Allen Brent - Cyprian and Popular Culture in the Third Century

Cyprian condemns those who obeyed Decius’  Decree to participate in the state religion in language that suggested total incomprehension. Yet his own response will be shown to bear the impress of a Christianized Stoic eschatology that makes the positive response of many Christians comprehensible. The paper explores contemporary pagan historiography and the coinage of Decius and his rivals and exposes a shared ‘form of life’ held in common by pagans and Christians in the context of which their disagreements in opinion are able to be explored and understood. The paper gives an opportunity to present one theme of my recent book, Cyprian and Roman Carthage in the Third Century (Cambridge: University Press 2010) for further discussion.

Christophe Guignard - Julius Africanus et le texte de Luc 3, 24

     Dans les manuscrits et les éditions modernes du NT, la généalogie de Luc 3, 23-38 nomme après Joseph, dans l’ordre ascendant : Héli, Matthat, Lévi, Melchi. Il a été depuis longtemps remarqué que Julius Africanus et d’autres auteurs patristiques omettent les noms de Matthat et de Lévi au verset 24 et font de Héli le fils de Melchi. Alors que la généalogie compte 77 noms dans la plupart des manuscrits du NT, cette omission a parfois été rapprochée du total de 72 noms qu’elle compterait selon Irénée (Adv. Haer. III, 22, 3). Africanus serait ainsi un témoin d’un texte plus court, potentiellement ancien.

     Il est cependant possible de montrer que les autres auteurs cités comme témoins de l’omission de Matthat et de Lévi dépendent en fait d’Africanus sur ce point. Cette omission est en effet liée à la solution qu’Africanus propose dans sa Lettre à Aristide pour concilier les généalogies de Matthieu et de Luc : celle-ci se fonde sur un récit qui fait intervenir le lévirat et conduit à lire la généalogie de Matthieu comme naturelle et celle de Luc comme légale. Or ce récit suppose qu’Héli est fils de Melchi. Il faut cependant souligner qu’Africanus ne fait que recueillir ce récit et n’en est pas l’auteur. D’une façon très naturelle, les auteurs qui reprennent cette solution, comme Eusèbe de Césarée ou Ambroise de Milan, reprennent aussi la filiation Héli – Melchi.

     Par ailleurs, un nouveau fragment de la Lettre à Aristide (intégré dans la nouvelle édition à paraître en juillet 2011) apporte sur ce point un éclairage intéressant : il contient une allusion à Matthat qui prouve qu’Africanus connaissait le texte long de Luc 3, 24.

     Il s’avère ainsi que l’omission de Matthat et de Lévi est liée à une tradition exégétique qu’Africanus transmet, mais dont il n’est pas l’inventeur. Il est difficile d’évaluer l’importance du texte particulier de Luc 3, 24 que suppose cette tradition, qui pourrait aussi bien représenter une variante ancienne que l’écho d’une simple erreur de copie. En tout état de cause, cependant, le texte court de Luc 3, 24 ne saurait se prévaloir d’un fort appui patristique et le rapprochement avec le chiffre de 72 noms cité par Irénée reste approximatif et purement conjectural. Sa diffusion, limitée à la littérature exégétique, n’est due qu’au succès de la solution proposée par Africanus pour concilier les généalogies de Matthieu et de Luc.

Rosemary Arthur - Christian and Non-Christian sources for Stephen Bar Sudhaili's doctrine of Universal Salvation

Stephen Bar Sudhaili’s indebtedness to Origen and Evagrius has been acknowledged by scholars, and this paper discusses how far this is true, particularly with respect to the equality of rational beings with God the Father. However, these are not his only sources. I examine Bar Sudhaili’s use of Bardaisan, the Hermetic writings and Manichaeism in formulating his doctrine of Universal Salvation, including that of the demons and Satan.

Winrich Löhr - The Epistula De Malis Doctoribus (CPL 734)

The Epistula De Malis doctoribus will be analysed as to its author, addressees, structure and theology. Special consideration will be given to its remarkable eschatology: It will be compared with the eschatological conceptions of Pelagius, Augustine, Jerome and others and will be located in a broadly Origenist framework. Finally it will be asked whether, and if so, in what sense the Epistula (as the other writings of the Corpus Caspari) can legitimately be labelled as `Pelagian´.

Thomas Heyne - Tertullian and Obstetrics

Tertullian of Carthage is the earliest known Christian author to show a significant knowledge of ancient obstetrics.  Despite scholarly assertions that Tertullian opposed medicine as unacceptable for Christians, it is clear that he consistently held physicians and medicine in high regard.  Of particular interest was the physician/obstetrician Soranus of Ephesus, who was—with Pliny the Elder—Tertullian’s main source of medical knowledge.  In fact, Tertullian is our sole source for reconstructing Soranus’ Περὶ Ψυχῆς, and his De Anima gives a remarkably detailed account of an abortion.  An analysis of Tertullian’s corpus suggests that Tertullian turned to Soranus’ work later in his career, and used it in several arguments against his various theological opponents.

Dana Iuliana Viezure - The Fate of Emperor Zeno's Henoticon: Christological Authority After the Healing of the Acacian Schism (484-518)

Justin I’s accession to the imperial throne in 518 marked the end of a schism between East and West that lasted over 30 years. During this period of schism the West continued to uphold the Council of Chalcedon strictly, but the East adopted different standards for Christological correctness. These standards were epitomized in an official document issued in 482, the Henoticon. This text modified the Christological canon in significant ways: it declared the Nicene Creed to be the only valid profession of faith, it included barely veiled criticisms of Pope Leo’s Tome to Flavian and of the Council of Chalcedon, and it endorsed Cyril of Alexandria’s controversial Twelve Anathemas.

The healing of the Acacian schism in 518 took place on Roman terms. Recognition of the Pope as unique authority in matters of doctrine and acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon in the East were among the key requirements for reconciliation.   

But the restoration of Chalcedon to the canon of orthodoxy was not understood uniformly in Constantinople. To some it meant an unconditional return to the period before the publication of the Henoticon and a complete erasure of the independent Eastern developments of 484-518. To others, however, the period of the Acacian schism was one in which Christological orthodoxy had been meaningfully redefined in Constantinople along the lines of the Henoticon, and Chalcedon could be interpreted satisfactorily only within this framework. Among the latter was a group of monks from the province of Scythia Minor, chief players in the so-called Theopaschite controversy (519-521).

This paper argues that the Henoticon, even though abandoned as an official document on Christology, influenced the writings of the Scythian monks. Far from disappearing after the first few troubled years following the healing of the schism, the same influence can be discerned in later texts, most remarkably in Justinianic edicts from the 530s.

Further, the paper explores whether the influence of the Henoticon on the Scythian texts was deliberate and polemical, or whether key elements of the Henoticon, e.g., the canonicity of Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas and the rejection of a problematic sentence from Pope Leo’s Tome, had simply become de rigueur in the Constantinopolitan baggage of Christological statements by 518.

Michele Salzman - Prosper of Aquitaine and Leo the Great: Reconsidering a relationship

Although Prosper was a supporter of Pope Leo, the nature of their relationship is in need of reconsideration.  Most scholars have considered Prosper of Aquitaine’s contribution or influence on Leo’s homilies and letters, especially the Tome, by considering stylistic similarities.   Indeed the tract On the Calling of all Nations, a work once thought to have been written by Leo, is now attributed to Prosper but its stylistic similarities convinced  certain scholars,  notably N.W. James (1993) that  Prosper was responsible for some of Leo’s writings.  However, this stylistic analysis is not compelling; B. Green (2008) has argued, rightly in my view, that Prosper was not responsible for anything that we now attribute to Leo.  However a full assessment of the relationship between these two fifth century leading figures should take into account not only stylistic and theological matters, but how both men view events and actions.  My paper will reconsider the relationship between Prosper and Leo in the light of a new appreciation of Leo’s independence as a writer, thinker and actor.   I will focus in particular on the ways in which the two differ in their views of contemporary events and people.