Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Accusing a scholar of false and prejudicial translation is a serious charge. Mere appeal to their confessional disposition as the basis of this charge may suffice to appease lay OO concerns, but do not expect such an argument to be taken seriously in academic discourse where nothing less than engagement with the original text to support such a charge would reasonably be expected.
Oh, don't get me wrong! I wasn't accusing the scholar himself of adding to St Cyril's words, I certainly wouldn't want to commit character assassination. I felt one of two things could have happened with the following text:
1. Something was misunderstood from the original Greek over the course of 1500 years
2.I read some where in an article by HE Metropolitan Bishoy that:
"Patriarch Macedonius [I.e. Constantinople's Chalcedonian Patriarch], who had definite leanings towards Chalcedon. The Chalcedonians in the capital made a collection of edited excerpts from Cyril, in an attempt to show that Cyril himself supported the Chalcedonian account of the two natures. This work was apparently given to Macedonius, who gave it to the emperor. Severus, in turn, wrote his Philalethes, giving the true context of the quotations from Cyril. Relations between Severus and Macedonius steadily deteriorated. Macedonius'"
I had thought a Chalcedonian during the fifth century could have twisted St Cyril's words. I certainly wouldn't accuse Mr. McEnerney himself of falsely mistranslating St Cyril. If I lent myself to that interpretation I am sorry, I am new here and I will choose my words more carefully next time. And, yes I knew that it wasn't "dyo physis" per se which bothered us, but, the way we felt Chalcedonians expressed it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Part of the reason I thought a (5th century) Chalcedonian might have changed the text is because it is the only time I have ever heard St Cyril speaking of Christ as "in two natures". If it were really a part of his vocabulary you would *think* he would use the phrase more often..
I just thought that this fragmentary letter of St Cyril's, where he uses a phrase unheard of in his vocabulary, could have been yet another result of a Chalcedonian attributing texts to certain Fathers just to support their own views. Again I would just like to apologize and further clarify what I had originally meant. Thank you!
I agree completely, I think Ekhristos has misunderstood us.
I was by no means suggesting a nefarious plot by the translators to distort St Cyril intentionally, rather its simple.
We know from our studies of St Cyril that he seemed to have never used such language, rather always seemed to be quite insistent on the "one Nature" formula and from this we could assume that if we find what seems to be only a single instance which is an accepted fragment, from an obscure letter, and is only two lines at that, and was translated and edited TWICE by Catholics, we can assume that several layers of bias may have caused an UNINTENTIONAL translation error. As has been pointed out, this fragment may not even be written by Cyril, it may be misconstrued, mislabeled, mis-transcribed, mistranslated, etc etc over 1500 years....
My point was this, as a historian, if I find an obscure primary source document which seems to disagree with the usual character of its author, then I would examine it. If I find that it is an obscure fragment that has been translated by folks with an obvious bias, than I would assume there may be a translation misunderstanding, not necessarily intentional, but rather perhaps out of bias. A good Catholic translating the text, assuming these fragments are in fact legitimate, may have simply mistranslated the "in" and the "from" or this fragment itself could be so fragmented as to be unable to be properly translated, and the translators here may have had to take a bit of "poetic license" to account for a bad copy, missing letters/texts, etc etc..
I never intended to imply that this mistranslation was intentional or trying to discredit St Cyril or to discredit or defame the translators, rather, it seems obvious that this is an instance of a mistranslation or misunderstanding, accidental or otherwise.
Though Ekhristos does make a valid point about the Reunion documents, I hadn't taken that into consideration. I suppose the real question for us to ask is there anywhere else we find St Cyril using the language "in two natures" because I have never seen such before, though I admit my old Greek is not so good