Nicea

The Nicene–Constantinopolitan profession that the Son of God is begotten, not made, presents the tension that the Son is caused by God but not created. This claim was a point of controversy in the semi-Arian and Eunomian/Anomean disputes of the fourth century. The latter argued that unoriginateness is central to divinity. Hence, the Son, being originate, cannot be of the same nature as the Father. Some philosophers of religion today echo this same conclusion. In this article, I show, contrary to both ancient and modern critics of the begotten-not-made distinction, that the Eastern fathers offer clear differences between begetting and creating, which clarify why the distinction is cogent and necessary within their metaphysics.

NOTE: The attached PDF is of the author MS, not the journal proofs. However, the author has formatted the MS to ensure that its pagination coincides with the supplied proofs of the published version. The published essay appears in Religious Studies in 2018.

The doctrine of the Trinity was articulated by the Church fathers in the councils of Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD), which penned the Nicene Creed. We will see that Nicene Trinitarianism teaches that the Trinity is three hypostases and one ousia, terms often translated as three persons and one essence, substance, or being. These terms, in their ancient Greek context, indicate that the Trinity is three subjects who share a single nature. However, this formulation naturally raises the question whether Nicene Trinitarianism is monotheistic. In affirmation of Nicea’s monotheism, we will see that all three uses of the word “God” in Christian theology are singular, despite the Trinitarian plurality of subjects. Hence, Nicene Trinitarianism is rightly labeled monotheistic, even though it is a unique type of monotheism. We will then look at three important differences between God and creatures that must be kept in mind for a proper understanding of Nicene Trinitarianism. These are (1) the divine subjects are not spatially or materially separated the way created individuals are; (2) the divine subjects, unlike created individuals, are distinguished by their relations to one another and not by material accidents of size, color, or location; and (3) because the divine subjects are differentiated by their relations, they, unlike created individuals, have no autonomous existence apart from one another.

The article deals with the poorly preserved murals of the Empire of Nicaea. There were several centres of art production in the Empire. At the time of the Empire’s foundation the murals of Zoodochos Pege in Monagri on
Kos and of Tavşan Ada (the 4th layer) were created by the same local artists. The next stage (first third of the 13th century) is represented by the paintings in Caria and Ionia: on the Inçekemer Taş rock, in the destroyed church in Punta on Mykale cap, Deesis in the skeuofylakion of St. John church in Ephesos, in the church on Theatre terrace in Pergamon and the frescoes of Latmos (monastic caves outside the Kellibaron gate, cave of Christ above Ancient Latmos, cave of St. Paul of Latmos). Some echoes of the dynamic style of the 12th century are combined in these ensembles with new trends — voluminous characteristic faces, modeled in Kellibaron in live pasty technique. The frescoes of Pergamon and Ephesos look more ordinary.
Next stage, the reign of John III Vatatzes, is represented by the paintings in Kyriakosellia on Crete (1230–1236) attributed to Nicene masters. These are high quality paintings, with much more plasticity and inspiration, however, with some provincialism. They are characterized by spatial compositions, complicated architecture, dynamic poses of saints with voluminous figures and plastic faces, sometimes grotesque. On the
contrary, the third layer of murals of St. Michael at Thari and the first layer in St. Phanourios in the old city of Rhodes (1226–1234) made by Nicene painters demonstrate more archaic elements. The second layer of  the murals in Patmos refectory (1230–1240) must have been created under Nicene influence, while some ensembles on the islands of Crete, Leros and Cos made under the influence of Patmos were painted by Nicene artists themselves, as A. Katsioti suggests. The style of frescoes in the basilica of Anaia and the two pastophoria of St. Sophia in Nicaea continue and develop the trends outlined in Kyriakosellia, demonstrating the third stage in the development of Nicene art at the end of the reign of John III Vatatzes and Theodore III Laskaris (1240–1250s). Their careful consideration reveals high quality of painting, refined colors, monumental scale of figures of saints and angels, obvious emphasis on volume and lively turns. The faces have beautiful classical types with large features. The monumental classicism of these poorly preserved paintings, dating back most likely to around the middle of the 13th century, is impressive. These frescoes should be placed somewhere between the paintings of Mileševa and Sopoćani. To Nicene painters should be also ascribed the frescoes of Bojana (1259), the first layer in the church of Sts. Nicholas and John in Stavropigi, Mesa Mani, and the murals in the monastery of the Virgin Kyriotissa in Constantinople. Appreciating the role of Nicea in the development of art one should consider another important center, Thessaloniki. Yet the art connections between these two centers, Constantinople and The Second Bulgarian Kingdom, were really complex. Poorly preserved and little-known monuments of the Empire of Nicea allow a better understanding of the artistic processes of the 13th century, which led to the appearance of the Early Palaeologan style.