What do you think?
Rate this book
Unity of Christ: Continuity and Conflict in Patristic Tradition
No period of history was more formative for the development of Christianity than the patristic age, when church leaders, monks, and laity established the standard features of Christianity as we know it today. Combining historical and theological analysis, Christopher Beeley presents a detailed and far-reaching account of how key theologians and church councils understood the most central element of their faith, the identity and significance of Jesus Christ. Focusing particularly on the question of how Christ can be both human and divine and reassessing both officially orthodox and heretical figures, Beeley traces how an authoritative theological tradition was constructed. His book holds major implications for contemporary theology, church history, and ecumenical discussions, and it is bound to revolutionize the way in which patristic tradition is understood.
391 pages, Hardcover
First published June 26, 2012
5 people are currently reading
42 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 11, 2013
This book is quite interesting. Beeley seeks to center Christology among the Fathers around the thought/ teachings of Origen. He also elevates Eusebius as a theologian in addition to his role as a historian. Beeley does bring his usual confrontational writing style to the work, particularly as he seeks to diminish the role Athanasius should play in the 4th century. Overall, a great work that informs, frames, and delineates many of the Christologies of the Fathers
November 14, 2014
Beeley's work represents an interesting advance on previous patristic studies. He challenges long-held models on how to interpret different Christological interpretations. His works is thoroughly documented and covers every major Christological figure. I think he overshoots his case at the end and does not interact with challenges to his own viewpoint.
Part of his thesis is to rehabilitate Origen. For all of Origen's fatal flaws, few of his earlier followers really had the reaction to him that we have today. Nor did they even think of challenging the "grammar" of his Christology. This leads to another part of Beeley's thesis: The Alexandrian school was far more dualist than is commonly thought. This is seen in their surprising use of the communicatio idiomata. For all of the Alexandrian rhetoric of "God in the womb/God in the tomb," they always qualified it to mean that the divine nature really didn't suffer.
For our purposes Origen's Christology is the Son as mediator of the divine knowledge (he mediates the Father's utter simplicity).
As in Origen, so in Eusebius. Beeley correctly argues that Eusebius was not the closet Arian that people make him out to be. The problem was the term "ousia" connoted physical ideas. Given those ideas, if one said the two were of the same ousia, then it seemed you were saying they were "physical" or had no differentiating characteristics (and it is cheating to read later uses of "hypostasis" back into it). Beeley marshals enough quotations to say that while Eusebius is problematic, he is okay.
Beeley has a controvesial section on Athanasios. Continuing with his dualist motif, he suggests that Athanasios is not the Alexandrian you think he is. He, like virtually every ancient thinker, held to the divine impassibility of the Word. Coupled with the communicatio, this means that "suffering" is predicated of the person, not the Word.
Gregory of Nazianzus represents a supreme advance on all previous Christology. Gregory sees Christ's divine identity in dynamic, narrative terms (185). Interestingly, Gregory sees perichoresis as emphasizing, not the unity, but the distinctions (Beeley 189, cf. Ep. 101.20-21).
Beeley then contrasts Western thinkers with earlier Eastern ones. His conclusions aren't all that surprising from earlier works, so I won't deal with them here.
He does not weaknesses and shortcomings in later Eastern thinkers (Cyril and Maximos).
Criticisms:
1. I don't think he did full justice to Athanasios. He also said Athanasios held to a demi-urge view of creation (128). What makes this claim so outrageous is that the demi-urge view, like that of Freemasonry and modern day Luciferianism, is precisely the view that Athanasios attacked! Yes, Athanasios held that the world was made through the Son, but not in the Platonic demiurge fashion.
2. He dealt with some figures all too briefly.
Part of his thesis is to rehabilitate Origen. For all of Origen's fatal flaws, few of his earlier followers really had the reaction to him that we have today. Nor did they even think of challenging the "grammar" of his Christology. This leads to another part of Beeley's thesis: The Alexandrian school was far more dualist than is commonly thought. This is seen in their surprising use of the communicatio idiomata. For all of the Alexandrian rhetoric of "God in the womb/God in the tomb," they always qualified it to mean that the divine nature really didn't suffer.
For our purposes Origen's Christology is the Son as mediator of the divine knowledge (he mediates the Father's utter simplicity).
As in Origen, so in Eusebius. Beeley correctly argues that Eusebius was not the closet Arian that people make him out to be. The problem was the term "ousia" connoted physical ideas. Given those ideas, if one said the two were of the same ousia, then it seemed you were saying they were "physical" or had no differentiating characteristics (and it is cheating to read later uses of "hypostasis" back into it). Beeley marshals enough quotations to say that while Eusebius is problematic, he is okay.
Beeley has a controvesial section on Athanasios. Continuing with his dualist motif, he suggests that Athanasios is not the Alexandrian you think he is. He, like virtually every ancient thinker, held to the divine impassibility of the Word. Coupled with the communicatio, this means that "suffering" is predicated of the person, not the Word.
Gregory of Nazianzus represents a supreme advance on all previous Christology. Gregory sees Christ's divine identity in dynamic, narrative terms (185). Interestingly, Gregory sees perichoresis as emphasizing, not the unity, but the distinctions (Beeley 189, cf. Ep. 101.20-21).
Beeley then contrasts Western thinkers with earlier Eastern ones. His conclusions aren't all that surprising from earlier works, so I won't deal with them here.
He does not weaknesses and shortcomings in later Eastern thinkers (Cyril and Maximos).
Criticisms:
1. I don't think he did full justice to Athanasios. He also said Athanasios held to a demi-urge view of creation (128). What makes this claim so outrageous is that the demi-urge view, like that of Freemasonry and modern day Luciferianism, is precisely the view that Athanasios attacked! Yes, Athanasios held that the world was made through the Son, but not in the Platonic demiurge fashion.
2. He dealt with some figures all too briefly.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews