THE EXEGESIS OF CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA AND THEODORE OF
MOPSUESTIA: A PLAY IN THREE ACTS
________________
A Paper
Presented to
Dr. Marc Cortez
Western Seminary
________________
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Course
CHS 662JZ,
________________
By Andy Peloquin, Box 86
April 24, 2010
0

Shakespeare famously stated that all the world’s a stage and we are merely players upon it. The theatricality of the drama of life is an interesting analogy by which to frame some of history’s more interesting episodes. One of these very episodes occurred during the time period of the Greek Fathers. Drawing on the imagery of this analogy, we could see laid out before us great work of the theater with plot, setting, players, and script. The overarching plot would serve as the struggle of the church to define orthodoxy. The protagonists would be the characters that staunchly affirmed and defended it while the antagonists those whom heretically interpreted and applied scripture, opposed the protagonist, and waylaid the good people of the church. As any good story goes, the protagonists gained honor with noble titles of heroes of the faith while the corrupt antagonists died ignoble deaths, living infamously the rest of history with the epithet ‘heretic’. However, this story has an intriguing subplot, for just as in
Dickens, this can also be seen through the lens of a tale of two cities - Alexandria and
Antioch.
Most of the players on either side of this great drama hailed from either of the two cities, or at least their spheres of influence. Correspondingly, there should be no surprise that each city developed its own unique position in each debate and thus the city itself came to be associated with a different school of thought. This is seen nowhere better than in the area of biblical exegesis. Alexandria, came to represent the allegorical method of exegesis while Antioch the literal. However, like in any good play, this plot is not as simple as it first seems, and instead encounters twists and turns as one is drawn more deeply into it. As such this reductionist distinction of the two cities exegetical methods shall be shown to be not as sharp as has been led to believe.
1

The story of the interplay of these two cities is long and the players are many in addition to their contributions to the script. Therefore to illustrate the precariousness of this premise, we will focus on two of the most ‘exegetically notable’ from the fourth to fifth centuries: Cyril of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopsuestia, representing Alexandria and Antioch, respectively, and how they compare with the ‘stereotypes’ of the exegetical methods from their respective schools. In order to do this, three areas must be examined: the general Alexandrian and Antiochene exegetical methods; the exegetical distinctives of Cyril of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopsuestia as they compare to these general methods from their city/school; and as a point of illustration, a comparison of each of their works, in this case, their introductions to commentaries on the book of Jonah. The stage is set, the lights made low, and the curtain opens on the performance.
The Setting: Alexandrian and Antiochene Exegetical Methods
Every play needs a setting, and this one is contained within the Eastern half of the
Roman Empire and begins in the fourth century. Constantinople had become the dominant power politically and ecclesiastically with its promotion to the capital of the
East. Before this, however, Alexandria and Antioch both had claims to being the ‘center’ of Christianity and loci of political power. Antioch was, after all, one of the earliest churches, stretching back to the biblical record in Acts 11. Alexandria, however, had become a center of learning even before the Christian period and so had a well established scholarly tradition. Furthermore its bishops wielded great political power, both within the city, and within the Eastern Empire. This competition to be ‘second city’ was reflected not only in political and ecclesiological aspirations but also in the methods
2

that developed in each of their schools of exegesis and theology.
For the purposes of this study, the most pertinent area of comparison was their apparent competing methods of biblical exegesis.
1
Scholars have often distinguished the two cities by their exegetical method stating that Alexandria predominately espoused allegory while Antioch literalism. However, recent scholarship has sought to debunk this oft cited notion.
2
One can certainly observe tendencies to these generalizations, especially in their early development, but by the time of Cyril and Theodore, they were considerably more nuanced. Therefore it is appropriate to examine the development of these two ‘schools’ of exegesis.
As stated, Alexandria already had a long tradition of learning before the rise of
Christianity. This was true even in the arena of the exegesis of biblical literature, most notably under the Jewish scholar Philo (roughly contemporary with the life of Christ). A child of his Hellenistic Judaism, he desired to make the Jewish scriptures accessible to
Greek philosophers to show that Judaism was not outside the veil of Greek thought.
Therefore he employed their method of allegorizing Greek myths to allegorizing Jewish scripture, developing a system by which the fantastical elements could be understood in a more ethical or moral sense.
3
This tradition that began with Philo was continued under the Christian theologian
Origen in the third century. Origen likewise used allegory to show that scripture had an
1 It should be noted that I use the term method here very loosely since most regard that there was not a clear distinction at this time by these writers of a clear cut method as we would understand that term today.
Additionally, in many instances the term ‘hermeneutics’ could be used instead of ‘exegesis’. I chose here to be consistent throughout and use ‘exegesis’, though I would readily acknowledge that such topics as allegory and typology are usually regarded in the field of hermeneutics.
2 See Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge ; New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
3 David S. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now : Contemporary Hermeneutics in the Light of the
Early Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1992). 76-79.
3

underlying spiritual meaning along with its literal meaning – which he equated with the dualistic body/spirit metaphor of humanity. The deeper meaning was the more significant one and so had to always be sought. Furthermore, especially in the case of the
Old Testament, there was a high value placed on the allegory being Christological in nature.
4
Origen’s ideas of scriptural interpretation were to become an indelible mark upon what became known as the ‘Alexandrian school’. Thus Alexandria became known for the use of allegory as its predominant exegetical method.
Antioch, however, developed upon a different path, most often in direct opposition to what was thought to be the excesses of Origenism. They espoused a more literal interpretation of the text that was fundamentally “indebted to the traditions of classical grammatical analysis, rhetoric, and historiography.” 5
They felt that allegory attempted to transcend these and thus unhinge the text from its proper context, which then could lead to any number of incorrect interpretations and theologies. Therefore they vehemently opposed any use of Origen and his understanding of allegory.
The preceding descriptions are the commonly held understandings of the differences between the two schools. However, closer scrutiny reveals that, while instructive for general purposes, there is a great deal that is lost in this distilled categorization. Paramount in this deeper examination is a nuancing of the terms used by these exegetes and the understanding of what they were intending to do. Though the designation of allegory and literalism is bantered about, there must be an understanding of what these terms meant to them.
4 Gerald Lewis Bray, Biblical Interpretation : Past & Present (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,
1996). 101-103.
5 John J. O'Keefe, ""A Letter That Killeth": Toward a Reassessment of Antiochene Exegesis, or Diodore,
Theodore, and Theodoret on the Psalms," Journal of Early Christian Studies 8.1 (2000). 88.
4

One who has challenged the simplistic understanding is Frances Young. She asserts that the traditional categories that we use to describe their method – ‘literal’,
‘typological’, and ‘allegorical’ are not adequate as tools by which to analyze them.
6
Young feels, then, that our common notion is too simplistic compared to the reality that existed. She contends that ‘typology’ is a modern construct and that ancient exegetes did not distinguish between allegory and typology as we do now.
7
However, they did have their own means to distinguish a very important distinction which allowed for Antiochene exegetes to feel perfectly comfortable using typology while disdaining allegory.
Young states that typology is “discovered in ‘universal’ narrative patterns played out in past, present, and future, the intersection of particular story and story-type.”
8
Thus typology is anchored in the text and while seeking to express a deeper meaning in it.
Allegory, as practiced by the Alexandrian exegetes, however, “involves using words as symbols or tokens, arbitrarily referring to other realities by application of a code, and so destroying the narrative, or surface, coherence of the text.” 9
The word or symbol was removed from its context and thus it could be manipulated in whatever means the creative exegete so desired. Thus Antiochenes had no difficulty in using typology; however they disdained the use of allegory because it undermined the narrative of scripture.
10
Another view is that of Alexander Kerrigan in his seminal work, Cyril of
Alexandria: Interpreter of the Old Testament , who distinguishes the understanding of
6 Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. 2.
7 Ibid., 155.
8 Ibid., 161.
9 Ibid., 162.
10 It should be noted that when confronted with Paul’s use of the term allegoria in Galatians, Diodore of
Tarsus, one of the main Antiochene exegetes and Theodore’s teacher, simply stated that Paul was not using this Greek understanding of allegory but rather a ‘scriptural’ one. Thus they could acknowledge the use of the term allegory, though defined by their own uses of ‘ theoria ’ - Young, Biblical Exegesis and the
Formation of Christian Culture. 179-180.
5

what he calls the literal sense and spiritual sense of scripture used by the Alexandrians and Antiochenes. He states that for both groups, the literal sense is rooted in historia , the actual happening of the events.
11
However, in looking at the spiritual sense, both use the term theoria , but use it in different means. To Kerrigan, the Alexandrian understanding of theoria was that it was a method of reaching meanings which were beyond the range of the literal, while at the same time not undermining the use of history.
12
This is best exemplified in Cyril of Alexandria’s favored use of it to describe
‘higher explanations’ of scripture (though not the only term he employed as he was known to flex his extensive vocabulary in describing this).
13
For example, in examining prophetic literature, Kerrigan states that Cyril had two connotations of theoria . The first was its etymological sense used in the technical sense to refer to the actual vision the prophet was having ( theoria having the meaning of ‘vision’) and the second in the exegetical sense which is divided into two areas – the subjective and objective. By subjective, it is meant to refer to the method used by the interpreter to reach the hidden significance of scripture. It is done in the interpreters mind with the enlightenment of the
Holy Spirit. The objective is the sense discovered by the mental process engaged in the subjective and is often hidden by God in the text. Therefore the interpreter needs to discover this sense; as one who is “removing wrappings that hide the higher sense.”
14
Thus Cyril attempts to root the understanding of scripture in understanding what God was really communicating through the prophet’s vision, as revealed to the interpreter by the
Holy Spirit.
11 Alexander Kerrigan, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Interpreter of the Old Testament, Analecta Biblica, 2
(Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1952). 39.
12 Ibid., 117-118.
13 Ibid., 114.
14 Ibid., 122.
6

The Antiochene understanding of theoria differed from this, according to
Kerrigan. Diodore of Tarsus, one of the main founders of the Antiochene ‘school’, understood theoria to be in contrast to the historia and yet distinct from allegory. It therefore was a middle way to respect the literal sense while engaging in a deeper understanding tied to the text. Thus he had no difficulty seeing Christ in the lamb without blemish as a credible use of theoria .
15
Simply put, he did not neglect the pursuit of spiritual interpretation but stated that it needed to be based on the historia ; otherwise you would have allegory and not theoria .
16
Likewise, an example of their understanding of theoria can be seen in interpreting the prophets. Here they understood theoria to have four properties – it presupposes the historical sense; in addition to the object given by the historical sense a second object is present in the mind; the first object is in the same relationship to the second as an image does to what it represents; and finally, both are diversely attained at the same time. Thus it is vision that goes on in the mind of the prophet.
17
This understanding became the exegetical method for prophecy for the
Antiochenes. As a result, they could then look at those passages that had traditionally been seen as Messianic and wholeheartedly concur based on their method and thus avoid the lifting of the prophetic message out of context.
18 In other words, this use of theoria allowed them to state that the prophet wrote the literal words of the prophetic scripture but had in mind a Messianic meaning which can correctly be interpreted.
Bradley Nassif also notes that this Alexandrian and Antiochene ‘caricature’ has developed and is overstated, mostly because of a lack of understanding of the Antiochene
15 Ibid., 118.
16 Dimitri Z. Zaharopoulos, Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Bible : A Study of His Old Testament Exegesis
(New York: Paulist Press, 1989). 111.
17 Kerrigan, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Interpreter of the Old Testament. 119.
18 Ibid., 119-120.
7

school and specifically their use of theoria.
19
He believes that theoria gave a simple exegetical method for the Antiochene exegetes to bridge the spiritual and historical approach to scripture.
20
This allowed them to avoid allegory while attempting to find the deeper insights to scripture. Bradley notes that this was done differently by different authors, and not always consistently. However, that being said, those who have studied their use of theoria
, regard it to be the “‘chief exegetical feature’ of the School of
Antioch.” 21
A final term that needs to be examined is the use of skopos . The basic meaning of the term is ‘aim’ or ‘intent’ and was used differently for the two exegetical camps. The
Alexandrians, stemming from Origen’s use, employed it in connection with the skopos of all of scripture. This drove Origen’s exegesis because he felt the Bible had an overarching meaning and direction.
22 He wrote that it was the Holy Spirit’s skopos to inspire the writers of scripture so they were fully involved in the doctrines of the Spirit’s counsel. Furthermore it was the skopos of the Spirit to conceal these doctrines in the narrative in a way that examination of them would point to spiritual truth. ‘Stumbling blocks’ of impossibilities in the law and narrative merely served as a means to alert interpreter to the deeper meaning. Therefore the “principle skopos was to announce the connection that exists among spiritual events, and where the earthly narrative did not fit, bits were woven in to represent a more mystical meaning.”
23
Thus the main issue was the coherence of scripture and thus making interpretations in line with this overarching
19 Nassif, Bradley, “Antiochene Theoria in John Chrysostom’s Exegesis” in Hovhanessian, Vahan ,
Exegesis and Hermeneutics in the Churches of the East : Select Papers from the Sbl Meeting in San Diego,
2007: Peter Lang. 52
20 Ibid., 51.
21 Ibid.
22 Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. 21.
23 Ibid. 24.
8

skopos . Athanasius employed this understanding as well in refuting the Arians. He felt
Arian understanding and exegesis damaged the coherence of the plot of scripture, the skopos . Therefore he could interpret scripture in his defense that may, at first look, appear to ignore the text fully, but from Athanasius’ perspective, was fully appropriate because it was within the understanding of the overarching plot – the skopos .
24
The Antiochene view of skopos was different and not used as extensively, save for John Chrysostom who seemed to employ it quite readily and in a manner similar to the Alexandrians. He regarded scripture to be profitless if one did not properly investigate its skopos .
25
This could indicate the more universal understanding of the skopos of all of scripture akin to Origen’s view.
26
Theodore of Mopseustia and Gregory of Nyssa make a few references to the skopos of scripture but it seems to be in connection with specific books or texts of scripture.
27 It seems that the Antiochene view would limit the skopos or it similar concept, hypothesis , to portions of scripture rather than the whole.
28
We now have an adjusted picture of the distinction between the two cities methods. Rather than the reductionist model that states they each represented an exegetical school centered on allegory and literalism, respectively, we instead see that they were not so easily distinguishable in their approaches to scriptural interpretation.
They used similar terms yet imbued them with different meaning. They also were not exclusively literal or allegorical but both sought to find literal and spiritual meaning in the text. Finally, there was inconsistency and overlapping in their methodology.
24 Ibid., 43.
25 Kerrigan, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Interpreter of the Old Testament. 92.
26 Ibid., 89-90.
27 Ibid., 93.
28 Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. 21.
9

Therefore we actually have a far greater obfuscation between them. This gets even more blurry as we get into the end of the third to the middle of the fourth centuries and examine the exegetical distinctives of our players – Cyril of Alexandria and Theodore of
Mopsuestia.
The Players: Cyril of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopsuestia and Their Exegetical
Distinctives
In carrying our analogy further afield, our play needs a cast of characters who move the plot forward. These can be found in Cyril of Alexandria and Theodore of
Mopsuestia. If we were to place upon them our literary motif, Cyril would be the protagonist since he is regarded as an orthodox Father of the Church, while Theodore the antagonist – a heretic condemned post-mortem. Of course such distinctions are not so simple in reality and so we must evaluate their positions critically. Thus we will briefly outline their lives and then delve into the distinctives of their exegetical methods from the norm of their ‘school’.
A great deal is known of the life of Cyril of Alexandria; however, a brief outline is only necessary here. He came to be bishop of Alexandria through the influence of his uncle Theophilus. Theophilus had consolidated much of the power of the position that he then passed over to his nephew. He had effectively curbed the heretical and pagan presence in the city and established Alexandria as the preeminent Christian center of the
East.
29
Cyril moved up the ranks within the Alexandrian church and upon the death of
29 Norman Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, The Early Church Fathers (London; New York: Routledge, 2000).
3-6.
10

his uncle, assumed the see of Alexandria on October 18, 412.
30
His initial years were rather testy as he exerted his influence and came into conflict with the local Jews, pagans, and Imperial prelate. However, by 418 things settled down and he enjoyed ten years of relative calm. It is thought that in this period he wrote many of his earlier works, most notably his commentaries and books of exegesis.
31
It was in 428 that Cyril’s star really rose in the famous Christological conflict with Nestorius, of the Antioch school and the newly appointed bishop of Constantinople.
As a result of this debate, Nestorius was deposed and Cyril’s Christology was hailed as orthodox. He died in 444 just seven years before his views were codified at the Council of Chalcedon.
32
Though Cyril of Alexandria became best known for his Christological writings and defense of orthodoxy against Nestorius, it is conjectured that had this not occurred, he would have been nonetheless famous for his exegesis in his commentaries.
33
In examining the distinctives of Cyril’s exegesis, it is of note to first try to distill his methodology. Norman Russell contends that Cyril had in mind principles that under lied his exegesis: “These are, first, that the Bible forms a unity, each part illuminating the rest; second, that the subject of the Bible as a whole is the mystery of Christ; and third, that the interpretation of the Bible must be consistent with the church’s kerygma ” 34 In the face of a lack of a clear statement by Cyril himself as to how he implements these principles, Russell conjectures that he most probably used those that were set forth by his uncle Theophilus, which we do have a record for. He informs us that Theophilus’
30 Ibid., 6.
31 John Anthony McGuckin and Cyril, St. Cyril of Alexandria : The Christological Controversy : Its
History, Theology, and Texts, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, (Leiden ; New York: E.J. Brill, 1994).
9-16.
32 Russell, Cyril of Alexandria. 58.
33 Ibid., 16.
34 N. Russell, "The Church in the Commentaries of St Cyril of Alexandria," International Journal for the
Study of the Christian Church 7.2 (2007). 72-73.
11

purpose in exegesis was to not take away from the “divine prophecies” by explaining them away but instead to explain them in light of their antecedents. Therefore he advocated the use of typology in his exegesis. Theophilus was careful, however, because he was not advocating the use of Origenic allegory, a practice that had come to be rejected by the fourth century in Alexandria. As a result, Russell concludes, Cyril used these principles of using symbolic images in scripture (especially the Old Testament) in order to show a pattern that ultimately reveals Christ and the church’s kerygma .
35
John O’Keefe, however, notes that Cyril and the other patristic commentators were probably not concerned with any particular methodology, but rather that Cyril was concerned with, “bringing the proper Christian perspective to the interpretation.” 36
In his study of Cyril’s
Commentary on Malachi , therefore, O’Keefe argues that Cyril was interpreting in regards to the fifth-century understanding of Christian faith, ministry and moral behavior and not method and so reading it gives a perspective on fifth-century
Christian practice.
37
Furthermore, O’Keefe feels that unlike previous Alexandrian exegetes, Cyril employed the methods of the ancient grammatical schools, just as was custom in Antioch.
The basic method was in several steps: examining the accuracy of the text; studying the proper way to read the text; explaining the difficult names, places, historical details, and literary features; and discussing the moral value of the text.
38
Thus O’Keefe notes, Cyril had to change aspects of the allegorical tradition of his forbearers, insisting, for example,
35 Ibid. 73.
36 J. J. O'Keefe, "Christianizing Malachi: Fifth-Century Insights from Cyril of Alexandria," Vigiliae
Christianae. 50.2 (1996). 137.
37 Ibid., 137.
38 Ibid., 138.
12

that not every passage has a spiritual interpretation.
39
As we have seen above, Alexander Kerrigan indicated Cyril’s understanding of theoria as his favored means of understanding the spiritual meaning of scripture. He also notes Cyril’s specific use of some of the other terms. To Cyril, the use of historia was to denote the literal sense and it “connotes not only the meaning of biblical passages dealing with narratives but also the obvious signification of legislative prescriptions and the import of prophetic oracles.” 40 In other words there was not only a literal sense to be found in biblical narrative, but also in the more figurative prophetic literature. He also favored the use of the term skopos both for engaging the literal and spiritual meaning of the text and regarded the use of skopos as an “angle of vision from which the hagiographer views things.” 41
He aimed to pinpoint the skopos of each author of scripture before commenting on it – akin to finding authorial intent.
42 This is very similar to the manner in which the Antiochenes viewed the skopos of scripture. However, he did acknowledge the importance of understanding the whole skopos of scripture, which he determined was the mystery of Christ.
43
The image we then have of Cyril of Alexandria is an exegete who employed the traditions of his theological pedigree. He was comfortable with engaging in the pursuit of the spiritual meaning in scripture, though ejecting the allegorization of Origen while employing his understanding of typology. Furthermore he was not afraid to adjust some of the practice of his tradition in order to fully understand the text. He was fully confident in understanding the literal sense of scripture as an important aspect of this.
39 Ibid.
40 Kerrigan, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Interpreter of the Old Testament. 36-37.
41 Ibid., 88.
42 Ibid.
43 Thomas G. Weinandy and Daniel A. Keating, The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria : A Critical
Appreciation (London ; New York: T& Clark, 2003). 16.
13

Therefore we see that he was not a ‘purebred’ Alexandrian in that he had integrated methodologies commonly thought to be of the Antiochene school.
Far less is known about Theodore of Mopsuestia. It is thought he was born around 350 in Antioch and was noble by birth. He was a contemporary and friend to
John Chrysostom with whom he studied under the noted Sophist Libanius. Thus he had a firm education in literature, rhetoric, and philosophy. During this education both he and
John Chrysostom left to pursue the monastic life studying under Diodore of Tarsus, the founder of the Antiochene school, and one known for his meticulous exegetical works.
Though there seems to be some floundering in his educational pursuits – leaving the ascetic life to return to Libanius’
Forum and then returning again to Diodore as a result of
John Chrysostom’s pleading – it is clear he settled into his ecclesiastical pursuits when he became a presbyter in Antioch under the bishop Flavian.
44
His promotion to bishop of Mopsuestia occurred in 392 and from this position he garnered much acclaim for his teaching and writing, impressing even Emperor
Theodosius I with his sermons. He also attracted a number of pupils, the most famous of which were John of Antioch, Theodoret, Ibas, and Nestorius. He died in 428 just after his student Nestorius visited him on the way to take up his position as the bishop of
Constantinople. Ironically, what in one sense should have been considered a moment of great pride, was instead the beginning of the end of his reputation. In the Christological debates that ensued between Nestorius and Cyril and following, Theodore’s name more and more became associated with Nestorianism. Cyril, though previously complimentary to Theodore for his views, began attacking Theodore and Diodore directly.
45 This trend
44 Zaharopoulos, Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Bible : A Study of His Old Testament Exegesis. 9-12.
45 Ibid., 13-15
14

against Theodore continued into the next century. Finally at the fifth council his writings were condemned in toto and he was also formally anathematized. It is thought this was primarily for political reasons since Justinian was trying to appease the Monophysites who equated Theodore with the hated Nestorianism. Though he died in good repute within the church, he now stands as a heretic.
46
Theodore’s exegetical distinctive are not too far outside the norm of the
Antiochene exegetes. In fact his exegesis is regarded as the most typically representative of the Antiochene school.
47
Others contend he is the “principal exponent of the schools literal, historical, and rational approach to biblical exegesis,”
48
and that perhaps he developed a unique and superior exegetical method compared to the commonly understood Antiochene one.
49
He was regarded by his admirers as the ‘Mephasqana’ –
“the interpreter par excellence.” 50 Some of the specifics of his exegesis are difficult to determine because of the dearth of available sources, though it is thought he wrote commentaries on all of the biblical books.
51
We do have fully extant his Commentary on the Minor Prophets , however, and contained within his introduction to the commentary on Jonah, he gives his method of typology, which we will explore below.
Dimitri Zaharopoulos, in his examination of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Old
Testament exegesis, feels that Theodore practiced a form of the historical-grammatical method
52
which was based upon his education and training in the rhetorical and
4646 Ibid., 20-21.
47 Theodore, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, trans. Robert C. Hill, The Fathers of the Church, V. 108
(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2004). 9.
48 Frederick G. McLeod, Theodore of Mopsuestia (London; New York: Routledge, 2009). 3.
49 Zaharopoulos, Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Bible : A Study of His Old Testament Exegesis. 124.
50 Ibid., 27.
51 Ibid.
52 It is not clear exactly what he means by the use of historical-grammatical method. Most scholars seem to compare Theodore’s exegesis to historical-critical method.
15

grammatical method. Furthermore, he states Theodore had three defining tenants by which he exegeted: first that it is the interpreters task to understand the meaning of the text in its historical context; second, that the Old Testament must be interpreted in light of its own historical environment; and finally third, that typologies are acceptable but are intrinsically tied to the historical-grammatical meaning of the text.
53
In addition, Zaharopoulos states that Theodore’s prime exegetical principle was in examining the text in its context, both grammatically and historically. As such, Theodore laid great emphasis on setting the historical context, speaking strongly to the historicity of the events. He did this not only with the biblical resources but also engaged with extrabiblical historical materials such as Josephus.
54
Essentially he views Theodore’s position on the biblical text as “a book of history dealing with the acts of a covenanted God.”
55
Finally, he elaborates upon Theodore’s views of typology. For Theodore, typology was not necessarily a means to interpret biblical texts, but rather one to compare historical events. To this he fastened rather strict rules which shall be elaborated below.
Under these rules, he saw only three typologies in the Old Testament – the sprinkling of the doorposts at Passover, the lifting of the bronze serpent in the desert, and Jonah in the belly of the fish and his preaching to Nineveh. The most important aspect of these is that they are all referenced in the New Testament as types. Therefore Theodore allowed room for typology, but on a very short leash so as to avoid the eccentricities that could easily develop.
56
Frederick McLeod also delves into Theodore’s exegetical method. Like
53 Zaharopoulos, Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Bible : A Study of His Old Testament Exegesis. 115-16.
54 Ibid., 125.
55 Ibid., 130.
56 Ibid., 130-31.
16

Zaharopoulos, he contends that Theodore was firmly within Antiochene practice and that he utilized his rhetorical education in his interpretive methods.
57 McLeod highlights that
Theodore rightly stressed the importance of the Holy Spirit in the exegetical process; that if the Holy Spirit is revealing God’s will in scripture, then it would make sense to pursue the Spirit’s intent through the very words the Spirit inspired in the authors.
58
He further stated in regard to the Spirit that “there is an essential nexus between the meaning the
Spirit wants revealed and the written text.” 59 Anything that is outside of this should be rejected.
With the proper understanding of the Holy Spirit’s role in interpretation,
Theodore then looked at the primacy of the text, both its grammatical sense and its historical. According to McLeod, Theodore understood historia as referring to the narrative event as a recounting of what happened. Thus allegory was an attempt to circumvent the historia with imaginations taken out of context. McLeod conjectures that his emphasis on historia was perhaps in response to Julian’s attack on Christianity as unhistorical myth.
60
Finally, the emphasis on the historical does not remove any form of spiritual interpretation and McLeod states that it is probable that Theodore embraced
Diodore of Tarsus’ understanding of theoria as well as this limited use of typology.
61
Therefore we can see that Theodore of Mopsuestia was well grounded in the school of Antiochene exegesis. However, much like Cyril, he did allow for practices that would be considered Alexandrian, though perhaps not to the degree that Cyril employed
‘Antiochene’ methods. However, in examination of his introduction to Jonah, we will
57 McLeod, Theodore of Mopsuestia. 17.
58 Ibid., 18.
59 Ibid., 19.
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid., 20-21.
17

see that there is evidence of ‘Alexandrian’ ways within his usage.
The Script: An Examination of Cyril and Theodore’s Introductions to Their
Commentaries of Jonah as Examples of Their Exegetical Method
An actor can only best express his ideas through the words given to him in the script. They reflect the true thought and being of the character to be displayed. Thus in order to really understand our two players, we must see the ‘scripts’ they have written which display their understanding and interpretation of the biblical text. In this case we will examine their introductions to their commentaries on Jonah. This stage allows them to both display the prerogatives of their respective schools. An Old Testament passage, especially from the prophets, allows for the full expression of Alexandrian exegesis with its Christological implications. Along the same lines, it allows for the Antiochene to refute such allegorizations and affirm the historical nature of the passage. Jonah also contains one of Theodore’s specifically allowed typologies, and so we should have an easy comparison between the manners in which the two handle the typology.
Interestingly they also both give a treatise on the proper method for typology in their introductions as well, which allows for comparison. Additionally, the introduction to
Jonah allows for the expression of background material as well as other grammatical and contextual information. Though it is certainly a limited examination of their work, it serves as an illustration that the methods of the two foremost exegetes of their respective schools were in fact not representative of the caricature of their schools. What we will find rather, is that the exegetical method utilized by Cyril and Theodore are actually very similar in timbre.
18

Cyril opens his introduction to his commentary on Jonah with a rather to the point assessment of Jonah’s background – his parentage, birth place, and the prophets that he was contemporary with. He bases this information on both Jonah 1:1 as well as the reference to Jonah in 2 Kings 14:25, as being a prophet during the reign of the ‘second’
Jeroboam. He is quick to be clear which Jeroboam he is referring to as well as the specific names of his contemporary prophets. Interestingly, he spends some considerable ink at the opening in referencing Jonah’s prophetic activity during the time of
Jeroboam.
62
This seems to be to establish that what Jonah foretold, did indeed happen.
Cyril then moves on to outline the case of the only actual prophetic words that we do have of Jonah - what we have in the book of Jonah itself. He states that this has been recorded for our benefit and is part of the divine plan and thus worth hearing about. It is of benefit because the message of Jonah’s life and preaching declares the “mystery of the incarnation of our savior,”
63
which is revealed through the words of Christ himself in
Matthew 12:39-40 when he compared his three days in the ‘heart of the earth’ to Jonah’s three days in the belly of the fish. Thus Cyril declares that the mystery of Christ is
“foreshadowed and somehow represented to us in the story of the divinely inspired
Jonah,” and that he will take it upon himself to explain this to his readers, thus giving us his main thesis.
64
This explanation is in fact a short treatise on his methodology for properly engaging in what we would call typology. He has already alluded to this by calling the story of Jonah a ‘shadow’ of Christ. His main contention is that there are passages in
62 Cyril, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, trans. Robert C. Hill, The Fathers of the Church V. 115, 2 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2007). 147.
63 Ibid., 148.
64 Ibid., 148.
19

which we find the spiritual meaning in the life of an individual who is a representative of
Christ. The key to this relationship is determining which details are important and which are irrelevant. He gives the example of Moses who was made mediator between the people of Israel and God. In the same manner, but to a greater extent, Jesus is the mediator between us and God. Therefore he contends that Moses was a type of Christ.
Likewise, Aaron was appointed as high priest and was as such a type of Immanuel because he stood in the presence of God and thus also a type of Christ. His point in broaching these examples is that not only do we have these typological relationships that point to Christ (or as he says, foreshadow), but that there is a limit to the typology. We do not need to ascribe all of the attributes of Moses to Christ because Moses made many errors and that these details tend to be the human (i.e. imperfect) elements. Therefore he suggests that these are the details that are irrelevant to the typological relationship.
65
He then shifts this understanding to apply to Jonah, because he will be demonstrating this in his commentary. He compares Jonah and the events of his life to
Christ, but also notes which details are not relevant for this connection. Mostly this is found in his fleeing from the call of God and his attitude toward the Ninevites themselves. This is contrasted with Jesus who actively followed the will of the Father and pursued preaching to lost people, even though it led to his death. He sums up this treatise by stating that not every detail of the type need be applied, nor should be applied, to Christ’s anti-type. By doing this, he states the commentator compiles “what contributes to the clarification of the mysteries of Christ, and will produce a mature and irreproachable treatment.” 66
65 Ibid., 148-49.
66 Ibid., 150.
20

It is interesting what Cyril both includes and excludes in his introduction. As an
Alexandrian, we might expect him to begin with an overarching statement about scripture and how Jonah is a part of the unity of scripture. In other words, appealing to the typical usage of skopos for the whole aim of scripture. However, this is not the case. The most universal type of statement we observe is in how he is attempting to link the Old and
New Testaments with his typology. However, even here it is rather specific to individuals who are types of Christ and how to understand them in this position.
Therefore, instead of any general statement, he begins in great detail by setting the historical framework for Jonah and his ministry through an examination of the historical record in the bible itself. He places the prophets Hosea, Amos, and Micah specifically as contemporaries. Additionally he cites in reference both Jeroboams, but more to the point, Jeroboam II and his apparent prophecy about the expansion of his realm. He also establishes Jonah’s lineage and place of birth. Though he does not appear to cite any extra-biblical resources to support his statements, he effectively addresses it in the clarity of his use of the biblical record.
It is interesting that from this background detail, he immediately goes into the purpose of this book. He avoids the skopos in relation to all of scripture but does focus on the skopos of the story of Jonah. This is of course to be for our benefit to reveal through
Jonah’s type, the mystery of Christ. He ties this use of typology directly to Jesus reference of it, but interestingly gives no elaboration here in the introduction about the significance of the typology. Instead, he gives an extended view of the correct manner to make this type of typology. This detail is intriguing because he seems to be setting conditions by which to properly exegete typology. By limiting it to individuals who are
21

types of Christ, he has already eliminated many possible varieties of typologies. Of course we cannot assume just from here that he does away with these (since we know he employs them elsewhere), but it is interesting that he is so specific.
He brings in two possible types of Christ as examples – Moses and Aaron, both in mediator roles. The connection to Moses can also be established in the New Testament in Hebrews 3. The type of Aaron is perhaps problematic because there is a clear indication in Hebrews 7 of Christ being a high priest on the order of Melchizedek and not
Aaron, however one could argue that there is a connection with the general statements of
Jesus as high priest in Hebrews 4. Though this is not his main point, the examples he has chosen show that he has fairly grounded typological passages in mind. Furthermore his desire to excise the irrelevant details seems to couch against the possibility to ‘over-type’ an individual’s life and so attribute everything to Christ. This would both ascribe negative attributes to Christ as well as work outside of the context of the text and the point it is drawing from the typology, something that he appears to be guarding against, perhaps not explicitly, but it certainly is safe to say he is steering away from any accusation that this typology could be construed as allegorizing.
What we see in Cyril’s introduction is a methodology that is not purely in line with what we would expect from an Alexandrian exegete. He is not appealing to the overarching sense of scripture, instead looking at the skopos of the book of Jonah. He presents a great deal of the historia of Jonah to establish its credibility as a historical event. Finally he also puts restrictions on the form and type of typologies that he will engage in. However, he also exhibits Alexandrian characteristics. After he establishes the historicity, he immediately seeks to find the spiritual implications of the passage
22

through typology. Furthermore, this typology is Christological in nature and of benefit for the kerygma of the church. Therefore we have an exegete who seems perfectly comfortable using means that are within the purveyance of both schools and so it is not so easy to place him squarely within his own camp.
Theodore’s introduction to Jonah has similar elements to Cyril’s and yet shows a different emphasis. Foremost is his extensive treatise on what he means by typology and how he uses it. He goes into extensive detail by which to impart this. As a preamble to his explanation, he emphasizes the unity that exists between the Old and New covenants.
Through them God had determined the future that would come – the incarnation of Christ
– and this future hope was given to the Jews. He then highlights the promises made to
Abraham and David – the blessing through the former’s offspring and the everlasting monarchy of the latter. This was of course fulfilled in Christ. This he attests was the reason that God gave so many ‘dispositions’ in the Old covenant, to both meet the needs of the people at that time as well as for the future, for they “contained a revelation of the developments that would emerge later, as well as the fact that the excellence of these latter would be seen to surpass the former.” 67
Therefore he is establishing that God had a plan and was revealing it to the Jewish people in the Old Testament through the covenants mentioned (but also presumably through the Mosaic law), and that they reveal the coming of Christ which will be superior to the Old covenant.
This introduction then sets up his basic premise for typology – that according to what he just stated, “events in olden times were found to be a kind of type of what came
67 Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, trans. Robert C. Hill, The Fathers of the
Church, V. 108 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2004). 186.
23

later.” 68
They met the needs of the people at the time, but also showed, by the events themselves, that they were inferior to what was to come. By way of example he cites the case of the Passover. The death of the firstborn, the placing of blood on the doorposts, and the ensuing freedom from slavery and movement to the promised land served a direct benefit to the people of Israel but this event was also a type of what Christ was to do – to shed his blood so that we could be free from the slavery of sin and enter into the kingdom of heaven. This is superior to the former because while they had those experiences for awhile, in Christ we have the benefits forever.
69
He gives other clear cut examples of what he regards as types in the Old
Testament as well as those that Paul and the Apostles indicated – the sacrificial system and the bronze serpent in the desert. Thus he remained rather conservative in what he draws as types. He then moves specifically to the case of the book of Jonah and what typological relationships can be seen there. The typology that he mentions is not at first the most logical one would think. He highlights the ministry of Jonah as one in which the
Jews were not willing to receive his prophecies and so God sent him instead to the nations where, after going through the three days of the belly of the fish, he brought a message of salvation to the Ninevites. In the same manner, Christ went into the ground for three days, rose from the dead, and brought salvation to the nations. This, of course, he ties directly to Jesus’ words comparing his death and burial to Jonah in the fish in
Matt. 12:39-41. And just as Jesus draws the conclusion that the men of Nineveh could condemn the Israelites because they responded to Jonah, how much more significant is it that Jesus is here, much greater than Jonah. Theodore notes this great difference as an
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid., 186-7.
24

example of what he means in the typological relationship – the former is less than the latter. Therefore the life and miracles of Jonah were a type for the life of Christ.
70
Another interesting example, that is not so obvious, is how he connects the life of
Jonah as a kind of type of Christ for the benefit of the other prophets. He conjectures that the prophets generally must live in discouragement because they have to bring a message that is never well received. Therefore God needed to encourage them in the hope that is coming in Christ. This is the niche that Jonah fills. By looking at his life, they can see
Christ and thus know the purpose their part in prophecy plays. Moreover, the events of
Jonah’s life show them that the events of Christ would be true. Thus in what happened in his life was a type to what would happen in Christ’s life.
71
The manner in which Theodore describes typology seems to be very much within conservative practice. He points to obvious statements that point to Christ and that Christ reveals are about him. This we would expect coming from the Antiochene position.
However, when he moves to showing that Jonah was a herald of encouragement to the other prophets, he takes the typological argument in a different direction. While still affirming the relationship between the life of Jonah and that of Christ, he makes an interpretive application with little or no defense of it. There are a few problems with this both exegetically and also for him as the epitome of the Antiochene ‘literalist’ exegete.
In the exegetical sense, he is making a rather large presupposition that Jonah was meant to be an encouragement to the other prophets. His only basis for this is by using logic that God takes care of his own: “Wishing to console them in this condition, God,
70 Ibid., 188-89.
71 Ibid., 189-90.
25

who takes great interest in all people but accords a particular care for his own….” 72
This seems to be a logical stretch on his part. Furthermore, it requires the prophets to have an understanding of the typologies of other prophets – in other words, they need to be able to see Jonah in the belly of the fish and the salvation message he brought as being prophetic about the Messiah. There is enough discussion about whether or not prophets knew whether their own prophecies were messianic, much less another’s. In addition, these events are not even really prophetic in scope, at least in the traditional understanding of a prophetic message. All told it seems to be an uncharacteristic remark for an assumed literalist.
If we use the rubric of the Antiochene understanding of theoria as applied to prophecy, we may get a clearer picture, however. As stated above, the typical method was to look at four properties of prophetic literature. This first is to always presuppose the literal or historical sense. In this case, that would mean that the events happened as they are stated in scripture, i.e. Jonah received a message, fled, spent three days in the fish, repented, preached, and Nineveh was saved. The second point is that in addition to the object of the literal sense, in this case the events just described, there is a second object in mind, which we would presume to be the salvation that Christ brings to the world. The third thing is that the first object stands in the same relationship to the second as a rough sketch does to the finished product. In this case, the salvation that Jonah brings to Nineveh through the suffering events that he experienced (storm, fish, etc.) is the same that Christ experiences. He suffers and brings salvation to all the world. It is quite evident that what Christ does is superior. Finally, the fourth point is that both objects are attained at the same time, though diversely and that the less is the means by
72 Ibid., 189
26

which the greater is known. In the context of future generations, this is pretty clear, and probably could have been derived at faithfully even if Jesus had not interpreted it in light of himself. Thus Theodore successfully employs the Antiochene model to make a reasonable interpretation of a prophet messianically.
However, there is still the problem of how the other prophets would understand the life of Jonah as pointing to the messiah. There is a way to explain this though. If they were to employ an understanding of theoria as understood by Cyril, this would be possible. Since Cyril believed that the interpreter reached the hidden significance of scripture through his reasoning and through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, and that it is God who hides this message in scripture, it is perfectly understandable that the other prophets, assuming they have the text of Jonah, could then unwrap the significance of
Jonah vis-à-vis Christ. Thus we could say that Theodore had this understanding of theoria in mind as well in order for Jonah to be interpreted by the other prophets.
73
Another interesting relationship appears when we look at Theodore’s preface in terms of the skopos . While he did not use the term widely, we can still examine his writing and make some judgments on his possible understanding of the term. As stated, typically, the Antiochene’s looked at the skopos for the specific book or passage whereas
Alexandrians tended to look at the overarching skopos of all of scripture. Theodore opens the introduction with a statement about the oneness of scripture and the purposes of
God from the beginning regarding the coming of Christ and salvation through him. One would expect him, as a good Antiochene, to launch into the background information of
Jonah and at least the skopos of just this book. However, he begins with a summation of
73 Of course there is another problem with Theodore’s typology. Jesus looked out at the people as being
‘harassed and helpless’ and had compassion on them. Jonah wanted nothing to do with the Ninevites.
Perhaps that is picking apart the typological relationship too much, however.
27

the meta-narrative of scripture. According to Robert Hill, this was a fairly common opening method for the introductions to his commentaries.
74 One could argue that he is actually acting in Antiochene fashion because he is laying out the context in which the book is contained. However, he does not do this at all. Instead he is setting out the context by which to lay out his understanding of typology as it allows one to see Christ in the Old Testament and thus affirm God’s unfolding purpose through all of scripture. This speaks to a more Alexandrian understanding of skopos .
Another possible ‘Alexandrianism’ in terms of skopos is the manner in which
Theodore tries to deal with the narrative and seeming impossibility of the events of
Jonah. As noted above, one of the Alexandrian uses of skopos stemmed from Origen which understood that the Holy Spirit’s skopos was to conceal the truth of doctrine in scripture and that narrative impossibilities were often clues to where these truths were hidden. Jonah probably contains one of the most famous of these in the story of the fish.
Therefore, we could conjecture that Theodore, when faced with this ‘impossibility’ was at a crossroads as a literalist. He could not simply allegorize to free himself, but he does see a deeper spiritual truth in it. By no means would he acknowledge that he was using methods of Origen, but it is apparent that he did at least follow this idea of the Spirit’s skopos – whether conscious of it or not.
75
It is therefore clear from this text in his commentary, that simply stating that
Theodore was a typical Antiochene who employed a strict literal exegesis of scripture is far too reductionist. What we see instead is an exegete who employs various methods,
74 Theodore, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets. 185-86, footnote 3.
75 It is interesting in the commentary itself that when he comes to this passage, he gives a fairly straight forward examination of the text as it stands in context. However, he does remark that to try to understand this episode is beyond human reasoning.
28

some of which would fall squarely within the stereotypically Alexandrian camp.
Evidence therefore shows, that at least in the case of Theodore, this classification is not completely accurate and therefore detracts from the whole of his exegetical practice and thus unfairly pigeonholes him into the Antiochene stereotype.
In conclusion, we can draw some very intriguing comparisons between these two introductions to Jonah. Based on the preconceived notions of the Alexandrian and
Antiochene schools, one would probably read the introductions and ascribe them to the opposite author. Though this is a very small sample to base these conclusions upon, it is nonetheless illustrative of the fact that Cyril of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopsuestia do not so conveniently fit into this ‘neat’ categorization. Though they both exhibit tendencies towards their particular school, they frequently exhibit methods from the others.
Curtain Call: The Bowing Out of the Two Cities Model
The play has finished and the players can attend to the audience. What do we then conclude of this performance? As we have shown through a survey of the pertinent literature and in the writings of Cyril of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopseustia, the traditional classification of Alexandria as an allegorical school of exegesis and Antioch as a literal one is rather simplified. This is seems to be especially the case by the time of the fifth century. Though this classification has served its purpose as a general understanding, it takes away from the breadth of detail that is available to evaluate the actual conditions. In looking specifically at Cyril and Theodore, we need not limit these exegetes by the reputation of the city from which they hail. Instead a more nuanced
29

examination of their exegetical methods delivers a more complete picture of their proclivities and thus would help to better set them within their time period not only as exegetes, but also as theologians and fathers of the church. Yes, even Theodore, heretic of political convenience, should be elevated for his contributions to the field of exegesis alone and thus no longer an antagonist, but equally able to take a bow, center stage, along with Cyril. The notion of Alexandrian and Antiochene distinctive exegesis, however, must make its hasty exit stage left, bowing out of any further performance for posterity.
30

Bibliography
Bray, Gerald Lewis. Biblical Interpretation : Past & Present . Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 1996. Print.
Cyril. Commentary on the Twelve Prophets . Trans. Hill, Robert C. The Fathers of the
Church V. 115. 2 vols. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press,
2007. Print.
Dockery, David S. Biblical Interpretation Then and Now : Contemporary Hermeneutics in the Light of the Early Church . Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1992.
Print.
Kerrigan, Alexander. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Interpreter of the Old Testament . Analecta
Biblica, 2. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1952. Print.
McGuckin, John Anthony, and Cyril. St. Cyril of Alexandria : The Christological
Controversy : Its History, Theology, and Texts . Supplements to Vigiliae
Christianae,. Leiden ; New York: E.J. Brill, 1994. Print.
McLeod, Frederick G. Theodore of Mopsuestia . London; New York: Routledge, 2009.
Print.
Mopsuestia, Theodore of. Commentary on the Twelve Prophets . Trans. Hill, Robert C.
The Fathers of the Church, V. 108. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of
America Press, 2004. Print.
O'Keefe, J. J. "Christianizing Malachi: Fifth-Century Insights from Cyril of Alexandria."
Vigiliae Christianae. 50 2 (1996): 136. Print.
O'Keefe, John J. ""A Letter That Killeth": Toward a Reassessment of Antiochene
Exegesis, or Diodore, Theodore, and Theodoret on the Psalms." Journal of Early
Christian Studies 8 1 (2000): 83. Print.
Russell, N. "The Church in the Commentaries of St Cyril of Alexandria." International
Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 7 2 (2007): 70-85. Print.
Russell, Norman. Cyril of Alexandria . The Early Church Fathers. London; New York:
Routledge, 2000. Print.
Exegesis and Hermeneutics in the Churches of the East : Select Papers from the Sbl
Meeting in San Diego, 2007 . 2009. Peter Lang. Print.
Theodore. Commentary on the Twelve Prophets . Trans. Hill, Robert C. The Fathers of the
Church, V. 108. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2004.
Print.
Weinandy, Thomas G., and Daniel A. Keating. The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria :
A Critical Appreciation . London ; New York: T& Clark, 2003. Print.
Young, Frances M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture . Cambridge
; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Print.
Zaharopoulos, Dimitri Z. Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Bible : A Study of His Old
Testament Exegesis . New York: Paulist Press, 1989. Print.
31