Cyril and Theodoret on the Temptation of Christ: An Imaginary Dialogue Between Alexandrian and Antiochene Christological Positions

IF 0.1 0 RELIGION Perichoresis Pub Date : 2022-07-04 DOI:10.2478/perc-2022-0023
I. Kupán
{"title":"Cyril and Theodoret on the Temptation of Christ: An Imaginary Dialogue Between Alexandrian and Antiochene Christological Positions","authors":"I. Kupán","doi":"10.2478/perc-2022-0023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this paper some parallelisms and differences are presented between two ancient theological traditions concerning their model of Christ by comparing two representative figures of both schools, namely Theodoret of Cyrus and Cyril of Alexandria. Since the Christology of the two authors could not be compared in detail within such a paper, the investigation resumes itself to the mode how they interpret the Lord’s Temptation by the devil in the wilderness. The works involved in the analysis include Theodoret’s treatise On the incarnation written in 431 before the Council of Ephesus, the fragments of Cyril’s Commentary on Matthew as well as his Commentary on Luke. The doctrinal conclusion of this comparison is that the two traditions represented by these illustrious theologians—despite their conspicuous and undeniable differences— signify rather complementary than flatly opposing views and that the two ancient traditions have found their revival even in the sixteenth century, and continue to influence the theologians of our time. This is why the author considers Chalcedon as being a corridor (in which both traditions can walk side by side whilst respecting the limits set by ‘the columns’, i.e. the four famous expressions) rather than a narrow path or a tightrope-walking, where only one is able to go through.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perichoresis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2022-0023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In this paper some parallelisms and differences are presented between two ancient theological traditions concerning their model of Christ by comparing two representative figures of both schools, namely Theodoret of Cyrus and Cyril of Alexandria. Since the Christology of the two authors could not be compared in detail within such a paper, the investigation resumes itself to the mode how they interpret the Lord’s Temptation by the devil in the wilderness. The works involved in the analysis include Theodoret’s treatise On the incarnation written in 431 before the Council of Ephesus, the fragments of Cyril’s Commentary on Matthew as well as his Commentary on Luke. The doctrinal conclusion of this comparison is that the two traditions represented by these illustrious theologians—despite their conspicuous and undeniable differences— signify rather complementary than flatly opposing views and that the two ancient traditions have found their revival even in the sixteenth century, and continue to influence the theologians of our time. This is why the author considers Chalcedon as being a corridor (in which both traditions can walk side by side whilst respecting the limits set by ‘the columns’, i.e. the four famous expressions) rather than a narrow path or a tightrope-walking, where only one is able to go through.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
西里尔与西奥多论基督的诱惑:亚历山德里亚与安提阿契基督论立场的想象性对话
本文通过对古列的西奥多和亚历山大的西里尔这两个学派的代表人物的比较,提出了两种古代神学传统关于基督模式的一些相似之处和差异。由于两位作者的基督论无法在这样一篇论文中进行详细的比较,因此调查又回到了他们如何解释主在旷野中被魔鬼诱惑的模式。分析中涉及的作品包括西奥多写于431年以弗所会议之前的关于化身的论文,西里尔的《马太福音注释》的片段以及他的《路加福音注释》。这种比较的教义结论是,这两种传统代表着这些杰出的神学家-尽管他们明显和不可否认的差异-意味着互补而不是完全对立的观点,这两个古老的传统甚至在16世纪找到了他们的复兴,并继续影响我们这个时代的神学家。这就是为什么作者认为Chalcedon是一条走廊(两种传统可以并排行走,同时尊重“柱子”设定的限制,即四个著名的表达),而不是一条狭窄的小路或走钢丝,只有一个人能够通过。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Perichoresis
Perichoresis RELIGION-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Rev 3:10: Rapture or Preservation? Analyzing Professions of Faith in the Fourth Gospel: is Everyone Who Believes Saved? Sin and Perfection in 1 John Theological Affinities Between the Fourth Gospel and the Book of Revelation John and the Synoptic Gospels. What John Knew and What John Used
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1