Troy Stefano - Cyril of Alexandria's Development of the Constellation of Lexicography, Biblical Exegesis, and Doctrinal Conviction in his Commentary on the Gospel of John as the Interpretive Context for his Innovative Application of the Term, "hypostasis," in his Second Letter to Nestorius.

The Christological Controversy of Cyril of Alexandria has been a topic of sustained scholarly research in recent years. With the advent of critical editions, translations, and some detailed studies regarding the life and works of this author, the opportunity has arisen for further analysis regarding certain key features of this fourth century debate. In his transactions with Nestorius, Cyril presents himself as a faithful expositor of Scripture, Athanasius, and the Creed. This conviction predates the controversy itself and can be seen in his earlier dogmatic and exegetical works. I propose to examine Cyril of Alexandria’ innovative application of the term “hypostasis” to describe the union in Christ in his Second Letter to Nestorius in the broader context of his pre-controversy theological developments, especially his Commentary on John, composed shortly before the outbreak of the controversy (c. 425-8). One can see a theological evolution from his Thesaurus and Dialogues on the Holy Trinity through his Commentary on John that should be seen as the framework within which one can understand best what is at stake in the  “union according to ‘hypostasis’ (καθ’ ὑπόστασιν)” formula. Cyril’s usage of the term serves as a vacuum to encapsulate a specific set of doctrinal and scriptural convictions, which would  most fully be appreciated when one sees his Christological writings as an historically provoked conjugation and further refinement of his pre-controversy exegetical and doctrinal convictions.  An authentic understanding of the Cyrillian constellation of lexicography, biblical exegesis, and doctrinal conviction would shed new light on the Christological controversy itself, especially into the ever-present question regarding Cyril’s “diophysite” or “miaphysite” Christology. It shall also deepen one’s understanding of the subsequent neo-Cyrillian, post-Nestorian Antiochene, and Chalcedonian debates, in each of which the precise understanding of this term proved to be rather dynamic, and therefore, in need of further clarification of its original historical, exegetical, and doctrinal associations.