1. See for example Athanasius, Ep. ad Afros, 6 (PG 26, 1040 B); Marius Victorinus, Adv. Arium II,3–7 (CSEL 83,173 ff.); Hilary of Poitiers, De synodis 81 (PL 10,534 B). I employ the following abbreviations: CCL = Corpus Christianorum, Series Larina; CH = Corpus Hermeticum; CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum; CSEL = Corpus Scrip- torum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum; GCS = Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte; ILS = Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae; PG = Patrologia Graeca; PL = Patrologia Latina; RAC = Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum; SC = Sources Chrétiennes

2. See for example Stead, George Christopher, “Homousios,” RAC 16 (1992): 364–433, 411Google Scholar: “Die genaue Bedeutung von homoousios im nizänischen Credo ist folglich nicht nur schwer auszumachen, sondern es ist auch vergeblich, sie zu suchen.”

3. Ambrose, , De fide III, 15, 125Google Scholar (CSEL 78,151 = Hans-Georg Opitz, Athanasius Werke, vol. 3, pt. 1: Urkunden zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites 318–328 [Berlin und Leipzig: W. de Gruyter, 1934–35], Urk. 21): “Si verum Dei filium et increatum dicimus, ŏμοούσιον cum Patre incipimus confiteri.”

4. Hilary, , Fragm. hist. B II,11,6 (CSEL 65,154).Google Scholar

5. Athanasius, , Ep. ad Afros 6 (PG 26, 1040 B).Google Scholar

6. See Athanasius, , Hist. Arian. 42 (PG 25, 744 A): καί τ⋯ν ⋯ν Νικαἰᾳ πἰστιν ⋯ξ⋯θετο.Google Scholar

7. Philostorgius, , Hist. eccl. 1,7–9 (GCS 21, 8–10)Google Scholar. Philostorgius's report is judged “probable” by Norderval, Øyvind, “The Emperor Constantine and Arius: Unity in the Church and Unity in the Empire,” Studia Theologica 42 (1988): 113–50, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Zahn, Theodor, Marcellus von Ancyra. Ein Beitrag zur Geschkhte der Theologie (Gotha: F. A. Perthes, 1867), 22 ff.Google Scholar

9. von Harnack, Adolf, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 4th ed. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1909), 2:233–34.Google Scholar

10. de Clercq, Victor C., Ossius of Cordova. A Contribution to the History of the Constantinian Period, Studies in Christian Antiquity, 13 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1954), 250–66.Google Scholar

11. Stead, George Christopher, Divine Substance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), 190–222; 223–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Ritter, Adolf Martin, “Dogma und Lehre in der alten Kirche,” in Handbuch der Theologie und Dogmengeschichte, vol. 1, Die Lehrentwiddung im Rahmen der Katholizitat, ed. Carl, Andresen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 99–283, 169 f.Google Scholar

13. Ritter, Adolf Martin, Das Konzil von Konstantinopel und sein Symbol. Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des II. Ökumenischen Konzils, Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, 15 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 270–93, esp. 273–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Hanson, Richard P. C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. The Arian Controversy 318–381 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 201.Google Scholar

15. Eusebius, , Vita Const. III,13,1 (ed. Friedrich, Winkelmann, GCS Eusebius Werke, I. 1,88)Google Scholar speaks of “presidents” (τοîς συν⋯δου προ⋯δροις) in the plural.

16. See Theodoret, , Hist, eccl. 11,8,47Google Scholar (GCS 19, 116): δι⋯ τ⋯ν ύποστ⋯σεως ⋯ν⋯τητα ἥτις ⋯στ⋯ μ⋯α πατρ⋯ς κα⋯ μ⋯α . The English translation is taken from Stevenson, James, Creeds, Councils and Controversies. Documents Illustrating the History of the Church, AD 337–461, new ed. rev. by Frend, William H. C. (London: SPCK, 1989), 13 f.Google Scholar

17. See for example Tertullian, , Adv. Prax. 2,4 (CCL 2, 1161); 29,6 (1203).Google Scholar

18. Tertullian, , Adv. Hermog. 44,3 (CCL 1, 433).Google Scholar

19. Idem, , Adv. Valent. 12,5 (CCL 2, 764); 18,1 (767); 37,2 (778).Google Scholar

20. Good observations are made by Ulrich, Jörg, Die Anfänge der abendländischen Rezeption des Nizänums, Patristische Texte und Studien, 39 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1994), 6–25: “Zur These der westlichen Herleitung des Nizänums.”Google Scholar

21. Eusebius, , Praep. evang. XI,21,6–7Google Scholar (eds. Karl Mras and Édouard des Places, GCS Eusebius Werke VIII.2, 48): τ⋯ς νοητ⋯ς οὐσ⋯ας…μ⋯ ⋯μοο⋯σια…

22. A personal, private creed, not the official baptismal creed of the Church of Caesarea, according to von Campenhausen, Hans, “Das Bekenntnis Eusebs von Caesarea (Nicaea 325),” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 671 (1976): 123–39.Google Scholar

23. Constantine's decision about the insertion of the new theological term is expressed by the Greek words: ⋯ν⋯ς μ⋯νου προσεγγραΦ⋯ντος ⋯μοουσ⋯ου (Opitz, Urk. 22,7). This text can be found in Athanasius, , De decr. 33 (Opitz, vol. 2, pt. 1, 28–31)Google Scholar; Socrates, , Hist. eccl. 1,8,35–54Google Scholar; Theodoret, , Hist.eccl. 1,12Google Scholar. English translation from Stevenson, James, A New Eusebius. Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD 337, new ed. rev. by Frend, William H. C. (London: SPCK, 1987), 344 ff.Google Scholar

24. von Harnack, Adolf, Dogmengeschichte, 1:284–85, n. 3Google Scholar; 2:232–34, n. 4.

25. de Urbina, Ignacio Ortiz, “L' homoousios preniceno,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 8 (1942): 194–209Google Scholar; de Urbina, Ignacio Ortiz, El Simbolo Niceno (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1947), 183–202.Google Scholar

26. Mendizábal, Luis M., “El Homoousios Preniceno Extraeclesiástico,” Estudios Eclesiasticos 30 (1956): 147–96.Google Scholar

27. Prestige, George Leonard, God in Patristic Thought (London: SPCK, 1936; 2d ed., 1952), 197–218.Google Scholar

28. Gerlitz, Peter, Auβerchristliche Einflüsse auf die Entwicklung des christlichen Trinitätsdogmas, zugleich ein religions und dogmengeschichtlicher Versuch zur Erklärung der Herkunft der Homousie (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 193–221.Google Scholar

29. Boularand, Éphrem, L'hérésie d'Arius el la “foi” de Nicée, vol. 2, La “foi” de Nicée (Paris: Letouzey & Ane, 1972), 331–53.Google Scholar

30. Kelly, John Norman D., Early Christian Creeds, 3d ed. (London: Longman, 1972), 245.Google Scholar

31. Dinsen, Frauke, Homoousios. Die Geschichte des Begriffs bis zum Konzil von Konstantinopel (381), Diss. Kiel 1976, 4–11.Google Scholar

32. Stead, Christopher, Divine Substance, 190–202, and his masterly synthesis in RAC 16, 374 ff.Google Scholar

33. Grillmeier, Aloys, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1, From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451) (London: Mowbrays, 1975), 109.Google Scholar

34. See Dinsen, Frauke, Homoousios, 7.Google Scholar

35. According to Hippolytus, Ref. omn. haer. VII,22,7.12, ed.Miroslav, Marcovich in Patristische Texte und Studien, 25 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1986)Google Scholar, 290 f. = X,14,2: νί⋯της τριμερ⋯ς κατ⋯ π⋯ντα οὐĸ ⋯ντι ⋯μοο⋯σιος. See also, for the Gnostic use of the word, ibid., V,8,10 (156); V,17,6.10 (186 f.).

36. This text is cited by Epiphanius, , Panarion 33,7,8Google Scholar (GCS 25,457): Φὐσιν ἔχοντος τ⋯ ὅμοια καί ⋯μοούσια τε καί προø⋯ρειν. See the edition by Gilles Quispel, Ptolémée. Lettre à Flora (SC 24 bis, 70–72 and 103–4). English trans, by Williams, Frank, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, vol. 1, Nag Hammadi Studies, 35 (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 203.Google Scholar

37. According to Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1,11,3 (SC 264, 174) and Hippolytus, Ref., VI,38,3 (Patristische Texte und Studien, 25), 254.

38. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1,5,1 (SC 264,76); 1,5,5 (86); 1,5,6 (88); 11,12,2 (SC 294,98–100); 11,14,4 (136); 11,17,2–7 (158–66); 11,29,1 (296). A good collection of texts is gathered by Stead in Divine Substance, 192 ff., and in RAC 16, 375 ff.

39. For example Strom. 11,74,1 (GCS, Clemens II, 152); IV,91,2 (288); Exc. Theod. 42,3 (GCS, Clemens III, 120); 50,1–2 (123); 53,1 (124); 58,1 (126).

40. See Origen, Com. Ioh. XIII,25,149–50 (SC 222, 112); XX,24,205–6 (SC 290, 258).

41. Clement, Adumbrationes in Epist. I Ioann. 1,1 (GCS, Clemens III, 210).

42. “Vaporis enim nomen inducens hoc ideo de rebus corporalibus assumpsit, ut vel ex parte aliqua intelligere possimus quomodo Christus, qui est Sapientia, secundum similitudinem eius vaporis qui de substantia aliqua corporea procedit, sic etiam ipse ut quidem vapor exoritur de virtute ipsius Dei. Sic et Sapientia ex eo procedens ex ipsa substantia Dei generatur; sic nilominus, et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhoeae, esse dicitur aporrhoea gloriae Omnipotentis, pura et sincera. Quae utraeque similitudines manifestissime ostendunt communionem substantiae esse Filio cum Patre. Aporrhoea enim ⋯μοο⋯σιος videtur, id est unius substantiae, cum illo corpore ex quo est vel aporrhoea, vel vapor.” (See PG 14,1308 and PG 17,580 C–581 C).

43. Hanson, , “Did Origen apply the Word ‘Homoousios’ to the Son?”, in Epèktasis. Mélanges Jean Daniélou (Paris: Beauchesne, 1975), 293–303.Google Scholar

44. Dinsen, , Homoousios, 29–31.Google Scholar

45. Williams, Rowan, Arius. Heresy and Tradition (London: SCM Press, 1987; 2d ed., 2001), 134 ff.Google Scholar

46. Stead, , Divine Substance, 211–14.Google Scholar

47. Edwards, Mark J., “Did Origen apply the Word ‘Homoousios’ to the Son?”, Journal of Theological Studies 49 (1998): 658–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48. Rufinus, , De adulteratione librorum Origenis, 1Google Scholar (CCL 20, 8): “qui Patrem et Filium unius substantiae, quod Graece ‘homousion’ dicitur, designavit.”

49. Origen, De princ. 1,2,6 (SC 252, 122): “Quae imago etiam naturae ac substantiae Patris et Filii continet unitatem.”

50. For general information on this controversy see Bienert, Wolfgang A., Dionysius von Alexandrien. Zur Frage des Origenismus im 3. Jahrhundert, Patristische Texte und Studien, 21 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1978), 200–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51. Dionysius's letter is cited by Athanasius, De decr. 26,2–7 (Opitz, vol. 2, pt. 1, 22–23). Elsewhere Athanasius seems to take for granted that Dionysius of Rome had accepted the word homoousios; see Ep. ad Afros 6 (PG 26,1040 C); De synod. 43,4 (Opitz, vol. 2, pt. 1, 268), but there is the legitimate suspicion that Athanasius is only trying to show the basic consistency of his own doctrine with the teaching of the bishop of Rome.

52. See Athanasius, De decr. 25,3–5 (Opitz vol. 2, pt. 1,21); De sent. 18,1–3 (59–60); De synod. 44,1–2 (269).

53. Athanasius, De sent. 13,1 (Opitz vol. 2, pt. 1, 55).

54. Dionysius of Rome in Athanasius, De decr. 26,2 (Opitz, vol. 2, pt. 1, 22).

55. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. VII,6 (GCS 9/2, 642).

56. Ps.-Athanasius, Exp. fid. 2 (PG 25, 204 A).

57. Basil, , Ep. 9,2, ed. Yves, Courtonne (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1957) 1:38Google Scholar: μ⋯ν (scil. Dionysius) τ⋯ ⋯μοούσιον δι⋯ τ⋯ν ⋯π' ⋯θετ⋯σει ὐποστ⋯σεων κεχρημ⋯νον (scil. Sabellius). For Basil's criticism on Dionysius of Alexandria see Drecoll, Volker Henning, Die Entwicklung der Trinitätslehre des Basilius von Cäsarea. Sein Weg vom Homöusianer zum Neunizäner, Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, 66 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 38–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

58. I see no sufficient reason to follow Brennecke, Hanns Christof, “Zum Prozeß gegen Paul von Samosata: die Frage nach der Verurteilung des Homoousios,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 75 (1984): 270–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Nothing in his study leads me to think that the condemnation of homoousios at Antioch belongs rather to the history of the Arian controversies of the fourth century. On the contrary, the very use of homoousios should be considered the starting point for a reappraisal of Paul's monarchianism and, consequently, for a general reinterpretation of his theology in the frame of the controversies of the third century.

59. Athanasius, , De synod. 43–45Google Scholar (Opitz vol. 2, pt. 1, 268–70).

60. Basil, Ep. 52,1–2 (Courtonne 1:134–35).

61. Prestige, George L., God in Patristic Thought, 202 ffGoogle Scholar. See the keen criticism by Dinsen, , Homoousios, 231.Google Scholar

62. Hilary, , De synod. 81Google Scholar (PL 10, 534 B): “per hanc unius essentiae nuncupationem solitarium atque unicum sibi esse Patrem et Filium praedicabat.” That monarchianism was the true reason for Paul's condemnation is also stated by Eusebius of Caesarea, De eccl. theol. 1,14 (GCS, Eusebius rv, 74).

63. Ibid. 86 (538 B): “male homoousion Samosatenus confessus est.”

64. Bienert, Wolfgang A., “Das vornicaenische ⋯μοο⋯σιος als Ausdruck der Rechtgläubigkeit,” in Von Konstantin zu Theodosius. Beiträge zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschkhte des 4. Jahrhunderts. Wilhelm Schneemelcher zum 65. Geburtstag, hrsg. von Wolfgang A. Bienert und Knut Schäferdiek (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1979), 5–29Google Scholar (= Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 90, 1979, 151–75).

65. Abramowski, Luise, “Dionys von Rom (†268) und Dionys von Alexandrien (†264/5) in den arianischen Streitigkeiten des 4. Jahrhunderts,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 93 (1982): 240–72Google Scholar; English translation: “Dionysius of Rome (d. 268) and Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264/5) in the Arian Controversies of the Fourth Century,” in Abramowski, Luise, Formula and Context. Studies in Early Christian Thought, no. 11 (London: Ashgate, 1992).Google Scholar

66. Heil, Uta, Athanasius von Alexandrien. De Sententia Dionysii, Patristische Texte und Studien, 52 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1999), 22–71 and 210–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

67. See Opitz, Urk. 22,13: ⋯πε⋯ κα⋯ τινας λογ⋯ους κα⋯ ⋯πιΦανεîς ⋯πισκ⋯πους κα⋯ συγγραΦεîς ἔγνωμεν ⋯π⋯ πατρ⋯ς κα⋯ θεολογ⋯ας ⋯μοουσ⋯ου συγχρησαμ⋯νους ⋯ν⋯ματι. English trans, from Stevenson, and Frend, , A New Eusebius, 346.Google Scholar

68. See Martin, Annick, “L'origine de l'arianisme vue par Théodoret,” in L'historiographie de l'Église des premiers siècles, eds. Bernard, Pouderon and Yves-Marie, Duval, Théologie historique, 114 (Paris: Beauchesne, 2001), 349–59, 357.Google Scholar

69. Dial. 1,2 (GCS 4, 12): κα⋯ τ⋯ν ⋯ξ θε⋯ν λ⋯γον ⋯μοο⋯σιον.

70. See Opitz, Urk. 21 cited above in n. 3.

71. See the “blasphemies of Arius” quoted by Athanasius, De synod. 15,3 (Opitz vol. 2, pt. 1, 242): οὐδ⋯ ⋯μοο⋯σιος. There is an English version in Williams, , Arius, 102.Google Scholar

72. See Opitz, Urk. 6,3: οὐδ̕ ὡς Μανιχαîος μ⋯ρος ⋯μοο⋯σιον πατρ⋯ς τ⋯ γ⋯ννημα εἰσηΥ⋯σατο (see Stevenson, and Frend, , A New Eusebius, 326Google Scholar: “nor as Mani taught that the offspring was a portion of the Father, consubstantial”).

73. See the perceptive article by Lyman, Rebecca, “Arians and Manichees on Christ,” Journal of Theological Studies 40 (1989): 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74. See Skarsaune, Oskar, “A Neglected Detail in the Creed of Nicaea (325),” Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987): 34–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75. See Logan, Alastair H. B., “Marcellus of Ancyra and the Councils of AD 325: Antioch, Ancyra, and Nicaea,” Journal of Theological Studies 43 (1992): 428–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Logan's argument is accepted by Elliott, Thomas G., The Christianity of Constantine the Great (Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 1996), 207.Google Scholar

76. See Eusebius's letter to the Church of Caesarea in Opitz, Urk. 22,7. According to Basil of Caesarea, Ep. 81 (ed. Courtonne, 1:183), the text of the Nicene Creed was drafted by the Cappadocian Hermogenes. His name is found again in Ep. 244,9 (Courtonne, 3:82) and 263,3 (Courtonne, 3:123).

77. Feige, Gerhard, “Markell von Ancyra und das Konzil von Nizäa (325),” in Denkender Glaube in Geschichte und Gegenwart, eds. Wilhelm, Ernst and Konrad, Feiereis, Erfurter Theologische Studien, 63 (Leipzig: St.-Benno, 1992), 277–96Google Scholar, rightly denies that Marcellus was one of the leading theologians of the Council of Nicaea.

78. Text and thorough commentary of the confession of Sardica in Jörg, Ulrich, Die Anfänge, 26–109Google Scholar. See also Lienhard, Joseph T., Contra Marcellum. Marcellus of Ancyra and Fourth-Century Theology (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1999), 144–52.Google Scholar

79. From Theodoret, Hist.eccl. 1,8: τινες ⋯κ τοὒνομα προβαλλ⋯μενοι ε⋯ρ⋯νης, κατεσ⋯γησαν μ⋯ν ἅπαντας τοὺς ἄριστα λ⋯γειν εἰωθ⋯τας. This is the frag. 32 of Spanneut, Michel, Recherches sur les écrits d'Eustathe d'Antioche avec une édition nouvelle des fragments dogmatiques et exégétiques (Lille: Facultés Catholiques, 1948), 104 f.Google Scholar

80. This commonly held opinion has been recently welcomed also by Strutwolf, Holger, Die Trinitätstheologie und Christologie des Euseb von Caesarea. Erne dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchung seiner Platonismusrezeption und Wirkungsgeschichte, Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, 72 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 54 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

81. Athanasius, Or. adv. Arian. 1,9 (PG 26, 29 A).

82. Plotinus, Enn. IV,4,28; IV,7,10.

83. Porphyry, De abst. 1,19; Sent. 33; Ad Gaur. 6,2;18; De regr. an. frag. 10 Bidez (=Augustine, Civ. Dei X,29: consubstantialem).

84. Iamblichus, De mysteriis Aegyptiorum 111,21.

85. Published for the first time in Fabricii, Bibl. graeca, XII, Hamburg! 1724, 762, this text is recorded as frag. 307 by Abel, Eugenius, Orphica (Leipzig-Prag: Freytag-Tempsky, 5th ed., 1885, repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1971), 270Google Scholar, and as frag. 348 by Kern, Otto, Orphicorum Fragmenta (Berlin: Weidmann, 1922), 338–39.Google Scholar

86. Poimandres 6.1 quote from the standard edition by Nock, Arthur Darby and Festugière, André-Jean, CH (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1946), 1:8–9Google Scholar: ⋯γὼ ⋯ σ⋯ς θε⋯ς…⋯ δ⋯ ⋯κ Νο⋯ς Φωτειν⋯ς Λ⋯γος υἱ⋯ς γ⋯ρ δι⋯στανται ⋯π' ⋯λλ⋯λων΄ ἕνωσις γ⋯ρ το⋯των ⋯στ⋯ν ⋯ ζω⋯.

87. CH XII, 1 (174): ⋯ οὐσ⋯ας ⋯στ⋯ν…⋯ οủν οὐκ ἔστιν ⋯ποτετμημ⋯νος οὐσι⋯τητος , ⋯λλ᾽ ὥσπερ ⋯πλωμ⋯νος καθ⋯περ ⋯λ⋯ου .

88. Poimandres 9 (9).

89. Ibid. 10 (10).

90. Ibid. 2 (7) and 30 (17).

91. Ibid. 5 (8) and 9 (9).

92. See the article cited above in n. 25.

93. Dinsen, , Homoousios, 6.Google Scholar

94. Stead, , Divine Substance, 201–2Google Scholar, and RAC 16, 374–5.

95. See especially Dodd, Charles Harold, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder and Stanghton, 1935; 3d ed., 1964), 201–9Google Scholar, and Holzhausen, Jens, Der “Mythos vom Menschen” im hellenistischen Ägypten. Eine Studie zum “Poimandres” (=CH I), zu Valentin und dem gnostischen Mythos, Theophaneia, 33 (Frankfurt am Main: Hain, 1994)Google Scholar. For a more balanced point of view, see Pearson, Birger A., “Jewish Elements in Corpus Hermeticum I (Poimandres),” in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, eds. Roelof, van den Broek and Vermaseren, Maarten J., Études préliminaries aux Religions Orientales dans l'Empire Romain, 91 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 336–48Google Scholar. This article is reprinted in Pearson, Birger A., Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity, Studies in Antiquity and Christianity 5 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 136–47.Google Scholar

96. This is the thesis held by Büchli, Jörg, Der Poimandres, ein paganisiertes Evangelium. Sprachliche und begriffliche Untersuchungen zum 1. Traktat des Corpus Hermeticum, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe, 27 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987).Google Scholar

97. See the collection of his extant fragments in Places, Édouard des, Numénius. Fragments (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1973)Google Scholar, esp. frag. 8 (Plato is an Atticizing Moses), 13 (citation of Exod. 3:14), and 30 (citation of Gen. 1:2).

98. Büchli, , Der Poimandres, 65–6Google Scholar: “Der Wortgebrauch von ⋯μοο⋯σιος weist nämlich eindeutig in den christlichen Bereich … Da ⋯μοο⋯σιος innerhalb des CorpHerm nur hier im Poimandres einmal vorkommt, können wir hier mit Bestimmtheit eine Reminiszenz an die Auseinandersetzung der christlichen Theologen annehmen.” This conclusion is based on the questionable assumption that “dort ist der christliche Einfluβ gesichert, wo ein Wort nur durch den christlichen Sprachgebrauch erklart werden konnte” (203).

99. See Iamblichus, , De mysteriis Aegyptiorum 1,1,1–2.Google Scholar

100. Iversen, Erik, Egyptian and Hermetic Doctrine, Opuscula Graecolatina- Supplementa Musei Tusculani, 27 (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 1984).Google Scholar

101. Iamblichus, , De mysteriis Aegyptiorum VIII,3.Google Scholar

102. Diodorus, , Bibliotheca 1,12,2.Google Scholar

103. Plutarch, , De Iside et Osiride, 36 (365 D).Google Scholar

104. CH 111,1 (Nock-Fesrugière, 44).

105. CH XII,1. See n. 87.

106. All the questions concerning this work, its origin, purpose and structure, are discussed in the general introduction to my edition: Beatrice, Pier Franco, Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia. An Attempt at Reconstruction, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 56 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), XI–LXXII.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

107. Theosophia 1,41 (Greek text in Beatrice, , Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia, 21 f.).Google Scholar

108. Theosophia 1,42 (22).

109. Theosophia 1,43 (22).

110. Theosophia 1,44 (22).

111. According to the Greek geographer Strabo, who lived in the age of Augustus, Heliopolis was in ancient times a settlement of priests who studied philosophy and astronomy. Strabo, however, complained that in his day the place was entirely deserted and that the learned tradition of the local temples had completely evaporated (see Geogr. XVII,1,27–29). This means that Antiochus might have written his collection of Egyptian religious texts at the latest at the end of the Hellenistic age (2d–1st c. b.c.e.). But nothing really prevents us from thinking of him as a representative of the pagan revival of the 3d–5th c. c.e.

112. Theosophia 1,45 (Beatrice, 22): κατ⋯ τ⋯ς λεγομ⋯νας σ⋯ριγγας. For the right meaning of this rare word see Beatrice, , Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia, XLII, n. 128Google Scholar, and apparatus.

113. Theosophia 1,45 (Beatrice, 23).

114. Batiffol, Pierre, “Oracula hellenica,” Revue biblique 13 (1916): 177–99Google Scholar, esp. 196 ff.: “Nous sommes ici en plein monothéisme Chrétien trinitaire.”

115. Theosophia 1,5 (Beatrice, 10–12).

116. Theosophia 1, 54–55 (26 f.).

117. Book 3 is entirely devoted to the Sibylline prophecies.

118. Only this fragment of book 4 has been salvaged in a Syriac translation.

119. Poimandres 5 (Nock-Festugière, 8).

120. The only extant source is Epiphanius, Panarion 51,22,9–11 (GCS 31, Epiphanius II, 285 f.): τα⋯τη ὥρᾳ σ⋯μερον ⋯ Κ⋯ρη (τουτ⋯στιν ⋯ παρθ⋯νος)⋯γ⋯ννησε τ⋯ν . This obscure text has been discussed at length by Rahner, Hugo, Griechische Mythen in christlicher Deutung (Zürich: Rhein Verlag, 1957), 180–83Google Scholar, and Bowersock, Glen W., Hellenism in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar, but they do not mention the oracle from Coptos on the Virgin Birth of the Logos-Son (see above, n. 108).

121. Theosophia 11,37 (Beatrice, 38). It is needless to emphasize the affinity of this Hermetic hymn with the Fourth Gospel.

122. Unfortunately Hartmut Erbse has not paid sufficient attention to the Egyptian and Hermetic connections of these five oracles. In particular, with regard to homoousios, he does not quote the Poimandres, and limits himself to referring the reader to the obsolete pages of Harnack's Dogmengeschichte. See his Theosophorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1995), 32Google Scholar: “de significatione et historia vocis cf. de Harnack, D. G. I 284 n. 3.”

123. This conclusion is in substantial agreement with the observations of Fowden, Garth, The Egyptian Hermes. A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind, 2d ed. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993), 113 ffGoogle Scholar. on the relationship between pagan Hermetism and Christian gnosticism, even though the word homoousios is not discussed in this book.

124. Among the best books on this topic see Hermann Dömes, Das Selbstzeugnis Kaiser Konstantins, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, 3d ser., no. 39 (1954); Kraft, Heinz, Kaiser Konstantins religiöse Entwicklung, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, 20 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1955)Google Scholar; Barnes, Timothy D., Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Fox, Robin Lane, Pagans and Christians in the Mediterranean World from the Second Century A.D. to the Conversion of Constantine, 2d ed. (London: Penguin, 1988)Google Scholar; Drake, Harold Allen, Constantine and the Bishops. The Politics of Intolerance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000)Google Scholar. But further research needs to be carried out.

125. On Porphyry's anti-Christian activity at Diocletian's court see Beatrice, Pier Franco, “Antistes philosophiae. Ein christenfeindlicher Propagandist am Hofe Diokletians nach dem Zeugnis des Laktanz,” in Ricerche patristiche in onore di Dotn Basil Studer (Rome: Inst. Patr. Augustinianum, 1993 = Augustinianum 33), 31–47.Google Scholar

126. See Constantine, , Oratio ad sanctorum coetum 16,4 (ed. Ivar A. Heikel, GCS 7, 177).Google Scholar

127. Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to his Church (= Opitz, Urk. 22,7). English version by Stevenson and Frend, A New Eusebius, 345.

128. In his circular letter to Alexander of Thessalonica, cited by Theodoret, , Hist.eccl. 1,4,46 (= Opitz, Urk. 14)Google Scholar: οὐ κατ⋯ τ⋯ς σωμ⋯των ⋯μοι⋯τητας ταîς τομαîς ἢ ταîς ⋯κ διαιρ⋯σεων ⋯πορρο⋯αις, ὥσπερ Σαβελλ⋯ῳ κα⋯ Βαλεντ⋯νῳ δοκεî. This text should be compared with Arius's confession quoted above in n. 72.

129. See esp. CH XII,1 cited above in notes 87 and 105.

130. The date of the Oration is still a controversial point. According to Fox, Robin Lane, Pagans and Christians, 627–56Google Scholar, this speech was held at Antioch immediately before the Council of Nicaea, on the Good Friday of Apr. 325, but Drake, Harold Allen, Constantine and the Bishops, 292–308Google Scholar, would take it just as a particular version of one basic, much-reworked speech on Providence. What really matters here is its authenticity which nobody seems to doubt anymore.

131. Constantine, , Oratio ad sanctorum coetum 9 (ed. Ivar A. Heikel, GCS 7,163)Google Scholar: μ⋯ν θε⋯ν ὑΦηγ⋯σατο τ⋯ν ὑπ⋯ρ τ⋯ν οὐσ⋯αν, ὐπ⋯ταξε δ⋯ το⋯τῳ κα⋯ δε⋯τερον, κα⋯ δ⋯ο οὐσ⋯ας διεῑλε, οὔσης ⋯μΦοτ⋯ρων τελει⋯τητος, τε οὐσ⋯ας δευτέρου τ⋯ν ὕπαρξιν ⋯χούσης ⋯κ πρώτου΄ αὐτ⋯ς γ⋯ρ ⋯στιν ⋯ δημιουργ⋯ς κα⋯ διοικητ⋯ς ὅλων δηλον⋯τι ὑπεραναβεβηκώς, ⋯ δ⋯ μετ' ⋯κ∊îνον ταîς ⋯κε⋯νου προστ⋯ξεσιν ὑπουργ⋯σας τ⋯ν αἰτ⋯αν π⋯ντων συστ⋯σεως εἰς ⋯κεîνον ⋯ναπέμπει. ἄν εἴη κατ⋯ τ⋯ν λ⋯γον ⋯ τ⋯ν π⋯ντων ⋯πιμ⋯λειαν ποιο⋯μενος προνοο⋯μεν⋯ς τε θε⋯ς λ⋯γῳ κατακοσμ⋯σας τ⋯ π⋯ντα· ⋯ δ⋯ λ⋯γος αὐτ⋯ς θε⋯ς ὢν αὐτ⋯ς τυγχ⋯νει κα⋯ παîς. ποîον γ⋯ρ ἄν τις ἄλλο ⋯νομα περιτιθε⋯ς παρ⋯ τ⋯ν προσηγορ⋯αν παιδ⋯ς οὐκ τ⋯ μ⋯γιστα ⋯ξαμαρτ⋯νοι; ⋯ γ⋯ρ τοι π⋯ντων πατ⋯ρ κα⋯ ἰδ⋯ον λ⋯γου δικα⋯ως πατ⋯ρ νομ⋯ζοιτο.

132. See Numenius, frag. 12 (Édouard des Places, 54). Rist, John M., “Basil's ‘Neoplatonism’: Its Background and Nature,” in Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic. A Sixteen-hundredth Anniversary Symposium, ed. Fedwick, Paul Jonathan (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1981), 1:137–220Google Scholar, esp. 155–59, seems to have overlooked this important difference.

133. CH XI, 15 (149): οὐ γ⋯ρ ⋯ργ⋯ς ⋯ θε⋯ς.

134. Point. 31 (18): ἅγιος , ⋯ λ⋯γῳ συστησ⋯μενος τ⋯ ⋯ντα.

135. Lactantius, Epit. 37,4 (SC 335,154): “Denique Plato de primo ac secundo deo non plane ut philosophus, sed ut vates locutus est, fortasse in hoc Trismegistum secutus.” For the interpretation of this text see Perrin, Michel, “Le Platon de Lactance,” in Lactance et son temps. Recherches actuelles, eds. Jacques, Fontaine and Michel, Perrin, Théologie historique, 48 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1978), 203–34, in particular 216–19.Google Scholar

136. Lactantius, Div. Inst. IV,29,4 (SC 377, 238): “Cum igitur et pater filium faciat et filius patrem, una utrique mens, unus spiritus, una substantia est.”

137. Lactantius, Div. Inst. IV,6,1 (SC 377, 62): “Deus igitur machinator constitutorque rerum … antequam praeclarum hoc opus mundi adoriretur, sanctum et incorruptibilem spiritum genuit, quem filium nuncuparet.”

138. Davies, P. S., “Constantine's Editor,” Journal of Theological Studies 42 (1991): 610–18, esp. 612CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For criticism from a different point of view see also Edwards, Mark J., “The Arian Heresy and the Oration to the Saints,” Vigiliae Christianae 49 (1995): 379–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

139. Opitz, Urk. 27,1: Τ⋯ν δεσπ⋯την θε⋯ν δηλαδ⋯ κα⋯ χριστ⋯ν ἅπαντες ἴστε, ⋯γαπητο⋯ ⋯δελΦο⋯, πατ⋯ρα τε κα⋯ υἱ⋯ν εἶναι, πατ⋯ρα Φημ⋯ ἄναρχον ἄνευ τ∈λομς γον⋯α , υἱ⋯ν δ⋯ ἔστι τ⋯ν πατρ⋯ς βούλησιν…

140. See n. 120 above.

141. CH XI,2 (147 f.): ⋯ θε⋯ς ποιεî… ⋯ αἰὼν ⋯ν μ⋯ν αἰὼν ἔστηκε περ⋯ τ⋯ν θε⋯ν; see Ascl. 31 (Nock-Festugière 2:339): “deus ergo stabilis fuit semper semperque similiter cum eo Aeternitas constitit.”

142. CH XI,15 (149).

143. Urk. 27,2.

144. Poim. 8 ff. (9).

145. Ascl. 19–20 (2:320 f.). More details in Mahé, Jean-Pierre, “La Création dans les Hermetica,” Recherches Augustiniennes 21 (1986): 3–53, esp. 21 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

146. Paneg. lat. XII,2,5; 16,2; 26,1.

147. CIL vol.6, no.1139 = ILS no.694: “insrinctu divinitatis mentis magnitudine.”

148. Ascl. 25 and 29 (2:329, 336). On the Hermetic religio mentis see in general Fowden, , The Egyptian Hermes, 95–115Google Scholar. The Hermetic origin of Costantine's religio mentis has been so far overlooked. See for example Nixon, C. E. V. and Rodgers, Barbara Saylor, In Praise of Later Roman Emperors. The Panegyrici Latini, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 21 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 295 ff.Google Scholar; Hall, Linda Jones, “Cicero's instinctu divino and Constantine's instinctu divinitatis: The Evidence of the Arch of Constantine for the Senatorial View of the ‘Vision’ of Constantine,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6 (1998): 647–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

149. Kraft, Heinz, “OMOOYΣIOΣ,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 66 (1954–1955): 1–24.Google Scholar

150. See Dittenberger, Wilhelm, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1905), 2:462, nos. 720 and 721Google Scholar: Ό ⋯γιωτάτων Έλευσîνι μυστηρίων Νικαγόρας ʼΑθηναîος ἱστορήσας τ⋯ς σύριγγας πολλοîς ὕστερον χρόνοις μετ⋯ τ⋯ν θεîον Πλάτωνα ⋯π⋯ χάριν ἔσχον τοîς θεοîς κα⋯ εὐσεβεστάτῳ βασιλεî Κωνσταντίνῳ μοι παρασχόντι. ἵλεως ⋯μîν Πλάτων κα⋯ .

151. Ricken, Friedo, “Nikaia als Krisis des altchristlichen Platonismus,” Theologie und Philosophie 44 (1969): 321–41Google Scholar, rightly observes in conclusion: “Homoousios heißt: Der Sohn steht auf der Seinstufe des transzendenten Gottes.” However, this is not enough, as he fails to take Constantine's role and his Hermetic background into consideration.

152. This is said against Schwartz, Eduard, Kaiser Constantin und die christliche Kirche (Leipzig: Teubner, 1913), 140 f.Google Scholar, and Loofs, Friedrich, “Das Nicänum,” in Festgabe Karl Müller (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1922), 68–82, reprGoogle Scholar. in idem, Patristica. Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Alten Kirche, hrsg. von Harms Christof Brennecke und Jörg Ulrich, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 71 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1999), 105–21Google Scholar. For Drake, , Constantine and the Bishops, 255–57Google Scholar, homoousios was just a catchword that had the advantage of exposing and isolating the Arians.

153. See for example Marcellus of Ancyra, frag. 116, 117, and 120. I quote from Vinzent, Markus, Markell von Ankyra. Die Fragmente. Der Brief an Julius von Rom, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 39 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 108 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

154. Marcellus, frag. 118 (110): μ⋯ν Εὐσεβ⋯ον Οὐαλεντ⋯νῳ τε κα⋯ ⋯μοίως εἰρηκότος.

155. This short text was discovered and edited for the first time by Mercati, Giovanni, “Anthimi Nicomediensis episcopi et martyris de sancta ecclesia,” in Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana antica, Studi e testi 5 (Rome: Tipografia Vaticana, 1901), 87–98Google Scholar. Richard, Marcel had no difficulty in attributing it to Marcellus of Ancyra in his article “Un opuscule méconnu de Marcel évêque d' Ancyre,” Mélanges de Science Religieuse 6 (1949): 5–28Google Scholar, repr. in idem, Opera Minora (Turnhout: Brepols, 1977), vol. 2, no. 33.Google Scholar

156. I quote from the recent, exhaustive study by Logan, Alastair H. B., “Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), ‘On the Holy Church’: Text, Translation and Commentary,” Journal of Theological Studies 51 (2000): 81–112, 95 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

157. See Sozomen, Hist. eccl. IV,12,6 (SC 418, 242): συνεχώρησε μήτε ⋯μοούσιον μήτε ⋯μοιούσιον λέγειν, ὡς μηδ⋯ ταîς ἱεραîς γραϕαîς ⋯γνωσμένων ⋯νομάτων κα⋯ ὑπ⋯ρ ⋯νθρώπων ὂν ουσίαν πολυπραγμονεîν.