No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The trinitarian controversies in fourth-century Edessa
Abstract
This paper offers a first examination of the unfolding of the Trinitarian controversies in the Syrian city of Edessa. By indicating possible contacts with a variety of ecclesiastical milieus, it explores institutional developments in the Edessene Church, traces its participation in the broader empire-wide debates, and suggests an avenue for further research concerning the earliest stages of construction of a local memory, embedded in ecclesiastical propaganda. The so-called 'Palut{combining dot below}ian' community of the 'Blessed City', linked to the origins of the Trinitarian disputes through Lucian of Antioch and Eusebius of Emesa, reportedly saw the participation of its bishop Aithallah in the Council of Nicaea. One of Aithallah's successors, bishop Barses, appointed to the Edessene see by virtue of his Homoian, anti-Nicene affiliation, later came to head the heavily embattled pro-Nicene community of the city as the result of a doctrinal re-alignment paralleling Meletius of Antioch's. Barses and other members of the Edessene pro-Nicene establishment (such as the presbyters Protogenes and Eulogius) were eventually exiled to Egypt during the incumbency of the pro-Homoian emperor Valens. Theodoret of Cyrrhus' account of the Egyptian exile of the 'orthodox', filled with competitive and expansionistic overtones, calls for further examination in light of the self-representation and geo-ecclesiological projects of the Edessene and Antiochene episcopates. Overall, fourth-century Edessa appears as a theologically diverse Christian center, receptive to outside intellectual and institutional trends, and fully integrated in the imperial Church.
... Here we concentrate on the Christological disputes which led to lasting divisions. We shall not be dealing with the early discussions against the followers of Bardaiṣan, fought by Ephrem and others, or against Marcian or the Arians (Fiano 2015). While there is hardly any reflection on the constitution of the Son in the early sources of Syriac theology (such as Odes of Solomon, Syriac Didascalia, Acts of Thomas, or Tatian and Bardaiṣan), and while even also Aphrahaṭ apparently did not speculate about the kind of union that was in Christ, Ephrem developed ideas which could become a starting point for further development. ...
This article focuses on the Council of the Thebaid of 362. A close examination of Theodoret's version of events reveals that, upon the recall of the pro-Nicenes from exile, Eusebius of Vercellae organised in the Thebaid a non-rigorist meeting, which laid the groundwork for the Council of Alexandria of the same year. The Council of the Thebaid may have also included lapsed pro-Nicenes who had reverted to their original views after being deposed at Constantinople in 360, and may even have seen the participation of members of the homoiousian alliance.
In the first two centuries of the common era several Christian groups were active in the area of Edessa, some of them was of Syriac origin, others were bom elsewhere, but in this area they found fertile ground and existed for a long time. The main character of the Christian faith in Syria is a strong ascetic tendency, well shown by the so called «Encratite» and «Thomasine» Christianity. The picture that emerges is that of a of a variegated faith. There are in fact competing and seemingly conflicting images of early Syriac Christianity: Tatian the Encratite, Bardaisan the court philosopher, the Marcionites, the Thomasine Christianity, Valentinians and Ebionites. Most of these various groups originated perhaps independently of one another, before a more unified picture of Syriac Christianity emerged.
Products of the Antiochean milieu, John Chrysostom's eulogies dedicated to Ignatius, Eustasius and Meletius are seen as part of an overall project aiming at the reconstruction of the Antiochean community and a redefinition of it that would erase the divisions created by the schism, with the purpose of legitimating Meletius and Flavian. Within this perspective, adopting a strategy later borrowed by Theodoret, Chrysostom establishes a continuity that runs from the teachings of Peter to those of Flavian. The legacy was configured as a new foundation of the city of the Spirit. At the same time, on the external front, it was viewed as an' "ideological" and political operation, whose goal was to forge a bridge between Rome and Antioch. In this sense, Chrysostom seems to resume Basil's earlier attempt, and the action of Cappadocia in response to the schism. Seen from inside, Chrysostom's operation was perceived as complementary to the urban policy regarding «martyria» followed by Meletius and Flavian.
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.
New documents written in Ethiopic have come to light in a manuscript discovered in Ethiopia in 1999. These documents not only shed important light upon the literary and cultural history of the Aksumite civilization, but are also of great significance for the history of Christianity in Egypt. The collection transmitted by the manuscript includes the Ethiopic version of a lost Greek History of the Episcopate of Alexandria, which was formerly known primarily from Latin excerpts transmitted by the Codex Veronensis LX (58), passages by the historian Sozomenus, and other less important witnesses. This paper examines certain features of an apocryphal List of Apostles and Disciples and looks more extensively at the structure of the History, its ideological tendencies, and the lists it preserves of Egyptian bishops appointed by bishops Maximus (264-282), Theonas (282-300?), and Peter (300?-311) of Alexandria.
Zusammenfassung
Der Artikel unternimmt eine umfassende Neuinterpretation der Karriere und Lehre des alexandrinischen Presbyters Arius. Der erste Abschnitt behandelt ausgewählte Aspekte der Biographie des Arius: Im Hinblick auf seine angebliche Verbindung zu den Melitianern werden zusätzliche Argumente für die Position Annick Martins angeführt, die eine solche Verbindung bestreitet. Freilich halte ich es für möglich, daß Arius – wie u.a. Eusebius von Nikomedien – ein Schüler des christlichen Lehrers und Märtyrers Lukian von Antiochien war. Dann wird im zweiten Abschnitt die relative Chronologie des arianischen Streites vor dem Konzil von Nicaea behandelt; einige der Argumente von Rowan Williams für eine revidierte Chronologie werden einer Kritik unterzogen. Der dritte Abschnitt versucht eine Neuprofilierung der Theologie des Arius; die wenigen erhaltenen Quellen werden analysiert. Ein knapper Vergleich mit anderen (sowohl christlichen als auch heidnischen) Theologien der Antike indiziert einen bestimmten intellektuellen Kontext als auch eine besondere Positionierung innerhalb dieses Kontextes. Arius formuliert eine anspruchsvolle Version der negativen Theologie, welche die intellektualistische Agenda spätantiker Philosophie zugleich bestätigt und negiert. Gott wird als absolut transzendent ausgesagt, aber die philosophische Idee totaler Transparenz im Wissen um Gott und das eigene Selbst wird explizit aufgegeben. Das neue Programm des Theologen/Philosophen besteht nunmehr darin, den transzendenten Gott in seiner Sprache zu preisen und anzubeten, die dessen Geheimnis umschreibt ohne es preiszugeben. Wie andere spätantike christliche Intellektuelle (z.B. Augustin oder Pelagius) setzt Arius innerhalb des breiten Rahmens antiker Religionsphilosophie an, nur um dessen Grenzen in einem kontrollierten Versuch auszutesten.
The influential priest and teacher Lucian of Antioch suffered martyrdom during the great ‘Persecution’ set in train by the emperor Diocletian in late February 303, which was finally ended in Asia Minor, the Syrian region and Egypt in the late spring and summer of 313. Lucian was executed in Nicomedia on 7 January: both the place and the day are attested by unimpeachable evidence, including the ancient editor's note on a homily in praise of Lucian delivered by John Chrysostom (PG 50, 519-526 [CPG 4346]), the early martyrology preserved in a Syriac manuscript written in Edessa in 411 (PO 10/1, 12,1 Nau), and the Martyrologium Hieronymianum (ActaSS Nov. II/2, Brussels 1931, 29). The year of Lucian's martyrdom, however, is not explicitly attested and must be inferred from the fact that he was tried and condemned to death by a Roman emperor who was in Nicomedia at the time. Since Lucian can hardly have suffered martyrdom as early as January 305, when Diocletian was certainly in Nicomedia, the only possible years between 303 and 313 when Lucian can have been tried by an emperor in that city immediately before execution on a 7 January are 311 and 312. The majority of modern scholars have plumped for the later of these two years, dating the death of Lucian to 7 January 312. But the earlier date of 7 January 311 argued by Baronius has occasionally been adopted, as by Friedrich Loofs and Karl Baus, while Michael Slusser has recently set out a detailed argument in its favour. Lest Slusser's case be accepted by default, the case for 7 January 312 will here be set out. It is totally compelling.
The School of Antioch has more often been treated as a doctrinal abstraction than a social entity. This study reinterprets the Antiochene phenomenon as a socio-doctrinal network, a group of clerics bound by a call and response of doctrinal language. Conciliar documents and the letters of Theodoret of Cyrrhus showcase this network in operation in the 430s and 440s. For earlier, formative decades, the network must be approached indirectly through historical narrative. In his Church History Theodoret narrates how one bishop-claimant (Meletius of Antioch) and his partisan following (featuring Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia) combined preaching, teaching, and ascetic associations to claim and organize Syrian bishoprics.While sometimes tendentious, Theodoret's narrative presentation finds external confirmation. It suggests that Antiochene doctrines coalesced in a specific social context, a germinating mix of clerical friendships and enmities, and that they developed as part of an intertwined socio-doctrinal dynamic.
L'article est consacre a un travail de J. Lebon paru dans Le Museon en 1938 sur un synode tenu a Cesaree avant Nicee et date de 314. L'A. apporte des donnees nouvelles sur ce synode et son lien a celui d'Ancyre en s'appuyant sur les resultats des chercheurs Armeniens modernes sur la tradition canonique armenienne.
Les arianistes font partie de ces groupes heterodoxes qui a la fin du IV e siecle, occupent les espaces prives ou les maisons pour leurs reunions. C'est de la, qu'ils engagent une guerilla ecclesiastique contre les eveques favorables a la doctrine du concile de Nicee. Le Milan d'Ambroise offre a cette epoque quelques exemples d'escarmouches a l'interieur des communautes. Ce contexte de vie sociale privee permet de mieux expliquer la tentative des arianistes d'exproprier les basiliques durant la semaine sainte de 386 ainsi que le role d'Ambroise, patron et constructeur des basiliques