No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2016
Since the period between the two world wars the study of the Fathers has gradually taken a new direction. In the first place, the age of the masters was past; their brilliant, all-embracing structures laid the foundations, it is true, of the modern critical age, while at the same time they have left us with a profound sense of dissatisfaction. Many of the great classics of patristic scholarship of the past attained the level of universal statement only by means of a swift and perhaps over-hasty reading of the evidence — a good example of this would be some of Harnack's monumental work — and so there remains the endless task of revision, of the painstaking work of filling in a mosaic of detail, without which the broad vision of truth is unattainable. In the second place, ours is a perhaps more historico-critical attitude towards some of the areas of patristic doctrine. Although it is hazardous to make a generalization, it may be said that the modern approach to the Old and the New Testament is apt to be widely divergent from that of many of the Fathers of the Golden Age; and our task is rather to understand the techniques which they used in solving their exegetical problems.
1 In ‘Gibbon's Contribution to Historical Method,’ a lecture delivered in London in 1952, published in Historia 1954 and reprinted in the collection Contributo alla Storia degli studi classici (Rome 1955); here and elsewhere throughout the volume, Momigliano pleads for a history which will be above political theory and religious bias. It is an essay which should commend itself to all students of the patristic writers. Google Scholar
2 2 vols., Cambridge University Press 1957. On p. xvii the author characterizes his work as ‘an introduction to the story of the Christian Church during the first and second centuries’; and it is to be hoped that he will continue his penetrating analysis for many another volume. There are, however, a few odd slips, as for example (II 295): ‘the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church today is the translation called the Vulgate, which was made by St. Jerome at the end of the fourth century from excellent Greek texts.’ Rather, the official translation used in the Latin rite is the Clementine Vulgate (issued in 1592), which is based on Jerome's version; but the way Carrington states it is misleading. New Horizons in Patristic Theology Google Scholar
3 Die apostolischen Väter. I. Der Hirt des Hermas (GCS 48, Akademie-Verlag, 1956). The Einleitung, pp. ix-xxvi, is an excellent summary of the entire textual problem with the latest literature; and the apparatus, in such a complicated textual tradition, is a model of clarity. For the last section of the work where the Greek text is wanting, the editor prints the two Latin versions (the Vulgate and the Palatine) together with the Ethiopic version (again in Latin) disposed on opposite pages.Google Scholar
4 Cf. also Carrington's nuanced discussion of Hermas, op. cit. I 391–409; he does, however, sometimes seem to forget the symbolic and imaginative level of the work and tends to take Hermas’ remarks too much on their face value. It has always been my view that the author of the Shepherd, whether his name was really Hermas or another, was, despite his good intentions, an unbalanced Christian teacher with perhaps mediumistic tendencies. He was thus what we would call today an emotionally disturbed person, and this would seem to be evidenced by his feelings of guilt, his fantastic imagery, his preoccupation with sin, and his desire that his apocalypse be considered a production of the apostolic Church. Of him it may well be said, as Thurston, H. has remarked of false mystics of a later day, ‘The element of mental health has to be considered, and hysteria, while it is itself no bar to sanctity and may not involve any form of self-seeking, is singularly apt to lend itself to exaggerations and pervert the sober judgment’ (Surprising Mystics, ed. Crehan, J. H. [Chicago, Regnery 1955] 132).Google Scholar
5 Grégoire de Nysse : La vie de Moïse ou Traité de la perfection en matière de vertu (ed. 2, Sources chrétiennes no. 1bis; Paris, Editions du Cerf, 1955). The Introduction, pp. i-xxxi, discusses the doctrinal content; pp. xxxi-xxxv discuss the manuscript tradition. The Reverend Maries and Marcel, M. Richard assisted, à titres divers, in the preparation of the volume (p. xxxv).Google Scholar
6 Simonetti, Manlius, Pseudoathanasii De Trinitate LL. X-XII : Expositio fidei catholicae, Professio ariana et confessio catholica, De Trinitate et de Spiritu Sancto (Bologna, Capello, L. 1956).Google Scholar
7 Greenslade, S. L., Early Latin Theology (The Library of Christian Classics 5; Philadelphia, Westminster Press 1956).Google Scholar
8 McCracken, G. E. and Cabaniss, A., Early Medieval Theology (The Library of Christian Classics 9; Philadelphia, Westminster Press 1957).Google Scholar
9 See Baynes, Norman H., Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London, Athlone Press 1955) 354–6, 365–6 and passim.Google Scholar
10 Crehan, J. H., Athenagoras : Embassy for the Christians, The Resurrection of the Dead (ACW 23; London, Longmans Green, and Westminster, Maryland, Newman Press 1956); apart from his work on the Fathers, Fr. Crehan is known as the distinguished editor of Thurston, H. 's posthumous volumes, The Physical Phenomena of Mysticism, Ghosts and Poltergeists, and others. Waszink, J. H., Tertullian: The Treatise against Hermogenes (ACW 24; 1956). M. Bévenot, St. Cyprian: The Lapsed, The Unity of the Catholic Church (ACW 25; 1957). As I write this, there has just appeared Lawson, R. P., Origen, The Song of Songs, Commentary and Homilies (ACW 26; 1957). The present writer is preparing the forthcoming volume, Methodius of Olympus: The Symposium of a Treatise on Virginity (ACW 27).Google Scholar
11 It was a great loss to the ACW series and to patristic scholarship when Fr. Plumpe passed away suddenly in December, 1957, just after seeing volume 26 through the press; in recent years he had confined himself to the exacting work of editor, but his devoted labor and scrupulous accuracy can be seen in all of the volumes which he worked on in collaboration with Fr. Quasten of Catholic University. In addition to his many articles, his two fine monographs, Mater Ecclesia (Catholic University, Washington, D.C. 1943) and Vivum Saxum, vivi lapides (Traditio 1 [1943] 1–14) will always be held in honor by patristic scholars. Google Scholar
12 The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius, edited and translated by Henry Bettenson (London, Oxford University Press 1956). The earlier volume Documents of the Christian Church (London; Oxford University Press 1943) is in the World's Classics series 495.Google Scholar
13 Wolfson, H. A., The Philosophy of the Church Fathers: Volume I: Faith, Trinity, Incarnation (Cambridge, Harvard University Press 1956). Especially fine is the treatment of the allegorical method (24–72); the discussion of the types of union, in connection with the Incarnation (372–462), and the treatment of Gnosticism (520–558). Despite the author's unorthodox point of view, of which he is quite honestly aware (cf. his disarming Preface, p. ix), his work is full of fine insights and brilliant analyses.Google Scholar
14 (London, Epworth Press 1948). Cf. also the ODCC, s.v. ‘Irenaeus,’ ‘Atonement,’ with the more recent literature there cited. Google Scholar
15 (New York, Harper 1955), expecially 265ff. Google Scholar
16 For a brief survey and select bibliography, cf. ODCC, s.v. ‘Dead Sea Scrolls.’ Google Scholar
17 The Dead Sea Scriptures in English Translation with Introduction and Notes (New York, Doubleday Anchor Books 1956).Google Scholar
18 1st ed. Berlin 1928; French translation, Introduction à l'étude du latin médiéval, by Van, P. de Woestijne (Ghent 1933; 2nd ed. Paris 1946); 3rd German edition, Berlin 1939. Palmer, Robert B., Introduction to Medieval Latin (Berlin, Weidmann 1957).Google Scholar
19 The present revision is indeed a new edition; in addition to useful notes and expansions, Palmer has brought the bibliography from 1932 up to 1955. In future editions, however the entire glossary may well be dropped. For English-speaking scholars, the Baxter-Johnson Medieval Latin Word List (London, Oxford University Press 1934), and Souter, A., A Glossary of Later Latin to 600 A. D. (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1949), are much more reliable and useful; one should also consult Blaise, A., Manuel du latin chrétien (Strasbourg 1955).Google Scholar
20 Die Gleichnisse Jesu (Zurich, Zwingli-Verlag 1952).Google Scholar
21 See the ODCC, s.v. ‘Bultmann,’ ‘Demythologization,’ with the literature. Google Scholar
22 (Milwaukee, Bruce 1957). After the example of Kirsch, J. P., Le catacombe romane (Rome 1933), Hertling and Kirschbaum first wrote their manual in Italian as Le catacombe romane e i loro martiri (Rome 1949); this then appeared in German (Vienna, Herder 1950). A slight difficulty arises when we are told on p. iv of the English translation that the version was made from the German edition of 1950, and on p. viii we find a ‘Foreword to the Second Edition’ signed by the authors and dated 1954.Google Scholar
23 ODCC, s.v. ‘Hymn’; Quasten, Patrology I 158–160; Strecker-Palmer 71–85. Google Scholar
24 Eric Warner, ‘Church, Music of the Early,’ Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians (ed. Blom, E., 9 vols., New York, St. Martin's Press 1955) 2.283–291; cf. also Egon Wellesz, ibid. 2.860–872.Google Scholar
25 (London, Oxford University Press 1954). Google Scholar
26 For Tillich's explanation of the divine image, and man's historic ‘estrangement’ (or hybris), see his Systematic Theology, volume II: Existence and the Christ (Chicago, University of Chicago Press 1957) 49–75, and passim. Google Scholar
27 Cf. Merki, H., Homoiosis Theo : Von der platonischen Angleichung an Gott zur Gottähnlichkeit bei Gregor von Nyssa (Freiburg, Switzerland 1953); Leys, R. L'Image de Dieu chez saint Grégoire de Nysse (Brussels 1951); Meany, J. J. The Image of God in Man according to the Doctrine of Saint John Damascene (Manila 1954). The conclusion of Fr. Meany's monograph (83ff.) contains a very carefully worked out discussion of the image of God according to H. de Lubac, Surnaturel (Paris 1946); it is a dissertation that deserves wider recognition in Europe and America. For a discussion of Crouzel, H. 's brilliant monograph, La théologie de l'image de Dieu chez Origène (Paris 1956), and of the numerous other studies in this growing field, see Th, P. Camelot, ‘La théologie de l'image de Dieu,’ Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 40 (1956) 443–471.Google Scholar
28 Burghardt, W. J., The Image of God in Man according to Cyril of Alexandria (Woodstock Press, Woodstock, Maryland 1957 = Studies in Christian Antiquity, ed. Quasten, J., no. 14; Catholic University, Washington D. C. 1957). On Cyril in general, see now the ODCC, s.v. Google Scholar
29 One of my former students, Mr. Malley, William J. S.J., has undertaken the enormous task of a complete critical edition of the work from the earliest extant manuscripts; Wright, W. C. 's text (Loeb 1923) is an improvement on Neumann, K. J. 's (Leipzig 1880), which largely follows Spanheim, E. 's (Leipzig 1696); but his covers only the fragments of Julian's Against the Galilaeans (book I) as quoted by Cyril. For the complete text of Cyril, or at least of the first ten out of a probable thirty books, one must still use the Migne (PG 76.503ff.) or the edition of Aubert, Canon J. (Paris 1638) on which it is based. If, as has been estimated, Julian's polemic in three books was composed in the third quarter of the fourth century, it is strange that Cyril felt so strongly about it almost eighty years later; neither the Council of Ephesus nor Theodosius II, in their condemnation of Porphyry's anti-Christian work, refer to Julian. Cyril's motive in writing his work and dedicating it to Theodosius may well have been a covert attack on Theodorus of Mopsuestia or other Christians whom he was opposing towards the end of his career. In any case, the Contra Iulianum, as an important source for contemporary philosophic theory, is in serious need of revision, and it is to be hoped that Mr. Malley will soon be able to publish a preliminary report of his progress. For a bibliography on Julian, see the ODCC, s.v. Google Scholar
30 (Carthagena, Ohio, The Messenger Press 1956); unfortunately the format of the dissertation is somewhat strange by modern standards and makes reading difficult; in a future revision the author could well omit a good deal of irrelevant bibliography cited in the introduction and footnotes. Google Scholar
31 With the sub-title Studien zur Dogmengeschichte der Astrologie (Innsbruck, Wagner 1956); there is a very useful index which includes lists of technical Greek terms (202–5). The vocabulary connected with astrology can be very difficult, and here Sophocles’ Lexicon can be most unhelpful. The present writer hopes to supplement Riedinger's work by an edition and commentary on Methodius, The Symposium, with an attempt to explain the miniature treatise adversus astrologos which occurs in Methodius’ eighth Logos (Thecla). See Riedinger, , op. cit. 31–33. and Index, s.v. ‘Methodios.’ The problem of Methodius’ life and origin has been the subject of an unpublished Heidelberg dissertation which I have only been able to study in microfilm: Quensell, K. Die wahre kirchliche Stellung und Tätigkeit des fälschlich so gennanten Bischofs Methodius von Olympus (Heidelberg, in typescript 1953). Quensell feels that the tradition that Methodius was a bishop (as we find it in Jerome, Socrates, the Suda and other sources) was a late invention, and that Methodius’ free handling of ecclesiastical doctrine — a point on which I would not be inclined to agree — suggests that he was rather ein freier Lehrer, one of the last of the unattached teachers of the patristic period. Quensell has, of course, been dissatisfied with the evidence linking Methodius with many different sees (including that of Philippi, which was supported so vigorously by Diekamp, F.); and though his point of view cannot be completely proven, it is an expression of a healthy doubt which scholars in the field are bound to take seriously. This point is further discussed in volume 27 of the ACW (note 10 supra).Google Scholar
32 See Traditio 12 (1956) 1–64.Google Scholar
33 Texts and Studies, n.s. 3 (Cambridge University Press 1957). Google Scholar
34 For Gilson's latest synthesis of the growth of philosophic thought during the patristic period, one should consult the masterly History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York, Random House 1955), especially 9–109 (up to Cassiodorus), with a fine selective bibliography up to date on pp. 552–606. Google Scholar
35 For a discusion of Dölger's work, cf. Traditio 10 (1954) 574–5. [On parable, allegory and romance in the Barlaam legend, see the study by Bolton, W. F. infra. EDD.]Google Scholar
36 The same problem, the Christian philosophic concept of mixture and union is discussed at length by Wolfson, H. A., The Philosophy of the Church Fathers 364–433; on the perichoresis, see especially 418–428 for a discussion of the famous passages from pseudo-Cyril, De sacrosancta Trinitate 24 and 27 (PG 77.1165 C and 1172 D).Google Scholar
37 For a discussion of this problem and its relationship to the Hegelian or Crocean view of history, see H.-I. Marrou, De la connaissance historique: une introduction philosophique à l’étude de l'histoire (Paris, Éditions du Seuil 1955). Google Scholar