Search Results

The church’s rejection of the major christological heresies is a series of dialectical turns, all taken to safeguard an account of divine involvement worthy of God. The Docetists, Arians, and Nestorians–substantial metaphysical and theological differences between them notwithstanding–endorsed unqualified and unrestricted divine impassibility, i.e. they agreed that divine impassibility ruled out the divine subject’s involvement in human history and suffering. In contrast, the orthodox theologians regarded qualified divine impassibility as being compatible with certain God-befitting emotions and with the incarnate Word’s suffering in and through human nature.

This chapter analyzes the earliest extant polemical work of Athanasius against the ‘Eusebians’, the Epistula Encyclica of 339. This text identifies all the essential elements that recur throughout Athanasius’ construction of his opponents as an ‘Arian party’. The ‘Eusebians’ exploit ecclesiastical politics and secular power to promote their ‘heresy’ and persecute ‘orthodox’ bishops such as Athanasius himself, driving him into exile and imposing into his church their own ‘Arian’ nominee, Gregory of Alexandria.

Theophilus of Alexandria published a 100‐year Paschal list beginning in the first consulship of Theodosius, AD 380. That year corresponds to the first of the classical Alexandrian cycle, but it is not necessarily the case that the 19‐year cycle of Theophilus began in that year. The earliest unambiguous evidence for a 19‐year cycle calibrated to the first year of Diocletian is the 110‐year list that Cyril dedicated to the emperor Theodosius II. He states explicitly that the first year of the list, AD 403, was the fifth year of the 19‐year cycle. Cyril perhaps adopted the form of the cycle that had been promulgated by Annianus, an Alexandrian monk who lived in the time of Theophilus.

This chapter traces how Eusebius creates a picture of the ancient Hebrews as chronologically earlier, and culturally and religiously superior to the other nations. However, due to ‘Egyptianization’, the Hebrews later fell into the corrupt national form of the ‘Jews’. Moses was seen as the key transitional figure, writing a law that offered an intermediate way of life for the morally-weak Jews. Only some scattered Hebrews remained after this transition to Judaism: Philo of Alexandria, Josephus, and others. For Eusebius, the coming of Christ marked the restoration of the ancient Hebrew nation.

Eusebius attributes to Dionysius of Alexandria (249–65) both the earliest known assertion of a rule that Easter can be observed only after the equinox and the use of an eight‐year cycle (octaeteris) for Paschal calculations. The Coptic tradition, however, remembers Demetrius of Alexandria (189–232) as ‘the inventor of the epacts’ and Ethiopic texts attribute to him a Paschal computus beginning in AD 214. The earliest extant Paschal cycle is a 112‐year period attributed to Hippolytus, beginning with the full moon of 13 April in AD 222. The cycle of Hippolytus is based on the octaëteris and probably represents the adaptation of the cycle of Demetrius to the Roman calendar. Another 112‐year cycle is extant, composed in 243, but beginning with the full moon of 1 April in the year 242. Its authorship and provenance are unknown.

This chapter traces the origins of Athanasius’ polemic against the ‘Eusebians’. The ‘Eusebian party’ first appears in the Encyclical Letter of Athanasius’ predecessor Alexander, and the analysis of this text requires a reassessment of the entire chronology of the ‘Arian Controversy’ from its beginnings to the Council of Nicaea. It then traces Athanasius’ presentation of the events leading up to his own exile at the Council of Tyre in 335 in the Apologia Contra Arianos, and contrasts this presentation to the evidence provided by Athanasius’ earlier writings, particularly his Festal Letters. In the later Apologia Contra Arianos narrative, Athanasius attributes his exile to a ‘Eusebian’ conspiracy, yet there is no mention of the ‘Eusebians’ in any of Athanasius’ writings before 335. In these writings, he is concerned solely with the Melitian schismatics who oppose him within Egypt. The ‘Eusebian party’ as a polemical construct and the true source of Athanasius’ suffering appears in his writings for the first time at the Council of Tyre itself, in the letters circulated to the eastern bishops at that Council by Athanasius’ Egyptian supporters.

This chapter examines Athanasius’ presentation of the ‘Eusebians’ in action, particularly in the Historia Arianorum and the other works of his third exile (356-62). Those actions include the writing of letters; the manipulation of ecclesiastical patronage (notably in the alleged purge of ‘orthodox’ bishops in the years after the Council of Nicaea); the dependence upon secular power through the support of local officials and the Emperor Constantius; and the violence and persecution that the ‘Arians’ are alleged to have caused in Alexandria and Egypt.

A discussion of the language of ‘union without confusion’, so characteristic of the theology Maximus follows which rejects any separation or confusion in Christ. The notions of ‘union without confusion’ and ‘interpenetration’ are discussed. The Neoplatonist Porphyry and St Cyril of Alexandria also feature in this chapter.

This chapter examines the evidence for membership of the two alliances which squared up against one another before Nicaea, including the names and numbers on both sides, and the degree to which nameable individuals committed themselves politically. The theological affinities and differences of Alexander of Alexandria’s allies are studied, particularly those of Marcellus with each of the rest. The significance of the initial calling of the ‘great and priestly synod’ for Ancyra rather than Nicaea is considered. It is argued that the synod was not originally called by Constantine but by the pro-Alexander alliance, and moved by him to his own palace to promote peace. The Synod of Antioch is discussed and dated to 324. It is argued that Marcellus had little influence on the Nicene Creed, which was not characteristic of his theology and which he never defended, but probably rather more on the canons of Nicaea.

This chapter examines the Christological concepts and terms employed by Theodoret in the Nestorian controversy and in the movements that eventually led to a shaky peace with Cyril in the years 432-5. An examination of the texts shows that the Christology of this period is exactly what was uncovered in De Incarnatione Domini. The discovery of that work as Theodoret's allows us to see more clearly how the texts of 431-5 are to be interpreted, which in turn allows us to settle some of the disagreements among earlier students of Theodoret's works. The materials examined in this chapter include the Reprehensio XII Anathematismorum, undertaken early in 431 at the request of John of Antioch as a rebuttal from the Antiochene side to Cyril's third letter to Nestorius with its subjoined twelve anathemas or chapters; Epistles 150-79, which are concerned with the Nestorian crisis, the Council of Ephesus, and its aftermath; a few epistles from Collectio Casinensis, a Latin version of events surrounding Ephesus and the Union Creed of 432-3; and the few fragments of the Pentalogos which are extant, a work written by Theodoret against the Cyrillian Council of Ephesus.

Cyril of Alexandria died in 444 and was succeeded by his nephew Dioscorus. His intrigues with Eutyches and Chrysaphius in Constantinople soon led to the outbreak of the Eutychian crisis, Eutyches' deposition by the synod of Constantinople in 448, the so-called Latrocinium at Ephesus the following year, and finally the Council of Chalcedon in 451. This chapter explores the Christology in Theodoret's literary works during the crisis period. Firstly is the Eranistes, published originally in 447 or 448, then There is One Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ of 448, and a fairly large collection of letters that Theodoret wrote to defend himself against the charges of the opposing party. Finally, there are a few fragments of a letter written to John of Aegae after Chalcedon and the Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium.

Jovinian's accusations against ascetic extremists had a precedent in earlier Christian tradition. Ascetic elitism was opposed by a number of early Christian writers, including 1 Clement, Ignatius, and the author of the Pastoral Epistles. By the early third century, this opposition had hardened into the polarities of ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heresy’. This anti‐heretical effort culminated in the writings of Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria against the ‘encratite’ heresy, which anticipated the polemics of Jovinian. In the third century we also see the development of a ‘moderate encratism’ in the writings of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen, which later inspired the opponents of Jovinian, e.g. Ambrose and Jerome.

The first part of this chapter deals with the social, cultural, and religious aspects of the city of Alexandria around 200 AD. The second part discusses the origins of the Christian Church in Alexandria, including the catechetical school. The third part traces what is known of Clement’s life, works, and audience.

The patriarchs of Alexandria would cast long shadows over the history of Egyptian monasticism. This chapter focuses on the five most influential: Alexander, Athanasius, Theophilus, Cyril, and Dioscorus. It surveys both their careers and their theological controversies, especially their doctrine-defining clashes at the ecumenical Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. This chapter provides critical historical and theological background, since the politics and theologies of the bishops of Alexandria figure prominently in early monastic literature, and their international prominence would help draw the world’s attention to Egypt and its monks.

This chapter describes the range of philosophers discussed in this book, going from Plotinus and his school in Rome to the schools of Iamblichus in Syria (Apamea) and of his successors at Athens and Alexandria. The relations between these schools and the situation of the various philosophers in time, place, and social context are briefly sketched.

Chapter 3 sets the stage for the subsequent discussion of Eunomius of Cyzicus and his opponents. It outlines the background to his view that ingeneracy, that is, having no cause, is the essential characteristic of God. Two theologians are examined on this issue: Justin Martyr and Dionysius of Alexandria, the latter of whom comes closest to Eunomius' position, though in the context of a late third‐century argument about whether matter is also ingenerate. A second section investigates the background to Eunomius' view, labelled the ‘identity thesis’, that God's essence and God's attributes are identical. It is suggested that Athanasius of Alexandria, though far removed doctrinally from Eunomius, articulated a similar position in a text Eunomius likely knew. One common theme in the two is a concern to avoid construing the attributes of God as essential complements, that is as parts of God's essence. Clearly if God's essence has parts, it is not simple. Some background is given on essential complements, which Eunomius will accuse Basil of maintaining.