The Constancy and Development in the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus by Vasilije Vranic (review)

A simple thesis drives this monograph: Theodoret’s Christology underwent no significant change in content over the course of his career, from before the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy through the Eutychian controversy; only the terminology he used to express his unchanging Christology changed. Part One gives historical context, providing an excellent narrative of the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies and Theodoret’s role in them. In Parts Two and Three Vranic examines three writings, the Expositio rectae fidei (from prior to or the start of the Nestorian controversy), the Refutation of the Twelve Anathemas of Cyril of Alexandria (written at the height of the controversy), and the Eranistes (written at the start of the Eutychian controversy). Each treatise is discussed similarly: first the date and context is established, then a programmatic summary of the contents is given, followed by an analysis of the terminology used and of key christological concepts. This method inevitably leads to some repetition, as the same passages in each treatise are first summarized and then analyzed in more depth. Nonetheless, the exposition is clear and one is never in doubt over Vranic’s interpretation.

Vranic thus aims to remove any lingering doubt over Theodoret’s orthodoxy at any point in his career, a doubt that in fact first emerged in his own lifetime when he became suspected of “Nestorianism.” Having emerged as la tête pensante of the Antiochenes, the chief architect of their Christology, and a vocal critic of Cyril, he was condemned, deposed, and exiled at Ephesus II in 449, whose extreme Miaphysite agenda in support of Eutyches was orchestrated by Dioscorus of Alexandria. Accordingly, he participated in the Council of Chalcedon in 451 only as an accuser of Dioscorus, being barred from the deliberations that produced the council’s famous Definition. Only after its promulgation was Theodoret’s case heard; the condition of his restoration was anathematization of Nestorius, to which he acquiesced. Thus, Chalcedon exonerated Theodoret as orthodox, an action that would trouble later generations. At the Council of Constantinople in 553, Theodoret’s writings against Cyril were condemned as one of the Three Chapters, sullying his reputation until modern times.

Vranic’s book is the latest in a long line of studies that seek to rehabilitate Theodoret. Vranic agrees with the general assessment that Theodoret’s Eranistes is free of “Nestorianism” but argues that he did not have to change from an earlier “Nestorianism.” His Christology never was “Nestorian,” as his earliest writings attest, and he was christologically consistent in his writings from the beginning. The Theodoret that emerges in Vranic’s study is one who anticipated the substance of the Chalcedonian Definition by twenty years and who should thus be taken far more seriously as a key contributor to christological orthodoxy than has been the case previously. If Vranic is correct, it is somewhat ironic that this significant precursor to Chalcedon played no role in the formulation of the Definition that purportedly has encapsulated his christological vision. Incidentally, Vranic gives tacit endorsement to the later Miaphysite claim that Chalcedon was “Nestorian,” if one takes this charge as meaning that the Definition is a compromise between Cyrilline views and the Antiochene views as articulated by Theodoret.

Theodoret’s terminological evolution, argues Vranic, is the result of a gradual adaptation of the theological lexicon developed by the Cappadocians for Trinitarian relations in new christological contexts. Vranic does not provide a definitive answer as to whether this influence was direct or through the intermediary of Theodore of Mopsuestia. One is also left wondering how unique Theodoret was in his reapplication of the Cappadocian lexicon, or whether he was part of a larger trend, in which the lexicon was on its way to becoming common currency.

One of the major concerns of Theodoret’s Christology as identified by Vranic is to preserve the unbridgeable gap between the uncreated and created orders of existence. Thus, the union of divine and...