Geoffrey D. Dunn
Zosimus’ Epistula 7 (JK 333 = J3 739, Quid de Proculi) to Patroclus, bishop of Arles, would suggest the normal operations of ecclesiastical judicial procedures: Proclus had been condemned, the validity of an earlier synodal decision had been overturned, and Patroclus’ own authority had been upheld. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. Other letters in Liber auctoritatem ecclesiae Arelatensis, particularly three written by Zosimus also in September 417, inform us about just how controversial were not only Patroclus’ claims to authority in southern Gaul but Zosimus’ support of Patroclus and his assertion that the Roman church had a role in arbitrating these claims. The evidence in the collection is of a dispute conducted with anything but diplomacy. This paper sets Quid de Proculi in its broader context to reveal how both Zosimus and the church of Arles tried, unwittingly or not, to promote a false memory about the church of Arles.
Salvation lies at the heart of Irenaeus’ thought. His two surviving works not only declare helping his readers’ communities toward salvation as their purpose, but even contain prayers and meditations for the Valentinians’ salvation. However, following the paradigm set down by Harnack more than a century ago, scholars have tended to separate what Irenaeus insists “rejoice together”: “truth in the mind” and “holiness in the body” (Dem 3). By reconsidering the history of Irenaean scholarship on the nature of the divine economy and the infancy of Adam, I show that Adam’s infancy is temporal rather than physical and that Irenaeus’ interpretation of Adam’s growth is at the same time the phenomenological structure of temptation, maturation, and askesis experienced by the living reader. Irenaeus’ soteriology was not simply a metaphysical theory but an ascetic and even phenomenological discourse structuring a way of life—it was a lived theology.
Johannes van Oort
Bruce W. Longenecker
Certain Pompeian artifacts have drawn debate as to whether they might be the product of Jesus-devotion within the walls of that small town. This article overviews the context for considering that issue in accordance with the best forms of current historiographical analysis and in light of the full spread of the evidence. To do otherwise is to mire the debate in a problematic web of outdated assumptions. When those assumptions are purged from the interpretive process and the full spread of evidence is taken into account, new interpretive possibilities open up, with important historical implications for our understanding of early forms of Jesus-devotion.