Image: Mummy painting of a young boy (Eutychus) from Roman Egypt, c. AD 150. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes
and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The
Ecclesiastical History: Book 7, chapter 24. Listen here.
Notes and Commentary:
This chapter discusses two treatises
titled On Promises written by Dionysius of Alexandria in reply to the
teaching of an Egyptian bishop named Nepos.
Nepos advocated a more literal form
of Scriptural interpretation “after a more Jewish fashion.” For the book of
Revelation, in particular, he taught there would be a literal millennium on
earth. Nepos’s book (no longer extant) was titled Refutation of the Allegorists.
The first book in On Promises
dealt with interpretation and the second on the book of Revelation.
Dionysus first expressed his respect
for Nepos (already deceased) for his faith, devotion, and diligence in Scripture
study. He then, however, stated that his love for truth required he correct
Nepos’s supposed errors.
He notes that a meeting was held in
the nome (division) of Arsinoë, where schism and defection of whole churches over Nepos’s teaching had
taken place. Dionysius discussed Nepos’s book for three straight days, conversing
day and night. In the end, the leader of this movement, Coracion, was convinced
by the contrary arguments and rejected the teaching.
Conclusion:
This chapter highlights early
disputes relating to the teaching of Nepos over proper interpretation of
Scripture and of Revelation and the idea of a millennium, in particular. Dionysius
rejects an overly literal interpretive method and is commended for his ability
to correct errors in this teaching and restore unity among the churches. This
illustrates the controversial nature of book of Revelation among early
Christians, which many were slow to acknowledge as canonical. We also see
another focus on the importance of unity in the church.
JTR
2 comments:
I have a problem with Eusebius in that to my reading of this chapter it seems to say that Eusebius was convinced of the truth of what Nepos was teaching, but he was convinced to stop teaching the truth because Eusebius and maybe Dionysius were more concerned about the unity of the church. Are you seeing differently from me? I appreciate comments.
I re-read the chapter today. I don't think that Eusebius is saying that he agreed with the counter-argument against Nepos merely on the basis of keeping unity. He notes that Dionysius spent three days in public discussion on Nepos's work with the local presbyters and teachers and patiently showed the weaknesses of Nepos's interpretation. The leader of the teaching, named Coracion, agreed not to keep promoting Nepos's view, not merely to keep the peace, but because he was convinced by the "contrary argument" as put forward by Dionysius.
Post a Comment