| 1. |
- Berglund, Carl Johan, teologie doktor, 1973-
(author)
-
Heracleon and the Seven Categories of Exegetical Opponents in Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John
- 2019
-
In: Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum. - : Walter de Gruyter GmbH. - 0949-9571 .- 1612-961X. ; 23:2, s. 228-251
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- While the adversaries of Origen of Alexandria traditionally have been described in general terms as either literalists or Gnostics, Peter Martens has recently argued convincingly that Origen repeatedly refers to more specific categories of literalist opponents, whom he criticizes for particular literal interpretations. This paper argues that a similar specificity applies to his supposedly Gnostic opponents. In his Commentary on the Gospel of John, Origen regularly uses designations such as "the heterodox" or "those who bring in the natures" to identify specific categories of exegetical opponents, which he defines by their particular interpretative practices or their adherence to particular teachings. When he responds to various scriptural interpretations, Origen takes care to specify which of at least seven identifiable categories of exegetical opponents he currently opposes. Throughout the commentary, Origen maintains the distinctions between these categories and Heracleon, the individual interpreter he names most frequently, and he never uses Heracleon's words as an example of an interpretation by any of the identifiable categories.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kelhoffer, James Anthony, 1970-
(author)
-
‘Hippolytus,’ Magic and ‘Heretical’ Miracle Workers : An Examination of Elenchos IV. 28–42 and Related Passages in Light of the Greek Magical Papyri
- 2007
-
In: Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum. - Berlin : W. de Gruyter. - 0949-9571 .- 1612-961X. ; 11:3, s. 517-548
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Scholars of religion and philosophy in late antiquity have long recognized that the Elenchos (Refutatio) commonly attributed to Hippolytus of Rome contains a wealth of source materials that are not preserved elsewhere and, moreover, that these materials enhance or complement other surviving witnesses. This article offers an investigation of the sources and understanding of magic in Elenchos IV. 28–42. A comparison of this writing with the Greek Magical Papyri (PGM) reveals a high degree of correspondence between Elenchos IV. 28–42 and numerous details and descriptions in the PGM. Accordingly, the Elenchos’s primary source materials concerning magic are best understood in light of the PGM and are significant for the light they shed on magical practices in late antiquity. Against Richard Ganschinietz, who maintains that Hippolytus used one or more intermediate sources for his descriptions of magic, the correspondence between Elenchos IV. 28–42 and the PGM suggests that this Christian author had access to an actual collection of magical spells that he adapted for his own purposes. The article also examines references elsewhere in the Elenchos to the use of magic by recent and contemporary Christian ‘heretics’ to gain converts. The final section of the article considers references to magic in remarks attributed to Hippolytus on Daniel and 1 Samuel and in the Apostolic Tradition.
|
|
| 3. |
- Linderborg, Otto, 1985-
(author)
-
Sin, Heresy and Righteousness in Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians
- 2023
-
In: Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum. - : Walter de Gruyter GmbH. - 0949-9571 .- 1612-961X. ; 27:2, s. 211-225
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The letter to the Philippians is a work traditionally ascribed to the early Christian martyr Polycarp of Smyrna. The scholarly discussions surrounding the Polycarpian letter have concerned themselves with the question of the authenticity and unity of the text. In contrast, the present study aims at providing the first unifying account of the three major themes dealt with in the letter: sin, heresy and righteousness. In the Polycarpian letter, one encounters evidence of a way of conceiving of social and religious evil, in which objects of moral and doctrinal concern are judged equally regarding their disruptive force – particularly in relation to the longed-for uniformity of the Church. This way of blurring the distinction between different socially disruptive dogmas (“proto-heresies”) and habits (“proto-sins”) may be conceived of as characteristic of a pre-normative religious order.
|
|
| 4. |
- Pålsson, Katarina
(author)
-
Angelic humans, glorious flesh : Jerome's reception of Origen's teachings on the resurrection body
- 2019
-
In: Zeitschrift fur Antikes Christentum. - : Walter de Gruyter GmbH. - 0949-9571. ; 23:1, s. 53-81
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- One of the most important theological questions in the first Origenist controversy was that of the resurrection of the dead. Jerome accused both Origen and contemporary “Origenists” of speaking only of the resurrection of the body, and not of the flesh, and he claimed that an idea of resurrection without the flesh could not guarantee the identity between the body living on earth and the resurrected body. I argue that although Jerome attempted to maximize the difference between himself and Origen by speaking of flesh instead of body, and by emphasizing the sameness of the body, it is clear that he, too, thought that the resurrection would imply a profound change. At closer scrutiny, Jerome's way of understanding this change, namely as the nature remaining the same while the glory increases, shows striking similarities to Origen's explanation of change. I argue that Jerome was dependent on Origen's ideas about the resurrection, even in his polemics against him. Jerome's heresiological strategies, I argue, have had consequences for modern historical reconstructions of his eschatological thought, which is often presented in opposition to Origen's more spiritual understanding. Awareness of the rhetorical strategies used by Jerome in the context of controversy is crucial, I claim, in assessing a continuing reception of Origen in his theology.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
