干扰福音

IF 0.4 4区 哲学 N/A RELIGION Novum Testamentum Pub Date : 2023-06-09 DOI:10.1163/15685365-bja10044
J. Coogan
{"title":"干扰福音","authors":"J. Coogan","doi":"10.1163/15685365-bja10044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe second-century philosopher Celsus disparaged Christians who “alter the original text of the Gospel three or four or many times” (Cels. 2.27). Scholars have understood this passage as a critique of multiple distinct Gospels, but Celsus’ invective is better explained by comparison with elite second-century polemics (e.g., Gellius, Lucian, Galen) against readers who lack discernment and arbitrarily alter manuscripts. For Celsus, Christians’ irresponsible textual practices reveal their cultural inferiority. The complaint is about varying copies of what Celsus thinks to be the same work: “the Gospel.” Christian thinkers in the second and third centuries—including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and the author(s) of the Little Labyrinth—also participate in this discourse about good and bad readers. This article thus illuminates the wider ancient Mediterranean politics of reading in which early Christian textuality emerged.","PeriodicalId":19319,"journal":{"name":"Novum Testamentum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meddling with the Gospel\",\"authors\":\"J. Coogan\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15685365-bja10044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThe second-century philosopher Celsus disparaged Christians who “alter the original text of the Gospel three or four or many times” (Cels. 2.27). Scholars have understood this passage as a critique of multiple distinct Gospels, but Celsus’ invective is better explained by comparison with elite second-century polemics (e.g., Gellius, Lucian, Galen) against readers who lack discernment and arbitrarily alter manuscripts. For Celsus, Christians’ irresponsible textual practices reveal their cultural inferiority. The complaint is about varying copies of what Celsus thinks to be the same work: “the Gospel.” Christian thinkers in the second and third centuries—including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and the author(s) of the Little Labyrinth—also participate in this discourse about good and bad readers. This article thus illuminates the wider ancient Mediterranean politics of reading in which early Christian textuality emerged.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19319,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Novum Testamentum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Novum Testamentum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685365-bja10044\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Novum Testamentum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685365-bja10044","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

二世纪的哲学家塞尔苏(Celsus)贬低那些“三次、四次或多次修改福音书原文”的基督徒(Cels.2.27)。学者们将这段话理解为对多种不同福音书的批判,但塞尔苏的谩骂可以通过与第二世纪的精英论战(如盖利厄斯、卢西恩、盖伦)相比来更好地解释,这些论战针对的是缺乏洞察力和随意修改手稿的读者。对塞尔苏来说,基督徒不负责任的文本实践暴露了他们的文化自卑。抱怨是关于塞尔苏认为是同一部作品的不同副本:《福音》。二世纪和三世纪的基督教思想家——包括伊雷奈乌斯、特尔图良、奥里金和《小迷宫》的作者——也参与了这场关于好读者和坏读者的讨论。因此,本文阐明了早期基督教文本性出现的更广泛的古代地中海阅读政治。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Meddling with the Gospel
The second-century philosopher Celsus disparaged Christians who “alter the original text of the Gospel three or four or many times” (Cels. 2.27). Scholars have understood this passage as a critique of multiple distinct Gospels, but Celsus’ invective is better explained by comparison with elite second-century polemics (e.g., Gellius, Lucian, Galen) against readers who lack discernment and arbitrarily alter manuscripts. For Celsus, Christians’ irresponsible textual practices reveal their cultural inferiority. The complaint is about varying copies of what Celsus thinks to be the same work: “the Gospel.” Christian thinkers in the second and third centuries—including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and the author(s) of the Little Labyrinth—also participate in this discourse about good and bad readers. This article thus illuminates the wider ancient Mediterranean politics of reading in which early Christian textuality emerged.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Novum Testamentum
Novum Testamentum RELIGION-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Novum Testamentum is a leading international journal devoted to the study of the New Testament and related subjects. This includes text-critical, philological, and exegetical studies, and investigations which seek to situate early Christian texts (both canonical and non-canonical) and theology in the broader context of Jewish and Graeco-Roman history, culture, religion, and literature. ● For 50 years an unrivalled resource for the subject. ● Articles in English, French and German. ● Extensive Book Review section in each volume, introducing the reader to a large section of related titles.
期刊最新文献
Social Memory Theory and the Enigmatic Mediated Past in Historical Jesus Research Sleepers Led by God Is There Imminent Expectation in 1 Thess 4:13–18? Frauen in Furcht Jesus’s Puzzling Retort to the Royal Official (John 4:48) in Isodiegetic Perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1