Three Powers in Heaven: The Trinitarian Controversies in Fourth-Century Roman Syria And the Christian-Jewish Continuum by Emanuel Fiano Graduate Program in Religion Duke University Date: May 15, 2017 Approved: ___________________________ Lucas Van Rompay, Supervisor ___________________________ Joel Marcus, Supervisor ___________________________ Daniel Boyarin ___________________________ Elizabeth A. Clark ___________________________ Malachi H. Hacohen Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate Program in Religion in the Graduate School of Duke University 2017 i v ABSTRACT Three Powers in Heaven: The Trinitarian Controversies in Fourth-Century Roman Syria And the Christian-Jewish Continuum by Emanuel Fiano Graduate Program in Religion Duke University Date: May 15, 2017 Approved: ___________________________ Lucas Van Rompay, Supervisor ___________________________ Joel Marcus, Supervisor __________________________ Daniel Boyarin ___________________________ Eilzabeth A. Clark ___________________________ Malachi H. Hacohen An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate Program in Religion in the Graduate School of Duke University 2017 Copyright by Emanuel Fiano 2017 Abstract This dissertation pursues a re-examination of the late ancient parting between Christianity and Judaism. It argues that the progressive emergence of two distinct intellectual traditions out of a prior state of interfusion was produced by the crystallization of different discursive modes aimed at addressing a fundamental problem, shared by Jesus-believing and -disbelieving Jews: the question as to how mediation between the godhead and humankind is achieved. The first part of the dissertation tracks the appearance, reception, and history of effects of a particular theological expression in the course of the trinitarian controversies in Roman Syria, in order to illuminate a series of epistemic shifts within Christian theological thought. This study suggests that the increasing formularization, technicalization, and dogmatization of Christian manners of discussing the divine led to the development of a set of highly specialized discursive rules, which in turn brought about the formation of a distinct Christian intellectual field. In the second part of the dissertation, the re-interpretation of a passage from the Babylonian Talmud traditionally understood as disavowing binitarian beliefs leads to the hypothesis of a late ancient rabbinic rejection of the pursuit of exact knowledge about the divine realm, in favor of forms of religious discourse focused on halakhah and more directly supporting rabbinic authority. The dissertation concludes that, more than conflict over specific theological issues (such as the unicity vs. iv multiplicity of divine entities), it was different intellectual practices and modes of religious discourse that came to affect Jews’ and Christians’ separate self- understandings. v Dedication To the blessed memory of my grandparents Miranda and Tullio, Adriana and Amadio. vi Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... vi Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ xiiii Classical Authors and Texts ................................................................................................ xii Journals, Serials, and Multi-Volume Publications .......................................................... xiv Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................... xii 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Methodological Approaches ......................................................................................... 10 1.3.1 Intellectual History .................................................................................................... 10 1.3.2 Pragmatic Sociology .................................................................................................. 14 1.3.3 Search for Epistemic Ruptures ................................................................................ 16 1.3.4 The Geography of the Parting of the Ways ........................................................... 22 1.4 The Long Road from Nicaea to Constantinople ........................................................ 26 1.4.1 Traditional Accounts ................................................................................................ 26 1.4.2 Revisionist Accounts ................................................................................................. 30 1.4.3 Lewis Ayres’s Nicaea and Its Legacy ..................................................................... 33 1.5. From the Affair of Paul of Samosata to the “End of Dialogue” .............................. 43 1.5.1 The Roots of an Attitude .......................................................................................... 43 vii 1.5.2. Excursus: The Affair of Paul of Samosata: The Beginning of a Process ............ 51 1.6 The Contents of This Dissertation ................................................................................ 65 2. The Trinitarian Debates .......................................................................................................... 73 2.1 The Origins of the Trinitarian Controversies ............................................................. 73 2.1.1 The Generation of the Son ........................................................................................ 73 2.1.2 The Origins of Arius’s Doctrine .............................................................................. 77 2.1.3 The Generation of the Son and the Philosophical Tradition ............................... 81 2.2 The Council of Nicaea .................................................................................................... 84 2.2.1 From the Eruption of the Controversy to the Council of Nicaea (325) .............. 84 2.2.2. Homoousios and ousia ................................................................................................ 89 2.3 Terminological Awareness: The Early Debates over Hypostasis .............................. 94 2.3.1. From Nicaea (325) to Antioch (341) ....................................................................... 94 2.3.2 From Antioch (341) to Milan (345) ........................................................................ 100 2.3.3 From Milan (345) to Alexandria (362) .................................................................. 109 3. The Emergence of a Meme ................................................................................................... 122 3.1. Eustathius of Antioch ................................................................................................. 122 3.1.1 Life and Career ........................................................................................................ 122 3.1.2 Works and Posthumous Fortune .......................................................................... 124 3.1.3. Theological Views .................................................................................................. 128 3.2 Challenges to the Authenticity of Fr. 142 .................................................................. 138 3.2.1 The Chronological Difficulties ............................................................................... 138 3.2.2. The Incompatibility of the Theological Contents .............................................. 141 viii 3.2.3 The Similarity with Gregory of Nyssa’s To the Hellenes ..................................... 143 3.3 Fr. 142 ............................................................................................................................. 151 3.3.1 Text ............................................................................................................................ 151 3.3.2 Theological Contents .............................................................................................. 159 3.4 The Expression Πρόσωπον ἐνυπόστατον ............................................................... 165 3.4.1 Πρόσωπον ................................................................................................................ 165 3.4.2 Ἐνυπόστατος ........................................................................................................... 170 3.4.3 Some Additional Considerations .......................................................................... 176 4. Epistemic Shifts ..................................................................................................................... 180 4.1 The Council of Alexandria (362) ................................................................................ 180 4.1.1. The