Diplomová práce zkoumá jednotlivé kapitoly knihy Církevní Dějiny napsané Eusebiem Cézarejským, jež je označován jako "otec církevních dějin", přesto kniha obsahuje velké množství nejasností, rozporů, nepřesností a její celkový obsah vyznívá jako snaha o apologii raděj nežli seriózní historické dílo. V diplomové práci vycházím z velkého množství pramenných zdrojů od respektovaných učenců v oblasti teologie rané církve a historie. Cílem práce je důkladně prozkoumat jednotlivé kapitoly, které vykazují největší množství problematických částí stejně tak jako závěr, zda Eusebius se pokoušel cíleně "ohnout" pravdu ve své upřímné víře či zda jeho cílem bylo sepsat obranu křesťanství, která se pouze tváří jako seriózní historické dílo. Annotation The master thesis focus on a particular chapter of Historia Ecclesiastica written by Eusebius of Caesarea, who is renowned as "father of church history" although the book contains a number of serious mistakes, interpolations, discrepancies and exaggerations. In its complexity could be perceived as an apologetic writing rather than historical writing. I used a great amount of sources by respected scholars in my master thesis while its aim is research of particular chapters which demonstrate the most controversies. In the conclusion I expect the biggest challenge will...

This study seeks to address three main questions: How do Panegyric VI, Lactantius, and Eusebius characterise and utilise their respective visions in their narratives? In what ways are they similar and/or different? Are some or all of the accounts related and, if so, how do they contribute to the Christian Vision legend? In Chapter One the vision narrative in Panegyric VI is deconstructed to show that the panegyrist describes the vision as taking place on Constantine’s return march from Massalia and that he is describing a dream-vision that took place at the sanctuary of Apollo at Grand. In Chapter Two it is argued that: Lactantius never resided in Gaul; he places the vision incorrectly in 312 because he did not know the details of the tradition and used Licinius’ dream as a template; and the Christian character of the vision is part of his interpretation. In Chapter Three Eusebius’ account is deconstructed to show that: the vision story derives from Constantine ca. 336; there is evidence that Constantine was reconstructing his past experiences; Eusebius inserted parallels with St. Paul to give the appearance of a conversion narrative; and Constantine’s actual story shows little influence of Christian socialisation. In each chapter the core elements of the narratives are highlighted: each describes a dream-vision, in which a deity appears to Constantine with a promise of victory and a token representation of that promise. In Chapter Four it is argued that Lactantius and Eusebius are describing the same symbol, which is a tau-cross with a loop; and that the panegyrist and Eusebius describe the same vision: they give the same chronology, but the panegyrist avoids referencing a solar halo because it was an inopportune omen of civil war. In conclusion, all three sources describe the same experience from different perspectives: the vision of Apollo was being constantly adapted to incorporate new historical developments. Appended also is an argument for redating Panegyric VI to August 309 on the basis of the narratives of the panegyrist and Lactantius, as well as archaeological investigations at Cologne (Constantine’s bridge over the Rhine) and Deutz (Castellum Divitia).

No description available.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-25T19:20:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Jefferson Ramalho.pdf: 1206258 bytes, checksum: 4b3b7bba609956750740b69f7ef7e9dc (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-06-15 / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / This research aims to investigate the history of christian religion historiography throughout an analyses of the work Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea from the early fourth century of our era. In this sense, the proposals presented by the AnnalesSchool, especially the History-Problem, are used as a theoretical reference for the development of the criticism. At first, it is observed the characteristics of Eusebius the writer and the politician,which the emperor Constantine was concerned. Finally, the specific character observed along the work to exemplify its apologetic and panegyrist style is the heroic image of the emperor Constantine that Eusebius developed. In order to verify this development, the parameters of Annales History-Problem are usedand also the concept of Invention of Traditions. Once identified that Constantine had the help of a christian writer, bishop and ecclesiastical-political that corresponded to his interests, and Eusebius that simultaneously built an benevolent image of the emperor, it is possible in this thesis to see how the Eusebian narrative and discourse accomplishes both political and religious motivations that can not be disregarded. This verification becomes even more important when we note how the Eusebian model of writing history served as a reference for so many others who had taken place laterin the same enterprise / Esta pesquisa tem por objetivo observar a história da historiografia da religião cristã a partir de uma releitura da obra História eclesiástica, escrita por Eusébio de Cesareia, no início do século IV de nossa era. Neste sentido, são utilizados como referenciais teóricos para desenvolvimento da crítica as propostas apresentadas pela Escola dos Annales, especialmente, a História-Problema. Em primeira instância, são observadas as características do Eusébio escritor e político que interessava ao imperador Constantino. Finalmente, o aspecto específico observado na obra para exemplificar seu estilo apologético e panegirista é a imagem heróica do imperador Constantino que Eusébio elaborou. Para verificar esta elaboração, são utilizados não somente parâmetros dos Annales como a História-Problema, mas também o conceito de Invenção de Tradições. Identificando que Constantino contou com o trabalho de um escritor cristão, bispo e articulador político-eclesiástico que correspondia aos seus interesses e que Eusébio, simultaneamente, construiu uma imagem benevolente deste imperador, é possível, na presente dissertação, perceber o quanto a narrativa e o discurso eusebianos atendem a motivações tanto políticas como religiosas que não podem ser desconsideradas. Esta constatação se torna tanto mais importante quando notamos como o modelo eusebiano de escrita da história serviu de referência para tantos outros que se colocaram posteriormente no mesmo empreendimento

As a key contributor to the current discussion of the Catholic theology of religions, Gavin D'Costa's writings represent a consistent attempt to utilize the resources of the doctrine of the Trinity to address a number of issues regarding the theological significance and function of religions in the salvific plan of God. The aim of this thesis is to examine critically his Trinitarian theology of religions through the lens of a main proponent of patristic theology, Basil of Caesarea, and through a historical-systematic study, address the question of whether his underlying Trinitarianism is consonant with classical Trinitarian theology. After a discussion of Vatican II and post-Conciliar sources, the main contours of D'Costa's theology are highlighted through an interpretive grid of particularity/universality (Christology/Pneumatology) with a second-order universality/particularity. Despite his distancing from the three-fold typology of exclusivism-inclusivism-pluralism, we analyzed that much of his theology continues to fall within the category of traditional inclusivism, particularly since his recent proposal of the limbo of the Fathers contained serious difficulties pertaining to his intention to maintain a singular OT Judaism-Christianity relationship. Next, we examined the main features of Basilian Trinitarianism, and proposed that three major themes are of relevance for a comparative analysis with D'Costa's theology, namely, (1) the doctrines of divine simplicity and inseparable operations, (2) the enlightening work of the Spirit, and (3) the theology of baptism and theosis. Throughout the discussion, in recognition that Basil's thought is part of the patristic theological matrix of his time, we will also reference the writings of other Church Fathers, including Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Augustine. We concluded that while in Basil's theology, economy, relationality and ethics are intricately woven into each other, D'Costa's system, despite its significant merits, was at risk of disaffiliating the connections between the three.

Cette thèse s’intéresse aux historiens classicisants de langue grecque de l’Antiquité tardive. Elle développe une analyse sociale de ces historiens et de leurs écrits. Son objectif principal est de souligner les interactions entre l’écriture de l’histoire, vu comme une pratique sociale, et la société romaine tardo-antique. La première partie dresse la biographie des historiens, d’Eunape de Sardes à Théophylacte Simocatta. Le profil social de ces historiens y est défini, et une attention particulière est portée aux liens entre activité littéraire et carrière professionnelle. La seconde partie étudie plus spécifiquement les élites provinciales tardo-antiques, groupe auquel appartiennent en majorité nos historiens. Elle explique pourquoi pratiquement tous les historiens étaient des avocats et comment ces derniers en venaient à écrire de l’histoire. La dernière partie analyse les fondements sociaux de l’histoire. Elle souligne ce que l’histoire devait à l’éducation tardo-antique et montre comment les vertus de l’historien reflétaient les vertus sociales attendues d’un membre de l’élite tardo-antique. / The main objective of this dissertation is to offer a social analysis of the classicizing historians of late antiquity. It aims to underline the interactions between history-writing and society. The first part presents the biographies of late antique classicising historians, from Eunapius of Sardis to Theophylact Simocatta. It describes the social profile of those historians, while insisting on the interactions between professional career and literary endeavours. The second part explains why most historians were lawyers and analyzes the place history-writing occupies in their social life. The third part deals with the social foundations of history writing. It focuses on the role of rhetorical education in the formation of future historians and shows how the virtues of the historian mirrored the social virtues of late antique elites.

Dans la floraison d’écrits monastiques produits au IVe siècle, les Ascetica attribués à Basile de Césarée ont tenu une place particulière, qui est bien connue. Pourtant, la formation du corpus asceticum, le processus d’éditions multiples dont il a été l’objet, mais aussi les options doctrinales qu’il diffuse n’ont pas été éclaircis de façon satisfaisante. Sur la base d’éléments textuels jusqu’ici négligés, le présent travail se propose de réécrire l’histoire du texte et d’interroger la paternité basilienne de la collection. Il existe, en effet, depuis le Ve siècle au moins et jusqu’à l’époque moderne, un courant minoritaire qui doute de l’opportunité d’attribuer le « livre ascétique » au grand Basile et préfère lui donner pour auteur un autre évêque du IVe siècle, Eustathe de Sébaste, moins estimé de la tradition ecclésiastique. Si le doute sur la paternité basilienne des Ascetica est permis, alors il convient de réévaluer la place de Basile de Césarée dans l’histoire littéraire du mouvement monastique. C’est ce que nous nous proposons de faire dans cet ouvrage, en relisant de près des pièces littéraires qui, jusqu’à présent, n’étaient présentées que comme des « annexes » au dossier des Ascetica. / The Ascetica transmitted under the name of Basil of Caesarea have a special importance among the numerous monastic writings which emerged in the 4th century. If this point is very well-known, the gathering of the corpus asceticum, the multiple antique editions of the collection, and the doctrinal options which are found in this sum have not been really enlightened. On the basis of neglected textual and paleographic evidence, the present work aims at rewriting the history of the text and questioning the basilian paternity of the collection. From the 5th century to the Modern Times, some readers refused the attribution of the Ascetica to Basil the Great and preferred to ascribe them to another (but problematic) bishop of the 4th century: Eustathius of Sebasteia. If there are good reasons to reject the basilian paternity of the collection, it is necessary to reevaluate the role played by Basil of Caesarea in the literary history of the monastic movement. In the present volume, I try to re-read some literary texts which, until now, were just regarded as appendices to the dossier of the Ascetica.

This paper explores the importance of the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son in Basil of Caesarea's Trinitarian writings. In order to judge the importance of the doctrine for Basil, its impact on all of his exegetical and dogmatic writings on the Trinity were surveyed and evaluated. In his writings, Basil repeatedly addresses his belief that the Father and the Son is the one, eternal God. He considered this possible due to the Son's eternal generation from the substance of the Father. Basil considered the eternal generation of the Son to be both a scripturally warranted and philosophically coherent doctrine that explains how the Father and Son are indelibly same in substance and truly distinct persons. This study concludes that the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is essential to Basil's Trinitarian theology throughout his life. / Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology / M. Th. (Systematic Theology)

This paper explores the importance of the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son in Basil of Caesarea's Trinitarian writings. In order to judge the importance of the doctrine for Basil, its impact on all of his exegetical and dogmatic writings on the Trinity were surveyed and evaluated. In his writings, Basil repeatedly addresses his belief that the Father and the Son is the one, eternal God. He considered this possible due to the Son's eternal generation from the substance of the Father. Basil considered the eternal generation of the Son to be both a scripturally warranted and philosophically coherent doctrine that explains how the Father and Son are indelibly same in substance and truly distinct persons. This study concludes that the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is essential to Basil's Trinitarian theology throughout his life. / Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology / M. Th. (Systematic Theology)

Le présent mémoire propose d’examiner, d’une façon approfondie et innovatrice, le rapport entre les chrétiens et Marc-Aurèle à travers une analyse complète des sources à disposition, notamment celles historico-littéraires, épigraphiques, numismatiques et législatives. En particulier, l’on démontrera l’absence de fondement de l’image faite a posteriori de Marc-Aurèle en tant que protector christianorum dont le premier témoin, d'après nos connaissances, est Tertullien. L’on montrera, par le biais d’une analyse législative des sources à notre disposition qu’à l’époque de Marc-Aurèle il n’y avait aucune loi qui protégeait les chrétiens. Bien au contraire, les dispositions de Trajan étaient toujours valides. Par la suite, nous chercherons à trouver les véritables raisons de la politique de Marc-Aurèle envers les chrétiens à travers la comparaison entre la pensée médio-platonicienne de Justin et celle stoïcienne du princeps. L’interprétation philosophique de l’attitude à montrer face à la mort, nous donnera une clef de lecture pour pénétrer les raisons les plus profondes des violences et des procès que les chrétiens ont subis au cours de son principat. / This work aims to provide an original and thorough exploration of the relationship between Marcus Aurelius and the Christians by means of an in-depth analysis of the available historical, literary, epigraphic, numismatic, and legal sources. Specifically, it will show that the a posteriori view of Marcus Aurelius as protector Christianorum, apparently introduced by Tertullian, is unfounded. In support of this argument, a legal analysis of the available sources will show that, far from enjoying legal protection during the Principality of Marcus Aurelius, Christians were still subject to Trajan’s laws. The true reasons underlying the policy of Marcus Aurelius towards the Christians will be investigated by comparing the Middle Platonism of Justin Martyr with the stoic meditations of the princeps. In particular, the philosophical interpretation of the attitude deemed suitable in the face of death will provide an insight into the reasons that led to the wave of violence and to the trials of Christians under Marcus Aurelius’ rule.