Université Don Bosco de Lubumbashi
|
Exemplaires(0)
| Disponibilité | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| aucun exemplaire | |||||
Dépouillements
Ajouter le résultat dans votre panierNarratives of Authority around Chalcedon’s Canon 28: The Emperor Marcian, Bishop Leo I, and the Functions of Late-Antique Imperial Letters in Ecclesiastical Letter Collections / Marijke Kooijman in Journal of Early Christian Studies, volume 32/4 (2024)
Titre : Narratives of Authority around Chalcedon’s Canon 28: The Emperor Marcian, Bishop Leo I, and the Functions of Late-Antique Imperial Letters in Ecclesiastical Letter Collections Type de document : texte imprimé Auteurs : Marijke Kooijman, Auteur Année de publication : 2025 Article en page(s) : 519-551 Langues : Anglais (eng) Résumé : In the context of fifth-century ecclesiastical disputes, more specifically during the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon with its controversial canon 28, imperial communication to Christian clergy could not be as straightforward as usual. This article proposes that the diplomatic relationship between the Eastern Roman emperor Marcian (450–457 c.e.) and Bishop Leo I of Rome (440–461 c.e.) was governed by interdependence. Through examining the rhetoric of authority in Marcian’s understudied letter to Leo from December 18, 451, and placing it in the context of its transmission history in two antithetical late-antique letter collections, this article demonstrates how Marcian’s letter to Leo could be reused to defend consecutively both Rome and Constantinople thanks to its rhetorical subtletly. It argues that the divergent functions of Marcian’s letter in the fifth-century Greek Chalcedonian letter collection B and the ninth-century Latin Collectio Thessalonicensis were made possible by its diplomatic phrasing and the ambiguity of the Emperor’s position in theological disputes. Thus, it clarifies the functions of correspondence in ecclesiastical decision-making processes and adds to our understanding of textual and imperial authority in the Late Roman Empire.
in Journal of Early Christian Studies > volume 32/4 (2024) . - 519-551[article] Narratives of Authority around Chalcedon’s Canon 28: The Emperor Marcian, Bishop Leo I, and the Functions of Late-Antique Imperial Letters in Ecclesiastical Letter Collections [texte imprimé] / Marijke Kooijman, Auteur . - 2025 . - 519-551.
Langues : Anglais (eng)
in Journal of Early Christian Studies > volume 32/4 (2024) . - 519-551
Résumé : In the context of fifth-century ecclesiastical disputes, more specifically during the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon with its controversial canon 28, imperial communication to Christian clergy could not be as straightforward as usual. This article proposes that the diplomatic relationship between the Eastern Roman emperor Marcian (450–457 c.e.) and Bishop Leo I of Rome (440–461 c.e.) was governed by interdependence. Through examining the rhetoric of authority in Marcian’s understudied letter to Leo from December 18, 451, and placing it in the context of its transmission history in two antithetical late-antique letter collections, this article demonstrates how Marcian’s letter to Leo could be reused to defend consecutively both Rome and Constantinople thanks to its rhetorical subtletly. It argues that the divergent functions of Marcian’s letter in the fifth-century Greek Chalcedonian letter collection B and the ninth-century Latin Collectio Thessalonicensis were made possible by its diplomatic phrasing and the ambiguity of the Emperor’s position in theological disputes. Thus, it clarifies the functions of correspondence in ecclesiastical decision-making processes and adds to our understanding of textual and imperial authority in the Late Roman Empire.
Titre : Sin as a Tropos: The Ontology of Human Action in Maximus the Confessor Type de document : texte imprimé Auteurs : Sebastian Mateiescu, Auteur Année de publication : 2025 Article en page(s) : 519-553 Langues : Anglais (eng) Résumé : One of Maximus the Confessor’s fundamental distinctions is that between logos and tropos. The former is being used by Maximus for explaining the rationality of creation as based in the divine Logos, while the latter is employed for the description of a set of non-essential properties which nevertheless remain enigmatic in their character. The nature of these tropoi-properties is often understood through negative terms as they are frequently described as making no part of the essence of beings, which is rather governed by the logoi of beings. This paper aims to overcome this explanatory gap by focusing on sin as a paradigmatic tropos-property in Maximus’s ontology. By taking its starting point in Maximus’s explicit exclusion of sin from the classical list of the categories of being, the argument focuses on Stoic philosophy as the closest theory to Maximus’s view on human action and evil. First, some key similarities between Maximus’s idea of tropos and the Stoic notion of use of the natural capacities of beings are identified in order to show the deep conceptual overlap between Maximus’s and the Stoic psychology of action. Second, the peculiar Stoic idea of having impulses towards predicates is further shown to correspond to Maximus’s idea of tropoi as properties obtainable about individuals through concrete volitional actions. In light of this interpretation, sin appears as a real property and yet a non-essential one. It is a causally driven Stoic-like predicate which results from the individuals’ modes of entering causal relations with God and with creation.
in Journal of Early Christian Studies > volume 32/4 (2024) . - 519-553[article] Sin as a Tropos: The Ontology of Human Action in Maximus the Confessor [texte imprimé] / Sebastian Mateiescu, Auteur . - 2025 . - 519-553.
Langues : Anglais (eng)
in Journal of Early Christian Studies > volume 32/4 (2024) . - 519-553
Résumé : One of Maximus the Confessor’s fundamental distinctions is that between logos and tropos. The former is being used by Maximus for explaining the rationality of creation as based in the divine Logos, while the latter is employed for the description of a set of non-essential properties which nevertheless remain enigmatic in their character. The nature of these tropoi-properties is often understood through negative terms as they are frequently described as making no part of the essence of beings, which is rather governed by the logoi of beings. This paper aims to overcome this explanatory gap by focusing on sin as a paradigmatic tropos-property in Maximus’s ontology. By taking its starting point in Maximus’s explicit exclusion of sin from the classical list of the categories of being, the argument focuses on Stoic philosophy as the closest theory to Maximus’s view on human action and evil. First, some key similarities between Maximus’s idea of tropos and the Stoic notion of use of the natural capacities of beings are identified in order to show the deep conceptual overlap between Maximus’s and the Stoic psychology of action. Second, the peculiar Stoic idea of having impulses towards predicates is further shown to correspond to Maximus’s idea of tropoi as properties obtainable about individuals through concrete volitional actions. In light of this interpretation, sin appears as a real property and yet a non-essential one. It is a causally driven Stoic-like predicate which results from the individuals’ modes of entering causal relations with God and with creation.
Titre : Only God Knows: Maximus the Confessor’s Theological Epistemology in the Context of His Revision of the Origenist Myth Type de document : texte imprimé Auteurs : Eric Lopez, Auteur Année de publication : 2025 Article en page(s) : 553-574 Langues : Anglais (eng) Résumé : Polycarp Sherwood’s work, The Earlier Ambigua of Saint Maximus the Confessor and his Refutation of Origenism, set the tone for scholarship’s investigation of the terms οὐσία, δύναμις, and ἐνέργɛια in the Confessor’s writings and their use in relation to his late antique context. Since then, scholars have further explored mostly philosophical and some early Christian writings in efforts to locate the usage of the terms amidst changing conceptions of Origenism, Maximus’s relation to Origenism, and expanded studies on their use in philosophical contexts. This study argues that while Maximus was likely aware of many of these philosophical and early Christian writings, the concerns and literature in and around the Council of Constantinople 553 c.e. are the most fitting context for why he chose to develop the sequence. This claim is supported by Maximus’s use of two other terms in his engagement with Origenist doctrines, γνῶσις and ἕνωσις, which also appear in the literature of the 553 Council. A closer look at the terms οὐσία, δύναμις, and ἐνέργɛια highlights a causal relationship that has import for all the ways Maximus employs the terms and puts in relief an irreducible contrast between Creator and creation. Additionally, an investigation into Maximus’s understanding of γνῶσις and ἕνωσις reveals the development of what could be characterized as a divine theological epistemology which functions as another argument supporting the above contrast.
in Journal of Early Christian Studies > volume 32/4 (2024) . - 553-574[article] Only God Knows: Maximus the Confessor’s Theological Epistemology in the Context of His Revision of the Origenist Myth [texte imprimé] / Eric Lopez, Auteur . - 2025 . - 553-574.
Langues : Anglais (eng)
in Journal of Early Christian Studies > volume 32/4 (2024) . - 553-574
Résumé : Polycarp Sherwood’s work, The Earlier Ambigua of Saint Maximus the Confessor and his Refutation of Origenism, set the tone for scholarship’s investigation of the terms οὐσία, δύναμις, and ἐνέργɛια in the Confessor’s writings and their use in relation to his late antique context. Since then, scholars have further explored mostly philosophical and some early Christian writings in efforts to locate the usage of the terms amidst changing conceptions of Origenism, Maximus’s relation to Origenism, and expanded studies on their use in philosophical contexts. This study argues that while Maximus was likely aware of many of these philosophical and early Christian writings, the concerns and literature in and around the Council of Constantinople 553 c.e. are the most fitting context for why he chose to develop the sequence. This claim is supported by Maximus’s use of two other terms in his engagement with Origenist doctrines, γνῶσις and ἕνωσις, which also appear in the literature of the 553 Council. A closer look at the terms οὐσία, δύναμις, and ἐνέργɛια highlights a causal relationship that has import for all the ways Maximus employs the terms and puts in relief an irreducible contrast between Creator and creation. Additionally, an investigation into Maximus’s understanding of γνῶσις and ἕνωσις reveals the development of what could be characterized as a divine theological epistemology which functions as another argument supporting the above contrast.
Titre : Mani and the Myth of the Perpetual Foreigner Type de document : texte imprimé Auteurs : Jae Hee Han, Auteur Année de publication : 2025 Article en page(s) : 605 Langues : Anglais (eng) Résumé : This article argues that the presumed distinction between Christianity and Manichaeism among some scholars of early Christianity replicates an Orientalist fantasy that divides the world into West and East. In this discourse, West and East do not designate relative locations as a matter of convention, but function in an interested way to excise Manichaeism from Christianity. To make this argument, this article traces the persistent surfacing of the West/East binary in a number of academic works about Manichaeism, especially by Arthur Vööbus, Peter Brown, book reviews on Manichaean topics, and a recent introduction of Manichaeism written for scholars of early Christianity. It sharpens the contours of the West/East binary in these works with attention to recent developments in “Asian American” scholarship on the cultural location of Asian Americans as “perpetual foreigners.” It concludes with a brief “Asian American” reading of a passage from the Coptic Manichaean Psalmbook. This reading attempts to situate the passage within developments in late antique Roman Christianity, rather than as a reflection of some distant moment in third-century Sasanian Mesopotamia, that is, to situate the passage within its contemporary context rather than in relation to Manichaeism’s origins in the East. This article does not argue that Manichaeism is a form of Christianity, but that there is much to be gained for scholars of early Christianity if we considered it as such.
in Journal of Early Christian Studies > volume 32/4 (2024) . - 605[article] Mani and the Myth of the Perpetual Foreigner [texte imprimé] / Jae Hee Han, Auteur . - 2025 . - 605.
Langues : Anglais (eng)
in Journal of Early Christian Studies > volume 32/4 (2024) . - 605
Résumé : This article argues that the presumed distinction between Christianity and Manichaeism among some scholars of early Christianity replicates an Orientalist fantasy that divides the world into West and East. In this discourse, West and East do not designate relative locations as a matter of convention, but function in an interested way to excise Manichaeism from Christianity. To make this argument, this article traces the persistent surfacing of the West/East binary in a number of academic works about Manichaeism, especially by Arthur Vööbus, Peter Brown, book reviews on Manichaean topics, and a recent introduction of Manichaeism written for scholars of early Christianity. It sharpens the contours of the West/East binary in these works with attention to recent developments in “Asian American” scholarship on the cultural location of Asian Americans as “perpetual foreigners.” It concludes with a brief “Asian American” reading of a passage from the Coptic Manichaean Psalmbook. This reading attempts to situate the passage within developments in late antique Roman Christianity, rather than as a reflection of some distant moment in third-century Sasanian Mesopotamia, that is, to situate the passage within its contemporary context rather than in relation to Manichaeism’s origins in the East. This article does not argue that Manichaeism is a form of Christianity, but that there is much to be gained for scholars of early Christianity if we considered it as such.
