Auswahl der wissenschaftlichen Literatur zum Thema „Eusebius of Alexandria“
Geben Sie eine Quelle nach APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard und anderen Zitierweisen an
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Machen Sie sich mit den Listen der aktuellen Artikel, Bücher, Dissertationen, Berichten und anderer wissenschaftlichen Quellen zum Thema "Eusebius of Alexandria" bekannt.
Neben jedem Werk im Literaturverzeichnis ist die Option "Zur Bibliographie hinzufügen" verfügbar. Nutzen Sie sie, wird Ihre bibliographische Angabe des gewählten Werkes nach der nötigen Zitierweise (APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver usw.) automatisch gestaltet.
Sie können auch den vollen Text der wissenschaftlichen Publikation im PDF-Format herunterladen und eine Online-Annotation der Arbeit lesen, wenn die relevanten Parameter in den Metadaten verfügbar sind.
Zeitschriftenartikel zum Thema "Eusebius of Alexandria"
1
Fernández Hernández, Gonzalo. „El concilio alejandrino de 339 y sus consecuencias“. Estudios humanísticos. Geografía, historia y arte, Nr. 21 (10.02.2021): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.18002/ehgha.v0i21.6795.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
<span>This article deals with the alexandrian council in year 339 A. D. and its consequences. Sources: Athanasius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, George Cedrenus, Socrates and Theodoret of Cyr.</span>
2
Zaytseva, Irina Valeryevna. „Problems in the development of the Episcopate of Cyril of Alexandria“. Samara Journal of Science 8, Nr. 4 (29.11.2019): 160–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.17816/snv201984207.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The paper deals with problems of the development of the Episcopate under one of the greatest person of the Alexandrian Church - Cyril of Alexandria. The paper analyzes the Historia Ecclesiastica by Socrates Scholasticus, the works of Eusebius Caesarea and John of Nikiu, that outlines the key issues of the establishment of power relations in the Alexandrian Episcopate in IV-V centuries. The research has shown that the Cyrils inauguration was prompted by the practice of continuity, which was developed in the Church Hierarchy, beginning with Athanasius of Alexandria, when power was handed down from uncle to nephew. After following his uncle Theophilus of Alexandria in a position by descent Cyril of Alexandria faced a number of important issues that needed quick response and significant resources: a power struggle with his rival Archdeacon Timotheus, continuing the practice of getting rid of heresy in the Nicene Christianity, and a need to establish a unified intellectual Christian environment. To solve these tasks was possible by a mass of public support as well as by using military force of the commander of the Emperors troops. The paper also emphasizes an escalating confrontation between the Alexandrian Bishop, followers of Novatian and a large Jewish community.
3
Kyriacou, Chrysovalantis. „On the Origins of the Alexandrian School: Rhizomes, Episcopal Legitimation, and a Tale of Two Cities“. Religions 14, Nr. 4 (03.04.2023): 482. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rel14040482.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
This article revisits an important and much-discussed question: how and why was Christian learning in second- and third-century Alexandria institutionalised, leading to what came to be known as the “Catechetical School”? Its contribution to scholarship lays in that it focuses on cultural, ideological, and ecclesiastical developments under the Antonines and the Severans, placing the Alexandrian case within a broader context. Building on Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of the rhizome, our examination seeks to map the complex web of interactions among the Christians themselves, as well as between Christians and non-Christians, so as to understand more deeply the mechanics behind the institutional establishment of the Alexandrian School. Berger and Luckmann’s theory on the relationship between institutions and knowledge frames our analysis of episcopal legitimation and the reception of the Alexandrian School’s origins by Eusebius of Caesarea. As will be argued, the early history of the School is largely “a tale of two cities”, in the sense that parallel and transverse processes in Alexandria and Rome reflect the plurality of Christian responses to pressing challenges.
4
Crawford, Matthew R. „Ammonius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea and the Origins of Gospels Scholarship“. New Testament Studies 61, Nr. 1 (03.12.2014): 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0028688514000216.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
In the early third and fourth centuries respectively, Ammonius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea engaged in cutting-edge research on the relationships among the four canonical gospels. Indeed, these two figures stand at the head of the entire tradition of comparative literary analysis of the gospels. This article provides a more precise account of their contributions, as well as the relationship between the two figures. It argues that Ammonius, who was likely the teacher of Origen, composed the first gospel synopsis by placing similar passages in parallel columns. He gave this work the title Diatessaron-Gospel, referring thereby to the four columns in which his text was laid out. This pioneering piece of scholarship drew upon a long tradition of Alexandrian textual scholarship and likely served as the inspiration for Origen's more famous Hexapla. A little over a century later, Eusebius of Caesarea picked up where Ammonius left off and attempted to accomplish the same goal, albeit using a different and improved method. Using the textual parallels presented in the Diatessaron-Gospel as his ‘raw data’, Eusebius converted these textual units into numbers which he then collated in ten tables, or ‘canons’, standing at the beginning of a gospel book. The resulting cross-reference system, consisting of the Canon Tables as well as sectional enumeration throughout each gospel, allowed the user to find parallels between the gospels, but in such a way that the literary integrity of each of the four was preserved. Moreover, Eusebius also exploited the potential of his invention by including theologically suggestive cross-references, thereby subtly guiding the reader of the fourfold gospel to what might be called a canonical reading of the four.
5
Jourdan, Fabienne. „Le Logos et l'empereur, nouveaux Orphée « Postérité d'une image entrée dans la littérature avec Clément d'Alexandrie »“. Vigiliae Christianae 62, Nr. 4 (2008): 319–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157007208x247656.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
AbstractIn the Protrepticus, Clement of Alexandria suggests Orpheus' song is a prefiguration of the power of the Word. In the fourth century A. D., Eusebius and Themistius will apply this interpretation of Orpheus' song respectively to the Logos and to the Emperor. In the image proposed by Eusebius the Alexandrian's influence is obvious, whereas its transformation in Themistius illustrates its political evolution. An examination of these two different applications shows not only Clement's role in the transfer of a symbolic figure, but also the originality of its first Christian transposition in the Protrepticus.
6
Zarzeczny, Rafał. „Euzebiusz z Heraklei i jego "Homilia efeska" (CPG 6143) z etiopskiej antologii patrystycznej Qerellos“. Vox Patrum 57 (15.06.2012): 807–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.31743/vp.4175.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Classical oriental literatures, especially in Syriac, Arabic and Coptic languages, constitute extraordinary treasury for patristic studies. Apart from the texts written originally in their ecclesiastical ambient, the oriental ancient manuscripts include many documents completely disappeared or preserved in their Greek and Latin originals in defective form only. The same refers to the Ethiopian Christian literature. In this context so-called Qerəllos anthology occupies a particular place as one of the most important patristic writings. It contains Christological treaties and homilies by Cyril of Alexandria and other documents, essentially of the anti-nestorian and monophysite character, in the context of the Council of Ephesus (431). The core of the anthology was compiled in Alexandria and translated into Ge’ez language directly from Greek during the Aksumite period (V-VII century). Ethiopic homily by Eusebius of Heraclea (CPG 6143) is unique preserved version of this document, and also unique noted text of the bishop from V century. Besides the introduction to the Early Christian patristic literature and especially to the Qerəllos anthology, this paper offers a Polish translation of the Eusebius’s Homily with relative commentary.
7
Crawford, Matthew R. „Reconsidering the Relationship Between (Pseudo-)Didymus’s De Trinitate and Cyril of Alexandria’s Contra Julianum“. Journal of Theological Studies 71, Nr. 1 (01.04.2020): 236–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jts/flaa014.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract Cyril of Alexandria’s apologetic treatise Contra Julianum drew upon a wide range of earlier Christian literature, including works by Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Pseudo-Justin Martyr, and others. The literary relationship between Contra Julianum and the De Trinitate attributed to Didymus the Blind is, however, contested. In this article I re-examine the parallel passages between these two works and argue that Cyril drew directly upon the De Trinitate as he composed Contra Julianum, using that prior work in three different ways. In the light of this finding, I argue that this literary dependency sheds some light on the intellectual and perhaps also social milieu out of which Contra Julianum arose, namely the long tradition of Christian authors who appropriated non-Christian sources for apologetic purposes, including such figures as Origen and Didymus.
8
Longosz, Stanisław. „Dramatyzowane homilie patrystyczne zalążkiem dramatu chrześcijańskiego“. Vox Patrum 65 (15.07.2016): 389–431. http://dx.doi.org/10.31743/vp.3508.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The author of this paper tries to prove that the origins of Christian drama shouldn’t be sought in Latin liturgical drama crystalized in 9th and 10th century – as it is commonly accepted – but rather much earlier: in Eastern dramatized patristic homilies of 5th, 6th and 7th century. All fully dramatized homilies of those days are arranged in three groups: The homilies about John the Baptist and the Baptism of Jesus Christ; The homilies about descending of Jesus Christ into the abyss and liberation of those who are righteous from hell; Homilies about the Annunciation of Blessed Virgin Mary – most numerous texts. In this article only homilies from group 1 and group 2 are analyzed. The eight most dramatized speeches from these two groups were chosen. From these homilies some fragments or full parts of dialogs are chosen and quoted, as examples of dramatic action, shown in the clearest way (containing the fullness of psychological expression and motion, rhetorically built dialogs of Biblical characters). These parts are explained and commented in the context of the idea of drama proposed by Origen (Commentarius in Cantica Canticorum. Prologus 1, 1-3; I 1, 1-2). From Group 1, the author of this article presents two homilies: Homilia in Sanctam Theophaniam (which authorship is mistakenly assigned to St. Gregory the Wonderworker) and Homilia de baptismo Christi [CPG 5520] of Pseudo- Eusebius of Alexandria. From Group 2 six speeches are chosen. Five of them are written by Pseudo- Eusebius of Alexandria. They make specific cycle, known as Eusebian cycle of descending Christ into the abyss. This cycle – in its contents and structure – is a rhetorical amplification of apocryphal Evangelium Nicodemi (17-27) and Quaestiones S. Bartholomaei Apostoli (I 1-9). These homilies are summarized by the author of this paper. These five Eusebian homilies are completed with well-known Homilia de divini corporis sepultura et de Christi adventu in infernum [CPG 3768] of anonymous author. This last one is quoted on the Holy Saturday in the Liturgy of the Hours (II 386-388). According to some modern authors (i.e. G. La Piana), all these six homilies seem to set up the Christian Passion Drama in three acts (A-C). The structure of this drama is as follows. At the beginning we have well documented theological introduction about descensus in inferos. Then we have three acts with following homilies (first five of them are written by Pseudo-Eusebius of Alexandria): A. Descending of John the Baptist to the abyss to prepare those who are righteous for the coming of Christ: Homilia in illud: „Tu es qui venturus es, an alium exspectamus” [CPG 5521] and Homilia de adventu Joannis in infernum et de ibi inclusis [CPG 5522]; B. The Judas’ betrayal, imprisonment of Jesus and the dread of rulers of the underworld – Satan and Hades – after they have heard about coming of Christ: De proditione Judae [CPG 5523] and Homilia in Diabolum et Hadem [CPG 5524]; C. The Passion and Death of Christ and his descending into the abyss: Homilia de Christi passione [CPG 5526] and Homilia in divini corporis sepultura et de Christi adventu in infernum [CPG 3768]. The numerous and widely presented fragments of dramatized homilies – completed with highly quoted literature of subject – seem to convince clearly, that the origins of Christian drama (reconstructed in unspecified way during the liturgy in the Church) could be reasonably sought as far as in patristic dramatized homily of 6th and 7th century.
9
Flores Colín, Miguel Santiago. „Las listas episcopales en Eusebio de Cesarea: entre teología e historia“. Nova Tellus 39, Nr. 2 (29.06.2021): 93–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.19130/iifl.nt.2021.39.2.79285.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The status quaestionis on the Episcopal Lists of Eusebius of Caesarea has different positions. The complete Episcopal Lists offer specific information which, compared with current systematic studies, show that the historical strictness of the Father of Christian Historiography is directly related with his Theological intention and not disassociated as has been argued. The research contributes with the inclusion of the Church of Caesarea as an example of the Episcopal Lists, along with the Churches of Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.
10
GILLIAM, PAUL R. „William Whiston: No Longer an Arian“. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 66, Nr. 4 (02.09.2015): 755–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022046915001566.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
This article contends that William Whiston (1667–1752) has been misidentified as an Arian for more than three hundred years. Though Whiston was labelled an Arian by his theological opponents, and early in his career naively accepted the Arian label for his own Christological beliefs, he consistently demarcated his own beliefs from those of Arius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Nicomedia. Furthermore, Whiston agreed with the Council of Nicaea's decision to rule Arius’ understanding of the relationship of the Son to the Father out of bounds. Thus, William Whiston should no longer be called an Arian.
Dissertationen zum Thema "Eusebius of Alexandria"
1
Robertson, Jon M. „Whoever has seen me has seen the Father : an investigation of Christ as mediator in the theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra and Athanasius of Alexandria“. Thesis, University of Oxford, 2003. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.275784.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
2
Niquin, Diane. „La "vie" d'Eusèbe d'Alexandrie : historique d'un avatar littéraire et édition des textes“. Electronic Thesis or Diss., Strasbourg, 2024. http://www.theses.fr/2024STRAK002.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Malgré la large diffusion de ses œuvres, Eusèbe d’Alexandrie constitue une véritable énigme historique. Dans trois manuscrits grecs, son corpus supposé est bien accompagné de trois discours offrant davantage de détails biographiques, mais le récit contrefactuel qu’ils donnent leur a tôt valu d’être considérés comme fictifs. Quoique signée par un homme, Jean, se présentant comme le notaire d’Eusèbe, cette vie se heurte pourtant aux données historiques et fait de ce dernier le successeur de Cyrille. Or, si fiction il y a, force est de remarquer qu’elle réécrit une période tourmentée et substitue à l’hérétique Dioscore le pieux Eusèbe. Pour tâcher de mieux saisir l’identité d’Eusèbe, il faudrait donc commencer par s’intéresser à celle de Jean, signataire supposé d’une vie impossible. Cette thèse se propose de revoir à nouveaux frais l’édition des trois textes dits biographiques et d’en proposer traduction et commentaire afin d’estimer qui les a composés, quand, pourquoi et commentIn spite of the vast diffusion of his production, little is known about Eusebius of Alexandria. Three Greek codices do compile his collection alongside three texts displaying more biographical details, but their counterfactual recollection of events quickly led historians to view them as fictional. Although it is signed by a man, John, asserting he was Eusebius’s notary, this biography turns the enigmatic writer into Cyril’s successor, colliding thus with the many historical sources that remembered Dioscorus, the so-called Heresiarch, as Cyril’s actual successor. No matter how fictional this biography can appear, it is clear that it tried to erase out a troubled period of time. If one wants to understand who Eusebius really was, one should then first start to consider John, the alleged writer of an impossible tale. This essay contains therefore a new critical edition of the three biographical texts, with a French translation and a commentary aiming at figuring out who wrote them, when, why and how
3
Gwynn, David Morton. „The Eusebians : the polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the construction of the Arian controversy /“. Oxford : Oxford university press, 2007. http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb411696256.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleBücher zum Thema "Eusebius of Alexandria"
1
Gwynn, David M. Athanasius of Alexandria: Bishop, theologian, ascetic, father. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Den vollen Inhalt der Quelle finden
2
Otto, Jennifer. Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198820727.001.0001.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings investigates portrayals of one particular Jew, the first-century philosopher and allegorical interpreter of the Bible, Philo of Alexandria, in the works of three prominent early Christian thinkers, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius. It argues that early Christian invocations of Philo are best understood not as attempts to claim an illustrious Jew for the Christian fold, but as examples of ongoing efforts to define the continuities and distinctive features of Christian beliefs and practices in relation to those of the Jews. This study takes as its starting point the curious fact that none of the first three Christians to mention Philo refer to him unambiguously as a Jew. Clement refers to him twice as a Pythagorean. Origen, who mentions Philo by name only three times, makes far more frequent reference to him in the guise of an anonymous “someone who came before us.” Eusebius, who invokes Philo on many more occasions, most often refers to Philo as a Hebrew. These epithets construct Philo as a “near-other” to both Jews and Christians, through whom ideas and practices may be imported from the former to the latter, all the while establishing boundaries between the “Christian” and “Jewish” ways of life. The portraits of Philo offered by each author reveal ongoing processes of difference-making and difference-effacing that constituted not only the construction of the Jewish “other,” but also the Christian “self.”
3
Robertson, Jon M. Christ As Mediator: A Study of the Theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria. Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2007.
Den vollen Inhalt der Quelle finden
4
Robertson, Jon M. Christ as Mediator: A Study of the Theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria. Oxford University Press, 2007.
Den vollen Inhalt der Quelle finden
5
Otto, Jennifer. Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press, 2018.
Den vollen Inhalt der Quelle finden
6
Robertson, Jon M. Christ as Mediator: A Study of the Theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria (Oxford Theological Monographs). Oxford University Press, USA, 2007.
Den vollen Inhalt der Quelle finden
7
Gallagher, Edmon L., und John D. Meade. Greek Christian Lists. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198792499.003.0003.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
This chapter contains texts, translations, and analysis of the seventeen early canon lists (Old Testament and/or New Testament) in Greek in probable chronological order: the Bryennios List, Melito of Sardis, Origen of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, Synod of Laodicea, Apostolic Canons, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius of Iconium, and Epiphanius of Salamis. These lists show remarkable consistency of biblical contents for both the Old and the New Testaments. The OT lists consist mostly of the twenty-two books of the Jewish canon though the forms of the some of the books reflect the Septuagintal forms rather than the Masoretic Text. The NT lists largely consist of the four Gospels, Acts, and the fourteen epistles of Paul. Disputes over the Catholic Epistles and the Revelation of John persisted into the fourth century as the lists show, but appear to have subsided by the end of this century.
8
Larsen, Matthew D. C. The Earliest Readers of the Gospel according to Mark. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190848583.003.0005.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
How did the earliest readers of the text we now call the Gospel according to Mark treat it? Chapter 5 analyzes the evidence of the earliest readers and argues that they regarded it not as a book published by an author but as unfinished notes (hypomnēmata). The Gospel according to Mark was regarded as textualized but not as a published book. The chapter looks at the preface to the Gospel according of Luke, as well as comments by Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius. These writers use the Greek terms hypomnēmata or apomnēmoneumata to describe the textual tradition we now call the Gospel according to Mark. Moreover, they describe its production and textuality in terms similar to those explored in chapters 2 and 3.
9
Otto, Jennifer. Conclusion. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198820727.003.0006.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
As an allegorical interpreter who perceived some of the spiritual teachings embedded in the Hebrew scriptures, Philo did not match the image of the stereotypical Jew constructed by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius. Neither, however, did he fulfill their criteria to be considered a legitimate Christian. This chapter argues that Philo functions in early Christian writings as neither a Christian nor a Jew but is situated in between these two increasingly differentiated identities. Acting as a third term in the equation, Philo the “Pythagorean,” the “predecessor,” and the “Hebrew,” mediates between the categories of Christian and Jew while ensuring that the two identities remain rhetorically and conceptually distinct. An epilogue briefly traces the varying depictions of Philo in later Christian literature, including accounts of his baptism by the apostle John and his transformation into Philo Judaeus, Philo the Jew.
10
Crawford, Matthew R. The Eusebian Canon Tables. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198802600.001.0001.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
A central book in late antique religious life was the four-gospel codex—a manuscript containing the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—and one of the most common features of such manuscripts is a marginal cross-referencing system known as the Canon Tables. This reading aid, invented in the early fourth century by Eusebius of Caesarea, represented a milestone achievement both in the history of the book and in the scholarly study of the fourfold gospel. The present monograph is the first ever book-length treatment of the origins and use of the Canon Tables apparatus in any language. Part one begins by defining the Canon Tables as a paratextual device that orders the textual content of the fourfold gospel; then considers the relation of the system to the prior work of Ammonius of Alexandria and the hermeneutical implications of its use. Part two examines the paratext’s reception in subsequent centuries by highlighting four case studies from different cultural and theological traditions, from Augustine of Hippo to a Syriac translator in the fifth century, to later monastic scholars in Ireland. Finally, from the eighth century onwards, Armenian scholars used the artistic adornment of the Canon Tables as a basis for contemplative meditation. These case studies represent four different modes of using the Canon Tables as a paratext and so illustrate the potential inherent in the Eusebian apparatus for engaging with the fourfold gospel in a variety of ways, from the literary to the theological to the visual.
Buchteile zum Thema "Eusebius of Alexandria"
1
„Eusebius’ Exegesis Between Alexandria And Antioch: Being A Scholar In Caesarea (A Text Case From Questions To Stephanos I)“. In Reconsidering Eusebius, 151–76. BRILL, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004203853.i-266.51.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
2
Coogan, Jeremiah. „Gospel Writing“. In Eusebius the Evangelist, 59—C3.N147. Oxford University PressNew York, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197580042.003.0003.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract This chapter traces a complex history of Gospel writing from Mark to Eusebius. Eusebius continued dynamics of self-conscious, expansive Gospel rewriting that are visible in earlier configurations of Gospel text (including Luke, the author of the Longer Ending of Mark, Tatian, and Ammonius of Alexandria). Eusebius was not the first reader to notice the problems and possibilities created by a pluriform Gospel, nor was he the first to rearrange Gospel texts in creative spatial ways—but his technological innovations enabled him to diverge in crucial ways from previous projects of Gospel writing. Using the textual map and the columnar table, Eusebius both preserves four individual Gospel narratives and creates new possibilities for reading the fourfold Gospel as a unity. Eusebius rewrote the Gospels by creating new meaningful sequences of readable text, a distinct fourfold Gospel. Technology here intersects with literary innovation. Because his canons facilitate creative juxtapositions and even afford juxtaposing a single section with multiple parallels, Eusebius was able both to preserve Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in order also to interweave them in a dense new web of possibilities. Eusebius’ fourfold Gospel effervesces with manifold contexts and readerly trajectories.
3
Crawford, Matthew R. „The Origins of Scholarship on the Fourfold Gospel“. In The Eusebian Canon Tables, 56–95. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198802600.003.0003.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
In his Letter to Carpianus Eusebius refers to an earlier author named Ammonius of Alexandria who, he says, left to posterity the Diatessaron-Gospel. This chapter first identifies the Ammonius in question and proposes that he was a philosopher well-known for his philological scholarship. It also elucidates the title and significance of his work through a comparison with Origen’s Hexapla. The second half of the chapter turns to Eusebius’ adaptation of Ammonius’ composition and argues that it provided him with the ‘starting points’ that he reworked to produce his marginal apparatus. Eusebius’ experimentations with information visualization and textual organization in his Chronicle and Pinax for the Psalms provided him with the insights he needed to accomplish this reworking. Finally, this chapter argues that the ten Canon Tables possessed cosmological resonances in the light of Eusebius’ comments elsewhere about the theology of numbers and creation.
4
Magree, Michael C. „Philippians 2:7 in Eusebius and Athanasius“. In The Interpretation of Kenosis from Origen to Cyril of Alexandria, 111–50. Oxford University PressOxford, 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198896661.003.0004.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract This chapter examines the understanding of Christ’s self-emptying in Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius of Alexandria. Eusebius makes the self-emptying of Christ a key part of his argument that prior to the incarnation the Son of God has a distinct existence or hypostasis. The verbs in scripture that depict the Father and the Son in distinct opposition to one another allow for agent-identification exegesis, in which Eusebius can point to grammatical distinction grounding a metaphysical distinction. The self-emptying of Christ is a direct part of this formulation. Athanasius does not focus on self-emptying in particular, but rather he is interested in the narrative shape of verses 6–11 as a whole. What concerns him is that those who want to claim the Son of God is not consubstantial with the Father see verses 9–11 as a sort of promotion. Jesus did well, and therefore he was elevated. Athanasius held that this misses out on the drama and shock of the prior verses, which are communicating Paul’s astonishment at the one “in the form of God” “emptying himself” and “humbling himself.” There has to be a radical descent of the Son for the lifting up of human nature to occur.
5
Miller, Micah M. „Conclusion“. In Origen of Alexandria and the Theology of the Holy Spirit, 156–66. Oxford University PressOxford, 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198895749.003.0007.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract In addition to offering summative comments and drawing out the significance of his pneumatological thought, the Conclusion suggests some avenues through which Origen’s pneumatology may have influenced later thought. The Conclusion surveys the Holy Spirit’s rank and the interpretation of John 1:3 in Eusebius of Caesarea and Eunomius; the Holy Spirit’s unity and multiplicity and the interpretation of Isa 11:2–3 in Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Didymus the Blind; and the common operation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the interpretation of 1 Cor 12:4–6 in Didymus the Blind and Basil of Caesarea. By examining a number of fourth-century authors, the survey shows the variety of ways that Origen’s thought may have been received and developed by different thinkers, both those later considered orthodox and those later considered heterodox.
6
Menze, Volker L. „The Emperor’s Henchman“. In Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria, 89—C3P139. Oxford University PressOxford, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192871336.003.0004.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract After the Reunion of 433 Alexandria and Antioch were in communion again but the fragile balance of power collapsed in the 440s. Cyrillians and dyophysites regarded each other as heretics and attempted to win over as many episcopal sees as possible. It is notable—and against previous scholarly assumptions—that until 448 Dioscorus remained on the side-lines, in contrast to Emperor Theodosius (408–450) whose mistrust towards Theodoret of Cyrrhus and other dyophysite near eastern bishops increased during the 440s. The bishop of Cyrrhus actively engaged in the controversy not the least through his literary oeuvre: by declaring the Council of Constantinople in 381 to have been ecumenical, he caused such a turmoil so that Emperor Theodosius summoned the Second Council of Ephesus in August 449. Presided by Dioscorus, the council deposed with Flavian of Constantinople, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Theodoret, and Domnus of Antioch all leading dyophysite bishops in the Eastern Roman Empire. Theodosius wished to regard it as the third ecumenical council (after Nicaea in 325 and the First Council of Ephesus in 431) that should have ended questions of doctrine but Pope Leo denounced it as ‘robber-council’ and insisted to annul it. The chapter discusses particularly questions of the councils’ canonicity and Dioscorus’ role in it.
7
„Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria, and Ignatius of Antioch“. In Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy, 133–88. BRILL, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004342880_006.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
8
Bennington, Geoffrey. „Polykoiranie II (Philo Judaeus, Early Christian Apologists, Pseudo-Dionysius)“. In Scatter 2, 70–99. Fordham University Press, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.5422/fordham/9780823289929.003.0004.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The chapter pursues invocations and quotations of the same line from Homer in Philo Judaeus’s On the Confusion of Tongues, and subsequently among the second-century CE Christian apologists Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, pseudo-Justin, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the pseudo-Dionysius, and their various attempts to Christianize pagan and Judaic sources. The complexity of the “One” in the concept of “one God” is analysed in Christianity, Judaism, and Islamic thought, and shown to have a significant stylistic presence in Derrida.
9
„Admonitions against the Participation of Menstruating Christian Women (and of Men Who Have Had a Nocturnal Emission) in the Eucharist“. In Women’s Religions in the Greco-Roman World, herausgegeben von Ross Shepard Kraemer, 72–73. Oxford University PressNew York, NY, 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195170658.003.0035.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract author: The child of wealthy non-Christian parents, Dionysius studied with Origen of Alexandria and ultimately became bishop of that city in 247 c.e. During the persecutions by the emperor Decius he went into hiding rather than suffer. Although Dionysius was hardly alone in his response to the persecutions, fleeing torture and martyrdom was highly controversial among Christians in North Africa in the mid–third century, and Dionysius’s actions may explain, in part, why his writings were preserved only in fragments, mostly in Eusebius.
10
Hillner, Julia. „From Here to Eternity“. In Helena Augusta, 204—C8.F2. Oxford University PressNew York, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190875299.003.0009.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract This chapter follows Helena on her famous journey through the Eastern provinces that culminated in her visit to the biblical sites in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and other places in Palestine. It compares the two extant contemporary commemorations of her presence in the East, by Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius of Alexandria, who left us contrasting impressions, especially with respect to Helena’s relationship to “orthodox” or “Nicene” Christianity. The chapter discusses the political nature of her trip, the potential route she took, her modes of transport, her engagement with local populations, and her church patronage in Palestine.