a mixing. With the Antiochenes he confesses the 'unmingled union' (asynchy-tos henosis), but at the same time introduces the argument of appropriation, which - although missing in the formula of union - was, however, covered by Athanasius' letter to Epictetus.

The Antiochenes had attached to their formula of union a copy of Athanasius' letter to Epictetus, their original having come from the old library of the Eustathians. Cyril also now appends to his Letter of peace his copy of this letter that was the copy of an exemplar in the ancient Alexandrian archives. He does this, he says, in order to place at the disposal of the Antiochenes an incorrupt exemplar. Later he is clearer and claims that Paul of Emesa's text had deliberate omissions and additions and was created to prove the agreement between Athanasius and Nestorius. He insists that the original letter in fact refuted Nestorius. Although J. Lebon believed he could distinguish an Antiochene and an Alexandrian recension on the basis of the extant twofold transmission of this letter,23 this question needs further investigation.

After the union Cyril saw himself forced to justify the formula of union and hence to make clear what the difference between the teaching of Nestorius and that of the Antiochenes was. From a historian's standpoint, he failed to verify those three points on which he wanted to clarify the difference (CPG 5340). Principally his effort revolved around the concept of appropriation. As Cyril's Scholia de incarnatione clearly shows, he was still convinced in the winter of 432/3 that the Antiochenes and not just Nestorius maintained 'the separation ofGod and human being' in Christ even when they spoke ofthe appropriation of everything human by God. For 'they think God and human being each for itself (kat' idian)24 and separate the natures from each other'. For this reason they could understand the appropriation 'only in the mode of relation', but not as a union on the level of being, which justifies confessing the Logos himself as the subject of the kenosis and ascribing to him all the statements of lowliness.

After the union Cyril still avoided using the concept of the common prosopon and in general the notion of community (koinonia) that for the Antiochenes characterised the third class of biblical statements. However, in his Scholia de incarnatione he employed the terms koinopoieisthai and koinon and thus dealt with 'something common to God and human being'. In those places he describes not the conception of the Antiochenes, but his own. And he wrote the Scholia with a view to the negotiations with the Antiochenes and sent them in a Latin translation to Rome in 433.

23 Lebon, 'Alteration doctrínale'.

24 In the text of the Scholia de incarnatione, this is translated as in parte.

0 0

Post a comment