The library · Edition and sources
Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures
Edwin Hamilton Gifford; NPNF2-07 (1894) · Edition commentary
Reading appearance
Accessibility options
Saved in this browser and shared between texts. Labels and line patterns remain in every theme.
About this reading layout
Source wording, punctuation, paragraph boundaries and supplied line breaks are retained. Long prose also has editorial reading breaks at sentence boundaries. Substantial passages already enclosed in double quotation marks are set apart; this does not identify their source or establish a connection.
These added breaks are reading aids, not claims about the original manuscript’s layout. Poetry is lineated only where the downloaded text supplies line breaks. References and edition notes remain with their text.
Translator and historical edition notes (part 4)
XVIII. 9.
Compare xviii. 6, 9; Athenagoras, On the Resurrection of the Dead, c. 3.
XVIII. 6. John xii. 24; 1 Cor. xv. 36.
XVIII. 7.
Is. xxvi. 19.
Dan. xii. 2.
Gr. λουτροῦ μετάνοιαν. Other readings are λύτρον μετανοίας, “redemption by repentance,” and λουτρὸν μετανοίας “a laver (baptism) of repentance.”
Gal. iii. 24. The Παιδαγωγός is described by Clement of Alexandria (Paedag. i. 7) as one who both conducts a boy to school, and helps to teach him,—an usher: “under-master” (Wicliff).
Matt. v. 17.
τῶν ἀποκρύφων. The sense in which Cyril uses this term may be learned from Rufinus (Expositio Symboli, § 38), who distinguishes three classes of books: (1) The Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments, which alone are to be used in proof of doctrine; (2) Ecclesiastical, which may be read in Churches, including Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees, in the Old Testament, and The Shepherd of Hermas, and The Two Ways in the New Testament; (3) The other writings they called “Apocryphal,” which they would not have read in Churches. The distinction is useful, though the second class is not complete.
The original source of this account of the Septuagint version is a letter purporting to have been written by Aristeas, or Aristæus, a confidential minister of Ptolemy Philadelphus, to his brother Philocrates. Though the letter is not regarded as genuine its statements are in part admitted to be true, being confirmed by a fragment, preserved by Eusebius (Præparatio Evangelica, ix. 6.), of a work of Aristobulus, a Jewish philosopher who wrote in the reign of Ptolemy Philometor, 181–146, b.c. Upon these testimonies it is generally admitted that “the whole Law,” i.e. the Pentateuch was translated into Greek at Alexandria in the reign either of Ptolemy Soter (323–285, b.c.), or of his son Ptolemy Philadelphus (285–247, b.c.), under the direction of Demetrius Phalereus, curator of the King’s library.
Up to this point Cyril’s account is based upon the statements of the Pseudo-Aristeas. The fabulous incidents which follow, concerning the separate cells, the completion of the whole version by each translator, the miraculous agreement in the very words, proving a Divine inspiration, are found in Philo Judæus, Life of Moses, II. 7. Josephus, Antiquities, XII. c. ii. 3–14, following the letter of Aristeas, gives long descriptions of the magnificent presents sent by Philadelphus to Jerusalem, and of his splendid hospitality to the translators, but makes no allusion to the separate cells or miraculous agreement.
On the contrary he represents the 72 interpreters as meeting together for consultation, agreeing on the text to be adopted, and completing their joint labours in 72 days. The slightest comparison of the Version with the original Hebrew must convince any reasonable person that the idea of divine inspiration or supernatural assistance, borrowed by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, and other Fathers, apparently from Philo, is a mere invention of the imagination, disproved by the facts. Compare the article “Septuagint” in Murray’s Dictionary of the Bible.
The rendering “trench not” (R.W.C.) agrees well with the etymology of the verb (παραχαράσσω). Its more usual signification seems to be “counterfeit,” “forge.” The sense required here, apart from any metaphor, is “transgress” (Heurtley).
The name “Nun” is represented by “Nave” in the Septuagint, which Cyril used.
The two books of Samuel.
The Epistle of Jeremy, which now appears in the Apocrypha as the last chapter of Baruch. On the number and arrangement of the Books of the Old and New Testaments the student should consult an interesting Essay by Professor Sanday (Studia Biblica, vol. iii.), who traces the introduction of a fixed order to the time when papyrus rolls were superseded by codices, in which the sheets of skin were folded and bound together, as in printed books. This change had commenced before the Diocletian persecution, a.d. 303, when among the sacred books taken from the Christians codices were much more numerous than rolls.
On the contents of the Jewish Canon, see Dictionary of the Bible, “Canon.” B.F.W. “Josephus enumerates 20 books ‘which are justly believed to be divine.’” One of the earliest attempts by a Christian to ascertain correctly the number and order of the Books of the O.T. was made by Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who travelled for this purpose to Palestine, in the latter part of the 2nd Century. His list is as follows:—
“Of Moses five (books); Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Jesus son of Nave, Judges, Ruth, four Books of Kings, two of Chronicles, Psalms of David, Solomon’s Proverbs, which is also called Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve in one Book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.”
(Eusebius, H.E. III. cap. 10, note I, in this series.) Cyril’s List agrees with that of Athanasius (Festal Epistle, 373 a.d.), except that Job is placed by Ath. after Canticles instead of before Psalms.
Gr. ψευδεπίγραφα. For an account of the many Apocryphal Gospels, see the article by Lipsius in the “Dictionary of Christian Biography,” Smith and Wace, and the English translations in Clark’s Ante-Nicene Library.
Cyril includes in this list all the books which we receive, except the Apocalypse. See Bishop Westcott’s Article “Canon,” in the Dictionary of the Bible, and Origen’s Catalogue in Euseb. Hist. vi. 25 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. i.).
Compare xix. 8. where all such acts of divination are said to be service of the devil.
Compare Gal. iv. 10, “Ye observe days.”
Lecture V.
1 Cor. i. 9.
See Procatechesis 6, and Index, Faithful.
Prov. xx. 6.
1 Cor. iv. 3. See Index, Confession.
Ps. vii. 9.
Ps. xciv. 11.
This sentence is a spurious addition to the text of the Septuagint, variously placed after Prov. xvii. 4, and xvii. 6. The thought is there completed by the antithesis, but to the faithless not even an obol. The origin of the interpolation is unknown.
1 Tim. vi. 8.
It was a common objection of Pagan philosophers that the Christian religion was not founded upon reason but only on faith. Cyril’s answer that faith is necessary in the ordinary affairs of life is the same which Origen had employed against Celsus (I. 11):
“Why should it not be more reasonable, since all human affairs are dependent upon faith, to believe God rather than men? For who takes a voyage, or marries, or begets children, or casts seeds into the ground, without believing that better things will result, although the contrary might and sometimes does happen?”
See also Arnobius, adversus Gentes, II. 8; and Hooker’s allusion to the scornful reproach of Julian the Apostate, “The highest point of your wisdom is believe” (Eccles. Pol. V. lxiii. 1.).
By “aliens from the Church,” and “those who are without,” S. Cyril here means Pagans: so Tertullian, de Idololatriâ, c. xiv. But the latter term is applied to a Catechumen in Procatechesis. c. 12, and was also a common description of heretics: see Tertullian, de Baptismo, c. xv.
By “aliens from the Church,” and “those who are without,” S. Cyril here means Pagans: so Tertullian, de Idololatriâ, c. xiv. But the latter term is applied to a Catechumen in Procatechesis. c. 12, and was also a common description of heretics: see Tertullian, de Baptismo, c. xv.
Heb. xi. 6.
1 Pet. v. 4.
Is. vii. 9, according to the Septuagint. But A.V. and R.V. both render: If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.
Heb. xi. 34.
Dan. vi. 23.
1 Pet. v. 9: Whom resist, stedfast in the faith.
Ps. xi. 2, that they may shoot in darkness at the upright in heart (R.V.). The Hebrew word לפֶא, signifying deep darkness (Job iii. 6; x. 22) is vigorously rendered by the Seventy σκοτομήνη, which is explained by the Scholiast on Homer (Od. xiv. 457: Νὺξ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐπῆλθε κακὴ σκοτομήνιος) to be the deep darkness of the night preceding the new moon.
Eph. vi. 16.
James ii. 21. Casaubon omitted μόνον, which is found in every ms., thus making the meaning to be, “He was justified not by works but by faith,” which directly contradicts the statement of S. James, and is inconsistent with the following context in S. Cyril.
James ii. 23; 2 Chron. xx. 7; Is. xli. 8; Gen. xv. 6.
Heb. xi. 8–10.
Rom. iv. 19.
Heb. xi. 11, 12.
Gen. xxi. 12; xxii. 2.
Heb. xi. 19.
Rom. iv. 11.
Gen. xvii. 5.
Rom. iv. 17, 18.
Jer. iv. 4: Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart. The Septuagint agrees closely with the Hebrew, but Cyril quotes freely from memory.
Col. ii. 11, 12.
Matt. xiv. 29.
Mark xiv. 31.
Ib. 32.
Mark ii. 4.
Matt. ix. 2, 6.
John xi. 14–44.
νεῦρα. “Sinews” is the original meaning, the application to “nerves,” as distinct organs of sensation, being later.
For ἀναστῆναι, retained by the Benedictine Editor and Reischl, read ἀναστῆσαι, with Roe, Casaubon, and Alexandrides.
Mark ix. 24.
Luke xvii. 5.
κατὰ τὴν προσηγορίαν. Compare Aristotle, Categories, V. 30: τῷ σχήματι τῆς προσηγορίας. Cyril’s description of faith as twofold, and of dogmatic faith as an assent (συγκατάθεσις) of the soul to something as credible, seems to be derived from Clement of Alexandria, Strom. II. c. 12. Compare by all means Pearson on the Creed, Art. I. and his Notes a, b, c.
John v. 24.
Ib. iii. 18; v. 24.
εὐαρεστήσεως , Bened. and Reischl, with best mss. Milles and the earlier editions have ἐρευνήσεως, “searching.”
Luke xxiii. 43; the argument is used again in Cat. xiii. 31.
1 Cor. xii. 8, 9.
Mark xi. 23.
Matt. xvii. 20.
Matt. xiii. 32.
S. Chrysostom (Hom. xxix. in 1 Cor. xii. 9, 10) in like manner distinguishes dogmatic faith from the faith which is “the mother of miracles.” The former S. Cyril calls our own, not meaning that God’s help is not needed for it, but because, as he has shewn in § 10, it consists in the mind’s assent, and voluntary approval of the doctrines set before it: but the latter is a pure gift of grace working in man without his own help. Compare Apostolic Constitutions, VIII. c. 1.
This Lecture was to be immediately followed by a first recitation of the Creed. See Index, Creed.
ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς λέξεως. “in ipsâ lectione” (Milles): “ipsis verbis” (Bened.): “in the very phrase” (R.W.C.). See below, note 4.
Compare S. August. Serm. ccxii., “At the delivery of the Creed,” and Index, Creed.
Compare Æschylus, Prometheus V. 789: ἣν ἐγγράφου σὺ μνήμοσιν δέλτοις φρενῶν.
ἐφόδιον, Viaticum, i.e. provision for a journey, and here for the journey through this life. It is applied metaphorically by other Fathers (a) in this general sense, to the reading of Holy Scripture, Prayer, and Baptism, and (b) in a special sense to the Holy Eucharist when administered to the sick and dying, as a preparation for departure to the life after death. Council of Nicæa (a.d. 325), Canon xiii.
“With respect to the dying, the old rule of the Church should continue to be observed, which forbids that any one who is on the point of death should be deprived of the last and most necessary viaticum (ἐφόδιον).”
2 Cor. xi. 14.
Gal. i. 8, 9.
ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς λέξεως. (Bened. Reischl. with best mss.). ταύτης τῆς λέξεως, “this my recitation,” (Milles).
2 Thess. ii. 15. Compare Cat. xxiii. 23.
Prov. vii. 3. Note 9, above.
Matt. xxv. 27; Luke xix. 23. See note on Catech. vi. 36: “Be thou a good banker.”
1 Tim. v. 21; vi. 13, 14.
1 Tim. vi. 15, 16.
Lecture VI.
Περὶ Θεοῦ Μοναρχίας. The word μοναρχία, as used by Plato (Polit. 291 C), Aristotle (Polit. III. xiv. 11. εἶδος μοναρχίας βασιλικῆς), Philo Judæus (de Circumcisione, § 2; de Monarchia, Titul.), means “sole government.” Compare Tertullian (adv. Praxean. c. iii.): “If I have gained any knowledge of either language, I am sure that Μοναρχία has no other meaning than ‘single and individual rule.’” Athanasius (de Decretis Nicænæ Synodi, § 26) has preserved part of an Epistle of Dionysius, Bishop of Rome (259–269, a.d.), against the Sabellians:
“It will be natural for me now to speak against those who divide, and cut into pieces, and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Monarchia, making it, as it were, three powers and divided hypostases, and three Godheads;”
(ibid.): “It is the doctrine of the presumptuous Marcion to sever and divide the Monarchia into three origins (ἀρχάς).” We see here the sense which Μοναρχία had acquired in Christian Theology: it meant the “Unity of God,” as the one principle and origin of all things.
“By the Monarchy is meant the doctrine that the Second and Third Persons in the Ever-blessed Trinity are ever to be referred in our thoughts to the First, as the Fountain of Godhead”
(Newman, Athanas. de Decretis Nic. Syn. § 26, note h). Justin Martyr (Euseb. H.E. IV. 18), and Irenæus (ibid. V. 20), had each written a treatise περὶ Μοναρχίας. On the history of Monarchianism see, in this Series, Athanasius, Prolegomena, p. xxiii. sqq.
2 Cor. i. 3.
This clause is omitted in some mss. Various forms of the Doxology were adopted in Cyril’s time by various parties in the Church. Thus Theodoret (Hist. Eccles. II. c. 19) relates that Leontius, Bishop of Antioch, a.d. 348–357, observing that the Clergy and the Congregation were divided into two parties, the one using the form “and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost,” the other “through the Son, in the Holy Ghost,” used to