Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/2222582X.2021.1983448
Lennart Lehmhaus
Abstract According to recent studies, pain can be conceptualised both as a bodily sensation and as a complex sociocultural phenomenon shaped by experience, expectations, and presumptions. This article analyses descriptions of agonising intestinal and inflammatory ailments with their various sensual and socio-religious implications as specific rabbinic expressions of and reactions to broader ancient understandings of pain. The study of two talmudic narratives explores a complex network of late antique Jewish ideas about pain, especially connected to bodily swellings and bowel disease, in which religious, legal, ethical, cognitive, and medical aspects intertwine. I submit that the depiction of eminent rabbinic scholars as “suffering selves” fits well into the broader cultures of pain in the Graeco-Roman Mediterranean and the ancient Near East. In these traditions, the always mediated (re)presentations of pain and experiences of suffering were often torn between fascination and aversion. Up to a certain point, the rabbis shared a cultural matrix and ideas on illness and agony with their contemporaries, especially religious experts like Christian authors, monastics, and ascetics. Therefore, these stories about self-afflicted pain and suffering were possibly formed as alternative Jewish answers reacting to and interacting with Graeco-Roman “cultures of pain” as well as emerging Jewish and Christian conceptions of martyrdom, asceticism, and the suffering self in late antiquity. Through a comparison with earlier texts, this article examines how this rabbinic counter-discourse feeds on and appropriates but also rejects Graeco-Roman and early Christian traditions about the punitive, refining, ascetic, and sanctifying purposes of bodily suffering and abdominal agony.
{"title":"Talmudic Torment: Late Antique Jewish Texts on Pain and Suffering Between Medicine, Martyrdom, and Askesis","authors":"Lennart Lehmhaus","doi":"10.1080/2222582X.2021.1983448","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2222582X.2021.1983448","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract According to recent studies, pain can be conceptualised both as a bodily sensation and as a complex sociocultural phenomenon shaped by experience, expectations, and presumptions. This article analyses descriptions of agonising intestinal and inflammatory ailments with their various sensual and socio-religious implications as specific rabbinic expressions of and reactions to broader ancient understandings of pain. The study of two talmudic narratives explores a complex network of late antique Jewish ideas about pain, especially connected to bodily swellings and bowel disease, in which religious, legal, ethical, cognitive, and medical aspects intertwine. I submit that the depiction of eminent rabbinic scholars as “suffering selves” fits well into the broader cultures of pain in the Graeco-Roman Mediterranean and the ancient Near East. In these traditions, the always mediated (re)presentations of pain and experiences of suffering were often torn between fascination and aversion. Up to a certain point, the rabbis shared a cultural matrix and ideas on illness and agony with their contemporaries, especially religious experts like Christian authors, monastics, and ascetics. Therefore, these stories about self-afflicted pain and suffering were possibly formed as alternative Jewish answers reacting to and interacting with Graeco-Roman “cultures of pain” as well as emerging Jewish and Christian conceptions of martyrdom, asceticism, and the suffering self in late antiquity. Through a comparison with earlier texts, this article examines how this rabbinic counter-discourse feeds on and appropriates but also rejects Graeco-Roman and early Christian traditions about the punitive, refining, ascetic, and sanctifying purposes of bodily suffering and abdominal agony.","PeriodicalId":40708,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Christian History","volume":"12 1","pages":"52 - 79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41725522","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-14DOI: 10.1080/2222582X.2021.1955221
M. O'Reilly
Abstract The problem of pain shows up repeatedly in 2 Corinthians as Paul defends the counterintuitive nature of his apostolic vocation, which is marked by suffering and not glory. This article considers Paul’s portrayal of his sufferings by drawing on the insights of social identity theory and the new psychology of leadership. In particular, the article considers the way Paul’s account of his ministry frames his suffering as a benefit to the recipients. This strategy acknowledges his distinct personal identity as an apostolic leader and portrays his ministry as beneficial to the group. Such a strategy carries potential to strengthen Paul’s perceived relationship as a group member with other group members. Drawing on that analysis, it will become clear that Paul’s sufferings are not something to be excused or explained away. Rather, Paul’s pain is to be embraced by the group as a distinctive marker of apostolic identity and a benefit that uniquely communicates the life of Jesus to the group.
{"title":"Paul, Apostle of Pain: “One of Us-ness” and the Question of Suffering in 2 Corinthians","authors":"M. O'Reilly","doi":"10.1080/2222582X.2021.1955221","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2222582X.2021.1955221","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The problem of pain shows up repeatedly in 2 Corinthians as Paul defends the counterintuitive nature of his apostolic vocation, which is marked by suffering and not glory. This article considers Paul’s portrayal of his sufferings by drawing on the insights of social identity theory and the new psychology of leadership. In particular, the article considers the way Paul’s account of his ministry frames his suffering as a benefit to the recipients. This strategy acknowledges his distinct personal identity as an apostolic leader and portrays his ministry as beneficial to the group. Such a strategy carries potential to strengthen Paul’s perceived relationship as a group member with other group members. Drawing on that analysis, it will become clear that Paul’s sufferings are not something to be excused or explained away. Rather, Paul’s pain is to be embraced by the group as a distinctive marker of apostolic identity and a benefit that uniquely communicates the life of Jesus to the group.","PeriodicalId":40708,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Christian History","volume":"12 1","pages":"80 - 95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44356152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/2222582x.2021.1880954
Michael Coombes, A. Kotzé
Abstract The article examines Augustine’s rhetoric, and specifically his strategy of commenting on the responses of his opponent, throughout the Contra Fortunatum. Taking into account both the dialectical and the rhetorical dimensions of the debate, we regard this study, with its narrow focus on only one aspect of Augustine’s rhetoric (the continuous comments on the opponent’s responses to create a powerful subtext that permeates the debate), as the beginning of a more in-depth investigation of the rhetorical devices used by the two participants in the debate. The aim is to complement BeDuhn’s compelling case for the dialectical superiority of Fortunatus’s arguments in the debate with some perspectives on Augustine’s rhetorical tactics, and to argue that Augustine may have lost on the basis of his arguments, but still may be regarded as “winning” on the strength of his rhetorical strategies. The handful of studies on the Contra Fortunatum to date have, like BeDuhn’s, focused on the content and Manichaean background of the debate, but investigations of the rhetorical devices employed by the participants are, to our knowledge, absent. The question of whether Augustine won does not have a simple answer, but we believe that this and future studies of the rhetorical devices employed by the two participants in the debate will provide an important additional perspective on Augustine’s claim in his Retractationes that he won the debate.
{"title":"“Did Augustine Win?” Another Look at an Old Question about the Contra Fortunatum","authors":"Michael Coombes, A. Kotzé","doi":"10.1080/2222582x.2021.1880954","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2222582x.2021.1880954","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article examines Augustine’s rhetoric, and specifically his strategy of commenting on the responses of his opponent, throughout the Contra Fortunatum. Taking into account both the dialectical and the rhetorical dimensions of the debate, we regard this study, with its narrow focus on only one aspect of Augustine’s rhetoric (the continuous comments on the opponent’s responses to create a powerful subtext that permeates the debate), as the beginning of a more in-depth investigation of the rhetorical devices used by the two participants in the debate. The aim is to complement BeDuhn’s compelling case for the dialectical superiority of Fortunatus’s arguments in the debate with some perspectives on Augustine’s rhetorical tactics, and to argue that Augustine may have lost on the basis of his arguments, but still may be regarded as “winning” on the strength of his rhetorical strategies. The handful of studies on the Contra Fortunatum to date have, like BeDuhn’s, focused on the content and Manichaean background of the debate, but investigations of the rhetorical devices employed by the participants are, to our knowledge, absent. The question of whether Augustine won does not have a simple answer, but we believe that this and future studies of the rhetorical devices employed by the two participants in the debate will provide an important additional perspective on Augustine’s claim in his Retractationes that he won the debate.","PeriodicalId":40708,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Christian History","volume":"11 1","pages":"18 - 36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48762330","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/2222582X.2021.1969976
David L. Eastman
Abstract This article examines two ways in which the cross on which Peter hangs in various apocryphal accounts of his death is actually paradoxical. First, the earliest account, the second-century Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle Peter (the final section of the Acts of Peter), recounts that Peter returns to face his fate after meeting Christ in the famous Quo vadis? scene. However, the author presents a death that is ultimately not very Christlike at all, for the narrative effectively denies the physicality of the event. Two later authors, Pseudo-Linus and Pseudo-Abdias, reshape the story in order to correct this tension. Second, Pseudo-Linus’s accounts suggests that this first-century story can be understood properly only by looking back through the lens of fourth-century practices and imagery. The article ends by considering a final irony: although the story of Peter’s crucifixion was so critical to the Petrine tradition and Roman claims to ecclesiastical authority, alleged fragments of that cross never became part of the Petrine cult.
{"title":"Peter’s Paradoxical Cross","authors":"David L. Eastman","doi":"10.1080/2222582X.2021.1969976","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2222582X.2021.1969976","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines two ways in which the cross on which Peter hangs in various apocryphal accounts of his death is actually paradoxical. First, the earliest account, the second-century Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle Peter (the final section of the Acts of Peter), recounts that Peter returns to face his fate after meeting Christ in the famous Quo vadis? scene. However, the author presents a death that is ultimately not very Christlike at all, for the narrative effectively denies the physicality of the event. Two later authors, Pseudo-Linus and Pseudo-Abdias, reshape the story in order to correct this tension. Second, Pseudo-Linus’s accounts suggests that this first-century story can be understood properly only by looking back through the lens of fourth-century practices and imagery. The article ends by considering a final irony: although the story of Peter’s crucifixion was so critical to the Petrine tradition and Roman claims to ecclesiastical authority, alleged fragments of that cross never became part of the Petrine cult.","PeriodicalId":40708,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Christian History","volume":"11 1","pages":"61 - 78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44449686","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/2222582X.2021.1954044
Andrew R. Koperski
Abstract This article examines Eusebius's treatment of the book of Revelation and its place in the New Testament canon. Puzzled scholars have proposed various interpretations as to why Eusebius placed Revelation in both “accepted” and “rejected” categories of texts provided in the Ecclesiastical History, but little persuasive consensus has emerged. To this point, most historians have approached Eusebius's treatment of Revelation not from focus on Eusebius himself so much as interest in the canon and its development. This approach has tended to impose later, more rigid ideas of canonicity upon Eusebius. Moreover, some modern readers have been quick to assume that Eusebius's politics prejudiced the bishop against Revelation with its subversive imagery. By examining other references to Revelation in Eusebius's corpus, this study argues that Eusebius is actually inclined to accept and employ Revelation alongside other accepted texts. Though his approach is critical and circumspect, in the end we need not read him—as some have insisted—as confused or subtly hostile to the Apocalypse. In addition to clarifying Eusebius's opinion of Revelation, this analysis elucidates his approach to the biblical canon generally.
{"title":"Eusebius, Revelation, and Its Place in the New Testament Canon","authors":"Andrew R. Koperski","doi":"10.1080/2222582X.2021.1954044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2222582X.2021.1954044","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines Eusebius's treatment of the book of Revelation and its place in the New Testament canon. Puzzled scholars have proposed various interpretations as to why Eusebius placed Revelation in both “accepted” and “rejected” categories of texts provided in the Ecclesiastical History, but little persuasive consensus has emerged. To this point, most historians have approached Eusebius's treatment of Revelation not from focus on Eusebius himself so much as interest in the canon and its development. This approach has tended to impose later, more rigid ideas of canonicity upon Eusebius. Moreover, some modern readers have been quick to assume that Eusebius's politics prejudiced the bishop against Revelation with its subversive imagery. By examining other references to Revelation in Eusebius's corpus, this study argues that Eusebius is actually inclined to accept and employ Revelation alongside other accepted texts. Though his approach is critical and circumspect, in the end we need not read him—as some have insisted—as confused or subtly hostile to the Apocalypse. In addition to clarifying Eusebius's opinion of Revelation, this analysis elucidates his approach to the biblical canon generally.","PeriodicalId":40708,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Christian History","volume":"11 1","pages":"79 - 94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42102480","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/2222582x.2021.2014922
C. Stenschke
As the 19 volumes of the Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception (vol. XIX Midrash and Aggadah to Mourning, 2021) published to date often fail to cover the reception of the Bible in modern Africa adequately (at least in comparison with the many sections on Christian reception of the Bible in Europe and North America!), it is welcomed that the present volume in the series Handbooks of the Bible and Its Reception aims at covering and assessing the reception of the Bible in the ancient Roman African church. However, it needs to be said that this period of the reception of the Bible by ancient ecclesial authors on African soil is well covered in the EBR.
由于迄今为止出版的19卷《圣经及其接受百科全书》（第十九卷，Midrash和Aggadah to Mouning，2021）往往未能充分涵盖现代非洲对《圣经》的接受情况（至少与欧洲和北美关于基督教接受《圣经》问题的许多章节相比！），值得欢迎的是，《圣经及其接受手册》系列的本卷旨在涵盖和评估古罗马非洲教会对《圣经》的接受情况。然而，需要说的是，这段由古代教会作家在非洲土地上接受《圣经》的时期在《欧洲复兴文学》中得到了很好的覆盖。
{"title":"The Bible in Christian North Africa. Part I: Commencement to the Confessiones of Augustine (ca. 180 to 400 CE)","authors":"C. Stenschke","doi":"10.1080/2222582x.2021.2014922","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2222582x.2021.2014922","url":null,"abstract":"As the 19 volumes of the Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception (vol. XIX Midrash and Aggadah to Mourning, 2021) published to date often fail to cover the reception of the Bible in modern Africa adequately (at least in comparison with the many sections on Christian reception of the Bible in Europe and North America!), it is welcomed that the present volume in the series Handbooks of the Bible and Its Reception aims at covering and assessing the reception of the Bible in the ancient Roman African church. However, it needs to be said that this period of the reception of the Bible by ancient ecclesial authors on African soil is well covered in the EBR.","PeriodicalId":40708,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Christian History","volume":"11 1","pages":"95 - 99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43143573","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/2222582x.2022.2036624
C. L. de Wet
Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine the role and place of soldiery and physical violence in Chrysostom’s understanding of the formation of Christian masculinity. The study specifically relies on the image of David as constructed in Chrysostom’s homilies On David and Saul (CPG 4412). These homilies were possibly preached at the beginning of AD 387, during Lent, following the riots in Antioch and the destruction of the images and statues of the emperor after he imposed a heavy tax on the city. The more famous homilies On the Statues were also preached during this time. On David and Saul have their own unique agenda in portraying Christian masculinity in terms different from conventional Roman masculinity. Soldiery and warfare are no longer the main markers of masculinity, but rather the control of one’s anger, the health of the soul, and displaying mercy and clemency where necessary. The narrative of the cave at En Gedi (1 Sam 24 / 1 Reigns 24 LXX), where David spares Saul’s life, receives most attention in the homilies. Each homily in the homiletic series is examined, after which some main conclusions are drawn regarding the role of soldiery in Chrysostom’s conceptualisation of masculinity.
{"title":"Soldiery and masculinity in John Chrysostom’s homilies On David and Saul","authors":"C. L. de Wet","doi":"10.1080/2222582x.2022.2036624","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2222582x.2022.2036624","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine the role and place of soldiery and physical violence in Chrysostom’s understanding of the formation of Christian masculinity. The study specifically relies on the image of David as constructed in Chrysostom’s homilies On David and Saul (CPG 4412). These homilies were possibly preached at the beginning of AD 387, during Lent, following the riots in Antioch and the destruction of the images and statues of the emperor after he imposed a heavy tax on the city. The more famous homilies On the Statues were also preached during this time. On David and Saul have their own unique agenda in portraying Christian masculinity in terms different from conventional Roman masculinity. Soldiery and warfare are no longer the main markers of masculinity, but rather the control of one’s anger, the health of the soul, and displaying mercy and clemency where necessary. The narrative of the cave at En Gedi (1 Sam 24 / 1 Reigns 24 LXX), where David spares Saul’s life, receives most attention in the homilies. Each homily in the homiletic series is examined, after which some main conclusions are drawn regarding the role of soldiery in Chrysostom’s conceptualisation of masculinity.","PeriodicalId":40708,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Christian History","volume":"11 1","pages":"37 - 60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49664584","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-14DOI: 10.1080/2222582X.2020.1845571
K. A. Chandler
Abstract Recent inquiries into the Christology of Rome’s first Christian emperor have produced a more or less “orthodox” image. While it is widely acknowledged that Constantine’s Christian doctrine developed throughout his career, his vision of Jesus at the time of the Council of Nicaea (325 CE) has been regularly cast as a Trinitarian Christology of co-eternality and ontological unity with God the Father. Recent analysis has not, however, taken into account the range of possible interpretations of the available data. By revisiting this data, including Constantine’s Oration, an important letter from Eusebius, the history of the word homoousios, and the Hermetic philosophical tradition, it is possible to locate within Constantine’s views a subordinationist Christology—a Christology which the Council of Nicaea allegedly condemned.
{"title":"Deuteros Theos: Constantine’s Christology at Nicaea","authors":"K. A. Chandler","doi":"10.1080/2222582X.2020.1845571","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2222582X.2020.1845571","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recent inquiries into the Christology of Rome’s first Christian emperor have produced a more or less “orthodox” image. While it is widely acknowledged that Constantine’s Christian doctrine developed throughout his career, his vision of Jesus at the time of the Council of Nicaea (325 CE) has been regularly cast as a Trinitarian Christology of co-eternality and ontological unity with God the Father. Recent analysis has not, however, taken into account the range of possible interpretations of the available data. By revisiting this data, including Constantine’s Oration, an important letter from Eusebius, the history of the word homoousios, and the Hermetic philosophical tradition, it is possible to locate within Constantine’s views a subordinationist Christology—a Christology which the Council of Nicaea allegedly condemned.","PeriodicalId":40708,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Christian History","volume":"11 1","pages":"1 - 17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2222582X.2020.1845571","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45516660","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/2222582X.2021.1880955
C. Stenschke
Abstract The occurrences, nature and significance of translocal relationships of early Christian communities are discussed in several issues in New Testament studies. This article examines such links in 1 Thessalonians, one of the early letters of the Pauline mission. Translocal links are constituted through the exchange of information and journeys before the composition of the letter; through the authors who are embedded in early Christian communities, serve in this context and represent them; the spread of news in the Christian network; and missionary activities beyond local confines. Translocal links serve to satisfy mutual longing for each other, encouragement, and ethical instruction, and to secure mission efforts. They find expression in prayer for other Christians and in exchanging greetings. Such links play a significant role in the identity construction of new Christ-followers in adverse circumstances. While there is rhetorical hyperbole, the portrayal of such links is at least historically plausible.
{"title":"„ … so dass ihr ein Vorbild geworden seid für alle Gläubigen in Makedonien und Achaia” (1Thess 1,7): Übergemeindliche Verbindungen im 1. Thessalonicherbrief","authors":"C. Stenschke","doi":"10.1080/2222582X.2021.1880955","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2222582X.2021.1880955","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The occurrences, nature and significance of translocal relationships of early Christian communities are discussed in several issues in New Testament studies. This article examines such links in 1 Thessalonians, one of the early letters of the Pauline mission. Translocal links are constituted through the exchange of information and journeys before the composition of the letter; through the authors who are embedded in early Christian communities, serve in this context and represent them; the spread of news in the Christian network; and missionary activities beyond local confines. Translocal links serve to satisfy mutual longing for each other, encouragement, and ethical instruction, and to secure mission efforts. They find expression in prayer for other Christians and in exchanging greetings. Such links play a significant role in the identity construction of new Christ-followers in adverse circumstances. While there is rhetorical hyperbole, the portrayal of such links is at least historically plausible.","PeriodicalId":40708,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Christian History","volume":"11 1","pages":"96 - 145"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45001840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/2222582x.2021.1880953
Carson Bay
Abstract In late ancient Christian literature, King David is ubiquitous. Not simply cited as the famous author of many psalms, he almost always appears as a model of penitence, a foreshadow of Christ, or a paradigm of Christian virtues and values. But not always. In one fourth-century Christian text, King David appears in a striking and distinctive relief. This Latin text, known as De excidio Hierosolymitano (On the Destruction of Jerusalem), sometimes called PseudoHegesippus, presents King David as a figure familiar from Judaeo-Christian tradition, but in a way that resonates most strongly with classical Greco-Roman literary norms. This text rewrites Josephus’s Jewish War from a Christian perspective, and mentions David at a dozen points. In each case, David appears as an exemplum associated with a particular biblical episode or theme. Often, the treatment of these episodes in Josephus or other early Christian literature helps explain why Pseudo-Hegesippus presents David in particular lights. However, taking all of the appearances of David in De Excidio into view, this article shows that Pseudo-Hegesippus is not only beholden to biblical, Josephan, or early Christian precedents, but creatively constructs his own portrait of David within his historiographical framework. This article then suggests that this David’s rhetorical valence and distinctive character are best explained vis-à-vis the traditional (Greek and) Roman use of exempla inasmuch as Pseudo-Hegesippus’s David conspicuously lacks any of the theological, doctrinal, or ethical features so characteristic of his portrayal in most of ancient Christian literature. Pseudo-Hegesippus portrays King David in terms resonant of both Greco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian traditions.
{"title":"A New King David for Late Antiquity: Classical Exemplarity and Biblical Personality in Pseudo-Hegesippus","authors":"Carson Bay","doi":"10.1080/2222582x.2021.1880953","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2222582x.2021.1880953","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In late ancient Christian literature, King David is ubiquitous. Not simply cited as the famous author of many psalms, he almost always appears as a model of penitence, a foreshadow of Christ, or a paradigm of Christian virtues and values. But not always. In one fourth-century Christian text, King David appears in a striking and distinctive relief. This Latin text, known as De excidio Hierosolymitano (On the Destruction of Jerusalem), sometimes called PseudoHegesippus, presents King David as a figure familiar from Judaeo-Christian tradition, but in a way that resonates most strongly with classical Greco-Roman literary norms. This text rewrites Josephus’s Jewish War from a Christian perspective, and mentions David at a dozen points. In each case, David appears as an exemplum associated with a particular biblical episode or theme. Often, the treatment of these episodes in Josephus or other early Christian literature helps explain why Pseudo-Hegesippus presents David in particular lights. However, taking all of the appearances of David in De Excidio into view, this article shows that Pseudo-Hegesippus is not only beholden to biblical, Josephan, or early Christian precedents, but creatively constructs his own portrait of David within his historiographical framework. This article then suggests that this David’s rhetorical valence and distinctive character are best explained vis-à-vis the traditional (Greek and) Roman use of exempla inasmuch as Pseudo-Hegesippus’s David conspicuously lacks any of the theological, doctrinal, or ethical features so characteristic of his portrayal in most of ancient Christian literature. Pseudo-Hegesippus portrays King David in terms resonant of both Greco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian traditions.","PeriodicalId":40708,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Christian History","volume":"92 4","pages":"1 - 49"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41283233","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：