In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Journal of Early Christian Studies 12.3 (2004) 369-371



[Access article in PDF]
Theodoret of Cyrus. Eranistes, translated by Gerard H. Ettlinger, S. J. The Fathers of the Church 106. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Pp. x + 281. $39.95.

Few would question the critical importance of the Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon to the history of Christianity or the fact that the collision of theological doctrine and politics was complex and tumultuous. Gerard Ettlinger's translation of Theodoret of Cyrus' anti-Monophysite dialogues Eranistes situates the reader directly in the cross-fire of the conflicted period from 447 to 451. Ettlinger, who published the critical edition of the Greek text in 1975, now [End Page 369] enables us to feel the drama and passion of the text through a concise but thorough introduction, ample footnotes, and excellent scriptural and general indices.

The text is dominated by the figure about whom nothing is mentioned, i.e., Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. Best known for writing the Historia Religiosa as well as for being a biblical commentator and church historian of considerable weight, Theodoret was also an important player in the Christological controversies from Ephesus to Chalcedon. Perhaps the last exponent of Antiochene Christology, he defended Nestorius at Ephesus and continued to advocate the traditional Antiochene emphasis on the humanity of Christ. His efforts reached fruition with the inclusion of the two natures of Christ in the Chalcedonian formula, yet not without considerable cost and suffering for him.

The debate and conflict regarding the nature of the incarnation accelerated in the late 440s. Theodoret's contribution to that debate, the dialogues of Eranistes, may well have been the cause of his bitter conflict with the faction of Dioscorus and Eutyches since the so-called Robber Council at Ephesus in 449 would condemn and depose him from his see.

Writing with confessional and controversial intent, Theodoret carefully did not identify his target in Eranistes. Ettlinger deduces that this was most likely Dioscorus inasmuch as he had presided over Theodoret's dismissal at the Robber Council. When Theodoret was reinstated at Chalcedon, it was Dioscorus who was condemned.

The book takes the form of three dialogues between "Orthodox," who represents Theodoret's views, and a less-than-orthodox character named Eranistes or the Polymorph. This was a pejorative name intended to signify a person who indiscriminately picks up one doctrinal idea here and one there, a theological "rag picker" in Ettlinger's phrase. Each dialogue treats a particular theme followed by a lengthy catena of patristic writings supporting Orthodox's, i.e., Theodoret's argument. Eranistes never triumphs.

The first dialogue, which is entitled "Immutable" treats the matter of the immutable nature of God. The investigation centers around "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14) and how the incarnation could have happened without God changing into a human being. Orthodox cleverly concludes his patristic catena with orthodox snippets from Apollinarius, thereby convincing Eranistes that his erstwhile teacher also is convinced by Orthodox's argument that the Word took on or assumed humanity rather than changed into flesh.

The second dialogue, "Unmixed" refers to the nature of the union of human and divine natures in Christ. Orthodox directs the discussion towards the real presence of flesh and humanity in the incarnation. Eranistes takes the monophysite position, insisting upon only one nature in Christ after the union. Gradually, Orthodox works him around to accept grudgingly the tangible distinction between the divine and human substances—no third type. Orthodox cites both Theophilus and Cyril of Alexandria for his argument and clinches the debate again by concluding with Apollinarius' witness against the mixture of human and divine natures, much to the chagrin of Eranistes.

The third dialogue, "Impassible" extends the discussion to the issue [End Page 370] of which nature suffers in the Passion, the critical point being the dynamic of salvation, whether Jesus Christ effected salvation through his divinity or his humanity. Orthodox reasons that it must be the human Jesus, for by definition God is impassible. By claiming that it is God the Word who suffered by means of assuming humanity...

pdf

Share