Nemesius, On the Nature of Man, translated with an introduction and notes by R.W.

Sharples and P.J. van der Eijk, Translated Texts for Historians, Liverpool (LUP) 2008

This anthropological treatise from the late 4th century, while well known for a long
time, is still in many ways an unexplored text. Its author is supposed to have been
bishop of Emesa, but apart from this one writing we do not know anything about him.
His Christian credentials are unequivocal and pervasive, yet his account
unapologetically presents the collected philosophical and medical lore of antiquity on a
par with insights from the Jewish-Christian tradition in a manner otherwise unheard of
in Byzantium until much later. Questions about Nemesiuss place in 4th century
Christianity, therefore, appear as pressing as they have been neglected, and the
publication of this translation, accompanied by an introduction and extensive notes, is
greatly to be welcomed not least in the hope that it might at last spark off some serious
Patristic research in this field.
Sharples and van der Eijk in this book have accomplished two major
achievements. They have produced the first English translation of Nemesius text since
William Telfers in 1955 and the first ever to be based on a critically edited text
(Morani, 1987). The English rendering of Nemesius Greek, based on an unpublished
draft by J.O. Urmson (p. vii), leaves little to be desired. It is as accurate as necessary
and as readable as possible. There will inevitably be disagreement about the most
appropriate English rendering of the many technical terms Nemesius employs, but
Sharples and van der Eijk have clearly made well-considered decisions, which in some
cases they explain in their notes (cf. n. 868 on intentional/unintentional for
/). Only very occasionally one notices an oversight. Early on in his
writing, Nemesius advances the rather extraordinary claim that receiving forgiveness
through divine grace was as much a property () of human nature as the ability to
laugh (10,9-12 Morani; 45 Sharples/van der Eijk). This point, however, gets
somewhat lost in the translation, which renders differently in the two halves of
this sentence.
The introduction of 32 pages is concise, accurate, and helpful, but it is the
wealth of more than 1,000 notes the authors provide on the text that is the second
major achievement of their book. In their vast majority those notes contextualise
philosophical and medical discussions in Nemesius treatise by giving extensive
information on related passages from both classical and late ancient authors. Given the
nature of Nemesius writing, which in many parts is doxographic in character, such
information is indispensable for any reader, and they must be grateful for the material
the immense learning of the authors has here placed at their disposition. Yet there is a
danger in reducing Nemesius to a collector of earlier knowledge. As a matter of fact, his
writing was for a long time a preferred object of prey for the protagonists of
Quellenforschung, who mined it for traces of otherwise lost works. Sharples and van
der Eijk are, rightly, critical of those often fanciful endeavours (21 f.), but the bulk of
their references is still illustrative of sources and influences, and relatively little is
offered by way of explaining Nemesius own ideas or the structure of his argument. Of
the earlier tradition, some dubious remnants have survived in the footnotes. Thus the
authors cite with approval Telfers suggestion that Nemesius several references to
doctrines of the Hebrews indicate a borrowing from Philo via Origens lost
Commentary on Genesis (nn. 214,233,481,589). Yet such phrasing was commonly
applied by Christian authors to the Old Testament, and while Origin sometimes relied
on the authority of a Hebrew (e.g. de princ. I 3,4), this most probably was a
contemporary Jewish scholar in Alexandria and certainly not Philo.
While Nemesius philosophical and medical backgrounds are excellently
covered, much less is said about his theological contexts. Sharples and van der Eijk are
up-front about this limitation (vii f.), but it betrays something about the current state
of research in this area that more could not be gleaned from existing publications. The
most perplexing observation to be explained surely is Nemesius choice of reference
authors on the Christian side. Apollinaris and Eunomius are the only writers to be
discussed extensively, but the critical treatment of their anthropological views belies the
possibility that Nemesius would have been a follower of either of them. He is more
sympathetic towards Origen, whose views on the pre-existence of souls he shares,
though at least one echo of Epiphanius slander in the Panarion is perceptible (95,19
Morani, n. 879 Sharples/van der Eijk). There is one, anonymous reference to
Theodore of Mopsuestia or to other, early Antiochene Christology (44,15 f. Morani, n.
414 Sharples/van der Eijk). This would appear an odd selection of authorities by any
account, but it is noteworthy that they all, except for Origen, were active in or around
Antioch during the 360s and 70s. Could Nemesius treatise be an indication that in
those years, detached from concurrent doctrinal controversies, some intellectual debate
existed amongst Christians in that hotbed of theological innovation? If so, this is
unlikely to have extended far into the 380s, which saw official and universal
condemnations of both Eunomius and Apollinaris. Nemesius writing could then be
pinpointed almost exactly to the years around 380, and, whether or not its author was
bishop of Emesa at this time, would reflect a distinctly Syrian theological climate.
Substantial further research is needed to ascertain Nemesiuss place in the history of
theology in the late 4th century. Sharples and van der Eijk are to be thanked and
congratulated for their production of this book which, by bringing together much of
what is known about this important text, quite distinctly indicates also what still needs
to be done for a full understanding of it.

Johannes Zachhuber, Trinity College, Oxford