{"title":"The Spirit and the Scriptures: Revisiting Cyprian's Use of Prosopological Exegesis","authors":"Kyle R Hughes","doi":"10.1080/2222582X.2018.1429941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT While recent research into the early Christian reading practice of prosopological exegesis, which seeks to identify various persons (prosopa) as the “true” speakers or addressees of a scriptural text in which they are otherwise not in view, has highlighted the complexities involved in attempts to identify the Holy Spirit as the prosopological speaker of Old Testament quotations, there remains a need for clear criteria by which scholars can distinguish between different forms of the Spirit's speech. Building on terminology suggested by Matthew Bates, this article proposes just such a means of distinguishing between when the Spirit functions as the primary speaking agent and when it functions as an inspiring secondary agent, with the former endowing the Spirit with a sufficient degree of theodramatic personhood to make its speech truly prosopological in nature. Applying this criteria to an analysis of Cyprian of Carthage's use of prosopological exegesis in On Works and Alms (De opere et eleemosynis), this article challenges the conclusions of David Downs by demonstrating that the Spirit does not truly speak from its own person in this treatise, though Cyprian may make some moves in this direction elsewhere in his writings. As a result of this study, we have not only a means of better assessing the extent of the pneumatological discontinuity between Cyprian and his Carthaginian predecessor Tertullian but also a clearer path forward for future scholarship that seeks to investigate how early Christian writers conceived of the relationship between the Spirit and the Scriptures.","PeriodicalId":40708,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Christian History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2222582X.2018.1429941","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Early Christian History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2222582X.2018.1429941","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
ABSTRACT While recent research into the early Christian reading practice of prosopological exegesis, which seeks to identify various persons (prosopa) as the “true” speakers or addressees of a scriptural text in which they are otherwise not in view, has highlighted the complexities involved in attempts to identify the Holy Spirit as the prosopological speaker of Old Testament quotations, there remains a need for clear criteria by which scholars can distinguish between different forms of the Spirit's speech. Building on terminology suggested by Matthew Bates, this article proposes just such a means of distinguishing between when the Spirit functions as the primary speaking agent and when it functions as an inspiring secondary agent, with the former endowing the Spirit with a sufficient degree of theodramatic personhood to make its speech truly prosopological in nature. Applying this criteria to an analysis of Cyprian of Carthage's use of prosopological exegesis in On Works and Alms (De opere et eleemosynis), this article challenges the conclusions of David Downs by demonstrating that the Spirit does not truly speak from its own person in this treatise, though Cyprian may make some moves in this direction elsewhere in his writings. As a result of this study, we have not only a means of better assessing the extent of the pneumatological discontinuity between Cyprian and his Carthaginian predecessor Tertullian but also a clearer path forward for future scholarship that seeks to investigate how early Christian writers conceived of the relationship between the Spirit and the Scriptures.
摘要:最近对早期基督教神学解经的阅读实践的研究,试图将不同的人(prosopa)识别为圣经文本的“真正”说话者或收件人,否则他们就不会被看到,强调了将圣灵识别为旧约引文的prosopa说话者所涉及的复杂性。学者们仍然需要明确的标准来区分圣灵说话的不同形式。本文以马修·贝茨(Matthew Bates)提出的术语为基础,提出了一种方法来区分圣灵作为主要说话者的作用和作为鼓舞人心的次要说话者的作用,前者赋予圣灵足够程度的神化人格,使其说话真正具有神学性质。将这一标准应用于分析《论作品与施舍》(De opere et eleemosynis)中迦太基的塞普里安对神学解经的使用,本文通过证明圣灵在这篇论文中并不是真正地从自己的角度说话来挑战大卫·唐斯的结论,尽管塞普里安可能在他的其他著作中朝着这个方向做出了一些举动。作为这项研究的结果,我们不仅有了更好地评估塞浦路斯和他的迦太基前任德尔图良之间气体学不连续性程度的方法,而且也为未来的学术研究提供了一条更清晰的道路,旨在研究早期基督教作家如何构想圣灵和圣经之间的关系。