Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Jerome
Epiphanius
Socrates
Maximus
Cyril
Eutychius
Cyril
Irenaeus
Cyril
Hilarius
Cyril
Maximus
Cyril
Maximus
Cyril
Herrenis
Cyril
Hilarion
Herrenius
Heraclius
Hilarius
Cyril
2
The indications in Drijvers, Cyril, p. 43 are confused. He seems to say that
Jerome and Socrates oVer the same list of bishops.
3
This is the date Jerome gives. T. D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius
(Cambridge, Mass., 1993), p. 107, puts Maximus death in 349. Drijvers, Cyril,
p. 34 defends 350, because Cyrils letter to Constantius of 351 refers to itself as
ptre de Cyrille de Jerusalem a`
pr0ta . . . gramm0twn 2parc0 (see E. Bihain, LE
Constance, Byzantion 43 [1973], pp. 26496, at 286). I do not think one can
conclude from this that the letter was the first written work by Cyril, as it does
not have to mean more than that it was his first letter to the emperor.
4
Socrates, HE 2.40.3940; Sozomen, HE 4.22.25, 4.25.24. Both are drawing
tude sur les
on Sabinos: cf. P. Van NuVelen, Un heritage de paix et de piete: E
Histoires ecclesiastiques de Socrate et de Sozome`ne (Leuven, Paris, and Dudley,
2004), p. 452. See also Theodoret, HE 2.27.12.
136
P E T E R VA N N U F F E L E N
Cyril succeeded Maximus, probably in 348,3 but not without
diYculties. According to Jerome (Chronicle a.348), he was
ordained by Acacius of Caesarea and other Arians. Cyril evicted
Heraclius, designated by the dying Maximus as his successor.
Jerome claims that Cyril even degraded Heraclius from bishop to
presbyter. According to Socrates, whose source is unknown,
Maximus was ousted by Acacius and Cyril ordained in his place
(2.38.2). The truth is well beyond our reach, but it is certain
that Cyril was ordained against Maximus will and that he sought
an alliance with Acacius, to become one of the leading
Homoeans.
Cyril was deposed by a local council in 357 for having sold
church property, which was, according to Sozomen (4.25.2) a
mere pretext for a dispute about metropolitan rights in Palestine
between Cyril and his former patron Acacius. For this reason,
Cyril changed his allegiance from the party of Acacius to that
headed by Basil of Ancyra. It is logical to assume that Eutychius,
the first name in the list of Jerome, succeeded Cyril in 357. This
Eutychius did not last long. On the demand of Cyril, the
emperor Constantius II ordered that the deposed bishop should
be judged again by the council of Seleucia (359).4 This council
was supposed to reach a reconciliation between Acacius and
Basil, but it utterly failed. During the council, Basil of Ancyra
and his supporters cleared Cyril of all of the charges against him
after Acacius and his supporters had left the proceedings.
Although the sources do not explicitly say that Cyril was
reinstalled as bishop of Jerusalem, it is a logical consequence of
the refusal of the Acacians to be present at this trial. No evidence
being given against Cyril, the earlier judgement was easily
overruled and his deposition declared invalid; the bishop could
recover his previous position.
J. W. Drijvers assumes that the Eutychius who succeeded Cyril
on the throne of Jerusalem is the Eutychius of Eleutheroupolis,
12
Drijvers, Cyril, p. 35 supposes that Heraclius may have occupied the see of
Jerusalem for a couple of years before being ousted by Cyril. This cannot be
concluded from the available evidence.
138
P E T E R VA N N U F F E L E N
which is a modern conjecture based on a corrupt reading in the
manuscript. The name Irenaeus should consequently be
eliminated from the bishop lists of Jerusalem. Secondly,
Epiphanius list is identical to that of Jerome, apart from the
fact that he ends before Cyrils final return to his see and apart
from the omission of Eutychius as the first successor of Cyril.
This may point to a diVerent tradition, but is most probably a
simple omission (something no scholar can think Epiphanius
incapable of). Finally, the presence of Heraclius in Socrates is
puzzling, as the name does not recur in the other lists.
He probably is identical to the designated successor of Maximus,
whom Cyril ousted according to Jerome,12 in which case
Socrates or his source has mixed things up and inserted an
earlier name later on in the list. But we cannot rule out that
Jerome and Epiphanius have forgotten a name. The evidence
does not allow a choice between these options. It is consequently
wiser not to include Heraclius in further discussion.
Thus, the three diVerent lists can be reduced to two, that of
Jerome and Epiphanius and that of Socrates. Their fundamental
diVerence is that whereas the former suppose that Cyril was
deposed several times and returned each time to his see, Socrates
seems to consider him continuously deposed and succeeded by
three Arians in a row. These conflicting versions should be
understood as diVerent views on the local struggle for supremacy
in Jerusalem after 360 until the accession of Theodosius I (379).
The diVerent Arian and Nicene factions were engaged in a battle
for recognition as the real church of Jerusalemand their own
bishop as the leader of the local church. To understand this local
confused situation, one must be aware of two facts.
First, a usual tactic in the struggle between diVerent Christian
groups was to convene a council and depose their enemies as
bishops. However, an ecclesiastical deposition, decided by a
hostile faction in the church, was unlikely to be accepted by the
victim. Cyril was deposed in 360 by a hostile council, composed
of the same people his friends had deposed in Seleucia a couple
of months earlier. He hardly can have regarded this as an
instance to respect. Moreover, synodal decisions were not
automatically valid or enforced. Everything depended on the
recognition of the council, both by the emperor who might
enforce decisions, and by the actors who might or might not
THE EVIDENCE
FROM
SOCRATES
I will first examine the evidence from Socrates and that from
Sozomen, copying and completing that of his predecessor.
13
We know that Cyril was in Tarsus after his deposition in 357 (Theodoret,
HE 2.26.7) and once in Antioch (ibid. 3.14.10), but there is no indication that he
was exiled there.
14
Jerome, De viris illustribus 112, PL 23.3, col. 706.
15
This is argued in detail in P. Van NuVelen, Arius, Athanase et les autres:
Dimensions juridique et politique de lexil dans le quatrie`me sie`cle, forthcoming
in F. Blaudeau and F. Prevot (eds.), Exil et relegation, les tribulations du sage et du
saint dans lAntiquite romaine et chretienne (IIe s. avt. VIe s. ap. J.-C.) (Paris).
16
In my book on Socrates and Sozomen (Un heritage, p. 461, n. 9), I allowed
for the possibility that Socrates used a list of bishops of Jerusalem. Although this
remains possible, one should note that at least two of the three passages where
Socrates may seem to be dependent on such a list are probably drawn from a
diVerent source: HE 5.15.9 is inspired by Rufinus, HE 11.21 and HE 5.3.1 can
be a simple inference from what he wrote in 3.20.7 and 4.1.16. This would leave
only the passage we are discussing here (2.45.1718) unaccounted for.
17
This is a common practice of Sozomen: cf. Van NuVelen, Un heritage,
pp. 37889.
18
This kind of contradiction is common in Sozomen: cf. Van NuVelen, Un
heritage, pp. 2836.
140
P E T E R VA N N U F F E L E N
Socrates information seems chronologically precise at first sight.
However, it can be shown that he has combined two diVerent
and contradictory sources.
In Socrates opinion, Cyril occupied his see again after three
Arian bishops (2.45.18). The text does not indicate when
precisely he could reoccupy his see, the expression 3st0rN cr0nN
being too general to admit any firm conclusions. He mentions
that Cyril was again bishop under Julian, when he protested
against the Apostates attempt to rebuild the Jewish temple
(3.20.7). At the beginning of Valens reign, Socrates writes that
Cyril was bishop of Jerusalem, and he still was when Theodosius
became emperor (4.1.16, 5.3.1). Whereas the first indication may
stem from a list of bishops of Jerusalem,16 the others are taken
from Rufinus Historia ecclesiastica (10.3840).
Sozomen, who is otherwise dependent on Socrates or on his
source, seems to have corrected Socrates first indication.17 He
states (4.30.3) that Cyril became bishop again after Herrenius,
Heraclius, and Hilarion, and this under Theodosius I. This
chronological precision is absent from Socrates. Sozomen seems
quite convinced of Cyrils having been deposed continuously
until Theodosius reign, as he completely disregards what
Socrates wrote about Cyril under the reign of Julian and Valens.
He betrays, however, his use of Socrates in one error: he copies
from Socrates (5.3.1) that Cyril was already bishop when
Theodosius succeeded to the throne (7.2.2).18
Socrates clearly has used two diVerent sources for his
indications about Cyril. On the one hand, he used the source
that informed him of the three Arian successors of Cyril, before
he could reclaim his see. (If we assume that Sozomen knew this
same source, it also said that this return took place under
Theodosius.) On the other hand, Socrates knew from Rufinus
THE STRUGGLE
FOR
SUPREMACY
IN JERUSALEM
19
For other examples, see P. Van NuVelen, Socrate le Scholastique et les
sterreichischen Byzantinistik 54 (2004), pp. 5375.
chroniques, Jahrbuch der O
20
See note 1.
21
One might find an indication of this in Socrates, HE 4.1.16, where the
church historian writes that Cyril was bishop of Jerusalem. Although this is
the way this passage is mostly read, Socrates may also mean that Cyril headed
the Homoousians in that city. Socrates writes: t8n d1 kat1 t1n Anti0ceian
Areian8n 3ge8to E2z0oi. diArhnto d1 ka1 o3 toA 3moous0ou. t8n m1n g1r Paul8no,
t8n d1 Mel0tio proei0keisan. T8n d1 per1 t1 Ieros0luma K0rillo aBqi 2kr0tei.
This may mean that Cyril was in possession of the church of Jerusalem, but also
that he was head of the Homoousians of Jerusalem. Both translations do not have
to mean the same thing: as the previous sentence concerning Antioch indicates,
the diVerent church factions could have their own bishop. If Socrates meant that
Cyril led the Homoousian faction, he is guilty of grave neglect, for Cyril was a
prominent member of the Homoiousians, and rejoined the Homoousians only
later, at the council of Constantinople of 381, as Socrates himself indicates
(5.8.3). Socrates has simply projected Cyrils later orthodoxy on his earlier career.
That Socrates is capable of such contradictions, has already been shown in this
paper: see note 19.
22
Other sources attest that deposed bishops often stayed in their city, causing
disturbances: Ambrose, Epistulae extra collectionem 7.45; Constitutio sirmondiana
2 Codex Theodosianus 16.2.35 Codex Justinianus 1.3.14 (4 Feb. 405).
23
The fundamental study is H. C. Brennecke, Studien zur Geschichte der
Homoer der Osten bis zum Ende der homoischen Reichskirche (Beitrage zur
historischen Theologie, 73; Tubingen, 1988).
24
Socrates, HE 4.12, Sozomen, HE 6.1012.
142
P E T E R VA N N U F F E L E N
been allied since he turned to Basil of Ancyra for help.21 At the
same time, Herrenius, Heraclius (?), and Hilarion headed the
Homoean faction. This is not surprising. Cyril could appeal to
the authority of Seleucia (359), which had cleared him of all the
charges against him, whereas the other bishops could appeal to
the synod of Constantinople (360), where Cyril was deposed by
the Homoeans.22
The idea that from the synod of Constantinople until the reign
of Theodosius Jerusalem was ruled by Homoean bishops, as
assumed by Socrates list, may represent the view that the
Homoeans were the oYcial bishops, in the sense that they were
supported by imperial power and occupied the symbolically most
important churches. The Homoeans were indeed supported by
the imperial policy of Constantius II and by Valens.23 The
fact that Cyril is said by Sozomen to have become bishop
again only under Theodosius I can also be explained by
imperial policy. Theodosius recognized the homoousion as the
true creed, and the Nicene church as the true one. The assurance
of imperial support may have led to Cyrils defection from
the Homoiousians, who, however, had already attempted
reconciliation with the Nicenes in 367.24 Cyril, who had
already changed his allegiance once, had no hesitation in doing
25
Drijvers, Cyril, p. 41 supposes that Irenaeus ( Herrenius) simply left the
see to Cyril. There is no evidence for this.
26
Socrates, HE 3.25.18.
27
Drijvers, Cyril, p. 42, n. 50, with reference to pp. 689, assumes that Cyril
had a large popular support.
28
S. P. Brock, A Letter Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem on the Rebuilding of
the Temple, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 40 (1977),
pp. 26786. In defence of its authenticity, see P. Wainwright, The Authenticity
of the Recently Discovered Letter Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem, Vigiliae
Christianae 40 (1986), pp. 28693.
29
144
P E T E R VA N N U F F E L E N
prevailed at the time? The same can be said about Rufinus
indications (HE 10.3840), copied by Socrates. Rather than an
assessment of the real situation on the ground, they represent an
a posteriori reading by somebody who considered Cyril the
legitimate catholic bishop.
The struggle for supremacy did not end with the accession of
Theodosius I. A letter of Gregory of Nyssa relates his visit to
Jerusalem shortly after 381 in an attempt to reconcile the
diVerent heads of the local church: 3pesc0mhn 3 ka1 suskey0meno
to8 proest8si t8n 2n Ierosol0moi 3g0wn 2kklhsi8n di1 t1 e9 nai 2n
taracI t1 pr0gmata ka1 crAzein toA mesite0onto (I promised to
review the situation together with the heads of the holy churches
in Jerusalem as their aVairs were in disorder and they were in
need of a mediator).29 Gregory significantly uses the plural
proest8te, which can be taken to refer to diVerent bishops, or at
least implies that Cyrils leadership was contested. Clearly Cyril
was not the undisputed leader of the church of Jerusalem. The
most plausible explanation seems to be that the local Nicenes
were not very happy with Cyrils opportunistic conversion to
Theodosian orthodoxy, and refused to recognize him as their
bishop.30 Doctrinal diVerences may have played a role as well.31
Gregorys letter thus conveys an image similar to the one I have
sketched for the preceding years, when Cyril was competing with
the Homoeans for the see of Jerusalem, with the main diVerence
that Cyril was now in the stronger position.
That Cyril needed to have his authority confirmed is also clear
from a letter to Rome, emanating from a Nicene synod held in
Constantinople in 382. It aYrms at its end that it recognizes
Cyril as bishop of Jerusalem: We wish to inform you that the
most venerable and God-beloved Cyril is bishop of the Church
in Jerusalem, the mother of all the churches. He was canonically
ordained some time ago (p0lai) by those of the province and at
various times he has valiantly combatted the Arians.32 Turned
into a Nicene, Cyril is now considered to have been the true
CONCLUSION
146
P E T E R VA N N U F F E L E N
correct in a sense, and the state of the evidence does not allow
deciding who is more right than the other.
According to Jerome, Cyril enjoyed eight years of
uninterrupted episcopacy under Theodosius. He died on
18 March 387.33
33
P. Nautin, La date du de viris illustribus de Jerome, de la mort de Cyrille
de Jerusalem, et de celle de Gregoire de Nazianze, Revue dhistoire ecclesiastique
56 (1961), pp. 335. I thank Dr J. Leemans and an anonymous reader for their
valuable comments on this essay.