DOCSLIB.ORG

This Electronic Thesis Or Dissertation Has Been Downloaded from Explore Bristol Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from Explore Bristol Research, http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk Author: Magny, Ariane Title: Porphyry in fragments : Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine and the problem of reconstruction General rights Access to the thesis is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License. A copy of this may be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode This license sets out your rights and the restrictions that apply to your access to the thesis so it is important you read this before proceeding. Take down policy Some pages of this thesis may have been removed for copyright restrictions prior to having it been deposited in Explore Bristol Research. However, if you have discovered material within the thesis that you consider to be unlawful e.g. breaches of copyright (either yours or that of a third party) or any other law, including but not limited to those relating to patent, trademark, confidentiality, data protection, obscenity, defamation, libel, then please contact [email protected] and include the following information in your message: •Your contact details •Bibliographic details for the item, including a URL •An outline nature of the complaint Your claim will be investigated and, where appropriate, the item in question will be removed from public view as soon as possible. 1512330046 Porphyry in Fragments: Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine and the Problem of Reconstruction. Ariane Magny A dissertationsubmitted to the University of Bristol in accordancewith the requirementsfor awardof the degreeof PhD in the Facultyof Arts, Schoolof HumanitiesSeptember 20 10. 69,625 words Abstract Everyoneworking on Porphyry's Againstthe Christiansrefers to the fragment collection compiledby Adolf von Harnackin 1916.Harnack's scholarshipwas impressive,but his work is difficult to use,and needs revision in the light of new approachesto the collection and interpretationof fragments.This dissertationdraws mainly on the methodologicalwork of Most et al. (1997) to arguethat a fragment shouldnot be readapart from its contextualframework. The dissertationanalyses the fragmentspreserved in Eusebius,Jerome, and Augustine, and explains how each author's agenda,as well as their religious andintellectual contextsinfluence the way in which they refer to Porphyry.Ultimately, this study aims at proposinga new fragmentcollection. I UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL LIBRARY Acknowledgments The idea for this dissertation emerged during the writing of a Master's thesis on Porphyry and the Book of Daniel entitled: "Porphyre et le Livre de Daniel: rdaction A la tradition ex6g6tique chr6tienne du Ille si&cle" and submitted at McGill University in 2004.1 am very grateful to Gillian Clark, my supervisor, whose scholarship and human qualities have been invaluable throughout the realisation of this project, even after she had retired. I also wish to thank Neville Morley, from the University of Bristol, for his comments on the first stagesof this dissertation during my upgrade interview, as well as Bella Sandwell, also from the University of Bristol, who was my examiner at the upgrade interview, and who oversaw to the very final and crucial stagesof the dissertation in Gillian's abstentia. Peregrine Horden, from Royal Holloway, and the reviewers of the Journal of Early Christian Studies have provided very helpful feedback on the chapters "New Methods" and "Jerome," as well as Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, from UCSB, during seminar discussion. David J. Miller has patiently helped me to decipher Eusebius' Greek. I am also grateful to the Arts SSHRC for Faculty of the University of Bristol, as well as to the their financial dissertation. support throughout the writing of the Finally, I wish to thankmy husband,Dominic, aswell as my family and friendsfor their incrediblesupport throughout the pastfew years,especially given the fact that doing this PhD meantmoving abroad. Author's Declaration I declarethat the work in this dissertationwas carried out in accordancewith the requirements of the University's Regulations and Code of Practice for ResearchDegree Programmes and that it has not been submitted for any other academic award. Except where indicated by specific reference in the text, the work is the candidate'sown work. Work done in collaboration with, or with the assistanceof, others, is indicated as such. Any views expressedin the dissertation are those of the author. SIGNED: CAI ... ..................... DATE:..,c. ý Table of Contents INTRODUCTION I-NEW METHODS 18 THE PROBLEM HARNACK OF 18 AFTER HARNACK 26 FRAGMENTS CONTEXT IN 39 PRESENTATIONOF FRAGMENTCOLLECTION A 46 TEXTUAL COMPLICATIONS 47 How METHODOLOGY MAY INFLUENCE AssumPTIONS 56 II-EUSEBIUS 60 111-JEROME 86 PORPHYRY JEROME IN 89 IV-AUGUSTINE'S LETTER 102 115 ON THE HARMONY OF THE Gs V-AUGUSTINE'S 147 PORPHYRY DE CONSENSUEVANGELISTARUM AND 143 AuGuSTINE's AGENDA 146 THE PROBLEMOF AUGUSTINE'SRHETORICAL PRACTICE 157 THEORY IN PRACTICE 158 BERCHMANAND DE CONSENSUEVANGELISTARUM 177 CONCLUSION 184 APPENDIX 194 BIBLIOGRAPHY 201 Introduction' The proceedingsof a conferenceheld at the Sorbonnein September2009 on the problemsraised by Porphyry'sAgainst the Christians:"Le traitd de Porphyre contreles chr6tiens.Un si&clede recherches,nouvelles questions, " to which I am lucky to contribute,will be publishedin the Collectiondesttudes Augustiniennesjust on time for the centenaryof the first ftagmentcollection published by the German scholarAdolf von Hamackin 1916.In this work, an entirely new andreturning generationof Porphyrianscholars gather to reflect on a centuryof scholarly developmentsin, andon the future of the questionsraised by, Againstthe Christians. This is in line with the currentrevival of interestin Porphyry'scorpus. Contributors to Studieson Porphyry,edited by G. Karamanolisand A. Sheppardin 2007,2focussed on Porphyry'sNeoplatonism; Sdbastien Morlet, the organizerof the Sorbonne colloquium,has himself publishedon Porphyryand Eusebius, as well as on Against the Christians;3 AaronJohnson has written on Eusebius,ethnicity, andAgainst the 4 Christians; JeremySchott used Porphyry to discussGreek ethnicity;' andAude Businehas been interested in Porphyry'sPhilosophyfrom OracleS.6 Porphyry's Againstthe Christiansis meantto be at the centerof this dissertation.His nameis 1All abbreviationsfollow LAnnýe Philologique,and all translationsare mine, unlessotherwise specified. 2G. Karamanolisand A. Sheppard(eds), Studies on Porphyry(London: 2007), Supplementto the Bulletin of ClassicalStudies 98. bude 3S. Morlet, La Dýmonstrationevangilique'd`Eusýbe de Cgsarge: sur PapologMquechritienne h Pipoque de Constantin(Paris: 2010); S- Morlet, "La Dýmonslralion6vangilique d'Eus&be de Cdsarde A contient-elledes fragments du Contra Christianosde Porphyre? propos du frg. 73 Harnack" (forthcomingin StudiaPatristica); S. Morlet, "Un nouveaut6moignage sur le ContraChristianos de Porphyre?" Semilicaet Classica,1 (2008):157-166. 4 A. Johnson,"Rethinking the Authenticity of Porphyry, c. christ. Fr. I, " (forthcoming in Studia Patrislica) 5J. Schott,"Porphyry on Christiansand Others: 'BarbarianWisdom', Identity Politics, and Anti- ChristianPolemics on the Eve of the GreatPersecution. " JECS 13no3 (2005): 277-314;Christianity, Empire, and the MakingofReligion in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 2008). 6A. Busine,Paroles dApollon: pratiqueset traditions oraculairesdans IAntiquiti tardive (Ile-IV2e si&les) (Leiden:Brill, 2005). is actually its first word. But the Porphyry that we shall be looking at the product of have been in secondary elaborations of his anti-Christian ideas. These ideas compiled fragments various fragment collections, but recent developments on the gathering of have led me to question the word 'fragment' itself. Therefore, am I being just as dishonest about my intentions as Jerome of Stridon is, when the very first sentenceto his Commentary on Daniel goes as follows: "Porphyry wrote his 121h book against the Book of Daniel.... 997and when he later insists that, "In fact, we arenot proposingto respondto the calumniesof that adversary,which would require a lengthy argument, 8 discuss ,, Jeromeis for but to the things, which our prophetsaid .... our main source Porphyry'sAgainst the Christians.This must lead us to ask,what the subjectmatter of this dissertationis going to be if, from the start,we questionthe existenceof Porphyry'sAgainst the Christians.Studying Against the Christiansis just like studyingan enigma,for it constantlyescapes those reflecting on it. It exists in a very abstractway, becauseit is a lost work whosecontent needs to be carefully reconstructed,a task that is almostimpossible. In that respect,this madewriting the dissertationa real challenge.But at the sametime, this is alsowhat madeit exciting. Let us look at the problemsraised by Against the Christians,and at how we can try to overcomethem. Porphyryof Tyre is a Neoplatonistphilosopher, who flourished in the end of the Yd c. C.E. (232-ca.305), 9 right in the midst of profound religious changes,which will affect the entire Romanempire. Indeed, the emperorDiocletian will launchthe 7 Jerome,Commentary on Daniel Prologue:"Contra prophetamDanielern duodecimurn librurn scribit Porphyrius." 8 Jerome,Commentary on Daniel Prologue:"Verum quia nobis propositurnest non aduersariicalumniis longo indigent, dicta disserere respondcre,quae sermone sedea quaea propheta sunt nostris .-- ." 9 Porphyry, Vita
Recommended publications
  • King Lfred's Version Off the Consolations of Boethius

    King Lfred's Version Off the Consolations of Boethius

    King _lfred's Version off the Consolations of Boethius HENRY FROWDE, M A. PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OF_0RD LONDON, EDINBURGH_ AND NEW YORK Kring e__lfred's Version o_/"the Consolations of Boethius _ _ Z)one into c_gfodern English, with an Introduction _ _ _ _ u_aa Litt.D._ Editor _o_.,I_ing .... i .dlfred_ OM Englis.h..ffgerAon2.' !ilo of the ' De Con.d.¢_onz,o,e 2 Oxford : _4t the Claro_don:,.....: PrestO0000 M D CCCC _eee_ Ioee_ J_el eeoee le e_ZNeFED AT THE_.e_EN_N PI_.._S _ee • • oeoo eee • oeee eo6_o eoee • ooeo e_ooo ..:.. ..'.: oe°_ ° leeeo eeoe ee •QQ . :.:.. oOeeo QOO_e 6eeQ aee...._ e • eee TO THE REV. PROFESSOR W. W. SKEAT LITT.D._ D.C.L._ LL.D.:_ PH.D. THIS _800K IS GRATEFULLY DEDICATED PREFACE THE preparationsfor adequately commemoratingthe forthcoming millenary of King Alfred's death have set going a fresh wave of popularinterest in that hero. Lectares have been given, committees formed, sub- scriptions paid and promised, and an excellent book of essays by eminent specialists has been written about Alfred considered under quite a number of aspects. That great King has himself told us that he was not indifferent to the opinion of those that should come after him, and he earnestly desired that that opinion should be a high one. We have by no means for- gotten him, it is true, but yet to verymany intelligent people he is, to use a paradox, a distinctly nebulous character of history. His most undying attributes in the memory of the people are not unconnected with singed cakes and romantic visits in disguise to the Danish viii Preface Danish camp.
  • RICE, CARL ROSS. Diocletian's “Great

    RICE, CARL ROSS. Diocletian's “Great

    ABSTRACT RICE, CARL ROSS. Diocletian’s “Great Persecutions”: Minority Religions and the Roman Tetrarchy. (Under the direction of Prof. S. Thomas Parker) In the year 303, the Roman Emperor Diocletian and the other members of the Tetrarchy launched a series of persecutions against Christians that is remembered as the most severe, widespread, and systematic persecution in the Church’s history. Around that time, the Tetrarchy also issued a rescript to the Pronconsul of Africa ordering similar persecutory actions against a religious group known as the Manichaeans. At first glance, the Tetrarchy’s actions appear to be the result of tensions between traditional classical paganism and religious groups that were not part of that system. However, when the status of Jewish populations in the Empire is examined, it becomes apparent that the Tetrarchy only persecuted Christians and Manichaeans. This thesis explores the relationship between the Tetrarchy and each of these three minority groups as it attempts to understand the Tetrarchy’s policies towards minority religions. In doing so, this thesis will discuss the relationship between the Roman state and minority religious groups in the era just before the Empire’s formal conversion to Christianity. It is only around certain moments in the various religions’ relationships with the state that the Tetrarchs order violence. Consequently, I argue that violence towards minority religions was a means by which the Roman state policed boundaries around its conceptions of Roman identity. © Copyright 2016 Carl Ross Rice All Rights Reserved Diocletian’s “Great Persecutions”: Minority Religions and the Roman Tetrarchy by Carl Ross Rice A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts History Raleigh, North Carolina 2016 APPROVED BY: ______________________________ _______________________________ S.
  • Plato As "Architectof Science"

    Plato As "Architectof Science"

    Plato as "Architectof Science" LEONID ZHMUD ABSTRACT The figureof the cordialhost of the Academy,who invitedthe mostgifted math- ematiciansand cultivatedpure research, whose keen intellectwas able if not to solve the particularproblem then at least to show the methodfor its solution: this figureis quite familiarto studentsof Greekscience. But was the Academy as such a centerof scientificresearch, and did Plato really set for mathemati- cians and astronomersthe problemsthey shouldstudy and methodsthey should use? Oursources tell aboutPlato's friendship or at leastacquaintance with many brilliantmathematicians of his day (Theodorus,Archytas, Theaetetus), but they were neverhis pupils,rather vice versa- he learnedmuch from them and actively used this knowledgein developinghis philosophy.There is no reliableevidence that Eudoxus,Menaechmus, Dinostratus, Theudius, and others, whom many scholarsunite into the groupof so-called"Academic mathematicians," ever were his pupilsor close associates.Our analysis of therelevant passages (Eratosthenes' Platonicus, Sosigenes ap. Simplicius, Proclus' Catalogue of geometers, and Philodemus'History of the Academy,etc.) shows thatthe very tendencyof por- trayingPlato as the architectof sciencegoes back to the earlyAcademy and is bornout of interpretationsof his dialogues. I Plato's relationship to the exact sciences used to be one of the traditional problems in the history of ancient Greek science and philosophy.' From the nineteenth century on it was examined in various aspects, the most significant of which were the historical, philosophical and methodological. In the last century and at the beginning of this century attention was paid peredominantly, although not exclusively, to the first of these aspects, especially to the questions how great Plato's contribution to specific math- ematical research really was, and how reliable our sources are in ascrib- ing to him particular scientific discoveries.
  • Stony Brook University

    Stony Brook University

    SSStttooonnnyyy BBBrrrooooookkk UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttyyy The official electronic file of this thesis or dissertation is maintained by the University Libraries on behalf of The Graduate School at Stony Brook University. ©©© AAAllllll RRRiiiggghhhtttsss RRReeessseeerrrvvveeeddd bbbyyy AAAuuuttthhhooorrr... Heraclitus and the Work of Awakening A Dissertation Presented by Nicolas Elias Leon Ruiz to The Graduate School in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Stony Brook University August 2007 Copyright by Nicolas Elias Leon Ruiz August 2007 Stony Brook University The Graduate School Nicolas Elias Leon Ruiz We, the dissertation committee for the above candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree, hereby recommend acceptance of this dissertation. Dr. Peter Manchester – Dissertation Advisor Associate Professor of Philosophy Dr. David Allison – Chairperson of Defense Professor of Philosophy Dr. Eduardo Mendieta Associate Professor of Philosophy Dr. Gregory Shaw Professor of Religious Studies Stonehill College This dissertation is accepted by the Graduate School Lawrence Martin Dean of the Graduate School ii Abstract of the Dissertation Heraclitus and the Work of Awakening by Nicolas Elias Leon Ruiz Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Stony Brook University 2007 Heraclitus is regarded as one of the foundational figures of western philosophy. As such, he is typically read as some species of rational thinker: empiricist, materialist, metaphysician, dialectician, phenomenologist, etc. This dissertation argues that all of these views of Heraclitus and his work are based upon profoundly mistaken assumptions. Instead, Heraclitus is shown to be a thoroughly and consistently mystical writer whose work is organized around the recurring theme of awakening. He is thus much more akin to figures such as Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Empedocles than to Aristotle or Hegel.
  • 6 X 10. Three Lines .P65

    6 X 10. Three Lines .P65

    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-83746-0 - Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean, Philosopher and Mathematician King Carl A. Huffman Excerpt More information part one Introductory essays © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-83746-0 - Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean, Philosopher and Mathematician King Carl A. Huffman Excerpt More information chapter i Life, writings and reception sources (The original texts and translations of the testimonia for Archytas’ life are found in Part Three, Section One) Archytas did not live the life of a philosophical recluse. He was the leader of one of the most powerful Greek city-states in the first half of the fourth century bc. Unfortunately he is similar to most important Greek intellec- tuals of the fifth and fourth centuries bc, in that we have extremely little reliable information about his activities. This dearth of information is all the more frustrating since we know that Aristoxenus wrote a biography of Archytas, not long after his death (A9). Two themes bulk large in the bits of evidence that do survive from that biography and from other evidence for Archytas’ life. First, there is Archytas’ connection to Plato, which, as we will see, was more controversial in antiquity than in most modern scholarship. The Platonic Seventh Letter, whose authenticity continues to be debated, portrays Archytas as saving Plato from likely death, when Plato was visit- ing the tyrant Dionysius II at Syracuse in 361 bc. Second, for Aristoxenus, Archytas is the paradigm of a successful leader. Elected general (strat¯egos) repeatedly, he was never defeated in battle; as a virtuous, kindly and demo- cratic ruler, he played a significant role in the great prosperity of his native Tarentum, located on the heel of southern Italy.
  • Theology As Academic Discourse in Greco-Roman Late Antiquity1

    Theology As Academic Discourse in Greco-Roman Late Antiquity1

    THEOLOGY AS ACADEMIC DISCOURSE IN GRECO-ROMAN 1 LATE ANTIQUITY Josef Lössl, Cardiff University ([email protected]) Abstract: Following conventional wisdom Theology as an academic discipline (taught at Universities) is something which developed only in the Middle Ages, or in a certain sense even as late as the 19th century. The present essay in contrast traces its origins to Classical Antiquity and outlines its development in early Christianity, especially with a view to institutions of higher education that existed in Late Antiquity, e. g. in rhetoric and philosophy. It concludes that there were forms of academic theological discourse in Late Antiquity which were to become the basis of later developments in the discipline. Introduction The title of this paper may seem problematic in the sense that Classical Antiquity knew neither an academic discipline called “theology”2 nor a secular institution of higher education that could be compared with what we understand by “university”.3 1 An earlier version of this paper was presented on 16 April 2013 at a symposium on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität, Frankfurt am Main. I thank the organi-sers of the symposium, in particular Prof. Dr. Knut Wenzel, for inviting me to speak on that occasion. 2 Of course, early Christian discourse as reflected in the extant literary remains of early Christianity is generally assumed to be, at least to a large part, also in some sense theology; for a discussion of this point see Chr. Markschies, Die kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen (Tübingen, 2009), now translated as Chr.
  • The Routledge Companion to Early Christian Thought Greco-Roman

    The Routledge Companion to Early Christian Thought Greco-Roman

    This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 27 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Routledge Companion to Early Christian Thought D. Jeffrey Bingham Greco-Roman Understanding of Christianity Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203864517.ch3 Paul Hartog Published online on: 21 Dec 2009 How to cite :- Paul Hartog. 21 Dec 2009, Greco-Roman Understanding of Christianity from: The Routledge Companion to Early Christian Thought Routledge Accessed on: 27 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203864517.ch3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:14 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203864517, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203864517.ch3 First published 2010 by Routledge 2 park square, milton park, abingdon, oxon oX14 4Rn simultaneously published in the usa and Canada by Routledge 270 madison ave., new york, ny 100016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2010.
  • Justifying Religious Freedom: the Western Tradition

    Justifying Religious Freedom: the Western Tradition

    Justifying Religious Freedom: The Western Tradition E. Gregory Wallace* Table of Contents I. THESIS: REDISCOVERING THE RELIGIOUS JUSTIFICATIONS FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.......................................................... 488 II. THE ORIGINS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT ................................................................................... 495 A. Early Christian Views on Religious Toleration and Freedom.............................................................................. 495 1. Early Christian Teaching on Church and State............. 496 2. Persecution in the Early Roman Empire....................... 499 3. Tertullian’s Call for Religious Freedom ....................... 502 B. Christianity and Religious Freedom in the Constantinian Empire ................................................................................ 504 C. The Rise of Intolerance in Christendom ............................. 510 1. The Beginnings of Christian Intolerance ...................... 510 2. The Causes of Christian Intolerance ............................. 512 D. Opposition to State Persecution in Early Christendom...... 516 E. Augustine’s Theory of Persecution..................................... 518 F. Church-State Boundaries in Early Christendom................ 526 G. Emerging Principles of Religious Freedom........................ 528 III. THE PRESERVATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN MEDIEVAL AND REFORMATION EUROPE...................................................... 530 A. Persecution and Opposition in the Medieval
  • A Commentary on Jerome's Contra Vigilantium by Amy

    A Commentary on Jerome's Contra Vigilantium by Amy

    A COMMENTARY ON JEROME’S CONTRA VIGILANTIUM BY AMY HYE OH DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Classical Philology with a concentration in Medieval Studies in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2013 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Danuta Shanzer Professor Ralph Mathisen Professor Jon Solomon Professor Stephan Heilan, University of Osnabrück ABSTRACT Innkeepers inspired this dissertation. After working on ‘innkeepers’ as a topic for a research seminar paper, I soon discovered that the term caupo counted as an insult according to several church fathers, including Jerome. In the Contra Vigilantium, Jerome mocked his enemy, Vigilantius, by calling him a caupo who mixed water with wine; I wondered whether the title was true and the insult was deserved. What remained was to figure out who this man was and why he mattered. The dissertation is comprised of four parts: introductory chapters, a text with an en face translation, a philological/historical commentary, and appendices. The first chapter introduces Vigilantius, discusses why a commentary of the Contra Vigilantium is needed, and provides a biography, supported by literary and historical evidence in response to the bolder and more fanciful account of W.S. Gilly.1 The second chapter treats Vigilantius as an exegete. From a sample of his exegesis preserved in Jerome’s Ep. 61, I determine that Jerome dismissed Vigilantius’ exegesis because he wanted to protect his own orthodoxy. The third chapter situates Vigilantius in the debate on relic worship. His position is valuable because he opposed most of his contemporaries, decrying relics instead of supporting their translation and veneration.
  • The Persecution of Christians in the First Century

    The Persecution of Christians in the First Century

    JETS 61.3 (2018): 525–47 THE PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS IN THE FIRST CENTURY ECKHARD J. SCHNABEL* Abstract: The Book of Acts, Paul’s letters, 1 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation attest to nu- merous incidents of persecution, which are attested for most provinces of the Roman empire, triggered by a wide variety of causes and connected with a wide variety of charges against the fol- lowers of Jesus. This essay surveys the twenty-seven specific incidents of and general references to persecution of Christians in the NT, with a focus on geographical, chronological, and legal matters. Key words: persecution, mission, hostility, opposition, Jerusalem, Rome, Peter, Paul, Acts, Hebrews, Revelation This essay seeks to survey the evidence in the NT for instances of the perse- cution of Jesus’ earliest followers in their historical and chronological contexts without attempting to provide a comprehensive analysis of each incident. The Greek term diōgmos that several NT authors use, usually translated as “persecu- tion,”1 is defined as “a program or process designed to harass and oppress some- one.”2 The term “persecution” is used here to describe the aggressive harassment and deliberate ill-treatment of the followers of Jesus, ranging from verbal abuse, denunciation before local magistrates, initiating court proceedings to beatings, flog- ging, banishment from a city, execution, and lynch killings. I. PERSECUTION IN JUDEA, SYRIA, AND NABATEA (AD 30–38/40) 1. Persecution in Jerusalem, Judea (I). Priests in Jerusalem, the captain of the tem- ple, and Sadducees arrested the apostles Peter and John who spoke to a crowd of * Eckhard J.
  • Chapter Sixteen. the Christian Attack on Greco-Roman Culture, Ca. 135

    Chapter Sixteen. the Christian Attack on Greco-Roman Culture, Ca. 135

    Chapter Sixteen The Christian Attack on GrecoRoman Culture. ca. 135 to 235 Over the course of about four hundred years, from the early second century to the early sixth, Greco-Roman civilization was replaced by Christendom. More precisely, the gods were replaced by God and by Satan. When all the other gods were driven from the field the sole remaining god ceased to be a common noun and became instead a proper name, AGod.@1 That sole remaining god was the god of the Judaeans and Christians. Satan was his diametrically opposed counterpart, the personification of Evil. The god of the Judaeans and Christians had begun in the southern Levant, during the Late Bronze Age, as Yahweh sabaoth (AYahweh of the armies@). He became the patron god of the Sons of Israel, and during the reigns of David and Solomon his cult-center was moved to Jerusalem in Judah. In the seventh century BC monolatrist priests and kings in Jerusalem made Yahweh the only god who could be worshiped in Judah and began addressing him as Adonai (Amy Lord@). For Hellenistic Judaeans he was Adonai in Hebrew, and in Greek was Kyrios (ALord@) or ho theos hypsistos (Athe highest god@). For the Pharisees and rabbis, who supposed that even the title Adonai was too holy to be uttered, he was simply ha-shem (Athe Name@). Among early Christians he was Athe Father@ or Aour Father,@ and in the fourth century he became AGod the Father,@ a title which distinguished him from AGod the Son.@ Although they addressed him with different terms, Judaeans and Christians agreed that they were invoking the same god,2 who had created the world, had wiped out almost all living things in Noah=s Flood, had been worshiped by all of Noah=s immediate descendants, but had then been forgotten by humankind until he made himself known to Abraham.
  • 27 Constantine.Key

    27 Constantine.Key

    Roman Civilization 27: Constantine Administrative Stuf Paper III • Tesis and Topic Sentences: Due Now Midterm II • Tursday! Class website • htp://www.unm.edu/~cjdietz/romanciv/ • Updated. Administrative Stuf Paper III • Due: May 10, 5:30 p.m. Course Evaluations • Your feedback is requested. • You should have received an email from UNM. Check your email. Fall Semester: • Greek Civilization • MW 5:30-6:45 • Registration is open! • Tell your fiends! Questions? Te Dominate Starting with Diocletian Diocletian November 20, 284 - May 1, 305 Rise to Power • Born: December 2, 244 in Spalatum (Split, Croatia) • Emperor on November 20, 284 • Te Dominate (fr. Dominus) Te Dominate Starting with Diocletian Principate to Dominate • Imperator to Dominus • No longer concerned with any illusions of a republic • Dominus as divine • Proskynesis • Luxury palaces • Diocletian’s Palace Diocletian’s Palace, Split, Croatia Diocletian November 20, 284 - May 1, 305 Tetrarchy • Knew empire was too big to manage efectively • In 286, named Maximian co-emperor Tetrarchy Caesares and Augusti Tetrarchy March 1, 293 Empire was too big to manage, even with two emperors • Tetrarchy = tetra + archy (cf. monarchy) • East • Augustus: Diocletian • Caesar: Galerius • West • Augustus: Maximian • Caesar: Constantius Te Tetrarchy Confusing Tetrarchy Caesares and Augusti East West Augustus Diocletian Maximian Abdicated: May 1, 305 Abdicated: May 1, 305 Caesar Galerius Constantius Confusing Tetrarchy Caesares and Augusti East West Augustus Galerius Constantius Died July 25, 306 Caesar