Lorenzo Perrone has uploaded on academia.edu a forthcoming piece of his on Origen’s ‘new’ homilies on Psalms found in Codex Monacensis Gr. 314 (published last year, see here), specifically on the exegesis of Psalm 76: “Scrittura e cosmo nelle nuove omelie di Origene sui Salmi: l’interpretazione del Salmo 76,” Acta Antiqua, forthcoming.
On the same platform, L. Perrone has usefully uploaded a dossier of his publications on these homilies, here.
New book from Brepols:
B. Bakhouche
Science et exégèse: Les interprétations antiques et médiévales du récit biblique de la création des éléments (Genèse 1,1-8)
Series: Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Sciences Religieuses (BEHE 167).
Blurb:
Les huit premiers versets de la Genèse parlent de la création : commencement du monde, principe divin du monde, affirmation d’une toute-puissance en action. Mais du texte hébreu à ses versions grecques et latines, ce texte fondateur pose de nombreuses difficultés de vocabulaire et d’interprétation, difficultés auxquelles se sont confrontés les exégètes du monde antique et médiéval. Que ce soit dans la littérature exégétique, encyclopédique, poétique, voire dans les représentations figurées, l’articulation de l’exégèse n’est pas univoque, mais dépend des langages adoptés, littéraires ou artistiques, tout autant que des objectifs poursuivis. On assiste à la mise en œuvre d’une culture diversifiée, mais cette diversification recoupe souvent une non-diversification dans l’interprétation qui est au moins tendanciellement d’ordre spirituel. Réciproquement, dans le déchiffrement du monde, les différents savoirs constituent autant de degrés qui mènent à Dieu.
Il est d’autres questions, d’ordre plus spécifiquement « littéraire » : comment les exégètes antiques ou médiévaux ont-ils abordé ce récit de la Création ? Quelle(s) logique(s) du texte sacré ont-ils dégagée(s) au fil du temps ? Comment problèmes et réponses évoluent-ils à travers les commentaires en hébreu, grec ou latin ? À l’étude du substrat scientifico-philosophique doit donc s’ajouter celle de la mise en forme du texte.
Announced for 04/2016.
Held in Birmingham, in September 5-7, this conference has an emphasis on patristic biblical exegesis: “we are particularly keen to receive contributions on the reception of Pauline literature or commentaries more generally”. More details here. Birmingham is also the place for the COMPAUL project on the earliest Pauline commentaries.
Another CfP which might allow some papers on Patristics would be that of the St Andrews Symposium for Biblical and Early Christian Studies: “Son of God: Divine Sonship in Jewish and Christian Antiquity”. Details here.
There’s another article of interest in the latest ZAC, arguing that a number of argumenta on Pauline letters of John Chrysostom have been so far miss-attributed: Agnès Lorrain, “Des prologues bibliques d’origine chrysostomienne : Les Arguments attribués à Théodoret et à Théophylacte sur les épîtres pauliniennes,” ZAC/JAC 19/3 (2015) 481-501.
The abstract: “This study shows that the argumenta to the Pauline letters attributed to Theodoret in the catena of Oecumenius are without doubt summaries of John Chrysostom’s argumenta to these letters, and that they relate to those handed down in the catena of Theophylact. First, we will draw up a list of testimonies of the summaries attributed to Theodoret-manuscripts of catenae and Pauline epistles-and state the hypothesis of a link with the transmission of Oecumenius’ catena. After proving the dependence of John Chrysostom and the link with Theophylact, we will bring forward several hypotheses about the precise relations between the three series of argumenta. We will underline the importance of these texts as testimonies of the transmission and reception of John Chrysostom’s text, as well as of the technique of summary in Late Antiquity, and we will indicate some directions for further research.”
The latest ZAC/JAC issue features an article on the Latin version of Origen’s Commentary on Canticum Canticorum, and on the peculiarities of Rufinus’ translation of it: Vito Limone, “I nomi dell’amore: Un’indagine sulla traduzione latina del Commento al Cantico dei Cantici di Origene,” ZAC/JAC 19/3 (2015) 407-28. The author first presents Origen’s exegesis of Canticum Canticorum, then analyzes Rufinus’ choice of words in his translation along by comparison with 10 surviving Greek fragments.
Thus goes the abstract: “The aim of this paper is to compare the Greek fragments of Origen’s Commentary on the Song of Songs and the Latin translation by Rufinus. In particular, in Commentarius in Canticum Canticorum, prol. 2,20 the Latin text lists four names of the love: amor and cupido with regard to the physical love, and dilectio and caritas with regard to the spiritual love. In Greek fragments there are only “agape” with regard to the spiritual love and “eros” with regard to the physical love. Then, this paper aims to compare the Greek language through which Origen expresses the love in the fragments with the Latin language in which Rufinus translates Origen’s original text, so Rufinus seems to have complicated the original Greek text of Origen. Moreover, the paper lists also other important words through which Origen expresses the love in the fragments, i.e. philia and philanthropia.”
Fresh on RBECS review: Eric Covington (St Andrews) on The Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1-3 in Irenaeus of Lyons, by Stephen Presley.
Snippet:
“The book demonstrates both the intertextual nature of Irenaeus’ interpretation of Gen 1–3 and also the way in which Gen 1–3 affected Irenaeus’ interpretation of the rest of scripture. This is an important aspect of the early apologist’s disagreements with other Gnostic groups that saw some distinction between the God of creation in Gen 1–3 and the God of Jesus Christ. Irenaeus, as Presley explains, continually refers to Gen 1–3 in his reading of the biblical scriptures because these narratives are central to Irenaeus’ understanding of the entire scope of God’s activity in the world.”
In case you’re looking for more info on the project, here are a couple of directions. First, there is the project website, which includes a presentation and the list of projected volumes. Then there’s the publisher’s webpage. Thirdly, Andreas Merkt, one of the three editors, has published a description in Sacra Scripta 10/1 (2012), 15-31, here.
The latest installment, however, can be found in the most recent issue of Early Christianity, where the three editors of Novum Testamentum Patristicum sign together a presentation of the project: Andreas Merkt, Tobias Nicklas and Joseph Verheyden, “Das Novum Testamentum Patristicum (NTP): Ein Projekt zur Erforschung von Rezeption und Auslegung des Neuen Testamentes in frühchristlicher und spätantiker Zeit,” EC 6/4 (2015), 573-595, here.
This blog is built around my post-doctoral project, a volume on 1 Peter 2:11-5:14 which I am preparing for the Novum Testamentum Patristicum series. As such, it reflects my scholarly interests which are related one way or another to this.
One can expect notes on events that have to do with the Novum Testamentum Patristicum project, on Patristic exegesis in general, on reception history, on 1 Peter, on Petrine apocrypha, on their manuscripts, and on whatever else might be deemed of some interest. Enjoy!
reception matters & manuscripts 