Two recent additions to the series Oxford Theological Monographs and Oxford Early Christian Studies contribute to the ongoing re-evaluation of the doctrinal history of the Trinitarian and Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries.

Jon M. Robertson examines comparatively three of the most influential theologians in the earlier stages of the Arian dispute, Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra and Athanasius of Alexandria. His approach rejects – much in common with more recent studies – ready-made labels (such as Arianism), retrospective categorisation and any predominant focus simply on employment – or not – of certain technical terminology. Rather he wants to examine the use of such language in situ, analysing the immediate contexts and assessing the differing understanding of terms and metaphors in these authors. The study concentrates, as a test case, on the notion of ‘divine mediation’. Here Robertson finds in Eusebius and Marcellus contrasting, yet structurally similar, ‘deictic’ Christologies. In Eusebius the Son/Logos ‘points’ to the Father as the ‘other’ who is the ‘one God’; in Marcellus the human being Jesus Christ ‘points’ to the single divinity which includes the Word that has no separate subsistence. In contrast with both, Athanasius tried to uphold the distinction of Father and Son, allowing for internal plurality in his notion of monotheism. In the context, Athanasius is claimed to be at a significantly greater distance from Marcellus generally than is conventionally accepted. This claim merits further discussion and investigation based on related topics and motifs in their respective theologies.

Paul B. Clayton examines the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus, whose intellectual contribution, as the undoubtedly leading ‘theorist’ of ‘Antiochene’ theology, to the controversies between the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon is still not fully appreciated. Here Clayton takes important steps to fill this gap. He draws together the evidence from Theodoret's writings (much of it now fragmentary) and correspondence, chiefly in chronological sequence. He identifies a principally unchanging Christological outlook over the entire period – unchanged, despite modifications in terminology, even by the reconciliation with Cyril following the Union of 433. This perspective logically demands, in Clayton's assessment, a two-subject Christology, whatever the Antiochene protestations to the contrary, and, therefore, gives substance to Alexandrian criticisms and infuses the controversy with a very real doctrinal difference. He sees Theodoret's lasting contribution in the clearest expression of the Antiochene concern for Christ's real humanity, yet equally finds in his writings – siding with Cyril – the systematic shortcomings of this model most evidently revealed.

Both studies demonstrate that the ongoing scholarly revision of the major theological debates of the time still bears fruit and has yet further to go. They are welcome additions to this process.