För att utvärdera H. J. Cadburys axiom att Luk och Apg utgör ett kontinuerligt verk i två delar, görs en översikt över frågorna om gemensamt författarskap, receptionshistoria, genre och narrativ enhet, samt en narrativ analys av Apg 10:1–11:18 och Luk 7:1–10 med syfte att bedöma om de två delberättelserna visar tecken på att tillhöra en samlad eller två skilda huvudberättelser.
De två delberättelsernas narrativa värld och karaktärsgalleri är likartade, deras implice rade författares attityder och tendenser är desamma, och deras intriger passar väl in i en övergripande intrig, oavsett om Luk och Apg ses som en berättelse i två delar, eller som två berättelser med litterära relationer till varandra. Delberättelsernas radikalt olika narra tiva struktur, och att ingen i Apg 10:1–11:18 visar någon kunskap om att händelserna i Luk 7:1–10 ägt rum, talar för att de två delberättelserna tillhör två olika huvudberättelser.
Scholarship on ancient works of literature that survive only in quotations, such as Heracleon’s hypomnēmata (“commentary” or “notes”), often presuppose that the quotations dependably transmit the actual words of the quoted author, thereby ignoring the mediation and the agenda of the quoting author. This article demonstrates that ancient authors frequently adapted quotations to their new contexts, and develops a methodology for evaluating the extent of adaptations made in Origen’s quotations from Heracleon’s hypomnēmata.
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.
In this paper, the organization and content of Greco-Roman education are described, the social interaction within ancient high literary culture is depicted, and a selection of the techniques and principles that guided Greek and Latin literary critics are presented. Evidence for early Christian participation in these cultural expressions are discussed, as well as factors behind second-century adoption of literary criticism for interpreting New Testament writings.
Following the lead of ancient heresiologists, modern scholars have all too often viewed Valentinus and Heracleon as representatives of a unified sectarian group whose interpretations of early Christian literature were determined by a shared set of "heretical" views. Arguing that the exegetical methodology of early Christians may be better understood if viewed within the larger context of Greco-Roman literary criticism, this article studies how Valentinus and Heracleon use one passage of early Christian literature to illuminate another, and compares this practice to the principle of Aristarchus, which states that Homer should be clarified from Homer.
Trots att Origenes i första hand är känd för sitt allegoriska sätt att lägga ut bibeltexter – vilket var oerhört betydelsefullt för utvecklingen av medeltidens fyrfaldiga bibelutläggning – har senare tiders forskning visat att han också använde många andra litteraturanalytiska verktyg i sin exegetik. Framför allt är det Bernhard Neuschäfer och Peter W. Martens som klarlagt att Origenes hämtat ett ertal metoder från sin samtids grekiska lologi, och tillämpat dessa på bibeltexten. I det följande vill jag visa hur Origenes i Om bönen använder de metoder som Neuschäfer och Martens har beskrivit.
This study of Origen’s references to the second-century author Heracleon addresses two problems in previous research: Scholars have regularly presumed that every statement Origen attributes to Heracleon is equivalent to a verbatim quotation, and that Heracleon’s beliefs conform to those described in heresiological sources. The study develops a method of quotation analysis that uses variations in Origen’s attribution formulas to categorize the almost two hundred references as “verbatim quotations,” “summaries,” “explanatory paraphrases,” or “mere assertions.” The more trustworthy references are used to reconstruct Heracleon’s interpretations within a context given by the literature to which he refers himself, including the Gospel of John, a Synoptic gospel tradition similar to the Gospel of Matthew, a collection of Pauline epistles, and the Preaching of Peter. The views exhibited in Heracleon’s comments are compared to those used by Origen to categorize his exegetical opponents. The study identifies over fifty quotations from Heracleon and seventy summaries of his interpretations, and concludes that the views of the heterodox and “those who bring in the natures” are more likely to be inferred by Origen than expressed by Heracleon.
When Origen of Alexandria presents numerous extensive quotations from Heracleon, whom he explicitly presents as a follower of Valentinus, one might expect a uniformly adversarial attitude toward this “Valentinian” sectarian. Instead, Origen’s stances are found to vacillate significantly from general renunciation and emphatic criticism, via considered disagreement and hypothetical approval, all the way to agreement and praise. The fascinating interplay between the stance taken and the dogmatic and philological matters in view implies that while dogmatic issues at stake are decisive for whether Origen agrees or disagrees with Heracleon, the full range of variance in Origen’s stances is determined by Heracleon’s philological methodology and presentation of evidence. Origen’s responses to Heracleon reveal that he viewed this predecessor not simply as a heterodox teacher, but also as a colleague in interpreting the New Testament using methods from Greco-Roman literary criticism.
The reflections of Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185–254 CE) concerning the nature of the New Testament Gospels may be better understood if viewed in relation to a scheme of standard introductory questions used by ancient Greek philologists in their commentaries on classical Greek literature. While this scheme did not include questions about the form or genre of the writings to be analyzed, Origen repeatedly added such reflections when he adapted the scheme in his commentaries on biblical writings. These reflections inform us of his expectations of the Gospels. Using a modern concept of genre as a system of expectations shared between author and reader, and frequently intended to shape the worldview of the readers, Origen’s views of the nature of the Gospels can be expressed as their simultaneous participation in two genres: Christian teaching and ancient historiography.
Denna bok är en festskrift till prästen, teologen och översättaren Olof Andrén. Bokens titel, Ad fontes, betyder »till källorna« och är vald som ett erkännande av Olof Andréns mångåriga gärning för att uppmärksamma och tillgängliggöra den rikedom som nns bevarad i skrift från kristendomens äldsta tradition. Hans gärning har sedan länge en stor betydelse för kyrka, akademi och kulturliv i Sverige. Boken inleds med tre bidrag som tecknar Olof Andréns gärning och patristikens uppsving i Sverige under 1900-talet. Därefter följer sjutton artiklar som lyfter fram nya perspektiv på fornkyrkliga text- er och personer, tidigkristen ikonogra och kyrkomusik, samt på hur arvet från denna tradition kommit att uppfattas och återspeglas i senare tid.