FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2045725023> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2045725023 endingPage "475" @default.
• W2045725023 startingPage "473" @default.
• W2045725023 abstract "Reviewed by: The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate J. Kevin Coyle Elizabeth A. Clark . The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992 Pp. xii + 297. With her habitual careful erudition, Elizabeth Clark here examines the concerns which fueled the first great Origenist debate in the late fourth to early fifth centuries. She considers that debate to have involved social as well as theological considerations. Chapter 1, which reproduces an article in Semeia 56 (1991), outlines the social network theory whence Clark approaches the personal relationships of those implicated in the controversy. This approach is illustrated in the next three chapters. Chapter 2 highlights Evagrius Ponticus who, though his theology appears central to the debate, figures not at all in the reports of contemporary historians. They tended to blame the debate's genesis on the politics of Theophilus of Alexandria, who preferred to see it in theological terms, a view Clark shares. Theophilus undertook to destroy pagan images at a time when Egyptian monks were debating whether human beings retain God's image after the Fall and whether mental images deter from true worship. Because he affirmed that the body is discarded after resurrection, and that images of creaturely origin replace God's image in our sinful bodily condition, Evagrius, even if unacknowledged, would have constituted the quintessential iconoclast, radicalizing and internalizing the historical anti-idolatry campaign waged by Theophilus (84). The long third chapter takes up the shift among anti-Origenists, from the image issue to other contemporary concerns, which suggest that critics often misunderstood or simply missed the theological problems addressed by Origen himself. Foremost for Epiphanius of Salamis was the refutation of Arianism, whence, provoked by the burgeoning ascetical movement, he turned to defending marriage and reproduction. Theophilus followed a similar route, from refuting Origen's errors on the Trinity to the image quarrel, and finally to excoriating heterodox views on the body and reproduction. Jerome's basic concern was to defend himself against charges of Origenism, while his main religious objective was to preserve a concept of moral hierarchy based on degrees of moral renunciation. Shenute's treatise Against the Origenists aimed at the Gnosticizing variation of Origenism that was an exotic development of Evagrian theology (158). All four critics, [End Page 473] therefore, had overriding concerns regarding the body, and from them one gains little understanding of Origenism's theological appeal. For that, Clark turns in chapter 4 to those accused of heretical Origenism. She targets Rufinus of Aquileia, who supported at least a modified form of Origenism (160). Yet Rufinus consistently affirmed his orthodoxy, maintaining that one who held sound views on the Creator God, the Incarnation, and the Trinity could freely discuss points not defined—like the origin of the soul and the nature of the resurrection body. It is hard to fault Clark's method and conclusions to this point. Less successfully in chapter 5, she argues that the quarrel between Pelagians and Augustine over original sin can be reread as one resolution to the Origenist controversy in the West (6). Each side of the quarrel was a theological attempt at reconciling God's justice with human freedom and suffering—especially suffering of the innocent (like babies). Pelagianism essayed a systematic presentation of contemporary ideas regarding the soul's origin, the necessity of salvation, free will, and antideterminism. It refused both Origen's notion of demerits accrued in a former life and Augustine's idea of sin transmitted from the first couple to the whole human race. For his part, Augustine held that the theory of original sin did not require any particular view of the soul's origin for its support (221). This statement, I think, requires some qualifying. True, in dealing with Pelagianism Augustine ultimately avoided making the soul's origin an essential component of his theory of original sin's transmission; but if it had become a non necessaria quaestio by 421 (Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum III, 10:26), in 415 Augustine still held (Epistula 166 ad Hieronymum) that the question of the soul's origin was of immediate relevance to that same controversy, in the words..." @default.
• W2045725023 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2045725023 creator A5062243597 @default.
• W2045725023 date "1994-01-01" @default.
• W2045725023 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2045725023 title "<i>The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate</i> (review)" @default.
• W2045725023 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/earl.0.0196" @default.
• W2045725023 hasPublicationYear "1994" @default.
• W2045725023 type Work @default.
• W2045725023 sameAs 2045725023 @default.
• W2045725023 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2045725023 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2045725023 hasAuthorship W2045725023A5062243597 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConcept C24667770 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConcept C2777222677 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConcept C2779744715 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConcept C2781466463 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConceptScore W2045725023C118552586 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConceptScore W2045725023C138885662 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConceptScore W2045725023C15744967 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConceptScore W2045725023C17744445 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConceptScore W2045725023C199539241 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConceptScore W2045725023C24667770 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConceptScore W2045725023C27206212 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConceptScore W2045725023C2777222677 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConceptScore W2045725023C2779744715 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConceptScore W2045725023C2781466463 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConceptScore W2045725023C94625758 @default.
• W2045725023 hasConceptScore W2045725023C95457728 @default.
• W2045725023 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2045725023 hasLocation W20457250231 @default.
• W2045725023 hasOpenAccess W2045725023 @default.
• W2045725023 hasPrimaryLocation W20457250231 @default.
• W2045725023 hasRelatedWork W2314669075 @default.
• W2045725023 hasRelatedWork W2403984531 @default.
• W2045725023 hasRelatedWork W2756248205 @default.
• W2045725023 hasRelatedWork W2767582755 @default.
• W2045725023 hasRelatedWork W2793195021 @default.
• W2045725023 hasRelatedWork W2990852690 @default.
• W2045725023 hasRelatedWork W3036094695 @default.
• W2045725023 hasRelatedWork W3202875195 @default.
• W2045725023 hasRelatedWork W4229994098 @default.
• W2045725023 hasRelatedWork W4251492012 @default.
• W2045725023 hasVolume "2" @default.
• W2045725023 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2045725023 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2045725023 magId "2045725023" @default.
• W2045725023 workType "article" @default.