No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 January 2013
This is an impressive work. It is not a book just about Augustine's work ‘On the Trinity’, but on Augustine's trinitarian thought as a whole. It is a mature work, not written within a couple of months, but with years of thinking and rethinking. All this time has helped make the book what it is. I am pleased that it is a historical work, mainly for two reasons: (a) it sketches the development of Augustine's thought (this old model of German historical approach is always helpful), and (b) it places Augustine's trinitarian thought in a specific place in the history of theology. Of course, there are warnings in the Introduction that the book has neither the aim to offer a complete ‘history of Augustine's Trinitarian thought’ nor does it set out to be a monograph about the whole of De trinitate. In fact, the monograph starts with the early Augustine, sketching the ‘origins’ of his trinitarian thought, and the chapters about De trinitate intend to set out the fundamental lines of Augustine's thought in De trinitate. So I think we are allowed to read this book as a new approach to an old problem: how did Augustine's trinitarian thought develop into the mature form found in De trinitate? If we follow Ayres’ approach, three problems appear. I ask: (a) what about philosophy, (b) what about Manichaeism and (c) what kind of theology is regarded as the background to Augustine's trinitarian thought?
Lewis Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp 376. £53.00/＄80.00. The paper was given at an SBL seminar, held in Atlanta, Nov. 2010, organised by Mark Weedman. I would like to express my thanks to M. Weedman and L. Ayres for open discussions. Thanks are also due to David DeMarco for struggling with my English.
2 Plotini Opera, ed. Henry, Paul and Schwyzer, Hans-Rudolf, vols 1–3, Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis (Oxford: OUP, 1964, 1977, 1982)Google Scholar.
3 Porphyrii Philosophi Fragmenta, ed. Smith, Andrew, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana (Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner, 1993)Google Scholar.
4 Cf. Madec, Goulven, Christus, in Augustinus-Lexikon, vol. 1, ed. Mayer, Cornelius (Basel: Schwabe, 1986–94), pp. 845–908, p. 859Google Scholar; cf. Madec, Goulven, La patrie et la voie: Le Christ dans la vie et la pensée de saint Augustin (Paris: Desclée, 1989)Google Scholar.
5 du Roy, Olivier, L'intelligence de la foi en la trinité selon saint Augustin: Genèse de sa théologie trinitaire jusqu'en 391 (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1966)Google Scholar.
6 In the following notes I will simply add references to publications where my perspective can be found in more detail. From my point of view, theologians like Ambrose consciously adapted the Neoplatonic philosophy to make it fit with their own theological principles. Drecoll, Volker Henning, ‘Neuplatonismus und Christentum bei Ambrosius, De Isaac et anima’, Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 5 (2001), pp. 104–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for Augustine cf. Drecoll, , ‘Die Entstehung der Gnadenlehre Augustins’, Beiträge zur Historischen Theologie 109 (1999), pp. 77, 116Google Scholar.
7 Cipriani, Nello, ‘La presenza di Mario Vittorino nella riflessione trinitaria di Agostino’, Augustinianum 42 (2002), pp. 261–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 Cf. Drecoll, Volker Henning, ‘Middle Platonic Elements in Augustine's De Civitate 8’, in Corrigan, Kevin, Turner, John and Wakefield, Peter (eds), Religion and Philosophy in the Platonic and Neoplatonic Traditions: From Antiquity to the Early Medieval Period (Sankt Auqustin: Academia Verlag, 2012), pp. 183–94Google Scholar.
9 Cf. Tardieu, Michel, Recherches sur la formation de l'Apocalypse de Zostrien et les sources de Marius Victorinus, Res Orientales, 9 (Leuven: Peeters, 1996Google Scholar; Drecoll, Volker Henning, ‘The Greek Text behind the Parallel Sections in Zostrianos and Marius Victorinus’, in Turner, John D. and Corrigan, Kevin (eds), Plato's Parmenides and its Heritage, vol. 1, History and Interpretation from the Old Academy to Later Platonism and Gnosticism (Atlanta, GA, PUBLISHER, 2010), pp. 195–212Google Scholar.
10 Cf. Turner, John D., ‘Introduction III.–XI’, in Zostrien (NH VIII/1), ed. Barry, Catherine, Funk, Wolf-Peter, Poirier, Paul-Hubert and Turner, John D., Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi, Textes, 24 (Quebec and Leuven: Peeters, 2000), p. 184Google Scholar.
11 Cf. Abramowski, Luise, ‘Nicänismus und Gnosis im Rom des Bischofs Liberius: Der Fall des Marius Victorinus’, Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 8 (2005), pp. 513–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ead., ‘“Audi ut dico”: Literarische Beobachtungen und chronologische Erwägungen zu Marius Victorinus und den “platonisierenden” Nag Hammadi-Traktaten’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 117 (2007), pp. 145–68.
12 Cf. Dörrie, Heinrich, Porphyrios’ Symmikta Zetemata, Zetemata, 20 (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1959)Google Scholar; Pépin, Jean, ‘Ex Platonicorum Persona’: Études sur les lectures philosophiques de saint Augustin (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1977), esp. pp. 211–67Google Scholar; Madec, Goulven, ‘Le spiritualisme augustinien à la lumière du De immortalitate animae’, in Madec, Petites Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 142 (Paris: Collection des Études Augustiniennes, 1994), pp. 105–19Google Scholar.
13 Cf. Drecoll, ‘Entstehung der Gnadenlehre’, pp. 64–77.
14 Porphyry, frgm. 284 (= ciu. 10.23): Porphyrii Philosophi Fragmenta, pp. 320–1.
15 Cf. Drecoll, Volker Henning, ‘Ambrosius als Taufvater Augustins und der “Mailänder Kreis”’, in Drecoll, (ed.), Augustin Handbuch (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), pp. 140–2Google Scholar; Drecoll, , ‘Marcellinus, Flavius’, Augustinuslexikon 3 (2004–10), pp. 1162–3Google Scholar.
16 Stein, Markus (ed.) Manichaica Latina 1: Epistula ad Menoch (Papyrologica Coloniensia Vol. 27/1.) (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stein, Markus (ed.) Manichaica Latina 2: Manichaei epistula fundamenti. (Papyrologica Coloniensia, Vol. 27/2.) (Paderborn, Munich, Vienna and Zurich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2002)Google Scholar; Stein, Markus (ed.) Manichaica Latina 3.1: Codex Thevestinus. (Papyrologica Coloniensia Vol. 27/3.1.) (Paderborn, Munich, Vienna and Zurich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2004)Google Scholar; Stein, Markus (ed.) Manichaica Latina 3.2: Codex Thevestinus. (Papyrologica Coloniensia Vol. 27/3.2.) (Paderborn, Munich, Vienna and Zurich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2006)Google Scholar.
17 Cf. Drecoll, Volker Henning and Kudella, Mirjam, Augustin und der Manichäismus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), pp. 2–6Google Scholar.
18 C. Faust. 20.2; C. Fort. 3; cf. Drecoll and Kudella, Augustin, pp. 67–71.
19 Franzmann, Majella, Jesus in the Manichaean Writings (London: Continuum, 2003)Google Scholar.
20 C. Faust. 20.2 (CSEL 25/1), p. 536, ll. 15–16.
21 C. Fort. 7; cf. Drecoll and Kudella, Augustin, pp. 71, 161 n. 139, 214.
22 Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: OUP, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Cf. ibid., p. 236.
24 Cf. Brennecke, H. C.et al. (eds), Dokumente zur Geschichte des Arianischen Streites, Athanasius Werke, 3/1.3 (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2007), p. 207Google Scholar.
25 Cf. Drecoll, Volker Henning, ‘Remarks about Augustine's Concept of Persona’, in Welker, Michael and Höfner, Markus (eds), Flesh, Body, Mind, Soul and Spirit: The Complex Unity of the Human Person (forthcoming).Google Scholar
26 Cross, Richard, ‘Quid Tres? On What Precisely Augustine Professes Not to Understand in De trinitate V and VII’, Harvard Theological Review 100 (2007), pp. 215–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27 Cf. Hermanni, Friedrich, ‘Augustinus über Gott, das Gutsein des Seienden und die Nichtigkeit des Bösen’, in Augustinus: De natura boni. Die Natur des Guten, Augustinus. Opera – Werke, 22 (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2010), p. 64Google Scholar.
28 Cf. Augustine, , De trinitate libri XV, ed. Mountain, W. J. and Glorie, F., Christianorum, Corpus. Series Latina, 50–50A (Turnhout: Brepols, 1968)Google Scholar, who gives many references to creeds in his apparatus locorum similium in order to prove the orthodoxy of Augustine.
29 We may remember a short list of theologians who accepted the Nicene Creed in the 350s and 360s: Marcellus of Ancyra, Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Marius Victorinus, Liberius of Rome, Eustathius of Sebaste, Meletius of Antioch, Paulinus of Antioch, Basil of Caesarea, etc. The Antioch Schism is an enigma if the theological differences between the diverse theologies which accepted the Nicene Creed are ignored.
30 Cf. Turner, John D., ‘Introduction’, in Marsanès (NH X), ed. Funk, Wolf-Peter, Poirier, Paul-Hubert, and Turner, John D., Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi, Textes, 27 (Quebec and Louvain: Les Presses de l'Université Laval and Peeters, 2000), pp. 100–1Google Scholar.
31 Cf. Feldmann, Erich, ‘Konvergenz von Strukturen? Ciceros Hortensius und Plotins Enneaden im Denken Augustins’, in Congresso Internazionale su S. Agostino nel XVI centenario della conversione. Roma, 15–20 Settembre 1986, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 24 (Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1987), vol. 1, pp. 315–30Google Scholar.