Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:19:37.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patristic Divergences about the Image of God in Man

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

Stuart George Hall
Stuart George Hall*
Affiliation:
King's College London and University of St Andrews
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The pathologically pious heresy-hunter Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis from 365 to 403, might be reckoned a champion of uniformity in the Church. Notoriously he promoted the campaign against Origen in Palestine, and in his Panarion attacks Origen’s theology at length. Never the brightest of the Fathers, he was confused by the question of the image of God in man. He comes to it when considering the sect of Audians, who were anthropomorphites; that is, they held God to have a bodily form which the human body replicates. According to Genesis 1: 26–7, God made man, male and female, in (after, according to) the image and likeness of God When Epiphanius gets to the detail of the Audian argument, it is plain that they argued from the use in Scripture of bodily language about God’s eyes, hand, feet, and other organs, and from the Lord’s appearances to Moses and the prophets, to demonstrate his bodily shape. Epiphanius can refute this in detail, but is aware of other suggestions about wherein what is ‘in the image’ consists, and regards none as wholly coherent with orthodox faith and Scripture. He mentions the theories that it is the soul that is in the image, or that it is virtue, or that it is the grace received in baptism, or that it applied to Adam only before his sin.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 43: Discipline and Diversity , 2007 , pp. 69 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘Man’ in this paper refers to the species (anthropos/homo), not to the male sex. On the Image-theme, see Crouzel, Henri, ‘Bild Gottes II. Alte Kirche’, Theologische Realenzyklopädie 6 (Berlin, 1980), 499–502 Google Scholar and Orbe, Antonio, Introduccion a la teologia de los siglos II y III, Analecta Gregoriana 248, 2 vols (Rome, 1987), 1: 212–29.Google Scholar

2 Epiphanius, Panarion haereses, 70 (ed. Karl Holl, Die grieschischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 37 [Berlin, 1931]) [hereafter: Panarion haer. and GCS].

3 Ibid., 70.6.

4 Ibid., 70.3-4.

5 Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica, 8.13-15 [hereafter Sozomen, HE] (ed. Güinther Christian Hansen, Fontes Christiani 73.4 [Turnhout, 2004], 996–1007), based on Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 6.7 [hereafter: Socrates, HE] (ed. Günther Christian Hansen, GCS NF 1 [Berlin, 1995]).

6 Panarion haer., 70.2.7-8.

7 Ibid., 70.3.1 (GCS 37, 235), my translation.

8 The same agnosticism appears in Ancoratus, 55–7 (ed. Karl Holl, GCS 25 [Leipzig, 1915], 64–7), and Riggi’s attempt to interpret Epiphanius’ view as positive and holistic seems to be a house of straw. See Riggi, Calogero, ‘Il linguaggio teologico in Epifanio da Salamina’, in Marranzini, Alfredo, ed., Il linguaggio teologico oggi (Milan, 1969), 173–204 Google Scholar, also found in Riggi, Calogero, Epistrophe: tensione verso la divina armonia, Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose 70 (Rome, 1985), 608–39 Google Scholar, esp. 623–8.

9 On this dispute, see Clark, Elizabeth A., The Origenist Controversy (Princeton, NJ, 1992)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Löhr, Winrich A., Theophilus von Alexandrien’, Theologische Realenzyklopädie 33 (Berlin, 2002), 364–8.Google Scholar

10 So Socrates, HE, 6.7 (GCS NF 1, 322–4) and the partly independent account of Sozomen, HE, 8.11-13 (Fontes Christiani 73.4, 988–9). Not yet published when this paper was written was: Dimitrij Bumazhnov, Der Mensch als Gottes Bild in christlichen Āgypten: Studien zu Gen 1: 26 in zwei koptischen Quellen des 4.-5. Jahrhunderts, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 34 (Tübingen, 2005).

11 Hall, Stuart G., Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (2nd edn, London, 2005), 63–6.Google Scholar

12 Irenaeus, Advenus haereses, 5.6.1 (ed. Adelin Rousseau, Louis Doutreleau, and Charles Mercier, SC 152/153 [Paris, 1969], 72); my translation, here and hereafter.

13 Ibid., 5.16.2 (SC 153,216-17).

14 Ibid., 5.6.1 (SC 153, 74–7).

15 Origen, Contra Celsum, 6.63 (Origen Contra Celsum, Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Henry Chadwick [Cambridge, 1980], 378; ed. Marcel Borret, SC 147 [Paris, 1969], 336–7) [hereafter: C. Cels.].

16 C. Cels., 6.63 (Chadwick, 378–9, giving biblical references; cf. Borret, SC 147, 338–9).

17 As implied by II.B.1 in A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. H. Lampe (Oxford, 1961 etc.), 413.

18 Crouzel, Henri, Origen, trans. Worral, A. S. (Edinburgh, 1989)Google Scholar; translated from Origène (Paris, 1985), 87–98; more fully Henri Crouzel, La théologie de l’Image de Dieu chez Origèene, Théologie 34 (Paris, 1956).

19 Panarion haer., 64.4.9 (GCS 31,412).

20 Origen, C. Cels., 6.63 (SC 147, 336–8).

21 Ambrose, Exameron, 6.7.42-3 (ed. C. Schenk, CSEL 32.1 [Vienna, 1897], 233–4).

22 Ibid., 6.8.45 (CSEL 32.1, 236).

23 Augustine, Confessions, 6.3.4 (ed. Lucas Verheijen, CCSL 27 [Turnhout, 1981], 76); trans, in Albert C. Outler, Library of Christian Classics 7 [Philadelphia, PA, 1955], 116–17) [hereafter: LCC].

24 Augustine conflates Ephesians 4: 23–4 with Col. 3: 10.

25 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, 3.20 (ed. Joseph Zycha, CSEL 28, 86); my translation. See Clark, Mary R., ‘Image Doctrine’, in Fitzgerald, Allan D., ed., Augustine through the Ages: an Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK, 1999), 440–2.Google Scholar

26 Augustine, Confessions, 7.10.16 (CCSL 27, 103; LCC 7, 146–7).

27 On the text and exegesis, see James J. O’Donnell, Augustine, Confessions II: Commentary on Books 1–7 (Oxford 1992), 443–4.

28 De civitate Dei, 9.17.1-9 (ed. B. Dombart and A. Kalb, CCSL 47 [Turnhout, 1955], 265–6).

29 See Teske, Roland J., ‘Genesis Accounts of Creation’, in Fitzgerald, Augustine through the Ages, 379–81 Google Scholar.

30 1 Cor. 11:7; II Cor. 4: 4; Col. 1:15.

31 Origen, C. Cels., 6.63 (Chadwick, 378; Borret, 334–7).

32 De Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectas, 16(CSEL 28, 500–1); my translation.

33 Lampe’s entry begins with Nilus, Basil of Seleucia, and Theodoret: III.A.1., in Lampe, Creek Lexicon, 413.

34 Theodoret, Quaestiones in Genesim, 20 (Gen. 1: 28) (PG 80, 108).

35 Kelly, John N. D., Early Christian Doctrines (2nd edn, London, 1960), 176–9,Google Scholar has a succinct exposition.

36 De Trinitate, 11.1.1-7.12 (ed. W.J. Mountain, CCSL 50 [Turnhout, 1968], 333–49).

37 Ibid., 8.9.12-10.2.2 (CCSL 50, 289–94).

38 Ibid., 9.2.2-5.8 (CCSL 50, 294–301).

39 Ibid., 10.11.17-12.19 (CCSL 50, 329–32).

40 Ibid., 14.8.11-16.22 (ed. W.J. Mountain, CCSL 50A [Turnhout, 1968], 433–54).

41 Ibid., 14.17.23-19.26 (CCSL 50A, 454–9).

42 See briefly Hall, Doctrine and Practice, 183–90; Rowan Williams, ‘Origenes, Origenismus’, Theologische Realenzyklopädie 25 (Berlin, 1995), 397–420.