SummaryIn this article, the Syriac version of a letter from Theodoret of Cyrus to Nestorius, hitherto known in three Latin translations only, is edited and taken as the starting point for some considerations on the relationship between, and a few important dates in the lives of, both theologians. Syriac sources suggest that Nestorius was exiled in the year 435 and died in 453. Theodoret's letter gives account of his assent to the formula of union of 433, but solemnly (...) states that he will never agree to Nestorius' condemnation. Since the letter was written when Nestorius was “already in exile”, it must be dated to 435 or perhaps even 436. From other sources it is known that Theodoret did indeed take some time to accept the formula, because he tried in vain to convince his metropolitan, Alexander of Hierapolis. And perhaps after his decision he also took his time to set himself to inform Nestorius of this. In any case, Nestorius' reply leaves no doubt as to his refusal to accept the compromise. Another letter from Theodoret to Nestorius may well be interpreted, as the Latin translator does, as an attempt to bring Nestorius to rethink his position. It is curiously enough worded as a request to Nestorius to try and convince Alexander of Hierapolis to unite with the other party. There seems to have been no reply. A final letter by Nestorius to Theodoret seems to have been written after the latter was deposed in 449. In 451 Theodoret was restored to his see—but only after he had officially condemned Nestorius. (shrink)

In late antiquity Plato's philosophy became a battlefield between the competing discourses and rival intellectual paradigms represented by Hellenism and Christianity. Focusing on Theodoret of Cyrrhus' Graecarum Affectionum Curatio, Dr Siniossoglou examines the philosophical, rhetorical and political dimensions of the Neoplatonic-Christian conflict of interpretations over Plato. He shows that the apologist's aim was to procure a radical shift in Hellenic intellectual identity through the appropriation of Platonic concepts and terminology. The apologetical strategies of appropriation are confronted with the perspective (...) of the intended audience, the Hellenic elite, by means of comparative discourse analysis. The outcome is a reconstruction of a vital trial of strength between Neoplatonic hermeneutics and the Christian rhetorical mode of rewriting Plato. The volume concludes that the fundamental Hellenic-Christian opposition outweighed any linguistic merging that might have occurred between the two systems, and that this opposition outlived the dominance of Christianity in late antique society and politics. (shrink)

Le programme de publication des historiens ecclésiastiques, commencé dès les premiers volumes de la collection Sources Chrétiennes avec l’œuvre d’Eusèbe de Césarée, s’enrichit d’un nouveau titre (deux volumes prévus, pour les livres I-II, puis pour les livres III à V). Théodoret de Cyr, au 5e siècle, se présente d’emblée, comme Socrate de Constantinople, en continuateur de l’Histoire ecclésiastique d’Eusèbe de Césarée. Les 5 livres de son Histoire, dont la rédaction est achevée à la fin des a.

In this paper some parallelisms and differences are presented between two ancient theological traditions concerning their model of Christ by comparing two representative figures of both schools, namely Theodoret of Cyrus and Cyril of Alexandria. Since the Christology of the two authors could not be compared in detail within such a paper, the investigation resumes itself to the mode how they interpret the Lord’s Temptation by the devil in the wilderness. The works involved in the analysis include Theodoret’s (...) treatise On the incarnation written in 431 before the Council of Ephesus, the fragments of Cyril’s Commentary on Matthew as well as his Commentary on Luke. The doctrinal conclusion of this comparison is that the two traditions represented by these illustrious theologians—despite their conspicuous and undeniable differences— signify rather complementary than flatly opposing views and that the two ancient traditions have found their revival even in the sixteenth century, and continue to influence the theologians of our time. This is why the author considers Chalcedon as being a corridor rather than a narrow path or a tightrope-walking, where only one is able to go through. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to examine Theodoret of Cyrus’s (ca. 393–ca. 457 CE) exposition of LXX Ruth, as found in his Questions on the Octateuch. At the centre of this analysis lies the question of what an early Christian author like Theodoret, who lives in a context where asceticism and sexual renunciation were quite popular (i.e. Christian Syria), does with a complicated text like Ruth, which contains so many explicit nuances about sex, procreation and marriage, as (...) well as various gendered complexities. The article starts by examining briefly the canonisation history of Ruth in early Christianity and some of the main interpretative trends in readings of Ruth by other Christian authors. Then, Theodoret’s interpretation of Ruth is examined, focusing specifically on his Questions on Ruth. The purpose of Ruth as scripture, according to Theodoret, is first delineated, after which Theodoret’s approach to sex and gender in LXX Ruth is examined.Contribution: This article argues that Theodoret transforms the story of Ruth into one that aligns with the moral-philosophical discourse related to sex, marriage and gender of his own time. Theodoret restructures Ruth androcentrically by placing Boaz, the masculine and virtuous male father-figure, at the centre of the story, while at the same time stripping Ruth of any possible agency she might have as a would-be temptress. (shrink)

This article considers the depictions of imperial officials and their interactions with Christian communities in the genre of ecclesiastical history. It focuses on one particular episode where the emperor Valens ordered his praetorian prefect Domitius Modestus to disperse an assembly of Nicene Christians at the martyrium of Thomas at Edessa. The four fifth-century Nicene ecclesiastical historians Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret offer the same basic narrative of the events which led to the prefect’s abandonment of his mission. Yet they (...) construe the causes and implications of his reluctance to persecute in strikingly different ways. These adaptations reveal their differing views of the role of imperial officials in matters concerning the church and, more broadly, of what Christian communities might expect from the imperial state in a Christian empire. (shrink)

The article reviews the assessment of the School of Antioch by the first Ukrainian hagiographer, St. Dymytriy Tuptalo. Methods: The comparative-historical methodology and, above all, the Tradition history method reveal not only explicit but also implicit links between Kyivan and Antiochian theology. Conclusions: Interpreting the 4th -5th-centuries theological collisions, Tuptalo consistently clung to the viewpoint of the School of Antioch, rejecting the accusals from the side of Alexandrian tradition. St. Dymytriy systematically reproduces in his Synaxarion the historical narratives of the (...) Antiochians. An unequivocal indicator of Dymytriy’s position is his attitude to Antioch's most controversial figures: in particular, he enlists Theodoret of Cyrrhus among the "holy fathers" and mentions Diodorus of Tarsus among the "Church luminaries", along with other figures of the Meletian party. Such an independent evaluation of the Antiochian heritage is undoubtedly due to the concordance of the theological thinking of Dymytriy with the worldview of the Antiochians. (shrink)

In Libanius' speechFor the Temples(Or. 30), sometimes regarded as the crowning work of his career, he refers to an unnamed city in which a great pagan temple had recently been destroyed; the date of the speech is disputed, but must be in the 380 s or early 390 s, near the end of the speaker's life. After deploring the actions of a governor appointed by Theodosius, often identified with the praetorian prefect Maternus Cynegius, Libanius continues (30.44–5):Let no-one think that all (...) this is an accusation against you, Your Majesty. For on the frontier with Persia (πρὸς τοῖς ὁρίοις Περσῶν) there lies in ruins a temple which had no equal, as one may hear from all who saw it, so very large was it and so very large the blocks with which it was built, and it occupied as much space as the city itself. Why, amid the terrors of war, to the benefit of the city's inhabitants, those who took the city gained nothing because of their inability to take the temple as well (τοῖς ἑλοῦσι τὴν πόλιν οὐκ ἔχουσι κἀκεῖνον προσεξελεῖν), since the strength of the walls defied every siege-engine. Besides that, one could mount up to the roof and see a very great part of enemy territory, which gives no small advantage in time of war. I have heard some people disputing which of the two sanctuaries was the greater marvel, this one that has gone, or one that one hopes may never suffer in the same way, and contains Sarapis. But this sanctuary, of such a kind and size, not to mention the secret devices of the ceiling and all the sacred statues made of iron that were hidden in darkness, escaping the sun – it has vanished and is destroyed.Jacques Godefroy (Gothofredus), best known for his edition of the Theodosian Code, also produced theeditio princepsof the speechFor the Temples, supplying a Latin translation and extensive notes. He hesitated whether to identify the city in question with Apamea in Syria or with Carrhae, ‘urbs superstitione Gentilicia tum referta’, but opted for a third choice: Edessa, the capital of Osrhoene. In doing so he took for granted that a law of the Theodosian Code (16.10.8), in which the emperors order that a pagan temple in Osrhoene remain open, referred to the same temple; I shall argue below that this is incorrect. Opinion continues to be divided, though with a majority favouring Edessa. But this lay some ten or fifteen miles from the border with Persia, whereas Carrhae was directly on it, and is much more likely than Edessa to have had a temple from which one ‘could observe a vast area of enemy country’. The principal deity of Carrhae (Harran) was Sîn, the Moon God, said by some sources to be male, by others to be female. Describing how Caracalla was assassinated while on a pilgrimage to the god, Cassius Dio says that he had ‘set out from Edessa for Carrhae’, and was murdered on the way: according to Herodian, he was staying in Carrhae when he decided to go in advance of his army ‘and to reach the temple of the Moon, whom the local people greatly revere: the temple is a long way from the city [presumably Carrhae], so as to require a (special) journey’. Another emperor to visit the sanctuary was Julian on his march into Babylonia. Theodoret of Cyrrhus alleges that ‘he entered the sanctuary honoured by the impious’ and cut open a human victim, a woman suspended by the hair, in order to obtain an omen of his future victory. (shrink)

Le corps mythique du héros.Les dieux et les héros grecs sont refoulés dans les ténèbres comme des chauve-souris, Jésus est la lumière victorieuse : ce sont les mots de Théodoret dans sa Graecarum affectionum curatio, l’un des plus précieux témoignages de l’apologétique chrétienne. Dans cette œuvre, l’évêque de Cyr parle aux païens de leurs héros et en particulier de l’iniquité du culte héroïque : cette représentation ne s’explique pas seulement par les topoi de la rhétorique chrétienne, mais aussi par rapport (...) à la réflexion de Théodoret sur l’endurance des ascètes. Ce sont en effet les corps qui « posent le plan de l’énonciation » : les corps faibles des héros, destinés à être vaincus par la souffrance, incapables de supporter la douleur et la maladie, face aux corps trempés par la karteria des martyrs et des ascètes, qui prennent sur eux la souffrance et en font ainsi la « marque » de la sainteté, en actualisant par leur hyponomè celle du Christ. La représentation que Théodoret donne des corps vaincus des héros « marque » l’éloignement de la vera religio du mythe; l’auteur esquisse des modalités nouvelles de la relation entre l’humain et le divin, et il décrit un scénario, où les corps sont aussi éloquents que le logos.The mythical body of the hero. The Greek heroes and gods are vanished into darkness, like bats; actually, Jesus Christ is the victorious light: these are Theodoret’s words in the Graecarum affectionum curatio, one of the most important texts of Christian apologetics. In his work, Theodoret offers to pagans a picture of their own heroes, in order to demonstrate the iniquity of the heroic cult. Evidences of such a statement is provided through Christian rhetorical topoi. However, an important argument against the heroic cult is the practice of ascetic endurance. According to Theodoret, on the one hand, the bodies of pagan heroes, who are unable to endure suffering and diseases, are doomed to be defeated by pain. On the other hand, martyrs and ascetics are able to endure suffering and to assume it, just through their bodies, hardened by karteria, so that they turn it into the mark of holiness. In this sense, Christ’s hypomone is re-enacted by the ascetic hypomone. Therefore, the heroic bodies, defeated by their own inability to endure suffering, stress the distance between vera religio and myth. So, the Christian author displays a new kind of relationship between humanity and divinity, describing a scene in which bodies are as meaningful and eloquent as logos. (shrink)

The prologues to the patristic commentaries on the Prophets offer an opportunity to compare these prefaces in practice. Prologues written by Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Cyrus are the most similar among the Greeks, where some common points can be identified. Much shorter are the prologues written by Didymus the Blind and John Chrysostom. Longer, although with an unusual preamble, is the prologue to the comment on Isaiah which has been attributed to Basil of Caesarea. (...) The common trait of all Greek patristic prologues lies in their impersonality, their objectivity, their scientific qualities. Among the Latins, the exuberance of Jerome’s prologues stands out with its prevailing personal traits. The reason for this difference between the Greek and Roman Fathers’ prologues has to be identified in Greek and Latin profane literature. Cicero in particular, allows for a better understanding of many peculiarities in Jerome’s prologues. (shrink)

This article examines the dual consolatory approach of Theodoret of Cyrus, a fifth-century Syriac bishop. Theodoret's method of grief counseling may be examined by drawing upon several of his letters of consolation as guiding examples. Using the philosophical theme of reason's control of the passions together with the Christian hope of the resurrection, Theodoret consoled his mourning friends, yielding an instructive model for contemporary pastors and counselors to consider. Theodoret practiced letter writing as a valid and (...) constructive consolatory medium, demonstrated a balance of faith and reason in Christian counseling, and modeled theologically robust grief counseling. The article opens with an extract from Theodoret's lengthiest letter of comfort, to his newly-widowed friend, Alexandra. (shrink)

In the preface to his commentary on the Song of Songs, Theodoret of Cyrrhus states that the book has without doubt a spiritual meaning and that a literal interpretation is worthy only of wicked heretics, ridiculous in their own blindness, amongst whom it is difficult to include Theodore of Mopsuestia. The spiritual nature of the Song of Songs is supported by the reference to Esdra and by the many early Fathers who have commented upon it (amongst whom Eusebius has (...) pride of place, followed by Origen, then Cyprian for the struggle against heretics) or who have acknowledged it as sacred (amongst whom are Basil, Gregory of Nazianzo and, contrary to common belief, Amphilochius of Iconium). The sacredness of the work voids its immoral content and compels one to interpret it in an allegorical way. (shrink)

This article compares the epistemologies, writing styles, subject matters, methodologies, sources, and interests of ancient and modem historians of theCatholic Church. Ancient historians reviewed include Eusebius, Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomen, and the Venerable Bede. Modem Church histories critiqued include those of Dwyer and Bokenkotter. The credulity of ancient histories and the skepticism of modem histories on matters supernatural, miraculous and metaphysical is contrasted. Modem church histories are found to be less open to a wide range of sources and more chained (...) to materialist or naturalist assumptions, and thus less rich and edifying than their ancient precursors, who retained a lively sense of divine providence. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Aëtıana. The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, Volume One: The Sources by J. Mansfeld and D. T. RuniaA. A. LongJ. Mansfeld and D. T. Runia. Aëtıana. The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, Volume One: The Sources. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997. Pp. xxii + 371. Cloth, $135.50In this book, the first of a projected series of volumes, Mansfeld and Runia have begun a massive investigation (...) of the (mainly Greek) authors on whom we moderns rely for information about the numerous Greek philosophers whose works have not survived. The thousand-year tradition of Greek philosophy, extending from the Presocratics to Neoplatonism, is largely a story told via quotations, biographies, classifications, epitomes and criticisms. A few great works survive intact, including especially the dialogues of Plato, the technical writings of Aristotle, the sceptical books of Sextus Empiricus, and the Enneads of Plotinus; we also have most of the work on lost philosophers composed by such prolific authors as Cicero, Plutarch and Galen, and there are other well-known “sources,” such as the ten books of Lives and Doctrines, compiled by Diogenes Laertius. The present volume, however, deals with more recondite material: a work (P) on the physical doctrines of the philosophers, misattributed to Plutarch; a similar work, misattributed to Galen (G); the anthology of the Byzantine scholar Stobaeus (S); some chapters of Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica (E); a work of Christian apologetics by the Syrian bishop Theodoret (T); and (in less detail) a few further writers from later antiquity.What unifies this set of authors is the thesis put forward by Hermann Diels in his monumental Doxographi Graeci (1879), to the effect that all of them, directly or indirectly, are derived from a single work composed in about 100 CE by Aetius. According to Diels, Aetius derived his material from a much older collection (Vetusta Placita), and this, in its turn, was ultimately dependent on an extensive work by Aristotle’s pupil and successor, Theophrastus. Diels’ thesis, which underpins his collection of testimonia for the Presocratics (the “A” fragments of Diels/Kranz Vorsokratiker), has been the foundation of all subsequent work on the sources of fragmentary Greek (especially Presocratic) philosophers. Diels gave the name “doxography” to the genre of writing he took to be represented by Aetius and the authors of similar accounts of philosophical doctrines.The volume under review explains, tests, supplements, and revises just that part of Diels’ thesis which invokes Aetius and the subsequent sources supposedly derived from this lost work. Mansfeld and Runia are uniquely qualified for this daunting task. Each of them has worked extensively on the historiography of Greek philosophy. As a Dutch duo in this volume, they bring unrivalled expertise to bear on revisiting the work of the formidable Diels.The good news is that Diels’ Aetian hypothesis has been vindicated for the most part. Although the name Aetius is attested to by only Theodoret, Diels was quite right to deduce that Aetius’ compilation was the source of the material common to P, S, and T, and that E and G make extensive use of P. Hence scholars of ancient philosophy can continue to impose confidence in that part of Diels’ work which takes the story from Aetius into later antiquity. This finding means that the work of Mansfeld and Runia will hardly change one’s judgment concerning what can be known about the actual doctrines of fragmentary philosophers.What it will particularly affect is one’s understanding of the lost Aetius himself and [End Page 523] the surviving authors whose work is directly derived from him. The core of this book (primarily composed by Runia) is a set of chapters on P, S, and T, in which these three authors are studied for their own sake and their different methodologies carefully set out. Diels, under the influence of nineteenth-century philology, treated P, S, and T as if they were variant manuscripts rather than distinct authors. This misled him into regarding the doxographical tradition as much more uniform than it actually is. In earlier works both Mansfeld and Runia have greatly illuminated the dialectical and classificatory ways in which philosophical doctrines were... (shrink)

Severian of Gabala’s homilies and Pseudo-Theodoret’s Quaestiones et responsiones ad Orthodoxos exhibit some notable parallels. Such links show that a marginal current of the Antiochene school was still thriving by the end of the 5th century, i.e. the most probable date of QRO.

This collection offers an extensive framework of comparative and individual studies assessing the place of Luke-Acts in the historiography of ancient Judaism and the Greco-Roman world, whilst also examining further developments in early Christian historiography up to Eusebius and Theodoret. Additional contributions concentrate on systematic questions concerning the literary genre and conception of Luke-Acts.

The Historia monachorum Syriae, written by Theodoret of Cyrrhus in 444 AD, contains a large quantity of sports metaphors in which the ascetic was presented as the “athlete of God”. The origin of this metaphor goes back to the epistles of Paul of Tarsus. Afterwards, there were many Christian writers who included it in their writings, although Theodoret undoubtedly exploited it in a much more intense way than other authors. His abundant use of this metaphor was due to (...) the great popularity enjoyed by athletic contests in the eastern Mediterranean well into the fifth century. Moreover, the partially profane education of Theodoret allowed him to give a specific terminology to his sports metaphors hardly documentable in other writers of Christian antiquity. (shrink)

This groundbreaking monograph on Bardaisan, his relation to Origen, and his Middle Platonic framework has argued, through a painstaking analysis of all evidence, that Bardaisan was a Christian Middle Platonist, a philosophical theologian who built a Logos Christology, possibly the first supporter of apokatastasis, and there is a close relation between Origen, Bardaisan, their thought, and their traditions [further proofs in an edition with essays: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming]. This monograph (and a related HTR essay) was received far beyond the field (...) of patristics, among others by P. Crone (Princeton IAS). * Dedication Page (page 5) * Table of Contents (page 7) * Preface (page 11) * 1 By way of Introductory Essay: Methodological Guidelines (page 17) * 2 Critical and Comparative Analysis of the Sources (page 45) o 1 The Very First Possible Witness: Clement (page 45) o 2 Two Early Witnesses Close to Origen and Very Appreciative of Bardaisan: Africanus and Didymus (page 46) + 2.1 Julius Africanus’ Acquaintance with both Bardaisan and Origen (page 46) + 2.2 The Origenian Didymus the Blind: The Most Appreciative Source on Bardaisan (page 56) o 3 Hippolytus (page 62) o 4 The Liber Legum Regionum (page 70) o 5 Porphyry and the Utmost Importance of His Fragments from Bardaisan: The Cosmic Christ, Middle Platonism, and a Christian Reading of the Timaeus (page 107) + 5.1 The Fragments from Bardaisan’s De India in Porphyry’s De Styge (page 107) + 5.2 Bardaisan’s Work in Porphyry’s De Abstinentia (page 124) o 6 Achilles Tatius and the Knowledge of Bardaisan in Late-Second-Century Alexandria (page 126) o 7 The Acts of Thomas (page 127) o 8 A Very Positive Witness: the Origenian Eusebius (page 131) o 9 The Origenian Gregory of Nyssa and His Own Work Against Fate (page 138) o 10 Diodore of Tarsus and His Closeness to Origens Eschatology and Refutation of Fate (page 142) o 11 Bardaisan’s Fight Against Marcionism (page 161) o 12 Jerome’s Parallel Turn: From Admirer to Criticizer of both Origen and Bardaisan (page 164) o 13 The Dialogue of Adamantius and the Portrait of a Bardaisanite (page 168) o 14 Ephrem between Documentation and Misunderstandings (page 172) o 15 Transition: The Transformation and Worsening of Bardaisan’s Image (page 254) o 16 Epiphanius’ Information: A ‘Mixed Bag’ (page 255) o 17 Two Heresiological Accounts Deriving from Epiphanius’ (page 261) o 18 Sozomen (page 262) o 19 Theodoret’s Account (page 266) o 20 Interesting Clues in a Very Appreciative Armenian Witness: Moses of Chorene (page 269) o 21 Philoxenus of Mabbug, an Anonymous, Isho’dad, and the Assimilation of Bardaisan to Valentinus or Mani (page 303) o 22 Rabbula and Theodoret (page 307) o 23 Appreciation of Bardaisan in a Local Source: the Chronicon of Edessa (page 312) o 24 The So-Called Cosmological Traditions: Importance and Methodological Guidelines. Barhadbshabba ‘Arbaya, Plus Comparisons with (Ps.) Maruta and Jacob of Edessa (page 314) o 25 Theodore Bar Konai (page 328) o 26 Theodore Abû Qurra (page 338) o 27 Moses Bar Kepha (page 339) o 28 (Ps.) John of Dara (page 347) o 29 Agapius and the So-Called Third Cosmological Tradition (page 352) o 30 Michael the Syrian’s Cosmological Testimony (page 353) o 31 Barhebraeus’ Cosmological Account (page 354) o 32 Mutaman ad-Dawla (page 355) o 33 From the “Cosmological Traditions'' to Other Doxographies and the Biographical Accounts. Masudi’s Biographical Information (page 355) o 34 The Fihrist and Arabic Sources on Bardaisan’s Anti-Dualism (page 358) o 35 Michael the Syrian’s Biographical Account (page 366) o 36 Barhebraeus (page 374) o 3 Conclusions and Contribution to Research (page 379) o Essential Bibliographical References on Bardaisan (page 381) o Index (page 389) . (shrink)

The evidence of ancient books points to the surprising conclusion that in texts of drama or prose dialogue changes of speaker were not usually marked by the name of the new speaker. Instead the ancient reader had a colon, sometimes combined with a paragraphus or stroke in the margin, to guide him. The inconvenience of this practice and the muddle it caused need no emphasis. The facts have been assembled for the text of Plato and Lucian by J. Andrieu , (...) and for Aristophanes by J. C. B. Lowe , 27–42). As far as prose dialogues are concerned confirmation can be found in an unexpected source: the prologue to the dialogue Eranistes by the fifth-century church father Theodoret. (shrink)

The evidence of ancient books points to the surprising conclusion that in texts of drama or prose dialogue changes of speaker were not usually marked by the name of the new speaker. Instead the ancient reader had a colon, sometimes combined with a paragraphus or stroke in the margin, to guide him. The inconvenience of this practice and the muddle it caused need no emphasis. The facts have been assembled for the text of Plato and Lucian by J. Andrieu, and (...) for Aristophanes by J. C. B. Lowe, 27–42). As far as prose dialogues are concerned confirmation can be found in an unexpected source: the prologue to the dialogue Eranistes by the fifth-century church father Theodoret. (shrink)