Joseph F. Kelly

Book Review: Religion and the Self in AntiquityReligion and the Self in Antiquity. Edited by BrakkeDavid, SatlowMichael, and WeitzmanSteven. Indianapolis: Indiana University, 2006. Pp. vii + 268.

ciencies, he should not have been condemned personally, and that his Christology—when understood on its own functional terms—should not be regarded as heretical. M. certainly brings clarity and insight to what Theodore meant by his novel terminology and approach, but several difficulties with his argument remain. First, despite clarifications regarding what the “common prosopon” indicates, it is difficult to see what exactly the underlying “ego” of Christ’s common prosopon is—what M. candidly calls an “unknown” center of unity (239). Though M. attempts to show that Theodore held to a real unity between the natures that somehow governs the visible Christ, the “unknown” center remains troubling. Calling this a functional Christology describes what is going on in Theodore but does not establish its adequacy. Second, though M. unfolds the distinctive meanings of Theodore’s technical terms (nature, hypostasis, prosopon), in the end it is not the technical language that presents the greatest stumbling block, but the way that Theodore describes the plain activities of Christ in the Gospel. Theodore’s repeated distinction between the Word and the assumed man as distinct agents does not obviously reflect how the Gospels treat the single identity and personality of Christ—despite M.’s assertion that Theodore’s functional Christology reflects the Synoptic Gospels (255). Rather, one is left with the impression that it is Theodore’s own presuppositions regarding the need to sharply separate the divine from any created nature that gives rise to this kind of language. Finally, M. seeks to absolve Theodore from the charges laid against him, in part because Theodore’s intention was good and he was sincerely convinced of what he taught (253–54, 257). But this is surely beside the point. No one can seriously question Theodore’s intention, and even Cyril of Alexandria counseled against bringing any condemnation of Theodore by name. The issue is the adequacy of his account of Christ. M. has made a significant contribution by unfolding an integrated understanding of Theodore’s account of Christ. However, despite M.’s best efforts to explain why Theodore felt constrained to adopt the approach he did, one may still conclude that the christological teaching of this innovative and independent Antiochene thinker is seriously deficient and is inadequate to account for the presentation of Christ given in the Gospels.

24.95.

Roma Christiana (1976), which cover the material up to Leo, apparently were published after this work was finished. My principal criticism is that M. does not probe deeply enough the problematic mentioned in his title: exploring the cultural roots of the Roman ecclesiastical structures and the ideas behind them. He is usually content to observe possible parallels. The value of his otherwise useful and careful work is lessened.