Search Results

Begins by considering Basil’s theological work against the background of his attempts at alliance-building in Asia Minor, in the eastern provinces, and with the West. Often, Basil faced constant setbacks and the perception that his attempts to secure his own power base were as important as any higher motive. Considers the pro-Nicene theology of Ephrem the Syrian, presenting him not as an isolated figure but as offering a distinctly pro-Nicene theology directly parallel to those found in Greek and Latin authors. Then discusses the author’s use of pro-Nicene over and against other terminologies, and ends with a consideration of Theodosius’s accession.

This chapter explores the historical context of the Macarian writings: their authorship, location, and date. It also outlines the physical shape of the Macarian corpus: the principal forms of the Greek manuscript tradition and the most important of the translations. It goes on to tackle the vexed question of the relationship between Macarius and the Messalian tendency, demonstrating the very substantial problems behind a simplistic identification of the two. It closes with a consideration of the possible insights offered by the Life of Hypatius into the early circulation of the writings.

This chapter argues that the anxieties about the propriety and plausibility of the saints’ cult visible in the Latin and Greek material discussed in earlier chapters was also present east of the empire’s frontier on the Euphrates. Christians within the Persian empire appear, in other words, to have debated the saints’ role in Christian piety of the as much as their Byzantine counterparts in late antiquity. Owing to a longstanding tradition of ‘soul sleep’, Persian Christians worried, in particular, about the status of the saints’ souls after death and sought to understand in what sense they retained the ability to intervene in the affairs of the living. With a special focus on the East Syrian tradition, writers under investigation include Ephrem the Syrian, Narsai of Nisibis, Ishai of Seleucia-Ctesiphon and Timothy the Great.

This chapter examines the pronounced variations in the expression of biblical monotheism found in commentaries written in the Roman Near East during the fourth and fifth centuries. In particular, it looks at a number of biblical commentaries composed in four different languages and four different scripts; all offer interpretations of the account of the Creation in the first chapter of Genesis, accompanied by a remarkably free Jewish translation (Targum) into Aramaic of part of the same chapter. Five texts are analysed: the Jewish commentary, Midrash; its translation into Jewish Aramaic, Targum Neofiti; Ephrem's Commentary on Genesis; and the commentaries by Eusebius of Emesa and Jerome. These examples show the overwhelming importance of the Bible as a source of meaning, its currency in several different languages within the Near East, and the different traditions and methods of interpretation applied to it.

This chapter examines contemporary observers' interpretation of the battle for Roman Mesopotamia, including the city of Nisibis. Following Constantine's death, Shapur II's armies began attacking fortified cities throughout Mesopotamia, including the important Roman stronghold of Nisibis. Shapur tried, but failed, to take Nisibis three times between 337 and 350. Drawing on two eyewitness testimonies, the Latin military history of Ammianus Marcellinus and the Syriac hymns of the poet-theologian Ephrem the Syrian, this chapter considers whether Shapur's defeats at Nisibis led to his persecution of Christians in Persia. It first discusses Julian's Orations, which celebrates the military exploits of his Christian cousin Constantius II, before turning to Ammianus Marcellinus's account of the Roman–Persian War in the Res Gestae. It then analyzes Christian historians' claim that Roman Mesopotamia was divinely defended. Based on the evidence, it suggests that Roman Christians had no knowledge of any persecution of Persian Christians even long after the violence was supposed to have begun.

This is a brief review of the origins and aims of Christian hymnody. Treating the biblical sources, especially the psalms, of Christian song in worship and the classical influences on learned Christian verse, it is shown how original compositions responded to both Scripture and pagan traditions. The chapter also locates in orthodox sources an enduring caution about song texts and even music itself. This ambivalence, it is argued, informs fourth-century developments of doctrinal verse and hymns. Many sources accuse heretics of employing non-biblical songs to spread their teachings. The use of hymnody by pro-Nicene authors such as Hilary and Ephrem is described, then, as a “defensive measure.” Within this polemical context some early attempts at congregational song are examined to argue that they anticipate the link between hymnodic mystagogy and doctrinal formation that are identified in Ambrose’s work.

For Philoxenos, the ultimate aim of both his own Christological polemics and of the larger divine oikonomia of the Incarnation were the same—to enable human knowledge of the Divine. Because attaining “knowledge” was a central principle for Philoxenos’ theology, this chapter investigates the sources of his theological epistemology. These sources include a wide range of Nicene (and pseudo-Nicene) sources. In particular, the anti-speculative polemics of the Cappadocians and Ephrem found a strong reflection in his works, as did the Syriac “S1” interpreters of Evagrius. A common anti-speculative theological epistemology tied Philoxenos’ vision of divine knowledge through ascetic practice to his Christological polemics. It was epistemologically impossible to for humans to know God through the natural means of human knowledge. For Philoxenos, ascetic practice was the true path to divine knowledge. In claiming to offer an alternative path, Christological speculation was a false means of divine knowledge that must be opposed.

For Philoxenos, the scriptures performed an essential task in transmitting the mystery of the Incarnation to the faithful. For this mystagogical function to succeed, scripture had to be received in simplicity of faith. Simplicity allowed one to perceive (but not understand) the Incarnation and acquire divine knowledge. Philoxenos protested that the hermeneutical method that the dyophysites championed in Theodore of Mospsuestia threatened to undermine such simplicity with its aspirations to speculative knowledge. In response, Philoxenos undertook his own Biblical commentaries and a New Testament translation project. In these works, Philoxenos did not merely offer alternative proof texts to support his Christology; his disagreement with Theodore went deeper. The miaphysite and dyophysite approaches to scripture reflected conflicting ways of knowing God. Influenced by Evagrius and the Cappadocians, Philoxenos’ commentaries instructed the readers to eschew dyophysite Christology as a speculation and instead to pursue true divine knowledge through the still path of contemplation and ascetic practice.

This chapter demonstrates how Philoxenos appealed to liturgical practice to ground his Christological polemics. He argued that speculative dyophysite Christology was an irrelevant and unnecessary path to divine knowledge. The liturgy (baptism and the Eucharist) already provided sufficient knowledge of the Incarnation for worship—there was no need for dyophysite theology. Moreover, not only was right worship sufficient to teach right doctrine, but those who shamelessly chased after incoherent doctrine would find that it would lead them to incoherent worship as well. Philoxenos charged that by emphasizing the impenetrable boundary between God and humanity, the dyophysites ended up denying the point of the liturgy, and cutting off human access to the Divine. In rendering null the liturgical mysteries, dyophysite theology ultimately had the effect of impeding the work of the Holy Spirit. In short, dyophysite theology was not merely misguided or even disruptive, it was also a demonic effort to absent the Holy Spirit from the Church.

This chapter analyzes how Jacob of Serugh communicates Christology within the poetic restraints and oral context of his homilies. He preached his Homily on the Faith in an educational setting and emphasized a correct understanding of Christology. Three known phrases from the Christological controversies reveal the subtle ways that he weaves miaphysite Christology into his homilies. He quotes a phrase attributed to Nestorios of Constantinople in order to liken his opponents to the defamed archbishop. He draws on an even earlier phrase from the fourth-century Trinitarian controversies in accusing his opponents of worshipping a human. Finally, he uses the pairing of miracles and sufferings to criticize the Christology of his opponents and to promote his own views on Christology. Jacob’s transformation of these three phrases reveals how he modifies his expression of Christology to teach his theological perspective within the poetic and stylistic expectations of metrical homilies.

Two second-century works—one Christian, one Rabbinic—reflect anxiety about strictly anatomical definitions of virginity. The Protevangelium of James, even as it extols Mary’s physical virginity, casts doubt on medical standards of virginity by appealing to faith-based standards of virginity testing. One sees a similar pattern emerge in the the Rabbinic Mishnah, which introduces a dissenting view at a critical juncture to disrupt the dominant paradigm. Late antique Syriac poetry builds on the nascent anxiety of the Protevangelium in verses that closely resemble the themes and the stories of the Protevangelium of James. Especially noteworthy in its influence is the continued importance of in partu virginity in the texts of late antique Syriac Christianity.

This chapter shows that Isaac derives his conceptual framework for the concept of ecstasy, along with the technical terms wonder and astonishment, from sources that were originally written in Syriac. In particular, both Ephrem and John the Solitary situate wonder and astonishment within the framework of the future world, which means that Isaac’s desire to frame wonder and astonishment in terms of the mind’s ability to wander into heaven and acquire knowledge of the future world demonstrates his dependence on a trajectory of thought that arises from these two authors. Isaac, however, offers the distinct contribution of describing this connection between wonder and knowledge of the future world with the language of itinerancy. According to Isaac, perfect Christians obtain heavenly knowledge during the moment of prayer, when their minds become itinerant and wander into heaven in order to receive a pledge of the heavenly mysteries from the Holy Spirit.