Jon M. Robertson
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199212606
- eISBN:
- 9780191707360
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199212606.001.0001
- Subject:
- Religion, Theology
This book presents a detailed study of the theological concept (divine mediation) that was central to the Christological controversy of the early 4th century. The subject of this study is the access ...
More
This book presents a detailed study of the theological concept (divine mediation) that was central to the Christological controversy of the early 4th century. The subject of this study is the access to God provided through the divine Word, as seen in the theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria during the early years of the ‘Arian’ controversy. By analysing the views of three participants at the Council of Nicaea (325), this book demonstrates the variety of perspectives in a way that questions popular approaches to the period that see the controversy as having only two sides. This analysis constitutes a new approach to the early Arian controversy, as well as showing the theological backdrop of Athanasius' insight on Christ as mediator. It further demonstrates the contemporary relevance of the issue by giving an Athanasian critique of the modern Christology of Roger Haight.Less
This book presents a detailed study of the theological concept (divine mediation) that was central to the Christological controversy of the early 4th century. The subject of this study is the access to God provided through the divine Word, as seen in the theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria during the early years of the ‘Arian’ controversy. By analysing the views of three participants at the Council of Nicaea (325), this book demonstrates the variety of perspectives in a way that questions popular approaches to the period that see the controversy as having only two sides. This analysis constitutes a new approach to the early Arian controversy, as well as showing the theological backdrop of Athanasius' insight on Christ as mediator. It further demonstrates the contemporary relevance of the issue by giving an Athanasian critique of the modern Christology of Roger Haight.
Sara Parvis
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199280131
- eISBN:
- 9780191603792
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199280134.003.0004
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
This chapter argues that Eustathius of Antioch’s deposition took place in autumn 327 as a result of real or faked evidence of sexual misdemeanour, triggering a reversal by Constantine of his previous ...
More
This chapter argues that Eustathius of Antioch’s deposition took place in autumn 327 as a result of real or faked evidence of sexual misdemeanour, triggering a reversal by Constantine of his previous ecclesiastical policy. It is suggested that Marcellus wrote his Against Asterius partly in response to this event and to the subsequent return of Eusebius of Nicomedia. It is argued that Marcellus, like Athanasius, was trapped by a summons to the Synod of Tyre in 335 when he refused to accept Arius’ reception back into communion at Jerusalem, despite Constantine’s orders. Marcellus’ trial is examined from the accounts of Sozomen and Eusebius of Caesarea, and his innocence established of the theological charges brought.Less
This chapter argues that Eustathius of Antioch’s deposition took place in autumn 327 as a result of real or faked evidence of sexual misdemeanour, triggering a reversal by Constantine of his previous ecclesiastical policy. It is suggested that Marcellus wrote his Against Asterius partly in response to this event and to the subsequent return of Eusebius of Nicomedia. It is argued that Marcellus, like Athanasius, was trapped by a summons to the Synod of Tyre in 335 when he refused to accept Arius’ reception back into communion at Jerusalem, despite Constantine’s orders. Marcellus’ trial is examined from the accounts of Sozomen and Eusebius of Caesarea, and his innocence established of the theological charges brought.
J. Rebecca Lyman
- Published in print:
- 1993
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198267454
- eISBN:
- 9780191683275
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198267454.001.0001
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
This book offers a fresh interpretation of the relation between Greek thought and ancient Christian theology through an analysis of three foundational and controversial thinkers: Origen, Eusebius of ...
More
This book offers a fresh interpretation of the relation between Greek thought and ancient Christian theology through an analysis of three foundational and controversial thinkers: Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Athanasius. Rather than opposing certain cagegories such as philosophy besides scripture, or orthodoxy besides heresy, the book examines how language about Christ and the world functions as a theological model. This allows the recovery of the theological and religious significance of certain ideas such as subordination or the obedience of Christ, which were rejected by later orthodoxy. As an urban teacher, civic apologist, and ascetic bishop, each of the three theologians discussed offered a distinctive Christian response to the religious and ecclesiastical ideas of the 3rd and 4th centuries. Each cosmology and Christology therefore reveals particular concerns about individual and social identity and salvation in the developing Christian community.Less
This book offers a fresh interpretation of the relation between Greek thought and ancient Christian theology through an analysis of three foundational and controversial thinkers: Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Athanasius. Rather than opposing certain cagegories such as philosophy besides scripture, or orthodoxy besides heresy, the book examines how language about Christ and the world functions as a theological model. This allows the recovery of the theological and religious significance of certain ideas such as subordination or the obedience of Christ, which were rejected by later orthodoxy. As an urban teacher, civic apologist, and ascetic bishop, each of the three theologians discussed offered a distinctive Christian response to the religious and ecclesiastical ideas of the 3rd and 4th centuries. Each cosmology and Christology therefore reveals particular concerns about individual and social identity and salvation in the developing Christian community.
David M. Gwynn
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- January 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199205554
- eISBN:
- 9780191709425
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199205554.001.0001
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
This monograph offers a historical and theological re-evaluation of the polemical writings of Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria (328-73) and their influence upon modern interpretations of the so-called ...
More
This monograph offers a historical and theological re-evaluation of the polemical writings of Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria (328-73) and their influence upon modern interpretations of the so-called ‘Arian Controversy’. It examines in detail the methodology of Athanasius’ polemic, and focuses on his representation of his opponents as a single ‘Arian party’, hoi peri Eusebion (‘the ones around Eusebius [of Nicomedia]’ or the ‘Eusebians’). After an initial chronological catalogue of Athanasius’ polemical works, it traces the evolution of his construction of the ‘Eusebians’ from his own condemnation at the Council of Tyre in 335 onwards, and assesses the actions and the ‘Arian’ theology that Athanasius attributes to his foes. This examination of Athanasius’ polemic and of what little external evidence survives against which the polemic can be compared reveals that the ‘Eusebians’ were neither a ‘party’ nor ‘Arian’. Athanasius’ image of a 4th century Church polarized between his own ‘orthodoxy’ and the ‘Arianism’ of the ‘Eusebians’ as a polemical construct. The distortions inherent within this construct must be recognized to fully understand the 4th century Church, the men whom Athanasius branded as ‘Eusebians’, and Athanasius himself.Less
This monograph offers a historical and theological re-evaluation of the polemical writings of Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria (328-73) and their influence upon modern interpretations of the so-called ‘Arian Controversy’. It examines in detail the methodology of Athanasius’ polemic, and focuses on his representation of his opponents as a single ‘Arian party’, hoi peri Eusebion (‘the ones around Eusebius [of Nicomedia]’ or the ‘Eusebians’). After an initial chronological catalogue of Athanasius’ polemical works, it traces the evolution of his construction of the ‘Eusebians’ from his own condemnation at the Council of Tyre in 335 onwards, and assesses the actions and the ‘Arian’ theology that Athanasius attributes to his foes. This examination of Athanasius’ polemic and of what little external evidence survives against which the polemic can be compared reveals that the ‘Eusebians’ were neither a ‘party’ nor ‘Arian’. Athanasius’ image of a 4th century Church polarized between his own ‘orthodoxy’ and the ‘Arianism’ of the ‘Eusebians’ as a polemical construct. The distortions inherent within this construct must be recognized to fully understand the 4th century Church, the men whom Athanasius branded as ‘Eusebians’, and Athanasius himself.
Sara Parvis
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199280131
- eISBN:
- 9780191603792
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199280134.001.0001
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
In the recent explosion of scholarship on the Arian controversy, the years immediately after Nicaea have been comparatively neglected. This is partly because the prevailing view in the ...
More
In the recent explosion of scholarship on the Arian controversy, the years immediately after Nicaea have been comparatively neglected. This is partly because the prevailing view in the English-speaking world is that either there was no real theological controversy at all during the years 325-345, merely a general distaste for the activities of Athanasius of Alexandria, or that there was a general fear throughout the East of the theology of Marcellus of Ancyra, uniting Eastern bishops against him. This book argues that neither of these positions can be sustained on the basis of the available evidence. It examines closely the evidence for episcopal attendance at the important councils of these years, and shows that all were demonstrably partial; that there was never a majority of politically active Eastern bishops against Marcellus, Athanasius, or their fellow supporter of Alexander, Eustathius of Antioch; and that Marcellus was deposed for theological opinions which he did not hold in the manner attributed to him. These years are best made sense of by returning to the idea of two theological and political alliances at war with one another before, during, and long after Nicaea, which only began to fragment in the early 340s after the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia and the falling-out of Marcellus and Athanasius over the so-called ‘Western Creed of Serdica’.Less
In the recent explosion of scholarship on the Arian controversy, the years immediately after Nicaea have been comparatively neglected. This is partly because the prevailing view in the English-speaking world is that either there was no real theological controversy at all during the years 325-345, merely a general distaste for the activities of Athanasius of Alexandria, or that there was a general fear throughout the East of the theology of Marcellus of Ancyra, uniting Eastern bishops against him. This book argues that neither of these positions can be sustained on the basis of the available evidence. It examines closely the evidence for episcopal attendance at the important councils of these years, and shows that all were demonstrably partial; that there was never a majority of politically active Eastern bishops against Marcellus, Athanasius, or their fellow supporter of Alexander, Eustathius of Antioch; and that Marcellus was deposed for theological opinions which he did not hold in the manner attributed to him. These years are best made sense of by returning to the idea of two theological and political alliances at war with one another before, during, and long after Nicaea, which only began to fragment in the early 340s after the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia and the falling-out of Marcellus and Athanasius over the so-called ‘Western Creed of Serdica’.
Carl L. Beckwith
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199551644
- eISBN:
- 9780191720789
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199551644.003.0002
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
This chapter discusses the Trinitarian debates from the Council of Nicaea (325) to the synod of Sirmium (351) and the emergence of the creed from Nicaea in the West as a standard of orthodoxy.
This chapter discusses the Trinitarian debates from the Council of Nicaea (325) to the synod of Sirmium (351) and the emergence of the creed from Nicaea in the West as a standard of orthodoxy.
Geoffrey Mark Hahneman
- Published in print:
- 1992
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198263418
- eISBN:
- 9780191682537
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198263418.003.0007
- Subject:
- Religion, Biblical Studies, Early Christian Studies
There is clearly a strong case for proposing that the Fragment is an Eastern list of New Testament works originating from the fourth century. This provenance is supported by many details. Eusebius ...
More
There is clearly a strong case for proposing that the Fragment is an Eastern list of New Testament works originating from the fourth century. This provenance is supported by many details. Eusebius appears to be the individual within the history of the Canon who developed and prompted New Testament catalogues, and thus the Fragment most probably derives from some time after Eusebius. Several remarkable parallels with Epiphanius would seem to confirm a Syrian/Palestinian provenance around 375 for the Fragment, specifically the inclusion of the Wisdom of Solomon in a New Testament catalogue, the mention of a Marcionite Laodiceans and the presence of Revelation without comment. These, combined with the public reading of the Revelation of Peter noted in the Fragment and Sozomen, and various similarities with Jerome (392), seem to confirm that the Muratorian Fragment is not a Western late second-century document, but is instead a late fourth-century Eastern catalogue.Less
There is clearly a strong case for proposing that the Fragment is an Eastern list of New Testament works originating from the fourth century. This provenance is supported by many details. Eusebius appears to be the individual within the history of the Canon who developed and prompted New Testament catalogues, and thus the Fragment most probably derives from some time after Eusebius. Several remarkable parallels with Epiphanius would seem to confirm a Syrian/Palestinian provenance around 375 for the Fragment, specifically the inclusion of the Wisdom of Solomon in a New Testament catalogue, the mention of a Marcionite Laodiceans and the presence of Revelation without comment. These, combined with the public reading of the Revelation of Peter noted in the Fragment and Sozomen, and various similarities with Jerome (392), seem to confirm that the Muratorian Fragment is not a Western late second-century document, but is instead a late fourth-century Eastern catalogue.
David M. Gwynn
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- January 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199205554
- eISBN:
- 9780191709425
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199205554.003.0004
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
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 ...
More
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.Less
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.
David M. Gwynn
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- January 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199205554
- eISBN:
- 9780191709425
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199205554.003.0006
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
This chapter begins with an analysis of the phrase hoi peri Eusebion and the implications of Athanasius’ presentation of his opponents as a ‘church party’. It then assesses the various passages in ...
More
This chapter begins with an analysis of the phrase hoi peri Eusebion and the implications of Athanasius’ presentation of his opponents as a ‘church party’. It then assesses the various passages in which Athanasius actually names the men whom he regards as ‘Eusebians’, and demonstrates the degree to which these catalogues of names vary between Athanasius’ different works as the polemic develops over time. The chapter ends with a survey of the fragmentary evidence for the known careers and writings of the most prominent individuals whom Athanasius identifies as ‘Eusebians’, particularly Eusebius of Nicomedia himself and Asterius ‘the Sophist’.Less
This chapter begins with an analysis of the phrase hoi peri Eusebion and the implications of Athanasius’ presentation of his opponents as a ‘church party’. It then assesses the various passages in which Athanasius actually names the men whom he regards as ‘Eusebians’, and demonstrates the degree to which these catalogues of names vary between Athanasius’ different works as the polemic develops over time. The chapter ends with a survey of the fragmentary evidence for the known careers and writings of the most prominent individuals whom Athanasius identifies as ‘Eusebians’, particularly Eusebius of Nicomedia himself and Asterius ‘the Sophist’.
David M. Gwynn
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- January 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199205554
- eISBN:
- 9780191709425
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199205554.003.0008
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
This chapter assesses Athanasius’ presentation of the ‘Eusebians’ as ‘Arian’. After a brief introduction to Athanasius’ highly polarized heresiological polemic, it traces Athanasius’ construction of ...
More
This chapter assesses Athanasius’ presentation of the ‘Eusebians’ as ‘Arian’. After a brief introduction to Athanasius’ highly polarized heresiological polemic, it traces Athanasius’ construction of the ‘Arianism’ which he imposes upon his opponents. A comparison between this ‘Athanasian Arianism’, the doctrines of Arius himself, and the known doctrines of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Asterius ‘the Sophist’ reveals that these two alleged ‘Eusebians’ differ theologically both from Arius’ and from Athanasius’ definition of ‘Arianism’. Indeed, Eusebius and Asterius appear to have been representative of a widespread theological position held by a significant number of eastern bishops in the first half of the 4th century, a theology expressed above all by the ‘Dedication Creed’ of the Council of Antioch in 341. The chapter then turns to the methodology through which Athanasius created his distorted polarized construct of the ‘Arian Controversy’, and concludes with a brief assessment of how this construct influences Athanasius’ interpretation of the Council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed.Less
This chapter assesses Athanasius’ presentation of the ‘Eusebians’ as ‘Arian’. After a brief introduction to Athanasius’ highly polarized heresiological polemic, it traces Athanasius’ construction of the ‘Arianism’ which he imposes upon his opponents. A comparison between this ‘Athanasian Arianism’, the doctrines of Arius himself, and the known doctrines of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Asterius ‘the Sophist’ reveals that these two alleged ‘Eusebians’ differ theologically both from Arius’ and from Athanasius’ definition of ‘Arianism’. Indeed, Eusebius and Asterius appear to have been representative of a widespread theological position held by a significant number of eastern bishops in the first half of the 4th century, a theology expressed above all by the ‘Dedication Creed’ of the Council of Antioch in 341. The chapter then turns to the methodology through which Athanasius created his distorted polarized construct of the ‘Arian Controversy’, and concludes with a brief assessment of how this construct influences Athanasius’ interpretation of the Council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed.
J. REBECCA LYMAN
- Published in print:
- 1993
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198267454
- eISBN:
- 9780191683275
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198267454.003.0006
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
Logos Christology was not a passive product of cosmological categories, but a creative, passionate model of an emerging world-view. In their apologetic and polemical presentations of Christology, ...
More
Logos Christology was not a passive product of cosmological categories, but a creative, passionate model of an emerging world-view. In their apologetic and polemical presentations of Christology, Origen, Eusebius, and Athanasius each borrowed and modified common formulas of Late Antiquity to express particular theological concerns. These concerns were not only individual beliefs, however; they also represented the spiritual and social realities of the communities which shaped the focus and language of each man: small urban study groups, public civic apologetics, and the emerging ascetical church. Defining the subordination of the Son as an essentially soteriological error unfortunately forced early reflection into later Trinitarian or Christological models. In conclusion, some ‘correlations’ which appear to exist between the cosmological models and historical communities of the three authors are outlined.Less
Logos Christology was not a passive product of cosmological categories, but a creative, passionate model of an emerging world-view. In their apologetic and polemical presentations of Christology, Origen, Eusebius, and Athanasius each borrowed and modified common formulas of Late Antiquity to express particular theological concerns. These concerns were not only individual beliefs, however; they also represented the spiritual and social realities of the communities which shaped the focus and language of each man: small urban study groups, public civic apologetics, and the emerging ascetical church. Defining the subordination of the Son as an essentially soteriological error unfortunately forced early reflection into later Trinitarian or Christological models. In conclusion, some ‘correlations’ which appear to exist between the cosmological models and historical communities of the three authors are outlined.
Jon M. Robertson
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199212606
- eISBN:
- 9780191707360
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199212606.003.0004
- Subject:
- Religion, Theology
This chapter examines Marcellus of Ancyra's account of the ‘one God’ and how knowledge of that God comes to humanity. It begins by looking at Eusebius of Caesarea's portrait of Marcellus as one who ...
More
This chapter examines Marcellus of Ancyra's account of the ‘one God’ and how knowledge of that God comes to humanity. It begins by looking at Eusebius of Caesarea's portrait of Marcellus as one who threatened what he understood to be the Christian concept of divine mediation before turning to Marcellus. His comprehension of divine unity is examined in order to understand his perspective of divine mediation. The chapter then investigates how this strict monoprosopic view of God impacted his conception of the Incarnation. Only then will it be possible to appreciate his exposition of the mediation of knowledge of the invisible divine nature as taking place through the visible image of God.Less
This chapter examines Marcellus of Ancyra's account of the ‘one God’ and how knowledge of that God comes to humanity. It begins by looking at Eusebius of Caesarea's portrait of Marcellus as one who threatened what he understood to be the Christian concept of divine mediation before turning to Marcellus. His comprehension of divine unity is examined in order to understand his perspective of divine mediation. The chapter then investigates how this strict monoprosopic view of God impacted his conception of the Incarnation. Only then will it be possible to appreciate his exposition of the mediation of knowledge of the invisible divine nature as taking place through the visible image of God.
Jon M. Robertson
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199212606
- eISBN:
- 9780191707360
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199212606.003.0005
- Subject:
- Religion, Theology
This chapter demonstrates that Athanasius — as desirous of holding to a true monotheism as were others of his day — located the ‘oneness’ demanded by monotheism in the Godhead (or θέ οτης) within ...
More
This chapter demonstrates that Athanasius — as desirous of holding to a true monotheism as were others of his day — located the ‘oneness’ demanded by monotheism in the Godhead (or θέ οτης) within which a plurality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exists. This view substantially differed from that of Eusebius of Caesarea and was a considerable theological issue at stake in the ‘Arian’ controversy; an issue which affected liturgy, worship, and the very identification of Christianity as a type of monotheism. The chapter begins by inspecting an early argument for the divine unity proffered by Athanasius in the Contra Gentes. It then analyses Athanasius' view of the unity of the ‘Godhead’ (θέ οτης) in Contra Arianos I, II, and III.Less
This chapter demonstrates that Athanasius — as desirous of holding to a true monotheism as were others of his day — located the ‘oneness’ demanded by monotheism in the Godhead (or θέ οτης) within which a plurality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exists. This view substantially differed from that of Eusebius of Caesarea and was a considerable theological issue at stake in the ‘Arian’ controversy; an issue which affected liturgy, worship, and the very identification of Christianity as a type of monotheism. The chapter begins by inspecting an early argument for the divine unity proffered by Athanasius in the Contra Gentes. It then analyses Athanasius' view of the unity of the ‘Godhead’ (θέ οτης) in Contra Arianos I, II, and III.
Andreas Osiander
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- May 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780198294511
- eISBN:
- 9780191717048
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198294511.003.0003
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
This chapter analyses why the Roman empire — from the 3rd century onwards, decayed and contracted — as well as why the east Roman empire of Constantinople survived until the 15th century. It ...
More
This chapter analyses why the Roman empire — from the 3rd century onwards, decayed and contracted — as well as why the east Roman empire of Constantinople survived until the 15th century. It discusses the foundations of the ideology of the Roman empire, valid until the end of the pre-Reformation period (as reflected in authors like Eusébios (Eusebius) of Kaisáreia, Augustine, or Paulus Orosius), and examines the circumstances and meaning of the repeated revival of a western Roman empire (800, 962, 1312). The final section is dedicated to the theory of empire of three important political thinkers of the ‘age of the scholastics’: Engelbert of Admont, Dante Alighieri, and Pierre Dubois. The chapter emphasizes that supralocal political structures in pre-Reformation Latin always remained weak and were based on voluntary adhesion, the perception of a common identity, rather than on forcible submission.Less
This chapter analyses why the Roman empire — from the 3rd century onwards, decayed and contracted — as well as why the east Roman empire of Constantinople survived until the 15th century. It discusses the foundations of the ideology of the Roman empire, valid until the end of the pre-Reformation period (as reflected in authors like Eusébios (Eusebius) of Kaisáreia, Augustine, or Paulus Orosius), and examines the circumstances and meaning of the repeated revival of a western Roman empire (800, 962, 1312). The final section is dedicated to the theory of empire of three important political thinkers of the ‘age of the scholastics’: Engelbert of Admont, Dante Alighieri, and Pierre Dubois. The chapter emphasizes that supralocal political structures in pre-Reformation Latin always remained weak and were based on voluntary adhesion, the perception of a common identity, rather than on forcible submission.
Dominic J. O’Meara
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- January 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199285532
- eISBN:
- 9780191717819
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199285532.003.0012
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Ancient Philosophy
This chapter discusses the extent to which Eusebius’ Christian politics of theocracy and Augustine’s rejection both of pagan political theory and of Christian theocracy (in the City of God) may ...
More
This chapter discusses the extent to which Eusebius’ Christian politics of theocracy and Augustine’s rejection both of pagan political theory and of Christian theocracy (in the City of God) may relate as Christian reactions to the political philosophy reconstructed in Parts II and III of this book.Less
This chapter discusses the extent to which Eusebius’ Christian politics of theocracy and Augustine’s rejection both of pagan political theory and of Christian theocracy (in the City of God) may relate as Christian reactions to the political philosophy reconstructed in Parts II and III of this book.
Alden A. Mosshammer
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199543120
- eISBN:
- 9780191720062
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199543120.003.0015
- Subject:
- Religion, History of Christianity, Early Christian Studies
The date of Dionysius Exiguus for the first year of Christ in AD 1 disagrees with almost all other ancient authorities. Many scholars state that Dionysius synchronized his year 1 with the year 754 ...
More
The date of Dionysius Exiguus for the first year of Christ in AD 1 disagrees with almost all other ancient authorities. Many scholars state that Dionysius synchronized his year 1 with the year 754 from the foundation of Rome. That synchronism is a modem inference that nowhere appears in the writings of Dionysius. Some have argued that Dionysius incorrectly dated the years of Augustus. Another hypothesis holds that Dionysius generated his date by adding the 532‐year Paschal period to the presumed age of Jesus at his death of 3l years, then designating as 563 the year in the tables that produced a date for Easter on 25, March. Several scholars have claimed that Dionysius derived his date from Eusebius of Caesarea. One has argued that Dionysius designated as 2000 the year in which he thought the present age would come to and end. None of these hypotheses is persuasive.Less
The date of Dionysius Exiguus for the first year of Christ in AD 1 disagrees with almost all other ancient authorities. Many scholars state that Dionysius synchronized his year 1 with the year 754 from the foundation of Rome. That synchronism is a modem inference that nowhere appears in the writings of Dionysius. Some have argued that Dionysius incorrectly dated the years of Augustus. Another hypothesis holds that Dionysius generated his date by adding the 532‐year Paschal period to the presumed age of Jesus at his death of 3l years, then designating as 563 the year in the tables that produced a date for Easter on 25, March. Several scholars have claimed that Dionysius derived his date from Eusebius of Caesarea. One has argued that Dionysius designated as 2000 the year in which he thought the present age would come to and end. None of these hypotheses is persuasive.
Gregory A. Beeley
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- September 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780195313970
- eISBN:
- 9780199871827
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195313970.003.0001
- Subject:
- Religion, Church History
The introduction provides an orientation to Gregory's' life and works within his multiple contexts. It covers Gregory's family, childhood, education, training in biblical study and Greek ...
More
The introduction provides an orientation to Gregory's' life and works within his multiple contexts. It covers Gregory's family, childhood, education, training in biblical study and Greek philosophical rhetoric; his pioneering, moderate form of monasticism as a “middle path” between solitude and public service; his strong influence by Origen and complicated relationship with Basil; his theological and ecclesiastical leadership as a priest and bishop; his central role in the consolidation of the Trinitarian faith and the pro‐Nicene movement in Constantinople; and his retirement, literary corpus, and the distinctive character of the Theological Orations. In addition, it offers a summary narrative of the mid‐fourth‐century theological controversies, in which Gregory played a key part—with attention to Marcellus of Ancyra, the Council of Nicaea 325, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Basil of Ancyra, George of Laodicea, Melitius of Antioch, Damasus and the Western synods, Eunomius and the Heterousians, the Homoiousians, the Pneumatomachians, the homoian regimes of Constantius and Valens, the synod of Antioch in 372, the religious policy of Theodosius, and other church councils; an account of the negative effects of the Antiochene schism, and a reconstruction of the Council of Constantinople 381.Less
The introduction provides an orientation to Gregory's' life and works within his multiple contexts. It covers Gregory's family, childhood, education, training in biblical study and Greek philosophical rhetoric; his pioneering, moderate form of monasticism as a “middle path” between solitude and public service; his strong influence by Origen and complicated relationship with Basil; his theological and ecclesiastical leadership as a priest and bishop; his central role in the consolidation of the Trinitarian faith and the pro‐Nicene movement in Constantinople; and his retirement, literary corpus, and the distinctive character of the Theological Orations. In addition, it offers a summary narrative of the mid‐fourth‐century theological controversies, in which Gregory played a key part—with attention to Marcellus of Ancyra, the Council of Nicaea 325, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Basil of Ancyra, George of Laodicea, Melitius of Antioch, Damasus and the Western synods, Eunomius and the Heterousians, the Homoiousians, the Pneumatomachians, the homoian regimes of Constantius and Valens, the synod of Antioch in 372, the religious policy of Theodosius, and other church councils; an account of the negative effects of the Antiochene schism, and a reconstruction of the Council of Constantinople 381.
Hagith Sivan
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- May 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780199284177
- eISBN:
- 9780191712555
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199284177.003.0007
- Subject:
- Classical Studies, Asian and Middle Eastern History: BCE to 500CE
This chapter focuses on conflict over Christian and Jewish interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. The Christianization of the Jewish calendar in late antiquity is discussed. It is argued that ...
More
This chapter focuses on conflict over Christian and Jewish interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. The Christianization of the Jewish calendar in late antiquity is discussed. It is argued that Palestinian Christianity sought to ‘correct’ and reconcile the reading of the Bible and biblical and post-biblical history through a confrontation over the calendar. Jewish biblical interpretation also used similar weapons, including the appropriation of Christian themes and symbols, to embellish its reading of Scripture.Less
This chapter focuses on conflict over Christian and Jewish interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. The Christianization of the Jewish calendar in late antiquity is discussed. It is argued that Palestinian Christianity sought to ‘correct’ and reconcile the reading of the Bible and biblical and post-biblical history through a confrontation over the calendar. Jewish biblical interpretation also used similar weapons, including the appropriation of Christian themes and symbols, to embellish its reading of Scripture.
Alan Cameron
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199747276
- eISBN:
- 9780199866212
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199747276.001.0001
- Subject:
- Classical Studies, Ancient Religions
Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (402/3 CE) gives a vivid account of the confrontation between the Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius and the Western usurper Eugenius. To many, the defeat of Eugenius ...
More
Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (402/3 CE) gives a vivid account of the confrontation between the Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius and the Western usurper Eugenius. To many, the defeat of Eugenius and his pagan followers along the Frigidus River in 394 was the last gasp of a vigorous pagan revolt in the late 4th century, one spearheaded by the Roman aristocracy. This elaborate campaign to derail Christianity, as the story goes, consisted of identifiable pagan literary circles, pagan patronage of the classics, and pagan propaganda in art and literature. Recently, however, scholars have shown this picture to be wanting in accuracy and nuance. This book replaces this view with a detailed portrait of pagan society during the pivotal 4th and early 5th centuries. The subject of the book is the duration, nature, and consequences of the survival of the last pagans. It is widely believed that pagan aristocrats remained in the majority till at least the 380s, and continued to be a powerful force well into the 5th century. On this basis the main focus of much modern scholarship has been on their supposed stubborn resistance to Christianity. Rather surprisingly, these aristocrats have been transformed from the arrogant, philistine land-grabbers most of them were into fearless champions of senatorial privilege, literature lovers, and aficionados of classical (especially Greek) culture. The dismantling of this romantic myth is one of the main goals of this book. If a pagan aristocracy did not mount a defiant political and cultural rearguard action, what did they do? If elite culture at this time was not starkly divided between pagan and Christian, what did it look like? By sifting through the abundant textual evidence the book concludes that the many activities and artifacts previously identified as hallmarks of a pagan revival were in fact just as important to the life of cultivated Christians. Far from being a subversive pagan activity designed to rally pagans, the promotion of classical literature, learning, and art—and its acceptance by many elite Christians—may actually have helped the last reluctant pagans to finally abandon the old cults and adopt Christianity.Less
Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (402/3 CE) gives a vivid account of the confrontation between the Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius and the Western usurper Eugenius. To many, the defeat of Eugenius and his pagan followers along the Frigidus River in 394 was the last gasp of a vigorous pagan revolt in the late 4th century, one spearheaded by the Roman aristocracy. This elaborate campaign to derail Christianity, as the story goes, consisted of identifiable pagan literary circles, pagan patronage of the classics, and pagan propaganda in art and literature. Recently, however, scholars have shown this picture to be wanting in accuracy and nuance. This book replaces this view with a detailed portrait of pagan society during the pivotal 4th and early 5th centuries. The subject of the book is the duration, nature, and consequences of the survival of the last pagans. It is widely believed that pagan aristocrats remained in the majority till at least the 380s, and continued to be a powerful force well into the 5th century. On this basis the main focus of much modern scholarship has been on their supposed stubborn resistance to Christianity. Rather surprisingly, these aristocrats have been transformed from the arrogant, philistine land-grabbers most of them were into fearless champions of senatorial privilege, literature lovers, and aficionados of classical (especially Greek) culture. The dismantling of this romantic myth is one of the main goals of this book. If a pagan aristocracy did not mount a defiant political and cultural rearguard action, what did they do? If elite culture at this time was not starkly divided between pagan and Christian, what did it look like? By sifting through the abundant textual evidence the book concludes that the many activities and artifacts previously identified as hallmarks of a pagan revival were in fact just as important to the life of cultivated Christians. Far from being a subversive pagan activity designed to rally pagans, the promotion of classical literature, learning, and art—and its acceptance by many elite Christians—may actually have helped the last reluctant pagans to finally abandon the old cults and adopt Christianity.
G. E. M. De Ste. Croix
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199278121
- eISBN:
- 9780191707872
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278121.003.0001
- Subject:
- Classical Studies, European History: BCE to 500CE
This chapter reprints Ste. Croix's 1954 Harvard Theological Review article on the ‘Great’ Persecution of the early 4th century, when Diocletian and his imperial colleagues issued four edicts of ...
More
This chapter reprints Ste. Croix's 1954 Harvard Theological Review article on the ‘Great’ Persecution of the early 4th century, when Diocletian and his imperial colleagues issued four edicts of persecution between 303 and 304. The thrust of these edicts was to reverse a generation of toleration which the Church had enjoyed, but their enforcement was patchy and needs to be understood within the context of the operation of Roman imperial administration, which depended to an extent upon the preferences of individual governors for the implementation of imperial legislation. The contrasting implementation of the edicts between the eastern and western halves of the empire is investigated, with particular reference to the evidence from North Africa and Eusebius' account of the Palestinian martyrs.Less
This chapter reprints Ste. Croix's 1954 Harvard Theological Review article on the ‘Great’ Persecution of the early 4th century, when Diocletian and his imperial colleagues issued four edicts of persecution between 303 and 304. The thrust of these edicts was to reverse a generation of toleration which the Church had enjoyed, but their enforcement was patchy and needs to be understood within the context of the operation of Roman imperial administration, which depended to an extent upon the preferences of individual governors for the implementation of imperial legislation. The contrasting implementation of the edicts between the eastern and western halves of the empire is investigated, with particular reference to the evidence from North Africa and Eusebius' account of the Palestinian martyrs.
