Didymus against Eunomius in Light of John 16:14's History of Reception
First Statement of Responsibility
Kellen Plaxco
.PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC
Place of Publication, Distribution, etc.
Leiden
Name of Publisher, Distributor, etc.
Brill
SUMMARY OR ABSTRACT
Text of Note
This article provides an account of Didymus the Blind's subtle attention to theological nuance and invites readers to reconsider his importance for the theological debates of the late fourth century. The polemical shape of Didymus's theology of the trinity is underdetermined. This article argues that Didymus responded to Eunomius's first Apology. The argument takes the shape of a short history of the reception of John 16:14. This verse was used in anti-monarchian tradition to distinguish the Holy Spirit from the Son, but it also led to low pneumatologies that in some cases implied angelomorphic pneumatology. Eunomius's pneumatology in Apology 25 is a radicalization of this anti-monarchian reading of John 16:14, which Didymus opposed with careful attention to Scripture's usage of terms for "pouring out." This article provides an account of Didymus the Blind's subtle attention to theological nuance and invites readers to reconsider his importance for the theological debates of the late fourth century. The polemical shape of Didymus's theology of the trinity is underdetermined. This article argues that Didymus responded to Eunomius's first Apology. The argument takes the shape of a short history of the reception of John 16:14. This verse was used in anti-monarchian tradition to distinguish the Holy Spirit from the Son, but it also led to low pneumatologies that in some cases implied angelomorphic pneumatology. Eunomius's pneumatology in Apology 25 is a radicalization of this anti-monarchian reading of John 16:14, which Didymus opposed with careful attention to Scripture's usage of terms for "pouring out."