Michael Magree, S.J.: Surpassing Mere Logomachy: Theodoret and Cyril on the Second Anathema

Henry Chadwick once described the christological disputes of the 5th century as seeming to be “scarcely more than logomachies, as meaningless as they are tiresome” ("Eucharist and Christology," 145). I will offer in this short communication an analysis of the arguments of Theodoret of Cyrus and Cyril of Alexandria concerning the second of Cyril’s “twelve anathemas.” It is evident on a cursory reading how many of their arguments concern the proscription of a particular phrase of the opponent. It is important to note, however, that sometimes the two writers also acknowledge that they are using and approving of the same phrases. In these cases the argument shifts: they are concerned that they do not mean the same thing in the use of the same phrases. Here one can observe the two thinkers reaching beyond mere verbal agreement and disagreement in an attempt to get at the underlying framework of the opponent's thought. This is particularly revealing in the case of the second anathema, as the thinkers show real willingness to go beyond their disagreement about the phrase “according to the hypostasis,” in order to reckon with underlying issues of divine immutability, soteriology, and the unique activity of Christ. This reading of Cyril and Theodoret’s dispute shows the value of analyzing arguments, both in order to expose the ancients’ own understanding of the theological issues at stake and to show that the common scholarly narrative about “logomachies” should not be applied too broadly.