Abstract This article has been retracted. Please see this notice for details: https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flag071.
Abstract This article compares reports in the heresiological tradition about the theology of Photinus of Sirmium against the characterization of Marcellus of Ancyra’s theology in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Against Marcellus and On Ecclesiastical Theology. It argues that many of the views attributed to Photinus in the historical record are either reiterations of views attributed to Marcellus or extrapolations thereof. This challenges the common view that Photinus significantly developed the controversial aspects of Marcellus’s theology both in its Trinitarian and Christological dimensions. It argues that Photinus’s continued presence on the ecclesiastical scene after Marcellus’s withdrawal therefrom after 345 nevertheless provided the impetus for an ongoing effort by theologians of all persuasions to address the deficiencies of Marcellus’s theology, but was especially important for theologians in both Greek and Latin regions who earlier and later in the century shared the bishop of Ancyra’s opposition to Arius of Alexandria and support for the theology that developed out of the Nicene council that condemned him.
Abstract The present study provides a revisionist account of the origins of the Nestorian controversy by examining several neglected texts from the early decades of the fifth century that provide the crucial backstory for the crisis, the most significant being Cyril’s Festal Letter from 420 and the Libellus emendationis of the Gallic monk Leporius. These sources reveal, first, that the controversy arose from an unresolved tension present from the moment the pro-Nicene movement coalesced in the 370s and 380s, a tension that had been steadily intensifying in the decade prior to Nestorius’ appointment in 428. Secondly, they show that on the eve of the controversy there was a broad consensus between East and West on key Christological principles, most prominently the practice of unitive predication as a hallmark of Christological orthodoxy that avoided speaking as though there were ‘two sons’. Finally, this study suggests that the spark igniting this conflict was neither Alexandrian power politics nor Roman obsession with Pelagianism but an intense and highly localized debate in Antioch that suddenly emerged onto the international stage with the arrival of Nestorius and his entourage in the eastern imperial capital.
Abstract The paper reconsiders the long-debated question of the date of Ad Adolescentes, one of St Basil’s most celebrated works on the proper engagement of Christian youths with classical paideia. Due to insufficient internal and external evidence, the work has been variously placed by scholars in three different decades: in the 350s, the 360s, and the 370s, each carrying distinct implications for St Basil’s intellectual and pastoral development. After reviewing the dominant views on the matter, I reassess the evidence and draw attention to several overlooked details that can lead to a more precise chronology. I argue that Ad Adolescentes should be dated between 365 and 367, during St Basil’s presbyterate in Caesarea. This dating explains the author’s mature yet non-episcopal voice, situates the work within the aftermath of Julian’s educational edict, and reveals its subtle dialogue with both Plutarch’s moral writings and Julian’s own medicalized rhetoric. More broadly, it shows that St Basil’s engagement with Greek paideia continued into his mature years and formed part of a conscious Christian effort to integrate classical culture within a pastoral framework.
