Pseudo Basilius Adversus Eunomium Iv V

This book treats a decisive phase in the theological history of the fourth century AD. When in 360 the 'Arians' Aetius and Eunomius maintained the difference in essences between the Father and the Son and the created nature of the Holy Spirit, the theologians of Nicaean orthodoxy were challenged to develop a theory of the Homousia of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost which paved the way to the Trinitarian doctrinal decisions of the Council of Constantinople in 381. The two books Adversus Eunomium IV-V probably form the first literary reaction to the 'Neo-Arians' and set the tone for the further development of the debate. In the MSS in which they are transmitted they follow on from the three books by Basil of Caesarea against Eunomius, but have been seen since at least the 18th century as pseudepigraphical and were probably composed by Apolinarius of Laodicea. The introduction to the present work discusses questions of authorship, identifies opponents (not only Aetius and Eunomius but also Marcellus of Ankyra), demonstrates the hitherto often questioned integrity of the tract and establishes the date of composition of Book IV as 360 and of Book V as 362/3. It also makes particularly clear the influence of contemporary philosophy. The translation follows the improved Migne text of 1886, while the commentary elucidates the often difficult content and prepares the way for further research on the interweaving of the threads of theological debate in the second half of the fourth century.

Until now the period following the Council of Nicea has remained a dark age of early Christian history. This is partly due to the fact that Eusebius' last and important works, Contra Marcellum and De Ecclesiastica Theologia, have not sufficiently been studied. Comparatively little interest has also been given to the Pseudo-Athanasian text Contra Arianos IV. Careful study and comparison of these works against the background of the post-Nicene debate between Asterius, Marcellus, Eusebius and Photinus, has revealed that (as A. Stegmann already proposed in 1917) Contra Arianos IV was written in about 340 and formed a Nicene critique of Marcellus, his pupil and opponents. Therefore, Stegmann's suggestion of the authorship of Apolinarius of Laodicea needs further investigation. This study on Contra Arianos IV sheds new light on the years between Nicea and the synods of Rome and Antioch (340/341).

The volume offers a new English translation of the Second Book Against Eunomius by Gregory of Nyssa and a series of papers providing introduction and commentary on the text focusing on the theory of language and the problem of naming God.

Focusing on Gregory's Trinitarian thought, his fascinating minor treatises are analysed in detail. Supporting studies deal with theological and philosophical concepts as well as with the context, e.g. his writings against Apolinarius.

Gregory of Nyssa's Contra Eunomium, one of the major books on trinitarian theology of the 4th century, documents the exchange between Eunomius and the Cappadocian Father in the last episode of the so-called "Arian Crisis". The present volume is devoted to the third and last book of Contra Eunomium. It offers a fresh English translation with a running commentary in the form of ten studies by first-rank specialists. Seventeen shorter papers enlighten various aspects of Contra Eunomium and other writings of the same author. The contributions will be of interest for scholars of historical and systematical theology, philosophy, spirituality, rhetoric and the history of the Early Church.

The 4th-century teacher, Didymus the Blind, enjoyed a fruitful life as head of an episcopally-sanctioned school in Alexandria. Author of numerous dogmatic treatises and exegetical works, Didymus was considered a stalwart defender of the Nicene faith in his heyday. He duly attracted the likes of Jerome and Rufinus to his school. Contemporary scholarship has focused most of its attention on understanding him as an exegete, especially focusing on his exegetical vocabulary and the driving assumptions behind his particular method of reading Scripture. The theological literature has been somewhat neglected. In this study, Jonathan Hicks makes the claim that Didymus’s exegesis can only be understood in all its fullness in light of his theological commitments. His acute differences with Theodore of Mopsuestia on the proper reading of the prophet Zechariah cannot be understood as merely methodological. Animating Didymus’s reading of the prophet is a lively understanding of Trinitarian missions. Recognizing the comings of the Son and the Spirit to Israel is essential in locating the prophet’s message properly within the one divine economy of revelation and salvation that culminates in the Incarnation of Christ. Hicks argues that Didymus is instructive here for today’s Church both on the level of praxis (we should adopt some of his reading practices) and on the level of theoria (his Trinitarian account of Scripture’s origin and ends is fundamental to a fully Christian understanding of what Scripture is).

Papers presented at the Twelfth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1995 (see also Studia Patristica 29, 30, 31 and 33). The successive sets of Studia Patristica contain papers delivered at the International Conferences on Patristic Studies, which meet for a week once every four years in Oxford; they are held under the aegis of the Theology Faculty of the University. Members of these conferences come from all over the world and most offer papers. These range over the whole field, both East and West, from the second century to a section on the Nachleben of the Fathers. The majority are short papers dealing with some small and manageable point; they raise and sometimes resolve questions about the authenticity of documents, dates of events, and such like, and some unveil new texts. The smaller number of longer papers put such matters into context and indicate wider trends. The whole reflects the state of Patristic scholarship and demonstrates the vigour and popularity of the subject.

Analogia is a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to the scholarly exposition and discussion of the theological principles of the Christian faith. A distinguishing feature of this journal will be the effort to advance a dialogue between Orthodox Christianity and the views and concerns of Western modes of theological and philosophical thought. A key secondary objective is to provide a scholarly context for the further examination and study of common Christian sources. Though theological and philosophical topics of interest are the primary focus of the journal, the content of Analogia will not be restricted to material that originates exclusively from these disciplines. Insofar as the journal seeks to cultivate theological discourse and engagement with the urgent challenges and questions posed by modernity, topics from an array of disciplines will also be considered, including the natural and social sciences. As such, solicited and unsolicited submissions of high academic quality containing topics of either a theological or interdisciplinary nature will be encouraged. In an effort to facilitate dialogue, provision will be made for peer-reviewed critical responses to articles that deal with high-interest topics. Analogia strives to provide an interdisciplinary forum wherein Christian theology is further explored and assumes the role of an interlocutor with the multiplicity of difficulties facing modern humanity.