DOCSLIB.ORG

When Christology Intersects with Embryology 855

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DOI 10.1515/bz-2020-0037 BZ 2020; 113(3): 853–878 Dirk Krausmüller When Christologyintersects with embryology: the viewpointsofNestorian, Monophysite and Chalcedonian authorsofthe sixth to tenth centuries Abstract: The notion that the soul comes into existencesimultaneouslywith the bodyatthe moment of conception was originallyintroduced into the Patristic discourse as an alternative to the Origenist notion of apre-existing soul. Yet from the sixth century onwards it was itself regarded as an Origenisttenet. Now it was claimedthat onlythosewho believed the soul to be created after the bodyweretrulyorthodox. The present article examines the links between this development and the Christologicalconversies. Adresse: Dr.Dirk Krausmüller,Gratian-Marx-Str.8/25, 1110 Wien, Österreich; [email protected] In Patristic literature the ensoulment of the embryoisexplainedinthree differ- ent ways:the soul either pre-exists the bodyand enters it at the moment of con- ception (prohyparxis), or comes into being at the moment of conception (synhy- parxis), or appears after the bodyhas been formed (methyparxis). From the late fourth century onwardsthe first option, which had once been proposed by Ori- gen, met with increasingresistence since manyconsidered it to be irreconcilable with the Christian faith. By contrast, the second and third options werewidely regarded as equallyorthodox. Their proponents disagreed but did so without rancour as nothing much was at stake. This situation, however,changed in the middle of the sixth century when two developments took place. On the one hand, not only prohyparxis but also synhyparxis was now widelysuspected This article is partofthe project “Reassessing ninth century philosophy.Asynchronic approach to the logical traditions” (SALT)that hasreceivedfunding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the EuropeanUnion’sHorizon research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. ). 854 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung of being an Origenist position, and on the other hand,the Christological impli- cationsofthe different positions wereseen more clearlythan before. This article makes the case thatNestorians,Monophysites and Chalcedonians chose the op- tion that best fitted their understanding of the incarnation and at the same time allowed the most effective polemic. Accordingly, it does not offer an exhaustive discussion of all evidence regarding the ensoulment of the embryobut deals mainlywith texts wherethe specific case of Christ’sbodyand soul is discussed. The timeframe is between the sixth and the tenth century. The debate is not al- ways continuous and it is not always possibletosituate aparticularstatement in its historical context.Yet comparison of the texts shows thatthe representatives of the different views werecognizant of alternative interpretations.¹ Before delving into the discussion afew words are in order about the terms of the debate. Those who were in favour of prohyparxis borrowed from Platonic phi- losophythe notionofanever-moving and self-moving soul.² The championsof synhyparxis alsoturned to Platobut chose amore selective approach since they onlysought to provethat the soul was fullydeveloped at the moment of concep- tion. Those who defended methyparxis could appeal to Scripture and to Aristotle. In the first casethreeverses playedanimportant role: Genesis 2:7: ‘AndGod formedthe human being as dust from the earth and breathed into his face a breath of life and the human being became aliving soul’ (καὶἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπονχοῦνἀπὸτῆςγῆςκαὶἐνεφύσησενεἰςτὸπρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴνζωῆςκαὶἐγένετο ὁἄνθρωπος εἰςψυχὴνζῶσαν), which seemed to implyatemporal sequence; Exodus 21:22– 23: ‘But when two men fight and hit apregnant woman and her child comes out not yetfigured, he shall be made to paythe penalty,asthe husband of the woman maylay upon him, he shall paywith avaluation, but if it is figured he shall give asoul for asoul’ (ἐὰνδὲμάχωνται δύο ἄνδρες καὶ πατάξωσινγυναῖκα ἐνγαστρὶἔχουσαν καὶἐξ- έλθῃ τὸ παιδίον αὐτῆςμὴἐξεικονισμένον ἐπιζήμιον ζημιωθήσεται καθότι ἐπι- βάλῃὁἀνὴρτῆςγυναικὸςδώσει μετὰἀξιώματος, ἐὰνδὲἐξεικονισμένον ἦν The debatebetween creatianists and traducianists will not be consideredsinceall authors dis- cussed in this article were creatianists of one stripe or another.See R. Hennings,Disputatio de origine animae (CPL , )orthe victory of creatianism in the fifth century,inE.A.Living- stone (ed.), Studia Patristica .Leuven , –.This does,ofcourse, not mean that therewere no longerany traducianists. See Symeon Stylites (the YoungerofAntioch), Sermo ;ed. A. Mai, NovaPatrum Bibliotheca VIII/.Rome , –,which dates to the later sixth century. Plato, Phaedrus, c–a.See D. Blyth,The ever-movingsoul in Plato’s “Phaedrus”. TheAmerican Journal of Philology (), –,esp. –. D. Krausmüller,When Christology intersects with embryology 855 δώσει ψυχὴν ἀντὶ ψυχῆς), which gave the impression as if the embryowas not considered ahuman being before the formation of the bodywas completed; and Zachariah 12:1 ‘Says the Lord … who forms the spirit of ahuman being in him’ (λέγει κύριος … πλάσσων πνεῦμα ἀνθρώπου ἐναὐτῷ), which suggested that the soul was createdinanalreadyexistingbody. In the second casethe main point of reference was twotreatises of Aristotle, De anima and De genera- tione animalium. AccordingtoDe anima asequence of souls appears in the human embryo, first the nutritive soul, which is also found in plants and is re- sponsiblefor growth and nutrition, then the sensitive soul, which is alsofound in animalsand is responsible for movement and perception, and lastlythe ra- tional soul, which is onlyfound in human beingsand which appears when the bodyisfullyformed.³ By contrast, De generatione animalium introduces the notion of amind thatcomes from the outside.⁴ Knowledge of these theories was mediated through the commentary tradition whereitwas debated whether or not Aristotle considered the highest faculty to be separable from the body.⁵ Towards the end of the fourth century the bishop and theologian Gregory of Nyssa composed the treatise De hominis opificio in which he set out his views about the make-up of the human being.⁶ Following Aristotle, he distinguished between anutritive power,asensitive power,and arational power,which appear in sequence in the human embryo. Yetinone point he parted ways with the phi- losopher.Heclaimed that the rational soul was present in the embryofrom the Aristotle, De anima II/, a–b. Aristotle, De generatione animalium II., b. Arguments for inseparability can be found in the writings of the Peripatetic philosopher Alexander of Aphrodisias.Bycontrast,Neoplatonic philosophers stressed the independence of the highestfaculty from the body, which allowed them to reconcile the views of Plato and Aristotle. See P. Moreaux, Alexandre d’Aphrodise: exégète de la noétique d’Aristote. Liège/ Paris ;and H.J. Blumenthal,Aristotle and Neoplatonism in lateantiquity:interpretations of De anima. London .Evenmodern historians of philosophyhavenot agreed on the exact meaningofAristotle’sstatements.See C. Shields,Aristotle, De anima, translated with an intro- duction and commentary.Oxford , –;J.M.Rist,NotesonAristotle De anima .. TheClassicalPhilology (), –;L.P.Gerson,The unity of intellect in Aristotle’s “De anima”. Phronesis (), –;and R. Polansky,Aristotle’sDeanima. Cambridge , –. Gregory of Nyssa, De hominis opificio.PG, –.See C. Scholten,Welche Seele hat der Embryo? Johannes Philoponos und die antikeEmbryologie. Vigiliae Christianae (), –,esp. –;A.Meredith,The concept of the mind in Gregory of Nyssa and the Neoplatonists,inE.A.Livingstone (ed.), Studia patristica .Oxford , –; and S. Wessel,The reception of Greek scienceinGregory of Nyssa’s “De hominis opificio”. Vig- iliae Christianae (), –. 856 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung moment of conception and that it regulated the actitivy of the lower faculties, which werenot part of it.⁷ He did not,however,gosofar as to accept the Platonic concept of apre-existent soul, which Origenhad introducedinto the theological discourse.⁸ In the twenty-eighth chapter he dealt with the question in systematic fashion. He maintained that synhyparxis was the golden mean between two dia- metricallyopposite but equallywrong extremes, prohyparxis and methyparxis.⁹ Accordingtohim, those who defendedthe latter theory basedtheir arguments on Genesis 2:7. ¹ ⁰ He rejected their interpretation, arguingthat if the bodycame first the soul would be created for the sake of the bodyand thus have alower ontological status thanit.¹¹ All three positions reappear in the ensuingperiod of Christological contro- versies. Foralong time, however,they werenot aligned with the different camps. Theodoret of Cyrus and Eutherius of Tyanawereboth representatives of the ‘Antiochene school’.¹² In theirwritingsthey emphasised the differencebe- tween the divinity and the humanityofChrist.¹³ Yetthey did not hold the same views about the formation of the human being.Eutherius explained thatthe human being was one ‘because neither part has ahypostasis that precedes with- out the other’ (διὰ τὸ μηδέτερονχωρὶςτοῦἑτέρου προάγουσαν ἔχειν τὴν ὑπόστασιν),¹⁴ whereas Theodoretclaimed ‘that the embryoisensouled when the bodyhas been fullyformed in the womb’ (τοῦ σώματος ἐντῇμήτρᾳ τελείου διαπλασθέντος, τότε ψυχοῦσθαι τὸἔμβρυον), in accordancewith Genesis2:7 and Exodus 21:22.¹⁵ The same observation can be made whenweturn to the Mono- physites. Philoxenus of Mabbugdeclared that the soul was created in the body Gregory of
Recommended publications
  • Sin. Systematic Theology.Wayne Grudem

    Sin. Systematic Theology.Wayne Grudem

    Systematic Theology Wayne Grudem Chapter 24! SIN What is sin? Where did it come from? Do we inherit a sinful nature from Adam? Do we inherit guilt from Adam? EXPLANATION AND SCRIPTURAL BASIS A. The Definition of Sin The history of the human race as presented in Scripture is primarily a history of man in a state of sin and rebellion against God and of God’s plan of redemption to bring man back to himself. Therefore, it is appropriate now to consider the nature of the sin that separates man from God. We may define sin as follows: Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature. Sin is here defined in relation to God and his moral law. Sin includes not only individual acts such as stealing or lying or committing murder, but also attitudes that are contrary to the attitudes God requires of us. We see this already in the Ten Commandments, which not only prohibit sinful actions but also wrong attitudes: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Ex. 20:17 NIV). Here God specifies that a desire to steal or to commit adultery is also sin in his sight. The Sermon on the Mount also prohibits sinful attitudes such as anger (Matt. 5:22) or lust (Matt. 5:28). Paul lists attitudes such as jealousy, anger, and selfishness (Gal. 5:20) as things that are works of the flesh opposed to the desires of the Spirit (Gal.
  • Durham E-Theses

    Durham E-Theses

    Durham E-Theses The Christology of nestorius and the chalcedonian settlement Fletcher, Stanley P. How to cite: Fletcher, Stanley P. (1972) The Christology of nestorius and the chalcedonian settlement, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/9976/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk THE REVEREND STANLEY P. FLETCHER, B.A. THE CHRISTOLOGY OP NESTORIUS AND THE CHALCEDONIAN SETTLEMENT A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. THE GHRISTOLOGY OF NESTORIUS AND THE CHALCEDONIAN SETTLEMENT - ABSTRACT The assessment of Nestorius1 Christology begins with a consideration of his indebtedness to Paul of Samosata, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia.
  • Matthew 16:18 in the Philoxenian Version

    Matthew 16:18 in the Philoxenian Version

    1 Matthew 16:18 in the Philoxenian Version Peter A.L. Hill Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia1 1. Little now remains of the Syriac Philoxenian version (PHIL) of the New Testament. Commissioned by Philoxenus of Mabbug and completed in 508/509 by Polycarp, his chorepiscopus, PHIL was based upon the Peshitta (P) and in turn became the Grundtext for the Harklean New Testament (H) completed in 615/616.2 Apart from an edition of the Minor Catholic Epistles thought to be PHIL,3 remnants of the version remain in the scripture quotations found in the later writings of Philoxenus. In this article I will explore one of these quotations, namely Mt 16:18. Historically, considerable controversy has surrounded the interpretation of this verse; thus any additional data are of interest. First, however, a little background regarding the identification of PHIL quotations in Philoxenus’ works. Identifying PHIL Quotations in the Works of Philoxenus 2. It was Günther Zuntz (1945) who first examined the works of Philoxenus with a view to discovering PHIL readings. However, notwithstanding some excellent observations, Zuntz’s methodology was flawed, in part by his failure to distinguish between the array of Graecized citations scattered across a number of Philoxenus’ writings and the genuine PHIL quotations which occur only in the later writings.4 Subsequently, Arthur Vööbus (1954) continued the investigation, with the appreciation that in order to identify PHIL readings it is necessary “to hold to a strict chronological sequence of Philoxenus’ works.”5 Vööbus happily lighted upon a textual source that had “not undergone the possible changes and modifications which could be 1 The substance of this article was presented to a seminar convened by Dr Hidemi Takahashi at the University of Tokyo, 28 September 2006.
  • Introduction and Index

    Introduction and Index

    Th e Practical Christology of Philoxenos of Mabbug DAVID A. MICHELSON Preview - Copyrighted Material 1 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © David A. Michelson 2014 Th e moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2014 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2014940446 ISBN 978–0–19–872296–0 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
  • The Well-Trained Theologian

    The Well-Trained Theologian

    THE WELL-TRAINED THEOLOGIAN essential texts for retrieving classical Christian theology part 1, patristic and medieval Matthew Barrett Credo 2020 Over the last several decades, evangelicalism’s lack of roots has become conspicuous. Many years ago, I experienced this firsthand as a university student and eventually as a seminary student. Books from the past were segregated to classes in church history, while classes on hermeneutics and biblical exegesis carried on as if no one had exegeted scripture prior to the Enlightenment. Sometimes systematics suffered from the same literary amnesia. When I first entered the PhD system, eager to continue my theological quest, I was given a long list of books to read just like every other student. Looking back, I now see what I could not see at the time: out of eight pages of bibliography, you could count on one hand the books that predated the modern era. I have taught at Christian colleges and seminaries on both sides of the Atlantic for a decade now and I can say, in all honesty, not much has changed. As students begin courses and prepare for seminars, as pastors are trained for the pulpit, they are not required to engage the wisdom of the ancient past firsthand or what many have labelled classical Christianity. Such chronological snobbery, as C. S. Lewis called it, is pervasive. The consequences of such a lopsided diet are now starting to unveil themselves. Recent controversy over the Trinity, for example, has manifested our ignorance of doctrines like eternal generation, a doctrine not only basic to biblical interpretation and Christian orthodoxy for almost two centuries, but a doctrine fundamental to the church’s Christian identity.
  • The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East: a New Document

    The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East: a New Document

    BR 1065 .M53 1925 Mingana, Alphonse, 1881- 1937. The early spread of Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from The Arcadia Fund https://archive.org/details/earlyspreadofchrOOming THE EARLY SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY I IN CENTRAL ASIA AND THE FAR EAST: I A NEW DOCUMENT ALPHONSE 'MING AN A, D.D. ASSISTANT-KEEPER OF MANUSCRIPTS IN THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY, AND SPECIAL LECTURER IN ARABIC IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER Reprinted\ with Additions, from " The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library,” Vol. 9, No. 2, July, 1925 MANCHESTER: THE, UNIVERSITY PRESS, 23 LIME GROVE, OXFORD ROAD. LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C., NEW YORK, TORONTO, BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS. MCMXXV. THE EARLY SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY IN CENTRAL ASIA AND THE FAR EAST: A NEW DOCUMENT. By A. MINGANA, D.D. ASSISTANT KEEPER OF MANUSCRIPTS IN THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY, AND SPECIAL LECTURER IN ARABIC IN THE UNI¬ VERSITY OF MANCHESTER. Foreword. I. BEFORE venturing into the subject of the evangelisation of the peoples of Mongolian race, it would be useful to examine the ethnological state of the powerful agglomeration of clans inhabiting the adjacent lands lying on the eastern and western banks of the river Oxus. There we meet with constant struggles for supremacy between two apparently different races, distinguished by the generic appellations of Iran and Turan. They were somewhat loosely separated by the historic river, the shallow waters of which in a summer month, or in a rainless season, proved always powerless to prevent the perpetual clash of arms between the warring tribes of the two rivals whose historic habitat lay on its eastern and western borders.
  • FOUNDATIONS in ECCLESIOLOGY I Joseph A

    FOUNDATIONS in ECCLESIOLOGY I Joseph A

    I \ I ~ , .. ,I I I I I FOUNDATIONS I IN ECCLESIOLOGY I I I I I I I I Joseph A. Komonchak I I I '. I I I I I I FOUNDATIONS IN ECCLESIOLOGY I Joseph A. Komonchak I I I I I I I Supplementary Issue of the Lonergan Workshop Journal I Volume 11 Fred Lawrence, editor I • \ I 1../ I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I Copyright © 1995 Boston College I I Printed in the United States of America I on acid-free paper I I ,I I I I EDITORIAL NOTE I Joseph A. Komonchak belongs to a generation of Catholic theologians formed in what was essentially the pre-Vatican II system I of seminary education. This system combined the very forces of renewal that made the Council possible with the drawbacks of I closedness and downright aridity that made Pope John XXIII's fresh air necessary. If he was exposed to much in the seminary and church that needed reform, he also had the opportunity to have solid scholars I teaching him, such as Myles M. Bourke for scripture, in his New York diocesan seminary, and equally respectable men like Rene Latourelle and Juan Alfaro in Rome, not to mention the person who exerted the I most influence upon him, Bernard Lonergan. In one of the most trenchant passages he ever ,wrote Lonergan I said: The breakdown of classical culture and, at least in our day, I the manifest comprehensiveness and exclusiveness of modern culture confront Catholic philosophy and Catholic theology with the gravest problems, impose upon them mountainous tasks, I invite them to Herculean labors.
  • “Only a Trinity Can Save

    “Only a Trinity Can Save

    “Only a Trinity Can Save Us” Ephesians 3:14-21 14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16 in order that he might grant you according to the riches of his glory to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, being rooted and established in love, 18 in order that you might be strengthened to comprehend with all the saints what is the length and width and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, in order that you might be filled with all the fullness of God. 20 Now to him who is able to do exceedingly more than anything that we could ask or imagine, according to the power that is being worked within us, 21 to him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus for all generations, forever and ever. Amen. In the Name of God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. 1. Introduction. When I was studying in England, I was enrolled in a Theology Seminar led by, let’s say, a “noteworthy conservative theology scholar.” There was nothing immediately alarming about the class or the instructor on paper, but then on day two, we began our study of the Trinity. The Professor explained that the word “God” was not so much a noun as an adjective to be applied to each Person of the Trinity.
  • Leontius of Byzantium – Interpreter of Chalcedon Emanuel Gafiţa, Fr

    Leontius of Byzantium – Interpreter of Chalcedon Emanuel Gafiţa, Fr

    Leontius of Byzantium – Interpreter of Chalcedon Emanuel Gafiţa, Fr. PhD stud1 Abstract: Leontius of Byzantium, whose identity remains a subject of debate, is the central theological figure of the sixth century. He introduces the concept of enhypostasis, thereby giving a deeper understanding to the Christological doctrine and clarifying the question of the two natures or physis in the person of the Savior Jesus Christ. Leontius points out as no one else, the act of assuming, taking over, of the human nature in the hypostasis of the divine Logos.. Keywords: Leontius, Chalcedon, enhypostasis, nature, person. I.1. Life of Leontius The Byzantine tradition does not contain much biographical data with reference to Leontius of Byzantium2, called by some also Leontius of Jerusalem3. It can be inferred from his own works that he was a monk attracted by the culture of his times and that for some time in his life he was close to the Nestorians4. It should be pointed out that the gaps in his life also derive from the fact that he was often called "recluse" or "hermit" and that usually such people did not ordinarily leave behind writings 1 Fr. Emanuel Gafiţa, PhD student at Ortodox Teological Faculty St. „Andrei Şaguna”, University „Lucian Blaga” Sibiu. [email protected] 2 Archd. Prof. PhD. Constantin Voicu, Patrologie (Patrology), Vol. III, Basilica Publishing of the Romanian Patriarchate, Bucharest, 2009, p. 29. 3 Ioan G. Coman, Hristologia Post Calcedoniană: Sever de Antiohia și Leonțiu de Bizanț (Post-Chalcedonian Christology: Severus of Antioch and Leontius of Byzantium), in volume Și Cuvântul trup S-a făcut, Hristologie și mariologie patristică (And the Word Was Made Flesh, Patristic Christology and Mariology), Banat Metropolitan Publishing, Timișoara, 1993, p.
  • Gerald O'collins, Saint Augustine on the Resurrection of Christ: Teaching

    Gerald O'collins, Saint Augustine on the Resurrection of Christ: Teaching

    Gerald O’Collins, Saint Augustine on the Resurrection of Christ: Teaching, Rhetoric, and Reception (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 121 pages. Reviewed by Gary R. Habermas, Liberty University Over decades studying the resurrection of Jesus, it always appears odd that there are comparatively few contemporary works treating the centuries of great church fathers who have addressed Christianity’s center. Many treasured gems have grown dusty and remain too-seldom remembered. We are the worse for that. Why this research lacuna? This little volume features well-known researcher Gerald O’Collins entering this void on a subject he knows well, addressing Augustine’s thoughts on Jesus’ resurrection and teaming with perhaps the world’s most respected academic publisher. Who besides Augustine is more erudite, speaks to the entire church, and does so in the classical rhetorical style, providing a magnificent choice? O’Collins begins his Preface by acknowledging the need for this study. Other major church leaders like Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Leo the Great wrote major Christological works before and after Augustine, yet, the latter surprisingly did not do so. Augustine’s longest treatment of Christology is The Trinity 4:1-5, though he still presents many reflections on Christology in his sermons, letters, and other works (v). Since “Preaching the message of Christ constituted the central core of Augustine’s ministry” (vi), the absence of an extended treatment is surprising. This absence encouraged his commentators to concentrate on other themes, like Scripture, the Trinity, original sin, free will, and grace. It remains the case that today, few commentators treat Augustine’s message: “we still lack studies precisely on Christ’s own resurrection from the dead.” O’Collins continues: “This study aims to fill this important gap.” (vi) 1 Towards this goal, O’Collins’ five chapters are devoted to key subjects strewn throughout Augustine’s writings.
  • Book Reviews

    Book Reviews

    BOOK REVIEWS JOHANNES-KOMMENTARE AUS DER GRIECHISCHEN KIRCHE. Edited by Joseph Reuss. Texte und Untersuchungen 89. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1966. From time to time our knowledge of patristic literature is augmented by the discovery of previously unpublished texts, as, e.g., the recent publication of Didymus the Blind's Commentary on Zechariah. There is a less dramatic side to the editing of patristic texts and that is the slow, tedious work of examining the catenae to discover fragments of works of the Fathers. In the case of the exegetical works these fragments frequently provide the only clues we have to the exegetical writings of some Fathers. In the 1930's K. Staab published a large collection of fragments from the commentaries on Paul by the Greek Fathers, other scholars have published fragments of individual exegetical works, and several years ago J. Reuss published the fragments of the commentaries on Matthew of the Greek Fathers. In this present volume he complements the edition of fragments on Matthew by the fragments on the Gospel of John. This work, like the work on Matthew, is a superb piece of scholarship and an outstanding example of how fragments should be edited. The volume includes the following authors: Apollinaris of Laodicea, Theodore of Heraclea, Didymus the Blind, Theophilus of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, Ammonius of Alexandria, and Photius of Costantinople. The bulk of the fragments come from Apollinaris, Theodore, Ammonius, and Photius. From Didymus we have only twenty-one, from Theophilus only one, and twenty-one from Cyril. Cyril is included, though we have almost the full text of his Commentary on John (ed.
  • How Severus of Antioch's Writings Survived in Greek

    How Severus of Antioch's Writings Survived in Greek

    Saving Severus: How Severus of Antioch’s Writings Survived in Greek Yonatan Moss N THE SUMMER of 536, following a failed attempt to reach a compromise between the advocates and opponents of the I Council of Chalcedon, Emperor Justinian came down reso- lutely on the Chalcedonian side. He issued a novella ordering all extant writings of Severus, exiled patriarch of Antioch and leading spokesman of the anti-Chalcedonian cause, to be burned.1 Possessors of Severus’ works faced harsh punishment and the hands of scribes found copying them were to be am- putated.2 The novella was to be distributed to all metropolitan bishops, who, in turn, were tasked with making sure it was pub- licly posted in each and every church throughout the Empire.3 1 The literature on Severus is large. Some recent major studies are: Pauline Allen and C. T. R. Hayward, Severus of Antioch (London/New York 2004); Frédéric Alpi, La route royale: Sévère d’Antioche I–II (Beirut 2009); Yonatan Moss, Incorruptible Bodies: Christology, Society and Authority in Late Antiquity (Berkeley/Los Angeles 2016); John D’Alton and Youhanna Youssef (eds.), Severus of Antioch: His Life and Times (Leiden 2016). 2 For the relevant part of Nov. 42, Constitutio sacra contra Anthimum, Severum, Petrum et Zoaram, dated 6 August 536, see R. Schoell and G. Kroll, Corpus Juris Civilis III (Berlin 1928) 263–269, at 266. Nov. 42 came in the wake of a home synod led by Menas of Constantinople in the spring of 536, which anathematized Severus’ writings as “feeding off the venom of the serpent, the originator of evil (δράκων ἀρχέκακος)”: Mansi VIII 1142D.