernon K. Robbins. Edited by David B. Gowler, L. Gregory Bloomquist, and Duane F. Watson. Harrisburg, PA, 2003. Dunn, James D. ‘Who Did Paul Think He Was? A Study of Jewish-Christian Identity.’ New Testament Studies 45, no. 2 (1999), 174-93. Elder, Ernie Dewey, Jr. ‘Contextual Impact on the Use of Scriptures in the PostBaptismal Homilies of John Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem.’ ThD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1987. Fagerberg, David W. Theologia Prima: What is Liturgical Theology? Chicago, 2004. Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids, MI, 2009. Finlan, Stephen, and Vladimir Kharlamov, eds. Theōsis: Deification in Christian Theology. Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Eugene, OR, 2006. Finn, Thomas M. Early Christian Baptism and the Catechumenate: Italy, North Africa, and Egypt. Collegeville, MN, 1992.

Bibliography

335

—. Early Christian Baptism and the Catechumenate: West and East Syria. Collegeville, MN, 1992. Flanagan, Kieran. Sociology and Liturgy: Representations of the Holy. London, 1991. Frank, Georgia. ‘“Taste and See”: the Eucharist and the Eyes of Faith in the Fourth Century.’ Church History 70, no. 4 (2001), 619-43. French, Dorothea R. ‘Mapping Sacred Centers: Pilgrimage and the Creation of Christian Topographies in Roman Palestine.’ In Akten des XII. internationalen Kongresses für christliche Archäologie, edited by Ernst Dassmann and Josef Engemann, 792-7. Vatican City, 1995. Gelston, Anthony. ‘Cyril of Jerusalem’s Eucharistic Prayer: The Argument from Silence.’ SP 46 (2010), 301-5. Glazov, Gregory. ‘Theōsis, Judaism, and Old Testament Anthropology.’ In Theōsis: Deification in Christian Theology, edited by Stephen Finlan and Vladimir Kharlamov, 16-31. Eugene, OR, 2006. Greenlee, J. Harold. The Gospel Text of Cyril of Jerusalem. Copenhagen, 1955. Gregg, Robert C. ‘Cyril of Jerusalem and the Arians.’ In Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments, edited by Robert C. Gregg, 85-109. Philadelphia, 1985. Grignon, Sébastien. ‘La coherénce de la foi: lire les «Catéchèses prébaptismales» de Cyrille de Jérusalem.’ PhD Diss, Paris-Sorbonne University, 2003. Gross, Jules. The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers. Translated by Paul A. Onica. Anaheim, CA, 2002. Gschwandtner, Christina M. ‘“Pious Doctrines and Virtuous Actions”: the Relation between Theology and Practice in Early Catechetical Instruction.’ Wesleyan Theological Journal 40, no. 1 (2005), 36-57. Hall, Christopher A. Worshiping with the Church Fathers. Downers Grove, IL, 2009. Hamilton, Alastair. The Copts and the West, 1439-1822: The European Discovery of the Egyptian Church. Oxford, 2006. Hanson, Richard Patrick Crosland. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: the Arian Controversy 318-381. Edinburgh, 1988. Harland, Philip A. ‘Christ-bearers and Fellow-initiates: Local Cultural Life and Christian Identity in Ignatius’ Letters.’ JECS 11, no. 4 (2003), 481-99. —. Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians. New York, 2009. Harrison, Nonna Verna. God’s Many Splendored Image: Theological Anthropology for Christian Formation. Grand Rapids, MI, 2010. Harvey, Susan Ashbrook. ‘The Stylite’s Liturgy: Ritual and Religious Identity in Late Antiquity.’ JECS 6, no. 3 (1998), 523-39. —. Scenting Salvation: Ancient Christianity and the Olfactory Imagination. Berkeley, 2006. Hawk-Reinhard, Donna. ‘Transmission Implications Regarding the Authorship of Cyril of Jerusalem’s Mystagogic Catecheses.’ In The Use of Textual Criticism for the Interpretation of Patristic Texts, edited by Kenneth B. Steinhauser and Scott Dermer, 37-75. Lewiston, 2013. —. ‘Cyril of Jerusalem’s Sacramental Theōsis’ SP 66 (2013), 247-56. —. ‘The Role of the Holy Spirit in Cyril of Jerusalem’s Sacramental Theology.’ SP 95 (2017), 107-18.

336

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Heldt, Petra. ‘Constructing Christian Communal Identity in Early Patristic Writers.’ In One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism: Studies in Christian Ecclesiality and Ecumenism in Honor of J. Robert Wright, edited by Marsha L. Dutton and Patrick Terrell Gray, 29-41. Grand Rapids, MI, 2006. Hellemo, Geir. Adventus Domini  : Eschatological Thought in 4th-Century Apses and Catecheses. Translated By Elinor Ruth Waaler. Leiden, 1989. Hess, Hamilton. ‘Soteriological Motifs in the Catechetical Lectures of St Cyril of Jerusalem.’ SP 32 (1997), 314-9. Hoffman, Lawrence. Beyond the Text: A Holistic Approach to Liturgy. Indianapolis, IN, 1987. —. ‘Reconstructing Ritual as Identity and Culture.’ In The Making of Jewish and Christian Worship, edited by Paul F. Bradshaw and Lawrence Hoffman, 22-39. Notre Dame, 1991. Horrell, David G. ‘“Becoming Christian”: Solidifying Christian Identity and Content.’ In Handbook of Early Christianity, edited by Anthony Blaisi, Jean Duhaime and Paul-André Turcotte. Walnut Creek, 2002. Jackson, Pamela. ‘The Holy Spirit in the Catechesis and Mystagogy of Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, and John Chrysostom.’ PhD Diss., Yale University, 1987. —. ‘Cyril of Jerusalem’s Use of Scripture in Catechesis.’ TS 52, no. 3 (1991), 431-50. —. ‘Cyril of Jerusalem’s Treatment of Scriptural Texts Concerning the Holy Spirit.’ Traditio 46 (1991), 1-31. Jasper, David, and Ronald C. D. Jasper, eds. Language and the Worship of the Church. New York, 1990. Jenkinson, William R. ‘The Image and the Likeness of God in Man in the Eighteen Lectures on the Credo of Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-387).’ Ephemerides Theologica Lovanienses 40 (1964), 48-71. Johnson, Maxwell E. ‘Reconciling Cyril and Egeria on the Catechetical Process in Fourth-Century Jerusalem.’ In Essays in Early Eastern Initiation, edited by Paul F. Bradshaw, 18-30. Nottingham, UK, 1988. —. The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation. Revised and Expanded ed. Collegeville, MN, 2007. —. ‘Review of The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem: Fourth- and Fifth-century Evidence from Palestine, Syria, and Egypt.’ Worship 82, no. 1 (2008), 89-91. —. ‘Baptismal Liturgy in Fourth-Century Jerusalem in Light of Recent Scholarship.’ In Inquiries into Eastern Christian Worship, edited by B. Groen, S. HawkesTeeples and S. Alexopoulos, 81-98. Leuven, 2012. Kalleres, Dayna S. ‘Exorcising the Devil to Silence Christ’s Enemies: Ritualized Speech Practices in Late Antique Christianity.’ PhD Diss., Brown University, 2002. —. ‘Cultivating True Sight at the Center of the World: Cyril of Jerusalem and the Lenten Catechumenate.’ Church History 74, no. 3 (2005), 431-59. Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds. Third ed. London, 1972. Reprint 2006. Kharlamov, Vladimir. ‘Rhetorical Applications of Theosis in Greek Patristic Thought.’ In Partakers of the Divine Nature, edited by Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung, 115-31. Grand Rapids, MI, 2008. Kovacs, Judith L. ‘Divine Pedagogy and the Gnostic Teacher according to Clement of Alexandria.’ JECS 9, no. 1 (2001), 3-25. Kretschmar, Georg. ‘Die frühe Geschichte der Jerusalemer Liturgie.’ Jarhbuch für Liturgik and Hymnologie 2 (1956-57), 22-46.

Bibliography

337

Lange, Dirk G. ‘The Didache: Liturgy Redefining Life.’ Worship 78, no. 3 (2004), 203-55. Larson-Miller, Lizette. ‘Worship in Spirit and Truth: Liturgy as Christian Self-Definition.’ In The Formulation of Christianity by Conflict through the Ages, edited by Katherine B. Free, 83-100. Lewiston, 1995. Laurence, John D. ‘The Eucharist as the Imitation of Christ.’ TS 47, no. 2 (1986), 286-96. Layton, Richard A. Didymus the Blind and His Circle in Late-Antique Alexandria: Virtue and Narrative in Biblical Scholarship. Chicago, 2004. Malesic, Jonathan Jay. ‘Disciplines of the Secret: Concealing and Revealing Religious Knowledge in Kierkegaardian Ethics and Fourth-Century Christian Initiation Rites.’ PhD Diss., University of Virginia, 2004. —. Secret Faith in the Public Square: An Argument for the Concealment of Christian Identity. Grand Rapids, MI, 2009. Marrone, Robert John. ‘Liturgy Identity and the Body: A Mystogogia of the Senses.’ D.Min., Saint Mary Seminary and Graduate School of Theology, 2005. Martos, Joseph. Doors to the Sacred: A Historical Introduction to Sacraments in the Catholic Church. Revised and Updated ed. Ligouri, MO, 2001. Mazza, Enrico. Mystagogy: A Theology of Liturgy in the Patristic Age. Translated by Matthew J. O’Connell. New York, 1989. —. The Celebration of the Eucharist: the Origin of the Rite and the Development of its Interpretation. Translated by Matthew J. O’Connell. Collegeville, MN, 1999. McDonald, William P. ‘Paideia and Gnosis: Foundations of the Catechumenate in Five Church Fathers.’ PhD Diss., Vanderbilt University, 1998. McDonnell, Kilian. The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation. Collegeville, MN, 1996. McGuckin, John A. ‘The Strategic Adaptation of Deification in the Cappadocians.’ In Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, edited by Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung, 95-114. Grand Rapids, MI, 2008. McKenna, John H. Eucharist and Holy Spirit: the Eucharistic Epiclesis in 20th Century Theology (1900-1966). Alcuin Club Collections. Great Wakering, Essex, 1975. —. The Eucharistic Epiclesis: A Detailed History from the Patristic to the Modern Era. Second ed. Chicago, 2009. Meconi, David V. ‘The Consummation of the Christian Promise: Recent Studies on Deification.’ New Blackfriars 87, no. 1007 (2006), 3-12. Miller, Patricia Cox. The Corporeal Imagination: Signifying the Holy in Late Ancient Christianity. Philadelphia, 2009. Milles, Thomas. Τοῦ ἐν ἁγιοις πατρος ἡμῶν Κυριλλου ... τα σωζομενα. S. patris nostri Cyrilli …. Oxford, 1703. Mitchell, Leonel L. ‘The Development of Catechesis in the Third and Fourth Centuries: From Hippolytus to Augustine.’ In A Faithful Church: Issues in the History of Catechesis, edited by John H. Westerhoff III and O.C. Edwards, Jr., 49-78. Wilton, CT, 1981. Moroziuk, Russel P. ‘Meaning of Katholikos in Greek Fathers and Its Implications for Ecclesiology and Ecumenism.’ Patristic and Byzantine Review 4, no. 2 (1985), 90. —. ‘Some Thoughts on the Meaning of Katholikē in the Eighteenth Catechetical Lecture of Cyril of Jerusalem.’ SP 18,1 (1985), 169.

338

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Mullen, Roderic L. ‘Cyril of Jerusalem and the Text of the New Testament in Fourthcentury Palestine.’ PhD Diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1994. Niculescu, Mihai-Vlad. ‘Origen’s Mystagogic Paideia.’ PhD Diss., The Catholic University of America, 2003. Parmentier, Richard J. ‘Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice.’ History of Religions 33 (1994), 92-4. Pasquato, Ottorino. ‘Spirituality and Prayer in the Baptismal Catecheses of St Cyril of Jerusalem.’ In Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church, 39. Everton Park, Queensland, Australia, 1998. Paulin, Antoine. Saint Cyrille de Jérusalem: Catéchète. Lex orandi. Paris, 1959. Penn, Michael Philip. Kissing Christians: Ritual and Community in the Late Ancient Church. Philadephia, 2005. Piédnagel, Auguste. ‘Les Catéchèses mystagogiques de Saint Cyrille de Jérusalem: inventaire de la tradition manuscrite grecque.’ SP 10 (1970), 141-3. Polanyi, Michael. The Tacit Dimension. New York, 1967. Power, David N. Unsearchable Riches: The Symbolic Nature of Liturgy. New York, 1984. —. The Eucharistic Mystery: Revitalizing the Tradition. New York, 1992. Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. Christian Classics reprint, 1994 ed. Vol. 3. Westminster, MD, 1950. Renoux, Athanase. ‘Les catéchèses mystagogiques dans l’organisation liturgique hierosolymitaine du IVe et du Ve siécle.’ Le Muséon 78 (1965), 355-9. Richard, M. ‘Cronique de patrologie.’ Mélanges de Science religieuse 5 (1948), 273-308. Riley, Hugh M. Christian Initiation: A Comparative Study of the Baptismal Liturgy in the Mystagogical Writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Ambrose of Milan. Vol. 17, CUA Studies in Christian Antiquity. Washington, DC, 1974. Rivers, Joseph Tracy, III. ‘Pattern and Process in Early Christian Pilgrimage.’ PhD Dissertation, Duke University, 1983. Röwenkamp, Georg. ‘Einleitung.’ In Cyrill von Jerusalem. Mystagogicae Catecheses. Fontes Christiani, Vol. 7. Freiburg, 1992. Rubin, Ze’ev. ‘The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Conflict between the Sees of Jerusalem and Caesarea.’ In The Jerusalem Cathedra: Studies in the History, Archaeology, Geography, and Ethnology of the Land of Israel, edited by Lee I. Levine, 79-105. Jerusalem, 1982. —. ‘The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Conflict between the Sees of Jerusalem and Caesarea.’ In Jerusalem cathedra, 79. Jerusalem, 1982. Russell, Norman. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. Oxford, 2006. —. Fellow Workers with God: Orthodox Thinking on Theosis. Edited by Peter C. Bouteneff. Foundations Series. Crestwood, NY, 2009. Salaville, S. ‘Une question de critique littéraire. Les catéchèses de Saint Cyrille de Jérusalem.’ Échos d’Orient 27 (1915), 531-7. Satran, David. ‘Pedgagogy and Deceit in the Alexandrian Theological Tradition.’ In Origeniana Quinta, edited by Robert J. Daly, 119-23. Leuven, 1992. Satterlee, Craig Alan. Ambrose of Milan’s Mystagogical Preaching. Collegeville, MN, 2002. Saxer, Victor. ‘Cyrill von Jerusalem und die Heilige Schrift: was er von ihr lehrt und wie er sie gebraucht.’ In Stimuli, 344. Munster, 1996.

Bibliography

339

—. ‘Cyrille de Jérusalem et les lieux saints de son temps.’ Cahiers des études anciennes 31 (1996), 8-18. —. ‘Introduzione e note.’ In Catechesi Prebattesimali e Mistagogiche. Milan, 1994. Scharen, Christian Batalden. ‘Ideology, Ritual, and Christian Subjectivity.’ Worship 70, no. 5 (1996), 406-22. Schermann, Theodor. Theologische Revue 19, no. 10 (1911), 575-9. —. ‘Compte-rendu de l’ouvrage.’ In Die Brotbitte des Vaterunsers, edited by J. P. Bock, col 577. Paderborn, 1911. Scott, James. Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of υἱοθεσις in the Pauline Corpus. Tübingen, 1992. Searle, Mark. ‘Ritual.’ In The Study of Liturgy, edited by Cheslyn Jones, Edward Yarnold, Geoffrey Wainwright and Paul F. Bradshaw, 51-8. London, 1992. —. ‘Fons Vitae: A Case Study in the Use of Liturgy as a Theological Source.’ In Vision: The Scholarly Contributions of Mark Searle to Liturgical Renewal, edited by Anne Y. Koester and Barbara Searle, 208-30. Collegeville, MN, 2004. —. ‘Liturgy as Metaphor.’ In Vision: the Scholarly Contributions of Mark Searle to Liturgical Renewal, edited by Anne Y. Koester and Barbara Searle, 27-48. Collegeville, MI, 2004. —. Called to Participate: Theological, Ritual, and Social Perspectives. Edited by Barbara Searle and Anne Y. Koester. Collegeville, MN, 2006. Seasoltz, Kevin. ‘Anthropology and Liturgical Theology: Searching for a Compatible Methodology.’ In Liturgy and Human Passage, edited by David Power and Luis Maldonado, 3-16. New York, 1979. Senn, Frank C. Christian Worship and Its Cultural Setting. Philadelphia, 1983. Simmler, Josias. Bibliotheca instituta et collecta primo a Conrado Gesnero deinde in Epitomen redacta et novorum Librorum accessione locupletata, iam vero postremum recognita, et in duplum post priores editiones aucta, per Iosiam Simlerum Tigurinum. Tiguri, 1545. Sitzler, Silke. ‘Identity: The Indigent and the Wealthy in the Homilies of John Chrysostom.’ VC 63 (2007), 468-79. Smith, Jonathan Z. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago, 1987. Sophocles, E. A. Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (from BC 146 to AD 1100). New York, 1957. Špidlík, Tomaš. Prayer: The Spirituality of the Christian East, Volume 2. Translated by Anthony P. Gythiel. Vol. 230, Cistercian Studies. Kalamazoo, MI, 2005. Staats, Reinhart. ‘The Eternal Kingdom of Christ: the Apocalyptic Tradition in the “Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople”.’ Patristic and Byzantine Review 9, no. 1 (1990), 19-30. Starr, James M. Sharers in Divine Nature: 2 Peter 1:4 in Its Hellenistic Context. Edited by Birger Olsson and Kari Syreeni. Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series. Stockholm, 2000. —. ‘Does 2 Peter 1:4 Speak of Deification?’ In Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, edited by Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung, 81-92. Grand Rapids, MI, 2008. Steenberg, M.C. Of God and Man: Theology as Anthropology from Irenaeus to Athanasius. London, 2009.

340

Christian Identity Formation according to Cyril of Jerusalem

Steinhauser, Kenneth B. ‘Augustine’s Autobiographical Covenant: A Contemporary Reading of His Confessions.’ Perspectives in Religious Studies 18 (1991), 23340. Stephenson, Anthony A. ‘St Cyril of Jerusalem and the Alexandrian Heritage.’ TS 15, no. 4 (1954), 573-93. —. ‘The Text of the Jerusalem Creed.’ SP 3 (1961), 303-13. —. ‘Introduction.’ In The Works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Washington, DC, 1970. —. ‘S Cyril of Jerusalem’s Trinitarian Theology.’ SP 11 (1972), 234-41. Stoddard, Eric. ‘What is Our Liturgy Doing to Us? The After-effects of Worship.’ SJ 35 (2005), 100-10. Stramara, Daniel J., Jr. ‘The Angelology of Cyril of Jerusalem as Source for PseudoDionysius’ Celestial Hierarchy.’ The Patristic and Byzantine Review 27, no. 1,2,3 (2009), 11-21. Strawley, J. The Catechetical Oration of Gregory of Nyssa. Cambridge, 1903. Reprint, 1956. Swaans, W. J. ‘À propos des “Catéchèses Mystagogiques” attribuées à S. Cyrille de Jérusalem.’ Le Muséon 55 (1942), 1-42. Taft, Robert F. The Byzantine Rite: A Short History. Collegeville, MN, 1992. Taylor, Nicholas. ‘Conflicting Bases of Identity in Early Christianity.’ In Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches, edited by Anthony Blaisi, Jean Duhaime and Paul-André Turcotte, 577-98. Walnut Creek, 2002. Telfer, William. Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa. Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia, 1956. Terian, Abraham. Macarius of Jerusalem: Letter to the Armenians, A.D. 335. Crestwood, NY, 2008. Torchia, N. Joseph. ‘The Significance of Chrismation in the Mystagogical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem.’ Diakonia 32, no. 2 (1999), 128-42. Torjensin, Karen Jo. ‘Pedagogical Soteriology from Clement to Origen.’ In Origeniana Quarta, 370-78. Ithaca, NY, 2002. Touttée, A. A. ‘De Scriptis S. Cyrilli ac potissimum de Catechesibus.’ In PG 33. Turner, Victor W. The Anthropology of Performance. New York, 1986. Valantasis, Richard. The Making of the Self: Ancient and Modern Asceticism. Eugene, OR, 2008. Van de Schoor, R. J. M. The Irenical Theology of Théophile Brachet de la Milletière (1588-1655). New York, 1995. Van Nuffelen, Peter. ‘The Career of Cyril of Jerusalem (c.348–87): A Reassessment.’ JTS 58 (2007), 134-46. Vinzent, Markus. ‘Die Entstehung des “Römischen Glaubensbekenntnisses”.’ In Tauffragen und Bekenntnis, edited by Wolfram Kinzig, Christoph Markschies, and Markus Vinzent, 185-409. Berlin, 1999. Wace, Henry and William C. Piercy, ed. A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies. Boston, 1911. Walker, Peter W. L. ‘Eusebius, Cyril and the Holy Places.’ SP 20 (1989), 306-14. —. ‘Gospel Sites and “Holy Places”: the Contrasting Attitudes of Eusebius and Cyril.’ Tyndale Bulletin 41, no. 1 (1990), 89-108. —. Holy City, Holy Places: Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the Fourth Century. Oxford, 1990.

Bibliography

341

—. ‘Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the 4th Century.’ In The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land, edited by A. O. O’Mahoney. London, 1995. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI, 1996. Westra, Liuwe H. The Apostles’ Creed: Origin, History, and Some Early Commentaries. Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia 43. Turnhout, 2002. Wharton, A. J. ‘The Baptistery of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and the Politics of Sacred Landscape.’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46 (1992), 313-25. Wilkinson, John. Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land. Jerusalem, 1981. Winslow, Donald F. The Dynamics of Salvation: A Study in Gregory of Nazianzus. Patristics Monograph Series. Cambridge, MA, 1979. Wolfson, Harry A. ‘Philosophical Implications of the Theology of Cyril of Jerusalem.’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 11 (1957), 1-19. Yarnold, Edward J. ‘“Ideo et Romae fideles dicuntur qui baptizati sunt”: a note on De Sacramentis II.’ JTS 24, no. 1 (1973), 202. —. ‘Did St Ambrose Know the Mystagogic Catecheses of St Cyril of Jerusalem.’ SP 12 (1975), 184-9. —. ‘The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem.’ Heythrop Journal 19 (1978), 143-60. —. ‘Cyrillos von Jerusalem.’ TRE 8 (1981), 261-6. —. The Awe-Inspiring Rites of Initiation: The Origins of the RCIA. Collegeville, MN, 1994. —. ‘Anaphoras without Institution Narratives.’ SP 30 (1997), 395. —. ‘The Body-Soul Relationship Mainly in Connection with Sacramental Causality.’ SP 35 (2001), 338-42. Young, Frances. The Making of the Creeds. London, 2002. —. From Nicaea to Chalcedon. A Guide to the Literature and its Background. London, 1996.

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706