himself and influenced by Gnostic ideas[1]. Besides in Harnack it is not clear whether these relations are to be regarded as based on mere resemblance or on real kinship, for he remarks even as regards the connection between Eustathius and the later Antiochians, that in consequence of the many crossings it would be very difficult to prove a direct dependence and influence. He thinks it must suffice to group together what is homogeneous[2]. I cannot share this sceptical attitude—in the course of my research into the history of dogma I have become increasingly more convinced of the influence of tradition—, and the very kinships assumed here by my honoured teacher and friend do not seem to me to be the right ones[3]. In my opinion the supposition that there was a kinship in tradition between the Antiochian and the western christology seems to be unavoidable because of the close resemblance of the views and the formulas. But what sort
- ↑ i1, 474; i4, 606.
- ↑ ii4, 341 note 1.
- ↑ I do not deny that there was a kinship in tradition between Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, and the later Antiochians. The famous passages of Paul in the Doctrina patrum (ed. Diekamp, p. 303 iv—304 viii), about the genuineness of which I am more doubtful than Harnack (Dogmengeschichte i4, 724 note 1), especially the most interesting of them (l. c. p. 304 viii: τὰ κρατούμενα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως κ.τ.λ.), could have been written by Theodore of Mopsuestia or by Nestorius. But Paul of Samosata was not the creator of the formulas he used; he stood in the same line of tradition as Eustathius, Theodore and Nestorius, although he modified these traditions—perhaps, however (comp. Harnack i4, 724 note 2), not in such a degree, as his opponents try to make us believe.
