In the Shadow of the Incarnation: Essays on Jesus Christ in the Early Church in Honor of Brian E. Daley, S.J.

What Was “Wrong” with Augustine? The Sixth-Century Reception (or Lack Thereof ) of Augustine’s Christology

10 What Was “Wrong” with Augustine? The Sixth-Century Reception (or Lack Thereof) of Augustine’s Christology David R. Maxwell Achristological controversy erupted in Constantinople in the first decades of the sixth century, which quickly expanded to include a controversy about grace. A group of monks from Scythia, who were in Constantinople to get a hearing for their christological views, fought both fronts of this battle. They relied, however, on separate authorities for each front. For Christology, they drew primarily on the writings of Cyril of Alexandria to oppose what they saw as a Nestorianizing misinterpretation of the Chalcedonian definition. For the doctrine of grace, they drew primarily on the writings of Augustine to oppose a semiPelagian understanding of human cooperation in conversion. This division of labor raises the question of why they did not draw consistently on one author or the other. Why did they employ Augustine as a specialist on grace, so to speak, but show little interest in his christological formulations? What was “wrong” with Augustine’s Christology that prevented the Scythian monks from relying on him as a primary witness for their own christological position? Briefly, I argue in this essay 212 What Was “Wrong” with Augustine? 213 that when Augustine’s Christology was thrust into a new context, that of the Nestorian controversy, his formulations took on a different meaning because they bore a superficial resemblance to certain “Nestorian ” formulations, even though they were never intended to address the questions posed by the later controversy. In order to trace this shift in meaning, I first provide a brief summary of the sixth-century “Theopaschite controversy,” which is really a continuation of the Nestorian controversy. After that, I determine which Augustinian texts the Scythian monks had available to them. I am then in a position to describe three features of Augustine’s Christology which underwent a transformation and began to look “Nestorian ” when they were read in the new context of the Theopaschite controversy. These features are, first, a “rule of interpretation” that Augustine articulated in De Trinitate; second, Augustine’s account of why Christ is called God; and third, Augustine’s inclusion of the concept of grace in his Christology. The Theopaschite Controversy In the year 519, a group of monks from Scythia, led by John Maxentius, arrived in Constantinople in order to gain approval from the emperor for their “theopaschite formula,” “One of the Trinity was crucified in the flesh.” The Scythian monks advocated this formula because they were concerned that many, including their home bishop in the town of Tomi, misinterpreted the Chalcedonian definition in a Nestorianizing direction. Leo’s Tome, for example, which was endorsed by Chalcedon, states, “Each form [i.e., nature] does what is proper to it in communion with the other, the Word, that is, doing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh. One of these shines with miracles; the other succumbs to injuries.”1 A statement such as this could easily be taken to posit two different acting subjects in Christ. The Scythian monks did not believe that Chalcedon or Leo actually intended to divide Christ in two. They themselves were ardent supporters of the Chalcedonian definition, and they culled Leo’s letters for evidence that he did in fact believe there is only one subject in Christ. Their concern was that their contemporaries, including a group of 214 David R. Maxwell monks in Constantinople as well as legates from Rome, were misreading Chalcedon by taking advantage of ambiguities like the above passage from Leo’s Tome in order to divide the actions of Christ between a human and a divine subject. The Scythian monks advocated their theopaschite formula as a kind of litmus test to unmask just such a Nestorianizing interpretation of the council. The formula “One of the Trinity was crucified in the flesh” was intended to make clear that everything that Christ underwent , including the crucifixion, was experienced by “One of the Trinity,” namely, the Word. If one could confess the theopaschite formula along with Chalcedon, the Scythian monks argued, Chalcedon was defended against a Nestorianizing misinterpretation that would ascribe the sufferings of Christ to some subject other than the Word. In addition to the controversy about the reception of Chalcedon, a semi-Pelagian controversy erupted in Constantinople at the same time when the North African bishop...