Volume 11, Issue 2

The location of Emmaus named in the Gospel of Luke is discussed. The article argues against the hypothesis of C.P. Thiede who proposed that Emmaus should be identified with Moza-Kalonije. The mention of this place as Ammaous in the manuscript tradition of Flavius Josephus is only a secondary varia lectio. In the Early Christianity Moza-Kalonije was never connected with the tradition of the Gospel of Luke. The small city of Nikopolis/Amwas, however, was considered as the place named by the Gospel of Luke from the 3rd century onwards. Perhaps the mention in the fragments of the Chronographiae of Julius Africanus hints to the fact that this is an old tradition, belonging perhaps to the 1st century. That Emmaus is named κώμη in Luke 24,13.28 is not a strong classification (in opposition to town), but only a current title of a smaller settlement. For the distance between Jerusalem and Nikopolis/Amwas the varia lectio of 60 stadia could be the older one, later corrected to 160 stadia. In any case, it is possible to reach even Nikopolis/Amwas during one day by foot.

The article offers a contribution to the discussion raised by P. Nautin about the identity of the author of the several works transmitted under the name of ‘Hippolytus’ and argues that the Synagoge ( Chronicon ) of 235 A.D. is the work of Hippolytus (so-called ‘oriental’ or ‘exegete’), not simply identical with the author of the Elenchos ( Refutatio omnium haeresium ). The article observes that the long section on the Diamerismos-Stadiasmos ( Synagoge 43-613) shares the polemical thrust against Iulius Africanus's Chronographiae as well as the theological profile of the ‘Logostheologie’ of Hippolytus. Besides this coherence of the Synagoge there are important divergences in the work. There is a “partitioning/populating” of the earth by θνη, χραι and νσοι ( Synagoge 44-52.56-197) (developed in opposition to Celsus's Alethes Logos by the interpretation of Gen 10) and – apart from this – a prosopographical ethnography according to languages intended to be an interpretation of Gen 11 ( Synagoge 199-201), that is completed using geoethnographic material ( Synagoge 202-238) and an itinerarium of the Mediterranean Sea ( Synagoge 240-613). Thus, while the Diamerismos of the author of the Elenchos (the first part, i.e. Synagoge 45-195) aims to illustrate the universal ethnographic movement starting after the Flood, the Diamerismos of Hippolytus (the second part, i.e. Synagoge 198-239) introduces an ethnic-linguistic “division/fragmentation” starting with Babel and perpetuating itself in the history. For Hippolytus, only a new human and divine initiative, of course that of the incarnate Logos and the transmission of the gospel all over the world, will overcome this “sin of division”. Hence, thanks to its combination of exegetic and literary features, Hippolytus's descriptio temporum links the universal dimension of time (the scheme of 6000 years) with the universal dimension of space. This combination has a great significance in the development of Christian chronography.

The establishment of the dies solis as a regular day of rest by Constantine is absolutely a novum in antiquity. The text of the law is not preserved, but two texts of the year 321 ( Codex Theodosianus II,8,1 and Codex Iustinianus III 12,2 [3]) hint to the fact that Constantine established the dies solis in connection to the laws about the clergy and the building of churches in 312/313. So, the character of the dies solis cannot be considered as a pagan or syncretistic one, but as an early step towards a Christianisation of the Roman Empire. Even the Roman army had to observe the dies solis in a Christian manner (cf. the oration in Eus., v.C. IV 19f.) from 311/312 onwards. In this early time, of course, the new rules are only realised in the Western part of the Empire, only from 324 onwards even the Eastern part accepted the new rhythm of time. Early Egyptian papyri show that the Christian name of the day ( dies dominicus, dominica ) is used even in documents written by pagan administrators from 325 onwards.

The article presents the current work on a commentary about the 4th book of Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica . After presenting the most important editions and bibliographical tools the article proposes the need of a detailed chronicle gathering together all the dates of the Historia Ecclesiastica , the Chronica and of other informations (e.g. about the emperors). For the analysis of language the article shows the rich vocabulary of Eusebius and the high quality of stylistic variation. The use of sources has to be analysed in a very careful manner. So, for example, the Martyrium Polycarpi , is not simply used, but Eusebius mixed two extracts with a kind of paraphrase. The comparison of the Martyrium Polycarpi with the text of book IV shows the “re-écriture” of Eusebius. So the article ends stating the several methods and strategies which should be taken into account for a commentary about Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica .

In Oratio 38, Gregory of Nazianzus, explains the incarnation of Christ in a very careful and homiletic manner. He avoids technical language of the philosophical discussion and the heating debate with the Eunomian, Homean and Apollinaristic theology. The double side of the incarnate Christ, the divinity and the human sarx, are present in terms like theophany and genethlia – even if physis is not used in a technical sense. Even with the terms of mixis and krasis, Gregory does not want to use a certain technical classification of the philosophical language of his time, but he uses current words and concepts, explaining the connection between sarx and divinity.

This miscelle deals with the quotations from the gospels in the Syriac version of Theodore of Mopsuestia's catechetical homilies. Many of these quotations correspond with Syriac gospel texts that are earlier than Peshitta. In one passage of Homily 14 a mixed quotation from the gospels could also be infl uenced by the old Gospel Harmony “Diatessaron”.

The Christianisation of the Roman Empire in the late decades of the 4th century stopped the public celebration of traditional feasts as the Saturnalia. That's why Macrobius, proconsul Africae in 410 and praefectus praetorio Italiae in 430, wrote his Saturnalia , describing a convivium with scholarly discussions and aristocratic behaviour. The feast of the Saturnalia itself is extensively discussed, and in this way, the Roman religion is the subject of long explanations. Between the fictive persons introduced by Macrobius the person of Euangelus is the only one who is not knowing the rules of Saturnalia and the background of the Roman religion. Perhaps the name of Euangelus is similar to “euangelium” not only by chance, but the person named Euangelus can be considered as a representative of Christianity, considered as rude and uneducated person. So, perhaps Marcobius wrote his Saturnalia supporting the ideas of a pagan and noble culture which is superior to the new Christian culture. In this way, the Saturnalia are probably a kind of pagan “counter-concept” discussing several subjects claimed by Christian theology as strong evidence for the superiority of Christianity.

Zusammenfassung Die kritische Ausgabe der Apologien des Athanasius', die vor mehr als siebzig Jahren von H.G. Opitz begonnen wurde, ist von H.C. Brennecke unter kompetenter Mitwirkung anderer erfolgreich beendet worden. Besonders wichtig ist in dieser letzten (und bei weitem größten) Lieferung von Athanasius Werken II die Beschreibung und Analyse der Tradierung der Manuskripte, das Druckfehlerverzeichnis für Opitzs Ausgabe und eine völlig neue kritische Textausgabe der Apologia ad Constantium , die einige überzeugende Verbesserungen enthält. Die neue Ausgabe stellt richtig eine Lücke zwischen den Kapiteln 26 und 27 der Apologia ad Constantium (300,6-10) fest. Gegen die Schlußfolgerung des Herausgebers, daß die Kapitel 1-26 und 26-35 aus verschiedenen Reden stammen, vertritt die vorliegende Rezension die Meinung, daß Athanasius' Bezug auf den magister Eugenius (282,3-7) zeigt, daß wenigstens die Kapitel 1-13 vor 355 abgefaßt worden sein müssen; die Rezension geht weiter davon aus, daß Athanasius den ersten Teil der Apologia ad Constantium wahrscheinlich 353 dem Kaiser Constantius schickte und eine Fortsetzung, die aus den Kapiteln 19-35 bestand, im Jahre 357. Zu etlichen Stellen der Apologia ad Constantium und ihrem historischen Kontext werden ebenfalls Bemerkungen, viele von ihnen prosopographischer Natur, geboten.