Euphemius and the αμνηστία ?? Another Durham citation gone awry

Status
Not open for further replies.

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Again a problem in Durham on Revelation. He cites what was the controversy over the Henoticon.
Anastasius the emperor he countenanced this heresy, and though before his coronation he subscribed to the Nicean and Chalcedon faith, whereby this heresy was condemned; yet after he retracted, and became a great persecutor, banishing and cutting off many able honest ministers, especially Euphemius who crowned him (because he refused to give back his subscription, and would not admit him to communicate, as infected with heresy) and also Macedonius his successor and sundry others, for not admitting the αμνηστία [amnesty; oblivion] he had appointed; some acriter impugnantes, alii imprudentius defendentes Consilium Nicænum, says the [his]story.​
If Durham is referring to the same “story” or history he had just cited (6th century of the Magdeburg Centuries), he misremembered the words or perhaps has conflated sources. The Magdeburg Centuries has: “Nam publicis edictis Henoticon Zenonis probauit, et inter dissidentes ob decreta synodi Chalcedonensis ad fidem pertinentia, αμνηστία edixit, somnians eo modo certamina Ecclesiae sopiri posse, perinde ut contentiones ciuiles.… Quas quidem ob causas tum Chalcedonensem synodum acrius oppugnantes, tum impudentius defendentes removendos….” See Ecclesiasticae Historiæ, Sexta Centuria, pp. 43.
I can't find any Latin to match the original Durham gave, though the other is not particularly popular either. Anyone see anything else going on here? That it is just off by some words and he put Nicea for Chalcedon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top