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.
Ronald Hutton
- Published in print:
- 1996
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198205708
- eISBN:
- 9780191676758
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198205708.003.0017
- Subject:
- History, British and Irish Medieval History, British and Irish Early Modern History
This chapter discusses the origins of Easter. As the execution and resurrection of its founder were the principal events upon which Christianity has based its claims in Messianism, it was inevitable ...
More
This chapter discusses the origins of Easter. As the execution and resurrection of its founder were the principal events upon which Christianity has based its claims in Messianism, it was inevitable that the annual commemoration of them would be the principal festival of the Christian year. ‘Pesach’, the proper Hebrew name for that festival, forms the basis for most of the terms for the Christian Feast of the Resurrection used across Europe. The Council of Nicaea agreed upon a means of reckoning its date, compromising between the churches in Asia's custom of calculating it according to the phases of the moon, and the practice of the Church in Rome, of fixing it upon a particular Sunday in the calendar. Not until the eighth century were all these in the British Isles agreed upon the rule that was becoming standard in Western Europe, of the first Sunday after the moon had achieved its fullness.Less
This chapter discusses the origins of Easter. As the execution and resurrection of its founder were the principal events upon which Christianity has based its claims in Messianism, it was inevitable that the annual commemoration of them would be the principal festival of the Christian year. ‘Pesach’, the proper Hebrew name for that festival, forms the basis for most of the terms for the Christian Feast of the Resurrection used across Europe. The Council of Nicaea agreed upon a means of reckoning its date, compromising between the churches in Asia's custom of calculating it according to the phases of the moon, and the practice of the Church in Rome, of fixing it upon a particular Sunday in the calendar. Not until the eighth century were all these in the British Isles agreed upon the rule that was becoming standard in Western Europe, of the first Sunday after the moon had achieved its fullness.
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’.
Margaret D. Kamitsuka
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780195311624
- eISBN:
- 9780199785643
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311624.003.0005
- Subject:
- Religion, Theology
How can the contemporary feminist theologians continue to remain engaged with the Christian tradition, whose creeds and sacred texts pose seemingly insuperable obstacles for a diversity of feminist ...
More
How can the contemporary feminist theologians continue to remain engaged with the Christian tradition, whose creeds and sacred texts pose seemingly insuperable obstacles for a diversity of feminist thinkers? This chapter argues that a postliberal rule theory approach to doctrine allows us to see how womanist theologies that are ostensibly disconnected from the Nicene-Chalcedonian creedal tradition (and possibly even at odds with each other) are regulatively instantiating a stream of that tradition in diverse ways. Employing feminist, deconstructive, postcolonial, and queer hermeneutical tools, the chapter offers a reading of John 4 that subverts the dominant tradition's masculinist, heteronormative, christocentric, or imperialist interpretations of this story as an account of the successful conversion of a Samaritan woman with dubious morals, misguided messianic notions, and illicit desires. This reading stands as an example of how the feminist scholar might resist “disciplinary” biblical texts, even while (perhaps surprisingly) finding herself still desiring to continue to read such texts at all.Less
How can the contemporary feminist theologians continue to remain engaged with the Christian tradition, whose creeds and sacred texts pose seemingly insuperable obstacles for a diversity of feminist thinkers? This chapter argues that a postliberal rule theory approach to doctrine allows us to see how womanist theologies that are ostensibly disconnected from the Nicene-Chalcedonian creedal tradition (and possibly even at odds with each other) are regulatively instantiating a stream of that tradition in diverse ways. Employing feminist, deconstructive, postcolonial, and queer hermeneutical tools, the chapter offers a reading of John 4 that subverts the dominant tradition's masculinist, heteronormative, christocentric, or imperialist interpretations of this story as an account of the successful conversion of a Samaritan woman with dubious morals, misguided messianic notions, and illicit desires. This reading stands as an example of how the feminist scholar might resist “disciplinary” biblical texts, even while (perhaps surprisingly) finding herself still desiring to continue to read such texts at all.
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.
Sara Parvis
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199280131
- eISBN:
- 9780191603792
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199280134.003.0003
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
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 ...
More
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.Less
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.
Andrew Louth
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- May 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199291403
- eISBN:
- 9780191710674
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199291403.003.0005
- Subject:
- Religion, Theology
The Council of Nicaea, held in 325, marks a watershed in the history of Christian theology. The precise nature of the difference between the Orthodox and the Arians, between Alexander and Athanasius, ...
More
The Council of Nicaea, held in 325, marks a watershed in the history of Christian theology. The precise nature of the difference between the Orthodox and the Arians, between Alexander and Athanasius, on the one hand, and Arius, on the other, has been the subject of much scholarly debate. The point of difference is clear: for the Orthodox the Word or the Son was of one substance (homoousios) with the Father, for the Arians he was a creature, albeit a very exalted one.Less
The Council of Nicaea, held in 325, marks a watershed in the history of Christian theology. The precise nature of the difference between the Orthodox and the Arians, between Alexander and Athanasius, on the one hand, and Arius, on the other, has been the subject of much scholarly debate. The point of difference is clear: for the Orthodox the Word or the Son was of one substance (homoousios) with the Father, for the Arians he was a creature, albeit a very exalted one.
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/9780199212606.003.0003
- Subject:
- Religion, Theology
This chapter analyses Eusebius of Caesarea's understanding of the radical transcendence of God the Father, which influenced his view of the Word as an intervening mediator between the Father and the ...
More
This chapter analyses Eusebius of Caesarea's understanding of the radical transcendence of God the Father, which influenced his view of the Word as an intervening mediator between the Father and the created world. It argues that his concept of mediation is necessarily a ‘deictic’ one, i.e., one in which the mediator — while similar to that which it images — is not to be identified with it in any fundamental way. This is particularly evident in his presentation of ‘image’ theology. He favoured the illustration of image for the Father/Son relationship because he felt it pictured their similarity and non-identity, as well as described the eternal soteriological function of the Son in mediating knowledge of the Father. His comprehension of the Incarnation was that it reflected, at a new but not qualitatively different level, the ongoing mediating function of the Word.Less
This chapter analyses Eusebius of Caesarea's understanding of the radical transcendence of God the Father, which influenced his view of the Word as an intervening mediator between the Father and the created world. It argues that his concept of mediation is necessarily a ‘deictic’ one, i.e., one in which the mediator — while similar to that which it images — is not to be identified with it in any fundamental way. This is particularly evident in his presentation of ‘image’ theology. He favoured the illustration of image for the Father/Son relationship because he felt it pictured their similarity and non-identity, as well as described the eternal soteriological function of the Son in mediating knowledge of the Father. His comprehension of the Incarnation was that it reflected, at a new but not qualitatively different level, the ongoing mediating function of the Word.
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/9780199543120.003.0003
- Subject:
- Religion, History of Christianity, Early Christian Studies
Jesus was crucified at the time of the Passover. Passover is observed on the 14th day of the first month, when the springtime crop is ripe. In a lunar calendar, the 14th day of the month is a full ...
More
Jesus was crucified at the time of the Passover. Passover is observed on the 14th day of the first month, when the springtime crop is ripe. In a lunar calendar, the 14th day of the month is a full moon. Some communities commemorated the Passion on the 14th day of the moon, regardless of the calendar date (Quartodecimans). Others observed Easter on a Sunday at the approximate time of the full moon. The Council of Nicaea (AD 325) endorsed the latter practice and provided that all should defer to the churches at Rome and Alexandria for the determination of the date. Those churches had adopted a cycle for coordinating the phases of the moon with the vernal equinox. The earliest such cycle equated eight Julian years with 99 lunar months. What ultimately became the standard cycle equated 19 Julian years with 235 lunar months.Less
Jesus was crucified at the time of the Passover. Passover is observed on the 14th day of the first month, when the springtime crop is ripe. In a lunar calendar, the 14th day of the month is a full moon. Some communities commemorated the Passion on the 14th day of the moon, regardless of the calendar date (Quartodecimans). Others observed Easter on a Sunday at the approximate time of the full moon. The Council of Nicaea (AD 325) endorsed the latter practice and provided that all should defer to the churches at Rome and Alexandria for the determination of the date. Those churches had adopted a cycle for coordinating the phases of the moon with the vernal equinox. The earliest such cycle equated eight Julian years with 99 lunar months. What ultimately became the standard cycle equated 19 Julian years with 235 lunar months.
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/9780199543120.003.0004
- Subject:
- Religion, History of Christianity, Early Christian Studies
The Easter‐table of Dionysius Exiguus was the continuation of a 95‐year list he attributes to Cyril of Alexandria. He describes his work in two letters—one to Boniface and Bonus written in AD 525/6 ...
More
The Easter‐table of Dionysius Exiguus was the continuation of a 95‐year list he attributes to Cyril of Alexandria. He describes his work in two letters—one to Boniface and Bonus written in AD 525/6 in response to a question, the other written in 524/5 addressed to Petronius, at whose behest Dionysius undertook his work. The letter to Petronius serves as an introduction to the 95‐year Easter‐table. Dionysius explains and defends the mathematical accuracy of the Alexandrian 19‐year cycle as arising not from human inventiveness, but from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He claims that the Council of Nicaea explicitly authorized the 19‐ year cycle and promulgated rules for it use that the patriarchs of Alexandria from Athanasius to Cyril careffihly guarded.Less
The Easter‐table of Dionysius Exiguus was the continuation of a 95‐year list he attributes to Cyril of Alexandria. He describes his work in two letters—one to Boniface and Bonus written in AD 525/6 in response to a question, the other written in 524/5 addressed to Petronius, at whose behest Dionysius undertook his work. The letter to Petronius serves as an introduction to the 95‐year Easter‐table. Dionysius explains and defends the mathematical accuracy of the Alexandrian 19‐year cycle as arising not from human inventiveness, but from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He claims that the Council of Nicaea explicitly authorized the 19‐ year cycle and promulgated rules for it use that the patriarchs of Alexandria from Athanasius to Cyril careffihly guarded.
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.
Benjamin J. King
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199548132
- eISBN:
- 9780191720383
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548132.001.0001
- Subject:
- Religion, Church History
John Henry (later Cardinal) Newman is widely known to have been devoted to reading the Church Fathers. By exploring which Fathers interested Newman most and when, using both published and archive ...
More
John Henry (later Cardinal) Newman is widely known to have been devoted to reading the Church Fathers. By exploring which Fathers interested Newman most and when, using both published and archive material, this book demonstrates the influence of the various Alexandrian theologians in different periods of Newman's life. In each of these periods, the book draws a causal connection between the patristic theology Newman was reading and his own developing theology, revealing how key events in these periods changed the theologian's interpretation of the Fathers. The book argues that ultimately Newman tailored his reading of the Church Fathers to fit his own needs. Seemingly ‘trying on’ the ideas of different Fathers in turn, Newman began with those who predated the Council of Nicaea in the late 1820s, moving on to the post-Nicenes during his research into Christological controversies in the mid-1830s, and finding Athanasius the best fit in the 1840s. By the 1870s, his reading of Athanasius was tailored to Catholic tastes and, measuring Origen up with the interpretations made by Aquinas, Newman found him a better fit than he had in the 1840s. A careful comparison of Newman's translations of Athanasius from 1842–44 and 1881, not previously undertaken, demonstrates that in 1881 it is not so much Aquinas as the neo-Thomism of the teachers of Leo XIII whom he read back into Athanasius.Less
John Henry (later Cardinal) Newman is widely known to have been devoted to reading the Church Fathers. By exploring which Fathers interested Newman most and when, using both published and archive material, this book demonstrates the influence of the various Alexandrian theologians in different periods of Newman's life. In each of these periods, the book draws a causal connection between the patristic theology Newman was reading and his own developing theology, revealing how key events in these periods changed the theologian's interpretation of the Fathers. The book argues that ultimately Newman tailored his reading of the Church Fathers to fit his own needs. Seemingly ‘trying on’ the ideas of different Fathers in turn, Newman began with those who predated the Council of Nicaea in the late 1820s, moving on to the post-Nicenes during his research into Christological controversies in the mid-1830s, and finding Athanasius the best fit in the 1840s. By the 1870s, his reading of Athanasius was tailored to Catholic tastes and, measuring Origen up with the interpretations made by Aquinas, Newman found him a better fit than he had in the 1840s. A careful comparison of Newman's translations of Athanasius from 1842–44 and 1881, not previously undertaken, demonstrates that in 1881 it is not so much Aquinas as the neo-Thomism of the teachers of Leo XIII whom he read back into Athanasius.
Lewis Ayres
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- July 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780198755067
- eISBN:
- 9780191602788
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198755066.001.0001
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
The first part of the book offers a new narrative of the fourth-century Trinitarian controversies. It takes forward modern revisionary scholarship, showing the slow emergence of the theologies that ...
More
The first part of the book offers a new narrative of the fourth-century Trinitarian controversies. It takes forward modern revisionary scholarship, showing the slow emergence of the theologies that came to constitute pro-Nicene orthodoxy. Ancient heresiological categories, such as ‘Arian’ and ‘Neo-Arian’, are avoided while the unity of ‘Nicene’ theologies is not assumed. The second part offers a new account of the unity in diversity of late fourth-century pro-Nicene theologies. In particular it is argued that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed and the statements of unity and plurality in the Trinity, to be found in all pro-Nicene theologians and in Theodosius’ anti-heretical legislation, were intended to be understood in the context of a broad set of theological practices and assumptions. An account of the basic strategies that ground pro-Nicene theology is offered, focusing on common epistemological concerns, a common notion of purification and sanctification, and a common aesthetics of faith. Instructions are provided detailing the Trinitarian theology of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine of Hippo. Throughout the first two parts of the book, a constant concern is to show that the common acceptance of a basic division between Eastern and Western Trinitarian theologies is unsustainable. Finally, the failure of modern Trinitarian theology to engage pro-Nicene theology in a substantial manner is considered.Less
The first part of the book offers a new narrative of the fourth-century Trinitarian controversies. It takes forward modern revisionary scholarship, showing the slow emergence of the theologies that came to constitute pro-Nicene orthodoxy. Ancient heresiological categories, such as ‘Arian’ and ‘Neo-Arian’, are avoided while the unity of ‘Nicene’ theologies is not assumed. The second part offers a new account of the unity in diversity of late fourth-century pro-Nicene theologies. In particular it is argued that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed and the statements of unity and plurality in the Trinity, to be found in all pro-Nicene theologians and in Theodosius’ anti-heretical legislation, were intended to be understood in the context of a broad set of theological practices and assumptions. An account of the basic strategies that ground pro-Nicene theology is offered, focusing on common epistemological concerns, a common notion of purification and sanctification, and a common aesthetics of faith. Instructions are provided detailing the Trinitarian theology of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine of Hippo. Throughout the first two parts of the book, a constant concern is to show that the common acceptance of a basic division between Eastern and Western Trinitarian theologies is unsustainable. Finally, the failure of modern Trinitarian theology to engage pro-Nicene theology in a substantial manner is considered.
Henry Chadwick
- Published in print:
- 2001
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199246953
- eISBN:
- 9780191600463
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199246955.003.0029
- Subject:
- Religion, Church History
The new situation created by the rise to sole power of a Christian emperor was seen by many Christians as fulfilment of the prophecy that God's word would spread throughout the civilized world but ...
More
The new situation created by the rise to sole power of a Christian emperor was seen by many Christians as fulfilment of the prophecy that God's word would spread throughout the civilized world but raised new questions about the unity of the Church. The Divine Institutes by Lactantius was directed against pagan philosophers and stressed the need for education about Christianity to put an end to persecution, while Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a panegyric of Constantine and about the superiority of biblical religion over paganism. However, the ‘subordinationist’ theology of Arius raised the fundamental problem of the Christian doctrine of God and was viewed by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, as a heresy for which toleration was not possible. The Council of Nicaea in 325, the largest assembly of bishops yet gathered, produced the Nicene Creed, the effects of which divided the eastern Church. It would now be taken as axiomatic that dissenters were to be excluded from the Church, without any minority rights.Less
The new situation created by the rise to sole power of a Christian emperor was seen by many Christians as fulfilment of the prophecy that God's word would spread throughout the civilized world but raised new questions about the unity of the Church. The Divine Institutes by Lactantius was directed against pagan philosophers and stressed the need for education about Christianity to put an end to persecution, while Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a panegyric of Constantine and about the superiority of biblical religion over paganism. However, the ‘subordinationist’ theology of Arius raised the fundamental problem of the Christian doctrine of God and was viewed by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, as a heresy for which toleration was not possible. The Council of Nicaea in 325, the largest assembly of bishops yet gathered, produced the Nicene Creed, the effects of which divided the eastern Church. It would now be taken as axiomatic that dissenters were to be excluded from the Church, without any minority rights.
Henry Chadwick
- Published in print:
- 2001
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199246953
- eISBN:
- 9780191600463
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199246955.003.0030
- Subject:
- Religion, Church History
Prominent bishops in the east remained sympathetic to Arius, and several anti‐Arian bishops, including Athanasius, were deposed. Athanasius and Eusebius of Caesarea both used the term ‘ecumenical’, ...
More
Prominent bishops in the east remained sympathetic to Arius, and several anti‐Arian bishops, including Athanasius, were deposed. Athanasius and Eusebius of Caesarea both used the term ‘ecumenical’, i.e. of universal authority, of the Council of Nicaea. Constantine's policy was of reluctant tolerance of paganism, but his pro‐Christian stance provoked violent reactions from pagans in some places. The extent of Christian influence on Constantine's marriage legislation is unclear. At the time of Constantine's death and the division of imperial authority between his three sons, Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans, the Church was still bitterly divided over Arius.Less
Prominent bishops in the east remained sympathetic to Arius, and several anti‐Arian bishops, including Athanasius, were deposed. Athanasius and Eusebius of Caesarea both used the term ‘ecumenical’, i.e. of universal authority, of the Council of Nicaea. Constantine's policy was of reluctant tolerance of paganism, but his pro‐Christian stance provoked violent reactions from pagans in some places. The extent of Christian influence on Constantine's marriage legislation is unclear. At the time of Constantine's death and the division of imperial authority between his three sons, Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans, the Church was still bitterly divided over Arius.
Lewis Ayres
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- July 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780198755067
- eISBN:
- 9780191602788
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198755066.003.0017
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
Modern systematic theology makes use of unsustainable and simplistic narratives about pro-Nicene Trinitarianism. In this last chapter, the author argues that simply trying to correct these narratives ...
More
Modern systematic theology makes use of unsustainable and simplistic narratives about pro-Nicene Trinitarianism. In this last chapter, the author argues that simply trying to correct these narratives will not produce better engagement with the pro-Nicene legacy. The culture of modern systematic theology – particularly, its understandings of what counts as authoritative argument – is unable to sustain the methods and theological culture that produced pro-Nicene Trinitarianism. Thus, with some exceptions, modern Trinitarian theology wishes to appropriate principles from pro-Nicene theology but is unable to appropriate the theological practice that was understood as the necessary context for understanding those principles. In the second half of the chapter, the author offers some suggestions on how authority in theology and theological practice might be re-conceived to enable better engagement with the legacy of Nicaea. Rethinking the place of the scriptural text within theology lies at the heart of these suggestions.Less
Modern systematic theology makes use of unsustainable and simplistic narratives about pro-Nicene Trinitarianism. In this last chapter, the author argues that simply trying to correct these narratives will not produce better engagement with the pro-Nicene legacy. The culture of modern systematic theology – particularly, its understandings of what counts as authoritative argument – is unable to sustain the methods and theological culture that produced pro-Nicene Trinitarianism. Thus, with some exceptions, modern Trinitarian theology wishes to appropriate principles from pro-Nicene theology but is unable to appropriate the theological practice that was understood as the necessary context for understanding those principles. In the second half of the chapter, the author offers some suggestions on how authority in theology and theological practice might be re-conceived to enable better engagement with the legacy of Nicaea. Rethinking the place of the scriptural text within theology lies at the heart of these suggestions.
Hamilton Hess
- Published in print:
- 2002
- Published Online:
- April 2004
- ISBN:
- 9780198269755
- eISBN:
- 9780191601163
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198269757.003.0006
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
The failure of the attempted settlement of the dispute over the teachings of Arius by the Council of Nicaea in 325 resulted in intense turmoil within the Church during the decades to follow, and this ...
More
The failure of the attempted settlement of the dispute over the teachings of Arius by the Council of Nicaea in 325 resulted in intense turmoil within the Church during the decades to follow, and this was greatly exacerbated by the division of the Empire after the death of Constantine and the differing ecclesiastical policies of his heirs. Following the deposition of Athanasius and other bishops by the partisans of Arius and their restoration by a council at Rome in 341, a council to resolve the doctrinal differences and personal grievances was convened by permission of the emperors to meet at Serdica in 343. Upon arrival at Serdica, the Eastern bishops, largely sympathetic with the anti‐Nicene party, refused to meet with the Westerns, and two rival councils were held. The Western council confirmed the restoration of Athanasius and his companions at Rome in 341, considered but rejected a new creed, wrote an encyclical and other letters, resolved a dispute over the dating of Easter, and enacted the canons that we are here considering; the Eastern council reapproved the Fourth Creed of Antioch, drafted a paschal cycle, wrote an encyclical condemning Athanasius and his associates and all who had entered into communion with them. The chapter ends with a brief discussion of the life of Ossius of Cordova, who presided over the Western council and was also the leading figure in the framing of the Serdican canons.Less
The failure of the attempted settlement of the dispute over the teachings of Arius by the Council of Nicaea in 325 resulted in intense turmoil within the Church during the decades to follow, and this was greatly exacerbated by the division of the Empire after the death of Constantine and the differing ecclesiastical policies of his heirs. Following the deposition of Athanasius and other bishops by the partisans of Arius and their restoration by a council at Rome in 341, a council to resolve the doctrinal differences and personal grievances was convened by permission of the emperors to meet at Serdica in 343. Upon arrival at Serdica, the Eastern bishops, largely sympathetic with the anti‐Nicene party, refused to meet with the Westerns, and two rival councils were held. The Western council confirmed the restoration of Athanasius and his companions at Rome in 341, considered but rejected a new creed, wrote an encyclical and other letters, resolved a dispute over the dating of Easter, and enacted the canons that we are here considering; the Eastern council reapproved the Fourth Creed of Antioch, drafted a paschal cycle, wrote an encyclical condemning Athanasius and his associates and all who had entered into communion with them. The chapter ends with a brief discussion of the life of Ossius of Cordova, who presided over the Western council and was also the leading figure in the framing of the Serdican canons.
Hamilton Hess
- Published in print:
- 2002
- Published Online:
- April 2004
- ISBN:
- 9780198269755
- eISBN:
- 9780191601163
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198269757.003.0008
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
Addresses three textual problems: the transmission of the Latin text of the Serdican canons, the early history of the Greek text and its differences from the Latin, and the derivation of a third ...
More
Addresses three textual problems: the transmission of the Latin text of the Serdican canons, the early history of the Greek text and its differences from the Latin, and the derivation of a third textual version of the canons known as the version of Theodosius Diaconus. All evidence points towards the probability that the Latin text of the canons arrived in Rome shortly after the Serdican council and that they were soon mistakenly identified as acts of the Council of Nicaea. It seems likely that the Greek text was first taken to Thessalonica and remained unknown elsewhere for over half a century. It is demonstrated in this chapter that by the use of the textual analyses in the chapters to follow the several instances of different meanings between the Greek and Latin texts in parallel passages were probably caused by later scribal or editorial changes, some accidental and others purposeful, in both the Greek and the Latin. The version of Theodosius Diaconus is an early Latin translation from the Greek text, which provides valuable evidence for the relationship between the Greek and the Latin.Less
Addresses three textual problems: the transmission of the Latin text of the Serdican canons, the early history of the Greek text and its differences from the Latin, and the derivation of a third textual version of the canons known as the version of Theodosius Diaconus. All evidence points towards the probability that the Latin text of the canons arrived in Rome shortly after the Serdican council and that they were soon mistakenly identified as acts of the Council of Nicaea. It seems likely that the Greek text was first taken to Thessalonica and remained unknown elsewhere for over half a century. It is demonstrated in this chapter that by the use of the textual analyses in the chapters to follow the several instances of different meanings between the Greek and Latin texts in parallel passages were probably caused by later scribal or editorial changes, some accidental and others purposeful, in both the Greek and the Latin. The version of Theodosius Diaconus is an early Latin translation from the Greek text, which provides valuable evidence for the relationship between the Greek and the Latin.
J. M. Hussey
- Published in print:
- 1990
- Published Online:
- April 2004
- ISBN:
- 9780198264569
- eISBN:
- 9780191601170
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198264569.003.0003
- Subject:
- Religion, Church History
The introductory part discusses the growing cult of the icon in the Orthodox Church and the controversies that this gave rise to in the period 728–843; the cult started in the late sixth and seventh ...
More
The introductory part discusses the growing cult of the icon in the Orthodox Church and the controversies that this gave rise to in the period 728–843; the cult started in the late sixth and seventh centuries, and is attributed to a need for additional security. The first section discusses the North Syrian rulers and the initial phase of the controversy from 726 to 787: the background to the crisis, the opening actions against icons (iconoclasm) under Leo III, and the further measures taken by Constantine V and the council of 754. The second section discusses the first restoration of the icons, and covers the Empress Irene and the council of Nicaea (787), conflicting currents in 787–843, and Irene and Constantine VI. The third section discusses the second phase of iconoclasm, and the fourth the restoration of orthodoxy (of icon veneration) in 843 under Patriarch Methodius. The last section discusses the significance of the controversy over icons.Less
The introductory part discusses the growing cult of the icon in the Orthodox Church and the controversies that this gave rise to in the period 728–843; the cult started in the late sixth and seventh centuries, and is attributed to a need for additional security. The first section discusses the North Syrian rulers and the initial phase of the controversy from 726 to 787: the background to the crisis, the opening actions against icons (iconoclasm) under Leo III, and the further measures taken by Constantine V and the council of 754. The second section discusses the first restoration of the icons, and covers the Empress Irene and the council of Nicaea (787), conflicting currents in 787–843, and Irene and Constantine VI. The third section discusses the second phase of iconoclasm, and the fourth the restoration of orthodoxy (of icon veneration) in 843 under Patriarch Methodius. The last section discusses the significance of the controversy over icons.
William, S.J. Harmless
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- July 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780195162233
- eISBN:
- 9780199835645
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195162234.003.0002
- Subject:
- Religion, History of Christianity
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 ...
More
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.Less
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.
