Marius Victorinus on Divine Nature and Substance
In: Vigiliae ChristianaeSearch for other papers by Wendy Elgersma Helleman in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
This article examines Marius Victorinus’ understanding of (divine) natura in relation to substantia, to determine whether he associated the term more closely with the Trinity as consubstantial, or with the three distinct persons. Recognizing interchangeability of divine “substance” and “nature” in late antiquity, scholars have recently argued that Victorinus’ defense of consubstantiality implied support for a single divine nature (alongside a single power), and anticipated (Pro-Nicene) Cappadocian arguments for divine unity. Close reading of citations of natura in the theological treatises uncovers some passages where it represents unity of substantia. However, passages associating natura with distinct divine persons (subsistentiae) are far more numerous. Use of Latin leads Victorinus to use natura with a degree of complexity that has not yet been recognized. Just as he accepted divine power as both “three” and “one,” he accepted divine nature as “three” and “one,” individual and collective.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 39 | 39 | 5 |
| Full Text Views | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 12 | 12 | 0 |
Marius Victorinus on Divine Nature and Substance
In: Vigiliae ChristianaeSearch for other papers by Wendy Elgersma Helleman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
This article examines Marius Victorinus’ understanding of (divine) natura in relation to substantia, to determine whether he associated the term more closely with the Trinity as consubstantial, or with the three distinct persons. Recognizing interchangeability of divine “substance” and “nature” in late antiquity, scholars have recently argued that Victorinus’ defense of consubstantiality implied support for a single divine nature (alongside a single power), and anticipated (Pro-Nicene) Cappadocian arguments for divine unity. Close reading of citations of natura in the theological treatises uncovers some passages where it represents unity of substantia. However, passages associating natura with distinct divine persons (subsistentiae) are far more numerous. Use of Latin leads Victorinus to use natura with a degree of complexity that has not yet been recognized. Just as he accepted divine power as both “three” and “one,” he accepted divine nature as “three” and “one,” individual and collective.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 39 | 39 | 5 |
| Full Text Views | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 12 | 12 | 0 |
