Kelley Spoerl: Apollinarius and the Ghost of Paul of Samosata

In dialogue with recent scholarship (DelCogliano 2008; Lang 2000; Giulea 2018), this presentation will explore the influence of the Antiochene Council of 268 that condemned bishop Paul of Samosata on the theology of Apollinarius of Laodicea. Two bishops from Laodicea attended session of the Council that condemned Paul of Samosata for trinitarian and Christological error.  I will trace how the council’s teachings influenced the theology of Eusebius of Caesarea, friend and colleague of a later bishop of Laodicea, Theodotus. I will focus especially in Eusebius’s final treatises directed against Marcellus of Ancyra – frequently addressed in the texts as “the Samosatene.” I will then review the influence of Eusebian theology on Apollinarius in both trinitarian and Christological spheres. This study aims to do three things: 1) provide more remote background for Apollinarius’s theology; 2) consider a new perspective on Apollinarius’s use of the terms ousia and hypostasis in his trinitarian treatise Kata Meros Pistis, and 3) raise further questions about how a theologian seemingly imbued with the traditional theology of Syro-Palestine in the first half of the fourth century came eventually to embrace the Nicene term outlawed by the Council of 268: homoousion.

Robin Orton: The ‘consubstantiality’ of Christ’s flesh and divinity in Apolinarius of Laodicea’s fourth century disciples

We know the names of some of Apolinarius’s early disciples, but few fragments of their writings have survived, the most extensive being by Polemon, Timothy of Beirut and Valentinus. It will be shown that in these fragments can be seen reflected the three versions of the unorthodox Christological teachings of Apolinarius which Epiphanius of Salamis in his adversus haereses (377 CE) says were adopted or developed by different groups of Apolinarius’s pupils.The most apparently significant differences between Apolinarius’s disciples, as revealed in the fragments (and mentioned by Epiphanius), is on whether or not it can be said that Christ’s flesh was ‘of the same nature’ (ὁμοούσιος) with God. Timothy defends the notion, and is criticised by Valentinus (who points out that it was explicitly rejected by Apolinarius) for doing so.On the other hand, Timothy also teaches that Christ was ‘a complete God in the flesh and a complete man in the spirit’; Polemon says that he is thereby implying the doctrine, anathema to all Apollinarianists, that there were ‘two Christs’ (even though Timothy explicitly denies this.)Timothy did indeed believe that Christ was both complete man and complete God, but that he nevertheless remains fully one. It will be argued that he uses the concept of the communicatio idiomatum to explain this. Just as Christ's divinity was in effect fully assimilated to his humanity, so his flesh, was completely assimilated to his divinity. It can therefore properly be said to share an οὺσία with it.

Laurence Vianès - L'interprétation des prophètes par Apollinaire de Laodicée a-t-elle influencé Théodore de Mopsueste?

Apollinaire de Laodicée semble pratiquer une exégèse tout opposée à celle de  Théodore de Mopsueste : notamment, il trouve dans le livre des Psaumes toutes sortes de significations christologiques ou eschatologiques. La première partie de cette communication montre que cependant Apollinaire applique peut-être déjà certains critères qui sont ceux de Diodore et de Théodore, et qu'en tout cas il partage avec Théodore une conviction :  la richesse des significations de l'Ancien Testament résulte simplement du fait qu'il est de la littérature, et comme tel, destiné à être repris, cité et pillé. La deuxième partie examine la répugnance de Théodore pour l'eschatologie, en prenant comme exemple l'invasion de Gog (Ez 38-39 etc.), et en la mettant en contraste avec l'eschatologie "philosémite" d'Apollinaire. Théodore a en commun avec Apollinaire de ne jamais allégoriser Jérusalem et les réalités juives. On propose l'hypothèse que s'il limite à l'histoire juive d'avant le Christ l'horizon des auteurs de l'Ancien Testament, c'est pour combattre les assertions d'Apollinaire qui envisageait, sur la base des prophéties, un triomphe final du judaïsme sur terre.

Alessandro Capone - Apollinaris, Basil and Gregory of Nyssa

In order to understand the influence of Basil on the doctrine and the resulting attitude of Gregory of Nyssa in the polemic against Apollinaris, starting from Basil's letters is necessary. In the Ep. 129, written in 373, the Cappadocian associates for the first time the name of Apollinaris with Sabellius. The couple Apollinaris-Sabellius recurs also in other letters (cfr. Ep. 224 and 265) and constitutes one of the guidelines used by Basil to defend himself from the charges of being a friend of the bishop of Laodicea and of sharing his audacious doctrine. On the other hand his second defensive strategy consists of portraying Apollinaris as supporter of fabulous theories, which are not based on the Scriptures, and of Judaizing ideas, according to which Christ's teachings will be abrogated by the precepts of the law (cfr. Ep. 263 and 265). Generally, Basil prefers to distance himself from Apollinaris and does not intervene on the theological problems raised by him.

Few years after his brother, Gregory instead takes a clear stand on the theological debate and reveals the ambiguities and the inconsistencies of the Apollinaris' arguments. Gregory tries to unmask the absurdities of the opponents' theories starting with the correct interpretation of the scriptural passages used by Apollinaris. Therefore, the first aim of this study is to compare the exegesis developed by Basil and Gregory in relation to the passages at issue. Secondly, the attention will be focused on the lexicon and phrases used by Basil and Gregory to define the union of the human and divine natures of Christ. Finally, by setting the research in the historical and cultural context, it will be possible to reconstruct a more articulated pattern of the polemic.

William Rusch - Corresponding with Emperor Jovian: The Strategy and Theology of Apollinaris of Laodicea and Athanasius of Alexandria

In June of 363, Jovian was proclaimed emperor. At the outset of his brief reign, Jovian requested Christian leaders to set forth their view of the Christian faith. This request resulted in two documents that often have been slighted in understanding the theological debates of the mid-fourth century: Apollinaris of Laodicea’s Profession of Faith to the Emperor Jovian and Athanasius of Alexandria’s Letter to Emperor Jovian Concerning the Faith. An examination of both texts reveals insights into the thoughts of both these bishops at a key moment in the Trinitarian controversy.

HELENE GRELIER - La réception d’Apolinaire dans les controverses christologiques du Ve siècle d’après deux témoins, Cyrille d'Alexandrie et Théodoret de Cyr

La présente communication vise à apporter une contribution sur la réception d’Apolinaire dans les débats christologiques qui ont succédé aux polémiques dans lesquelles lui-même s’était engagé au milieu du IVe siècle. 

Mon travail vise principalement à montrer comment Apolinaire a été utilisé et cité dans le débat entre monophysites et nestoriens à partir de deux témoins; Cyrille d’Alexandrie, qui tout en condamnant Apolinaire, dont il décrit la théorie dans ses Dialogues sur l’incarnation du Monogène et Le Christ est un, reprend l’une de ses formules christologiques les plus importantes, croyant la tenir d’Athanase. J’étudierai aussi Théodoret de Cyr, qui cite de nombreux fragments d’Apolinaire dans l’Eranistès, une oeuvre qui s’apparente à des dialogues-florilèges. Ces oeuvres littéraires, bien que de nature très différentes, s’apparentent à des dialogues. Elles ont en commun de passer en revue différentes hétérodoxies qu’elles commentent voire réfutent. Mais dans le cas de Théodoret, des fragments d’Apolinaire sont cités textuellement dans trois florilèges, alors que dans les deux dialogues christologiques de Cyrille, l’apolinarisme est évoqué à de nombreuses reprises sans citations textuelles. Il est intéressant d’examiner la compréhension d’Apolinaire par Théodoret et Cyrille par le fait même que l’un et l’autre soutienne des positions christologiques opposées dans le débat avec Nestorius. Je voudrais voir sur quels points théologiques en débat Apolinaire est cité par ces deux témoins. Sont-ce les mêmes éléments que ceux dont l’accusent les œuvres de controverse anti-apolinarienne du IV^e siècle, rédigées par Grégoire de Nazianze et Grégoire de Nysse, et le pseudo-Athanase ? Quelle filiation doctrinale Cyrille et Théodoret établissent-ils entre Apolinaire et Eutychès et sa doctrine monophysite ? Cette question est d’autant plus délicate que Théodoret ne nomme jamais Eutychès dans son Eranistès, alors que, semble-t-il, cette œuvre apparaît en 447, au moment de l’apogée de la polémique avec Eutychès (condamné par un synode à Constantinople en 448), après la mort de Cyrille d’Alexandrie (444).

En somme, par ces quelques enquêtes, je chercherai à définir ce qui dans la doctrine apolinarienne a marqué la suite des débats christologiques, afin de rendre compte avec plus de justesse du rôle qu’Apolinaire a eu dans l’histoire des débats doctrinaux de cette époque, trop souvent sous-estimé par la critique.

Tenny Thomas - The Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in the Hymns & Homilies of Severus of Antioch

The Theotokos plays an important role in the writings, particularly in understanding the Christology of Severus of Antioch, as she stands for the integrity and reality of the humanity of the incarnate Word. She is the subject of a sustained theological reflection on the part of a great many Fathers, even during the period of the Christological controversy. Severus’ writings clearly show her to be more than an incidental figure in the description of a truly Orthodox Christology. The hymns and homilies of Severus of Antioch are an interesting source of insight into the process of Christological reflection on the person of the Theotokos. The method employed by this study will be to consider each of those hymns and homilies, which refer to the Theotokos, and determine how Severus wishes to use each reference.

The hymns of Severus have been translated into English in volumes 6 and 7 of the Patrologia Orientalis by E.W. Brooks. I will be editing the translation for this paper.
There are six hymns in the collection, which are categorized by the ancient transcribers as Hymns on the Holy God-bearer, while there are also 15 hymns on the Nativity and Incarnation, which also have some reference to the Theotokos. Severus never seems to allow the poetic touches of his hymns to diminish the strict application of his Cyrilline theology to the task of composing hymns. In the first hymns in the collection the Theotokos is referred to only in rather general terms in relation to the Incarnation. Even in the later hymns in the collection she is always placed in a theological context rather than simply a poetic or hagiographic one. In the Cathedral Homilies, Severus addresses the Theotokos as prophetess, and as apostle, and as martyr. Severus goes on to detail the role of Mary in salvation history. Severus uses the incarnation through the Virgin to attack Apollinarianism and Nestorianism. The translations of the Cathedral Homilies XIV and LXVII on the Theotokos will be my own.

Volker Drecoll: The Impact of Basil of Caesarea on the Theology of Gregory of Nyssa

Since the analysis of Karl Holl (Amphilochius von Ikonium, Tuebingen 1904) it is common to deal with the specific profile of Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus. A wide range of monographs has appeared especially on Basil and Gregory of Nyssa in the last two decades. For Basil there is extensive documentation of the manuscript tradition (ed.  Fedwick), but a critical edition is not available for all works. For Gregory of Nyssa, the critical edition (Gregorii Nysseni Opera) is nearly finished, but some volumes need a revision on the basis of modern knowledge of the manuscripts.

Until now, both fields of research have been quite isolated from each other. The most important exception is the debate about the authenticity of Basil, Letter 38 viz. Gregory of Nyssa, De differentia ousias et hypostaseos. The workshop does not aim to pursue this debate (the last contributions to this question will appear in the Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Gregory of Nyssa of 2008 and 2010), but it seeks to focus upon the relation between Basil and Gregory in a wider context.

Gregory himself declares quite often his dependence on and veneration of Basil. It is clear, however, that he developed an own profile (e.g. his concept of infinity, his Christology, his interpretation of Moses and the Song of Songs). As a first step, the workshop aims to elucidate the relationship between Basil and Gregory in the following fields:

-          Basil in Gregory’s refutation of Eunomius (Matthieu Cassin, IRHT Paris, France)

-          The Letters of Basil and Gregory (Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, LU Chicago, USA)

-          Apollinaris, Basil and Gregory (Alessandro Capone, Univ. Lecce, Italy)

-          Gregory’s and Basil’s Exegesis of Gen 1 (David DeMarco, Univ. Chicago, USA)

-          The Ascetic works of Basil and Gregory (Ann Silvas, Univ. of New Engl., Australia)

-          Exegesis of the Psalms in Basil and Gregory (Volker Drecoll, Univ. Tuebingen)

The panelists will circulate in advance preliminary versions of their papers together with examples of specific texts that will be the subject of group discussion. After the short presentation of the papers by the authors (15min. each) the round table discussion will follow (60min.). Chair of the discussion: Johannes Zachhuber (Trinity, Oxford, UK).

Individual proposals for the papers will be delivered by 31 March 2011.