Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:05:09.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Defining the Boundaries of Orthodoxy: Eunomius in the Anti-Jewish Polemic of his Cappadocian Opponents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2020

Christine Shepardson
Christine Shepardson*
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Scholars have long recognized that the theological arguments of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa against their opponent Eunomius helped to shape the development of Christian orthodoxy, and thus Christian self-definition, in the late fourth-century Roman Empire. The cultural and theological significance of the strong anti-Judaizing rhetoric contained within these Cappadocian authors’ anti-Eunomian treatises, however, remains largely unexamined. Recent scholarship has demonstrated the critical role of anti-Judaizing rhetoric in the arguments that early Christian leaders Athanasius of Alexandria and Ephrem of Nisibis used against “Arian” Christian opponents in the middle of the fourth century, and the implications of this rhetoric for understanding early Christian-Jewish and intra-Christian relations. Scholars have yet to recognize, however, that anti-Judaizing rhetoric similarly helped to define the terms and consequences of the anti-Eunomian arguments made by Basil, Gregory, and Gregory in the decades that followed. The anti-Judaizing rhetoric of their texts attests to the continuing advantages that these leaders gained by rhetorically associating their Christian opponents with Jews. By claiming that Eunomius and his followers were too Jewish in their beliefs to be Christian, and too Christian in their behaviors to be Jewish, Basil, Gregory, and Gregory deployed anti-Judaizing rhetoric to argue that Eunomians were significantly inferior to both true Christians and Jews. The Cappadocians’ strategic comparisons with Jews and Judaism rhetorically distanced their Eunomian opponents from Christianity and thus strengthened the Cappadocians’ own claims to represent Christian orthodoxy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 76 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 699 - 723
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Rebecca Lyman briefly but astutely noted the significance of Gregory of Nyssa's anti-Jewish and anti-Manichaean rhetoric, but she did not discuss her observation in depth or place it in its larger context (“A Topography of Heresy: Mapping the Rhetorical Creation of Arianism,” in Arianism after Arius: Essays on the Development of the Fourth-Century Trinitarian Conflicts, ed. Barnes, Michel and Williams, Daniel [Edinburgh: T'T Clark, 1993], 58–61).Google Scholar

2. See Shepardson, Christine, “'Exchanging Reed for Reed': Mapping Contemporary Heretics onto Biblical Jews in Ephrem's Hymns on Faith,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 5:1 (2002)Google Scholar; Shepardson, , Anti-Judaism and Christian Orthodoxy: Ephrem's Hymns in Fourth- Century Syria (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. This essay is a significantly revised version of material that I first examined in my dissertation: Shepardson, “In the Service of Orthodoxy: Anti-Jewish Language and Intra-Christian Conflict in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 2003).

4. The nuanced vocabulary of Lewis Ayres is particularly useful in defining categories of “subordinationist” and “pro-Nicene” theologies: see Ayres, , Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. R. Malcolm Errington recently critiqued the assumption that the emperors were motivated primarily by personal theological convictions, but the result is in this case the same regardless of motivation (Errington, , Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius [Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006]).Google Scholar

6. Ephrem, too, polemicized aggressively against his opponents, and likewise selfconsciously participated in an Empire-wide struggle for the triumph of Nicene Christianity, but he was not at the political hub of this fourth-century struggle as Athanasius was. Scholars have slowly begun to recognize Ephrem's participation in these religious and imperial politics, as in Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy. See also the following works that have proved foundational for these conversations: Griffith, Sidney, “Ephraem, the Deacon of Edessa, and the Church of the Empire,” in Diakonia: Studies in Honor of Robert T. Meyer, ed. Halton, Thomas and Williman, Joseph (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1986), 22–52;Google ScholarGriffith, , “The Marks of the ‘True Church’ according to Ephraem's Hymns against Heresies,” in After Bardaisan: Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J. W. Drijvers, ed. Reinink, G. J. and Klugkist, A. C., Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 89 (Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 125–140Google Scholar; Griffith, , “Setting Right the Church of Syria: Saint Ephraem's Hymns against Heresies,” in The Limits of Ancient Christianity: Essays on Late Antique Thought and Culture in Honor of R. A. Markus, ed. Klingshirn, William and Vessey, Mark (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999), 97–114.Google Scholar

7. John 5:18.

8. Lorenz, Rudolf, Arius judaizans? Untersuchungen zur dogmengeschichtlichen Einordnung des Arius (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), especially 141–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. While Judaizing usually refers to physical behaviors such as circumcision, it can also refer to theological similarities with Judaism.

10. For a full discussion, see Shepardson, Anti-Judaism and Christian Orthodoxy.

11. In Basil's arguments against Eunomius, the “Arian” heresies are heretical precisely because of their inappropriate location too close to Judaism and too far from where Christianity ought to be. This is particularly interesting, given that Basil frequently describes Christianity itself as a third category, balanced halfway between Judaism and Hellenism: see Runia, David T., “'Where, tell me, is the Jew … ? ‘ : Basil, Philo, and Isidore of Pelusium,” Vigiliae Christianize 46:2 (June 1992): 172–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. There is by now an excellent history of scholarship on the construction of “heretics,” and this scholarship has shaped my thinking about how the Cappadocians portray Eunomius. See in particular Lyman, , “A Topography of Heresy,” 45–62Google Scholar; Burrus, Virginia, The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Lyman, , “The Making of a Heretic: The Life of Origen in Epiphanius Panarion 64,” in Studia Patristica, v. 31 (Louvain: Peeters, 1997), 445–451Google Scholar; Cameron, Averil, “Jews and Heretics—A Category Error?” in The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. Becker, Adam and Reed, Annette Yoshiko (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 345–360Google Scholar.

13. See particularly Vaggione, Richard P., Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution (New York: Oxford, 2000)Google Scholar. See also Kopecek, Thomas, A History of Neo-Arianism, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1970)Google Scholar; Gwatkin, H. M., Studies of Arianism, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co., 1900; originally 1882; New York: AMS Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Gwatkin, H. M., The Arian Controversy (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1914)Google Scholar; Gregg, Robert C. and Groh, Dennis E., Early Arianism: A View of Salvation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981)Google Scholar; Kannengiesser, Charles, Holy Scripture and HeT lenistic Hermeneutics in Alexandrian Christology: The Avian Crisis, The Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, colloquy 41(Berkeley, Calif.: Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1982)Google Scholar; Kannengiesser, , “Arius and the Arians,” Journal of Theological Studies 44:3 (1983): 456–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gregg, R. C., Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments (Cambridge, Mass.: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1985)Google Scholar; Hanson, R. P. C., The Search for the Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 598–636Google Scholar; Williams, Rowan, The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barnes, Michel and Williams, Daniel, Arianism after Arius; Barnes, Timothy D., Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Lim, Richard, Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Wiles, Maurice, Archetypal Heresy: Arianism through the Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996Google Scholar); Ayres, L. and Jones, G., eds., Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric, and Community (New York: Routledge, 1998)Google Scholar; Williams, Rowan, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 2001)Google Scholar; Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy.

14. See Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 1.46; Athanasius, De Synodi Arimini et Seleucidae 6.1-2. I thank an anonymous reader for the reminder that Philostorgius's later history strongly influences later understandings of the connections among Arius, Aetius, and Eunomius. Note also Lewis Ayres's comment to this effect (Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy, 145). In this case, however, I am relying strictly on Athanasius's and Gregory of Nyssa's own narratives of the associations of these leaders, narratives that I recognize are rhetorically constructed to further the authors’ own claims to orthodoxy. Likewise, the same reader helpfully observes that the Cappadocians do not refer to “Arians” as much as Athanasius does, nor do they claim to cite Arius as often. This is consistent with my thesis that the Cappadocians distinguish Eunomius's theology from Arius's but make associations between them when it can further their efforts to define Eunomius's teachings as “heresy.“

15. See Athanasius's accusation against Arius in Orations Against the Arians 1.10, 11, 22; De decretis Nicaenae synodi 18; Epistula ad Afros 6.

16. See, for example, the characterization of Arius's views in Philostorgius, Historia Ecclesiae 2.3.

17. Against Aetius and Eunomius, see Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.46 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [NPNF] 1.6); Eunomius, Apology 7-11,13-15,17-28; Apology for the Apology 1.164, 186,192-193, 201-202,216, 271, 332, 334,337, 362, 364, 367, 373, 382-383, 391,401; 11.172, 309. All quotations of Gregory of Nyssa's Against Eunomius are my translations from the Greek text in Gregorii Nysseni Opera, vol. I-II: Contra Eunomium Libri, ed. Jaeger, Vernerus (Berlin: Weidman, 1921)Google Scholar, which I cite by Jaeger's notations of book (Lib.), volume (Tom.) and paragraph number. I have also included in parentheses the book and chapter references to the NPNF English translation because the Jaeger citations are difficult to match to the English translation (Select Writings and Letters of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, eds. Moore, William and Wilson, Henry Austin [NPNF, 2nd serv vol. 5; Eerdmans, 1954]).Google Scholar

18. See, for example, Eunomius, Apology for the Apology 1. See also Vaggione, , Eunomius, 237–240Google Scholar; Ayres, , Nicaea and its Legacy, 144–149Google Scholar.

19. For a comparison specifically of Gregory of Nazianzus with Ephrem, see Russell, Paul, St. Ephraem the Syrian and St. Gregory the Theologian Confront the Arians (Kerala, India: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 1994).Google Scholar

20. Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistle 202.6. All quotations from Gregory's Theological Letters (Epistles 101-102, 202) come from the Greek text in Lettres théologiques (Sources Chrétiennes [SC] 208), ed. and trans. Gallay, Paul and Jourjon, Maurice (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1974).Google Scholar

21. Besides Gregory's own comments, see also Bernardi, Jean, Saint Gregoire de Nazianze: Le théologien et son temps (330-390) (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1995)Google Scholar. Bernardi notes that “Arianism” remained strong within Constantinople when Gregory arrived there (Barnardi, Grégoire, 201). McGuckin likewise echoes that when the Nicene supporter Theodosius became emperor in 379 after the recent death of the Homoian emperor Valens, Theodosius inherited the capital of Constantinople, “which was completely Arian in persuasion, the center of the Homoian movement” (McGuckin, John A., St. Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography [Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary, 2001], 235).Google Scholar

22. This is not to say that others of Basil's works, for example, do not contain any anti-Jewish rhetoric. See, for example, Hexameron 9.6, and Runia, “Where, tell me.“

23. Basil, Against Eunomius 1.24.

24. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations 33.16. All translations of Orations 32-37 are based on the Greek text published in Discours 32-37 (SC 318), ed. Claudio Moreschini and trans. Paul Gallay (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1985). Norris argues that although Gregory rarely gives an explicit identity to the opponents of his Theological Orations, the charges that Gregory levels against his opponents and the context in which he writes suggests that these “Arians” as Gregory once calls them (Orations 31.30) are followers of Eunomius (Norris, Frederick W., Faith Gives Fullness to Reasoning: The Five Theological Orations of Gregory Nazianzen, trans. Wickham, Lionel, Williams, Frederick [New York: Brill, 1991], 53–56)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. Gregory of Nyssa, Fun. 3.7.8-9 (NPNF 9.1). Compare Lyman, “A Topography of Heresy,” 58-61.

26. Gregory of Nyssa, Fun. 1.177 (NPNF 1.15).

27. Gregory of Nyssa, Fun. 3.8.23 (NPNF 10.2).

28. As Rebecca Lyman notes, this association with Arius is infrequent in Gregory's text, and Gregory also relies on anti-Manichaean rhetoric, along with his references to Judaism, in order to construct Eunomius as a heretic (Lyman, , “A Topography of Heresy,” 58–61)Google Scholar.

29. Regarding Gregory's anti-Jewish language, see Reynard, Jean, “L'Antijudai'sme de Grégoire de Nysse et du pseudo-Grégoire de Nysse,” in Studia Patristica XXXVII (Louvain: Peeters, 2001), 257–276.Google Scholar

30. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.37, 45 (NPNF 1.6). Aetius and Eunomius were sometimes called “Anomeans” because their opponents alleged that they taught the “unlikeness” of the Father and Son. In fact, they taught that they were “unlike” in essence, but not in other ways, such as will.

31. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.46 (NPNF 1.6).

32. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.49, 51 (NPNF 1.6).

33. Despite the chronological spread of these Cappadocians’ writings against Eunomius, the associations that they make between Eunomius and Judaism remain remarkably consistent, particularly in contrast to Athanasius's and Ephrem's earlier writings and John Chrysostom's later writings.

34. Athanasius and Ephrem made similar accusations against their opponents. See, for example, Athanasius, Ar. 1.4.; Defense of Dionysius 3-4; Ar. 3.27, 58, 67; Ephrem, Hymns on Faith [HdF] 44.6, 9; 87; Sermons on Faith 6.

35. Basil, Eun. 1.23. All quotations from Basil's Against Eunomius are from the Greek text in Contre Eunome, vol. I and II (SC 299 and 305), ed. and trans. Sesboiié, BernardDurand, Georges-Matthieu de, and Doutreleau, Louis (Paris: fiditions du Cerf, 1982, 1983).Google Scholar

36. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 33.2.

37. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 33.14.

38. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.107 (NPNF 1.10).

39. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 2.314 (NPNF, Answer to Eunomius's Second Book).

40. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.264-266 (NPNF 1.21). Compare Ephrem's point-by-point comparison with the Jews, especially in HdF 87, which also includes a comparison of the words of his Christian opponents to the physical attacks of New Testament Jews. See Shepardson, “Exchanging Reed“; Shepardson, Anti-Judaism and Christian Orthodoxy.

41. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.267 (NPNF 1.21).

42. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 33.1.

43. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 33.3, 13, 15.

44. See Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 33.16. As noted above, Norris and others accept that although Gregory uses Arius as his reference point for his opponents, he is primarily concerned with the teachings of Eunomius.

45. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 21.14. All quotations from Gregory's Orations 20-23 come from my translation of the Greek text in Discours 20-23 (SC 270), ed. and trans. Mossay, Justin and Lafontaine, Guy (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1980).Google Scholar

46. In much the same way, Ephrem warns his audience against the Jews (and “Arian” Christians whom he associates with the Jews in this sermon) who threaten God: “Flee from [the Jewish people], weak one! Your death and your blood are nothing to it. It accepted the blood of God; will it be frightened away from your own blood?” (Ephrem, , SdF 3.349–352)Google Scholar. See Shepardson, Anti-Judaism and Christian Orthodoxy.

48. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 33.16. Note that here Gregory connects his (Eunomian) opponents with Arius. Like Gregory, Ephrem also exhorts his flock to flee: “Flee and rescue yourself from their madness. Run and harbor yourself in Christ. So that you may not go as a searcher, draw near as one who worships” (Ephrem, , SdF 3.383–384)Google Scholar.

49. Athanasius occasionally used this language, too. See, for example, Athanasius, Deer. 27 and also History of the Arians 61.

50. See also Boyarin's, Daniel detailed discussion of this early Christian practice in Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004).Google Scholar

51. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 33.16.

52. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 38.15.

53. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 3.7.8, 9 (NPNF 9.1).

54. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.264 (NPNF 1.21).

55. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 2.41 (NPNF, Answer to Eunomius's Second Book).

56. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 2.199-200 (NPNF, Answer to Eunomius's Second Book). Compare also Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 3.33 (NPNF 3.2).

57. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.257-258 (NPNF 1.20).

58. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 3.2.156 (NPNF 4.9).

59. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 3.8.22 (NPNF 10.2).

60. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 3.9.36 (NPNF 11.3).

61. Basil, Eun. 1.24.

62. Basil, Eun. 1.24.

63. Basil, Eun. 1.24.

64. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 38.15.

65. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 38.15. Compare Basil, Eun. 1.24.

66. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 38.15.

67. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 29.21. Note that Gregory here criticizes his opponents as “logicians,” a typical criticism of Eunomius and his followers.

68. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 33.16.

69. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.177 (NPNF 1.15).

70. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.179 (NPNF 1.15).

71. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. (2).38 (NPNF 2.5). I use the number 2 in parentheses to refer to the text that is in the back of Jaeger's second volume that he labels in parentheses “(Lib. II P.M.).“

72. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. (2).48-49 (NPNF 2.6).

73. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. (2).49 (NPNF 2.6).

74. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 3.2.72-73 (NPNF 4.4).

75. It is worth noting here that Ephrem uses the same two criticisms of “Arians” but attributes both to Judaizing, using Exodus 32 and the story of the golden calf to link idolatry with the Jews.

76. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 2.14-15 (NPNF, Answer to Eunomius's Second Book). Similarly, Gregory elsewhere exhorts, “Therefore, either let those who declare that he is created confess that he is not God, so that they might appear as Judaizers, or, if they confess that the created one is God, let them not deny being idolaters” (Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. [2J.109 [NPNF 2.9]).

77. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.262 (NPNF 1.21).

78. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.262-263 (NPNF 1.21).

79. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.263-264 (NPNF 1.21).

80. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.267 (NPNF 1.21).

81. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.267 (NPNF 1.21).

82. Compare Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.269 (NPNF 1.22).

83. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. (2).48 (NPNF 2.6).

84. John Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensibility of the Nature of God.

85. For an updated dating sequence based on a newly published addition to Chrysostom's second homily in this series, see these two articles recently published by Pradels, Wendy, Brändle, Rudolf, and Heimgartner, Martin: “Das bisher vermisste Textstiick in Johannes Chrysostomus, Adversus Judaeos, Oratio 2,” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 5 (2001): 23–49Google Scholar; “The Sequence and Dating of the Series of John Chrysostom's Eight Discourses Adversus ludaeos,” ZAC 6 (2002): 90–116Google Scholar. See also Paul Harkins's introduction to his translation of Chrysostom's Discourses against Judaizing Christians for the outline of the dates of these writings (Fathers of the Church [FC] 68).

86. See Grissom, Fred Allen, “Chrysostom and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Fourth-Century Antioch” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978)Google Scholar; Wilken, Robert, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Smelik, Klaas A. D., “John Chrysostom's homilies against the Jews: Some Comments,” Nederlands theologish tijdschrift 39 (1985): 194–200Google Scholar; Ritter, Adolf Martin, “John Chrysostom and the Jews: A Reconsideration,” in Ancient Christianity in the Caucasus, ed. Mgaloblishvili, Tamila (Surrey, U.K.: Curzon, 1998), 141-152, 231–232Google Scholar; Kelly, J. N. D., Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom, Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (London: Duckworth, 1995)Google Scholar; and van der Horst, Pieter W., “Jews and Christians in Antioch at the End of the Fourth Century,” in Christian-Jewish Relations through the Centuries, ed. Porter, Stanley E. and Pearson, Brook W. R. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 228–238Google Scholar. Smelik ('John Chrysostom's’) counters Wilken (John Chrysostom) and argues that John Chrysostom's primary opponents in these homilies are Jews rather than Judaizing Christians. While I agree with Smelik that Chrysostom's interest was in separating clearly the church and the synagogue, I agree with Wilken that the immediate provocation for these homilies is churchgoing “Christians” attending “Jewish” festivals.

87. Of course it is possible that Chrysostom's intended “Judaizing” and “Anomean” audiences, not to mention the people who actually came to hear him rather than his ideal audience, were at least overlapping groups. Nonetheless, the distinction in Chrysostom's rhetoric from the language of Ephrem, Athanasius, and the Cappadocians is that Chrysostom only briefly links the Judaizing Christians with his opponents who have a subordinationist theology, whereas for the other authors, that link itself is one of the focal points of their arguments.

88. John Chrysostom, Discourses against Judaizing Christians 1.1.6. All quotations from John Chrysostom's Discourses against Judaizing Christians are from the Greek text in Patrologia Graeca [PG] 48; see also the English translation by Harkins, Paul W. in FC 68 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1979).Google Scholar

89. Similarly, about the same time that Chrysostom was writing these homilies, Theodore of Mopsuestia was writing his Greek Catechetical Homilies. Like Chrysostom, Theodore also mentions a connection between Arius's and Eunomius's (erroneous) treatment of the Son and the Jews’ beliefs in Jesus’ humanity, but in these homilies Theodore does not elaborate on the connection in the manner of the Cappadocian writers (see, for example, Catech. 1.11, 13.8). Compare also the only extant fragments of Theodore of Mopsuestia's Against Eunomius, published in Vaggione, Richard P., “Some Neglected Fragments of Theodore of Mopsuestia's Contra Eunomium,” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 31 (1980): 403–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90. Far from it, the connection with Judaism remained a threat that Christians could attach to any opponents who allegedly emphasized, to whatever extent, the humanity over the divinity of the Son, such as Nestorian and Chalcedonian Christians. This charge continues in full force in the later Nestorian controversy, aided by the Nestorian belief that Christ was not born divine (that is, Mary his mother cannot be referred to as “Godbearing“), thus emphasizing his humanity and denying his full (and coterminous) divinity, as Nestorian opponents would argue the Jews also do. Likewise, Chalcedonian Christians also sometimes found themselves accused by Miaphysite Christians as being too much like Jews. For an introduction to this later use, including examples from primary sources, see Rompay, Lucas Van, “A Letter of the Jews to the Emperor Marcian Concerning the Council of Chalcedon,” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 12 (1981): 215–224.Google Scholar

91. Kelly also notes that Chrysostom has postponed his sermons against the Anomeans because many Anomeans attended and enjoyed his sermons, and he “did not wish ‘to frighten away the quarry'” (Kelly, Golden Mouth, 61). Undoubtedly, this detail of Chrysostom's particular context also affected the language that he used as well as the strength of its vitriol. Nonetheless, Chrysostom writes as if the Judaizing Christians are also in his audience, and this does not here prevent him from using markedly sharp anti-Jewish and anti-Judaizing language about the dangers that they were creating.