Tomus ad Antiochenus

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Figure of Athanasius of Alexandria on an icon

The Tomus ad Antiochenos is a letter or mediation proposal that was written by Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria on behalf of a regional synod he convened in Alexandria in 362 and addressed a group of bishops seeking a solution to the schism between 'Eustathians' and ' Meletians ' searched in the parishes of Antioch . This letter played a key role in the trinity theological controversy between the one- hypostasis model and the three-hypostasis model of the Trinity, and already anticipated the turning point in this question from the 370s.

The focus is on the desire to bring about a theological agreement on the basis of the Nicene Confession . By recognizing that certain theological issues in the Arian controversy were based not only on differences of faith, but also on different language regulations or conceptual differences between the Latin and Greek languages, Tomus paves the way for the trinity-theological language regulation of the three Cappadocians from the 370s: Basil von Caesarea , his brother Gregory of Nyssa and their mutual friend Gregory of Nazianzen subsequently established the expression of the one being ( Ousia ) and the three hypostases of God, which became binding through the decision of the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381.

Church and dogma historical context

Constellation of trinity theological disputes

The background of Tomus ad Antiochenos are the disputes about the Trinity, which are traditionally known as the " Arian ", in today's dogma historiography also as the "Trinitarian" or "Subordinatian conflict". The opponents agreed that the Logos had incarnated in Jesus Christ . However, the question of how the relationship of this Logos to God , the relationship of the Son to the Father, was to be understood was particularly controversial . If the Council of Nicaea of 325 had condemned the Arian doctrine that the Son or Logos is not true God, but a creature (even if the first and most exalted creature) of God and has a beginning, ignited almost immediately after the council Decades of controversy, especially on two points:

  1. In the anathematisms appended to the Nicene Confession , those are condemned as heretics who claim that the son is from a different hypostasis or a different being ( ousia ) than the father. This contradicted the in the - Greek-speaking - east of the Roman Empire at the time widespread understanding of the Trinity in the theological waters of Origen , according to which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were three different hypostases.
  2. The Nicene statement that the son is of the same nature (homousios) as the father, which emphasized the unity of God, could be understood modalistically , which is why the formula was heretical theologically in the 'Origenistic middle group' dominating in the East . Around 30 years later, from around 357 onwards, the moderate 'Origenistic' Homeusians emerged , who instead of the equality of essence taught the equality of essence of the son; the moderate 'origenistic' homoeists , who only taught the similarity of the son to the father 'according to the holy scriptures', but rejected a more precise definition of this similarity, since for example the essence of father and son is not spoken of in the scriptures; the radical heterousians , who represented the essential differences between the son and the father and who had triggered the dynamic of development with their radicalism.

The political situation in the empire

Emperor Constantine had called the Council of Nicaea and supported the Nicene Confession , in particular the Homousios formula, but after 325 he advocated the reintegration of the Arians condemned in Nicaea in the interests of peace. Uncompromising and energetic 'anti-Arians' like Athanasius and Markell von Ankyra stood in the way of his integration efforts.

Among the successors of Constantine, it was above all Constantius II, initially in the east, from 353 sole ruler over the entire empire, who sought new compromise formulas differentiated from the Nicene creed, which among other things led to the banishment of the uncompromising Athanasius and the enforcement of the so-called homoic Reich dogmas at the beginning of the year 360. This confessional formula came about under imperial pressure, little changed compared to the formula of Nike and the 4th sirminic formula, also forbade the term 'essence' (usia) and its use in connection with God the father and his son, as well as the term 'hypostasis' and its - trinity-theological - use in connection with God the Father, his Son and the Holy Spirit.

With the death of Emperor Constantius II. 361 and the accession of his cousin and rival Julian , church policy changed fundamentally: Julian wanted to secure the unity of the empire by reintroducing the pagan state cult and left the church to itself, as unlike his predecessors, he left the church to nothing an ecclesiastical unit. The edict of restitution of February 9, 362, repealed the ban, including that of Athanasius, so that he could return to Alexandria as bishop on February 21, 362 .

The Synod of 362

In the spring or summer of 362, Athanasius convened a synod in Alexandria for various purposes. a. it was about the confession of Nicaea as the sole theological basis. Another point was the mediation in the great church congregation conflict of Antioch, specifically it was about two of the three factions that had formed. On the one hand there was a small community of followers of the deposed bishop Eustathios of Antioch around the deacon Paulinus in 327 , who, like Athanasius, taught the one being and one hypostasis of God and with whom Athanasius felt particularly connected; on the other hand, a larger community around the bishop Meletius , who represented a Homousian creed and thus the Eastern Origenistic three-hypostasis doctrine. With the third group around Bishop Euzoius , a close friend of Arius and representative of the homoic imperial dogma, an understanding was out of the question from the outset.

The 'Tomus ad Antiochenos' itself was written after the synod. The Epistula catholica , written by Athanasius as the main author and at least one co-author, can be regarded as a circular of the Synod .

Sender and addressee of Tomus ad Antiochenos

The Tomus is a letter of mediation from Athanasius, on behalf of the participants in the Synod in Alexandria (362), addressed to a five-member commission of bishops, which dealt with the solution to the 'Antiochene' or 'Meletian schism'. The mediation proposal should be read out by the bishops to the congregations in Antioch affected by the schism between 'Eustathians' and 'Meletians' for acclamation . Named (Tom pr., 'Introduction') Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Calaris , Cymatius of Paltus, Asterius of Petra and Anatolius of Euboea, both otherwise unknown. The title “Tomus ad Antiochenos” is not very precise, the letter was only indirectly addressed to the parishes in Antioch via the Bishops' Commission. Therefore, the title is considered secondary.

Two of these bishops, Eusebius and Asterius, were themselves present at the Synod of Alexandria. They are not only addressees, but also senders, the latter together with “Athanasius and all who were with him in Alexandria” (Tom 10,2). However, Athanasius alone is attested as the author by tradition, so early after his death by his successor Petros and by Apollinaris of Laodicea .

Main themes of Tomus ad Antiochenus

The letter addresses u. a. especially with regard to the situation in Antioch, the Christians' longing for peace, the unity of the Church and the rejection of Arianism, the Nicaea confession and its significance, as well as the question of whether it needs to be supplemented, the question of one or three hypostases in the doctrine of the Trinity, the human The nature of Christ and the difficulties involved, as well as the subject of the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Unity of the church

The tomus begins with an appeal for church unity. Against the homoeian imperial dogma, which is considered 'Arian', Athanasius wants to embody the Altnicäner, to which he counts Paulinus of Antioch and now also himself, as well as the Homousian origins of the east. B. in the deposed Bishop Meletius of Antioch, unite. This is because “very many who were previously separated from us out of quarreling now want to keep peace” (Tom 1,1) - meaning the Meletians.

For ecclesiastical unity, Athanasius sees the common faith as a prerequisite: "And it is necessary that there is a common sense of the senses." To "condemn the Arian heresy and profess the faith known by the holy fathers in Nicaea, but also condemn those who claim that the Holy Spirit is a creature and separate from the essence of Christ" (Tom 3: 1) It is about the rejection of Arianism, the establishment of Nicene as a common basis of faith and the deity of the Holy Spirit.

Rejection of Arianism

'Arianism' is unacceptable to Athanasius. However, 'Arianism' has always been a blanket battle term for him. Arius and his followers had been condemned at the Council of Nicaea and had not since repeated the controversial views that the council had condemned. The many 'origenistic' opponents of Nicene were not in the theological succession of Arius, but had in common with his theology the origenistic tradition of subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father. But for Athanasius they were 'Arians'. Distancing himself from Arianism meant for him in the time of Tomus's writing: "that one does not separate the holy trinity and asserts that one of it is a creature" (Tom 3.2) - not the Logos, as Arius had taught it, not the Holy Spirit, as taught by the Pneumatoms in the second half of the fourth century.

A number of other heresies, so demands Tomus, should be rejected: the theological positions of Sabellius , 'dynamic' monarchianism , and of Paul of Samosata , 'modalistic' monarchianism , of Valentinus and Basilides (both Gnostics ) as well as Manichaeism . These were old heresies, which at the time Tomus was written (362) were considered largely overcome or severely heretical. The enumeration of these 'recognized' heresies together with 'Arianism' should once again emphasize its erroneous belief; it also had the purpose of freeing Athanasius himself and the Nicanes in the west, as well as Markell of Ankyra in the Origenists in the east, from the suspicion of continuing or actually representing the modalist monarchianism of Sabellius. The explicit demarcation from Sabellianism in Tomus ad Antiochenos should also free the Nicea Confession of any modalistic 'smell'.

Sufficiency of the Nicea Creed

The theological basis for the church fellowship sought by Athanasius is the creed of the Council of Nicaea. And only the symbol of faith of Nicaea, and none of the other creeds such as that of Serdica, should be the basis of the church community: “to appeal to nothing more than what has been decided in Nicaea” (Tom. 4,2).

While the church around Paulinus did not demand a concession to profess the faith of Nicaea, it was more difficult for the church around Meletius to accept this because the Council of Nicaea had advocated the one-hypostasis doctrine. The Meletians had to see their own doctrine of three hypostases, which was based on Origen, condemned in this, which the Council of Serdica of 342/343 had understood in exactly the same way. This council, convened by the emperors Constans and Constantius II. To bring about an agreement between East and West, had failed and had broken up into two competing councils that condemned each other.

In Tomus Athanasius plays down the importance of the Council of Serdica and in particular the Serdicense, i.e. the confessional formula with which the Western Council had condemned the doctrine of three hypostases in the East (Tom 5,1). His report on the council, some would have wanted to adopt a new confession there, but the majority had committed themselves to Nicene, should be stylized anachronistically: Athanasius himself goes for the first time 20-30 years after the Nicene Council (325), i.e. after 345/355 , on the council in Nicaea, as his letter De decretis Nicaenae synodi ('On the decisions of the Synod of Nicaea') shows, and for the first time formulates a comprehensive claim of the Nicaena. Rather, the Serdicense should be understood as an interpretation of the Nicene. It was precisely this that stood in the way of an acceptance of Nicene by Meletius and the Origenists of the East. They had always identified the Nicaea Confession with the harsh anti-Origenistic interpretation given to it by the Council of Serdica. But by downplaying the meaning of the Serdicense in Athanasius, he made it possible for the followers of Meletius and the Eastern theologians to accept the Confession of Nicaea, which within Athanasius' writings probably attained the position of the exclusively and comprehensively accepted creed for the first time in Tomus.

Nevertheless, this turning away from Athanasius from the teachings of the Council of Serdica does not solve the problem. The dispute remains whether one should speak of the one hypostasis of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as the West did after the Council of Nicaea, or of three hypostases, as the East did after Origen did.

The question of hypostasis

In a fictional dialogue in Tomus, followers of the three-hypostasis position were asked whether they might not understand them Arian after all, "(the hypostases) are alien and alienated from one another, each of which is different"; or in a tritheistic sense, "as other heretics speak of three powers and three gods" (Tom 5: 3). The followers of the doctrine of three hypostasis rejected this. The reason to speak of three hypostases is rather the belief "in the holy trinity, not only in a trinity by name, but one that really is and exists" (Tom 5,4). They do not see the confession of the unity of God in jeopardy; rather, Tomus reports that they followed the Nicene formula that the son is "of the same nature as the father" (homousios) (Tom 5,4).

They also express that anti-modalist concern that Origen already guided in his formulation of the 'immanent' and graded Trinity of Father and Son that existed in God, both connected to unity by the harmony and identity of will, and the Holy Spirit had and which the Western Roman theology in the tradition of Tertullian shared.

'Modalism' or modalistic monarchianism, on the other hand, represented the full deity of the son and, in order to preserve monotheism, came to positions that amounted to an identity of father and son, since they merely represented different ways of being of the one God depending on the situation, between them no real difference.

Conversely, representatives of the Nicene one-hypostasis theory were asked in a fictitious dialogue whether they might not understand this in the sense of Sabellius, i.e. modalistically. They denied this and asserted that their doctrine of one hypostasis was based on the conviction that “the Son is from the nature of the Father and because of the equality of nature” (Tom 6: 2). The nature of the Son and the Holy Spirit is not alien to that of the Father - the doctrine of one hypostasis is therefore to be understood clearly anti-Arian. The result of these fictional dialogues naturally corresponded to the intention of Athanasius that each side could accept the teaching of the other interpreted in this way . The contradictions of the confessional formulas were also explained with differences in linguistic usage, not as factual differences (cf. Tom 6,3-4).

The human nature of Christ

Beyond the themes of theology of the Trinity, Tomus takes up the christological question of the human nature of Christ in a comparatively short section in a rather simple way. As before, the two unnamed 'parties' have their say, but in this section their agreement is reported and especially 'non-orthodox' theological positions are emphasized. It is thus underlined that the connection between God and man in Jesus Christ must not be presented in the manner of the prophets who received the word of revelation, "but the word itself became flesh" (Tom 7.1 based on John 1:14  EU ). The idea, as represented, for example, by the Miaphysitism of Apollinaris of Laodicea , that Jesus Christ had a soulless human body in which the divine Logos replaced the human soul, is rejected (Tom 7: 2). The unity of human and divine action in Christ is emphasized.

The brevity and simplicity of this section could indicate that this christological question, at least for Athanasius, did not have the same significance as the trinity theological questions dealt with earlier in Tomus. It is also possible that the Christological section refers to actual or even supposed differences in Antioch between 'Eustathians' and' Meletians', whereby the Meletians were perhaps more assumed to be an Apollinian Christology, which, however, is not yet documented that early, but perhaps also ' Arian 'or' homeic '.

The deity of the Holy Spirit

With regard to the divinity of the Holy Spirit, Tomus finally goes beyond the wording of the Confession of Nicaea, if only in the form of a negative demarcation: Those who believe that the Holy Spirit was created, a creature, and should also be condemned separated from the essence of Christ . The divinity, which applies to father and son in Nicene, is supplemented by the divine dignity of the Holy Spirit indirectly asserted with this formulation . In the following lines of Tomus the Holy Spirit is consequently, again negatively determined, counted as part of the holy trinity. (Tom 3,1).

The Nicene Confession had at least mentioned the Holy Spirit, but without any explanation. Only the Nicano-Constantinopolitanum was supposed to expand the third, pneumatological article of the Confession, to grant the Holy Spirit divine dignity with the predicates “Lord” and “Bringing Life” and to award him the same worth of adoration as the Father and the Son. The tomus anticipates this pneumatological upgrading.

Effect and appreciation

If one looks at the history of the impact of Tomus ad Antiochenus, a distinction must be made between the direct effects on the Antiochene schism, which prompted the writing, and the longer-term theological effects on the doctrine of the Trinity.

The failure of the desired church fellowship

Tomus did not achieve its immediate goal: the Meletian schism existed until the end of the fourth century. This despite the fact that Tomus had resolved the theological differences of the schism. After the arrival of Tomus in Antioch, Paulinus testified in an affirmative text including his signature that he accepted the declarations made therein, in particular the language of the three hypostases that he had previously rejected. Meletius also showed that he was in agreement with Tomus in terms of content: when Emperor Julian died in 363 and Jovian succeeded him to the imperial throne, Meletius and the Synod of Antioch of 363 wrote a synodal letter to the new ruler. In it they showed their loyalty to the Confession of Nicaea.

The Antiochene schism is said to have persisted mainly due to differences in church politics: Lucifer von Calaris is said to have ordained Paulinus bishop before the bishops' commission could begin its mediation work. Meletius and his followers had to take this as a provocation. In addition, Athanasius immediately recognized his ancient Nican companion Paulinus as bishop and wanted to see the unified Antiochene community under his leadership, not that of Meletius. However, Paulinus from Antioch apparently sent two deacons to Alexandria for the synod. At least the signatures of the deacons Maximus and Calhemerus, which are in an appendix u. a. together with the bishops of the 'Bishops' Commission' confirm the Tomus by signature and are expressly mentioned as the deacons and envoys of Paulinus. The deacons, in turn, could only have been sent to Alexandria by Paulinus if he was already officiating as bishop, so that the reason for the continued existence of the schism in Antioch was probably not due to an untimely, untimely ordination of Paulinus by Lucifer of Calaris, since this probably did not take place at all, despite later information from church historians.

Preparation of the doctrine of the Trinity of the Cappadocians

Even if the immediate concern of a church fellowship in Antioch failed, the "liquefaction of established strategies of argumentation ... in the long term released considerable theological creativity". By legitimizing the talk of one hypostasis as well as that of three, by removing the identification of ousia and hypostasis, Tomus paved the way for a linguistic regulation that established Ousia as a term that expresses the unity of God while hypostasis is used could to express the trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The trinity theological controversy before the Synod of Alexandria had been the expression of a dilemma. The dilemma had consisted in the fact that (against the charge of tritheism) the unity of God had to be preserved, at the same time (against Arianism) the divinity of the Son and (against the Pneumatomachen) that of the Holy Spirit had to be maintained, but also (against Sabellianism) the truly existing, not just nominal trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit had to be brought to bear. As Tom 5,3-6,4 shows, Athanasius and the Synod of Alexandria wanted to solve this dilemma by giving as much space to the concern of the unity of God as to that of the trinity.

It was Basil of Caesarea who was finally able to solve the Trinitarian theological dilemma by speaking of an ousia and three hypostases. Together with the other two great Cappadocians - his brother Gregor von Nyssa and their mutual friend Gregor von Nazianz - he succeeded in making this solution a breakthrough and, with the support of the Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius I, in making it the sole validity of the Church of the Roman Empire to unite the basis of the Nicaea Confession, as Athanasius probably had hoped.

Nicänum in variants

Athanasius and the Synod of Alexandria realized that there could be not just one, but different theological doctrines and Trinitarian language options on the basis of Nicene. In this way they differed from previous interpretations of the Nicene Creed, especially those given by the Council of Serdica. But Tomus' creed also distinguishes itself from theological positions that have been considered heretical , in particular 'Arianism' and Sabellianism.

Delivery and edition situation

Handwritten tradition

The works of Athanasius have not yet appeared in a complete critical edition , which is why Athanasius research can only make preliminary statements about the handwritten tradition, the dependencies and lines of tradition of manuscripts. Although some of the works of Hans-Georg Opitz have been overtaken by research on Athanasius in the meantime, the work of Hans-Georg Opitz , who in the 1930s not only critically edited some of the works of Athanasius, but also thoroughly examined the transmission history of the writings of Athanasius, is still important. For Tomus ad Antiochenos, a critical edition of the Greek text with an introduction has been available since 2006, which reflects the current state of research.

Text traditions and manuscripts with Athanasius work collections

The works of Athanasius have survived in four textual traditions or collections, which the editors of the critical edition named with the letters a, b, x and y. Tomus is the only work by Athanasius to be found in three of these textual traditions, the a, b and y tradition; it is not included in the x collection.

While there are only minor differences between the a and b version, these two differ greatly from the y version. The former end with the final greeting in Chap. 9.3, The latter also contains appendices in which various authors express their consent to Tomus. According to the current state of research, the shorter version of the a and b version is considered to be the original, while the additions in the y version are secondary additions, which already reflect the post-history of the Synod.

Several of these collections have been put together in some of the manuscripts in which the works of Athanasius are preserved. However, double transmission of the same work in one manuscript was avoided, so that the Tomus ad Antiochenos is only contained once in each manuscript, even if the manuscript includes several of the old collections that contained the Tomus ad Antiochenos.

The most important manuscripts that come down to Tomus ad Antiochenus are the following:

Secondary tradition

Two excerpts from the Tomus ad Antiochenos can be found in the Florilegium Edessenum , whereby the text contains a few special readings , but otherwise depends on the above-mentioned Vatican Codex Z. Innocent of Maronea , Severus of Antioch , Timotheus Aelurus and the Armenian Seal of Faith all contain an excerpt from Tom 7: 2-3.

Paulinus's declaration of consent to Tomus (Tom 11,2) was initially an independently fixed text that only became part of Tomus' y tradition in a later collection. The consent of Paulinus is otherwise passed down in isolation in the Panarion of Epiphanios von Salamis , a work to refute eighty heretical doctrinal systems. The context suggests that Epiphanios did not have this declaration as part of Tomus ad Antiochenos, but as an independent document, which is why his version is to be assessed as an independent text witness.

Text editions

The first printed edition ( editio princeps ) of the works of Athanasius and thus also of Tomus ad Antiochenos is the Editio Commeliniana, published in Heidelberg in 1601 . This edition was also used by the bricklayers Jacques Lopin and Bernard de Montfaucon for their three-volume edition, which was published in Paris in 1698 and - except for the individual works that have since appeared in critical editions, including Tomus ad Antiochenos - is still the standard today . The edition in the Patrologia graeca by Jacques Paul Migne (PG 26,796-809) is a reprint of the Mauriner edition.

In the 1930s, Hans-Georg Opitz worked on the second and third volume of the critical edition of the writings of Athanasius on behalf of the Church Fathers Commission of the Prussian Academy of Sciences . Because of his early death in 1941, Opitz was unable to finish the edition and he was unable to edit Tomus ad Antiochenos until it was printed. His basic editorial decision not to try to approximate the original Athanasius text as closely as possible, but to give priority to the textual version that is central to the history of the effect, is criticized from today's editorial and text-critical point of view.

Edition of Volume II made no headway even after the Second World War. Walther Eltester and later Wilhelm Schneemelcher worked on it, the latter handed over all of his preparatory work to Hanns Christof Brennecke in 1998 . As part of a working group at the University of Erlangen and on behalf of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences , the latter was able to complete the edition of Volume II in 2006.

Translations

An ancient translation into Syriac is preserved in a single manuscript (see above). It was published in 1967 by Robert W. Thomson and translated into English. From a text-critical perspective, this translation is considered an independent text witness. Ancient translations into Latin are documented in secondary traditions. The first Latin print edition of Tomus ad Antiochenos was published by Hieronymus Froben in Basel in 1556 .

The following translations are available in modern languages: A translation into German has appeared in the 39-volume collective work, All works of the church fathers translated from the original into German (SWKV, Kempten 1831–1853) in volume 16 of 1836, pp. 313– 325 An English translation has been made by W. Bright, Later Treatises of St. Athanasius , Oxford 1881 (Volume 46 of the Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church series ). In the series A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Reprint Grand Rapids 1980-1991) a translation into English by H. Ellershaw has been published (vol. 4, pp. 483-486).

A new German translation was published in 2014 as part of the Athanasius Works by the Athanasius Works at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg . In the context of secondary literature on church history, Ignacio Ortiz de Urbina and Changseon Yeum also offer a translation of Tomus ad Antiochenos into German.

literature

Text output

  • Athanasius: works . Vol. 2: The Apologies . Edited by Hans-Georg Opitz (†), Lfg. 8, ed. v. Hanns Christof Brennecke / Uta Heil / Annette von Stockhausen, de Gruyter, Berlin 2006, ISBN 978-3-11-017856-2 , pp. 340–351 (critical edition)
  • Greek online text from the Athanasius Werke Erlangen office
  • Hanns Christof Brennecke, Annette von Stockhausen, Christian Müller, Uta Heil, Angelika Wintjes (eds.): Athanasius works. Third volume, first part. Documents on the history of the Arian dispute. 4th delivery: Up to the Synod of Alexandria 362 . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / Bosten 2014, pp. 592-603. Greek text of the critical edition from 2006 and German translation.
  • Robert W. Thomson: Athanasiana syriaca. Part II. Edition. Scriptores syri (Tomus 118) . Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Louvain 1967 (Edition of the Syrian translation)
  • Robert W. Thomson: Athanasiana syriaca. Part II. Translation. Scriptores syri (Tomus 119) . Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Louvain 1967 (Translation into English of the Syrian translation)

Secondary literature

  • Changseon Yeum: The Synod of Alexandria (362). The dogma-historical and ecclesiastical significance for the church in the 4th century . LIT, Münster 2005, ISBN 3-8258-8460-0 . (The only monograph on the subject so far; see also the review by Peter Gemeinhardt in the Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 117 (2006), pp. 97f.)
  • Peter Gemeinhardt : The Tomus ad Antiochenos (362) and the variety of orthodox theologies in the 4th century . In: Journal of Church History . Vol. 117, 2006, pp. 169-196.
  • Martin Tetz: About Nicean Orthodoxy. The so-called Tomus ad Antiochenos of Athanasius of Alexandria . In: Journal for New Testament Science . Vol. 66, 1975, pp. 194-222. Republished in: Athanasiana. On the life and teaching of Athanasius , ed. v. Wilhelm Geerlings and Dietmar Wywra, Supplements to the Journal for New Testament Science 78, Berlin 1995, 107-134. (Often cited article, important in research history)
  • Annette von Stockhausen: Praefatio . In: Hanns Christof Brennecke et al. (Ed.): Athanasius works. Second volume: The "Apologies". 8. Delivery . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2006, ISBN 978-3-11-017856-2 , pp. Xi-cxxv. (Introduction to the critical edition)

Web links

Wikisource: English translation of Tomus ad Antiochenos  - sources and full texts (English)

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Hanns Christof Brennecke , Annette von Stockhausen, Christian Müller, Uta Heil, Angelika Wintjes (eds.): Athanasius works. Third volume, first part. Documents on the history of the Arian dispute. 4th delivery: Up to the Synod of Alexandria 362 . Walter de Gruyter , Berlin / Bosten 2014, p. 589ff.
  2. ↑ The presentation of the church and dogma-historical context follows above all Franz Dünzl: Brief history of the Trinitarian dogma in the old church . Herder, Freiburg i. Br. 2006, ISBN 978-3-451-28946-0 .
  3. ↑ Cf. Gemeinhardt, p. 172.
  4. ↑ Cf. Gemeinhardt, p. 173.
  5. ↑ Franz Dünzl : Brief history of the Trinitarian dogma in the old church. Herder Verlag, Freiburg (Breisgau) et al. 2006, p. 92, p. 110. ISBN 3-451-28946-6 .
  6. ↑ Jan Rohls : God, Trinity and Spirit (History of Ideas of Christianity, Volume III / 1). Mohr Siebeck , Tübingen 2014, p. 92.
  7. ^ Wolf-Dieter Hauschild (theologian) , Volker Henning Drecoll : Textbook of Church and Dogma History. Volume 1. Old Church and Middle Ages . Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Gütersloh 2016, p. 76f., P. 90. 5., completely revised new edition.
  8. ↑ Franz Dünzl: Brief history of the Trinitarian dogma in the old church. Herder Verlag, Freiburg (Breisgau) et al. 2006, p. 110.
  9. ^ Hanns Christof Brennecke, Annette von Stockhausen, Christian Müller, Uta Heil, Angelika Wintjes (eds.): Athanasius works. Third volume, first part. Documents on the history of the Arian dispute. 4th delivery: Up to the Synod of Alexandria 362 . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / Bosten 2014, p. 550.
  10. ↑ See Dünzl 2006, p. 112f.
  11. ^ Hanns Christof Brennecke, Annette von Stockhausen, Christian Müller, Uta Heil, Angelika Wintjes (eds.): Athanasius works. Third volume, first part. Documents on the history of the Arian dispute. 4th delivery: Up to the Synod of Alexandria 362 . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / Bosten 2014, p. 578.
  12. ^ Hanns Christof Brennecke, Annette von Stockhausen, Christian Müller, Uta Heil, Angelika Wintjes (eds.): Athanasius works. Third volume, first part. Documents on the history of the Arian dispute. 4th delivery: Up to the Synod of Alexandria 362 . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / Bosten 2014, p. 589.
  13. ^ Peter Gemeinhardt : Tomos ad Antiochenos , in: Peter Gemeinhardt (ed.), Athanasius Handbuch . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, pp. 228-335, here pp. 228f.
  14. ^ Socrates Historia ecclesiastica i. 6; 15; http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/30_20_0380-0440-_Socrates_Scholasticus.html
  15. ↑ See Dünzl 2006, p. 114.
  16. ↑ Peter Gemeinhardt: Epistula catholica , in: Peter Gemeinhardt (Ed.), Athanasius Handbuch . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, pp. 226-228, here p. 226.
  17. ↑ Peter Gemeinhardt: Tomus ad Antiochenos , in: Peter Gemeinhardt (ed.), Athanasius Handbuch . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, pp. 228-335, here pp. 228f.
  18. ↑ a b Tetz 1975, p. 197.
  19. ↑ Tomus-Text (translation) in: Hanns Christof Brennecke, Annette von Stockhausen, Christian Müller, Uta Heil, Angelika Wintjes (eds.): Athanasius Werke. Third volume, first part. Documents on the history of the Arian dispute. 4th delivery: Up to the Synod of Alexandria 362 . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / Bosten 2014, pp. 592-603. Interpretations by Tetz 1975 and Gemeinhardt 2006.
  20. ↑ Uta Heil: De decretis Nicaenae synodi , in: Peter Gemeinhardt (Ed.), Athanasius Handbuch . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, pp. 210-214, here pp. 210f.
  21. ↑ Tetz 1975, p. 204.
  22. ^ Peter Gemeinhardt: Tomos ad Antiochenos , in: Peter Gemeinhardt (ed.), Athanasius Handbuch . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, pp. 228-335, here p. 230.
  23. ↑ Franz Dünzl: Brief history of the Trinitarian dogma in the old church. Herder Verlag, Freiburg (Breisgau) et al. 2006, p. 46ff., P. 78ff.
  24. ↑ Franz Dünzl: Brief history of the Trinitarian dogma in the old church. Herder Verlag, Freiburg (Breisgau) et al. 2006, p. 36f.
  25. ^ Hanns Christof Brennecke, Annette von Stockhausen, Christian Müller, Uta Heil, Angelika Wintjes (eds.): Athanasius works. Third volume, first part. Documents on the history of the Arian dispute. 4th delivery: Up to the Synod of Alexandria 362 . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / Bosten 2014, p. 600f.
  26. ↑ Thomas R. Karmann : Meletius of Antioch. Studies on the history of the trinity theological dispute in the years 360-364 AD . Peter Lang Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften , Frankfurt am Main 2009, p. 252, p. 259, p. 266.
  27. ^ Hanns Christof Brennecke, Annette von Stockhausen, Christian Müller, Uta Heil, Angelika Wintjes (eds.): Athanasius works. Third volume, first part. Documents on the history of the Arian dispute. 4th delivery: Up to the Synod of Alexandria 362 . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / Bosten 2014, p. 595.
  28. ↑ Thomas R. Karmann: Meletius of Antioch. Studies on the history of the trinity theological dispute in the years 360-364 AD . Peter Lang Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main 2009, pp. 207f.
  29. ↑ Gemeinhardt 2006, 183ff.
  30. ↑ Peter Gemeinhardt: Tomus ad Antiochenos , in: Peter Gemeinhardt (ed.), Athanasius Handbuch . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, pp. 228-335, here p. 234.
  31. ^ Hanns Christof Brennecke, Annette von Stockhausen, Christian Müller, Uta Heil, Angelika Wintjes (eds.): Athanasius works. Third volume, first part. Documents on the history of the Arian dispute. 4th delivery: Up to the Synod of Alexandria 362 . Walter de Gruyter , Berlin / Bosten 2014, p. 607.
  32. ↑ Gemeinhardt 2006, p. 184 u. 188.
  33. ↑ a b Gemeinhardt 2006, p. 184.
  34. ^ Hanns Christof Brennecke, Annette von Stockhausen, Christian Müller, Uta Heil, Angelika Wintjes (eds.): Athanasius works. Third volume, first part. Documents on the history of the Arian dispute. 4th delivery: Up to the Synod of Alexandria 362 . Walter de Gruyter , Berlin / Bosten 2014, p. 604.
  35. ^ Annette von Stockhausen, Athanasius in Antiochien , in Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum , Volume 10, Issue 1 (October 2006), pp. 86-102, here p. 91
  36. ↑ See e.g. B. Dünzl 2006, pp. 120-122.
  37. ↑ Especially Gemeinhardt 2006, p. 171 u. ö.
  38. ^ Hans-Georg Opitz: Investigations into the transmission of the writings of Athanasius . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1935.
  39. ^ Annette von Stockhausen: Praefatio . In: Hanns Christof Brennecke et al. (Ed.): Athanasius works. Second volume: The "Apologies". 8. Delivery . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2006, ISBN 978-3-11-017856-2 , pp. Xi-cxxv
  40. ↑ Von Stockhausen 2006, p. Xx.
  41. ↑ Von Stockhausen 2006, p. Xxvi.
  42. ↑ Von Stockhausen 2006, p. Xvii.
  43. ↑ Von Stockhausen 2006, pp. Xxviii.
  44. ↑ Von Stockhausen 2006, p. Xxx.
  45. ↑ Von Stockhausen 2006, p. Xxxi.
  46. ↑ Von Stockhausen 2006, p. Xxxiii.
  47. ↑ Von Stockhausen 2006, p. Lxv.
  48. ↑ Von Stockhausen 2006, pp. Xiv, xxv, xxxiv.
  49. ↑ Von Stockhausen 2006, pp. Xxv, lvi.
  50. ↑ Thomson, Athanasiana syriaca (edition) ; von Stockhausen 2006, pp. xxv, lxix-lxx.
  51. ↑ Von Stockhausen 2006, p. Lxxxvi.
  52. ^ Hanns Christof Brennecke, Annette von Stockhausen, Christian Müller, Uta Heil, Angelika Wintjes (eds.): Athanasius works. Third volume, first part. Documents on the history of the Arian dispute. 4th delivery: Up to the Synod of Alexandria 362 . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / Bosten 2014, p. 607.
  53. ↑ Von Stockhausen 2006, pp. Lxxxvi-lxxxvii.
  54. ↑ Von Stockhausen 2006. S. lxxxix.
  55. ↑ Robert Pierce Casey was responsible for the first volume, which includes the dogmatic writings. The second volume is entitled "Apologies", while the third volume does not contain works by Athanasius, but documents on the Arian disputes.
  56. ↑ a b Von Stockhausen 2006, p. Vi.
  57. ^ Thomson, Athanasiana syriaca (edition) .
  58. ↑ Thomson, Athanasiana syriaca (Translation) .
  59. ↑ Cf. Berthold Altaner : Old Latin translations of writings by Athanasios of Alexandreia . In: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 41 (1941), pp. 45–59, here p. 58. Republished in: Kleine Patristische Schriften . Edited by Günter Glockmann. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin-Ost 1967 ( texts and studies on the history of early Christian literature , vol. 83), p. 392–408, here p. 406.
  60. ↑ Christel Butterweck (ed.): Athanasius von Alexandrien: Bibliography . Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1995, ISBN 3-531-05108-3 ( Treatises of the North Rhine-Westphalian Academy of Sciences 90), p. 141.
  61. ↑ Information from Adalbert Keller: Translationes Patristicae Graecae et Latinae. Bibliography of translations of early Christian sources. 2 volumes . Anton Hiersemann, Stuttgart 1997, vol. I, p. 85.
  62. ^ Hanns Christof Brennecke, Annette von Stockhausen, Christian Müller, Uta Heil, Angelika Wintjes (eds.): Athanasius works. Third volume, first part. Documents on the history of the Arian dispute. 4th delivery: Up to the Synod of Alexandria 362 . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / Bosten 2014, pp. 592–603.
  63. ↑ Ignacio Ortiz de Urbina: Nicaea and Constantinople . Matthias Grünewald Verlag, Mainz 1964, pp. 297-303.
  64. ↑ Yeum 2005, pp 32-46.
This article was added to the list of excellent articles on August 3, 2009 in this version .