by Scott McGill
Nicaea was only a starting point. The “Nicaeno‐Constantinopolitan” version of the Creed, which is still recited in Orthodox churches today, was only finalized at the Council of Constantinople in 381. Neither Nicaea nor Constantinople settled the Christological questions, which were addressed again at Ephesus (in 431 and 449) and Chalcedon (in 451). This process produced another credal formula, the “Formula of Chalcedon,” and another wave of theological literature with major authors such as Cyril of Alexandria, Nestorius, and Theodoret of Cyr (Moreschini and Norelli 2005, II, pp. 536–571). Other authors from this period include Diodore of Tarsus, John Chrysostom, Theophilus of Alexandria, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Synesius of Cyrene, Augustine of Hippo (many works on grace; De Trinitate), Jerome of Stridon, Epiphanius of Salamis (Panarion), Nemesius of Emesa (De natura hominis), and poets such as Prudentius and Paulinus of Nola. Extensive collections of liturgical and canonical material are also extant from this period (literature in Moreschini and Norelli 2005, II, pp. 146–200, 296–347, 362–409).
An important feature of this period (from ca. 320 to 451 and beyond) is that it immediately began to produce its own reception process. This involved the emergence not only of canonical forms such as Creeds and credal formulae such as the formula of Chalcedon, as mentioned already, but also of major, quasicanonical, figures, “Church Fathers,” as mentioned above, whose theological works were seen as canonical in elaborating on the Orthodox faith that was embodied in those Creeds and formulae. There are several such “Fathers” or groups of them, who fulfill different roles. Athanasius of Alexandria, for example, became a heroic symbol of the struggle against the Arian heresy and of the establishment of the Nicene faith, and this happened within less than a century (Graumann 2003). His works De synodis and Contra Arianos provided the standard account of how the latter was achieved and what its basic tenets were. Interestingly, this happened despite the fact that some of Athanasius’s theological positions (especially his use of the word hypostasis in Contra Arianos) lent themselves to misinterpretations, which brought him into close association with more heterodox theologians such as Marcellus of Ancyra and Apollinaris (Moreschini and Norelli 2005, II. pp. 34–35).
A generation later, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa were credited with developing and exploring the trinitarian formula “one ousia and three hypostaseis,” in view of the Nicaeno‐Constantinopolitan Creed. They enjoy until today a reception as “Cappadocian Fathers” (cf. Meesters 2012; Louth 2004; Lienhard 1999; Zizioulas 1995), Gregory of Nazianzus as author of the Theological Orations, Basil as author of De spiritu sancto, and both Basil and Gregory of Nyssa as authors of works Contra Eunomium. Because of differences in their theological outlook, which modern Patristic study has brought ever more sharply into focus, treatment of them as a homogeneous theological entity is today widely called in question (Louth 2004, p. 291; Ayres 2004, p. 2; Ludlow 2007, p. 2). But the phenomenon of a group of Church Fathers and their literary works assuming such canonical status can be understood against the background of the emergence in the fourth and fifth centuries of new canonical forms that characterized the late antique Church of the Fathers (see Barnes 1998). Reception of the “Cappadocian” formula can already be observed, for example, in Augustine’s De Trinitate in the early fifth century.
In the fifth century it was Cyril of Alexandria who assumed towering status as a Church Father in the East, especially in the context of the Nestorian controversy and in the run‐up to and reception of the Council of Chalcedon, while Augustine of Hippo assumed a similar status in the Latin West against the background of the Donatist and the Pelagian controversies (Graumann 2009, pp. 551–554). In addition, Augustine also stands out as the author of De Trinitate, one of the greatest and most influential works of Christian theology in late antiquity and arguably of any age (see Kany 2007).
20.4 Consolidation and Reception toward the End of Late Antiquity
To some extent Cyril and Augustine also represent a dying breed of late antique Christian theological writers. With the Orthodox parameters now established through the councils and the Fathers, later theologians were restricted in the way they could produce new forms and content. A lot of the activity now consisted in analyzing, systematizing, abridging, and commenting on the great literature of the fourth and fifth centuries or on continuing or readdressing the controversies of that period, especially in the East.
This can be said, for example, of the writings of Prosper Tiro, Leo the Great, John Cassian, Salvian of Marseilles, and Vincent of Lérins, whom we mentioned earlier as one of the first theologians defining the concept of “Church Father” (see Moreschini and Norelli 2005, II, pp. 410–480). These authors wrote in a West (Africa, Spain, Gaul, Italy) over which the Roman Empire rapidly lost control and that was increasingly shaped by barbarian kingdoms. In the sixth century authors like Boethius, Cassiodorus, Gregory the Great and Isidore of Seville already lived in a post‐Roman age (Moreschini and Norelli 2005, II, pp. 483–535).
In the East, during the same period, the scene was dominated by controversies following the Council of Chalcedon and literature produced in their context (e.g. the works of Severus of Antioch), by historiography (e.g. works by Gelasius of Cyzicus, Zacharias Rhetor, or John Malalas), spiritual and hagiographic writing (Isidore of Pelusium, Cyril of Scythopolis), and exegetical works (e.g. Cosmas Indicopleustes).
For theology in the narrower sense two figures emerge who are representative both in their attitude to the past and in their importance for the future: Boethius and Pseudo‐Dionysius (Moreschini 2014; Lössl 2014; Stang 2012).
Boethius lived in the first few decades of the sixth century in Italy under the Ostrogothic ruler Theoderich. His works De fide catholica, Contra Eutychen et Nestorium, De sancta Trinitate and De hebdomadibus stand for his program: He theologically explores the Creed and its most profound doctrine, the Trinity, and he takes up a position in support of the Chalcedonian formula against heretics such as Eutyches (a Miaphysite) and Nestorius. He also develops new methods of philosophical analysis based on a study of Aristotelian logic and, thus, prepares the way for medieval scholasticism. At the same time, in his last work, the Consolatio Philosophiae, he expresses once more the tension between classical and Christian culture which so characterized Christian intellectual life in late antiquity.
In the Greek (and Syriac) East there appeared in the first decades of the sixth century a set of theological writings (the four treatises De divinis nominibus, De caelesti hierarchia, De ecclesiastica hierarchia, and De mystica theologia and 10 letters) that were attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, who according to Acts 17:34 had converted to Christianity in response to Saint Paul’s preaching on the Areopagus in Athens. In reality, the writings represent an adaptation of Proclean Neoplatonism to late antique Christian doctrine and appear to try and reconcile Chalcedonian and Miaphysite Christology. However, Christological doctrine is not the guiding interest of Pseudo‐Dionysius, but the question of whether and how God can be known. The answer given is that we cannot know God as “he really is,” but only God’s positive (kataphatic) and negative (apophatic) attributes, or “names,” as revealed in Scripture and through mystical illumination.
As in the case of Boethius, Christian theological writing was here influenced by the philosophy of late antique Aristotelian and Platonist commentators. The result was both a summing up of late antique Christian theology and a new point of departure. Pseudo‐Dionysius, for example, influenced the work of the seventh‐century theologian Maximus the Confessor. Moreover, from the ninth century onward it was translated several times into Latin and influenced such important medieval theologians as John Scotus Eriugena, Richard of St. Victor, and Thomas Aquinas.
20.5 Summary and Conclusion
In conclusion: When approaching the Christian theological literature of late antiquity several aspects should first be considered. “Christian” may denote not only theological content but also literary form. In the first insta
nce “Christian” is “not classical” (or “pagan”). During late antiquity Christian literature can be “classicizing,” or it can be departing from the classical model and developing a “humble” style. As other literature in late antiquity, Christian literature, too, may best be studied in the context of the literary rhetorical school culture from which it emerged. This may grant better access both to the main authors of this literature and to its major forms. In terms of content the central early Christian theological problem was how to claim credibly to be monotheistic when at the same time confessing Christ as God. Most late antique Christian theology deals in one way or other with this question. The earliest literary form in which all problems hinted at so far were addressed was the apology. The second‐century apology in its many different manifestations can, therefore, perhaps be considered the earliest form of Christian theological writing.
In the third century Christian theological literature experienced a boost in the work of Origen, who not only wrote biblical commentaries but also worked on theological principles (e.g. De principiis). The fourth and fifth centuries saw the emergence of a more structured canonical framework with the Nicene Creed and an emerging canon of Church Fathers and their works. Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria in the Greek East and Augustine of Hippo in the Latin West were singled out as such authors.
Toward the end of late antiquity theological authors such as Boethius and Pseudo‐Dionysius referred back to the fourth/fifth‐century framework (doctrines of the Trinity and Christ). But by adapting late antique (“pagan”) philosophical elements (e.g. Aristotelian logic in Boethius’s case, Proclean epistemology and metaphysics in Pseudo‐Dionysius’s) and keeping to relatively simple form and language, they also prepared the way for a strong medieval reception.
REFERENCES
Auerbach, Erich. (1953). Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. Willard R. Trask). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Auerbach, Erich. (1965). Literary Language and Its Public in Late Latin Antiquity and in the Middle Ages (trans. Ralph Manheim). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ayres, Lewis. (2004). Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth‐Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barnes, Michel René. (1998). The fourth century as trinitarian canon. In: Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric and Community (ed. Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones), 47–67. London: Routledge.
Brennecke, Hanns Christof. (2007). Ecclesia est in re publica. Studien zur Kirchen‐ und Theologiegeschichte im Kontext des Imperium Romanum. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Brisson, Luc. (2004). How Philosophers Saved Myths. Allegorical Interpretation and Classical Mythology (trans. Catherine Tihanyi). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ceresa‐Gastaldo, Aldo. ed. (1988). Gerolamo. Gli uomini illustri, De viris illustribus. Florence: Nardini.
Chin, Catherine. (2008). Grammar and Christianity in the Late Roman World. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Crouzel, Henri and Simonetti, Manlio. (1978–1984). Origène. Traité des principes. 5 vols. Sources chrétiennes 252, 253, 268, 269, 312. Paris: Cerf.
Curtius, Ernst Robert. (1953). European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages (trans. Willard R. Trask). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Droge, Arthur J. (1989). Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 26. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Dünzl, Franz. (2007). A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church (trans. John Bowden. London: Continuum.
Edwards, Mark. (2004). Pagan and Christian monotheism in the age of Constantine. In: Approaching Late Antiquity. The Transformation from Early to Late Empire (ed. Simon Swain and Mark Edwards), 211–234. Oxford: Clarendon.
Edwards, Mark. (2009). Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church. Farnham: Ashgate.
Edwards, Mark, Goodman, Martin, and Price, Simon. ed. (1999). Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews and Christians. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fiedrowicz, Michael. (2006). Apologie im frühen Christentum. Die Kontroverse um den christlichen Wahrheitsanspruch in den ersten Jahrhunderten. 3rd ed. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Graumann, Thomas (2003). Kirchliche Identität und bischöfliche Selbstinszenierung: Der Rückgriff auf “Athanasius” bei der Überwindung des nachephesinischen Schismas und in Kyrills Propaganda. In: Literarische Konstitutierung von Identifikationsfiguren in der Antike (ed. Barbara Aland, Johannes Hahn, and Christian Ronning), 195–213. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Graumann, Thomas. (2009). The conduct of theology and the “Fathers” of the Church. In: A Companion to Late Antiquity (ed. Philip Rousseau), 539–555. London: Blackwell.
Hahn, August. (1897). Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche. 4th rev. and enl. ed. Breslau: Morgenstern.
Halton, Thomas P. (2010). St. Jerome. On Illustrious Men. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.
Hanson, R.P.C. (1988). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. The Arian Controversy, 318–381. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Herzog, Reinhart. (1989). Einführung in die lateinische Literatur der Spätantike. In: Restauration und Erneuerung: Die lateinische Literatur von 284 bis 374 n. Chr. Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, vol. 5. (ed. Reinhart Herzog), 1–44. Munich: Beck.
Hombergen, Daniel. (2001). The Second Origenist Controversy. Studia Anselmiana 132. Rome: Sant’Anselmo.
Kany, Roland. (2007). Augustins Trinitätsdenken. Bilanz, Kritik und Weiterführung der modernen Forschung zu De Trinitate. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Kaster, Robert. (1988). Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Kelly, J.N.D. (1972). Early Christian Creeds. 3rd ed. London: Longman.
Kinzig, Wolfram and Markus Vinzent. (1999). Recent research on the origin of the Creed. The Journal of Theological Studies 50: 535–559.
Lamberton, Robert. (1986). Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonic Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lechner, Thomas. (2011). Very Sophisticated? – Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in der Welt der Zweiten Sophistik. Millennium 8: 51–86.
Lienhard, Joseph T. (1999). Ousia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and the theology of “one hypostasis.” In: The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium (ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins), 99–121. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Löhr, Winrich. (2010). Christianity as philosophy: Problems and perspectives of an ancient intellectual project. Vigiliae Christianae 64: 160–188.
Lössl, Josef. (2010). The Early Church: History and Memory. London: Continuum.
Lössl, Josef. (2014). An inextinguishable memory: Pagan past and presence in early Christian writing. In: Being Christian in Late Antiquity. A Festschrift for Gillian Clark (ed. Carol Harrison, Caroline Humfress, and Isabella Sandwell), 74–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lössl, Josef and Watt, John. ed. (2011). Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity. The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad. Farnham: Ashgate.
Louth, Andrew. (2004). The Cappadocians. In: The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature (ed. Frances Young, Lewis Ayres, and Andrew Louth), 289–301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ludlow, Morwenna. (2007). Gregory of Nyssa: Ancient and (Post)modern. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Markschies, Christoph. (2009). Die kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Meesters, Albert C. (2012). The Cappadocians and their trinitarian conceptions of God. Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 54: 396–413.
Mitchell, Stephen and van Nuffelen, Peter. ed. (2010). One God: Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi
ty Press.
Moreschini, Claudio. (2014). A Christian in Toga. Boethius: Interpreter of Antiquity and Christian Theologian. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Moreschini, Claudio and Norelli, Enrico. ed. (2005). Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature. A Literary History I–II (trans. Matthew J. O’Connell). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Nixon, C.E.V. and Rodgers, Barbara Saylor. (1994). In Praise of Later Roman Emperors. The Panegyrici Latini. Berkeley: University of California Press.
O’Daly, Gerard. (1999). Augustine’s City of God. A Reader’s Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Overbeck, Franz. (1882). Über die Anfänge der patristischen Literatur. Historische Zeitschrift 12: 417–72.
Perczel, István. (2001). The anti‐Origenist anathemas of 553: To what did they refer? In: The Sabaïte Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present (ed. J. Patrich), 261–282. Leuven: Peeters.
Potter, David. (2004). The Empire at Bay, AD180–395. London: Routledge.
Quasten, Johannes. (1983). Patrology. Vol. 1: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature, Allen, TX: Christian Classics.
Quiroga Puertas, Alberto. (2007). From Sophistopolis to Episcopolis: The case for a third Sophistic. Journal for Late Antique Religion and Culture 1: 31–42.
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. (2012). Origen, Greek philosophy, and the birth of the trinitarian meaning of Hypostasis. Harvard Theological Review 105: 302–350.
Schwartz, Eduard and Straub, Johannes. (1914–1984). Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum I–IV. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Stang, Charles. (2012). Apophasis and Pseudonymity in Dionysius the Areopagite: “No Longer I.” Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stead, Christopher. (1976). Rhetorical method in Athanasius. Vigiliae Christianae 30: 121–137.
