DOCSLIB.ORG

8.Theodoret's Text of Romans Agnès Lorrain1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
8.Theodoret's Text of Romans Agnès Lorrain1 8. THEODORET’S TEXT OF ROMANS 1 AGNÈS LORRAIN In memory of Revd Dr Jerome Murphy O’Connor (o.p.) Attempting to reconstruct the text of Romans in an early Christian writer means both to follow in the footsteps of the scholar who long ago wrote the Codex von der Goltz (GA 1739) and, I hope, to make a small contribution to the great project of the Editio critica maior.2 Within the compass of my own critical edition of Theodoret’s Interpretatio in epistulam ad Romanos (In Rom., CPG 6209), the biblical text poses a central problem.3 The evidence for the text of Paul in Theodoret of Cyr (393–c.460) is particularly important, because he is the only Greek author from the patristic era whose commentary on the Epistles is entirely preserved in its 1 The English translation of Theodoret’s commentary in this paper is taken from R.C. Hill, Theodoret of Cyr. Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul. Brookline MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001, in spite of its lack of precision at some points. I am very grateful to Kevin Stephens (o.p.) for helping me write the English text of this paper. 2 On the purpose of the scribe who wrote the Codex von der Goltz, see the introductory remark in O. Bauernfeind, Der Römerbrief des Origenes nach dem Codex von der Goltz (Cod. 184 B 64 des Athosklosters Lawra). TU 44.3. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1923, 91. Concerning the Editio critica maior, only the Catholic Letters have so far been published (B. Aland, K. Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Major. IV, Die Katholischen Briefe. 2nd edn. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013). As Morrill and Gram note on page 99 above, preparations are underway for the Pauline Epistles. 3 The edition is part of my doctoral dissertation (Paris-Sorbonne, 2015); further information about the biblical text of Theodoret, especially concerning the whole Pauline corpus, is provided in the introductory chapter. References to this critical text are provided in brackets in the present paper. 165 166 AGNÈS LORRAIN original language. This affords us the opportunity to know precisely the state of his own Pauline corpus. In addition, three features of his exegesis allow us to hope to be able to find interesting details concerning textual variants: first, he respects the sequence of the text, quoting and commenting on every verse; second, he pays close attention to the letter of the text; and third, he is often interested in textual criticism. In the course of this investigation, however, it was more the limitations of the approach than the positive results which came to the fore. For this reason we will focus on methodological issues before considering some features of the text. The vast majority of the variants we found affect neither the meaning nor the characterisation of the text. We have therefore focussed our attention on some variants presented by Bruce Metzger in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.4 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES In order to reconstruct the biblical text of Theodoret, we shall examine the manuscripts, analyse the commentary, and compare Theodoret with other authors. Nevertheless, we quickly notice that these methods present very little certain information. The problem of the manuscript tradition The first requirement for determining Theodoret’s text is the examination of the manuscripts.5 However, besides the difficulty of choosing between the different surviving witnesses, we cannot exclude the possibility of editorial intervention between Theodoret and the archetype we may reconstruct based on the manuscripts we have. The textual tradition of this work provides a clear illustration of the intervention of a copyist and the autonomy of the biblical text in the lemma when compared with the stemma built from the text of the commentary. So, while Paris, BnF, Supplément gr. 1299 (GA 2242) is a copy of Vatican, 4 B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd edn. London & New York: UBS, 1994, 505–41. Our comparison with the variant readings already noted by the editors of the New Testament is based on the information of both NA28 and K. Aland, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testament I, 1. Berlin–New York: de Gruyter, 1991. 5 For the witnesses of Theodoret’s In epistulas Pauli, we not only studied the In Romanos but also the biblical quotations throughout the commentary. For his other works, we made reference to available critical editions. 8. THEODORET’S TEXT OF ROMANS 167 BAV, Vaticanus gr. 1649 (GA 1945), its biblical text is sometimes different. Some details show that the copyist paid more attention to the biblical text than to the commentary and used a biblical manuscript to correct and complete what he considered omissions. Indeed, we found phrases added at the end of a lemma which correspond to parts of verses written in the following sentences but which were not indicated by a diple.6 We may assume that this sort of intervention also occurred at an earlier stage. So the ‘text’ of Theodoret which forms the subject of the present paper, that is to say the biblical text of the archetype (to the extent that it can be reconstructed), may be quite far from the text actually commented upon by the Bishop of Cyr.7 The problem with studying the commentary Since the lemmata and quotations do not provide solid evidence, we must base our investigation on the content of the commentary. Contrary to what one might expect from Theodoret, his commentary on Romans provides little information because the explanations seldom relate to words which are subject to variation. Most surprising is the lack of text-critical remarks in comparison with Origen’s commentary on Romans and in contrast to Theodoret’s interest in the versions of the Old Testament.8 Only one comment may possibly refer to a variant reading. It concerns the name Priscilla. Theodoret says: Priscilla, or Prisca (you can find both forms in the books).9 Is this a comment about different copies of Romans? Both readings are to be found in surviving manuscripts. However, Theodoret does not seem to use the word βιβλίον in reference to different copies of one text, whereas 6 This is described more precisely in my dissertation. 7 The quotations of Romans in other works are probably less subject to correction. We consider them a good witness if they confirm a rare reading. 8 B.M. Metzger, ‘Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts’ in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, ed. J.N. Birdsall and R.W. Thomson, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1963, 78–95, lists the text-critical remarks of Origen on Romans, according to Rufinus on 88–90. For Theodoret’s other works, see J.-N. Guinot, L’Exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr. Théologie historique 100. Paris: Beauchesne, 1995, 167–252. 9 Τὴν γὰρ Πρίσκιλλαν, ἢ Πρίσκαν, ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις. Theodoret, In Rom., V, PG 82, 220 B 1–2 (in my edition, V, 56: Rom. 16:3). 168 AGNÈS LORRAIN he often uses it in reference to a book of the Bible.10 Therefore, the exegete is probably referring to other books of the New Testament (e.g. Acts 18:2, 18; 1 Cor. 16:19) rather than to other copies of Romans, in the same way as Origen, who, with reference to the same verse, reads ‘Prisca’ and notes that we find ‘Priscilla’ in Acts.11 The commentary does not often indicate a particular reading, although examples of this will be given below. Sometimes a remark seems to be more satisfactory if we suppose a particular reading, and in that case we consider the reading likely but not certain. Let us see, for example, how Theodoret explains Romans 4:11: Εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι’ ἀκροβυστίας, εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι (καὶ) αὐτοῖς τὴν δικαιοσύνην. Καὶ πατέρα περιτομῆς. Ὧδε χρὴ στίξαι. Δείκνυσι γὰρ τὸν πατριάρχην πρῶτον μὲν τῶν ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ πεπιστευκότων πατέρα, ἐπειδὴ καὶ αὐτὸς ἀκρόβυστος ὢν ἔτι, τὸ τῆς πίστεως δῶρον προσενήνοχε τῷ θεῷ, ἔπειτα μέντοι καὶ Ἰουδαίων, ὡς τῆς περιτομῆς αὐτῷ κοινωνησάντων. So that he might be father of all who believe despite not being circumcised in order that righteousness be reckoned (also) to them, and father of the circumcised. Here there is need of distinction: he shows the patriarch as father first of those who believed while uncircumcised, since he himself while still uncircumcised offered God the gift of faith, then of course also of Jews on the grounds of their sharing circumcision with him.12 The commentary is more coherent without the adverbial καὶ, which would seem to mean that the justification of pagans occurs after that of the Jews: according to Theodoret, Paul affirms that Abraham is ‘first of all’ father of the pagans. In a case such as this, we choose the reading without καὶ, as it is attested in the textual tradition of Theodoret.13 Some embarrassing examples show that the proof is sometimes more apparent than real. This is the case in Romans 7:25. Manuscripts of the 10 See Guinot, L’Exégèse, 180–1. For examples of the of the word βιβλίον meaning a biblical book, see Theodoret, Commentarius in Isaiam, XIX, SC 315, 266 (Is. 61:1); Commentarius in Canticum, PG 81, 49A 2. 11 According to Rufinus’ translation, cf. Origen, Commentarius in Romanos, X.18. 2, SC 555, 372. 12 Theodoret, In Rom., II, PG 82, 89 C 13–D 6 (in my edition: II, 14). 13 One old manuscript of Theodoret quotes the text without καί.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Theodoret of Cyrrhus and the Book of Joshua - Theodoret's Quaestiones Revisited
    THEODORET OF CYRRHUS AND THE BOOK OF JOSHUA - THEODORET'S QUAESTIONES REVISITED Seppo Sipila Theodoret, his life and works The city of Cyrrhus (in Greek Kupprn;) lies approx. 90 km north-east of Antioch.1 This is the town after which Theodoret of Cyrrhus was named. He was bishop of the town, holding the see for over 30 years (423-458). Theodoret was born in Antioch around 393. 2 In his youth he acted as a lector in Antioch but later on joined a monas­ tery in Apamea, 3 being nominated to the see of Cyrrhus in 423. 4 He was, as we know now, the last famous theologian of the Antiochian school. Downey, for instance, de­ scribes Theodoret as "the greatest theologian" of his day.5 The beginning of the fifth century was a time of heated theological discussion entailing a serious debate about Christology. In its essentials the question was about the true nature of Christ, discussion of which continues to exercise influence on mod­ ern Christian theology. The conflict arose between the Antiochian and the Alexandrian theology and culminated at the great Council of Chalcedon in its famous formula which defined the two natures of Christ, the divine and the human, as being present in Christ without confusion, change, division, or separation.6 The leading figure on 1For a short description of the city see R. Janin "Cyrrhus," Dictionnaire d'histoire et geographie ecclesiastique (Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1924) 13.1186-1187. For the location see e.g. the map "Roman Roads in Northern Syria" in G.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT the Apostolic Tradition in the Ecclesiastical Histories Of
    ABSTRACT The Apostolic Tradition in the Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret Scott A. Rushing, Ph.D. Mentor: Daniel H. Williams, Ph.D. This dissertation analyzes the transposition of the apostolic tradition in the fifth-century ecclesiastical histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. In the early patristic era, the apostolic tradition was defined as the transmission of the apostles’ teachings through the forms of Scripture, the rule of faith, and episcopal succession. Early Christians, e.g., Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, believed that these channels preserved the original apostolic doctrines, and that the Church had faithfully handed them to successive generations. The Greek historians located the quintessence of the apostolic tradition through these traditional channels. However, the content of the tradition became transposed as a result of three historical movements during the fourth century: (1) Constantine inaugurated an era of Christian emperors, (2) the Council of Nicaea promulgated a creed in 325 A.D., and (3) monasticism emerged as a counter-cultural movement. Due to the confluence of these sweeping historical developments, the historians assumed the Nicene creed, the monastics, and Christian emperors into their taxonomy of the apostolic tradition. For reasons that crystallize long after Nicaea, the historians concluded that pro-Nicene theology epitomized the apostolic message. They accepted the introduction of new vocabulary, e.g. homoousios, as the standard of orthodoxy. In addition, the historians commended the pro- Nicene monastics and emperors as orthodox exemplars responsible for defending the apostolic tradition against the attacks of heretical enemies. The second chapter of this dissertation surveys the development of the apostolic tradition.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\NBWIN\MSCRIPT\THESIS~1.MST Job 1
    Our Present Object: Dynamic and Powerful Eschatology Alongside Dynamic and Powerful Political Ideology in the Historical Work of Eusebius and His Continuators by Drew Kenley Maxwell A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of St. Michael’s College and the Historical Department of the Toronto School of Theology. In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael’s College. © Copyright by Drew Kenley Maxwell 2015 Our Present Object: Dynamic and Powerful Eschatology Alongside Dynamic and Powerful Political Ideology in the Historical Work of Eusebius and His Continuators Drew Kenley Maxwell Doctor of Philosphy in Theology University of St. Michael’s College 2015 Abstract This study identifies and expounds upon two key constituent elements in the work of the historians of the Eusebian tradition; eschatology and political ideology. Using the ecclesiastical histories of Eusebius, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen and Theodoret as its essential primary documents, the study demonstrates that in the content of each historical work there resides a dynamic and powerful eschatology which is also accompanied by a dynamic and powerful political ideology in every instance. Though it is impossible to objectively prove that such a coincidence is absolutely interrelated, the study suggests in a compelling way, and based on the research, that a causal relationship is very likely. In a secondary way, the study is also a witness to an emergent understanding that in Late Antiquity there was a revisioning of eschatology among the theologians of the Early Church which turned from a predominantly apocalyptic understanding of eschatology to one more grounded in history and, more importantly, the historiography of Early Christiainity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of Athanasius and the Views of His Character
    The Importance of Athanasius and the Views of His Character J. Steven Davis Submitted to Dr. Jerry Sutton School of Divinity Liberty University September 19, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I: Research Proposal Abstract .............................................................................................................................11 Background ......................................................................................................................11 Limitations ........................................................................................................................18 Method of Research .........................................................................................................19 Thesis Statement ..............................................................................................................21 Outline ...............................................................................................................................21 Bibliography .....................................................................................................................27 Chapter II: Background of Athanasius An Influential Figure .......................................................................................................33 Early Life ..........................................................................................................................33 Arian Conflict ...................................................................................................................36
    [Show full text]
  • NPNF2-03. Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, & Rufinus
    NPNF2-03. Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, & Rufinus: Historical Writings by Philip Schaff About NPNF2-03. Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, & Rufinus: Historical Writings by Philip Schaff Title: NPNF2-03. Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, & Rufinus: Historical Writings URL: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.html Author(s): Schaff, Philip (1819-1893) Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library Print Basis: New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892 Source: Logos Inc. Rights: Public Domain Status: This volume has been carefully proofread and corrected. CCEL Subjects: All; Proofed; Early Church; LC Call no: BR60 LC Subjects: Christianity Early Christian Literature. Fathers of the Church, etc. NPNF2-03. Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, & Rufinus: Philip Schaff Historical Writings Table of Contents About This Book. p. ii Title Page.. p. 1 Preface.. p. 2 The Ecclesiastical History, Dialogues, and Letters of Theodoret.. p. 3 Title Page.. p. 3 Translator©s Preface.. p. 3 Chronological Tables to accompany the History and Life of Theodoret.. p. 4 Prolegomena.. p. 9 Parentage, Birth, and Education.. p. 9 Episcopate at Cyrus.. p. 13 Relations with Nestorius and to Nestorianism.. p. 15 Under the Ban of Theodosius and of the Latrocinium.. p. 19 Theodoret and Chalcedon.. p. 22 Retirement after Chalcedon, and Death.. p. 24 The Condemnation of ªthe Three Chapters.º. p. 26 The Works of Theodoret.. p. 28 Contents and Character of the Extant Works.. p. 30 Manuscripts and Editions of Separate Works.. p. 41 The Anathemas of Cyril in Opposition to Nestorius.. p. 42 Counter-statements of Theodoret.. p. 43 The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret.. p. 52 Book I. p. 52 Prologue.--Design of the History.
    [Show full text]
  • Theodoret, Commentator on the Psalms
    THEODORET, COMMENTATOR ON THE PSALMS At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Theodoret was formally reinstated as bishop of Cyrus following deposition by the Robber Synod of Ephesus in 449, an assembly declared null and void by Pope Leo I the following year. In that year 451 Theodoret wrote to “the monks of Constantinople” a letter in which he claims authorship of thirty five works1 – a remarkable achievement for someone who for the same number of years, before retirement in 458, was bishop of a diocese with over 800 parishes in his care, and who was credited also with its civic improvement and social welfare2. In an earlier letter, dated on internal evidence December 448, Theodoret, better known to later ages for his dogmatic and controversial treatises, apologetic and historical works, claims also to have commented on “all the prophets, the psalter, and the apostle”3. For a busy pastor, that is clearly an imposing exegetical output, con- centrating on the Old Testament, no mention being made of any com- mentary on the Gospels, and that on the fourteen Pauline epistles being left possibly till last. Most of the Old Testament, the exception being Wisdom Books, came in for comment – Pentateuch, Historical Books and Prophets, as well as the Song of Songs – whether in full commentary or, owing to failing health, in a series of Quaestiones. Theodoret tells us in its preface that he would like to have begun his exegetical works with that Commentary on the Psalter as an appropriate firstfruits, partly because of the exalted nature of the material, partly perhaps because of the pride of place such an opus occupied among the works of other Fathers, including fellow Antiochenes Theodore of Mopsuestia and – to judge from textual evidence of youthful inexperience – possibly John Chrysostom4.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Cyrus
    2 Theōria in Theodore’s and Theodoret’s Commentaries This chapter provides analysis of primary source material in the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Cyrus in order to illustrate and develop a definition of Antiochene —or at least theōria as understood by Theodore and Theodoret. Primary sources theōria for this research include manuscripts of Theodore’s and Theodoret’s exegetical works found in the TLG database1 and in J. P. Migne’s (PG).2 These are supplemented with recent Patrologia Graeca translations such as those in the Fathers of the Church (FC) multivolume series and catenae such as the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (ACCS).3 Despite the presence of significant research on Antiochene exegesis, there remains a relative dearth of serious study on Antiochene in the primary sources of Theodore and theōria Theodoret. My study builds on the foundation of Bradley Nassif’s 33 ANTIOCHENE THEŌRIA IN THEODORE AND THEODORET dissertation, which, among other concerns, addresses primarily theōria in the writings of John Chrysostom.4 In this chapter I aim to help fill the first of Nassif’s five noted lacunae for research on Antiochene —namely, to review other individual Antiochene writings and theōria their use of the term .5 Regarding such analysis, the Catholic theōria patristic scholar Bertrand de Margerie writes: The complexity of the material available shows that we still undoubtedly await the definitive work that will give us an exact understanding of the meaning of Antiochian , or, better still, of the different meanings theoria of the term found in the authors of the School and even within the same author.6 The reader will have to decide if the material in this chapter provides such an exacting definition of from the writings of Theodore theōria and Theodoret.
    [Show full text]
  • Against Jovinian and Ascetic Responsibility
    chapter 8 Against Jovinian and Ascetic Responsibility In 384 Jerome wrote a letter praising Blesilla, the daughter of his friend and pa- tron Paula. Recently recovered from a serious illness, Blesilla had subsequently converted to ascetic Christianity.1 This letter is part of Jerome’s attempt to cul- tivate a circle of patrons in Rome.2 When Jerome writes of Blesilla’s asceticism he emphasises the power of words to affect the material world: She smelt somewhat of neglect and lay in the tomb of the world bound by the bandages of wealth, but Jesus roared, dismayed in spirit, and cried out, saying: “Blesilla, come out!” Having been called, she has risen and come out and eats with the Lord. … She knows that she owes her life to the one to whom she has entrusted it … [When she was ill] what reme- dies were there from her kindred, what words all lighter than smoke? She who has died to the world and who lives again in Christ owes nothing to you ungrateful relatives.3 Blesilla was already a Christian, and here her conversion to asceticism is inter- woven with the story of Lazarus from John 11– 12, linking her life to this biblical model of sanctity.4 Throughout his stay in Rome and during his subsequent time in the East, Jerome showed how literary production – the reading, writ- ing, supplementing, and discussion of material textual artefacts – constituted the lived ascetic Christian life.5 Once again, in this letter to Marcella, the move to ascetic Christianity derives from the gospel text; it is a literary product.
    [Show full text]
  • AN INTRODUCTION to CHURCH HISTORY: from the BEGINNINGS to 1500
    AN INTRODUCTION TO CHURCH HISTORY: from THE BEGINNINGS to 1500 COURSE TEXTBOOK This textbook is based principally on: Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, (Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York 1918) Also included herein are selections and material adapted from the following sources: Chadwick, Henry The Early Church, Revised Edition. (Penguin, 1993) Deansly, Margaret, A History of the Medieval Church, 590-1500. (Routledge. London. 1989) Dysinger, Luke, “Early Christian Monasticism”, The Encyclopedia of Ancient History 2010. Logan, F. Donald, A History of the Church in the Middle Ages, (Routledge, London. 2002) Vauchez, Andre, The Spir’ty of the Medieval West from the 8th to the 12th Century, (Cistercian, 1993). 1 2 CONTENTS 1. JESUS and the HELLENISTIC WORLD 6. LEADERSHIP and LITURGY [1.1]. The General Situation; 5 [6.1]. The Hierarchical Development Of 47 [1.2]. The Jewish Background; 10 The Church . [6.2]. Public Worship And Sacred [1.3]. Jesus and the Disciples; 13 49 Seasons [[2.1]2. p.92 ] 1 2. THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH [6.3]. Baptism 50 [2.1]. The Palestinian Christian [6.4]. The Eucharist. 51 Communities 15 [6.5]. Forgiveness Of Sins 52 [2.2]. Paul and Gentile Christianity 17 [6.6]. Sinners in the Church 54 [2.3]. The Close of the Apostolic Age 20 [2.4]. The Interpretation of Jesus 21 7. PERSECUTION and TRANSFORMATION 3. GENTILE CHURCH and ROMAN [7.1]. Rest And Growth, 260-303 55 EMPIRE [7.2]. Rival Religious Forces 55 [3.1]. Gentile Christianity of the Second Century 25 [7.3]. The Final Struggle 56 [7.4].
    [Show full text]
  • Athanasius of Alexandria
    Athanasius of Alexandria “Athanasius” redirects here. For other uses, see Church, Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches, the Athanasius (disambiguation). Lutherans, and the Anglican Communion. For the Italian bishop, see Athanasius I (bishop of Naples). 1 Biography Saint Athanasius of Alexandria (/ˌæθəˈneɪʃəs/; Greek: Ἀθανάσιος Ἀλεξανδρείας, Athanásios Alexandrías; c. 296–298 – 2 May 373), also called Athanasius the Great, Athanasius the Confessor or, primarily in the Coptic Orthodox Church, Athanasius the Apostolic, was the twentieth bishop of Alexandria (as Athanasius I). His episcopate (because of the importance of the see, considered an archbishopric by Rome, the Coptic papacy, or an Orthodox patriarchate) lasted 45 years (c. 8 June 328 – 2 May 373), of which over 17 were spent in five ex- iles ordered by four different Roman emperors. Athana- sius is a renowned Christian theologian, a Church Father, the chief defender of Trinitarianism against Arianism, and a noted Egyptian leader of the fourth century. Conflict with Arius and Arianism as well as successive Roman emperors shaped Athanasius’ career. In 325, at the age of 27, Athanasius began his leading role against the Arians as his bishop’s assistant during the First Coun- cil of Nicaea. Roman emperor Constantine the Great had convened the council in May–August 325 to address the Arian position that the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, is of a distinct substance from the Father.[1] Three years after that council, Athanasius succeeded his mentor as archbishop of Alexandria. In addition to the conflict with the Arians (including powerful and influential Arian churchmen led by Eusebius of Nicomedia), he struggled against the Emperors Constantine, Constantius II, Julian Statue in Catania, Sicily.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Christian Church, Volume I: Apostolic Christianity
    History of the Christian Church, Volume I: Apostolic Christianity. A.D. 1-100. by Philip Schaff About History of the Christian Church, Volume I: Apostolic Christianity. A.D. 1-100. by Philip Schaff Title: History of the Christian Church, Volume I: Apostolic Christianity. A.D. 1-100. URL: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc1.html Author(s): Schaff, Philip (1819-1893) Publisher: CCEL First Published: 1882 Print Basis: Revised edition Rights: Public Domain Date Created: 2002-11-26 Contributor(s): Wendy Huang (Markup) CCEL Subjects: All; History; LC Call no: BR145.S3 1882-1910 LC Subjects: Christianity History History of the Christian Church, Volume I: Apostolic Christianity. Philip Schaff A.D. 1-100. Table of Contents About This Book. p. ii History of the Christian Church. p. 1 Preface to the Revised Edition. p. 1 From the Preface to the First Edition. p. 2 Preface to the Third Revision. p. 3 Contents. p. 4 Addenda. p. 4 Literature. p. 6 Nature of Church History. p. 7 Branches of Church History. p. 10 Sources of Church History. p. 12 Periods of Church History. p. 13 Uses of Church History. p. 17 Duty of the Historian. p. 18 Literature of Church History. p. 21 Preparation for Christianity in the History of the Jewish. p. 36 Central Position of Christ in the History of the World. p. 37 Judaism. p. 38 The Law, and the Prophecy. p. 43 Heathenism. p. 46 Grecian Literature, and the Roman Empire. p. 49 Judaism and Heathenism in Contact. p. 54 Jesus Christ. p. 57 Sources and Literature.
    [Show full text]
  • The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus: the Question of Its Development
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (1934 -) Projects The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus: The Question of Its Development Vasilije Vranic Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Religion Commons Recommended Citation Vranic, Vasilije, "The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus: The Question of Its Development" (2012). Dissertations (1934 -). 182. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/182 THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THEODORET OF CYRRHUS: THE QUESTION OF ITS DEVELOPMENT by Rev. Vasilije Vranic, M.A., MPhil. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2012 ABSTRACT THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THEODORET OF CYRRHUS: THE QUESTION OF ITS DEVELOPMENT Rev. Vasilije Vranic, M.A., M.Phil. Marquette University, 2012 The Christological opus of Theodoret of Cyrrhus remains somewhat controversial due to his involvement in the Nestorian and Monophysite controversies as the champion of the Antiochene milieu. Although the recent scholarship is increasingly benevolent in the considerations of his Christology, still certain doubts are present about the constancy of his teaching. In this dissertation, I argue that the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus remains consistent and unchanged throughout his life. The analysis of both his early and mature Christological output, as evidenced in the Expositio rectae fidei and the Eranistes, shows that the main theological concepts and terminology remain unaffected by the many years of fierce theological debates. Theodoret’s Christology is constructed around the key concept of sharp distinction between the uncreated and created orders of existence, to which the divine and human natures of Christ respectively belong.
    [Show full text]