ABSTRACT
This is how I felt about the most recent essay by H.H. Thummel,1 which led me back to my notes on Hypatios of Ephesos. The following thoughts are therefore also a discussion of Thummel’s work, whose numbering of the text I have included in parentheses for simplicity’s sake.2 My remarks generally take the form of a commentary on the quoted or paraphrased text.3 As usually in my
1 [250] Seen. 3 below. 2 Beforehand stands Diekamp’s numbering. 3 The following works are cited in abbreviated form. Works on Hypatios o f Ephesus:
Diekamp: F. Diekamp, Analecta Patristica. Texte und Abhandlungen zur griechischen Patristik in Orient. Christ. Anal. 117 (Rome, 1938). Baynes: N.H. Baynes, ‘The Icons before Iconoclasm’, Harvard Theol. Rev. 44 (1951), pp. 93-106. Alexander: P.J. Alexander, ‘Hypatios o f Ephesus. A Note on Image Worship in the Sixth Century’, Harvard Theol. Rev. 45 (1952), pp. 177-84. Kitzinger: E. Kitzinger, ‘The Cult o f Images in the Age before
research, the course of the argument is not only complicated in itself but hard to explain as well. Nevertheless, since the reader knows what lies in store for him, I kindly ask him to cast an eye over my final remarks.4
