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’.
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.
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/9780199551644.003.0003
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
This chapter discusses the place of Photinus of Sirmium in the fourth-century Trinitarian debates and examines the historical and theological situation in the West at the synods of Arles (353), Milan ...
More
This chapter discusses the place of Photinus of Sirmium in the fourth-century Trinitarian debates and examines the historical and theological situation in the West at the synods of Arles (353), Milan (355), and Béziers (356).Less
This chapter discusses the place of Photinus of Sirmium in the fourth-century Trinitarian debates and examines the historical and theological situation in the West at the synods of Arles (353), Milan (355), and Béziers (356).
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.
Joseph T. Lienhard
- Published in print:
- 2002
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199246120
- eISBN:
- 9780191600531
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199246122.003.0005
- Subject:
- Religion, Theology
Joseph Lienhard points out how the ‘Cappadocian solution’ to the fourth‐century Trinitarian controversy, summarized in the phrase ‘one ousia, three hypostaseis — (one essence and three persons)’, is ...
More
Joseph Lienhard points out how the ‘Cappadocian solution’ to the fourth‐century Trinitarian controversy, summarized in the phrase ‘one ousia, three hypostaseis — (one essence and three persons)’, is often presented as widely employed, and greeted with relief and enthusiasm. But the phrase, as such, is rare in the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers, and may not be the best short expression of their teaching on the Trinity. The distinction in meaning between ousia and hypostasis (both of which mean ‘something that subsists’) was worked out only in the late fourth century, and was — to some writers — less than convincing. Another tradition, called ‘miahypostatic theology’, was more widely and forcefully represented than is usually assumed. Its most visible proponent was Marcellus of Ancyra, but it is found to some extent in Athanasius, in many other Egyptian bishops, and in much of the West. In the course of the fourth century, the miahypostatic tradition, which first appears as a late form of monarchianism, gave up all of its distinctive contours except one: it would not accept the phrase ‘three hypostaseis’ as orthodox. The chapter suggests, at the end, that perhaps some elements of this miahypostatic theology are worth retrieving.Less
Joseph Lienhard points out how the ‘Cappadocian solution’ to the fourth‐century Trinitarian controversy, summarized in the phrase ‘one ousia, three hypostaseis — (one essence and three persons)’, is often presented as widely employed, and greeted with relief and enthusiasm. But the phrase, as such, is rare in the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers, and may not be the best short expression of their teaching on the Trinity. The distinction in meaning between ousia and hypostasis (both of which mean ‘something that subsists’) was worked out only in the late fourth century, and was — to some writers — less than convincing. Another tradition, called ‘miahypostatic theology’, was more widely and forcefully represented than is usually assumed. Its most visible proponent was Marcellus of Ancyra, but it is found to some extent in Athanasius, in many other Egyptian bishops, and in much of the West. In the course of the fourth century, the miahypostatic tradition, which first appears as a late form of monarchianism, gave up all of its distinctive contours except one: it would not accept the phrase ‘three hypostaseis’ as orthodox. The chapter suggests, at the end, that perhaps some elements of this miahypostatic theology are worth retrieving.
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.
Lewis Ayres
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- July 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780198755067
- eISBN:
- 9780191602788
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198755066.003.0004
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
Initially discusses two more theological trajectories. The first is that of Marcellus of Ancyra. Discusses the possible relations of Marcellus to ‘Monarchianism’ and to Eustathius of Antioch. The ...
More
Initially discusses two more theological trajectories. The first is that of Marcellus of Ancyra. Discusses the possible relations of Marcellus to ‘Monarchianism’ and to Eustathius of Antioch. The second is that of Latin theology c.300. Argues against the idea that Latin theology in this period focuses on the unity of God and is simply a reiteration of Tertullian. Through an examination of Lactatntius, Novatian, and the early Hilary, the author argues for a context shaped by anti-adoptionism. The end of the chapter turns to whether we can speak of ‘orthodoxy’ c.300.Less
Initially discusses two more theological trajectories. The first is that of Marcellus of Ancyra. Discusses the possible relations of Marcellus to ‘Monarchianism’ and to Eustathius of Antioch. The second is that of Latin theology c.300. Argues against the idea that Latin theology in this period focuses on the unity of God and is simply a reiteration of Tertullian. Through an examination of Lactatntius, Novatian, and the early Hilary, the author argues for a context shaped by anti-adoptionism. The end of the chapter turns to whether we can speak of ‘orthodoxy’ c.300.
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/9780199551644.003.0008
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
This chapter offers a close reading of Book One of De Trinitate. Book One never formed a part of De Fide but was added in 358 when Hilary made the other revisions and updates to Books Two to Six. As ...
More
This chapter offers a close reading of Book One of De Trinitate. Book One never formed a part of De Fide but was added in 358 when Hilary made the other revisions and updates to Books Two to Six. As such, Book One was not retouched by Hilary in 358 but was newly composed by him and deliberately placed as the opening book of De Trinitate. Hilary uses Book One to outline the theological method necessary for a proper discussion of who God is—a method that Hilary sees his modalist and subordinationist opponents compromising. Hilary articulates this theological method through the literary trope of his own troubled soul searching for truth. Book One discusses such issues as the authority of scripture, the priority of faith, and use of analogy and metaphorical language in theological discourse.Less
This chapter offers a close reading of Book One of De Trinitate. Book One never formed a part of De Fide but was added in 358 when Hilary made the other revisions and updates to Books Two to Six. As such, Book One was not retouched by Hilary in 358 but was newly composed by him and deliberately placed as the opening book of De Trinitate. Hilary uses Book One to outline the theological method necessary for a proper discussion of who God is—a method that Hilary sees his modalist and subordinationist opponents compromising. Hilary articulates this theological method through the literary trope of his own troubled soul searching for truth. Book One discusses such issues as the authority of scripture, the priority of faith, and use of analogy and metaphorical language in theological discourse.
Mark Edwards
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- November 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780199687725
- eISBN:
- 9780191815034
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199687725.003.0013
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
Chapter 13 reviews the chief theological developments of this period, commencing with the Origenist controversy, in which the principal charge against Origen is that he made the Second Person of the ...
More
Chapter 13 reviews the chief theological developments of this period, commencing with the Origenist controversy, in which the principal charge against Origen is that he made the Second Person of the Trinity equipollent with the first. It is argued, therefore, that Arius’ teaching may be regarded as an extension of this anti-Origenist consensus, and that the condemnation of Arius at the Council of Nicaea in 325 was in some ways a victory for Origen. At the same time, anti-Arianism took the form of anti-Origenism in Marcellus of Ancyra; an analysis of Eusebius’ replies to him once again suggests that a crude division of parties into ‘Arian’ and ‘Nicene’ does not do justice to the diversity of opinions in this period.Less
Chapter 13 reviews the chief theological developments of this period, commencing with the Origenist controversy, in which the principal charge against Origen is that he made the Second Person of the Trinity equipollent with the first. It is argued, therefore, that Arius’ teaching may be regarded as an extension of this anti-Origenist consensus, and that the condemnation of Arius at the Council of Nicaea in 325 was in some ways a victory for Origen. At the same time, anti-Arianism took the form of anti-Origenism in Marcellus of Ancyra; an analysis of Eusebius’ replies to him once again suggests that a crude division of parties into ‘Arian’ and ‘Nicene’ does not do justice to the diversity of opinions in this period.
Brian E. Daley, SJ
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- February 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780199281336
- eISBN:
- 9780191746925
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780199281336.003.0004
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
The controversy over the theology of Arius was really over how to imagine a connection between a wholly transcendent God and the present world. Arius saw in Jesus a mediator, divinely generated to ...
More
The controversy over the theology of Arius was really over how to imagine a connection between a wholly transcendent God and the present world. Arius saw in Jesus a mediator, divinely generated to connect the world with God. The bishops at Nicaea asserted that this Son of God is of one substance with God his Father. Marcellus of Ancyra insisted that Father and Son cannot be numerically distinct agents, but different historical personifications of one transcendent being. Eusebius of Caesaraea, originally sympathetic to Arius, continued after Nicaea to insist that the Son is divine only by a privileged participation in God’s life, linking God to creation by taking an intermediate position between them. Athanasius developed and nuanced the position of Nicaea, emphasizing that only because the Son is fully God, yet personally present in the created order, can he be a source of life and incorruptibility for humanity.Less
The controversy over the theology of Arius was really over how to imagine a connection between a wholly transcendent God and the present world. Arius saw in Jesus a mediator, divinely generated to connect the world with God. The bishops at Nicaea asserted that this Son of God is of one substance with God his Father. Marcellus of Ancyra insisted that Father and Son cannot be numerically distinct agents, but different historical personifications of one transcendent being. Eusebius of Caesaraea, originally sympathetic to Arius, continued after Nicaea to insist that the Son is divine only by a privileged participation in God’s life, linking God to creation by taking an intermediate position between them. Athanasius developed and nuanced the position of Nicaea, emphasizing that only because the Son is fully God, yet personally present in the created order, can he be a source of life and incorruptibility for humanity.
