Christians in Conversation: A Guide to Late Antique Dialogues in Greek and Syriac 0190915471, 9780190915476

Table of contents :
Series
Christians in Conversation
Copyright
Contents
Acknowledgments
List of Abbreviations
Introduction
Structure of the Work
Dialogue and Christianity
Dialogues and Late Antiquity
The Dialogue Form and Rhetorical Training
The Dialogue Form and Erotapokriseis
Toward a Comprehensive Approach?
A Formal Typology
Conclusion
Guide to the Dialogues
1. ?Aristo of Pella, Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci
2. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho
3. Gaius Romanus, Dialogue against Proclus
4. ?Hippolytus, Chapters against Gaius
5. Philip Bardaisanite, The Book of the Laws of the Countries and Bardaisan’s Lost Dialogues
6. Anonymous, Erostrophus
7. Origen, Dialogue with Heraclides and Lost Dialogues
8. Gregory the Wonderworker, To Theopompus, on the Impassibility and Passibility of God
9. Gregory the Wonderworker, Dialogue with Gelian
10. Anonymous, Anti-​Jewish Dialogue
11. Methodius, On Free Will
12. Methodius, On Leprosy
13. Methodius, Symposium
14. Methodius, Aglaophon or On the Resurrection
15. Methodius, Xeno or On Things Created
16. ?Hegemonius, Acta Archelai
17. Anonymous, Dialogue with Adamantius
18. Diodorus of Tarsus, Two Dialogues
19. Gregory of Nyssa, Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection
20. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Fate
21. Macarius Magnes, Apocriticus
22. Apollinarius of Laodicea, Dialogi and Quod Deus in carne Christus
23. Didymus the Blind, Disputation with a Heretic
24. Ps.-​Athanasius, Disputatio contra Arium
25. Anonymous, Two Macedonian Dialogues
26. John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood
27. Anonymous, Dialexis Montanistae et Orthodoxi
28. Ps.-​Athanasius, Five Dialogues on the Trinity
29. Ps.-​Athanasius, Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei
30. Ps.-​Athanasius, Two Dialogues against the Macedonians
31. Palladius, Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom
32. Cyril of Alexandria, On Adoration and Worship in Spirit and Truth
33. Cyril of Alexandria, Seven Dialogues on the Trinity
34. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Incarnation of the Only-​Begotten
35. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ
36. Ps.-​Cyril of Alexandria, Dialogue with Nestorius
37. Theodotus of Ancyra, Contra Nestorium
38. Nestorius, Adversus Theopaschitas
39. Nestorius, Dialogue in the Bazaar of Heracleides
40. Mark the Monk, Disputatio cum Causidico
41. John of Apamea, Six Dialogues with Thomas
42. John of Apamea, Four Dialogues with Eusebius and Eutropius
43. John of Apamea, Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism
44. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Eranistes
45. Anonymous, Actus Silvestri
46. Aeneas of Gaza, Theophrastus
47. Zacharias of Mytilene, Ammonius
48. Zacharias of Mytilene, Life of Severus
49. Anonymous or Menas, On Political Science
50. Leontius of Byzantium, Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas
51. Leontius of Byzantium, Solutions to the Arguments Proposed by Severus
52. Basil of Cilicia, Against John of Scythopolis
53. Paul the Persian, Disputatio cum Manichaeo
54. John bar Aphthonia, Conversation with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian
55. John the Grammarian of Caesarea, Disputatio cum Manichaeo
56. Anonymous, Dialogus cum Iudaeis
57. Anonymous, Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila
58. Paul of Nisibis, Conversation with Caesar
59. Anonymous, Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court
60. Anastasius of Antioch, Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite
General Bibliography
Index of Dialogues, Erotapokriseis, and Related Texts
General Index

Citation preview

CHRISTIANS IN CONVERSATION

OXFORD STUDIES IN LATE ANTIQUITY Series Editor Ralph Mathisen Late Antiquity has unified what in the past were disparate disciplinary, chronological, and geographical areas of study. Welcoming a wide array of methodological approaches, this book series provides a venue for the finest new scholarship on the period, ranging from the later Roman Empire to the Byzantine, Sasanid, early Islamic, and early Carolingian worlds. Disciplining Christians Correction and Community in Augustine’s Letters Jennifer V. Ebbeler History and Identity in the Late Antique Near East Edited by Philip Wood Explaining the Cosmos Creation and Cultural Interaction in Late-​Antique Gaza Michael W. Champion Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity Porphyry of Tyre and the Pagan-​Christian Debate in Late Antiquity Michael Bland Simmons The Poetics of Late Antique Literature Edited by Jas Elsner and Jesus Hernandez-​Lobato Rome’s Holy Mountain The Capitoline Hill in Late Antiquity Jason Moralee The Qur'an and Late Antiquity A Shared Heritage Angelika Neuwirth Columbanus and the Peoples of Post-​Roman Europe Edited by Alexander O’Hara Jonas of Bobbio and the Legacy of Columbanus Sanctity and Community in the Seventh Century Alexander O’Hara Sacred Stimulus Jerusalem in the Visual Christianization of Rome Galit Noga-​Banai Christians in Conversation A Guide to Late Antique Dialogues in Greek and Syriac Alberto Rigolio

Christians in Conversation A Guide to Late Antique Dialogues in Greek and Syriac

Alberto Rigolio

1

1 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2019 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress ISBN 978–​0–​19–​091545–​2 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America

Contents

Acknowledgments  ix List of Abbreviations  xi Introduction  1 Structure of the Work  2 Dialogue and Christianity  8 Dialogues and Late Antiquity  12 The Dialogue Form and Rhetorical Training  16 The Dialogue Form and Erotapokriseis  22 Toward a Comprehensive Approach?  24 A Formal Typology  32 Conclusion  37 Guide to the Dialogues  39 1. ?Aristo of Pella, Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci  39 2. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho  43 3. Gaius Romanus, Dialogue against Proclus  48 4. ?Hippolytus, Chapters against Gaius  49 5. Philip Bardaisanite, The Book of the Laws of the Countries and Bardaisan’s Lost Dialogues  51 6. Anonymous, Erostrophus  57 7. Origen, Dialogue with Heraclides and Lost Dialogues  60 8. Gregory the Wonderworker, To Theopompus, on the Impassibility and Passibility of God  65 9. Gregory the Wonderworker, Dialogue with Gelian  68 10. Anonymous, Anti-​Jewish Dialogue  69 11. Methodius, On Free Will  70 12. Methodius, On Leprosy  74 13. Methodius, Symposium  77 v

vi Contents 14. Methodius, Aglaophon or On the Resurrection  82 15. Methodius, Xeno or On Things Created  86 16. ?Hegemonius, Acta Archelai  88 17. Anonymous, Dialogue with Adamantius  92 18. Diodorus of Tarsus, Two Dialogues  96 19. Gregory of Nyssa, Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection  98 20. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Fate  102 21. Macarius Magnes, Apocriticus  105 22. Apollinarius of Laodicea, Dialogi and Quod Deus in carne Christus  110 23. Didymus the Blind, Disputation with a Heretic  114 24. Ps.-​Athanasius, Disputatio contra Arium  115 25. Anonymous, Two Macedonian Dialogues  118 26. John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood  120 27. Anonymous, Dialexis Montanistae et Orthodoxi  125 28. Ps.-​Athanasius, Five Dialogues on the Trinity  127 29. Ps.-​Athanasius, Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei  131 30. Ps.-​Athanasius, Two Dialogues against the Macedonians  134 31. Palladius, Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom  137 32. Cyril of Alexandria, On Adoration and Worship in Spirit and Truth  141 33. Cyril of Alexandria, Seven Dialogues on the Trinity  144 34. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Incarnation of the Only-​Begotten  146 35. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ  148 36. Ps.-​Cyril of Alexandria, Dialogue with Nestorius  150 37. Theodotus of Ancyra, Contra Nestorium  151 38. Nestorius, Adversus Theopaschitas  153 39. Nestorius, Dialogue in the Bazaar of Heracleides  154 40. Mark the Monk, Disputatio cum Causidico  158 41. John of Apamea, Six Dialogues with Thomas  160 42. John of Apamea, Four Dialogues with Eusebius and Eutropius  162 43. John of Apamea, Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism  165 44. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Eranistes  167 45. Anonymous, Actus Silvestri  172 46. Aeneas of Gaza, Theophrastus  177 47. Zacharias of Mytilene, Ammonius  180 48. Zacharias of Mytilene, Life of Severus  186 49. Anonymous or Menas, On Political Science  188 50. Leontius of Byzantium, Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas  192 51. Leontius of Byzantium, Solutions to the Arguments Proposed by Severus  195 52. Basil of Cilicia, Against John of Scythopolis  197

Contents  vii 53. Paul the Persian, Disputatio cum Manichaeo  199 54. John bar Aphthonia, Conversation with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian  203 55. John the Grammarian of Caesarea, Disputatio cum Manichaeo  206 56. Anonymous, Dialogus cum Iudaeis  209 57. Anonymous, Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila  212 58. Paul of Nisibis, Conversation with Caesar  219 59. Anonymous, Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court  222 60. Anastasius of Antioch, Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite  229 General Bibliography  233 Index of Dialogues, Erotapokriseis, and Related Texts  265 General Index  269

Acknowledgments

T

he work for the present book originates from my involvement in the Leverhulme Research Project The Dialogue Form in Early Christianity and Byzantium during the academic years 2011–​13. The project, based at the University of Oxford and under the leadership of Averil Cameron, gave me the opportunity to begin a systematic inquiry into Christian dialogues composed from their origins in the second century until the end of the sixth century CE. My surprise at the richness of this strand of literature and the important questions that it raises for the cultural history of late antiquity only intensified as I kept on reading more and more dialogues, a fact that made me realize the need of a tool that would help further research of this understudied material by providing a critical and comprehensive overview of this rich field in all of its complexity. As I progressed, I kept in mind the interests of different bodies of scholars working in history, literature, and religion, and, given the preliminary state of research on several texts, I opted for a comprehensive coverage of the field, at the same time suggesting what I see as potential avenues for future research. The work reached the present shape over several years, with very many debts incurred along the way, especially at Oxford, where the 2014 workshop Dialogues and Debates from Late Antiquity to Late Byzantium at Keble College provided the venue for fruitful conversations, and at Princeton, where the Society of Fellows in the Liberal Arts offered the necessary respite to draft the manuscript, as well as the access to a wide range of bibliographical resources and an exceptionally supportive academic community. The very warm welcome by my new colleagues at Durham University accompanied me as I followed the last stages in the preparation of the manuscript. Several scholars and friends kindly answered my questions, shared their ongoing work and forthcoming publications, and provided helpful feedback and criticism, while all remaining shortcomings and omissions are my responsibility. They include Patrick Andrist, Marina Bazzani, Adam Becker, Emmanuel Bourbouhakis, Peter Brown, Pauline Bringel, Tony Burke, Beatrice Daskas, Anna

ix

x Acknowledgments Dolganov, Mark Edwards, Scott Johnson, Christopher Jones, Anna Jouravel, Chloë Kitzinger, Charlie Kuper, Dawn LaValle, Yannis Papadogiannakis, Antonio Rigo, Jeremy Schott, Agostino Soldati, Yumi Suzuki, Sébastien Morlet, Alberto Quiroga Puertas, Susan Stewart, Peter Van Nuffelen, Matthijs Wibier, and the anonymous reviewers for Oxford University Press. It was a great pleasure to work with Stefan Vranka, Emily Zogbi, and the capable staff at the Press; and thanks also go to James Disley, Rajesh Kathamuthu, and Leslie Safford for their painstaking editorial work, and to Pam Scholefield for the compilation of the general index. My greatest debt is to Averil Cameron, without whom this project would have never seen the light; she believed in it from its inception and offered help and inspiration with a degree of dedication that has been truly extraordinary. The book is dedicated to you, Luigina, Alessandro, Claudio, Filippo, and Alice, for your encouragement, support, and inspiration over the years; your passion and enthusiasm have taught me more than words can express.

Abbreviations

ACO BHG BHL BHO CPG CPL CSCO Di Berardino

DSp

GAL Lampe Moreschini

OBD

Schwartz, E., ed. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. Berlin 1914–​40. Socii Bollandiani, eds. Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca. 3 vols. Brussels 1957. Socii Bollandiani, eds. Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Antiquae et Mediae Aetatis. 2 vols. Brussels 1949. Socii Bollandiani, eds. Bibliotheca Hagiographica Orientalis. Brussels 1910. Geraard, M. ed. Clavis Patrum Graecorum. 6 vols. Turnhout 1974–​98. Dekkers, E., and Gaar, E., eds. Clavis Patrum Latinorum. Turnhout 1995. Corpus Christianorum Scriptorum Orientalium. Di Berardino, A. Patrology: The Eastern Fathers from the Council of Chalcedon (451) to John of Damascus (750). English translation by A. Walford. Cambridge 2006. Viller, M., Cavallera, F., and De Guibert, J., eds. Dictionnaire de spiritualité ascétique et mystique, doctrine et histoire. 17 vols. Paris 1937–​95. Bardenhewer, O. Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur. 5 vols. Freiburg 1913–​32. Lampe, G.W.H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford 1961. Moreschini, C., and Norelli, E. Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History. Translated by M.J. O’Connell. Peabody, MA 2005. Kazhdan, A.P., ed. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. 3 vols. Oxford 1991.

xi

xii Abbreviations PLRE

P.Oxy. Quasten RAC SC Schreckenberg

Jones, A.H.M., Martindale, J.R., and Morris, J. et al., eds. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. 3 vols. Cambridge 1971–​92. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Quasten, J., and di Berardino, A. Patrology. 4 vols. Utrecht 1953–​86. Klauser, T., Dassmann, E., and Schöllgen, G., eds. Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Stuttgart 1950–​. Sources Chrétiennes. Schreckenberg, H. Die christlichen Adversus-​Judaeos-​Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (1.–​11. Jh.). Frankfurt 1999.

Introduction

I

nstances of dialogue are common in early Christian literature. We have dialogues embedded within different literary genres, such as hagiography, historiography, or fictional narratives;1 dialogue poems (and dispute poems), especially common in Syriac literature;2 and texts written in the form of questions and answers, also known as erotapokriseis.3 Yet we also have a conspicuous corpus of self-​standing texts written in prose that claim to report, or to simulate, real-​life conversations between two or more speakers, primarily about religious, philosophical, or biographical subjects, and often placed within an elaborate historical or fictitious setting. Christian dialogues address themes such as the nature of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and the function of fate in relation to free will, as well as various Christological and exegetical subjects. The role of these texts in the study of the culture of late antiquity, particularly on issues such as religious debate, rhetorical culture, and literate education more broadly, is only gradually being recognized. The most commonly known Christian dialogues include Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, Methodius’ Symposium, and Gregory of Nyssa’s Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection, while many more remain still unfamiliar to the most.

1. Remarkable examples of dialogues embedded in other literary works are found in Ps.-​Clementine literature, in the Acts of Philip, and in the Syriac History of Mar Qardagh, for which see Walker 2006. Instances of dialogue are common in martyr acts, in which the most dramatic parts often take the form of dialogue; some of the simpler martyr acts may even be mostly made up by exchanges among speakers, such as the Latin Martyrdom of Justin. Dialogues can also be used as introduction to other works, as in Theophylact Simocatta’s History: see Ieraci Bio 2006:32–​35 and Whitby and Whitby 1986:3–​5. 2. For Syriac dispute poems, which some distinguish from dialogue poems, see the fundamental work of Brock 1991 (with recent discussion in Mengozzi 2015), who provides an overview of their form and contents, and traces the links with Ancient Mesopotamian literature and Biblical themes. For these texts, see also Krueger 2003, Frank 2005, Harvey 2005, Mengozzi and Ricossa 2013, Brock 2016, and Butts 2017; while Ruani 2016 is now fundamental for the literature of controversy in Syriac. For a discussion of the links between dialogue poems and prose dialogues, see Brock 1983 and 2016, Cameron 1991a, and Frenkel 2016. 3. More on the links between erotapokriseis and prose dialogues follows below. Notable examples of erotapokriseis include Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel Questions and Solutions (Zamagni 2008 and 2016) and Ps.-​Caesarius’ Quaestiones et responsiones (mid-​sixth century; Papadogiannakis 2008, 2011, and 2013a). For the most recent work see Bussières 2004 and 2013, Efthymiadis 2017, Papadogiannakis 2006 and 2013a, Zamagni 2004, and, especially helpful for Syriac, Ter Haar Romeny 2004.

1

2  Christians in Conversation Occasionally Christian dialogues reveal familiarity with Plato’s dialogues or with the Socratic tradition more broadly, as instantiated in Methodius of Olympus, Gregory of Nyssa, or Aeneas of Gaza.4 The endurance of the Platonic tradition is, however, by no means a characteristic feature of all Christian dialogues and was far from being the norm. For instance, Basil of Caesarea made explicit reference to the tradition of Platonic and Aristotelian dialogues in an attempt to interpret the dialogue form employed by Christian authors, and put forward Plato’s Laws as a suitable model for Christian writers; conversely, another Christian author, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, declared his intention to depart from the learned dialogue form used by classical Greek authors. Both Basil and Theodoret, however, appear as isolated examples, and explicit references to classical dialogues are somewhat rare in this body of literature.5 Regrettably, most dialogues composed in the late antique period are still little studied, and often in isolation from one another.6 Several of them have been the subject of excellent scholarship only in the last two decades, but there is no systematic overview of these texts, and we still lack a comprehensive study of the dialogue form throughout the period. Dialogues featuring a Christian and a Jew as the main speakers have attracted most scholarly attention, particularly in relation to other instances of adversus Iudaeos literature, but they nonetheless await to be related to the broader developments of the dialogue form among Christians. Similarly, Syriac literature offers some of the earliest instances of Christian dialogues and shows the pervasiveness of the dialogue form in late antiquity beyond the language boundary; yet these texts need to be put in relation to the contemporary developments in Greek and in Latin. To the eyes of the cultural historian, Christian dialogues reveal their authors’ awareness of a wide spectrum of religious opinions, they vividly evoke the religious debates of the time, they embody the cultural conventions and refinements that late antique men and women expected from such events, and they propagated the fundamental view that religious differences could be solved in the context of a public debate. Not only does the extraordinary flourishing of the dialogue form attest to the transformations of ancient literary and rhetorical traditions, but it also helps us understand the functioning and the complexities of a lively society that thrived on religious debate. Structure of the Work The present study is structured as a comprehensive guide to Christian dialogues composed in Greek and in Syriac from the earliest examples in the second 4. A full discussion can be found in each relevant entry. 5. See entries 18 and 44. 6. The classic work, now outdated, is Hirzel 1895. Books that partially cover the field are Hoffmann 1966, Voss 1970, and, more recently, Hösle 2012 (a translation of Hösle 2006). See now Cameron and Gaul 2014, and for the discussion of other recent scholarship see the below.

Introduction  3 century until c. 600 CE, arranged in chronological order so as to emphasize changes and transformations over time. The chronological and linguistic coverage, which excludes Latin and closes with the end of the sixth century, has been limited in scope for editorial purposes, but these boundaries are not meant to overemphasize conventional divides. The guide opens with the Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci, written in the mid-​second century CE, and closes with Anastasius of Antioch, who wrote his Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite in the late sixth century. The developments of dialogue literature from the turn of the seventh century onward, such as the further technicization and formalization of the argumentation (as attested in Eulogius of Alexandria), and, most noticeably, the appearance of Christian-​Muslim dialogues, were taken as the working limit to circumscribe the present analysis.7 It is hoped that the present volume will help study the prehistory of Christian dialogues as well as, the developments of religious debate from the seventh century onward. The focus of the volume is on Greek and Syriac, but composition of literature in dialogue form was not a phenomenon limited to these languages and was almost as common in Latin literature, where it was represented by Minucius Felix, Jerome, Augustine, Sulpicius Severus, and Boethius, among other authors. While Latin dialogues have been the subject of some initial overviews, Greek and Syriac dialogues have attracted increasing academic attention in the last decade and still remain in greater need of systematic work.8 The present guide thus focuses on dialogues composed in Greek and in Syriac, including those surviving only in Latin, Syriac, Armenian, or Old Slavonic translations. Dialogues written in Syriac shed light on the earliest stages of dialogue writing by Christian authors and can therefore contribute to our understanding of the developments of Greek dialogues as well. Among the earliest instances of Christian dialogues on doctrinal matters are the Syriac dialogues against Marcion by Bardaisan of Edessa (now lost), and the Syriac dialogue The Book of the Laws of the Countries by a pupil of Bardaisan, which opens by addressing a Marcionite objection to mainstream Christianity.9 (Unfortunately very little survives by the Syrian Simeon of Beth Arsham [d. before 548], who made a name for himself as a debater and may have written texts 7. For Eulogius of Alexandria, see Roosen 2015. Major questions concerning the composition of dialogues after the sixth century touch upon the developments of the Byzantine dialogue (the dialogues by Theophylact Simocatta and Germanus I of Constantinople are not treated in the present work) and the issue of the relationship between late antique dialogues and Islamic kalām, for which see Cook 1980 and Daiber 2012. For later dialogues, see Cameron 1996, Cameron and Hoyland 2011, Cameron 2016a, and Cameron and Gaul 2017. For the Syriac, see Tannous 2008 and Roggema 2016. For the dialogue form in the early Islamic period, see Bertaina 2011. 8. A comprehensive overview of the Latin dialogues can be found in Schmidt 1977, who lists forty-​three Latin dialogues composed before the beginning of the seventh century (sixteen of them authored by Augustine, with several others misattributed to him); see also Cooper and Dal Santo 2008, Whelan 2017, and Kuper 2017. For Latin dialogues from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, see Cardelle de Hartmann 2007. For the surge of interest in Greek dialogues during the last decade, see, for instance, the publications by Andrist, Cameron, LaValle, and Morlet, as well as Bracht 2017, Dubel and Gotteland 2015, Föllinger and Müller 2013, and Goldhill 2008a. 9. See entry 5.

4  Christians in Conversation in dialogue form; nor do we have, despite the flourishing of religious debate in the Sasanian empire during the sixth century, any Eastern Syriac dialogue composed before the turn of the seventh century).10 Overall, Syriac offers an extremely rich, and little explored, corpus of controversial and apologetic literature in various forms that needs to be related to its Greek and Latin counterparts and to be effectively integrated into the cultural history of the late antique world.11 Because of the preliminary state of research on this strand of literature, I have addressed the dialogues in systematic fashion and structured each entry into standardized headings (author, full title, original language, date of composition, modern editions, modern translations, summary, discussion of scholarship, and a selected bibliography for further study). Dialogues that survive only in part or in abridged form, but that still provide enough information about the original text, have been treated as autonomous entries—​these include Aristo of Pella’s Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci and Gaius Romanus’ Dialogue against Proclus. Conversely, lost dialogues by known authors are mentioned within the full entries of other surviving dialogues by the same author, as in the case of Origen; in order to help navigate the material, an index of dialogues and related literature, arranged alphabetically by author, is found in the end of the book. In a few instances, given the complexity of the textual tradition or the fragmentary state of particular dialogues, I have followed past scholarship by incorporating different texts into one entry, as in the cases of Apollinarius of Laodicea’s lost dialogues, the anonymous Two Macedonian Dialogues, and Ps.-​Athanasius’ Five Dialogues on the Trinity. I have made an effort to make the list as comprehensive as possible; but in light of the pervasiveness of dialogue writing in the period in question, the possibility that additional dialogues will be found cannot be excluded.12 A few texts that display important similarities with our dialogues have not been included for reasons of form, in that they cannot be considered dialogues, or chronology, in that they are later than the end of the sixth century. Even though the author reported some of the exchanges among the speakers, Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Disputatio cum Macedonianis (CPG 3857; surviving only in Syriac 10. For Simeon, see the entry in Brock et al. 2011, and Walker 2006:175–77; for Babai the Great, see Brock 2011:215–​17; and for the debating culture in the Sasanian empire, see Walker 2006. In his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers (ed. Assemani 1728), ῾Abdīšō῾ Bar Brīkā of Nisibis made reference to some of the texts written (presumably in dialogue form) by East Syriac authors from the fifth century onward and against religious opponents such as Jews, Manichaeans, Zoroastrian, and other Christian groups. Although it remains uncertain whether all these were structured as prose dialogues, the titles include Mari the Persian (fl. mid-​fifth century), Against the Magi in Nisibis; Īšō῾yahb I of Arzon (d. 595), Disputation against a Heretic Bishop; and Nathaniel of Širzor (d. 618), Disputations against the Severians, Manichaeans, Cantāye, and Māndrāye. See Walker 2006:169–​70, and Griffith 1981:170 for the use of the dialogue form within religious controversy according to the witness of the East Syrian bishop Bar Bahlūl (tenth century). 11. Ruani  2016. 12. For instance, further analysis is needed of the Syriac manuscripts BL Add. 7199 (= Rosen and Forshall 1838:lviii.4 and 6, with Wright 1870:appendix A), which contains a Dialogue on Calamities Sent by God and a Dialogue on the Resurrection, and BL Add. 14533 (= Wright 1870:dccclix.55), which contains a Dialogue on Heresies, but see Ter Haar Romeny 2004:160–​63.

Introduction  5 translation) is structured as the narrative account of a debate rather than as a dialogue proper.13 A letter by Isidore of Pelusium (c. 360–​c. 440) also takes the form of an imaginary dialogue of Isidore with himself as to whether reproach makes people better or makes them more obstinate in wrongdoing.14 A letter by Severus of Antioch (d. 538)  records excerpts from a conversation that he had with John of Claudiopolis on Chalcedonian Christology.15 The religious debate between a Christian and a Zoroastrian in the History of Mar Qardagh, an early-​ seventh-​century Syriac hagiographical narrative, is an instance of embedded dialogue (rather than a self-​standing dialogue) that contains important traces of a long-​standing tradition of debate on religious matters in sixth-​century Persia.16 Last but not least, it remains unclear whether or not Manichaean literature made use of the dialogue form as such, since very little of it has survived;17 Faustus of Mileve’s Capitula (CPL 726), a Manichaean handbook for actual debates, is usually understood as an instance of question-​and-​answer literature, or, as it came to be known, erotapokriseis.18 Twenty-​first-​century work on textual transmission, chronology, and authorship has been instrumental in putting together a comprehensive list of dialogues. In addition to showing the fluidity of several texts (especially anonymous ones) and the reuse of existing literature in the composition of new dialogues,19 it is 13. The text is edited and translated into French in Nau 1913:633–​67; see Voss 1970:17n20; the question should be asked, however, about the possible intervention of the translator. 14. Isidore of Pelusium, Ep. 3.397 (PG 78.1036; CPG 5557); Isidore argues that it is best to mix moderation and reproach. I owe this reference to Christopher Jones. 15. Severus of Antioch, Ep. 6.1 (ed. Brooks 1902:1.1.3–​12; English trans. Brooks 1902:2.1.3–​11; CPG 7070). 16. Walker 2006, which contains an English translation; Payne 2016. 17. The Cologne Mani Codex (ed. and trans. Cameron and Dewey 1979, 80.6–​93.23) contains extracts of dialogic exchanges between Mani and senior Elcesaites, including passages from a “synod of presbyters” that had been set up against him (89.6–​7); see Lim 1995:70–​108. Payne 2016:219 links Mani’s Šābuhragān, the account of Manichaean religion and cosmology that Mani dedicated to Shapur I, with the practice of disputation on religious matters within the Sasanian court. However, even though the cosmological account in the Šābuhragān includes some dialogic exchanges among Xradešahr (standing for Christ), the “sinners,” and the “religious ones,” the text itself does not take the dialogue form and has not been included here (for the surviving text, originally written in middle Persian, see the edition and English translation in MacKenzie 1979 and 1980; see also the Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v.). 18. Van Gaans 2013 for an overview; BeDuhn 2009; ed. Monceaux 1924. 19. Notable examples of textual reuse are the anonymous Dialogue with Adamantius, which makes use of Methodius’ On Free Will and Aglaophon or On the Resurrection, the Ps.-​Athanasian Two Dialogues against the Macedonians, which reuse one of the authentically Macedonian Two Macedonian Dialogues, and the inclusion of material perhaps derived from Aristo of Pella’s Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci in the composition of Ps.-​Athanasius’ Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei, the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, and the Latin Dialogue of Simon and Theophilus (attributed to Evagrius; the text and English translation can be found in Varner 2004). Important overlaps in format and language have also been found between the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei and a number of Ps.-​Athanasian dialogues, but in these cases the degree of similarity is not enough to prove direct textual dependence beyond their originating in similar cultural milieux (Andrist 2005:106–​21; the Ps.-​Athanasian dialogues that shows overlaps with the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei are the Disputatio contra Arium, the Five Dialogues on the Trinity, and the Two Dialogues against the Macedonians, to which can be added the anonymous Dialexis Montanistae et Orthodoxi). Other dialogues appear to make use of literature that was not originally written in dialogue form, such as Hegemonius’ Acta Archelai (which makes use of authentic Manichaean literature) and Macarius Magnes’ Apocriticus (which possibly depends on Porphyry’s Against Christians). Others, such as Gregory of Nyssa’s Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection and Against Fate, and the anonymous Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, suggest a link with other literary genres such as hagiography, epistolography, or catechetical literature, as is discussed in each entry.

6  Christians in Conversation now possible to rely on a firmer chronology for several texts than might have been only few years ago, as is discussed in the relevant entries, while it has also become clear that some dialogues of uncertain chronology are now unlikely to fit the time frame of the present work. These are the anonymous Dialogica polymorpha antiiudaica (CPG 7796; previously known as Dialogus Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum Monacho), whose most ancient nucleus dates to the second half of the seventh century and was expanded during the following decades, as shown by a remarkably fluid textual tradition;20 the fragmentary Dialogus de S. Trinitate inter Judaeum et Christianum by Jerome of Jerusalem (CPG 7815), for which Patrick Andrist suggests a chronology between the end of the seventh and the beginning of the eighth centuries;21 the Dialogue of the Monk and Recluse Moschos Concerning the Holy Icons (of dubious chronology but likely later than the sixth century);22 and Ps.-​Gregentius’ Dialexis (CPG 7009), for which both the seventh century and the tenth century were suggested.23 The Greek and Syriac dialogues treated in the present work are thus the following ones (the question mark indicates dubious authorship):24

1. ?Aristo of Pella, Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (CPG 1101) 2. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (CPG 1071) 3. Gaius Romanus, Dialogue against Proclus (CPG 1330; fragments) 4. ?Hippolytus, Chapters against Gaius (CPG 1891; fragments) 5. Philip Bardaisanite, The Book of the Laws of the Countries (Syriac) and Bardaisan’s lost dialogues 6. Anon., Erostrophus (lost; survives in Syriac) 7. Origen, Dialogue with Heraclides (CPG 1481) and lost dialogues 8. Gregory the Wonderworker, To Theopompus, on the Impassibility and Passibility of God (CPG 1767) 9. Gregory the Wonderworker, Dialogue with Gelian (lost) 10. Anon., Anti-​Jewish Dialogue in P.Oxy. 2070 (fragment) 11. Methodius, On Free Will (CPG 1811; incomplete; survives in Old Slavonic) 12. Methodius, On Leprosy (CPG 1815; fragmentary; survives in Old Slavonic) 13. Methodius, Symposium (CPG 1810) 14. Methodius, Aglaophon or On the Resurrection (CPG 1812; fragmentary; survives in Old Slavonic)

2 0. Andrist et al. 2013; Aulisa and Schiano 2005:310–​26, which contains edition and Italian translation. 21. The surviving text can be found in PG 40:848–​60 and 865 (the latter fragment is also edited in Kotter 1969:3: 194 III 125); see Andrist 2017 and Fields 2012. 22. Editio princeps and English translation in Alexakis 1998. While the editor opts for the second third of the fifth century (Alexakis 1998:210), a later chronology is suggested in Brubaker and Haldon 2011:143n269. 23. Cameron 2014:51–​54 for a seventh-​century chronology very possibly with later expansions; Berger 2006:100–​9, which includes edition and English translation, for the tenth century. 24. Instead of proposing new titles, I refer to the dialogues as they are commonly referred to in modern scholarship, whether in Latin or in English. Similarly, for the names of the authors, I use the form that is more commonly found in contemporary scholarship, despite the inconsistencies, for instance “Diodorus of Tarsus,” but “Theodore of Mopsuestia.”

Introduction  7





15. Methodius, Xeno or On Things Created (CPG 1817; fragmentary) 16. ?Hegemonius, Acta Archelai (CPG 3570; lost, survives in Latin) 17. Anon., Dialogue with Adamantius (CPG 1726) 18. Diodorus of Tarsus, Two Dialogues (lost) 19. Gregory of Nyssa, Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (CPG 3149) 20. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Fate (CPG 3152) 21. Macarius Magnes, Apocriticus (CPG 6115) 22. Apollinarius of Laodicea, Dialogi and Quod Deus in carne Christus (CPG 3663 and 3664; fragments) 23. Didymus the Blind, Disputation with a Heretic (CPG 2565; fragment) 24. Ps.-​Athanasius, Disputatio contra Arium (CPG 2250) 25. Anon., Two Macedonian Dialogues (fragments) 26. John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood (CPG 3416) 27. Anon., Dialexis Montanistae et Orthodoxi (CPG 2572) 28. Ps.-​Athanasius, Five Dialogues on the Trinity (CPG 2284) 29. Ps.-​Athanasius, Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (CPG 2301) 30. Ps.-​Athanasius, Two Dialogues against the Macedonians (CPG 2285) 31. Palladius, Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (CPG 6037) 32. Cyril of Alexandria, On Adoration and Worship in Spirit and in Truth (CPG 5200) 33. Cyril of Alexandria, Seven Dialogues on the Trinity (CPG 5216) 34. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Incarnation of the Only-​Begotten (CPG 5227) 35. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ (CPG 5228) 36. Ps.-​Cyril of Alexandria, Dialogue with Nestorius (CPG 5438) 37. Theodotus of Ancyra, Contra Nestorium (CPG 6131) 38. Nestorius, Adversus Theopaschitas (CPG 5752; fragments) 39. Nestorius, Dialogue in the Bazaar of Heracleides (CPG 5751) 40. Mark the Monk, Disputatio cum Causidico (CPG 6097) 41. John of Apamea, Six Dialogues with Thomas (Syriac) 42. John of Apamea, Four Dialogues with Eusebius and Eutropius (Syriac) 43. John of Apamea, Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism (Syriac) 44. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Eranistes (CPG 6217) 45. Anon., Actus Silvestri (BHG 1628–​34; BHL 7725–​43; Latin; the origin of the legend is Syro-​Palestinian) 46. Aeneas of Gaza, Theophrastus (CPG 7450) 47. Zacharias of Mytilene, Ammonius (CPG 6996) 48. Zacharias of Mytilene, Life of Severus (CPG 6999) 49. Anon. or Menas, On Political Science 50. Leontius of Byzantium, Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas (CPG 6813) 51. Leontius of Byzantium, Solutions to the Arguments Proposed by Severus (CPG 6815) 52. Basil of Cilicia, Against John of Scythopolis (lost) 53. Paul the Persian, Disputatio cum Manichaeo (CPG 7010)

8  Christians in Conversation 54. John bar Aphthonia, Conversation with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (CPG 7486; Syriac) 55. John the Grammarian of Caesarea, Disputatio cum Manichaeo (CPG 6862) 56. Anon., Dialogus cum Iudaeis (CPG 7803) 57. Anon., Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (CPG 7794) 58. Paul of Nisibis, Conversation with Caesar (CPG 6897) 59. Anon., Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court (CPG 6968) 60. Anastasius of Antioch, Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite (CPG 6958) Dialogue and Christianity The question presents itself whether, and, if so, in what ways, the extensive use of the dialogue form by Christian authors should inform our understanding of the historical transformations of debate on matters of religion and philosophy in late antique society. In particular, a central issue of discussion among scholars has been whether early Christians engaged in genuine dialogue on religious and philosophical issues, and how their practices differed from their non-​Christian contemporaries and predecessors. Was there room for discussion and disagreement in matters of Christian faith? Did the search for Christian orthodoxy bring about the end of open dialogue on religious and philosophical matters? In what respects did debate in late antiquity differ from debate in classical antiquity? Whereas Socratic dialogues developed in conjunction with Athenian democracy, where dialogue was a crucial part of the political process, Christian dialogues were often written by Christian authors who became notorious for their censorious attitudes toward opposing views on matters of faith. Christian dialogues have been used to answer some of these questions.25 An influential view was that of Rudolf Hirzel, who in his 1895 classic work on ancient and modern dialogue argued that the rise of Christianity entailed the demise of the ancient dialogue as a literary form. Hirzel put forward an oppositional understanding of classical dialogues and Christian dialogues; he implied that the intellectual openness of dialogue in ancient Greece, as is reflected in the classical dialogue form, should provide the benchmark for measuring dialogue and debate in other societies. In this respect, early Christianity appeared to fall short of the openness of dialogue in classical Athens. Nonetheless, one problematic aspect of Hirzel’s account (as shown by Sandrine Dubel) was Hirzel’s debt to Diogenes Laertius in his understanding of classical dialogue (see especially D.L. 3.48), and, in particular, to Diogenes’ view of Plato as the author who brought the dialogue form to perfection. By centering on Plato, Hirzel’s work ended up downplaying the overall diversity of the dialogue form already in antiquity and tended 25. Lim 1995 and 1995a; an overview on the issue can be found in Van Nuffelen 2014.

Introduction  9 to appraise dialogues exclusively in relation to Platonic models; conversely, the diversity of ancient dialogues is now being increasingly appreciated thanks to a renewed scholarly interest in their various forms in antiquity, and a case was made to understand ancient dialogue as a genre polymorphe.26 To set up an opposition between Platonic and Christian dialogues appears more and more as an artificial exercise that does not reflect the fluidity of the dialogue form already in antiquity, an obstacle that hinders the possibility of writing a sophisticated historical profile of this form over the centuries. Yet, following Hirzel, subsequent scholarship often contrasted Christian dialogues with Platonic examples, while much less has been done to study the variety of both ancient and late ancient models that were available to Christian authors. More than half a century after Hirzel, in his 1966 study of Christian dialogues (which regrettably ended with the fourth century), Manfred Hoffmann attempted to trace the development of the dialogue form among Christian authors, but also argued that the genuine search for truth underpinning classical dialogue was replaced in Christian dialogues by the teaching of the revealed Christian message. In his view, Christian religious teaching was to be understood as the primary aim in the dialogue form used by Christian authors; Christian dialogues did not express an effort to establish the truth, but rather intended to indicate and teach the way to achieve salvation.27 Hoffmann also pointed out that several among the most influential Christian authors of dialogues were trained in rhetoric and philosophy and must have been familiar with classical dialogues, but the didactic and catechetic drive that characterized their written work ultimately overcame the genuinely dialogic element inherited from the classical tradition (these authors included Justin Martyr, Gregory the Wonderworker, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine). As will be discussed later, a didactic element is indeed a feature of several among late antique dialogues; yet their instructional drive does not preclude the possibility of understanding these texts within the religious and rhetorical culture of the period. In addition, since Christian dialogues display remarkable fluidity in both form and subject matters, Hoffmann proposed a classification of these texts that was to prove particularly influential, and described them as “apologetic” (e.g., Aristo of Pella and Justin Martyr), “dogmatic-​polemic” (e.g., Gaius Romanus’ Dialogue against Proclus and Methodius’ Aglaophon or On the Resurrection), or “Christian-​ philosophic” (e.g., The Book of the Laws of the Countries and Gregory of Nyssa’s Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection), but without addressing the question of how dialogue became the form of choice for so many Christian authors.28 26. Hirzel 1895:2.380 with Lim 2008:151–​52; Dubel 2015. Studies emphasizing the various forms that dialogue took in antiquity are found in Föllinger and Müller 2013, and Dubel and Gotteland 2015; for the dialogue as a genre polymorphe see Dubel 2015:12. 27. Hoffmann  1966. 28. Hoffmann 1966:160–​62; Bardy 1957 divides Christian dialogues into apologetic, theological, biographic, and Biblical.

10  Christians in Conversation A contrastive approach with classical dialogues again underpinned the work of Bernd Reiner Voss, the author of the most comprehensive book on Christian dialogues published to date (1970), which similarly closes with the beginning of the fifth century. Voss follows Hoffman in arguing that the purpose of the Christian dialogue form can rarely be identified with an open-​ended search for truth and thus regards Christian dialogues as inferior in quality to Platonic antecedents (despite some notable exceptions, such as Aeneas of Gaza’s Theophrastus).29 Underlying Voss’ reconstruction, however, is his belief in the substantial incompatibility of philosophy (which makes use of dialogue) and religion (which is ultimately irreconcilable with an authentically dialogic form)—​another dichotomy whose strict applicability to our period is under increasing academic scrutiny and refinement.30 Voss identifies the acceptance of the authority of Scripture as the fundamental feature common to all Christian dialogues, and he understands Christian dialogue as gradually morphing into a non-​artistic form (“unkünstlerisch,” or “nonliterary”), a transformation that provides the chronological limit to his analysis (the early fifth century). In his view, a tendency toward a lack of organic structuring (in contrast with classical predecessors) and the reuse of existing literature to the detriment of genuinely dialogic exchanges became more and more common in Christian dialogues. From a historical perspective, however, “non-​artistic” features of Christian dialogues, such as the reuse of existing literature, the inclusion of quotations from Scripture or patristic florilegia, or the adoption of unrealistic dialogue settings that do not attempt to reproduce plausible conversations, can be taken as precious historical indicators of different circumstances in the composition, purposes, and circulation of these texts, as well as of the development of the dialogue from as a whole. Voss does not discuss the question of whether dialogues may not simply be reflections of historical debates on the ground, but might also have been themselves designed, at a different level, as culturally contingent tools of opinion formation within the society that produced them. For instance, in his analysis Voss misses the chance of seeing, in Christian dialogues, the beginnings of a broader process of cultural transformation, namely an increasing formalism and a gradual technicization of theological argumentation that, from the mid-​ fifth century onward, made larger use of patristic florilegia and legalistic proofs, as is well attested in patristic literature and conciliar acts.31 Regrettably, dialogues as such are still tangential to the 2007 monograph, by Maijastina Kahlos, on dialogue and debate between the fourth and fifth centuries CE; similarly, the 2 9. Voss 1970:39, 364, and passim; Voss 1970:351 for the Theophrastus. 30. Among recent publications on this issue see, for instance, Gerson 2000a, Zachhuber 2019, and the forthcoming volume by Slaveva-​Griffin and Ramelli, which proposes to see the study of philosophy and the study of religion in late antiquity as two ends of a spectrum, each being the byproduct of specialized interests. See also Hadot 1995 for ancient philosophy as a way of life. 31. See Cameron 2014:47–​48, 2013, and 1994.

Introduction  11 abundance of Christian dialogues throughout our period should at least prompt a new discussion of Richard Lim’s argument for an end of genuine debate in matters of religion from the turn of the fifth century.32 The issue of whether the rise of Christianity resulted in the demise of ancient dialogue as a literary form was posed again in 2008 by Simon Goldhill, who makes use of Christian dialogues to describe Christianity moving toward hierarchy and the repression of difference and dissent. In his view, this shift was instantiated by the rarity of Christian dialogues and by the lack of a genuinely dialogic element within extant examples; yet the issues of openness of extant dialogues, and, more broadly, of “the dialogic” in ancient literature, are related but distinct questions, and not limited to self-​standing prose dialogues.33 Goldhill’s argument is further discussed by Lim in a chapter from the same volume, in which he writes of the inherent elitism of the classical dialogue, and argues that its implicit idea of community defined by the common possession of paideia made it less suitable for Christian authors, who were often inclined to opt for tools of mass communication. The status-​coded forms of speech and elite sociability that underpinned classical dialogue were alien to the general Christian population, and, in Lim’s view, this fact determined a lack of investment in the classical dialogue form by Christians. Lim also argues that Christians dialogued in late antiquity as never before, but made use of diverse literary forms and techniques that seem to have “as little in common with Plato’s Symposium as modern Internet chat-​room conversations resemble an early-​modern Humanist dialogue.” Dialogue among Christians does indeed appear as a fluid and diverse form that was not confined to the literary and philosophical dialogue.34 Lim’s work shows us the necessity, and the untapped potential, of understanding Christian dialogues within their historical, cultural, and literary contexts, and not exclusively in relation to classical models. There is much room for the study of the transformations of the dialogue form in its own right within their late antique context, which was characterized by an increased emphasis on religion and by a new relation with the Scriptures. In this respect, instances of dialogue within Rabbinic literature have been studied in their late antique context and have raised important questions: the Talmud reports exchanges between rabbis and non-​rabbinic figures, such as the so-​called “heretics” and “idolaters,” magicians, philosophers, Roman and Persian officials, and gentile women among others. The contrast between the apparent inward-​looking orientation of Rabbinic texts and the use of the dialogue form for engagement with outsiders, in addition to the formal complexities of the dialogue form that this literature takes, have been the subject of a burgeoning strand of scholarship. For 3 2. Cameron 2014; Kahlos 2007; Lim 1995:106. 33. For an overview see Efthymiadis 2017. 34. Goldhill 2008:5–​8; Lim 2008, and 2008:156–​57 on the rarity of Christian dialogues during late antiquity.

12  Christians in Conversation example, instances of dialogue in the Talmud have been explained in the context of the rabbis’ competition with other elites in late antiquity (these dialogues assured the rabbinic readers that the rabbis would be able to face challenges from the outside), or as reflecting the rabbis’ very own anxieties by displacing problematic internal opinions onto the voices of fictional “others;” or, again, as the rabbis’ imaginary attempts to participate in broader conversations taking place outside their doors, such as the religious debates of Christians.35 At the same time, however, such and similar concerns for identity and authority in the Talmud have not precluded its study under the lens of literary criticism, an aspect that is increasingly being the subject of scholarly analysis; indebted to Mikhail Bakhtin, Daniel Boyarin proposes approaching the Talmud in terms of intertextuality and as an example of Menippean literature.36 Dialogues and Late Antiquity When studied in their historical context, the surviving Christian dialogues add to the picture of a society that thrived on religious debate and invested conspicuously in the search for, and articulation of, religious orthodoxy.37 Several Christian authors adopted and transformed the dialogue form to suit the new needs of religious debate and, as the present work shows, the vast majority of Christian dialogues are best understood as designed as tools of persuasion in the context of historical religious controversies and theological debates. Several influential Christian authors (in addition to several minor and anonymous ones) did indeed write dialogues, and chose the dialogue form as the primary vehicle for argument and apologetic on issues they saw as crucial. Notable examples include Diodorus of Tarsus, who, in all likelihood, wrote his dialogues (presumably against Arian doctrine) on occasion of his exile to Armenia under the Arian persecution by Valens, and John Chrysostom, who chose the dialogue form to rebuff accusations about his refusal to be ordained as well as a canon to appraise, and possibly accuse, particular members of the clergy in Antioch. In the context of the Nestorian controversy, Cyril of Alexandria wrote dialogues to attack and 35. Respectively Kalmin 1994, Hayes 1998, and Bar-​Asher Siegal 2018; Kattan Gribetz and Vidas 2012; Boyarin 2008. 36. Boyarin 2009; Labendz 2013; the 2012 issues 19.2 and 19.3 of the Jewish Studies Quarterly contain a rich selection of articles on instances of dialogue in the Talmud. 37. Cameron 2014, 1991, and 1991a; Cameron and Hoyland 2011; Déroche 2012:537–​38; Lim 2001, 1995, and 1995a; Van Nuffelen 2014; Tannous 2013 for the seventh century; Bertaina 2011 for the Middle East in the early Islamic period; McLynn 1992 on the fourth century for a diminution of earlier views on the role of violence in religious controversy; see, for instance, the first imperial edict confirming the Council of Chalcedon (promulgated in 452; ACO 2.2.113–​14 and 2.1.479–​80, trans. Price and Gaddis 2005:3.128–​30, esp. 128n82) and included in the Codex Justinianus (1.1.4, ed. and trans. Frier et al. 2016:1.18–​19) that forbade any “clergyman or member of the imperial service, or any person of any status, [. . .] to lecture on the Christian faith before crowds assembled to listen [. . .]. For whoever strives to revisit and publicly discuss questions already decided and correctly settled, insults the judgment of the Most Holy Synod [. . .]. If a clergyman, therefore, dares to discuss religion in public, he shall be expelled from the community of the clergy [. . .].”

Introduction  13 refute the Christological doctrine attributed to Nestorius; similarly, Nestorius wrote dialogues against Cyrillian theology; and Theodoret of Cyrrhus wrote a dialogue against miaphysitism with the aim of defending himself in the context of the accusations that Dioscorus of Alexandria was leveling against him. In Syriac, Bardaisan wrote dialogues against Marcionites, while Latin authors who wrote dialogues as apologetic tools within religious controversies include Jerome, Augustine, and Sulpicius Severus. The practice of writing in dialogue form was pervasive in early Christian literature, and (as pointed out by Peter Van Nuffelen) the challenge will be how to best use these dialogues in the study of modes of public argumentation and cultural and religious interaction during late antiquity.38 A preliminary question to answer when placing this material in its historical context is how to understand the link between surviving texts and actual conversations on the ground. Some dialogues do indeed record historical debates, such as Origen’s Dialogue with Heraclides, John bar Aphthonia’s Conversation, and Paul of Nisibis’ Conversation with Caesar. Yet, are these dialogues “real”? Do they record conversations as they truly happened? These are natural questions for the modern (as well as the ancient) reader, given that most dialogues purport to record actual exchanges, despite notable exceptions such as Theodoret’s Eranistes and Nestorius’ dialogue included in the Bazaar of Heracleides. However, these questions can at times be misguided, given how rarely there exists historical evidence validating the conversations recorded. On some occasions the nature of the textual support, in particular if this was papyrus, has been used to argue that a dialogue should be understood as the stenographic account of a real debate. Such was the case for Origen’s Dialogue with Heraclides and Didymus the Blind’s Disputation with a Heretic.39 On other occasions the apparently flawed or unsystematic arrangement of a particular dialogue has been taken as an indication that the text could be the record of an actual conversation, given that a work conceived on paper would presumably have been more effectively and soundly structured. This last consideration has been applied to the anonymous Dialexis Montanistae et Orthodoxi and the third of the five Ps.-​Athanasian Dialogues on the Trinity, and may be extended to the second of the two Ps.-​Athanasian Dialogues against the Macedonians.40 A degree of caution, however, should be exerted for understanding surviving dialogues as records of real conversations or debates. Besides the lack of corroborating evidence, the danger of taking surviving dialogues as “real” is exemplified by the conflicting accounts of the historical debate between miaphysite and Chalcedonian bishops sponsored by the emperor Justinian, an actual 3 8. Van Nuffelen 2016 and 2014; Cameron 2014, esp. 36–​38. 39. See the discussion in Morlet 2013:40. 40. See the relevant entries.

14  Christians in Conversation historical event for which accounts of both parties survive. Here, each account provides a strongly slanted picture, passing over embarrassing developments in the debate and emphasizing others.41 In addition, although stenographic accounts of actual debates did exist (see, for instance, the entry on Origen), these could easily undergo a substantial editing process to the point of falsifying the actual debate. Origen lamented the publication and circulation by one of his opponents of the record of a debate with him that—​he alleges—​had in fact never even taken place! Conversely, the identification of the speakers by using generic labels such as “Orthodox” or “Montanist” may not be sufficient to conclude that a particular text was not linked to a real debate, for this terminology could easily be added during the editing process. Despite these difficulties, as argued by Van Nuffelen, both fictional dialogues and records of debates can contribute, in different ways, to the study of the debating culture of the period, and, in his view, historical debates and fictitious dialogues should be taken as the two ends of a continuum; following up on this, Robin Whelan makes a convincing case for the role that invented dialogues played in the perpetuation of religious debate. These dialogues propagated the idea that orthodoxy would be recognized as the correct and rational doctrine in the context of a debate; they both reflected and helped create a distinctive culture of religious debate in late antiquity.42 Especially helpful insights into the link between surviving dialogues and real debates have been developed by modern scholarship on Christian anti-​ Jewish literature, also known as adversus Iudaeos literature. This vast strand of texts against Judaism took a variety of forms, including not only orations and treatises, but also dialogues opposing Christian and Jewish speakers, and it is the subject of a long-​standing tradition of scholarship.43 As shown by Vincent Déroche, Judaism continued to be a serious contestant with Christianity in the period under analysis, and real debates between Christians and Jews are well documented.44 Scholars now agree that adversus Iudaeos dialogues are not to be taken as stenographic transcriptions of real debates, but they may nonetheless contain more or less distorted echoes of historical debates and real confrontations with contemporary Judaism. In Déroche’s view, adversus Iudaeos dialogues, and adversus Iudaeos literature more broadly, “may be intended to serve many functions or to reach many audiences at the same time.”45

4 1. Brock 2016:110–​11; see entry 54. 42. Van Nuffelen 2014; Whelan 2017, esp. 23. 43. For overviews see Schreckenberg 1991, Fredriksen 2003, Lahey 2007, and Carleton Paget 2018; for adversus Iudaeos dialogues in particular, see Morlet 2013; for anti-​Judaism in Syriac see Becker 2016 and Camplani 2013. 44. Lim 1995:1–​30; see also entry 1 on the Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci and, for instance, the debates with Jews mentioned by Origen (Contra Celsum 1.45, 1.55, 2.31, 6.29). 45. Déroche 2012; see entry 1 and Stroumsa 2012 for the Jewish community in late antique Alexandria.

Introduction  15 Different aims may in fact have guided the authors, editors, and compilers of adversus Iudaeos texts. Andreas Külzer draws attention to the possibility that dialogues adversus Iudaeos could be used by Christians as preparatory texts for actual debates with Jews on the ground,46 and a sixth-​century anecdote reported by John Moschus linking the composition of adversus Iudaeos texts by Cosmas the Lawyer with actual debates seems to support this scenario.47 That dialogues adversus Iudaeos could be used as instructional texts within Christian catechetical teaching is another hypothesis, and the form of a dialogue with a Jew on the Old Testament could be an effective didactic tool for the presentation of Christian tenets. Andrist adumbrates the possibility that certain dialogues without prologue or narrative voice such as the Ps.-​Athanasian Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei might have been intended to be performed or publicly read, and indeed an ancient reference to the public reading of a dialogue comes from Cyril of Alexandria.48 Recent cases have been made for a catechetical purpose of the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei and the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila.49 The scenarios and questions that academic work carried out on adversus Iudaeos dialogues has raised can thus inform the study of Christian dialogues more broadly, not least because of the similarities that adversus Iudaeos dialogues display with dialogues against pagan, Manichaean, or other heterodox groups.50 All surviving adversus Iudaeos dialogues from late antiquity are written from a Christian perspective and may not allow us to identify an authentically Jewish voice more easily than do dialogues directed against other heterodox groups. Also, the juxtaposition, overlap, or even identification of the terms “Jews” and “heretics” were common in early Christian literature, and may strike us more than they did the ancients, given the more generic meaning of αἵρεσις as “sect, group” in Greek than in modern languages. In addition, subjects discussed in adversus Iudaeos dialogues can have strong Christological relevance, suggesting that they were part of conversations that took place among Christians in a similar way as other “anti-​heretical” dialogues. This consideration applies, for instance, to the extremely popular Actus Silvestri, which, although set as a debate between pope Sylvester and several Jews, center on anti-​Arian issues internal to Christianity. Conversely, the earliest surviving example of anti-​Christian Jewish

46. Külzer 1999:88–​92, and see Pretty 1997:20–​23 for a similar argument in relation to the anti-​heretical Dialogue with Adamantius and Coyle 2007 for the anti-​Manichaean Acta Archelai. 47. John Moschus, Pratum spirituale 172 (PG 87.3:3040C–​41A) with Andrist 2009:240–​42. 48. For performance or public readings of dialogues see Andrist 2017:55–​56 and the entries on Cyril’s Seven Dialogues on the Trinity and on Aeneas of Gaza. For the theatron and issues of performance in Byzantium see Marciniak 2007. 49. Morlet 2018; Andrist 2013. 50. For work on adversus Iudaeos dialogues see Morlet 2013 and Cameron 2003. See the introduction and articles in Becker and Yoshiko Reed 2003 for some of the issues involved in the study of adversus Iudaeos literature in its historical setting.

16  Christians in Conversation polemic dates from as late as the ninth century, The Polemic of Nestor the Priest; this text has been called a disputation, whereas, before that, a prominent text was the parodic anti-​Gospel known as Toledot Yeshu in its manifold versions.51 Within his work on an adversus Iudaeos dialogue, the anonymous Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, Yannis Papadogiannakis argues that both real debates on the ground and their literary representations as texts were primarily meant to persuade their audiences and readers, and suggests that one of the reasons for the enormous diffusion of the dialogue form may lie exactly in its particular format. The format of a dialogue enables its speakers (in case of a real debate) or its author (in case of a text written in dialogue form) to make use of several rhetorical techniques that a plain speech or a monologue would not allow. Through these techniques and devices, the speakers in a dialogue (or the author of a text in dialogue form) could also appeal to the emotions of the audiences (or readers), which could be aroused, for instance, in order to sanction inappropriate behavior or wrong belief. Not rarely do the authors of extant dialogues make use of shame, which is usually represented as a speaker’s silence, to indicate the defeat of a particular party in the conversation.52 In this respect, Christian dialogues shed light on the cultural requirements that were expected of late antique leaders; the rhetorical devices and techniques that their authors employed help indicate the complexities of the cultural equipment of an educated person of the time, at the same time creating similar expectations in the readers’ minds. The Dialogue Form and Rhetorical Training Catherine Conybeare draws attention to the link between rhetorical training and the flourishing of the dialogue form among late antique authors. She points out the considerable effort required for writing a dialogue rather than a monologic treatise, in that “the exposition takes far longer; and the efforts of thinking oneself into one’s opponent point of view, of imagining objections and queries, is an extraordinary intellectual discipline.” In her view, the composition of dialogues may grow out of rhetorical training and its contests as much as from the philosophical tradition.53 Students of rhetoric during the imperial period could by all means encounter Plato among their reading of the classics (and there survive traces of the use of Plato’s dialogues both at the level of the grammarian and at the level of the rhetorician),54 but whether or not they were

51. Newman 2018; see Lasker and Stroumsa 1996 for The Polemic of Nestor the Priest and Meerson and Shäfer 2014 for the Toledot Yeshu. 52. Papadogiannakis 2018a; Lim 1995:85–​86. 53. C. Conybeare, BMCR 2014.08.24 review of Cameron 2014; see also Conybeare 2006:35–​41. 54. For the former see, e.g., Aelius Aristides, Or. 32.25 on the grammarian Alexander of Cotiaion, and for the latter see Aelius Theon’s Progymnasmata, with Pernot 2008:301–​5.

Introduction  17 actively trained to perform in a debate or to write in dialogue form is an entirely different question.55 A systematic inquiry into the relationship between dialogue form and ancient rhetoric goes beyond the scope of the present work, but, from the very beginning, this relationship seems to have been a complex one. In his analysis of the origins of the Socratic dialogue, Andrew Ford concludes that “the rhetorical culture of the fourth century shaped early (Socratic) dialogue at least as deeply as previous literature or the activities of Socrates”; he points out that it remained important for Socratic dialogues “to project an identity of their own, especially since they were confusable with the widely practiced but discreditable genre of disputation or eristic.”56 Plato himself was anxious about being assimilated to this literature of disputation, which clearly had many young and enthusiastic practitioners in fourth-​century Athens. This danger was instantiated in full by Isocrates, who lumped Socratic dialogues together with texts written by those involved in the training in eristic—​the so-​called eristic dialogues (τοὺς διαλόγους τοὺς ἐριστικοὺς καλουμένους) that were used among “those who have occupied themselves with questioning and answering, which they call antilogistics.”57 Aristotle, another author of dialogues, similarly expressed criticism for the teaching in eristic of his time (περὶ τοὺς ἐριστικοὺς λόγους [. . .] ἡ παίδευσις), in which students were asked to learn speeches “in the form of questions and answers” (ἐρωτητικοὶ λόγοι) without an appropriate preliminary training (SE 34=183B35–​39),58 but he also singled out as crucial the ethical element in the Socratic dialogues, in that the speakers prefer an ethical proposition over another.59 If we jump ahead to the Roman imperial period, instruction in rhetoric began with a series of exercises of increasing difficulty known as progymnasmata, which we know from handbooks of rhetoric and school papyri.60 These exercises were of 55. Considerations on the style of a dialogue can be found in Demetrius, On Style 19–​21 and 223–​35. The Ps.-​Hermogenic treatise from the imperial period known as On Method of Forceful Speaking, chap.  36, includes dialogue among the literature composed “by a double method” (διά τινος διπλῆς μεθόδου; here it includes also public speaking, comedy, tragedy, and symposiastic dialogues), and more precisely (ed. and trans. Rabe and Kennedy 2005:262–​65), “[i]‌n a dialogue (διάλογος) the combination is that of ethical (ἠθικοὶ λόγοι) and investigative speeches (ζητητικοί). Whenever you intermingle conversation and inquiry, the ethical speeches that are interspersed refresh the mind, and when one is refreshed, the inquiry is brought in, like the tension and relaxing of an instrument.” 56. Ford 2008:44 and 41–​42. 57. Isoc. Panath. 26; and Ant. 45 (trans. Ford 2008:41): οὕς ἀντιλογικοὺς καλοῦσιν. 58. Lim 1995:33–​37 and 132; Laborderie 1978:27–​40; Marrou 1956:83–​84. Compare Plato, Republic 539B (trans. Reeve 2004:235): [Socrates speaking] “And isn’t it one very effective precaution not to let them taste argument while they are young? I mean, I don’t suppose it has escaped your notice that when young people get their first taste of argument, they misuse it as if it were playing a game, always using it for disputation. They imitate those who have refuted them by refuting others themselves, and, like puppies, enjoy dragging and tearing with argument anyone within reach.” 59. Ford  2010. 60. Cribiore 2001; Pernot 2008 emphasizes the variance within canonical rhetorical exercises and the possibility that other exercises are unknown to us because are not included in the handbooks that have survived.

18  Christians in Conversation diverse kind and soon became standardized, but, however, they did not include the composition of dialogues as such. Nonetheless an isolated reference to dialogue comes from the handbook of rhetoric by Aelius Theon (first century CE), which allowed the possibility of using the dialogue form (89.30:  διαλογικῶς) within an actual progymnasma, the “narration” (διήγημα). Theon also provided an example of a “narration” in dialogue form to his readers, and this short dialogue, which is plainly narrative, features two characters “one teaching, the other learning.”61 Accordingly, Theon’s students must have been exposed to the possibility of using the dialogue form in their public speeches; among late antique dialogues, a strongly narrative text that adopts a comparable format may be identified in John Chrysostom’s On the Priesthood. Two other references to dialogue come, instead, from Latin handbooks of rhetoric, and add another facet to the complex relation between professional rhetoric and the dialogue form. One finds that the Rhetorica ad Herennium (c. 80 BCE) has a section on a rhetorical device known as sermocinatio, “conversation, dialogue, ethopoiia,” which “consists in putting in the mouth of some person language in keeping with his character” (4.55).62 The text goes on by providing two examples of sermocinatio, one of which, interestingly, takes the form of a dialogue (4.65). In his analysis of the treatise, Gualtiero Calboli argues that, here, sermocinatio is best understood as the translation of the Greek διάλογος; it indicates the characterization, within a speech, of a particular person through a fictitious dialogue.63 Quintilian too made reference to this device, the sermocinatio, in his treatment of a closely related rhetorical device, which he identified as προσωποποιΐα, “impersonation.” According to Quintilian, when in a rhetorical setting, by means of impersonation “we display the inner thoughts of our adversaries as though they were talking with themselves (but we shall only carry conviction if we represent them as uttering what they may reasonably be supposed to have had in their minds); or without sacrifice of credibility we may introduce conversations between ourselves and others, or of others among themselves, and put words of advice, reproach, complaint, praise, or pity into the mouths of appropriate person.”64 In addition, Quintilian also wrote that

61. Aelius Theon, Progymnasmata 89.30–​90.18 (trans. Kennedy 2003:39–​40):  “If we wish to use a dialogue form, we shall suppose some people talking with each other about what has been done, and one teaching, the other learning, about the occurrences; for example, ῾Often in the past it occurred to me to ask you about what happened to the Thebans and Plataeans at Plataea, and I would gladly hear now if this is a good opportunity for you to give a narrative account.’ [. . .] In the same way we shall continue asking and answering in accordance with the rules of dialogue.” 62. Rhetorica ad Herennium 4.55 (trans. Caplan in Henderson 1954). 63. Calboli 1993:420n277 and 424n290. 64. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 9.2.30 (trans. Butler 1922). Italics added.

Introduction  19 there are some authorities who restrict the term “impersonation” (προσωποποιΐα) to cases where both persons and words are fictitious, and prefer to call imaginary conversations between men by the Greek name of “dialogue” (διάλογος), which some translate by the Latin sermocinatio. For my own part I have included both under the same generally accepted term (i.e., “impersonation”). (9.2.31–​32, trans. Butler) In fact, “impersonation,” also known as “speech in character” (προσωποποιΐα or ἠθοποιΐα in Greek), was an effective rhetorical device; Greek handbooks from the imperial period show that it soon became a codified and widely practiced progymnasma within rhetorical training. The question remains whether this exercise may have overlapped with the intellectual practice underpinning the composition of dialogues.65 In the exercise of impersonation, a student of rhetoric was asked to produce an imitation of someone speaking in a particular situation emphasizing the character and/​or the emotion of the impersonated person.66 The potential impact of this standard rhetorical exercise on dialogue writing awaits systematic assessment. It should be noticed, for instance, that Celsus’ anti-​Christian work The True Doctrine made great use of impersonation, and included an extensive speech by a Jew attacking Jesus and, as the work progressed, attacking Christians in general (Origen, Contra Celsum pref. 6 and 3.1). If one follows Origen, this section of The True Doctrine was structured as a fictitious public speech (3.1.6: πεπλασμένη δημηγορία), in which Celsus “represents (προσωποποιεῖ) the Jew as having a conversation with Jesus himself and refuting him on many charges.”67 It is unlikely that Celsus’ text included also responses from Jesus or from the Christians (Contra Celsum 1.37, 1.41, 1.48, 1.66, 1.70), but it must nonetheless be noted that Origen—​himself once a grammarian—​linked the origin of this kind of exercise to the early stages of rhetorical training. In his view, Celsus’ rhetorical enterprise was not especially refined, for he introduced the imaginary Jew “somehow imitating a child having his first lesson with an orator.”68 It still remains to be established what could be the relation, if any, between the rhetorical structure of Celsus’ text and that of the roughly contemporary Christian dialogues featuring a Christian opposing a Jew as the main speakers, which were composed by Aristo of Pella and Justin Martyr.69 A later dialogue adversus Iudaeos, 65. Kennedy 2003; Hunger 1978:1.108–​16 contains a systematic overview of ethopoiiai up to later Byzantine literature (and see Hunger 1978:1.119–​20 for a reference to dialogue within the Byzantine rhetorical tradition); conversely, for a discussion of rhetorical questions see [Longinus], On the Sublime 18. 66. Kennedy 2003; Gibson 2008. 67. Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28.7–​ 8 (trans. Chadwick 1953:28):  Μετὰ ταῦτα προσωποποιεῖ Ἰουδαῖον αὐτῷ διαλεγόμενον τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἐλέγχοντα αὐτὸν περὶ πολλῶν [. . .]. 68. Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28.1–​2 (trans. Chadwick 1953:27): τρόπον τινὰ μιμησάμενος ἓν ῥήτορος εἰσαγόμενον παιδίον. 69. Carleton Paget 2017 for a recent case in favor of the authenticity of Celsus’ Jew; see entries 1 and 2, by Aristo of Pella and Justin Martyr.

20  Christians in Conversation the anonymous Dialogus cum Iudaeis (entry 56), includes short dialogues with characters from the Old Testament that are clearly fictitious; and additional links between Christian dialogues and professional rhetoric come from Latin texts.70 In this respect, the study of the rhetorical techniques deployed in the Apocriticus by Macarius Magnes (entry 21) has been particularly fruitful, for this text includes textbook examples from late antique rhetorical school curricula. The Apocriticus reports ethopoiiai in the character of Christ, and instances of amplificatio and of chreiai, which were the staple of rhetorical training; also, the author paid attention to style, showing particular care for clauses and phrase units.71 Another group of writers, and one notorious for its internal quarrels, made use of the dialogue form in the rhetorical realm during the earlier part of the time frame addressed here. These writers are several Greek imperial authors trained in rhetoric and, in particular, those associated with the Second Sophistic movement.72 An important author of dialogues was Plutarch, whose Moralia contain seventeen dialogues—​Plutarch used dialogue as a literary form for ethical, religious, and philosophical discussion, and especially favored it for discussing theoretical issues of higher complexity or abstraction.73 Dio Chrysostom used the dialogue form in a conspicuous subgroup of his works and speeches, and most notably the narrative Borysthenitic and the dramatic Charidemus (Or. 36 and 30). Some of his dialogues may date from his exile, but others may well have been spoken (Or. 2 and 4).74 Lucian, another prolific author of dialogues, had a bearded personification of Dialogue accuse him of lowering the level of the dialogue form from the heights of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy to that of a flexible form suitable for satire, comedy, and several diverse purposes (Bis Acc. 33–​34), as Byzantine authors later had the chance to appreciate.75 The same dialogue, Lucian’s Bis accusatus sive tribunalia, is also meant to lampoon the tribunal setting of the time and stands as a reminder that late Roman legal practice may well have left traces in the format of extant dialogues. The setting of the Bis accusatus is that of a trial in which speakers pronounce opposing speeches—​and professional rhetoricians trained in this exercise at school through the equivalent progymnasmata, κατασκευή “confirmation” and ἀνασκευή “refutation.” Conversely, documentary reports of Roman court proceedings, which, from the first century CE, often take the dialogue form, have been subject of increasing scholarly attention but still await to be related to dialogue literature; 70. See, for instance, the preface of Vigilius, Dialogue against the Arians, Sabellians, and Photinians (late fifth century; trans. Whelan 2017:23–​24), which explains his choice to introduce imaginary heretical speakers. 71. Schott and Edwards 2015:54–​59; Goulet 2003:164–​176. 72. Bowersock 1969:89–​100 for their professional quarrels. 73. Kechagia-​Ovseiko  2017. 74. The surviving corpus by Dio Chrysostom contains several pieces in the dialogue form. See Menchelli 2016 for an overview and the relationship with Platonic and Ps.-​Platonic models. See Jones 1978:115 for the possibility of a public reading of Or. 2 and 4. 75. Saïd 2015; Jones 1986:13.

Introduction  21 it remains to be established, for instance, whether court practice may have influenced the composition of Mark the Monk’s Disputatio cum Causidico (entry 40), in which the role of the opposing speaker is played by a “renowned lawyer.”76 Among other Second Sophistic authors, Galen is likely to have written dialogues with polemical intent that are unfortunately lost, while Philostratus wrote at least two works in dialogue form, the Heroicus and the Nero.77 An instance of dialogue from the setting of a school of rhetoric comes from the sophist Himerius (mid-​fourth century), who used the dialogue form in one of his speeches delivered at a school occasion (Or. 10). In the preface to the speech, he explained his choice of the dialogue form by emphasizing the philosophical dignity of the dialogue in a way that retraced Lucian’s characterization of it in the Bis accusatus. By employing the dialogue form (εἰς σχῆμα διαλόγου), Himerius also claimed he was making the (relatively) new genre of the propemptic oration “seem older,” and pointed to the advantages of dialogue, including “relief from monotony, arrangement of the material, also elegance and a dramatic flavor throughout.”78 In sum, an overview of dialogue literature in Greek shows that dialogue, linked to rhetorical school practices, was a form available to imperial-​period authors and rhetoricians like Lucian and Himerius, who, though fully aware of the dialogue form’s ancient associations with philosophy, did not hesitate to employ it in rhetorical settings and to apply its force to less conventional dominions.79 76. Palme 2014; Coles 1966; ongoing work by Anna Dolganov; see also, for the later period, the use of direct speech in the legal papyri from Petra, e.g., P.Petra IV.39 (ed. Arjava et al. 2011). 77. For Galen see his Libr.Propr. 11 = 19.44 Kühn with Hirzel 1895:364. For the Heroicus see Rusten and König 2014 and for the Nero see Bowie 2009:31. Photius, Bibl. cod. 161, mentioned Sopater of Apamea as an author of dialogues. 78. Penella 2007:112–​14; Himerius, Or. 10 (trans. Penella 2007:113–​14): “The treatment we give to common themes is what makes them our own. Thus it is possible through the art of rhetoric to make propemptic orations seem older, even if they are a recent custom. And that is just what I have done. For I have put the present theme into the form of a dialogue without compromising the business at hand or destroying the dignity that is owed to the dialogue form. Although my discourse happens to be ethical, nonetheless in the manner of Plato I latch onto physical and theological considerations, mixing these with the ethical material. And since Plato hides his more divine discussions in myth, one should observe whether I emulated him in this. As for the other qualities of dialogues—​I mean relief from monotony, arrangement of the material and interludes, also elegance and a dramatic flavor throughout—​the written version of the oration will show better [than anything I might say here] whether or not I succeed in achieving those qualities. Dialogues begin with a rather plain style so that the nature of diction may produce a sense of simplicity; then in what follows they become elevated [in style] as the action progresses. Those whose ears have been prepared by rhetorical training to listen to orations may judge whether or not I have followed this pattern.” 79. There is little in modern scholarship contrasting dialogues by imperial authors and Christian dialogues; for a view that downplays a direct influence see Beatrice 1983. Mention should also be made of other non-​Christian dialogues from our period, which include texts from the Hermetic corpus (ed. and trans. Scott 1924; see Moreschini 2013 and Fowden 1986) and by isolated Platonist philosophers. In the second century Numenius of Apamea cast his main work On the Good in dialogue form (ed. Des Places 1973, esp. fr. 3a and 4; Edwards 2011:118 suggests that Numenius derived both subject and mode of argument from the Platonic corpus), while the Tablet of Cebes (first or second century CE) provides an example of an instructional dialogue possibly drawing on Stoic and Cynic material (see Seddon 2005). During the third century, Porphyry, who had used the question-​and-​answer format in his teaching (as can be assumed from the form of his commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, trans. Strange 2012; see Porphyry VP 13 and Dillon 1990:8–​9, while see Crawford 2013:158n25 for the possibility that the terminology used by Cyril of Alexandria to describe the form of the Seven Dialogues on the Trinity is as that employed by Porphyry in

22  Christians in Conversation The Dialogue Form and Erotapokriseis It would not be possible to make justice to late antique dialogues without referring to another popular strand of literature—​the one taking the form of questions and answers. Literature arranged as questions and answers was widely produced in the ancient world, and, in Greek, these texts are often referred to as erotapokriseis, the term that later Byzantine grammarians used to designate them. Given its flexibility and the room that it gave for later addition, this was an eminently versatile form, frequently used in the discussion of philosophical issues (a notable example are the pseudo-​Aristotelian Problemata), but also in the exegesis of holy texts, in instruction in a variety of fields, and, more broadly, in the organization of knowledge in subjects as disparate as medicine, grammar, philosophy, or law. During late antiquity, Christians, Jews, Manichaeans, and Muslims all wrote question-​and-​answer literature, and produced a large (and still understudied) body of texts that should be understood not just in the context of school and instructional practice, but also more broadly within the culture of conversation, dispute, and religious debate of the period; these collections reflect issues that were subject of discussion outside the texts themselves. Among Christians, erotapokriseis were often associated to Scriptural exegesis, but soon their scope expanded and they were increasingly adopted in catechesis, instruction, and apologetic more broadly. An apologetic character is visible, for instance, in the Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos (wrongly attributed to Justin Martyr; CPG 6285), which included objections against Christianity that ultimately go back to anti-​Christian texts by Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, and were intended to attack the doctrines of pagans, Jews, and heterodox Christians.80 There are important links between erotapokriseis and dialogues, and, on some occasions, the two forms may even seem to fade into each other during our period. Among the earliest texts that, although usually ascribed to erotapokriseis literature, nonetheless present features often found in dialogues are the revelation dialogues of Gnostic literature. These texts feature Jesus in conversation with describing the form of his commentary on Categories), may well have authored a symposiastic dialogue set at the house of his teacher, Longinus (see Eusebius of Caesarea, PE 10.30 with König 2012:139 and Hirzel 1895:2.361–​62). At the beginning of the fourth century, Dexippus wrote a commentary on Aristotle’s Categories in the form of a dramatic dialogue featuring himself and his student Seleucus (Dillon 1990; Männlein-​Robert 2006:88–​90). The relationship between the two speakers in the dialogue is instructional, but the author indulged in some literary flourishes and quotations of Hesiod and Pindar, and there are a few lively exchanges. At least two instances of dialogue are found in c. third-​or fourth-​century alchemic texts, one by Comarius the Philosopher and another featuring Cleopatra the Alchemist as a speaker (Ieraci Bio 2006:34n65). Conversely, Priscian of Lydia’s Answers to King Khosroes of Persia, which record the responses to Chosroes I’s questions on philosophy and sciences by the Athenian philosophers who took refuge at his court in 531 following the closure of the Academy, does not take the form a dialogue (Huby et al. 2016); see also Olympiodorus’ take on Socratic dialogue and on the necessity of Socratic philosophy to be learned Socratically (Renaud and Tarrant 2015:192–​93). 80. Efthymiadis 2017; Papadogiannakis 2011, 2013a, and forthcoming; Oikonomopoulou 2013; Cameron 1991a and 1994; Rinaldi 1989 for apologetics in eratopokriseis literature; Bardy 1932 for an overview on the form in Scriptural exegesis.

Introduction  23 one or more of his disciples, and their exchanges, in a clearly instructional relationship, are mostly set in post-​resurrectional settings, as their narrative frame usually indicates. Jesus bestows esoteric wisdom and clearly plays the role of a teacher, but, as Michael Kaler argues, the prominent narrative component and the conversational nature of these texts may strike the reader as a feature of dialogue.81 The Dialogus Anatolii, a similarly instructional compilation ascribed to Anatolius, professor of law in Berytus under Justinian, features a teacher instructing a pupil and is likely to reflect the use of question-​and-​answer forms in legal education.82 The 258 questions making up another instance of erotapokriseis, the Quaestiones et responsiones (mid-​sixth century) that circulated under the name of Caesarius, brother of Gregory of Nazianzus, are likewise embedded in a continuous dialogue in which the persona of the author-​teacher answers the questions of disciples who are sitting in front of him, possibly in the setting of a monastery. The speakers of the Quaestiones et responsiones do not have any particular characterization, but, on one occasion, the teacher is made to end a response abruptly, since the interlocutors have to leave in order to attend the liturgy.83 The difficulty of drawing a line between dialogue and erotapokriseis is perhaps best instantiated by Leontius of Byzantium’s Solutions to the Arguments Proposed by Severus (entry 51), in which the speakers do not have a specific characterization, being identified only by their doctrinal affiliation as Orthodox and Acephalian, and, as the conversation proceeds, they become simply devices for presenting arguments and counterarguments. Two other dialogues that adopt, in one or more of their subsections, question-​and-​answer forms are Mark the Monk’s Disputatio cum Causidico and John of Apamea’s Four Dialogues with Eusebius and Eutropius (entries 40 and 42 respectively). Other dialogues that do not take the question-​and-​answer form nonetheless feature the primary and the secondary speakers in a teacher-​pupil relationship similar to that of erotapokriseis: the instructional nature of these texts indicates particular pedagogic concerns behind their composition and circulation, and it does not necessarily preclude an apologetic character in their subject matter, as is shown by the dialogues by Cyril of Alexandria and by the Syriac Book of the Laws of the Countries.84 These strongly instructional dialogues tend to be more common in the earlier period, such as Gregory the Wonderworker’s Dialogue on the Impassibility and Passibility

81. These texts are found in the Nag Hammadi library, in the codex Askewianus (the Pistis Sophia), and in the codex Brucianus 96 (the Books of Jeu). See Rudolph 1968, who associated them to erotapokriseis literature; Perkins 1980; Koester 1990:173–​200; Filoramo 1994; Moreschini 1.141–​45 and 169–​77; Morlet 2013:25; Moreschini 2013; Piovanelli 2013; Evans 2015; the second volume of Burke and Landau 2016, currently in preparation, deals with a number of these texts. Kaler 2013 emphasizes the presence of a frame narrative and their artistic features, and pushes against direct links between these texts and erotapokriseis literature; he also notices that the very behavior of the disciples is discussed in the text, as in the case of the Book of the Laws of the Countries. 82. Schönbauer 1933; Schulz 1961:414; Pieler 1978:390; Wibier 2014. 83. Papadogiannakis 2011:271 and 281, and 2013:32–​33. 84. Camplani  2016.

24  Christians in Conversation of God and Gregory of Nyssa’s Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection, or in Syriac, such as The Book of the Laws of the Countries and the dialogues by John of Apamea. Other instructional dialogues are the Erostrophus, the Ps.-​Athanasian Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei, and Palladius’ Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom, though in a different way, in that narration is the predominant form. In all of these cases, the instructional relationship between the speakers undermines a truly dialogic exchange.85 In addition to the occasional similarity in form, however, erotapokriseis and dialogues should be put in relation to each other because of their common contents and of the intellectual processes that they both represent. Both erotapokriseis and dialogues may cover the same topics and may aim at solving the same disputed issues dealing with Christian religion; at the same time, erotapokriseis literature offered problems or zetemata that could be reformatted and reworked in the form of more or less elaborated dialogues. In both erotapokriseis and dialogues aporiai are raised, debated, and solved; and this is especially clear in a work such as Macarius Magnes’ dialogue Apocriticus (entry 21), as Yannis Papadogiannis shows. This dialogue features the main speaker, a Christian, in the process of responding to a barrage of elaborated aporiai and objections to Christianity of the same sort found in Ps.-​Justin’s Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos; these collections of zetemata or problemata “almost certainly functioned as disputatious arguments and exercises in debate as well as a means of instruction”; and the list of objections by the pagan speaker are conveniently provided at the beginning of each book of the Apocriticus in the form of an index of questions.86 Toward a Comprehensive Approach? Since Christian dialogues display important similarities among them as well as common developments over time, their study can benefit from a more comprehensive approach than has been done in the past. There are benefits in bringing together dialogues against different opponents, whether pagans, Jews, Manichaeans, or other heterodox groups; similarly, the present analysis does not exclude dialogues that have special relationships with real debates or dialogues that are plainly works of fiction, for both real and imagined dialogues, against whichever opponent, attest to the debating and rhetorical culture of the period and to the refinements that the readers expected from religious debates.87 The texts 85. Compare Arist. SE 2 (165B1–​7); Goldhill 2008a:5 argues that “catechism and other question-​and-​answer structures are not in any significant sense a dialogue”; Cameron 2014:36. For an assessment on links between question-​and-​answer literature and dialogue based on non-​Christian texts see Oikonomopoulou 2013. Authors who wrote both dialogues and question-​and-​answer literature include Philo of Alexandria (if the fragmentary De providentia was indeed a dialogue as according to Voss 1970:185n47; see Eusebius of Caesarea, PE 6.13–​14), Plutarch (Kechagia-​Ovseiko 2017), and possibly Porphyry (see n70 of this Introduction). 86. Papadogiannakis 2006:99–​100 and forthcoming. 87. Van Nuffelen 2014.

Introduction  25 addressed here include dialogues based on historical debates, dialogues that purport to record real conversations for which no corroborating evidence survives, dialogues that are expressly fictitious, and dialogues that are clearly fanciful pieces of literature, such as the anonymous Actus Silvestri, the Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court, and (at least to some extent) the Ps.-​Athanasian Disputatio contra Arium, with its conversion of Arius that could hardly have been taken at face value by ancient readers.88 The fictional, and occasionally even the fanciful, is present in Christian dialogues, whose authors did not hesitate to recreate the speech of long-​dead patristic authorities or heresiarchs such as Athanasius and Arius; these texts offer abundant material for the elaboration of a theory of fiction in late antiquity and Byzantium.89 Averil Cameron advocates the suitability of literary analysis for the study of Christian dialogues and the need to investigate their rhetoric. Kate Cooper and Matthew Dal Santo point out the invention of “new modes of dialogue” and the revision of old ones. Claudio Moreschini writes of a revitalization and transformation of the dialogue form among Christians from the fourth century onward, after the early experiments by Justin and Methodius that did not radically depart from the imitation of existing traditions, notably the Platonic one.90 The use of Biblical citations, of patristic florilegia, and of legalistic proofs gradually became a characteristic common to most Christian dialogues, thus pointing to an increasing formalization of the argumentative strategies they employed, a tendency that became especially evident in the fifth century with the dialogues by Cyril of Alexandria, Theodotus of Ancyra, Nestorius, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Another formal feature that is likely to have become common to Christian dialogues (and with important implications for their circulation outside learned circles) was the systematic indication of the change of speaker on the manuscripts. While the readers of ancient dialogues had only a colon, which was sometimes combined with a paragraphus or a stroke in the margin, to indicate the change of speaker, at least some of the authors of Christian dialogues intended to make reading easier by indicating the speakers’ names (whether in full or in truncated form) next to the text, as is explained in the prologues of Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ Eranistes, Leontius of Byzantium’s Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas, and Anastasius of Antioch’s Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite.91

88. See, however, in entry 24 the caveats on the edited text of the Disputatio contra Arium, which is in need of a new edition. 89. For the study of fanciful dialogues and for the need for its integration within the study of early Christianity see Cameron 2015; for work on fictional literature in Byzantium see the articles in Roilos 2014. 90. Cameron 2016a and 2014; Cooper and Dal Santo 2008; Moreschini 2.15–​16. 91. Cameron 2014:47–​49 and 1994. For the discussion of the indication of speakers see also the entries on Origen and the Adamantius with Wilson 1970 and Lim 1991. For the minimal indications of speakers in ancient dialogues see Andrieu 1954:288–​97.

26  Christians in Conversation In addition, Moreschini remarks that “the aim was to say in the form of dialogue what might otherwise be said in the form of a treatise or a letter”; he argues that from the fourth century onward the dialogue acquired various kinds and functions that were often combined. For this reason, to attempt a classification of dialogues, as Hoffmann had attempted, proves a remarkably complex issue. Grouping Christian dialogues according to their subject matter (for instance “adversus Iudaeos,” “anti-​heretical,” “philosophical,”92 or “biographical” dialogues) runs the risk of failing to do full justice to the overall similarities of the texts and of overlooking important aspects of their form, rhetoric, and argumentative structures that are necessary to explain the huge diffusion of these texts and offer important insights into the culture of the period. Given their internal variety, however, to produce a comprehensive and definitive classification of Christian dialogues can be a frustrating exercise; it may be a salutary reminder that a similar exercise of classification, even if limited to Plato’s dialogues, has already revealed its problematic nature to both modern and ancient scholars, including Thrasyllus, Albinus, Diogenes Laertius, and the anonymous author of the Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy.93 Dialogues classified as “philosophical” or “anti-​heretical” often deal with Christian doctrinal or exegetical matters, and the heretical voice that they include may at times be merely functional to the treatment of their subject. Dialogues that have been studied as instances of adversus Iudaeos literature may depend on earlier texts and be related to other strands of literature; this consideration applies to the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei, which shares its format and common sources with other Ps.-​Athanasian dialogues, and the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, which was very likely informed by existing catechetical literature.94 Nor are the transmitted titles of great help in this exercise of classification, since the nomenclature is not consistent, and manuscripts vary in their identification of dialogues with terms such as ἀντιβολή, ἀντιλογία, διάλεκτος, διάλεξις, διάλογος, διάλογος ἱστορικός, ζήτησις, and λόγος; in modern translation these texts are often referred to as dialogues, disputations, conversations, or debates.95 For the sake of simplicity, all such texts are referred to here as “dialogues,” while the term “debate” is used to refer to the setting (real or imagined) that can be implied in a dialogue, and the term “disputation” is normally avoided in that it 92. By “philosophical” or “Christian philosophical,” Hoffmann 1966:105–​59 meant, for example, dialogues by Methodius and Gregory of Nyssa. 93. D.L. 3.48–​50; for the contrasting arrangements of Plato’s dialogues by Thrasyllus (d. 36 CE), by Albinus (mid-​second century CE, ed. and trans. Fowler 2016), and by the anonymous author of the Prolegomena to Plato Philosophy (sixth century CE, chap. 10, ed. and trans. Westerink 1962) see Dillon 1977:305–​6; Long 2008; Boys-​ Stones 2018:55–​56. 94. Andrist 2017:43–​48, 2013a, and 2005:106–​21 for the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei and Morlet 2018 for the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila. 95. Conversely, for the nomenclature of Socratic dialogues (which likewise did not have specific nomenclature and were normally referred to simply as λόγοι) see Ford 2008:34–​39 and Albinus, Introductio 2 (ed. Nüsser 1991:30 and Hermann 1853:6.147–​48; a new edition and English translation are in Fowler 2016).

Introduction  27 tends to imply a formal and scholastic character. It is not excluded, however, that systematic work on terminology will yield results, as did Michael Trapp’s analysis of the dialexis form employed by Maximus of Tyre and Papadogiannakis’ study of its later use, by Theodoret of Cyrrhus, to address pagan criticism to Christianity.96 At the same time, it should be emphasized that existing literary traditions are detectable in a number of surviving dialogues. Platonic elements, such as Platonic language or the emphasis on ethopoiia and the use of a polished style, are salient features of some dialogues.97 These elements affect dialogues in different degrees, and particularly the earlier ones, but their identification as Platonic can at times be controversial.98 Other similarities with Platonic models include the characterization of the speakers through imagery derived from Plato, as in Methodius’ On Leprosy or Gregory of Nyssa’s Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection, or the presence of an introductory dialogue as a scene-​ setting device (as in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho and Methodius’ Aglaophon), which has been linked to the structure of Plato’s Protagoras and Republic. Voss goes further and sees the influence, among Christian authors, of the Introduction to Plato’s dialogues by the Platonist Albinus (second century CE): Albinus described the main speakers in Platonic dialogues as having fixed traits, and this view might have determined, for instance, the characterization of the two main speakers in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho as a philosopher and a sophist.99 Gregory the Wonderworker, whose dialogue On the Impassibility and Passibility of God shows the influence of Platonic imagery, went as far as to describe his own instruction by Origen through a comparison of a conversation with Socrates; yet this stands out as an early and isolated instance among Christian authors of dialogues.100 The dialogues by three authors living between the end of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth century are unusual in that they show a remarkable Platonic influence. Aeneas of Gaza and Zacharias of Mytilene, both associated to the School of Gaza, wrote dialogues that opposed aspects of Neoplatonism; although they vary in their expected readerships and in the extent to which they embrace the Platonic tradition (as is discussed in each entry), the dialogues by both authors are plainly and vocally Christian. Conversely, the Christian character of another Platonizing dialogue, the anonymous (or Menas’) On Political Science, is more lukewarm; it 96. Maximus of Tyre’s dialexeis blended the philosophical (and dialectic) element with the informal discourse and repertoire of the orator; they brought together a tradition of study and instruction with a tradition of entertainment and play. Trapp 1997:xl–​xli and 1997a:1971–​75; Papadogiannakis 2012:119–​40 (esp. 122–​23). 97. Basil of Caesarea, in Ep. 135 (discussed in entry 18), identified these two aspects as Platonic. On the nature of Socratic dialogues see Ford 2008. 98. For an assessment of the Christian dialogue form that downplays the significance of Platonic models see Horner 2001:66–​93, though it focuses on Justin Martyr. 99. See entry 2. Albinus, Introductio 2 (ed. Nüsser 1991:30 and Hermann 1853:6.147–​48; a new edition and English translation are in Fowler 2016 and Boys-​Stones 2018); for Albinus see also Ford 2008:34n21 and Dillon 1977:267–​306, esp. 304–​6. 100. See entry 8 for discussion.

28  Christians in Conversation has been suggested that this text reveals a genuine interest in Platonic philosophy by its author, presumably a representative of the senatorial elite under Justinian.101 Anthony Kaldellis draws attention to the Platonist sympathies by writers living under the reign of Justinian, such as Procopius, Agathias, and John Lydus, and possibly in opposition to the regime, but he also writes of the development of a Christian classicizing culture during the fifth and sixth centuries, whether understood as a turn to the classics within Christian culture, or as a continuation of classical culture, only by Christians. These dialogues may be understood against this particular background.102 Scholars have also sought the influence of Aristotle’s dialogues on Christian dialogues (and, in turn, the influence of Cicero’s dialogues on the Latin ones), but this tradition has been more difficult to trace.103 The search is complicated because, unlike Plato’s dialogues, Aristotle’s ones are almost entirely lost; yet Basil of Caesarea’s Ep. 135 shows that he knew about the dialogues by Aristotle and by his successor Theophrastus. Some see the influence of Aristotle’s dialogues in the use of an authorial preface before the beginning of the dialogue proper, as is attested, for instance, in the dialogues by Cyril of Alexandria and Leontius of Byzantium. Another feature of Aristotelian dialogues was probably the presence, as one of the speakers, of the author (or, alternatively, of a main speaker representing the point of view of the author) who led the conversation and spoke for longer sections, while, in a format somewhat similar to a lecture, the minor speakers intervened only occasionally, and more rarely than in the dialogues by Plato.104 Overall, however, the impact of Aristotle on Christian dialogues seems less conspicuous than that of Plato; also, knowledge of Aristotelian philosophy was generally scarce in patristic authors, and, although familiarity with Aristotelian logic, often limited to the Categories, was not uncommon, explicit references to this tradition were easily associated with heresy in our period.105 Among Christian dialogues, Ps.-​ Athanasius’ Two Dialogues against the Macedonians and Anastasius of Antioch’s Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite openly express hostility against the use of Aristotelian logic in the field of Christian Trinitarian theology (and against the use of the Categories in particular in the Two Dialogues). A different consideration should be made about dialogues with biographical subjects. In the present work, this typology is represented by Palladius’ Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom and Zacharias of Mytilene’s Life of Severus, while Latin instances include the almost contemporary Sulpicius Severus’ Gallus or 1 01. See O’Meara 2002, Bell 2009, and entry 49 for discussion. 102. Kaldellis 2007:173–​87 and 2007:177n6 for bibliography. 103. Heyden 2009b:128n52; Perrone 1980:417n15; Bardy 1957:941–​42; Waszink 1947; Laurenti 1987 and 2003 on Aristotle’s dialogues. Cicero is often considered one of our best sources for Aristotelian dialogues: see Ad Fam. 1.9.23 with Kennedy 1972:208–​9 and Fantham 2004; Ad Att. 4.16.2 for the use of prologues; and Ad Att. 13.19.4 with Beard 1986 for the choice of the speakers. 104. Schorn 2004:35; Laurenti 2003 and 1987:1.67. 105. Cameron 2014:47n47 for references; for Syriac see Watt 2016; King 2013; Lim 1995:130–​133 and 231–​32.

Introduction  29 Dialogues on the Virtues of St. Martin (c. 404), and, less than two centuries later, Gregory the Great’s Dialogues (its second book deals with the life of St. Benedict).106 As was stunningly shown by a papyrological find from Oxyrhynchus, the use of the dialogue form in biography was not a late antique innovation, but may well have had precedents in the Peripatetic tradition. P.Oxy. 1176 contains a large passage from a Life of Euripides in dialogue form authored by the Peripatetic Satyrus of Callatis (late third century BCE), and shows that Satyrus employed the dialogue form for a collection of biographies that originally included also the lives of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.107 From the text that survives, it appears that Satyrus’ dialogue on the life of Euripides featured one main speaker who spoke for longer sections and two minor speakers who intervened only occasionally, presumably in some sort of instructional relationship that has been linked to the format of Aristotle’s dialogues.108 Cicero’s Cato, unfortunately lost, is likely to have been another instance of this tradition of biography in dialogue form, and Sulpicius Severus made it abundantly clear in his biographical dialogue Gallus that Cicero was one, if not the main one, of his literary models.109 It should be pointed out, however, that strong apologetic concerns guided the authors of both the biographical dialogues addressed here, Palladius and Zacharias of Mytilene, as is noted in their entries (31 and 48 respectively). Another strand within ancient dialogue was that of symposiastic literature, which adopted the dialogue form and is sometimes described as a subgenre of the philosophical dialogue. The archetypes of the genre were Plato’s and Xenophon’s Symposia, but later Greek practitioners include Plutarch, Lucian, Athenaeus, and Julian; and Macrobius stands out as a Latin example.110 Methodius’ Symposium is an instance of Christian symposiastic literature in Greek, and has been linked to Julian’s Caesars within a “third wave” of symposiastic literature in the late imperial period. That Methodius’ Symposium remained an isolated example among Christian authors can be explained through the fact that the social context and traditional aristocratic feasting implied by the symposium was an obstacle to the development of such literature among Christians. In fact, the symposiastic

106. Sulpicius’ dialogue is edited by Fontaine and Dupré 2006 and translated into English by Peebles 1949:161–​ 251; see also Stancliffe 1983; Gregory’s dialogues are edited by De Vogüé and Antin 1978 and translated into English by Zimmermann 1959; see also Dal Santo 2012. 107. P.Oxy. 1176 (ed. Hunt 1912, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 9:124–​82), more recently edited and translated into German by Schorn 2004; an Italian translation is available in Arrighetti 1964. For the biographic nature of this dialogue and the use of the dialogue form in ancient biography with discussion of earlier scholarship see Momigliano 1993:80 and 115. 108. Schorn 2004:31–​36 for the nature of Satyrus’ dialogue. 109. Stancliffe 1983:104–​7; Jones 1970; Momigliano 1993:80n116. 110. An isolated reference to the tradition of symposiastic dialogue is found in a rhetorical treatise of the imperial period from the Hermogenic corpus (Ps.-​Hermogenes, On Method of Forceful Speaking 36, ed. and trans. Rabe and Kennedy 2005:262–​65). Here, the symposiastic dialogue is described as “a combination of serious and humourous in regard both to persons and actions” (πλοκὴ σπουδαῖα καὶ γελοῖα καὶ πρόσωπα καὶ πράγματα) and the models are Plato and Xenophon; see LaValle 2017.

30  Christians in Conversation setting of Methodius’ Symposium is symbolic and linked instead to a Christian type of commensality, the Eucharist.111 Other scholars have seen the influence of existing Christian literature on Christian dialogues. In this respect, the presence of a judge, or of a group of judges, to supervise the conversation has been linked to church councils or to the influence of martyr acts or Ps.-​Clementine literature. The present work, however, shows that explicit references to church councils are rare in the surviving dialogues (an isolated reference to a church council survives in the later manuscript tradition of the Ps.-​Athanasian Disputatio contra Arium), and their influence might more fruitfully be sought in the modes of argumentation within the dialogues themselves. A template for the presence of a pagan judge can be identified in the trial scenes of martyr acts or in the Ps.-​Clementine Homilies; the presence of a pagan judge to oversee the debate in the Dialogue with Adamantius and in the Acta Archelai has been linked to the role played by Faustus in the debate between Simon and Peter in Ps.-​Clem. Hom. 16, and there are similarities in the ways judges are characterized and addressed in both the Homily and the two dialogues. The roles played by pagan judges in the Actus Silvestri and in the Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court await systematic analysis.112 More broadly, an important question is whether Christian authors had a particular understanding of the dialogue form as such, whether in general or in its Christian manifestation. During the imperial period, authors such as Lucian, who personified dialogue as a speaker in his Bis accusatus, and Himerius, who wrote of the established dignity of the dialogue, reveal awareness of dialogue as a literary form; and a reflection on the form of Plato’s dialogues is also found in the Platonic commentary tradition.113 Similarly, second-​order observations on the dialogue form can be found among Christian authors and in Christian dialogues. The most striking example is perhaps a letter by Basil of Caesarea, written in 373 to Diodorus of Tarsus, who had sent him two dialogues that he had recently composed (see entry 18, ed. Deferrari 1950). Here, Basil contrasted ancient dialogues and Christian dialogues, and, although allowing a moderate degree of characterization of the speakers in Christian dialogues, he understood Christian dialogues as departing from classical models: For assuredly your quick wit realizes this—​that those philosophers outside the faith who wrote dialogues, Aristotle and Theophrastus for instance, at once grappled with the facts themselves, because they realized their 111. König 2008 and 2012. For Julian and Methodius see LaValle 2017 and 2017a and Quiroga Puertas 2017. For the second-​century grammarian Herodianus and the fragments of his work entitled Symposium see Dickey 2014:341 and Hirzel 1895:2.350-​52. Jerome, De vir. ill. 80, wrote that he could read a text entitled Symposium by Lactantius (now lost), “which he wrote as a young man” (quod adolescentulus scripsit). For comparison, see the criticism regarding the setting of the Greek symposium in Philo, De vita contemplativa 57–​63; and Schwartz 2008. 112. See the relevant entries. 113. Boys-​Stones 2018:55–​56.

Introduction  31 own lack of the literary graces of Plato. But Plato with the power of his eloquence at one and the same time both attacks opinions and ridicules the persons who represent them, attacking the rashness and recklessness of Thrasymachus, the levity and conceit of Hippias, and the boastfulness and pompousness of Protagoras. But whenever he introduces indefinite characters into his dialogues, he uses his interlocutors merely for the sake of giving clarity to his subject matter, and brings nothing else from the characters into the arguments; as he did in the Laws. So it is necessary also for us [Christians], who do not set out to write for worldly honour but propose to bequeath to the brethren admonitions on edifying subjects, if we introduce a character already well known to the world for rashness of conduct, to weave something derived from the quality of the character into the text, if it is at all incumbent upon us to censure men who neglect their duties. But if the material brought into the dialogue is indefinite, digressions against persons break its unity and tend to no useful end. (Ep. 135.1.10–​2.10; trans. Deferrari 1950, modified) The passage shows Basil’s awareness of Aristotle’s and Theophrastus’ dialogues as well as his enduring esteem for the literary value of Plato’s dialogues, but also indicates awareness of the departure of the Christian dialogue form from classical models.114 On another occasion, in Ep. 210.5, Basil wrote that the material in Gregory the Wonderworker’s Dialogue with Gelian had been said “agonistically” (οὐ δογματικῶς εἴρηται, ἀλλ’ἀγωνιστικῶς), a description that could apply more broadly to several Christian dialogues recording debates between speakers of differing opinions. References to the choice of the dialogue form are not unusual in Christian dialogues, especially in the ones that are admittedly fictitious. While in Methodius’ On Free Will, it is the speakers who agree on discussing and settling their doctrinal differences through interrogation (entry 11; 23: πρὸς ἕκαστον ἀπόκριναι ὧν ἐρωτῶ), Cyril of Alexandria used the prologues of the On Adoration and of the Seven Dialogues on Trinity to declare his choice of the dialogue form, which, as he wrote, requires a “relaxed” style (ἀνειμένος)—​the same adjective used in the handbook on style by Demetrius to qualify dialogic prose (entries 32 and 33).115 Nestorius declared to have chosen the dialogue form because of the need to examine both the truth and what opposes the truth in order to reach true doctrine, in the same way as alloyed gold is used to distinguish pure from impure gold.116 When presenting his choice of the dialogue form (διαλογικὸς χαρακτήρ) in the prologue of his Eranistes, Theodoret of Cyrrhus stated his intention to depart from 1 14. Cameron 2014:3–​4; Courtonne 1955:2.50n2. 115. Demetrius, On Style 19 and 20 (ed. Roberts 1902)  about the διαλογική περίοδος; see also Romanus Sophista, Peri aneimenou libellus (ed. Camphausen 1922). 116. Entry 39; Bedjan 1910:10–​11.

32  Christians in Conversation “the ancient Greek philosophers (οἱ πάλαι τῶν Ἑλλήνων σοφοί) [. . .], who offered their books to a well-​educated audience for whom life consisted in discussion”; Theodoret wanted his “work to be easily intelligible and profitable for readers unacquainted with verbal disputation,” and he therefore placed the names of the speakers in the left margin of the text so as to render the change of speaker even more noticeable.117 Similarly, Leontius of Byzantium saw in the dialogue form the most appropriate format to address and correct objections from his opponents.118 The choice of writing in dialogue form was intentional and calculated, and, in the views of these authors, necessary to achieve their aim of persuasion. A Formal Typology It is possible to suggest a purely formal classification of Christian dialogues, following the work of Anna Maria Ieraci Bio.119 The presence or absence of a narrative voice in the text can be used to distinguish dialogues as either “dramatic,” when they purport to record the conversation itself without any narration, or “narrative,” when a narrative voice reports the words of the speakers making use of formulas such as “he said” and “he replied.”120 In turn, the narrative voice can be external (or, similarly, authorial), or it can belong to one of the speakers of the dialogue, who therefore assumes the role of reporter of the dialogue, as, for instance, speaker A in Zacharias of Mytilene’s Ammonius and the Christian speaker in the anonymous Dialogus cum Iudaeis (here, the speaker operates both at the level of the conversation recorded in the dialogue and at the level of the communication with the reader). It is also important to emphasize that in “narrative” dialogues this voice can appear in differing degrees: the extent of the narrative voice can vary from merely indicating the changes of speaker to a full-​fledged narration that sets the scene and the occasion of the dialogue, records the reactions of the speakers and of an audience (if present), and reports an epilogue that follows the conversation. The dialogues in which the narrative voice is most extensive are the Acta Archelai, the Actus Silvestri, and the Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court. There is, however, an important caveat in a strict application of “narrative” versus “dramatic” form in the classification of dialogues:  the same function of indicating the identity of the speakers, the presence of an audience, and the setting of the dialogue may be fulfilled by the voices of the speakers during the conversation rather than by an external narrative voice. In addition, the division between dramatic dialogues and narrative dialogues is further complicated when a speaker in a dramatic dialogue reports an embedded narrative dialogue, thus

1 17. Entry 44; Ettlinger 2003:29; Lim 1991; Wilson 1970. 118. Entry  51. 119. Ieraci Bio 2006:26–​35. 120. The distinction goes back to Plato (Tht. 143b); see Andrieu 1954:284–​86.

Introduction  33 producing a “mixed” dialogue, such as Methodius’ Symposium. The division between “dramatic” and “narrative” dialogues cannot therefore be taken as a strong discriminating feature in a comprehensive classification of dialogues. The characterization of the speakers in the dialogues (whose number varies from a minimum of two to several) stands out as another important feature that can help design a classification of these texts on formal grounds. Speakers can be mere voices with no pretense of realism and simply identified with their doctrinal affiliation, such as “Orthodox” and “Montanist” or even “A” and “B,” or, at the other end of the spectrum, they can be fully rounded characters, such as Macrina in Gregory of Nyssa’s Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection and Aphroditianus in the Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court, with several variations in between. The dialogues show much variance in this respect, and an aspect that awaits for analysis is whether, and if so in what ways, the style of the language is also adapted to the particular character of each speaker. Another important issue is whether the opposing speaker, or speakers, eventually accept the view set forth by the main speaker, or remain firm in their original position. This consideration is applicable only to the twenty-​eight surviving dialogues in which speakers clearly represent opposing doctrinal positions. Perhaps surprisingly, however, in the majority of cases (eighteen) the opposing speaker does not convert or explicitly accepts the doctrine presented by the speaker representing the view of the author. This distinction, of course, does not apply to dialogues in which the speakers do not present conflicting doctrinal views, as in John Chrysostom’s On the Priesthood and Palladius’ On the Life of John Chrysostom, or when the speakers agree as they attack an absent party, as is notably the case in Cyril of Alexandria’s Seven Dialogues on the Trinity, On the Incarnation of the Only-​Begotten, and On the Unity of Christ. Another consideration is whether one of the speakers is also identified as the author (or alleged author) of the dialogue—​a feature that usually reinforces the claim of realism of the conversation recorded. Table 1 presents, as an overview, some of the main formal features of the dialogues considered here: the presence of a narrative voice and of an authorial preface, the number of speakers and their characterization (besides their doctrinal affiliation), the conversion of the opposing speaker or speakers, the presence of scene setting, and the reference to an attending audience. The double indication of any of these features means the presence of both a framing and an embedded dialogue. Overall, the data shows that there is no strong preference for any of these formal features, nor any clearly defined development in their use over time. All of these formal options seem to have remained available to Christian authors of dialogues throughout our period. The table shows the considerable degree of variance in the main formal features that were available to Christian authors (or editors) of dialogues; there is no

Narrative Voice

? yes ? yes yes yes yes yes ? yes no no no yes ?no yes no ? yes yes yes ?no yes yes ?yes yes no

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

? no ? ? no no no no ? ? yes no no no ? no no ? no yes ? ?no ? no ? no no

Authorial Preface ?2 3 ?2 ?2 4 2 5 2 ?2 ?2 3 2–​32 2–​114 7 at least 3 several 7 ? 2 2 2 ?2 ?2 2 ?2 2 2

Number of Speakers yes yes yes ? yes yes yes yes yes ?yes no yes yes yes ?yes yes yes yes–​?no7 yes yes ?no ?no ?no yes ?no yes no

Characterization of the Speakers1 yes no ? ? n/​a n/​a yes n/​a ? ? yes n/​a n/​a ? ? no yes/​no6 ? n/​a no ?no ? ? yes ? n/​a no

Conversion ?yes yes ? ? yes no yes yes ? ? no no–​yes3 no–​yes5 yes ?no yes no ? yes yes ?yes ?no ? yes ? no no

Scene Setting

Overview of the Main Formal Features of the Dialogues Considered in the Present Book

Dialogue

Table 1. 

? yes ? ? yes yes yes yes ? ? no no no yes ? yes yes ? yes no yes ? ? yes ? no no

Reference to an Attending Audience

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 3711 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

no no no yes no no no no no ? ? no yes yes yes yes no yes no yes no ?no yes no ?yes yes

no no no no yes yes no no no ? ? yes no no no no yes no no ?yes no ?no yes yes ?yes no

28 2 210 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 several 3 4 2–​212 2 several 3 2–​313 2 ?2 2 2 ?3 2

no no no yes no no no no no ? no no yes yes yes yes–​yes no yes yes yes–​yes yes ?yes no no ? yes

no yes no n/​a n/​a n/​a n/​a n/​a no ?no ? n/​a no n/​a n/​a n/​a–​n/​a yes no yes yes–​yes n/​a n/​a no no ? no

no no no yes no no no no no ? ? no yes yes yes yes–​yes no yes yes yes–​yes yes ?yes no no ?yes yes

no/​yes9 no no yes no no no no no ? ? yes yes yes yes yes–​yes no yes no no–​yes no ?no no no ?yes no (continued)

yes no yes yes no yes no

54 55 56 57 58 59 60

no no no no no no yes

Authorial Preface several 2 2 3 3 several 2

Number of Speakers yes no no yes no yes no

Characterization of the Speakers1 no no no yes no some14 no

Conversion

The double indication of any of these features means the presence of both a framing and an embedded dialogue. 1  By this I mean any kind of characterization besides their doctrinal affiliation, including proper names. 2  Two in the framing dialogue, at least three in the reported dialogue. 3  No for the framing dialogue, yes for the reported dialogue. 4  Two in the framing dialogue, at least eleven in the reported dialogue. 5  No for the framing dialogue, yes for the reported dialogue. 6  The pagan judge converts to Christianity, but not the non-​orthodox opponents. 7  Yes for the first dialogue, ?no for the second one. 8  Each of the five dialogues features two speakers. 9  The fifth dialogue alone contains a reference to the listeners. 10  Each of the two dialogues features two speakers. 11  This text is unedited. 12  Two in the framing dialogue, two in the reported dialogue. 13  Two in the framing dialogue, two in the reported dialogue. 14  Several Jews convert.

Narrative Voice

Dialogue

Table 1. Continued

yes no no yes ? yes no

Scene Setting yes no no yes ? yes no

Reference to an Attending Audience

Introduction  37 clearly preferred pattern or dominant chronological development, and it should also be emphasized that dialogues varied widely in size as well. The use of different modes of argumentation is another feature that varies from dialogue to dialogue, and one that calls for a comprehensive analysis. A characteristic element of Christian dialogues was the acceptance of Scripture as authoritative, and Scripture often provided common ground among the speakers and constituted the premises for the ensuing conversation (this was not the case, however, in Gregory of Nyssa’s Against Fate, in which the main speaker opposes a pagan speaker). While speakers are willing to take Scriptural quotations as sufficient proofs of a particular doctrinal view, however, disagreement could easily develop as to how to make sense of specific Scriptural passages, or as to what should be the appropriate exegetical method. In addition, the legitimate use of patristic authors could become another matter of contention, as exemplified by Leontius of Byzantium’s Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas. More broadly, Christian dialogues show that dogma was an inexhaustible source of questions stemming from believers and unbelievers alike. An important aspect of the argumentation employed in Christian dialogues was the use of patristic citations as proof texts, which became just as common an argumentative practice in Christian dialogues as it did in patristic literature more broadly from the mid-​fifth century onward. Patristic florilegia formed part of the proceedings of the First Council of Ephesus (431 CE); dialogues with doctrinal content may thus be also related to the formal proceedings of Church councils and synods, and the argumentation and techniques used there.121 Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ Eranistes (followed by Leontius of Byzantium’s Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas, but see also Theodotus of Ancyra’s unedited Contra Nestorium) is the earliest surviving dialogue to make use of patristic florilegia, compiled for the for the occasion, and demonstrates a general trend toward the increasing formalism and technicization of doctrinal argumentation. The use of patristic quotations and legalistic proofs represented a significant step in the formalization of anti-​heretical literature, and a tendency toward technicization is especially remarkable in the dialogues by Leontius of Byzantium and Paul the Persian.122 Conclusion The composition of prose dialogues was far from moribund during late antiquity. The dialogue form did not exhaust itself with the philosophical schools of

121. The florilegia are translated in Price and Gaddis 2005:301–​10; for their inclusion in the proceeding of the Council of Ephesus see Graumann 2009:34n18. 122. The Council of Constantinople (553 CE) was conspicuous for the significant use of proof texts and for the efforts that went into their preparation, and the example was followed by later councils. See Cameron 2014:34–​35 and 50–​52; Price and Whitby 2009; Cameron 1991a; Richard 1951.

38  Christians in Conversation Classical and Hellenistic Greece, but emerged transformed and reinvigorated in the religiously diverse world of late antiquity, when Christian authors exploited and transformed the dialogue form in the composition of new, culturally contingent forms of dialogue, designed as tools of opinion formation within the religious controversies of the time. The Christians’ use of the dialogue form within religious controversy resulted in a burgeoning activity of composition of prose dialogues, which now opposed a Christian and a Jew, a Christian and a pagan, a Christian and a Manichaean, and an orthodox and a heretic. Christian dialogues were designed as tools of opinion formation in this context, and, although many of them are still little studied (or studied in isolation from one another), they should inform any serious cultural history of late antique society. Not only do Christian dialogues embody the cultural conventions and refinements that late antique men and women expected from the religious debates of the time (and, more broadly, the endurance and transformations of ancient rhetorical traditions in the context of religious controversy), but they also propagated the idea that orthodoxy would be recognized as the correct and rational doctrine in the setting of a public debate. The dialogue form was versatile, and it offered their practitioners a wide variety of rhetorical and literary devices that could be deployed according to the need. Various Christian authors found suitable models in existing traditions, such as the Platonic or the Peripatetic, or attempted to develop new forms of dialogue for particular or simply broader readerships (as was indicated, for instance, by an innovative text layout with systematic indication of the speakers), and some even wrote dialogues as more or less successful literary experiments, as in the notable case of Methodius of Olympus, who wrote a Christian Symposium, and the anonymous author of the On Political Science, who took Plato’s Republic and Cicero’s On the Commonwealth as his models. The progymnasmata of traditional rhetorical education, and professional rhetoric more broadly, contributed to a renewal and transformation of the dialogue form during late antiquity. Similarly, an increasing formalization and technicization of theological argumentation, which, as reflected in conciliar acts, relied more and more on patristic florilegia and legalistic proofs, reshaped the modes of argumentation employed in Christian dialogues; in addition, Roman legal practice is likely to have left traces on the format of these texts and on the shape of their arguments. As a result, late antique dialogues display considerable variance in their formal features, modes of argumentation, and literary awareness, but they do show that Christian authors continued to develop and to exploit this form for their more practical needs. Christian dialogues reveal the inner workings of a culture that thrived on religious debate and that made conspicuous investment in the search of orthodoxy and in its articulation in linguistic terms; religious dogma did not put an end to dialogue but acted as a continuous source for debate and disagreement.

Guide to the Dialogues

1. ?Aristo of Pella, Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci Author

?Aristo of Pella1

Full title

Ἰάσονος καὶ Παπίσκου ἀντιλογία περὶ Χριστοῦ (CPG 1101)2

Original language

Greek (lost); Latin translation (lost; only the translator’s preface survives)3

Date of composition

c. 140, or 135–​1784

Summary and Discussion of Scholarship Since the text of the Disputatio is lost, our knowledge of this dialogue derives only from indirect sources. The most extensive witness is Celsus Africanus’ letter accompanying his (lost) third-​century Latin translation of the Greek text, which provides a short overview of the contents of the dialogue:5 [. . .] there comes to mind that famous, remarkable, and renowned debate (disceptatio) between Jason, a Hebrew Christian (Hebraeus Christianus), 1. The traditional attribution to Aristo of Pella relies only on the witness of John of Scythopolis (first half of the sixth century; PG 4.421C; the PG editor misattributed this passage to Maximus Confessor, see Lahey 2007:586n15; the same passage also reveals that Clement of Alexandria was aware of the Disputatio). Otranto 1996, however, has questioned the attribution to Aristo on the grounds that none of the early references to the dialogue mentions its author. 2. The variance in the title should be noted: ἀντιλογία for Origen, disceptatio and concertatio for Celsus the Latin translator, altercatio for Jerome, διάλεξις for John of Scythopolis. 3. Ciccolini  2013. 4. Schreckenberg 180; Külzer 1999:95–​97; Borzì 2004:350n17; Morlet 2013:22–​23 and 44. 5. Ps.-​Cyprian, Ad Vigilium episcopum, de Iudaica incredulitate 8 (ed. Hartel 1871:3.3.128–​29; the real author of the letter, Celsus, identifies himself in the greetings that close the letter; French translation in Ciccolini 2013:163): [. . .] illud praeclarum atque memorabile gloriosumque Iasonis Hebraei Christiani et Papisci Alexandrini Iudaei disceptationis occurrit, Iudaici cordis obstinatam duritiam Hebraei admonitione ac leni increpatione mollitam, uictricem in Papisci corde Iasonis de spiritus sancti infusione doctrinam, qua Papiscus ad intellectum ueritatis admissus et ad timorem Domini ipso Domino miserante formatus et Iesum Christum Dei filium credidit et ut signaculum sumeret deprecatus Iasonem postulavit. Probat hoc scriptura concertationis ipsorum, quae collidentium inter se Papisci aduersanti ueritati et Iasonis adserentis et uindicantis dispositionem et plenitudinem Christi Graeci sermonis opere signata est: ad cuius translationem in intellectum Latinum animante Domini ope et uiuentis fidei firmitate seruata uerborum proprietate intrepidus accessi:  et his qui ab intellectu Graecae docilitatis alieni sunt interpretata integra significatione verborum et intellectus omnis ac veritatis manifestatione patefacta Romani sermonis ratione discussa disserui.

39

40  Christians in Conversation and Papiscus, an Alexandrian Jew (Iudaeus), in which the stubbornness of the Jew’s mind was softened by the admonition and mild reproof of the Hebrew (Christian), and Jason’s teaching prevailed in the mind of Papiscus under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; by means of it Papiscus, admitted to the understanding of the truth and instructed to fear God by God’s own mercy, came to believe that Jesus is Christ Son of God and implored Jason asking that he may be baptized. This is proven by the rec­ ord (scriptura) of their dispute (concertatio), which, opposing Papiscus, who resists the truth, to Jason, who protects and defends the economy and the plenitude of Christ, was divulged in a text written in Greek. I have undertaken its translation dauntlessly in order that it may be understood in Latin, preserving the proper meaning of the words, being inspired by God’s mercy and by the firmness of my living faith. With a view to those who are removed from the understanding of Greek learning, I have treated the matters discussed in accordance with the Roman language, rendering the meaning of the words in its entirety and exposing clearly their full sense and their truth. This short account shows that the text was presented as the record of a real debate, and the two main speakers of the Disputatio were Jason, a Hebrew Christian, and Papiscus, a Jew from Alexandria. According to Celsus Africanus, in the dialogue Jason wins over the Jew, despite his stubbornness (obstinata duritia), by means of admonition and mild rebuke; Papiscus eventually accepts the Christian faith, is convinced that Christ is the Son of God, and asks Jason for baptism. The indications of the religious affiliation and of the geographic origin of the speakers suggest that the text of the Disputatio had at least some elements of scene setting. Voss makes a case that the dialogue may have been set in Alexandria. Eusebius of Caesarea (HE 4.6.3) reports that, according to Aristo of Pella, in the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt Jews were prohibited “even to see from a distance the land of their fathers” by command of the emperor Hadrian:  given that no other work by Aristo of Pella is known, Voss concludes that Eusebius must have found this information in Aristo’s Disputatio and, presumably, Jason mentioned Hadrian’s edict in order to explain his presence in Alexandria, the hometown of Papiscus. Alexandria was a lively city with a Jewish community, but it is uncertain whether the debates with Jews in which Origen wrote to have participated took place in that city (Contra Celsum 1.45, 1.55, 2.31, 6.29).6 It has also been suggested that the Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci could actually have been written in Alexandria. In the Contra Celsum, Origen made reference to the Disputatio, and he pointed out that this dialogue made use of allegory

6. Voss 1970:23; Lim 1995:17; De Lange 1976:8–​9 and chap. 8; see Stroumsa 2012 for the Jewish survival in late antique Alexandria.

Guide to the Dialogues  41 (ἀλληγορία) in order to demonstrate that the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah fit Jesus (Contra Celsum 4.52). The allegorical method used by Jason, the mouthpiece of the author, may indicate adherence to the Alexandrian exegetical tradition and thus reveal the intellectual milieu in which the dialogue was written.7 The same passage from the Contra Celsum also shows that, despite Celsus’ criticism, according to Origen the Disputatio was written in a “not contemptible style” (μετὰ οὐκ εὐκαταφρονήτου λέξεως), which Voss speculatively takes as indicative of the endurance of the tradition of Greek philosophical dialogues. The text was later translated into Latin (during the third century); Jerome made use of the Disputatio in the discussion of two Old Testament passages that were quoted in the dialogue (Gen. 1.1 and Deut. 21.23).8 It seemed unusual that none of the early witnesses of the dialogue (Celsus, Origen, Celsus Africanus, and Jerome) mentioned its author by name, and it is plausible that the Disputatio circulated anonymously. Otranto went further and suggested that Aristo of Pella, whom John of Scythopolis identified as the author of the Disputatio as late as the sixth century, was not the real author, and that the Disputatio should be understood as an account of an actual debate that took place on the ground, perhaps in Alexandria. In Otranto’s reconstruction, the Disputatio could be the account of a real-​life event, such as the dialogues with Jews that Origen mentioned in the Contra Celsum. According to the same scholar, however, Papiscus’ final conversion and request for baptism may well have been added in the process of redaction or may be the product of later manipulation.9 Celsus Africanus’ remark that Jason was a Hebraeus Christianus has also attracted scholarly attention, and, if the Disputatio was a fictional work, it has been suggested that the character of Jason may be a depiction of Jason, the Christian convert from Thessalonica mentioned in Acts 17.1–​9.10 Several scholars have argued that the Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci had a considerable impact on later dialogues. Some argue that the parallels that are found among later adversus Iudaeos dialogues, such as among the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (entry 29), the Dialogue of Simon and Theophilus (CPL 482, trans. Varner 2004), and the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (entry 57), show the reuse of material that was originally found in the Disputatio. It has also been suggested that the subject matter and contents of the Disputatio provided material for much of the later adversus Iudaeos literature besides dialogues.11 According to Voss, it is remarkable that Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho (the next surviving dialogue in

7. Harnack 1882:116; Otranto 1996:347–​49; Borzì 2004:349. 8. Jerome, Hebr. Quaest. in Gen. 1.1 and Comm. in Gal. 3.13, with Otranto 1996:349. 9. Otranto 1996. 10. Voss 1970:23; Borzì 2004:353; Lahey 2007:586. 11. Conybeare 1898; Nautin 1967; Rutherford 2007; Lahey 2007:594–​95.

42  Christians in Conversation chronological order; entry 2) deals with the same subject as the Disputatio, and that both dialogues may have been set in the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt. The same scholar also points out that the motif of the Jew’s stubbornness and his lack of good will to understand (found in the Disputatio but perhaps derived from Ezek. 3.7) became topoi in later adversus Iudaeos dialogues, and that the focus of the Disputatio on passages from the Scriptures that are authoritative for both parties became a feature of later dialogues not only with Jews but also with heretics, where, conversely, the discussion extends to the New Testament.12 Given the complete loss of the Disputatio, however, Morlet suggests caution in drawing definitive conclusions on the actual dependence of later adversus Iudaeos literature on this particular dialogue.13 Bibliography Bonfil, R., Irshai, O., Stroumsa, G.G., and Talgam, R., eds. 2012. Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures. Leiden. Borzì, S. 2004. “Sull’attribuzione della Disputa fra Giasone e Papisco ad Aristone di Pella.” Vigiliae Christianae 41:347–​54. Ciccolini, L. 2013. “La Controverse de Jason et Papiscus: La témoinage de l’Ad Vigilium episcopum de Iudaica incredulitate faussement attribué à Cyprien de Carthage.” In Morlet et al. 2013:159–​74. Conybeare, F.C., ed. 1898. The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus and of Timothy and Aquila. Oxford. De Lange, N.R.M. 1976. Origen and the Jews:  Studies in Jewish-​Christian Relations in Third-​Century Palestine. Cambridge. Harnack, A. 1882. Die Überlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahrhunderts in der alten Kirche und in Mittelalter. Leipzig. Hartel, G., ed. 1871. S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani opera omnia. 3 vols. Vienna. Külzer, A. 1999. Disputationes Greacae contra Iudaeos: Untersuchungen zur byzantinischen antijüdischen Dialogliteratur und ihrem Judenbild. Stuttgart. Lahey, L. 2007. “Evidence for Jewish Believers in Christian-​Jewish Dialogues through the Sixth Century (excluding Justin).” In Skarsaune and Hvalvik 2007:581–​639. Lim, R. 1995. Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity. Berkeley. Morlet, S. 2013. “Les dialogues adversus Iudaeos: Origine, caractéristiques, référentialité.” In Morlet et al. 2013:21–​45. Morlet, S., Munnich, O., and Pouderon, B., eds. 2013. Les dialogues adversus Iudaeos: Permanences et mutations d’une tradition polémique. Paris. Nautin, P. 1967. “Histoire des dogmes et des sacrements chrétiens.” Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Haute Études 75:162–​67. Otranto, G. 1996. “La Disputa tra Giasone e Papisco sul Cristo falsamente attribuita ad Aristone di Pella.” Vigiliae Christianae 33:337–​51. 12. Voss 1970:24–​25. 13. Morlet 2013:30–​32.

Guide to the Dialogues  43 Parvis, S., and Foster, P., eds. 2007. Justin Martyr and His Worlds. Minneapolis. Rutherford, W. 2007. “Altercatio Jasonis et Papisci as a Testimony Source for Justin’s ῾Second God’ Argument?” In Parvis and Foster 2007:137–​44. Skarsaune, O., and Hvalvik, R., eds. 2007. Jewish Believers in Jesus. Peabody, MA. Stroumsa, G.G. 2012. “Jewish Survival in Late Antique Alexandria.” In Bonfil et  al. 2012:257–​69. Varner, W.C. 2004. Ancient Jewish-​Christian Dialogues: Athanasius and Zacchaeus, Simon and Theophilus, Timothy and Aquila; Introductions, Texts, and Translations. Lewiston. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster.

2. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho Author

Justin Martyr (d. c. 165)14

Full title

Πρὸς Τρύφωνα Ἰουδαίον διάλογος (CPG 1076)

Original language

Greek

Date of composition

155–​6715

Editions

Bobichon 2003; Marcovich 1997

Modern translations

English (Falls et al. 2003); French (Bobichon 2003); Italian (Visonà 1988)

Summary The Dialogue with Trypho addresses some fundamental tenets of Christian religion and, at least at a first reading, aims to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. The author argues, on the basis of Christological exegesis of the Scriptures, that God has made a new covenant with men (10–​30); that Jesus is the Messiah, thus fulfilling Old Testament prophecies (31–​108); and that Christians, and not Jews, are the true Israel (109–​41).16 The dialogue features two main speakers, Justin, identified as a philosopher (1.1), and Trypho, identified as a Jew (1.3: Ἑβραῖος) who has fled Palestine in the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–​35 AD), as well as a minor speaker, the Jew Mnaseas, who intervenes on only one occasion (85.6). Despite a lacuna in the introduction and another significant gap in the middle of the text (between 74.3 and 74.4), it is nonetheless clear that the conversation takes place over two days (78.6; 85.6) in front of an audience made up of Trypho’s “friends” (1.1: φίλοι).17 The dialogue is reported in the first-​person voice of the author, Justin, whose narrative also includes a short 14. Allerts 2002:30–​31. 15. Allert 2002:32–​34; Marcovich 1997:1. 16. The structure is, however, more complex than this; see Bobichon 2003:1.17–​24. 17. Eusebius of Caesarea (HE 4.18), who understands Trypho as a historical character and the dialogue as having actually taken place, identifies Ephesus as the setting, but this theory has been questioned (Falls 2003:xii and xv; Rajak 1999:59).

44  Christians in Conversation prologue and epilogue, and records the reactions of the speakers as well as of the audience.18 The conversation is set in an urban environment, “the central space within the colonnade” of the gymnasium (τὸ μέσον τοῦ ξυστοῦ στάδιον) (1.1; 9.3), and does not close with Trypho’s conversion to Christianity but rather, on an irenic note, with the departure of the speakers and Trypho’s hope “to continue our study of the Scriptures” in the future (143.1). The Dialogue with Trypho, which reveals an awareness of Platonic models, has a complex structure, both for the presence of an interlocking dialogue and for frequent digressions that tend to conceal the overarching plan of the work. Justin narrates that, while walking along the colonnades of the gymnasium, he was greeted as a philosopher (because of the gown that he was wearing) by Trypho and his companions, who had hoped to hear something beneficial from him (1.1–​2). In response, Justin recounts his past training in philosophy and his ensuing conversion from Platonism to Christianity following his life-​changing encounter and dialogue with an unnamed “respectable old man” (3.1). Justin reproduces in full this conversation with the old man (3–​9). Trypho’s companions, however, laugh loudly at the account of Justin’s conversion to Christianity (8.3; 9.2), and the dialogue proper begins only in c­ hapter 9, after Trypho asks Justin to make a case in favor of Christianity and prevents his departure by holding him by the cloak (a motif derived from Plato, Resp. 327B and Prot. 335CD). In the ensuing conversation, which occupies the rest of the Dialogue, Justin acts as the main speaker; he is given extensive passages of text and makes large use of Scriptural quotations, whose exegesis constitutes the ground for his argumentation. Trypho, who admits to having consulted the Gospel (10.2), rarely intervenes and his objections mostly serve the purpose of providing a structure to the argumentation (e.g., 35.1, 55.1, 63.1, 89.1). As far as the influence of Platonic dialogues is concerned, Voss identifies as “Socratic” the reported dialogue between Justin and the unnamed old man (3–​8) because it displays no trace of competition and aims to point out contradictions in Justin’s thought by questioning and dissecting it. The same scholar also argues that the address to Justin and the setting of the conversation in the colonnade reveal an awareness of the same motifs attested in the two pseudo-​Platonic dialogues Axiochus (364A) and Eryxias (392A) and in Cicero’s Lucullus (Ac. 2.9) and Brutus (3), which may thus constitute a literary tradition developed after Plato. At the same time, Plato’s Protagoras may be the model for the presence of an opening dialogue, for the characterization of the main speakers as a philosopher and a sophist, respectively corresponding to the characterization of Justin and Trypho (who, for instance, is accused of being fickle and of not being faithful 18. The dialogue is addressed to an otherwise unknown Marcus Pompeius (8.3 and 141.5), and Voss 1970:26n4 puts forward the hypothesis that the dialogue may have originally been in the form of a letter addressed to Pompeius, as may have been indicated in the lacuna in the prologue; Allert 2002:38–​40.

Guide to the Dialogues  45 to truth in 67.4, 67.7, and 67.11), and for Justin’s consciously mild reaction to Trypho’s anger in 79.1–​2 (Prot. 333E).19 Discussion of Scholarship The Dialogue with Trypho has attracted a conspicuous amount of scholarship, and it will not be possible to do justice to the several different readings that were proposed. A significant part of scholarship has addressed Justin’s Christological exegesis, which constitutes the foundation of the subject matter of the text (and it has also been pointed out that the use of proof texts from Scripture became a common feature in later dialogues).20 Another issue has been what the dialogue can tell about its social and historical context, and in particular about the interactions among early Christian, Jewish, and pagan communities, but, in this respect, scholars have reached divergent conclusions. Some have read the dialogue as an apologetic work addressed to pagans, others as a work addressed to Jews within missionary activity by Christians, and others as a work addressed internally to Christians or to non-​orthodox groups, while others have asked whether the work could have served in real debates on the ground. Voss, for instance, points out that Eusebius of Caesarea records that Justin “often defeated (the cynic Crescens) in debate (ἐν διαλόγοις) in the presence of listeners” and suggests understanding the dialogue in relation to the Apology by the same author and to Christian apologetic literature more broadly. In his view, the choice of a Jewish opponent may ultimately derive from actual debates with Jews that Justin may have had in Palestine (not unlike Origen; see entry 7), but the primary addressees of the work must have been pagan readers. This hypothesis would explain Justin’s use of the literary tradition of the philosophical dialogue, the references to pagan religion in the text, and Justin’s initial faith in pagan philosophy before his conversion to Christianity. As with other apologies addressed to pagans, Voss does not exclude that much of the readership was nonetheless Christian and suggests that the dialogue might have been composed in competition with texts addressed to pagans written by Jewish authors. Similarly, Heyden emphasizes the tradition of Christian apologetic as a foundational element in the dialogue, and Gemeinhardt addresses the relation between conversion and the quest for education in the opening account of the dialogue.21 Conversely, other scholars have argued that the use of the dialogue should be understood in the context of real contacts between Christian and Jewish communities. Bobichon, the most recent editor as of this writing, leaves open the

19. Voss 1970:24–​30, who sees the influence of Albinus of Smyrna’s conceptualization of the main speakers in Platonic dialogues as a philosopher and a sophist (Introductio 1–​2, ed. Nüsser 1991:30 and Hermann 1853:6.147–​148). 20. Cameron 2014:48; Bobichon 2003:109–​128; Skarsaune 1987; Doerfler 2014. 21. Voss 1970:35–​39; Heyden 2009; Gemeinhardt 2012:90–​92.

46  Christians in Conversation possibility of a diverse audience, including Jews, while, most recently, Jaffé places the work within an actual dialogue between Christians and Jews, and points out that some conversations in rabbinic literature can be understood as answers to polemicists that used the same arguments as Justin. Pouderon, however, shows that material found in the dialogue is commonly attested in second-​century literature, and Justin is likely to have made use of texts that were already circulating. In addition, his knowledge of Jewish exegesis seems limited. Munnich further emphasizes Justin’s ignorance of the Jewish exegetical traditions in circulation at the time, in which Justin does not appear to show much interest. Paradoxically, in Munnich’s view the Dialogue with Trypho instead instantiates an end to religious dialogue between Christians and Jews.22 Déroche, who emphasizes the diversity within adversus Iudaeos literature and the multiplicity of its purposes and audiences, argues that one of the aims of the Dialogue was to make Christianity understandable to pagans, and that the dialogue should thus also be understood in relation to a didactic and catechetic drive by its author. Addressing the difference between Christianity and Judaism could be a helpful way of explaining both the history and the nature of Christianity both to internal and external audiences, as was suggested for the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (entry 29). Similarly, Nirenberg reads the polemic with Trypho as multifaceted and not primarily directed to Jews or Judaizing Christians. In his view, the dialogue provided a way of engaging with Marcionites, Docetists, and dualists more broadly (who, it is implied, simply repeated the error of the Jews), but also with pagans. Justin may be responding to the pagans’ attack upon Christianity on the grounds of its relationship with Judaism.23 In fact, the Dialogue with Trypho constitutes the earliest surviving instance of adversus Iudaeos literature in dialogue form, which soon became a prolific branch of literature among Christian writers. Rajak, who accepts a Christian readership for the dialogue, points out the commonplace allegations against Jews that the text contains, and sees it as foundational in the history of Christian anti-​Jewish hostility, calling it “a conscious contribution to a new Christian literature.” A different reading has been applied to the dialogue by Jacobs, who moves away from a primary interest in the immediate social setting of the author and its religious boundaries. His analysis focuses instead on questions of Christian self-​definition and religious identity. Jacobs’ reading depends on the Bakhtinian concept of heteroglossia and addresses the role that the inclusion of the “other voice” plays in the Christian self-​definition as articulated in the dialogue. In this perspective, the Dialogue with Trypho lodges the voice of the Jew within the logic of Christian identity; it ultimately asserts singularity and Christian specificity through the articulation and internalization of otherness. In this perspective, Judaism is not 2 2. Bobichon 2003:129–​166; Allert 2002:61; Jaffé 2013 with Nirenberg 2013:101n26; Pouderon 2013. 23. Déroche 2012:543–​545; Nirenberg 2013:99–​102; Den Dulk 2018 (non vidi).

Guide to the Dialogues  47 elided or eliminated but preserved within the dialogue, and is used to insist on the singularity of Christian orthodoxy.24 Bibliography Allert, C.D. 2002. Revelation, Truth, Canon and Interpretation: Studies in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. Leiden. Bobichon, P. 2003. Justin Martyr. Dialogue avec Tryphon. 2 vols. Fribourg. Bonfil, R., Irshai, O., Stroumsa, G.G., and Talgam, R., eds. 2012. Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures. Leiden. Cameron, Av. 2014. Dialoguing in Late Antiquity. Washington, DC. Den Dulk, M. 2018. Between Jews and Heretics. Refiguring Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. Abingdon. Déroche, V. 2012. “Forms and Functions of Anti-​Jewish Polemics: Polymorphy, Polysemy.” In Bonfil et al. 2012:535–​48. Doerfler, M.E. 2014. “Entertaining the Trinity Unawares:  Genesis xviii in Western Christian Interpretation.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 65.3:485–​503. Drake, S. 2013. Slandering the Jew:  Sexuality and Difference in Early Christian Texts. Philadelphia. Edwards, M., Goodman, M., and Price, S., eds. 1999. Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians. Oxford. Falls, T.B., Halton, T.P., and Slusser, M. 2003. St. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Washington, DC. Gemeinhardt, P. 2012. “In Search of Christian ‘Paideia’:  Education and Conversion in Early Christian Biography.” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 16.1:88–​98. Granados, J. 2005. Los misterios de la vida de Cristo en Justino Mártir. Rome. Hermann, C.F., ed. 1853. Platonis dialogi. 6 vols. Leipzig. Heyden, K. 2009. “Christliche Transformation des antiken Dialogs bei Justin und Minucius Felix.” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 13.2:204–​32. Horner, T.J. 2001. Listening to Trypho: Justin Martyr’s Dialogue Reconsidered. Leuven. Jacobs, A.S. 2007. “Dialogical Differences: (De-​)Judaizing Jesus’ Circumcision.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 15.3:291–​335. Jaffé, D. 2013. “Aduersus Iudaeos: La loi et les observances dans le Dialogus cum Tryphone Iudaeo.” In Morlet et al. 2013:49–​65. Marcovich, M. 1997. Iustini Martyris dialogus cum Tryphone. Berlin. Morlet, S., Munnich, O., and Pouderon, B., eds. 2013. Les dialogues “adversus Iudaeos”: Permanences et mutations d’une tradition polémique. Paris. Munnich, O. 2013. “Le judaïsme dans le Dialogue avec Tryphon:  Une fiction littéraire de Justin.” In Morlet et al. 2013:95–​156. Nirenberg, D. 2013. Anti-​Judaism: The Western Tradition. New York. Nüsser, O., ed. 1991. Albins Prolog und die Dialogtheorie des Platonismus. Stuttgart. Parvis, S., and Foster, P., eds. 2007. Justin Martyr and His Worlds. Minneapolis.

24. Rajak 1999:80, and see also Drake 2013; Jacobs 2007; Cameron 2014:17–​18.

48  Christians in Conversation Pouderon, B. 2013. “La source de l’argumentation de Tryphon dans le Dialogue de Justin: Confrontation de deux thèses.” In Morlet et al. 2013:67–​93. Rajak, T. 1999. “Talking at Trypho: Christian Apologetic as Anti-​Judaism in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.” In Edwards et al. 1999:59–​80. Reprint in Rajak 2002:511–​34. Rajak, T. 2002. The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome. Leiden. Rokéah, D. 2002. Justin Martyr and the Jews. Leiden. Skarsaune, O. 1987. The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-​Text Tradition; Text-​Type, Provenance, Theological Profile. Leiden. Visonà, G. 1988. S. Giustino. Dialogo con Trifone. Milan. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster.

3. Gaius Romanus, Dialogue against Proclus Author

Gaius Romanus (fl. late second–​early third cent.)25

Full title

unknown (CPG 1330)26

Original language

Greek (three fragments survive in Eusebius of Caesarea, HE)27

Date of composition

c. 198–​21728

Edition

PG 10.25

Modern translations

English (in Eusebius: Deferrari 1953)

Summary and Discussion of Scholarship Eusebius of Caesarea is the only source for a dialogue by a priest known as Gaius (or Caius) Romanus against Proclus, a Montanist, of which Eusebius reports three short excerpts.29 Very little is known about the subject of the dialogue, but, from what one can gather from Eusebius’ report, Gaius attacked “the rashness and boldness of his opponents in composing new scriptures” (HE 6.20.3), discussed questions related to the text of the Apocalypse (HE 3.28.1), and dealt with the subject of the burials of the apostles in Rome and of the daughters of the apostle Philip (HE 2.25.7 and 3.31.4). From the way in which Eusebius quotes the text, it appears that both Gaius, the author, and Proclus, the Montanist, featured as speakers, and, accordingly, that the form and tone of the dialogue must

25. Moreschini 1.190; GAL 1.525–​27. 26. Eusebius of Caesarea, HE 6.20.3 and 3.314: διάλογος; Photius, Bibl. cod. 48: διάλογος πρὸς Πρόκλον. 27. Eusebius of Caesarea, HE 2.25.7, 3.28.1, 3.31.4; for the original language, however, see Tailliez 1943. 28. Eusebius of Caesarea, HE 6.20.3: “And there has come to us, also, a dialogue (διάλογος) by Gaius, a very learned man (λογιωτάτου), which was in circulation at Rome during the time of Zephyrinus (pope 199–​217), against Proclus who championed the heresy of the Phrygians” (trans. Deferrari 1953:2.40–​41). 29. The other authors who mention the dialogue seem to depend on Eusebius (Jerome, De vir. ill. 59, Theodoret, Haer. Fab. 2.3; Nicephorus Callistus, HE 4.12–​20), while the short account by Photius, Bibl. cod. 48, is problematic (Deferrari 1953:1.132n7).

Guide to the Dialogues  49 have been realistic. It is plausible that the Dialogue was presented as the record of an actual debate, but it is not possible to establish whether there was a narrative voice and how the speakers were presented to the readers.30 Bibliography Deferrari, R.J. 1953. Eusebius Pamphili. Ecclesiastical History. 2 vols. Washington, DC. Penna, R., ed. 1993. Il profetismo da Gesù di Nazaret al montanismo: Atti del IV convegno di studi neotestamentari (Perugia, 12–​14 settembre 1991). Bologna. Tailliez, F. 1943. “Notes conjointes sur un passage fameux d’Eusèbe.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 9:431–​49. Visonà, G. 1993. “Il fenomeno profetico del montanismo.” In Penna 1993:149–​64. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster.

4. ?Hippolytus, Chapters against Gaius Author

?Hippolytus (fl. late second–​early third cent.) or a follower31

Full title

‫ ܪܝܫܐ ܕܠܘܩܒܠ ܓܐܝܘܣ‬Chapters against Gaius (CPG 1891)32

Original language

Greek (lost); Syriac translation (fragments)33

Date of composition

prob. late second or early third cent. for the original nucleus34

Editions

Sinai new finds: Camplani and Prinzivalli 1998; Brock 1995 fragments in Dionysius bar Ṣalībī: Sedlaček 1909; Lejoly 1995

Modern translations

Sinai new finds: English (Brock 1995), Italian (Camplani and Prinzivalli 1998) fragments in Dionysius bar Ṣalībī’s In Apocalypsim: Latin (Sedlaček 1909)

30. Voss 1970:80. 31. Camplani and Prinzivalli 1998; Moreschini 1.247. 32. The title derives from ῾Abdīšō῾ bar Brīkā of Nisibis, Catalogue (ed. Assemani 1728), and is unlikely to be original (Camplani and Prinzivalli 1998:49–​50). 33. Given that a fragment of text survives from a sixth-​century manuscript, the Syriac translation must have been circulating from at least this time. 34. Chronology is dubious, but the original nucleus of the text is likely to date back to the late second or early third century. The possibility that the dialogue was a later reworking of a work by Hippolytus, however, cannot be excluded (for instance, in a mid-​fourth-​century Apollinarian environment); see Camplani and Prinzivalli 1998:76–​81.

50  Christians in Conversation Summary and Discussion of Scholarship A dialogue between two speakers, Gaius (for whom see entry 3) and Hippolytus, dealt with the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel and of the Book of Revelation, which Hippolytus defended against Gaius, who instead attributed the authorship of the two texts to the Gnostic Cerinthus.35 This dialogue, known as Chapters against Gaius, is lost in the Greek original and survives in the form of Syriac quotations in Dionysius bar Ṣalībī in his In Apocalypsim and In Iohannem (twelfth century). However, the recent discovery of additional Syriac fragments of the dialogue among the Sinai new finds has transformed our understanding of the text, which is no longer considered simply as a much later reworking of excerpts from Hippolytus, but rather as a text ultimately originating from a genuine controversy dating back to the period between the late second and the early third century. There has been some discussion on whether the text was originally written in the dialogue form, or whether it was a reworking, in dialogue form, of a text attributed to Hippolytus, to which its current structure in chapters may have been added at a later stage.36 The fragmentary nature of the text, and the editing process that the fragments underwent (as it becomes clear by contrasting the text of Dionysius with the Sinai finds), make it difficult to assess the original character of the dialogue. It seems, however, that a narrative voice recorded the changes of speakers, that the speakers addressed each other by name (once as ‫“ ܐܢܬ ܚܟܝܡܐ‬wise man,” fr. (a)/​(b) = Camplani and Prinzivalli 1998:51), and that Hippolytus succeeded in demonstrating that the fourth Gospel and the Book of Revelation were authored by John (Sedlaček 1909:4.4–​9, trans. 1.30–​2.3). The surviving fragments deal with the exegesis of specific passages from the Book of Revelation: while Gaius emphasizes the contrasts between such passages and the rest of the Scriptures, or points out their implausibility, Hippolytus puts forward readings of the same passages that instead show their accord with the rest of Scripture. It should also be noticed that Hippolytus accuses his opponent to interpret Scripture literally like the Jews (fr. (a)/​(b) = Camplani and Prinzivalli 1998:51), and that the manuscript from which the new Syriac finds derive contained devices to make its reading easier, namely the use of a different ink for the titles of the chapters, a systematic indication of Scriptural quotations, and lines on the margin to identify the sections of speech pronounced by Gaius. Scholars agree that, although the speakers represent historical figures, the dialogue itself was not the record of a real debate.37

35. Sedlaček 1909:4.4–​9, trans. 1.30–​2.3. 36. Brent 1995:144–​203; Camplani and Prinzivalli 1998; Brock 1995; Prigent 1972; Moreschini 1.247. 37. Camplani and Prinzivalli 1998.

Guide to the Dialogues  51 Bibliography Brent, A. 1995. Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century. Leiden. Brock, S.P. 1995. Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai. Athens. Camplani, A., and Prinzivalli, E. 1998. “Sul significato dei nuovi frammenti siriaci dei Capitula adversus Caium attribuiti a Ippolito.” Augustinianum 38.1:49–​82. Lejoly, R., ed. 1975. Dionysii bar Ṣalibi enarratio in Ioannem. 4 vols. Dison. Penna, R., ed. 1993. Il profetismo da Gesù di Nazaret al montanismo: Atti del IV convegno di Studi neotestamentari (Perugia, 12–​14 settembre 1991). Bologna. Prigent, P. 1972. “Hippolyte, commentateur de l’ Apocalypse.” Theologische Zeitschrift 28:391–​412. Sedlaček, I., ed. 1909. Dionysius bar Ṣalībī in Apocalypsim, actus et epistulas catholicas. 2 vols. Rome.

5. Philip Bardaisanite, The Book of the Laws of the Countries and Bardaisan’s Lost Dialogues Author Full title

Philip, a follower of Bardaisan (154–​222/​23)38 ̈ ‫ ܟܬܒܐ‬The Book of the Laws of the ‫ܕܢܡܘܣܐ ܕܐܬܪ ܘܬܐ‬ Countries (CPG 1152)39

Original language

Syriac (complete); Greek translation (two excerpts survive)40

Date of composition

c. early third cent.41

Edition

Drijvers 1965

Modern translations

English (Drijvers 1965); German (Krannich 2004)

38. Brock 1997:8–​9; Drijvers 1966:67; Levi della Vida 1921:9–​10 is instead in favor of the fictitious identity of Philip as a mere character in the dialogue and not the author. 39. This is the title of the text in the only surviving manuscript (BL Add. 14658; King 2011). The title, however, may not be the original one, since it seems to refer only to the last part of the dialogue dealing with ethnography. Before quoting two Greek excerpts from the Book of the Laws of the Countries, Eusebius of Caesarea (PE 6.9.32) refers to this text as the “dialogues with (Bardaisan’s) companions” (ἐν τοῖς πρὸς τοὺς ἑταίρους διαλόγοις) and in HE 4.30.2 writes that Bardaisan composed a “dialogue on fate” (περὶ εἱμαρμένης διάλογος): scholars have either identified these two works (Krannich and Stein 2004:205; Drijvers 1984:4 and 1966:69) or have suggested that the Dialogue on Fate (περὶ εἱμαρμένης διάλογος) was an independent dialogue composed by Bardaisan that is now lost (Possekel 2012:521; Voss 1970:51; Rehm 1938). The translations are mostly taken from Drijvers 1965. 40. The Greek excerpts are quoted in Eusebius of Caesarea, PE 6.10; and the second excerpt is also found in Ps.-Clementine Recognitions 9.19–​29, for which see Kelley 2006:22–​27. There has been discussion on whether Greek or Syriac was the original language. Scholars now agree on Syriac as the original language and argue that Eusebius is quoting from a Greek translation (Healey 2011:119; Krannich and Stein 2004:205n18, Camplani 1998:527, Brock 1997:9, relying on Drijvers 1966:66–​69 and Nöldeke 1910), while a case for a Greek original is made in Voss 1970:51–​59 (relying on Rehm 1938), who also attributes the dismissal of the dialogue form and narrative frame in the close to the process of translation on the basis of the comparison with the Syriac translation of Plutarch’s De cohibenda ira, for which see Rigolio 2016. 41. Possekel 2012:521.

52  Christians in Conversation Summary The Book of the Laws of the Countries deals with the issue of free will and its relation to fate, and features the Syrian philosopher Bardaisan as the main speaker in conversation with some of his pupils (536). One of the pupils, Awida, acts as the main interlocutor in the dialogue, while two other speakers intervene only occasionally: Philip speaks four times (550, 559, 564, and 600) and Bar Jamma only once (564). Philip acts also as the reporter of the dialogue in the first person and his narrative voice records the changes of speakers; he is therefore usually considered as the author of the dialogue. In the short narrative prologue, Philip’s voice explains that the dialogue took place a “few days ago” in the house of a fellow pupil of Bardaisan, Šemašgram (536). Bardaisan, who is addressed as “master” by Awida (536: ‫ )ܡܪܝ‬and as “our father” by Philip (600: ‫)ܐܒܘܢ‬, is given much longer sections and plays the role of a “teacher” (539: ‫ )ܡܠܦܢܐ‬in the dialogue. His exposition is occasionally interrupted by short questions by the pupils; he delivers the closing longer speech on ethnography that has inspired the title to the dialogue and is interrupted only once by Philip (600). There is no narrative epilogue. The instructional tone and format of the dialogue is set by the initial exchange between Bardaisan and Awida (539): Awida said: “Master, I put this question to my age-​mates here, that they might answer me.” Bardaisan said to him: “If you wish to learn, it is better that you should learn from someone who is older than they are. But if you wish to teach, it is not right that you put questions to them, but you must persuade them to ask whatever they like. For it is teachers who are questioned, but they themselves do not put questions. If they do, (it is) to lead the ideas of the one who is questioned on the right track, so that he may put good questions and they may understand his meaning. For it is an excellent thing that a man knows how to formulate questions.” The format and the goal of the relationship between Bardaisan and his pupils are instructional, and here Bardaisan describes a teacher-​pupil relationship. As the exchange goes on, it becomes clear that Bardaisan is interested in the genuineness of the interlocutors’ questions in order to enquire into their own views with the aim of finding truth, and he emphasizes the distance between the format that he has just described and a merely eristic contest, which he would very much like to avoid (539–​40:  ‫“ ܕܠ ܚܪܝܢܐ‬without contention”).42

42. Voss 1970:53–​54; for a comparison, see Ford 2008:41 on Plato’s effort in distinguishing between διαλέγεσθαι, “to converse,” and ἐρίζειν, “to dispute.” For the teacher-​pupil relationship in philosophical schools and in early Christianity see the helpful chapters in Filoramo 2002.

Guide to the Dialogues  53 The starting point of the dialogue is Awida’s question on “why God did not create us in such fashion as not to sin and become guilty” (536, 543), which has been taken as a Marcionite objection.43 The ensuing discussion centers on the relation between fate (‫ )ܚܠܩܐ‬and free will (‫ܚܐܪܘܬܐ‬, ‫)ܨܒܝܢܐ‬, and, as a consequence, on humans’ responsibility for their actions (544–​47). While Awida is in favor of limiting the dominion of free will (555, 564, 578), Bardaisan argues for the coexistence of both free will and fate; the latter is to an extent determined by astrology (568–​71). According to Bardaisan, nature, fate, and free will all play a part in the life of human beings (571–​72), and free will can change fate, but only to a certain extent (579).44 Bardaisan’s arguments in favor of free will become more vocal in his speech on ethnography that closes the dialogue, which is meant to show that “men have established (different) laws in each country by that liberty given them from God” and they are thus not determined by their horoscopes or by which one of the seven sectors of the earth they live in (583). Bardaisan surveys the customs of several peoples, and closes with the example of “us Christians,” who “wherever they are and wherever they may find themselves, the local laws cannot force them to give up the law of their Messiah, nor does the fate of the Guiders (i.e., celestial bodies) force them to do things that are unclean for them” (607–​8). The dialogue reports few quotations from the Scriptures, and makes abundant use of terminology with meanings relating to persuasion, as in the opening exchange, when Awida remarks that he is not willing to believe by faith alone and declares, “I cannot believe unless I am convinced” (542: ‫)ܐܢܐ ܠ ܡܫܟܚ ܐܢܐ ܠܡܗܝܡܢܘ ܐܠ ܐܢ ܐܬܛܦܝܣܬ‬.45 Later on in the dialogue Awida admits to have been convinced that man does not sin because he is constituted to do so by his nature and asks further about fate (579), but the dialogue has no epilogue and there is no explicit indication of whether or not Awida is finally convinced. Discussion of Scholarship Some elements in the Book of the Laws of the Countries stand out for their apparent Platonic pedigree: for instance, that the dialogue is reported and written by one of Bardaisan’s pupils, as is not unusual in Socratic dialogues, that the scene setting may depend on the opening of the Republic,46 and that Bardaisan makes reference to his previous allegiance to astrology, which may derive from the Phaedo (96A–​100A).47 Also, Awida’s curious admission that he is “too shy”

4 3. Drijvers 1992:131–​32; Camplani 2016. 44. Gibbons 2012:40–​43. 45. Poirier and Crégheur 2003. 46. Bowersock 1990:31–​32. 47. Camplani 1998:544.

54  Christians in Conversation to interrogate Bardaisan might likewise be considered as a literary device (539). According to Camplani, the literary nature of the dialogue should make modern scholars more cautious than Drijvers was when using the dialogue to reconstruct the authentic thought of Bardaisan. Conversely, according to Voss, the distance between Bardaisanite doctrine and Philip’s account of it in dialogue form is closer to Arrian’s (close) account of Epictetus’ teaching than to Plato’s (less close) account of Socrates’. According to the same scholar, however, it remains unclear whether Philip recorded material from actual lectures by Bardaisan or relied on an existing dialogue by Bardaisan, perhaps the Syriac dialogue On Fate mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea (HE 4.30.2), which Voss identifies as an independent (now lost) work from the Book of the Laws of the Countries. On the contrary, Camplani identifies the dialogue On Fate with the Book of the Laws of the Countries.48 The philosophical and religious content of the dialogue has been the subject of extensive scholarly analysis, and Alexander of Aphrodisias has been singled out as one of the sources, as more recently studied by Gibbons; in addition, Platonic and Gnostic elements have been amply recognized.49 Camplani has also shown the dependence of the dialogue on Justin Martyr’s Syntagma against all the Heresies (now lost).50 In turn, an excerpt possibly derived from the Book of the Laws of the Countries was later embedded in the Vita Abercii, a hagiographical narrative that was composed in Greek.51 The section derived from the Book of the Laws of the Countries in the Vita Abercii (33–​38) takes the form of a dialogue between two speakers, Abercius in the role of the main speaker (i.e., Bardaisan) and Euxinianus in the role of the junior speaker (i.e., Awida in the Book of the Laws of the Countries), who at the close declares to have been fully convinced (38: ἀκριβῶς πέπεισμαι) by the explanation that he has received.52 Apart from the Book of the Laws of the Countries, Eusebius of Caesarea (HE 4.30) reports that Bardaisan was the author of dialogues in Syriac: Bardaisan, a very able man and very eloquent (διαλεκτικώτατος) in the Syriac tongue composed dialogues (διαλόγους) against the Marcionites and certain others who were responsible for differing opinions, and he has handed them down in his own tongue and script, along with many other of his writings. Those who knew him (and they were very many, for he

48. Camplani 2016:16; Possekel 2012:521; Camplani 1998:544; Voss 1970:54–​55; Drijvers 1966:75–​76 (though at variance with Drijvers 1992a:131). 49. Gibbons 2012:37–​40; King 2011; Ramelli 2009; Krannich and Stein 2004; Dihle 1979; Drijvers 1966; the scholarship on Bardaisan’s philosophy is extensive, and it will not be possible to do justice to it here. 50. Camplani  2016. 51. Ed. Seeliger and Wischmeyer 2015. 52. Voss 1970:54–​56 for the relation between the text of the Book of the Laws of the Countries and the dialogue embedded in the Vita Abercii.

Guide to the Dialogues  55 was very strong at arguing), have translated these works from the Syriac language into Greek. (trans. Deferrari 1953) Unfortunately, these Syriac dialogues by Bardaisan against Marcionites and other groups have not survived, and, although it cannot be established how literary they were, Eusebius’ remark διαλεκτικώτατος presumably indicates that the speakers represented opposing doctrinal positions—​in these dialogues Bardaisan is unlikely to have adopted the same instructional posture in which he is depicted in the Book of the Laws of the Countries.53 Scholars have variously sought traces of Bardaisan’s lost dialogues against Marcionites in Ps.-​Clementine literature, in the Vita Abercii, and, with less success, in the Dialogue with Adamantius (entry 17).54 It has been suggested, for instance, that Bardaisan’s dialogues against the Marcionites could have been used in the composition of the dialogue between the apostle Peter and Simon Magus in Ps.-​Clementine Homilies 16–​19. Here, Simon is given the characteristics of Marcion, of the Gnostics, and of practitioners of black magic, and, according to Voss, possible traces of Bardaisanite dialogues become especially evident in Hom. 18. This homily, which deals with common issues in anti-​Marcionite literature such as the nature of the creator of the universe and the reconciliation of goodness and justice, presents dialogue exchanges that are remarkably similar to sections from the Book of the Laws of the Countries.55 A dialogue embedded in the Vita Abercii also touches upon the same motifs of anti-​Marcionite polemic, and may likewise depend on Bardaisan’s dialogues against Marcionites (or, alternatively, on Ps.-​ Clementine literature). Both Marcion and Bardaisan are mentioned in two Vita passages that may depend on Bardaisan’s dialogues—​in these passages Bardaisan is presented as a wholly positive and prominent figure who addresses Abercius in direct speech (69–​ 70).56 It is plausible, even if difficult to ascertain, that Bardaisan’s lost dialogues against the Marcionites were made up by short exchanges, as the previously mentioned embedded dialogues in the Ps.-​Clementine Homilies and in the Vita Abercii are.57 Bibliography Bowersock, G.W. 1990. Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Cambridge. Brakke, D., Deliyannis, D., and Watts, E., eds. 2012. Shifting Cultural Frontiers in Late Antiquity. Farnham, UK.

5 3. Voss 1970:56–​59; Côté 2001. 54. Camplani 2016:47–​50; Drijvers 1966:170–​172; Moreschini 2.223–​27. 55. Ps.-​Clem. Hom. 18.5 with Voss 1970:57. 56. Grégoire  1955. 57. Voss 1970:58–​59.

56  Christians in Conversation Brock, S.P. 1997. A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature. Kottayam. Camplani, A. 1998. “Rivisitando Bardesane: Note sulle fonti siriache del bardesanesimo e sulla sua collocazione storica religiosa.” Cristianesimo nella storia 19:519–​96. Camplani, A. 2016. “Traces de controverse religieuse dans la littérature syriaque des origines: Peut-​on parle d’une hérésiologie des ῾hérétiques?’” In Ruani 2016:9–​66. Côté, D. 2001. Le thème de l’opposition entre Pierre et Simon dans les Pseudo-​Clémentines. Paris. Deferrari, R.J. 1953. Eusebius Pamphili: Ecclesiastical History. 2 vols. Washington, DC. Dihle, A. 1979. “Zur Schicksalslehre des Bardesanes.” In Ritter, ed. Kerygma und Logos: Beiträge zu den geistesgeschichtlichen Beziehungen zwischen Antike und Christentum. Göttingen. 123–​35. Drijvers, H.J.W., ed. 1965. The Book of the Laws of the Countries. Assen. Reprint 2006, Piscataway, with a new introduction. Drijvers, H.J.W. 1966. Bardaisan of Edessa. Assen. Drijvers, H.J.W. 1984. “East of Antioch. Forces and Structures in the Development of Early Syriac Theology.” In Drijvers 1984a:1–​27. Drijvers, H.J.W. 1984a. East of Antioch: Studies in Early Syriac Christianity. London. Drijvers, H.J.W. 1992. “Syriac Christianity and Judaism.” In Lieu, J.M., North, J., and Rajak, T., eds. The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire. London. 124–​46. Filoramo, G., ed. 2002. Maestro e discepolo: Temi e problemi della direzione spirituale tra VI secolo a.C. e VII secolo d.C. Brescia. Ford, A.L. 2008. “The Beginnings of Dialogue: Socratic Discourses and Fourth-​Century Prose.” In Goldhill 2008:29–​44. Fürst, A., ed. 2011. Origenes und sein Erbe in Orient und Okzident. Münster. Gemeinhardt, P., Van Hoof, L., and Van Nuffelen, P., eds. 2016. Education and Religion in Late Antique Christianity. Reflections, Social Contexts and Genres. London. Gibbons, K. 2012. “Nature, Law and Human Freedom in Bardaisan’s Book of the Laws of the Countries.” In Brakke et al., 2012:35–​47. Goldhill, S., ed. 2008. The End of Dialogue in Antiquity. Cambridge. Grégoire, H. 1955. “Bardesane et st. Abercius.” Byzantion 25–​27:363–​68. Healey, J.F. 2011. “The Edessan Milieu and the Birth of Syriac.” Hugoye 10.2:115–​27. Kelley, N. 2006. Knowledge and Religious Authority in the Pseudo-​Clementines. Tübingen. King, D. 2011. “Origenism in Sixth-​Century Syria. The Case of a Syriac Manuscript of Pagan Philosophy.” In Fürst 2011:179–​212. Krannich, T., and Stein, P. 2004. “Das Buch der Gesetze der Länder des Bardesanes von Edessa.” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 8:203–​229. Levi della Vida, G. 1921. Bardesane: Il dialogo delle leggi dei paesi. Rome. Reprint in Levi della Vida and Contini, 1989:63–​111. Levi della Vida, G., and Contini, R., eds. 1989. Pitagora, Bardesane ed altri studi siriaci. Rome. Lund, J.A. 2007. Book of the Laws of the Countries: A Dialogue on Free Will versus Fate; A Key-​Word-​in-​Context Concordance. Piscataway, NJ. Neymeyr, U. 1989. Die christlichen Lehrer im zweiten Jahrhundert. Leiden. Nöldeke, T. 1910. “Zum Buch der Gesetze der Länder.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 64:555–​60. Poirier, P.-​H., and Crégheur, E. 2003. “Foi et persuasion dans le Livre des lois des pays à propos de l’épistémologie bardesanienne.” Le Muséon 116:329–​342.

Guide to the Dialogues  57 Possekel, U. 2012. “Bardaisan and Origen on Fate and the Power of the Stars.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4:515–​51. Ramelli, I.L.E. 2009. Bardaisan of Edessa:  A Reassessment of the Evidence and a New Interpretation. Piscataway, NJ. Rehm, B. 1938. “Bardesanes in den Pseudoclementinen.” Philologus 93:218–​47. Rigolio, A. 2016. “Syriac Translations of Plutarch, Lucian, and Themistius: A Gnomic Format for an Instructional Purpose?” In Gemeinhardt et al. 2016:73–85. Ruani, F., ed. 2016. Les controverses religieuses en syriaque. Paris. Seeliger, H.R., and Wischmeyer, W., eds. 2015. Märtyrerliteratur herausgegeben, eingeleitet, übersetzt und kommentiert von Hans Reinhard Seeliger und Wolfgang Wischmeyer. Berlin. Teixidor, J. 1992. Bardesane d’Edesse: La première philosophie syriaque. Paris. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster.

6. Anonymous, Erostrophus Author

unknown

Full title

Socrates58

Original language

Greek (lost); Syriac translation59

Date of composition

c. second or third cent.60

Edition

De Lagarde 1858:158–​67

Modern translation

German (Ryssel 1893)

Summary The Erostrophus is a dialogue with philosophical content that features two speakers, Socrates and a pupil identified as Erostrophus, and deals with questions about the nature of the soul, its immortality, and its relationship to the body. The tone is instructional, and the conversation can be characterized as that of a teacher-​pupil relationship. Socrates plays the role of a teacher and is given most of the text, and, apart from few exchanges in the opening part of the dialogue, Erostrophus remains mostly silent. It remains difficult, however, to assess whether the Syriac translation may have occasionally suppressed other interventions by Erostrophus, as in the case of the Syriac translations of Gregory the Wonderworker’s To Theopompus, on the Impassibility and Passibility of God (entry 8), and Plutarch’s De cohibenda ira.61 In addition, the dialogue features a narrative voice that records the reactions of the speakers and that closes with an epilogue reporting the joy and the satisfaction of Erostrophus and the audience 5 8. The dialogue, however, is normally referred to as Erostrophus in modern scholarship. 59. Brock 2003:11; Hugonnard-​Roche 2000; Baumstark 1922:169; Ryssel 1893:175–​77. 60. Rigolio  2017. 61. See entry 8 for the former, and Rigolio 2016 for the latter.

58  Christians in Conversation (which, however, never intervenes directly) with the instruction received from Socrates. The occasion of the dialogue is provided by Erostrophus’ personal encounter with Socrates (159.30). Erostrophus admits having been drawn to Socrates by his fame and wisdom (159.4–​10), intending to approach him with questions on the nature of the soul and on its immortality (160.1–​5). In response, Socrates produces a fairly extensive treatment of the nature of the soul, a subject that makes up most of the dialogue. Socrates opens by speaking of an entity, presumably divine, that is identified as “Power:” this entity has a creative faculty and is at the origin of the soul, which, in turn, forges the human body out of the four elements. Also, perhaps under the influence of Stoicism, the author argues that the soul retains a part of the element of fire, and that this element acts as the necessary nourishment for the soul and is fundamental to keeping the elements together in the body. Once the element of fire has been exhausted, the human body dissolves. After remarking that “Power” pervades the entire universe, Socrates closes the dialogue with a section on ethics, in which he condemns human pleasures and relates the moral behavior of human beings to the “holding” function of the soul.62 Discussion of Scholarship The name of the main speaker recalls the tradition of Socratic dialogues, and the circumstances of the dialogue (Erostrophus’ visit to Socrates because of his fame) may also have a literary origin (D.L. 2.65). As far as the philosophical contents are concerned, the Erostrophus derives elements from different traditions, among which the Galenic tradition and Stoicism stand out as especially prominent. In particular, the view of the soul as a “mixture” (165.25–​26) and the prominent role attributed to the element of fire (especially in the soul: 164.21) may derive from Galen and Stoicism respectively. Links have also been suggested with the school of Bardaisan, especially because of the role given to fate and to the celestial bodies, while further analysis would be necessary to identify possible connections with early Christian authors on the soul, such as the view of a material soul expressed by Tertullian in the De anima, which may resonate with the doctrine presented in the Erostrophus. Overall, besides a possible textual echo from the Psalms, the text lacks references to Christian Scriptures, and the religious and philosophical affiliation of its author would require further analysis.63 There has been some discussion about the identity of the minor character, Erostrophus, whose name appears as a transcription from Greek but for which no exact equivalent has so far been identified. The vocalization of the name as

62. Rigolio  2017. 63. Rigolio 2017, and 2017:24 for a possible reference to the Psalms in the text.

Guide to the Dialogues  59 “Erostrophus” accepted by the editor is in fact based on mere guesswork, and alternative vocalizations are legitimate. While it is not possible to exclude the possibility that “Erostrophus” was simply a made-​up name, other scholars have suggested that the word may be the corruption of an originally Greek name. Renan proposed to see in “Erostrophus” a corruption of the name “Ippostrophus,” the minor speaker in a spurious Socratic dialogue On Virtue (ed. Souilhé 1962:22–​34). Conversely, Ryssel suggested seeing in “Erostrophus” a corruption of the name “Aristippus,” a pupil of Socrates who takes part in two Socratic dialogues reported by Xenophon (Mem. 2.1 and 3.8) and who was later known as the founder of the Cyrenaic school. Ryssel’s hypothesis may find some support in similarities between the scene setting of the dialogue and literary traditions about Aristippus reported in Plutarch, in Diogenes Laertius, and in the Socratic Epistles (ed. Malherbe 1977).64 Bibliography Baumstark, A. 1922. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur:  Mit Ausschluss der christlich-​ palästinensischen Texte. Bonn. Brock, S.P. 2003. “Syriac Translations of Greek Popular Philosophy.” In Bruns, P., ed. Von Athen nach Bagdad: Zur Rezeption griechischer Philosophie von der Spätantike bis zum Islam. Bonn. 9–​28. Cameron, Av., and Gaul, N., eds. 2017. Dialogues and Debates from Late Antiquity to Late Byzantium. Abingdon. De Lagarde, P. 1858. Analecta Syriaca. Leipzig. Gemeinhardt, P., Van Hoof, L., and Van Nuffelen, P., eds. 2016. Education and Religion in Late Antique Christianity: Reflections, Social Contexts, and Genres. London. Goulet, R., ed. 1989. Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques. Paris. Hugonnard-​Roche, H. 2000. “Érostrophus.” In Goulet 1989:3.236–​38. Malherbe, A.J., ed. 1977. The Cynic Epistles: A Study Edition. Missoula, MT. Renan, E. 1852. “Lettre à M.  Reinaud sur quelques manuscrits syriaques du Musée Britannique.” Journal Asiatique ser. 4 no. 19:293–​333. Rigolio, A. 2016. “Syriac Translations of Plutarch, Lucian, and Themistius:  A Gnomic Format for an Instructional Purpose?” In Gemeinhardt et al. 2016:73–​85. Rigolio, A. 2017. “Erostrophus, a Syriac Dialogue with Socrates on the Soul.” In Cameron and Gaul 2017:20–​31. Ryssel, V. 1893. “Der pseudosocratische Dialog über die Seele.” Rheinisches Museum 48:175–​95. Souilhé, J., ed. 1962. Platon. Oeuvres complètes. Vol. 13. Paris.

64. Renan 1852; Ryssel 1893:176n1; Rigolio 2017. Literary traditions about Aristippus attested in the Erostrophus are Aristippus’ attraction to Socrates’ fame (159.4–​10 with D.L. 2.65), the characterization of Socrates’ rhetoric and philosophy as springs of water (167.11–​23 and Plu. 516C), and, perhaps, the absence of Aristippus in the Phaedo (Plato, Phaedo 59C and Socratic Epistle 16), ​Plato’s dialogue on the soul and the question of its immortality.

60  Christians in Conversation 7. Origen, Dialogue with Heraclides and Lost Dialogues Author

Origen (185–​c. 253/​54)65

Full title

Ὠριγένους διάλεκτος πρὸς Ἡρακλείδαν καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτῷ ἐπισκόπους περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς (CPG 1481)66

Original language

Greek67

Date of composition

244–​4968

Edition

Scherer 1960 with Merkelbach 1968

Modern translations

English (Daly 1992; Chadwick 1954); German (Früchtel 1974); French (Scherer 1960)

Summary The Dialogue with Heraclides is the account of an (otherwise unknown) regional synod of bishops held in the presence of an audience of presbyters and lay members of the Church (1.25; 4.23; 12.20; 15.25), in all likelihood in Roman Arabia (modern-​day Jordan) in about 245.69 The dialogue features Origen as the main speaker, and deals with doctrinal and exegetical matters by attacking the monarchianist view held by bishop Heraclides, which emphasized the Father and the Son as being one God in different modes (4.6: μοναρχία). At the beginning of the dialogue, Origen declares that he intends to carry out an “examination” (1.17:  ἀνάκρισις) of Heraclides’ faith, and through Scriptural quotations he is able to convince his opponent to accept the formula “two Gods” that makes a clear distinction between the Father and the Son (2.27). The exchange between Origen and Heraclides, however, is only the first part of the complex structure of the dialogue, which features also Maximus, Dionysius, and the bishops Philip and Demetrius as secondary speakers. In the opening prologue, a narrative voice reports that, in a previous part of the synod that is not recorded, some bishops had questioned Heraclides and had expressed worries about his orthodoxy. Apart from the prologue, however, the narrative voice is limited to indicating the changes of speakers (with one exception: 24.18–​19). It can be gathered from the dialogue that Origen was called in to settle the dispute with Heraclides (10.25), and indeed he succeeds in convincing him through questioning and quotation of relevant Scriptural 6 5. Moreschini 1.268–​70; Daly 1992:4; Scherer 1960:21. 66. Scherer 1960:15n3, for the papyrus see Lim 1991; Rizzi 2015:270–​71 for the use of διάλεκτος as a more generic term than διάλεξις. 67. The text was discovered in 1941 among the Tura Papyri (Aland and Rosenbaum 1995:505–​16). 68. Moreschini 1.296; Rizzi 2015:270 for 245 as the terminus post quem. 69. Eusebius of Caesarea, HE 6.33 and 6.37 with Lim 1995:18–​19 and Quasten 2.62.

Guide to the Dialogues  61 passages. Once Heraclides has accepted the formula “two Gods” (2.27), Origen moves on to pronounce a speech on how this formula should be best understood. This point marks the beginning of the second part of the text, which is considerably less dialogic in that Origen appears to be teaching (24.19: διδάσκει ὁ ἀδελφὸς Ὠριγένης); he is only occasionally interrupted by the secondary speakers. Origen deals with the conventions of prayer, follows up a question by Maximus with an explanation of Christ’s resurrection, responds to Dionysius’ question on whether the soul is blood (Lev. 17.11), expounds on the creation of man, and discusses the immortality of the soul by arguing for three different kinds of death. Origen’s exposition is constantly grounded in Scriptural exegesis; he understands his own teaching as a comment on Scripture (10.15: εἰς τὴν γραφὴν ἐροῦμεν). Origen closes the text with a doxology. The tone and structure of the two parts of the dialogue vary considerably. The first part, the “examination” (1.17: ἀνάκρισις), is made up of short exchanges between Origen and Heraclides, and resembles a friendly and irenic conversation. Origen does not aim at pointing out the weakness of Heraclides’ doctrine but rather guides him toward the truth by reminding him of the relevant Scriptural passages (e.g., 2.14–​15); Heraclides courteously concedes defeat. The second part of the dialogue is instead addressed to a broader audience, and Origen appears as a revered teacher who gives longer speeches in front of respectful disciples and invites them to ask questions (10.18–​20). In both parts of the dialogue, however, the conversation strikes the reader for its absence of planning, for the references to the spoken language, and for the spontaneous digressions that are not immediately relevant to the issues addressed in the dialogue.70 In his 2015 analysis, Rizzi emphasizes the composite nature of the dialogue and puts forward the hypothesis that the surviving text records different conversations that perhaps happened at different times, namely an opening ἅπαξ ἀνάκρισις, “an once-​and-​for-​all examination” of Heraclides’ belief in the form of questions and answers in which Origen plays the role of an expert in legal matters, and two διαλέξεις, lecture-​type responses to theological questions (προβλήματα) raised by members of the audience, questions that should be linked to rhetorical practices of speech delivery in front of an audience and are not tied to a specific institutional setting.71 Discussion of Scholarship Scholars have understood the Dialogue as an unofficial stenographic account of the regional synod held to examine the faith of bishop Heraclides. It is also plausible that the Dialogue with Heraclides had been part of a collection of “dialogues” (διάλεκτοι) featuring Origen that Eusebius of Caesarea and Pamphilus

7 0. Lim 1995:18–​19; Moreschini 2.298. 71. Rizzi 2015; Lim 1995a:209–​11.

62  Christians in Conversation of Caesarea had compiled in their complete edition of Origen’s works.72 This collection may have also contained the similar account of another regional synod held in Bostra few years earlier, the Dialogue between Origen and Beryllus, bishop of Bostra, which Eusebius of Caesarea and Jerome were able to read but which is now lost (HE 6.33 and 6.37; De vir. ill. 60).73 Both the Dialogue with Heraclides and the Dialogue between Origen and Beryllus purport to record actual debates held at regional synods in which Origen was invited to settle a dispute on doctrinal matters because of his competence as a theologian. The structure of the two synod dialogues is similar in that Origen begins by inquiring into the faith of his interlocutor; he then moves on to prove that this view is not orthodox, and through reasoning he leads his opponent to accepting the true faith. The actual target in the two synod dialogues is not the opposing speaker but his heterodox faith, and, instead of attacking the opponent directly or by pointing out his weaknesses, Origen aims at persuading him through demonstration (HE 6.33: λογισμῷ) and restoring him to orthodoxy. Voss sees the grateful letters that Beryllus wrote to Origen, which are known only from Jerome (De vir. ill. 60), as an indicator of Beryllus’ reasoned consent to Origen’s position following the dialogue.74 There is also evidence for other dialogues involving Origen that did not take place within a church synod. A  dialogue that circulated in Greek but is now lost was perhaps entitled Dialogue between Origen and Candidus, a representative of Valentinianism if one follows the account of Jerome, who was able to read this text (Adv. Ruf. 2.19). Jerome provided a short summary of the dialogue, but, since the report was written in the context of his controversy with Rufinus on the works by Origen, this witness needs to be carefully assessed. According to Jerome, Origen and Candidus featured as the main speakers, and their exchanges were so hostile that they resembled a fight between two gladiators. According to Jerome, the dialogue focused on two main issues: the relationship between God the Father and the Son, whom Candidus understood as an “emanation” (προβολή) from God the Father; and the nature of the Devil, whom Candidus considered of a wholly evil substance that cannot be saved, while Origen attributed the Devil’s fall to his own will. The epilogue of the dialogue is unknown. Voss makes a case for the identification of the Dialogue between Origen and Candidus with the record of another dialogue (disputatio) with a heretic that Origen, in a letter preserved by Rufinus, wrote was held in front of a large crowd (sub praesentia multorum). According to Voss’ reconstruction, the heretic that Origen mentions should be identified as Candidus, and thus the actual dialogue 7 2. Eusebius of Caesarea, HE 6.32 with Scherer 1960:13–​15. 73. Moreschini  2.296. 74. Voss 1970:83–​84 and 84n27, in addition to Eusebius’ report on Beryllus’ conversion (HE 6.33).

Guide to the Dialogues  63 between Origen and Candidus must have been held in front of an audience. In addition, Origen’s letter sheds light on the process of publication of the record of an actual debate. In the letter, Origen wrote that the debate between him and the heretic had indeed been recorded, and that he had received a copy of the record but chose not to publish it. Conversely, the heretic did publish an edited and (in his own view) improved version of the actual record of the dialogue (ornare volui disputationem ipsam atque purgare); but, according to Origen, the heretic’s edition included mischievous additions, omissions, and changes from the authentic script of the debate. In the same letter Origen even reported that another heretic, who had refused to meet Origen in person, nonetheless wrote and circulated a dialogue (disputatio) between himself and Origen, presumably presenting it as the account of an actual debate.75 There survives no written record (or mention of written records) of other debates that Origen held, such as the dialogue (διάλογος) between Origen and Bassus, perhaps a Macedonian;76 the dialogue with Ambrose, a representative of Valentinianism who was refuted by Origen (ἐλεγχθείς) and accepted the orthodox faith;77 an interview with the governor of Arabia that took place slightly before 215;78 the meeting with Julia Mamaea, the mother of the emperor Alexander Severus, who wanted to test Origen’s celebrated understanding of theological matters at her court in Antioch;79 and Origen’s dialogues with Jews, which he mentions in the Contra Celsum.80 In addition, Jerome reports that Origen wrote two dialogues On the Resurrection (De resurrectione dialogi), which were probably combined with the two books On the Resurrection (De resurrectione libri, CPG 1478)  as books 3 and 4 of the same work, and were written “in imitation of the dialectic fashion of disputation, in which there are questions and answers” (Ep. 92.4 = PL 22:766: dialecticum morem imitans disputandi, in quo sciscitatio est, atque responsio).81 These dialogues are lost, with the exception of an isolated quotation, in Latin, which survives in a letter by Jerome. According to Voss, that the quotation is reported as Origen’s words (Ep. 92.4:  Quae dicens) makes it likely that Origen was a speaker in the dialogue, and the tone of the quotation, which takes the form of an authoritative answer to a question, makes it plausible that Origen played the instructional role of

75. Rufinus, De adult. libr. Or. 7 (ed. Simonetti 1961:11–​12 = PG 17:624–​625) with Voss 1970:83–​84; Morlet 2013:40. 76. Julius Africanus, Ep. ad Or. 1 and Origen’s reply chap. 7 (PG 11:41D and 11:49A respectively) with Voss 1970:82–​83. 77. Eusebius of Caesarea, HE 6.18; Lim 1995:17. 78. Eusebius of Caesarea, HE 6.19.15; Lim 1995:17; Barnes 1981:83. 79. Eusebius of Caesarea, HE 6.21.3–​4; Lim 1995:17; Barnes 1981:84. 80. Origen, Contra Celsum 1.45 in front of a judging audience, 1.55, 2.31, 6.29; De Lange 1976:89–​102. 81. Jerome, Ep. 33.3 (de resurrectione dialogos II) and Contra Joh. Ier. 25 (in libro de resurrectione quarto) with Voss 1970:79 and Quasten 2.65.

64  Christians in Conversation a teacher in the dialogue.82 Scholars have understood the dialogue as literary rather than as the account of an actual conversation.83 Bibliography Aland, K., and Rosenbaum, H.-​U., eds. 1995. Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri. Vol. 2. Berlin. Barnes, T.D. 1981. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA. Chadwick, H. 1954. Alexandrian Christianity: Selected Translations of Clement and Origen with Introductions and Notes. London. Daly, R.J. 1992. Origen. Treatise on the Passover and Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides and His Fellow Bishops on the Father, the Son and the Soul. Ancient Christian Writers 54. New York. De Lange, N.R.M. 1976. Origen and the Jews:  Studies in Jewish-​Christian Relations in Third-​Century Palestine. Cambridge. Früchtel, E. 1974. Das Gespräch mit Herakleides und dessen Bischofskollegen über Vater, Sohn und Seele. Stuttgart. Lim, R. 1991. “Theodoret of Cyrus and the Speakers in the Greek Dialogues.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 111:181–​82. Lim, R. 1995. Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity. Berkeley. Lim, R. 1995a. “Religious Disputation and Social Order in Late Antiquity.” Historia 44.2:204–​31. Lomiento, G. 1971. Il dialogo di Origene con Eraclide ed i vescovi suoi colleghi sul padre, il figlio e l’anima. Bari. Merkelbach, R. 1968. “Textkritische Bemerkungen zur Debatte des Origenes mit Herakleidas.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 3:192–​96. Morlet, S. 2013. “Les dialogues adversus Iudaeos: Origine, caractéristiques, référentialité.” In Morlet et al. 2013:21–​45. Morlet, S., Munnich, O., and Pouderon, B., eds. 2013. Les dialogues “adversus Iudaeos”: Permanences et mutations d’une tradition polémique. Paris. Rizzi, M. 2015. “La seconda parte del Dialogo con Eraclide:  L’anima è il sangue?” Adamantius 21.1:269–​83. Scherer, J., ed. 1960. Entretien d’Origène avec Héraclide. Paris. Simonetti, M., ed. 1961. Tyrannii Rufini opera. Turnhout. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster.

82. Jerome, Ep. 92.4 (=PL 22:766.4): Ars magica non mihi videtur alicuius rei subsistentis vocabulum, sed etsi sit, nequaquam est operis mali nec quod haberi possit contemptui. 83. Scherer 1961:15n1; Voss 1970:79.

Guide to the Dialogues  65 8. Gregory the Wonderworker, To Theopompus, on the Impassibility and Passibility of God Author

Gregory the Wonderworker (c. 210–​c. 270)84

Full title

‫ ܕܥܠ ܐܠ‬.‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܓܪܝܓܘܪܝܤ ܕܠܘܬ ܬܐܘܦܡܦܘܤ‬ ‫ ܚܫܘܫܘܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܘܚܫܘܫܘܬܗ‬Discourse of Saint Gregory the Great to Theopompus, on the Impassibility and Passibility of God (CPG 1767)

Original language

Greek (lost); Syriac translation85

Date of composition

c. 240–​c. 27086

Edition

De Lagarde 1858:46–​64

Modern translation

English (Slusser 1998:152–​73)

Summary The dialogue addresses the issue of the passibility of God. The author argues that God is impassible and not subject to suffering; yet God is free in his decisions and, therefore, Christ took upon himself voluntary suffering and death though being and remaining impassible.87 The dialogue features two speakers, Gregory (the author, who is addressed as “teacher,” e.g., 3)  and an otherwise unknown Theopompus, who plays the role of a pupil. The conversation is inserted in a narrative frame, which is reported in the first person in the voice of Gregory, and takes place in front of an audience that does not intervene in the discussion but whose reactions such as a moment of silence, muttering, and expectation are also recorded (1, 2, 4). Although he is asked to adjudicate on what he heard from Gregory (14), Theopompus does not intervene in the closing part of the dialogue, and the reader cannot gauge whether or not he is convinced by the explanation received and whether “the conflicting thoughts that are constantly in my mind” have been in fact healed by Gregory (1). The dialogue opens by recording the unexpected encounter between Gregory, who is on his way to deliver a lecture, and Theopompus, who approaches him with a question about the passibility of God (1). Gregory provides only a short answer in response and then hastens to school, where he is once again confronted by Theopompus and where the dialogue proper takes place. After an initial exchange between the two characters, however, from chap. 6 onward Gregory acts as the only speaker, and his speech may be better described as a lecture, although 84. Moreschini 1.308–​13; Slusser 1998:1–​3. Doubts on the authorship were raised by Abramowski 1978 (followed, but not discussed, by Gavrilyuk 2004:47n1), especially because of the monarchianist tendency of the work. 85. On stylistic grounds, Ryssel 1880:137–​38 attributes the translation to the first half of the sixth century. For a possible link of the Syriac translation with Philoxenus of Mabbug, see Abramowski 1978. 86. The chronology of the dialogue is uncertain (Slusser 1998:5). 87. Frohnhofen 1987:213–​20.

66  Christians in Conversation he continues to address Theopompus directly by name. It appears that the Syriac translator abbreviated the text, and, on at least three occasions, he may have suppressed Theopompus’ interventions by reworking them into Gregory’s speech.88 In his argumentation, Gregory makes use of instructional and straightforward imagery, making reference, for instance, to the hardness of the adamant (6, for which see Voss 1970:87n3) and to the salamander’s tolerance of fire (9, for which see Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 43.12); he also draws upon several historical and mythological characters of the Greek world such as Epaminondas, Socrates, Chiron, and Diogenes (10 and 16), and he reports a quotation from Plato’s Phaedrus in the conclusion of his final speech (16). Conversely, references to the Scriptures are rare, and normally take the form of allusions rather than actual quotations.89 For these reasons and because of the subject of the dialogue, Ryssel has suggested that the dialogue was intended for pagan readers, and in particular for those mentioned in the dialogue who “take the view that the most blessed One spends all his time in his mansions, turns him on himself and looks at himself, [. . .] and who regard as passions for him his zealous efforts on behalf of the human race” (14).90 Discussion of Scholarship Among the most conspicuous Platonic elements in the dialogue, mention should be made of the opening scene, in which Theopompus addresses Gregory while he is on the way to the school, and the closing quotation drawn from Plato’s Phaedrus.91 The references to Greek historical and mythological figures reveal the influence of Greek literature more broadly, but, in Voss’ view, the instructional form of the dialogue and the didactic role that Gregory plays mark the distance from Plato’s dialogues; Gregory’s role appears closer to that played by Bardaisan in the Book of the Laws of the Countries and by Socrates in the Erostrophus. In both cases, as in the To Theopompus, the character of the minor speaker is not particularly developed. The analysis of the format of the conversation in the present dialogue, however, is complicated because the Syriac translator seems to have at times abbreviated the text and to have reworked Theopompus’ interventions, incorporating them into Gregory’s own words.92 It has also been suggested that the dialogue was influenced by Origen, Gregory the Wonderworker’s teacher, and, in particular, by his De resurrectione dialogi, which may have also featured its author as the main speaker in the role

88. Voss 1970:87n5. 89. Abramowski  1978. 90. Ryssel 1880:123–​124; Simonetti 1988 is also in favor of a pagan readership. 91. For the references to Plato in the passages, see Slusser 1998 ad loc. 92. Voss 1970:86–​88, who relates this practice to the similar rendering of Plutarch’s dialogue De cohibenda ira into Syriac, for which see Rigolio 2016.

Guide to the Dialogues  67 of a teacher.93 The loss of the De resurrectione precludes further considerations, but it is worth noticing that Gregory talked of dialogue in Socratic fashion (μάλα Σωκρατικῶς) to describe his own instruction under Origen (Address 95–​98, trans. Slusser 1998:106–​7, PG 10.1076): These are the kind of people (Origen) takes, and surveying them thoroughly with his farming skills, he understands not only what is visible to all and out in the open to see, but also digs down and tests their innermost parts, questioning and probing and listening to the answers. After he had begun to think that there was something in us which was not useless, unprofitable, and hopeless, he hoed, dug, watered, did everything he could, applied every skill and solicitude he had, and succeeded in domesticating us. When our unruly soul kept sending up and yielding “thorns and thistles” and every kind of wild weeds and plants, as overgrown as it was disorderly and reckless, he cut everything off and got rid of it by proofs and by confrontation. On occasion he would trip us in speech, challenging us in thoroughly Socratic fashion, every time he saw us fighting the reins like unbroken horses, veering off the road and running aimlessly every which way, until by persuasion and coercion, as by the bit which was to word from our own mouth, he made us stand quietly before him. This vignette, which may well draw the image of the horse from Plato’s Phaedrus as Slusser suggests, may also reveal something of Gregory’s instructional aims in the composition of the dialogue.94 Bibliography Abramowski, L. 1978. “Die Schrift Gregors des Lehrers Ad Theopompum und Philoxenus von Mabbug.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 89:273–​90. Barnes, T.D. 1981. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA. De Lagarde, P. 1858. Analecta Syriaca. Leipzig. Frohnhofen, H. 1987. Apatheia tou Theou: Über die Affektlosigkeit Gottes in der griechischen Antike und bei den griechischsprachigen Kirchenvätern bis zu Gregorios Thaumaturgos. Frankfurt. Gavrilyuk, P.L. 2004. The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought. Oxford. Gemeinhardt, P., Van Nuffelen, P., and Van Hoof, L., eds. 2016. Education and Religion in Late Antique Christianity: Reflections, Social Contexts, and Genres. London. Rigolio, A. 2016. “Syriac Translations of Plutarch, Lucian, and Themistius:  A Gnomic Format for an Instructional Purpose?” In Gemeinhardt et al. 2016:73–​85. Ryssel, V. 1880. Gregorius Thaumaturgus: Sein Leben und seine Schriften. Leipzig. 9 3. See entry 7. 94. Voss 1970:86; Barnes 1981:85.

68  Christians in Conversation Simonetti, M. 1988. “Una nuova ipotesi su Gregorio il Taumaturgo.” Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 24:17–​41. Slusser, M. 1998. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus: Life and Works. Washington, DC. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster.

9. Gregory the Wonderworker, Dialogue with Gelian Author

Gregory the Wonderworker (c. 210–​c. 270)95

Full title

Διάλεξις πρὸς Γελιανόν

Original language

Greek (lost)

Date of composition

c. 240–​c. 27096

Summary and Discussion of Scholarship A dialogue attributed to Gregory the Wonderworker is the lost Dialogue with Gelian (Διάλεξις πρὸς Γελιανόν), of which nothing is known besides Basil of Caesarea’s short account of it in Ep. 210.5 (ed. and trans. Deferrari 1950). The dialogue was different from the To Theopompus, on the Passibility and Impassibility of God in that, if one follows Basil, it was the record of a debate between Gregory and a pagan whose name was Gelian (τὸν Ἕλληνα πείθων). According to the same witness, in the dialogue Gregory emphasized Christian monotheism against pagan polytheism and argued that “the Father and Son are in thought two, in hypostasis one.” If we follow Basil, the dialogue, which made use of equivocal terminology such as κτίσμα “creature” and ποίημα “thing made,” was later used by Sabellianists in support of their doctrine, which denies Trinity by understanding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of one divine Person. Basil also remarked that the encounter of Gregory and Gelian, and by extension the format of the dialogue, was not “dogmatic” but “controversial” (οὐ δογματικῶς εἴρηται, ἀλλ’ἀγωνιστικῶς), and that Gregory “did not consider it necessary to be precise with his terminology; nay, there are places where he even yields to the custom of him who is being won over, to prevent the latter’s insisting in important matters. Wherefore you could find there many expressions which today furnish strong support to heretics” (trans. Deferrari 1950). In the letter Basil also mentioned that the text of the Dialogue with Gelian featured blunders by copyists—​a fact that Voss takes as evidence that copies of the dialogue were widely in circulation.97

95. Moreschini 1.308–​13; Slusser 1998:1–​3. 96. The chronology of the dialogue is uncertain. 97. Basil of Caesarea, Ep. 210.5; Moreschini 1.310–​11; Voss 1970:89–​90.

Guide to the Dialogues  69 Bibliography Deferrari, R. 1950. Saint Basil. The Letters. 4 vols. Cambridge, MA. Slusser, M. 1998. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. Life and Works. Washington, DC.

10. Anonymous, Anti-​Jewish Dialogue Author

unknown

Full title

unknown

Original language

Greek (fragment)98

Date of composition

not later than the end of the third century, when the papyrus was written

Edition

Hunt 1927 (P.Oxy.2070)

Modern translation

none

Summary and Discussion of Scholarship A piece of papyrus from Oxyrhynchus written in the late third century contains a fragment of a Christian dialogue that the editor identifies as “partly of an anti-​ Jewish tendency, partly of a Messianic kind.” The editor hypothesizes that there were two speakers, but unfortunately only one of them is mentioned in the text (l. 30).99 Here, the speaker is identified with the abbreviation ὁ φ( ), which may perhaps stand for ὁ φαρισαῖος, “Pharisee,” for a proper name, or for “philosopher.”100 In addition to the exchanges between the speakers, there are indications that the dialogue had a narrative voice indicating at least the changes of speakers (l. 4: εἶτά φησιν; l. 18: εἶπεν αὐτῷ; l. 30: καὶ ὁ φ( ) εἶπε). Despite the fragmentary nature of the text, the editor was able to identify four Scriptural quotations (Ps. 17.44–​45; possibly Ps. 17.45–​46; Is. 29.13; Ps. 21.16–​23), three of which are also found in another adversus Iudaeos dialogue, the Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr (27, 28, 78, 97; entry 2).101 Bibliography Hunt, A.S. 1927 = P.Oxy.XXVII 2070. Lahey, L. 2007. “Evidence for Jewish Believers in Christian–​Jewish Dialogues through the Sixth Century (excluding Justin).” In Skarsaune and Hvalvik 2007:581–​639. Skarsaune, O., and Hvalvik, R., eds. 2007. Jewish Believers in Jesus. Peabody, MA.

98. P.Oxy.2070. 99. There is the possibility that ε (l. 4) may be an abbreviation for the second speaker (Lahey 2007:591n42). 100. Lahey 2007:591n41. 101. Lahey 2007:591.

70  Christians in Conversation 11. Methodius, On Free Will Author

Methodius, bishop of Olympus (prob. d. 312/​13)102

Full title

uncertain, perhaps Μάξιμος (CPG 1811; commonly known as Περὶ τοῦ αὐτεξουσίου De libero arbitrio)103

Original language

Greek (substantial excerpts survive); Old Slavonic translation (complete, except for few lacunae); Armenian translation (excerpts)104

Date of composition

before the Symposium (c. 270–​90)105

Editions

Vaillant 1930 (Old Slavonic and Greek);106 Bonwetsch 1917:146–​216 (Greek)

Modern translations

French from the Old Slavonic and Greek (Vaillant 1930); French (Farges 1929); partial English translation (Roberts and Donaldson 1888:364–​77)

Summary In the dialogue On Free Will, Methodius discusses the origin of evil arguing that it is a product of free will and not an independent reality or quality inherent in any being. According to the author, evil does not originate in nature (φύσις) but derives from habit (χρῆσις) (64).107 The dialogue does not have any scene setting and, besides a narrative prologue and an epilogue, is entirely made up by the exchanges between the two main speakers, an orthodox representing the view of the author and a heterodox usually identified as a Valentinian.108 In addition, the dialogue features a minor heterodox speaker attending the conversation (21–​22) but who intervenes only in one section (40–​58).109 The three speakers remain unnamed, but, in a manner resembling Eubulius and Proclus in the Aglaophon or On the Resurrection (1.1; entry 14), the minor heterodox speaker is introduced as a friend of the orthodox (21–​22). In about the middle of the dialogue, the main heterodox speaker declares that he has been convinced by the

102. The see should probably be identified with Olympus in Lycia. Several points on Methodius’ life and career are debated: see Bracht 2011; Zorzi 2006:40; Bracht 1999:340–​76; Barnes 1979:51 and 54; Moreschini 1.313. 103. Vaillant 1930:638–​39; Voss 1970:95; Patterson 1997:32. 104. Barnes 1979; Photius Bibl. cod. 236; for the Old Slavonic translation, which dates back to the tenth century and is remarkably literal, see Bracht 1999:10–​12 and Vaillant 1930:630 and 713–​19; for the Armenian excerpts, which are included in Eznik of Kołb’s Refutation of the Sects, see Orengo 2016. 105. The chronology of Methodius’ works is dubious, see Zorzi 2006; Voss 1970:91–​92. 106. Vaillant 1930 includes a Greek retroversion of the Slavic translation, which is indicated in double square brackets [[. . .]]. 107. Moreschini 1.315; the references to the text are given as the page numbers of Vaillant 1930. 108. For discussion see Patterson 1997:36–​37. 109. Vaillant 1930:638–​39; in one manuscript, they are labeled as “orthodox” (ὀρθ.) and “Valentinian” (Οὐ.), and it has also been suggested that the orthodox was originally named Maximus—​a scenario that might perhaps explain Eusebius of Caesarea’s attribution of the dialogue to an otherwise unknown Maximus (PE 7.22).

Guide to the Dialogues  71 orthodox (59), and this moment marks a shift in the conversation, since, from this point on, the heterodox speaker puts forward informative questions, asking the orthodox for further explanations (59–​106; e.g., 100: φράσον μοι σαφῶς). The prologue (1–​7) and the epilogue (106–​9) are presented in the first person by the authorial voice but are not immediately related to the dramatic setting of the conversation: the prologue invites an audience of listeners (7: ἀκροατερίου καλοῦ) to attend to the “chant” of the author (7: ᾄσωμεν τοιγαροῦν καὶ ἡμεῖς τὴν ὁμοῖαν ᾠδήν); the epilogue provides a short summary of the main argument of the dialogue. In addition, references to Plato’s dialogues (as well as Greek literature more broadly) are prominent and pervasive in On Free Will both at the literary and philosophical levels.110 The prologue, which contrasts the deadly Sirens of the Odyssey and the life-​ giving chorus of the prophets, introduces the dialogue On Free Will as a life-​giving hymn that celebrates God, a feature that may foreshadow the Symposium.111 There follows the dialogue proper, which begins as an informal conversation (7: “yesterday afternoon, as I was walking along the beach”), and is structured into three main sections: (i) a presentation by the heterodox speaker of the thesis that will be discussed (7–​22), (ii) the refutation of this thesis through objections and questions mainly raised by the orthodox (23–​58), and (iii) a final part after the heterodox has been convinced (59–​106) in which the orthodox expresses his views on the origin of evil and the nature of free will by answering questions that are mostly informative. There is thus a noticeable reversal of roles between the two main speakers between the second section of the text (in which the orthodox leads the conversation) and the third section (in which the heterodox asks questions and leads the conversation). Given that all speakers are given both shorter and longer parts, however, the format of the conversation varies throughout the dialogue. A striking feature of On Free Will is the reference that it makes to the choice of the dialogue form. In the opening exchange, once the heterodox speaker has presented, in language rich in allusions to Greek literature, his belief in the dualism of God and matter (7), he declares his eagerness to hear potential objections from the orthodox (19:  ἀναφέρων λέγε). In response, the orthodox credits him with a desire for discussion (20: τὴν περὶ τῶν λόγων σπουδήν) and reports that his opponent is not prejudiced but has a sincere will to know the truth (20: ἐπιθυμία τῆς τοῦ ἀληθοῦς γνώσεως). The orthodox explains that, for these reasons, the format of the discussion will be dialogic and invites his opponent to answer his questions (23: πρὸς ἕκαστον ἀπόκριναι ὧν ἐρωτῶ). Accordingly, the ensuing section of the dialogue is characterized by series of short questions raised by the orthodox speaker. The orthodox speaker’s strategy is to draw attention to the premises 110. The text includes a quotation from the Iliad (IX 4–​7), and employs language reminiscent of Plato; see, e.g., Vaillant 1930:653 and Patterson 1997:39–​40. 111. For this image, see Franchi 2009 and Patterson 1997:40n13.

72  Christians in Conversation behind the heterodox opinion,112 since, as he explains, false premises invalidate an argument,113 and an argument based on false premises leads to absurdity.114 The third and last section of the dialogue (59–​106), which shows a reversal in the roles of the speakers, opens with the heterodox declaring himself convinced (59) but, since “men are by nature inclined to contest the opinions of others (and) it is (only) a thorough examination of a subject that provides full conviction,”115 he asks permission to put questions to the orthodox speaker. The latter accepts and adds that “to approach the issues critically will be of great benefit to me to stick to the truth not by conjecture but by a scrutinized analysis.”116 Accordingly, the orthodox answers the heterodox’s questions, which offer him the chance to deliver a more comprehensive treatment of the nature of evil and its relation to free will. His exposition makes use of arguments by analogy (74; 97); perhaps surprisingly, passages from the Scriptures are used on only two instances, within the discussion dealing with the Devil.117 Discussion of Scholarship If one follows the witness of Jerome (De vir. ill. 83) and the several quotations of the dialogue in later works (including in Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica and the Dialogue with Adamantius), it appears that the On Free Will had some diffusion in antiquity.118 Much modern scholarship, however, has concentrated on two major issues: the religious affiliation of the main heterodox speaker, whether he is predominantly Gnostic or predominantly Platonic, and the relation between the dialogue On Free Will and Origen, with whom Methodius seems to agree in his resolute defense of free will, although refusing to accept Origen’s doctrine of the preexistence of rational souls.119 Some publications have also been dedicated to the linguistic and literary ambitions of the dialogue and to the author’s interest for vivid descriptions (1–​14), which foreshadow the description of Arete’s mountaintop retreat in Methodius’ Symposium and reveal the influences of the Bible as much as of classical Greek literature (primarily Homer and Plato). It has also been argued that the Platonic influence is not limited to the literary aspect but is

1 12. E.g., 34: ἄνωθεν περὶ τούτων ὀρίζεσθαι ἀξιῶ συγχωρεῖν. 113. 42. 114. 49: ἄτροπον; 52;  56–​58. 115. 59: the closest text to the original is the Slavonic translation available in Vaillant 1930. I am grateful to Sergey Fadeev for help with the text. 116. 60: the closest text to the original is the Slavonic translation available in Vaillant 1930. 117. 77–​78; 90; Voss 1970:100–​101. 118. For a full list see Vaillant 1930:657–​58; Barnes 1979. 119. Moreschini 1.315; Patterson 1997:35–​37. According to Jerome, Contra Rufinum 1.11 (relying on Eusebius of Caesarea’s Apology for Origen), Methodius wrote against Origen. Methodius is conspicuously absent from Eusebius of Caesarea’s HE, while Socrates reports that Methodius first opposed Origen but later expressed admiration for him in the Xeno or On Things Created (HE 6.13).

Guide to the Dialogues  73 also visible in the contents of the dialogue.120 Despite these publications, however, the dialogue On Free Will remains in need of systematic scholarly attention. According to Vaillant, the reference to a listening audience in the prologue indicates that the dialogue On Free Will was intended to be read in front of an audience, but Voss did not follow up on this possibility.121 In his view, the relationship between the speakers in the dialogue should be understood as instructional because the heterodox speakers accept the explanation that they receive and do not put forward substantial objections to the view presented by the orthodox; conversely, substantial objections are raised against the views by the heterodox. According to the same scholar, the overall quality of the dialogue is compromised because the view under close scrutiny appears to be that of the heterodox rather than that of the orthodox, and a few structural imperfections mar the dialogue, such as the abrupt changes among the different sections and the lack of overall organization in both form and subject matter. Voss concludes that On Free Will was probably the earliest dialogue composed by Methodius.122 Bibliography Barnes, T. 1979. “Methodius, Maximus, and Valentinus.” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 30.1:47–​55. Bonwetsch, D.G.N. 1917. Methodius. Leipzig. Bracht, K. 1999. Vollkommenheit und Vollendung: Zur Anthropologie des Methodius von Olympus. Tübingen. Bracht, K. 2011. “Methodius von Olympus.” In Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum. Vol. 25:768–​84. Farges, J. 1929. Méthode d’Olympe: Du libre arbitre. Paris. Franchi, R. 2007. “Ispirazione biblica (Gn 1, 26) e linguaggio pagano-​filosofico in un passo del De autexusio di Metodio d’Olimpo.” Vetera Christianorum 44.2:239–​56. Franchi, R. 2009. “Il mare in tempesta nel De autexusio di Metodio d’Olimpo e nell’Hexaemeron di Giorgio di Pisidia.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 102.1:65–​82. Gazzano, F., Pagani, L., and Traina, G., eds. 2016. Greek Texts and Armenian Traditions: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Berlin. Orengo, A. 2016. “Eznik of Kołb as a Translator of Methodius of Olympus.” In Gazzano et al. 2016:31–​46. Patterson, L.G. 1997. Methodius of Olympus. Divine Sovereignty, Human Freedom, and Life in Christ. Washington, DC. Roberts, A., and Donaldson, J. 1888. The Ante-​Nicene Fathers. Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Vol. 6. New York.

1 20. Franchi 2007 and 2009; Voss 1970:100 on Plato’s Timaeus; Vaillant 1930. 121. Vaillant 1930:647–​48; Voss 1970:96. 122. Voss 1970:94–​101.

74  Christians in Conversation Vaillant, A. 1930. “Le De autexusio de Méthode d’Olympe, version slave et texte grec édités et traduits en français.” Patrologia Orientalis 22.5:628–​888. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster. Zorzi, M.B. 2006. “Metodio d’Olimpo, un autore minore?” Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 52:31–​56.

12. Methodius, On Leprosy Author

Methodius, bishop of Olympus (prob. d. 312/​13)123

Full title

To Sistelius on Leprosy (CPG 1815)124

Original language

Greek (excerpts); Old Slavonic translation (complete)125

Date of composition

c. 270–​311126

Edition

Bonwetsch 1917:449–​74127

Modern translation

English (Cleminson and Eastbourne 2015)

Summary The dialogue deals with Old Testament exegesis and focuses on the allegorical interpretation of Leviticus 13, which provides rules on leprosy and outlines the instances of uncleanness caused by the disease. Methodius reads the passage allegorically and allows complementary allegorical explanations for the same text. In the first part of the dialogue (1–​12), he interprets specific types of leprosy as diseases of the soul, while, in the second part (13–​18), he provides an ecclesiological explanation of the same passage. Apart from a few excerpts in Greek that cover about a quarter of the text, the dialogue survives only in an Old Slavonic translation. This translation abbreviated the original, thus compromising our understanding of the composite structure of On Leprosy. The dialogue does not have a narrative voice and opens in dramatic fashion with a question ex abrupto by an unnamed speaker addressed to the main speaker, Eubulius, who stands for the author as in the Aglaophon (and so also, though as the female Eubulius, in the Symposium; see entries 13 and 14). To this opening question (1.1: “Whence

123. The see should probably be identified with Olympus in Lycia. Several points on Methodius’ life and career are debated: see Bracht 2011; Zorzi 2006:40; Bracht 1999:340–​76; Barnes 1979:51 and 54; Moreschini 1.313. 124. The title survives only in the Old Slavonic translation, but it seems problematic since Sistelius is in fact a speaker in the reported dialogue rather than an addressee. 125. The contrast with the passages that survive in Greek shows that Old Slavonic translation has considerably abbreviated the original text (Cleminson and Eastbourne 2015; Voss 1970:125). 126. Bracht 2011 puts it before the Symposium, while Musurillo 1958:9 suggests after 303 and Cleminson and Eastbourne 2015 suggest 303–​11. 127. Bonwetsch 1917 translates into German the text that survives only in Old Slavonic, excerpts that have never been edited in the original language.

Guide to the Dialogues  75 have you come, o Eubulius?”),128 Eubulius responds by reporting the dialogue that took place during the morning of the same day between Eubulius, Sistelius, Euthymius, and possibly others (13.1) at the house of Sistelius, during which Eubulius put forward the allegorical interpretation of the four types of leprosy as diseases of the soul (5–​8 on Lev. 13.1–​46), as well as a reading in an anthropological perspective of the next passage in Leviticus concerning defiling molds that affect textiles (9–​13 on Lev. 13.47–​59). The report of the dialogue at Sistelius’ occupies the rest of the text of the On Leprosy, but, within it, Sistelius in turn reports another dialogue (13–​18) that he had previously had in Lycia with an unnamed woman “who was well-​versed in the Scriptures, and prudent, and taught the things of the Lord wisely” (13.1). In her conversation with Sistelius, the female teacher provided an ecclesiological interpretation of the same passage from Leviticus. That none of the three interlocking dialogues is resolved at the end of the On Leprosy, which ends abruptly with the last words by the Lycian speaker, has been explained by Voss by reference to the agency of the translator, who seems to show little interest in the setting or dialogic form of the text.129 Plato’s dialogues are an important point of reference for the text of the On Leprosy. It is plausible that the characterization of the female teacher from Lydia was inspired by Diotima in Plato’s Symposium (210D),130 while the setting and the interlocking structure of the dialogue reveal awareness of Plato’s Phaedrus131 and especially Protagoras, in which Socrates recounts having been woken up in the early hours of the morning by Hippocrates knocking at his door (310AB) and then records the ensuing dialogue with Protagoras and others at the house of Callias.132 After concluding the explanation of the passage from Leviticus (13.1), Eubulius remarks that “having said this, I got up to go; but (Sistelius) got up and took hold of my coat from behind” (in order that Eubulius could stay and hear the account of the Lycian teacher’s explanation), and this motif similarly derives from Socrates’ prevented departure in Prot. 335CD and Resp. 327B. The format of the exchanges among the speakers in the On Leprosy, however, differs from that of the Protagoras (as well as from that of Methodius’ other dialogues) in that both Eubulius and the unnamed female teacher are given long sections and are only occasionally interrupted by the minor speakers, who do not put forward any

1 28. The identification of the speakers in the very beginning of the text is, however, not clear. 129. Bracht 1999:280–​83; Voss 1970:125–​26; for instance, an objection by Sistelius has been omitted between 3 and 4. 130. 13.1–​2 (trans. Cleminson and Eastbourne 2015):  “Come—​he said—​and I  too will say a word to you, which once I heard in Lycia, the piety of a woman, who was well-​versed in the Scriptures, and prudent, and taught the things of the Lord wisely. What I heard I will declare to you all. For this hospitable, and prudent woman, who always sought after understanding, used to say: [. . .].” 131. So the editor suggests for the opening question of the dialogue (Phaedrus 227A). 132. 1.1–​2 (trans. Cleminson and Eastbourne 2015): “In the morning one of Sistelius’ people knocked on the door, and when the servant opened it to him, he said that Sistelius had invited us to visit him. I arose immediately and went, and when we were near his home Sistelius met me, embraced me, and said: [. . .].”

76  Christians in Conversation substantial objections to the teaching that they receive. Eubulius and the Lycian teacher are best understood as instructing less experienced pupils on Scriptural exegesis. Relevant passages from the Scriptures are regularly quoted, and, on one occasion, the Lycian teacher brings up the cliché of the literal interpretation of the text by the Jews (14.6). Discussion of Scholarship Despite the ample ground for analysis that the On Leprosy offers, the dialogue has figured only marginally in modern scholarship. In characteristic fashion within his analysis of Methodius, Voss focuses on the structure of the dialogue and points out the features that appear to undermine its unity or a consistent design by its author. He notes that the short and isolated intervention by Euthymius (11.1) does not seem to fit the particular point in the conversation; Voss also raises the question whether the latter part of the dialogue (the reported conversation with the Lycian teacher in 13–​18) may have been added by the author at a later stage. The same scholar also points out that there is no anticipation of this section in the first part of the dialogue, while, conversely, the former part of the On Leprosy (1–​12) appears to have been coherently conceived, as is shown by Eubulius both anticipating and referring back to his own speech.133 Bibliography Bonwetsch, D.G.N. 1917. Methodius. Leipzig. Bracht, K. 1999. Vollkommenheit und Vollendung: Zur Anthropologie des Methodius von Olympus. Tübingen. Bracht, K. 2011. “Methodius von Olympus.” In Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum. Vol. 25:768–​84. Bracht, K., ed. 2017. Methodius von Olympus: State of the Art and New Perspectives. Berlin. Cleminson, R., and Eastbourne, A. 2015. Methodius of Olympus. On Leprosy—​An Allegorical Explanation of Leviticus 13 (De lepra ad Sistelium). Available online at http://​www.roger-​pearse.com/​weblog. Jouravel, A. 2017. “Beobachtungen zu Methodius’ Schrift De lepra.” In Bracht 2017:207–​35. Musurillo, H. 1958. St. Methodius, the Symposium: A Treatise on Chastity. London. Patterson, L.G. 1997. Methodius of Olympus. Divine Sovereignty, Human Freedom, and Life in Christ. Washington, DC. Van de Paverd, F. 1978. “Confession (Exagoreusis) and Penance (Exomologesis) in De lepra of Methodius of Olympus.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 44:309–​41. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster. Zorzi, M.B. 2006. “Metodio d’Olimpo, un autore minore?” Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 52:31–​56.

133. Voss 1970:125–​30.

Guide to the Dialogues  77 13. Methodius, Symposium Author

Methodius, bishop of Olympus (prob. d. 312/​13)134

Full title

Συμπόσιον ἢ περὶ ἁγνείας (CPG 1810)

Original language

Greek; Syriac translation (excerpt)135

Date of composition

c. 270–​90136

Edition

Musurillo and Debidour 1963

Modern translations

French (Musurillo and Debidour 1963); English (Musurillo 1958); Italian (Antoniono 2000)

Summary The Symposium deals with the subject of chastity, adopting a theological perspective. The author rejects encratistic definitions of chastity; he understands it not just as virginity but as the practice of Christian virtue in preparation for the final coming of Christ. Although Methodius himself is once mentioned in the text,137 the setting of the dialogue is clearly allegorical; at the same time, it draws inspiration from Plato’s Symposium as well as from the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25.1–​13. The dialogue features ten women as symposiasts at a party hosted by Arete, the daughter of Philosophia, and its structure is complex and made up of interlocking dialogues. There is no narrative voice or preface, and the text opens with a conversation between two women, Eubulion (standing for the author)138 and Gregorion. Their conversation, as they share news of the symposium held on Arete’s estate, constitutes the framing dialogue. In turn, Gregorion, who was in charge of pouring the wine at Arete’s Symposium,139 recounts what she heard about the symposium from one of the symposiasts, Theopatra. Theopatra opens her account by telling of the long and difficult journey that she had up to the garden paradise of Arete’s estate, and recounts that, after the meal, Arete proposed to discuss virginity in a competitive fashion (a subject evidently in contrast to Plato’s eros); each of the ten guests was invited to deliver a panegyric on virginity as in a contest. In the end of the contest, Arete crowned with a “garland of wisdom” one of the ten participants, the martyr Thekla (whose figure was known

134. The see is likely to be identified with Olympus in Lycia. Several points on Methodius’ life and career are debated: see Bracht 2011; Zorzi 2006:40; Bracht 1999:340–​76; Barnes 1979:51 and 54; Moreschini 1.313. 135. Musurillo and Debidour 1963:35–​36; the dialogue is the subject of Photius Bibl. cod. 237. 136. Musurillo 1958:12 and 30–​33 for the hypothesis of a second edition of the Symposium. 137. 293.8 (= Musurillo 1958:157–​58). Musurillo 1958:240n1 suggests the possibility that the dialogue was addressed to an otherwise unknown “lady of Telmesus” who may have been a benefactress of Methodius and who may have been running a household for women practicing an ascetic life. 138. There has been some discussion on whether Eubulion should be emended to the masculine form “Eubulius,” which is the name of the speaker representing the author in Methodius’ Aglaophon or On the Resurrection and On Leprosy (Goldhill 1995:162n8). 139. 4.27 (= Musurillo 1958:39).

78  Christians in Conversation through the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thekla, where she stands for the power of virginity).140 Theopatra’s account closes with her report of a hymn performed by one of the participants, Thekla, before returning again to the framing narrative in which Gregorion and Eubulion recapitulate the subject matter of the dialogue.141 In addition, throughout the Symposium, the framing dialogue between Eubulion and Gregorion interrupts the account of the symposium on three occasions.142 The allegorical setting of the banquet on Arete’s estate is meant to represent the condition after death of those who have practiced Christian virtue in life. This state had to be reached through “a rough and difficult path, [. . .] and uphill too,”143 and is described, through learned literary imagery, as a flourishing garden with rivulets of crystal-​clear water and trees laden with fruit, “the vision of one abiding in the bliss of a new Eden.”144 Out of the ten speeches (logoi), the first three discuss chastity and virginity within the divine economy of salvation, a topic that will emerge again in the closing logoi 9 and 10. Marcella (logos 1) praises chastity by emphasizing the efforts it demands and addresses its role within divine economy, and Theophila’s logos (2) stands as a defense of marriage because of the Biblical command to “increase and multiply” (Gen. 1.28). Here, in response to an objection by Marcella, Theophila makes use of an example inspired by Plato’s allegory of the cave.145 After applause for Theophila, there follows Thalia’s logos (3) which is more densely theological and makes use of the typological interpretations of Adam as Christ (3.3–​5) and of Eve as the Church (3.8). Thalia closes with an explanation of Paul’s doctrine on virginity and marriage as in I Corinthians; and Eubulion and Gregorion’s short interlude acts as a break before the next set of logoi  (4–​8). According to Theopatra (logos 4), chastity acts like a vessel sent by God among the violent waves of corruption (4.2); after a moment of silence (5.1), in the fifth logos Thallusa proposes a series of allegorical interpretations of virginity based on Scriptural models. Agathe (logos 6), who declares her inability to compete on the philosophical level of the previous speeches (6.1), speaks of virginity as a shield to the soul (6.2) and receives applause at the end of her performance. Procilla’s speech (logos 7) is almost entirely dedicated to an allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs, and is followed by that of Thekla (logos 8), which draws on the themes of the preceding speeches (6–​8) at a more profound theological level. As soon as Thekla begins, however, Arete breaks in to praise Thekla for her “grasp of philosophy and universal culture” (170.8: φιλοσοφίας τε γὰρ τῆς ἐγκυκλίου

140. 9.89–​10.94 (= Musurillo 1958:41); Cameron 2014:40; Johnson 2006a:3–​4 for the Symposium as a evidence of the cult of Thekla in early Christianity. 141. König 2012:151–​76; Moreschini 1.313–​15. 142. Between the speeches 3 and 4, between 8 and 9, and between 9 and 10. 143. 5.42–​43 (= Musurillo 1958:39). 144. 8.80–​81 (= Musurillo 1958:41). 145. Musurillo 1958:52n15; Patterson 1997:74–​76.

Guide to the Dialogues  79 καὶ παιδείας), adding that “I need hardly mention that you were instructed in divine and evangelical doctrine by Paul himself ” (8.1). Thekla’s speech, which draws on Homeric and Platonic material and imagery,146 nonetheless focuses on Scriptural exegesis of the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation, rebuts astrological determinism (8.14–​16),147 and, on one occasion, foresees a possible objection by a hypothetic “fault finder” (φιλαίτιος) (8.7).148 After another short interlude by Eubulion and Gregorion in praise of Thekla’s speech, Thusiane’s speech (logos 9) is entirely dedicated to the allegorical interpretation of the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles, as described in Leviticus (23.39–​43). Following the third and last interlude, Domnina (logos 10) gives an allegorical explanation of the prophecy from Judges 9.8–​15. The competition is thus over, and Arete intervenes with a shorter logos praising virginity, before assigning the victory of the competition to all, but with “a thicker chaplet” to Thekla,149 who takes the lead in singing an acrostic hymn of thanksgiving in iambic-​anapestic meters. The other symposiasts, who stand in a circle around Thekla and Arete, join in by singing the refrain. Discussion of Scholarship The richness and complexity of the Symposium has attracted the interests of modern scholars, who have addressed several aspects of this work, such as Methodius’ Scriptural exegesis and its relation to Origen’s, his role among early Christian authors writing on virginity and on female asceticism, his use of classical texts and of Plato and Homer in particular, his take on the tradition of Christian hymnody, and even his contribution to our understanding of the practice of common liturgical meals among early Christian communities.150 More recently, König has studied the Symposium in relation to non-​Christian symposiastic literature composed in the Greco-​Roman tradition, primarily Plato’s Symposium, Plutarch’s Sympotic Questions, and Athenaeus’ Deipnosophists. Although he admits that the Symposium was intended for a Christian audience that was aware of contemporary theological debates (Methodius rejects more encratist views of chastity and, for instance, uses Thekla, an icon of enkrateia in the Acts of Paul and Thekla, as a mouthpiece of anti-​encratist views), in König’s view Methodius nonetheless understands the dialogue as a self-​conscious Christian response to classical literary models. Yet, although Platonic (but also Homeric) references are abundant in the Symposium both at the literary and the philosophical levels, the Christian and indeed eschatological aspect of the dialogue is dominant, and

1 46. 8.2 with Plato, Phaedrus 246E–​249C; 8.12 with Il. 8.181–​83; Patterson 1997:95–​96. 147. Musurillo 1958:129n79 points out that Thekla uses a faulty syllogistic argument on this. 148. Patterson 1997:100–​102. 149. 283.54–​284.58 (= Musurillo 1958:151). 150. Patterson 1997; Prinzivalli 1985; Clark 1999; Goldhill 1995; Cameron 1989a; Lim 2008:159.

80  Christians in Conversation its setting, a banquet at some point in the future after death and populated by women, who, with the exception of concubines, rarely attended Greco-​Roman symposia (although talked about), is a thoroughly Christian space.151 The community of the Symposium differs from the professional diversity found among the symposiasts in Plutarch and Athenaeus, and is a group united by the exercise of virtue in preparation for perfect unity with Christ.152 In addition, König argues that Methodius paid special attention to the use of agonistic forms of conversation in the Symposium, but, unlike Plutarch or Athenaeus (and like Macrobius), he took particular care to achieve eventual agreement and consensus among the speakers as the conversation proceeds. While the opening scenes are imbued with the traditional Greco-​Roman language of competition and disagreement, the work then moves to an atmosphere of consensus, which König understands as Methodius’ deliberate strategy to resolve any form of competition among the speakers—​the rivalry and anger that accompany wine drinking are explicitly condemned. Similarly, but at a different level, Methodius appears to share the same assumption as that which underpins the only apparent polyphony of the second book of Clement of Alexandria’s Paedagogus (a text that shares with symposiastic dialogues the practice of collecting quotations from diverse texts), namely the belief that the divine logos is the ultimate source of all the utterances that the authors record, whether from Christian or non-​Christian texts.153 König concludes that, although reforged in Christian terms, the format of the symposiastic dialogue was thus suitable for Methodius’ aims and concerns, and, in addition, his anti-​encratist views of chastity may have been one of the reasons for the choice of a symposium setting that involved eating and drinking.154 Cameron emphasizes that the Symposium reveals unusually high literary ambitions among works by Christian authors, and remains an isolated instance that was not followed up by later writers; accordingly, it is better understood as a failed experiment. In addition, the Symposium has little in common with the world of high-​level literary conversation that one can find in the exchanges that Athenaeus records, and is the creation of an author with literary pretensions who made a deliberate choice to cast his work in this form, perhaps influenced by Origen’s literary dialogues. It would therefore be helpful to study the Symposium in relation to other works by the same author, an approach that is still missing in most modern scholarship on this text.155

151. König 2012:156 for the description of the garden of Arete as an ekphrasis with Platonic and Homeric undertones (Phaedrus 230b and Od. 7.112–​32); conversely, Bril 2006:299 argues that Methodius had little understanding of the genre and talks of “absolute failure in artistic and literary form,” and Voss 1970:109–​115 judges the Symposium negatively when contrasted with Plato’s homonymous work. 152. König 2012:160–​61. 153. König 2008:98–​106. 154. König 2012:175–​76. 155. Cameron 2014:42–​44.

Guide to the Dialogues  81 LaValle points out that Methodius played with several literary genres (the philosophical dialogue, the symposiastic dialogue, the rhetorical set speech, and the poetic tradition of hymnody), and argues that Methodius positioned himself against a Second Sophistic aesthetic of nostalgia in his competition for the minds of his readers. While earlier sympostiastic literature was normally set in the past (literary symposia had often a patina of death and commemoration), Methodius reoriented the readers’ preoccupations and expectations toward the future by refocusing on the hope in the symbolic divine banquet of the Christian afterworld. LaValle also proposes a comparison with another symposiastic dialogue, Julian’s Caesars, which, together with Methodius’ Symposium, represents a “third wave” of symposiastic literature in the later imperial period, thus departing from the “second wave”–​style symposia (closer to Xenophon’s model) represented by Plutarch and Athenaeus. Despite the different religious perspectives of Methodius and Julian, both works take place among the dead in a vertically distant realm and within a hierarchical communal setting in which a supra-​human character, Arete for Methodius and Hermes for Julian, allows access to the divine banquet.156 Bibliography Antoniono, N. 2000. La verginità. Metodio d’Olimpo. Roma. Barnes, T. 1979. “Methodius, Maximus, and Valentinus.” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 30.1:47–​55. Bonwetsch, D.G.N. 1917. Methodius. Leipzig. Bracht, K. 1999. Vollkommenheit und Vollendung: Zur Anthropologie des Methodius von Olympus. Tübingen. Bracht, K. 2011. “Methodius von Olympus.” In Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum. Vol. 25:768–​84. Bracht, K., ed. 2017. Methodius von Olympus: State of the Art and New Perspectives. Berlin. Bril, A. 2006. “Plato and the Sympotic Form in the Symposium of St Methodius of Olympus.” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 9:279–​302. Cameron, Av., ed. 1989. History as Text: The Writing of Ancient History. Chapel Hill. Cameron, Av. 1989a. “Virginity as Metaphor:  Women and the Rhetoric of Early Christianity.” In Cameron 1989:181–​205. Cameron, Av. 2014. Dialoguing in Late Antiquity. Washington, DC. Clark, E.A. 1999. Reading Renunciation:  Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity. Princeton. Goldhill, S. 1995. Foucault’s Virginity. Cambridge. Goldhill, S., ed. 2008. End of Dialogue in Antiquity. Cambridge. Johnson, S.F. 2006a. The Life and Miracles of Thekla:  A Literary Study. Hellenic Studies Series 13. Washington, DC.

156. LaValle 2017 and 2017a.

82  Christians in Conversation König, J. 2008. “Sympotic Dialogue in the First to Fifth Centuries CE.” In Goldhill 2008:85–​113. König, J. 2012. Saints and Symposiasts: The Literature of Food and the Symposium in Greco-​ Roman and Early Christian Culture. Cambridge. LaValle, D.T. 2017. “Coming Late to the Table:  Methodius in the Context of Sympotic Literary Development.” In Bracht 2017:18–​37. LaValle, D.T. 2017a. “Feasting at the End: The Eschatological Symposia of Methodius of Olympus and Julian the Apostate.” Studia Patristica 94 (vol. 20):269–​84. LaValle, D.T. 2018. Forthcoming. Nostalgia and Hope:  Methodius of Olympus and the Creation of a Christian Literary Aesthetic in the 3rd Century. Cambridge. Lim, R. 2008. “Christians, Dialogues and Patterns of Sociability in Late Antiquity.” In Goldhill 2008:151–​71. Musurillo, H. 1958. St. Methodius, the Symposium: A Treatise on Chastity. London. Musurillo, H., and Debidour, V.-​H. 1963. Méthode d’Olympe. Le Banquet. Paris. Patterson, L.G. 1997. Methodius of Olympus. Divine Sovereignty, Human Freedom, and Life in Christ. Washington, DC. Prinzivalli, E. 1985. L’esegesi biblica di Metodio di Olimpo. Roma. Zorzi, M.B. 2006. “Metodio d’Olimpo, un Autore Minore?” Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 52:31–​56.

14. Methodius, Aglaophon or On the Resurrection Author

Methodius, bishop of Olympus (prob. d. 312/​13)157

Full title

Ἀγλαοφῶν ἢ περὶ ἀναστάσεως (CPG 1812)

Original language

Greek (excerpts);158 Old Slavonic translation; Syriac excerpts159

Date of composition

after the Symposium, prob. c. 310160

Edition

Bonwetsch 1917:217–​424161

Modern translation

none complete; English excerpts in Dechow 1992 and Roberts and Donaldson 1888:364–​77; German excerpts in Bonwetsch 1917:217–424; Latin excerpts in PG 18.265–​329

157. The see should probably be identified with Olympus in Lycia. Several points on Methodius’ life and career are debated: see Bracht 2011; Zorzi 2006:40; Bracht 1999:340–​376; Barnes 1979:51 and 54; Moreschini 1.313. 158. The excerpts are included in the Dialogue with Adamantius, in Epiphanius’ Panarion 64.12–​62 (against Origen; see Clark 1992:92–​94), in John of Damascus’ Sacred Parallels, and in Photius’ Bibl. cod. 234; see Patterson 1997:186–​196 for the influence on Gregory of Nyssa’s Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection; Procopius of Gaza (Commentary on Genesis 3.21 = PG 87.1:221C) could also read the dialogue. 159. Pitra 1884:4.201–​6 and Latin translation 434–​39. 160. The dialogue was not complete at the time of the composition of the De cibis (1.1–​4 with Patterson 1997:27–​28). For chronology, see Zorzi 2006:42–​43; Bracht 1999:382; Patterson 1997:31, who writes that Methodius clarified or corrected his teaching in the Symposium with the Aglaophon; Dechow 1992:509. 161. Bonwetsch 1917 translated into German the text that survives only in Old Slavonic, a text that has never been edited in the original language.

Guide to the Dialogues  83 Summary The Aglaophon or On the Resurrection is an extensive and ambitious dialogue that argues in favor of bodily resurrection and against the idea of a purely spiritual resurrection, which is seen as a tenet of Origen’s theology. The author opposes Origenistic views through philosophical and physiological arguments as well as on the basis of the exegesis of relevant Scriptural passages (most notably Gen. 3.21); he also rejects Origen’s teachings that connect the body with sin. The dialogue, which is structured into three books (logoi), survives in its entirety only in an Old Slavonic translation, and, although the text appears to have been considerably abbreviated in books 2 and 3, the Aglaophon is the most extensive work by Methodius and is almost half as long again as the Symposium. The Aglaophon is reported in the first person by the main speaker, Eubulius (representing the point of view of the author), who narrates in the prologue that the dialogue that took place “some time ago” in Patara in Lycia, where Eubulius had landed because of a storm. The conversation itself arose at the house of the physician Aglaophon (“the noble-​voiced one,” a caricature of Origen, according to Dechow 1992:510) among several major and minor speakers, whose reactions are also recorded by the narrative voice. The discussion opposes, on the one hand, Eubulius and Memian, who argue in favor of bodily resurrection, and, on the other hand, Aglaophon and Proclus of Miletus (introduced as a companion of Eubulius with differing views in 1.1, thus retracing On Free Will 21–​22), who represent Origen and oppose bodily resurrection. Although Aglaophon eventually agrees with some of the objections raised by Eubulius (1.31), the absence of an epilogue and the abridgment of the second and third books make it difficult to establish whether the dialogue ended with the conversion of the opposing speakers.162 The colorful description of the setting of the dialogue, the reactions of the speakers, and the unfolding of the conversation are inspired by Plato’s dialogues to such an extent that Voss describes the mosaic of Platonic quotations in the Aglaophon in the same terms as the composition of a cento. As for the setting of the dialogue, in the opening prologue Eubulius narrates that he was accompanied by Proclus to the house of Aglaophon, where the two characters found Theophilus, sitting in an armchair in the doorway, who was conversing on the nature of the body and on the resurrection with Aglaophon, Sistelius, Aussentius, Memian, and other unnamed “citizens” sitting on the ground (1.2–​3). Similarly, in the Protagoras, Socrates is accompanied by Hippocrates to the house of Callias, where he meets Protagoras and finds Hippias “seated high in a chair on the doorway opposite; and seated around him on benches were” other characters (315BD trans. Lamb); the same motif is found in Plato’s 162. Moreschini 1.315; Mejzner 2011.

84  Christians in Conversation Republic, where Cephalus sits in a cushioned chair while others are sit around him on the floor (328BC). Like Hippias in the Protagoras, Theophilus in the Aglaophon functions to introduce and set the structure of the dialogue proper since, after few exchanges with Auxentius, Memian, and Sistelius that address the format of the ensuing dialogue (1.1.3–​1.3.8), he invites Aglaophon to begin by expressing his view on the resurrection of the body (1.3.8).163 In the ensuing speech (1.4–​12), Aglaophon argues against bodily resurrection by producing an exegesis of several passages from Scripture, and notably interpreting the “garments of skin” that God makes for Adam and Eve after the sin as their material bodies (Gen. 3.21), thus implying that Adam and Eve were created without these bodies. There follows a short exchange with Eubulius,164 who is ready to rebut Aglaophon’s speech, but Proclus breaks in and gives another speech in support of Aglaophon against the resurrection of the body (1.14–​26). First Proclus discusses the dissolution of the physical body after death and adds arguments based on physics against bodily resurrection, but he then reports an excerpt from Origen’s commentary on Psalm 1.5 opposing bodily resurrection (1.20–​24). Once Proclus’ speech is complete, Eubulius intervenes to rebut Aglaophon’s and Proclus’ arguments (1.27–​2.8), first with short “Socratic” exchanges with Auxentius and Aglaophon (1.28–​31) in which Aglaophon concedes some ground, and then with a longer speech that extends beyond the beginning of the second book (2.8). Eubulius stresses the positive nature of the body and provides the exegesis of Scriptural passages relevant to bodily resurrection. At the close of his speech, Eubulius invites Memian to join the conversation in order that the two opponents will be met on equal terms. Memian’s speech occupies the rest of the second book and completes Eubulius’ exposition on the resurrection of the body with arguments from medicine and physiology as a response to Proclus’ speech (2.9–​30). Unfortunately, the third book has been considerably abbreviated in translation and its dialogic parts, the opening in particular, remain difficult to reconstruct. The book comprises Methodius’ refutation of Origen (3.1–​22), chiefly on the basis of the excerpt from Origen quoted by Proclus, and closes with a doxology (3.23). Discussion of Scholarship Scholarship on the Aglaophon has focused on Methodius’ exegesis, his arguments in favor of bodily resurrection, and especially his use of Origen (after all, Epiphanius used the Aglaophon as the main authority to refute Origen in Panarion 94). Clark, however, refers to “Methodius’ flawed interpretation of Origen” because Methodius did not seem to understand Origen’s teaching about 1 63. Bracht 1999:382–​85; Patterson 1989:222; Voss 1970:115–​23. 164. The speaker here is referred to as “Methodius,” since, as elsewhere in the dialogue, the editor does not solve the inconsistency in referring to him as Eubulius or Methodius.

Guide to the Dialogues  85 eidos and morphe. In Patterson’s view, it can be argued that the Aglaophon was not initially designed as a criticism of Origen, and Methodius’ refutation of Origen resulted from a revision of the Aglaophon during the course of its composition. According to Benjamins, the best way to understand Methodius’ questionable interpretation of Origen is to assume that the anti-​Origenist polemic against bodily resurrection had been mediated through Porphyry.165 Conversely, more recent studies have addressed Methodius’ theology in a systematic way not limited to his use and criticism of Origen.166 That Methodius’ choice of the dialogue form for the subject of the resurrection should be understood in relation to Origen’s dialogues On the Resurrection (see entry 7) is a possibility. Voss draws attention on Methodius’ abundant use of Plato, especially the Phaedo, Protagoras, Symposium, and Phaedrus, including the rearrangement of expressions and sentences drawn from Plato. Dechow describes Methodius’ style as “verbose, redundant, flowery, devout, eloquent, pompous,” and argues that the author’s fondness for Plato was more literary than philosophical. The Aglaophon also brings together features from other dialogues by Methodius, such as the presentation of longer speeches by the main speakers, an interlude comprising sections in which the speakers are given shorter passages, and the use of poetry (1.37) as in the Symposium. It is yet to be studied in relation to other works by the same author.167 Bibliography Barnes, T. 1979. “Methodius, Maximus, and Valentinus.” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 30.1:47–​55. Benjamins, H.S. 1999. “Methodius von Olympus, Über die Auferstehung: Gegen Origenes und gegen Porphyrius?” In Bienert and Kühneweg 1999:91–​98. Bienert, W.A., and Kühneweg, U., eds. 1999. Origeniana Septima:  Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts. Leuven. Bonwetsch, D.G.N. 1917. Methodius. Leipzig. Bracht, K. 1999. Vollkommenheit und Vollendung: Zur Anthropologie des Methodius von Olympus. Tübingen. Bracht, K. 2011. “Methodius von Olympus.” In Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum. Vol. 25:768–​84. Bracht, K., ed. 2017. Methodius of Olympus: State of the Art and New Perspectives. Berlin. Clark, E.A. 1992. The Origenist Controversy:  The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Dialogue. Princeton. Daly, R.J., ed. 1992a. Origeniana Quinta:  Historica—​Text and Method—​Biblica—​ Philosophica—​Theologica—​Origenism and Later Developments. Leuven.

1 65. Clark 1992:93–​94 and 119; Patterson 1997:143–​145; Benjamins 1999; Dechow 1992; Musurillo 1958:7. 166. Bracht 1999; Mejzner 2011. 167. Voss 1970:117; Dechow 1992:511; see Patterson 1997 for the arguments in common with the On Free Will.

86  Christians in Conversation Dechow, J.F. 1992. “Origen and Corporeality: The Case of Methodius’ On the Resurrection.” In Daly 1992a:509–​18. Lamb, W.R.M. 1924. Laches, Protagoras, Meno, Euthydemus. Cambridge, MA. Mejzner, M. 2011. L’escatologia di Metodio di Olimpo. Rome. Patterson, L.G. 1989. “Who Are the Opponents in Methodius’ De resurrectione?” Studia Patristica 19:121–​29. Patterson, L.G. 1997. Methodius of Olympus. Divine Sovereignty, Human Freedom, and Life in Christ. Washington, DC. Pitra, J.B., ed. 1883. Analecta sacra spicilegio Solesmensi parata. Paris. Prinzivalli, E. 1985. L’esegesi biblica di Metodio di Olimpo. Roma. Roberts, A., and Donaldson, J. 1888. The Ante-​Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Vol. 6. New York. Vítores, A. 1981. Identidad entre el cuerpo muerto y resucitado en Origenes segun el De resurrectione de Metodio de Olimpo. Jerusalem. Zorzi, M.B. 2006. “Metodio d’Olimpo, un autore minore?” Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 52:31–​56.

15. Methodius, Xeno or On Things Created Author

Methodius, bishop of Olympus (prob. d. 312/​13)168

Full title

Ξένων ἢ περὶ τῶν γενητῶν (CPG 1817)

Original language

Greek (lost); only the fragments reported in Photius, Bibl. cod. 235, survive169

Date of composition

dubious, perhaps after the Aglaophon170

Editions

of Photius, Bibl. cod. 235: Henry 1959:5.107–​16; Bonwetsch 1917:491–​500

Modern translation

of Photius, Bibl. cod. 235: French (Henry 1959:5.107–​16).

Summary and Discussion of Scholarship The Xeno or On Things Created survives only in the form of an entry in the Bibliotheca by Photius, which also includes a few excerpts from the text. Photius was primarily interested in Methodius’ refutation of Origen’s doctrine of creation in this dialogue (2–​7). It thus remains difficult to reconstruct the text of the Xeno, and it has been debated whether Socrates’ report that the Xeno represented Methodius’ retractation of his previous criticism of Origen

168. The see should probably be identified with Olympus in Lycia. Several points on Methodius’ life and career are debated; see Bracht 2011; Zorzi 2006:40; Bracht 1999:340–​76; Barnes 1979:51 and 54; Moreschini 1.313. 169. Photius, Bibl. cod. 235 is dedicated to this dialogue; Patterson 1997:200n1 puts forward the hypothesis that the work was not translated into Slavonic, because of concerns that its views were close to Arianism. 170. Patterson 1997:200–​201.

Guide to the Dialogues  87 should be taken seriously (HE 6.13). Given the variety of subjects that, according to Photius, the dialogue must have covered Patterson argues that the Xeno was “fairly comprehensive in scope.”171 Exegesis (e.g., 1 on Matt. 7.6), Biblical scholarship (10 on Moses’ authorship of the book of Job), and eschatology (12) must have been among the central subjects treated in the dialogue. Methodius’ explanation of the etymology of the word ekklesia (8) and the calculation of the exact date of the creation (12) reveal the same interests in etymology and in numerology that are attested in the Symposium by the same author (entry 13).172 The condensed nature of Photius’ report makes it difficult to assess the structure and the format of the dialogue, and whether it featured a conversion in the opposing speakers. No trace of scene setting or narrative voice survives in Photius’ report, and this omission would appear to contrast with other dialogues by the same author, but would be similar to On Free Will. As in such other dialogues by Methodius, the author did not intervene directly in the dialogue, but his views were voiced by a fictitious speaker (3.1: δι’ ἑτέρου προσώπου). It seems plausible that, as Aglaophon acts as the main opponent in the Aglaophon, so also Xeno may have represented the main (Origenist?) opponent in the dialogue. If one believes Photius, however, the Origenist speaker was addressed as Centaur (6.1: ὦ Κένταυρε) and it is thus plausible that more than two speakers participated in the discussion. According to Voss’ reconstruction, two different speakers, Xeno and Centaur, represented Origenist views and may have supported each other in a similar way to Aglaophon and Proclus in the Aglaophon. There is also the possibility that the tone of the conversation may have been harsh at times (e.g., 7.5: ὦ ἠλίθιοι “o fools”). In the closing sections of his report (8–​12), Photius attributes the opposing views expressed in the dialogue directly to Methodius and Origen rather than to fictitious speakers, but it is unclear whether he simplified the structure of the dialogue or whether the manuscript available to him was already in this form, perhaps like the third book of the Aglaophon. In the passages that Photius quotes directly (2–​7), the refutation of the Origenist view takes the form of both longer speeches and shorter exchanges among the speakers, as in other dialogues by Methodius. Here, the speaker who represents the author’s view questions Centaur, and, in a format that Voss describes as Socratic, he is able to obtain Centaur’s agreement by breaking down the broader argument into smaller units.173

171. Patterson 1997:204. 172. Moreschini 1.315; Bracht 1999:381; Patterson 1997:203 and 206–​7. 173. Bracht 1999:381; Voss 1970:130–​32.

88  Christians in Conversation Bibliography Bonwetsch, D.G.N. 1917. Methodius. Leipzig. Bracht, K. 1999. Vollkommenheit und Vollendung: Zur Anthropologie des Methodius von Olympus. Tübingen. Bracht, K. 2011. “Methodius von Olympus.” In Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum. Vol. 25:768–​84. Bracht, K., ed. 2017. Methodius of Olympus: State of Art and New Perspectives. Berlin. Henry, R., ed. 1959. Photius. Bibliothèque. 9 vols. Paris. Patterson, L.G. 1997. Methodius of Olympus. Divine Sovereignty, Human Freedom, and Life in Christ. Washington, DC. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster. Zorzi, M.B. 2006. “Metodio d’Olimpo, un autore minore?” Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 52:31–​56.

16. ?Hegemonius, Acta Archelai Author

?Hegemonius174

Full title

Acta Archelai (CPG 3570)

Original language

Greek (lost); it survives in Latin translation175

Date of composition

c. 330–​c. 348176

Edition

Beeson 1906

Modern translation

English (Kaatz et al. 2001)

Summary The core parts of the Acta Archelai are two disputationes between bishop Archelaus and Mani that are set in the Mesopotamian towns of Carchar and Diodoris respectively (14–​43 and 52–​60). Both debates end with the defeat of Mani. The two episodes are inserted into an elaborated narrative that sets the scene by describing the events both preceding and following the disputationes, and provides detailed information on the geographical setting and on the background of the speakers. The Acta Archelai also report the exchanges of letters

174. In fact, the name is reported only at the end of the work, where Hegemonius identifies himself as the person who allegedly recorded the actual debate (68). Nothing else is known about Hegemonius, who is identified as the author of the Acta Archelai in Photius Bibliotheca 85, and this attribution is far from established; Jerome De viris illustribus 72, however, identified Archelaus, who features as a speaker, as the author of the dialogue. 175. The Latin translation was already circulating in 385 (Lieu 1988:73), and for its nature see Beeson 1906:xvi–​ xix. Excerpts from the Greek are quoted by Epiphanius Panarion 3.66 6.1–​11, 7.5, and 25.3–​31.8. Jerome De viris illustribus 72, however, wrote that the dialogue was originally composed in Syriac and then translated into Greek, as Kessler 1889:87–​71 sought to demonstrate; conversely, the thesis of a Greek original has been supported by Lieu 1988:74–​76. 176. The Acta Archelai was used by Cyril of Jerusalem Catecheses 6.20–​35 in 348–​50 (BeDuhn and Mirecki 2007a:9; Lieu 1988:73).

Guide to the Dialogues  89 between the characters (4–​6; 44–​51), record a closing speech by Archelaus on the lineage of the Manichaean doctrine (61–​66), and include a final section outlining Mani’s standing among the heretics (67–​68). According to the narrative report, it was Mani’s behavior that provided the occasions for both disputationes. The first disputatio is organized by a wealthy individual, Marcellus, as a response to Mani’s attempt to gain his sympathy, which the heresiarch had planned to use as leverage for preaching his doctrine in the nearby regions. As a response, Marcellus provided his own house in Carchar for a debate between Mani and the local bishop Archelaus. He appointed four pagan notables as judges: a teacher, a chief physician, and two rhetors. During the disputatio, the judges sit together on a stand, while other individuals are also invited to attend as audience (12). The judges repeatedly intervene in the debate between Archelaus and Mani to ask for or to provide clarification (e.g., 16; 18), to ask for the ratio underlying Mani’s arguments (e.g., 17; 20), and to assign to Archelaus the victory on specific points (e.g., 26; 33). They appear to be aware of the Gospel (22; 41) and do not avoid discussing elements of Christian doctrine that would be unacceptable to religious pagans (e.g., 25). Upon his defeat, however, in order to escape an enraged crowd, which Archelaus can hardly curb, Mani flees to the nearby town of Diodoris, but only to soon resume his preaching activity (43). Here, once Mani has recognized that the local presbyter Diodorus is not as learned in the Scriptures as Archelaus, he devises a plan to crush his reputation, and he challenges him to a public debate (53).177 Afraid of Mani, however, Diodorus immediately seeks help from Archelaus, and, in response, the bishop of Carchar sends Diodorus a libellum in preparation for the contest (46–​51). Soon afterward Archelaus reaches Diodoris in person, and, to the audience’s wonder but to Mani’s disappointment, replaces Diodorus in the debate. The contest, which unlike the previous one does not have appointed judges, is open to the public and is attended by crowds of people (61: turbae). Like the first debate, the exchanges between Archelaus and Mani alternate regularly, but Archelaus tends to pronounce longer parts, which often focus on the problematic implications of the dualism underling Manichaean doctrine. The final approval and amazement of the crowds ratify Archelaus’ victory (61); soon afterward Archelaus gives a speech about the lineage of Manichaeism and about Mani’s questionable moral conduct and past crimes. Upon hearing these, the reaction of the crowd is violent, and Mani’s only choice is to flee and to return to Persian territory, where (the narrative voice reports) he is arrested and executed for crimes that he had previously committed (61–​66).

177. 53: Manes [. . .] rursus Diodorum provocabat ad publicum, ut cum eo disputatione contenderet [. . .]. Cum ergo et turbae convenisset ad solitum disputationis locum [. . .].

90  Christians in Conversation Discussion of Scholarship It is the scholarly consensus that both Hegemonius’ claim to have transcribed the actual debates (43; 68) and the detailed geographical remarks in the dialogue are part of a strategy aimed at constructing an imaginary scenario in which the protagonists could enact the clash of rival faiths at the border of the Roman and Persian worlds.178 Mani is portrayed as an exotically dressed stranger (14), and is cast as a subversive barbarus from Persia who enters the Roman Empire with the goal of undermining the orthodox faith. Here, Mani faces two dialectical contests in which he is resoundingly defeated and humiliated in front of a broad audience, and, as a result, has no choice but to cross the border, represented by the river Stranga, and to return to Persia.179 Voss suggests that the influence of church synods could be seen behind the format of the first disputatio of the Acta Archelai, which he relates to the format of the Dialogue with Adamantius (entry 17). Nonetheless, he argues that it is the second disputatio, which takes place without judges, and the anti-​Manichaean materials contained in the narrative sections, that are crucial to understanding the aims of the author of the Acta Archelai. According to Voss, the Acta Archelai are not the report of a real dispute aimed at finding the truth on a religious subject, but rather as a collection of tools and strategies that could be used to fight heretics in actual confrontations on the ground—​it would be a text that was ultimately conceived as the very libellus that Archelaus sent to Diodorus in preparation for the contest with Mani (51). The same view was recently taken up by Coyle, who argued that the Acta Archelai is a demonstration, intended for the use of the would-​be polemicist, of how to refute the fundamental tenets of Manichaeism.180 Similarly, Lim understands the Acta Archelai as an apologetic work, but at a different level. According to Lim, the Acta Archelai should be interpreted as a response to the perceived threat represented by the spread of Manichaean religion, which seemed to Christians to be disseminated elusively through intimate circles and close-​knit groups. As a response, the author intended to compose the account of a crisis, a confrontation, and, especially, a resolution that could be as plausible as possible so that it could gain historical credibility. Jerome’s entry for bishop Archelaus in the De viris illustribus (72), which accepts the historicity of the Acta Archelai, reveals that, if this was the author’s strategy, it must have had some success.181

1 78. BeDuhn and Mirecki 2007a:14. 179. Archelaus remarks on the disgrace that a dialectical defeat would carry (33):  (.  .  .) sin minus, ero ego obnoxius sententiae iudicum, id est victi ignominiam feram. 180. Voss 1970:154–​55; Coyle 2007. 181. Lim 1992:239–​42.

Guide to the Dialogues  91 Despite coming down to us in a Latin translation that hinders the study of their original, the Acta Archelai are striking for the significant degree of their author’s literary and historical ambitions. In addition to the attention paid to the historical and geographical setting, it is remarkable that the dialogue contains anti-​Manichaean arguments that are not known from earlier sources, and might well have been designed by the author. It has been argued that the contents of Mani’s letter to Marcellus (5) are derived from authentic Manichaean literature, and that the letter of Diodorus to Archelaus (44–​45) likewise depends on authentic Manichaean texts with which the author must have been familiar.182 The dialogue is one of the best surviving examples of early anti-​Manichean literature. Bibliography BeDuhn, J. 2007. “Biblical Antitheses, Adda, and the Acts of Archelaus.” In BeDuhn and Mirecki 2007:131–​47. BeDuhn, J., and Mirecki, P.A., eds. 2007. Frontiers of Faith: The Christian Encounter with Manichaeism in the Acts of Archelaus. Leiden. BeDuhn, J., and Mirecki, P.A. 2007a. “Placing the Acts of Archelaus.” In BeDuhn and Mirecki 2007:1–​22. Beeson, C.H., ed. 1906. Acta Archelai. Leipzig. Bryder P., ed. Manichaean Studies, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Manichaeism. Lund Studies in African and Asian Religions 1. Lund. Cameron, Av., and Hoyland, R.G., eds. 2011. Doctrine and Debate in the East Christian World, 300–​1500. Farnham, UK. Coyle, J.K. 2007. “Hesitant and Ignorant: The Portrayal of Mani in the Acts of Archelaus.” In BeDuhn and Mirecki 2007:23–​32. Gardner, I. 2007. “Mani’s Letter to Marcellus:  Fact and Fiction in the Acta Archelai Revisited.” In BeDuhn and Mirecki 2007:33–​48. Kaatz, K., Lieu, S.N.C., and Vermes, M. 2001. Acta Archelai. Turnhout. Kessler, K. 1889. Mânî: Forschungen über die manichäische Religion. Berlin. Lieu, S.N.C. 1988. “Fact and Fiction in the Acta Archelai.” In Bryder 1988:69–​88. Reprint in Lieu 1994:132–​52. Lieu, S.N.C. 1994. Manichaeism in Mesopotamia and the Roman East. Leiden. Lim, R. 1992. “Manicheans and Public Disputation in Late Antiquity.” Recherches augustiniennes 26:233–​72. Reprint in Cameron and Hoyland 2011. Polotsky, H.J. 1932. “Koptische Zitate aus den Acta Archelai.” Le Muséon 45:18–​20. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster.

182. BeDuhn and Mirecki 2007a:14–​22; Gardner 2007; BeDuhn 2007.

92  Christians in Conversation 17. Anonymous, Dialogue with Adamantius Author

unknown183

Full title

unknown (CPG 1726)184

Original language

Greek; Latin translation by Rufinus (399)185

Date of composition

324–​58;186 c. 330;187 c. 350–​60188

Edition

Van de Sande Bakhuyzen 1901

Modern translation

English (Pretty 1997)

Summary The Dialogue with Adamantius attacks the doctrines of the Marcionites, the Bardaisanites, and the Valentinians by arguing against several aspects of their theology, and it thus provides a summary and a refutation of the main beliefs of these groups, with an emphasis on their most controversial tenets.189 The text does not have a narrative voice190 and consists entirely in a dialogue (λόγος 804a), set in front of an audience,191 between Adamantius, the main speaker who represents the view of the author, and five opposing speakers: Megethius (Marcionite), Marcus (Marcionite), Marinus (Bardaisanite), Droserius (Valentinian), and Valens (Valentinian). In addition, in the beginning the speakers agree to have a 183. According to Andrist 2005:105 and 2017, the dialogue is likely to have been authored by one of Methodius of Olympus’ disciples (so also Vaillant 1930:649). The attribution of the dialogue to Origen (as by Origen’s Philocalia chap.  24 and the spurious prologue to the dialogue that is found in some manuscripts), which appears to find some support in that the name of the main speaker in the dialogue, Adamantius, corresponds to Origen’s epithet “Adamantius,” is generally recognized as erroneous. In his translation of the dialogue, Rufinus, who (according to Buchheit 1958)  must have known that the dialogue was not by Origen, feigned agreement with this attribution in order to assist Origen’s cause; the Latin text of Rufinus explicitly identifies the main speaker of the dialogue, Adamantius, with Origen in a way that the Greek text does not (5.28; Clark 1992:168; Pretty 1997:10–​16). See, however, Ramelli 2012 and 2013. 184. The manuscripts show considerable variance and the original title remains unknown (Van de Sande Bakhuyzen 1901:xxii–​iv; Pretty 1997:1–​2). The title Περὶ τῆς εἰς θεὸν ὀρθῆς πίστεως (De recta in Deum fide), as the dialogue is commonly referred to, is derived from a prologue that is considered spurious. 185. The translation is edited in Buchheit 1966; for its nature see Voss 1970:148. 186. Schmid 1995:206. Conversely, the date of c. 290–​300 is supported by Pretty 1997:16–​17 relying on Zahn 1887:236–​39, and, without excluding an even earlier chronology, by Barnes 1979:49–​51, but see counterarguments in twenty-​first-​century scholarship, esp. Moll 2010:53n56 and McLynn 2004:39n39. The dating of the dialogue has been widely disputed primarily because, while the Greek text appear to be post-​Nicene (325), the Latin translation of Rufinus places the dialogue in the age of the persecutions. The most recent publications as of this writing follow Buchheit 1958 in agreeing that Rufinus’ text is not to be trusted and they thus accept a post-​Nicene chronology. 187. Clark 1992:170. 188. Moll 2010:53n56; Tsutsui 2004:108. 189. These include the principles governing the universe, the Scriptural canon, the nature of the god of the Old Testament for the section on Marcionites; the Good and the Evil as two separate Roots, and the role of God for the section on Bardaisanites; and the origin and qualities of matter, and the nature of Christ and of the human body for the Valentinians. 190. The editor considers both the prologue and the epilogue as spurious (Van de Sande Bakhuyzen 1901:xxiii–​ iv; trans. in Pretty 1997:191n254). 191. 804b=4.1; 813e=30.17; 832b=92.33; 869c=104.22 where the audience laughs at Marcus; 859b=202.27; 858c=200.21 where reference is made to the presence of supporters of Megethius.

Guide to the Dialogues  93 neutral person, the pagan Eutropius, as a judge in charge of adjudicating among the parts (δικαστής 804b; 813e). The presence of a judge overseeing the entire debate, and the intervention of the five non-​orthodox speakers one by one and their refutation by Adamantius in succession, may recall the format of a judicial contest or a church synod. Eutropius expresses his condemnation of the doctrines of the Marcionite, of the Bardaisanite, and of the Valentinian speakers, who, however, do not reject their beliefs, and, in the dubious epilogue, he recognizes the superiority of Adamantius’ doctrine and converts to Christianity (866e–​872).192 The dialogue is thus divided into five parts according to the main non-​ orthodox speaker who is under examination (Megethius, Marcus, Marinus, Droserius, and Valens respectively); all parts share a similar structure and are united by the continuous presence of the judge and of Adamantius. In each part, the non-​orthodox speaker begins by stating his beliefs and then responds to the several objections that Adamantius (but also Eutropius) raise.193 In the conversation, Adamantius breaks up his opponents’ opinions into discrete issues and focuses on the most controversial aspects of their doctrines194 in order to point out their internal inconsistencies195 and contradictions.196 Both Adamantius and Eutropius often ask the non-​orthodox speakers for proofs,197 which they understand as passages from the Scriptures that the non-​orthodox speakers may be unable to provide198 or provide wrongly.199 The speakers usually pronounce short passages of text, and the conversation progresses at a good pace. As the dialogue unfolds, however, Eutropius, despite maintaining that he is impartial,200 becomes increasingly sympathetic toward Adamantius, as is also noticed by the Marcionite Megethius,201 and by the end of the second section leaves open the possibility that he may even become a Christian.202 This intimation results in a lack of equilibrium in the discussion, which, however, may have increased the realism of the conversation, like the two intrusions ex abrupto by non-​orthodox speakers203 and an isolated scenic detail about the judge standing up before pronouncing his verdict on Marcionite belief.204 192. The authenticity of the epilogue, which mentions Eutropius’ conversion to Christianity, has been questioned by the editor (Van de Sande Bakhuyzen 1901:xxiii–​iv; but see Voss 1970:135; Pretty 1997:191n254). 193. E.g., 822a; about the terms of the discussion see 840ab and 860b. 194. E.g., 805d–​806a;  808bc. 195. E.g., ἄστατος γνώμη 808c; ἀπαρακολουθήτως 820a. 196. E.g., ἀντιλογία 840b. 197. ἀπόδειξις 819c, 829e, 832b, 842c, 860a; δείκνυμι 820a, 826d. 198. 820a,  860a. 199. E.g., 869c, 837a, 858a. The format resembles that of the third dialogue in Ps.-​Athanasius’ Five Dialogues on the Trinity (entry 28). 200. 859b. 201. 813d. 202. 813e. 203. 836e;  844d. 204. 833c:  the editor is in doubt, however, whether this indication is original (Van de Sande Bakhuyzen 1901:114; Voss 1970:135n7; Andrist 2005:105).

94  Christians in Conversation Discussion of Scholarship Scholars agree that the Dialogue with Adamantius is not an account of an actual debate but is rather a composite work that depends on and brings together excerpts from earlier texts. In particular, in the latter part of the work the author made extensive use of Methodius’ dialogue On Free Will (parts 4 and 5 on the Valentinians are mostly an adaptation from On Free Will 3.1–​16.7) and quoted freely from Methodius’ Aglaophon or On the Resurrection—​a fact that raised the suspicion that one of Methodius’ pupils could have been the author of the Dialogue with Adamantius. The diversity of the material that is reused compromises the structural unity of the dialogue, and, in addition, its author does not appear especially concerned with reworking his sources in order to produce an organically structured dialogue from beginning to end. For instance, the non-​ orthodox speakers are not announced and appear ex abrupto, the pagan affiliation of Eutropius becomes clear only well into the dialogue (813e), and Marinus announces three main points of contention with Adamantius (835a), but then the ensuing discussion covers only one. The most striking aspect is perhaps the role that the judge Eutropius plays in parts 4 and 5 (on Valentianism), which are derived from Methodius’ On Free Will. Since the dialogue On Free Will did not feature a judge, the author of the Dialogue had to devise a role for Eutropius in these sections: Eutropius’ role here, however, is not entirely functional to the conversation in that it is not effectively differentiated from that of Adamantius. For these reasons, Voss believes that the original nucleus of the Dialogue with Adamantius should be identified with parts 1 and 2, and that the primary concern that guided the author was the refutation of Marcionite theology.205 The dialogue, however, remains in need of a new edition (and translation) that will fully recognize its complexity and composite nature.206 The character of the judge has raised some interest, and it has not been established whether his role is ultimately derived from the sources of the Dialogue or whether it was entirely devised by its author. A link has been suggested with the Ps.-​Clementine Homilies, and in particular with the role of Faustus in the discussion between Simon and Peter in Hom. 16. Here, Faustus acts as a pagan judge who is similarly interested in the search for the truth and who is accused of partiality, as is Eutropius in the Dialogue (which, in turn, may have provided a precedent for the judges in the Acta Archelai, entry 16).207 Voss argues, however, that the role that Eutropius plays in the dialogue is best understood as based on 205. Cameron 2014:43; Andrist 2005:105; Pretty 1997:12–​16; Barnes 1979; Voss 1970:136–​40. For the sources of the anti-​Marcionite parts of the Dialogue, possibly already in dialogue form, see Tsutsui 2004:78–​94. 206. The primary interest of the editor for the reconstruction of the original text (and thus his frequent use of expunction) is problematic (see, e.g., Andrist 2005:105). Similarly, the use of Rufinus’ Latin translation in Pretty 1997 needs updating following Buchheit 1958 on the nature of Rufinus’ agenda. 207. Ps.-​Clem. Hom. 16, esp. 16.3–​5; for the accusations of the judge’s partiality in the Dialogue with Adamantius see 813e=30.13 and 859b=202.25; Voss 1970:143–​46.

Guide to the Dialogues  95 that of a teacher. Eutropius frequently summarizes the conclusions of the discussion, and condemns the views that have been deemed false; most importantly, his role is not limited to the recognition of the true notions but rather emphasizes their underpinnings or asks for additional arguments in their support.208 Also, to bolster his view of the didactic treatment of the subject matter in the dialogue (or in its sources), Voss points out that the use of the verbs γυμνάζειν “to exercise, to dispute” (e.g., 840a=136.12-​5) and ἀντιλέγειν “to refute” (e.g., 136.23) recalls professional training in rhetoric.209 Although the Dialogue with Adamantius is cast in the setting of a public debate, Pretty similarly suggests that instruction was the main aim of its author, and that the dialogue should be understood as a “manual of instruction” for priests and ecclesiastical leaders with a view to the actual refutation of heresies on the ground.210 Whether this was the primary aim of the compiler remains hard to establish; yet, a reader would have learned the fundamental tenets of non-​orthodox beliefs together with their refutation on the basis of the Scriptures, and the representation of Marcionites, Bardaisanite, and Valentinians in the dialogue is plainly hostile. There is also the possibility that, as with Origen’s Dialogue with Heraclides and Theodoret’s Eranistes, the early manuscripts of the Dialogue with Adamantius systematically indicated the names of the speakers (in abbreviated form) in the text in order to ease its readability.211 Bibliography Andrist, P. 2005. “Les protagonistes égyptiens du débat apollinariste.” Recherches augustiniennes 34:63–​141. Andrist, P. 2017. “Literary Distance and Complexity in Late Antique and Early Byzantine Dialogues adversus Iudaeos.” In Cameron and Gaul 2017:43–​64. Barnes, T. 1979. “Methodius, Maximus, and Valentinus.” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 30.1:47–​55. Buchheit, V. 1958. “Rufinus von Aquileia als Fälscher des Adamantiosdialogs.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 51:314–​28. Buchheit, V. 1966. Tyrannii Rufini librorum Adamanti Origenis adversus haereticos interpretatio. Munich. Cameron, Av., and Gaul, N., eds. 2017. Dialogues and Debates from Late Antiquity to Late Byzantium. Abingdon. Clark, E.A. 1992. The Origenist Controversy:  The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate. Princeton.

2 08. For a comprehensive list of these instances see Voss 1970:144n47–​48. 209. Voss 1970:145n49. 210. Pretty 1997:20–​23. 211. Lim  1991.

96  Christians in Conversation Lim, R. 1991. “Theodoret of Cyrus and the Speakers in the Greek Dialogues.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 111:181–​82. McLynn, N.B. 2004. “What was the Philocalia of Origen?” Meddelanden från Collegium Patristicum Lundense 19:32–​43. Moll, S. 2010. The Arch-​Heretic Marcion. Tübingen. Pretty, R.A. 1997. (d. 1985; edited for publication by Garry W.  Trompf), Adamantius, Dialogue on the True Faith in God. Leuven. Ramelli, I.L.E. 2012. “The Dialogue of Adamantius:  A Document of Origen’s Thought? (Part One).” Studia Patristica 52:71–​98. Ramelli, I.L.E. 2013. “The Dialogue of Adamantius:  A Document of Origen’s Thought? (Part Two).” Studia Patristica 56:227–​73. Schmid, U. 1995. Marcion und sein Apostolos. Berlin. Tsutsui, K. 2004. Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Markioniten in Adamantios-​Dialog. Berlin. Vaillant, A. 1930. “Le De autexusio de Méthode d’Olympe, version slave et texte grec édités et traduits en français.” Patrologia Orientalis 22:629–​888. Van de Sande Bakhuyzen, W.H. 1901. Der Dialog des Adamantius. Leipzig. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster. Zahn, T. 1887. “Die Dialoge des Adamantius mit den Gnostikern.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 9:193–​239.

18. Diodorus of Tarsus, Two Dialogues Author

Diodorus of Tarsus (d. before 394)212

Full title

unknown

Original language

Greek (lost)

Date of composition

c. 372213

Summary and Discussion of Scholarship A letter composed by Basil of Caesarea in 373 is the only witness for two fictional dialogues composed by Diodorus of Tarsus that are now lost (Ep. 135).214 The letter is a reply to the author of the dialogues, Diodorus, in which Basil provides feedback on the two texts; the titles of these, however, are not mentioned. One presumes that Diodorus was hoping to hear Basil’s appreciation or criticism of the dialogues with a view to their diffusion. Although Basil’s letter does not make any mention of the contents of the dialogues, in all likelihood their subject

2 12. Moreschini 2.139–​40; Pouchet 1986. 213. 373 is the year of composition of Basil of Caesarea’s Ep. 135, the only witness of the dialogue; however, Pouchet 1986:248–​49 and 252 argues for an earlier date (370–​71). 214. Ed. Courtonne 1955; English transl. Deferrari 1950, from which the translations are taken.

Guide to the Dialogues  97 was doctrinal, and they may have attacked Arian belief: given Diodorus’ exile to Armenia in 372 in the context of the Arian persecution, it is likely that exponents of Arianism were the primary targets at this time.215 Interestingly, for reasons that have to do with the form rather than the contents of the two texts, Basil wrote that he was more pleased with the second dialogue than with the first. Basil reported that the second dialogue was short and concise, and that both the opponent’s objections and the main speaker’s replies to them were set out in the outmost clarity. Also, Basil wrote that the simple and unadorned style “befits the purpose of a Christian, who writes not so much for display as for gen­ eral edification (κοινὴ ὠφέλεια)” (1.7–​9). It seems likely, then, that this dialogue lacked any sort of literary embellishment and, perhaps, scene setting as well. As it becomes clear from Basil’s report, the speakers of the second dialogue were not fictional figures or were characterized in any way. The bare format of Apollinarius of Laodicea’s Christological dialogues may offer a tentative comparison.216 Conversely, the first dialogue attracted Basil’s criticism. The dialogue was “adorned with richer diction, with figures of diverse kind, and with charms peculiar to dialogue”; but this format, according to Basil, was ineffective since it required time and mental labor to grasp the main ideas and retain them in the memory. Also, Basil did not approve that the dialogue contained personal accusations addressed to the opposing speaker, since they resulted in a disruption of the argumentative flow. Unlike the second dialogue, it appears that in the first dialogue the author made use of fictional speakers who represented opposing doctrinal positions and were characterized in ways that, presumably, were meant to represent the qualities of the historical person (or persons) that Diodorus intended to attack. According to Voss, it is possible that this dialogue had a format similar to Methodius’ Xeno or On Things Created, a literary dialogue in which a fictional character was the mouthpiece for the actual doctrinal opponent, Origen.217 Bibliography Courtonne, Y., ed. 1955. Saint Basile. Lettres. 3 vols. Paris. Deferrari, R. 1950. Saint Basil. The Letters. 4 vols. Cambridge, MA. Pouchet, J.R. 1986. “Les rapports de Basile de Césarée avec Diodore de Tarse.” Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique 87.4:243–​72. Rousseau, P. 1994. Basil of Caesarea. Berkeley. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster.

215. Courtonne 1955:2.49n1. 216. Voss 1970:73–​74; see Rousseau 1994:44 and 44n56 for Basil’s remark and for Diodorus’ education. 217. Voss 1970:73–​74; see entry 15; Voss 1970:174n73 suggests a link between Diodorus’ dialogues and the form of his Commentary on the Octateuch.

98  Christians in Conversation 19. Gregory of Nyssa, Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection Author

Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–​after 394)

Full title

Ζήτησις περὶ ψυχῆς μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας ἀδελφῆς Μακρίνης (CPG 3149)

Original language

Greek (partial Coptic translation; partial Syriac translation; Georgian translation)218

Date of composition

prob. winter 383/​84 or winter 384/​85219

Edition

Spira 2014220

Modern translation

English (Silvas 2008:171–​246)221

Summary In the Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection, Gregory of Nyssa argues for the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body. The author maintains that the soul, which is immortal, remains close, after death, to the corporeal elements with which it had been bound up earlier in life; at the same time, however, the soul can suffer the pains of hell or enjoys its reward in the afterlife because it is not tied to the spatial dimension of this world.222 The dialogue features Macrina the Younger (Gregory’s older sister) as the main speaker, and Gregory himself, who acts also as the reporter of the dialogue in the first person and frequently indicates the reactions of the speakers. As Gregory explains in the narrative prologue, the dialogue is set on his family’s estate at Annisa in Pontus, where he had reached Macrina in the hope of seeking solace for his sorrow about the recent death of his brother Basil (d. Sept. 378). Unexpectedly, however, Gregory finds his sister terminally ill (d. July 379); she, paradoxically, acts as a solace for him; and the dialogue thus takes place at her deathbed in the presence of a silent audience sitting by the bedside, including a physician watching over Macrina’s condition (2.6 = Kr. 18; 10.1 = Kr. 124).223 Throughout the dialogue Macrina plays the role of a teacher acting as the mouthpiece of the author (she is addressed as διδάσκαλος and rejects some of Gregory’s objections as impious or subversive224), and she does not appear to be hindered in any way by the sickness of her body. Conversely, in the opening of the dialogue Gregory admits to having 218. Silvas 2008:cxxxiii–​cxxxv gives an overview of the translations, indicating editions and modern translations whenever available. 219. Silvas 2008:154–​55. 220. This new edition also includes an ancient list of arguments and the marginalia. 221. The translation is based on the edition in Krabinger 1837. 222. Smith  2004. 223. For chronology see Silvas 2008:49–​52. Two earlier accounts of Macrina’s character (as well as death) are in Gregory of Nyssa’s Ep. 19.6–​10 and Life of Macrina 17b–​18 (381/​82). 224. Respectively, Kr. 32 = Silvas 2008:2.41 and Kr. 142 = Silvas 2008:10.64–​66.

Guide to the Dialogues  99 been carried away by grief and not to have yet recovered his reason when he puts forward several objections to the immortality of the soul and to the resurrection of the body. As the dialogue unfolds, however, Gregory is overall satisfied with Macrina’s explanation and his rarer interventions provide Macrina with the opportunity to elaborate further on the subject matter. The dialogue closes with a speech by Macrina but without an epilogue. Platonic influences are conspicuous in the Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection, and the role of the dying speaker who provides solace to the listeners by arguing for the immortality of the soul is framed on that of Socrates in the Phaedo. Gregory’s emotions contrast with Macrina’s self-​control; while in the character of Macrina the rationality of the soul is emphasized and the suffering body does not constitute any sort of hindrance to the argumentation, Gregory admits to being in a “torment of grief ” and in doubt about the immortality of the soul.225 The influence of Plato is not limited to the literary level but also informs the contents of the dialogue, in which, however, the tradition of Greek philosophy is explicitly rejected unless it recognizes the authority of the Scriptures. To give an example, Macrina reports the position on the soul of Epicurus, who “was incapable of contemplating anything intellectual and bodiless,”226 and argues that the existence of an immaterial soul should be inferred from the existence of God, since “the human being is a kind of microcosm comprising in himself the same elements which go to make up the universe.”227 Macrina then provides a definition of the soul, which is “made according to the image” of God,228 relying on the text of Genesis (1.26–​27). Similarly, when discussing the passions, Macrina rejects the Platonic metaphor of the chariot, in which the passions are represented by an underbred horse,229 and, relying on the Scriptures, she instead brings the example of Moses to argue that the passions should not be included in the definition of the soul, since they are not part of its substance.230 The ensuing argumentation about the origin of the passions, however, may nonetheless reveal a link to Plato’s Phaedrus.231 In fact, although the opinions of Greek philosophers are constantly dismissed in favor of an appeal to the authority of the Scriptures (especially Genesis, Psalms, and the New Testament), there has been abundant scholarly discussion on Gregory’s use of philosophical concepts inherited from the Platonic, as well as Stoic, traditions.232 As far as the resurrection of the body

2 25. Kr. 2 = Silvas 2008: Introduction. 226. Kr. 10 = Silvas 2008:1.13–​15. 227. Kr. 16 = Silvas 2008:1.30–​32. The argument was not new; see Williams 1993. 228. Kr. 28–​30 = Silvas 2008:2.32–​36 and 2.40–​41. 229. Kr. 40–​42 = Silvas 2008:3.9–​10; Plato, Phaedrus 246A–​249D. 230. Kr. 48 = Silvas 2008:3.30; Williams 1993:236. 231. Kr. 52–​54 = Silvas 2008:3.47–​50; Williams 1993:236–​38. 232. Macrina claims that (Kr. 40 = Silvas 2008:3.8) “[. . .] although [. . .] their theorizing about the soul proceeded so as far as that which appears gave them licence, we are not entitled to such license, I mean of asserting whatever we want to. Instead, we use Holy Scripture as the rule and the norm of every doctrine, necessarily fixing

100  Christians in Conversation is concerned, Macrina uses relevant passages from the Scriptures to argue that resurrection is “nothing other than the restoration of our nature to its original state,” before the contamination of vice in human nature.233 Discussion of Scholarship Although its setting is grounded within Gregory’s own life events (like his Against Fate), the Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection is clearly an ambitious literary work—​it has been described as the “most Platonic of Christian dialogues.”234 In Plato’s Phaedo, members of the family and pupils are gathered in Socrates’ cell in order to listen to his last words, and there is a contrast between Socrates’ calm self-​control and the episodic weeping and despair of his interlocutors, who are aware of his imminent death.235 In order to soothe his audience, Socrates engages in discussion about the immortality of the soul, and how the soul will obtain the greatest good after its detachment from the body.236 In addition to acting as Socrates in the Phaedo, however, Macrina acts a female alter ego of Gregory in our dialogue, in a way that is parallel to Diotima instructing Socrates in Plato’s Symposium. Macrina is not herself a teacher of wisdom, but rather Gregory with a female voice; she serves as a mouthpiece for Gregory’s theology and, ultimately, acts as both Socrates and Diotima at the same time.237 The character of Macrina in the dialogue depends also on the earlier Life of Macrina by the same author, which thus implicitly complements the setting of the dialogue and adds another layer to the already significant characterization of the speakers in the text.238 In the Life, Macrina is represented as a spiritual and ascetic leader; she is often referred to as παιδαγωγός, σύμβουλος, and διδάσκαλος, and she is depicted as a female counterpart to the male model of the Life of Antony, but explicitly framed on the life of Thekla. Macrina is the representation of the absence of vice, of the detachment of the soul from the body, and of her incorruptibility despite her dying body; she is herself the living symbol of the universal nature of man in its original state, which has no male and female.239 Gregory’s choice of a Platonizing dialogue form for a work that makes a case for the rejection of dialectic in favor of the authority of Scripture has also our eyes upon it and accepting only that which is in harmony with the goal of those writings.” Ludlow 2000:23–​26; Williams 1993:229–​30. 2 33. E.g., I Corinthians 15.35–​38 in Kr. 148 = Silvas 2008:10.87; Kr. 152–​54 = Silvas 2008:10.100–​106. 234. Cameron 2014:7. 235. Plato, Phaedo 58E–​59B; Xanthippe cries and is sent home in 60A; 116D; 117CD. Nonetheless, for Socrates’ pupils, the philosophical argument is consolatory, and, in the end of the dialogue, Phaedo admits, that “it was not for him that I wept but for my own misfortune in being deprived of such a friend” (117CD trans. Fowler). 236. Plato, Phaedo 63C; 66C–​67A. Apostolopoulos 1986; Meissner 1991:70–​71; Momigliano 1985:i. 237. Wessel 2010:373–​374, Burrus 2000:116–​17, Clark 1998:423; Voss 1970:185. 238. Elm 1994:94–​95. 239. Life of Macrina 2b. Krueger 2000; Clark 1998:427; Cameron 1989a; Momigliano 1985:i; Giannarelli 1980:34–​38.

Guide to the Dialogues  101 attracted interest, given its relevance to the study of Gregory’s Platonism. As far as the Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection is concerned, Wessel writes that the choice of the dialogue form allows “for the possibility of interpreting seemingly contradictory ideas in an integrated fashion”; according to Cameron, the work “undercuts its own philosophical framework and uses the dialogue form to express the tension between Christian faith and philosophical reasoning.” Similarly, the character of Macrina, who is used as a mouthpiece for Gregory’s ideas, exemplifies the ambiguities and ambivalence inherent in the dialogue form.240 In addition, scholars have seen links with Origen and (both in form and content) with Methodius’ dialogues Symposium and Aglaophon or On the Resurrection.241 Bibliography Adamson, P. Forthcoming. “Macrina’s Method: Reason and Reasoning in Gregory of Nyssa’s On Soul and Resurrection.” Apostolopoulos, C. 1986. Phaedo Christianus: Studien zur Verbindung und Abwägung des Verhältnisses zwischen dem platonischen Phaidon und dem Dialog Gregors von Nyssa Über die Seele und die Auferstehung. Frankfurt. Burrus, V. 2000. “Begotten, Not Made”: Conceiving Manhood in Late Antiquity. Stanford. Cameron, Av., ed. 1989. History as Text: The Writing of Ancient History. Chapel Hill. Cameron, Av. 1989a. “Virginity as Metaphor:  Women and the Rhetoric of Early Christianity.” In Cameron 1989:181–​205. Cameron, Av. 2014. Dialoguing in Late Antiquity. Washington, DC. Clark, E. 1998. “Holy Women, Holy Words: Early Christian Women, Social History and the Linguistic Turn.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6:413–​30. Eadie, J.W., and Ober, J., eds. 1985. The Craft of the Ancient Historian: Essays in Honor of Chester G. Starr. Lanham. Elm, S. 1994. Virgins of God: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity. Oxford. Giannarelli, E. 1980. La tipologia femminile nella biografia e nell’autobiografia cristiana del IV secolo. Rome. Krabinger, J.K. 1837. Gregorii episcopi Nysseni De anima et resurrectione cum sorore sua Macrina dialogus. Leipzig. Krueger, D. 2000. “Writing and the Liturgy of Memory in Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Macrina.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8.4:483–​510. Ludlow, M. 2000. Universal Salvation: Eschatology in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner. Oxford. Ludlow, M. 2007. Gregory of Nyssa, Ancient and (Post)Modern. Oxford. Ludlow, M. 2009. “Science and Theology in Gregory of Nyssa’s De Anima et Resurrectione: Astronomy and Autonomata.” Journal of Theological Studies 60.2:467–​89. Mateo-​Seco, L.F., and Maspero, G. 2010. The Brill Dictionary of Gregory of Nyssa. Leiden. 2 40. Wessel 2010:380n47; Cameron 2014:7–​8; Adamson, forthcoming. 241. Mateo-​Seco and Maspero 2010:28; Silvas 2008:20, 155–​56, 165; Patterson 1997:186–​96.

102  Christians in Conversation Meissner, H.M. 1991. Rhetorik und Theologie: Der Dialog Gregors von Nyssa De anima et resurrectione. Frankfurt. Momigliano, A. 1985. “The Life of St. Macrina by Gregory of Nyssa.” In Eadie and Ober 1985:443–​58 (= Momigliano, A. Ottavo contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico. Roma. 1987:333–​47). Patterson, L.G. 1997. Methodius of Olympus. Divine Sovereignty, Human Freedom, and Life in Christ. Washington, DC. Silvas, A.M. 2008. Macrina the Younger, Philosopher of God. Turnhout. Smith, W.J. 2004. Passion and Paradise:  Human and Divine Emotion in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa. New York. Spira, A. 2014. Gregorii Nysseni. De anima et resurrectione:  Opera dogmatica minora. Gregorii Nysseni opera Vol. III Pars III. Leiden. Wessel, S. 2010. “Memory and Individuality in Gregory of Nyssa’s De Anima et Resurrectione.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 18.3:369–​92. Wickham, L.R., and Bammel, C.P., eds. 1993. Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy in Late Antiquity: Essays in Tribute to George Christopher Stead. Leiden. Williams, R. 1993. “Macrina’s Deathbed Revisited: Gregory of Nyssa on Mind and Passion.” In Wickham and Bammel 1993:230–​32.

20. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Fate Author

Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–​after 394)242

Full title

Κατὰ εἱμαρμένης (CPG 3152)

Original language

Greek

Date of composition

c. 379–​84243

Editions

McDonough 1987; Bandini 2003244

Modern translations

French (Allamandy and Congourdeau 2003:111–​45); Italian (Bandini 2003); English (excerpt in Meredith 1999:64–​73)

Summary In Against Fate, Gregory of Nyssa makes a case against the existence of fate and argues that the practice of divination is ultimately groundless. The text takes the form of a letter sent to an unnamed addressee who has asked for the transcript of a dialogue (32.2: διάλεξις) about fate between Gregory and an unnamed pagan philosopher. The setting of the conversation is Constantinople, and the

242. Bandini 2003:11–​15. 243. The chronology, however, is uncertain. See Mateo-​Seco and Maspero 2010:345; Motta 2008:13–​14; Bandini 2003:32–​34; Marotta 1967:86–​87 for Gregory’s visits to Constantinople; the dialogue may be set in 381 (Meredith 1999:63). 244. For references to the text, I give page and line numbers from McDonough 1987.

Guide to the Dialogues  103 occasion is Gregory’s attempt to convert the pagan philosopher (32.12–​14). After the opening greetings to the addressee, the letter contains the dialogue itself, which, however, Gregory claims to have partially abbreviated (32.5–​6: δι’ὀλίγων συντεμὼν τὸν λόγον) in order not to exceed the length of a letter. For this reason, in some sections the author reports only a summary of the discussion rather than the actual words of the speakers in full. In addition to the opening section that sets the scene, Gregory’s narrative voice also records the reactions of the two speakers, such as Gregory’s laugh (49.19–​20) or a brusque interruption by the philosopher (48.22–​24), but, in a manner similar to the Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection by the same author, the narrative voice does not provide any information about the epilogue of the dialogue: the dialogue simply ends with Gregory making a case against divination and explaining that it consists of a deceit worked by demons. Throughout the dialogue the pagan is firm in his opinion and does not change his view on the action of fate, despite Gregory’s counterarguments, but there is an important shift in the balance between the speakers as the discussion unfolds. While the opening sections of the dialogue are mostly dedicated to the exposition of the pagan’s opinion and Gregory’s questions are mostly informative (e.g., 34.11–​23, 35.17–​21), the rest of the work (from 39.14) is largely dedicated to Gregory’s refutation of the pagan’s view on the role of fate and divination.245 However, although the pagan philosopher continues to intervene throughout the dialogue (e.g., 47.5, 48.22, 49.11), occasionally Gregory addresses not only his opponent but also all those who believe in fate in general (41.13–​14:  ὡς δέ φασιν ὑμῶν οἱ [.  .  .] διαδυόμενοι; 45.10–​11:  ἔοικε παρ’ὑμῶν; 46.18–​19: κινεῖσθαι τὰ ἄστρα φατέ [. . .] ὥστε [. . .] συγχωρήσατε; etc.).246 Besides an account of ancient natural disasters, which is derived from the Old Testament, there is no explicit quotation from Scripture in the dialogue, and the Scriptures do not normally provide the basis of the argumentation, as they do, for instance, in the Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (the one exception is 55.18–​19). In Against Fate, Gregory leads the argumentation first by asking his opponent to express his views on fate and divination, and, after that, by revealing the contradictions and the absurdity that such views entail (e.g., 40:4: εἰς οἵας ὁ λόγος ἀτοπίας ἐκφέρεται; 48.22: πρὸς τὸ ἄτοπον τὸν λόγον ἐκβάλλοντος). While Gregory declares that his questions are dictated by his inability to understand the philosopher’s argument because of his own “lack of education” (34.19; 35.18–​ 19: ἅτε μὴ πεπαιδευμένος ταύτην τὴν παίδευσιν), they ultimately provide the philosopher with the chance to expound traditional beliefs on fate and allow Gregory to refute the philosopher’s views by pointing out their contradictory consequences. To give an example, if not only the motion of the stars and the zodiac cycle but also the relation among the signs of the zodiac and the celestial bodies produce 2 45. The organization of the arguments, however, is more complex; see Arabatzis 2011. 246. Arabatzis 2011; Bandini 2003:28–​31; Meredith 1999:63.

104  Christians in Conversation fate, as the pagan believes, it follows (Gregory argues) that the signs of the zodiac themselves are not free but are subject to fate; if the signs of the zodiac and the stars are subject to fate, it follows that there must be a higher fate than the fate that they themselves produce, and so on ad infinitum, which is absurd (47–​48). Similarly, if there exists a fate not only of a person but also of a city or of a ship, as the pagan believes, and this fate is determined by the time of birth, how absurd and problematic would it be to talk about the time of birth of a people or of a ship (53)? Discussion of Scholarship Despite the author’s claim that the dialogue actually took place in Constantinople, modern scholars agree that the Against Fate is a fictional work that reveals an awareness of earlier literature on the issue of fate. As far as literature in dialogue form is concerned, links have been suggested with Philo of Alexandria’s On Providence, which Gregory is likely to have read, with Ps.-​Clementine literature (Hom. 14.2–​3 and Rec. 8.2, which according to Voss may have inspired the setting of the Against Fate), with The Book of the Laws of the Countries (which presents a similar argument on the precedence of human laws and traditions over fate and which Gregory may have known through Eusebius), and, perhaps, with Methodius’ On Free Will. Also, despite the lack of explicit references to the Scriptures as the ground for the argumentation, Against Fate was nonetheless intended for a Christian readership; for instance, Gregory makes reference to the creation according to Genesis (55.18–​19), and uses the Old Testament as the source for a list of catastrophes that affected humanity in the ancient past (51.9–​21). The framing of the dialogue Against Fate in the form of a letter has also attracted attention, since, while this format is common in hagiographic literature (e.g., Athanasius’ Life of Anthony and Gregory’s Life of Macrina), it is an unusual feature for a dialogue. It should be noted that both the opening of the Life of Macrina and that of Against Fate share the author’s remarks that the subject matter is more extensive than the length of a letter allows (32.5–​6 with Life of Macrina 960A) and that their treatment will be in “unstudied and simple style” (36.6: ἐν ἁπλῷ καὶ ἀκατασκεύῳ τῷ διηγήματι with Life of Macrina 960C). For this reason, Voss argues that, when composing the dialogue, Gregory was taking hagiographic writing as one of his models.247 A fascinating aspect of the dialogue that would deserve further analysis is its distinctive argumentative structure and style. Gregory subtly induces his opponent to express his view on the role and the functioning of fate only in order to lay bare its inconsistencies and to express its absurd consequences. Marotta writes that finta serietà, “contrived seriousness,” and irony characterize the strategy that 247. Arabatzis 2011:403–​6; Bandini 2003:15–​28; Voss 1970:183.

Guide to the Dialogues  105 Gregory uses to present the pagan philosopher’s view as untenable, while Voss relates Gregory’s argumentative strategies to the Socratic dialogues. Gregory’s opening question on whether fate is a kind of God (34.11–​14) is presented as an inconspicuous one and is asked from a position of ignorance, possibly recalling the role of Socrates in Platonic dialogues. On his part, the pagan philosopher does not suspect the ultimate meaning of this question and proceeds to answer Gregory’s questions at length until it becomes clear that his position is untenable.248 Bibliography Allamandy, M.-​É., and Congourdeau, M.-​H. 2003. Les pères de l’église et l’astrologie. Paris. Arabatzis, G. 2011. “Power, Motion, and Time in Gregory of Nyssa’s Contra Fatum.” In Drecoll and Berghaus 2011:399–​409. Bandini, M. 2003. Gregorio di Nissa. Contro il fato. Bologna. Downing, J.K., McDonough, J.A., and Hörner, H., eds. 1987. Gregorii Nysseni opera dogmatica minora. Gregorii Nysseni opera vol. III pars II. Leiden. Drecoll, V.H., and Berghaus, M. 2011. Gregory of Nyssa: The Minor Treatises on Trinitarian Theology and Apollinarism. Leiden. Marotta, E. 1967. “L’ironia e altri schemi nel Contra fatum di san Gregorio di Nissa.” Vetera Christianorum 4:85–​105. Mateo-​Seco, L.F., and Maspero, G. 2010. The Brill Dictionary of Gregory of Nyssa. Leiden. McCambley, C. 1992. “Against Fate by Gregory of Nyssa.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 37:309–​32. McDonough 1987 = Downing et al. 1987:29–​63. Meredith, A. 1999. Gregory of Nyssa. London. Motta, B. 2008. Il Contra fatum di Gregorio di Nissa nel dibattito tardo-​antico sul fatalismo e sul determinismo. Pisa. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster.

21. Macarius Magnes, Apocriticus Author

Macarius Magnes (fl. second half of the fourth cent.)249

Full title

Ἀποκριτικὸς ἢ Μονογενὴς πρὸς Ἕλληνας περὶ τῶν ἀπορουμένων ἐν τῇ Καινῇ Διαθήκῃ ζητημάτων καὶ λύσεων (CPG 6115)250

2 48. Marotta 1967; Voss 1970:181–​85. 249. It seems likely that the author should be identified with the Macarius, bishop of Magnesia, mentioned by Photius Bibliotheca 59 as an opponent of John Chrysostom in the Synod of the Oak (403), but this identification cannot be confirmed (Goulet 2003:48–​56; Moreschini 2005:2.583; Schott and Edwards 2015:48–​49). Volp 2011 for an Origenist background of Macarius. 250. This, however, is unlikely to have been the original title, which is lost together with the beginning of the manuscript. Goulet 2003:41–​47 argued for Μονογενὴς πρὸς Ἕλληνας as the original title.

106  Christians in Conversation Original language

Greek (only about half of the work survives)

Date of composition

c. 365–​c. 400251

Editions

Volp 2013; Goulet 2003

Modern translations

English (Schott and Edwards 2015); German (Volp 2013); French (Goulet 2003)

Summary The Apocriticus was originally divided into five books, but book 2 is fragmentary and books 1 and 5 are almost completely lost. The loss of both the beginning and the end especially compromises our understanding of the setting of the dialogue, which can be reconstructed from only a few indications in the surviving text. The five books correspond to five “contests” (72.1; 240.3: ἀγών)252 between an unnamed pagan figure, who is described as a philologos (240.3), and an unnamed Christian respondent, who is also the authorial voice, in the first person, of the occasional narrative passages that record the reactions of the speakers and of the audience during the conversation. The Apocriticus is presented as a rec­ ord, compiled by the Christian speaker, of a public debate that he had previously had with the pagan opponent over five days; the record is addressed to a certain Theosthenes (72.3; 240.3), who had assisted the Christian speaker in the debate or, perhaps, in its preparation, since he does not appear otherwise in the dialogue (240.4–​5: σοῦ συναιρομένου). The contests take place in front of a large audience consisting of notable individuals (72.2; 72.7; 240.6–​7; 252.11) who are described as more sympathetic to the pagan speaker than to the Christian (152.11; 306.18–​19). In all likelihood, they should be understood as representatives of paganism; according to the Christian contestant, they have been gathered by the pagan with the deliberate purpose of intimidating the Christian speaker (240.6–​8). The setting seems to be an open space, possibly an auditorium, from which the audience can see the contestants (32.28; 72.2–​5), and there is an indication that it is winter (285.34–​35). Unfortunately, the loss of the beginning and the end of the text precludes our understanding of the rules and the occasion for the debate. Each of the five contests is rigidly structured into sessions, and each session is introduced by a short narrative passage given by the Christian speaker. Each session is divided into two parts: it opens with the pagan speaker pronouncing a short speech that raises a series of objections to Christianity, followed by a longer response from the Christian, who systematically addresses these objections. It seems unusual for a dialogue that the pagan does not interrupt or even reply to the Christian, but this feature may perhaps be explained by the format of the 2 51. Goulet 2003:57–​65; Schott and Edwards 2015:44–​54. 252. The references are given to the edition of Goulet 2003.2.

Guide to the Dialogues  107 contest, the aim of which was not to convince the pagan but rather the audience. In fact, once the Christian has answered a series of objections, the session ends, and the pagan moves on to putting forward a new series of objections. Each surviving book contains between two and three sessions, which made up to between ten and twenty-​two objections in total per book. The objections deal with specific passages from the text of the Gospel, the Act of the Apostles, and the Pauline epistles. They center on issues of textual transmission of Scripture, on the behavior of Biblical characters, and on specific aspects of the Christian religion; and they betray the pagan speaker’s profound knowledge of the New Testament, which he quotes. Overall, however, there appears to be a gap in the hermeneutical approaches to the Scriptures by the two speakers: in the view of the author, the pagan reads the text in literal fashion and he is therefore incapable of understanding divine economy, which only allegorical interpretation of the Old and the New Testament can reveal.253 Discussion of Scholarship Voss takes the Apocriticus as representative of a crucial development in early Christian dialogues, namely the separation of the dialogue as an authentic intellectual encounter (Dialog als geistige Begegnung) from the dialogue as an art form (Dialog als Kunstform). He argues that in the Apocriticus there is no real intellectual exchange between the person who asks, the pagan, and the person who answers, the Christian, but that the author created a fictitious setting in which the dialogic element is not intrinsic to the work. In Voss’ view, the Apocriticus, which conveniently provides a close to his overview of dialogue literature in early Christianity, should be better understood as an instance of erotapokriseis. Papadogiannakis goes further and relates the form of the Apocriticus to that of collections of ζητήματα (or προβλήματα) “that almost certainly functioned as disputatious arguments and exercises in debate as well as a means of instruction.” The list of objections by the pagan are provided at the beginning of each book in the form of an index of questions; yet, at the same time, the scene setting and the structure of the work as a contest (ἀγών) are crucial features of the Apocriticus.254 A passage that exemplifies the vividness of the Christian’s narration is the following: After the master of Hellenic cleverness uttered these things against the divine teachings of Christ, since no one responded, he was silent for a moment. But we, experiencing the same things as he who set fire to the smashed stumps of the many-​headed Hydra, which immediately grew back many in place of the one when each dragon’s head had been severed, 2 53. Moreschini 2.584; Volp 2013a; Waelkens 1974. 254. Voss 1970:347 and 347n93, where he sets the Apocriticus in relation to Jerome’s dialogues; Papadogiannakis, forthcoming; see also Jones 2014:80–​81.

108  Christians in Conversation experiencing the same thing for a moment we were similarly hard pressed. For after we persuasively and once and for all untangled three of his propositions, or four or five, this fellow imitating the mythic Hydra, put forward myriad questions after one had been untangled, indefinitely extending [his] speculation into difficult [passages of Scripture].255 It is the scholarly consensus, however, that the Apocriticus does not record a real debate. Goulet argues that the disproportion between the length of the objections and that of the responses, the absence of actual exchanges between the speakers as well as of any reply from the pagan side even when the Christian’s answer is not fully satisfactory, and the accumulations of long Biblical quotations are all indicative that the Apocriticus was originally conceived as a written text. It is also clear that the Christian author made use of authentic anti-​Christian literature for the composition of the sections given to the pagan; this fact may explain the apparent use of different versions of the New Testament by the two speakers and the inadequate and unsatisfactory treatment that the objections to Christianity at times receive. The use of anti-​Christian literature may also account for the malicious tone of the pagan and for the occasional stylistic disparity between the speakers.256 Overall, the objections by the pagan speaker reveal a sound knowledge of the Scriptures, adopt consistent polemical patterns, and ultimately show a coherent philosophical system ascribable to syncretic Platonism. Despite our incomplete knowledge of third-​and fourth-​century anti-​Christian literature and Macarius’ probable reworking, a possible source for the anti-​Christian material has nonetheless been identified in Porphyry’s Contra Christianos, which Macarius may have used directly or through secondary literature.257 The Apocriticus may then be understood as a Christian response to anti-​Christian literature that was circulating in the late fourth century, although it is not necessary to conclude that Macarius himself was aware that Porphyry was the ultimate author of the objections. Jones sees the Apocriticus as an indication of the continuous threat that Christians saw in paganism and its texts.258 Especially remarkable features of the Apocriticus are the audacity of its style and the author’s ability to deploy a full range of rhetorical techniques. Macarius’ style is daring and brilliant, and he makes use of neologisms, rare and poetic terms, and figures of speech such as metaphors, anaphors, and wordplay. References

2 55. 84.12–​86.1; trans. Schott and Edwards 2015:114. 256. Goulet argues that it would be counterproductive for the author to conceive objections that he could not address in a satisfactory way (Goulet 2003:66–​75). 257. Schott and Edwards 2015:21–​40; Goulet 2011; Munnich 2011; Goulet 2003:112–​49; contra Magny 2014:11. 258. Jones 2014:79–​81.

Guide to the Dialogues  109 and quotations from classical authors are also common. The Apocriticus was intended for an audience who could appreciate its polished style, presumably learned readers who were familiar with or sympathetic to intellectual Platonism; it has been suggested that it betrays an attempt to treat Christian matters in an established literary language that is analogous to the reworking of Biblical themes in the form of odes, tragedies, and, perhaps, dialogues (on this subject, however, see entry 22).259 Volp emphasizes the homiletic character of the text, and explains Macarius’ tremendous rhetorical efforts as an argumentative tool for his Christian audience; Goulet and Schott chart the elements of Macarius’ rhetoric, such as instances of ethopoiai in the character of Christ and various techniques of amplification.260 Bibliography Adele, F. 2012. “Le clausole metriche nel terzo libro dell’Apocritico di Macario di Magnesia.” In Capone 2012:271–​330. Capone, A., ed. 2012. Lessico, argomentazioni e strutture retoriche nella polemica di età cristiana (III–​V sec.). Turnhout. Capone, A., 2012a. “The Narrative Sections of Macarius Magnes’ Apocriticus.” In Capone 2012:253–​70. Crafer, T.W. 1919. The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes. London. Demulder, B., and Van Deun, P., eds. Forthcoming. Questioning the World: Greek Patristic and Byzantine Question and Answer Literature. Turnout. Goulet, R., ed. 2003. Macarios de Magnésie. Le Monogénès: Édition critique et traduction française. 2 vols. Paris. Goulet, R. 2011. “Porphyre et Macarios de Magnésie sur la toute-​puissance de Dieu.” In Morlet 2011:205–​30. Jones, C.P. 2014. Between Pagan and Christian. Cambridge, MA. Kaczmarek, S., and Pietras, H., eds. 2011. Origeniana Decima: Origen as Writer; Papers of the 10th International Congress, University School of Philosophy and Education “Ignatianum,” Kraków, Poland, 31 August–​4 September 2009. Leuven. Magny, A. 2014. Porphyry in Fragments:  Reception of an Anti-​Christian Text in Late Antiquity. Farnham, UK. Männlein-​Robert, I., ed. 2017. Die Christen als Bedrohung? Text, Kontext und Wirkung von Porphyrios’ Contra Christianos. Stuttgart. Morlet, S., ed. 2011. Le traité de Porphyre Contre les Chrétiens: Un siècle de recherches, nouvelles questions; Actes du colloque international organisé les 8 et 9 septembre 2009 à l’Université de Paris IV–​Sorbonne. Turnhout. Munnich, O. 2011. “Recherche de la source porphyrienne dans les objections ‘païennes’ du Monogénès: L’enjeu des citations scripturaires.” In Morlet 2011:75–​104.

2 59. Adele 2012; Capone 2012a. 260. Volp 2017; Goulet 2003:164–​76; Schott and Edwards 2015:54–​59.

110  Christians in Conversation Nesselrath, H.-​G., and Wilk, F., eds 2013. Gut und Böse in Mensch und Welt: Philosophische und religiöse Konzeptionen vom Alten Orient bis zum frühen Islam. Tübingen. Papadogiannakis, Y. Forthcoming. “Cosmology and Its ῾Problems’ in Ps.-​ Justin’s Quaestiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos.” In Demulder and Van Deun, forthcoming. Schott, J.M., and Edwards, M.J. 2015. Macarius. Apocriticus. Liverpool. Volp, U. 2011. “‘.  .  . For the Fashion of This World Passeth Away’:  The Apokritikos by Makarios Magnes—​An Origenist’s Defense of Christian Eschatology?” In Kackmarek and Pietras 2011:873–​89. Volp, U., ed. 2013. Makarios Magnes. Apokritikos:  Kritische Ausgabe mit deutscher Übersetzung. Berlin. Volp, U. 2013a. “Der Schöpfergott und die Ambivalenzen seiner Welt:  Das Bild vom Schöpfergott als ethisches Leitbild im frühen Christentum in seiner Auseinandersetzung mit der philosophischen Kritik.” In Nesselrath and Wilk 2013:143–​59. Volp, U. 2017. “Ein Kampf gegen die Hydra:  Die christliche Verteidigungsstrategie des Makarios Magnes im Gegenüber zu exegetisch begründeter philosophischer Bibelkritik.” In Männlein-​Robert 2017:289–​305. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster. Waelkens, R. 1974. L’économie, thème apologétique et principe herméneutique dans l’Apocri­ ticos de Macarios Magnès. Louvain.

22. Apollinarius of Laodicea, Dialogi and Quod Deus in carne Christus Author

Apollinarius of Laodicea the Younger (c. 310–​c. 390)261

Full title

Διάλογοι (CPG 3663); Quod Deus in carne Christus (CPG 3664)

Original language

Greek (lost; two fragments survive)

Date of composition

c. 362?

Edition

Lietzmann 1904: fr. 157 and 158

Modern translation

none (it is included in the present entry)

Discussion of Scholarship Socrates of Constantinople reports that, following the school edict of the emperor Julian, Apollinarius the Elder and his son Apollinarius of Laodicea the Younger, the former a grammarian and the latter a sophist, composed texts that could be used by Christian teachers to continue teaching without breaching the new law. In particular, Socrates reports that Apollinarius the Elder composed a grammar consistent with Christianity (τὴν τέχνην γραμματικὴν Χριστιανικῷ τύπῳ) and that he paraphrased books of the Old Testament in verse, some of which he recast 261. Moreschini 2.68; Quasten 3.380.

Guide to the Dialogues  111 in epic meter and some in the form of tragedy. In the same period, Apollinarius the Younger is reported to have “expounded the Gospels and the teaching of the Apostles in the form of dialogues just as Plato among the Greeks had done.”262 The condemnation of the Apollinarii at the Synod of Rome (375) and the Council of Constantinople (381) had a considerable impact on the preservation of their works; unfortunately, none has survived today in its entirety. In addition, the silence on Apollinarius’ dialogues in contemporary and later authors makes it impossible to validate the witness by Socrates about the dialogues on the New Testament. While most scholars accept Socrates’ account, Speck points out some internal contradictions, and argues that Socrates depended on four different polemical sources on the Apollinarii that may not have been entirely reliable.263 Nonetheless, two fragments from dialogues on Christological subjects composed by Apollinarius of Laodicea the Younger have survived. While the former may or may not derive from the dialogues on the New Testament mentioned by Socrates, the latter is certainly derived from another, otherwise unknown dialogue entitled ὅτι θεὸς ἔνσαρκος ὁ Χριστός (CPG 3664:  Quod Deus in carne Christus). The fragments are published in Lietzmann in 1904 (fr. 157 and 158), and they provide some information about the works in dialogue form from which they were taken. Leontius of Byzantium, who reports fr. 157 in Adversus fraudes Apollinaristarum (CPG 6817; PG 86.2:1968D), provides some information about the original dialogue by Apollinarius (italics added): πάλιν ἐν διαλόγῳ οὗ ἡ ἀρχὴ θεὸν ἢ ἄνθρωπον λέγεις τὸν Χριστὸν μετ’ ὀλίγα τὰ πρῶτα ἐρωτήσαντος τοῦ δι’ ἐναντίας· “καὶ πῶς τὸ σῶμα θεὸς καὶ δημιουργὸς καὶ δεσπότης;” ἀπεκρίνατο εἰπὼν “ὅτι θεοῦ σῶμα καὶ δημιουργοῦ καὶ δεσπότου τὴν ἐνότητα ἔχον, ἥν οὐχ εὐρήκαμεν οὖσαν ἀνθρώπου πρὸς θεόν.” Again, in the dialogue that begins with “according to you, is Christ God or a man?,” a little below, when the opponent has asked “and how can the body be God, Creator, as well as Lord?,” (Apollinarius) answered saying: “because the body of God, of the Creator, and of the Lord had the unity, which we have not found as being of the Man with God.” It is of course risky to draw conclusions on the basis of this fragment alone, but Leontius described this text as a dialogue (διάλογος) that dealt with Christology;

262. Socr. HE 3.16.5: τὰ εὐαγγέλια καὶ τὰ ἀποστολικὰ δόγματα ἐν τύπῳ διαλόγων ἐξέθετο καθὰ καὶ Πλάτων παρ’ Ἕλλησιν; on the two Apollinarii see also Socr. HE 2.46.3 and Soz. HE 5.18.3–​4 and 6.25. 263. Moreschini 2.68; Quasten 3.380, Schamp 2006:310–​12, and Nesselrath 2006:189–​90 accept Socrates’ witness; Voss 1970:160 does not discuss it; Speck 1997 argues that it is unlikely that the Apollinarii composed these works; Kaster 1988:243 accepts Socrates but points out that Apollinarius the Elder would have been nearly eighty at the time, if indeed still alive.

112  Christians in Conversation it featured an opposing speaker (τοῦ δι’ ἐναντίας), and, given the opening line of the work, it must have opened ex abrupto without a narrative introduction or scene setting in the opening passage.264 If the fragment is indeed from Apollinarius’ Dialogi on the New Testament mentioned by Socrates of Constantinople, the question remains of how to best understand Socrates’ problematic reference to Plato. Socrates may have mentioned Plato simply as a generic reference to literature written in dialogue form; and he may not have meant specific aspects shared by Apollinarius’ dialogues and Plato’s dialogues. The second fragment (fr. 118)  is reported by Justinian in his Contra Monophysitas 181–​83 (CPG 6878; PG 86.1:1140CD), where he likewise provides some information about the origin of the passage (italics added): λέγει γὰρ ὁ αὐτὸς Ἀπολινάριος [. . .]. Εἶτα πάλιν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ τῷ ἐπιγεγραμμένῳ ὅτι θεὸς ἔνσαρκος ὁ Χριστός, κατὰ πεῦσιν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν τὸν διάλογον ποιούμενος, ἐπερωτηθείς· “Τί οὖν; οὐχὶ καὶ θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ἢ θεὸν σὺ λέγεις τὸν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενος αὐτὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον εἶναι;” λέγει τάδε· “οὐκ ἐν δύο οὐσίαις, ἀλλ’ ἐν μιᾷ.” The same Apollinarius says [. . .]. Then, again, in the work entitled That Christ is God Incarnate, devising a dialogue in questions and answers, when asked “How so? Is not Christ both God and man? Or do you say that Christ is God and deny that He is also man?,” he replies: “not in two substances, but in one.” The passage provides the title of the work, Quod Deus in carne Christus (CPG 3664), which is known from this fragment alone, and indicates that it was a dialogue structured as questions and answers. Voss points out that, according to Justinian, Apollinarius must have been one of the speakers (ἐπερωτηθείς [. . .] λέγει τάδε). His tentative suggestion, however, that the sequence κατὰ πεῦσιν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν might indicate an instance of erotapokriseis featuring their author is not cogent, given that this wording is common; Voss himself argues that the form and tone of the quoted question seems to reproduce spoken language, and it thus appears more suitable for a dialogue.265 Whether Apollinarius the Younger’s dialogues should be related to his teaching activity, as Socrates had suggested for his dialogues on the New Testament, is an issue that would deserve greater attention. Both Socrates and Sozomen recorded the involvement of the two authors in the provision of literate education; this involvement is also shown by the Apollinarii’s acquaintance with the pagan sophist Epiphanius, teacher of Apollinarius the Younger,

264. Andrist 2005:105–​6. 265. Voss 1970:161.

Guide to the Dialogues  113 a relationship that provoked the hostility of Theodotus and George, bishops of Laodicea.266 It is plausible that Apollinarius’ choice of the dialogue form was informed by their teaching activity in grammar and rhetoric. In addition, it should be noted that another work by Apollinarius dealing with Christology was known as Συλλογισμοί or Λόγος συλλογιστικός and, in all likelihood, was structured as a collection of syllogisms (CPG 3655; it survives in only five fragments: fr. 112–​16, ed. Lietzmann 1904). To sum up, Apollinarius the Younger composed one or more dialogues dealing with Christology, but it remains uncertain whether these are to be identified with the dialogues on the New Testament that were mentioned by Socrates. Their fragmentary state makes it difficult to understand why exactly Socrates of Constantinople suggested a link to Platonic dialogues and whether this link indicates anything else besides their dialogue form. In addition, the use of both dialogue and syllogism in Christological works may be more effectively related to Apollinarius’ involvement in the world of literate education and professional rhetoric; it adds a new facet to the already known picture of Apollinarius as a successful theologian as well as an anti-​heretical (and especially anti-​Arian) writer.267 Bibliography Amato, E., and Schamp, J., ed. 2006. Approches de la troisième sophistique: Hommages à Jacques Schamp. Brussels. Andrist, P. 2005. “Les protagonistes égyptiens du débat apollinariste.” Recherches augustiniennes 34:63–​141. Kaster, R. 1988. Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity. Berkeley. Lietzmann, H. 1904. Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule. Tübingen. Mühlenberg, E. 1969. Apollinaris von Laodicea. Göttingen. Nesselrath, H.-​G. 2006. “Sophisten bei Sokrates von Konstantinopel.” In Amato and Schamp 2006:178–​92. Schamp, J. 2006. “Sophistes à l’Ambon: Esquisses pour la Troisième Sophistique comme paysage littéraire.” In Amato and Schamp 2006:286–​338. Speck, P. 1997. “Sokrates Scholastikos über die beiden Apolinarioi.” Philologus 141.2: 362–​69. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster.

266. Socr. HE 2.46.3; Soz. HE 6.25; Kaster 1988:242–​43. 267. Jerome, in Ep. 84.3, mentions that he was one of Apollinarius the Younger’s pupils in Antioch and wrote an entry about him in De vir. ill. 104. Apollinarius the Younger exchanged letters with Basil of Caesarea (Ep. 361, 363, and 364 by Basil, and Ep. 362 from Apollinarius; Moreschini 2.86–​89).

114  Christians in Conversation 23. Didymus the Blind, Disputation with a Heretic Author

Didymus the Blind (c. 313–​98)268

Full title

unknown (CPG 2565)

Original language

Greek (fragment)

Date of composition

c. late fourth cent.

Edition

Kramer 1978

Modern translation

German (Kramer 1978)

Summary A sixth-​century fragment of papyrus found at Tura in Egypt, together with works by Origen (including the Dialogue with Heraclides) and by Didymus the Blind, contains a short passage of text written in dialogue form that deals with Christology and features two speakers identified as “Didymus” and a “heretic” respectively. While the first section of the text (l.1–​11) is closer to homiletic literature than to a dialogue and accordingly does not concern us here, the second section (l.12–​25) is not obviously related to the preceding one and was originally part of an otherwise unknown dialogue. In the passage, the two speakers discuss two issues: (i) whether the soul of Christ and the Logos were one with the flesh (on the basis of the text of Heb. 2.14), and (ii) whether the soul is mutable. The editor was able to identify the doctrine of the heretic as depending on Apollinarianism.269 The surviving text does not show any attempt to characterize the speakers, but it does include a few short narrative sections. Some of these simply mark the changes of speakers, while others, in a fashion that seems unusual, summarize the speakers’ conversation, presenting it in reported speech and, possibly, in a shortened form. This structure is especially evident in the last section of the text (21–​25), in which the narrative voice takes the opportunity to point out two contradictions that mar the arguments of the heretic (21, 24). Discussion of Scholarship The editor of the papyrus understood the text as the report (or reworking) of an actual dialogue between Didymus the Blind and a follower of Apollinarian doctrine. Moreschini, who interprets the text as the record of an actual debate, takes the same view. Andrist accepts the possibility that the text could be the report of a debate, but at the same time calls for caution, given that the surviving text appears a mere excerpt from a larger work. The limited extent of the fragment

2 68. Andrist 2005:71 expresses reservations on the authorship; Layton 2004 for Didymus the Blind. 269. Kramer 1978; Andrist 2005:71.

Guide to the Dialogues  115 precludes a more comprehensive analysis of the text and, in his view, is too limited to exclude the possibility that the Disputation was instead a literary dialogue with little or no relation to an actual debate. On the grounds that the Disputation might have been a fictional text, Andrist also suggests caution in the identification of the author with Didymus the Blind.270 Bibliography Andrist, P. 2005. “Les protagonistes égyptiens du débat apollinariste.” Recherches augustiniennes 34:63–​141. Kramer, B. 1978. “Protokoll eines Dialogs zwischen Didymos dem Blinden und einem Ketzer.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 32:201–​11. Reprint in Kramer 1985:201–​11. Kramer, B. 1985. Kleine Texte aus dem Tura-​Fund. Bonn. Layton, R.A. 2004. Didymus the Blind and His Circle in Late-​Antique Alexandria: Virtue and Narrative in Biblical Scholarship. Urbana, Il.

24. Ps.-​Athanasius, Disputatio contra Arium Author

unknown; ?Cyril of Alexandria271

Full title

Διάλεκτος ἐν τῇ κατὰ Νίκαιαν συνόδῳ πρὸς Ἄρειον (CPG 2250)272

Original language

Greek (Latin translation; fragmentary Armenian translation)273

Date of composition

?late fourth cent.274

Edition

PG 28.440–​501

Modern translation

none

Summary The Disputatio is an extensive dialogue arguing against Arian doctrine that, in the current edition, features Athanasius and Arius as speakers. The text opens with a narrative section that, presented as if written by Athanasius in first person, sets the scene and explains the occasion of the dialogue (1–​3). The rest of the 2 70. Kramer 1978; Moreschini 2.78; Andrist 2005:71. 271. The work circulated with pseudo-​Athanasian literature; Von Stockhausen 2010:141–​43 suggests the young Cyril of Alexandria as a possible author (see “Discussion of Scholarship”). 272. Von Stockhausen 2010:141–​43; the manuscripts, however, present variants, including διάλογος and διάλεξις. 273. Von Stockhausen 2010:138. 274. So according to Von Stockhausen 2010:150–​52; Voss 1970:33n50 does not exclude a few decades earlier, and he argues that the author was aware of Ps.-​Clementine literature; but “am schwierigsten zu datieren” for Andrist 2011:356.

116  Christians in Conversation text consists entirely of the exchanges between the two speakers, and unexpectedly ends with Arius’ abjuration of his belief and conversion to Nicene doctrine (45–​46).275 The narrative introduction, scene setting, and Arius’ eventual conversion make the Disputatio significantly different from the other surviving Pseudo-​ Athanasian dialogues in that they do not feature a narrative voice or an elaborate scene setting.276 The narrative prologue sets the scene by recounting that Athanasius and a group of brothers were once on their way to meet some unidentified “servants of God.” The delay in their progress (caused by the weakness of Athanasius’ body) provides one of the brethren with the chance to interrogate Athanasius about the meaning of John 14.28 and 1 Timothy 4.7, two of the loci classici of anti-​Arian literature. Athanasius’ narrative voice briefly reports this initial conversation, which in fact anticipates the theme of the dialogue proper. As soon as the group reaches its destination and greets the awaiting brothers, Arius suddenly appears. Arius invites Athanasius “to teach me your belief, or I shall teach you my faith” (3–​441B).277 Accordingly, Athanasius asks his opponent to pronounce his confession of faith (πρότασις) as the starting point for the examination (συνεξέτασις), and he does so too before the dialogue proper begins (4–​6). After the professions of faith, the two speakers move on to presenting briefly the Scriptural passages that express the relation between God the Father and the Son (7–​9); there follows a section in which Athanasius addresses and solves the apparent contradictions that the Scriptures present about the subject (10–​36).278 The Disputatio moves on to dealing with the nature of the Holy Spirit and of the Trinity (37–​44). Initially, the speakers are given relatively short passages of text, but, as the dialogue proceeds, Athanasius has increasingly longer passages (e.g., 25–​26 and 32–​36), while Arius’ attitude becomes less and less confrontational and he becomes willing to make concessions (26=469D, 29=476B, 31=480D, 37=488B). As a result of Arius’ openness, the tone of the dialogue becomes increasingly instructional as the Disputatio proceeds, and, at the close, Arius firmly rejects his error and accepts the Nicene doctrine defended by Athanasius (45–​46). A remarkable feature of the Disputatio is that its author appears especially concerned with the format of the debate. Athanasius takes the lead in suggesting 275. An apparent problem of the text in PG is that, while the beginning of the dialogue is reported in first person by Athanasius (3=441B: ἔλεξε τοιάδε· “[. . .]” Ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπεκρινόμην πρὸς αὐτόν·), it soon switches to the third person (4–​5=441CD: Ἄρειος εἶπεν· [. . .] Ἀθανάσιος εἶπεν·): this transition is not consistent in the manuscripts and a new edition seems necessary. 276. See entries 28, 29, and 30; Andrist 2005:106–​12. 277. In fact, the text has ἀπὸ τῆς ῥίζης τοῦ χριστομάχου Ἀρείου θηρίον ἀνθρωπόμορφον εἰσεπήδησε πρὸς ἡμᾶς “from the root of Arius, the enemy of Christ, an anthropomorphic beast leaped out at us” (3=441B), and, accordingly, this character may not be necessarily Arius himself but an Arian. The indications of the speakers throughout the dialogue in the current edition in PG, however, identify them as Athanasius and Arius. 278. An image used to explain the relation between God the Father and the Son is that of Constantine and Constantius (22=464CD); according to Von Stockhausen 2010, however, this reference cannot be taken straightforwardly as an indicator of the chronology of the dialogue. The author uses similar imagery elsewhere (20 and 25).

Guide to the Dialogues  117 and implementing the format that the speakers have agreed on. Athanasius argues that, if Arius wishes to dispute with him, he should first pronounce his confession of faith (3=441C: Εἰ δὲ βούλει [. . .] πρὸς μὲ [. . .] συνεξετάσαι [. . .] Προσάγαγε πρῶτος τὴν πρότασιν); once both characters have done so, Athanasius invites his opponent to begin the investigation (7=444B: ζήτησις) “with every discipline” (7=444B: μετὰ πάσης ἐπιστήμης). On only one occasion does Athanasius appear upset, but he nonetheless agrees to answer Arius’ provocative question because of the presence of an audience of listeners (17=456C). Athanasius addresses his opponent simply as “man” (10=449A, 25=469A: ἄνθρωπε); apart from the initial encounter, the tone of the dialogue is irenic, and this is increasingly visible as the Disputatio unfolds. Discussion of Scholarship According to Von Stockhausen, the Disputatio should not be understood as a programmatic text aimed at developing theological inquiry about Arian doctrine; it rather aims at reworking standard anti-​Arian themes and arguments in the form of a dialogue. The Scriptural quotations that are brought into the discussion are loci classici in anti-​Arian literature; also, Athanasius’ profession of faith is certainly post-​Nicene, and the one given to Arius is not authentically Arian but seems to have been composed especially for the dialogue. In addition, according to the same scholar, the author of the Disputatio may have been aware of Athanasius’ Orations against the Arians, but the polite tone of the dialogue marks the distance from the aggressiveness of the Orations.279 At the same time, Von Stockhausen suggests that significant features of the Disputation should be understood in the tradition of the Socratic dialogue. As the prologue makes clear, the dialogue is presented as taking place while the main character is walking together with a group of followers, a description that suggests a circle of philosophers having a conversation while walking; the reference to the weakness of Athanasius’ body (ἀσθένεια) may likewise be a literary element. In the first part of the conversation at least, the questions asked by Athanasius are short and often expect a yes or no answer. Despite his initial designation as an “anthropomorphic beast” at the beginning of the dialogue (3=441B), Arius strikes one simply as a less expert theologian, and his behavior has been compared to that of a junior speaker in a Socratic dialogue. Although Arius represents an opposing theological doctrine, he finds some of Athanasius’ questions challenging and is relatively quickly convinced by the argumentation of the main speaker.280

2 79. Von Stockhausen 2010. 280. Von Stockhausen 2010.

118  Christians in Conversation The Disputatio is clearly not set at the Council of Nicaea or at any other synod, and, accordingly, the title of the dialogue in the current edition appears problematic and is likely to have entered the tradition at a later stage. The aim of the author was not to provide new theological insight but to recast a well-​known theological controversy as a literary dialogue, not without some wit. Von Stockhausen suggests that the Disputatio was composed in an Alexandrian milieu because of the fame of Athanasius there, and she goes as far as to suggest the young Cyril of Alexandria as a possible candidate on the grounds of both linguistic similarities and the overlap in the manuscript transmission between Cyril’s works and Pseudo-​Athanasian literature.281 Bibliography Andrist, P. 2005. “Les protagonistes égyptiens du débat apollinariste.” Recherches augustiniennes 34:63–​141. Andrist, P. 2011. “Pseudathanasianische Dialoge.” In Gemeinhardt 2011:355–​62. Gemeinhardt, P., ed. 2011. Athanasius Handbuch. Tübingen. Von Stockhausen, A. 2010. “Die pseud-​athanasianische Disputatio contra Arium: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit ‘arianischer’ Thelogie in Dialogform.” In Von Stockhausen and Brennecke 2010a:133–​55. Von Stockhausen, A., and Brennecke, H.C., eds. 2010a. Von Arius zum Athanasianum: Studien zur Edition der Athanasius Werke. Berlin. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster.

25. Anonymous, Two Macedonian Dialogues Author

unknown

Full title

unknown

Original language

Greek (only excerpts survive)

Date of composition

c. 381–​c. 390282

Editions

Loofs 1914 (both dialogues); Cavalcanti 1983:50–​66 (second dialogue)

Modern translation

Italian, (second dialogue only Cavalcanti 1983:51–​67)

Summary Ps.-​Didymus’ De Trinitate (CPG 2570) and Ps.-​Athanasius’ Two Dialogues against the Macedonians (entry 30; CPG 2285) contain extensive excerpts from two texts

281. Von Stockhausen 2010:150–​52. 282. Cavalcanti 1983:16–​18.

Guide to the Dialogues  119 written by authors who endorsed the so-​called Pneumatomachian doctrine, also known as “Macedonian” after Macedonius of Constantinople, which is primarily known for rejecting the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The “Macedonian” texts from which the excerpts are taken had the form of dialogues, and are now entirely lost apart from these excerpts. The surviving excepts have been edited and studied together because of their similarity in both form and content. It has not been established, however, whether they were written by the same author.283 The excerpts, and thus presumably the two dialogues from which they originate, deal with the nature of the Holy Spirit. Their author argues that the Holy Spirit is not a divinity and, accordingly, should not be worshiped by Christians. The analysis of the dialogues is complicated not only by their fragmentary state but also by the editing process that the authors of Ps.-​Didymus’ De Trinitate and of Ps.-​Athanasius’ Two Dialogues carried out when reworking the excerpts into their own writings. Despite this, the surviving text shows that, in all likelihood, both the dialogue that was at the basis of the excerpts included in the second book of the De Trinitate and the dialogue that was at the basis of the excerpts included in the first of the Two Dialogues against the Macedonians originally featured two main speakers, one representing a Macedonian side and the other an anti-​Macedonian side.284 As far as the structure of the extant text goes, in both dialogues the anti-​ Macedonian speaker repeatedly presents objections to Macedonian doctrine; in turn, the Macedonian speaker shows that these objections are groundless, mostly through references to relevant passages from the Scriptures. In both dialogues the Macedonian is the speaker for longer sections, and there seems to be only limited interest on the part of the author in the views of the non-​Macedonian opponent, since these are summarily expressed. The surviving text shows no attempt to characterize the speakers, who act exclusively as representatives of opposing doctrinal positions; it is plausible that the characters were originally not even identified by name. There are short narrative sections that indicate the change of speakers, but these have been especially susceptible to editing by the excerptors. Discussion of Scholarship Voss notices that the author (or the authors) of the Macedonian dialogues may have been familiar with Aristotelian logic. Both dialogues make use of arguments

283. Loofs 1914; Voss 1970:162–​64; Cavalcanti 1983:16–​18; for Ps.-​Didymus’ De Trinitate (CPG 2570; PG 39.269–​992) see Perczel 2013, for Ps.-​Athanasius’ Two Dialogues against the Macedonians see entry 30. 284. The author of the De Trinitate identifies the speakers as “Orthodox” and “Macedonian” respectively (fr. 19 Loofs). However, the author of the Two Dialogues against the Macedonians identifies one as “Macedonian,” who nonetheless speaks in first person (2: ἡμεῖς), and he attributes the words of the non-​Macedonian speaker to the very same Macedonian speaker as if he were interrogating himself and answering his own objections (e.g., 1.15–​ 16: ἑαυτον ἠρώτα; 1.17: καὶ ἔπειτα πάλιν αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ): the outcome is clumsy.

120  Christians in Conversation framed as syllogisms (fr. 8 Loofs = PG 39.492C and chap. 1 = Cavalcanti 1983:50), and a section survives that argues against the use of the properties of homonymy and synonymy in the exegesis of the Scriptural text. This particular passage reveals an awareness of Aristotle’s Categories; according to Voss, this awareness may have been through the mediation of Porphyry’s In Cat. 69.7 (fr. 2 Loofs = PG 39.476AB with Voss 1970:163n20 and Voss 1970:164n25). It is remarkable that, when commenting on this passage about homonymy and synonymy, the anonymous author of the De Trinitate—​that is to say, the excerptor—​clearly understood that the argument was dependent upon the Aristotelian tradition (PG 39.477D: Ἀριστοτελικῇ δῆθεν δεινότητι καὶ τῇ ἐν λόγοις τέχνῃ [. . .] περιστρέφειν τὸ πρᾶγμα “to really twist the matter with Aristotelian shrewdness and cunning in words”). Bibliography Cavalcanti, E., ed. 1983. Ps. Atanasio: Dialoghi contro i Macedoniani. Turin. Loofs, F. 1914. “Zwei macedonianische Dialoge.” Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 19:526–​51. Reprint in Loofs 1999:321–​49. Loofs, F. 1999. Patristica: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Alten Kirche. New York. Perczel, I. 2013. “The Pseudo-​Didymian De Trinitate and Pseudo-​Dionysius the Areopagite: A Preliminary Study.” Studia Patristica 58:83–​108. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster.

26. John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood Author

John Chrysostom (c. 349–​407)285

Full title

Πρὸς τὸν ἐγκαλοῦντα ἐπὶ τῷ διαφυγεῖν τὴν ἱερωσύνην (CPG 3416)

Original language

Greek

Date of composition

either 381–​86 or c. 390286

Edition

Malingrey 1980

Modern translations

German (Fiedrowicz et al. 2013); French (Malingrey 1980); English (Neville 1964)

285. Kelly  1995. 286. The main problem lies in the discrepancy in the ancient sources. While Socrates, HE 3.6, wrote that the work περὶ ἱερωσύνης was composed when John was still a deacon (i.e., 381–​86), John Chrysostom’s homily In illud: Vidi Dominum 5.1 (PG 56.131), which cannot have been pronounced earlier than 386, states that the author intended to write a work περὶ ἱερωσύνης. The terminus ad quem is 392, when Jerome wrote to have read the work περὶ ἱερωσύνης (De vir. ill. 129). While Moreschini 2.147 and Liebeschuetz 2011:168–​70 argue that a newly ordained man could not write on his unworthiness to be ordained and accept the earlier chronology, other scholars argue for the period of c. 390 (Malingrey 1980:13; Kelly 1995:25; Illert 2000:18–​21) and accept that the setting of the dialogue must predate its composition, possibly reflecting the events of 370–​71.

Guide to the Dialogues  121 Summary On the Priesthood is structured as a dialogue between the author, John, and a friend, identified simply as Basil. The dialogue contains a few short narrative sections that are reported in a first-​person authorial voice and mostly record the characters’ reactions in the dialogue (e.g., 128.62, 226.27–​28, 362.87, 362.93–​95). In the long opening prologue, however, the authorial voice describes the occasion for the dialogue and outlines the long-​standing relationship of friendship that linked John with Basil, but it does not provide any indication about the setting of the conversation. According to this account, John and Basil had known each other for a long time and had shared the same teachers and upbringing. When Basil took the decision to adopt the ascetic life and asked John to join him in doing so, John refused, claiming that he was too attracted to the life of the world. Later, upon Basil’s persistent requests, John was on the point of agreeing, but nonetheless in the end refused, following the wishes of his widowed mother, who begged him not to deprive her of her only son. The mother’s heartfelt speech is reported in its entirety in the dialogue (66.37–​72.96). The occasion for the dialogue proper, however, was allegedly provided by a different event. After having rejected the ascetic life, John suddenly became aware of the rumor that he and Basil were about to be promoted to the priesthood. John did not express to Basil any of his uncertainties about his own ordination, but instead fled and went into hiding so as to avoid being ordained. Only after being ordinained did Basil realize that John had deceived him and, in distress, sought out his friend to ask the reasons for his action and to report that people were already accusing him of arrogance (ἀπόνοια 154.61) and worldly ambition (76.3–​ 86.115). This encounter constitutes the occasion for the dialogue. John’s response to Basil is thus structured as an apology for his conduct (ἀπολογία 88.6, 128.4) that responds to the accusation (κατηγορία 128.5) and the charges (ἐγκλήματα 128.6) that people—​in Antioch, it is understood—​have raised. As a result, John speaks for most of the dialogue, while Basil intervenes only seldom with shorter questions and remarks. The current division of the dialogue into six books is not original and seems unsatisfactory.287 Following Basil’s questions, John opens his defense with an excursus on beneficial deceit, arguing that deceitful behavior can be good, as in his own past conduct with Basil, since he was not guided by bad intentions but instead wanted to avoid the possibility that, upon hearing of John’s refusal, Basil would also refuse ordination out of fear, and would thus deprive the Church of his ministry. John then moves on to deal with Christian priesthood and its character, its dangers and its difficulties, the temptations that come with it, the specific duties and problems

287. Malingrey 1980:15.

122  Christians in Conversation that it carries, the harmful effects resulting from failure in the ministry, the need for preaching and teaching skills but their dangers as well, the necessity for pure conduct from ordained individuals, and the much greater effort that is required for priesthood than for ascetic life. John closes his defense with a lengthy simile in which he compares his refusal to be ordained with the refusal of an inexperienced youth who is unexpectedly asked to lead a large army into an important battle. It is perhaps unexpected that the dialogue does not end in a resolution, but Basil is remorseful and profoundly discomforted at hearing John’s apology; he sighs and weeps and stands up to leave while John offers his help and promises that Basil will not regret having been ordained. Discussion of Scholarship While the dialogue is commonly known as On the Priesthood, the treatment of Christian priesthood in the text is less systematic than one might expect, and the excursuses on the ministry are constantly related to, and used to justify, John’s specific decision to avoid ordination.288 Accordingly, Malingrey has detected in the dialogue a continuous tension between the topic of priesthood and the specific case of John’s refusal to be ordained.289 While scholars agree that the dialogue is a fictional composition and does not aim to reproduce an actual historical exchange between the speakers, the understanding of the relation between the dialogue and the author’s life events has shifted during the last decades. Given the limited actual exchange between John and Basil, Voss argues that the dialogue form is only a “dressing” (Einkleidung) for the composition, and was used as a mere literary device to give a more personal tone to the generic topic of priesthood. He questions the historicity of the report, arguing that a purely literary aim guided the author of the dialogue. The theme of flight, which is central to the dialogue, builds on an established literary tradition; in particular, the author appears aware of Gregory of Nazianzus’ Or. 2 (De fuga). The pathetic tone of the reported speech by John’s mother is striking, and, according to Voss, can be related to the tone of Hippocrates’ speech to Socrates at the beginning of the Protagoras, although later scholars have not followed up on this possible link. The same scholar also argues that the opening excursus on beneficial deception, which is closely related to John’s behavior with Basil, likewise responds to the same effort to build up a fictional setting for a work intended to treat the general topic of Christian priesthood.290

288. E.g., 154.61; 156.18; 158.29; 166.35; 172.94; 178.174; 186.277; 200.154; 224.78; 226.29; 280.30; 318.65; 326.21; 338.12; and the closing section. 289. Malingrey 1980:15. 290. Voss 1970:304–​307; Plato, Protagoras 310C; Malingrey 1980:16; Lochbrunner 1993:39–​66. Voss relates the literary nature of the dialogue to the dialogues by Palladius (entry 31) and Sulpicius Severus.

Guide to the Dialogues  123 Malingrey’s 1980 edition reacted against the reading of the dialogue as pure literary fiction. She emphasized not only the similarities to but also the differences from Platonic models, such as the unsettling ending of the work, and noticed that in the manuscript the dialogue is often identified as ἀπολογητικὸς λόγος. The otherwise problematic identification of the character of Basil, for which Basil of Caesarea, proposed in some manuscripts, would have been too old and Basil of Seleucia, proposed by Photius, would have been too young, might find a viable (though admittedly hypothetical) candidate in Basil of Rafanea in Syria.291 On the same line, a decade later Kelly argued that it must have been problematic for Chrysostom to publish such a work if no refusal to be ordained had ever happened, and identified a possible attempt by the Antiochene church to ordain him during 370/​71, an attempt that could then have provided the dramatic setting for the dialogue.292 The dialogue is voluminous, and its polished style and extensive use of similes, Biblical quotations, and rhetorical devices betray the ambitions of its author.293 The question of what the primary aims of Chrysostom in composing On the Priesthood were remains the subject of discussion. Hartney argues that, in addition to providing an explanation for John’s previous refusal to be ordained, the dialogue nonetheless shows that its author is now ready and qualified for Christian priesthood. In addition, the author names his treatment of priesthood a σκέψις, an “inquiry” (246.97), and, according to Liebeschuetz, the dialogue may contain traces of a critical survey of the actual clergy of the church of Antioch and was meant as an accusation of some of its members. The bar that Chrysostom sets for ordained priests is remarkably high, and there is thus the possibility that the work had a deeper agenda than a mere apology. In Liebeschuetz’s view, it may be ironic that Basil was so affected by John’s account of priesthood that he even began to doubt his own fitness for the duty.294 If Chrysostom was indeed a priest at the time, the dialogue could have provided a canon to appraise, or perhaps accuse, particular members of the clergy. The author emphasizes the dangers deriving from priesthood, and, although he declares that he does not intend to bring up charges (αἰτιάσαιμι 164.47) against all the clergy, he nonetheless argues that close scrutiny (ἐξέτασις 202.10; 202.24) before ordination is essential and that problems in the Church originate from the careless and random way (ἁπλῶς καὶ ὡς ἔτυχε 166.25) in which priests are chosen and appointed. Chrysostom makes reference to priests who are in search of worldly honors (154.64), expresses the view that some men seeking priesthood have filled the churches with murder and split cities into factions (168.42), and

291. 292. 293. 294.

Malingrey 1980:7–​25. Kelly 1995:27–​29. Maat  1944. Hartney 2004:26–​27; Liebeschuetz 2011:172–​73.

124  Christians in Conversation produces an attack on the present clergy who choose the unworthy but reject suitable candidates (194.69; 194.83–​84). While the identification of the targets of such attacks may be problematic, two arguments appear central to John’s exposition. First, the author is firm that the power of the priest lies in persuasion (110.60) and doctrinal combat (252.43). The main excursus on preaching, in which it is argued that giving sermons is a duty of priests, is clearly written by someone who has a very good understanding of the functioning of rhetoric in the church congregation (book 5). Second, Chrysostom strongly opposes ascetics who become priests without training, for—​he maintains—​men too valiant in ascetic practices can lose their heads and become wilder than savage beasts (174.138). After isolation, they cannot cope with priesthood, especially when they are too old (190.29) and are not able to undertake the duties of the ministry (328.55). Without specific training, ascetics cannot act as priests, since priesthood is more demanding than ascetic life (310.1–​312.52; 322.1–​330.58). It seems likely, then, that the dialogue should be more closely understood in relation to John’s career in Antioch in the late 380s.295 Bibliography Cameron, Av., and Gaul, N., eds. 2017. Dialogues and Debates from Late Antiquity to Late Byzantium. Abingdon. Engels, D., and Van Nuffelen, P., eds., 2014. Religion and Competition in Antiquity. Brussels. Fiedrowicz, M., Schaaf, I., and Barthold, C. 2013. Johannes Chrysostom. De sacerdotio = Über das Priestertum. Fohren-​Linden. Hartney, A.M. 2004. John Chrysostom and the Transformation of the City. London. Hofer, A. 2011. “The Reordering of Relationships in John Chrysostom’s De sacerdotio.” Augustinianum 51.2:451–​71. Illert, M. 2000. Johannes Chrysostomus und das antiochenisch-​syrische Mönchtum: Studien zu Theologie, Rhetorik und Kirchenpolitik im antiochenischen Schrifttum des Johannes Chrysostomus. Zürich. Kelly, J.N.D. 1995. Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom, Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop. London. Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.J. 2011. Ambrose and John Chrysostom. Oxford. Lochbrunner, M. 1993. Über das Priestertum. Bonn. Maat, W.A. 1944. A Rhetorical Study of Saint John Chrysostom’s De sacerdotio. Washington, DC. Malingrey, A.M., ed. 1980. Jean Chrysostome. Sur le sacerdoce:  Dialogue et homélie. SC 272. Paris. Neville, G. 1964. Saint John Chrysostom: Six Books on the Priesthood. London. Quiroga Puertas, A.J. 2017a. “The Rhetorical Mechanisms of John Chrysostom’s On Priesthood.” In Cameron and Gaul 2017:32–​42.

295. Van Nuffelen 2014:154 for the former; Van Nuffelen 2014a:206–​7 for the latter; Quiroga Puertas 2017a.

Guide to the Dialogues  125 Rapp, C. 2005. Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition. Berkeley. Saba, G.F. 2012. Il Dialogo sul sacerdozio di Giovanni Crisostomo: Sintesi tra paideia classica e paideia cristiana? Bologna. Van Hoof, L., and Van Nuffelen, P., eds. 2014. Literature and Society in the Fourth Century AD: Performing Paideia, Constructing the Present, Presenting the Self. Leiden. Van Nuffelen, P. 2014. “The End of Open Competition? Religious Disputations in Late Antiquity.” In Engels and Van Nuffelen 2014:149–​72. Van Nuffelen, P. 2014a. “A War of Words: Sermons and Social Status in Constantinople under the Theodosian Dynasty.” In Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2014:201–​17. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster.

27. Anonymous, Dialexis Montanistae et Orthodoxi Author

unknown

Full title

Μοντανιστοῦ καὶ Ὀρθοδόξου διάλεξις (CPG 2572)

Original language

Greek

Date of composition

late fourth cent.296

Editions

Berruto Martone 1999; Ficker 1905

Modern translation

Italian (Berruto Martone 1999)

Summary The short Dialexis features two speakers identified as a “Montanist” and an “Orthodox” respectively, and argues against Montanism, a Christian movement that followed the teaching of Montanus (second century), who was—​believed to be a Holy Spirit–​inspired prophet by his followers. There is no narrative section or attempt to characterize the speakers, who represent opposing doctrinal views and use “we” and “you” (plural) to refer to each other. The structure of the Dialexis is not organic in that the dialogue deals with at least five different subjects that are not obviously related to one another. The dialogue discusses the perfection of the Holy Spirit, addresses the existence of prophecy after Christ and after the apostles (and argues that Montanus was a false prophet), deals with the issue of Trinity by opposing the monarchianist view held by the Montanist speaker, again returns to the subject of the Holy Spirit, and, in the closing section, makes a case against female prophecy, which was accepted by the Montanists. The Orthodox is clearly the leading figure in the dialogue, and is speaker for longer sections of text. Moreover, on some occasions, the questions by the Montanist simply demand additional information or invite the Orthodox to rephrase his arguments. The Montanist thus provides the Orthodox with the 296. Berruto Martone 1999:25–​48.

126  Christians in Conversation chance to repeat or to expand the arguments and views that have been already expressed, but nowhere does he reject Montanist doctrine. Both speakers make abundant use of Scriptural quotations, most of which are drawn from the New Testament. Discussion of Scholarship According to Voss, the Dialexis could be the record of a dialogue that actually took place. Neither the structure of the conversation nor the rationale of the arguments is especially tight, and, on several occasions, the Montanist’s words miss the point, are not strictly relevant, or do not fit the main topic in the conversation. In addition, it twice appears that the Montanist does not know what to reply or, at least, his reply is not relevant to the question by the Orthodox speaker (4.8=455.33 and 4.1=454.24).297 In Voss’ view, the inconsistencies are not indicators of an informal tone deliberately sought by the author, but rather appear as spontaneous speech typical of an actual conversation.298 Conversely, according to Berruto Martone, the dialectical inferiority of the Montanist speaker in the dialogue is a strategy aimed at denouncing the inconsistency of the Montanist position; in her view, the Dialexis cannot be understood as a record of an actual debate. However, Berruto Martone’s further argument does not seem cogent, for she takes the designation of the main speaker as orthodox as a sufficient indicator that the text is pure fiction. In fact, one cannot exclude the possibility that the account of an actual dialogue could involve editorial work revealing the allegiance of the compiler.299 Given the abundant use of quotations by the Montanist speaker, Berruto Martone suggests that the author of the dialogue used an authentically Montanist collection of Scriptural excerpts that had been put together in order to justify Montanist doctrine. The same scholar argues that the purpose of the Dialexis was to provide a text that could be used for actual debates with Montanists, but she admits that the material contained in the Dialexis would not be enough for a systematic refutation of Montanism.300 The inconsistencies of the text demand further analysis; there is not yet sufficient evidence to rule out Voss’ hypothesis of an actual debate as the original nucleus of the text.

297. Conversely, Berruto Martone takes 4.1=454.24 as the beginning of a new chapter; also, the same scholar at 1999:15 suggests that the Montanist question at 3.12 is ironic. 298. Voss 1970:164–​65. 299. For instance, Anastasius of Antioch in Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite claims to have added the designation “orthodox.” 300. Berruto Martone 1999, esp. 7–​18, 24, and 48; Andrist 2005:109 for a parallel in the opening of the Dialexis with the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei.

Guide to the Dialogues  127 Bibliography Andrist, P. 2005. “Les protagonistes égyptiens du débat apollinariste.” Recherches augustiniennes 34:63–​141. Berruto Martone, A.M. 1999. Dialogo di un Montanista e un Ortodosso. Bologna. Bizer, C. 1970. Studien zu pseudathanasianischen Dialogen der Orthodoxos und Aëtios. Bonn. Ficker, G. 1905. “Widerlegung eines Montanisten.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 26.4: 447–​63. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster.

28. Ps.-​Athanasius, Five Dialogues on the Trinity Author

unknown301

Full title

Διάλογοι περὶ τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος (CPG 2284)

Original language

Greek (the fourth dialogue survives also in Armenian and Latin translations)302

Date of composition

c. 380–​c. 430303

Editions

PG 28.1115–​1286; Bizer 1970 (only two excerpts304)

Modern translation

none

Summary The Five Dialogues are an assemblage of five different dialogues dealing with Christological subjects. The first dialogue consists entirely of the exchanges between two characters, one identified as “Orthodox” and the other as “Anomoean”; there is no narrative section or any attempt to characterize the speakers, but there is one reference to the listeners (27=1156D: Τί οὖν ἀπατᾷς τοὺς ἀκούοντας [. . .]). The dialogue opens with the Anomoean’s provocative question “Are you Christian?” (1=1116A), and soon moves on to the discussion of what “Christian” means and, in turn, to the issue of the consubstantiality of God the Father and the Son, which the Anomoean does not accept. The Orthodox acts as the leader of the conversation, which is characterized by short exchanges and gradually assumes an openly didactic tone. The Orthodox provides an explanation of the terminology that he uses (2=1120A and 11=1133A: ὑπόστασις, θεότης, ὁμοούσιον), while the Anomoean twice admits his ignorance as well as the superiority of 301. Various attributions have been proposed over the years for all or for single dialogues, and these have included Athanasius of Alexandria, Maximus Confessor in whose manuscripts the dialogues are also found, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Apollinarius of Laodicea, Didymus the Blind, and Diodorus of Tarsus (Cavalcanti 1983:13–​14). 302. The Armenian version attributes the text to Basil of Caesarea (Bizer 1969 and Jungmann 1969); for the Latin version see Costa 1993 and Capone 2008. 303. The chronology varies for each dialogue: see Andrist 2005:109–​12; Heron 1973. 304. The third part of dialogue 2 (PG 28.1173A–​1201B) and dialogue 4 are edited in Bizer 1970.

128  Christians in Conversation the Orthodox’s arguments (5=1124B: τί λέγεις οὐκ οἶδα· σαφέστερον εἰπέ and 13=1137B). Occasionally, the Anomoean puts forth objections on the basis of Scriptural passages, but he also seeks clarifications and asks for Scriptural passages that could support the argument of the Orthodox (ποῦ γέγραπται in 5, 6, 7, 14). The Anomoean twice declares that he is close to becoming homoousian (10=1133A:  Παρ’ὀλίγον με πείθεις ὁμοουσιαστὴν γενέσθαι and again in 22=1149B) but the decisive step never takes place in the dialogue. The second dialogue also features two speakers, one identified as “Orthodox” and the other as “Anomoean,” and adopts the same format as dialogue 1 in that there is no narrative voice or attempt to characterize the speakers; nonetheless, dialogue 2 appears as a composite work made up of three distinct sections. The first section (1–​5) is a dialogue in which the Anomoean interrogates the Orthodox about the nature of the Son by proposing dialectical arguments in support of Anomoean doctrine, but the Orthodox responds to these arguments with references to the text of the Scriptures (e.g., 3=1161A). The conversation does not narrow the gap between the two opposing views, and the Orthodox is ready to admit that the laws of human thought do not apply to the divine realm (5=1164B:  Κἂν ἀνθρωπίνη διάνοια τοῦτο νοεῖν ποιῇ, ἀλλ’οὐχ οὕτως ἡ θεία γραφὴ ἐδίδαξεν). The Anomoean then reads an excerpt from the scholia by Eunomius (CPG 3458), and refutation of these follows, in dialogue form, by the Orthodox: this second section (6–​9) may have been added to the dialogue at a later stage.305 In the third and last section of the dialogue, the Anomoean reads a letter, the Syntagmation by Aetius (CPG 3445), which deals with the theological implications of the only-​begotten-​ness of the Son and thus provides the topic of a lengthy and monotonous exchange between the two speakers that lasts until the end of dialogue (10–​29). There is no closing conversion, and the dialogue ends with a hostile pun on the name Aetius (Ἀέτιος) and ἀετός “eagle.” The third dialogue is entirely made up by the exchanges between two speakers, one identified as “Macedonian” and the other “Orthodox,” and opposes Macedonian doctrine by arguing that the Holy Spirit is God. The Macedonian opens the dialogue with the question “Where is it written that the Pneuma is God?” (1), a question that is central to the entire dialogue and is repeated several times (1, 2, 4 twice, 5, 9, 13, 16, 26; and δείκνυμι “to show” from the Scriptures in 4, 5, 19, 20, 22, 28).306 The Macedonian is unsatisfied with the arguments provided and does not make any concession until the final section, in which he concedes some ground by admitting that “I am weak but I  will find somebody who can respond to these: persuade my teachers, and I will be persuaded” (29=1248C: Ὀλίγος εἰμί· εὑρίσκω δὲ τὸν δυνάμενον πρὸς ταῦτα εἰπεῖν.

3 05. Voss 1970:167n42; Andrist 2011:356. 306. This format has a precedent in entry 17, the Dialogue with Adamantius.

Guide to the Dialogues  129 Πεῖσον τοὺς διδασκάλους μου, καὶ πείθομαι. And again at the close, 1249BC), and on this position the dialogue ends. The fourth dialogue is entirely made up by the exchanges between two speakers, one identified as “Apollinarian” and the other as “Orthodox,” and opposes Apollinarian doctrine by arguing that Christ had a human body. The dialogue opens with the question, by the Orthodox, of whether or not Christ had a human body (1=1249D), and moves on to discuss the nature of Christ. The Orthodox plays a leading role throughout (with the possible exception of chap.  9) and answers the objections and questions by the Apollinarian speaker with longer passages of text. The Apollinarian speaks in the plural (7=1261B:  Ἡμεῖς, and 9=1264B) and should probably be understood as the representative of a group, but there is no other attempt to characterize the speakers or any narrative section. As in dialogue 2, the Orthodox argues that the laws of human thought do not apply to divine realm (3=1253B). The fifth dialogue is markedly different in that it is structured as a series of syllogisms spoken by an “Apollinarian,” which are followed by the answers of an “Orthodox,” whom some manuscripts have identified as Gregory. There is no narrative section, or attempt at characterizing the speakers; the text opens ex abrupto with the first syllogism. A link has been suggested between the syllogisms put forward by the Apollinarian speaker and the florilegia reported in Theodoret’s Eranistes; it is likely that the fifth dialogue was conceived as a response to a Compendium attributed to Apollinarius of Laodicea (but possibly composed by his disciples).307 Discussion of Scholarship The origins of this Pseudo-​Athanasian assemblage of texts have been the central issue discussed in modern scholarship on the Five Dialogues. Despite their apparent similarity in themes and format, the 1970 study of Bizer shows that the assemblage has a heterogeneous origin in both authorship and chronology. Heron has subsequently emphasized the overlaps in content and the parallels in structure in the first two dialogues; Andrist suggests that, in a branch of the tradition, the first three dialogues circulated together anonymously at least until the time of Maximus Confessor, in whose manuscripts they are also contained.308 The argument that the laws of human thought do not extend to the divine realm appears as a link between dialogues two and four; Andrist also notices similarities in both language and contents between dialogues 3 and 4 and another Pseudo-​Anthanasian work, the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (entry 29). Even though the links are too feeble to imply the dependence of the Dialogus Athanasii

307. Andrist 2005:107–​8. 308. Bizer 1970; Heron 1973; Andrist 2005:107.

130  Christians in Conversation et Zacchaei on dialogues 3 and 4, they nonetheless reveal the use of a shared religious language.309 For the present analysis, it is especially remarkable that all dialogues, with the exception of dialogue 5, begin ex abrupto with a question that prompts the discussion and provides the main subject for each dialogue. Such a feature is also found in a lost Christological dialogue by Apollinarius of Laodicea (fr. 157; see entry 22), which may well have had the same format as the present dialogues. On these grounds, Voss puts forward the hypothesis that the author of dialogue 4, which opposes Apollinarian doctrine, consciously adopted this literary form as a polemical imitation of the lost dialogue by Apollinarius of Laodicea.310 The third dialogue is remarkable for a different reason. Its argument is monotonous, and the stubborn refusal by the Macedonian precludes any progress in the conversation. It is difficult to conceive that its author intended it as an anti-​Macedonian text, for this would strike the reader as an unsuccessful enterprise from very early on. Accordingly, Voss puts forward the hypothesis that the dialogue may be the record, possibly edited, of a real debate. Voss finds some ground for this view in that the Macedonian twice admits to being weaker and invites the Orthodox to persuade his more experienced teachers (29=1248C and 1249BC), and, especially, in that the Orthodox remarks that both listeners and readers will certainly notice the inconsistency of the Macedonian (16=1228A: ὡς οἱ ἀκροαταὶ ἴσασιν καὶ οἱ μετὰ ταῦτα ἀναγιγνώσκοντες γνώσονται, and again listeners in 26=1244A):  according to Voss, while the reference to the listeners may well be a device to reinforce the dramatic fiction, the reference to future readers is hard to understand as a fabrication with the same purpose, and it may be indicative that this was a real debate being recorded.311 Bibliography Andrist, P. 2005. “Les protagonistes égyptiens du débat apollinariste.” Recherches augustiniennes 34:63–​141. Andrist, P. 2011. “Pseudathanasianische Dialoge.” In Gemeinhardt 2011:355–​62. Bizer, C. 1969. “Die armenische Version und der griechischlateinischer Text des pseudo-​ athanasianischen Dialogus de s. Trinitate IV.” Oriens Christianus 53:201–​11. Bizer, C. 1970. Studien zu pseudathanasianischen Dialogen der Orthodoxos und Aëtios. Bonn. Capone, A. 2008. “De sancta Trinitate dialogus IV:  Note critiche alla versione latina.” Classica et Christiana 3:69–​81. Cavalcanti, E., ed. 1983. Ps. Atanasio. Dialoghi contro i Macedoniani. Turin.

309. Andrist 2005:113–​21. 310. Voss 1970:169n53. 311. Voss 1970:167–​68.

Guide to the Dialogues  131 Costa, I. 1993. “Opere di Atanasio in una traduzione latina inedita.” Atti dell’Accademia Pontaniana 42:221–​65. Gemeinhardt, P., ed. 2011. Athanasius Handbuch. Tübingen. Heron, A. 1973. “The Two Pseudo-​Athanasian Dialogues against the Anomoeans.” Journal of Theological Studies 24.1:101–​22. Jungmann, P. 1969. “Die armenische Fassung des sog. pseudo-​athanasianischen Dialogus de s. Trinitate IV.” Oriens Christianus 53:159–​201. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster.

29. Ps.-​Athanasius, Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei Author

unknown312

Full title

Ἀθανασίου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἀλεξανδρείας λόγος πρὸς Ζακχαῖον νομοδιδάσκαλον τὼν ἰουδαίων (CPG 2301)

Original language

Greek (Armenian and Georgian translations)313

Date of composition

c. 380–​420, possibly c. 380–​90314

Editions

Andrist 2001:27–​61; Conybeare 1898

Modern translation

English (Varner 2004:23–​85)

Summary The Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei features two speakers, a Christian and a Jew, whom the title alone identifies respectively as the bishop of Alexandria and a Torah teacher. The two main subjects of the dialogue are God according to Christianity (1–​45) and Jesus Christ (46–​121). The first part of the Dialogus argues that God is not monadic but Trinitarian (3–​20) and that the incarnation had been prophesied in the Old Testament (21–​45). The second part argues that Jesus reigns, also in Egypt, (47–​57), that He is the Messiah as it was prophesied (58–​78); that He is shepherd, priest, and God (79–​98); and that Jesus and His disciples’ victory has fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament (98–​121). The dialogue closes with a section on Jewish religious practice (122–​29) and with an epilogue, surviving only in Armenian translation, in which Zacchaeus accepts the Christian religion and is offered baptism (130).315 There is no narrative introduction, or narrative voice, nor are there references to an audience, and the dialogue consists entirely of the exchanges between the two speakers, who are

3 12. The origin of the dialogue has been related to an Egyptian milieu (Andrist 2005:92–​95; Varner 2004:18). 313. Calzolari  2000. 314. Andrist 2017; but Déroche 1991:276 for the second half of the sixth century. 315. Andrist 2001:122; Schreckenberg 285–​86; Külzer 1999:105–​112 for the author’s argumentation; Andrist 2001:78 takes the Armenian epilogue as original.

132  Christians in Conversation simply introduced by their names and not described in a specific way besides the characterization provided in the title. There is no explicit indication about the setting, but the reference to Egypt and the identity of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, suggest fourth-​century Alexandria. Overall, the exchanges between the two characters are short and sharp, but, in the latter part of the dialogue, Athanasius tends to be the speaker for longer passages. The dialogue opens ex abrupto with Zacchaeus’ accusation that Christians are deceived, since they do not follow the message of the Scriptures (1). Athanasius’ response sets the format and the tone of the dialogue: Athanasius Do you then desire that I show (δείξω) you that it was written formerly in the Scriptures that the Messiah is also God, and they are not two Gods? [. . .] Zacchaeus Show (δεῖξον) me that the Messiah is God and they are not two gods. Athanasius First you must be taught (διδάχθητι) that the Messiah is God, and then you will learn (μαθήσῃ) that they are not two gods.316 From here on Athanasius leads the conversation by answering Zacchaeus’ questions and by guiding him in the exegesis of specific Scriptural passages; accordingly, the tone of the conversation appears instructional.317 Often Zacchaeus asks Athanasius for further explanation (usually δεῖξον and δεῖξαι:  e.g., 2, 3, 7, 11, 24, 26, 28, 36, 46, 58; or πεῖσον: 37, 128), which Athanasius provides usually by relying on relevant passages from the Old Testament. Apart from two occasions when the tone is more heated (22, 61), Zacchaeus receives Athanasius’ explanation without any objection and, at the close (130), declares himself persuaded and thus fulfills Athanasius’ ultimate aim of converting him to Christianity (11: “I will persuade (πείθω) you”; 30: “so that I may progressively convince you [ἵνα εἰς τοῦτο προκόψαντα πείσω] that He willingly died for us all”).318 Discussion of Scholarship The dialogue lacks a narrative voice, any attempt to set the scene, or any literary device with an equivalent function; the speakers, who are not characterized at all in the body of the dialogue, are merely representative of opposing theological stances. On these grounds, Andrist suggests a comparison with dialogues such

3 16. 2; trans. adapted from Varner 2004:23. 317. See esp. 13: “If one does not learn the letters, he will be unable to read syllables with comprehension. It is necessary, therefore, to lay down some elementary truths and then to understand the things said and signified by the letters” (Varner 2004:27); 26: “I want to guide (ὁδηγῆσαι) you in the reading [. . .]. And in guiding you (σε ὁδηγηθέντα) in this way from Scripture, you will come to an understanding (εἰς σύνεσιν)” (Varner 2004:35); 46: μαθεῖν; and 117. 318. Varner 2004:37.

Guide to the Dialogues  133 as the Latin Consultationes Zacchaei christiani et Apollonii philosophi (CPL 103, wrongly attributed to Firmicus Maternus), the Dialogue with Adamantius (CPG 1726), and the lost dialogue by Apollinarius of Laodicea from which fr. 157 is derived.319 Andrist also notices that the format of the Dialogus is similar to that of other Pseudo-​Athanasian dialogues, and, in particular, the Disputatio contra Arium (entry 24), the Five Dialogues on the Trinity (entry 28), the Two Dialogues against the Macedonians (entry 30), and the anonymous Dialexis Montanistae et Orthodoxi (entry 27). On closer analysis, however, these works’ dependence on the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei cannot be proven, but they share a common religious language and are likely to have been authored in similar cultural milieux.320 On the grounds of the Christological hints in the text, Andrist argues that the origins of the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei should be sought in a moderately Apollinarian author or community in Egypt. As for the format and function of the work, he describes the Dialogus as an Apollinarist catechism in the form of an anti-​Jewish dialogue, which could have been addressed to educated members of the religious community to which the author belonged, and catechumens in particular.321 Conversely, Lahey sees the background of the material contained in the Dialogus in genuine Christian-​Jewish interaction. Although admitting that the focus on the difference between Judaism and Christianity could function as an effective pedagogic device in teaching the Christian religion, Déroche does not exclude the possibility that the dialogue had multiple purposes and was addressed to a spectrum of audiences that was not limited to the religious community of the author; he thus leaves the possibility open that non-​Christians, pagans, but especially Jews, could be among the expected readership.322 The heavy dependence of the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei on earlier texts, the overlaps with the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, and the fact that the Jew is so easily convinced indicate that the dialogue is a fictional text and cannot be the record of an actual debate. Andrist suggests that the dialogue is as unrealistic and fictitious as other Pseudo-​Athanasian dialogues, but observes that this entire body of literature could nonetheless be used as preparatory material for actual debates. Also, the same scholar shows that the dialogue has the potential for an actual performance and could be read publicly or staged dramatically.323

3 19. Andrist 2005: 102–​6; for the Dialogue with Adamantius and Apollinarius see entries 17 and 22. 320. Andrist 2005:106–​121; however, for the format of the Disputatio contra Arium see entry 24. 321. Andrist 2001, 2005:93–​102. 322. Lahey 2007:591–​95; Déroche 2012:543–​45; Andrist 2013:222–​23. 323. Andrist 2017:55–​56.

134  Christians in Conversation Bibliography Andrist, P. 2001. Le Dialogue d’Athanase et Zachée: Étude des sources et du contexte littéraire. 2 vols. PhD diss. University of Geneva. Andrist, P. 2005. “Les protagonistes égyptiens du débat apollinariste.” Recherches augustiniennes 34:63–​141. Andrist, P. 2013. “Polémique religieuse et dialogue aduersus Iudaeos au service de la catéchèse, l’exemple de Cyrille de Jérusalem.” In Morlet et al. 2013:199–​223. Andrist, P. 2017. “Literary Distance and Complexity in Late Antique and Early Byzantine Dialogues adversus Iudaeos.” In Cameron and Gaul 2017:43–​64. Bonfil, R., Irshai, O., Stroumsa, G.G., and Talgam, R., eds. 2012. Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures. Leiden. Calzolari, V. 2000. “La version arménienne du Dialogue d’Athanase et Zachée du Pseudo-​ Athanase d’Alexandrie:  Analyse linquistique et comparaison avec l’original grec.” Le Muséon 113:125–​47. Cameron, Av., and Gaul, N., eds. 2017. Dialogues and Debates from Late Antiquity to Late Byzantium. Abingdon. Conybeare, F.C., ed. 1898. The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus and of Timothy and Aquila. Oxford. Déroche, V. 1991. “La polémique anti-​judaïque au VIème et VIIème siècle:  Un mémento inédit; Les Képhalaia.” Travaux et mémoires 11:275–​311. Déroche, V. 2012. “Forms and Functions of Anti-​Jewish Polemics: Polymorphy, Polysemy.” In Bonfil et al. 2012:535–​48. Külzer, A. 1999. Disputationes Greacae contra Iudaeos: Untersuchungen zur byzantinischen antijüdischen Dialogliteratur und ihrem Judenbild. Stuttgart. Lahey, L. 2007. “Evidence for Jewish Believers in Christian-​Jewish Dialogues through the Sixth Century (excluding Justin).” In Skarsaune and Hvalvik 2007:581–​639. Morlet, S., Munnich, O., and Pouderon, B., eds. 2013. Les dialogues adversus Iudaeos: Permanences et mutations d’une tradition polémique. Paris. Skarsaune, O., and Hvalvik, R., eds. 2007. Jewish Believers in Jesus. Peabody, MA. Varner, W.C. 2004. Ancient Jewish-​Christian Dialogues: Athanasius and Zacchaeus, Simon and Theophilus, Timothy and Aquila; Introductions, Texts, and Translations. Lewiston.

30. Ps.-​Athanasius, Two Dialogues against the Macedonians Author

unknown324

Full title

Διάλεξις μετὰ Μακεδονιανοῦ or Λόγος ἐν εἴδει διαλέξεως μετὰ Μακεδονιανοῦ (CPG 2285)

Original language

Greek

324. Various authors have been proposed over the years, and these have included Athanasius of Alexandria, Maximus Confessor, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Didymus the Blind (Cavalcanti 1983:13–​14).

Guide to the Dialogues  135 Date of composition

end of fourth or early fifth cent.325

Edition

Cavalcanti 1983

Modern translation

Italian (Cavalcanti 1983)

Summary The Two Dialogues are designed to refute Pneumatomachian doctrine, which denies the divinity of the Holy Spirit and is also known as “Macedonian” after Macedonius of Constantinople (mid-​fourth century). The first dialogue, a composite text that draws on earlier texts, discusses the nature of the Holy Spirit and argues for its divinity on a par with that of God the Father and the Son. The second dialogue addresses the related issue about the soul of Christ and opposes the view that Christ did not have a human soul. Neither dialogue ends in a pacification, and, perhaps unexpectedly, dialogue 2 closes on a rather confrontational note. Dialogue 1 consists of two main sections. The opening narrative preface aims to draw the attention to the excerpt that follows, a σχεδάριον (“memorandum”) of Macedonian doctrine, so that the reader may form an opinion on the doctrine of the Macedonians and could learn how the author intends to respond to it (1.1). The text that follows (1.1–​8) is, perhaps surprisingly, an excerpt from a genuine Macedonian dialogue between a Macedonian and a non-​Macedonian speaker and is discussed in entry 25. After the excerpt from the Macedonian dialogue, there follows a second (and final) editorial passage in which the author declares that he will continue “the dialogue between two speakers [. . .] as if we were speaking with one of those who holds the same opinion as the (Macedonian) author of the memorandum” (1.9.2–​4:  διάλογον ἐκ δύο προσώπων [.  .  .]. Συντυχόντες τινὶ τῶν τὰ αὐτὰ τῷ γράψαντι τὸ σχεδάριον φρονούντων ἔφημεν). The second part of dialogue 1 is thus a dialogue between two characters, an “Orthodox” and a “Macedonian,” and is not interrupted by any narrative section; it shows no attempt at characterizing the speakers by anything other than their doctrinal affiliation (1.9–​20). In this section, the two speakers discuss the nature of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and they often resort to Scriptural quotations. On one occasion, the Macedonian refers to a formula from “the Fathers” that does not convince the Orthodox, who conversely prefers to ground the discussion on the Scriptures (1.15). The dialogue is characterized by short exchanges, and is remarkable in that the doctrinal gap between the opposing positions in no way narrows through the conversation. On several occasions, despite finding some initial common ground, both speakers declare that the opponent’s position on the crucial issues is not acceptable. The close, however,

325. Cavalcanti  1983.

136  Christians in Conversation is a turning point, since the victory of the Orthodox is ratified by the admission of ignorance by the Macedonian (1.20.93: Ἐγὼ ἀμαθής εἰμι), who nonetheless promises to bring along his teacher for further discussion (1.20.93–​94: ἄγω τὸν διδάσκαλόν μου καὶ διαλέγεταί σοι). It is unclear whether dialogue 2, shorter but in the same format as the second section of dialogue 1 (1.9–​20), should be understood as featuring the same Orthodox speaker and the Macedonian teacher mentioned at the close of dialogue 1.326 The tone, however, is decidedly sharper and considerably less irenic. The Orthodox attempts to convince the interlocutor that Christ had taken a soul, and the two find some initial common ground (2.153–​54),327 but further questions and objections by the Macedonian soon embitter the tone of the conversation; the dialogue ends on a bad note with reciprocal accusations (2.190–​94). The point of no return in the conversation seems to be 1.178, when the Macedonian identifies in the Orthodox’s words a reference to the beginning of Aristotle’s Categories, and this point prompts the final confrontation on the legitimacy of the use of Aristotelian logic for the subject under discussion.328 Discussion of Scholarship Voss argues that the short narrative passage that links the two main sections of dialogue 1 (1.9.2–​4) stands as an indicator that the second section is not the account of a real debate but rather a fictitious work conceived in dialogue form as a follow-​up to the previous section taken from an authentic Macedonian dialogue. Voss also suggests that the Orthodox’s very last words in the dialogue (1.20.98), a formula of baptism taken from Matthew 28.19, stand as a closing doxology more than as a plausible conclusion of an actual debate. According to his view, the admission of ignorance by the Macedonian at the close (1.20.93: Ἐγὼ ἀμαθής εἰμι) and the following reference to his teacher should also be taken as an imitation of the close of the third Pseudo-​Athanasian dialogue on the Trinity (3.29: Ὀλίγος εἰμί [. . .] Πεῖσον τοὺς διδασκάλους μου), which may have provided a model for the composition of dialogue 1.329 It would be difficult, however, to extend Voss’ argument of a fictitious origin to dialogue 2, in which the tone of the conversation is especially bitter and the text is unlikely to have been conceived by a rational author intending to target Macedonian doctrine successfully. One cannot exclude the possibility that dialogue 2 originated from a real confrontation that, if we take the dialogue as a fair

3 26. Of this view is Andrist 2005:108. 327. According to Cavalcanti 1983, this should be understood as authorial editing. 328. Voss 1970:171–​72. 329. Voss 1970:169–​170 and n57. Voss’ argument takes for granted that the author of the narrative passage (1.9.1–​5) and of the second part of the first dialogue (1.9–​20) are the same person. Given the contrast between the poor work of editing of 1.1–​8 and the more successful 1.9–​20, such an assumption may need additional scrutiny.

Guide to the Dialogues  137 reflection, must have not been decidedly successful for either contestant. Voss admits that dialogue 2 may well have had a different origin from that of Dial. 1, but his further argument that Dialogue 2 must have been wholly unsuitable as an anti-​Macedonian work merely because it is the Macedonian speaker, and not the Orthodox, who grounds his arguments in Aristotelian logic is not cogent.330 It is anyway remarkable that, as in the Two Macedonian Dialogues, in the Two Dialogues against the Macedonians Aristotelian logic (or outspoken opposition to Aristotelian logic) appears as a crucial issue of contention. Bibliography Andrist, P. 2005. “Les protagonistes égyptiens du débat apollinariste.” Recherches augustiniennes 34:63–​141. Cavalcanti, E., ed. 1983. Ps. Atanasio. Dialoghi contro i Macedoniani. Turin.

31. Palladius, Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom Author

Palladius of Helenopolis (c. 363–​430)331

Full title

Διάλογος ἱστορικὸς Παλλάδιου, ἐπισκόπου Ἑλενουπόλεως, γενόμενος πρὸς Θεόδωρον, διάκονον Ῥώμης, περὶ βίου καὶ πολιτείας τοῦ μακαρίου Ἰωάννου, ἐπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου (CPG 6037)

Original language

Greek

Date of composition

prob. between Sept. 407 and early 409332

Editions

Malingrey and Leclercq 1988; Coleman-​Norton 1928

Modern translations

French (Malingrey and Leclercq 1988); English (Meyer 1985, based on Coleman-​Norton 1928)

Summary The dialogue addresses the life and ecclesiastical career of John Chrysostom, with an emphasis on the sequence of events that led to his condemnation and his two expulsions from Constantinople. The author intends to re-​establish the truth about John Chrysostom and to rehabilitate him by refuting the accusations 330. A  similar rejection of human reasoning for divine matters by the Orthodox speaker is found in Ps.-​ Athanasius’ Five Dialogues on the Trinity (dialogues 2 and 4); Andrist 2005:108 points out the diversity between dialogue 1 and dialogue 2. 331. Moreschini 2.640; for discussion on authorship, see Malingrey and Leclercq 1988:1.7–​9. 332. Perhaps in Rome, see Van Nuffelen 2013 (who, however, leaves open the possibility of a chronology until 418 if c. 408 is taken as the dramatic date of the dialogue), Katos 2011:27–​28, Malingrey and Leclercq 1988:1.19–​21, and Moreschini 2.640.

138  Christians in Conversation that were leveled against him—​a series of events described as a “tragedy” (4.71: τραγῳδία). The speakers of the dialogue are a bishop from the East, who remains unnamed, and a deacon of the Church of Rome, Theodore; the dialogue is set in front of an audience333 in Rome since, as the bishop reports, he had to flee an unspecified see in the East because of the persecution of John Chrysostom’s supporters.334 The bishop plays the role of the main speaker and eventually closes the dialogue with a doxology, while Theodore raises sporadic and usually informative questions that primarily address particular aspects of John’s life (the bishop even states that Theodore “puts questions to me like a pack of greedy children”).335 Two exceptions to this format are Theodore’s account of the Church of Rome’s reaction to John’s exile, where the exchanges are shorter,336 and another section with shorter exchanges in which, instead, the bishop questions the deacon.337 On some occasions a narrating voice intervenes to make short remarks on the speakers’ reactions;338 within the account of the controversy arising from the deposition of John Chrysostom, Palladius, the author, is referred to in the dialogue in third person.339 The extent of the dialogic parts is thus limited, and narration is the predominant form in the text. Theodore asks the bishop for a “really true account (μετὰ πάσης ἀληθείας ἡμῖν διηγήσαθαι) of what happened (in Constantinople),” and points out that “God will be your judge and examiner, and you will be cross-​ examined (ἐλεγχθήσῃ) by us, too, if we learn otherwise. For it is not one or two, or three, or ten, or even more, who have given us an account of the happenings in Constantinople.”340 As the account unfolds, the text includes extensive quotations of relevant official documents: a (spurious) letter by John Chrysostom,341 a letter by pope Innocent to Theophilus (CPG 2604),342 a letter by Honorius to Arcadius,343 the account by the delegation of Roman bishops to Constantinople,344 and the headings of Eusebius’ charges against Antoninus.345 Unlike an organic

333. 14.2–​3; see also a curious reference to the Church as a school: “you [i.e., the bishop] have given eyes to the souls of those present here who were somewhat perplexed, some not having a good knowledge of holy Scripture, others not understanding that the Church is designed through all ages as a training school” (20.340–​43; Meyer 1985:140). 334. 1.121–​22 (Meyer 1985:15–​16). 335. 12.7–​9 (Meyer 1985:74). 336. 1.158–​4.68 (Meyer 1985:16–​31). 337. 16.142–​324 (Meyer 1985:103–​9). 338. 12.1–​2 admiration (Meyer 1985:74); 13.116 astonishment (Meyer 1985:88); 16.142 amazement (Meyer 1985:103); 20.180 speechlessness (Meyer 1985:136); 20.427–​28 pause (Meyer 1985:143). 339. E.g., 3.76–​77, 4.67, 14.95 (Meyer 1985:26, 31, 131). 340. 1.148–​55 (Meyer 1985:16); 20.426: τὸν διηγησάμενον. 341. Meyer 1985:17–​24; the letter is also reported in the corpus of John Chrysostom’s letters although it is presumably spurious (Meyer 1985:17n41). Malingrey and Leclercq 1988:1.65n2, however, argue that the letter was added to the text of the Dialogue at a later stage and do not include it in their edition. 342. 3.22–​33 (Meyer 1985:25). 343. 3.133–​57 (Meyer 1985:28–​29). 344. 4.16–​64 (Meyer 1985:29–​31). 345. 13.162–​74 (Meyer 1985:89–​90).

Guide to the Dialogues  139 historical narrative, however, the material is not arranged chronologically and several excursuses address John Chrysostom’s early life,346 his death,347 his habit of eating alone,348 and the deposition of six bishops accused of simony.349 Other excursuses deal with Scriptural passages, which are mostly used to illustrate John Chrysostom’s morally sound conduct.350 The structure of the Dialogue is further complicated by the ex abrupto opening, which deals with a theological subject, the gifts of God,351 and is not immediately related to the contents of the dialogue (unless this section is understood as a lecture that provides the setting for the dialogue proper); this section ends after only three pages, when the deacon declares himself convinced by the bishop’s explanation on the subject.352 An introductory dialogue is a feature in common with Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho and Methodius’ Aglaophon. Discussion of Scholarship The composite nature of the Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom fostered a debate on the genre and purpose of the work. The piece is neither a philosophical dialogue nor a life in a primarily biographical or hagiographical sense.353 Scholars have in turn emphasized literary and linguistic allusions to Plato’s Phaedo,354 have noted similarities with the biographical genre355 or with historiography,356 or have described the dialogue as a composite work.357 The last opinion is that of Malingrey and Leclercq, the editors, who suggest interpreting the dialogue as an apologetic piece arising from contingent historical circumstances; accordingly, they describe the work as structured into: (i) a prologue; (ii) a description of the present situation; (iii) a life of John; (iv) a defense of John; and (v) a conclusion.358 Elm further emphasizes the “decidedly rhetorical and indeed strongly apologetic nature of the Dialogue.”359 Katos argues for judicial rhetoric as the genre of the work because of the forensic language, the overall structure, and the similarities with late antique stasis theory as outlined by Hermogenes of Tarsus, and concludes that Palladius’

346. 5.1–​65 (Meyer 1985:34–​36). 347. 11.135–​56 (Meyer 1985:72–​73). 348. 12.2–​64 (Meyer 1985:74–​76). 349. 13.146–​15.107 (Meyer 1985:88–​98). 350. E.g., Meyer 1985:13–​14, 33–​34, 78–​84, 138–​40. 351. 1.1–​116 (Meyer 1985:11–​16). 352. 1.117–​19 (Meyer 1985:5):  “Now that I  have explained all these things (ἀποδεδειγμένων [.  .  .] τῶν προειρημένων) to the best of my ability, Theodore [. . .], ask us what you came to find out.” Ubaldi 1906: 225–​32 put this section, as well as the closing part of the dialogue, in relation with analogous passages in Plato’s Phaedo. 353. Katos 2007:43. 354. Ubaldi 1906 with Katos 2007:46–​47 and 2011:36–​37. 355. Coleman-​Norton  1926. 356. Voss 1970:339 and 354, who suggested a comparison with the dialogues by Sulpicius Severus. 357. Malingrey and Leclercq 1988:1.33–​39. 358. Malingrey and Leclercq 1988:1.21–​24. 359. Elm 1998:73.

140  Christians in Conversation primary concern was to defend John Chrysostom’s supporters by developing persuasive arguments on their behalf.360 Van Nuffelen goes further, suggesting that the Dialogue may not be apologetic just for John’s supporters, but also for Palladius, in the context of the author’s reintegration in the Church following his return from exile, given that the conflict between John and his enemies is de-​theologized and reduced to a disiplinary matter.361 The style of the dialogue has also attracted scholarly attention. The use of literary vocabulary—​for instance, drawing on Homer, tragic and comic authors (including a quotation from Menander in 16.41–​44  =  Meyer 1980:100), and philosophic works—​differentiates the Dialogue from the simpler language of Palladius’ Historia Lausiaca. Palladius’ concern for the language of the dialogue is also attested by the abundance of rhetorical devices such as personifications, metaphors, anaphoras, and homoioteleuta, as well as by a stylistic habit of adopting elliptic constructs and opting for brevity of expression. The choice of language indicates that the author strove to stir emotions in his readers.362 Bibliography Ayres, L., and Jones, G., eds. 1998. Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric, and Community. London. Brunner, T.F. 1989. “Hapax and Non-​Hapax Legomena in Palladius’ Life of Chrysostom.” Analecta Bollandiana 107.1–​2:33–​38. Coleman-​Norton, P.R. 1926. “The Use of Dialogue in the Vitae Sanctorum.” Journal of Theological Studies 27:388–​95. Coleman-​Norton, P.R., ed. 1928. Palladii Dialogus de vita sancti Johanni Chrysostomi. Cambridge. Devos, P. 1989. “Approches de Pallade à travers le Dialogue sur Chrysostome et l’Histoire Lausiaque.” Analecta Bollandiana 107.3–​4:243–​66. Elm, S. 1998. “The Dog That Did Not Bark:  Doctrine and Patriarchal Authority in the Conflict between Theophilus of Alexandria and John Chrysostom of Constantinople.” In Ayres and Jones 1998:68–​93. Gronewald, M. 1991. “Palladius, Dialogus de vita S. Ioannis Chrysostomi in P. Ryl. III 508.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 89:33–​34. Katos, D.S. 2007. “Socratic Dialogue or Courtroom Debate? Judicial Rhetoric and Stasis Theory in the Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom.” Vigiliae Christianae 61.1:42–​69. Katos, D.S. 2011. Palladius of Helenopolis, the Origenist Advocate. Oxford. Malingrey, A.M., and Leclercq, P., eds. 1988. Palladios. Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chryso­ stome. 2 vols. SC 341–​42. Paris.

3 60. Katos 2007 and Katos 2011:33–​61. 361. Van Nuffelen 2013, who also argues that the dramatic setting in Rome might reveal awareness of necessary support of the Roman see for the Johannite party. 362. Moreschini 2.640; Malingrey and Leclercq 1988:1.38–​41; a study of the style of the dialogue is in Ubaldi 1906.

Guide to the Dialogues  141 Meyer, R.T. 1985. Palladius. Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom. New York. Ubaldi, P. 1906. “Appunti sul Dialogo storico di Palladio.” Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino. 2nd ser. 16:217–​96. Van Nuffelen, P. 2013. “Palladius and the Johannite Schism.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 64.1:1–​19.

32. Cyril of Alexandria, On Adoration and Worship in Spirit and Truth Author

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 370/​80–​444)

Full title

Περὶ τῆς ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ προσκυνήσεως καὶ λατρείας (CPG 5200)

Original language

Greek (Syriac translation)363

Date of composition

c. 412–​c. 418364

Edition

PG 68.133–​1126; Crawford 2013 (preface only)

Modern translation

none

Summary On Adoration is an extensive dialogue in seventeen logoi that deals primarily with Old Testament exegesis. The text opens with a preface in which Cyril expresses an aim to provide moral guidance (ἠθικὴν ὑφήγησιν) and declares that he chose the dialogue form (πρὸς πεῦσιν ὥσπερ ἡμῖν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν) and a “relaxed” style (ἀνειμένος)365 in order to “bring those things spoken in enigmas (i.e., Scripture) into the most manifest knowledge” (εἰς ἐμφανεστέραν ἄγοντες γνῶσιν τὰ ὡς ἐν αἰνίγμασιν εἰρημένα). The preface closes by outlining the content of the work, and the dialogue proper begins without narrative voice or scene setting. The dialogue consists of the exchanges between two speakers, Cyril and Palladius; the latter should perhaps be identified with the “beloved Palladius” addressed in the roughly contemporary Glaphyra (CPG 5201; PG 69.388A). There is no serious attempt to characterize the speakers, with the only exception at the beginning of the first logos, in which Cyril asks Palladius what book he is holding in his hands. Palladius answers that the book contains the Gospels of Matthew and John and that he was in fact hoping to meet Cyril in order to ask about an apparent contradiction between these two Gospels (133AB). The encounter thus provides the occasion for the dialogue.

363. King 2008:29; the dialogue has a rich papyrological tradition, for which see Van Haelst 1976:no638; Villani 2017 for the manuscript tradition. 364. Blackburn 2009:28–​30; Schuring 2005:29–​37. 365. The same adjective used in the handbook on style by Demetrius to qualify dialogic prose: Demetrius, On Style 19 and 20 (ed. Roberts 1902) about the διαλογικὴ περίοδος; see also Cyril’s Seven Dialogues on the Trinity (entry 33).

142  Christians in Conversation Cyril plays the role of the main speaker and opens each logos. He is the speaker of considerably longer sections; he sets the topic and leads the conversation. Overall, the tone is instructional. Palladius regularly finds Cyril’s exposition satisfactory (e.g., 261C, 300B) and allows Cyril to organize the explanation (e.g., 221A, 381B, 405D, when Cyril compares his teaching role to that of a sailor docking a ship, 725C), but he occasionally asks for further clarification (e.g., 245D, 597AB, 629D, 669A) or for Scriptural witnesses of a particular point (e.g., 481A). The speakers make frequent use of quotations, primarily from the Scriptures, but also from classical literature (Iliad in 468D and a reference in 241C–​244A; Odyssey in 453B; Euripides’ Hippolytus in 453D and 469A). There is no common structure to the conclusions of the logoi, since some end with Palladius’ expression of satisfaction with the explanation received (1, 2, 3, 10, 15), others with a doxology (6, 8, 14, 17), and others without any sort of epilogue (4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16). The treatment of the subject is arranged thematically, and the exegesis is not linear in that it does not follow the text of the Old Testament. The dialogue opens by dealing with original sin and the necessity of delivering man from the slavery of sin (logos 1), and it moves on to argue that Christ is the only means through which it is possible to obtain deliverance from death and from the tyranny of sin (logoi 2, 3). It is also necessary for humankind to be resolute and persevere in the strength given by Christ; the love of God (logos 6) and of brothers (logoi 7, 8) is the basis of human salvation. Subsequent logoi engage in a systematic exegetical enterprise by arguing that the Old Testament foreshadows the Christian Church and priesthood (9–​13) and the spiritual worship of Christians (14–​16). In contrast, logos 17 deals with Jewish religious practice.366 Discussion of Scholarship There has been some discussion about the format and literary structure of On Adoration. Schurig argues that the classification of the work as an instance of erotapokriseis cannot be accepted for at least two reasons. First, the title, which we know is original (PG 69.16B), appears to prefigure a work of systematic theology or liturgy. In this respect, he suggests a possible connection with the Scriptural exegesis and dialogic teaching practiced in the circle of Didymus the Blind, who was active in Alexandria during the early decades of Cyril’s life and is likely to have had an impact on his early works. Second, Schurig suggests that the opening exchange between Cyril and Palladius on an apparent contradiction between two Scriptural passages (133A–​145B) fulfills a crucial programmatic role in outlining the exegetical principles and methods that was to underpin the composition and the unity of the entire On Adoration.367

3 66. Schreckenberg 373 for the use of adversus Iudaeos material in the dialogue. 367. Schurig 2005:38–​39; Layton 2004.

Guide to the Dialogues  143 While the past suggestion that On Adoration follows a “Platonic” form seems problematic, Blackburn has more recently argued for Weber’s definition of “didactic dialogue” as the best classification, where by “didactic dialogue” she means a dialogue with a philosophical-​theological subject that is characterized by one speaker knowing the truth from the outset, with the other achieving full understanding only at the end.368 The instructional nature of the relationship between Cyril and Palladius is certainly evident in their exchanges, but the relation between the form of the dialogue and Cyril’s exegetical principles calls for further analysis. More recently, Crawford has suggested a Christian monastic context for the destination of On Adoration, and has argued that Cyril was more concerned with providing a roadmap for Christians than with developing criticism of Jewish interpreters.369 Bibliography Blackburn, B.L., Jr. 2009. The Mystery of the Synagogue: Cyril of Alexandria on the Law of Moses. PhD diss. University of Notre Dame. Cameron, Av. 2014. Dialoguing in Late Antiquity. Washington, DC. Crawford, M.R. 2013. “The Preface and Subject Matter of Cyril of Alexandria’s De adoratione.” Journal of Theological Studies 64:154–​67. Crum, W.E. 1915. Der Papyruscodex saec. VI–​VII der Phillippsbibliothek in Cheltenham. Strasbourg. Döpp, S., and Geerlings, W., eds. 2000. Dictionary of Early Christian Literature. New York. King, D. 2008. The Syriac Versions of the Writings of Cyril of Alexandria. Leuven. Layton, R.A. 2004. Didymus the Blind and His Circle in Late-​Antique Alexandria: Virtue and Narrative in Biblical Scholarship. Urbana, IL. Orlandi, T. 1981. “Il Dossier copto di Agatonico di Tarso:  Studio letterario e storico.” In Polotsky and Young 1981:269–​81. Polotsky, H.J., and Young, D.W., eds. 1981. Studies Presented to Hans Jacob Polotsky. East Gloucester, MA. Roberts, W.R. 1902. Demetrius. On Style. Cambridge. Schurig, S. 2005. Die Theologie des Kreuzes beim frühen Cyrill von Alexandria. Tübingen. Van Haelst, J. 1976. Catalogue des papyrus littéraires Juifs et Chrétiens. Paris. Villani, B. 2017. “Some Remarks on the Textual Tradition and the Literary Genre of Cyril of Alexandria’s De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate.” Studia Patristica 96 (vol. 22): 215–​224. 3 68. Blackburn 2009:32–​33 with Cameron 2014:49; Weber in Döpp and Geerlings 2000:168–​69. 369. Crawford 2013. The Dialogus Cyrilli cum Anthimo et Stephano (CPG 5277) is, instead, an instance of erotapokriseis, in which Cyril answers the questions (ζητήματα) by the deacons Anthimus and Stephanus. The Dialogus deals with divine forgiveness; death; the duration of life; the ascension of Elijah, Judah, and Moses; the body of the angels; the final judgment; the fate of the souls; cosmology; the pagans; bishops’ responsibilities; the blessed; and the heavens. Accordingly, Ehrhard acknowledges the overlap with Cyril’s works, but, on the ground of the difference from known pseudo-​Cyrillian literature, he leaves the possibility open that the work records an actual dialogue between Cyril and the two deacons (Crum 1915:145–​54). The text survives only in Coptic, which appears as a translation from Greek, in a c. seventh-​century papyrus manuscript, and has been edited (Crum 1915:1–​12) and translated into German (Crum 1915:53–​65), but see also Orlandi 1981.

144  Christians in Conversation 33. Cyril of Alexandria, Seven Dialogues on the Trinity Author

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 370/​80–​444)

Full title

Περὶ ἁγίας τε καὶ ὁμοουσίου Τριάδος (CPG 5216)

Original language

Greek (Syriac fragments in Severus of Antioch)

Date of composition

412–​20370

Edition

De Durand 1976

Modern translations

French (De Durand 1976); Italian (Cataldo 1992)

Summary The Seven Dialogues take a stance in the theological debate on Christology following the tradition of anti-​Arian literature but predate the Nestorian controversy. The work opens with a prologue in which the author states that the holy and consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος) Trinity shall be his subject, and that the text is dedicated to a certain “brother Nemesinus, most fond of learning,” the same addressee as another work on the Trinity by the same author, the Treasury of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity.371 In the prologue the author explains that the text will be arranged in seven sections (λογίδια), and will adopt the form of questions and answers (πρὸς πεῦσιν δὲ καὶ ἀπόκρισιν) between two characters: Cyril and the “highly qualified and erudite” Hermias, a presbyter. Also, the author states that the dialogic form demands a “relaxed” (ἀνειμένος) style (the same adjective used in the handbook on style by Demetrius to qualify dialogic prose),372 and writes that he has made use of speakers, indicated simply by the letters A and B, “because the issues are of such great subtlety, and in order that what is tested will be always either constructed or demolished with accuracy through questions and answers.”373 There follows a schematic plan of the work that announces the subject of each dialogue. The Seven Dialogues develop crucial themes treated in anti-​Arian literature, and with more precision: the first dialogue defends the term ὁμοούσιος and rejects ὁμοιούσιος for the Son; the second dialogue addresses the relation between the non-​generated Father and the generated Son; the third dialogue argues that the Son is “True God” like the Father; the fourth dialogue shows that the Son is not a created being; the fifth dialogue explains that the properties and the glory of the divinity of the Son are not inferior to the Father’s; the sixth dialogue

370. De Durand 1976:1.38–​43. 371. Cyril’s Treasury (CPG 5215) was written in the same years (or possibly earlier, according to De Durand 1976:1.39–​40) and depended extensively on Athanasius of Alexandria. 372. Demetrius, On Style 19 and 20 (ed. Roberts 1902)  about the διαλογικὴ περίοδος; see also Romanus Sophista, Peri aneimenou (ed. Camphausen 1922). 373. Cyril, Seven Dialogues 384ab: Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ πολλή τις ἄγαν ἐν τοῖς ζητουμένοις ἐστὶν ἡ λεπτότης, ἵνα ταῖς ἐρωτήσεσι καὶ ταῖς ἀποκρίσεσιν ἀεὶ τὸ βασανιζόμενον κατασκευάζηταί τε καὶ ἀνασκευάζηται πικρῶς [. . .].

Guide to the Dialogues  145 answers a series of Scripture-​based objections that seem to imply the inferiority of the Son; and the seventh dialogue asserts the full divinity of the Holy Spirit.374 Apart from the prologue, there is no other narrative passage, and the Dialogues are entirely made up of the exchanges between the two speakers. The tone is irenic, and Cyril, identified as “A” in the text, tends to be speaker for longer passages, while Hermias, identified as “B”, regularly declares himself convinced by the explanation that he receives from Cyril. Occasionally, Hermias reports heterodox views, but does not endorse them. With the exception of a reference to the winter season and to the advanced age of Hermias (385c), there is no serious attempt at setting the scene or characterizing the speakers in the Dialogues. As explained in the prologue, the use of the characters was primarily motivated by the subject, and the author does not appear interested in creating or upholding a fictional setting for the work. Both Hermias (419a) and Cyril (610c) make reference to an audience of “readers,” and the doxologies that close most dialogues (with the exception of the opening two) seem to undermine the dramatic character of the text.375 Discussion of Scholarship Voss argues that Cyril’s Seven Dialogues witness the gradual disappearance of the literary dialogue and its transformation into the “unliterary disputation,” a transformation that, however, did not affect the dialogues by Aeneas of Gaza and Zacharias of Mytilene. According to Voss, the Seven Dialogues well represent the shift from “literary” to “unliterary”; what little there is of scene setting and characterization of the speakers in the first dialogue is soon abandoned as the text proceeds. The clarity of the debate is what mattered most to the author, and this goal was sought by dismissing traditional literary elements. Voss goes as far as to read a relevant programmatic statement into the opening words of the second dialogue, in which Cyril states the proverb that “the word of truth is simple by nature.”376 The Seven Dialogues show their author’s conscious distancing from literary dialogues and his concern for style and form in order to achieve his expressed goal of clarity. On another occasion, Cyril even conceived of a public reading for this dialogue. At the very close of his first letter to Nestorius (Ep. 2), Cyril wrote that (before October 425) he had composed “a book on the holy and consubstantial Trinity, in which there is also a logos on the incarnation of the Only-​Begotten, [. . .] and I have read it (ὑπανέγνωμεν) to the bishops, the clerics, and the most 374. Moreschini 2:547–​49. 375. Doxologies are common in the close of Cyril’s homilies, in exegetical works, and at the close of several logoi of the On the Adoration (De Durand 1976:2.407–​8; entry 32); Cameron 2014:49n62. 376. Cyril, Seven Dialogues 417b:  ἁπλοῦς τε ἔφυ τῆς ἀληθείας ὁ μῦθος. Voss 1970:350 and 350n97. Voss 1970:356 goes even further and links the line to Eur. Phoen. 469 and thus Cyril would still make use of a Greek literary vocabulary when expressing his guiding principle, but De Durand 1976:377–​78 points out that the proverb was widely attested and instead argues for Cyril’s reliance on Ps.-Didymus’ De Trinitate for this quotation.

146  Christians in Conversation studious among the people, but I  have not published it yet (ἐκδέδωκα δὲ τέως οὐδενί)” (PG 77.41CD; italics added). The passage is generally understood as referring to the Seven Dialogues, although, on the grounds of their considerable length, De Durand expresses reservations and suggests that a public reading could have covered the dialogue On the Incarnation of the Only-​Begotten alone; the dialogue On the Incarnation of the Only-​Begotten, which is treated in entry 34, adopts the format of the Seven Dialogues.377 Whether or not the account of this particular public reading is genuine, it is nonetheless remarkable that Cyril conceived a public setting for the performance of a work in dialogue form that he had designed to seek clarity of expression as the primary goal. Bibliography Boulnois, M.-​O. 1994. Le paradoxe trinitaire chez Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Paris. Cameron, Av. 2014. Dialoguing in Late Antiquity. Washington, DC. Camphausen, W., ed. 1922. Romani Sophistae. Peri Aneimenou libellus. Leipzig. Cataldo, A. 1992. Cirillo di Alessandria. Dialoghi sulla Trinità. Rome. Crawford, M.R. 2014. Cyril of Alexandria’s Trinitarian Theology of Scripture. Oxford. De Durand, G.-​M., ed. 1976. Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Dialogues sur la Trinité. 3 v. SC 231, 237, 246. Paris. McGuckin, J.A. 1994. St. Cyril of Alexandria. The Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts. Leiden. Roberts, W.R. 1902. Demetrius. On Style. Cambridge. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster.

34. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Incarnation of the Only-​B egotten Author

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 370/​80–​444)

Full title

Περὶ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως τοῦ Μονογενοῦς (CPG 5227)

Original language

Greek

Date of composition

428/​early 429378

Edition

De Durand 1964

Modern translation

French (De Durand 1964)

3 77. De Durand 1976:38 and 41n1; Moreschini 2.548. 378. De Durand 1964:52–​57.

Guide to the Dialogues  147 Summary On the Incarnation of the Only-​Begotten is a dialogue between two speakers who, as in the Seven Dialogues on the Trinity, are indicated by the letters “A” and “B”. Speaker A represents the view of the author, while speaker B is also addressed as Hermias and should be identified as the same speaker who appears the Seven Dialogues (entry 33). There is no narrative section and no attempt to set the scene or to characterize the speakers; On the Incarnation ends with a doxology, as is common in the Seven Dialogues and in homilies and commentaries by the same author. The tone of the exchanges between the speakers is irenic, and the character identified as A acts as a speaker for longer sections than Hermias, who regularly declares that he finds the explanation received fully satisfactory. The dialogue was intended as a follow-​up to the Seven Dialogues and was composed a few years later, during the early stages of the Nestorian controversy. Without mentioning Nestorius by name, the author makes use of the Scriptures to refute the speculations that, in his view, imply a divided Christ and do not acknowledge that a complete man had been united to the Only-​Begotten Logos of God.379 In addition to adopting the same format and interlocutors as the Seven Dialogues, past editors have taken the opening of the text as an explicit reference to the earlier Seven Dialogues on the grounds that Hermias declares himself satisfied with a previous dialogue on the divinity of the Only-​Begotten and praises its correctness and polished style.380 Discussion of Scholarship A crucial issue that past scholarship addressed is how to understand the ample textual overlaps between the On the Incarnation of the Only-​Begotten and the De recta fide ad Theodosium (CPG 5218), which presents roughly the same argumentation in the form of a prose treatise addressed to the ruling emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III. Pusey’s 1877 edition reproduced the two works facing each other, and argued that the dialogue is a later edition of the De recta fide reconfigured as a work of propaganda addressed to a broader audience. More recently, however, De Durand has made a case for the priority of the dialogue over the treatise, and has pointed out that both doctrinal and stylistic changes appear to have been carried out on the text of the dialogue for the composition of the De recta fide. According to De Durand, the reworking of the dialogue into the De recta fide reveals both doctrinal concerns, in primis a more marked distancing from Apollinarism and the absence of the term Theotokos, 3 79. Andrist 2005:77–​78 shows that Apollinarian doctrine was one of the targets. 380. Moreschini 2.551; On the Incarnation 478bd (with Pusey 1877:11n): Α—​Ἆρά σοι δοκεῖ συμμεμετρῆσθαί τε καὶ ἐκπεπονῆσθαι καλῶς καὶ ἀποχρώντως ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος, ὁ περὶ τῆς θεότητος τοῦ Μονογενοῦς; Β—​Καὶ μάλα. Α—​ Βασάνου δὲ οἶμαι λεπτῆς ἀμοιρεῖν οὔτι που κατά γε τὸ αὐτῷ μοι δοκοῦν· σὺ δὲ δὴ τί φής, ὦ Ἑρμεία; Β—​Ἐπαινέσαιμ’ ἂν εἰκότως ὀρθῶς ἔχοντά τε καὶ διεσμιλευμένως.

148  Christians in Conversation and stylistic concerns that aimed at producing a more elegant prose far from the conversational language of the dialogue.381 Cyril’s mention in Ep. 2 of a public reading of his work on the Trinity “in which there is also a logos on the incarnation of the Only-​Begotten” (PG 77.41CD) should be probably understood as a reading of the Seven Dialogues together with the present dialogue, On the Incarnation, which some manuscripts indicate as occupying the seventh position among the dialogues with Hermias, i.e., between the sixth and seventh logos of the Seven Dialogues.382 Either way, the two works share the same format in that Cyril and Hermias are the two only speakers identified with A and B; they lack narrative passages, scene setting, or characterization of the speakers, and the subject and tone of the conversation, in which Hermias regularly declares himself convinced by Cyril’s treatment of the subject, are similar. It appears that Cyril continued to exploit a format that he had developed some years earlier. Bibliography Andrist, P. 2005. “Les protagonistes égyptiens du débat apollinariste.” Recherches augustiniennes 34:63–​141. De Durand, G.-​M., ed. 1964. Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Deux dialogues christologiques. SC 97. Paris. McGuckin, J.A. 1994. St. Cyril of Alexandria. The Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts. Leiden. Pusey, P.E., ed., 1877. Sancti patri nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini De recta fide ad Imperatorem, De incarnatione Unigeniti dialogus, De recta fide ad principissas, De recta fide ad Augustas, Quod unus Christus dialogus, Apologeticus ad Imperatorem. Oxford.

35. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ Author

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 370/​80–​444)

Full title

Ὅτι εἷς ὁ Χριστός (CPG 5228)

Original language

Greek (Syriac translation; Armenian translation; Coptic translation [fragments]; Arabic translation [fragments]; Ethiopic translation)383

Date of composition

435–​38384

Edition

De Durand 1964

Modern translations

English (McGukin 1995); French (De Durand 1964); Italian (Leone 1983)

3 81. De Durand 1964:42–​51; Moreschini 2.551 and Andrist 2005:77–​78 follow De Durand. 382. For discussion see De Durand 1976:38 and 41n1, Moreschini 2.548, and entry 33 for Cyril’s Seven Dialogues. 383. De Durand 1964:155–​58; King 2008:30; Weischer 1977; Lucchesi 2004. 384. Moreschini 2.553; McGuckin 1995:49n1; De Durand 1964:69–​80.

Guide to the Dialogues  149 Summary On the Unity of Christ is a dialogue between two speakers who, as in the Seven Dialogues on the Trinity and On the Incarnation of the Only-​Begotten, are identified by the letters “A”  and “B”.  Speaker A  represents the view of the author; speaker B presents an opposing Christological doctrine, but does not appear committed to it and regularly declares that he finds the received explanation fully satisfactory. Unlike in the Seven Dialogues and in the On the Incarnation, neither speaker is addressed or identified by name. There is no narrative section and no attempt to set the scene or to characterize the speakers; the dialogue ends with a doxology, as is common in the earlier dialogues by the same author. The tone of the conversation is irenic, and the character identified as A acts as speaker for longer sections. The dialogue takes issue with the Christological doctrine attributed to Nestorius, whom speaker A  once mentions by name (716d) and whom both speakers address in polemical terms as an ἀρτιφανὴς δράκων, a “newly appeared serpent” (716bc). On closer analysis, however, Cyril’s attack seems primarily directed against Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who are not mentioned by name but who are quoted without being explicitly identified. The author also makes regular use of Scriptural quotations as part of the argumentation. The dialogue is arranged into three main thematic sections: 714c–​726b deals with Mary and her title of Theotokos; 726c–​753e constitutes the central part and argues for the unity of the Son; and 754a–​778b addresses the theological and soteriologic implications of the unity of the Son.385 Discussion of Scholarship On the Unity of Christ reveals Cyril’s engagement with the Nestorian controversy, and shows him taking an active stance against Antiochene theology. The dialogue predates by about two or three years a work of analogous subject matter, the Contra Diodorum et Theodorum (CPG 5229; fragments), which, according to De Durand, presents theological developments that are later than the present work.386 De Durand argues that On the Unity of Christ should be identified with the work mentioned by Cyril in Ep. 64 (c. 437; PG 77.330A), a work that the author sent to a group of sympathizers in the East with the request that they spread it among the Orthodox as well as take action by actively preaching it against the followers of Nestorius.387 On the Unity of Christ has a remarkable indirect tradition and was translated into Syriac, Armenian, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic. The indication, which is

3 85. De Durand 1964:58–​80; Moreschini 2.553. 386. De Durand 1964:67–​69. 387. De Durand 1964:77–​78.

150  Christians in Conversation found in some Greek manuscripts, that Hermias was the second speaker in the dialogue was taken up by the Armenian tradition. In contrast, the Coptic straightforwardly replaces speakers A  and B with Cyril and Gregory, while the Ethiopic does the same, though with Cyril and Palladius, the speakers of Cyril’s On Adoration and Worship in Spirit and Truth (entry 32).388 The original text of the dialogue, however, shares similar features with the Seven Dialogues and with On the Incarnation in that the two speakers are identified with A and B; they all lack narrative passages, attempt at scene setting, or characterization of the speakers. Bibliography De Durand, G.-​M., ed. 1964. Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Deux dialogues christologiques. SC 97. Paris. King, D. 2008. The Syriac Versions of the Writings of Cyril of Alexandria. Leuven. Leone, L. 1983. Cirillo di Alessandria. Perché Cristo è uno. Rome. Lucchesi, E. 2004. “Le dialogue Quod unus sit Christus de Cyrille d’Alexandrie en copte.” Orientalia 73.3:289–​301. McGuckin, J.A. 1994. St. Cyril of Alexandria. The Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts. Leiden. McGuckin, J.A. 1995. St. Cyril of Alexandria. On the Unity of Christ. Crestwood. Weischer, B.M., ed. 1977. Qērellos III: Der Dialog Dass Christus einer ist des Kyrillos von Alexandrien. Wiesbaden.

36. Ps.-​C yril of Alexandria, Dialogue with Nestorius Author

unknown

Full title

Διάλεξις πρὸς Νεστόριον ὅτι Θεοτόκος ἡ ἅγια παρθένος καὶ οὑ Χριστοτόκος (CPG 5433)

Original language

Greek (Arabic translation)389

Date of composition

unknown

Edition

PG 76.249–​56

Modern translation

none; Latin (PG 76.249–56)

Summary The short dialogue, which takes up about three columns in the PG, consists entirely of the exchanges between the two speakers, Cyril and Nestorius, on the suitability of the attribute Theotokos for the mother of Christ and on its theological implications. There is no narrative voice, scene setting, or attempt to characterize 388. Lucchesi 2004:293–​96. 389. Graf 1944:1.359; Frenkel 2016:127–​28.

Guide to the Dialogues  151 the speakers, with the single exception that Nestorius once addresses Cyril as a “heretic,” αἱρετικός (253A). The dialogue opens with Nestorius stating his opposition to the term Theotokos, and follows with Cyril leveling an objection through an appeal to Scripture. The dialogue proceeds with eleven further doctrinal points being put forward by Nestorius that Cyril systematically opposes. Both characters make regular use of Scriptural citations, but there is no concession from either side or eventual conciliation. Discussion of Scholarship Nau suggested that Nestorius’ statements may be summaries of excerpts from Nestorius’ works that were read at the Council of Ephesus; it seems likely that the author of the dialogue made use of works by Nestorius or of texts from the Acts of that Council. However, Nau pointed out that, while the argumentation is sound and the use of Scriptural citations appropriate, the way in which the author of the dialogue reworked Nestorius’ passages does not do full justice to his views. In addition, doctrinal statements that Nestorius could not have accepted are nonetheless attributed to him in the Dialogue. On these grounds, Nau pointed out the poor quality of the composition, and saw in the fact that Nestorius pronounces twelve points and receives the same number of objections by Cyril an imitation of Cyril’s Twelve Anathemata.390 Bibliography Frenkel, L.M. 2016. “Syriac Christological Dialogues and the Transmission of Theodotus of Ancyra’s Contra Nestorium.” Aramaic Studies 14:118–​33. Graf, G. 1944. Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. Rome. Loofs, F. 1905. Nestoriana: Die Fragmente des Nestorius. Halle. Nau, F. 1910a. “Note sur un Dialogue de Cyrille avec Nestorius.” Revue de l’orient chrétien 15.4:442–​43.

37. Theodotus of Ancyra, Contra Nestorium Author

Theodotus of Ancyra (d. before 446)391

Full title

Ἀντίρρησις πρὸς Νεστόριον (CPG 6131)392

Original language

Greek (lost); Syriac translation (incomplete; unedited)393

390. Nau  1910a. 391. Moreschini 2:587–​88. Theodotus participated in the First Council of Ephesus (431) as a member of the party of Cyril of Alexandria. 392. According to Van Roey 1975:156. 393. The text is partially preserved in two Syriac manuscripts from the British Library (add. 17148 and add. 17196), for which see Wright 1870:2.717–​18 and 2.776–​77 respectively (756 and 787).

152  Christians in Conversation Date of composition

c. 431394

Edition

none

Modern translation

none

Summary and Discussion of Scholarship The dialogue intended to refute the doctrine of Nestorius and was composed immediately before the First Council of Ephesus (431). Unfortunately, the Greek original is lost, but a Syriac translation of the text has survived (still unedited and missing about the first third of the text). In all likelihood, Gennadius referred to this work when he wrote that the dialogue was “a work of defense and refutation, written, to be sure, in dialectic style, but interwoven with passages from the Holy Scriptures. His method was to make statements and then quote proof texts from the Scriptures.”395 The dialogue was arranged in three books, of which the first and the beginning of the second are now lost; for this reason, it cannot be established whether the dialogue had a preface or scene setting in the beginning.396 The surviving text presents no narrative voice and is entirely made up by the exchanges between two speakers, who are identified as “Orthodox” and Nestorius. In the composition of the work, Theodotus made use of quotations from Nestorius, which he reported and refuted in the text. As Van Roey shows, however, Theodotus was working from a florilegium of quotations from Nestorius’ works; this florilegium must have been the same one used by Cyril of Alexandria for his attack on Nestorius in his Against the Blasphemies of Nestorius (CPG 5217).397 Bibliography Frenkel, L.M. 2016. “Syriac Christological Dialogues and the Transmission of Theodotus of Ancyra’s Contra Nestorium.” Aramaic Studies 14:118–​33. Paschke, F., ed. 1981. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. Berlin. Richardson, E.C., and von Gebhardt, O., eds. 1896. Jerome. De viris illustribus. Gennadius. De viris illustribus. Sophronius. Leipzig. Van Roey, A. 1975. “Le florilège nestorien dans le Traité contre Nestorius de Théodote d’Ancyre.” Studia Patristica 12:155–​59. Van Roey, A. 1981. “Le florilège nestorien de l’Adversus Nestorium de Cyrille d’Alexandrie et du traité contre Nestorius de Théodote d’Ancyra.” In Paschke 1981:573–​78. Wright, W. 1870. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838. 3 vols. London. 394. According to Gennadius, De vir. ill. 56, the dialogue was written while the author was at Ephesus; according to Moreschini 2.587 and Van Roey 1975:157 it was written immediately before Ephesus. The surviving text does not make reference to the condemnation of Nestorius. 395. Gennadius, De vir. ill. 56 (trans. Schaff; ed. Richardson and von Gebhardt 1896:80): librum redargutionis et confutationis dialectica quidem arte ordinatum, sed auctoritate Sacrarum Scripturarum detextum. Multis enim adsertionibus usus est, antequam Scripturarum testimonia poneret. 396. The books were composed of seven, seven, and eleven chapters respectively (Wright 1870:2.717–​18). 397. Van Roey 1975.

Guide to the Dialogues  153 38. Nestorius, Adversus Theopaschitas Author

Nestorius (after 381–​after 450)

Full title

Adversus Theopaschitas (CPG 5752; the original title is unknown)

Original language

Greek (lost; five Syriac excerpts survive)

Date of composition

c. 429–​38398

Edition

Loofs 1905:368–​70 (partially re-​edited in Lebon 1929)

Modern translation

English (Driver and Hodgson 1925:384–​85); German (Loofs 1905:208–​11); Latin (partial in Lebon 1929)

Summary The Adversus Theopaschitas, which survives only in five Syriac excerpts, argued against Theopaschite theology, according to which God himself suffered in the passion of Christ. Although Cyril of Alexandria is nowhere mentioned by name in the dialogue, Nestorius certainly included Cyril and his followers among the supporters of Theopaschite doctrine. As far as it is possible to reconstruct it from the surviving text, the dialogue featured two speakers, simply identified as Orthodox (‫ )ܐܪܬܕܟܣܐ‬and Theopaschite (‫)ܡܚܫ ܐܠܗܐ‬, but the loss of most of the work leaves its structure and contents open to speculation. The sources that report the only surviving excerpts, Severus of Antioch (surviving only in Syriac translation) and a Syriac catena, provide little information about the nature of the original dialogue. On two occasions, the Syriac translation of Severus of Antioch mentions that the dialogue was “in (the form of) question and answer” (‫ܒܫܘܐܠ ܘܦܘܢܝ ܦܬܓܡܐ‬, fr. 225 and 239=220), while the Syriac catena that preserves two other fragments simply identifies the work as “the discourse (entitled) dialogue” (‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܝܠܘܓܘܣ‬, fr. 307 and 309); it is thus plausible that the original title included the work διάλογος “dialogue.” The surviving fragments include two passages by the Theopaschite speaker, and the extension and complexity of these passages confirms that the work was in all likelihood a dialogue rather than an instance of erotapokriseis. Discussion of Scholarship Given the fragmentary state of the work few conclusions can be drawn. Scipioni suggested that the Theopaschite was made obsolete by the publication of the

398. According to Scipioni 1974:306, the Adversus Theopaschitas must be earlier than the dialogue in the Bazaar of Heracleides (entry 39; see the possible reference to this work in the preface to the Syriac translation of the Bazaar of Heracleides, chap. 5).

154  Christians in Conversation dialogue now contained in the Bazaar of Heraleides (entry 39), and this obsolescence may account for its eventual disappearance. Also, Scipioni proposed understanding the Theopaschite as a response to early anti-​Nestorian works by Cyril, and possibly the early Christological dialogues, among which On the Incarnation of the Only-​Begotten (entry 34) seems the most plausible candidate. Bibliography Bevan, G.A. 2016. The New Judas: The Case of Nestorius in Ecclesiastical Politics, 428–​41 CE. Leuven. Driver, G.R., and Hodgson, L. 1925. Nestorius. The Bazaar of Heracleides. Oxford. Lebon, J., ed. 1929. Severi Antiocheni Liber contra Impium Grammaticum. CSCO 94, 102, 112. Paris. Loofs, F. 1905. Nestoriana: Die Fragmente des Nestorius. Halle. Scipioni, L.I. 1974. Nestorio e il Concilio di Efeso. Milan.

39. Nestorius, Dialogue in the Bazaar of Heracleides Author

Nestorius (after 381–​after 450)

Full title

Liber (possibly Πραγματεία) Heraclidis (CPG 5751)399

Original language

Greek (lost); Syriac translation400

Date of composition

c. 437–​38401

Edition

Bedjan 1910:10–​125

Modern translation

English (Driver and Hodgson 1925); French (Nau 1910)

Summary The Bazaar of Heracleides is a dossier of texts and excerpts of texts written by Nestorius. The first text in the collection is in the form of a dialogue (ed. Bedjan 399. Driver and Hodgson 1925:xii; Bedjan 1910:viiin2. In the opening preface to the translation, the Syriac translator claims that the title of the dossier, Bazaar of Heracleides, had been chosen by its author, Nestorius, in order to celebrate the esteemed (but to us otherwise unknown) Heracleides of Damascus, and that Nestorius chose not to have his name as the author in case the readers were put off by a name that many abhorred (chap. 4; this explanation, however, seems implausible). 400. The translation was carried out in c. 530–​40 (Bedjan 1910:vii–​xi; Scipioni 1974:303; Chesnut 1978:394); see Driver and Hodgson 1925:xii–​xvi for the nature of the translation. The translator described the first part of the Bazaar, which may or may not be limited to the dialogue itself, as “a discourse in which (Nestorius) speaks of all heresies [. . .] and in which he disputes mightily against the (heresies) that have the greatest repute” (Bedjan 1910:4.10–​ 14). The translator also wrote a section about “the kind of style of the book” but unfortunately the entire section was lost with the exception of one word meaning “drawing inferences” (Bedjan 1910:4.19–​20). The dialectical nature of the work was also noticed by Evagrius Scholasticus, according to whom Nestorius wrote a logos “in dialectical fashion” (διαλεκτικῶς) about his exile to Egypt that is normally identified with the Bazaar (Evagrius Scholasticus, HE 1.7 [ed. Bidez 13.21 = PG 86.2437A]; Scipioni 1974:300–​301; Moreschini 2.568; but see Bevan 2016:20). 401. Moreschini 2.568–​70.

Guide to the Dialogues  155 1910:10–​125) and is thus presented here. The rest of the Bazaar, later in date, consists of a group of texts designed as an apologia pro vita sua that followed two lines of defense, doctrinal and historical, and had as its ultimate goal demonstrating that Nestorius’ Christology always corresponded to that expressed in Leo’s Tome (449). Not only do the texts in the Bazaar deal with Christology according to Nestorius, but they also describe his dispute with Cyril of Alexandria, his condemnation at the Council of Ephesus (431), and the events leading to the Second Council of Ephesus (449). The first text in the Bazaar, the dialogue, deals with both “heterodox” Chris­ tology, i.e., Cyrillian, and “orthodox” Christology, i.e., Nestorian-​Antiochene. The text opens with a programmatic preface in which the author states that, in order to investigate true doctrine, he must also bring forward and explain everything that is opposed to the truth, in the same way alloyed gold is used to distinguish pure from impure gold (Bedjan 1910:10–​11).402 The main body of the dialogue follows: this consists entirely of exchanges between two speakers, Nestorius and Sophronius. If Sophronius has to be identified as a historical character, past scholars have suggested a Nestorian bishop of Tella or a Nestorian layman.403 The Bazaar is lost in Greek and survives only in a Syriac translation preserved in a sole manuscript, now lost.404 The significant lacunae in the text and the editing process that the dialogue underwent in the composition of the Bazaar have complicated the study of this material. The current division of the dialogue into ninety-​three chapters with headings that summarize the contents is considered non-​original and is likely to have been introduced during or after its translation into Syriac.405 Other subtitles in the texts (“Sabellians,” “Paulinians,” and perhaps also “Apollinarians”) appear likewise as later additions, possibly originating from marginal glosses; Scipioni alone went as far as to suggest that the name of Nestorius as the main speaker may not have been original, either.406 In the text that survives today, the exchanges between the two speakers begin in chap. 10 and end in chap. 55, and are followed by a section in which Nestorius alone pronounces a carefully structured and systematic exposition of Antiochene doctrine (chaps. 56–​93). The dialogue section itself (chaps. 10–​55) is a refutation of various heresies presented by Sophronius, and is notable for a certain degree of confusion and an occasional lack of organic structuring. There is no narrative section apart from the preface, and there is no scene setting (with the exception of one reference to the “listeners,” in Bedjan 1910:18.1) or any attempt

402. According to Scipioni 1974:301, however, the original preface of the dialogue is instead the preface to the second text in the dossier, i.e., Bedjan 1910:126. 403. Moreschini 2.568–​70; Driver and Hodgson 1925:10n2. 404. Chadwick  1965. 405. Scipioni 1974:301; Moreschini 2.569. 406. Scipioni 1974:319 for the subtitles in chaps. 49 and 52–​53 (and, in addition, see Bedjan 1910:65.12: “so they say,” indicating that originally the section must have been dialogued); Scipioni 1974:301 for the main speaker.

156  Christians in Conversation to characterize the speakers, who simply address each other as “admirable man” ‫( ܐܘ ܬܡܝܗܐ‬e.g., Bedjan 1910:24.15 and 28.15). The tone is generally irenic and, unlike other sections of the Bazaar, the dialogue lacks bitterness or polemic, with the possible exception of chaps. 53–​54 where the conversation appears more heated. The sections by both speakers vary in size, and Sophronius generally presents opposing Christological doctrines, but his role is more than only functional to the conversation. On one occasion, he declares himself satisfied with the explanation received and accordingly asks for a break of an hour (chap. 37). The overall argumentative structure does not strike one for its clarity; the language appears instead rather technical. In addition to the constant references to the act of speaking and listening by both speakers (e.g., chaps. 14–​15, Bedjan 1910:20.4 ‫“ ܐܡܪ‬speak!” and 61.13 ‫“ ܫܡܥ‬listen!”), the characters make regular use of words that appear to have rendered technical vocabulary in Greek, such as ‫“ ܢܣܒ‬to assume” (e.g., 21.16), ‫“ ܥܩܒ‬to investigate” (e.g., 24.20), ‫“ ܚܘܐ‬to demonstrate” (e.g., 25.1), ‫“ ܫܪܐ‬to dismiss (objections)” (e.g., 60.18), ‫“ ܡܠ‬statement” ̈ “reasoning” (e.g., 20.5, perhaps (e.g., 41.21), ‫“ ܪܥܝܢܐ‬opinion” (e.g., 25.2), ‫ܡܚܫܒܬܐ‬ ̈ λογισμοί), and ‫“ ܬܚܘܝܬܐ‬proofs” (e.g., 25.3). Both speakers also frequently resort to Scriptural quotations in the argumentation. Discussion of Scholarship A new chapter in the scholarship on the Bazaar opened in 1963, when Abramowski argued that the opening text of the Bazaar, the dialogue, was not authored by Nestorius but by a later writer. The main arguments against Nestorian authorship of the dialogue are (i) the abrupt switch between the first text, the dialogue, and the second text in the collection, clearly conceived as a plain treatise, and not a dialogue, in which Sophronius nonetheless appears; (ii) the difference in tone and style between the two works; (iii) some theological arguments in the dialogue that appeared difficult to reconcile with a pre-​Chalcedonian setting and with the rest of the Bazaar; and (iv) that the historian Barḥadbšabbā ῾Arbāyā (c. late sixth century) made use of passages from the dialogue without reporting it in dialogue form. According to Abramowski, the composition of the dialogue must have taken place between 450–51 and c. 530–40 (the date of the Syriac translation); she suggested the period 523–​33 and a Chalcedonian setting in Constantinople as the most plausible origin of the text.407 About a decade later, Scipioni put forward strong counterarguments to Abramowski’s objections to Nestorius’ authorship, and argued that Nestorius must have been the author. According to Scipioni, the dialogue is better understood as Nestorius’ response to the anti-​Nestorian On the Unity of Christ by

407. Abramowski 1963 followed by Chadwick 1965; Chesnut 1978; for Abramowski’s arguments in favor of interpolations in the other texts of the Bazaar see Bevan 2013.

Guide to the Dialogues  157 Cyril of Alexandria (entry 35) and thus must have been composed in c. 437–​38. According to Scipioni, the use of the history of doctrine as a tool for refutation is one of the main elements that links the dialogue with Cyril’s On the Unity; an earlier chronology could also explain the apparent lack of bitterness when the dialogue is compared to the rest of the Bazaar. In Scipioni’s reconstruction, Nestorius’ dialogue may have been a recasting of the earlier Theopaschite (and may have thus rendered it obsolete), but the very inclusion (and possibly reworking) of the dialogue in the Bazaar should nonetheless be attributed to a later author.408 Scipioni’s arguments were followed by Chesnut, who paid special attention to the nature of the dialogic exchanges between Nestorius and Sophronius. According to Chesnut, Sophronius is not the simple-​minded opponent who is set up only to be knocked down again, but instead appears as a real, live, confused questioner of Nestorius. Sophronius’ part is “confused enough” while Nestorius’ is “clear enough,” that it seems unlikely that they came from the same pen; Chesnut suggested that “the dialogue is not in fact a purely literary creation” but that the work may have originated from a text, perhaps a letter, from a skeptical but not unfriendly enquirer.409 Bibliography Abramowski, L. 1963. Untersuchungen zum Liber Heraclidis des Nestorius. Louvain. Bedjan, P., ed. 1910. Nestorius. Le livre d’Héraclide de Damas. Paris. Bevan, G.A. 2013. “Interpolations in the Syriac Translation of Nestorius’ Liber Heraclidis.” Studia Patristica 68:31–​39. Bevan, G.A. 2016. The New Judas: The Case of Nestorius in Ecclesiastical Politics, 428–​41 CE. Leuven. Chadwick, H. 1965. Review of Abramowski 1965. JTS 16.2:214–​18 Chesnut, R.C. 1978. “The Two Prosopa in Nestorius’ Bazaar of Heracleides.” JTS 29.2:392–​409. Driver, G.R., and Hodgson, L. 1925. Nestorius. The Bazaar of Heracleides. Oxford. Loofs, F., ed. 1905. Nestoriana: Die Fragmente des Nestorius. Halle. Nau, F. 1910. Le livre d’Héraclide de Damas. Paris. Scipioni, L.I. 1974. Nestorio e il Concilio di Efeso. Milan.

408. Scipioni 1974:299–​361. According to Scipioni, Irenaeus’ Against Heresies was an important model for Nestorius in the composition of the dialogue, and is crucial in understanding the apparently nonlinear argumentative structure. 409. Chesnut 1978, esp. 397–​98; Bevan 2016:18–​21.

158  Christians in Conversation 40. Mark the Monk, Disputatio cum Causidico Author

Mark the Monk (Marcus Eremita)

Full title

Ἀντιβολὴ πρὸς σχολαστικόν (CPG 6097)

Original language

Greek (Syriac translation; fragmentary Arabic translation)410

Date of composition

c. 400–​before 533411

Edition

De Durand 2000

Modern translation

French (De Durand 2000)

Summary The Disputatio cum Causidico is set within an ascetic community and consists of two main sections. In the former, an ascetic (ἀσκητής) debates with a “renowned lawyer” (σχολαστικός; 1.1: [. . .]  τις τῶν ἐλλογίμων δικανικός)412 in front of an audience (11.3: πάντας τοὺς ἀκούοντας) about issues concerning the life of monks (1.4: μοναχοί) and, in particular, their refusal to make use of the judicial system and to participate in secular life. The departure of the lawyer marks the end of the first section. In the second section, the dialogue continues, this time between the ascetic, who is now identified as a monastic superior (15.7: ἠγούμενος), and a subordinate brother (15.15: ὑποτακτικός), but other brothers (21.5: οἱ ἀδελφοί) take part in the dialogue, too. It is likely, however, that another part of the dialogue is missing because, upon leaving, the lawyer postpones the rest of the discussion to “tomorrow,” but in fact does not appear again in the text (14.9–​ 10: αὔριον πάλιν ἀντιβαλόντες ἐπιγνωσόμεθα).413 The Disputatio is occasionally interrupted by short narrative sections that record the reactions of the speakers. The link between the two parts is reinforced by the second part touching upon issues raised in the first, and there are specific references to the objections and questions that had been put forward by the lawyer (e.g., 14.16–​17; 21.15). The tone of the conversation, however, is different in the two sections. Although conceding specific points to the ascetic (e.g., 10.15), the lawyer adopts a fairly polemical attitude that he does not dismiss even when, according to the narrative voice, he sees that he has been refuted by the ascetic’s arguments (4.1, 14.1: ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐλέγχοις). Eventually, the lawyer, who is also able to quote from the 410. A  Syriac translation survives, and one of the manuscripts is BL Add. 12175 dated to 533 (De Durand 1999:38–​39; Hesse 1969); passages survive in Arabic translation, too (Khalifé 1949). 411. The chronology of Mark the Monk is debated, and scholars have proposed either an earlier date (early fifth century) or a later one (early sixth century); Gribomont 1980:280b; De Durand 1999:31–​34; Moreschini 2005:654–​55. 412. Elsewhere he is identified as δικανικός (1.1; 7.1; 10.14; 11.30; 14.16), κοσμικός (4.1; 10.1; 12.10), or βιωτικός (11.19), although these attributes are not consistently attested in the manuscripts. 413. Another possible indicator that the current end of the dialogue was not the original one may be the variance in the close between the Greek and the Syriac translation (21.28).

Guide to the Dialogues  159 Scriptures, leaves the conversation indignantly after calling for a new discussion the following day. Conversely, the tone of the second section can be described as didactic. It opens with the objection by a brother (described as presumptuous and haughty) who refuses to believe that calamities happen to men because of the culpability of each person (14.28–​33). He, however, is soon convinced by the older ascetic that calamities and culpabilities are indeed related, and he prostrates himself in front of the main speaker (15.24–​30). The main speaker goes on to provide instruction about the justice of God, charity, and the will of the flesh, and he does so by answering the questions that the brothers raise in one voice. This central section, consisting of four questions and answers, is striking for its instructional nature and for the absence of narrative passages (17–​20).414 In the last exchange, the brothers declare their satisfaction with the explanation of the ascetic, who closes by providing some Biblical quotations that illustrate the will of the flesh. Discussion of Scholarship Two other works by Mark the Monk have dialogic features. The treatise De baptismo (CPG 6093, ed. and trans. De Durand 1999)  adopts the format of questions and answers, and can be identified as an instance of erotapokriseis; the shorter Consultatio intellectus cum sua ipsius anima (CPG 6098, ed. and trans. De Durand 1999) is a curious address by a personified intellect to its own soul. The Disputatio is the only dialogue among Mark’s works, and, according to De Durand, the author consciously adopted the dialogic genre of the Greek literary tradition. However, the editor also argued that the outcome of this attempt is not entirely successful, and the Disputatio occasionally resembles the format of erotapokriseis, as is evident in the central chapters of the second part (17–​20). Also, De Durand remarked on the loose link between the two parts of the Disputatio and the variance between them, but he attributed this feature to the lack of organization that generally characterizes the works of Mark the Monk.415 The subjects of the Disputatio have been linked to the works by John of Apamea, a roughly contemporary Syriac author who composed dialogues set within ascetic communities with an established ascetic as the main speaker (see entries 41, 42, and 43). In both authors, the reader can perceive the coexistence of dialogic and openly instructional features in the exchanges between more experienced and less experienced ascetics. It is especially remarkable that both authors are proponents of a fairly radical variety of asceticism; De Durand suggested identifying Mark with the tradition of Syro-​Mesopotamian asceticism. The link

4 14. See, however, the variance in this respect among the manuscripts and in the Syriac translation. 415. De Durand 2000:14.

160  Christians in Conversation between Mark the Monk and John of Apamea extends also to the theological similarities between their writings on baptism.416 Bibliography De Durand, G.-​M., ed. 1999. Marc le Moine. Traités. I. SC 455. Paris. De Durand, G.-​M., ed. 2000. Marc le Moine. Traités. II. SC 455. Paris. Gribomont, J. 1980. “Marc le Moine.” DSp s.v. Hesse, O. 1969. “Markus Eremita in der syrischen Literatur.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Suppl. 1.2:450–​57. Khalifé, I.A. 1949. “Les traductions arabes de Marc l’Ermite.” Mélanges de l’Université Saint-​Joseph 28:115–​224.

41. John of Apamea, Six Dialogues with Thomas Author

John of Apamea, also known as John the Solitary (first half of the fifth cent.)417

Full title

‫ܫ̈ܪܒܐܕܡܠܠܡܪܝܝܘܚܢܢܝܚܝܕܚܐܥܡܬܐܘܡܣܝܘܤܛܘܒܢܐ‬ Discourses that Mar John the Solitary had with the Blessed Thomas

Original language

Syriac418

Date of composition

first half of the fifth cent., perhaps c. 430–​50419

Edition

Strothmann 1972

Modern translations

French (Lavenant 1984:47–​119); German (Strothmann 1972)

Summary and Discussion of Scholarship The Six Dialogues with Thomas deal with a range of philosophical and theological issues concerning the soul and its relation to the virtues and passions, the human nature, the creation, and divine economy. The two main speakers are John the Solitary and Thomas, a “notable man” who, after gaining the “excellent education of the Greeks” (1.5), went on to lead a Christian solitary life, as the narrative preface explains. The relation between the speakers can be described as instructional, and John plays a role similar to that of a teacher or a more experienced

416. De Durand 1999:294–​95. 417. De Halleux 1983, who suggests a link with the School of Edessa; Brock 2009:25–​26; di Berardino 454–​56; list of works and bibliography in Kessel and Pinggéra 2011:142–​56. John the Solitary’s works show that he must have received his education in both Greek and Syriac and that he is likely to have been trained in medicine. According to Brock 2009:25–​26, John employs the dialogue form in imitation of Greek philosophical dialogues. 418. De Halleux 1983. 419. Nin 2005:95–​97; De Halleux 1983 and 1981.

Guide to the Dialogues  161 ascetic. Other “brothers” attend the dialogue (55.544 and 59.6), but among them only Isidore intervenes once to question a point made by Thomas. There follows a short dialogue between Thomas and Isidore, after which Thomas’ opinion is shown to be right and is then acknowledged by John (55–​56). Thomas is generally satisfied with the explanation that he receives from John, but he nonetheless intervenes frequently and at length throughout the dialogue.420 The Six Dialogues are set “at John’s” (presumably his cell or hut), as indicated at the beginning of the third dialogue (35.4), and take place within an ascetic community over three days, as is shown by the references to the daily prayers (as is also the case of the Four Dialogues with Eusebius and Eutropius by the same author, entry 42).421 An opening narrative section provides some information about Thomas’ life and the occasion of the encounter with John. After his studies in Greek, Thomas, who had distinguished himself in his Christian faith, took the decision to adopt an ascetic lifestyle in Palestine. The unexpected encounter with a brother from the East, however, gave him the chance to read and appreciate “a book entitled Hymns” (lost; see Lavenant 1984:47n1) that the Eastern brother was carrying and that had been authored by John of Apamea. It was the interest in this book of Hymns that led Thomas to the dwelling place of John—​a scenario similar to that of the Four Dialogues by the same author and that might also recall the setting of the Erostrophus. Upon meeting John, Thomas reports that he has become familiar with the views of philosophers but is disoriented by the variance that he had found among their opinions (1.17–​159).422 He declares that he is in search of answers to his philosophic and theological doubts, which he describes as a “bad disease that I have heard you can heal” (6.145–​47). His relation toward John recalls that of a student toward a teacher, or that of a young toward a more experienced ascetic; Thomas, who is addressed as “my brother” (13.10 and 24.77), is generally happy with the explanation he receives from John, with an exception at the end of the first dialogue. Here, in reply to John’s explanation, he demands further “whether it is possible to know the incorporeal without argumentation from the Scriptures, because there are also those who interrogated me and who are of the opinion of the philosophers, and they do not accept that I bring them an argument from the Scriptures” (11.271–​75). Overall, a number of John’s arguments rely on the quotation of passages from the Old and the New Testaments (including a reference to the Hebrew text, at 27.145–​46), and some of the issues that are discussed center on Scriptural exegesis.

4 20. Letters between John the Solitary and Thomas have survived; see Lavenant 1984. 421. Day one: 1, 2, and, after the prayer of the third hour, 3; day two in the morning: 4; day three: 5 after prayer, and 6 in the evening. 422. In fact he uses the word “poets”; see Lavenant 1984:48n1.

162  Christians in Conversation Bibliography Brock, S.P. 2009. A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature. Kottayam (= Piscataway 2011). De Halleux, A. 1981. “La christologie de Jean le Solitaire.” Le Muséon 94.1–​2:5–​36. De Halleux, A. 1983. “Le milieu historique de Jean Solitaire: Une hypothèse.” In Lavenant 1983:299–​305. Hausherr, I. 1939. Jean le Solitaire (Pseudo-​Jean de Lycopolis). Dialogue sur l’âme et les passions des hommes. Rome. Jansma, T. 1974. “Neue Schriften des Johannes von Apameia: Bemerkungen zu einer Edition.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 31:42–52. Kessel, G., and Pinggéra, K. 2011. A Bibliography of Syriac Ascetic and Mystical Literature. Leuven. Lavenant, R. 1950. “Le probleme de Jean d’Apamée.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 46: 367–​90. Lavenant, R., ed. 1983. III Symposium Syriacum: Les contacts du monde Syriaque avec les autres cultures (Goslar 7–​11 Septembre 1980). Rome. Lavenant, R. 1984. Jean d’Apamée. Dialogues et Traités. SC 311. Paris. Nin, M. 2005. “La sintesi monastica di Giovanni il Solitario.” In Vergani and Chialà 2005:95–​117. Strothmann, W. 1972. Johannes von Apamea. Berlin (rev. Jansma 1974). Vergani, E., and Chialà, S., and eds. 2005. Le Chiese sire tra IV e VI secolo: Dibattito dottrinale e ricerca spirituale; Atti del 2° incontro sull’oriente cristiano di tradizione siriaca (Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 28 marzo 2003). Milan.

42. John of Apamea, Four Dialogues with Eusebius and Eutropius Author Full title

John of Apamea, also known as John the Solitary (first half of the fifth cent.)423 ̈ ‫ܬܘܒ ̈ܢܝܫܐ ܐܚ̈ܪܢܐ ܥܠ ܢܦܫܐ ܘܥܠ ܦܘܪܫ ̈ܚܫܐ‬ ‫ܕܒܢܝܢܫܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܦܓ̈ܪܢܐ‬Other Discourses on the Soul ‫ܘܢܦܫܢܐ ܘ̈ܪܘܚܢܐ‬

and on the Difference among the Passions of Somatic, Psychical, and Spiritual Men Original language

Syriac424

Date of composition

first half of the fifth cent., perhaps c. 430–​50425

Edition

Dedering 1936

Modern translations

French (Hausherr 1939); Italian (Pavan 2012); English (Hansbury 2013)

423. De Halleux 1983, who suggests a link with the School of Edessa; Brock 2009:25–​26; di Berardino 454–​56; list of works and bibliography in Kessel and Pinggéra 2011:142–​56. John the Solitary’s works show that he must have received his education in both Greek and Syriac and that he is likely to have been trained in medicine. According to Brock 2009:25–​26, the dialogue form that John employs is an imitation of that of the Greek philosophical dialogues. 424. De Halleux 1983. 425. Nin 2005:95–​97; De Halleux 1983 and 1981.

Guide to the Dialogues  163 Summary and Discussion of Scholarship The Four Dialogues with Eusebius and Eutropius deal with philosophical and theological issues concerning the soul and its relation to the body, the diseases of the soul, and the spiritual and ascetic life. The dialogues feature John the Solitary—​the main speaker, who is given longer sections in the dialogue—​and the two monks Eusebius and Eutropius. The dialogues are purported to be the report, compiled by Eutropius, of the encounter and conversation between John the Solitary and Eusebius. Eutropius attends the dialogue as well but rarely intervenes in the conversation. A fourth speaker, the monk Maras of Amid, joins the conversation only in the third dialogue and questions the emphasis on passions in the discussion (74–​79). The audience of the dialogue includes other monks who are mentioned but do not intervene directly (53.24–​54.1). The format of the work, the relationship among the speakers, and the occasion and the setting of the dialogues resemble John of Apamea’s Six Dialogues with Thomas (entry 41). Short narrative prologues, which are purportedly authored by Eutropius, open each of the four dialogues and set the scene. Eusebius and Eutropius, who have spent “several years” in their “cell” (14.27–​5.1), receive a letter from John of Apamea and, upon reading it, are highly impressed. In fact, the letter has a conspicuous effect on their lives; they report that, upon receiving it, “what happened to Paul happened to us too: he boasted and rejoiced for his conduct according to the Law, for he believed that that is the perfection and there is nothing else (superior to it), until he received the knowledge of the Messiah” (15.4–​7). As a result, Eusebius and Eutropius took the decision to approach John in his cell (1.6), which provides the venue for the four dialogues, in front of a small ascetic community. The second dialogue takes place after the midday prayer, and the fourth dialogue is similarly set after a prayer. Despite his declarations of humility (e.g., 28.9), John plays the role of an experienced ascetic and teacher in the conversation. Eusebius’ and Eutropius’ questions initially provide John with the chance to instruct them on the existence of the soul, but their questions soon lead the discussion onto the application of philosophic and theological concepts to the practice of a virtuous life. John’s teaching, which is compared to “a beneficial medicine” (28.7) and to “a remedy of doctrine against passions” (78.1–​2), contains practical moral advice and is often articulated in didactic form. In his argumentation, John the Solitary routinely uses everyday examples with a straightforward imagery, reporting anecdotes on a coxswain (10), animals (26), and musical instruments (49). In addition, the second dialogue closes with the recount (50.15) of a series of morally edifying anecdotes about wise men, philosophers, and hermits.426 On this occasion, John

426. The editor and the translator have not identified their (diverse) origins, with the exception of one anecdote probably derived from Epictetus’ Encheiridion and another from the Apophthegmata Patrum; Hausherr 1939:71 and 92.

164  Christians in Conversation admits that he narrated the anecdotes “because of the simplicity of those brothers who were present (at the discussion) but have not completely understood what has been previously said, lest they withhold their good will, I wanted to help their minds through the narration of stories” (53.24–​54.1). Further in the text, the structure of the fourth and last dialogue is perhaps even more markedly instructional. Here, Eusebius puts forward a surprisingly elementary request. He asks John the Solitary for the definitions of a series of more than sixty words with meanings related to virtue, such as “sufferance,” “poverty,” “mercy,” and “charity.” John agrees and, as a result, the fourth dialogue is mostly made up of a collection of sentences and definitions with moral contents. Overall, the Four Dialogues bring together dialogic and instructional forms, and, within the fiction of the text, John articulates his teaching in different formats according to the varying backgrounds of the audience. As opposed to the dialogic presentation of the arguments in the rest of the Four Dialogues, the narration of anecdotes (second dialogue) and the list of definitions (fourth dialogue) respond to a concern for straightforwardness within an instructional relationship. Bibliography Brock, S.P. 2009. A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature. Kottayam (= Piscataway 2011). Dedering, S. 1936. Johannes von Lykopolis. Ein Dialog über die Seele und die Affekte des Menschen. Leiden. De Halleux, A. 1981. “La christologie de Jean le Solitaire.” Le Muséon 94.1–​2:5–​36. De Halleux, A. 1983. “Le milieu historique de Jean Solitaire: Une hypothèse.” In Lavenant 1983:299–​305. Hansbury, M. 2013. John the Solitary on the Soul. Texts from Christian Late Antiquity 32. Piscataway, NJ. Hausherr, I. 1939. Jean le Solitaire (Pseudo-​Jean de Lycopolis). Dialogue sur l’âme et les passions des hommes. Rome. Kessel, G., and Pinggéra, K. 2011. A Bibliography of Syriac Ascetic and Mystical Literature. Leuven. Lavenant, R. 1950. “Le probleme de Jean d’Apamée.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 46:367–​90. Lavenant, R., ed. 1983. III Symposium Syriacum: Les contacts du monde syriaque avec les autres cultures (Goslar 7–​11 Septembre 1980). Rome. Lavenant, R. 1984. Jean d’Apamée. Dialogues et traités. SC 311. Paris. Nin, M. 2005. “La sintesi monastica di Giovanni il Solitario.” In Vergani and Chialà 2005:95–​117. Pavan, M. 2012. Giovanni il Solitario. Le passioni dell’anima. Magnano. Vergani, E., and Chialà, S., and eds. 2005. Le chiese sire tra IV e VI secolo: Dibattito dottrinale e ricerca spirituale; Atti del 2° incontro sull’oriente cristiano di tradizione siriaca (Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 28 marzo 2003). Milan.

Guide to the Dialogues  165 43. John of Apamea, Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism Author

John of Apamea, also known as John the Solitary (first half of the fifth cent.) 427

Full title

‫ ܡܡܠܠ ܥܠ ܪܐܙܐ ܕܡܥܡܘܕܝܬܐ‬Discourse on the Mystery of Baptism

Original language

Syriac

Date of composition

first half of the fifth cent., perhaps c. 430–​50428

Edition

Rignell 1960:13*–​23*

Modern translation

German (Rignell 1960:32–​39)

Summary and Discussion of Scholarship The Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism has a complex structure. An opening narrative prologue reports that, on one occasion when John (i.e., the author) was teaching about the nature of the soul, a certain Theogenes approached him. The narrative voice reports that, once John’s discourse on the nature of the soul had finished, Theogenes began to speak and reported a dialogue about baptism that he had previously heard in the church of Thessalonica. Theogenes’ report of the dialogue held in Thessalonica occupies about a third of the Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism (15.5*–​18.9*). Upon concluding his report of the dialogue (on which more follows), Theogenes asks John whether he has anything to add on the topic of baptism. John’s response to Theogenes occupies the rest of the Dialogue, in which John is the only speaker. John’s treatment of baptism, however, does not address the issues raised in the Thessalonica dialogue in systematic fashion, and the relation between the two main parts of the Dialogue remains problematic. According to Rignell, while John’s treatment of baptism is coherent with other works on baptism by the same author, the Thessalonica dialogue, which is thought to have been written by the same author, may have been composed independently from the Dialogue or, alternatively, may originally have been part of another work and was then added to it.429 Theogenes reports that the dialogue in the church of Thessalonica took place between Chrysothenes, a non-​baptized “lawyer (σχολαστικός) who, in Athens, had also learned the art of grammar of a doubting Thomas (‫;ܓܪܡܛܝܩܘܬܐ‬ Rignell 1960:32 translates “Dialektik”)” (15.6*–​7*), and his companion Soteri­ anus, a deacon (15.9*: ‫)ܡܫܡܫܢܐ‬. According to Theogenes, the dialogue began when, after having discussed several issues, Soterianus asked Chrysothenes

427. De Halleux 1983, who suggests a link with the School of Edessa; Brock 2009:25–​26; di Berardino 454–​56; list of works and bibliography in Kessel and Pinggéra 2011:142–​56. 428. De Halleux 1983 and 1981. 429. Rignell 1960:23–​25.

166  Christians in Conversation why he was not baptized, and the two thus moved on to discuss issues pertaining to Christian baptism. While Chrysothenes is critical of Christian baptism, Soterianus represents the Christian orthodox view in its favor. Overall, the dialogue between Chrysothenes and Soterianus is balanced, and neither speaker pronounces passages longer than a paragraph. Interestingly, however, in the course of the dialogue neither speaker prevails over the other or accepts his opponent’s view. In particular, Chrysothenes strongly challenges the views that forgiveness of sin follows baptism, that baptism should be understood as a symbol of resurrection, and that it is a necessary condition for salvation (on the basis of John 3.5). If it were so, what sense should one make of the martyrs who died without being baptized? According to Soterianus, the martyrs’ desire for baptism, which was shown by their faith, was a sufficient condition for their salvation. Also, following Romans 6.3, Soterianus defends the view that baptism is an “image” (17.13*: ‫ )ܕܡܘܬܐ‬of Christ’s death, and that baptism enables men to enter a life without sin; he opposes Chrysothenes’ refusal to accept baptism by arguing that Christ himself wanted to be baptized. To Chrysothenes’ objection that, if Christ wanted him to be baptized, he could have aroused this desire in his soul, Soterianus closes the dialogue by arguing that this command is indeed made known in the Gospel, as if in a royal decree.430 The arguments that John puts forward in the latter part of the Dialogue are not exactly the response to the issues raised in the Thessalonica dialogue that a reader may have hoped for. According to John, who occasionally makes use of passages from the New Testament in the argumentation, baptism is the gateway to Christian life in the same way as circumcision among the Israelites was the sign of a life according to the Law. Receiving baptism gives knowledge of the kingdom of Heaven, and, at the same time, purifies men from the contamination of sin. Also, as a mother’s womb forms a child so that his bodily limbs are complete at the time of birth, so also Christian baptism forms a new human being endowed with love, faith, hope, and knowledge of the Truth. Through baptism the human body becomes protected from the powers of evil, and the spiritual birth that Christian baptism brings about enables human beings to see the Truth and to gain knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven.431 Discussion of Scholarship Rignell emphasizes the similarities between the contents of John’s response to Theogenes and John of Apamea’s First Letter to Theodoulus on Baptism (ed. Rignell 1960:25*–​40*). The dialogue between Chrysothenes and Soterianus that

430. Rignell 1960:23–​24. 431. Rignell 1960:25.

Guide to the Dialogues  167 is put in the mouth of Theogenes, however, stands out from the rest of the text and may have been composed independently. Rignell believes that the Thessalonica dialogue is a fictional work, and sees the proof of this in Chrysothenes’ words “as I have said above” (17.11*: ‫)ܐܝܟ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܐܡܪܬ‬, for one would expect Chrysothenes to say “as I have said earlier” if the work were a report of an actual discussion.432 Bibliography Brock, S.P. 2009. A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature. Kottayam (= Piscataway 2011). De Halleux, A. 1981. “La christologie de Jean le Solitaire.” Le Muséon 94.1–​2:5–​36. De Halleux, A. 1983. “Le milieu historique de Jean le Solitaire:  Une hypothèse.” In Lavenant 1983:299–​305. Lavenant, R., ed. 1983. IIIo Symposium Syriacum, 1980: Les contacts du monde syriaque avec les autres cultures (Goslar 7–​11 Septembre 1980). Rome. Kessel, G., and Pinggéra, K. 2011. A Bibliography of Syriac Ascetic and Mystical Literature. Leuven. Rignell, L.G. 1960. Drei Traktate von Johannes dem Einsiedler (Johannes von Apameia). Lund.

44. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Eranistes Author

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 393–​c. 457 or 466)433

Full title

Ἐρανιστὴς ἢ Πολύμορφος The Collector or the Multiform (CPG 6217)434

Original language

Greek

Date of composition

c. 447435

Edition

Ettlinger 1975

Modern translation

English (Ettlinger 2003)

432. Rignell 1960:20–​25, esp. 24. 433. Ettlinger 1975:3. 434. In the preface, Theodoret explains that “the title of my book is Eranistes or the Polymorph, because they [i.e., miaphysite followers of Eutyches] produce their own complex and polymorphous doctrine by collecting the wicked teachings of many evil men” (61.21–24); and, further, “as a result, this heresy resembles clothing crudely stitched together by beggars from scraps of cloth; that is why I call this book Eranistes or the Polymorph” (62.5–7; trans. Ettlinger 2003:28). 435. So Ettlinger 2003:3–​5 and 1975:3–​4. There has been some discussion on the chronology of the dialogue because of the presence in the second florilegium of eighteen patristic quotations that are derived from the appendix of the Tomus ad Flavianum by pope Leo I, of 449 (the Tome was also available in Greek translation and was included in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, ACO 2.1.1. 20–​25). In order to explain this, Saltet 1905 (followed by Quasten 3.548) argued that a second edition of the Eranistes was compiled by Theodoret after the Council of Chalcedon (451). Conversely, other scholars (see Ettlinger 1975:26–​30) have argued that the patristic quotations were added by a copyist during the fifth century or soon afterward on the grounds that the manuscripts offer no other evidence of a later revision and the interpolations appear to disrupt the normal arrangement of the other quotations within the Eranistes.

168  Christians in Conversation Summary The Eranistes deals with Christology and argues that the divine nature of Christ remained immutable (dialogue 1), that the two natures are unmixed (dialogue 2), and that the godhead is impassible (dialogue 3)—​the subjects of heated debate during the years leading up to the Second Council of Ephesus (449). Its author aimed to refute the miaphysite doctrine advocated by Eutyches (who was favored by Dioscorus, Cyril’s successor in Alexandria), who, however, is never mentioned explicitly in the dialogue.436 The Eranistes is made up of three dialogues that address the three Christological issues mentioned previously and feature two speakers, who are identified as “Orthodox” and “Eranistes” without further qualification. The three dialogues are characterized by short exchanges, and the speaker representing the miaphysite view of Eutyches, Eranistes, accepts the doctrine of the Orthodox as the conversation unfolds. In addition, the Eranistes has a prologue by the author that introduces the subject and discusses the choice of the dialogue form (more on this follows), and an epilogue that sums up the issues addressed in the dialogues by presenting a summary of the arguments in syllogistic form.437 Another prominent feature of this text is that, in order to convince Eranistes, the Orthodox reads out a florilegium of patristic quotations within each of the three dialogues. Apart from the indication that the three dialogues took place over three consecutive days under Eranistes’ request, there is no scene setting or narrative voice.438 It is especially significant that, when expressing his choice of the dialogue form in the prologue, the author also emphasizes his distance from the tradition of ancient dialogues, as the following passage shows. In addition, Theodoret declares that he intends to make the Eranistes widely intelligible to his audience, and, in order to achieve clarity, he places the names of the speakers (whether in full or truncated form) in the left margin of the text and not merely within the text itself, thus rendering the change of speaker even more noticeable:439 The discussion itself will proceed in the form of a dialogue (διαλογικῶς), with questions, answers, problems, solutions, objections, and all the other characteristics of the dialogue form (διαλογικοῦ χαρακτῆρος). But I shall not

436. Ettlinger 2003:3–​5; Hallmann 1998; Cameron 2014:44–​50; Vranic 2015:156–​61; Vranic 2015:162–​82 for a fuller summary and chap. 6 for Theodoret’s Christology. 437. The dialogue closes with thirteen (spurious?) iambic trimeters, which are ignored in Ettlinger 2003. 438. 111.9; 112.7–​8; 187.32; 188.3. 439. Usually ancient readers had only a colon, which was sometimes combined with a paragraphus or a stroke in the margin, to indicate the change of speaker, and the practice of avoiding any explicit indication of the speakers’ names in Greek dialogues extended into late antiquity (Wilson 1970; Andrieu 1954:288–​97 and 303). By reporting the names of the speakers, Theodoret moved away from this custom, although it may have been already in use among Christian dialogues; an earlier example is the papyrus (c. 300) of Origen’s Dialogue with Heraclides (entry 7) (and, perhaps, the anon. Dilaogue with Adamantius [entry 17]) where the names of the speakers are included in the text (Lim 1991).

Guide to the Dialogues  169 insert the names of the questioners and respondents in the body of the text, as the ancient Greek philosophers did (οἱ πάλαι τῶν Ἑλλήνων σοφοί); I shall write them in the margin, at the beginning of each new segment of conversation. I am doing this because, unlike the Greeks who offered their books to a well-​educated audience for whom life consisted in discussion, I want this work to be easily intelligible and profitable for readers unacquainted with verbal disputation. And this will be the case if the identity of the persons speaking is clear because their names are written in the margin.440 The author thus expressed his aim to make the arguments intelligible to less cultivated readers and pointed out his distance from the ancient writers of dialogues. Another question that emerges from the Eranistes is whether Theodoret knew and was distancing himself from the tradition of symposiastic dialogues (e.g., Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae) by choosing the term ἐρανιστής for both the title of the work and the name of the opposing speaker. In classical and imperial Greek, the term ἐρανιστής denotes a person who takes part or contributes to an ἔρανος, “a shared meal, a banquet,” as is attested in authors such as Athenaeus and Libanius, but this word appears here for the first time among Christian authors.441 In the preface, Theodoret links the meaning of ἐρανιστής to the verb ἐρανίζω “to collect, to gather, to bring together”—​a verb that is instead attested in Christian authors:442 The title of my book is Eranistes or The Polymorph, because they (i.e., miaphysites) produce their own complex and polymorphous doctrine by collecting (ἐρανισάμενοι) the wicked teachings of many evil men.443 The verb ἐρανίζω appears again at the close of the third and last dialogue, when Orthodox exhorts Eranistes to imitate the bees and to “collect (ἔρανισάμενος) the precious blossoms of the wholly blessed Fathers.”444 Indeed, the Eranistes instantiates the use of patristic florilegia for proof and authority, which became standard practice within religious controversy from the mid-​fifth century onward; the question remains whether the author understood this practice in relation to (or in opposition to) the use of quotations in earlier symposiastic literature. 4 40. 62.8–​17; trans. Ettlinger 2003:29. 441. For example, Athenaeus 9.21.3, Libanius Decl. 46.2.15.9; Lampe s.v. 442. Lampe  s.v. 443. 61.20–​24, and so also 61.18–​19; trans. Ettlinger 2003:28. Further (61.24–​62.5): “The assertion that Christ the Lord is only God come from Simon, Cerdon, Marcion, and the other members of this foul group. Confessing the virgin birth while saying that it was only a transitory passage and that God the Word took nothing from the Virgin was stolen from the absurd stories of Valentinus, Bardesanes, and their followers. The designation of the divinity and humanity of Christ the Lord as one nature they pilfered from the ravings of Apollinarius. And they robbed from the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius the attribution of the passion to the divinity of Christ the Lord” (trans. Ettlinger 2003:28). 444. 253.3–​6; trans. Ettlinger 2003:252.

170  Christians in Conversation Discussion of Scholarship Young writes that the Eranistes “beautifully illustrates the clarity and conciseness of Theodoret’s style [and] it is a refreshing change from so much patristic literature,” while, according to Cameron, “it is a product of passion and of personal and intellectual engagement” by its author.445 The Eranistes is certainly an experimental and ambitious work; its author’s claim of simplicity should not be taken at face value but rather as a trope shared with many Christian writers.446 While it may be difficult to decide whether, as Young suggests, by composing the Eranistes Theodoret was genuinely seeking rapprochement in the hope of convincing “the less extreme Alexandrians that they should abandon Eutyches and recognize how much common ground they had with the moderate Antiochenes,” the Eranistes certainly represents a crucial development within Christian doctrinal debate. The composition and the use of florilegia and syllogisms are evidence for the technologization of religious controversy coinciding with the Christological arguments discussed in the Council of Ephesus (431), and the scholasticism of the Eranistes marks a significant step in the formalization of anti-​heretical literature.447 The possible links between the developments in the argumentative technologies attested in the Eranistes and Theodoret’s own training in Greek rhetoric and philosophy as attested in his apologetics against the pagans await a full assessment.448 The Eranistes represents the earliest instance of the inclusion in a dialogue of florilegia of patristic authors, although there had already been plenty of Scriptural citations in earlier dialogues. The three florilegia, which appear to have been originally composed by Theodoret, are put in the mouth of the Orthodox while he is trying to persuade Eranistes; the aim of the author was to find proof texts that could be agreed by both speakers to be unquestionably orthodox. It is especially remarkable, however, that the selection also includes passages drawn from two heterodox writers, Apollinarius (in all three florilegia) and Eusebius of Emesa (only in the third), which are used to close each of the three florilegia.449 The quotation of heterodox texts contributes positively to the argumentation, and the level of engagement with them seems unprecedented before Theodoret (it is never attested in Cyril’s letters, for instance), for the use of heterodox texts was normally limited to refutation, such as in the acts of the Council of Ephesus (431) where Nestorius’ writings were quoted and anathematized.450 Conversely, in the Eranistes the two heterodox writers are functional to the argumentation:  the 4 45. Young 1983:278; Cameron 2014:47. 446. Cameron 2014:47; Schor 2011:184–​85; Lim 2008:165–​66. 447. Young 1983:278; Cameron 2014:18 and 44–​50; Schor 2011:184–​90; Richard 1951 (2011). 448. Papadogiannakis  2012. 449. Passages by Apollinarius are reported in all three florilegia, while Eusebius of Emesa’s only in the third. Ettlinger 1975:25–​27. 450. Ettlinger 1975:25; ACO 1.1.2. 45–​52.

Guide to the Dialogues  171 Orthodox maintains that, if Eranistes is not convinced by orthodox authorities, he will perhaps be persuaded by seeing that the religious authorities that he accepts (Apollinarius and Eusebius of Emesa) held the same view as the Orthodox.451 The ultimate aim of Orthodox in his use of heterodox texts is to present Eranistes’ position as incoherent and changeable (πολύμορφον).452 Bibliography Allen, P., Canning, R., and Cross, L., eds. 1998. Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church. Brisbane. Andrieu, J. 1954. Le dialogue antique: Structure et présentation. Paris. Cameron, Av. 2014. Dialoguing in Late Antiquity. Washington, DC. Cameron, Av., and Hoyland, R.G., eds. 2011. Doctrine and Debate in the East Christian World, 300–​1500. Farnham, UK. Ettlinger, G.H. 1975. Theodoret of Cyrus. Eranistes. Oxford. Ettlinger, G.H. 2003. Theodoret of Cyrus. Eranistes. Washington, DC. Goldhill, S., ed. 2008. The End of Dialogue in Antiquity. Cambridge. Grillmeier, A., and Bacht, H., eds. 1951. Das Konzil von Chalkedon:  Geschichte und Gegenwart. Würzburg. Hallmann, J.M. 1998. “Theodoret’s Eranistes and Its Aftermath:  The Demise of the Christology of Antioch.” In Allen et al. 1998:2.343–​57. Lim, R. 1991. “Theodoret of Cyrus and the Speakers in the Greek Dialogues.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 111:181–​182. Lim, R. 2008. “Christians, Dialogues and Patterns of Sociability in Late Antiquity.” In Goldhill 2008:151–​72. Papadogiannakis, Y. 2012. Christianity and Hellenism in the Fifth-​Century Greek East: Theodoret’s Apologetics against the Greeks in Context. Hellenic Studies Series 49. Washington, DC. Richard, M. 1951. “Les forilèges diphysites du Ve et VIe siècles.” In Grillmeier and Bacht, 1951:1.721–​48. English transl. in Richard 2011. Richard, M. 2011. “Diophysite Florilegia of the Fifth and Sixth Centuries CE.” In Cameron and Hoyland 2011:321–​46. English transl. of Richard 1951. Saltet, L. 1905. “Les sources de l’Eranistes de Théodoret.” Revue d’histoire écclesiastique 6:289–​303, 513–​36, 741–​54. Schor, A.M. 2011. Theodoret’s People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria. Berkeley.

451. 109.17–​24:  “Orth.:  Well, then, I’ll again provide you with an unexpected remedy. For I  shall bring in Apollinarius, one of the teachers of your amazing heresy, and I shall show that he understood the text ῾the Word became flesh’ in the same way as the holy fathers. Hear, therefore, what he wrote about this in the book A Summary [. . .]” (trans. Ettlinger 2003:86). 452. 247.9-​18: “Orth.: [. . .] And now in order that you might know that those who are struggling to maintain this polymorphous (πολύμορφον) heresy are eager to eclipse even the ancient heresiarchs with their extravagant blasphemies, listen again to the writings of Apollinarius, which proclaim that the divine nature is impassible and confess that the suffering pertains to the body.” (trans. Ettlinger 2003:245).

172  Christians in Conversation Vranic, V. 2015. The Constancy and Development in the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Leiden. Wilson, N. 1970. “Indications of Speaker in Greek Dialogue Texts.” Classical Quarterly 20.2:305. Young, F.M. 1983. From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and Its Background. Philadelphia.

45. Anonymous, Actus Silvestri Author

unknown

Full title

Actus Silvestri (BHG 1628–​34; BHL 7725–​43)

Origin

the earliest surviving version is in Latin (version A, second half of the fifth cent.; several other versions and translations survive in Latin, Greek, Syriac, and Armenian)453

Editions

Canella 2006:269–​309 (most of second book only, from the Latin versions A, B, and C); Mombritius 1910:2.508–​31 = De Leo 1974:151–​221 (Latin version C)

Modern translation

none

Summary The Actus Silvestri is an apocryphal narrative about the life and deeds of pope Sylvester (314–​35) which, for more than half of its length, consists of a public anti-​Jewish altercatio (De Leo 1974:175 l. 707) between Sylvester and twelve representatives of Judaism, a section of text also known as Altercatio Silvestri cum Iudaeis. The Actus, which had an immense diffusion in the West (some 300 Latin manuscripts survive, ninety Greek, and several Syriac), have a complex tradition and have come down in several versions and translations. The present analysis is primarily based on the earliest surviving redaction, Latin version A, which was probably written in Rome during the second half of the fifth century, in two books. It has been argued, however, that the text depends on a tradition dating

453. According to Canella 2013:253 and 2006:261–​62 and 267 (with Aulisa 2009:173n85), the Actus Silvestri circulated orally (presumably in Greek) from at least the early fifth century in the Syro-​Palestinian region, but version A is likely to originate in Rome and date from the second half of the fifth century. Similarly, Lahey 2007:600 argues that the legend began in Greek (so also Schreckenberg 255) no later than the end of the fifth century and depends on Greek adversus Iudaeos literature. In contrast, Pohlkamp 1992 argues for the late-​fourth-​century West as the origin of the Actus, followed recently by Wirbelauer 2015. At least two other Latin versions, B and C (which combines A and B), two Syriac versions, and three Greek versions have been identified, and different versions include several additions and appendixes that are not considered here. See Canella 2006:xxiii for possible later changes to the version A; Andrist 1999:116–​19 for an overview of the Latin and Greek versions; Canella 2006:3–​8 for the translations; Cameron 2014:51 and 2015.

Guide to the Dialogues  173 back to at least the early fifth century and whose origins, probably Greek, may be identified in the Syro-​Palestinian region.454 There is also the possibility that the Actus Silvestri re-​elaborates Greek adversus Iudaeos literature.455 The altercatio, which ends with Sylvester’s victory, is set in the Basilica Ulpia in Rome in 315 and takes place in front of two pagan judges (the philosopher Craton and the former prefect Zenophilus) and an audience that includes the emperor Constantine and his mother, Helena. A narrative voice introduces the characters and records the reactions of the audience (A.27–​28; A.436–​39) and of the speakers (A.186–​87; A.361), who often quote from the Scriptures and at one point mention Josephus (A.114). The Actus Silvestri open with a narrative of the life of Sylvester until his election to the pontificate and Sylvester’s relationship with Constantine, including Constantine’s conversion (linked to a miraculous healing of his leprosy) and baptism administered by Sylvester; there follows a recounting of the occasion of the altercatio. Upon hearing of Constantine’s conversion, Helena, who is presented as a sympathizer of Judaism, sends him a letter from Bithynia, rejoicing and exhorting him to embrace Judaism, but Constantine instead replies by suggesting to organize a debate between the representatives of Judaism and Christianity in order to settle the issue. The idea of a debate with Jews in the context of the reign of Constantine and with his mother, Helena, has resonance with a wide range of texts, not least in the account of the finding of the true cross, especially the Judas Cyriacus version.456 The rest of the Actus is entirely dedicated to the debate itself, which takes place in Rome between twelve representatives of Judaism, chosen by Helena, and Sylvester, who, confident in the help of God, participates as the only representative of Christianity. Sylvester faces each of the representatives of Judaism in turn, and each dispute closes with the judges’ proclamation of Sylvester’s victory. The twelfth and final dispute, however, is configured as a magic contest in which Sylvester succeeds in the attempt to resuscitate a deceased bull—​a decisive display of divine power that causes Helena’s conversion from Judaism to Christianity, as well as the conversions of the judges Crato and Zenophilus, and of 3,000 Jews. The format and the rules of the altercatio emerge in some detail at the beginning of the second book. The two pagan judges, a philosopher and a praefectorius vir respectively, declare themselves not committed to either party but are merely amatores sapientae (A.40); accordingly, when later on the Jew Aunan accuses them of being favorable to the Christian party, they invite him to persuade the audience to select other judges if the audience deems it necessary (A.221–​35).457 Also, before the altercatio proper Constantine exhorts the audience to take its 454. Canella 2006:254–​60. 455. Lahey 2007:599–​603 arguing for the Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (entry 1) as the source for the material. 456. Drijvers 1992:165–​80; Cameron 2015. 457. In the Latin version B, Constantine plays the role of the judge (Canella 2006:184).

174  Christians in Conversation outcome as binding for the present as well as for the future (A.14–​26); and the narrative voice moves on to list the twelve Jewish scribes, rabbis, presbyters, synagogue leaders, and a magus (or magician), who are polemically identified as duodecim pseudoapostoli (A.9–​10). Interestingly, Sylvester suggests that each party should base its argumentation on the opponent’s authoritative books in order to make the conclusions cogent to the opposing party, and Zenophilus approves (A.69–​74)—​a concern in which Canella reads a genuine attempt to engage with Judaism.458 The subject matters of the twelve disputes are various, and include the Trinity (i); the practice of circumcision (ii); Scriptural exegesis (iii); the circumcision and baptism of Christ (iv–​v); the generation of Christ (vi); the birth, temptation, and passion of Christ (vii); the use of the Scriptures by Sylvester (viii); the birth of Christ and marriage between man and woman (ix); the creation of man from virgin soil (x); the passion and divinity of Christ (xi); and the final miracle contest (xii). Either of the judges proclaims the outcome of each contest (i:  A.136–​40; ii:  A.202–​5; iii, when the judges deem the Jew’s question to be invalid on the grounds that it already contains a syllogism: A.215–​20 videt Gondolias in silogismum se evidentissimum contulisse; iv: A.270–​ 74; v, when Dohec is invited to provide additional arguments if he has any: A.288–​ 89), or both of them (vii: A.355–​60; viii: A.367–​71); and they also occasionally intervene to ask for clarifications and additional arguments (A.85–​87; A.100–​103; A.403–​5). The sixth dispute is unusual in that the Jew Chusy is a remarkably easy opponent and seems happy with the explanation received (vi: A. 290–​328). Discussion of Scholarship Although much discussed in the scholarship, the elusive authorship and the complex textual tradition of the Actus Silvestri have so far hampered efforts to produce a complete modern edition of the text. The origins of the legend have also been a matter of discussion. Aiello suggests that it emanated in the West after the sack of Rome in 410; Pohlkamp argues for a late-​fourth-​century Roman or Western context; Lahey supports a Greek origin; and Canella makes a strong case for a fourth-​century Syro-​Palestinian origin. Canella relates the subject matter of the Actus to similar motifs found in Christian literature circulating in the Syro-​ Palestinian region, such as the Judas Cyriacus legend and the Doctrina Addai, in which a king is also converted to Christianity after being cured of a disease.459 The link with Greek adversus Iudaeos texts has also been the subject of study.460 458. Canella 2006:192. 459. Aiello 1990; Pohlkamp 1992 and 2008; Lahey 2007:600; Canella 2013:250–​53 and 2006:261–​62, 267; Cameron 2015:395–​98. 460. Lahey 2007:599–​603; Morlet 2013.

Guide to the Dialogues  175 There is an apparent contrast, however, between the anti-​Jewish setting of the altercatio and the Christological relevance of several of the subjects discussed. This feature is pervasive in the Actus, and also appears in Constantine’s “edited” orthodox baptism by Sylvester, rather than his actual baptism by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had Arian sympathies. Given that an anti-​ heretical concern seems even greater in the Latin version B, which is later than A, Pohlkamp argued that an originally anti-​Jewish nucleus of the Actus was gradually expanded with subjects of Christological relevance. In particular, according to Pohlkamp, the Latin version A  responded to anti-​Arian concerns in late-​fourth-​century Rome, while the Latin version B is post-​Chalcedonian and responded primarily to anti-​miaphysite concerns. Against this reconstruction, Canella takes the view that the anti-​Jewish motif cannot be isolated in the history and development of the Actus, which are thus not indicative of real objections to Christianity by historical Jews but reflect different Christological concerns at different periods. According to Aulisa, the Jewish opponent is merely functional to the Christian arguments and is used as a tool to ultimately reinforce the orthodox view presented by Sylvester. Andrist and Cameron emphasize the link with modes of argumentation that are attested in adversus Iudaeos literature.461 Canella follows Pohlkamp in accepting that the Actus is not a devotional text for the cult of Sylvester, and addresses its complex relation with several strands of Christian literature. Among dialogues in particular, the presence and the behavior of the pagan judges suggest a link with the Dialogue with Adamantius, the Acta Archelai, and the Religious Conversation at the Sassanid Court; moreover, like the Religious Conversation, the Actus end with a miracle. The miracle episode in the Actus presents conspicuous similarities with the miracle closing the debate between Peter and Simon Magus in the Acts of Peter, in which the role of the judge is similarly played by a praefectus urbi. The discrepancy between the eleven disputes and the final magic contest of the Actus, however, is very much reduced in Schwartzman’s 2012 reading of the episode. In her view, the miracle contest responds to the claim that Jews have divine power through their descent from Abraham, but, in contrast, Sylvester shows that they have lost this connection to the divine. The miracle makes it clear that a deceiving demon has given Jews what they wrongly thought was divine power.462

4 61. Pohlkamp 1992; Canella 2006:217–​224; Aulisa 2009:175; Andrist 1999; Cameron 2015:396. 462. Canella 2006:254–​260; Schwartzman 2012:76–​78 and 225–​227.

176  Christians in Conversation Bibliography Aiello, V. 1990. “Costantino, la lebbra e il battesimo di Silvestro.” In Bonamente and Fusco 1990:1.17–​58. Andrist, P. 1999. “Les Objections des hébreux:  Un document du premier iconoclasme?” Revue des études byzantines 57:99–​140. Aulisa, I. 2009. Giudei e cristiani nell’agiografia dell’alto medioevo. Bari. Blaudeau, P., and Van Nuffelen, P., eds. 2015. L’historiographie tardo-​antique et la transmission des savoirs. Berlin. Bonamente, G., and Fusco, F., eds. 1990. Costantino il Grande dall’Antichità all’Uma­ nesimo: Colloquio sul cristianesimo nel mondo antico. Macerata. Cameron, Av. 2014. Dialoguing in Late Antiquity. Washington, DC. Cameron, Av. 2015. “Flights of Fancy:  Some Imaginary Debates in Late Antiquity.” In Dunn and Mayer 2015:385–​406. Canella, T. 2006. Gli Actus Silvestri:  Genesi di una leggenda su Constantino imperatore. Spoleto. Canella, T. 2013. “Gli Actus Silvestri tra oriente e occidente: Storia e diffusione di una leggenda constantiniana.” In Costantino I.  Enciclopedia costantiniana sulla figura e l’immagine dell’imperatore del cosiddetto editto di Milano 313–​2013. Vol. 2.241–​58. Rome. De Leo, P. 1974. Ricerche sui falsi medievali. Reggio Calabria. Drijvers, J.W. 1992. Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend of Her Finding of the True Cross. Leiden. Dunn, G., and Mayer, W., eds. 2015. Christians Shaping Identity from the Roman Empire to Byzantium: Studies Inspired by Pauline Allen. Leiden. Geuenich, D., Ludwig, U., and Schilp, T., eds. 2008. Nomen et fraternitas: Festschrift für Dieter Geuenich zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin. Girardet, K.M., ed. 2007. Kaiser Konstantin der Große:  Historische Leistungen und Rezeption in Europa. Bonn. Lahey, L. 2007. “Evidence for Jewish Believers in Christian-​Jewish Dialogues through the Sixth Century (excluding Justin).” In Skarsaune and Hvalvik 2007:581–​639. Mombritius, B. 1910. Sanctarium seu vitae sanctorum. Paris. Morlet, S. 2013. “Les dialogues adversus Iudaeos: Origine, caractéristiques, référentialité.” In Morlet et al. 2013:21–​45. Morlet, S., Munnich, O., and Pouderon, B., eds. 2013. Les dialogues adversus Iudaeos: Permanences et mutations d’une tradition polémique. Paris. Pohlkamp, W. 1992. “Textfassungen, literarische Formen und geschichtliche Funktionen der römischen Silverster-​Akten.” Francia 19.1:115–​196. Pohlkamp, W. 2007. “Konstantin der Große und die Stadt Rom im Spiegel der römischen Silvester-​Akten (Actus Silvestri).” In Girardet 2007:87–​111. Pohlkamp, W. 2008. “Memoria Silvestri: Zur frühen Erinnerungs-​und Verehrungsgeschichte des Tagesheiligen vom 31. Dezember.” In Geuenich, Ludwig, and Schilp 2008:249–​96. Skarsaune, O., and Hvalvik, R., eds. 2007. Jewish Believers in Jesus. Peabody, MA. Schwartzman, L.J. 2012. Contest and Community: Wonder-​Working in Christian Popular Literature from the Second to the Fifth Centuries CE. D.Phil. diss. Oxford. Wirbelauer, E. 2015. “La riche mémoire d’un évêque de Rome méconnu, Silvestre.” In Blaudeau and Van Nuffelen 2015:319–​32.

Guide to the Dialogues  177 46. Aeneas of Gaza, Theophrastus Author

Aeneas of Gaza (c. 450–​after 518)463

Full title

Αἰνείου σοφιστοῦ διάλογος, Θεόφραστος· ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἀνθρώπων προβιοτὴ καὶ ὅτι ἀθάνατος ἡ ψυχή (CPG 7450)

Original language

Greek

Date of composition

c. 485–​500464

Edition

Colonna 1958 (improvements in Dillon et al. 2012)

Modern translations

English (Dillon et al. 2012); Italian (Colonna 1958)

Summary The Theophrastus opposes selected aspects of Platonism by upholding Christian doctrine. In particular, the author argues that there is no preexistence for the human soul before birth and that the human soul does not transmigrate into other beings after death. The author maintains that the souls of men come into being, are immortal, and are limited in number, and he makes a case for divine providence and for the resurrection of the body. As far as the structure of the work is concerned, there is no narrative voice, and, apart from an initial summary, the dialogue consists entirely of the exchanges among three speakers: Theophrastus, an Athenian who stands for Platonism but then accepts Christianity; Euxitheus, a Syrian who stands for Christianity; and Aegyptus, an Alexandrian who seldom intervenes and does little more than to introduce the dialogue. Euxitheus and Aegyptus are characterized as former fellow students, at Alexandria, of the Platonist Hierocles (d. c. 450).465 The dialogue is set in Alexandria (imagined as the proper location for philosophical discussion), and its occasion is provided by Aegyptus’ unexpected encounter with Euxiteus, who was sailing from Syria to Athens but had to stop in Alexandria because of unfavorable winds (1–​3).466 Euxitheus was heading to Athens in search of a wise man who could answer his philosophical questions, but unexpectedly meets Aegyptus, who introduces him to Theophrastus, allegedly the wisest man among the Athenians, who happens to be in Alexandria at the time.467 After this introduction, the dialogue proper consists of the exchange between Euxitheus and Theophrastus. It is perhaps unusual that the dramatic 4 63. Dillon et al. 2012. 464. 485–​90 according to Sorabji 2012:vii and Watts 2005; c. 490 according to Moreschini 2.628; c. 500–​510 with a dramatic date of shortly after 484 according to Dillon (Dillon et al. 2012:3), but see Zacharias of Mytilene’s references to the Theophrastus in the Ammonius, which is considered to have been composed in the 490s. 465. 3.9–​11 and Dillon et al. 2012:56n6. 466. Champion 2014:50. 467. The characters are fictitious, but for their literary evocativeness see Dillon et  al. 2012:56n10 and Milazzo 1991.

178  Christians in Conversation change of scene between the opening section and the dialogue proper is only implied and is not explicitly indicated (4.1).468 The format of the Theophrastus develops as the text unfolds. Initially, it is the Christian Euxitheus who interrogates Theophrastus (4.14–​16: ἐρωτᾶν), and Theophrastus is given longer passages in response to Euxitheus. Euxitheus’ questions, however, gradually reveal conspicuous objections to Platonism (6.18–​7.9, 9.1–​11), and from early on Theophrastus appears willing to compromise his doctrinal position, since “even Plato felt it right to hold to his own view until a more divine man (θειότερος ἄνθρωπος) should appear who would teach the very truth” (9.11–​14).469 After further objections to Platonism made by Euxitheus (10.17–​19, 11.20–​23), there appears to be a shift in the format of the conversation. From chap.  15 onward, Euxitheus becomes the leading speaker and is given longer passages to answer Theophrastus’ shorter questions, which are usually informative and do not contain substantial objections. Overall, Theophrastus appears easily convinced (16.20–​24), and he is usually satisfied with the explanation that he receives from Euxitheus. At chap.  57.10–​14 he declares himself partially convinced, but only at the close of the dialogue is he fully convinced and recognizes that, as Plato himself had advised, Platonism should now be rejected since somebody wiser than Plato had finally appeared in the God of Christians (68.6–​8). Euxitheus thus closes the dialogue with a Christian prayer and with the final injunction “let us go” (68.22), which echoes the end of Plato’s Phaedrus. Similarly, the opening words of the dialogue also echo the opening of the Phaedrus (thus setting up a sense of conversation with Platonic philosophy), and, overall, the Theophrastus is soaked in classical quotations and allusions.470 The author shows profound familiarity with Plato’s dialogues, especially the Phaedrus, the Statesman, the Gorgias, and the Republic, but also with Homer, Pindar, Herodotus, Xenophon, and Apollodorus; there are many other sources for the mythological and historical material included in the text. Aeneas is also aware of the Life of Apollonius of Tyana (17.27–​18.2), and makes use of Plotinus for philosophical rather than literary purposes. Christian sources, however, do not feature prominently in the dialogue, and are limited to one Scriptural allusion (23.1–​2) and one reference to the Trinity (44.1–​45.4) before the prayer at the close. If anything, the author goes as far as to attempt to show that the tenets of the Christian faith are in agreement with the Chaldean Oracles (45.5–​7). The sparing use of Christian texts contributes to a nonpartisan atmosphere and sets Aeneas of Gaza apart from Zacharias of Mytilene, who is more ready to quote from the Scripture and from Christian texts.471 In addition, the vivid and elegant

468. 469. 470. 471.

Voss 1970:351n98. Pl. Tim. 72D, R. 3.388E; the translations are from Dillon et al. 2012. Champion 2014:49–​50. Jones 2014:86–​87.

Guide to the Dialogues  179 style and the use of irony and sarcasm as persuasive strategies are especially remarkable (14.19–​24, 15.7–​8, and 53.11).472 Discussion of Scholarship The Theophrastus is a polished and ambitious dialogue that was clearly intended for an audience acquainted with classical and post-​classical literature who would be able to appreciate its textual allusions and quotations. Plato is an especially prominent model both for the style and the structure of the text; in the first part of our dialogue, Euxitheus’ questioning has been described as Socratic in that he is the main character playing the role of an ignorant speaker whose questions eventually undermine Theophrastus’ doctrine (e.g., 4.14, possibly echoing Plato’s Gorgias). Voss describes the Theophrastus as a well-​structured work that expresses a conception of history based on the fulfillment of Platonic teaching through divine revelation, and, furthermore, equates its literary quality with that of Boethius’ De consolatione philosophiae.473 Milazzo argues that Aeneas was strongly committed to the philosophical doctrine expressed in the dialogue, and that the contents of the text were likely related to Aeneas’ own teaching activity. In his view, the abundant use of rhetoric in the dialogue reveals an apologetic drive aimed at persuading a learned audience of both pagans and Christians. Milazzo suggests that, not unlike the letters composed and received by Aeneas that were publicly read (see Ep. 7 and 16), the Theophrastus too, or excerpts from it, could have been performed in front of an audience in Gaza.474 More recently, however, Sorabji has questioned the success of the philosophical enterprise that underpins the Theophrastus. According to this view, Aeneas’ Theophrastus and, a few years later, Zacharias of Mytilene’s Ammonius did not succeed in radically questioning the grounds of Platonic philosophy, and only occasionally took issue with Platonists on their own terms. In this respect, Aeneas’ and Zacharias’ philosophical enterprises fell short of the philosophical project of John Philoponus in the subsequent generation.475 Watts argues that Aeneas primarily intended to display rhetorically his philosophical acquaintance with the Platonic tradition, and did not ultimately aim to make a case that Platonism itself was untenable. According to Watts, Aeneas’ target audience has to be identified in the literary circles of Alexandria whose members regarded themselves as being on equal, and certainly not unfriendly, terms with the representatives of Platonism. In his view, the Theophrastus was

472. 473. 474. 475.

Dillon et al. 2012:4–​9. Voss 1970:351. Milazzo 1990:56–​60. Sorabji 2012:viii–​ix.

180  Christians in Conversation not meant as a religious but rather as a rhetorical and philosophical composition; Watts argues that, if the aim had been to attack Platonists, the author would have made specific references to contemporary Platonists and their texts. The Theophrastus should thus be understood as “an artistic dialogue that would display [Aeneas’] eloquence and erudition” and was to be shared with educated friends and members of the late-​fifth-​century Alexandrian intelligentsia.476 Bibliography Anastasi, R., Carile, A., Garzya, A., and Giarrizzo, G., eds., 1991. Σύνδεσμος: Studi in onore di Rosario Anastasi. Catania. Brown, P., and Smith, A., eds. 2005. The Philosopher and Society in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Brown. Swansea. Celantano, M.S., ed., 1990. Retorica della comunicazione nelle letterature classiche. Bologna. Champion, M.W. 2014. Explaining the Cosmos: Creation and Cultural Interaction in Late-​ Antique Gaza. New York. Colonna, M.E., ed. 1958. Enea di Gaza: Teofrasto. Naples. Dillon, J.M., Russell, D.A., and Gertz, S.R.P. 2012. Aeneas of Gaza. Theophrastus with Zacharias of Mytilene: Ammonius. Bristol. Jones, C.P. 2014. Between Pagan and Christian. Cambridge, MA. Lim, R. 1995. Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity. Berkeley. Milazzo, A.M. 1990. “Dimensione retorica e destinatari nel Teofrasto di Enea di Gaza.” In Pennacini 1990:33–​71. Milazzo, A.M. 1991. “I personaggi del dialogo di Enea di Gaza: Storicità e tradizione letteraria.” In Anastasi et al. 1991:1–​19. Pennacini, A., ed. 1990. Retorica della comunicazione nelle letterature classiche. Bologna. Sorabji, R., 2012. “Preface: Waiting for Philoponus.” In Dillon et al. 2012:vii–​xxx. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster. Wacht, M. 1969. Aeneas von Gaza als Apologet:  Seine Kosmologie im Verhältnis zum Platonismus. Bonn. Watts, E. 2005. “An Alexandrian Christian Response to Fifth-​Century Neoplatonic Influ­ ence.” In Brown and Smith 2005:215–​29.

47. Zacharias of Mytilene, Ammonius Author

Zacharias of Mytilene (late 460s–​after 536)477

Full title

Ὁ διάλογος Ἀμμώνιος (CPG 6996)

Original language

Greek

476. Watts 2005; for a less peaceful and more competitive picture of Platonist philosophers of the imperial period see Lim 1995:31–​69. 477. Greatrex et al. 2011; Dillon et al. 2012.

Guide to the Dialogues  181 Date of composition

490s, perhaps revised in the 520s; or after c. 518478

Edition

Minniti Colonna 1973 (improvements in Dillon et al. 2012)

Modern translations

English (Dillon et al. 2012);479 Italian (Minniti Colonna 1973)

Summary The Ammonius opposes the view that the world is co-​ eternal with God (37: συναΐδιος)—​a view that the author ascribed to the Platonist Ammonius—​ arguing instead that the world is a creation of God that will perish and be reassembled.480 The Ammonius consists of the exchanges between two speakers, who are identified as “A” and “B”, and opens with a short prologue, the only narrative section, which is written in the first person; here, the narrative voice identifies itself with the speaker A.481 The dialogue (hyp. 10:  διάλογος) is set in Berytus between a Christian (speaker A) and a student of Ammonius (speaker B, in all likelihood also a Christian), who was reportedly inclining towards paganism. The structure of the dialogue, however, is composite since, in the conversation, speaker A reports four shorter dialexeis (hyp. 11) that he had previously had in Alexandria with the philosopher Ammonius (three) and with the iatrosophist Gessius (one). The structure of the Ammonius is ambitious; in the prologue, the authorial voice maintains that “the whole design of the work is Platonic in so far as something from the meadows there has entered the style.”482 Moreover, speaker A appears concerned to tie in the dialexeis that he had with Ammonius and Gessius with the rest of the dialogue by introducing their occasion and setting and by interrupting their narration with remarks about the reactions of the speakers (e.g., 184, 284, 461–​62, 995–​1002, 1124–​28). While the framing dialogue, between A and B,

478. For a date after c. 518, see Minniti Colonna 1973:44–​45; for the 490s, see Dillon et al. 2012:vii–​viii and Greatrex et al. 2011:14–​15. The case for a revision, which would have added to the text the exchange with Gessius, is tentatively put forward by the editor (Minniti Colonna 1973:44–​45) and accepted by Watts 2005:219–​20 and 225, 2005a:453n64, and 2009, but its grounds in the chronology of Gessius’ teaching activity have found a cold reception in Greatrex et  al. 2011:15n46. In addition, Watt’s point that “Gessius and the arguments covered in the exchange with him are not mentioned at all either in the introductory remarks or the summary of the work” (Watts 2005a:453n65) may not do full justice to the text, since Gessius is in fact mentioned in the prologue (hyp. 6 and 10) and in the exchanges between A and B both preceding and following the section on Gessius (362 and 938). Similarly, the passage “these were the three discussions I had with him” (1128–​29: αὗταί μοι τρεῖς γεγόνασι πρὸς αὐτὸν συνουσίαι) may not have to be taken as an indicator of inconsistency, since it follows the third and last exchange with Ammonius and πρὸς αὐτόν is clearly to be identified with the philosopher. 479. Unless otherwise indicated, the translations are from Dillon et al. 2012. 480. Champion 2014:136–​86; Obertello 2003 and 2007. 481. The editor’s decision (Minniti Colonna 1973:93 ad loc. with 80–​81), which is followed by the translator, to print the prologue before the title of the dialogue (and before the short summary that the manuscripts provide), seems questionable, given that the manuscripts are evenly divided in this respect. 482. Hyp. l. 13–​15: ἔστι δὲ ἡ πᾶσα διασκευὴ Πλατωνικὴ ὅσον ἧκεν εἰς φράσιν καὶ τῶν ἐκεῖθεν λειμώνων.

182  Christians in Conversation does not make any reference to an audience or a third party, the reported dialexeis take place in front of an audience whose reactions are normally recorded. After the four dialexeis, the dialogue continues with an exchange between A and B, since the latter speaker is not yet convinced, and here A produces longer sections and uses passages from the Scriptures and from Clement of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nazianzus. The dialogue closes with B’s acceptance of Christian doctrine as presented by A, who then pronounces a Christian prayer and the final injunction “now let’s go” (1524), which echoes the ends of Aeneas of Gaza’s Theophrastus and of Plato’s Phaedrus.483 In contrast, the opening words of the dialogue echo Plato’s Euthyphro. The dialogue proper opens with the unexpected encounter between A and B in Berytus, to which B has moved from Alexandria in order to study law. Speaker A takes this occasion to enquire about the philosopher Ammonius (based in Alexandria), but the jeering and accusatory tone of A’s words about Ammonius prompts B to asks for the reason behind so great a hostility. This query provides the occasion to recount A’s past acquaintance (42: συνουσία) as well as the exchanges (44: λόγοι) with Ammonius; A then leads B by the hand to a church (presumably the church of Anastasia), where he pronounces an ekphrastic description of the building (62–​72) and where the dialogue proper takes place. Overall, the tone of the dialogue between A and B is irenic, possibly didactic, and it seems remarkable that A declares that he is open to being questioned (88–​90). The first dialexis is set at a summer lecture by Ammonius, apparently, on Aristotle’s Physics. Some effort is dedicated to the description of the setting and to the characterization of Ammonius, who was “sitting on a high seat like a sophist and in a pompous manner,” possibly echoing Themistius’ Or. 21.243A. The exchanges between the Christian and Ammonius are sharp, and they both shift the discussion to a less focused confrontation framed as Christianity versus paganism. Both speakers, however, quote from and make reference to pagan authors, among whom are featured Plato and Porphyry, while two Christian references to Paul and Solomon come after the argumentation proper and are meant to illustrate the coherence between the Christian speaker’s argument and Christianity (345–​50). Ammonius acknowledges the Christian’s victory on specific points, and the account of the dialexis closes by recording the audience’s approval for the Christian speaker (354–​61). The second dialexis takes place the following day, and is prompted by Gessius, allegedly the most senior student of Ammonius. By choice of Gessius, the debate between him and the Christian speaker takes place in the Mouseion in Alexandria, “where poets, rhetoricians, and grammar teachers are wont to make display [of their skills]” (365–​69), and should thus be understood as a public

483. Dillon et al. 2012:95–​99.

Guide to the Dialogues  183 debate.484 Plato is often referred to and is taken as authoritative by both parties;485 and the Christian, who uses passages from the Timaeus to develop his arguments, argues that Scripture, Basil of Caesarea, the Stoics, and Plato all agree that the universe will perish (644–​700). Gessius is at first described as baffled and dazzled at the Christian’s answers (461–​62), but, as the conversation proceeds, he recognizes the validity of the arguments put forward by the Christian speaker, even if he is not described as undergoing a more radical conversion. The third dialexis is set at a lecture by Ammonius on Aristotelian ethics,486 and its harsher tones are interestingly anticipated by the Christian’s remark that “I took [the argument] up with a certain youthful enthusiasm (νεανικώτερον)” (957), with reference to the conflict between Plato and Aristotle that Ammonius was allegedly striving to play down in his lecture (940–​53). Ammonius is speechless at the Christian’s arguments and invites some of the bystanders to leave (995–​1002) before finding himself in agreement with each one of the arguments that his Christian opponent puts forward. The fourth dialexis, at about thirty lines, is considerably shorter, and is prompted by Ammonius, who questions the Christian about the Trinity (1097–​98). Ammonius, however, is soon convinced by the answer that he receives (causing a joyful reaction in the audience) but he also blushes and falls silent, and is reported as having refrained from other arguments with Christians thereafter (1124–​28). Discussion of Scholarship Secondary scholarship on the Ammonius is abundant, but, at the same time, the scholarly interest has shown considerable variance. In 1968, Merlan went as far as to take the dialexeis reported in the Ammonius as real debates; yet the ensuing scholarly discussion on how far this dialogue could help clarify the teaching and character of the historical Ammonius falls beyond the scope of the present analysis.487 The dialogue is now generally understood as fiction, and scholars have instead addressed the strategies that Zacharias adopted in the characterization of the speakers, and of Ammonius in particular.488 Aeneas of Gaza’s Theophrastus, a literary dialogue written a few years earlier and with which Zacharias was familiar, appeared as an obvious point of comparison, although the considerations about literary quality have been less flattering for the Ammonius. More recently, the relationship between the two works has attracted new attention, and the

484. Cribiore 2007:145–​46. 485. E.g., 563–​564: “you people are in the habit of demolishing the opinions of the wise Plato, even though you profess to be his followers and are eager to be called among men by the name of Platonists.” 486. Dillon 2012:155n122 for the possibility of the passage Arist. EN 1.4 = 1096a11–​17. 487. Merlan 1968:194–​97; Dillon et al. 2012:96–​97 and 150n18. 488. For discussion see Dillon et al. 2012:97 and Sorabji in Dillon et al. 2012:xxiii–​xxiv.

184  Christians in Conversation differences between the two dialogues have been related to the variance in their audiences.489 Watts argues that, while Aeneas of Gaza’s Theophrastus was intended for an educated and mature Alexandrian audience who considered themselves peers of the Platonists, the Ammonius was designed for an audience of students for whom the Platonists played the role of teachers. In this view, the ultimate aim of Zacharias was to discredit and undermine the authority of pagan teachers, and of Ammonius and Gessius in particular. Zacharias was hoping to win students over to Christianity, and his proselytizing aims should be related to the activities of the philoponoi, Christian students like Zacharias who had ties to the anti-​Chalcedonian monastery of Enaton outside Alexandria and aimed to spread Christianity among pagan students in the city. Watts maintains that the Ammonius is framed in religious, rather than philosophical, terms, and was specifically addressed to Christian students drawn to Neoplatonism in the hope of redefining the intellectual power dynamic within the Alexandrian schools.490 Similarly, Sorabji is critical of the philosophical enterprise that underpins the composition of the Ammonius, and writes that the dialogue reads “like a cabaret act designed to impress his fellow Christian students, with a catalog of arguments that are mostly naïve and compressed.” According to this view, the mixture of arguments offered in the Ammonius ultimately fails to refute Platonist thought, and may reveal its author’s dependence on Christian catalogs of arguments against pagan religion that Zacharias may have encountered while at the monastery of Enaton (see l. 145–​46). Cameron, however, calls for further analysis of the argumentative strategies adopted in the Ammonius. Two of the aspects that stand out as deserving further analysis are Zacharias’ emphasis on the disagreement between Plato and Aristotle, and his attempt to use Platonism in support of Christian creationism. In addition, Thiel emphasizes the strong Platonic influence on both the Theophrastus and the Ammonius, and Wear argues that Platonist principles in fact underpin both dialogues, and that the readers of both works were expected to identify references to Plotinus.491

489. Dillon et al. 2012 published the translations of the two dialogues together, and see Dillon et al. 2012:97–​98 for the relationship between the two works; Voss 1970:350 provides an example of an often-​repeated, non-​flattering judgment on the basis of literary quality. 490. Watts 2005:519–​522 and 2005a, esp.  440, who uses the student life as described in Zacharias’ Life of Severus (Brock and Fitzgerald 2013; entry 48), and the episode of Paralius in particular, as comparative material for the study of the proselytizing efforts of the philoponoi and of Zacharias’ aims in writing the Ammonius. Zacharias had been a philoponos while in Alexandria. 491. Sorabji in Dillon et al. 2012:xxiii–​xxiv; Cameron 2014:24–​25; Thiel 2013; Wear 2013.

Guide to the Dialogues  185 Bibliography Brock, S.P., and Fitzgerald, B. 2013. Two Early Lives of Severos, Patriarch of Antioch. Liverpool. Brown, P., and Smith, A., eds. 2005. The Philosopher and Society in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Brown. Swansea. Cameron, Av. 2014. Dialoguing in Late Antiquity. Washington, DC. Champion, M.W. 2014. Explaining the Cosmos: Creation and Cultural Interaction in Late-​ Antique Gaza. New York. Cribiore, R. 2007. “Spaces for Teaching in Late Antiquity.” In Derda et al. 2007:143–​50. Derda, T., Markiewicz, T., and Wipszycka, E., eds. 2007. Alexandria: Auditoria of Kom el-​ Dikka and Late Antique Education. Warsaw. Dillon, J.M., Russell, D.A., and Gertz, S.R.P. 2012. Aeneas of Gaza. Theophrastus with Zacharias of Mytilene: Ammonius. Bristol. Föllinger, S., and Müller, G.M., eds. 2013. Der Dialog in der Antike: Formen und Funktionen einer literarischen Gattung zwischen Philosophie, Wissensvermittlung und dramatischer Inszenierung. Berlin. Galonnier, A., ed. 2003. Boèce ou la chaîne des savoirs: Actes du colloque international de la Fondation Singer-​Polignac. Louvain. Greatrex, G., Phenix, R.P., Horn, C.B., Brock, S.P., and Witakowski, W. 2011. The Chronicle of Pseudo-​Zachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity. Liverpool. Merlan, P. 1968. “Ammonius Hermiae, Zacharias Scholasticus and Boethius.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 9.2:193–​203. Minniti Colonna, M., ed. 1973. Zacaria Scolastico. Ammonio: Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione, commentario. Naples. Obertello, L. 2003. “Ammonius of Hermias, Zacharias Scholasticus and Boethius: Eternity of God and/​or Time?” In Galonnier 2003:465–​79. Obertello, L. 2007. “Proclus, Ammonius of Hermias, and Zacharias Scholasticus: The Search after Eternity and the Meaning of Creations.” In Treschow et  al. 2007: 173–​89. Thiel, R. 2013. “Zum philosophischen und philosophisch-​theologischen Dialog in der paganen und christlichen Spätantike.” In Föllinger and Müller 2013:141–​52. Treschow, M., Otten, W., and Hannam, W., eds. 2007. Divine Creation in Ancient, Medieval, and Early Modern Thought:  Essays Presented to the Rev’d Dr.  Robert D. Crouse. Leiden. Watts, E. 2005. “An Alexandrian Christian Response to Fifth-​ Century Neoplatonic Influence.” In Brown and Smith 2005:215–​29. Watts, E. 2005a. “Winning the Intracommunal Dialogues: Zacharias Scholasticus’ Life of Severus.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 13.4:437–​64. Watts, E. 2009. “The Enduring Legacy of the Iatrosophist Gessius.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 49:113–​33. Wear, S.K. 2013. “Another Link in the Golden Chain: Aeneas of Gaza and Zacharias Scholasticus on Plotinus Enn. 4.3.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 53.1:145–​65.

186  Christians in Conversation 48. Zacharias of Mytilene, Life of Severus Author Full title

Zacharias of Mytilene (late 460s–​after 536)492 ̈ ‫ܬܫܥܝܬܐ ܕܕܘܒ̈ܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܚܝܘܗܝ ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܡܪܝ ܣܐܘܝܪܐ ܦܛܪܝܪܟܐ‬

Original language

Greek (lost); Syriac translation

Date of composition

512–​18 or early 520s494

Edition

Kugener 1907

Modern translations

English (Brock and Fitzgerald 2013:33–​100; Ambjörn 2008); French (Kugener 1904)

‫ ܕܐܢܛܝܘܟܝܐ‬A Narrative of the Way of Life of the Saintly Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (CPG 6999; BHO 1060)493

Summary The Life of Severus, surviving only in Syriac translation, is structured as a dialogue set in Constantinople (1) between two unnamed speakers and without narrative voice.495 The main speaker should be identified with the author, Zacharias, since he claims direct acquaintance with Severus during their student days (6); the secondary speaker is addressed as a “friend and companion” (1: ‫ܐܘ ܪܚܡܐ ܘܚܒܪܐ‬, 160) without further qualification. The subject of the text is the early life of Severus (c. 465–​538), patriarch of Antioch, but only from his childhood until his appointment to the patriarchate in 512. In fact, the text has been described as “by no means an ordinary biography,” and is rather designed as a response to a pamphlet written by an opponent of Severus who questioned his conduct and accused him of participating in pagan sacrifices while a student of law in Berytus.496 In order to respond to the accusations, Zacharias sketches the early life of Severus, emphasizing Severus’ genuine interest in Christianity (and overlooking his pagan background) and includes two long excursuses on fellow students who instead were involved in pagan practices and magic during the same years: Paralius in Alexandria (12–​58) and a group of law students in Berytus (74–​102).

4 92. Greatrex et al. 2011; Dillon et al. 2012. 493. The title is unlikely to be original (Brock and Fitzgerald 2013:20). 494. It is conventionally assumed that the Life was written under Severus’ patriarchate at Antioch (512–​18), since the narrative ends with Severus’ appointment to the patriarchate (Brock and Fitzgerald 2013:19–​20); conversely, Watts 2005:461–​62 argues for the early 520s in the context of Severus’ dispute with Julian of Halicarnassus, because of the Alexandrian material in the text and the possibility that the enemies of Severus attacked in the text were followers of Julian of Halicarnassus. 495. References are given to the chapters in Brock and Fitzgerald 2013, which contain references to the pages of Kugener 1904. 496. Brock and Fitzgerald 2013:20.

Guide to the Dialogues  187 The Life of Severus opens ex abrupto, with the question by the main speaker “where have you come from today, my good friend?” (1), which Brock put in relation to the opening of Plato’s Protagoras.497 There follows a short exchange (1–​6) in which the secondary speaker reports of a defamatory pamphlet against Severus that he found among the booksellers at the Royal Stoa (the portico surrounding the central court of the basilica in Constantinople) and asks Zacharias to recount Severus’ life from childhood “lest people who read (the pamphlet) in a simple-​minded way might perhaps pick up the wrong sort of idea about a bishop such as this” (4). The exchanges, however, are limited to this initial section, after which Zacharias is the only speaker for the rest of the text (referred to by Zacharias as “discourse” 160: ‫)ܡܐܡܪܐ‬, though occasionally addressing his interlocutor directly until the close (25, 160). On other occasions, Zacharias points out a turn in the narration without addressing his interlocutor (59, 87, 93, 102–​3, 125, 130) and the question should at least be asked whether the Syriac translator may have omitted or reworked the exchanges between the speakers, as was suggested for the Syriac translations of the Erostrophus and of Gregory the Wonderworker’s To Theopompus, on the Impassibility and Passibility of God, and as was certainly the case for Plutarch’s De cohibenda ira.498 Discussion of Scholarship Scholars agree on the strongly apologetic character of the Life of Severus, which is no ordinary hagiography and was written by somebody who knew Severus from his school days in Alexandria and got him interested in Christianity in the first place. The author, though undoubtedly aware of the pagan origins of Severus, deliberately builds the impression that he came from a Christian background by quoting hearsay that Severus’ grandfather had been bishop at the time of the Council of Ephesus and that his baptism was delayed until he was grown up because of a local custom (8–​9). The context of the accusations against Severus, however, is not clear from the text, and, while most assume that the pamphlet voiced the opposition to Severus during his episcopate at Antioch (512–​18), Watts argues for the controversy between Severus and Julian of Halicarnassus in the following decade as the most plausible setting, and puts forward the hypothesis that followers of Julian were compilers of the pamphlet.499 The opening dialogued section of the Life is later found, in a single manuscript and in a reworked form, as the introduction of an anti-​Manichaean work attributed to Zacharias of Mytilene.500

4 97. Brock and Fitzgerald 2013:33n2. 498. See entry 6, entry 8 with Voss 1970:86–​88, and Rigolio 2016. 499. Brock and Fitzgerald 2013:20–​21; Watts 2005:439. 500. Lieu  1983.

188  Christians in Conversation Bibliography Ambjörn, L. 2008. The Life of Severus by Zacharias of Mytilene. Piscataway, NJ. Brock, S.P., and Fitzgerald, B. 2013. Two Early Lives of Severos, Patriarch of Antioch. Liverpool. Brown, P., and Smith, A., eds. 2005. The Philosopher and Society in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Brown. Swansea. Dillon, J.M., Russell, D.A., and Gertz, S.R.P. 2012. Aeneas of Gaza. Theophrastus with Zacharias of Mytilene: Ammonius. Bristol. Gemeinhardt, P., Van Nuffelen, P., and Van Hoof, L., eds. 2016. Education and Religion in Late Antique Christianity: Reflections, Social Contexts, and Genres. London. Greatrex, G., Phenix, R.P., Horn, C.B., Brock, S.P., and Witakowski, W. 2011. The Chronicle of Pseudo-​Zachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity. Liverpool. Kugener, M.-​A. 1907. “Vie de Sévère par Zacharie le Scholastique” Patrologia Orientalis 2.1:1–​115. Lieu, S.N.C. 1983. “An Early Byzantine Formula for the Renunciation of Manichaeism: The Capita VII contra Manichaeos of Zacharias of Mitylene.” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 26:152–​218. Rigolio, A. 2016. “Syriac Translations of Plutarch, Lucian, and Themistius:  A Gnomic Format for an Instructional Purpose?” In Gemeinhardt et al. 2016:73–​85. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster. Watts, E. 2005. “An Alexandrian Christian Response to Fifth-​ Century Neoplatonic Influence.” In Brown and Smith 2005:215–​29. Watts, E. 2005a. “Winning the Intracommunal Dialogues: Zacharias Scholasticus’ Life of Severus.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 13.4:437–​64.

49. Anonymous or Menas, On Political Science Author

uncertain (Bell 2009); Menas (Mazzucchi 1982:xiii)501

Full title

Περὶ πολιτικῆς ἐπιστήμης

Original language

Greek

Date of composition

after 507, no later than 565502

Edition

Mazzucchi 1982 and 1984

Modern translations

English (Bell 2009:123–​88); Italian (Mazzucchi 1982:57–​93)

501. Bell 2009:9–​13 in favor of anonymity; according to Mazzucchi 1982:xiii, Mazzucchi and Matelli 1985:221–​ 23, Mazzucchi 2006:332, and Rashed 2000:97, the author is to be identified in Menas (PLRE II Menas 5); Mazzucchi and Matelli 1985:221–​22 also suggest a link between the On Political Science and the dialogues by Aeneas of Gaza and Zacharias of Mytilene because of their Platonic influence, possibly originating in an Alexandrian milieu. 502. Mazzucchi 1982:xiii argues for after 507 but before 535; Cameron 1985:250–​51 for the latter part of Justinian’s reign, and possibly 565, and is followed by O’Meara 2002:49 and 2003:173, and by Bell 2009:19–​27, esp. 26–​27.

Guide to the Dialogues  189 Summary The dialogue On Political Science originally comprised six books. Only sections of books 4 and 5 have survived, in a palimpsest from the Vatican Library, and a summary by Photius provides additional information about the text.503 As far as is possible to reconstruct, the dialogue had no narrative voice or scene setting, and consisted entirely in the exchanges between two speakers—​Menas, possibly to be identified as a patrician and former Praetorian and Urban Prefect (PLRE II Menas 5), and Thomas, whom Photius alone identified as a referendarius, a senior government official.504 The dialogue appears to be set earlier than its composition date, during the early years of Justinian’s reign.505 The author, whom Mazzucchi identifies with the patrician Menas, was perhaps a senior legal administrator, and, as the text shows, was familiar not only with Greek and Latin literature on political philosophy, in primis Plato and Cicero, but also with contemporary political and military issues.506 According to Photius, the aim of the author of the dialogue was to put forward a new constitution (πολιτεία), identified by Photius as “dicaearchic,” which would combine the best of the imperial, the aristocratic, and the democratic constitutions. The changes of speaker in the dialogue are not systematically indicated in the manuscript, but they become clear from the text. The main speaker leading the conversation is Menas (e.g., 4.59, 4.74), who occasionally is given longer speeches in order to present views that, in all likelihood, correspond to those of the author; yet, overall, the conversation is balanced and Thomas intervenes frequently. Thomas closely follows Menas’ investigation (5.1: ἐπισκέψασθαι; 5.3: ἐπισκεπτέον; 5.129: ἐδείχθη) and asks for clarifications (e.g., 4.26: πάνυ ἄδηλον; 5.125), while Menas formulates general principles that require explanation and exemplification. On one occasion, Thomas describes the ongoing conversation by echoing two passages from Plato’s Republic, a dialogue that stands as a model for the format, subject matter, and tone of the conversation.507 Regrettably, only the latter part of book 4, which deals with military matters, and the opening part of book 5, which describes the ideal government, have survived. Book 5 opens with a list of the subjects that will be treated in the book, and it is plausible that the other books similarly opened with a summary. The lost

503. Phot. Bibl. cod. 37 (trans. Bell 2009:10): “A work on political science was read which, in a dialogue, introduced two interlocutors, Menas, the patrician, and Thomas, the referendarius. The work contains six books, in which it introduces another form of constitution beyond those spoken of in antiquity. It calls this ῾dicaearchic.’ Plato’s Republic is justly criticised. The constitution which they say should be introduced must be constructed out of the three forms: the imperial, the aristocratic, and the democratic. It will combine the purity of each constitution and thereby create the truly best constitution.” 504. Bell 2009:10–​12 and 123. 505. Bell 2009:27; Cameron 1985:250. 506. Bell 2009:62 and 72. 507. 5.125–​26 and Pl. R. 2.358D and 5.450B with Bell 2009:172 and O’Meara 2002:50.

190  Christians in Conversation text from book 5 corresponds to the last two points in the list, “an objection to some views expressed by Plato” and a “comparison (παράθεσις) of the Republic of Plato and of Cicero (τῆς κατὰ Πλάτωνα καὶ Κικέρωνα πολιτείας), and also of the whole philosophy of Plato and Aristotle.” The loss is particularly regrettable, since it seems that Cicero’s On the Commonwealth (now mostly lost) was available, at least in some form, to our author.508 The portion of text that survives makes reference to issues treated elsewhere in the dialogue (and so we know that book 3 dealt with kingship), but the subjects of the other books remain mostly unknown.509 The dialogue is imbued with literary and philosophical references from both Greek and Latin literature. Mazzucchi identifies nearly thirty sources; in particular, Plato’s Republic and Cicero’s On the Commonwealth, which was similarly structured into six books, provided models for the dialogue.510 Homer, Xenophon, Demosthenes, Aristotle, Seneca, and Juvenal are only some of the other authors who are quoted; the dialogue has been taken as indicative of the range of literary material available to the Constantinopolitan elites living under Justinian.511 The On Political Science strikes the reader as a markedly literary composition; for instance, the military section is oddly written more in terms of ancient Athens and Sparta than in terms of contemporary military practice as was common in Tactica literature. At the same time, the surviving section of book 5 reveals an awareness of the contemporary political situation.512 Discussion of Scholarship O’Meara argues that the view expressed in the dialogue can be firmly located within the framework of Neoplatonic philosophy. The author shares with Neoplatonism an understanding of the context and of the function of political philosophy, and uses the same imagery that is found in works by Plotinus and Julian. In the author’s view, political science arises as a consequence of the human condition, which is a midway position between the rational and the irrational: both dialectical science, which relates to the incorporeal, and political science, which relates to the corporeal and concerns political action, are ultimately understood as gifts of God. In the dialogue, kingship, or kingly science, is identified as part of, or identical to, political science (18.5–​7; 27.7–​15), and, in turn, kingly science is an imitation of God or an assimilation to Him. Also, O’Meara identifies some reasons why Photius may have detected elements of criticism of Plato’s Republic in the dialogue, but, according to the same scholar, Photius’ view

5 08. Trans. Bell 2009:145 and 65; Mazzucchi and Matelli 1985:222. 509. Cameron 1985:249. 510. Bell 2009:64–​72 discusses the use of Cicero; Mazzucchi and Matelli 1985:222. 511. Bell 2009:50. 512. Bell 2009:125n12; Cameron 1985:249 and 249n52.

Guide to the Dialogues  191 resulted from his own misreading of the text. The strongly Neoplatonic character of the doctrine expressed in the dialogue has also prompted some discussion about the religious affiliation of the author, since references to Christianity are rare and lukewarm.513 The origin of the “dicaearchic” constitution described in book 5 has generated some debate, not least because Photius’ wording is nowhere attested in the surviving text. The constitution appears as a combination of political philosophy and political realism, and has been used to clarify the author’s identity and the expected audience of the dialogue.514 The author describes a constitution that combines imperial, aristocratic, and, to some extent, democratic elements (5.49–​ 53), but is also concerned with the elaboration of norms that address practical issues such as imperial succession and imperial legitimacy.515 In particular, there is an attempt to limit or regulate imperial power, and to emphasize the role of the Senate and of the aristoi in the governance of the empire. It is therefore likely that the dialogue was written in the interests of the senatorial elite. The dialogue presented the perspective of an upper-​class Platonist arguing that, despite being the imitation of God, the emperor is not beyond the law—​his legitimacy rests on his rule being lawful and just—​and who is also hostile to new lower-​class officials (5.33). Cameron points out that the senatorial or aristocratic bias and a guarded attitude toward the emperor are common to John the Lydian and Procopius (and Platonism itself was unlikely to be appealing to Justinian); Bell sees in the dialogue implicit criticism of the Justinianic regime, possibly also touching upon the controversial issue of his legitimacy.516 Kaldellis, who writes of the development of a Christian classicizing culture in the fifth and sixth centuries, draws attention to the Platonist sympathies of writers living under the reign of Justinian, such as Procopius, Agathias, and John Lydus, and possibly also in opposition to the regime.517 Bibliography Archi, G.G., ed., 1985. Il mondo del diritto nell’epoca giustinianea:  Caratteri e proble­ matiche. Ravenna. Bell, P.N. 2009. Three Political Voices from the Age of Justinian: Agapetus, Advice to the Emperor; Dialogue on Political Science; Paul the Silentiary, Description of Hagia Sophia. Liverpool. Bell, P.N. 2013. Social Conflict in the Age of Justinian. Oxford. Cameron, Av. 1985. Procopius and the Sixth Century. London. 513. O’Meara 2002, who sees in 37.5–​6 the only reference to Christianity (and 27.31–​28.13 about the church); Bell 2013:249; Cameron 2014:19. 514. Bell 2009:64–​65. 515. 5.49–​53 with Mazzucchi 1985:216–​17 and Bell 2009:62–​64. 516. Cameron 1985:250; Bell 2009:10 and 2013: 274–​76. 517. Kaldellis 2007:173–​87 and 2007:177n6 for bibliography.

192  Christians in Conversation Ierodiakonou, K., ed. 2002. Byzantine Philosophy and Its Ancient Sources. Oxford. Kaldellis, A. 2007. Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. Cambridge. Mazzucchi, C.M., ed. 1982. Menae Patricii cum Thoma referendario De scientia politica dialogus: Quae exstant in codice vaticano palimpsesto. Milan. Mazzucchi, C.M. 1984. “In Menae Patricii De scientia politica dialogum ventilabrum criticum.” Aevum 58:59–​60. Mazzucchi, C.M. 2006. “Damascio, autore del Corpus Dionysiacum, e il dialogo Περὶ πολιτικῆς ἐπιστήμης.” Aevum 80:299–​334. Mazzucchi, C.M., and Matelli, E. 1985. “La dottrina dello stato nel dialogo Sulla scienza politica e il suo autore.” In Archi 1985:209–​23. O’Meara, D.J. 2002. “The Justinianic Dialogue On Political Science and Its Neoplatonic Sources.” In Ierodiakonou 2002:49–​62. O’Meara, D.J. 2003. Platonopolis: Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Oxford. Rashed, M. 2000. “Menas, préfet du prétoire (528–​9) et philosophe:  Une épigramme inconnue.” Elenchos 21.1:89–​98.

50. Leontius of Byzantium, Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas Author

Leontius of Byzantium (c. 480/​90–​543/​4)518

Full title

Πρὸς τοὺς ἐξ ἡμῶν προσθεμένους τῇ κατεφθαρμένῃ γνώμῃ τῶν Ἀφθαρτοδοκητῶν διάλογος (CPG 6813)

Original language

Greek

Date of composition

c. 531–​33 or c. 540–​44519

Edition

Daley 2017:336–​409 (PG 86.1:1268–​1396)

Modern translations

English (Daley 2017:336–​409); Italian (Dell’Osso 2001:93–​127)

Summary The Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas opposes the doctrine attributed to Julian of Halicarnassus that the body of Christ was incorruptible from the moment of the union with the flesh (and not merely from the resurrection).520 The view that, in the union, Christ’s divinity changed the human body that he took and thus made the flesh incorruptible was the subject of a dispute between Severus of Antioch and Julian of Halicarnassus in the 520s. The Dialogus, which features 518. Daley 2017:1–​25; Moreschini 2.619–​23. 519. Perrone 1980:413n4 for the former hypothesis, Evans 1970:2–​3 for the latter (with Daley 2017:41); the two scholars agree that the work originated in Constantinople. 520. Daley 2017:39–​44.

Guide to the Dialogues  193 two speakers, identified as “Aphthartodocetist” and “Orthodox,” includes an extensive prologue, which explains the origins of the controversy, and an epilogue; and it is followed by a patristic florilegium against aphthartodocetism. There is no scene setting or characterization of the speakers, but there is a first-​person narrative voice that identifies itself with the Orthodox—​it indicates the change of speakers, and claims that the dialogue actually took place (1324A:  ἐντυχών μοί τις; 1353BC:  πρὸς τὸν ἐντυχόντα). There is a mention of other aphthartodocetists besides the speaker as opponents of the Orthodox (1352BC: ὑμᾶς); however, the realism of the conversation is undermined by a reference to the act of writing (1353B: ταῦτα γεγραφήκαμεν). The dialogue opens with a soteriological objection put forward by the Orthodox (if Christ had assumed a human nature merely by his will, would God’s will then not have been enough for human salvation?), and then moves on to deal with Christology more broadly. The Aphthartodocetist makes a case for a difference between corruptibility and passibility in Christ, while the Orthodox strongly rejects any mixture of the two natures of Christ. In the conclusion, the dialogue returns to the subject of soteriology. The changes of speaker are frequent, but often the Orthodox is given longer passages. Although clearly playing the role of the minor speaker, the Aphthartodocetist is not passive and, on some occasions, even leads the dialogue (1329A, 1329C, 1332A, 1344B, 1345D, 1348D) and is able to conceptualize and foresee the line of argumentation put forward by the Orthodox (1344D, 1345B). He agrees on specific points presented by the Orthodox, he asks for an example for clarification (1333B: παράδειγμα), but nowhere does he reject his belief in aphthartodocetism. The tone of the dialogue strikes one as irenic (1324D, 1328BC, possibly 1336A), and the Orthodox includes his opponent in the first-​ person plural (1344D:  συνδιασκεψόμεθα) and avoids attacking him directly, rather addressing criticism to his teacher (1333D). While both speakers make use of quotations from Scripture and from the Cappadocian Fathers, and make reference to the “Fathers” (1344D, 1345B, 1348C), the Orthodox shows a predilection for logical arguments (1340AB: τὼν ἀνθρωπίνων λογισμῶν καὶ πιθανοτήτων) and challenges the opponent to solve the apparent contradiction that specific Scriptural excerpts reveal on a first reading (1340C).521 The language of demonstration and proof is used by both speakers (1340A: πείθειν, δεικνύειν; 1345A: ἀποδεικνύειν; 1345C: παράστησον); in the conclusion, the narrative voice of the Orthodox claims to have solved the difficulties that the Aphthartodocetist had faced (1353BC:  διαπορήσεις). The same voice invites future readers to make use of patristic works in support of what was said (1353B:  πρὸς τὴν τῶν εἰρημένων βεβαίωσιν), and moves on to

521. Perrone 1980:112 and 112n13.

194  Christians in Conversation provide a relevant florilegium (1353C: δέχου) with the warning that looking for contradictions in patristic authors will not make anybody’s argument stronger: it is maintained that the Fathers who accepted true teaching are not in contradiction with one another (1353D–​56A). Discussion of Scholarship The dialogue is the second in a set of three texts by Leontius that circulated together and that included the Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos, which argues against the doctrines of Nestorius and Eutyches, and the Deprehensio et triumphus super Nestorianos, which also opposes aphthartodocetism by arguing that it had fallen into the errors by Paul of Samosata, Diodorus of Tarsus, Nestorius, and Theodore of Mopsuestia.522 The collection is introduced by a single preface by Leontius describing the occasion for the publication of the three works:  “devout men, eagerly longing for divine teaching, and approving of the public disputations (τὰς εἰς τὸ κοινὸν διαλέξεις) which we frequently held, have urged us to give them some sort of written copies of the questions and solutions (τῶν ἐπαπορήσεων καὶ λύσεων) we have often proposed orally” (1268B; trans. Daley 2017:117; italics added). According to Evans, then, the collection of texts should be understood as the written version of the debates and the lectures that Leontius had actually delivered on several occasions. On the basis of the witness of Cyril of Skythopolis’ Life of St. Sabas, the same scholar goes further and argues that the theological debates with miaphysites held in Constantinople during the summer of 531 provided the occasion for Leontius’ dialexeis mentioned in the preface. In his view, that summer marked the beginning of Leontius’ public career; he may also have taken part in the colloquy with the miaphysites organized by Justinian the following year.523 In the preface to the collection, Leontius also explains that the Dialogue contra Aphthartodocetas takes the form of a dialogue (1269CD: διαλογικῷ χαρακτῆρι) and that, in order to help the reader, a star and a cross on the manuscript will indicate the parts of each speaker. Perrone emphasizes the structural difference between the Dialogus and the more systematic treatises by the same author, and he accepts the possibility that public debates in Constantinople may have been at the origin of the composition of the Dialogus. Perrone also argues against the view by Draguet (later taken up by Richard) that the Dialogus is ultimately a derivative text that does not address Julianist theology proper but builds on the hostile picture of Julianism as was presented by Severus of Antioch. According to Perrone, the Dialogus does not provide a distorted and secondhand account

5 22. For the doctrines opposed in these works, however, see Moreschini 2.620 and Evans 1970. 523. Daley 2017:6–​18; Perrone 1980:419–​20; Evans 1970:150–​67; Cyril of Skythopolis, Life of St. Sabas 72, 176.3–​20 (ed. Schwartz 1939; Engl. trans. Price 1991); Innocent of Maroneia, Epistula ad Thomam presbyterum Thessalonicensem 170.5–​6 (CPG 6846; the Greek original of the letter is lost, but the text survives in Latin translation edited in ACO 4.2.169–​84).

Guide to the Dialogues  195 of aphthartodocetism, but rather reveals a continuity between Julian’s doctrine and the views expressed by the aphthartodocetist speaker. There is the possibility that the speaker represents the authentic voice of a Chalcedonian individual with Julianist sympathies.524 Bibliography Daley, B.E., ed. 1978. Leontius of Byzantium:  A Critical Edition of His Works, with Prolegomena. D.Phil. diss. Oxford. Daley, B.E. 2017. Leontius of Byzantium. Oxford. Dell’Osso, C. 2001. Leonzio di Bisanzio. Le opere. Roma. Dell’Osso, C. 2003. Il Calcedonismo: Leonzio di Bisanzio. Roma. Evans, D.B. 1970. Leontius of Byzantium: An Origenist Christology. Washington, DC. Perrone, L. 1980. “Il Dialogo contro gli Aftartodoceti di Leonzio di Bisanzio e Severo di Antiochia.” Cristianesimo nella storia 1.2:411–​42. Price, R.M., trans. 1991. Lives of the Monks of Palestine by Cyril of Scythopolis: With an Introducton and notes by John Binns. Kalamazoo, MI. Schwartz, E., ed. 1939. Kyrillos von Skythopolis. Leipzig.

51. Leontius of Byzantium, Solutions to the Arguments Proposed by Severus Author

Leontius of Byzantium (c. 480/​90–​543/​4)525

Full title

Ἐπιλύσεις τῶν ὑπὸ Σευήρου προβεβλημένων συλλογισμῶν (CPG 6815)

Original language

Greek

Date of composition

535–​36 or c. 540–​43526

Edition

Daley 2017:268–​311 (PG 86.2:1916–​45)

Modern translations

English (Daley 2017:268–​319); Italian (Dell’Osso 2001:171–​95)

Summary In the opening prologue, the author explains that the text is a response to the new arguments that his opponents have brought against his work Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos (CPG 6813), and he thus intends to take this occasion to address and correct these very objections “in a more-​or-​less dialogue form” (1916D: διαλογικώτερον αὐτὰ μεθοδεύων καὶ διευθύνων; trans. Daley 2017:271). That Severus of Antioch 524. Perrone 1980, esp. 441–​42. 525. Daley 2017:1–​25; Moreschini 2.619–​23. 526. Daley 2017:33 and 1978:xxxiii for the former, Evans 1970:2–​3 for the latter; the two scholars agree that the work originated in Constantinople.

196  Christians in Conversation was the author of these objections, however, is stated only in the title of the text. The Solutions take the form of a dialogue between two speakers, who are simply identified as “Orthodox” and “Acephalian” (ἀκέφαλος, lit. “without a leader”), who stands for a miaphysite; they open with an objection (1916D: ἀντίθεσις) put forward by the Acephalian followed by a reply (1917A: ἀπάντησις) by the Orthodox. There is no narrative voice, scene setting, or characterization of the speakers; apart from the opening section in which the exchanges are rather short, as the text proceeds the exchanges between the speakers are of greater length. In the second half, however, the work becomes less dialogic and the Orthodox is given considerably longer passages. The Solutions close ex abrupto without an epilogue—​Dell’Osso has hypothesized that the work survives incomplete.527 The Solutions appear more technical than the Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas in both language and subject matter. The author further develops his refutation of the identification of nature and hypostasis, and argues that in Christ there is only a single hypostasis of both divinity and humanity. Accordingly, in Christ the human and divine properties are held in common in the sense that they belong to a single individual, not that they can be attributed to a single nature.528 In order to build their arguments, the speakers make use of Scriptural citations and of passages from patristic authors, especially Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria, and Athanasius, but the Orthodox argues that the reference to patristic texts cannot replace sound reasoning (1924A): Then, if the proofs about the life-​giving and holy Trinity and about the great Incarnation of God the Word, one of the Trinity, were not produced by the Fathers –​and are still not produced–​from universal terms and definitions of substance and hyposthasis, or person and nature, then our discussion is a reduction to absurdity rather than a demonstration.529 The Orthodox moves on to explain that both Scripture and patristic texts show some variance in their use of Christological terminology, for “the holy Scriptures, the holy Fathers and customary speech handle words by metaphor and ambiguity and inversion and other rhetorical figures, but don’t give a common definition of these words when they do this” (1924D); yet “when there is a struggle and a discussion about doctrine, then we must refrain from using verbal ambiguities, and take the proper meanings from the definitions themselves, so that the precision of the things themselves may not be damaged by the imprecision of words” (1925B).530

527. Dell’Osso 2001:195n17. 528. Moreschini 2.620–​21. 529. 1921D–​24A (italics added; trans. Daley 2017:279): Εἰ τοίνυν μὴ ἐκ τῶν καθολικῶν λόγων καὶ ὅρων, τῆς οὐσίας τε καὶ ὑποστάσεως, ἤγουν προσώπου καὶ φύσεως, καὶ περὶ τῆς ζωοποιοῦ καὶ ἀγίας Τριάδος, καὶ περὶ τῆς μεγαλῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου, τοῦ ἑνὸς τῆς Τριάδος οἰκονομίας, αἱ ἀποδείξεις τοῖς τε Πατράσι προῆλθον, καὶ νῦν προέρχονται, ἀποκληρωτικὸς καὶ οὐκ ἀποδεικτικὸς ἔσται ὁ λόγος. 530. Trans. Daley 2017:281–​83.

Guide to the Dialogues  197 Discussion of Scholarship As noticed by various scholars, the conversational character of the Solutions becomes less marked as the text proceeds and finally disappears altogether, and the two characters lack depth and become simply devices for presenting arguments and counterarguments. As a result, the latter part of the Solutions appears close to an instance of erotapokriseis.531 At the same time, however, the reader can usually find an organizational principle in the sequence in which the objections that are addressed; in addition, the author is at least to some extent concerned to report conversational elements like direct questions put by the orthodox (1917A, 1924B, 1928AB) and references to the opposing speaker (1928B:  ὦ βέλτιστε; 1929D: ἡμεῖς/​ὑμεῖς; 1937A: ὦ σοφοί). Bibliography Daley, B.E., ed. 1978. Leontius of Byzantium:  A Critical Edition of His Works, with Prolegomena. D.Phil. diss. Oxford. Daley, B.E. 2017. Leontius of Byzantium. Oxford. Dell’Osso, C. 2001. Leonzio di Bisanzio. Le opere. Roma. Dell’Osso, C. 2003. Il Calcedonismo: Leonzio di Bisanzio. Roma. Evans, D.B. 1970. Leontius of Byzantium: An Origenist Christology. Washington, DC. Perrone, L. 1980. “Il Dialogo contro gli Aftartodoceti di Leonzio di Bisanzio e Severo di Antiochia.” Cristianesimo nella storia 1.2:411–​42.

52. Basil of Cilicia, Against John of Scythopolis Author

Basil of Cilicia (fl. first half of the sixth cent.)532

Full title

Κατὰ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Σκυθοπολίτου

Original language

Greek (lost; a summary survives in Photius, Bibl. cod. 107)

Date of composition

after c. 510, perhaps c. 519–​20533

Summary All that is known about the lost dialogue Against John of Scythopolis derives from Photius’ Bibliotheca, which has an entry dedicated to it (cod. 107) and mentions this dialogue on two other occasions (cod. 42 and 95). According to Photius, the “dramatic dialogue” (δραματικὸς διάλογος) dealt with Christology, was arranged

5 31. Daley 2017:33, Moreschini 2.620, and Perrone 1980:419n21. 532. Moreschini 2.703; GAL 5.116; Honigmann 1951:80–​81 against the identification of our author with Basil of Irenopolis in Cilicia; Photius, Bibl. cod. 42 reports of an Ecclesiastical History by the same author. 533. Moreschini 2.610; Honigmann 1951:81.

198  Christians in Conversation into sixteen books, and was written as a response to a lost work in three books composed by the neo-​Chalcedonian John of Scythopolis.534 Thirteen of the books took the form of dialogue and responded to the first book of John’s piece, while the last three addressed books 2 and 3 “in more detailed fashion” (διεξοδικωτέρῳ λόγῳ), which may mean that they were not in dialogue form. The dialogue was dedicated to an (otherwise unknown) Leontius, who had asked the author to compose the work, and whom, according to Photius, Basil had pompously praised in the dialogue. After an opening preface, the dialogue featured two main speakers, Lampadius, who represented the view of the author, and Marinus, who represented the neo-​ Chalcedonian doctrine of John of Scythopolis. According to Photius, the dialogue proceeded in the form of dialexeis, and already by the fourth book Marinus had rejected his doctrine and had taken the side of Lampadius (i.e., that of the author). In the fifth book a new character, Tarasius, stood up as a defender of the doctrine by John of Scythopolis, but, similarly, by the thirteenth book Tarasius too had exhausted his arguments and had fallen silent. Here, Lampadius discontinued the “pressing questions and answers” (ἡ κατὰ πεῦσιν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν σπουδή); accordingly, the text proceeded with a refutation of books 2 and 3 of the work by John of Scythopolis. According to Photius, the dialogue also included accusations directed against the moral standing of John of Scythopolis, especially in book 5, but the core of the text dealt with Christology and focused on the interpretation of a selection of Scriptural excerpts from both the Old and New Testaments, which Photius listed. Photius’ remark that the characters endeavored to score points off each other and aimed to find blemishes and contradictions in their opponents’ arguments indicates that the setting was probably that of a realistic debate. Photius also noticed that Basil was sharp and well versed in the demonstrations, remarking with irony that Basil seemed to have spent his entire life in such occupations. Photius nonetheless criticized the style of the dialogue but admitted that Basil had pursued clarity (τὸ σαφές) as his goal; Photius’ further point that Basil did not abstain from using a coarse style and including trivial expressions, especially in the dialogic parts, may be indicative of the author’s attempt to reproduce spoken language. Discussion of Scholarship Photius’ witness indicates that the speakers confronted one another in a setting such as that of a debate. Photius also recognized the fictional and nonhistorical

534. The work has been variously identified:  Moreschini 2.610 suggests a work on incarnation composed in c. 510; di Berardino 277 suggests the Against the Nestorians; Gray 1979:111–​112 suggests the Apologia concilii Chalcedonensis (CPG 6851; fragments).

Guide to the Dialogues  199 character of the dialogue, though his account does not provide any information about the presence of a narrative voice, scene setting, characterization of the speakers, or attendance of an audience.535 Among modern scholars, there has been some discussion about the theological affiliation of Basil of Cilicia, whom Photius identified as tainted with Nestorianism but not a defender of Nestorius. Bardenhewer doubts that Basil could be a sympathizer of Nestorius, and, on the basis of the contents of the dialogue, Honigmann argues that Basil of Cilicia was a miaphysite who may have nonetheless used Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia in the composition of his (lost) Against Nestorius (Photius, Bibl. cod. 95).536 However, a more systematic analysis of the subject matters of the dialogue, as they are reported by Photius, would be necessary to reach a definitive view on this issue. Bibliography Gray, P.T.R. 1979. The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451–​553). Leiden. Henry, R., ed. 1959. Photius. Bibliothèque. 9 vols. Paris. Honigmann, E. 1951. Évêques et évêchés monophysites d’Asie antérieure au VIe siècle. Louvain. Perrone, L. 1980. “Il Dialogo contro gli Aftartodoceti di Leonzio di Bisanzio e Severo di Antiochia.” Cristianesimo nella storia 1.2:411–​42.

53. Paul the Persian, Disputatio cum Manichaeo Author

Paul the Persian (fl. first half of the sixth cent.)537

Full title

Διάλεκτοι Φωτεινοῦ Μανιχαίου καὶ Παύλου τοῦ Πέρσου

Original language

Greek (CPG 7010)

Date of composition

527, or perhaps later if the account is fiction

Edition

PG 88.529–​52

Modern translation

none (an excerpt is available in Lieu 1992:213)

535. Henry 1959:75n4. 536. Honigmann 1951:80–​81; Henry 1959:78n2; Perrone 1980:421n29; Moreschini 2.703. 537. Bennett 2003 questions the standard attribution of the Disputatio to Paul the Persian, who, he suggests, may be alternatively understood as a fictional figure within the Disputatio. Here, the traditional view is followed that Paul was the real author, though there has been some discussion on the identity of Paul the Persian, in particular whether he should be identified with (i) “Paul the Persian from Nisibis,” whose work was used by Junillus Africanus in the composition of the Instituta regularia divinae legis (Maas 2003:16–​18), with (ii) “Paul of Nisibis” from Bassora, who was metropolitan of Nisibis in 553 (see the Conversation with Caesar, entry 58), or with (iii) “Paul the Persian,” who wrote a Syriac Introduction to Logic and a Syriac commentary on Aristotle’s De interpretatione (Gutas 1983). Past views differed widely, but, in short, the identification of the author of the Disputatio with (i) seems likely, the identification of our author with (ii) is less likely on chronological grounds, and (ii) and (iii) were certainly different persons (Bruns 2010; Walker 2006:173–​74; Lieu 1992:212; Di Berardino 216–​17; Gutas 1983:238n14; Mercati 1901).

200  Christians in Conversation Summary The Disputatio cum Manichaeo purports to record a public debate between a Christian, Paul the Persian, and Photinus, a “champion” and “teacher” of the Manichaean faith (529A: προϊστάμενος, διδάσκαλος; 536A). In the opening prologue, a narrative voice presents the characters and reports that the debate took place by order of the emperors Justin and Justinian (thus between April and July 527) and was supervised by the “illustrious prefect” Theodore (529A: ἐνδοξότατος ἔπαρχος), who is in all likelihood to be identified with Theodore Teganistes.538 However, Theodore never intervenes directly in the Disputatio (549D). The Disputatio is made up of four dialektoi, which are set on different days and are introduced by short narrative passages.539 Each of the first three dialektoi ends when Photinus is unable to refute the arguments put forward by the Christian and remains silent (540D, 545B, 549D), while the fourth and last dialektos ends with the Christian’s statement that his opponent is “stubborn” (552C:  αὐθαίρετος). Other attempts to characterize the speakers and to set the scene are limited to occasional remarks on the silence by the Manichaean (533D, 536A, 536C, 537D, etc.), and to a reference that the Manichaean is physically tied up during the first dialektos—​and, one presumes, during the remaining dialektoi, too (533D–​36A). The first three dialektoi open with a question by the Manichaean and deal respectively with (i)  the origin of the human soul, to which Paul the Persian shrewdly answers by making a distinction between τὸ πόθεν, “whence,” and τὸ ἐκ, “from what,” (528B); (ii) Manichaean dualism and the substance of the soul; and (iii) the alleged accord between the Scriptures, especially the Pauline epistles, and Manichaean religion. Conversely, the fourth dialektos deals with Photinus’ criticism of God in the Old Testament (549D), and is initiated by the Christian, who is reported to have previously read doctrinal statements that Photinus made in front of Theodore. In the Disputatio the exchanges are short and overall balanced between the speakers, although the Christian tends to produce longer passages toward the end of each dialektos. The language and the arguments of the Disputatio impress the reader for their technicality, and may reveal an awareness of Aristotelian logic. Special attention is paid to the methodology employed by the speakers, who discuss the role that each one will play in the Disputatio. In the opening part of the first dialektos, after Photinus’ accusation against Paul of undermining common sense with dialectic (533A: διαλεκτικῶς ἀνατρέπειν [. . .] ὡς ἀποδεικτικὸς ἀνήρ; made again

538. PLRE II Theodorus 57, who had been praefectus urbi Constantinopoli four times before 526; see Bennett 2003 for the apparent chronological inconsistence, and see PLRE II Asterius 10 with Feissel 1986:128n51 for the praefectus urbi in 527. 539. I  follow Mercati 1901:184n1 in accepting four dialektoi, rather than three as in Angelo Mai’s edition reprinted in PG, on the grounds that the introductory narrative to the fourth dialektos (549D) states that what follows took place the following day and it closely resembles the narrative passages that introduce the other dialektoi.

Guide to the Dialogues  201 in 549A), there follows a discussion on methodology, as a result of which both speakers agree to make use of diairesis (533B:  διαιρετικὴ μέθοδος). In a similar fashion, the second dialektos opens with an excursus on the role that each speaker will play in the debate (540C: τάξις), whether the part of the teacher or that of the disciple (540CD: διδάσκων [. . .] μανθάνων), but there is nonetheless some variance in the actual role adopted by the speakers in each dialektos. There has been some discussion on the relation of the Disputatio with the next work in Mai’s edition, reproduced in PG, known as Φωτεινοῦ Μανιχαίου πρότασις καὶ Παύλου τοῦ Πέρσου ἀπολογία (CPG 7011; PG 88.552–​57). The text consists of a short protasis, which argues in favor of the Manichaean dualism of Good and Evil (552–​53B), followed by a Christian response, apokrisis, opposing the existence of the two Manichaean principles (553B–​57B). The work is not in dialogue form and the Manichaean is normally addressed in the third person (553CD: ὁ πυνθανόμενος), except for a passage in which he is addressed in the second person (556C–​57A), a gesture that Mercati explains as ironic.540 Afterward, the author follows up with a series of kephalaia that are meant to demonstrate and explain, in syllogistic form, the nature of evil (557B–​68C). Cameron relates this text to the closing formal statements from each side that are found in Christian treatises against heresy or in synodical letters by bishops, such as that by Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, written in 634.541 Discussion of Scholarship Most scholars have read the Disputatio as the record of a real debate that took place in 527; on this view, the debate should be understood in the context of the imperial persecution of Manichaeism reflected in Justinian’s anti-​Manichaean legislation (Codex Justinianus 1.5.12.2–​3, 1.5.16.2).542 Also, historical sources indicate that there existed a Manichaean community in Byzantium that vanished in the aftermath of the Justinianic persecution.543 In contrast, the suggestion that the Disputatio is fictional, and was composed in the literary tradition of the Acta Archelai, was originally put forward by Lieu, who later accepted the historicity of the Disputatio on the grounds of its realistic narration of events and plausible historical setting.544 More recently, Bennett has emphasized that there is no other evidence for Theodore Teganistes as praefectus urbi in 527, and that this debate between Paul the Persian and Photinus under Justin and Justinian is not mentioned in any other source. According to Bennett, the historicity of the Disputatio cannot thus be regarded as established, and there is the possibility that Paul the

540. Mercati 1901:186–​87. 541. Cameron 2014:28; Allen 2009. 542. Walker 2009:173; Maas 2003:17; Lieu 1992:211–​13. 543. Lieu 1992:215. 544. Lieu 1983:165n107; Lieu 1992:211–​15.

202  Christians in Conversation Persian was merely a fictional figure in the dialogue. If this was the case, the Disputatio may have been written at a later date.545 Conversely, some corroboration for the historicity of Photinus may come from the analysis by Fiaccadori. He identifies Photinus with the magician Māsidis described in John of Nikiu’s Chronicle (90.54–​60, surviving only in Ethiopic translation through an Arabic intermediary), according to which Māsidis was a resident of Constantinople under Justinian and was later executed because of his “impure” religious practices. According to Fiaccadori, the name Māsidis can derive from a misreading of the transcription of Φωτεινός in Arabic without dots in the transmission of John of Nikiu’s text (‫ ڡٮٮٮوس‬/​ ‫ /​ ).546 In turn, Bennett relates the sixth-​century flourishing of anti-​Manichaean literature to Alexandrian Neoplatonism rather than to developments internal to Manichaean religion; he argues that Manichaean doctrine could usefully be employed as a didactic tool by Neoplatonist teachers. In his view, later Platonists could successfully invoke elements of Manichaean religion as a foil for analyzing and resolving philosophical questions that were central to Neoplatonism itself.547 It should be added, however, that Chalcedonians had long used the label “Manichaean” as a negative standard by which to judge the Christology of their miaphysite opponents and continued to do so (given the Manichaeans’ refusal of Christ’s humanity). The refutation of Manichaean dualism, even if popularly conceived, became a standard form of rhetorical training for theologians, as witnessed by John of Damascus and Photius.548 Bibliography Allen, P. 2009. Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-​Century Heresy: The Synodical Letter and Other Documents; Introduction, Texts, Translations, and Commentary. Oxford. Bennett, B. 2003. “Paul the Persian.” In Encyclopædia Iranica s.v. London. Bennett, B. 2015. “The Physics of Light, Darkness and Matter in John the Grammarian’s First Homily against the Manichaeans: Early Byzantine Anti-​Manichaean Literature as a Window on Controversies in Later Neoplatonism.” In Richter et al. 2015:19–​33. Brown, P. 1969. “The Diffusion of Manichaeism in the Roman Empire.” Journal of Roman Studies 59:92–​103. Reprint in Brown 1972:94–​118. Brown, P. 1972. Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine. London. Bruns, P. 2010. “Wer war Paul der Perser?” Studia Patristica 45:263–​68. Cameron, Av. 2014. Dialoguing in Late Antiquity. Washington, DC. Cameron, Av., and Hoyland, R.G., eds. 2011. Doctrine and Debate in the East Christian World, 300–​1500. Farnham, UK.

545. Bennett  2003. 546. Fiaccadori 2006a, esp. 121–​23. 547. Bennett  2015. 548. Lieu 1992:207 and 211; see also entry 55.

Guide to the Dialogues  203 Feissel, D. 1986. “Le Préfet de Constantinople, les Poids-​Étalons et l’estampillage de l’argenterie au VIᵉ et au VIIᵉ siècle.” Revue numismatique 28:119–​42. Fiaccadori, G. 2006a. “Māsidis (Giovanni di Nikiou, Chron. XC 54–​60).” In Fiaccadori 2006:113–​35. Fiaccadori, G., ed. 2006. In Partibus Clius: Scritti in Onore di Giovanni Pugliese Caratelli. Naples. Gutas, D. 1983. “Paul the Persian on the Classification of the Parts of Aristotle’s Philosophy: A Milestone between Alexandria and Baġdâd.” Der Islam 60:231–​267. Lieu, S.N.C. 1983. “An Early Byzantine Formula for the Renunciation of Manichaeism. The Capita VII contra Manichaeos of ‘Zacharias of Mitylene’.” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 26:152–​218. Lieu, S.N.C. 1992. Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China. 2nd ed. Tübingen. Lim, R. 1992. “Manicheans and Public Disputation in Late Antiquity.” Recherches augustiniennes 26:233–​72. Reprint in Cameron and Hoyland 2011:9–​48. Maas, M. 2003. Exegesis and Empire in the Early Byzantine Mediterranean:  Junillus Africanus and the Instituta Regularia Divinae Legis. Tübingen. Mercati, G. 1901a. “Per la vita e gli scritti di ῾Paolo il Persiano.’ Appunti di una disputa di religione sotto Giustino e Giustiniano.” In Mercati 1901a:180–​206. Mercati, G., ed. 1901. Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana antica. Rome. Richter, S.G., Horton, C., and Ohlhafer, K., eds. 2015. Mani in Dublin: Selected Papers from the Seventh International Conference on the International Association of Manichaean Studies in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, 8–​12 September 2009. Leiden. Walker, J.T. 2006. The Legend of Mar Qardagh: Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq. Berkeley.

54. John bar Aphthonia, Conversation with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian Author

John bar Aphthonia (d. 537)549

Full title

unknown (CPG 7486)

Original language

either Greek or Syriac (it survives only as an incomplete Syriac text)550

549. John, who according to Ps.-​Zacharias HE 9.15 (trans. Greatrex et  al. 2011)  accompanied the Syrian Orthodox bishops and wrote an account of the proceedings, is likely to have been the author of our text (Brock 1981:88); Watt 1999; Brock et al. 2011 s.v. 550. John’s other works were composed in Greek, and there is thus the possibility that the Conversation was also composed in Greek; if this was so, the Syriac text surviving today should be considered a translation. According to Brock 1981:88n8, the text does not provide any obvious indication that it is a translation, apart from one possible misunderstanding. There also survives a short anonymous summary of the entire proceedings (in Syriac), based on the entire text of the Conversation and edited in Nau 1919:192–​96 (with French translation; an English translation is in Brock 1981:75–​79), and a full account from the Chalcedonian side in the Epistula ad Thomam presbyterum Thessalonicensem by Innocent of Maroneia, a member of the Chalcedonian delegation (CPG 6846; ed. ACO 4.2.169–​84).

204  Christians in Conversation Date of composition

532551

Edition

Brock 1981

Modern translation

English (Brock 1981)

Summary The Conversation is an account recording the dialogue held in Constantinople at Justinian’s behest between six miaphysite bishops and five Chalcedonian bishops, probably in March 532. The talks lasted over three days, and, contrary to the emperor’s hope, did not result in the reconciliation of the two parties. The surviving text, which was in all likelihood written by John bar Aphthonia, lacks the opening as well as the latter part of the last day’s discussion. Additional information about the talks can be gathered from a Syriac summary that was written on the basis of the entire text of the Conversation, and from the account of the same talks by Innocent of Maroneia, one of the bishops of the Chalcedonian delegation.552 The primary subjects of the surviving text of the Conversation are the reception of Eutyches by Dioscorus (10–​18), the Syrian Orthodox objections to Chalcedon (13–​14), the acceptance of Theodoret of Cyrrhus (14–​17), the orthodoxy of Ibas (18–​23), and some letters by Cyril of Alexandria and a passage from Gregory of Nazianzus’ Or. 21 (24–​30). According to the account, before the conversation proper the meetings began with Justinian’s preliminary audiences with each delegation, during which the delegations handed over to the emperor statements of their doctrinal positions. During the first two days, the conversation proper (‫[ ܡܡܠܠ‬e.g., 2], which might translate dialektos553) took place in the “Boukoleon Palace,” identified as the Hormisdas Palace. The two parties sat and faced each other in the presence of two synkelloi of the bishop Epiphanius of Constantinople, who could not attend in person (Heraclianus, perhaps PLRE III Heracleanus, and Laurentius). The conversation was supervised by Strategius (probably PLRE III Strategius) as a representative of the emperor in the role of magistros, and, in all likelihood, was attended by an audience (3–​4, 23). Despite the presence of the synkelloi, however, the Conversation does not record their intervention; it records only one contribution by Strategius, whom the parties consulted on the procedural points about the record of the conversation (11) and the reading of a document (19). The setting of the talks during the third day was organized differently. The Chalcedonian delegation went to meet the emperor and then asked the Syrian 551. The talks are likely to have taken place in March 532; for discussion of chronology see Greatrex et al. 2011:353n220; Cameron 2014:28. 552. Brock 1981; Innocent of Maroneia, Epistula ad Thomam presbyterum Thessalonicensem (CPG 6846). The Greek original of the letter is lost, but the text survives in Latin translation edited in ACO 4.2.169–​84; Greatrex et al. 2011:346n188. 553. Payne Smith 1879 s.v.

Guide to the Dialogues  205 Orthodox delegation to join them (34). During the third day, Justinian intervened directly in the talks; he exerted some pressure on both parties to achieve a union, not least by proposing an anathematic formula in the hope that both parties would agree. The opposing delegations, however, did not reach an agreement. The format of the conversation reported by Innocent of Maroneia is similar overall to the account by John bar Aphthonia, apart from the conversation in the first two days taking place between the Syrian Orthodox (identified as “orientales”) and Hypatius of Ephesus for the Chalcedonian delegation, and from excerpts of the texts discussed being included in the account. Also, Innocent describes the setting of the conversation on the third day in greater detail, and records the eventual conversion of Philoxenus of Dulichium to the Chalcedonian side (88). Much of the text of the Conversation consists of a narrative voice that sets the scene, introduces the speakers and the participants, indicates the change of speakers,554 records their reactions (e.g., 18: silence; 19: inability to find a line of defense; 20: laughter), and, perhaps unusually, summarizes parts of the conversation and makes use of reported speech (e.g., 10–​11). Similarly, the fact that each delegation speaks with one voice and is identified merely as “orthodox bisḧ ops” or “opposing bishops” (‫)ܐܦܣܩܦܐ ܕܠܩܘܒܐܠ‬ appears a simplification of the actual discussion, although Justinian and Strategius are identified individually. All speakers are given relatively short passages, but the Syrian Orthodox bishops have a longer section (17). Much of the Conversation centers on the reading of episcopal letters and doctrinal documents; these, however, are merely mentioned and are not included in the text. Discussion of Scholarship The Conversation is the record of a real conversation between the two parties, and the survival of a record from the Chalcedonian side, written by Innocent of Maroneia, provides a means to test the faithfulness of the Conversation by John bar Aphthonia. As Brock shows, however, each account provides a slanted picture, and passes over to silence developments in the discussion that proved embarrassing, while emphasizing others.555 The surviving text, then, is the result of deliberate editing, whether by the recorder, redactor, or later editor, in favor of the Syrian Orthodox party. Despite this editing, the Conversation is an important document that contains information on the setting, the procedure, the practicalities, and the hopes of an official debate arranged at the behest of the emperor.

5 54. There is some variance, however, in the tenses, i.e., “they say” or “they said” (e.g., 6–​7). 555. Brock 1981 and 2016:110–​11; MacMullen 2006:107–​11.

206  Christians in Conversation Bibliography Brock, S.P. 1981. “The Conversations with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (532).” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 47:87–​ 121. Reprint in Cameron and Hoyland 2011:49–​83. Brock, S.P., Butts, A.M., Kiraz, G.A., Van Rompay, L., eds. 2011. Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage. Piscataway, NJ. Brock, S.P. 2016. “Les controverses christologiques en syriaque:  Controverses réelles et controverses imaginées.” In Ruani 2016:105–​118. Cameron, Av. 2014. Dialoguing in Late Antiquity. Washington, DC. Cameron, Av., and Hoyland, R.G., eds. 2011. Doctrine and Debate in the East Christian World, 300–​1500. Farnham, UK. Drijvers, J.W., and Watt, J.W., eds. 1999. Portraits of Spiritual Authority: Religious Power in Early Christianity, Byzantium, and the Christian Orient. Religions in the Graeco–​ Roman World 137. Leiden. Greatrex, G., Phenix, R.P., Horn, C.B., Brock, S.P., and Witakowski, W. 2011. The Chronicle of Pseudo-​Zachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity. Liverpool. MacMullen, R. 2006. Voting about God in Early Church Councils. New Haven, CT. Nau, F. 1919. “Documents pour servir a l’histoire de l’Église Nestorienne.” Patrologia Orientalis 13:111–​157. Payne Smith, R. 1879. Thesaurus Syriacum. 2 vols. Oxford. Ruani, F., ed. 2016. Les controverses religieuses en syriaque. Paris. Watt, J.W. 1999. “A Portrait of John Bar Aphtonia, Founder of the Monastery of Qenneshre.” In Drijvers and Watts 1999:155–​69.

55. John the Grammarian of Caesarea, Disputatio cum Manichaeo Author

John the Grammarian of Caesarea (fl. first half of the sixth cent.)556

Full title

Διάλεξις Ἰωάννου Ὀρθοδόξου πρὸς Μανιχαῖον (CPG 6862)

Original language

Greek

Date of composition

first half of the fifth cent., perhaps c. 530–​40557

Editions

Aubineau 1977; PG 96.1320B–​36A

Modern translation

none

556. Moreschini 2.611–​12; ODB s.v. 557. Walker 2006:169 suggests c. 530–​40.

Guide to the Dialogues  207 Summary The Disputatio is a dialogue between two speakers identified as “Orthodox” and “Manichaean” in which the author argues against Manichaeism by addressing four subjects:  the relation between God and matter (1–​19); the origin of evil (20–​45); the Manichaeans’ worship of the sun (46–​53); and the Last Judgment (54–​57). There is no scene setting, attempt to characterize the speakers, or narrative voice, and the Disputatio consists entirely of the exchanges between the two speakers. The Manichaean speaker declares himself willing to be convinced by the orthodox (8: Ἔλεγξον, καὶ πείσομαι τοῖς παρὰ σοῦ), but nowhere in the dialogue does he change his doctrinal position or openly reject Manichaean religion. The Disputatio closes with a longer speech by the Orthodox (58–​65; a “dissertation” according to Richard 1977:xlv) that sets out to discuss some contradictions in Manichaean theology and is allegedly addressed to Manichaeans in general (e.g., 63: ὑμεῖς οἱ Μανιχαῖοι). The Disputatio opens ex abrupto with a provocative question by the Orthodox on anthropology, which, according to Richard, serves the sole purpose of introducing the problematic issue of the mixture of evil matter with a good God (1). The leading speaker of the dialogue is the Orthodox, who is usually given longer sections, and argues that important contradictions undermine Manichaean doctrine. Instead of defending his position or following up on the Orthodox’s replies, the Manichaean speaker puts forward further questions, which simply allow the Orthodox speaker to develop his arguments. The primary aim of the Orthodox (and thus of the author) seems to be that of pointing out the contradictions in Manichaean doctrine, which he does by developing the views that his opponent presents (e.g., 35: ἐναντίος σεαυτῷ ὑπάρχεις). The Manichaean does not follow up on the attacks, which are occasionally sharp (11: τὴν τῆς τοσαύτης βλασφημίας ὑπερβολήν; 45: τὴν σὴν φρενοβλάβειαν), nor does he offer a strong defense, but maintains a docile attitude throughout the dialogue. On one occasion, the Orthodox quotes from the Gospel of John to illustrate Christian doctrine (13). Discussion of Scholarship Scholars consider the Disputatio a fictitious dialogue, and the unnatural placidity and deference of the Manichaean have been taken as indicators that this is not the record of an actual event. Most scholarship, however, has focused on the issue of authorship, since the manuscript tradition unhelpfully identifies the author simply as “John the Orthodox.” Richard made a strong case for the identification of this author with the Neo-​Chalcedonian John the Grammarian of Caesarea because of the overlaps in style, argumentative structure, and subject matter with his anti-​Manichaean homilies. Although Aubineau, the editor, was more cautious about the identification of the two figures, Richard’s arguments have found

208  Christians in Conversation additional support in the more recent work by Klein.558 More recently, Bennett has again suggested caution about the identification of the author with John of Caesarea, and has left open the possibility that the Disputatio could have been written at any time between the sixth and the ninth centuries.559 According to Lieu, the Disputatio cannot be considered a systematic refutation of Manichaean doctrine based on authentic texts, but relies on indirect knowl­ edge of Manichaeism from secondary literature. Nonetheless, in Bennett’s view the Disputatio reveals the most comprehensive understanding of Manichaean belief and practice in the surviving Greek anti-​Manichaean literature. According to Bennett, the lost textual source of the Disputatio, possibly in the form of a summary of Manichaean cosmogony, should be identified as the same work used by Titus of Bostra in Contra Manichaeos and (perhaps derivatively) by Theodoret of Cyrrhus in his Haereticarum fabularum compendium.560 At a formal level, Walker has noticed that the formulaic language used by the Manichaean is “virtually identical” to that used in the History of Mar Qardagh, and this similarity should be taken as indicative of a cosmopolitan tradition of debate that developed on both sides of the Byzantine-​Sasanian border.561 Bibliography Aubineau, M., ed. 1977. “Disputatio cum Manichaeo.” In Richard 1977:107–​28. BeDuhn, J.D., ed. 2009. New Light on Manichaeism: Papers from the Sixth International Congress on Manichaeism. Leiden. Bennett, B. 2009. “The Conversation of John the Orthodox with a Manichaean: An Analysis of Its Sources and Its Significance for Manichaean Studies.” In BeDuhn 2009:29–​44. Bennett, B. 2018. “The Invention of the Greek Christian Anti-​Manichaean Dialogue.” In Papadogiannakis and Roggema 2018. Cameron, Av. 2014. Dialoguing in Late Antiquity. Washington, DC. Klein, W. 1990. “Der Autor der Joannis Orthodoxi Disputatio cum Manichaeo.” Oriens Christianus 74:234–​44. Lieu, S.N.C. 1992. Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China. 2nd ed. Tübingen. Papadogiannakis, Y., and Roggema, B., eds. 2018. Patterns of Argumentation and Exchange of Ideas in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Abingdon. Richard, M., ed. 1977. Iohannis Caesariensis presbyteri et grammatic: Opera quae supersunt. Turnhout. Walker, J.T. 2006. The Legend of Mar Qardagh: Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq. Berkeley. 558. Among other hypotheses, John of Damascus (by Angelo Mai) and an otherwise unknown John the Orthodox have been considered. Richard 1977:xlv–​liv; Aubineau 1977:112–​16; Klein 1990; Kazhdan in ODB s.v.; Moreschini 2.612. 559. Bennett 2009:30–​34 and 2018 (non vidi). 560. Lieu 1992:216; Bennett 2009. 561. Walker 2006:168–​69.

Guide to the Dialogues  209 56. Anonymous, Dialogus cum Iudaeis 562 Author

unknown563

Full title

Διάλογος πρὸς Ἰουδαίους (CPG 7803=8092; Anonymous Declerck)

Original language

Greek; Georgian and Armenian translations564

Date of composition

c. second half of the sixth cent., perhaps 553–​65565

Editions

Declerck 1994

Modern translation

English (Fields 2012)

Summary The Dialogus features two speakers, who are simply identified as “Christian” and “Jew” and are not otherwise characterized, and deals with selected aspects of Christian theology with reference to the Old Testament. In the preface, a narrative voice, which is presented as that of the Christian speaker, recounts that the Christian was pondering why Jews do not accept Christianity, and took the opportunity to interrogate a Jew as soon as he met one (1.1–​52). There is no other reference to a setting or to an audience, however. There follows an opening exchange about the methodology to be adopted in the discussion (1.102 συζήτησις; more on methodology follows) and a section on how one should read the Scriptures, which emphasizes the common ground between Christianity and Judaism (1.52–​270). As the Dialogus proceeds, the narrative voice is limited to indicating the change of speakers and to recording their reactions (rarely with longer passages:  2.1–​3; 5.12–​33), and the Christian plays the role of the main speaker, who leads the conversation on the proofs of the existence of the Trinity (2) and the Son (3), on the incarnation (4), and on the virgin birth of Jesus (5). In the second part, the Christian argues that the earthly life of Jesus was announced in the Hebrew Bible, and, more precisely, Jesus’ birth and youth until his baptism (6), his miracles (7), his passion (8), his crucifixion (9), his resurrection (10), his ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit (11), and his second coming (12). The Jew is speaker for much shorter passages and does not play the role of an opponent but rather expresses satisfaction with the explanation received (2.1–​2; 3.1–​3). Apart from the first chapter, he rarely intervenes (e.g., 5.38–​49; 5.253–​65), and, when he does, he usually asks factual questions (2.169–​70; 3.41; 4.41–​44; 4.78–​79). After the Jew’s words in chap. 5, he does not appear again for the rest 5 62. Also known as Anonymous Declerck or Dialogue Declerck after the editor. 563. The editor tentatively suggests an Egyptian provenance on the basis of the texts that are quoted (Declerck 1994:xli), while Fields 2012:24–​30 suggests Syro-​Palestine or Asia Minor as possible origins. The Armenian version attributes the Dialogus to John of Damascus, but Declerck 1994:lii–​xc shows that this hypothesis is not plausible. 564. Declerck 1994:xv–​xvi. 565. Declerck 1994:xlii–​li.

210  Christians in Conversation of the dialogue; rather, the Christian himself twice foresees and reports the Jew’s possible objections (6.100 and 6.228: ἀλλ’ἴσως ἐρεῖς, “perhaps you’ll say”566) but nonetheless continues to address him throughout (13.32). There is no indication whether the Jew eventually converts to Christianity, and the Christian had in fact declared in the first chapter that converting his opponent was not his aim (1.55–​ 56). The epilogue provides a summary of the dialogue, and closes with an address to Jews inviting them to convert, followed by an address to Christians exhorting them to persevere with Christian faith and practice (13). The introductory exchange on methodology (1.52–​118) deserves special attention as it sets the tone and the format of the rest of the dialogue. When approached by the Christian, the Jew is at first reticent and refuses to engage in the dialogue: some of you (Christians), when they hold some such discussions (λόγοι τινὲς τοιοῦτοι) with us, having left behind Moses and the Prophets, from whom is the discovery of truth, converse with us on the basis of the works of Aristotle and Plato, creating syllogisms and paralogisms (συλλογισμοὺς τινὰς καὶ παραλογισμοὺς συμπλέκοντες), in which we admit and do not deny that we are unlearned. This is what causes us to flee the examination of our teaching and does not allow us unlearned ones to discuss with lib­ erty of speech.567 In response, the Christian reassures the Jew that no Christian who teaches a Jew would bring up syllogisms or paralogisms, which Christians instead use when they contend (1.103:  διατείνωνται) with pagans and heretics—​the latter ones disguise themselves as Christians but are in fact pagans. The Christian argues that it is necessary to make use of the enemies’ own weapons (1.106:  τὰ ὅπλα τοῦ πολεμίου), and, accordingly, when facing pagans and heretics it will be necessary to use syllogisms and paralogisms, while when facing Jews it will be necessary to use the Law and the Prophets. This programmatic statement restores confidence in the Jew and is then systematically implemented in the Dialogus. Throughout the text, the Christian often quotes the Old Testament and grounds his arguments on Scriptural exegesis. A remarkable feature of the Dialogus are the short reports, contained in the passages given to the Christian, of fictitious dialogues with characters from the Old Testament, whom the Christian questions about the meaning of specific Scriptural passages. The Christian imagines interrogating Abraham (2.191–​258), the seraphim (2.309–​22), Moses (5.51–​227), and Isaiah (11.42–​64) about the meaning of specific Scriptural passages and receives (equally fictitious) answers (e.g., 5.52–​42: “I prefer to interrogate Moses as though he were present at our 5 66. An instance of the rhetorical figure known as hypophora, on which see Papadogiannakis 2008. 567. 1.74–​82; trans. from Fields 2012. The Christian’s question whether the Jew fears being put into prison and scourged (1.55–​57) is taken by Declerck 1994:xxvin7 as a literary motif.

Guide to the Dialogues  211 discussion . . .”). This practice reveals some rhetorical and literary ambition, and reproduces, within the speech by the Christian speaker, the creative activity of the author of the Dialogus, who similarly devises a dialogue with a fictitious Jewish opponent. Discussion of Scholarship Scholars agree that this is a fictitious work and does not record an actual dialogue. While the Christian is given far longer passages, the Jew is mostly quiet, adopts a submissive attitude, and interprets the Hebrew Bible in a strictly literal sense, thus following a stereotype about Jews that was common among Christians. It also seemed that the Christian’s instructional remarks that, for instance, Habakkuk is one of the twelve minor prophets (6.114) and that Numbers is one of the books of Moses (10.29) would be unnecessary if a real Jew were the interlocutor and would appear unnatural in an actual dialogue. Similarly, the closing exhortation to Christians to persevere with the Christian faith appear out of place in a conversation with a Jew. The editor therefore argues that the Dialogus was intended for a Christian audience, and that the author’s primary aim was instructional and catechetic. In Declerck’s view, the organizational principle and the comprehensive arrangement of the contents are indicative of an instructional strategy, and the closing exhortation (13.85–​86: “nothing is more distressful than a reasonable soul condemned to ignorance”) ultimately makes clear the author’s didactic enterprise. Finally, the text contains no element that indicates that its composition was prompted by any particular external circumstance.568 Nevertheless, there has been some discussion on whether the dialogue reflects a background of actual Christian-​Jewish interaction. According to Lahey, the opening remarks about the Jew’s reluctance to engage in dialogue with Christians and the author’s use of Jewish-​Greek authorities that could be means of persuading the Jews reveal a basis in actual Christian-​Jewish dialogue. For instance, Josephus is quoted several times, and the speakers touch upon the textual variation between the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, and the translations of Aquila and Symmachus (5.228–​548). At the same time, however, the author makes large use of patristic literature, especially Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Alexandria, but also Origen and Eusebius, as Morlet shows; in Morlet’s view, the dialogue is best understood as a literary work that depends primarily on patristic literature rather than on Christian-​Jewish interaction. In Fields’ view, the Dialogus reveals a considerable level of independent effort to discover new Scriptural proofs in support of Christianity, with the aim of dissuading Christians from adopting Jewish practices.569 5 68. Declerck 1994:xxv–​xxx. Fields 2012:216a. 569. Declerck 1994:xxxi–​xxxvii; Lahey 2007:618–​19; Andrist 2009:247; Fields 2012:39–​49, esp.  46. Morlet 2013:34 and 42–​44.

212  Christians in Conversation Bibliography Andrist, P. 2009. “The Greek Bible used by the Jews in the Dialogues Contra Iudaeos (4th–​ 10th Centuries CE).” In De Lange et al. 2009:235–​62. Declerck, J.H. 1994. Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis saeculi ut videtur sexti. Turnhout. De Lange, N.R.M., Krivoruchko, J., and Boyd-​Taylor, C., eds. 2009. Jewish Reception of Greek Bible Versions:  Studies in Their Use in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Tübingen. Fields, L.M. 2012. An Anonymous Dialogue with a Jew:  Introduction, Translation and Notes. Turnhout. Lahey, L. 2007. “Evidence for Jewish Believers in Christian–​Jewish Dialogues through the Sixth Century (excluding Justin).” In Skarsaune and Hvalvik 2007:581–​639. Morlet, S. 2013. “Les dialogues adversus Iudaeos: Origine, caractéristiques, référentialité.” In Morlet et al. 2013:21–​45. Morlet, S., Munnich, O., and Pouderon, B., eds. 2013. Les dialogues adversus Iudaeos. Permanences et mutations d’une tradition polémique. Paris. Papadogiannakis, Y. 2018. “Christian Kalām before Muslim Kalām? The Ancient Rhetorical Figure of ‘Hypophora.’” In Papadogiannakis and Roggema 2018. Papadogiannakis, Y., and Roggema, B., eds. 2018. Patterns of Argumentation and Exchange of Ideas in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Abingdon. Skarsaune, O., and Hvalvik, R., eds. 2007. Jewish Believers in Jesus. Peabody, MA.

57. Anonymous, Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila Author

unknown570

Full title

Διάλογος Χριστιανοῦ καὶ Ἰουδαίου, ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα, τοῦ μὲν Χριστιανοῦ Τιμόθεος, τοῦ δὲ Ἰουδαίου Ἀκύλας, γενόμενος ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Κυρίλλου τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἀλεξανδρείας (CPG 7794)

Original language

Greek; Old Slavonic translation571

Date of composition

c. second half of the sixth cent., or late fifth cent.572

570. Robertson 1986:384–​85 (and so also Lahey 2000a:285n22) tentatively suggests Cosmas the Lawyer of Alexandria (for whom see Andrist 2009:240–​42 and Déroche 1991:285–​86) as the author of the dialogue, but this is not followed by later scholars (Varner 2004:137). 571. Taube 1991; Pereswetoff-​Morath 2002.1:153–​56; Andrist 2018:n16. 572. For the second half of the sixth century see Déroche 1991:276 and Robertson 1986:372–​83, who takes Justinian’s Novel 146 (553 AD) as an important element in the establishment of the chronology of the Dialogue. However, since Robertson’s edition there has been further discussion on the cultural-​historical scenario that can be safely inferred from Justinian’s Novella; see de Lange 2015:60–​67. Conybeare 1898:xxxiv argued for the fifth century, and Morlet 2018 asks whether the text could originate in the catechetical school of Alexandria in the decades following the death of Cyril of Alexandria (444 AD).

Guide to the Dialogues  213 Edition

Robertson 1986, reprint in Varner 2004 (“longer recension”); Lahey 2000 (“shorter recension”)573

Modern translation

“longer recension”: English (Varner 2004), French (Morlet 2017); “shorter recension”: English (Lahey 2000)

Summary The Dialogue features Timothy, a Christian layman, and Aquila, a Jew, as the main speakers, and deals with fundamental aspects of Christian religion, and Christology in particular. In the introduction, the voice of an external narrator introduces the Dialogue and describes its setting in Alexandria under Cyril’s episcopate (412–​44); in the epilogue, the narrative voice reports the intervention of Cyril as a speaker and the eventual conversion and baptism of Aquila (not to be confused with Aquila of Sinope, the second-​century Jewish translator of the Hebrew Bible into Greek). The reader is struck by the frequent digressions and the “extreme prolixity” of the Dialogue (Conybeare 1898:xii), but, despite these factors, the main arguments are clustered around a few major themes. The Dialogue argues that Christ is God (5–​29), that he is proclaimed in the Old Testament (30–​34), and that he is called “son of David” (35–​36). The Dialogue also deals with God’s covenant with Israel (37–​38 and 41–​46), contains a digression about the respective merits of the Septuagint and of Aquila’s translation (39–​ 40), and closes by treating the incarnation of Christ (47–​56). As the narrative prologue makes clear, the occasion of the Dialogue is provided by Aquila’s preaching against Christianity in the synagogues in Alexandria. One day, while Aquila is sitting in the Jewish quarter, Timothy approaches him and suggests that the two meet in order to carry out an inquiry on the basis of the Scriptures (2.2b:  ζήτησιν ποιούμεθα ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν; 21.1 and 21.5:  ζήτησις). The inquiry takes place the following day on an avenue of Alexandria, the dromos, in front of a large audience (3.1a), whose reactions during the dialogue are occasionally recorded (4.8; 23.16:  laughter; 57.7).574 The last scene in the Dialogue is Aquila’s hour-​long silence following Timothy’s quotation of excerpts from Daniel (57.1), a speech that causes his conversion (57.5: ἐπ’ἀληθείας ἔπεισάς με πάντοθεν) and his request to be made a Christian 573. As shown by Andrist 2018, the text has a remarkably complex tradition. Thanks to newly discovered evidence, it is now possible to reconstruct nine different recensions of the text that call for a reassessment of the traditional distinction between a “longer recension” (ed. Robertson 1986, repr. Varner 2004) and a “shorter recension” (ed. Lahey 2000). Given the lack of an updated edition at present (this project is currently under way at IRSB of Lausanne), the current analysis will use the “longer recension” published in Robinson 1986, which appears to be generally closer to the most ancient stages of the text (Andrist 2018 and 2017:48–​51). For the other recensions see Andrist 2018 and 2000:274–​79; Lahey 2007:603 and 2000a; Pastis 2002. For the transmission of the Dialogue together with other adversus Iudaeos literature, see Andrist 2005a, 2006, and 2009:245n26. 574. For this location, see John Malalas, Chron. 11.26.280 (PG 97.424B) with McKenzie 2007:190n112.

214  Christians in Conversation (57.10).575 The narrative epilogue reports that, upon hearing about Aquila’s conversion, Cyril makes Timothy deacon and then presbyter. Once ordained, Timothy is able to baptize Aquila, who is renamed Theognostus, and takes him into his house. The Dialogue closes with a doxology (57.19–​20). Although Timothy is clearly the leading speaker (4.1–​5; 21.1–​5) and his speeches are usually longer than those of Aquila, the changes of speaker in the Dialogue are remarkably frequent. A short distance into the dialogue, however, Timothy sets the didactic tone of the conversation by comparing Aquila to an elementary student who learns the alphabet first (5.1; 5.2: μάθε [. . .] καὶ τότε μαθήσῃ; 6.7), an image that is also found in the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (entry 29) (13). Aquila invariably asks Timothy to provide a “demonstration” (normally ἀποδείκνυμι: 7.2; 11.4; 12.1; 21.2; 46.1; 51.16; 55.1), by which he means in fact a “demonstration from Scripture” (56.1: ἀποδεῖξαι ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν). As a result, Timothy bases his argumentation on quotations and excerpts from the Old Testament (6.3: ἐγώ σοι ἀποδώσω ἀποδείξεις; 20.3), and his replies frequently take the form of collections of excerpts (e.g., 10, 29, 32, 37, 44, 53, 54). On one occasion, for the explanation of the virgin birth of Christ, Aquila is willing to accept a different type of demonstration, namely through an analogy (26.4:  ἐν ὑποδείγματί τινι) with the way in which pearls are generated. Aquila is usually satisfied with the explanation that he receives (29.1; 30.1: ἔπεισάς με; 55.13; 57.5), and his questions are mostly factual (e.g., 17.1; 18.1; 24.1; 31.3; 33.1; 35.1; 36.1; 38.1; 38.10; 40.1; 41.1; 47.1; 50.1; 52.1; 53.1; 34.1 demands clarification) and only rarely take the form of objections (e.g., 5.7–​18; 43.1; 51.1). Perhaps unexpectedly for a Jew, Aquila also asks questions about the New Testament (3.19–​23), is aware of passages from Luke and Matthew (5.13–​15), and quotes from Paul (e.g., 56.3). Other features of the Dialogue make the conversation more vivid for the reader, such as the apparently inconsistent arrangement of two passages (20; 23.7–​9) and the competitive undertone of the exchanges on two occasions (11.4; 14.2). Elsewhere, Aquila’s requests to present evidence from Scripture do not seem to be met by Timothy (7.2–​4; 12.1; 19.1; 30.5–​7; 21.5; 35.3; 56.1), and when Aquila complains that he has been insulted, Timothy says that this was unintentional (24.9; 54.15–​25). It is also remarkable that both speakers attempt to demonstrate their knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic (3.13; 8.6–​7; 20.14; 22.8; 23.4–​5; 32.1–​2576), and that digressions from the main themes provide the author with the chance to treat arguments of some importance: the preliminary discussion on the canon of the books of the Old Testament usefully provides a systematic overview of the structure of the Bible (3.1–​23, with Andrist 575. For the use of emotions as a persuasive tool in this dialogue and others like it, and, in particular, for the use of shame instantiated by silence in the defeated speaker, see Papadogiannakis 2018a. 576. Whether or not the text reveals authentic knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic is a debated issue: see Pastis 1994:136–​46 for a minimalist view arguing that the author relied on secondhand information, Lahey 2000 for a maximalist view, and Carleton Paget 2018:n39 and Aitken 2018 for overviews.

Guide to the Dialogues  215 2009:248–​51), and the attack against the translator Aquila, who allegedly distorted the passages of the Hebrew Bible that prefigure Christ, contains an excursus on the translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek possibly dependent on Josephus (39.1–​40.22). Discussion of Scholarship The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila has been the object of much scholarship, and recent work has greatly improved our understanding of this complex text.577 Recurring subjects of scholarly analysis have been the similarities of the Dialogue with other instances of adversus Iudaeos literature and, especially, the possible links with historical debates between Christians and Jews. As pointed out by Schreckenberg, Conybeare’s suggestion of a dependence of the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila on the Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (entry 1) is difficult to prove, given that the latter is lost, but there are nonetheless overlaps with the contents of Ps.-​Athanasius’ Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei, and these two dialogues also show affinities with earlier and later adversus Iudaeos texts. In addition, like Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho (entry 2), the argumentation of the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei and the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila is based on the selection and the exegesis of relevant excerpts from the Old Testament, while the companionable and irenic tone of the conversation is again a common feature with the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei. Schreckenberg identifies the influence of Platonic dialogues in the narrative introduction and epilogue, which are instead absent in the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei. In his view, the arguments by Aquila may contain genuine Jewish objections to Christianity, but these appear nonetheless closer to literary traditions than to actual debates between Christian and Jews in the late antique period. Other similarities in both content and structure have been pointed out between the Dialogue and Epiphanius of Salamis’ De mensuris et ponderibus and Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Homilies.578 Robertson, the editor of the “longer recension,” considers the Dialogue a literary fiction that may have nonetheless included elements deriving from genuine Christian-​Jewish interaction. In his view, the attack against Aquila’s translation of the Hebrew Bible in the Dialogue (39.1–​40.22) and the Jew’s ensuing admission of the superiority of the Septuagint must reflect genuine hostility against Aquila’s translation and cannot come from a Christian author. Robertson argues that the attack on Aquila’s translation must originate from the negative response by some Jews to Justinian’s Novel 146 (553 CE), which regulated the use of Greek

577. See the relevant essays in Morlet 2018, which provide both a critical assessment of inherited views on the Dialogue and new avenues of analysis. 578. Schreckenberg 391–​92; Andrist 2001:274–​79 for a full analysis of the overlaps with the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei; Lahey 2007:603–​4 with Morlet et al. 2013 for the links with other instances of adversus Iudaeos texts; Andrist 2013 for Cyril of Jerusalem.

216  Christians in Conversation translations of the Hebrew Bible within Jewish communities and allowed the use of Aquila’s translation.579 However, the religious and historical scenario that Novel 146 reflects has been subject of much discussion since Robertson’s publication, and, as Aitken argues, the apparent links with the attack in the Dialogue may not be as cogent as Robertson originally suggested. Also, as Carleton Paget points out, the polemic against Aquila’s translation appears some two thirds of the way through the dialogue and, accordingly, cannot account for the almost exclusive use of the Septuagint by both speakers from the very beginning of the conversation (the use of the Septuagint by a Jew in the sixth century would be unusual, and the version by Aquila would likely be preferred).580 Even if it did not spring from real debates between Christian and Jews, Déroche detects in the composition of the Dialogue the ultimate aim of engaging directly with Jewish communities, and maintains that the dialogue form was ideally suited to pursuing this aim. In his view, the author’s goal was to construct an effective weapon for debating with Jews and for encouraging conversion to Christianity. More recently, Lahey has made a new case for an actual debate under Cyril’s episcopate, a debate that could have been at the origin of the Dialogue, and has taken the text as a source for recovering arguments from genuine debates between Christians and Jews. Similarly, Varner concedes that the repetitions of passages and themes beyond the level that could be expected even for pedagogical purposes, and the difficulty of identifying a clear progression of themes because of the repetitions and digressions, may contain traces of the dialogue as it originally took place.581 Additional material to answer the question whether the Dialogue reflects historical conversations between Christians and Jews may come from the analysis of authentically Jewish elements in the text, such as awareness of Jewish religious practices or exegetical traditions, and the use of translations of the Bible that were employed by Jewish communities at the time. The Dialogue contains well over 300 quotations from the Old Testament and provides much scope for searching out of connections with historical Judaism, despite the difficulties that are posed by the transmission of the text and our patchy knowledge of the versions of the Bible that Jews favored during late antiquity. Newman thus searches for links between the Dialogue and historical Judaism but recognizes that the dialogue does not display firsthand knowledge of Jewish religious customs; yet he shows that a limited number of Biblical quotations that are found only in this text may be the result of conversation with authentic rabbinic sources. Aitken systematically analyses the quotations from the Pentateuch in the text, and shows that the great

579. Robertson 1986:372–​83. 580. Aitken 2018; Carleton Paget 2018; for the Novel see de Lange 2015:60–​67 and Andrist 2009:239–​40; see the following discussion on the use of the Septuagint by both speakers in the Dialogue. 581. Déroche 1991:285–​86; Lahey 2000a and 2007:603–​4; Varner 2004:136–​38.

Guide to the Dialogues  217 majority of them derive from the Septuagint, which seems problematic: if the text was based on a real dialogue with a Jew, one would expect a more conspicuous presence of readings from the version by Aquila, which was preferred by Jews at the time.582 Similarly, Andrist points out the very small evidence for the use of Jewish versions of the Biblical text in the Dialogue and is cautious about the historicity of the conversation. In particular, he emphasizes the overlaps in content with Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Homilies, and emphasizes the fact that Aquila is baptized only after receiving a satisfactory instruction in Christian religion. Aquila’s conversion causes Timothy’s immediate promotion to the diaconate and ordination to the priesthood by Cyril; accordingly, the author seems to be interested in Timothy’s role as a catechetical teacher.583 Most recently, Morlet follows Pastis in arguing that the Dialogue is a fictitious work that does not record a real debate, and makes a case that the text had a catechetical purpose. Morlet’s systematic analysis shows that the Dialogue is mostly dependent on earlier written sources, and that Aquila never reacts to the Biblical text quoted by the Christian—​he appears (implausibly for a real dialogue) to be quoting from the very same Biblical text as Timothy, and plays a role that is best identified as that of a pupil. In addition, the structure of the dialogue shows important similarities with Eusebius’ Demonstratio evangelica and Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Homilies as well as with other instances of Christian catechetical literature, and the text contains metadiscursive and methodological comments that are implausible in a real conversation but rather convey the didactic aims of its author. Without excluding the possibility that the Dialogue may contain echoes of real conversations, Morlet concludes that the “Jew” functions primarily as a heuristic device in a text that should be primarily understood as catechetic.584 Bibliography Aitken, J.K. 2018. “The Jewish Bible of Timothy and Aquila.” In Morlet 2018. Andrist, P. 2001. Le Dialogue d’Athanase et Zachée: Étude des sources et du contexte littéraire. 2 vols. PhD diss. University of Geneva. Andrist, P. 2005a. “Un témoin oublié du Dialogue de Timothée et Aquila et des Anastasiana Antiiudaica (Sinaiticus Gr. 399).” Byzantion 75:9–​24. Andrist, P. 2006. “Trois témoins athonites mal connus des Anastasiana Antiiudaica (et du Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae): Lavra K 113, Vatopedi 555, Karakallou 60: Essai sur la tradition des Anastasiana Antiiudaica, Notamment du Dialogus Papisci et Philonis cum monacho.” Byzantion 76:402–​22.

5 82. Newman 2018; Aitken 2018. 583. Andrist 2009 and 2013:220–​23. 584. Morlet 2018a; Pastis 1994.

218  Christians in Conversation Andrist, P. 2009. “The Greek Bible used by the Jews in the Dialogues contra Iudaeos (4th–​ 10th Centuries CE).” In de Lange et al. 2009:235–​62. Andrist, P. 2013. “Polémique religieuse et dialogue aduersus Iudaeos au service de la catéchèse, l’exemple de Cyrille de Jérusalem.” In Morlet et al. 2013:199–​223. Andrist, P. 2017. “Literary Distance and Complexity in Late Antique and Early Byzantine Dialogues adversus Iudaeos.” In Cameron and Gaul 2017:43–​64. Andrist, P. 2018. “The Probable Nine Textual Recensions of the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: A Reminder.” In Morlet 2018. Cameron, Av., and Gaul, N., eds. 2017. Dialogues and Debates from Late Antiquity to Late Byzantium. Abingdon. Carleton Paget, J.N. 2018. “Timothy and Aquila: Actual Encounter or Scheinpolemik?” In Morlet 2018. Conybeare, F.C., ed. 1898. The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus and of Timothy and Aquila. Oxford. de Lange, N.R.M. 2015. Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Greek Bible Translations in Byzantine Judaism. Tübingen. de Lange, N.R.M., Krivoruchko, J., and Boyd-​Taylor, C., eds. 2009. Jewish Reception of Greek Bible Versions:  Studies in Their Use in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Tübingen. Déroche, V. 1991. “La polémique anti-​judaïque au VIème et VIIème siècle:  Un mémento inédit; Les Képhalaia.” Travaux et mémoires 11:275–​311. Külzer, A. 1999. Disputationes Greacae contra Iudaeos: Untersuchungen zur byzantinischen antijüdischen Dialogliteratur und ihrem Judenbild. Stuttgart. Lahey, L. 2000. The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: Critical Text and English Translation of the Short Recension with an Introduction Including a Source-​Critical Study. Ph.D. diss. Cambridge. Lahey, L. 2000a. “Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Genuine Jewish–​Christian Debate in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila.” Journal of Jewish Studies 51.2:281–​96. Lahey, L. 2007. “Evidence for Jewish Believers in Christian–​Jewish Dialogues through the Sixth Century (excluding Justin).” In Skarsaune and Hvalvik 2007:581–​639. McKenzie, J. 2007. The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt, c. 300 BC to AD 700. New Haven, CT. Morlet, S. 2017. Dialogue de Timothée et Aquila: Dispute entre un Juif et un Chrétien. Paris. Morlet, S., ed. 2018. Forthcoming. Ancient and Medieval Disputations between Jews and Christians: Fiction and Reality. Leuven. Morlet, S. 2018a. “The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: A Catechetical Handbook?” In Morlet 2018. Morlet, S., Munnich, O., and Pouderon, B., eds. 2013. Les dialogues adversus Iudaeos: Permanences et mutations d’une tradition polémique. Paris. Newman, H.I. 2018. “The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila in Light of Contemporary Jewish Sources.” In Morlet 2018. Papadogiannakis, Y. 2018a. “Shaming an Opponent in Debate:  the Polemical Use of Emotions in Some Anti-​Jewish Dialogues.” In Morlet 2018. Pastis, J.Z. 1994. Representations of Jews and Judaism in The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: Construct or Social Reality? PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania.

Guide to the Dialogues  219 Pastis, J.Z. 2002. “Dating the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila:  Revisiting the Earlier ‘Vorlage’ Hypothesis.” Harvard Theological Review 95.2:169–​95. Pereswetoff-​Morath, A. 2002. A Grin without a Cat. 2 vols. Lund Slavonic Monographs 4–​5.  Lund. Robertson, R.G. 1986. The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: A Critical Text, Introduction to the Manuscript Evidence, and an Inquiry into the Sources and Literary Relationships. Th.D. diss. Harvard Divinity School. Skarsaune, O., and Hvalvik, R., eds. 2007. Jewish Believers in Jesus. Peabody, MA. Taube, M. 1991. “Une source inconnue de la cronographie russe: Le Dialogue de Timothée et Aquila.” Revue des études slaves 63.1:113–​22. Varner, W.C. 2004. Ancient Jewish-​Christian Dialogues:  Athanasius and Zacchaeus, Simon and Theophilus, Timothy and Aquila; Introductions, Texts, and Translations. Lewiston.

58. Paul of Nisibis, Conversation with Caesar Author

Paul from Bassora, metropolitan of Nisibis (d. 571)585

Full title

‫ ܕܪܫܐ ܕܠܩܒܠ ܩܐܣܪ‬Debate with Caesar (CPG 6897)586

Original language

Syriac (lost; an excerpt survives)

Date of composition

562–​71587

Edition

none588

Modern translation

French (Guillaumont 1970:62–​66)

Summary and Discussion of Scholarship Two East Syrian historiographical texts are the primary source for a dialogue on Christological matters held in Constantinople in 562, a dialogue that featured the emperor Justinian and high-​ranking representatives of the Church of the East. The Ecclesiastical History by Barḥadbšabbā ῾Arbāyā (c. late sixth century) reports an encounter between Justinian and Paul, bishop of Nisibis, who had been sent to Constantinople to defend East Syrian theology by Abraham of Bēth Rabban, teacher and director of the School of Nisibis. According to Barḥadbšabbā ῾Arbāyā, Paul of Nisibis was at the head of an East Syrian delegation and returned to Persia

585. Walker 2006:174n36. 586. The title is reported in ῾Abdīšō῾ Bar Brīkā of Nisibis, Catalogue 65 (ed. Assemani 1728:3.1:87–​88). 587. The dialogue took place in 562, and Paul died in 571 (Walker 2006:174n36). 588. A photographic reproduction of the manuscript containing what appears to be the only surviving excerpt of the dialogue can be found in Guillaumont 1970.

220  Christians in Conversation triumphant after having successfully debated with the emperor.589 Additional details are provided by the second historiographical source, the Chronicle of Seert (c. tenth century). This text lists the six members of the delegation led by Paul (including the future catholicos Īšō῾yahb I), and adds that the “debate” (‫ )مناظرة‬was recorded in writing and lasted for three days. It also narrates that, by reporting relevant excerpts from the Scriptures and from patristic authors, the East Syrians succeeded in convincing Justianian that, in Christ, either nature could not exist without the hypostasis, and thus the divine and the human natures could not coexist unless in two separate hypostases. According to the Chronicle of Seert, after the departure of the East Syrian delegation, the emperor changed his theological stance on the subject.590 In addition, according to a third source, the fourteenth-​century Coptic historian Abū l-​Barakāt, Paul of Nisibis composed an (otherwise unknown) account of the conversation that his delegation had with Justinian, and this account was reportedly addressed to Kashwai, one of Chosroes I’s physicians. Guillaumont argues that this account should be identified with a text entitled Conversation with Caesar that Paul of Nisibis had authored according to the Catalogue of Syriac writers compiled by ῾Abdīšō῾ Bar Brīkā of Nisibis (thirteenth century). Unfortunately, however, Paul of Nisibis’ Conversation of Caesar, which was in all likelihood composed in Syriac, has not survived.591 Conversely, there survives a Syriac excerpt from an account of the same conversation between Justinian and representatives of the Church of the East held in 562. This text, in dialogue form, is the subject of this entry; it remains unclear whether this excerpt derives from Paul’s own account (addressed to Kashwai) or from the official account of the dialogue mentioned in the Chronicle of Seert. This excerpt, in dialogue form, survives thanks to its later inclusion in a Syriac florilegium (contained in a ninth-​century Syriac manuscript from the British Library).592 According to the compiler of the Syriac florilegium, the excerpt was taken from “the debate (‫ )ܕܪܫܐ‬that the emperor Justinian made with Paul the bishop of Nisibis, who was a Nestorian.” The passage features three speakers who are identified as Justinian, a “Nestorian” (i.e., Paul), and an “Orthodox.” Given that Paul 589. Edition and French translation of Barḥadbšabbā ῾Arbāyā’s Ecclesiastical History are in Nau 1913 in PO 9:628–​30; Becker 2006:91–​92 for Paul of Nisibis and apologetic works authored by figures linked with the School of Nisibis. 590. Chronicle of Seert 2.32 (ed. and French trans. in Scher 1911 in PO 7:187–​88); according to this text, the delegation was sent by Chosroes I. Wood 2013:53; Cameron 2014:28–​29. 591. Abū l-​Barakāt, Book of the Lamp (ed. Riedel 1902:652 and German trans. 683); ῾Abdīšō῾ Bar Brīkā of Nisibis, Catalogue 65 (ed. Assemani 1728:3.1:87–​88); Ps.-​Zacharias Rhetor, Chronicle 12.7p for Kashwai (trans. Greatrex et al. 2011); Guillaumont 1970:51–​53; Walker 2006:174. 592. Fol. 16v–​20r in BL Add. 14535 (Wright 1870:2.796–​99 no. dccxcviii; Guillaumont 1970 reproduces the manuscript).

Guide to the Dialogues  221 is identified as “Nestorian,” this text cannot represent the view of a member of the Church of the East, since neither Paul nor his fellow members of the Church of the East would term themselves “Nestorians.” For this reason, according to Baumstark, the excerpt was indeed taken from Paul’s Conversation, but was later edited by a miaphysite scholar who dubbed Paul “Nestorian”; this same view that the excerpt originated from Paul’s Conversation has been recently taken up by Walker. According to Brock, however, there is also the possibility that the surviving excerpt is of Chalcedonian origin; similarly, Guillaumont, Vööbus, Uthemann, and Maas take the surviving excerpt as originating from a record, presumably the official account (and thus Chalcedonian), of the debate under Justinian.593 The surviving text is divided into two sections (perhaps originating from two different excerpts), and opens with the (only) intervention by Justinian, who asks whether the parties accept a shared definition of the Christian faith. The ensuing dialogue between the “Orthodox” and the “Nestorian” appears balanced in that both are speakers for both longer and shorter sections, and neither of them clearly stands out as leading the conversation. Both parts present their arguments in dialectical fashion, and there is only one Scriptural quotation (19v: Acts 1.11) and one illustrative example about Paul and the nature of the archangels (18r–​18v). There is no narrative voice besides the indication of the changes of speaker and the editorial remarks at the beginning and at the close of the two sections. The first section centers on the issue whether in Christ the human and divine natures corresponded to two different hypostases (16v–​18v): while the Nestorian argues for two different hypostases in Christ, the Orthodox is firm on the view the two natures of Christ do not imply two hypostases. According to the account of the dialogue with Justinian as is reported in the Chronicle of Seert, this was the central subject of discussion, and Bābai of Šinjar, one of the members of the East Syrian delegation, had also provided Justinian with relevant Scriptural and patristic excerpts. This first section of the surviving excerpt closes with the objection put forward by the Orthodox that introducing two hypostases in Christ implies an absurd transformation of the Trinity into a Quaternity (18v: ‫)ܪܒܝܥܝܘܬܐ‬. In the second section (18v–​20r), the Nestorian defends East Syrian theology from the accusations, made by the Orthodox, that it conforms to Quaternitarian doctrine. The Nestorian responds to some of the objections leveled by the Orthodox, but the excerpt ends abruptly before the Nestorian can answer further objections.

593. Baumstark 1922:121 and 121n8; Walker 2006:1974; Brock 1985:35; Guillaumont 1970:52–​53; Vööbus 1965:152; Uthemann 1999:77–​78; Maas 2003:18n41; Wood 2013:53.

222  Christians in Conversation Bibliography Assemani, J.S. 1728. Bibliotheca orientalis Clementino-​Vaticana. 3 vols. Rome. Baumstark, A. 1922. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur:  Mit ausschluß der christlich-​ palästinensischen Texte. Bonn. Becker, A.H. 2006. Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom: The School of Nisibis and Christian Scholastic Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia. Philadelphia. Brock, S.P. 1985. “A Monothelete Florilegium in Syriac.” In Laga et al. 1985:35–​45. Cameron, Av. 2014. Dialoguing in Late Antiquity. Washington, DC. Greatrex, G., Phenix, R.P., Horn, C.B., Brock, S.P., and Witakowski, W. 2011. The Chronicle of Pseudo-​Zachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity. Liverpool. Guillaumont, A. 1970. “Justinien et l’Église de Perse.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23/​ 24:39–​66. Laga, C., Munitiz, J.A., Van Roey, A., and Van Rompay, L., eds. 1985. After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History Offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for His Seventieth Birthday. Leuven. Maas, M. 2003. Exegesis and Empire in the Early Byzantine Mediterranean:  Junillus Africanus and the Instituta Regularia Divinae Legis. Tübingen. Riedel, W., ed. 1902. Der Katalog der christlichen Schriften in arabischer Sprache von Abū’lBarakāt. Göttingen. Uthemann, K.-​H. 1999. “Kaiser Justinian als Kirchenpolitiker und Theologe.” August­ inianum 39.1:5–​83. Vööbus, A. 1965. History of the School of Nisibis. Louvain. Walker, J.T. 2006. The Legend of Mar Qardagh: Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq. Berkeley. Wood, P. 2013. “The Chronicle of Seert and Roman Ecclesiastical History in the Sasanian World.” In Wood 2013a:43–​60. Wood, P., ed. 2013a. History and Identity in the Late Antique Near East. New York. Wright, W. 1870. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838. 3 vols. London.

59. Anonymous, Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court Author

unknown594

Full title

Διήγησις or Ἐξήγησις τῶν πραχθέντων ἐν Περσίδι (De gestis in Perside) (CPG 6968)

Original language

Greek

594. Heyden 2009b:158–​65, esp. 164–​65, argues for an unknown tolerant Christian author from Syria living under Justinian. Some manuscripts identify the author as Anastasius of Antioch (entry 60), while Honigmann 1953:85–​86 suggests seeing the name of a pagan author, who nonetheless would have supposedly written for a Christian audience, behind the name of the alleged reporter of the dialogue (1.5: διαλαλία Ἀβδοδεδώρου), but neither hypothesis is now followed: see Eastbourne 2010:1n7; Cancik 2008:21–​23; Bringel 2007:13–​19.

Guide to the Dialogues  223 Date of composition

c. sixth cent.595

Editions

Bringel 2007; Bratke 1899

Modern translation

English (Eastbourne 2010); French (Bringel 2007)

Summary The Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court is a fictional tale about four debates set at the Sasanian court between speakers representing Hellenic paganism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Judaism. The four debates take place under the patronage of the (fictional) Sasanian king Arrhinatus over four nonconsecutive days and are inserted into a complex narrative allegedly by the only participant in the debates who came from Roman territory (2.1–​2). The Conversation centers on the issue of what the true religion is and, in particular, “whether Christ has already been made manifest” (28.5–​6). Ultimately, the author (or authors) answers by arguing that the coming of Christ has fulfilled both “Hellenic” (dialogues 1 and 3) and Old Testament prophecies (dialogue 3), and that Christ’s historicity is corroborated by the New Testament and Josephus (dialogue 4). It should be noted that dialogue 2 is structured as a miracle contest (as the final dispute in the Actus Silvestri) between the (Zoroastrian?) head priest Horicatus and the Christians, headed by bishop Casteleus: not unlike the rest of the Conversation, this contest is meant to show that Christianity is the true religion. Despite the Christians’ victory, however, only some among the Jews (and perhaps the pagans, too) convert and are baptized at the end of the Conversation (§82). The closing speech by Aphroditianus, a high-​ ranking official of the Sasanian court who acts both as representative of Hellenic paganism (dialogues 1, and 3) and as the overseeing judge (dialogues 1, 3, and 4), is especially remarkable, and it advocates an unusually peaceful and tolerant attitude; it argues that “worship (of God should proceed) as an individual wishes, with sincere love remaining (between all)” (§81–​82; 43.16–​17: ἀλλ’ἡ μὲν θρησκεία, ὡς ἄν τις θέλῃ, τῆς ἀγάπης ἀνυποκρίτου μενούσης).596 By setting the scene at the Sasanian court, whose king and officers are given fictional names, and by including curious passages in pseudo-​Persian that point at the language in which the dialogues are reported to have taken place, the narrative voice creates a distance between the reader and the setting of the dialogue. The scene opens with the report of a strife (1.6: φιλονεικία) between Christian and pagan communities under Sasanian rule in regard to the works of two 595. Second half of the sixth century for Andrist 2017; under Justinian for Külzer 1999:116–​17 and Heyden 2009b:144–​55; mid​to late sixth century for Lane Fox 2005:39–​41; late sixth century for Louth 1998:252. Bringel 2007:39–​41 argues that the shorter version is earlier (early sixth century) and of an anti-​pagan character, while the longer version is later (late sixth to early seventh century) and includes anti-​Judaic elements. Yet, fifth century for Lahey 2007:606–​7 and Schilling 2008:47. 596. Cameron 2015:391–​94; Andrist 2017.

224  Christians in Conversation historiographoi, the pagan “Dionysarus” and the ecclesiastical historian Philip of Side, who was championed by the Christians. Excerpts from the work of the latter are allegedly read aloud in the Disputatio and at least some may actually derive from the (mostly lost) work by Philip. In response to the ongoing strife on the matter, the Sasanian king summons more than a hundred Christian bishops and archimandrites from the territory under his control and appoints a third party, the rabbis of the Jews, as judges in the dispute (3.10: ἀμφισβήτησις). In the hope of thwarting the Christians, however, the rabbis persuade the king to appoint the pagan Aphroditianus as the judge. Aphroditianus, a high-​ranking official but also court philosopher, is the most well-​rounded and prominent character in the Conversation and, contrary to the rabbis’ expectation, turns out to be sympathetic to the Christians. In the first debate, which takes place between Aphroditianus and the Christians, the author puts in Aphroditianus’ mouth the recognition that several pagan prophecies about Christ have been fulfilled. Aphroditianus himself adds further oracles and texts that corroborate the historicity of Christ, among which the most remarkable is perhaps the so-​called Legend of Aphroditianus, a New Testament apocryphal text on the Magi that is also known from an autonomous and complex textual tradition (§19–​30).597 The first debate (§5–​32) is irenic and balanced. However, although sympathetic to Christianity, Aphroditianus shows his disapproval of the Christians’ quarrels (10.2: ἀμφιβολίαι); to this remark the Christians answer that quarrels are a characteristic of every religion (§17, i.e., Judaism, Samaritanism, paganism, and Buddhism); this first debate closes with Aphroditianus’ profession of his pagan faith (§31) and a lukewarm defense of paganism (§32). There follows the second debate (§34–​40), which is remarkably different in that it soon turns into a miracle contest. The chief magician Horicatus makes an attempt to persuade the Christians through five ingenious miracles (22.9: σημείοις μεγάλοις), which include an attempt to resurrect Philip of Side himself. Horicatus’ miracles, however, invariably and spectacularly fail, while the Christians do succeed in resuscitating a dead woman and thus win the confrontation (§38). The victory of the Christians sparks the jealousy of the Jewish community, whose foremost members, Jacob and Pharas, among others, stand up to challenge the Christians in a debate (28.25–​26: ὑμᾶς διαλεχθῆναι αὐτοῖς). This is the third debate in the Conversation that takes place under Aphroditianus, appointed as the judge by the king (§41–​65). The central issue raised by the Jews is “whether Christ has already been made manifest” (28.5–​6), and both Aphroditianus and the Christians argue that Christ has fulfilled the prophecies of pagan oracles as well as of the Old Testament, and that His historicity is corroborated by the New Testament and Josephus (Ant. 18.63–​64). Jacob and Pharas are speakers

597. Lane Fox 2015:39–​41; Heyden 2009a and 2009b; Louth 1998:252.

Guide to the Dialogues  225 for shorter passages of text, are depicted as stubbornly clinging to religious traditions, and are related to the heretics by Aphroditianus (33.17–​18:  ὥστε οὐχ αἱρεσιαρχεῖτε ἔθεσιν ἰδίοις ζῶντες;). In the conclusion, however, Jacob and Pharas declare that they recognize their error, and a report on the outcome of the debate is sent to the king (§61–​65). The narrative voice moves on to report that Jacob and Pharas’ withdrawal from the contest sparked anger within the Jewish community, and the matter is eventually addressed with another debate (39.7:  ἀμφιβολία). This fourth and last debate, which takes place in the audience chamber of the king (39.9: ἀκροατήριον) and under Aphroditianus as the judge (§66–​83), features several Jews, headed by Simon, Barnaes, and Scillas, opposing Jacob and Pharas, but Aphroditianus intervenes, too. New Scriptural prophecies in support of the historicity of Christ are reported, and, eventually, Jacob and Pharas declare themselves Christian (§77) and are baptized together with sixty others (§82). Many Jews, however, do not convert, such as the followers of Simon, Barnaes, and Scillas; and Aphroditianus closes the Conversation with a curious exhortation to religious tolerance (§81–​82). There follows a paragraph possibly intended as the official decree concluding the dispute (§83), and two excerpts about the life of Philip of Side and about a pagan prophecy that are not immediately related to the plot, but stand as indicators of the complex and composite redactional nature of the text (§84–​85). Discussion of Scholarship Past attempts to identify historical figures and known toponyms behind the proper names of the speakers and of places have yielded limited results, and there is now a consensus that the Conversation is an entirely fictional and even fanciful text. Bratke’s suggestion that the author was a pagan is no longer followed, and it has been recognized that the text was composed by a Christian author (or, better, authors, given the survival of different redactions) who is likely to have used the work by Philip of Side as one of several sources.598 Some of the matters that have figured most prominently in modern scholarship are the complexity and richness of the plot; the anti-​Jewish component of the text, which becomes more prominent in the latter half; and the message of religious tolerance pronounced by Aphroditianus at the close of the Conversation.599 The complex structure of the plot and the author’s interest in the narrative sections, which include details that are not immediately functional to the conversation itself, such as the description of the throne on which Aphroditianus sits (§6) and the inclusion of sentences in pseudo-​Persian and letters (§44 and

5 98. Honigmann 1953:85–​91; Bringel 2007; Heyden 2009b:126; Cameron 2015:391–​94. 599. Cancik 2008:21–​25; Lane Fox 2005:39–​41; Heyden 2009b:117.

226  Christians in Conversation 65), have been put in relation to fictional literature and to the ancient novel in particular. According to Heyden, the Conversation is best described as a “Disputationsroman,” in which the Sasanian court is depicted as a stronghold of religious freedom and was built on the basis of a fanciful longing for the East rather than on documented material. The same scholar goes further and argues that the choice of the Sasanian court as the setting of the Conversation may have been derived from the already circulating Legend of Aphroditianus, which is included in the text, and that much of the narrative may have been inspired by the Book of Daniel. In particular, she likens the Christians at the Sasanian court to the Jews in exile in Babylon, as narrated in Daniel, and argues that the figure of king Arrhinatus and the inclusion of his letters have close counterparts in the narrative of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius in Daniel, which was clearly well known to the author because it is frequently cited in the Conversation. As for the figure of Aphroditianus, Heyden develops the comparison with the Old Testament court prophet Nathan, as was originally suggested by Bratke. However, she identifies a fundamental difference in the method of establishing the religious truth in the two works: this is by dream interpretation and prophecy in Daniel and by debate in the Conversation—​this change is the crucial aspect of what she describes as a “christlische Aktualisierung der Daniellegende.”600 The role and the deportment of Aphroditianus in the dialogue have also been a subject of analysis. In addition to acting as the judge, a speaker, and a high-​ ranking official at court, the text reports that Aphroditianus “neither takes delight in feasting nor takes pleasure in wine, but instead [he] spurns gatherings of people and despises reputation and casts aside money, devoting [himself] solely to philosophy” (3.10–​12). On these grounds, Lane Fox understand the characterization of Aphroditianus as that of a court philosopher who is shown to work hard for peace between warring religious factions, and who does not refrain from rebuking overzealous and intolerant members of both the Jewish and Christian parties. According to this view, Aphroditianus represents an instance of a “philosopher in society” and should be understood in relation to late antique models.601 The textual tradition of the Conversation is composite, and there survive two main different redactions. According to Bringel’s reconstruction, the shorter redaction is mainly anti-​pagan and should be dated earlier (early sixth century), while the longer redaction is later (late sixth or early seventh century) and contains anti-​Jewish material. The Conversation has been linked with adversus Iudaeos literature, given its hostility toward Jews, who are central to the latter half of the text (and some of them convert). As has been recently recognized, however, the Conversation is not exclusively anti-​Jewish, but is rather broad in 6 00. Andrist 2017; Heyden 2009b:133–​42; Bratke 1899:259 for Nathan. 601. Lane Fox 2005:39–​41.

Guide to the Dialogues  227 scope and shows an awareness of all the main religions, except for Manichaeism. Heyden emphasizes the author’s universalist perspective on religious diversity, and reads the end of the dialogue as the acceptance not only of a degree of religious syncretism but also of the possibility of a peaceful agreement among the main religions based on the priority of ethics over theology. The anti-​Jewish component of the text and the tolerant perspective on religious diversity may well result from different stages of redaction.602 Payne has taken the tolerant undertones of the Conversation as an indication that its Greco-​Roman author recognized the actual openness of the religious and intellectual culture in sixth-​century Iran.603 The Conversation should therefore be related to the practice of debate in religious matters in the Sasanian world, as is well attested from at least the sixth century onward. Historiographical (as well as hagiographical) sources report debates held at the Persian court during this period, but unfortunately no transcript has survived in full of these events. In his autobiographical work Širāt Anuširwān, Chosroes I (r. 531–​79) mentioned that a debate was arranged at court with some nobles of differing opinion in matters of religion; and in the late 580s John of Ephesus wrote of a religious debate organized by Chosroes I between representatives of the Church of the East and Syrian Orthodox bishops, including Aḥūdemmeh (d. 575). Chosroes I’s policy of inviting competing Christian parties for open discussion at court was an important precedent for Chosroes II (r. 590–​628), whose interest in religious dialogue is perhaps best indicated by another religious convention held in 612, when several representatives of the Church of the East and of the Syrian Orthodox Church were summoned to court for a series of debates.604 The account of a debate between a Christian and a Zoroastrian that is embedded in the History of Mar Qardagh, a Syriac hagiographical narrative composed in northern Mesopotamia during the early seventh century, raises additional questions about the influence of Aristotelianism, and of John Philoponus in particular, on religious dialogues in sixth-​and seventh-​century Iran, and in Iranian intellectual circles more broadly. The dialogue scene occupies several chapters within the hagiographical narrative (14–​22) and reveals an awareness of Greek philosophical concepts, such as “elements” (στοιχεῖα; Syr. ’estūksē), as well as Philoponus’ theory on projectile motion; and it features ῾Abdīšō῾ of Hazza, a monk representing Christianity, in conversation with the aristocrat Qardagh,

602. Andrist 2017; Cameron 2015:391–​94; Bringel 2007; Heyden 2009a:117 and 141–​43; Schreckenberg 390; Déroche 1991:277–​78 with Déroche 2012. 603. Payne 2016:222–​23. 604. Payne 2016, esp. 219–​23; Schilling 2008:47–​48; Walker 2006:178–​80 and 180n56 for the sources for the debate held in 612; John of Ephesus, HE 3.6.20, as a Syrian Orthodox, also claimed that Chosroes was persuaded by the arguments brought forward by the Syrian Orthodox party and granted protection to their religious community within the Sasanian empire, but this point is questioned.

228  Christians in Conversation who was raised as a Zoroastrian but then converted to Christianity and joined Christian monks in the mountains.605 Bibliography Andrist, P. 2017. “Literary Distance and Complexity in Late Antique and Early Byzantine Dialogues adversus Iudaeos.” In Cameron and Gaul 2017:43–​64. Bonfil, R., Irshai, O., Stroumsa, G.G., and Talgam, R., eds. 2012. Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures. Leiden. Bratke, E., ed. 1899. Das sogenannte Religionsgespräch am Hof der Sassaniden. Leipzig. Bringel, P. 2007. Une polémique religieuse à la cour perse: Le De gestis in Perside; Histoire du texte, édition critique et traduction. PhD diss. Université Paris IV–​Sorbonne. Brown, O., and Smith, A., eds. 2005. The Philosopher and Society in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Brown. Swansea. Cameron, Av. 2015. “Flights of Fancy:  Some Imaginary Debates in Late Antiquity.” In Dunn and Mayer 2015:385–​406. Cameron, Av., and Gaul, N., eds. 2017. Dialogues and Debates from Late Antiquity to Late Byzantium. Abingdon. Cancik, H. 2008. “Antike Religionsgespräche.” In Schörner and Šterbenc Erker 2008:15–​25. Cunningham, M.B., and Allen, P., eds. 1998. Preacher and Audience:  Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics. Leiden. Déroche, V. 1991. “La polémique anti-​judaïque au VIème et VIIème siècle:  In mémento inédit; Les Képhalaia.” Travaux et mémoires 11:275–​311. Déroche, V. 2012. “Forms and Functions of Anti-​Jewish Polemics: Polymorphy, Polysemy.” In Bonfil et al. 2012:535–​48. Dunn, G., and Mayer, W., eds. 2015. Christians Shaping Identity from the Roman Empire to Byzantium: Studies Inspired by Pauline Allen. Leiden. Eastbourne, A. 2010. Religious Discussion at the Court of the Sassanids. Published online at http://​www.roger-​pearse.com/​weblog/​2011/​03/​19/​religionsgesprach-​am-​hof-​der-​ sasaniden-​the-​legend-​of-​aphroditian-​online-​in-​english. Heyden, K. 2009a. “Die Erzählung des Aphroditian: Thema und Variationen.” Ostkirchliche Studien 58.2:348–​56. Heyden, K. 2009b. Die Erzählung des Aphroditian: Thema und Variationen einer Legende im Spannungsfeld von Christentum und Heidentum. Tübingen. Honigmann, E. 1953. Patristic Studies. Vatican City. Külzer, A. 1999. Disputationes Greacae contra Iudaeos: Untersuchungen zur byzantinischen antijüdischen Dialogliteratur und ihrem Judenbild. Stuttgart. Lahey, L. 2007. “Evidence for Jewish Believers in Christian-​Jewish Dialogues through the Sixth Century (excluding Justin).” In Skarsaune and Hvalvik 2007:581–​639. Lane Fox, R. 2005. “Movers and Shakers.” In Brown and Smith 2005:19–​50.

605. Walker 2006, esp. 164–​72; Payne 2016:221–​22.

Guide to the Dialogues  229 Lavan, M., Payne, R.E., and Weisweiler, J., eds. 2016. Cosmopolitanism and Empire. Universal Rulers, Local Elites, and Cultural Integration in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean. Oxford. Louth, A. 1998. “St. John Damascene:  Preacher and Poet.” In Cunningham and Allen 1998:247–​66. Payne, R.E. 2016. “Iranian Cosmopolitanism: World Religions at the Sasanian Court.” In Lavan et al. 2016:209–​30. Skarsaune, O., and Hvalvik, R., eds. 2007. Jewish Believers in Jesus. Peabody, MA. Schilling, A.M. 2008. Die Anbetung der Magier und die Taufe der Sāsāniden. Zur Geistesgeschichte des iranischen Christentums in der Spätantike. Leuven. Schörner G., and Šterbenc Erker, D., eds. 2008. Medien religiöser Kommunikation im Imperium Romanum. Stuttgart. Walker, J.T. 2006. The Legend of Mar Qardagh: Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq. Berkeley.

60. Anastasius of Antioch, Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite Author

Anastasius of Antioch (c. 520–​598)606

Full title

Ἀναστασίου τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου ἐπισκόπου Θεουπόλεως τοῦ μεγάλου διάλεκτος γενομένη ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις πρὸς τινα τῶν ἀποσχιζόντων ἀπὸ τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας λεγόντων τε τὴν τρισυπόστατον ἁγίαν τριάδα τρεῖς μερικὰς οὐσίας εἶναι (CPG 6958)

Original language

Greek

Date of composition

probably 558–​70607

Editions

Uthemann 1981;608 Sakkos 1976

Modern translation

none

Summary The Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite (ἀκοινώνητος) argues against miaphysite theology, and, in particular, against a strand within miaphysitism identified as Tritheism. According to Tritheite doctrine, the three Persons of the Trinity are three particular divine substances (721–​22:  ἰδικαὶ οὐσίαι) that are consubstantial (855:  ὁμοούσιοι) but have distinct properties (856:  ἰδιότητες). The originator of this doctrine is usually identified as the Syrian miaphysite John Askotzanges, who from c. 557 taught that in God there are three consubstantial

606. Di Berardino 209–​17. 607. Di Berardino 212. 608. Uthemann 1981:73n2 reviews the edition by Sakkos 1976:80–​119.

230  Christians in Conversation substances; in the eyes of his opponents, a consequence of this view was the introduction of a multiplicity of gods.609 By the 560s a wider movement of theologians entertained the doctrine by Askotzanges, and, in 567, in his treatise On the Trinity (CPG 7268), John Philoponus developed Tritheist theology by arguing that divine unity is an intellectual abstraction, and that the Trinity consists of three substances considered in an individual rather than generic sense.610 The Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite takes a stance against Tritheism from a Chalcedonian perspective, and opens with a short narrative passage indicating that the dialogue (5: διάλεξις) took place in Jerusalem and was recorded by some pious brothers for the exercise (6:  πρὸς γυμνασίαν) of anyone who may encounter it. Not unlike Theodoret’s Eranistes, the author adds that, in order to provide clarity to the readers, he inserted the designations “Orthodox” and “Tritheite” in the text (7–​8). The rest of the dialogue consists entirely in the exchanges between the two only speakers, most of which are no longer than one or two lines, with the exception of the final longer speech by the Orthodox. The dialogue is balanced in that both speakers put forward questions and pronounce passages of similar length. There is no epilogue or conversion of the Tritheite, and the dialogue closes with a longer refutation of Tritheism by the Orthodox (907–​35).611 The opening two thirds of the dialogue center on Christology. Here, by rejecting any argument by the Orthodox that would imply two natures in Christ, the Tritheite remains firm on the miaphysite position (e.g., 94, 119, 164, 251–​52, 264, 319, 355, 497, 669). It is only in the last third of the dialogue (from 721), however, that the doctrinal position of the Tritheite emerges in full. A  distinction is drawn between “particular substance” (ἰδικὴ οὐσία) and “general substance” (γενικὴ οὐσία): while three “particular substances” with distinct properties make up the Son, the Father, and Holy Spirit respectively, their “general substance” (i.e., θεότης, “divinity”) is one and the same (746–​50), according to the Tritheite. The Orthodox responds that this distinction is misleading and that the concept of “particular substance” results from a misunderstanding of the concepts of hypostasis and consubstantiality (766–​67 and 894–​95).612 While the Tritheite believes that through the concept of “particular substance” he can better account for the incarnation of the Son (825–​26), the Orthodox uses the concept of hypostasis in order to reject any division of substances among the three Persons (894–​95). Overall, the arguments are dialectical, and only occasionally do the speakers

609. Van Roey and Allen 1994:122–​26 with Chadwick 2010:95; a helpful account of the early stages of the controversy can be found in Ebied et al. 1981:20–​33. 610. Chadwick 2010:94–​95; Martin 1962. 611. Cameron 2014:50. 612. For a fuller treatment of the tenets of Tritheism, see Ebied et al. 1981:25–​33.

Guide to the Dialogues  231 make use of an example (899–​903), patristic authors (331–​32, 387–​88, 451–​57, 697–​702), or the Scriptures (106, 167). Discussion of Scholarship Both Weiss and Uthemann take the dialogue as fictional and notice that about two thirds of it deals with miaphysite doctrine, while only the last third centers on Tritheism. According to Weiss, the author understood Tritheism as a consequence of miaphysitism, while, according to Uthemann, the author wanted to emphasize the miaphysite premisses of Tritheite doctrine. In addition, Weiss argues for a link between the doctrine expressed by the Tritheite speaker and the Trinitarian doctrine expressed by John Philoponus in the treatise On the Trinity. It may be possible to detect an attempt (underlying the distinction between “particular substance” and “general substance” made by the Tritheite speaker) to apply philosophical language, and Aristotelian terminology in particular, to the doctrine of the Trinity—​in this respect, the doctrine expressed by the Tritheite speaker might derive from the Tritheite theology developed by John Philophonus. The Dialogue may therefore reveal Anastasius of Antioch’s opposition to the use of Aristotelian logic in the understanding of the Trinity, but it remains to be established whether works by John Philoponus were used in the composition of this particular text. In the opening of the Dialogue, the Tritheite declares that he has just arrived from Alexandria (14), where he might have encountered the non-​Chalcedonian “righteous thinkers” whom he considers holy (28–​31), and this might be an implicit reference to John Philoponus. Anastasius had already attacked John Philoponus’ Diaitetes (CPG 7260), written before 553, in his Contra Iohanni Philoponi “Diaitetem” (CPG 6956, now fragmentary).613 Photius could also read the account of a dispute about Tritheitism held before John Scholasticus, bishop of Constantinople between 565 and 577. The text, known in English as Acts of a Disputation between Tritheites and Hesitators, is now lost, and little can be made of Photius’ account, which provides a short summary of Tritheite doctrine and reports that the Tritheist speakers, Paul and Stephen, were unwilling to anathematize John Philoponus. It seems that the text recorded the exchanges of the speakers, but little information about the dispute itself is provided and there is no mention of an epilogue.614

6 13. Rashed 2016a; Chadwick 2010; Weiss 1965:108; Uthemann 1981:75; Di Berardino 212. 614. Photius, Bibl. cod. 24 (ed. Henry 1959).

232  Christians in Conversation Bibliography Cameron, Av. 2014. Dialoguing in Late Antiquity. Washington, DC. Chadwick, H. 2010. “Philoponus the Christian Theologian.” In Sorabji 2010:83–​96. Ebied, R.Y., Van Roey, A., and Wickham, L.R., eds. 1981. Peter of Callinicum. Anti-​Tritheist Dossier. Leuven. Henry, R., ed. 1959. Photius. Bibliothèque. 9 vols. Paris. Martin, H. 1962. “Jean Philopon et la controverse trithéite du VIe siècle.” Studia Patristica 5:519–​25. Rashed, M., ed. 2016. L’héritage aristotélicien: Texts inédits de l’antiquité; Nouvelle édition revue et augmentée. Paris. Rashed, M. 2016a. “Un texte proto-​byzantin inédit sur les universaux et la trinité.” In Rashed 2016:841–​77. Sakkos, S.N., ed. 1976. Ἀναστασίου Α’ Ἀντιοχείας ἅπαντα τὰ σῳζόμενα γνήσια ἔργα. Thessaloniki. Sorabji, R., ed. 2010. Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. 2nd ed. London. Uthemann, K.-​ H. 1981. “Des Patriarchen Anastasius I  von Antiochen Jerusalemer Streitgespräch mit einer Tritheiten (CPG 6958).” Traditio 37:73–​108. Van Roey, A., and Allen, P. 1994. Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century. Leuven. Weiss, G., 1965. Studia Anastasiana I:  Studien zum Leben, zu den Schriften und zur Theologie des Patriarchen Anastasius I von Antiochien (559–​598). Munich.

General Bibliography

Compound surnames are alphabetized by their first part, regardless of traditional practice. Hence “des Places” is under D, “van de Sande Bakhuyzen” under V, and so forth. Abramowski, L. 1963. Untersuchungen zum Liber Heraclidis des Nestorius. Louvain. Abramowski, L. 1978. “Die Schrift Gregors des Lehrers Ad Theopompum und Philoxenus von Mabbug.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 89:273–​90. Adamson, P. Forthcoming. “Macrina’s Method: Reason and Reasoning in Gregory of Nyssa’s On Soul and Resurrection.” Adele, F. 2012. “Le clausole metriche nel terzo libro dell’Apocritico di Macario di Magnesia.” In Capone 2012:271–​330. Aiello, V. 1990. “Costantino, la lebbra e il battesimo di Silvestro.” In Bonamente and Fusco 1990:1.17–​58. Aitken, J.K. 2018. “The Jewish Bible of Timothy and Aquila.” In Morlet 2018. Aland, K., and Rosenbaum, H.-​U., eds. 1995. Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri. Vol. 2. Berlin. Alexakis, A. 1998. “The Dialogue of the Monk and Recluse Moschos Concerning the Holy Icons, an Early Iconophile Text.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 52:187–​224. Allamandy, M.-​É., and Congourdeau, M.-​H. 2003. Les pères de l’église et l’astrologie. Paris. Allen, P., Canning, R., and Cross, L., eds. 1998. Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church. Brisbane. Allen, P. 2009. Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-​Century Heresy: The Synodical Letter and Other Documents; Introduction, Texts, Translations, and Commentary. Oxford. Allert, C.D. 2002. Revelation, Truth, Canon and Interpretation: Studies in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. Leiden. Amato, E., and Schamp, J. eds. 2006. Approches de la troisième sophistique: Hommages à Jacques Schamp. Brussels. Amato, E., Bost-​Pouderon, C., Grandjean, T., Thévenet, L., and Ventrella, G., eds. 2016. Dion de Pruse: L’homme, son oeuvre et sa postérité. Spudasmata 169. Hildesheim. Ambjörn, L. 2008. The Life of Severus by Zacharias of Mytilene. Piscataway, NJ. Anastasi, R., Carile, A., Garzya, A., and Giarrizzo, G., eds. 1991. Σύνδεσμος: Studi in onore di Rosario Anastasi. Catania. Andrieu, J. 1954. Le dialogue antique: Structure et présentation. Paris.

233

234  General Bibliography Andrist, P. 1999. “Les Objections des hébreux:  Un document du premier iconoclasme?” Revue des études byzantines 57:99–​140. Andrist, P. 2001. Le Dialogue d’Athanase et Zachée: Étude des sources et du contexte littéraire. 2 vols. PhD diss., University of Geneva. Andrist, P. 2005. “Les protagonistes égyptiens du débat apollinariste.” Recherches augustiniennes 34:63–​141. Andrist, P. 2005a. “Un témoin oublié du Dialogue de Timothée et Aquila et des Anastasiana Antiiudaica (Sinaiticus Gr. 399).” Byzantion 75:9–​24. Andrist, P. 2006. “Trois témoins athonites mal connus des Anastasiana Antiiudaica (et du Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae): Lavra K 113, Vatopedi 555, Karakallou 60: Essai sur la tradition des Anastasiana Antiiudaica, Notamment du Dialogus Papisci et Philonis cum monacho.” Byzantion 76:402–​22. Andrist, P. 2009. “The Greek Bible used by the Jews in the Dialogues contra Iudaeos (4th–​10th Centuries CE).” In de Lange et al. 2009:235–​62. Andrist, P. 2011. “Pseudathanasianische Dialoge.” In Gemeinhardt 2011:355–​62. Andrist, P. 2013. “Polémique religieuse et dialogue aduersus Iudaeos au service de la catéchèse, l’exemple de Cyrille de Jérusalem.” In Morlet et al. 2013:199–​223. Andrist, P. 2017. “Literary Distance and Complexity in Late Antique and Early Byzantine Dialogues adversus Iudaeos.” In Cameron and Gaul 2017:43–​64. Andrist, P. 2018. “The Probable Nine Textual Recensions of the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: A Reminder.” In Morlet 2018. Andrist, P., Afinogenov, D., Déroche, V., and Schiano, C. 2013. “Dialogica Polymorpha Antiiudaica (CPG 7796, olim Dialogus Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum Monacho).” Travaux et mémoires 17:5–​170. Antoniono, N. 2000. La verginità. Metodio d’Olimpo. Roma. Apostolopoulos, C. 1986. Phaedo Christianus: Studien zur Verbindung und Abwägung des Verhältnisses zwischen dem platonischen Phaidon und dem Dialog Gregors von Nyssa Über die Seele und die Auferstehung. Frankfurt. Arabatzis, G. 2011. “Power, Motion, and Time in Gregory of Nyssa’s Contra fatum.” In Drecoll and Berghaus 2011:399–​409. Archi, G.G., ed. 1985. Il mondo del diritto nell’epoca giustinianea: Caratteri e problematiche. Ravenna. Arjava, A., Buchholz, M., Gagos, T., and Kaimio, M., eds. 2011. The Petra Papyri IV. Amman. Arrighetti, G. 1964. Satiro. Vita di Euripide. Studi classici e orientali 12. Pisa. Assemani, J.S. 1728. Bibliotheca orientalis Clementino-​Vaticana. 3 vols. Rome. Aubineau, M., ed. 1977. “Disputatio cum Manichaeo.” In Richard 1977:107–​28. Aulisa, I. 2009. Giudei e cristiani nell’agiografia dell’alto medioevo. Bari. Aulisa, I, and Schiano, C. 2005. Dialogo di Papisco e Filone giudei con un monaco. Bari. Ayres, L., and Jones, G., eds. 1998. Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric, and Community. London. Baffioni, C., Passoni dell’Acqua, A., Finazzi, R.B., Nicelli, P., and Vergani, E., eds. 2015. Le sacre scritture e le loro interpretazioni. Milan. Bagnall, R.S., Brodersen, K., Champion, C.B., Erskine, A., and Huebner, S.R., eds. 2013. The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. 13 vols. Malden, MA.

General Bibliography  235 Bandini, M. 2003. Gregorio di Nissa. Contro il fato. Bologna. Bar-​Asher Siegal, M. 2018. “‘Fool, Look to the End of the Verse’ b.  Ḥ ullin 87a and its Christian Background.” In Herman and Rubenstein 2018:243–​70. Bardy, G. 1932. “La littérature patristique des Quaestiones et responsiones sur l’Écriture sainte.” Revue biblique 41.2:217–​24. Bardy, G. 1957. “Dialog.” In RAC s.v. Barnes, T. 1979. “Methodius, Maximus, and Valentinus.” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 30.1:47–​55. Barnes, T.D. 1981. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA. Baumstark, A. 1922. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur:  Mit Ausschluss der christlich-​ palästinensischen Texte. Bonn. Beard, M. 1986. “Cicero and Divination: The Formation of a Latin Discourse.” Journal of Roman Studies 76:33–​46. Beatrice, P.F. 1983. “Dialogo.” In di Berardino 1983:1.939–​42. Becker, A.H., and Yoshiko Reed, A., eds. 2003. The Ways That Never Parted:  Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Tübingen. Becker, A.H. 2006. Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom: The School of Nisibis and Christian Scholastic Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia. Philadelphia. Becker, A.H. 2016. “L’antijudaïsme syriaque: entre polémique et critique interne.” In Ruani 2016:181–​207. Bedjan, P., ed. 1910. Nestorius. Le livre d’Héraclide de Damas. Paris. BeDuhn, J. 2007. “Biblical Antitheses, Adda, and the Acts of Archelaus.” In BeDuhn and Mirecki 2007:131–​47. BeDuhn, J.D., ed. 2009. New Light on Manichaeism: Papers from the Sixth International Congress on Manichaeism. Leiden. BeDuhn, J.D. 2009a. “A Religion of Deeds:  Scepticism in the Doctrinally Liberal Manichaeism of Faustus and Augustine.” In BeDuhn 2009:1–​28. BeDuhn, J.D., and Mirecki, P. A., eds. 2007. Frontiers of Faith: The Christian Encounter with Manichaeism in the Acts of Archelaus. Leiden. BeDuhn, J., and Mirecki, P.A. 2007a. “Placing the Acts of Archelaus.” In BeDuhn and Mirecki 2007:1–​22. Beeson, C.H., ed. 1906. Acta Archelai. Leipzig. Bell, P.N. 2009. Three Political Voices from the Age of Justinian: Agapetus, Advice to the Emperor; Dialogue on Political Science; Paul the Silentiary, Description of Hagia Sophia. Liverpool. Bell, P.N. 2013. Social Conflict in the Age of Justinian. Oxford. Benjamins, H.S. 1999. “Methodius von Olympus, Über die Auferstehung: Gegen Origenes und gegen Porphyrius?” In Bienert and Kühneweg 1999:91–​98. Bennett, B. 2003. “Paul the Persian.” In Encyclopædia Iranica s.v. London. Bennett, B. 2009. “The Conversation of John the Orthodox with a Manichaean:  An Analysis of its Sources and Its Significance for Manichaean Studies.” In BeDuhn 2009:29–​44. Bennett, B. 2015. “The Physics of Light, Darkness and Matter in John the Grammarian’s First Homily against the Manichaeans: Early Byzantine Anti-​Manichaean Literature as a Window on Controversies in Later Neoplatonism.” In Richter et al. 2015:19–​33.

236  General Bibliography Bennett, B. 2018. “The Invention of the Greek Christian Anti-​Manichaean Dialogue.” In Papadogiannakis and Roggema 2018. Berger, A. 2006. Life and Works of Saint Gregentios, Archbishop of Taphar. Berlin. Berruto Martone, A.M. 1999. Dialogo di un Montanista e un Ortodosso. Bologna. Bertaina, D. 2011. Christian and Muslim Dialogues: The Religious Uses of a Literary Form in the Early Islamic Middle East. Piscataway, NJ. Bevan, G.A. 2013. “Interpolations in the Syriac Translation of Nestorius’ Liber Heraclidis.” Studia Patristica 68:31–​39. Bevan, G.A. 2016. The New Judas: The Case of Nestorius in Ecclesiastical Politics, 428–​41 CE. Leuven. Bienert, W.A., and Kühneweg, U., eds. 1999. Origeniana Septima:  Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts. Leuven. Bizer, C. 1969. “Die armenische Version und der griechischlateinischer Text des pseudo-​ athanasianischen Dialogus de s. Trinitate IV.” Oriens Christianus 53:201–​11. Bizer, C. 1970. Studien zu pseudathanasianischen Dialogen der Orthodoxos und Aëtios. Bonn. Blackburn, B.L., Jr. 2009. The Mystery of the Synagogue: Cyril of Alexandria on the Law of Moses. PhD diss. University of Notre Dame. Blaudeau, P., and Van Nuffelen, P., eds. 2015. L’historiographie tardo-​antique et la transmission des savoirs. Berlin. Bobichon, P. 2003. Justin Martyr. Dialogue avec Tryphon. 2 vols. Fribourg. Bonamente, G., and Fusco, F., eds. 1990. Costantino il Grande dall’Antichità all’Umanesimo: Colloquio sul cristianesimo nel mondo antico. Macerata. Bonfil, R., Irshai, O., Stroumsa, G.G., and Talgam, R., eds. 2012. Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures. Leiden. Bonwetsch, D.G.N. 1917. Methodius. Leipzig. Borzì, S. 2004. “Sull’attribuzione della Disputa fra Giasone e Papisco ad Aristone di Pella.” Vigiliae Christianae 41:347–​54. Boulnois, M.-​O. 1994. Le paradoxe trinitaire chez Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Paris. Bowersock, G.W. 1969. Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford. Bowersock, G.W. 1990. Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Cambridge. Bowersock, G.W., Brown, P., and Grabar, O., eds. 2001. Interpreting Late Antiquity. Cambridge, MA. Bowie, E. 2009. “Philostratus:  The Life of a Sophist.” In Bowie, E., and Elsner, J., eds. Philostratus. Cambridge 2009:14–​30. Boyarin, D. 2008. “Dialectic and Divination in the Talmud.” In Goldhill 2008:217–​41. Boyarin, D. 2009. Socrates and the Fat Rabbis. Chicago. Boys-​Stones, G. 2009. “Ancient Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction.” In Oppy and Trakakis 2009:1–​22. Boys-​Stones, G. 2018. Platonist Philosophy 80 BC to AD 250: An Introduction and Collection of Sources in Translation. Cambridge. Bracht, K. 1999. Vollkommenheit und Vollendung: Zur Anthropologie des Methodius von Olympus. Tübingen. Bracht, K. 2011. “Methodius von Olympus.” In Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum Vol. 25:768–​84.

General Bibliography  237 Bracht, K., ed. 2017. Methodius of Olympus:  State of the Art and New Perspectives. Berlin. Brakke, D., Satlow, M.L., and Weitzman, S., eds. 2005. Religion and the Self in Late Antiquity. Bloomington. Brakke, D., Deliyannis, D., and Watts, E., eds. 2012. Shifting Cultural Frontiers in Late Antiquity. Farnham, UK. Bratke, E., ed. 1899. Das sogenannte Religionsgespräch am Hof der Sassaniden. Leipzig. Brent, A. 1995. Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century. Leiden. Bril, A. 2006. “Plato and the Sympotic Form in the Symposium of St Methodius of Olympus.” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 9:279–​302. Bringel, P. 2007. Une polémique religieuse à la cour perse: Le De gestis in Perside; Histoire du texte, édition critique et traduction. PhD diss. Université Paris IV–​Sorbonne. Brock, S.P. 1981. “The Conversations with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (532).” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 47:87–​ 121. Reprint in Cameron and Hoyland 2011:49–​83. Brock, S.P. 1983. “Dialogue Hymns of the Syriac Churches.” Sobornost/​Eastern Churches Review 5.2:35–​45. Brock, S.P. 1985. “A Monothelete Florilegium in Syriac.” In Laga et al. 1985:35–​45. Brock, S.P. 1991. “Syriac Dispute Poems: The Various Types.” In Reinink and Vanstiphout 1991:109–​119. Brock, S.P. 1995. Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai. Athens. Brock, S.P. 1997. A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature. Kottayam. Brock, S.P. 2003. “Syriac Translations of Greek Popular Philosophy.” In Bruns, P., ed. Von Athen nach Bagdad: Zur Rezeption griechischer Philosophie von der Spätantike bis zum Islam. Bonn. 9–​28. Brock, S.P. 2009. A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature. Kottayam (= Piscataway 2011). Brock, S.P. 2016. “Les Controverses Christologiques en Syriaque: Controverses Réelles at Controverses Imaginées.” In Ruani 2016:105–​118. Brock, S.P., Butts, A.M., Kiraz, G.A., and Van Rompay, L., eds. 2011. Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage. Piscataway, NJ. Brock, S.P., and Fitzgerald, B. 2013. Two Early Lives of Severos, Patriarch of Antioch. Liverpool. Brooks, E.W., ed. 1902. The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, Patriarch of Antioch. 2 vols. Oxford. Brown, P. 1969. “The Diffusion of Manichaeism in the Roman Empire.” Journal of Roman Studies 59:92–​103. Reprint in Brown 1972:94–​118. Brown, P. 1972. Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine. London. Brown, P., and Smith, A., eds. 2005. The Philosopher and Society in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Brown. Swansea. Brubaker, L., and Haldon, J. 2011. Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c. 680–​850: A History. Cambridge. Brunner, T.F. 1989. “Hapax and Non-​Hapax Legomena in Palladius’ Life of Chrysostom.” Analecta Bollandiana 107.1–​2:33–​38. Bruns, P. 2010. “Wer war Paul der Perser?” Studia Patristica 45:263–​68.

238  General Bibliography Bryder P., ed. 1988. Manichaean Studies, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Manichaeism. Lund Studies in African and Asian Religions 1. Lund. Buchheit, V. 1958. “Rufinus von Aquileia als Fälscher des Adamantiosdialogs.” Byzant­ inische Zeitschrift 51:314–​28. Buchheit, V. 1966. Tyrannii Rufini librorum Adamanti Origenis adversus haereticos interpretatio. Munich. Burke, T., and Landau, B., eds. 2016. New Testament Apocrypha:  More Noncanonical Scriptures. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI. Burrus, V. 2000. “Begotten, Not Made”: Conceiving Manhood in Late Antiquity. Stanford. Bussières, M.-​P., ed. 2004. “Conclusions:  Questions (encore) sans réponses.” In Volgers and Zamagni 2004:181–​90. Bussières, M.-​P., ed. 2013. De l’enseignement à l’exégèse:  La littérature des questions et réponses dans l’antiquité païenne et chrétienne:  Actes du colloque tenu à l’université d’Ottawa les 25 et 26 Septembre 2009. Turnhout. Butler, H.E. 1922. The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian. 4  vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA. Butts, A.M. 2017. “A Syriac Dialogue Poem between the Vine and Cedar by Dawid Bar Pawlos.” In Jiménez 2017:462–​73. Calboli, G. 1993. Cornifici rhetorica ad C. Herennivm. 2nd ed. Bologna. Calzolari, V. 2000. “La version arménienne du Dialogue d’Athanase et Zachée du Pseudo-​ Athanase d’Alexandrie:  Analyse linquistique et comparaison avec l’original grec.” Le Muséon 113:125–​47. Cambiano, G, Canfora, L., and Lanza, D., eds. 1992. Lo spazio letterario della Grecia antica. Rome. Cameron, Al., Fuhrmann, M., Schmidt, P.L., Van Der Nat, P.G., Duval, Y.-​M., Ludwig, W., Herzog, R., and Fontaine, J. 1977. Christianisme et formes littéraires de l’Antiquité Tardive en Occident. Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 23. Geneva. Cameron, Av. 1985. Procopius and the Sixth Century. London. Cameron, Av., ed. 1989. History as Text: The Writing of Ancient History. Chapel Hill. Cameron, Av. 1989a. “Virginity as Metaphor:  Women and the Rhetoric of Early Christianity.” In Cameron 1989:181–​205. Cameron, Av. 1991. Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse. Berkeley. Cameron, Av. 1991a. “Disputations, Polemical Literature and the Formation of Opinion in the Early Byzantine Period.” In Reinink and Vanstiphout 1991:91–​108. Cameron, Av. 1994. “Texts as Weapons: Polemic in the Byzantine Dark Ages.” In Bowman, A.K., and Woolf, G., eds. Literacy and Power in the Ancient World. Cambridge 1994:198–​215. Cameron, Av. 1996. “Byzantines and Jews:  Some Recent Work on Early Byzantium.” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 20:249–​74. Cameron, Av. 2003. “Jews and Heretics—​A Category Error?” In Becker and Yoshiko Reed 2003:345–​60. Cameron, Av. 2013. “Can Christians Do Dialogue?” Studia Patristica 63:103–​21. Cameron, Av. 2013a. “The Cost of Orthodoxy.” Church History and Religious Culture 93.3:339–​61.

General Bibliography  239 Cameron, Av. 2014. Dialoguing in Late Antiquity. Washington, DC. Cameron, Av. 2015. “Flights of Fancy:  Some Imaginary Debates in Late Antiquity.” In Dunn 2015:385–​406. Cameron, Av. 2016. Arguing It Out: Discussion in Twelfth-​Century Byzantium. Budapest. Cameron, Av. 2016a. “Culture Wars:  Late Antiquity and Literature.” In Freu et  al. 2016:307–​16. Cameron, Av. 2016b. Dialog und Debatte in der Spätantike. Stuttgart. Cameron, R., and Dewey, A.J., eds. 1979. The Cologne Mani Codex (P. Colon. Inv. Nr. 4780) “Concerning the Origins of His Body.” Missoula, MN. Cameron, Av., and Gaul, N., eds., 2017. Dialogues and Debates from Late Antiquity to Late Byzantium. Abingdon. Cameron, Av., and Hoyland, R.G., eds. 2011. Doctrine and Debate in the East Christian World, 300–​1500. Farnham, UK. Camphausen, W., ed. 1922. Romani Sophistae. Peri Aneimenou libellus. Leipzig. Camplani, A. 1998. “Rivisitando Bardesane: Note sulle fonti siriache del bardesanesimo e sulla sua collocazione storica religiosa.” Cristianesimo nella storia 19:519–​96. Camplani, A. 2013. “Declinazione dell’antigiudaisimo nel cristianesimo siriaco delle ori­ gini.” Quaderni di Vicino Oriente 6:15–​39. Camplani, A. 2016. “Traces de controverse religieuse dans la littérature syriaque des origines: Peut-​on parle d’une hérésiologie des ῾hérétiques?’” In Ruani 2016:9–​66. Camplani, A., and Prinzivalli, E. 1998. “Sul significato dei nuovi frammenti siriaci dei Capitula adversus Caium attribuiti a Ippolito.” Augustinianum 38.1:49–​82. Cancik, H. 2008. “Antike Religionsgespräche.” In Schörner and Šterbenc Erker 2008:15–​25. Canella, T. 2006. Gli Actus Silvestri:  Genesi di una leggenda su Constantino imperatore. Spoleto. Canella, T. 2013. “Gli Actus Silvestri tra oriente e occidente:  Storia e diffusione di una leggenda constantiniana.” In Costantino I.  Enciclopedia costantiniana sulla figura e l’immagine dell’imperatore del cosiddetto editto di Milano 313–​ 2013. Vol. 2.241–​58.  Rome. Capone, A. 2008. “De sancta Trinitate dialogus IV:  Note critiche alla versione latina.” Classica et Christiana 3:69–​81. Capone, A., ed. 2012. Lessico, argomentazioni e strutture retoriche nella polemica di età cristiana (III–​V sec.). Turnhout. Capone, A., 2012a. “The Narrative Sections of Macarius Magnes’ Apocriticus.” In Capone 2012:253–​70. Cardelle de Hartmann, C. 2007. Lateinische Dialoge 1200–​1400. Literaturhistorische Studie und Repertorium. Leiden. Carleton Paget, J.N. 2017. “The Jew of Celsus and adversus Judaeos Literature.” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 21.2:201–​42. Carleton Paget, J.N. 2018. “Timothy and Aquila: Actual Encounter or Scheinpolemik?” In Morlet 2018. Cataldo, A. 1992. Cirillo di Alessandria. Dialoghi sulla Trinità. Rome. Cavalcanti, E., ed. 1983. Ps. Atanasio. Dialoghi contro i Macedoniani. Turin. Celantano, M.S., ed. 1990. Retorica della comunicazione nelle letterature classiche. Bologna. Chadwick, H. 1953. Origen. Contra Celsum. Cambridge.

240  General Bibliography Chadwick, H. 1954. Alexandrian Christianity: Selected Translations of Clement and Origen with Introductions and Notes. London. Chadwick, H. 1965. Review of Abramowski 1965. JTS 16.2:214–​18 Chadwick, H. 2010. “Philoponus the Christian Theologian.” In Sorabji 2010:83–​96. Champion, M.W. 2014. Explaining the Cosmos: Creation and Cultural Interaction in Late-​ Antique Gaza. New York. Chesnut, R.C. 1978. “The Two Prosopa in Nestorius’ Bazaar of Heracleides.” JTS 29.2:392–​409. Ciccolini, L. 2013. “La Controverse de Jason et Papiscus: La témoinage de l’Ad Vigilium episcopum de Iudaica incredulitate faussement attribué à Cyprien de Carthage.” In Morlet et al. 2013:159–​74. Clark, E.A. 1992. The Origenist Controversy:  The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Dialogue. Princeton. Clark, E.A. 1998. “Holy Women, Holy Words: Early Christian Women, Social History and the Linguistic Turn.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6:413–​30. Clark, E.A. 1999. Reading Renunciation:  Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity. Princeton. Cleminson, R., and Eastbourne, A. 2015. Methodius of Olympus. On Leprosy—​An Allegorical Explanation of Leviticus 13 (De lepra ad Sistelium). Available online at http://​www.roger-​pearse.com/​weblog. Coleman-​Norton, P.R. 1926. “The Use of Dialogue in the Vitae Sanctorum.” Journal of Theological Studies 27:388–​95. Coleman-​Norton, P.R., ed. 1928. Palladii Dialogus de vita sancti Johanni Chrysostomi. Cambridge. Coles, R.A. 1966. Reports of Proceedings in Papyri. Brussels. Colonna, M.E., ed. 1958. Enea di Gaza: Teofrasto. Naples. Conybeare, C. 2006. Irrational Augustine. Oxford. Conybeare, F.C., ed. 1898. The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus and of Timothy and Aquila. Oxford. Cook, M. 1980. “The Origins of Kalām.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 43.1:32–​43. Cooper, K., and Dal Santo, M. 2008. “Boethius, Gregory the Great and the Christian ῾Afterlife’ of Classical Dialogue.” In Goldhill 2008:173–​89. Costa, I. 1993. “Opere di Atanasio in una traduzione latina inedita.” Atti dell’Accademia Pontaniana 42:221–​65. Côté, D. 2001. Le thème de l’opposition entre Pierre et Simon dans les Pseudo-​Clémentines. Paris. Courtonne, Y., ed. 1955. Saint Basile. Lettres. 3 vols. Paris. Coyle, J.K. 2007. “Hesitant and Ignorant: The Portrayal of Mani in the Acts of Archelaus.” In BeDuhn and Mirecki 2007:23–​32. Crafer, T.W. 1919. The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes. London. Crawford, M.R. 2013. “The Preface and Subject Matter of Cyril of Alexandria’s De adoratione.” Journal of Theological Studies 64:154–​67. Crawford, M.R. 2014. Cyril of Alexandria’s Trinitarian Theology of Scripture. Oxford. Cribiore, R. 2001. Gymnastics of the Mind:  Greek Education in Hellenistic Egypt. Princeton.

General Bibliography  241 Cribiore, R. 2007. “Spaces for Teaching in Late Antiquity.” In Derda et al. 2007:143–​50. Crum, W.E. 1915. Der Papyruscodex saec. VI–​VII der Phillippsbibliothek in Cheltenham. Strasbourg. Cunningham, M.B., and Allen, P., eds. 1998. Preacher and Audience:  Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics. Leiden. Daiber, H. 2012. “Masā’il wa-​Adjwiba.” In Bearman, P., et al., eds. Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd ed.,. s.v. Leiden. Dal Santo, M. 2012. Debating the Saints’ Cult in the Age of Gregory the Great. Oxford. Daley, B.E., ed. 1978. Leontius of Byzantium:  A Critical Edition of His Works, with Prolegomena. D.Phil. diss. Oxford. Daley, B.E. 2017. Leontius of Byzantium. Oxford. Daly, R.J. 1992. Origen. Treatise on the Passover and Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides and His Fellow Bishops on the Father, the Son and the Soul. Ancient Christian Writers 54. New York. Daly, R.J., ed. 1992a. Origeniana Quinta:  Historica—​ Text and Method—​ Biblica—​ Philosophica—​Theologica—​Origenism and Later Developments. Leuven. Dechow, J.F. 1992. “Origen and Corporeality: The Case of Methodius’ On the Resurrection.” In Daly 1992a:509–​18. Declerck, J.H. 1994. Anonymus. Dialogus cum Iudaeis saeculi ut videtur sexti. Turnhout. Dedering, S. 1936. Johannes von Lykopolis. Ein Dialog über die Seele und die Affekte des Menschen. Leiden. De Durand, G.-​M., ed. 1964. Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Deux dialogues christologiques. SC 97. Paris. De Durand, G.-​M., ed. 1976. Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Dialogues sur la Trinité. 3 v. SC 231, 237, 246. Paris. De Durand, G.-​M., ed. 1999. Marc le Moine. Traités. I. SC 455. Paris. De Durand, G.-​M., ed. 2000. Marc le Moine. Traités. II. SC 455. Paris. Deferrari, R. 1950. Saint Basil. The Letters. 4 vols. Cambridge, MA. Deferrari, R.J. 1953. Eusebius Pamphili. Ecclesiastical History. 2 vols. Washington, DC. De Halleux, A. 1981. “La christologie de Jean le Solitaire.” Le Muséon 94.1–​2:5–​36. De Halleux, A. 1983. “Le milieu historique de Jean le Solitaire:  Une hypothèse.” In Lavenant 1983:299–​305. De Lagarde, P. 1858. Analecta Syriaca. Leipzig. De Lange, N.R.M. 1976. Origen and the Jews:  Studies in Jewish-​Christian Relations in Third-​Century Palestine. Cambridge. De Lange, N.R.M. 2015. Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Greek Bible Translations in Byzantine Judaism. Tübingen. De Lange, N.R.M., Krivoruchko, J., and Boyd-​Taylor, C., eds. 2009. Jewish Reception of Greek Bible Versions: Studies in Their Use in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Tübingen. De Leo, P. 1974. Ricerche sui falsi medievali. Reggio Calabria. Dell’Osso, C. 2001. Leonzio di Bisanzio. Le opere. Roma. Dell’Osso, C. 2003. Il Calcedonismo: Leonzio di Bisanzio. Roma. Demulder, B., and Van Deun, P., eds. Forthcoming. Questioning the World: Greek Patristic and Byzantine Question and Answer Literature. Turnout. Den Dulk, M. 2018. Between Jews and Heretics. Refiguring Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. Abingdon. Des Places, E., ed. 1973. Numénius. Fragments. Paris.

242  General Bibliography Derda, T., Markiewicz, T., and Wipszycka, E., eds. 2007. Alexandria: Auditoria of Kom el-​ Dikka and Late Antique Education. Warsaw. Déroche, V. 1991. “La polémique anti-​judaïque au VIème et VIIème siècle:  Un mémento inédit; Les Képhalaia.” Travaux et mémoires 11:275–​311. Déroche, V. 2012. “Forms and Functions of Anti-​Jewish Polemics: Polymorphy, Polysemy.” In Bonfil et al. 2012:535–​48. De Vogüé, A., and Antin, P., eds. 1978. Grégoire le Grand. Dialogues. SC 251, 260, 265 (1978–​80).  Paris. Devos, P. 1989. “Approches de Pallade à travers le Dialogue sur Chrysostome et l’Histoire Lausiaque.” Analecta Bollandiana 107.3–​4:243–​66. Di Berardino, A., ed. 1983. Dizionario Patristico e di Antichità Cristiane. Casale Monferrato. Dickey, E. 2014. “A Catalogue of Works Attributed to the Grammarian Herodian.” Classical Philology 109.4:325–​45. Dihle, A. 1979. “Zur Schicksalslehre des Bardesanes.” In Ritter, A.M., ed. Kerygma und Logos:  Beiträge zu den geistesgeschichtlichen Beziehungen zwischen Antike und Christentum. Göttingen. 123–​35. Dillon, J. 1977. The Middle Platonists: 80 B.C. to A.D. 220. 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY. Dillon, J. 1990. Dexippus. On Aristotle’s Categories. Ithaca, NY. Dillon, J.M., Russell, D.A., and Gertz, S.R.P. 2012. Aeneas of Gaza. Theophrastus with Zacharias of Mytilene: Ammonius. Bristol. Doerfler, M.E. 2014. “Entertaining the Trinity Unawares:  Genesis xviii in Western Christian Interpretation.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 65.3:485–​503. Döpp, S., and Geerlings, W., eds. 2000. Dictionary of Early Christian Literature. New York. Downing, J.K., McDonough, J.A., and Hörner, H., eds. 1987. Gregorii Nysseni opera dogmatica minora. Gregorii Nysseni opera vol. III pars II. Leiden. Drake, S. 2013. Slandering the Jew:  Sexuality and Difference in Early Christian Texts. Philadelphia. Drecoll, V.H., and Berghaus, M. 2011. Gregory of Nyssa: The Minor Treatises on Trinitarian Theology and Apollinarism. Leiden. Drijvers, H.J.W., ed. 1965. The Book of the Laws of the Countries. Assen. Reprint 2006, Piscataway, with a new introduction. Drijvers, H.J.W. 1966. Bardaisan of Edessa. Assen. Drijvers, H.J.W. 1984. “East of Antioch. Forces and Structures in the Development of Early Syriac Theology.” In Drijvers 1984a:1–​27. Drijvers, H.J.W. 1984a. East of Antioch: Studies in Early Syriac Christianity. London. Drijvers, J.W. 1992. Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend of Her Finding of the True Cross. Leiden. Drijvers, H.J.W. 1992a. “Syriac Christianity and Judaism.” In Lieu et al. 1992:124–​46. Driver, G.R., and Hodgson, L. 1925. Nestorius. The Bazaar of Heracleides. Oxford. Dubel, S. 2015. “Avant-​propos:  Théories et practiques du dialogue dans l’antiquité.” In Dubel and Gotteland 2015:11–​23. Dubel, S., and Gotteland, S., eds. 2015. Formes et genres du dialogue antique. Bordeaux. Dunn, G., and Mayer, W., eds. 2015. Christians Shaping Identity from the Roman Empire to Byzantium: Studies Inspired by Pauline Allen. Leiden.

General Bibliography  243 Eadie, J.W., and Ober, J., eds. 1985. The Craft of the Ancient Historian: Essays in Honor of Chester G. Starr. Lanham, MD. Eastbourne, A. 2010. Religious Discussion at the Court of the Sassanids. Published online at http://​www.roger-​pearse.com/​weblog/​2011/​03/​19/​religionsgesprach-​am-​ hof-​der-​sasaniden-​the-​legend-​of-​aphroditian-​online-​in-​english. Ebied, R.Y., Van Roey, A., and Wickham, L.R., eds. 1981. Peter of Callinicum. Anti-​Tritheist Dossier. Leuven. Edwards, M. 2011. “Numenius of Apamea.” In Gerson, L., ed. The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Cambridge. 2011:1.115–​25. Edwards, M., Goodman, M., and Price, S., eds. 1999. Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians. Oxford. Efthymiadis, S. 2017. “Questions and Answers.” In Kaldellis and Siniossoglou 2017:47–​62. Elm, S. 1994. Virgins of God: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity. Oxford. Elm, S. 1998. “The Dog that Did Not Bark:  Doctrine and Patriarchal Authority in the Conflict between Theophilus of Alexandria and John Chrysostom of Constantinople.” In Ayres and Jones 1998:68–​93. Engels, D., and Van Nuffelen, P., eds. 2014. Religion and Competition in Antiquity. Brussels. Ettlinger, G.H. 1975. Theodoret of Cyrus. Eranistes. Oxford. Ettlinger, G.H. 2003. Theodoret of Cyrus. Eranistes. Washington, DC. Evans, D.B. 1970. Leontius of Byzantium: An Origenist Christology. Washington, DC. Evans, E. 2015. The Books of Jeu and the Pistis Sophia as Handbooks to Eternity: Exploring the Gnostic Mysteries of the Ineffable. Leiden. Falls, T.B., Halton, T.P., and Slusser, M. 2003. St. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Washington, DC. Fantham, E. 2004. The Roman World of Cicero’s De oratore. Oxford. Farges, J. 1929. Méthode d’Olympe. Du libre arbitre. Paris. Feissel, D. 1986. “Le Préfet de Constantinople, les Poids-​Étalons et l’estampillage de l’argenterie au VIᵉ et au VIIᵉ siècle.” Revue numismatique 28:119–​42. Fiaccadori, G., ed. 2006. In Partibus Clius: Scritti in Onore di Giovanni Pugliese Caratelli. Naples. Fiaccadori, G. 2006a. “Māsidis (Giovanni di Nikiou, Chron. XC 54–​60).” In Fiaccadori 2006:113–​35. Ficker, G. 1905. “Widerlegung eines Montanisten.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 26.4: 447–​63. Fiedrowicz, M., Schaaf, I., and Barthold, C. 2013. Johannes Chrysostom. De Sacerdotio = Über das Priestertum. Fohren-​Linden. Fields, L.M. 2012. An Anonymous Dialogue with a Jew:  Introduction, Translation and Notes. Turnhout. Filoramo, G. 1994. “Le scuole catechistiche e la gnosi.” In Cambiano et al. 1992:1.3.550–​85. Filoramo, G., ed. 2002. Maestro e discepolo: Temi e problemi della direzione spirituale tra VI secolo a.C. e VII secolo d.C. Brescia. Föllinger, S., and Müller, G.M., eds. 2013. Der Dialog in der Antike: Formen und Funktionen einer literarischen Gattung zwischen Philosophie, Wissensvermittlung und dramatischer Inszenierung. Berlin.

244  General Bibliography Fontaine, G., and Dupré, N., eds. 2006. Sulpice Sévère. Gallus, Dialogues sur les “vertus” de saint Martin. Paris. Ford, A.L. 2008. “The Beginnings of Dialogue: Socratic Discourses and Fourth-​Century Prose.” In Goldhill 2008:29–​44. Ford, A.L. 2010. “Σωκρατικοὶ λόγοι in Aristotle and Fourth-​Century Theories of Genre.” Classical Philology 105:221–​235. Fowden, G. 1986. The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind. New York. Fowler, R.C. 2016. Imperial Plato: Albinus Maximus Apuleius; Text and Translation, with an Introduction and Commentary. Las Vegas. Franchi, R. 2007. “Ispirazione biblica (Gn 1, 26) e linguaggio pagano-​filosofico in un passo del De autexusio di Metodio d’Olimpo.” Vetera Christianorum 44.2:239–​56. Franchi, R. 2009. “Il mare in tempesta nel De autexusio di Metodio d’Olimpo e nell’Hexaemeron di Giorgio di Pisidia.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 102.1:65–​82. Frank, G. 2005. “Dialogue and Deliberation: The Sensory Self in the Hymns of Romanos the Melodist.” In Brakke 2005:163–​179. Fredriksen, P. 2003. “What ῾Parting of the Ways?’ Jews, Gentiles, and the Ancient Mediterranean City.” In Becker and Yoshiko Reed 2003:35–​63. Frenkel, L.M. 2016. “Syriac Christological Dialogues and the Transmission of Theodotus of Ancyra’s Contra Nestorium.” Aramaic Studies 14:118–​33. Freu, C., Janniard, S., and Ripoli, A., eds. 2016. Libera Curiositas: Mélanges d’histoire romaine et d’Antiquité Tardive offerts à Jean-​Michel Carrié. Turnhout. Frier, B.W., Blume, C.F.H., Connolly, S., Corcoran, S., Crawford, M., Dillon, J.N., et al., eds. 2016. The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text. 3 vols. Cambridge. Frohnhofen, H. 1987. Apatheia tou Theou: Über die Affektlosigkeit Gottes in der griechischen Antike und bei den griechischsprachigen Kirchenvätern bis zu Gregorios Thaumaturgos. Frankfurt. Früchtel, E. 1974. Das Gespräch mit Herakleides und dessen Bischofskollegen über Vater, Sohn und Seele. Stuttgart. Fürst, A., ed. 2011. Origenes und sein Erbe in Orient und Okzident. Münster. Galonnier, A., ed. 2003. Boèce ou la chaîne des savoirs: Actes du colloque international de la Fondation Singer-​Polignac. Louvain. Gardner, I. 2007. “Mani’s Letter to Marcellus:  Fact and Fiction in the Acta Archelai Revisited.” In BeDuhn and Mirecki 2007:33–​48. Gardner, G., and Osterloh, K., eds. 2008. Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the Greco-​Roman World. Tübingen. Garzya, A., ed. 2006. Spirito e forme nella letteratura bizantina. Naples. Gavrilyuk, P.L. 2004. The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought. Oxford. Gazzano, F., Pagani, L., and Traina, G., eds. 2016. Greek Texts and Armenian Traditions: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Berlin. Gemeinhardt, P., ed. 2011. Athanasius Handbuch. Tübingen. Gemeinhardt, P. 2012. “In Search of Christian ‘Paideia’:  Education and Conversion in Early Christian Biography.” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 16.1:88–​98.

General Bibliography  245 Gemeinhardt, P., Van Hoof, L., and Van Nuffelen, P., eds. 2016. Education and Religion in Late Antique Christianity. Reflections, Social Contexts and Genres. London. Gerson, L.P. 2000a. “General Introduction.” In Gerson 2000:1.1–​10. Gerson, L.P., ed. 2000. The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity. 2  vols. Cambridge. Geuenich, D., Ludwig, U., and Schilp, T., eds. 2008. Nomen et fraternitas: Festschrift für Dieter Geuenich zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin. Giannarelli, E. 1980. La tipologia femminile nella biografia e nell’autobiografia cristiana del IV secolo. Rome. Gibbons, K. 2012. “Nature, Law and Human Freedom in Bardaisan’s Book of the Laws of the Countries.” In Brakke et al. 2012:35–​47. Gibson, C.A. 2008. Libanius’s Progymnasmata: Model Exercises in Greek Prose Composition and Rhetoric. Atlanta. Girardet, K.M., ed. 2007. Kaiser Konstantin der Große:  Historische Leistungen und Rezeption in Europa. Bonn. Goldhill, S. 1995. Foucault’s Virginity. Cambridge. Goldhill, S., ed. 2008. The End of Dialogue in Antiquity. Cambridge. Goldhill, S. 2008a. “Why Don’t Christians Do Dialogue?” In Goldhill 2008:1–​11. Goulet, R., ed. 1989. Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques. Paris. Goulet, R., ed. 2003. Macarios de Magnésie. Le Monogénès: Édition critique et traduction française. 2 vols. Paris. Goulet, R. 2011. “Porphyre et Macarios de Magnésie sur la toute-​puissance de Dieu.” In Morlet 2011:205–​30. Graf, G. 1944. Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. Rome. Granados, J. 2005. Los misterios de la vida de Cristo en Justino Mártir. Rome. Graumann, T. 2009. “῾Reading’ the First Council of Ephesus.” In Prince and Whitby 2009:27–​44. Gray, P.T.R. 1979. The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451–​553). Leiden. Greatrex, G., Phenix, R.P., Horn, C.B., Brock, S.P., and Witakowski, W. 2011. The Chronicle of Pseudo-​Zachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity. Liverpool. Grégoire, H. 1955. “Bardesane et st. Abercius.” Byzantion 25–​27:363–​68. Gribomont, J. 1980. “Marc le Moine.” DSp s.v. Griffith, S.H. 1981. “Chapter Ten of the Scholion:  Theodore Bar Kônî’s Apology for Christianity.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 47:158–​88. Grillmeier, A., and Bacht, H., eds. 1951. Das Konzil von Chalkedon:  Geschichte und Gegenwart. Würzburg. Gronewald, M. 1991. “Palladius, Dialogus de Vita S. Ioannis Chrysostomi in P. Ryl. III 508.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 89:33–​34. Grünbart, M., ed. 2007. Theatron: Rhetorische Kultur in Spätantike und Mittelalter. Berlin. Guillaumont, A. 1970. “Justinien et l’Église de Perse.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23/​ 24:39–​66. Gutas, D. 1983. “Paul the Persian on the Classification of the Parts of Aristotle’s Philosophy: A Milestone between Alexandria and Baġdâd.” Der Islam 60:231–​67. Hadot, P. 1995. Philosophy as a Way of Life. Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Focault. Oxford.

246  General Bibliography Hallmann, J.M. 1998. “Theodoret’s Eranistes and Its Aftermath:  The Demise of the Christology of Antioch.” In Allen et al. 1998:2.343–​57. Hansbury, M. 2013. John the Solitary on the Soul. Texts from Christian Late Antiquity 32. Piscataway, NJ. Harnack, A. 1882. Die Überlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahrhunderts in der alten Kirche und in Mittelalter. Leipzig. Hartel, G., ed. 1871. S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani opera omnia. 3 vols. Vienna. Hartney, A.M. 2004. John Chrysostom and the Transformation of the City. London. Harvey, S.A. 2005. “Revisiting the Daughters of the Covenant: Women’s Choirs and Sacred Song in Ancient Syriac Christianity.” Hugoye 8.2:125–​49. Hausherr, I. 1939. Jean le Solitaire (Pseudo-​Jean de Lycopolis). Dialogue sur l’âme et les passions des hommes. Rome. Hayes, C.E. 1998. “Displaced Self-​Perceptions: The Deployment of Mînîm and Romans in b. Sanhedrin 90b–​91a.” In Lapin 1998:249–​89. Healey, J.F. 2011. “The Edessan Milieu and the Birth of Syriac.” Hugoye 10.2:115–​27. Henderson, J. 1954. [Cicero] Rheotrica ad Herennium. With an English Translation by Harry Caplan. Cambridge, MA. Henry, R., ed. 1959. Photius. Bibliothèque. 9 vols. Paris. Herman, G., and Rubenstein, J.L., eds. 2018. The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. Providence, RI. Hermann, C.F., ed. 1853. Platonis dialogi. 6 vols. Leipzig. Heron, A. 1973. “The Two Pseudo-​Athanasian Dialogues against the Anomoeans.” Journal of Theological Studies 24.1:101–​22. Hesse, O. 1969. “Markus Eremita in der syrischen Literatur.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Suppl. 1.2:450–​57. Heyden, K. 2009. “Christliche Transformation des antiken Dialogs bei Justin und Minucius Felix.” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 13.2:204–​32. Heyden, K. 2009a. “Die Erzählung des Aphroditian: Thema und Variationen.” Ostkirchliche Studien 58.2:348–​56. Heyden, K. 2009b. Die Erzählung des Aphroditian: Thema und Variationen einer Legende im Spannungsfeld von Christentum und Heidentum. Tübingen. Hirzel, R. 1895. Der Dialog. 2 vols. Leipzig. Hofer, A. 2011. “The Reordering of Relationships in John Chrysostom’s De sacerdotio.” Augustinianum 51.2:451–​71. Hoffmann, M. 1966. Der Dialog bei den christlichen Schriftstellern der ersten vier Jahrhun­ derte. Berlin. Honigmann, E. 1951. Évêques et évêchés monophysites d’Asie antérieure au VIe siècle. Louvain. Honigmann, E. 1953. Patristic Studies. Vatican City. Horner, T.J. 2001. Listening to Trypho: Justin Martyr’s Dialogue Reconsidered. Leuven. Hösle, V. 2006. Der Philosophische Dialogue: Eine Poetik und Hermeneutik. Munich. Hösle, V. 2012. The Philosophical Dialogue: A Poetics and a Hermeneutics. English trans. of Hösle 2006. Notre Dame, IN. Huby, P., Ebbesen, S., Langslow, D., Russell, D., Steel, C., and Wilson, M. 2016. Priscian: Answers to King Khosroes of Persia. London.

General Bibliography  247 Hugonnard-​Roche, H. 2000. “Érostrophus.” In Goulet 1989:3.236–​38. Hugonnard-​Roche, H., ed. 2008. L’enseignement supérieur dans les mondes antiques et médiévaux: aspects institutionnels, juridiques et pédagogiques. Paris. Hunger, H. 1973. “Zeugnisse agonaler Rhetorik in der byzantinischen Literatur.” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 22:23–​36. Hunger, H. 1978. Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner. 2 vols. Munich. Hunt, A.S. 1927 = P.Oxy.XXVII 2070. Ieraci Bio, A.M. 2006. “Il dialogo come forma letteraria.” In Garzya 2006:21–​45. Ierodiakonou, K., ed. 2002. Byzantine Philosophy and Its Ancient Sources. Oxford. Illert, M. 2000. Johannes Chrysostomus und das antiochenisch-​syrische Mönchtum: Studien zu Theologie, Rhetorik und Kirchenpolitik im antiochenischen Schrifttum des Johannes Chrysostomus. Zürich. Jacobs, A.S. 2007. “Dialogical Differences: (De-​)Judaizing Jesus’ Circumcision.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 15.3:291–​335. Jaffé, D. 2013. “Aduersus Iudaeos: La loi et les observances dans le Dialogus cum Tryphone Iudaeo.” In Morlet et al. 2013:49–​65. Jansma, T. 1974. “Neue Schriften des Johannes von Apameia: Bemerkungen zu einer Edition.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 31:42–52. Jiménez, E., ed. 2017. The Babylonian Disputation Poems. Leiden. Johnson, S.F., ed. 2006. Greek Literature in Late Antiquity. Oxford. Johnson, S.F. 2006a. The Life and Miracles of Thekla: A Literary Study. Washington, DC. Jones, C.P. 1970. “Cicero’s Cato.” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 113:188–​96. Jones, C.P. 1978. The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom. Cambridge, MA. Jones, C.P. 1986. Culture and Society in Lucian. Cambridge, MA. Jones, C.P. 2014. Between Pagan and Christian. Cambridge, MA. Jouravel, A. 2017. “Beobachtungen zu Methodius’ Schrift De lepra.” In Bracht 2017:207–​35. Jungmann, P. 1969. “Die armenische Fassung des sog. pseudo-​athanasianischen Dialogus de s. Trinitate IV.” Oriens Christianus 53:159–​201. Kaatz, K., Lieu, S.N.C., and Vermes, M. 2001. Acta Archelai. Turnhout. Kaczmarek, S., and Pietras, H., eds. 2011. Origeniana Decima: Origen as Writer; Papers of the 10th International Congress, University School of Philosophy and Education “Ignatianum,” Kraków, Poland. 31 August–​4 September 2009. Leuven. Kahlos, M. 2007. Debate and Dialogue:  Christian and Pagan Cultures c.  360–​ 430. Aldershot, UK. Kaldellis, A. 2007. Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. Cambridge. Kaldellis, A., and Siniossoglou, N., eds. 2017. The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium. Cambridge. Kaler, M. 2013. “Just how Close are the Gnostic Revelation Dialogues to Erotapokriseis Literature, anyway?” In Bussières 2013:37–​49. Kalmin, R. 1994. “Christian and Heretics in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity.” The Harvard Theological Review 87.2:155–​69. Kaster, R.A. 1988. Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity. Berkeley. Kaster, R.A., ed. 2011. Macrobius. Saturnalia. Cambridge, MA.

248  General Bibliography Katos, D.S. 2007. “Socratic Dialogue or Courtroom Debate? Judicial Rhetoric and Stasis Theory in the Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom.” Vigiliae Christianae 61.1:42–​69. Katos, D.S. 2011. Palladius of Helenopolis, the Origenist Advocate. Oxford. Kattan Gribetz, S., and Vidas, M. 2012. “Rabbis and Others in Conversation.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 19.2:91–​103. Kechagia-​Ovseiko, E. 2017. “Plutarch’s Dialogue:  Beyond the Platonic Example?” In Cameron and Gaul 2017:8–​19. Keenan, J.G., Manning, J.G., and Yiftach-​Firanko, U., eds. 2014. Law and Legal Practice in Egypt from Alexander to the Arab Conquest: A Selection of Papyrological Sources in Translation, with Introductions and Commentary. Cambridge. Kelley, N. 2006. Knowledge and Religious Authority in the Pseudo-​ Clementines. Tübingen. Kelly, J.N.D. 1995. Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom, Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop. London. Kennedy, G.A. 1972. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World. Princeton. Kennedy, G.A. 2003. Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric. Leiden. Kessel, G., and Pinggéra, K. 2011. A Bibliography of Syriac Ascetic and Mystical Literature. Leuven. Kessler, K. 1889. Mânî. Forschungen über die manichäische Religion. Berlin. Khalifé, I.A. 1949. “Les traductions arabes de Marc l’Ermite.” Mélanges de l’Université Saint-​Joseph 28:115–​224. King, D. 2008. The Syriac Versions of the Writings of Cyril of Alexandria. Leuven. King, D. 2011. “Origenism in Sixth-​Century Syria:  The Case of a Syriac Manuscript of Pagan Philosophy.” In Fürst 2011:179–​212. King, D. 2013. “Why Were the Syrians Interested in Greek Philosophy?” In Wood 2013a:61–​81. Kiraz, G. 2008. Malphono w-​Rabo d-​Malphone:  Studies in Honor of Sebastian P.  Brock. Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 3. Piscataway, NJ. Klein, W. 1990. “Der Autor der Joannis Orthodoxi Disputatio cum Manichaeo.” Oriens Christianus 74:234–​44. Koester, H. 1990. Ancient Christian Gospels. Philadelphia. König, J. 2008. “Sympotic Dialogue in the First to Fifth Centuries CE.” In Goldhill 2008:85–​113. König, J. 2012. Saints and Symposiasts: The Literature of Food and the Symposium in Greco-​ Roman and Early Christian Culture. Cambridge. Kotter, B. 1969. Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. 6 vols. Berlin. Krabinger, J.K. 1837. Gregorii episcopi Nysseni De anima et resurrectione cum sorore sua Macrina dialogus. Leipzig. Kramer, B. 1978. “Protokoll eines Dialogs zwischen Didymos dem Blinden und einem Ketzer.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 32:201–​11. Reprint in Kramer 1985:201–​11. Kramer, B. 1985. Kleine Texte aus dem Tura-​Fund. Bonn. Krannich, T., and Stein, P. 2004. “Das Buch der Gesetze der Länder des Bardesanes von Edessa.” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 8:203–​29.

General Bibliography  249 Krueger, D. 2000. “Writing and the Liturgy of Memory in Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Macrina.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8.4:483–​510. Krueger, D. 2003. “Writing and Redemption in the Hymns of Romanos the Melodist.” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 27:1–​44. Kugener, M.-​A. 1907. “Vie de Sévère par Zacharie le Scholastique.” Patrologia Orientalis 2.1:1–​115. Külzer, A. 1999. Disputationes Greacae contra Iudaeos: Untersuchungen zur byzantinischen antijüdischen Dialogliteratur und ihrem Judenbild. Stuttgart. Kuper, C.N. 2017. The Latin Controversial Dialogues of Late Antiquity. PhD diss. Bryn Mawr College. Labendz, J.R. 2013. Socratic Torah. Non-​Jews in Rabbinic Intellectual Culture. Oxford. Laborderie, J. 1978. Le dialogue platonicien de la maturité. Paris. Laga, C., Munitiz, J.A., Van Roey, A., and Van Rompay, L., eds. 1985. After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History Offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for His Seventieth Birthday. Leuven. Lahey, L. 2000. The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: Critical Text and English Translation of the Short Recension with an Introduction Including a Source-​Critical Study. Ph.D. diss. Cambridge. Lahey, L. 2000a. “Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Genuine Jewish–​Christian Debate in The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila.” Journal of Jewish Studies 51.2:281–​96. Lahey, L. 2007. “Evidence for Jewish Believers in Christian-​Jewish Dialogues through the Sixth Century (excluding Justin).” In Skarsaune and Hvalvik 2007:581–​639. Lamb, W.R.M. 1924. Laches, Protagoras, Meno, Euthydemus. Cambridge, MA. Lane Fox, R. 2005. “Movers and Shakers.” In Brown and Smith 2005:19–​50. Lapin, H., ed. 1998. Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine. Bethesda, MD. Lasker, D.J., and Stroumsa, S. 1996. The Polemic of Nestor the Priest. Qiṣat Mujādalat al-​ Usquf and Sefer Nestor ha-​Komer. Jerusalem. Laurenti, R. 1987. Aristotele. I frammenti dei Dialoghi. 2 vols. Filosofi Antichi 8–​9. Naples. Laurenti, R. 2003. “Les Dialogues.” In Goulet, R., ed. Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques. Supplement. Paris. 2003:379–​471. LaValle, D.T. 2017. “Coming Late to the Table:  Methodius in the Context of Sympotic Literary Development.” In Bracht 2017:18–​37. LaValle, D.T. 2017a. “Feasting at the End: The Eschatological Symposia of Methodius of Olympus and Julian the Apostate.” Studia Patristica 94 (vol. 20):269–​284. LaValle, D.T. 2018. Forthcoming. Nostalgia and Hope:  Methodius of Olympus and the Creation of a Christian Literary Aesthetic in the 3rd Century. Cambridge. Lavan, M., Payne, R.E., and Weisweiler, J., eds. 2016. Cosmopolitanism and Empire. Universal Rulers, Local Elites, and Cultural Integration in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean. Oxford. Lavenant, R. 1950. “Le probleme de Jean d’Apamée.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 46:367–​90. Lavenant, R., ed. 1983. III Symposium Syriacum: Les contacts du monde syriaque avec les autres cultures (Goslar 7–​11 Septembre 1980). Rome. Lavenant, R. 1984. Jean d’Apamée. Dialogues et Traités. SC 311. Paris.

250  General Bibliography Layton, R.A. 2004. Didymus the Blind and His Circle in Late-​Antique Alexandria: Virtue and Narrative in Biblical Scholarship. Urbana, IL. Lebon, J., ed. 1929. Severi Antiocheni Liber contra Impium Grammaticum. CSCO 94, 102, 112. Paris. Lejoly, R., ed. 1975. Dionysii bar Ṣalibi enarratio in Ioannem. 4 vols. Dison. Leone, L. 1983. Cirillo di Alessandria. Perché Cristo è uno. Rome. Levi della Vida, G. 1921. Bardesane. Il dialogo delle leggi dei paesi. Rome. Reprint in Levi della Vida and Contini 1989:63–​111. Levi della Vida, G., and Contini, R., eds. 1989. Pitagora, Bardesane ed altri studi siriaci. Rome. Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.J. 2011. Ambrose and John Chrysostom. Oxford. Lietzmann, H. 1904. Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule. Tübingen. Lieu, S.N.C. 1983. “An Early Byzantine Formula for the Renunciation of Manichaeism: The Capita VII contra Manichaeos of ‘Zacharias of Mitylene’.” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 26:152–​218. Lieu, S.N.C. 1988. “Fact and Fiction in the Acta Archelai.” In Bryder 69–​88. Reprint in Lieu 1994:132–​52. Lieu, S.N.C. 1992. Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China. 2nd ed. Tübingen. Lieu, S.N.C. 1994. Manichaeism in Mesopotamia and the Roman East. Leiden. Lieu, J.M., North, J., and Rajak, T., eds. 1992. The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire. London. Lim, R. 1991. “Theodoret of Cyrus and the Speakers in the Greek Dialogues.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 111:181–​82. Lim, R. 1992. “Manicheans and Public Disputation in Late Antiquity.” Recherches augustiniennes 26:233–​72. Reprint in Cameron and Hoyland 2011. Lim, R. 1995. Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity. Berkeley. Lim, R. 1995a. “Religious Disputation and Social Order in Late Antiquity.” Historia 44.2:204–​31. Lim, R. 2001. “Christian Triumph and Controversy.” In Bowersock et al. 2001:196–​218. Lim, R. 2008. “Christians, Dialogues, and Patterns of Sociability in Late Antiquity.” In Goldhill 2008:151–​72. Lochbrunner, M. 1993. Über das Priestertum. Bonn. Lomiento, G. 1971. Il dialogo di Origene con Eraclide ed i vescovi suoi colleghi sul padre, il figlio e l’anima. Bari. Long, A. 2008. “Plato’s Dialogues and a Common Rationale for Dialogue Form.” In Goldhill 2008:45–​59. Loofs, F. 1905. Nestoriana: Die Fragmente des Nestorius. Halle. Loofs, F. 1914. “Zwei macedonianische Dialoge.” Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 19:526–​51. Reprint in Loofs, F. 1999:321–​49. Loofs, F. 1999. Patristica: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Alten Kirche. New York. Louth, A. 1998. “St. John Damascene:  Preacher and Poet.” In Cunningham and Allen 1998:247–​66. Lucchesi, E. 2004. “Le dialogue Quod unus sit Christus de Cyrille d’Alexandrie en copte.” Orientalia 73.3:289–​301.

General Bibliography  251 Ludlow, M. 2000. Universal Salvation: Eschatology in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner. Oxford. Ludlow, M. 2007. Gregory of Nyssa, Ancient and (Post)Modern. Oxford. Ludlow, M. 2009. “Science and Theology in Gregory of Nyssa’s De Anima et Resurrectione:  Astronomy and Autonomata.” Journal of Theological Studies 60.2:467–​89. Lund, J.A. 2007. Book of the Laws of the Countries: A Dialogue on Free Will versus Fate; A Key-​Word-​in-​Context Concordance. Piscataway, NJ. Maas, M. 2003. Exegesis and Empire in the Early Byzantine Mediterranean:  Junillus Africanus and the Instituta Regularia Divinae Legis. Tübingen. Maat, W.A. 1944. A Rhetorical Study of Saint John Chrysostom’s De sacerdotio. Washington, DC. MacKenzie, D.N. 1979. “Mani’s Šābuhragān.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 42.3:500–​34. MacKenzie, D.N. 1980. “Mani’s Šābuhragān.” (plates) Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 43.2:288–​310. MacMullen, R. 2006. Voting about God in Early Church Councils. New Haven, CT. Magny, A. 2014. Porphyry in Fragments:  Reception of an Anti-​Christian Text in Late Antiquity. Farnham, UK. Malherbe, A.J., ed. 1977. The Cynic Epistles: A Study Edition. Missoula, MT. Malingrey, A.M., ed. 1980. Jean Chrysostome. Sur le sacerdoce:  Dialogue et homélie. SC 272. Paris. Malingrey, A.M., and Leclercq, P., eds. 1988. Palladios. Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome. 2 vols. SC 341–​42. Paris. Männlein-​Robert, I. 2006. “Die Aporien des Kritikers Longin:  Zur Inszenierung der Platonexegese bei Proklos.” In Perkams and Piccione 2006:71–​97. Männlein-​Robert, I., ed. 2017. Die Christen als Bedrohung? Text, Kontext und Wirkung von Porphyrios’ Contra Christianos. Stuttgart. Marciniak, P. 2007. “Byzantine Theatron—​ A Place of Performance?” In Grünbart 2007:277–​285. Marcovich, M. 1997. Iustini Martyris dialogus cum Tryphone. Berlin. Marotta, E. 1967. “L’ironia e altri schemi nel Contra fatum di san Gregorio di Nissa.” Vetera Christianorum 4:85–​105. Marrou, H.I. 1956. A History of Education in Antiquity. Trans. George Lamb. Madison, WI. Martin, H. 1962. “Jean Philopon et la controverse trithéite du VIe siècle.” Studia Patristica 5:519–​25. Mateo-​Seco, L.F., and Maspero, G. 2010. The Brill Dictionary of Gregory of Nyssa. Leiden. Mazzucchi, C. M., ed. 1982. Menae Patricii cum Thoma referendario De scientia politica dialogus: Quae exstant in codice vaticano palimpsesto. Milan. Mazzucchi, C.M. 1984. “In Menae Patricii De scientia politica dialogum ventilabrum criticum.” Aevum 58:59–​60. Mazzucchi, C.M. 2006. “Damascio, autore del Corpus Dionysiacum, e il dialogo Περὶ πολιτικῆς ἐπιστήμης.” Aevum 80:299–​334. Mazzucchi, C.M., and Matelli, E. 1985. “La dottrina dello stato nel dialogo Sulla scienza politica e il suo autore.” In Archi 1985:209–​23.

252  General Bibliography McCambley, C. 1992. “Against Fate by Gregory of Nyssa.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 37:309–​32. McDonough 1987 = Downing et al. 1987:29–​63. McGuckin, J.A. 1994. St. Cyril of Alexandria. The Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts. Leiden. McGuckin, J.A. 1995. St. Cyril of Alexandria. On the Unity of Christ. Crestwood, NY. McKenzie, J. 2007. The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt, c. 300 BC to AD 700. New Haven., CT. McLynn, N.B. 1992. “Christian Controversy and Violence in the Fourth Century.” Kodai: Journal of Ancient History 3:15–​44. Reprint in McLynn 2009.II. McLynn, N.B. 2004. “What was the Philocalia of Origen?” Meddelanden från Collegium Patristicum Lundense 19:32–​43. McLynn, N.B. 2009. Christian Politics and Religious Culture in Late Antiquity. Farnham, UK. Meerson, M., and Schäfer, P., eds. 2014. Toledot Yeshu: The Life Story of Jesus. Tübingen. Meissner, H.M. 1991. Rhetorik und Theologie: Der Dialog Gregors von Nyssa De anima et resurrectione. Frankfurt. Mejzner, M. 2011. L’escatologia di Metodio di Olimpo. Rome. Menchelli, M. 2016. “Discorso, dialexis, dialogos. Variazioni sul tema e generi letterari in Dione di Prusa (e Dione lettore dell’Appendix platonica).” In Amato et. al. 2016:257–​76. Mengozzi, A. 2015. “Écriture et écritures dans les poèmes dialogués syriaques.” In Baffioni et al. 2015:227–​37. Mengozzi, A., and Ricossa, L.B. 2013. “The Cherub and the Thief on YouTube: An Eastern Christian Liturgical Drama and the Vitality of the Mesopotamian Dispute.” Annali—​ Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale” 73:49–​65. Mercati, G., ed. 1901. Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana antica. Rome. Mercati, G. 1901a. “Per la vita e gli scritti di ῾Paolo il Persiano’: Appunti di una disputa di religione sotto Giustino e Giustiniano.” In Mercati 1901:180–​206. Meredith, A. 1999. Gregory of Nyssa. London. Merkelbach, R. 1968. “Textkritische Bemerkungen zur Debatte des Origenes mit Herakleidas.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 3:192–​96. Merlan, P. 1968. “Ammonius Hermiae, Zacharias Scholasticus and Boethius.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 9.2:193–​203. Meyer, R.T. 1985. Palladius. Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom. New York. Milazzo, A.M. 1990. “Dimensione retorica e destinatari nel Teofrasto di Enea di Gaza.” In Pennacini 1990:33–​71. Milazzo, A.M. 1991. “I personaggi del dialogo di Enea di Gaza: Storicità e tradizione letteraria.” In Anastasi et al. 1991:1–​19. Minniti Colonna, M., ed. 1973. Zacaria Scolastico. Ammonio: Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione, commentario. Naples. Moll, S. 2010. The Arch-​Heretic Marcion. Tübingen. Mombritius, B. 1910. Sanctarium seu vitae sanctorum. Paris. Momigliano, A. 1985. “The Life of St. Macrina by Gregory of Nyssa.” In Eadie and Ober 1985:443–​58 (= Momigliano, A. Ottavo contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico. Rome. 1987:333–​47).

General Bibliography  253 Momigliano, A. 1993. The Development of Greek Biography. Expanded edition. Cambridge, MA. Monceaux, P. 1924. Le manichéen Faustus de Milev. Restitution de ses Capitula. Paris. Moreschini, C. 2013. “Il dialogo negli scritti ermetici.” In Föllinger and Müller 2013:123–​39. Morlet, S., ed. 2011. Le traité de Porphyre Contre les Chrétiens: Un siècle de recherches, nouvelles questions; Actes du colloque international organisé les 8 et 9 septembre 2009 à l’Université de Paris IV–​Sorbonne. Turnhout. Morlet, S. 2013. “Les dialogues adversus Iudaeos: Origine, caractéristiques, référentialité.” In Morlet et al. 2013:21–​45. Morlet, S. 2017. Dialogue de Timothée et Aquila. Dispute entre un Juif et un Chrétien. Paris. Morlet, S., ed. 2018. Forthcoming. Ancient and Medieval Disputations between Jews and Christians: Fiction and Reality. Leuven. Morlet, S. 2018a. “The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: A Catechetical Handbook?” In Morlet 2018. Morlet, S., Munnich, O., and Pouderon, B., eds. 2013. Les dialogues adversus Iudaeos: Permanences et mutations d’une tradition polémique. Paris. Motta, B. 2008. Il Contra fatum di Gregorio di Nissa nel dibattito tardo-​antico sul fatalismo e sul determinismo. Pisa. Mühlenberg, E. 1969. Apollinaris von Laodicea. Göttingen. Munnich, O. 2011. “Recherche de la source porphyrienne dans les objections ‘païennes’ du Monogénès: L’enjeu des citations scripturaires.” In Morlet 2011:75–​104. Munnich, O. 2013. “Le judaïsme dans le Dialogue avec Tryphon: Une fiction littéraire de Justin.” In Morlet et al. 2013:95–​156. Musurillo, H. 1958. St. Methodius, the Symposium: A Treatise on Chastity. London. Musurillo, H., and Debidour, V.-​H. 1963. Méthode d’Olympe. Le banquet. Paris. Nagel, P., ed. 1969. Probleme der koptischen Literatur. Halle. Nau, F. 1910. Le livre d’Héraclide de Damas. Paris. Nau, F. 1910a. “Note sur un Dialogue de Cyrille avec Nestorius.” Revue de l’orient chrétien 15.4:442–​43. Nau, F. 1913. “La seconde partie de l’Histoire de Barḥadbešabba ʽArbaïa et Controverse de Théodore de Mopsueste avec les Macédoniens.” Patrologia Orientalis 9.5:489–​667. Nau, F. 1919. “Documents pour servir a l’histoire de l’Église Nestorienne.” Patrologia Orientalis 13:111–​57. Nautin, P. 1967. “Histoire des dogmes et des sacrements chrétiens.” Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Haute Études 75:162–​67. Nesselrath, H.-​G. 2006. “Sophisten bei Sokrates von Konstantinopel.” In Amato and Schamp 2006:178–​92. Nesselrath, H.-​G., and Wilk, F., eds 2013. Gut und Böse in Mensch und Welt: Philosophische und religiöse Konzeptionen vom Alten Orient bis zum frühen Islam. Tübingen. Neville, G. 1964. Saint John Chrysostom. Six Books on the Priesthood. London. Newman, H.I. 2018. “The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila in Light of Contemporary Jewish Sources.” In Morlet 2018. Neymeyr, U. 1989. Die christlichen Lehrer im zweiten Jahrhundert. Leiden. Nin, M. 2005. “La sintesi monastica di Giovanni il Solitario.” In Vergani and Chialà 2005:95–​117.

254  General Bibliography Nirenberg, D. 2013. Anti-​Judaism: The Western Tradition. New York. Nöldeke, T. 1910. “Zum Buch der Gesetze der Länder”:  Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 64:555–​60. Nüsser, O., ed. 1991. Albins Prolog und die Dialogtheorie des Platonismus. Stuttgart. Oikonomopoulou, K. 2013. “Ancient Question-​and-​Answer Literature and Its Role in the Tradition of Dialogue.” In Föllinger and Müller 2013:36–​63. O’Meara, D.J. 2002. “The Justinianic Dialogue On Political Science and Its Neoplatonic Sources.” In Ierodiakonou 2002:49–​62. O’Meara, D.J. 2003. Platonopolis: Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Oxford. Obertello, L. 2003. “Ammonius of Hermias, Zacharias Scholasticus and Boethius: Eternity of God and/​or Time?” In Galonnier 2003:465–​79. Obertello, L. 2007. “Proclus, Ammonius of Hermias, and Zacharias Scholasticus:  The Search after Eternity and the Meaning of Creations.” In Treschow et al. 2007:173–​89. Oppy, G., and Trakakis, N., eds. 2009. The History of Western Philosophy of Religion. Vol. 1. Durham, UK. Orengo, A. 2016. “Eznik of Kołb as a Translator of Methodius of Olympus.” In Gazzano et al. 2016:31–​46. Orlandi, T. 1981. “Il Dossier copto di Agatonico di Tarso: Studio letterario e storico.” In Polotsky and Young 1981:269–​81. Otranto, G. 1996. “La Disputa tra Giasone e Papisco sul Cristo falsamente attribuita ad Aristone di Pella.” Vigiliae Christianae 33:337–​51. Palme, B. 2014. “Roman Litigation:  Reports of Court Proceedings.” In Keenan et  al. 2014:482–​501. Papadogiannakis, Y. 2006. “Instruction by Question and Answer:  The Case of the Late Antique and Byzantine Erotapokriseis.” In Johnson 2006:92–​102. Papadogiannakis, Y. 2008. “A Debate on the Rebuilding of the Temple in Sixth-​Century Byzantium.” In Gardner and Osterloh 2008:373–​82. Papadogiannakis, Y. 2011. “῾Encyclopedism’ in the Byzantine Question-​ and-​ Answer Literature: The Case of Psuedo-​Kaisarios.” In Van Deun and Macé 2011:29–​41. Papadogiannakis, Y. 2012. Christianity and Hellenism in the Fifth-​Century Greek East: Theodoret’s Apologetics against the Greeks in Context. Hellenic Studies Series 49. Washington, DC. Papadogiannakis, Y. 2013. “Didacticism, Exegesis and Polemics in Pseudo-​Kaisarios’s Erotapokriseis.” In Bussières 2013:271–​90. Papadogiannakis, Y. 2013a. “Erotaporiseis.” In Bagnall et al. 2013 s.v. Papadogiannakis, Y. 2018. “Christian Kalām before Muslim Kalām? The Ancient Rhetorical Figure of ‘Hypophora.’” In Papadogiannakis and Roggema 2018. Papadogiannakis, Y. 2018a. “Shaming an Opponent in Debate:  The Polemical Use of Emotions in some Anti-​Jewish Dialogues.” In Morlet 2018. Papadogiannakis, Y. Forthcoming. “Cosmology and Its ῾Problems’ in Ps.-​Justin’s Quaestiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos.” In Demulder and Van Deun, forthcoming. Papadogiannakis, Y. Forthcoming. Defining Identity and Belief in the Eastern Mediterranean 6th–​8th cent. AD. Papadogiannakis, Y., and Roggema, B., eds. 2018. Forthcoming. Patterns of Argumentation and Exchange of Ideas in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Abingdon.

General Bibliography  255 Parry, E., ed. 2019. Forthcoming. Eastern Christianity and Late Antique Philosophy. Leiden. Parvis, S., and Foster, P., eds. 2007. Justin Martyr and His Worlds. Minneapolis. Paschke, F., ed. 1981. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. Berlin. Pastis, J.Z. 1994. Representations of Jews and Judaism in The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: Construct or Social Reality? PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania. Pastis, J.Z. 2002. “Dating the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila:  Revisiting the Earlier ‘Vorlage’ Hypothesis.” Harvard Theological Review 95.2:169–​95. Patterson, L.G. 1989. “Who Are the Opponents in Methodius’ De Resurrectione?” Studia Patristica 19:121–​29. Patterson, L.G. 1997. Methodius of Olympus. Divine Sovereignty, Human Freedom, and Life in Christ. Washington, DC. Pavan, M. 2012. Giovanni il Solitario. Le passioni dell’anima. Magnano. Payne, R.E. 2016. “Iranian Cosmopolitanism: World Religions at the Sasanian Court.” In Lavan et al. 2016:209–​30. Payne Smith, R. 1879. Thesaurus Syriacum. 2 vols. Oxford. Peebles, B.M. 1949. “Sulpicius Severus” in Walsh, G.G., Peebles, B.M., Morris, R.E., O’Donnell, J.R., The Fathers of the Church. Vol. 7:77–​254. Washington, DC. Penella, R. 2007. Man and the World: The Orations of Himerius. Berkeley. Penna, R., ed. 1993. Il profetismo da Gesù di Nazaret al montanismo: Atti del IV convegno di studi neotestamentari (Perugia, 12–​14 settembre 1991). Bologna. Pennacini, A., ed. 1990. Retorica della comunicazione nelle letterature classiche. Perczel, I. 2013. “The Pseudo-​ Didymian De Trinitate and Pseudo-​ Dionysius the Areopagite: A Preliminary Study.” Studia Patristica 58:83–​108. Pereswetoff-​Morath, A. 2002. A Grin without a Cat. 2 vols. Lund Slavonic Monographs 4–​5.  Lund. Perkams, M., and Piccione, R.M., eds. 2006. Proklos. Methode, Seelenlehre, Metaphysik. Leiden. Perkins, P. 1980. The Gnostic Dialogue:  The Early Church and the Crisis of Gnosticism. New York. Pernot, L. 2008. “Aspects méconnus de l’enseignement de la rhétorique dans le monde gréco-​romain à l’époque impériale.” In Hugonnard-​Roche 2008:283–​306. Perrone, L. 1980. “Il Dialogo contro gli Aftartodoceti di Leonzio di Bisanzio e Severo di Antiochia.” Cristianesimo nella storia 1.2:411–​42. Pieler, P.E. 1978. “Byzantinische Rechtsliteratur.” In Hunger 1978:2.341–​480. Piovanelli, P. 2013. “Entre oralité et (ré)écriture:  Le modèle des erotapokriseis dans les dialogues apocryphes de Nag Hammadi.” In Bussières 2013:93–​103. Pitra, J.B., ed. 1883. Analecta sacra spicilegio Solesmensi parata. Fourth volume. Paris. Pohlkamp, W. 1992. “Textfassungen, literarische Formen und geschichtliche Funktionen der römischen Silverster-​Akten.” Francia 19.1:115–​96. Pohlkamp, W. 2007. “Konstantin der Große und die Stadt Rom im Spiegel der römischen Silvester-​Akten (Actus Silvestri).” In Girardet 2007:87–​111. Pohlkamp, W. 2008. “Memoria Silvestri: Zur frühen Erinnerungs-​und Verehrungsgeschichte des Tagesheiligen vom 31. Dezember.” In Geuenich, Ludwig, and Schilp 2008:249–​96. Poirier, P.-​H., and Crégheur, E. 2003. “Foi et persuasion dans le Livre des lois des pays à propos de l’épistémologie bardesanienne.” Le Muséon 116:329–​42.

256  General Bibliography Polotsky, H.J. 1932. “Koptische Zitate aus den Acta Archelai.” Le Muséon 45:18–​20. Polotsky, H.J., and Young, D.W., eds. 1981. Studies Presented to Hans Jacob Polotsky. East Gloucester, MA. Possekel, U. 2012. “Bardaisan and Origen on Fate and the Power of the Stars.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4:515–​41. Pouchet, J.R. 1986. “Les rapports de Basile de Césarée avec Diodore de Tarse.” Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique 87.4:243–​72. Pouderon, B. 2013. “La source de l’argumentation de Tryphon dans le Dialogue de Justin: Confrontation de deux thèses.” In Morlet et al. 2013:67–​93. Pretty, R.A. 1997. (d. 1985; edited for publication by Garry W.  Trompf) Adamantius, Dialogue on the True Faith in God. Leuven. Price, R., and Gaddis, M. 2005. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. 3 vols. Liverpool. Price, R., and Whitby, M., eds. 2009. Chalcedon in Context:  Church Councils 400–​700. Liverpool. Price, R.M. trans. 1991. Lives of the Monks of Palestine by Cyril of Scythopolis: With an Introducton and notes by John Binns. Kalamazoo, MI. Prigent, P. 1972. “Hippolyte, commentateur de l’ Apocalypse.” Theologische Zeitschrift 28:391–​412. Prinzivalli, E. 1985. L’esegesi biblica di Metodio di Olimpo. Roma. Pusey, P.E., ed., 1877. Sancti patri nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini De recta fide ad Imperatorem, De incarnatione Unigeniti dialogus, De recta fide ad principissas, De recta fide ad Augustas, Quod unus Christus dialogus, Apologeticus ad Imperatorem. Oxford. Quiroga Puertas, A.J. 2017. “‘In the Garden of Adonis.’ Religious Disputation in Julian’s Caesars.” Studia Patristica 96 (vol. 22): 37–​46. Quiroga Puertas, A.J. 2017a. “The Rhetorical Mechanisms of John Chrysostom’s On Priesthood.” In Cameron and Gaul 2017:32–​42. Rabe, H., and Kennedy, G.A., eds. 2005. Invention and Method: Two Rhetorical Treatises from the Hermogenic Corpus. Leiden. Rajak, T. 1999. “Talking at Trypho:  Christian Apologetic as Anti-​Judaism in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.” In Edwards et  al. 1999:59–​ 80. Reprint in Rajak 2002:511–​34. Rajak, T. 2002. The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome. Leiden. Ramelli, I.L.E. 2009. Bardaisan of Edessa:  A Reassessment of the Evidence and a New Interpretation. Piscataway, NJ. Ramelli, I.L.E. 2012. “The Dialogue of Adamantius:  A Document of Origen’s Thought? (Part One).” Studia Patristica 52:71–​98. Ramelli, I.L.E. 2013. “The Dialogue of Adamantius:  A Document of Origen’s Thought? (Part Two).” Studia Patristica 56:227–​73. Rapp, C. 2005. Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition. Berkeley. Rashed, M. 2000. “Menas, préfet du prétoire (528–​9) et philosophe:  Une épigramme inconnue.” Elenchos 21.1:89–​98. Rashed, M., ed. 2016. L’héritage aristotélicien: Texts inédits de l’antiquité: Nouvelle édition revue et augmentée. Paris. Rashed, M. 2016a. “Un texte proto-​byzantin inédit sur les universaux et la trinité.” In Rashed 2016a:841–​77.

General Bibliography  257 Reeve, C.D.C. 2004. Plato. Republic. Indianapolis, IN. Rehm, B. 1938. “Bardesanes in den Pseudoclementinen.” Philologus 93:218–​47. Reinink, G.J., and Vanstiphout, H.L.J., eds. 1991. Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East. Leuven. Renan, E. 1852. “Lettre à M.  Reinaud sur quelques manuscrits syriaques du Musée Britannique.” Journal Asiatique ser. 4 no. 19:293–​333. Renaud, F., and Tarrant, H. 2015. The Platonic Alcibiades I: The Dialogue and Its Ancient Reception. Cambridge. Richard, M. 1951. “Les Florilèges Diphysites du Ve et du VIe Siècles.” In Grillmeier and Bacht 1951:1.721–​48. English trans. in Richard 2011. Richard, M., ed. 1977. Iohannis Caesariensis presbyteri et grammatici: Opera quae supersunt. Turnhout. Richard, M. 2011. “Diophysite Florilegia of the Fifth and Sixth Centuries CE.” In Cameron and Hoyland 2011:321–​46. English trans. of Richard 1951. Richardson, E.C., and von Gebhardt, O., eds. 1896. Jerome. De viris illustribus. Gennadius. De viris illustribus. Sophronius. Leipzig. Richter, S.G., Horton, C., and Ohlhafer, K., eds. 2015. Mani in Dublin: Selected Papers from the Seventh International Conference on the International Association of Manichaean Studies in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, 8–​12 September 2009. Leiden. Riedel, W., ed. 1902. Der Katalog der christlichen Schriften in arabischer Sprache von Abū’lBarakāt. Göttingen. Rignell, L.G. 1960. Drei Traktate von Johannes dem Einsiedler (Johannes von Apameia). Lund. Rigolio, A. 2016. “Syriac Translations of Plutarch, Lucian, and Themistius:  A Gnomic Format for an Instructional Purpose?” In Gemeinhardt et al. 2016:73–​85. Rigolio, A. 2017. “Erostrophus, a Syriac Dialogue with Socrates on the Soul.” In Cameron and Gaul 2017:20–​31. Rinaldi, G. 1989. “Tracce di controversie tra pagani e cristiani nella letteratura patristica delle Quaestiones et responsiones.” Annali di storia dell’esegesi 6:99–​124. Rizzi, M. 2015. “La seconda parte del Dialogo con Eraclide:  L’anima è il sangue?” Adamantius 21.1:269–​83. Roberts, A., and Donaldson, J. 1888. The Ante-​Nicene Fathers. Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Vol. 6. New York. Roberts, W.R. 1902. Demetrius. On Style. Cambridge. Robertson, R.G. 1986. The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: A Critical Text, Introduction to the Manuscript Evidence, and an Inquiry into the Sources and Literary Relationships. Th.D. Diss. Harvard Divinity School. Roggema, B. 2016. “Pour une lecture des débats islamo-​chrétiens en syriaque à la lumière des controverses internes à l’Islam.” In Ruani 2016:261–​94. Roilos, P., ed. 2014. Medieval Greek Storytelling: Fictionality and Narrative in Byzantium. Wiesbaden. Rokéah, D. 2002. Justin Martyr and the Jews. Leiden. Roosen, B. 2015. “Eulogii Alexandrini Quae supersunt: Old and New Fragments from Eulogius of Alexandria’s Ouevre (CPG 6971–​6979).” Medioevo Greco 15:201–​40. Rosen, F., and Forshall, J. 1838. Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum orientalium qui in Museo Britannico asservantur: Pars Prima; Codices Syriacos et Carshunicos Amplectens. London.

258  General Bibliography Rousseau, P. 1994. Basil of Caesarea. Berkeley. Ruani, F., ed. 2016. Les controverses religieuses en syriaque. Paris. Rudolph, K. 1968. “Der gnostische ῾Dialog’ als literarischer Genus.” In Nagel 1968:85–​107. Rusten, J., and König, J., eds. 2014. Philostratus. Heroicus; Gymnasticus; Discourses 1 and 2. Cambridge, MA. Rutherford, W. 2007. “Altercatio Jasonis et Papisci as a Testimony Source for Justin’s ῾Second God’ Argument?” In Parvis and Foster 2007:137–​44. Ryssel, V. 1880. Gregorius Thaumaturgus: Sein Leben und seine Schriften. Leipzig. Ryssel, V. 1893. “Der pseudosocratische Dialog über die Seele.” Rheinisches Museum 48:175–​95. Saba, G.F. 2012. Il Dialogo sul sacerdozio di Giovanni Crisostomo: Sintesi tra paideia classica e paideia cristiana? Bologna. Saïd, S. 2015. “La double accusation: Une introduction au dialogue lucianesque.” In Dubel and Gotteland 2015:179–​96. Sakkos, S.N., ed. 1976. Ἀναστασίου Α’ Ἀντιοχείας ἅπαντα τὰ σῳζόμενα γνήσια ἔργα. Thessaloniki. Saltet, L. 1905. “Les sources de l’Eranistes de Théodoret.” Revue d’histoire écclesiastique 6:289–​303, 513–​36, 741–​54. Schamp, J. 2006. “Sophistes à l’Ambon: Esquisses pour la Troisième Sophistique comme paysage littéraire.” In Amato and Schamp 2006:286–​338. Scherer, J., ed. 1960. Entretien d’Origène avec Héraclide. Paris. Schilling, A.M. 2008. Die Anbetung der Magier und die Taufe der Sāsāniden. Zur Geistesgeschichte des iranischen Christentums in der Spätantike. Leuven. Schmid, U. 1995. Marcion und sein Apostolos. Berlin. Schmidt, P.L. 1977. “Zur Typologie und Literarisierung der frühchristlichen lateinischen Dialogs.” In Cameron et al. 1977:101–​90. Schönbauer, E. 1933. “Ein neuer juristischer Papyrus.” Aegyptus 13.3/​4:621–​63. Schor, A.M. 2011. Theodoret’s People. Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria. Berkeley. Schorn, S. 2004. Satyros aus Kallatis. Sammlung der Fragmente mit Kommentar. Basel. Schörner G., and Šterbenc Erker, D., eds. 2008. Medien religiöser Kommunikation im Imperium Romanum. Stuttgart. Schott, J.M., and Edwards, M.J. 2015. Macarius. Apocriticus. Liverpool. Schreckenberg, H. 1999. Die christlichen Adversus-​Judaeos-​Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (1.-​11. Jh.). 4th ed. Frankfurt am Main. Schulz, F. 1961. Geschichte der römischen Rechtswissenschaft. Weimar. Schurig, S. 2005. Die Theologie des Kreuzes beim frühen Cyrill von Alexandria. Tübingen. Schwartz, E., ed. 1939. Kyrillos von Skythopolis. Leipzig. Schwartz, S. 2008. “No Dialogue at the Symposium? Conviviality in the Ben Sira and the Palestinian Talmud.” In Goldhill 2008:193–​216. Schwartzman, L.J. 2012. Contest and Community: Wonder-​Working in Christian Popular Literature from the Second to the Fifth Centuries CE. D.Phil. diss. Oxford. Scipioni, L.I. 1974. Nestorio e il Concilio di Efeso. Milan. Scodel, R., ed. 2014. Between Orality and Literacy:  Communication and Adaptation in Antiquity. Leiden.

General Bibliography  259 Scott, W., ed. 1924. Hermetica:  The Ancient Greek and Latin Writings Which Contain Religious or Philosophic Teachings Ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus. 4 vols. Oxford. Seddon, K. 2005. Epictetus’ Handbook and the Tablet of Cebes. Abingdon. Sedlaček, I., ed. 1909. Dionysius bar Ṣalībī in Apocalypsim, actus et epistulas catholicas. 2 vols. Rome. Seeliger, H.R., and Wischmeyer, W., eds. 2015. Märtyrerliteratur herausgegeben, eingeleitet, übersetzt und kommentiert von Hans Reinhard Seeliger und Wolfgang Wischmeyer. Berlin. Silvas, A.M. 2008. Macrina the Younger, Philosopher of God. Turnhout. Simonetti, M., ed. 1961. Tyrannii Rufini opera. Turnhout. Simonetti, M. 1988. “Una nuova ipotesi su Gregorio il Taumaturgo.” Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 24:17–​41. Skarsaune, O. 1987. The Proof from Prophecy:  A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-​Text Tradition; Text-​Type, Provenance, Theological Profile. Leiden. Skarsaune, O., and Hvalvik, R., eds. 2007. Jewish Believers in Jesus. Peabody, MA. Slaveva-​Griffin, F., and Ramelli, I.L.E., eds. 2019. Forthcoming. Lovers of the Soul, Lovers of the Body: Philosophical and Religious Perspectives in Late Antiquity. Washington, DC. Slusser, M. 1998. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. Life and Works. Washington, DC. Smith, W.J. 2004. Passion and Paradise. Human and Divine Emotion in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa. New York. Sorabji, R., ed. 2010. Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. 2nd ed. London. Sorabji, R. 2012. “Preface: Waiting for Philoponus.” In Dillon et al. 2012:vii–​xxx. Souilhé, J., ed. 1962. Platon. Oeuvres complètes. Vol. 13. Paris. Speck, P. 1997. “Sokrates Scholastikos über die beiden Apolinarioi.” Philologus 141.2:362–​69. Spira, A. 2014. Gregorii Nysseni De anima et resurrectione:  Opera dogmatica minora. Gregorii Nysseni opera Vol. III Pars III. Leiden. Stancliffe, C. 1983. St. Martin and His Hagiographer. Oxford. Stavru, A., and Moore, C., eds. 2018. Socrates and the Socratic Dialogue. Leiden. Strange, S.K. 1992. Porphyry. On Aristotle’s Categories. Ithaca, NY. Strothmann, W. 1972. Johannes von Apamea. Berlin (rev. Jansma 1974). Stroumsa, G.G. 2012. “Jewish Survival in Late Antique Alexandria.” In Bonfil et  al. 2012:257–​69. Tailliez, F. 1943. “Notes conjointes sur un passage fameux d’Eusèbe.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 9:431–​49. Tannous, J. 2008. “Between Christology and Kalām? The Life and Letters of George, Bishop of the Arab Tribes.” In Kiraz 2008:671–​716 (= Tannous 2009). Tannous, J. 2009. Between Christology and Kalām? The Life and Letters of George, Bishop of the Arab Tribes. Piscataway, NJ. Tannous, J. 2013. “You are What you Read. Qenneshre and the Miaphysite Church in the Seventh Century.” In Wood 2013a:83–​102. Taube, M. 1991. “Une source inconnue de la chronographie russe: Le Dialogue de Timothée et Aquila.” Revue des études slaves 63.1:113–​22. Teixidor, J. 1992. Bardesane d’Edesse: La première philosophie syriaque. Paris. Ter Haar Romeny, B. 2004. “Question-​and-​Answer Collections in Syriac Literature.” In Volgers and Zamagni 2004:145–​63.

260  General Bibliography Thiel, R. 2013. “Zum philosophischen und philosophisch-​theologischen Dialog in der paganen und christlichen Spätantike.” In Föllinger and Müller 2013:141–​52. Trapp, M. 1997. The Philosophical Orations: Maximus of Tyre. Oxford. Trapp, M. 1997a. “Philosophical Sermons: The Dialexeis of Maximus of Tyre.” Aufstieg und Niedergand der römischen Welt II 34.3.1945–​76. Treschow, M., Otten, W., and Hannam, W., eds. 2007. Divine Creation in Ancient, Medieval, and Early Modern Thought:  Essays Presented to the Rev’d Dr.  Robert D. Crouse. Leiden. Tsutsui, K. 2004. Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Markioniten in Adamantios-​Dialog. Berlin. Ubaldi, P. 1906. “Appunti sul Dialogo storico di Palladio.” Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino. 2nd ser. 16:217–​96. Uthemann, K.-​ H. 1981. “Des Patriarchen Anastasius I  von Antiochen Jerusalemer Streitgespräch mit einer Tritheiten (CPG 6958).” Traditio 37:73–​108. Uthemann, K.-​ H. 1999. “Kaiser Justinian als Kirchenpolitiker und Theologe.” Augustinianum 39.1:5–​83. Vaillant, A. 1930. “Le De autexusio de Méthode d’Olympe, version slave et texte grec édités et traduits en français.” Patrologia Orientalis 22.5:628–​888. Van de Paverd, F. 1978. “Confession (Exagoreusis) and Penance (Exomologesis) in De lepra of Methodius of Olympus.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 44:309–​41. Van de Sande Bakhuyzen, W.H. 1901. Der Dialog des Adamantius. Leipzig. Van Deun, P, and Macé, C., eds. 2011. Encyclopedic Trends in Byzantium? Leuven. Van Gaans, G.M. 2013. “The State of Research on the Manichaean Bishop Faustus.” HTS Teologiese Studies/​Theological Studies 69.1. Art. #1921, 11 pages. Available online at http://​dx.doi.org/​10.4102/​hts.v69i1.1921. Van Haelst, J. 1976. Catalogue des papyrus littéraires Juifs et Chrétiens. Paris. Van Hoof, L., and Van Nuffelen, P., eds. 2014. Literature and Society in the Fourth Century AD: Performing Paideia, Constructing the Present, Presenting the Self. Leiden. Van Nuffelen, P. 2013. “Palladius and the Johannite Schism.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 64.1:1–​19. Van Nuffelen, P. 2014. “The End of Open Competition? Religious Disputations in Late Antiquity.” In Engels 2014:148–​71. Van Nuffelen, P. 2014a. “A War of Words: Sermons and Social Status in Constantinople under the Theodosian Dynasty.” In Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2014:201–​17. Van Nuffelen, P. 2016. “How Shall We Plead? The Conference of Carthage (411) on Styles of Argument.” In Gemeinhardt 2016:145–​58. Van Roey, A. 1975. “Le florilège nestorien dans le Traité contre Nestorius de Théodote d’Ancyre.” Studia Patristica 12:155–​59. Van Roey, A. 1981. “Le florilège nestorien de l’Adversus Nestorium de Cyrille d’Alexandrie et du traité contre Nestorius de Théodote d’Ancyra.” In Paschke 1981:573–​78. Van Roey, A., and Allen, P. 1994. Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century. Leuven. Varner, W.C. 2004. Ancient Jewish-​Christian Dialogues: Athanasius and Zacchaeus, Simon and Theophilus, Timothy and Aquila; Introductions, Texts, and Translations. Lewiston.

General Bibliography  261 Vergani, E., and Chialà, S., eds. 2005. Le Chiese sire tra IV e VI secolo: Dibattito dottrinale e ricerca spirituale; Atti del 2° incontro sull’oriente cristiano di tradizione siriaca (Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 28 marzo 2003). Milan. Villani, B. 2017. “Some Remarks on the Textual Tradition and the Literary Genre of Cyril of Alexandria’s De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate.” Studia Patristica 96 (vol. 22): 215–​24. Visonà, G. 1988. S. Giustino. Dialogo con Trifone. Milan. Visonà, G. 1993. “Il fenomeno profetico del montanismo.” In Penna 1993:149–​64. Vítores, A. 1981. Identidad entre el cuerpo muerto y resucitado en Origenes segun el De resurrectione de Metodio de Olimpo. Jerusalem. Volgers, A, and Zamagni, C., eds. 2004. Erotapokriseis:  Early Christian Question-​and-​ Answer Literature in Context. Leuven. Volp, U. 2011. “῾.  .  . For the Fashion of This World Passeth Away.’ The Apokritikos by Makarios Magnes—​An Origenist’s Defense of Christian Eschatology?” In Kackmarek and Pietras 2011:873–​89. Volp, U., ed. 2013. Makarios Magnes. Apokritikos:  Kritische Ausgabe mit deutscher Übersetzung. Berlin. Volp, U. 2013a. “Der Schöpfergott und die Ambivalenzen seiner Welt:  Das Bild vom Schöpfergott als ethisches Leitbild im frühen Christentum in seiner Auseinandersetzung mit der philosophischen Kritik.” In Nesselrath and Wilk 2013:143–​59. Volp, U. 2017. “Ein Kampf gegen die Hydra:  Die christliche Verteidigungsstrategie des Makarios Magnes im Gegenüber zu exegetisch begründeter philosophischer Bibelkritik.” In Männlein-​Robert 2017:289–​305. Von Stockhausen, A. 2010. “Die pseud-​athanasianische Disputatio contra Arium: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit ῾arianischer’ Thelogie in Dialogform.” In Von Stockhausen and Brennecke 2010a:133–​55. Von Stockhausen, A., and Brennecke, H. C., eds. 2010a. Von Arius zum Athanasianum. Studien zur Edition der Athanasius Werke. Berlin. Vööbus, A. 1965. History of the School of Nisibis. Louvain. Voss, B.R. 1970. Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Münster. Vranic, V. 2015. The Constancy and Development in the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Leiden. Wacht, M. 1969. Aeneas von Gaza als Apologet:  Seine Kosmologie im Verhältnis zum Platonismus. Bonn. Waelkens, R. 1974. L’économie, thème apologétique et principe herméneutique dans l’Apocriticos de Macarios Magnès. Louvain. Walker, J.T. 2006. The Legend of Mar Qardagh: Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq. Berkeley. Waszink, J.H. 1947. “Traces of Aristotle’s Lost Dialogues in Tertullian.” Vigiliae Christianae 1:137–​49. Watt, J.W. 1999. “A Portrait of John Bar Aphtonia, Founder of the Monastery of Qenneshre.” In Drijvers and Watts 1999:155–​169. Watt, J.W. 2016. “Pensée grecque, controverses syriaques.” In Ruani 2016:349–​80.

262  General Bibliography Watts, E. 2005. “An Alexandrian Christian Response to Fifth-​ Century Neoplatonic Influence.” In Brown and Smith 2005:215–​29. Watts, E. 2005a. “Winning the Intracommunal Dialogues: Zacharias Scholasticus’ Life of Severus.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 13.4:437–​64. Watts, E. 2009. “The Enduring Legacy of the Iatrosophist Gessius.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 49:113–​33. Wear, S.K. 2013. “Another Link in the Golden Chain:  Aeneas of Gaza and Zacharias Scholasticus on Plotinus Enn. 4.3.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 53.1:145–​65. Weischer, B.M., ed. 1977. Qērellos III: Der Dialog Dass Christus einer ist des Kyrillos von Alexandrien. Wiesbaden. Weiss, G. 1965. Studia Anastasiana I:  Studien zum Leben, zu den Schriften und zur Theologie des Patriarchen Anastasius I von Antiochien (559–​598). Munich. Wessel, S. 2010. “Memory and Individuality in Gregory of Nyssa’s De Anima et Resurrectione.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 18.3:369–​92. Westerink, L.G., ed. 1962. Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy. Amsterdam. Whelan, R. 2017. “Surrogate Fathers: Imaginary Dialogue and Patristic Culture in Late Antiquity.” Early Medieval Europe 2.1:19–​37. Whitby, M., and Whitby, M. 1986. The History of Theophylact Symocatta:  An English Translation with Introduction and Notes. Oxford. Wibier, M. 2014. “Transmitting Legal Knowledge: from Question-​and-​Answer Format to Handbook in Gaius’ Institutes.” In Scodel 2014:356–​373. Wickham, L.R., and Bammel, C.P., eds. 1993. Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy in Late Antiquity: Essays in Tribute to George Christopher Stead. Leiden. Williams, R. 1993. “Macrina’s Deathbed Revisited: Gregory of Nyssa on Mind and Passion.” In Wickham and Bammel 1993:230–​32. Wilson, N. 1970. “Indications of Speaker in Greek Dialogue Texts.” Classical Quarterly 20.2:305. Wirbelauer, E. 2015. “La riche mémoire d’un évêque de Rome méconnu, Silvestre.” In Blaudeau and Van Nuffelen 2015:319–​32. Wood, P. 2013. “The Chronicle of Seert and Roman Ecclesiastical History in the Sasanian World.” In Wood 2013a:43–​60. Wood, P., ed. 2013a. History and Identity in the Late Antique Near East. New York. Wright, W. 1870. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838. 3 vols. London. Young, F.M. 1983. From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and Its Background. Philadelphia. Zachhuber, J. 2019. Forthcoming. “Philosophy and Theology in Late Antiquity:  Some Reflections on Concepts and Terminologies.” In Parry 2019. Zahn, T. 1887. “Die Dialoge des Adamantius mit den Gnostikern.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 9:193–​239. Zamagni, C. 2004. “Esiste-​t-​il une Terminologie Technique dans les Questions d’Eusèbe de Césarée?” In Volgers and Zamagni 2004:81–​98.

General Bibliography  263 Zamagni, C. 2008. Eusèbe de Césarée. Questions évangéliques: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes. SC 523. Paris. Zamagni, C. 2016. L’extrait des Questions et résponses sur les évangiles d’Eusèbe de Césarée: Un commentaire. Turnhout. Zimmermann, O.J. 1959. Saint Gregory the Great: Dialogues. The Fathers of the Church 39. Washington, DC. Zorzi, M.B. 2006. “Metodio d’Olimpo, un autore minore?” Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 52:31–​56.

Index of Dialogues, Erotapokriseis, and Related Texts

Aeneas of Gaza, Theophrastus (CPG 7450) entry 46 Anastasius of Antioch, Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite (CPG 6958) entry 60 Anon., Acts of a Disputation between Tritheites and Hesitators entry 60 Anon., Acts of Philip 1n1 Anon., Actus Silvestri (BHG 1628–​34; BHL 7725–​43) entry 45 Anon., Anti-​Jewish Dialogue (P.Oxy. 2070) entry 10 Anon., Dialexis Montanistae et Orthodoxi (CPG 2572) entry 27 Anon., Dialogica polymorpha antiiudaica (CPG 7796)  5–​6 Anon, Dialogue of the Monk and Recluse Moschos Concerning the Holy Icons  5–​6 Anon., Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (CPG 7794) entry 57 Anon., Dialogue on Calamities Sent by God (BL Syr. Add. 7199)  4n12 Anon., Dialogue on Heresies (BL Syr. Add. 14533) 4n12 Anon., Dialogue on the Resurrection (BL Syr. Add. 7199)  4n12 Anon., Dialogue with Adamantius (CPG 1726) entry 17 Anon., Dialogus Anatolii  22–​23

Anon., Dialogus cum Iudaeis (CPG 7803) entry 56 Anon., Dialogus Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho. See anon., Dialogica polymorpha antiiudaica (CPG 7796) Anon., Erostrophus (Syriac) entry 6 Anon., Gnostic Dialogues. See anon., Revelation Dialogues Anon., History of Mar Qardagh entry 59 Anon., Martyrdom of Justin 1n1 Anon., On Political Science. See also Menas entry 49 Anon., Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court (CPG 6968) entry 59 Anon., Revelation Dialogues  22–​23 Anon., Tablet of Cebes 21n79 Anon., The Polemic of Nestor the Priest  15–​16 Anon., Toledot Yeshu  15–​16 Anon., Two Macedonian Dialogues entry 25 Apollinarius of Laodicea, Dialogi (CPG 3663) entry 22 Apollinarius of Laodicea, Quod Deus in carne Christus (CPG 3664) entry 22 ?Aristo of Pella, Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (CPG 1101) entry 1 Aristotle, Dialogues  28–​29, 30–​31

265

266  Index of Dialogues, Erotapokriseis, and Related Texts Athenaeus, Deipnosophists  29–​30, 79–​81,  169

Faustus of Mileve, Capitula (CPL 726)  4–​5

Bardaisan, Dialogues against the Marcionites (lost) entry 5 Bardaisan, ?On Fate entry 5 Bardaisan. See Philip Bardaisanite, The Book of the Laws of the Countries (CPG 1152; Syriac) Basil of Cilicia, Against John of Scythopolis (lost) entry 52

Gaius Romanus, Dialogue against Proclus (CPG 1330) entry 3 Galen, ?Lost Dialogues  20–​21 Gregory of Nyssa, Against Fate (CPG 3152) entry 20 Gregory of Nyssa, Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (CPG 3149) entry 19 Gregory the Great, Dialogues (CPL 1713)  28–​29 Gregory the Wonderworker, Dialogue with Gelian entry 9 Gregory the Wonderworker, To Theopompus, on the Impassibility and Passibility of God (CPG 1767) entry 8

Celsus, The True Doctrine 19 Cicero, Cato  28–​29 ?Cleopatra the Alchemist, Dialogue 21n79 Comarius the Philosopher, Dialogue 21n79 ?Cyril of Alexandria, Dialogus Cyrilli cum Anthimo et Stephano (CPG 5277) entry 32 Cyril of Alexandria, On Adoration and Worship in Spirit and Truth (CPG 5200) entry 32 Cyril of Alexandria, On the Incarnation of the Only-​Begotten (CPG 5227) entry 34 Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ (CPG 5228) entry 35 Cyril of Alexandria, Seven Dialogues on the Trinity (CPG 5216) entry 33 Dexippus, On Aristotleʼs Categories 21n79 Didymus the Blind, Disputation with a Heretic (CPG 2565) entry 23 Dio Chrysostom, Or. 2  20 Dio Chrysostom, Or. 4  20 Dio Chrysostom, Or. 30 Charidemus 20 Dio Chrysostom, Or. 36 Borysthenitic 20 Diodorus of Tarsus, Two Dialogues entry 18 Eusebius of Caesarea, Gospel Questions and Solutions (CPG 3470)  1n1 Evagrius, Dialogue of Simon and Theophilus (CPL 482)  5n19, 41–​42

?Hegemonius, Acta Archelai (CPG 3570) entry 16 Herodianus, Symposium 30n111 Himerius, Or. 10  21 ?Hippolytus, Chapters against Gaius (CPG 1891) entry 4 Innocent of Maroneia, Epistula ad Thomam presbyterum Thessalonicensem (CPG 6846) entry 54 Isidore of Pelusium, Ep. 3.397 (CPG 5557)  4–​5 Īšōʽyahb I of Arzon, Disputation against a Heretic Bishop 4n10 Jerome of Jerusalem, Dialogus de S. Trinitate inter Judaeum et Christianum (CPG 7815)  5–​6 John bar Aphthonia, Conversation with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (CPG 7486; Syriac) entry 54 John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood (CPG 3416) entry 26 John of Apamea, Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism (Syriac) entry 43

Index of Dialogues, Erotapokriseis, and Related Texts  267 John of Apamea, Four Dialogues with Eusebius and Eutropius (Syriac) entry 42 John of Apamea, Six Dialogues with Thomas (Syriac) entry 41 John the Grammarian of Caesarea, Disputatio cum Manichaeo (CPG 6862) entry 55 Julian, Caesars  29–​30 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (CPG 1076) entry 2 Lactantius, ?Symposium 30n111 Leontius of Byzantium, Contra Aphthartodocetas (CPG 6813) entry 50 Leontius of Byzantium, Solutions to the Arguments Proposed by Severus (CPG 6815) entry 51 Lucian of Samosata, Bis accusatus sive tribunalia  20–​21,  30 Macarius Magnes, Apocriticus (CPG 6115) entry 21 Macrobius, Saturnalia  29–​30,  80 Mani, Šābuhragān 5n17 Mari the Persian, Against the Magi in Nisibis ​4n10 Mark the Monk, Disputatio cum Causidico (CPG 6097) entry 40 ?Menas, On Political Science entry 49 Methodius, Aglaophon or On the Resurrection (CPG 1812) entry 14 Methodius, On Free Will (CPG 1811) entry 11 Methodius, On Leprosy (CPG 1815) entry 12 Methodius, Symposium (CPG 1810) entry 13 Methodius, Xeno or On Things Created (CPG 1817) entry 15 Nathaniel of Širzor, Disputations against the Severians, Manichaeans, Cantāye, and Māndrāye 4n10

Nestorius, Adversus Theopaschitas (CPG 5752) entry 38 Nestorius, Dialogue in the Bazaar of Heracleides (CPG 5751) entry 39 Numenius of Apamea, On the Good 21n79 Origen, Dialogue between Origen and Beryllus entry 7 ?Origen, Dialogue between Origen and Candidus entry 7 Origen, Dialogue with Heraclides (CPG 1481) entry 7 Origen, Dialogues on the Resurrection entry 7 Palladius, Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (CPG 6037) entry 31 Paul of Nisibis, Conversation with Caesar (CPG 6897) entry 58 Paul the Persian, Disputatio cum Manichaeo (CPG 7010) entry 53 Philip Bardaisanite, The Book of the Laws of the Countries (CPG 1152; Syriac) entry 5 Philostratus, Heroicus  20–​21 Philostratus, Nero  20–​21 Plato, Euthyphro 182 Plato, Gorgias  178–​79 Plato, Phaedo  85, 99, 100, 139–​40 Plato, Phaedrus  66, 67, 75–​76, 85, 178–​79,  182 Plato, Protagoras  27, 44–​45, 85, 122, 187 Plato, Republic  17n58, 27, 38, ​53–54, 83–​84,  189–​91 Plato, Statesman, The  178–​79 Plato, Symposium  29–​30, 75–​76, 77–​78, 79–​80,  100 Plutarch, De cohibenda ira  57–​58 Plutarch, Moralia  20,  79–​80 Plutarch, Sympotic Questions  79–​80 Porphyry, On Aristotleʼs Categories 21n79 Porphyry, ?Symposiastic Dialogue 21n79 Priscian of Lydia, Answers to King Khosroes of Persia 21n79

268  Index of Dialogues, Erotapokriseis, and Related Texts Ps.-​Aristotle, Problemata 22 Ps.-​Athanasius, Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (CPG 2301) entry 29 Ps.-​Athanasius, Disputatio contra Arium (CPG 2250) entry 24 Ps.-​Athanasius, Five Dialogues on the Trinity (CPG 2284) entry 28 Ps.-​Athanasius, Two Dialogues against the Macedonians (CPG 2285) entry 30 Ps.-​Caesarius, Quaestiones et responsiones (CPG 7482)  1n3 Ps-​Clement of Rome, Homilies (CPG 1015)  30, 55, 94–​95, 104, 115n274 Ps-​Clement of Rome, Recognitiones (CPG 1015)  1n1, 51n40, 55, 104, 115n274 Ps.-​Cyril of Alexandria, Dialogue with Nestorius (CPG 5433) entry 36 Ps.-​Gregentius, Dialexis (CPG 7009)  5–​6 Ps.-​Justin Martyr, Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos (CPG 6285)  22, 24 Ps.-​Plato, Axiochus  44–​45 Ps.-​Plato, Eryxias  44–​45

Satyrus of Callatis, Life of Euripides (P.Oxy. 1176)  28–​29 Severus of Antioch, Ep. 6.1 (CPG 7070)  4–​5 Sopater of Apamea, ?Dialogues 21n77 Sulpicius Severus, Gallus or Dialogues on the Virtues of St. Martin (CPL 475)  28–​29, 122n290, 139n356 Theodore of Mopsuestia, Disputatio cum Macedonianis (CPG 3857)  4–​5 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Eranistes (CPG 6217) entry 44 Theodotus of Ancyra, Contra Nestorium (CPG 6131) entry 37 Theophylact Simocatta, History  1n1, ​3n7 Xenophon, Symposium  29–​30,  81 Zacharias of Mytilene, Ammonius (CPG 6996) entry 47 Zacharias of Mytilene, Life of Severus (CPG 6999) entry 48

General Index

Page numbers with ‘n’ are notes, with ‘t’ are tables. Numbers in parentheses ( ) indicate the entry number of each dialogue.  A and B (speakers):  Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene)  181–​82 On the Incarnation of the Only-​ Begotten (34) (Cyril of Alexandria)  147, 148 On the Unity of Christ (35) (Cyril of Alexandria)  149–​50 Seven Dialogues on the Trinity (33) (Cyril of Alexandria)  144 ‘Abdīšō‘ Bar Brīkā of Nisibis  4n10, 49n32, 219n586, 220 ‘Abdīšō‘ of Hazza (speaker)  227–​28 Abercius 55 Abraham of Bēth Rabban  219–​20 Abramowski, L.  156 Abū l-​Barakāt  219–​20 “Acephalian” (speaker):  in Solutions (Leontius of Byzantium)  195–​96 Acta Archelai. See ?Hegemonius: Acta Archelai (16) Acts of Paul and Thekla  77–​78,  79–​80 Acts (Scripture), Jason the Christian  41 Actus Silvestri. See Anon.: Actus Silvestri (45) Adamantius (speaker). See Anon.: Dialogue with Adamantius (17)

adversus Iudaeos  2, 14–​16, 19, 26 Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  172–​75 Anti-​Jewish Dialogue (10) (Anon.)  69 Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57) (Anon.) 215 Dialogue with Trypho (2) (Justin Martyr)  45–​47,  69 Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (29) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  133 influence of Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (1) (?Aristo of Pella)  41–​42 and Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court (59) (Anon.)  226–​27 Adversus Theopaschitas. See Nestorius: Adversus Theopaschitas (38) Aegyptus (speaker), in Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza)  177–​78 Aeneas of Gaza  145 and On Political Science (49) (Anon. or Menas) 188n501 Platonic influence  27–​28 Theophrastus (46)  2, 34t, 177–​80, 181–​82,  183–​84 Aeschylus  28–​29 Aetius, Syntagmation 128 Against Fate. See Gregory of Nyssa: Against Fate (20)

269

270  General Index Against John of Scythopolis. See Basil of Cilicia: Against John of Scythopolis (52) Agathias  27–​28,  191 Aglaophon or On the Resurrection. See Methodius: Aglaophon or On the Resurrection (14) Aglaophon (speaker). See Methodius: Aglaophon (14) Aiello, V.  174 Aitken, J.K.  215–​16 Albinus  26, 27 Alexander of Aphrodisias, and Book of the Law of the Countries (5) (Philip Bardaisanite) 54 Alexander Severus  63–​64 Alexandria:  bishop of (see Ps.-​Athanasius: Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (29)) Disputatio contra Arium (24) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  118 and Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (1) (?Aristo of Pella)  40–​41 Origen  40–​41 allegory:  in Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (1) (?Aristo of Pella)  40–​41 in On Leprosy (12) (Methodius)  74–​75 in Symposium (13) (Methodius)  77–​79 See also imagery altercatio, Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  172–​75 Altercatio Silvestri cum Iudaeis. See Anon.: Actus Silvestri (45) Ambrose (Valentinian), in dialogue with Origen  63–​64 Ammonius. See Zacharias of Mytilene: Ammonius (47) analogy, argument by:  in Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57) (Anon.) 214 in On Free Will (11) (Methodius)  72

Anastasius of Antioch  222n594 Contra Iohanni Philoponi “Diaitetem” 231 Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite (60)  2–​3, 25, 28, 34t,  229–​31 Anatolius, Dialogus Anatolii  22–​23 Andrist, P.  15, 92n183, 213n573, 114–​15, 132–​33, 175,  215–​16 anecdotes, in Four Dialogues (42) (John of Apamea)  163–​64 “Anomoean” (speaker), in Five Dialogues on the Trinity (28)  (Ps.-​Athanasius)  127–​28 Anonymous:  Acts of Philip 1n1 Actus Silvestri (45)  24–​25, 30, 32, 34t,  172–​75 Anti-​Jewish Dialogue (10)  34t, 69 Cologne Mani Codex ​5n17 Consultationes Zacchaei christiani et Apollonii philosophi  132–​33 Dialexis Montanistae et Orthodoxi (27)  13, 34t,  125–​26 and Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (29) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  132–​33 Dialogue with Adamantius (17)  4, 5n19, 34–36t, 90, 92–​95, 132–​33, 175 Dialogue of Simon and Theophilus 5n19 influence of Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (1) (?Aristo of Pella)  41–​42 Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57)  5n19, 15, 16, 26–​27, 34–36t, 213–​17 and Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (29) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  133 influence of Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (1) (?Aristo of Pella)  41–​42 Dialogus cum Iudaeis (56)  19, 32, 34t,  209–​11 Erostrophus (6)  23–​24, 34t,  57–​59 History of Mar Qardagh  1n1, 4–5, 208,  227–​28

General Index  271 On Political Science (49)  27–​28, 34t, 38,  189–​91 Polemic of Nestor the Priest  15–​16 Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy 26 Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos 22 Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court (59)  24–​25, 30, 32, 33, 34t, 175, 223–​28 Two Macedonian Dialogues (25)  4, 34t,  118–​20 anti-​Christian works  15–​16 and Apocriticus (21) (Macarius Magnes) 108 True Doctrine, The (Celsus)  19 anti-​Gospels  Toledot Yeshu  15–​16 anti-​heretical dialogues  15–​16, 26–​27, 37, 165, 170–​71, 175 See also Anon.: Dialogue with Adamantius (17) Anti-​Jewish Dialogue. See Anon.: Anti-​Jewish Dialogue (10) anti-​Manichaean literature. See ?Hegemonius: Acta Archelai (16) Antiochene doctrine  155–​56, 170 Aphroditianus (speaker), in Religious Conversations at the Sasanian Court (59) (Anon.)  33, 56,  223–​26 aphthartodocetism  192–​93,  194–​95 “Aphthartodocetist” (speaker), in Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas (50) (Leontius of Byzantium)  192–​94 Apocriticus. See Macarius Magnes: Apocriticus (21) apocryphal texts:  Acts of Paul and Thekla  77–​78,  79–​80 Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  172–​75 Legend of Aphroditianus  223–​24 Apollinarianism 133 in Disputation with a Heretic (23) (Didymus the Blind)  114

and On the Incarnation (Cyril of Alexandria)  147–​48 “Apollinarian” (speaker), in Five Dialogues on the Trinity (28) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  129 Apollinarius the Elder  110–​11 Apollinarius of Laodicea  4, 97, 110–11, 127n301 Compendium 129 Dialogi (22)  34t,  110–​13 and Dialogue with Adamantius (17) (Anon.)  132–​33 in Eranistes (44) (Theodoret of Cyrrhus)  170–​71 Quod Deus in carne Christus (22)  34t, 111, 112 apologetic dialogues  12–​13, 22, 23–​24, 28–​29,  45 Acta Archelai (16) (?Hegemonius) 90 Dialogue in the Bazaar of Heracleides (39) (Nestorius)  154–​55 Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom  139–​40 Dialogue with Trypho (2) (Justin Martyr) 45 Life of Severus (48) (Zacharias of Mytilene) 187 On the Priesthood (26) (John Chrysostom) 121 Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza) 179 Apophthegmata Patrum 163n426 Aquila of Sinope  213 Aquila (speaker, later renamed Theognostus), in Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57) (Anon.)  213–​17 Archelaus (speaker), in Acta Archelai (16) (?Hegemonius)  88–​89, 90–​91 Arete (speaker), in Symposium (13) (Methodius)  72–​73, 77–​79,  81

272  General Index argumentation:  modes of  37, 38 legalistic proofs  10–​11, 25, 37n122 patristic florilegia  10–​11, 25, 37 proof texts  1, 37n122, 45, 152,  170–​71 Aristippus of Cyrene  58–​59 ?Aristo of Pella, Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (1)  4, 34t, 39–​42, 215 Aristotle and Aristotelianism  17, 30–​31 Categories  119–​20,  136 Dexippus on  21n79 Dialogues  28–​29, 30–​31 influence on dialogues  28, 231 Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene)  182, 183, 184 Disputatio cum Manichaeo (53) (Paul the Persian)  200–​1 History of Mar Qardagh (Anon.)  227–​28 On Political Science (49) (Anon. or Menas)  189–​90 Two Macedonian Dialogues (25) (Anon.)  119–​20 Physics 182 See also Peripatetics; s.-​Aristotle Arius and Arianism  12–​13, 15–​16 and Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  15–​16, 175 and Disputatio contra Arium (24) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  24–​25,  115–​17 and Two Dialogues (18)(Diodorus of Tarsus)  96–​97 Arrhinatus (fictional Persian king)  223 ascetics:  in Disputatio cum Causidico (40) (Mark the Monk)  158–​60 and Four Dialogues (42) (John of Apamea)  163–​64 John Chrysostom on  124 in Six Dialogues with Thomas (41) (John of Apamea)  161 Athanasius of Alexandria  127n301, ​ 134n324 and Cyril’s Treasury 144n371 in Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (29) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  131–​32

in Disputatio contra Arium (24) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  115–​18 Orations against the Arians 117 in Solutions (51) (Leontius of Byzantium) 196 See also Ps.-​Athanasius Athenaeus  29–​30,  80 Deipnosophists  79–​80 Aubineau, M.  207–​8 audience (attending)  34t Acta Archelai (16) (?Hegemonius)  89–​90 Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  172–​73 Against John of Scythopolis (52) (Basil of Cilicia)  198–​99 Aglaophon (14) (Methodius)  83–​84 Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene)  181–​82,  184 Apocriticus (21) (Macarius Magnes) 106 Book of the Laws (5) (Philip Bardaisanite) 52 Conversation with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (54) (John bar Aphthonia) 204 Dialogue in the Bazaar of Heracleides (39) (Nestorius)  155–​56 Dialogue with Adamantius (17) (Anon.)  92–​93 Dialogue with Heraclides (7) (Origen)  60, 61 Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (31) (Palladius)  137–​38 Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism (43) (John of Apamea)  165 Dialogue on the Soul and Resurrection (19) (Gregory of Nyssa)  98–​99 Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57) (Anon.)  213–​14 Dialogue with Trypho (2) (Justin Martyr)  43–​44 Disputatio contra Arium (24) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  116 Disputatio cum Causidico (40) (Mark the Monk)  158 Erostrophus (6) (Anon.)  57–​58

General Index  273 Five Dialogues on the Trinity (28) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  127–​28 Four Dialogues (42) (John of Apamea) 163 Religious conversations (59) (Anon.) 223 Six Dialogues with Thomas (41) (John of Apamea)  160–​61 To Theopompus (8) (Gregory the Wonderworker) 65 Augustine  3–​4,  12–​13 Aulisa, I.  175 Awida (speaker), in Book of the Laws of the Countries (5) (Philip Bardaisanite)  52–​54 B (speaker). See A and B (speakers) Bābai of Šinjar  221 Bakhtin, M.  11–​12 banquets. See meals baptism:  Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  173, 174, 175 De Baptismo (Mark the Monk)  159–​60 Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism (43) (John of Apamea)  159–​60,  165–​67 Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57) (Anon.)  213, 217 Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (29) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  131–​32 Dialogus cum Iudaeis (56) (Anon.)  209 Disputation Iasonis et Papisci (1) (?Aristo of Pella)  40, 41 Life of Severus (48) (Zacharias of Mytilene) 187 Two Dialogues against the Macedonians (30) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  136 Bardaisan of Edessa:  (?)On Fate  51n39, ​53 against Marcionites  3–​4, 12–​13, 55 Dialogues against the Marcionites 55 See also Philip Bardaisanite: Book of the Laws of the Countries Bardaisanites, and Dialogue with Adamantius (17) (Anon.)  92–​93

Bardenhewer, O.  198–​99 Barḥadbšabbā ʽArbāyā 156 Ecclesiastical History  219–​20 Bar Jamma (speaker), in Book of the Laws of the Countries (5) (Philip Bardaisanite) 52 Bar Kokhba revolt  40, 41–​42, 43–​44 Basil, in On the Priesthood (26) (John Chrysostom)  121–​23 Basil of Caesarea  127n302, 113n267 Ep. 135  28, 96n213, 96–​97 passages in Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene)  181–​82 and Plato  2 in Solutions (51) (Leontius of Byzantium) 196 Basil of Cilicia, Against John of Scythopolis (52) 34t,  197–​99 Basil of Rafanea  123 Bassus, in dialogue with Origen  63–​64 Baumstark, A.  220–​21 Bell, P.N.  191 Benedict, St.  28–​29 Benjamins, H.S.  84–​85 Bennett, B.  199n537, 201–​2, 208 Berruto Martone, A.M.  126 Beryllus (speaker)  61–​62 Bible. See Scripture biographical subjects  28–​29 Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  172–​75 Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (31) (Palladius)  137–​40 Dialogues (Gregory the Great)  28–​29 Life of Severus (48) (Zacharias of Mytilene)  186–​87 Bizer, B.  129–​30 Blackburn, B.L.  143 Bobichon, P.  45–​46 Book of Daniel  225–​26 Book of the Laws of the Countries, The. See Philip Bardaisanite: Book of the Laws of the Countries, The (5) Book of Revelation  50, 78–​79 Bratke, E.  225–​26 Bringel, P.  226–​27

274  General Index Brock, S.P.  187, 205, 220–​21 Buchheit, V.  92n186 Caesarius, Quaestiones et responsiones  22–​23 Calboli, G.  18 Cameron, A.  25, 80, 100–​1, 170, 175, 184, 191, 201 Camplani, A.  53–​54 Candidus (speaker), in Dialogue between Origen and Candidus (7) (Origen)  62–​63 Canella, T.  173–​74, 175 Cappadocian Fathers:  in Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas (50) (Leontius of Byzantium)  193–​94 See also Basil of Caesarea; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gregory of Nyssa Carleton Paget, J.N.  215–​16 cave imagery  78–​79 Celsus, True Doctrine, The 19 Celsus Africanus  39–​40, 41 Centaur (speaker), in Xeno or On Things Created (15) (Methodius)  87 Cerinthus (Gnostic)  50 Chaldean Oracles  178–​79 Chapters against Gaius. See ?Hippolytus: Chapters against Gaius (4) characterization of the speakers  27, 33, 34t Acta Archelai (16) (?Hegemonius)  89 Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  172–​73 Against Fate (20) (Gregory of Nyssa)  102–​3 Aglaophon (14) (Methodius)  83 Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene)  183–​84 Anti-​Jewish Dialogue (10) (Anon.)  69 Book of the Laws of the Countries (5) (Philip Bardaisanite)  52 Conversation with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (54) (John bar Aphthonia) 204 Dialogue with Adamantius (17) (Anon.)  92–​93,  95

Dialogue against Proclus (3) (Gaius Romanus)  48–​49 Dialogue with Gelian (9) (Gregory the Wonderworker) 68 Dialogue with Heraclides and Lost Dialogues (7) (Origen)  60–​61 Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (31) Palladius  137–​38 Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism (43) (John of Apamea)  165–​66 Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57) (Anon.) 213 Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (19) (Gregory of Nyssa)  98–​99 Dialogue with Trypho (2) (Justin Martyr)  43–​44 Disputatio contra Arium (24) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  115–​16 Disputatio cum Causidico (40) (Mark the Monk)  158 Disputatio cum Manichaeo (53) (Paul the Persian)  200 Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (1) (?Aristo of Pella)  39–​40 Erostrophus (6) (Anon.)  57–​58 Four Dialogues (42) (John of Apamea) 163 Life of Severus (48) (Zacharias of Mytilene) 186 On Leprosy (12) (Methodius)  74–​76 On Political Science (49) (Anon. or Menas) 189 On the Priesthood (26) (John Chrysostom) 121 Religious Conversation (59) (Anon.)  223 Six Dialogues (41) (John of Apamea)  160–​61 Symposium (13) (Methodius)  77–​78 Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza)  177 To Theopompus (8) (Gregory the Wonderworker) 65 Two Dialogues (18) (Diodorus of Tarsus)  96–​97 Xeno (15) (Methodius)  87

General Index  275 chariot imagery  99–​100 chastity, in Symposium (13) (Methodius) 59 Chesnut, R.C.  157 choice of dialogue form  31–​32 Aglaophon (Methodius)  84–​85 Apollinarius of Laodicea  112–​13 Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (19) (Gregory of Nyssa)  100–​1 Eranistes (44) (Theodoret of Cyrrhus) 168 On Adoration (Cyril of Alexandria) 141 On Free Will (11) (Methodius)  71–​72 Chosroes I  56, 220 chreiai 19 Christ:  and baptism  166 body of as incorruptible  192–​93 in Five Dialogues (28) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  128 and salvation, On the Unity of Christ (35) (Cyril of Alexandria) 149 in Seven Dialogues (33) (Cyril of Alexandria)  144–​45 as Son of David  213 soul of  in Disputation with a Heretic (23) (Didymus the Blind)  114 in Two Dialogues against the Macedonians (30) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  135,  136 “Christian” (speaker), in Dialogus cum Iudaeis (56) (Anon.)  209–​11 Christian-​Muslim dialogues  2–​3 Christology  15–​16 in the Actus Silvestri (45)  175 in Against John of Scythopolis (52) (Basil of Cilicia)  198 and Apollinarius of Laodicea  111–​12, 113, 130

and Dialogue in the Bazaar of Heracleides (39) (Nestorius)  154–​56 in Dialogue between and Orthodox and a Tritheite (60) (Anastasius of Antioch)  230–​31 in Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas (50) (Leontius of Byzantium) 193 and Disputation with a Heretic (23) (Didymus the Blind)  114–​15 Eranistes (44) (Theodoret of Cyrrhus)  168–​71 Five Dialogues (28) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  127–​28 and Justin Martyr  45 On the Unity of Christ (35) (Cyril of Alexandria)  149 Seven Dialogues (33) (Cyril of Alexandria)  144–​46 Chronicle of Seert  219–​20,  221 Chrysothenes (speaker), in Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism (43) (John of Apamea)  165–​67 Cicero:  Brutus  44–​45 Cato  28–​29 compared to Plato  189–​90 Lucullus  44–​45 On the Commonwealth  38,  189–​90 circumcision 166 Clark, E.A.  84–​85 classification of dialogues  26–​27, 32–​37 Clement of Alexandria  80, 102n243,  181–​82 Cleopatra the Alchemist  21n79 cloak imagery  44, 75–​76 coat imagery. See cloak imagery Codex Justinianus  12n37,  201–​2 Cologne Mani Codex  4–​5 colonnade imagery  44–​45 colons, indicating change of speaker 168n439 Comarius the Philosopher  21n79

276  General Index conciliar acts  10–​11, 38 confirmation (progymnasma)  20–​21 consensus, atmosphere of, in Symposium (Methodius) 80 Constantine, and Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  172–​74 constitution, in On Political Science (49) (Anon. or Menas)  189n503, 191 Contra Nestorium. See Theodotus of Ancyra: Contra Nestorium (37) “contrived seriousness”  104–​5 See also irony Conversation with Caesar. See Paul of Nisibis: Conversation with Caesar (58) Conversation with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian. See John bar Aphthonia: Conversation with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (54) conversion of opposing speakers  33, 34t Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene)  182–​83 Dialogue with Adamantius (17) (Anon.)  92–​93 Dialogue with Heraclides and Lost Dialogues (7) (Origen)  61–​62 Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57) (Anon.)  213, 216 Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (29) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  132 Disputatio contra Arium (24) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  115–​16 Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (1) (?Aristo of Pella)  41 Eranistes (44) (Theodoret of Cyrrhus)  170–​71 On Free Will (11) (Methodius)  72 Religious Conversation (59) (Anon.)  223 Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza)  178 Conybeare, C.  16–​17 Cooper, K.  25 corruptibility in Christ  193 Cosmas the Lawyer  15, 212n570

councils and synods  30, 37n122, 90 Council of Chalcedon  12n37, 167n435 Council of Constantinople  37n122, 111 Council of Nicaea  118 Councils of Ephesus  151, 152, 154–​55,  170–​71 Synod of Rome  111 court proceedings, Roman  20–​21 Coyle, J.K.  90 Craton (speaker), in Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  172–​74 Crawford, M.R.  143 creationism 184 Cyril of Alexandria  12–​13, 25 (?)Dialogus Cyrilli cum Anthimo et Stephano 143n369 Against the Blasphemies of Nestorius 152 apologetic dialogues  23–​24 Aristotle’s influence  28 Contra Diodorum et Theodorum 149 in Conversation with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (54) (John bar Aphthonia)  204 De recta fide ad Theodosium  147–​48 and Dialogus cum Iudaeis (56) (Anon.) 211 and Nestorius  153, 154–​55 On Adoration and Worship in Spirit and Truth (32)  31–​32, 34t,  141–​43 On the Incarnation of the Only-​ Begotten (34)  34t, 145–​46, 147–​48,  153–​54 On the Unity of Christ (35)  34t, 149–​50,  156–​57 and Pseudo-​Athanasian literature  118 and public reading of dialogues  15 Seven Dialogues on the Trinity (33)  31–​32, 34t,  144–​46 in Solutions (51) (Leontius of Byzantium) 196 Treasury of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity 144 See also Ps.-​Cyril of Alexandria

General Index  277 Cyril of Jerusalem  216 Catechetical Homilies  88n176, 215, 217 Cyril of Skythopolis, Life of St. Sabas 194 Cyril (speaker). See Ps.-​Cyril of Alexandria: Dialogue with Nestorius (36) Dal Santo, M.  25 debates, defined  26–​27 deceit, beneficial, On the Priesthood (John Chrysostom)  121–​22 Dechow, J.F.  83, 85 Declerck, J.H.  211 De Durand, G.-​M.  145n376, 145–​46, 147–​48, 149,  159–​60 Demetrius, On style ​17n55 demise of ancient dialogue in Christianity 11 Déroche, V.  14, 133, 216 Devil  62, 72 Dexippus, on Aristotle  21n79 dialexis  26–​27 Dialexis Montanistae et Orthodoxi. See Anon.: Dialexis Montanistae et Orthodoxi (27) Dialogica Polymorpha Antiiudaica (Anon.)  5–​6 Dialogue with Adamantius. See Anon.: Dialogue with Adamantius (17) Dialogue against Proclus. See Gaius Romanus: Dialogue against Proclus (3) Dialogue in the Bazaar of Heracleides. See Nestorius: Dialogue in the Bazaar of Heracleides (39) Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite. See Anastasius of Antioch: Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite (60) Dialogue with Gelian. See Gregory the Wonderworker: Dialogue with Gelian (9) Dialogue with Heraclides. See Origen: Dialogue with Heraclides (7)

Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom. See Palladius: Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (31) Dialogue of the Monk and Recluse Moschos Concerning the Holy Icons  5–​6 Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism. See John of Apamea: Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism (43) Dialogue with Nestorius. See Ps.-​Cyril of Alexandria: Dialogue with Nestorius (36) Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection. See Gregory of Nyssa: Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (19) Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila. See Anon.: Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57) Dialogue with Trypho. See Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (2) Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei. See Ps.-​ Athanasius: Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (29) Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas. See Leontius of Byzantium: Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas (50) Dialogus cum Iudaeis. See Anon.: Dialogus cum Iudaeis (56) “dicaearchic” constitution  188n503, 191 didacticism  9, 15 Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene) 182 Book of the Laws of the Countries (5) (Philip Bardaisanite)  52 in Dialogue with Adamantius (17) (Anon.)  94–​95 in Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57) (Anon.) 214 in Dialogus cum Iudaeis (56) (Anon.)  211 in Disputatio contra Arium (24) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  116 in Disputatio cum Causidico (40) (Mark the Monk)  159

278  General Index didacticism (cont.) in Erostrophus (6) (Anon.)  57–​58 Five Dialogues (28) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  127–​28 Four Dialogues with Eusebius and Eutropius (42) (Anon.) (John of Apamea) 164 On Adoration (Cyril of Alexandria) 143 Six Dialogues with Thomas (41) (John of Apamea)  160–​61 To Theopompus (8) (Gregory the Wonderworker)  65, 66 See also erotapokriseis Didymus the Blind  127n301 Disputation with a Heretic (23)  13, 34t,  114–​15 and On Adoration (Cyril of Alexandria) 142 Dio Chrysostom  20 Diodorus (speaker), in Acta Archelai (16) (?Hegemonius)  89, 90, 91 Diodorus of Tarsus  12–​13, 127n301, 194 letter from Basil of Caesarea (Ep. 135)  30–​56 and On the Unity of Christ (35) (Cyril of Alexandria) 149 Two Dialogues (18)  34t,  96–​97 Diogenes Laertius  8–​9, 26, 58–​59 Dialogue (personification)  20 “Dionysarus” (historian), in Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court (59) (Anon.)  223–​24 Dionysius bar Ṣalībī 50 Dioscorus of Alexandria  12–​13, 204 Diotima (speaker), in Plato’s Symposium  75–​76,  100 Disputatio contra Arium. See Ps.-​Athanasius: Disputatio contra Arium (24) Disputatio cum Causidico. See Mark the Monk: Disputatio cum Causidico (40) Disputatio cum Manichaeo. See John the Grammarian: Disputatio cum Manichaeo (55); Paul

the Persian, Disputatio cum Manichaeo (53) Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci. See ?Aristo of Pella: Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (1) Disputation with a Heretic. See Didymus the Blind: Disputation with a Heretic (23) disputations  26–​27 Polemic of Nestor the Priest  15–​16 divination, in Against Fate (20) (Gregory of Nyssa)  102–​4 Docetists  45–​46 dogma, as a source of debate  37, 38 doxologies:  in Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene)  181–​82 in Dialogue with Heraclides (7) (Origen)  60–​61 in Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (30) (Palladius)  138–​39 Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57) (Anon.)  213–​14 On Adoration (Cyril of Alexandria)  142 On the Incarnation (Cyril of Alexandria) 147 Seven Dialogues (33) (Cyril of Alexandria) 145 in Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza)  178–​79 dream interpretation  225–​26 Drijvers, H.J.W.  53–​54 dualism of God and matter  71–​72 Dubel,  S.  8–​9 Egypt 133 ekklesia  86–​87 ekphrastic description of building, Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene) 182 Elm, S.  139–​40 “emanation” προβολή (relationship between God the Father and the Son)  62

General Index  279 embedded dialogues  1, 4–​5, 32–​33, 34t, 54, 202, 227–​28 emotions, use of in dialogues:  in Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (30) (Palladius)  140 shame 16 Enaton (monastery)  184 Ephesus, and Dialogue with Trypho (2) (Justin Martyr)  43n17 Epictetus, Encheiridion 163n426 Epicurus, Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (19) (Gregory of Nyssa)  99–​100 Epiphanius, teacher of Apollinarius the Younger  112–​13 Epiphanius of Salamis, De mensuris et ponderibus 215 Eranistes. See Theodoret of Cyrrhus: Eranistes (44) Erostrophus. See Anon.: Erostrophus (6) Erostrophus (speaker). See Anon.: Erostrophus (6) erotapokriseis  4–​5,  22–​24 and Apocriticus (21) (Macarius Magnes) 107 Capitula (Faustus of Mileve)  4–​5 De baptismo (Mark the Monk)  159 Dialogus Cyrilli cum Anthimo et Stephani (?Cyril of Alexander) 143n369 On Adoration (Cyril of Alexandria)  142 Porphyry 21n79 and Solutions (51) (Leontius of Byzantium) 197 ethics, Aristotelian  183 ethopoiiai  19–20, 27 Eubulion (speaker), in Symposium (13) (Methodius)  77–​79 Eubulius (speaker):  in Aglaophon (14) (Methodius)1.205 77n138 in On Leprosy (12) (Methodius)  74–​76,  77n138 Eucharist, as a Christian type of commensality  29–​30

Eulogius of Alexandria  2–​3 Eunomius, scholia 128 Euripides  28–​29 Eusebius (speaker), in Four Dialogues (John of Apamea)  163–​64 Eusebius of Caesarea:  on Book of the Laws of the Countries (5) (Philip Bardaisanite)  51n39, ​ 51n40,  54–​55 Demonstratio evangelica 217 Dialogue with Adamantius (17) (Anon.)  72–​73 on Dialogue against Proclus (3) (Gaius Romanus)  48n28,  48–​49 and Dialogue with Trypho (2) (Justin Martyr) 43n17 on Justin Martyr  45 on On Fate (Bardaisan)  53–​54 on On Free Will (11)  70n109, 72–​73 on Origen  61–​62 Praeparatio evangelica  72–​73 Eusebius of Emesa  170n449 Eusebius of Nicomedia  175 Eutropius (speaker):  in Dialogue with Adamantius (17) (Anon.)  92–​95 in Four Dialogues (John of Apamea)  163–​64 Eutyches  168, 170, 204 Euxitheus (speaker), in Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza)  177–​78, 179 Evagrius, Dialogue of Simon and Theophilus  5n19,  41–​42 Evagrius Scholasticus  154n400 Evans, D.B.  194 fanciful dialogues  24–​25, 225 See also fictitious dialogues fate:  in Against Fate (20) (Gregory of Nyssa)  102–​5 in the Book of the Laws of the Countries (Philip Bardaisanite)  52, 53 “fault finder” φιλαίτιος, in Symposium (13) (Methodius)  78–​79

280  General Index Faustus of Mileve, Capitula  4–​5 feasting. See meals female teacher:  Diotima in Plato’s Symposium  75–​76,  100 in On Leprosy (12) (Methodius)  74–​76 See also Macrina the Younger Fiaccadori, G.  202 fictitious dialogues  24–​25 Against John of Scythopolis (52) (Basil of Cilicia)  198–​99 Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene)  183–​84 Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Triethite (Anastasius of Antioch) 231 Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism (43) (John of Apamea)  166–​67 Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57) (Anon.) 217 Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (29) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  133 Dialogus cum Iudaeis (56) (Anon.)  211 Disputatio cum Manichaeo (55) (John the Grammarian of Caesarea)  207–​8 Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court (59) (Anon.)  223–​28 Two Dialogues (18) (Diodorus of Tarsus)  96–​97 Two Dialogues against the Macedonians (Ps.-​Athanasius)  136–​37 Fields, L.M.  211 fire imagery  58, 66 First Council of Ephesus  37 Five Dialogues on the Trinity. See Ps.-​ Athanasius: Five Dialogues on the Trinity (28) florilegium. See patristic florilegia Ford, A.  17 formal features of dialogues  33, 34t, 38 Four Dialogues with Eusebius and Eutropius. See John of Apamea: Four Dialogues with Eusebius and Eutropius (42)

free will:  in the Book of the Laws of the Countries (5) (Philip Bardaisanite)  52, 53 See also Methodius: On Free Will (11) Gaius Romanus:  in Chapters against Gaius (4) (?Hippolytus) 34t, 50 Dialogue against Proclus (3)  4, 34t,  48–​49 See also ?Hippolytus: Chapters against Gaius (4) Galen  20–​21 and Erostrophus (6)  58 Gelian, in Dialogue with Gelian (9) (Gregory the Wonderworker) 68 Gemeinhardt, P.  45 “general substance”. See “particular/​general substance” Genesis (Scripture):  Against Fate (20) (Gregory of Nyssa) 104 in Aglaophon (14) (Methodius)  84 in Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (19) (Gregory of Nyssa)  99–​100 Gennadius of Marseilles  152 Gessius  72,  181–​83 Gibbons, K.  54 Gnostics/​Gnosticism:  Book of the Laws of the Countries, The (5) (Philip Bardaisanite)  54 Cerinthus 50 literature  22–​23 in On Free Will (11) (Methodius)  72–​73 Goldhill, S.  11, 23n85 Gospel of John  50 Goulet, R.  108–​9 Greek/​Roman (classical) influence  66, 71n110, 71–​72,  78–​79 and Apocriticus (21) (Macarius Magnes)  108–​9 on Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (30) (Palladius)  140

General Index  281 On Adoration (Cyril of Alexandria)  142 Symposium (13) (Methodius)  79–​80 and Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza)  178–​79 See also Aristotle; Plato Gregorion (speaker), in Symposium (13) (Methodius)  77–​79 Gregory the Great, Dialogues, as biographical  28–​29 Gregory of Nazianzus  122 and Dialogus cum Iudaeis (56) (Anon.) 211 passages in Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene)  181–​82 in Solutions (51) (Leontius of Byzantium) 196 Gregory of Nyssa:  Against Fate (20)  5n19, 34–36t, 37, 102–​5 Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (19)  2, 5n19, 34–36t, 23–​24, 27, 33, 98–​101 and Dialogus cum Iudaeis (56) (Anon.) 211 Life of Macrina  100, 104 Gregory the Wonderworker:  Dialogue with Gelian (9)  31, 34t, 68 On the Impassibility and Passibility of God  23–​24,  27 To Theopompus, on the Impassibility and Passibility of God (8)  34t, 57–​58, 65–​67,  187 Guillaumont, A.  220–​21 Hadrian (emperor), and the Bar Kokhba revolt 40 hagiography and hagiographic literature  1, 104, 227–​28 History of Mar Qardagh  1n1, 4–5, 208,  227–​28 Life of Macrina  100, 104 Life of Severus 187 Vita Abercii  54, 55 handbooks:  of rhetoric  4–​5, 17–​18, 19 style  31–​32,  144

Hartney, A.M.  123 Hebrew Bible  211, 214–​16, 225–​26 ?Hegemonius:  Acta Archelai (16)  5n19, 34–36t, 30, 32,  88–​91 and Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  175 Helena (mother of Constantine), and Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  172–​73 Heracleides of Damascus  154n399 heresy/​heretics  11–​12 anti-​heretical dialogues  15–​16, 26–​27, 37–​38, 165, 170, 175 and Aristotelian logic  28 Candidus (speaker)  62–​63 and Dialogue against Proclus 48n28 Dialogue with Gelian (Gregory the Wonderworker) 68 in Dialogue with Nestorius (Ps.-​Cyril of Alexndria)  150–​51 and Dialogus cum Iudaeis (56) (Anon.) 210 Disputation with a Heretic (23) (Didymus the Blind)  114–​15 and Eranistes (Theodoret of Cyrrhus)  167n434, 171n452 and Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court (59) (Anon.)  56 and Scripture  41–​42 See also Mani; Manichaeans/​ Manichaeism Hermias (speaker):  in On the Incarnation of the Only-​ Begotten (34) (Cyril of Alexandria)  147, 148 in On the Unity of Christ (35) (Cyril of Alexandria)  149–​50 in Seven Dialogues (33) (Cyril of Alexandria)  144, 145 Hermogenes of Tarsus  139–​40 Herodianus (grammarian) ​30n111 Heron, A.  129–​30 Heyden, K.  45, 222n594, 226–​27 Himerius  21, 30 ?Hippolytus, Chapters against Gaius (4) 34t, 50

282  General Index Hirzel,  R.  8–​9 historical debates  13–​15,  24–​25 Conversation with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (54) (John bar Aphthonia) 205 Dialexis Montanistae et Orthodoxi (27) (Anon.) 126 Dialogue against Proclus (3) (Gaius Romanus)  48–​49 Dialogue between Origen and Beryllus (Origen)  61–​62 Dialogue between Origen and Candidus (Origen)  62–​63 Dialogue with Heraclides (7) (Origen)  61–​62 Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila  216–​17 Disputatio cum Manichaeo (53) (Paul the Persian)  201–​2 Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (1) (?Aristo of Pella)  40, 41 Disputation with a Heretic (23) (Didymus the Blind)  114–​15 Five Dialogues (28) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  130 On the Priesthood (26) (John Chrysostom) 122 Hoffmann, M.  9, 26 Holy Spirit:  in Dialexis Montanistae et Orthodoxi (27) (Anon.)  125 in Disputatio contra Arium (24) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  116 in Five Dialogues (28) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  128–​29 and Macedonians  118–​19 in Seven Dialogues (33) (Cyril of Alexandria)  144–​45 in Two Dialogues against the Macedonians (Ps.-​Athanasius)  135 homonymy  119–​20 homoousian  127–​28 Honigmann, E.  222n594 Horicatus (speaker), in Religious Conversation at the Sasanian (Anon.) 224

horse imagery  67, 99–​100 hymnody  79–​80,  81 Hypatius of Ephesus  204–​5 hypostasis:  in Conversation with Caesar (58) (Paul of Nisibis)  219–​20, 221 in Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite (60) (Anastasius of Antioch)  230–​31 in Dialogue with Gelian (9) (Gregory the Wonderworker)  68 in Solutions (51) (Leontius of Byzantium) 196 Ibas 204 Ieraci Bio, A.M.  32 imagery in dialogues:  chariot/​horse  67,  99–​100 cloak 44 colonnades  44–​45 in Four Dialogues (John of Apamea)  163–​64 in On Political Science (49) (Anon. or Menas)  190–​91 pearls, in Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (Anon.)  214 To Theopompus (8) (Gregory the Wonderworker)  66, 67 See also allegory immutability of Christ  168 impassibility/​passibility of God  65–​66, 168, 193 impersonation, and rhetoric  18–​19 Innocent of Maroneia  204–​5 instructional texts. See didacticism introductory dialogues  27, 138–​39 Iran  227–​28 irony, as argumentative strategy  104–​5,  178–​79 Isidore (speaker), in Six Dialogues with Thomas (41) (John of Apamea)  160–​61 Isidore of Pelusium  4–​5 Isocrates 17 Īšō‘yahb I of Arzon ​4n10, 219–​20 Israel, God’s covenant with  213

General Index  283 Jacobs, A. S.  46–​47 Jaffé, D.  45–​46 Jason (speaker), in Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (?Aristo of Pella) (1)  39–​41 Jerome  12–​13 De viris illustribus  90, 113n267 and the Dialogue between Origen and Beryllus  61–​62 on the Dialogue between Origen and Candidus 62 and the Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (1) (?Aristo of Pella)  102n243 on On Free Will (11) (Methodius)  72–​73 on On the Priesthood (26) (John Chrysostom) 120n286 on Origen  63–​64 Jerome of Jerusalem, Dialogue of the Monk and Recluse Moschos Concerning the Holy Icons  5–​6 Jew (speaker), in Dialogus cum Iudaeis (56) (Anon.)  209–​10, 211 Jews and Judaism:  anti-​Jewish literature (adversus Iudaeos)  2, 14–​16, 19 Actus Silvestri (45)  2, 14–​16, 19,  172–​75 Anti-​Jewish Dialogue (10) (Anon.)  69 Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57)  216–​17 Dialogue with Trypho (2) (Justin Martyr)  43–​44,  45–​47 Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (29) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  131–​32,  133 Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court (59) (Anon.)  223, 224–​25,  226–​27 Bar Kokhba revolt  40, 41–​42, 43–​44 in Dialogus cum Iudaeis (56) (Anon.)  209–​11 and erotapokriseis 22 Hebrew Bible  211, 214–​16, 225–​26 religious practice  142, 166 Talmud, dialogue in  11–​12 in True Doctrine, The (Celsus)  19

John:  Book of Revelation  50 Gospel of  50, 116, 141 and baptism  166 John of Apamea (John the Solitary):  Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism (43) 34t,  165–​67 and Disputatio cum Causidico (40) (Mark the Monk)  159–​60 First Letter to Theodoulus on Baptism  166–​67 Four Dialogues with Eusebius and Eutropius (42)  23–​24, 34t,  163–​64 Hymns 161 Six Dialogues with Thomas (41)  34t, 160–​61,  163 John Askotzanges  229–​30 John bar Aphthonia, Conversation with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (54)  13, 34t,  204–​5 John Chrysostom  12–​13 On the Priesthood (26)  17–​18, 34t,  121–​24 John of Claudiopolis  4–​5 John of Damascus  202 John the Grammarian of Caesarea, Disputatio cum Manichaeo (55) 34t,  207–​8 John the Lydian (Lydus)  191 John of Nikiu, Chronicle 202 John Philoponus  179, 227–​28, 231 Diaitetes 231 On the Trinity  229–​30,  231 John Scholasticus (bishop of Constantinople) 231 John of Scythopolis:  and Against John of Scythopolis (52) (Basil of Cilicia)  197–​98 on the Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (1) (?Aristo of Pella)  41,  102–​74 John the Solitary. See John of Apamea Jones, C.P.  108 Judaism. See Jews and Judaism

284  General Index judges 30 Acta Archelai (16) (?Hegemonius)  89, 90 Acts of Peter 175 Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  172–​74, 175 Dialogue with Adamantius (17) (Anon.)  92–​93,  94–​95 Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court (59) (Anon.)  56, 223–​24,  225–​26 Judges (Scripture)  78–​79 Julia Mamaea  63–​64 Julian (emperor)  190–​91,  194–​95 Caesars  29–​30,  81 Julian of Halicarnassus  186n494, 187,  192–​93 Junillus Africanus  199n537 Justinian  27–​28, 112, 191 and Conversation with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (54) (John bar Aphthonia)  204–​5 in Conversation with Caesar (58) (Paul of Nisibis)  219–​21 in Dialogue with Trypho (2) (Justin Martyr)  43–​46 Novel  212n572,  215–​16 Justin Martyr:  Dialogue with Trypho (2)  34t, 43–​46, 69,  138–​39 compared to Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (1) (?Aristo of Pella)  41–​42 Justin (speaker)  43–​46 Platonic influence  27, 44–​45 Syntagma against all the Heresies, and Book of the Laws of the Countries (5) (Philip Bardaisanite)  54 Kahlos, M.  10–​11 Kaldellis, A.  27–​28, 191 Kaler, M.  22–​23 Kashwai 220 Katos, D.S.  139–​40 Kelly, J.N.D.  123

kingship, in On Political Science (49) (Anon. or Menas)  190–​91 Klein, K.  207–​8 König, J.  79–​80 Külzer, A.  15 Lactantius ​30n111 Lahey, L.  172n453, 133, 174, 211, 216 Lampadius (speaker), in Against John of Scythopolis (52) (Basil of Cilicia) 198 Lane Fox, R.  226 language of dialogues  3–​4 LaValle, D.T.  81 laws of human thought, in Five Dialogues on the Trinity (28) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  128,  129–​30 legalistic proofs  10–​11, 25, 37n122 See also patristic florilegia; proof texts Legend of Aphroditianus  223–​24,  225–​26 Leo I, Tomus ad Flavianum (Tome)  154–​55, 167n435 Leontius of Byzantium:  Adversus fraudes Apollinaristarum  111–​12 Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos  194,  195–​96 Deprehensio et triumphus super Nestorianos 194 on the dialogue form  31–​32 Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas (50)  25, 34t, 37, 192–​95 influence if Aristotle  28 Solutions to the Arguments Proposed by Severus (51)  23–​24, 34t,  195–​97 leprosy  74–​75 Leviticus  74–​76 Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.J.  123 Lieu, S.N.C.  201–​2, 208 Life of Severus. See Zacharias of Mytilene: Life of Severus (48) Lim, R.  10–​12, 90 list of definitions, in Four Dialogues (42) (John of Apamea)  164

General Index  285 literary devices  38, 53–​54, 122, 132–​33 Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (30) (Palladius)  140 On the Priesthood (26) (John Chrysostom) 122 literary dialogues  104, 145 Against Fate (20) (Gregory of Nyssa) 104 On the Priesthood (26) (John Chrysostom) 122 Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza)  183–​84 Two Dialogues (18) (Diodorus of Tarsus) 97 literary vocabulary  140 Lucian  20,  29–​30 Bis accusatus sive tribunalia  20–​21,  30 Maas, M.  220–​21 Macarius Magnes:  Apocriticus (21)  19, 34t,  106–​9 erotapokriseis 24 reuse of literature  5n19 Macedonian (speaker):  in Five Dialogues (28) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  128–​29,  130 in Two Dialogues against the Macedonians (30) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  135–​37 in Two Macedonian Dialogues (25) (Anon.)  118–​19 Macedonius of Constantinople/​ Macedonians  118–​19 and Five Dialogues (28) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  128–​29,  130 in Two Dialogues against the Macedonians (30) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  135–​37 Macrina the Younger:  Life of Macrina (Gregory of Nyssa)  100, 104 speaker in Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (19) (Gregory of Nyssa)  33,  98–​101

Macrobius  29–​30 magic contest. See miracles Malingrey, A.M.  122, 123, 139–​40 Mani:  in Acta Archelai (16) (?Hegemonius)  88–​90 Šābuhragān ​5n17 Manichaean, speaker in Disputatio cum Manichaeo (55) (John the Grammarian of Caesarea)  207 Manichaeans/​Manichaeism  4–​5, 88–​89,  90 in Disputatio cum Manichaeo (53) (Paul the Persian)  200, 201–​2 in Disputatio cum Manichaeo (55) (John the Grammarian of Caesarea)  207–​8 and erotapokriseis 22 and Life of Severus (48) (Zacharias of Mytilene) 187 Marcellus, in Acta Archelai (16) (?Hegemonius)  89, 91 Marcion  3–​4 in Vita Abercii 55 Marcionites/​Marcionism  3–​4, 12–​13,  53 in Dialogue with Adamantius (17) (Anon.)  92–​93,  94 Marinus (speaker), in Against John of Scythopolis (52) (Basil of Cilicia) 198 Mark the Monk:  Consultatio intellectus cum sua ipsius anima 159 De baptismo 159 Disputatio cum Causidico (40)  20–​21, 23–​24, 34t,  158–​60 Marotta, E.  104–​5 martyr acts  1n1, 30 Mary (mother of Christ), as Theotokos  149,  150–​51 Māsidis 202 Matthew, Gospel of  136–​37, 141 Maximus Confessor  102n243, 127n301 Maximus of Tyre  26–​27

286  General Index Mazzucchi, C.M.  190 meals  79–​80, 81, 169 Memian (speaker), in Aglaophon (14) (Methodius)  83–​84 Menas, On Political Science (49)  27–​28, 34t, 38, 189–​91 Menas (speaker), in On Political Science (49) (Anon. or Menas)  189 Merlan, P.  183–​84 Methodius  Aglaophon or On the Resurrection (14)  5n19, 34–36t, 83–​85, 100–​1,  138–​39 and Dialogue with Adamantius (17) (Anon.) 94 Platonic influence  27 On Free Will (11)  31–​32, 34t, 70–​73,  104 reuse in Dialogue with Adamantius (17) (Anon.)  5n19, 94 On Leprosy (12)  27, 34t,  74–​76 Symposium (13)  29–​30, 32–​33, 34t, 38, 71, 77–​81, 86–​87,  100–​1 Xeno or On Things Created (15) 34t,  86–​87 miaphysitism 194 and Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  175 and Basil of Cilicia  198–​99 debate with Chalcedonian bishops  13–​14 and Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite (60) (Anastasius of Antioch)  229–​31 and Eutyches  168 Minucius Felix  3–​4 miracles  in the Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  173, 174, 175 in Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court (59) (Anon.)  223, 224 mixed dialogue  32–​33 Mnaseas (speaker), in Dialogue with Trypho (2) (Justin Martyr)  43–​44

molds affecting textiles, On Leprosy (12) (Methodius)  74–​75 monarchianism 60 monastic contexts, On Adoration and Worship in Spirit and Truth (32) (Cyril of Alexandria)  143 monks. See ascetics Montanist (speaker), in Dialexis Montanistae et Orthodoxi (27) (Anon.)  125–​26 Montanus/​Montanism  125 Moreschini, C.  25, 26, 114–​15 Morlet, S.  41–​42, 212n572, 211, 217 Moschus, J.  15 Munnich, O.  45–​46 Muslim authors, and erotapokriseis 22 Nau, F.  151 Neoplatonism  184, 190–​91, 202 See also Plato and Platonism Nestorian (speaker), in Conversation with Caesar (58) (Paul of Nisibis) 221 Nestorius:  in Dialogue in the Bazaar of Heracleides (39) (Nestorius)  155, 156–​57 in Dialogue with Nestorius (36) (Ps.-​ Cyril of Alexandria)  150–​51 Nestorius/​Nestorianism  12–​13,  25 Adversus Theopaschitas (38)  34t, 153–​54,  156–​57 Antiochene doctrine, outline of  155–​56 and Basil of Cilicia  198–​99 and Contra Nestorium (37) (Theodotus of Ancyra)  152 controversy  12–​13 and the Council of Ephesus  170–​71 Dialogue in the Bazaar of Heracleides (39)  13, 34t,  153–​57 on the dialogue form  31–​32 Ep. 2 from Cyril of Alexandria  145–​46 Leontius of Byzantium on  194 and On the Incarnation (Cyril of Alexandria) 147

General Index  287 and On the Unity of Christ (35) (Cyril of Alexandria)  149,  156–​57 Paul of Nisibis  220–​21 Newman, H.I.  216–​17 Nicene doctrine  57–​58,  115–​16 Nirenberg, D.  46 Numenius of Apamea, On the Good 21n79 Olympiodorus 21n79 O’Meara, D.J.  190–​91 On Adoration and Worship in Spirit and Truth. See Cyril of Alexandria: On Adoration and Worship in Spirit and Truth (32) On Free Will. See Methodius, On Free Will (11) On the Incarnation of the Only-​Begotten. See Cyril of Alexandria: On the Incarnation of the Only-​Begotten (34) On Leprosy. See Methodius: On Leprosy (12) only-​begotten-​ness  128,  145–​46 On Political Science. See Anon., or Menas: On Political Science (49) On the Priesthood. See John Chrysostom: On the Priesthood (26) On the Unity of Christ. See Cyril of Alexandria: On the Unity of Christ (35) opinion formation, dialogues as tools of  10–​11,  37–​38 Origen 4 and the Aglaophon (14) (Methodius)  83,  84–​85 Contra Celsum  40–​41,  63–​64 and Dialogue with Adamantius (17) (Anon.) 92n183 Dialogue between Origen and Beryllus  61–​62 Dialogue between Origen and Candidus  62–​63 Dialogue with Heraclides (7)  13, 34t, 60–​64, 95, 114

and Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (19) (Gregory of Nyssa)  100–​1 and Dialogus cum Iudaeis (56) (Anon.) 211 and Gregory the Wonderworker  66–​67 on the miaphysite debate with Chalcedonian bishops  13–​14 and On Free Will (11) (Methodius)  72–​73,  83 On the Resurrection  63–​64, 66–​67,  84–​85 and rhetorical training  19 and Symposium (13) (Methodius)  79–​80 on True Doctrine, The (Celsus)  19 and Xeno (15) (Methodius)  86–​87 Orthodox (speaker):  Adversus Theopaschitas (38) (Nestorius) 199 Contra Nestorium (37) (Theodotus of Ancyra) 152 Conversation with Caesar (58) (Paul of Nisibis) 221 Dialogue between and Orthodox and a Tritheite (60) (Anastasius of Antioch) 230 Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas (50) (Leontius of Byzantium)  192–​94 Disputatio cum Manichaeo (55) (John the Grammarian of Caesarea) 207 Five Dialogues on the Trinity (28) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  127–​29 Solutions (51) (Leontius of Byzantium)  195–​96 Two Dialogues against the Macedonians (30) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  135–​37 orthodoxy  8, 12–​14, 37–​38, 46–​47,  71–​72 otherness, articulation of, to assert Christian singularity (adversus Iudaeos)  46–​47 Otranto, G.  41 Oxyrhynchus  28–​29,  69

288  General Index paganism, in Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court (59) (Anon.)  223, 224 pagan philosopher, in Against Fate (20) (Gregory of Nyssa)  102–​3,  104–​5 pagan religious practices, in Life of Severus (48) (Zacharias of Mytilene) 187 pagan speaker, in Apocriticus (21) (Macarius Magnes)  106–​8 Palladius:  Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (30)  23–​24, 28–​29, 34t,  137–​40 Historia Lausiaca 140 in On Adoration and Worship in Spirit and Truth (32) (Cyril of Alexandria)  141–​43 Pamphilius of Caesarea  61–​62 pamphlet, against Severus of Antioch  186–​87 Papadogiannakis, Y.  16, 26–​27 Papiscus (speaker). See ?Aristo of Pella: Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (1) “particular/​general substance” ἰδικὴ/​ γενικὴ οὐσία, in Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite (60) (Anastasius of Antioch)  230–​31 passibility/​impassibility of God  65–​66, 168, 193 passions, in Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (19) (Gregory of Nyssa)  99–​100 patristic florilegia  10–​11, 25, 37, 129 in Contra Nestorium (37) (Theodotus of Ancyra) 152 in Conversation with Caesar (58) (Paul of Nisibis)  219–​20 in Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas (50) (Leontius of Byzantium)  192–​94 and Dialogus cum Iudaeis (56) (Anon.) 211

in Eranistes (44) (Theodoret of Cyrrhus) 167n435 in Solutions (51) (Leontius of Byzantium) 196 See also legalistic proofs; proof texts Patterson, L.G.  84–​85,  86–​87 Paul of Nisibis, Conversation with Caesar (58)  13, 34t,  219–​21 Paul the Persian:  Disputatio cum Manichaeo (53) 34t,  200–​2 technicization of doctrinal argumentation 37 Paul of Samosata  194 Payne, R.E.  227 Pentateuch  215–​16 Peripatetics  28–​29,  38 Perrone, L.  194–​95 Peter (apostle):  in the Acts of Peter 175 Ps.-​Clementine Homilies 55 Philip Bardaisanite:  Book of the Laws of the Countries, The (5)  3–​4, 23–​24, 34t, 52–​55, 104 Philip of Side  223–​24, 225 Philo of Alexandria:  De vita contemplativa ​30n111 On Providence 104 philosophers  30–​32 in Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  173–​74 in Against Fate (20) (Gregory of Nyssa)  102–​5 in Answers to King Khosroes of Persia (Priscian of Lydia)  21n79 Anti-​Jewish Dialogue (10) (Anon.)  69 Aphroditianus in Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court (59)  33, 56,  223–​26 Dialogue with Trypho (2) (Justin Martyr)  27,  43–​45 in Disputation contra Arium (24) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  117 in Four Dialogues (42) (John of Apamea)  163–​64

General Index  289 in Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court (59) (Anon.)  223–​24,  226 in Six Dialogues with Thomas (41) (John of Apamea)  161 See also Aristotle; Bardaisan; Plato philosophy  10,  227–​28 in Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (19) (Gregory of Nyssa)  99–​101 and Justin Martyr  45 in On Political Science (49) (Anon. or Menas) 190 political  190–​91 and Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza) 179 See also Aristotle; Plato; symposiastic literature Philostratus:  Heroicus  20–​21 Life of Apollonius of Tyana  178–​79 Nero  20–​21 Photinus (speaker), in Disputatio cum Manichaeo (53) (Paul the Persian)  200–​2 Photius:  on Acts of a Disputation between Tritheites and Hesitators 231 on Against John of Scythopolis (52) (Basil of Cilicia)  197–​99 Bibliotheca  188n503,  86–​87 on Against John of Scythopolis (52) (Basil of Cilicia)  197–​98 on On Political Science (49) (Anon. or Menas)  189, 191 Plato and Platonism  16–​17, 30 allegory of the cave  78 Basil of Caesarea on  30–​31 classification of dialogues  26 in Himerius  21n78 influence on dialogues  2, 8–​9, 27–​28,  38 Aglaophon (14) (Methodius)  83–​84,  85

Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene)  181–​83,  184 Book of the Laws of the Countries (5) (Philip Bardaisanite)  53–​54 Dialogi (22) (Apollinarius of Laodicea)  111–​12,  113 Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57) (Anon.) 215 Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (19) (Gregory of Nyssa)  99,  100–​1 Dialogue with Trypho (2) (Justin Martyr)  27,  44–​45 Disputatio contra Arium (24) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  117 Life of Severus (48) (Zacharias of Mytilene) 187 On Adoration (Cyril of Alexandria) 143 On Free Will (11) (Methodius)  70–​71,  72–​73 On Leprosy (12) (Methodius)  75–​7 6 On Political Science (49) (Anon. or Menas)  189–​90 Symposium (13) (Methodius)  78–​80 Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza)  178,  179–​80 To Theopompus (8) (Gregory the Wonderworker) 66 Xeno (15) (Methodius)  87 Neoplatonism  184, 190–​91, 202 works  Euthyphro, and Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene)  182 Gorgias, and Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza)  178–​79 Phaedo  85, 99, 100, 139–​40 Phaedrus  66, 67, 75–​76, 85, 178–​79,  182 Protagoras  27, 44–​45, 85, 122, 187 Republic  17n58, 83–​84,  189–​90 in On Political Science (49) (Anon. or Menas)  189, 190–​91

290  General Index Republic (cont.) Statesman, The, and Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza)  178–​79 Symposium  29–​30, 75–​76, 77–​78, 79–​80,  100 See also Ps.-​Plato Plotinus  178–​79,  190–​91 Plutarch  20, 29–​30,  58–​59 De cohibenda ira  57–​58 Moralia 20 Sympotic Questions  79–​80 Pneumatomachian doctrine  118–​19,  136–​37 poetry:  in Aglaophon (14) (Methodius)  85 dialogue poems  1 in Eranistes (44) (Theodoret of Cyrrhus) 167n434 See also Apollinarius the Elder Pohlkamp, W.  172n453, 174, 175 political philosophy, On Political Science (49) (Anon. or Menas)  190–​91 political realism, On Political Science (49) (Anon. or Menas)  191 Pompeius, Marcus, and Dialogue with Trypho (2) (Justin Martyr) 44n18 Porphyry  21n79, 84–​85,  119–​20 and Ammonius 182 Contra Christianos 108 Pouderon, B.  45–​46 prefaces, authorial  34t Against Fate (20) (Gregory of Nyssa) 103 Against John of Scythopolis (52) (Basil of Cilicia) 198 Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene)  181–​82 Dialogue in the Bazaar of Heracleides (39) (Nestorius)  155 Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Tritheite (60) (Anastasius of Antioch) 230 Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas (50) (Leontius of Byzantium)  192–​93,  194–​95

Eranistes (44) (Theodoret of Cyrrhus)  167–​206 On Adoration and Worship in Spirit (32) (Cyril of Alexandria)  141 On Free Will (11) (Methodius)  70–​71,  73 Seven Dialogues (33) (Cyril of Alexandria) 144 Solutions to the Arguments Proposed by Severus (51) (Leontius of Byzantium)  195–​96 Pretty, R.A.  95 priesthood, On the Priesthood (26) (John Chrysostom)  121–​24 Priscian of Lydia, Answers to King Khosroes of Persia 21n79 problems (zetemata) 24 Proclus (speaker), in Dialogue against Proclus (3) (Gaius Romanus)  48–​49 Proclus of Miletus (speaker)  in Aglaophon (14) (Methodius)  83–​84 in On Free Will (11) (Methodius)  70–​71 in Xeno or on Things Created (15) (Methodius) 87 Procopius of Caesarea  191 Procopius of Gaza  82n158 progymnasmata  17–​18,  38 projectile motion (John Philoponus)  227–​28 proof texts  37n122, 45, 152, 170–​71 See also legalistic proofs; patristic florilegia prophesy:  in the Book of Daniel  225–​26 pagan 225 Psalms:  Aglaophon (14) (Methodius)  84 Anti-​Jewish Dialogue (10) (Anon.)  69 Erostrophus (6) (Anon.)  58 Ps.-​Aristotle, Problemata 22 Ps.-​Athanasius:  Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (29)  5n19, 15, 26–​27, 34–36t, 129–​30,  131–​33 and Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57) (Anon.)  215

General Index  291 influence of Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (1) (?Aristo of Pella)  41–​42 as instructional  23–​24 Disputatio contra Arium (24)  24–​25, 30, 34t,  115–​18 Five Dialogues on the Trinity (28)  4, 13, 34t,  127–​30 Two Dialogues against the Macedonians (30)  13, 34t, 118–​19,  135–​37 and Aristotelian influence  28,  136–​37 and Dialogue with Adamantius (17) (Anon.)  132–​33 reuse of Two Macedonian Dialogues (25) 5n19 Ps.-​Clementine Literature  30, 55, 94–​95,  104 Ps.-​Cyprian, Ad Vigilium Episcopum, de Iudaica Incredulitate 39n5 Ps.-​Cyril of Alexandria, Dialogue with Nestorius (36)  34t,  150–​51 Ps.-​Didymus, De Trinitate  118–​20, 145n376 Ps.-​Gregentius, Dialexis  5–​6 Ps.-​Hermogenes, On method of forceful speaking ​17n55 Ps.-​Justin, Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos 24 Ps.-​Plato:  Axiochus  44–​45 Eryxias  44–​45 public reading of dialogues  15, 145–​46,  148 Pusey, P.E.  147 Quaternitarian doctrine  221 question-​and-​answer literature. See erotapokriseis Quintilian, on impersonation  18–​19 Quod Deus in carne Christus. See Apollinarius of Laodicea: Quod Deus in carne Christus (22) Rabbinic literature. See Jews and Judaism Rajak, T.  46–​47 refutation (progymnasma)  20–​21

“relaxed” ἀνειμένος, style in dialogues  31–​32, 141, 144 Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court. See Anon.: Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court (59) Renan, E.  58–​59 resurrection:  baptism as symbol of  166 bodily  in Aglaophon (14) (Methodius)  83,  84–​85 in Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (19) (Gregory of Nyssa)  98–​100 reuse of material  5–​6, 10–​11, 41–​42, 94,  118–​19 rhetoric  9, 16–​21, 24–​26,  37–​38 and Apocriticus (21) (Macarius Magnes)  108–​9 on Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (30) (Palladius)  140 and On the Priesthood (26) (John Chrysostom)  123, 124 and Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza)  179–​80 Rhetorica ad Herennium 18 Richard, M.  194–​95,  207–​8 Rignell, L.G.  165, 166–​67 Rizzi, M.  61 Robertson, R.G.  215–​16 Roman (classical) influence. See Greek/​ Roman (classical) influence Romans, Epistle to the, on baptism  166 Rufinus  92n183, 62–​63, 92n186 Ryssel, V.  65n85, 58–​59, 66 Sabellianism 68 Šābuhragān (Mani) ​5n17 salvation:  divine economy of, in Symposium (13) (Methodius) 78 in On Adoration (Cyril of Alexandria) 142 in On the Unity of Christ (35) (Cyril of Alexandria) 149

292  General Index sarcasm as a strategy of persuasion, Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza)  178–​79 Satyrus of Callatis, Life of Euripides  28–​29 scene setting  27, 34t Acta Archelai (16) (?Hegemonius)  88–​89,  91 Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  172–​73 Against Fate (20) (Gregory of Nyssa)  102–​3,  104 Against John of Scythopolis (52) (Basil of Cilicia)  198–​99 Aglaophon (14) (Methodius)  83–​84 Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene)  181,  182–​83 Apocriticus (21) (Macarius Magnes) 106 Book of the Laws of the Countries (5) (Philip Bardaisanite)  52 Conversation with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (54) (John bar Aphthonia) 204 Dialogue with Heraclides (7) (Origen) 60 Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57) (Anon.) 213 Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (31) (Palladius)  137–​38 Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism (43) (John of Apamea)  165–​66 Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (19) (Gregory of Nyssa)  98–​99 Dialogue with Trypho (2) (Justin Martyr)  43–​44 Disputatio contra Arium (24) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  115–​16 Disputatio cum Causidico (40) (Mark the Monk)  158 Disputatio cum Manichaeo (53) (Paul the Persian)  200 Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (1) (?Aristo of Pella)  40–​41 Four Dialogues (42) (John of Apamea) 163

Life of Severus (48) (Zacharias of Mytilene) 186 On Leprosy (12) (Methodius)  74–​75 On Political Science (49) (Anon. or Menas) 189 Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court (59)  223–​26 Six Dialogues with Thomas (41) (John of Apamea) 161 Symposium (13) (Methodius)  79–​80 Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza) 177 To Theopompus (8) (Gregory the Wonderworker)  65–​66 school of Bardaisan  58 School of Edessa  162n423, 165n427 School of Gaza  27–​28 School of Nisibis  219–​20 Schott, J.M.  108–​9 Schreckenberg, H.  215 Schurig, S.  142 Schwartzman, L.J.  175 Scipioni, L.I.  153–​54,  156–​57 Scripture  10–​11, 25, 37 Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  172–​73 Against Fate (20) (Gregory of Nyssa)  103–​4 Against John of Scythopolis (52) (Basil of Cilicia) 198 Aglaophon (14) (Methodius)  83, 84 Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene)  181–​82 Anti-​Jewish Dialogue (10) (Anon.)  69 Apocriticus (21) (Macarius Magnes)  107, 108 Book of the Laws of the Countries (5) (Philip Bardaisanite)  53 Chapters against Gaius (4) (?Hippolytus) 50 Contra Nestorium (37) (Theodotus of Ancyra) 152 Conversation with Caesar (58) (Paul of Nisibis)  219–​20,  221 Dialexis Montanistae et Orthodoxi (27) (Anon.)  125–​26

General Index  293 Dialogue with Adamantius (17) (Anon.)  93, 95 Dialogue in the Bazaar of Heracleides (39) (Nestorius)  156 Dialogue with Heraclides (7) (Origen)  60–​61 Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom  138–​39 Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism (43) (John of Apamea)  166 Dialogue with Nestorius (36) (Ps.-​Cyril of Alexandria)  150–​51 Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57) (Anon.)  213–​15,  216–​17 Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (19) (Gregory of Nyssa)  99–​101 Dialogue with Trypho (2) (Justin Martyr)  43–​44 Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (29) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  132 Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas (50) (Leontius of Byzantium)  193–​94 Dialogus cum Iudaeis (56) (Anon.)  209, 210, 211 Disputatio contra Arium (24) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  116,  117 Disputatio Iasonis et Papisci (1) (?Aristo of Pella)  39–​40,  41–​42 Eranistes (44) (Theodoret of Cyrrhus)  170–​71 Erostrophus (6)  58 Five Dialogues (28) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  127–​29 On Adoration and Worship in Spirit and Truth (32) (Cyril of Alexandria)  141–​42 On Free Will (11) (Methodius)  72 On the Incarnation (Cyril of Alexandria) 147 On Leprosy (12)  74–​76 On the Priesthood (26) (John Chrysostom) 123 Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court (59)  225

Seven Dialogues (33) (Cyril of Alexandria)  144–​45 Six Dialogues with Thomas (41) (John of Apamea) 161 Solutions (51) (Leontius of Byzantium) 196 Symposium (13) (Methodius)  77–​80 Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza)  178–​79 To Theopompus (8) (Gregory the Wonderworker) 66 Two Dialogues against the Macedonians (30) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  135–​36 Two Macedonian Dialogues (25) (Anon.) 119 Second Sophistic movement  20–​21, 38 Septuagint  211, 213, 215–​16 sermocinatio 18 Seven Dialogues on the Trinity. See Cyril of Alexandria, Seven Dialogues on the Trinity (33) Severus Alexander  63–​64 Severus of Antioch  4–​5, 153, 192–​93,  194–​96 Severus, Sulpicius  12–​13 Gallus or Dialogues on the Virtues of St. Martin  28–​29 shame, use of  16, 213n574 silence of the speaker  16, 65, 200, 205,  213–​14 Simeon of Beth Arsham  3–​4 Simon Magus  55, 175 simony  138–​39 sin:  and the body  83 original, On Adoration (Cyril of Alexandria) 142 Sistelius (speaker):  in Aglaophon (14) (Methodius)  83–​84 in On Leprosy (12) (Methodius)  74n124,  74–​76 Six Dialogues with Thomas. See John of Apamea: Six Dialogues with Thomas (41) Slusser, M.  67

294  General Index Socrates of Constantinople  120n286, 86–​87, 111,  112–​13 Socrates (speaker)  104–​5 in Erostrophus (6) (Anon.)  57–​58 in Phaedo (Plato)  99, 100 in Protagoras (Plato)  75–​76 in Symposium (13) (Plato)  100 Socratic dialogues  2, 8, 17–​18, 21n79,  26–​27 Against Fate (20) (Gregory of Nyssa)  104–​5 Book of the Laws of the Countries, The (5) (Philip Bardaisanite)  53–​54 Dialogue with Trypho (2) (Justin Martyr)  44–​45 Disputatio contra Arium (24) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  117 Erostrophus (6) (Anon.)  58–​59 Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza)  179 To Theopompus (8) (Gregory the Wonderworker)  66–​67 Xeno or On Things Created (15) (Methodius) 87 Solutions to the Arguments Proposed by Severus. See Leontius of Byzantium: Solutions to the Arguments Proposed by Severus (51) Son. See Christ Song of Songs, and Symposium (13) (Methodius)  78–​79 Sophocles  28–​29 Sophronius (speaker), Dialogue in the Bazaar of Heracleides (39) (Nestorius)  155–​56,  157 Sophronius of Jerusalem  201 Sorabji, R.  179, 184 Soterianus (speaker), Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism (43) (John of Apamea)  165–​67 soul:  of Christ  in Disputation with a Heretic (23) (Didymus the Blind)  114

in Two Dialogues against the Macedonians (30) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  135,  136 in De anima (Tertullian)  58 in Dialogue with Heraclides (7) (Origen)  60–​61 in Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (19) (Gregory of Nyssa)  98–​100 in Erostrophus (6)  58 in Four Dialogues (42) (John of Apamea)  163–​64 leprosy as disease of the  74–​75 mutability of, in Disputation with a Heretic (23) (Didymus the Blind) 114 in On Free Will (11) (Methodius)  72–​73 in the Phaedo (Plato)  100 in Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza) 177 Sozomen  112–​13 speakers:  change of  25, 168n439 in Contra Aphthartodocetas (50) (Leontius of Byzantium)  193,  194–​95 in Conversation with Caesar (58) (Paul of Nisibis)  221 in Dialogue with Heraclides (7) (Origen)  60–​61 in Disputation with a Heretic (23) (Didymus the Blind)  114 number of  34t See also characterization; conversion of opposing; voice Speck, P.  111 speech in character. See impersonation stasis theory  139–​40 Stoicism  58, 99–​100,  182–​83 Strategius  204, 205 syllogisms:  Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  174 Dialogi (22) (Apollinarius of Laodicea)  112–​13

General Index  295 Dialogus cum Iudaeis (56) (Anon.)  210 Eranistes (44) (Theodoret of Cyrrhus)  168, 170 Five Dialogues (28) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  129 Sylvester, and Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  172–​75 symposia  79–​80,  81 symposiastic literature  29–​30, 79–​80, 81, 169 Porphyry 21n79 Symposium. See Methodius: Symposium (13); Plato: Symposium synods. See councils and synods synonymy  119–​20 Talmud, dialogue form in the  11–​12 Tarasius (speaker), in Against John of Scythopolis (52) (Basil of Cilicia) 198 technicization of religious argumentation  2–​3, 10–​11, 37, 38, 170 Tertullian, De anima 58 The Book of the Laws of the Countries, The. See Philip Bardaisanite: Book of the Laws of the Countries, The (5) Thekla  78–​79,  100 Acts of Paul and Thekla  77–​78 Themistius, Or. 21  182 Theodore (speaker), in Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (30) (Palladius)  137–​39 Theodore of Mopsuestia  194 Disputatio cum Macedonianis 4 Theodoret of Cyrrhus  12–​13, 25, 127n301, 204 and classical authors  2 dialexis form  26–​27 on the dialogue form  31–​32 Eranistes (44)  13, 25, 34t, 37, 95, 129,  168–​71 Haereticarum fabularum compendium 208

Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and On the Unity of Christ (35) (Cyril of Alexandria) 149 Theodorus Teganistes  200, 201–​2 Theodotus of Ancyra  25 Contra Nestorium (37)  34t, 37, 152 Theogenes (speaker), in Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism (43) (John of Apamea)  165–​67 Theon, Aelius  17–​18 Theopaschite (speaker), in Adversus Theopaschitas (38) (Nestorius) 153 Theopaschite theology  153 Theopatra (speaker),in Symposium (13) (Methodius)  77–​79 Theophilus (speaker), in Aglaophon or On the Resurrection (14) (Methodius)  83–​84 Theophrastus (philosopher)  28, 30–​31 Theophrastus (speaker). See Aeneas of Gaza: Theophrastus (46) Theotokos  147–​48, 149,  150–​51 Thiel, R.  184 Thomas, speaker in On Political Science (49) (Anon. or Menas) 189n503 Thomas, speaker in Six Dialogues with Thomas (41) (John of Apamea)  160–​61 Thrasyllus 26 1 Timothy  116 Timothy (speaker), in Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57) (Anon.)  213–​15,  217 Titus of Bostra  208 Toledot Yeshu  15–​16 To Theopompus, on the Impassibility and Passibility of God. See Gregory the Wonderworker: To Theopompus, on the Impassibility and Passibility of God (8) Trapp, M.  26–​27

296  General Index Trinity:  in Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene) 183 in Dialexis Montanistae et Orthodoxi (27) (Anon.)  125 in Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (29) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  131–​32 in Disputatio contra Arium (24) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  116 and Sabellianism  68 Seven Dialogues (33) (Cyril of Alexandria)  144–​46 in Theophrastus (46) (Aeneas of Gaza)  178–​79 Tritheism  229–​30 Tritheism  229–​30,  231 Two Dialogues. See Diodorus of Tarsus: Two Dialogues (18) Two Dialogues against the Macedonians. See Ps.-​Athanasius: Two Dialogues against the Macedonians (30) “two Gods” theological formula, Dialogue with Heraclides (7) (Origen)  60–​61 Two Macedonian Dialogues. See Anon.: Two Macedonian Dialogues (25) Uthemann, K.-​H.  220–​21,  231 Vaillant, A.  73 Valens (emperor)  12–​13 Valentinians/​Valentinianism  62, 63–​64, 70–​71,  92–​93 in Dialogue with Adamantius (17) (Anon.)  92–​93 Van Nuffelen, P.  13–​14, 139–​40 Van Roey, A.  152 Varner, W.C.  216 virginity, in Symposium (13) (Methodius)  77–​80 virtue, in Four Dialogues (42) (John of Apamea) 164 Vita Abercii  54, 55

voice:  narrative  32–​56,  34t Acta Archelai (16) (?Hegemonius)  88–​89 Actus Silvestri (45) (Anon.)  172–​73 Against Fate (20) (Gregory of Nyssa) 103 Against John of Scythopolis (Basil of Cilicia) (52)  198–​99 Aglaophon (14) (Methodius)  83 Ammonius (47) (Zacharias of Mytilene) 181 Anti-​Jewish Dialogue (10) (Anon.)  69 Apocriticus (21) (Macarius Magnes)  106–​7 Book of the Laws of the Countries (5) (Philip Bardaisanite)  52 Chapters against Gaius (4) (?Hippolytus) 50 Conversation with the Syrian Orthodox (54) (John bar Aphthonia) 205 Dialogue with Heraclides (7) (Origen)  60–​61 Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (30) (Palladius)  138–​39 Dialogue on the Mystery of Baptism (43) (John of Apamea)  165 Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (57) (Anon.)  213–​14 Dialogue on the Soul and the Resurrection (19) (Gregory of Nyssa)  98–​99 Dialogue with Trypho (2) (Justin Martyr)  43–​44 Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas (50) (Leontius of Byzantium)  192–​93 Dialogus cum Iudaeis (56) (Anon.) 209 Disputatio contra Arium (24) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  115–​16 Disputatio cum Causidico (40) (Mark the Monk)  158–​59

General Index  297 Disputatio cum Manichaeo (53) (Paul the Persian)  200 Disputation with a Heretic (23) (Didymus the Blind)  114 Erostrophus (6) (Anon.)  45–​46 Four Dialogues (42) (John of Apamea) 163 On the Priesthood (26) (John Chrysostom) 121 Religious Conversation at the Sasanian Court (59)  225–​26 Six Dialogues with Thomas (41) (John of Apamea)  160–​61 To Theopompus (8) (Gregory the Wonderworker) 65 Two Macedonian Dialogues (25) (Anon.) 119 Volp, U.  108–​9 Von Stockhausen, A.  117, 118 Vööbus, A.  220–​21 Voss, B.R.  10–​4, 27, 40–​42, ​44n18, 45, 55, 61–​64, 66, 68, 73, 74–​75, 76, 83–​84, 85, 87, 90, 94, 97, 104, 107, 112, 115n274,119–​20, 122, 126, 130, 136–​37, 145, 179 Walker, J.T.  208, 220–​21 Watts, E.  72, 179–​80, 184, 187 Wear, S.K.  184

Weiss, G.  216 Wessel, S.  100–​1 Whelan, R.  13–​14 writing, reference to the act of, Dialogus contra Aphthartodocetas (50) (Leontius of Byzantium)  192–​93 Xeno (speaker), in Xeno or On Things Created (15) (Methodius)  87 Xeno or On Things Created. See Methodius: Xeno or On Things Created (15) Xenophon  58–​59 Symposium  29–​30 Young, F.M.  170 Zacchaeus (speaker), in Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei (29) (Ps.-​Athanasius)  132 Zacharias of Mytilene  145 Ammonius (47)  32, 34t, 179, 181–​84 compared to Aeneas of Gaza  178–​79 Life of Severus (48)  28–​29, 34t,  186–​87 and On Political Science (49) (Anon. or Menas) 188n501 Platonic influence  27–​28 zodiac cycle  103–​4 Zoroastrianism  223, 227–​28