Contrary to the position sustained in recent German- and English-language studies, the Author of this note rejects the suitability of using the modern and generic term “Homoianism” to describe the different subordinationist doctrinal positions circulating during the second half of the fourth century. In the case of Eudoxius, Valens, Urascius and Ulfila, among others, it is more appropriate to continue to speak in terms of “Arianism”, as their Nicene opponents had already realized, not without reason.
The Author, taking account of the deficiencies of the surviving documentation on the doctrinal thought of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and considering the primacy of oral communication, nevertheless rejects the conclusion of a recent article on Origen’s doctrine of the Logos. There are no concrete data in the work of the Alexandrian theologian to support the hypothesis that he engaged in controversy with radical supporters of the doctrine of the Logos, who – as Arians ante litteram – separated the (...) Son from the divinity of the Father. Moreover, one cannot ascribe to Origen’s age the debate against those who supported the Son as being homoousios with the Father. According to extant documentation, this question is not raised before the dispute of the two Dionysiuses. In order to attempt reconstruction of the theological reasoning in the early Church, while at the same time avoiding hypotheses which, however intriguing they may seem, are simplynot well-founded, analysis must confine itself to the extant documents. (shrink)
Notwithstanding the fact that Novatian’s De trinitate follows Tertullian’s Adversus Praxean as a pre-eminent source, the former parted company with the latter on some crucial doctrinal points. This article examines Novatian’s approach to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in his De trinitate, analyzing at the same time its Stoicbackground. The paper illustrates how a meticulous research of Novatian’s De trinitate prompts scholars to discover hidden motives in ancient Christian literature.
This essay analyzes Origen's Commentary on Matthew, specifically the pericope of the 'rich young man', by comparing its ancient Latin translation to theGreek text as it stands in Klostermann's edition, taking into consideration, on the one hand, the surviving manuscripts and, on the other, the dissimilarGreek version used by the ancient translator. The paper illustrates how a painstaking research of the commentary's sources unexpectedly reveals Origen's exegesis and doctrines, which often remain hidden in modern translations of Origen's works.
In relation to the recent monograph of Karmann on Meletius of Antioch, some important episodes concerning the Arian controversy in the East between 360 and 364 are examined. The presence of the Meletians at the Council of Alexandria in 362 is ruled out and the meaning of the Trinitarian and Christological formulas in the Tomus ad Antiochenos is critically evaluated. The more political than doctrinal meaning of the formula issued by the Council of Antioch in 363 is accentuated, and the (...) significance of the contentious relationship between Athanasius and Meletius is considered in depth. That the doctrinal decisions of the Alessandrian council of 362 might have anticipated the passage from Nicenism to Neo – Nicenism is ruled out; this is confirmed by the Trinitarian reflection of Basil of Caesarea. (shrink)
