Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity

I couldn't find an existing thread about this resource, so I figured that I would get one started. Yesterday on Twitter IVP Academic posted a sneak peak of the much anticipated The Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity. I asked about a Logos release and was advised the following:

Im sure it will be a while before it is actually released in Logos considering the hardcover edition is scheduled for a March 2014 release, but the wait seems to be well worth it for those of us interested in the Early Church. Nevertheless, I just figured that I would share the news and build the anticipation. Big Smile

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mike Childs

I hope we see it soon in Logos.[Y]

Lynden O. Williams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511708#Comment_511708

Thanks for posting.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511711#Comment_511711

Nice!

Mark Smith

Certainly sounds interesting. Will be a bit spendy judging by the physical size and list price. Don't know if it will be for me but it would certianly be one Logos would want to have available. Thanks for pointing this one out.

Kent

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511720#Comment_511720

Logos needs to start a pre-comunity pricing.

Rosie Perera

Wow, that looks awesome. I will want that.

See the mockups of the books (they're probably blank) with real covers on them makes me drool over this. If it isn't going to be available in print until March 2014, I'm guessing it will take Logos another 6 months or so to get it all tagged and released. But I hope we start seeing it show up in pre-pub in early 2014, or even late 2013. Would like to see a price under $100 for pre-pub, but am not holding my breath.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511738#Comment_511738

Would like to see a price under $100 for pre-pub, but am not holding my breath.

[Y]

David Bailey

John, Thank you for mentioning this and for the link. I'm very excited about this resource and do hope, as others have said, Logos can offer this as a pre-pub and that we customers can push this to production. It should be ready by the time Logos releases its next major software product.

The more ancient Christianity and early church reference products the better!

[:)]

NB.Mick

since Suggestions forum is monitored by Logos product management and General forum is not, I just placed a pointer there: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/73427.aspx

John Kight

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511823#Comment_511823

Thanks NB.Mick. Yeah, I agree $100 or less on Pre-Pub would be great! But, we all know it will likely be $250 or more...

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/512045#Comment_512045

Thanks NB.Mick. Yeah, I agree $100 or less on Pre-Pub would be great! But, we all know it will likely be $250 or more...

That's higher than I would have guessed. I'm thinking it will probably be on the order of $69.95 per volume once it ships and $49.95 per volume in pre-pub. Three volumes, so probably around $150. But I can still hope for less.

Fall-Guy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/512052#Comment_512052

[Y]

Pinoy Preacher

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511721#Comment_511721

Logos needs to start a pre-comunity pricing.

[Y]

I was trying to look for any info on Polycarp and Lucian of Antioch this morning and all I can find in Logos are scattered tiny informations from various resources. Getting this one will probably speed up searches for related matters.

David Kirk Davis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/527309#Comment_527309

I just bought it on Amazon New for $256. Cannot wait until it comes to Logos.

Todd Frusti

Thanks for sharing this. It looks like a valuable resource. I'll be hoping and watching for a Logos Pre-pub.

Matthew Langlois

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511816#Comment_511816

The more ancient Christianity and early church reference products the better!

Indeed! More ancient Christianity products for us.

Steve Clevenger

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511708#Comment_511708

This would be nice on Logos[Y]

Gordon Jones

Yes please!

John Kight

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/616952#Comment_616952

Looks like this is now available within one of the competitors platforms, but still hasn't made it to Logos pre-pub... Soon? We can hope! [H]

JAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/705384#Comment_705384

Currently $150 for this on the other platform.

John Kight

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/705542#Comment_705542

It only took 4 years!!

https://www.logos.com/product/135823/encyclopedia-of-ancient-christianity

Dennis Hilario

[Y]

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877605#Comment_877605

$200 bucks! Wow I think I'll pass for now. 😬

DBR

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877627#Comment_877627

Considering the price is $300 in the other Bible software programs, the intro price is pretty good and still cheaper than buying the dead tree version.

Mikael S

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877628#Comment_877628

Unacceptable! I gave up from start, I knew other platforms would be slow but this took the back marker price. I got it in OT for their introductory price half off, they were very quick to deliver:

It only took 4 years!!
https://www.logos.com/product/135823/encyclopedia-of-ancient-christianity

OT regularely discounts it at $129, they've done that like three times so far:

Considering the price is $300 in the other Bible software programs, the intro price is pretty good and still cheaper than buying the dead tree version.

Check out Unix's commentary thread: Concisely erudite expositional commentary vols. worth duplicating?

Cynthia in Florida

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877643#Comment_877643

I actually jumped on the price. Comparing to the print and other Bible software sites, this is a steal!

Kenute P. Curry

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877645#Comment_877645

Too high of a price for me.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877649#Comment_877649

Well, I pre-ordered it, feel terrific (or terrible?) [G]

Fasil

I lookforward to owning it. Thanks for sharing.

I couldn't find an existing thread about this resource, so I figured that I would get one started. Yesterday on Twitter IVP Academic posted a sneak peak of the much anticipated The Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity. I asked about a Logos release and was advised the following:

Im sure it will be a while before it is actually released in Logos considering the hardcover edition is scheduled for a March 2014 release, but the wait seems to be well worth it for those of us interested in the Early Church. Nevertheless, I just figured that I would share the news and build the anticipation.

Travis Walter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877643#Comment_877643

This does seem to be a bit high, esp the regularly price of $349. OT req price is $299. So if this was $149 that would be a bit better for a pre-pub.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877715#Comment_877715

The prepub price is the same as the release price over at Accordance... I own it there and not planing on duplicating it but have no issues with the pricing here.

-Dan

Ronald Quick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877850#Comment_877850

Given the number of dictionaries and encyclopedias already available (e.g. Anchor Yale, IVP), what makes these worth the price?

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877852#Comment_877852

Given the number of dictionaries and encyclopedias already available (e.g. Anchor Yale, IVP), what makes these worth the price?

These aren't Bible dictionaries, they're dictionaries of the first six centuries or so of church history. There's very little in the Logos ecosystem that covers similar ground, and nothing at similar depth. There'd be some overlap with the Dictionary of Historical Theology, and a little overlap with The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, but very little other overlap.

There's a sampler here: https://www.scribd.com/document/174778196/Encyclopedia-of-Ancient-Christianity-Sampler

Richard Root

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877643#Comment_877643

OT regularely discounts it at $129, they've done that like three times so far

Just out of curiosity, what does OT stand for in this case?

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877880#Comment_877880

Would their be any advantage to this set for those of us who already have the Anchor Bible Dictionary?

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877880#Comment_877880

OT regularely discounts it at $129, they've done that like three times so far

Just out of curiosity, what does OT stand for in this case?

Olive Tree.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877881#Comment_877881

Would their be any advantage to this set for those of us who already have the Anchor Bible Dictionary?

See my comment above.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877902#Comment_877902

Marks answers are quite sufficient but I thought I would chime in with a couple entries for examples:

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

MAIORINUS (early 4th c.). First lector of the church of Carthage at the time of Bishop *Mensurius (there is much discussion regarding the date of his death); he was succeeded in 311 (though many propose an earlier date) by *Caecilian, persona non grata to the matron *Lucilla and many others, esp. the bishops of *Numidia. The opponents then elected Maiorinus (312), constituting thus the pars Maiorini (Aug., Ep. 88,1). Under his name was redacted the libellus ecclesiae catholicae, criminum Caeciliani traditus a parte Maiorini (Aug., Ep. 88,2). Maiorinus ordained other bishops, extending the strength of his pars, and died before the Council of *Arles of 314 after a brief episcopate. He was succeeded by *Donatus, who gave his name to the secessionist movement.

PCBE 1, 666–667; K. Clancy, When Did the Donatist Schism Begin?: JTS 28 (1977) 104–109; B. Kriegbaum, Kirche der Traditoren oder Kirche der Märtyrer? Die Vorgeschichte des Donatismus, Innsbruck 1986; Y. Duval, Chrétiens d’Afrique à l’aube de la paix constantinienne. Les premiers échos de la grande persécution, Paris 2000, passim.

A. DI BERARDINO

A. Di Berardino, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, s.v. “MAIORINUS,” 2:655-656.

accord://read/EAC#11730

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

NICAEA

I. City - II. Council of 325.

I. City. City of *Bithynia (today Iznik) and, acc. to legend, founded by Dionysius. It came under Roman control in AD 72, at the conclusion of the Mithridatic War (App., Bell. civ. V, 139, 1). At the time of Claudius, Nicaea competed with *Nicomedia for the seat of the provincial governor. Ruined by an earthquake in AD 112, the city was restored under *Hadrian, who visited it in 123 and who also promoted the construction of the city wall, finished at the time of Claudius the Goth. Damaged by the Goths in 258, it was repaired several times: again in the 5th c. it was rebuilt. An ancient Christian city, a series of martyrs are recorded there (see E. Josi, Nicea: EC 8, 1827). Bishops: *Theognis (*Arian, exiled in 325, bishop again in 328, d. 344), Chrestus (325–328), Eugenius (Arian, d. 370), Hypatius (Arian, 379), Dorotheus (381), Anastasius (at *Chalcedon), Peter, Appius, Anstasius II, Stephen, Theophilus, Photios, George, Anastasius III.

PWK 17, 226–243; DACL 12, 1179–1211; EC 8, 1827–28; EAA 5, 452–453; J. Sölch, Bitinische Städte im Altertum: Klio 19 (1925) 140ff.; for the bishops cf. M. Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, I, Paris 1740, 640–662; P.B. Gams, Series Episc., Graz 1957 (repr.), 443.

M. FORLIN PATRUCCO

II. Council of 325. After his victory over *Licinius, emperor of the East, in Sept 324, *Constantine made every attempt to settle the disputes among the Eastern bishops, as he had tried to do in the West with respect to the *Donatist schism, initiating the synods of *Rome (311) and *Arles (314). From the autumn of 324, therefore, he called the bishops to a synod, similar to the comitia of the civil organization of the empire, first to *Ancyra and then, for reasons of convenience, to Nicaea, near to the imperial residence at *Nicomedia. The cursus publicus was placed at the disposition of the conciliar fathers. The essential purpose of the synod was twofold: to settle the *Arian question and the matter of *Easter. A first approach of *Ossius of Cordoba, the principal agent of the political-religious policy of Constantine, to *Alexander of Alexandria in order to reconcile him with Arius, completely failed. On the contrary, a synod, held in Antioch during the winter of 324/325, confirmed the Alexandrian bishop’s censure of the initial group of Arians issued by the local synod, which had brought together about a hundred bishops of Egypt and Libya. Constantine inaugurated his council on 20 May 325, on the day after the celebrations for his victory over Licinius, held at Nicomedia. The synodal fathers had been present already for some days at Nicaea. After a welcoming discourse by the emperor, spoken in Latin, the sympathizers of Arius spoke first, proposing a formula of the faith read by *Eusebius of Nicomedia, which, however, was rejected. *Eusebius of Caesarea then presented a formula of faith, on his own account, to deliver himself from suspicion of heresy, which had been attached to him for some months owing to a censure by the Synod of Antioch, but also to help the conciliar fathers find a formula acceptable to all. As *Athanasius of Alexandria would recount 25 years later in the letter De decretis, the discussions of the Council of Nicaea were long and laborious. With successive additions the traditional formulas of the symbol were determined in an anti-Arian sense, up to inserting the attribute homoousios, “consubstantial,” to qualify the unity of essence of the Father and the Son. We do not know who took the initiative to propose this insertion, which became the touchstone of Nicene orthodoxy. At the conclusion of the debates, only Arius and two bishops, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, refused to subscribe. They were each excommunicated, the two bishops deposed, and all three exiled to Illyria. Just three months after the council, Eusebius of Nicomedia was also exiled.

The controversial originality of the “faith of Nicaea” is to be found in these words: “from the substance of the Father” and “true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.” This way of defining the divinity of Christ was particularly near to the position of *Alexander of Alexandria, without, however, reproducing to the letter the propositions of his theology. Neither Alexander, nor after him Athanasius, seem by themselves to have used the word homoousios, which for the great majority of the Eastern bishops had become a source of doctrinal difficulty, even though they condemned Arius. The political developments of the so-called Arian crisis brought about opposition to Nicaea among these bishops, which lasted publicly up to the beginning of reign of *Theodosius I and the first Council of *Constantinople (381).

Among the disciplinary decrees of Nicaea, the most important regarded the date of the celebration of Easter, acc. to the Roman use and the Alexandrian use, i.e., on the Sunday immediately following the first full moon after the spring equinox. The necessary work of astronomical calculation was entrusted to the see of Alexandria. The canons of Nicaea, twenty in number, speak of the structure of the church (can. 4–7, 15, 16); the clergy (can. 1–3, 9, 10, 17); public penitence (can. 11–14); readmission of *schismatics and *heretics (can. 19); and finally gave *liturgical norms (can. 18 and 20).

The emperor closed the council, the honorary presidency of which he had assumed during the principal sessions, with a banquet and gifts offered to the fathers; this without doubt occurred in the context of the celebrations organized from 25 Jul 325 on the occasion of his vicennalia (he became Caesar at the age of about 36, 25 Jul 306).

The full ecclesial significance of this first ecumenical council become progressively yet gradually clear in the minds of the principal leaders of the church in the course of the 4th c. The faith of Nicaea remained the dogmatic rule invoked by all other councils of the ancient church.

Sources: CPG IV, 8511–8527; G.L. Dossetti, Il simbolo di Nicea e di Costantinopoli, critical ed., Rome 1967.

Recent studies: I. Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée et Constantinople, Hist. des Conciles oecum., 1, Paris 1963; M. Aubineau, Les 318 serviteurs d’Abraham et le nombre des Pères au concile de Nicée (325): RHE 61 (1966) 5–43; H. Chadwick, Les 318 Pères de Nicée: ibid., 808–811; H.J. Sieben, Zur Entwicklung der Konzilsidee, I-II: TheolPhilos 45 (1970) 353–389; 46 (1971) 40–70; D.L. Holland, Die Synode von Antiochien (324/25) und ihre Bedeutung für Eusebius von Cäsarea und das Konzil von Nizäa: ZKG 81 (1970) 163–181; M. Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo, Rome 1975; R. Lorenz, Das Problem der Nachsynode von Nizäa (327): ZKG 90 (1979) 22–40; J.N.D. Kelly, The Nicene Creed: A Turning Point: Scottish Journal Theol. 36 (1983) 29–39; TRE 24, 429–441; C. Luibhéid, The Alleged Second Session of the Council of Nicaea: Journal of Eccl. History 34 (1983) 165–174; D. Spada, Le confessioni di fede da Nicea a Costantinopoli, Rome 1988; L.D. Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), Collegeville, MN 1990, 33–80 (It. tr. Storia e cronaca dei sette concili che definirono la dottrina cristiana, Casale Monf. 1998); L. Perrone, in Storia dei concili ecumenici, ed. G. Alberigo, Bologna 1990, 11–56; Conciliorum Oecumenicorum decreta, ed. G. Alberigo, Bologna 1991, 1–19; R. Staats, Das Glaubensbekenntnis von Nizäa-Konstantinopel: historische und theologische Grundlagen, Darmstadt 1996; P. L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils, Crestwood, NY 1996, 17–100; L. Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, New York-Oxford 2004.

CH. KANNENGIESSER

M. Forlin Patrucco, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, s.v. “NICAEA,” 2:909-910.

accord://read/EAC#13348

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

So while containing many entires you can see for a three volume work the articles feel rather elementary in many ways.

Going on to a work Mark also mentioned (if my memory serves) Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church has this on Nicea:

Nicaea, First Council of (325). The first *Oecumenical Council, summoned by the Emp. *Constantine within a few months of his conquest of the E. provinces, primarily to deal with the *Arian Controversy. The acta of the synod (if such ever existed) have been lost, the only authentic documents surviving from the Council being the Creed, the Synodal Letter, and the collection of twenty canons.

The Council, which had been orig. convened to Ancyra, assembled at Nicaea (now Iznik) in Bithynia in the early summer of 325 (traditionally 20 May). Shortly before there seems to have been a council at Antioch, held under the presidency of *Hosius of Córdoba, which condemned Arianism and its upholders (incl. *Eusebius of Caesarea). Constantine’s main interest was to secure unity rather than any predetermined theological verdict. After the Emperor’s opening speech, the presidency prob. passed to Hosius, though there is also some authority for the view that *Eustathius, Bp. of Antioch, presided. An Arian creed submitted by *Eusebius of Nicomedia was at once rejected. Eusebius of Caesarea then sought to vindicate himself by presenting the Baptismal Creed of his own Palestinian community, and this, supplemented by the word ‘*Homoousios’, was received by the Council as orthodox. But the Creed formally promulgated by the Council was not this Creed but another, prob. a revision of the Baptismal Creed of *Jerusalem (see nicene creed). This Creed, with four anti-Arian anathemas attached, was subscribed by all the Bishops present except two (Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais); and these last were deposed and banished. In the Arian struggle at the Council it would seem that *Athanasius, who was present as the deacon of his Bishop, *Alexander of Alexandria, was the leading champion of orthodoxy. The Council also reached decisions on the *Melitian Schism in Egypt and the *Paschal Controversy (qq.v.), It closed on 25 July. Some modern scholars (E. *Schwartz and others) have argued that this closure was only an adjournment, and that a second and concluding session of the Council met in 327.

The number of bishops who attended the Council is not known, since the signature lists are defective. The traditional number, which goes back to a late writing of Athanasius (Ep. ad Afros, 2), is 318, probably a symbolical figure, based on the number of *Abraham’s servants (Gen. 14:14). Between 220 and 250 is more likely. The Council, however, became generally known as ‘the synod of the 318 Fathers’. Apparently the only representatives from the W. apart from Hosius were two priests representing the Pope of Rome, and the Bps. of Carthage, Milan, Dijon, and two others.

It is difficult to integrate what we learn from the 20 genuine surviving canons with our other information about the Council. Carl. 6 laid down the precedence due to metropolitan sees, and was later constantly invoked in support of the claims of Rome, cans. 10–14 are a short penitential code, dealing with the treatment of the lapsed in the recent. persecutions; can. 13 ordered that no one who sought it Was to be refused the *viaticum; can. 19 dealt with the followers *Paul of Samosata; can. 20 laid down that prayer should be said standing during the Paschal season. Before long these canons were universally accepted both in and W.; and several independent versions survive from the 4th and 5th cents. They were normally given pride of place in the canonical collections and, prob. through this cause, the canons of other Councils (notably *Sardica, q.v.) were apt to be cited as Nicene because they followed on without a break.

The genuine docs., together with a large collection of spuria, are pr. in all the principal Conciliar collections. Hardouin, 1 (1714), cols. 309–528; Mansi, 2 (1759), cols. 635–1082; Hefele and Leclercq, 1 (pt, 1; 1907), pp. 335–632. Text of Creed and canons also, with Eng. tr. and introd., in Tanner, Decrees (1990), pp. 1–19; crit. text of Lat. versions in EOMIA, esp. 1. 2 (1904). W. *Bright, Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils (2nd edn., 1892), pp. 1–89. P. Batiffol, ‘Les Sources de l’histoire du concile de Nicée’, ÉO 24 (1925), pp. 385–402; 26 (1927), pp. 5–17. F. Haase, Die koptischen Quellen zum Konzil von Nicäa: Übersetzt und untersucht (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums, 10, Heft 4; 1920). G. Bardy in Fliche and Martin, 3 (1936), pp. 69–95., with good bibl. I. Ortiz de Urbina, SJ, Nicée et Constantinople (Histoire des Conciles Œuméniques, 1; 1963), esp. pp. 15–136. C. Luibhéid, The Council of Nicaea (Galway, 1982). M. Aubineau, ‘Les 318 Serviteurs d’Abraham (Gen., XIV, 14) et le Nombre des Pères au Concile de Nicée (325)’, RHE 61 (1966), pp. 5–43; cf. H. Chadwick, ‘Les 318 Pères de Nicée’, ibid., pp. 808–11. R. Lorenz, ‘Das Problem der Nachsynode von Nicäa (327)’, ZKG 90 (1979), pp. 22–40; C. Luibhéid. ‘The Alleged Second Session of the Council of Nicaea’, JEH 34 (1983), pp. 165–74. CPG 4 (1980), pp. 5–10 (nos. 8511–27). G. Fritz in DTC 11 (pt. 1; 1931), cols, 399–417, s.v. ‘Nicée, (1^e Concile de)’; H. C. Brennecke in TRE 24 (1995), pp. 429–41, s.v. ‘Nicäa I’, with bibl.; I. Ortiz de Urbina. SJ, in NCE (2nd edn.), 10 (2003), pp. 346–8, s.v.

Nicaea, Second Council of (787). The Seventh General Council was convoked by the Empress Irene at the instigation of the Patr. *Tarasius of Constantinople in order to end the *Iconoclastic Controversy. Pope *Hadrian I accepted the invitation of the Empress and sent two legates on condition that the Iconoclastic Synod of Hieria (754) was condemned. The patriarchs of *Alexandria, *Antioch, and *Jerusalem, then subject to the Caliphs, were unable to come and were each represented by two monks. The Council met on 17 Aug. 786 in the church of the Holy Apostles at *Constantinople, but was immediately broken up by iconoclastic soldiers and did not reassemble till 24 Sept. 787, this time in the church of St Sophia at Nicaea, where Tarasius presided. The Council declared its adherence to the doctrine on the veneration (προσκύνησις) Of images expounded by the Pope in his letter to the Empress, adding that such veneration is a matter of respect and honour (ἀσπασμὸν καὶ τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν), whereas absolute adoration (ἀληθινὴ λατρεία) is reserved to God alone, the honour given to the image passing on to its prototype. The decree promulgating the doctrine was signed by all present and by the Empress and her son Constantine, and the iconoclasts were anathematized.

The 22 canons drawn up by the Council deal with disciplinary matters; they declare null the election by a secular authority of bishops, priests, and deacons, condemn simony, forbid priests to leave their diocese without per-mission of the bishop, enjoin simplicity of life on all clerics, and forbid the stay of women in bishops’ houses and monasteries of men as well as the erection of double monasteries.

Hardouin, 4 (1714), cols. 3–820; Mansi, 12 (1766), cols. 951–1154, and 13 (1767), cols. 1–820. Doctrinal definition and canons, with Eng. tr. and introd., in Tanner, Decrees (1990), pp. 131–56. Eng. tr., with comm., of the material on the 6th session dealing with images, by D. J. Sahas, Icon and Logos: Sources in Eighth-Century Iconoclasmm (Toronto Medieval. Texts and Translations, 4 [1986]). G. Dumeige, SJ, Nicée II (Histoire des Conciles Œcuméniques, 4; 1978), esp. pp. 99–201. E. Boespflug and N. Lossky (eds.), Nicée II, 787–1987: … Actes du Colloque international Nicée II tenue au Collège de France, Paris, les 2, 3, 4 octobre 1986 (1987). P. Henry, ‘Initial Eastern Assessments of the Seventh Oecumenical Council’, JTS Ns 25 (1974), pp. 75–92; B. Neil, ‘The Western Reaction to the Council of Nicaea II’, ibid, 51 (2000), pp. 533–52. Hefele and Leclercq, 3 (pt, 2; 1910), pp. 741–98. H. G. Thümmel in TRE 24 (1995), pp. 441–4, s.v. ‘Nicäa II’; V. Laurent, AA, in NCE (2nd edn,), 10 (2003), pp. 349 f., s.v. with bibl. See also bibl. to iconoclastic controversy.

Nicene Creed. Two Creeds at present so named must be distinguished:

(1) The Nicene Creed properly so called, issued in 325 by the Council of *Nicaea (q.v.) and known to scholars as N. This Creed was drawn up at the Council to defend the Orthodox Faith against the *Arians and includes the word ‘*Homoousios’. Compared with later conciliar Creeds it is relatively short, concluding with the words ‘And in the Holy Spirit’. Appended to it were four anathemas against Arianism, which came to be regarded as an integral part of the text. It was probably based on the Baptismal Creed of *Jerusalem (H. *Lietzmann), not, as older scholars held, through a misunderstanding of a statement of *Eusebius of Caesarea, on that of Caesarea in Palestine (F. J. A. *Hort).

(2) In common parlance, the ‘Nicene Creed’ more often means the considerably longer formula which bears this title in the *Thirty Nine Articles and is in regular use in the Eucharistic worship of the Church, both in East and West. It is also known as the ‘Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed’, and is referred to as C. It differs from N. in that, inter alia, (1) the second section on the Person of Christ is longer; (2) the phrase in N. ‘from the substance of the Father’ (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός) as an explanation of ‘Homoousios’ is wanting; (3) the third section contains an extended statement on the status and work of the Holy Spirit; and (4) after this follow assertions of belief in the Church, Baptism, the Resurrection of the Dead, and Eternal Life, Also it has no anathemas. Since the time of the Council of *Chalcedon of 451 it has been regarded as the Creed of the Council of *Constantinople of 381; but the earliest authorities connecting it with that Council date from c. 449–50. Furthermore the Creed is found in St *Epiphanius’ Ancoratus, which was written in 374; its occurrence here would be decisive evidence that it was not drawn up by the Council if its position in this treatise were established, but there are grounds for believing that N., not C., originally stood in the text here. The most likely theory is that the Creed, though not drawn up by the Council of Constantinople, was endorsed by it in the course of its (unsuccessful) deliberations with the *Pneumatomachi (so A.M. Ritter, followed by J. N. D. Kelly). Its origin is unclear, but it is probable that it was the Baptismal Creed of Constantinople.

Its use in Eucharistic worship after the Gospel apparently began at Antioch under *Peter the Fuller (476–88) and gradually spread through East and West, though it was not adopted at Rome until 1014. In the early Middle Ages the *Filioque (q.v.) was added to it in the W. In the Roman Rite its use at Mass is confined to Sundays and greater feasts. In the E. it is regularly used as a Baptismal Creed. It has been widely accepted in modern times as a proposed basis of Christian unity, e.g. in the *Lambeth Quadrilateral (1888).

Both Creeds, N. and C., are discussed in J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (1950; 3rd edn., 1972), pp. 205–62 and 296–367; J. Burnaby, The Belief of Christendom (1959); B. [L.] Hebblethwaite, The Essence of Christianity: A fresh look at the Nicene Creed (1996). G. L. Dossetti, Il simbolo di Nicea e di Costantitnopoli: Edizione critica (1967). W.-D. Hauschild in TRE 24 (1995), pp. 444–56, s.v. ‘Nicäno-Konstantinopolitanisches Glaubensbekenntis’.

On (1), see also F. *Loofs, ‘Das Nicänum’, in Festgabe von Fachgenossen und Freunden Karl Müller zum siebzigsten Geburtstag dargebracht (1922), pp. 68–82; H. Lietzmann, ‘Symbolstudien XIII’, ZNTW 24, (1925), pp. 193–202, with ‘Kritischer Epilog’ by A. *Harnack, p. 203. I. Ortiz de Urbina, SJ, Il simbolo niceno (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1947). Hefele and Leclercq, 1 (pt. 1; 1907), pp. 442–8.

On (2), F. J. A. Hort, Two Dissertations (1876), pp. 73–150 (‘On the Constantinopolitan Creed and other Eastern Creeds of the Fourth Century’); A. M. Ritter, Das Konzil von Konstantinopel und sein Symbol (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmen-geschichte, 15; 1965), pp. 133–208; R. Staats, Das Glaubens-bekenntnis von Nizää-Konstantinopel (Darmstadt, 1996). T. F. Torrance (ed.). The Incarnation: Ecumenical Studies in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed AD. 381 (1981).

On the use of the Nicene Creed [C.] at the Eucharist, cf. B. *Capelle, OSB, ‘L’Introduction du symbole à la messe’, in Mélanges Joseph de Ghellinck, 2 (Museum Lessianum, Sect. hist. 14; 1951), pp. 1003–27, repr. in his Travaux Liturgiques, 3 (1967), pp. 60–81; and Jungmann (1958 edn.), pp. 591–606; Eng. tr., 1, pp. 461–74.

Emp. Emperor.

Bp. Bishop.

q.v. quod vide (Lat., which see).

Ep. Epistle.

q.v. quod vide (Lat., which see).

Hardouin J. *Hardouin [Harduinus], Acta Conciliorum et Epistolae Decretales, ac Constitutiones Summorum Pontificum (12 vols., Paris, ‘1714–15’).

Mansi J. D. *Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio (31 vols., Florence, 1759–98).

Hefele and Leclercq C. J. *Hefele (tr. into Fr. by H. *Leclercq, OSB), Histoire des conciles d’après les documents originaux (11 vols., 1907–52).

tr. translation.

Tanner, N. P. Tanner, SJ (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (2 vols., 1990).

EOMIA Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima, ed. C. H. *Turner (Oxford, 1899 ff.).

ÉO Échos d’Orient (39 vols., Paris, 1897–1942).

RHE Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique (Louvain, 1900 ff.).

ibid. ibidem (Lat., in the same place).

ZKG Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte (Gotha, 1877–1930; Stuttgart, 1931 ff.).

JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History (London, 1950 ff.).

CPG Clavis Patrum Graecorum, ed. M. Geerard and F. Glorie (5 vols., Turnhout, 1974–87).

DTC Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, ed. A. Vacant, E. Mangenot, and É. Amann (15 vols., 1903–50); Tables Générales by B. Loth and A. Michel (3 vols., 1951–72).

s.v. sub verbo (Lat., under the word).

TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie, ed. G. Krause, G. Müller, and others (Berlin etc., 1977 ff.).

s.v. sub verbo (Lat., under the word).

NCE New Catholic Encyclopedia (14 vols. + index, New York, etc., 1967, + 3 supplementary vols., 16–18; 1974–89).

s.v. sub verbo (Lat., under the word).

Patr. Patriarch.

Hardouin J. *Hardouin [Harduinus], Acta Conciliorum et Epistolae Decretales, ac Constitutiones Summorum Pontificum (12 vols., Paris, ‘1714–15’).

Mansi J. D. *Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio (31 vols., Florence, 1759–98).

tr. translation.

Tanner, N. P. Tanner, SJ (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (2 vols., 1990).

tr. translation.

comm. Commentaries.

JTS Journal of Theological Studies (London, 1900–5; Oxford, 1906–49; NS, ibid., 1950 ff.).

Hefele and Leclercq C. J. *Hefele (tr. into Fr. by H. *Leclercq, OSB), Histoire des conciles d’après les documents originaux (11 vols., 1907–52).

TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie, ed. G. Krause, G. Müller, and others (Berlin etc., 1977 ff.).

s.v. sub verbo (Lat., under the word).

NCE New Catholic Encyclopedia (14 vols. + index, New York, etc., 1967, + 3 supplementary vols., 16–18; 1974–89).

s.v. sub verbo (Lat., under the word).

q.v. quod vide (Lat., which see).

TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie, ed. G. Krause, G. Müller, and others (Berlin etc., 1977 ff.).

s.v. sub verbo (Lat., under the word).

ZNTW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums (und der älteren Kirche) (Giessen, 1900–32; Berlin, 1933 ff.; + Beihefte, Giessen, 1923–34; Berlin, 1936 ff.).

Hefele and Leclercq C. J. *Hefele (tr. into Fr. by H. *Leclercq, OSB), Histoire des conciles d’après les documents originaux (11 vols., 1907–52).

AD anno Domini.

Jungmann (1958 edn.) J. A. Jungmann, SJ, Missarum Sollemnia: Eine genetische Erklärung der römischen Messe (4th edn., 2 vols., 1958).

tr. translation.

F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1151–1153.

-Dan

Hapax Legomena

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877940#Comment_877940

Dan,
Thanks. That's helpful. I may let this one go.

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877902#Comment_877902

Would their be any advantage to this set for those of us who already have the Anchor Bible Dictionary?

See my comment above.

Hi Mark. I was a little confused about the depth part. I may be misunderstanding or maybe I'm misreading the product pages. Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity is stating 3,000 articles in 2,951 pages in 3 volumes. AYBD is stating 6,000 entries in 7,200 pages in 6 volumes.

How does the former have more depth? What does that mean?

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877954#Comment_877954

The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary is a resource providing overviews of topics from biblical figures, themes, and the biblical world.Some things from later church history that have grown out of certain themes are also covered.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity is a a resource providing overviews of topics in the early church. It is interested in the Ancient Church for itself - and so has entries on various figures, writings, doctrinal and practical discussions/debates, etc.

So, while the AYBD does have more articles, and there is more than a bit of overlap since the Bible certainly was a major influence on the Ancient Church, they have different foci, and so will pick different things to cover.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/877954#Comment_877954

Hi Mark. I was a little confused about the depth part. I may be misunderstanding or maybe I'm misreading the product pages. Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity is stating 3,000 articles in 2,951 pages in 3 volumes. AYBD is stating 6,000 entries in 7,200 pages in 6 volumes.

How does the former have more depth? What does that mean?

To clarify, there's very little in the Logos ecosystem that covers similar ground, and nothing that covers similar ground at similar depth.

There is almost no overlap between AYBD and EAC. AYBD covers biblical topics. EAC covers historical topics from the post-biblical period. Even where both encylopaedias contain the same entry (which is rare), the content is vastly different. For example, the EAC article on Abraham (available in the sampler) doesn't survey biblical material on Abraham (as ABYD does), but concentrates on patristic interpretation of Abraham and Abramic iconography.

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/878041#Comment_878041

Thank you for the replies. That helps. I'll spend a little time with the sampler and AYBD. If you think of anything else that might be helpful to me in the decision process please share.

Thanks again.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/878055#Comment_878055

Looks like this and some other pre-pubs have miraculously leaped into "under development" status:

https://www.logos.com/product/135823/encyclopedia-of-ancient-christianity

RyanB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/889453#Comment_889453

Looks like the ship date is May 29th!

https://www.logos.com/product/135823/encyclopedia-of-ancient-christianity

John Kaess

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/705384#Comment_705384

Looks like this is now available within one of the competitors platforms, but still hasn't made it to Logos pre-pub... Soon? We can hope!

Not only is it available on Pre-pub right now, but it ships later this month.

https://www.logos.com/product/135823/encyclopedia-of-ancient-christianity

Mike Pettit

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/901871#Comment_901871

I am wondering whether to buy this. Could anyone with access to the volumes let me know if there is an entry for Papias and if so to what extent is he discussed and how extensive is the bibliography for him?

This will be my touchstone for deciding whether to buy or not.

Many thanks.

Mike

RyanB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/902206#Comment_902206

Sorry, the formatting is a bit off, but you should still be able to read it

PAPIAS of Hierapolis (2nd c.). Born at Hierapolis
in *Phrygia, where he was also *bishop, Papias wrote
An Explanation of the Sayings [lo,gia] of the Lord
around the year 130/140, which heavily influenced
*Irenaeus of Lyons, *Hippolytus of Rome and *Victorinus
of Petovium. The extant fragments have been
preserved by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., V, 33, 4) and *Eusebius
of Caesarea, HE II,15,2; III, 36, 2; 39, 13-17.
Today we have various editions and even recent
translations. The work is an interpretation of what
the Lord said and did, as the title itself indicates.
According to Eusebius, HE 3, 39, 15ff., Papias was
a follower of one of the seven disciples of *John,
among whom were the *presbyters *Aristion and
*John, though modern scholars often maintain that
only the latter two are historical figures, on the supposition
that the seven disciples represent a widespread
literary device used during that period (e.g.,
for the discussion of the supposed John of Papias,
see M.L. Rigato, La testimonianza di Papia di Gerapoli
sul “secondo” Giovanni e il contesto eusebiano,
in Atti del VI Simposio di Efeso su S. Giovanni Apostolo,
ed. L. Padovese, Rome 1996, 237-272). Papias
was considered to have had close ties to the apostolic
age: acc. to Irenaeus (Haer. V, 33,4), Papias was “very
old,” a follower of John and a contemporary of
*Polycarp. With regard to the direct transmission of
the apostolic message, Papias’s insistence on
para,dosij/traditio is very important, because
through it one finds the “living voice” (zw,sh fonh,,
viva vox), as seen in A.D. Baum’s study Papias, der
Vorzug der Viva Vox und die Evangelienschriften:
NTS 44 (1998) 144-151. Eusebius did not consider
Papias a very rigorous thinker and thus inserted him
within the Jewish Christian tradition (HE 3, 39, 13).
The most famous fragment, already discussed
during antiquity (HE 3, 39, 15), reports a presbu,teroj,
acc. to whom the gospel of Mark was written on the
basis of *Peter’s preaching at *Rome and indicates
that *Mark was an “interpreter” of Peter. The question
has been studied (e.g., by T.Y. Mullins, Papias
and Clement and Mark’s Two Gospels: VChr 30
[1976] 189-192; J. Kürzinger, Die Aussage des Papias
von Hierapolis zur literarischen Form des Markusevangeliums:
Biblische Zeitschrift 21 [1977] 245-
264; A. Delaux, Deux témoignages de Papias sur la
composition de Marc: NTS 26 [1981] 401-411; M.
Sordi, L’ambiente storico-culturale greco-romano e
la missione cristiana nel I sec.: Ricerche Storico-Â�
Bibliche 10 [1998] 217-229; A.D. Baum, Der Presbyter
des Papias über einen Hermeneuten des Petrus:
TZ 56 [2000] 21-35).
Matthew, acc. to Papias, wrote his gospel e`brai<di
diale,ktw|, i.e., in Hebrew or in Aramaic dialect; he
collected the lo,gia (sayings) of Jesus in this language
and h`rmh,neuse them, i.e., he “interpreted”
them, or “translated” them, evidently in Greek, even
if *Jerome (Vir. ill., s.v. Matthaeus) claims that he
does not know who translated the Greek of “the Hebrew
version of Matthew.” One such gospel was then
used by a group of Jewish-Christians such as the
*Nazareans and, acc. to *Pantaenus, the teacher of
*Clement of Alexandria, was actually in the possession
of certain Christian groups in India, who obtained
it from *Bartholomew (documentation for
this is found in ch. 3 of my work: Gli Apostoli in
India nella tradizione patristica e nella letteratura
sanscrita, in collaboration with C. Dognini, Milan
2001, 45-59). The question has been raised if what
Matthew wrote in “the Hebrew language” acc. to Papias
was a collection of the sayings of Jesus that Irenaeus
and Origen speak of as the text of “Matthew in
Hebrew.” Scholars have debated this issue at length,
and the literature on this question is voluminous.
See, at least, C.B. Amphoux, L’évangile selon les Hébreux:
Apocrypha 6 (1995) 67-77; A.D. Baum, Ein
aramäischer Urmatthäus im kleinasiatischen Gottesdienst:
ZNTW 12 (2001) 257-272; further information
can be found in the bibl.

RGG3 V, 47-48; J.F. Bligh, The Prologue of Papias: ThS 13 (1952)
234-240; J. Munck, Presbyters and Disciples of the Lord in Papias:
HTR 52 (1959) 223-243; W. Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und
Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, Tübingen 21968, 187ff.; G.M.
Lee, Eusebius, HE 3,39,4: Biblica 53 (1972) 412; C.M. Nielsen,
Papias. Polemicist Against Whom?: ThS 35 (1974) 529-535; Altaner
54-55; E. Güttgemanns, In welchem Sinne ist Lukas “Historiker”?
Die Beziehung von Luk 1,1-4 und Papias zur antiken
Rhetorik: LingBibl 54 (1983) 9-26; U.H.J. Koertner, Papias von
Hierapolis. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des frühen Christentums,
Göttingen 1983; J. Kürzinger, Papias von Hierapolis und die
Evangelien des NT, Regensburg 1983; L. Cirillo, Un recente volume
su Papia: Cristianesimo nella Storia 7 (1986) 553-563; H.H.
Schmidt, Semitismen bei Papias: TZ 44 (1988) 135-146; J.-D.
Dubois, Remarques sur le fragment de Papias cité par Irénée:
RHPhR 71 (1991) 3-10; G. Zuntz, Papiana: ZNTW 82 (1991)
242-263; R. Bauckham, Papias and Polycrates on the Origin

of the Fourth Gospel: JTS 44 (1993) 24-69; W.R. Schoedel, Papias,
in ANRW II, 27, 1, Berlin-New York 1993, 235-270; W.A. Löhr,
Kanonsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zum Verhältnis von
mündlicher und schriftlicher Tradition im zweiten Jahrhundert:
ZNTW 85 (1994) 234-258; A. Stewart-Sykes, Taxei in Papias:
JECS 3 (1995) 487-492; P. Bruns, Papias: LTK3 7, 1325-1326; C.E.
Hill, What Papias Said About John (and Luke): JTS 49 (1998)
582-629; C.P. Thiede, Der Petrus Report, Augsburg 2002, 153-
170; I. Ramelli, I romanzi antichi e il Cristianesimo. Contesto e
contatti, Madrid 2001, 163-192, part. 167; Id., The Ancient Novels
and Possible Contacts with the New Testament, in Annual Meeting
of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical
Literature, Atlanta, GA, November 22-25, 2003, section
Ancient Fiction and Early Christian and Jewish Narrative
Group; H. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers: A
Historical Introduction to the First Gospel, Bloomington, IN
2003; B. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, Cambridge 2003; M.-L.
Rigato, Il titolo della Croce di Gesù, Rome 2003, 134-144; I. Ramelli,
Indizi della conoscenza del Nuovo Testamento nei romanzieri
antichi e in altri autori pagani del I sec. d. C., in Atti del
Convegno Il Contributo delle scienze storiche alla interpretazione
del Nuovo Testamento (Rome, 2-6 ottobre 2002), ed.
Pontificio Comitato di Scienze Storiche, Vatican City 2005;
Papia di Hierapolis, Esposizione degli oracoli del Signore: i frammenti,
intr., text, tr. and notes by E. Norelli, Milan 2005.
I. Ramelli

Mike Pettit

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/902208#Comment_902208

Many thanks.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/902219#Comment_902219

Quite readable Ryan, other than the Greek didn't hold.

An Explanation of the Sayings [λόγια] of the Lord around the year 130/140,

Papias’s insistence on παράδοσις/traditio is very important,

the “living voice” (ζώση φονή, viva vox),

reports a πρεσβύτερος, acc. to whom the gospel of Mark was written

Matthew, acc. to Papias, wrote his gospel ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ, i.e., in Hebrew or in Aramaic dialect; he collected the λόγια (sayings) of Jesus in this language and ἡρμήνευσε them, i.e., he “interpreted” them, or “translated” them, evidently in Greek,

I copied the above snippets for clarity of how the text is presented.

-dan