Search

patristics | manuscripts

Category

Uncategorized

John Chrysostom’s argumenta on Pauline letters

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.”

Advertisements

ZAC article on Origen’s exegesis in Latin

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 Canticorumthen 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.”

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑