In order to approach the Origenist crises through the category of “minority”, some remarks are needed. It is necessary to avoid any anachronistic projection of modern understanding on the past. But, at the same time, the epistemological challenge could be useful to go beyond historicism in contemporary Dogmengeschichte. The condemnation of Origenism in the mark of the 2nd Council of Constantinople, in fact, presents a deep difference with respect to the Three Chapters issue. The main question at stake was not merely the Emperor’s ecclesiastical politics in view of the unity of the Empire and of the Church. Having recourse to Christian Gnilka’s categories, it can be shown that the 6th century condemnations were the krisis of a chrêsis, that is a judgement on the use of Origen in (Evagrian) monasticism of that time.
Cyril’s epistle XLI is addressed to Acacius of Scythopolis and discusses the exegesis of the scapegoat in Lev 16. The importance of the question is witnessed to by the presence of letter in the Patristic dossier of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus. Palestine, the region of the addressee, was characterized by the necessity of facing at the same time both the Semitic and the pagan cultures. The paper shows, on the diachronic background of the main works devoted to the same subject, that the very confrontation of Judaism and paganism is the key element for the formulation of Cyril's Christological interpretation. Through it he tries to reject any possibility of an exegesis of the biblical text in a dialectical form contrary to peace.