Academia.eduAcademia.edu
284 REVIEWS personal note given by nobis without mentioning that this word is omitted in another eight. doi:10.1093/jts/flu010 MICHAEL WINTERBOTTOM Corpus Christi College, Oxford michael.winterbottom@ccc.ox.ac.uk Advance Access publication 14 February 2014 AMPHILOCHIUS OF ICONIUM (340/345–after 394), some have argued, should be considered the fourth Cappadocian Father alongside the three ‘greats’. A cousin of Gregory of Nazianzus, he was most closely associated with Basil of Caesarea. Appointed bishop in 373, he acquired such a reputation in support of Basil’s ecclesiastical and theological agenda that he was designated as one of the guarantors of orthodoxy at the Council of Constantinople in 381 (Cod. Theo. 16.1.3). Amphilochius was accordingly cited as an authority in numerous fifth- and sixthcentury authors, from whom we possess many otherwise unattested fragments. This poor preservation of his works has resulted in Amphilochius being far less known today than he deserves. In 1978 C. Datema published what has become the standard edition of the opera omnia of Amphilochius in Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca, 3. It consists mostly of Greek material: nine homilies, the treatise Contra Haereticos, the Epistula synodalis, and seventeen fragments (two of which are Latin), as well as some spuria (a homily in Mesopentecosten and more fragments). But it also includes a Coptic homily on Abraham and the Syriac De recta fide (these last two items are accompanied by an English introduction and translation by L. Van Rompay). Bonnet and Voicu draw heavily on Datema for their edition of the Greek material, in most cases reprinting it, sometimes with emendations based on the incorporation of textual witnesses not used by Datema. Numerous Syriac items, however, make their first appearance in a major ß The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at O Shaughnessy Library on April 8, 2014 Amphiloque d’Iconium: Homélies. Tome I: Homélies 1–5. Tome II: Homélies 6–10. Fragments divers. Épı̂tre synodale. Lettre à Séleucos. Introduction, translation, notes, and index by MICHEL BONNET in collaboration with SEVER J. VOICU. Pp. 384 and 399. (Sources chrétiennes, 552 and 553.) Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2012. ISBN 978 2 204 09979 0 and 09980 6. Paper E38 and E40. REVIEWS 285 Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at O Shaughnessy Library on April 8, 2014 edition here. For the most part they do not discuss the Greek manuscript evidence in any detail, referring the reader to Datema. Theirs is the first complete French translation of the material (no complete English translation exists as far as the reviewer knows). The edition of Bonnet and Voicu aims to reassemble insofar as is possible the homiletic and epistolary corpus of Amphilochius. Some items are included in this edition despite doubts about their authenticity, which are expertly documented by Voicu. The bulk of their edition consists of the Greek nine homilies preserved in the direct tradition (CPG 3231–5, 3237–9, and 3241). They are on the following subjects: (I) nativity of Christ, (II) Mary, Simeon, Anna, and the presentation of Jesus, (III) Lazarus, (IV) the sinful woman, (V) Holy Saturday, (VI) Matthew 26:39, (VII) the newly baptized at Easter, (VIII) Zacchaeus, and (IX) John 5:19. The introduction to each homily is very informative, including a brief outline of the homily and a detailed discussion of its doctrinal teaching, exegetical themes, and significance (historical, exegetical, theological, liturgical, etc.), as well as any philological issues. Where appropriate, the issue of authenticity is also addressed. The first seven homilies are complete, the eighth is lacunose, and the ninth is fragmentary; also included are eight fragments of the sixth homily preserved in Greek, Latin, and Syriac (which are nonetheless of little critical value for establishing the text). Voicu argues that Homilies I–III and VII should be considered of doubtful authenticity; he attributes the first three to ‘pseudoAmphilochius’ and the fourth to a ‘Cappadocian pseudoChrysostom’. Homily X is another complete homily preserved in the direct tradition, but the only one preserved in Syriac. It is on John 14:28 and was not included in Datema’s edition (which did, nonetheless, contain a few Greek fragments of it). As in Homilies VI and IX, here Amphilochius engages in polemics over the exegesis of biblical texts disputed in the Trinitarian and christological debates of his era. The introduction here is very brief, merely noting parallels in form and content between this homily and VI and IX. Ten fragments of this homily preserved in Greek, Latin, and Syriac are also included. The rest of the edition reconstructs homilies and letters from fragments (some of the Greek fragments of Datema are used, as well as those published earlier by K. Holl and G. Ficker). Bonnet and Voicu first present nine additional homilies (XI– XIX) reassembled from Greek, Latin, and Syriac fragments of purportedly lost homilies preserved indirectly in florilegia, 286 REVIEWS Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at O Shaughnessy Library on April 8, 2014 exegetical chains, as citations in theological works, and so forth. Each is preceded by a very short or no introduction. Not many fragments are extant for each homily. There are six fragments of Homily XI on the generation of the Lord according to the flesh; four fragments of Homily XVI on John 6:57; two fragments of Homily XII on John 5:24; and one fragment for each of the remaining six homilies: Homily XIII on Proverbs 8:22 (this fragment is so brief and its sentiment so common that in a footnote the editors express doubts about its authenticity), Homily XIV on John 20:17, Homily XV on Mark 10:18 jj Luke 18:18, Homily XVII on Matthew 24:36 jj Mark 13:32, Homily XVIII on John 12:49, and Homily XIX on the Son (on Acts 2:36). In most cases, there does not seem to be much evidence that the fragments are extracts specifically from homilies rather than another literary genre. It may have been better to treat these texts as fragments of unknown works. At any rate, in eight cases, the fragments preserve Amphilochius’ exegesis of specific biblical verses; the other case preserves some of Amphilochius’ thoughts on the incarnation. Hence these texts, even though quite fragmentary, further contribute to our understanding Amphilochius’ engagements with the theological and exegetical issues debated in the fourth century. The homiletic portion of the edition concludes with five additional texts. Homilies XX and XXI on Christ’s displays of ignorance are Greek texts transmitted anonymously in an exegetical chain on the Gospel of John; Datema’s edition is printed with corrections. It is possible that the provenance of these two texts is Homily XII. The last three items are not really homiletic. The third text is a marginal scholion on the glorification of the Lord. The fourth text is a Syriac fragment of Amphilochius’ otherwise lost De Spiritu sancto, and the fifth text is three Greek fragments from his De falsis superscriptionibus haereticorum, also otherwise lost. These five additional texts further enrich our understanding of Amphilochius’ doctrinal positions. Among the homilies presented in these volumes, Bonnet and Voicu include neither the Greek homily in Mesopentecosten (universally acknowledged as spurious) nor the Coptic homily on Abraham (whose authenticity Datema cautiously accepted). It was probably the doubts about the authenticity of the latter raised by Voicu in his review of Datema’s edition in Augustinianum 19 (1979) that led to its omission from this edition. Accordingly, these volumes include every extant homily of Amphilochius and every extant fragment possibly from a homily that can be considered genuine or at least not plainly spurious. REVIEWS 287 doi:10.1093/jts/flt199 MARK DELCOGLIANO University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota mark.delcogliano@stthomas.edu Advance Access publication 28 November 2013 Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at O Shaughnessy Library on April 8, 2014 Bonnet and Voicu conclude their edition with three epistles. The first is the epistle to Pancharius, a deacon of Side (who is otherwise unknown). It was apparently a ‘dogmatic’ epistle that dealt with christological issues. Unfortunately, only one very short Greek fragment is extant, reprinted from Datema. Next is the famous anti-Pneumatomachian synodal epistle from 376, which is extant in Greek in its entirety (CPG 3243). The third is the epistle to Seleucus, to whom Amphilochius’ Iambics were also written. It is preserved in ten fragments, mostly in Greek; it touches upon christological and Trinitarian issues. The second and third items are preceded by helpful introductions covering historical, doctrinal, and literary issues. Voicu, however, raises doubts about the authenticity of the epistle to Seleucus. The edition of Bonnet and Voicu considerably improves the textual basis for the study of Amphilochius, not only improving upon the Greek editions of Datema when they could, but also including an abundance of (albeit fragmentary) material from the Latin and especially the Syriac traditions (even if the arrangement of the fragments into homilies XI–XXI is problematic). In addition, most of the corpus of Amphilochius is now available translated into a modern language. The only major works of Amphilochius still without a modern language translation are the Iambics to Seleucus and the Contra Haereticos (there is an English translation of the Syriac De recta fide in Datema’s edition). And so, together with the excellent biographical introduction of 130 pages, the interesting texts meticulously presented in these volumes oVer a window into important liturgical, exegetical, and doctrinal matters in the late fourth century. Some consider Amphilochius’ thought derivative, being as he was an epigone of Basil, but it nonetheless remains fascinating because of its reception of earlier views and its witness to the theological and exegetical debates of the era. Furthermore, Amphilochius’ style is forceful and direct, as good and as lucid as anything from the three great Cappadocian Fathers, and thus rewarding for the reader. In conclusion, these volumes not only set future investigation of Amphilochius on a surer foundation, but also should further encourage scholars to end their neglect of the unjustly under-studied bishop of Iconium.