Pub Date : 2021-09-24DOI: 10.1163/15700720-12341602
Grayden McCashen
{"title":"Against “Irenaean” Theodicy: A Refutation of John Hick’s Use of Irenaeus, written by David Hionides","authors":"Grayden McCashen","doi":"10.1163/15700720-12341602","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700720-12341602","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44928,"journal":{"name":"VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83484738","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-26DOI: 10.1163/15700720-12341489
B. Ehrman
{"title":"The Shepherd of Hermas and the Pauline Legacy, written by Jonathan E. Soyars","authors":"B. Ehrman","doi":"10.1163/15700720-12341489","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700720-12341489","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44928,"journal":{"name":"VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88005737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-22DOI: 10.1163/15700720-BJA10034
Dawn LaValle Norman
The contest over the resurrection of the body used the scientific authority of Aristotle as ammunition on both sides. Past scholars have read Methodius of Olympus as displaying an anti-Aristotelian bias. In contrast, through close reading of the entire text with attention to characterization and development of argument, I prove that Methodius of Olympus’ dialogue the De Resurrectione utilizes Aristotelian biology as a morally neutral tool. To put this into higher relief, I compare Methodius’ dialogue with the anonymous Dialogue of Adamantius, a text directly dependent upon the Methodius’ De Resurrectione, but which rejects arguments based on scientific reasoning. Reading Methodius’ De Resurrectione with greater attention to the whole and putting it in the context of its nearest parallel text retells the traditional story of early Christian resistance to Aristotle. Methodius of Olympus’ characters, although they view scientific knowledge as subordinate to philosophy, see it as neutral in and of itself.
{"title":"Contesting Aristotle: Science, Theology and the Resurrection of the Body in Methodius of Olympus’ De Resurrectione and the Dialogue of Adamantius","authors":"Dawn LaValle Norman","doi":"10.1163/15700720-BJA10034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700720-BJA10034","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The contest over the resurrection of the body used the scientific authority of Aristotle as ammunition on both sides. Past scholars have read Methodius of Olympus as displaying an anti-Aristotelian bias. In contrast, through close reading of the entire text with attention to characterization and development of argument, I prove that Methodius of Olympus’ dialogue the De Resurrectione utilizes Aristotelian biology as a morally neutral tool. To put this into higher relief, I compare Methodius’ dialogue with the anonymous Dialogue of Adamantius, a text directly dependent upon the Methodius’ De Resurrectione, but which rejects arguments based on scientific reasoning. Reading Methodius’ De Resurrectione with greater attention to the whole and putting it in the context of its nearest parallel text retells the traditional story of early Christian resistance to Aristotle. Methodius of Olympus’ characters, although they view scientific knowledge as subordinate to philosophy, see it as neutral in and of itself.","PeriodicalId":44928,"journal":{"name":"VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE","volume":"75 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86285332","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-22DOI: 10.1163/15700720-BJA10032
Adam D. Ployd
The book of Sirach plays a larger part within Augustine’s theology than has hitherto been appreciated. This article helps fill this lacuna by examining the role of Sir 34:30 – “What does the bath profit one who is baptized by a dead man?” – in Augustine’s conflict with the Donatists. In addition to showing the significance of this verse within the conflict, I further argue that it allows us to espy the forensic rhetoric that shapes much of Augustine’s anti-Donatist polemic. In particular, I point to techniques of inventio that provide not merely stylistic but also argumentative forms and approaches that Augustine deploys on several fronts.
{"title":"Sir 34:30 and Forensic Rhetoric in Augustine’s Conflict with the Donatists","authors":"Adam D. Ployd","doi":"10.1163/15700720-BJA10032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700720-BJA10032","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The book of Sirach plays a larger part within Augustine’s theology than has hitherto been appreciated. This article helps fill this lacuna by examining the role of Sir 34:30 – “What does the bath profit one who is baptized by a dead man?” – in Augustine’s conflict with the Donatists. In addition to showing the significance of this verse within the conflict, I further argue that it allows us to espy the forensic rhetoric that shapes much of Augustine’s anti-Donatist polemic. In particular, I point to techniques of inventio that provide not merely stylistic but also argumentative forms and approaches that Augustine deploys on several fronts.","PeriodicalId":44928,"journal":{"name":"VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE","volume":"353 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75495829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-14DOI: 10.1163/15700720-12341486
David M. Friel
Chrysostom’s homily De coemeterio et de cruce (CPG 4337) was delivered during a full eucharistic synaxis on Good Friday in a cemetery outside the gates of late-fourth-century Antioch. It demonstrates both rhetorical and theological prowess. Chrysostom consoles his hearers by likening death to sleep and reflecting on the cemetery as a “sleeping place” (koimeterion). The text is notable for its theology of physical space, its conception of liturgical anamnesis, and its presentation of the Christus Victor atonement motif. The homily also highlights the liturgical role of the Holy Spirit, especially by alluding to the eucharistic epiclesis, and it chastises the congregation for their poor behavior during the communion rite. This article presents the homily’s full text in Greek with English translation, followed by a commentary that probes its major themes and liturgical aspects.
金口司铎的布道词De coemeterio et De cruce (CPG 4337)是在耶稣受难日的一个完整的圣餐祈祷中发表的，地点是四世纪晚期安提阿大门外的一个墓地。它展示了修辞和神学的能力。金口安慰他的听众，把死亡比作睡眠，把墓地比作一个“睡觉的地方”(koimeterion)。文本是值得注意的，其神学的物理空间，其概念的礼仪记忆，并提出了基督维克多的赎罪主题。讲道也强调了圣灵在礼拜仪式中的作用，特别是通过暗示圣餐的圣歌，它谴责了会众在圣餐仪式中的不良行为。这篇文章提供了希腊文的讲道全文和英文翻译，然后是一个评论，探讨其主要主题和礼仪方面。
{"title":"Chrysostom’s Homily on the Word Koimeterion and on the Cross: A Translation and Commentary","authors":"David M. Friel","doi":"10.1163/15700720-12341486","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700720-12341486","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Chrysostom’s homily De coemeterio et de cruce (CPG 4337) was delivered during a full eucharistic synaxis on Good Friday in a cemetery outside the gates of late-fourth-century Antioch. It demonstrates both rhetorical and theological prowess. Chrysostom consoles his hearers by likening death to sleep and reflecting on the cemetery as a “sleeping place” (koimeterion). The text is notable for its theology of physical space, its conception of liturgical anamnesis, and its presentation of the Christus Victor atonement motif. The homily also highlights the liturgical role of the Holy Spirit, especially by alluding to the eucharistic epiclesis, and it chastises the congregation for their poor behavior during the communion rite. This article presents the homily’s full text in Greek with English translation, followed by a commentary that probes its major themes and liturgical aspects.","PeriodicalId":44928,"journal":{"name":"VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90167009","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-14DOI: 10.1163/15700720-12341485
Otto H. Linderborg, V. Johansson
The Letter to the Philippians is the sole surviving work of the early Christian bishop and martyr, Polycarp of Smyrna. Ever since the 17th century scholars have contested the authenticity and unity of the letter without reaching a settlement. However, new linguistic evidence allows for a reassessment of the controversy. The future participle πρεσβεύσοντα at Pol. Phil. XIII.1 is one of a mere four occurrences of FPs in the entire corpus of the Apostolic Fathers, and the use of the FP is exceedingly rare among low-register Judeo-Christian texts in general. The statistical analysis over a wide range of Ancient Greek literary texts conducted in this paper lends support to the conclusion that Pol. Phil. is a uniform text with a spurious interpolation in the form of the bulk of chapter XIII.
《腓立比书》是早期基督教主教和殉道者士麦拿的波利卡普唯一幸存的作品。自17世纪以来，学者们一直在争论这封信的真实性和统一性，但没有达成解决方案。然而，新的语言学证据允许对争议进行重新评估。将来分词πρεσβ α at Pol。菲尔。十三。1是在整个使徒教父语料库中出现的四次FPs之一，FP的使用在一般低注册的犹太教-基督教文本中极为罕见。本文对广泛的古希腊文学文本进行了统计分析，支持了波尔。菲尔。是一个统一的文本，以第十三章的大部分形式进行虚假的插值。
{"title":"The Odd Future Participle at Pol. Phil. XIII: Reassessing the Authenticity and Unity of Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians","authors":"Otto H. Linderborg, V. Johansson","doi":"10.1163/15700720-12341485","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700720-12341485","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The Letter to the Philippians is the sole surviving work of the early Christian bishop and martyr, Polycarp of Smyrna. Ever since the 17th century scholars have contested the authenticity and unity of the letter without reaching a settlement. However, new linguistic evidence allows for a reassessment of the controversy. The future participle πρεσβεύσοντα at Pol. Phil. XIII.1 is one of a mere four occurrences of FPs in the entire corpus of the Apostolic Fathers, and the use of the FP is exceedingly rare among low-register Judeo-Christian texts in general. The statistical analysis over a wide range of Ancient Greek literary texts conducted in this paper lends support to the conclusion that Pol. Phil. is a uniform text with a spurious interpolation in the form of the bulk of chapter XIII.","PeriodicalId":44928,"journal":{"name":"VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90045577","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-14DOI: 10.1163/15700720-BJA10035
Isaac T. Soon
This study argues that the ἄγγελος πονηρός in Barn 9.4 was Satan. James Carleton Paget, Adolf Hilgenfeld, Ferdinand Prostmeier and Geza Vermes gestured toward this interpretation, but none offered evidence for this identification other than assertion. In Barnabas, there is a constellation of ideas that connect circumcision with Satan, namely circumcision with pagan idolatry (9.6), idolatry to demons (16.7), and finally idolatry and demons to Satan’s ultimate rule (18.1; 20.1). Satan is also related to other obsolete Jewish cultic practices (2.4, 6; 16.1–2, 7). Barnabas also repeatedly describes the devil with the adjective πονηρός. Additionally, the fourth-century papyrus PSI VII 757r reads ἄγγελος ὁ πονηρός, identifying the angel as Satan. The “Ethiopianisation” of Satan as “the black one” (as argued by Clare Rothschild) confirms this reading. Since “Ethiopians” practiced circumcision, the devil as a “the black one” associates Satan with circumcision.
本研究认为Barn 9.4中的ο γγελος πονηρός是撒旦。詹姆斯·卡尔顿·佩吉特、阿道夫·希尔根菲尔德、费迪南德·普斯特梅尔和格扎·维尔梅斯都倾向于这种解释，但除了断言之外，没有人提供这种认定的证据。在巴拿巴身上，有一系列的想法将割礼与撒旦联系起来，即割礼与异教偶像崇拜(9.6)，偶像崇拜与恶魔(16.7)，最后偶像崇拜与恶魔与撒旦的最终统治(18.1;20.1)。撒旦也与其他过时的犹太崇拜习俗有关(2.4,6;(16.1 - 2,7)。巴拿巴也多次用形容词πονηρός来形容魔鬼。此外，四世纪的纸莎草纸PSI VII 757r上写着ο γγελος ο πονηρός，将天使确定为撒旦。将撒旦“埃塞俄比亚化”为“黑人”(正如克莱尔·罗斯柴尔德(Clare Rothschild)所主张的那样)证实了这种解读。由于“古实人”实行割礼，魔鬼作为“黑者”将撒旦与割礼联系在一起。
{"title":"Satan and Circumcision: The Devil as the ἄγγελος πονηρός in Barn 9:4","authors":"Isaac T. Soon","doi":"10.1163/15700720-BJA10035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700720-BJA10035","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This study argues that the ἄγγελος πονηρός in Barn 9.4 was Satan. James Carleton Paget, Adolf Hilgenfeld, Ferdinand Prostmeier and Geza Vermes gestured toward this interpretation, but none offered evidence for this identification other than assertion. In Barnabas, there is a constellation of ideas that connect circumcision with Satan, namely circumcision with pagan idolatry (9.6), idolatry to demons (16.7), and finally idolatry and demons to Satan’s ultimate rule (18.1; 20.1). Satan is also related to other obsolete Jewish cultic practices (2.4, 6; 16.1–2, 7). Barnabas also repeatedly describes the devil with the adjective πονηρός. Additionally, the fourth-century papyrus PSI VII 757r reads ἄγγελος ὁ πονηρός, identifying the angel as Satan. The “Ethiopianisation” of Satan as “the black one” (as argued by Clare Rothschild) confirms this reading. Since “Ethiopians” practiced circumcision, the devil as a “the black one” associates Satan with circumcision.","PeriodicalId":44928,"journal":{"name":"VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88197149","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-14DOI: 10.1163/15700720-BJA10018
J. Solheid
This paper addresses evidence in Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew of the Alexandrian’s self-understanding of his scholastic practices. Drawing on Origen’s interpretation of the parables in the Gospel, I argue that Origen exploits the motif of Jesus explaining the parables to his disciples as a model for his own school enterprise in Caesarea. In light of this observation, I will begin by examining the echoes of the classroom environment found in Origen’s Matthew Commentary building on the work of Guido Bendinelli and Lorenzo Perrone. Paying particular attention to stylistic features, such as the use of the first-person plural, I will map the classroom dynamic in the making of the commentary. Then, I will focus on Origen’s hermeneutical approach to Jesus’ parables, especially the distinction he draws between Jesus engagement with the “crowds” and his private teaching to the disciples. Underpinning the Matthew Commentary was Origen’s attempt to model his school against the conceptual backdrop of the Jesus-disciple dynamic and the Greco-Roman philosophical school tradition.
{"title":"Modelling a Christian Academy: Christ, Disciples, and Biblical Scholarship in Origen’s Commentary on Matthew","authors":"J. Solheid","doi":"10.1163/15700720-BJA10018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700720-BJA10018","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This paper addresses evidence in Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew of the Alexandrian’s self-understanding of his scholastic practices. Drawing on Origen’s interpretation of the parables in the Gospel, I argue that Origen exploits the motif of Jesus explaining the parables to his disciples as a model for his own school enterprise in Caesarea. In light of this observation, I will begin by examining the echoes of the classroom environment found in Origen’s Matthew Commentary building on the work of Guido Bendinelli and Lorenzo Perrone. Paying particular attention to stylistic features, such as the use of the first-person plural, I will map the classroom dynamic in the making of the commentary. Then, I will focus on Origen’s hermeneutical approach to Jesus’ parables, especially the distinction he draws between Jesus engagement with the “crowds” and his private teaching to the disciples. Underpinning the Matthew Commentary was Origen’s attempt to model his school against the conceptual backdrop of the Jesus-disciple dynamic and the Greco-Roman philosophical school tradition.","PeriodicalId":44928,"journal":{"name":"VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81117309","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-14DOI: 10.1163/15700720-BJA10031
M. Freeman
This paper examines the use of antithesis and paradox in the Epistle to Diognetus. The text employs these rhetorico-philosophical techniques in order to provoke interest in readers, whether pagan or Christian, and lure them toward deeper inquiry and understanding of the truths the author thinks Christianity teaches. That is, the anticipated effects of antithesis and paradox as classical rhetorical tools, as described by ancient rhetoricians and philosophers, promotes the overall protreptic goal of the text. The antitheses capture the audience’s attention, while the pervasive use of paradoxical language and reasoning guides it toward deeper inquiry about Christianity. Not only are Christian existence and God’s plan of salvation paradoxical, but the author’s very understanding of how to comprehend these paradoxes contradicts the expectations created by classical philosophical notions of paradox.
{"title":"Antithesis and Paradox in the Epistle to Diognetus","authors":"M. Freeman","doi":"10.1163/15700720-BJA10031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700720-BJA10031","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This paper examines the use of antithesis and paradox in the Epistle to Diognetus. The text employs these rhetorico-philosophical techniques in order to provoke interest in readers, whether pagan or Christian, and lure them toward deeper inquiry and understanding of the truths the author thinks Christianity teaches. That is, the anticipated effects of antithesis and paradox as classical rhetorical tools, as described by ancient rhetoricians and philosophers, promotes the overall protreptic goal of the text. The antitheses capture the audience’s attention, while the pervasive use of paradoxical language and reasoning guides it toward deeper inquiry about Christianity. Not only are Christian existence and God’s plan of salvation paradoxical, but the author’s very understanding of how to comprehend these paradoxes contradicts the expectations created by classical philosophical notions of paradox.","PeriodicalId":44928,"journal":{"name":"VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73893631","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-14DOI: 10.1163/15700720-BJA10033
Mattias Gassman
A passage in Macarius Magnes’ Apocriticus (2,14 Volp) has recently been adduced to support the long-controverted hypothesis that a senatus consultum was issued against the Christians in the year 35. The note reviews the evidence and finds it wanting. Of the texts usually adduced, Tertullian, Apologeticum 5,1–3 does not describe a senatus consultum, Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 5,21,4 and the Greek and Armenian Acta Apollonii say nothing about Tiberius, and Jerome, Chronicon 35–36 post Christum appears to be an elaboration from Tertullian. The Macarian passage, in turn, refers to a “common judgment” and describes the condemnation of Christians by all respectable persons, especially the senatus populusque Romanus. It does not describe the promulgation of a formal senatus consultum.
{"title":"On an Alleged Senatus Consultum against the Christians","authors":"Mattias Gassman","doi":"10.1163/15700720-BJA10033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700720-BJA10033","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000A passage in Macarius Magnes’ Apocriticus (2,14 Volp) has recently been adduced to support the long-controverted hypothesis that a senatus consultum was issued against the Christians in the year 35. The note reviews the evidence and finds it wanting. Of the texts usually adduced, Tertullian, Apologeticum 5,1–3 does not describe a senatus consultum, Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 5,21,4 and the Greek and Armenian Acta Apollonii say nothing about Tiberius, and Jerome, Chronicon 35–36 post Christum appears to be an elaboration from Tertullian. The Macarian passage, in turn, refers to a “common judgment” and describes the condemnation of Christians by all respectable persons, especially the senatus populusque Romanus. It does not describe the promulgation of a formal senatus consultum.","PeriodicalId":44928,"journal":{"name":"VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE","volume":"215 6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83251633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","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：