Volume 16, Issue 3

ABSTRACT A Coptic paraphrasing of one of the Gospels from the White Monastery contains a narration based on the so-called magi pericope from the Gospel of Matthew (Mt 2:1- 12). It focuses this story onto the fight between Herod, a worldly King, and Jesus as the “King of Heaven.” This strengthens the parallels between the magi pericope and the Passion. Herod is identified with Pontius Pilate, and the phrase: “King of the Jews” which is focused throughout the Passion is integrated into the magi pericope. Some elements of the text indicate a liturgical usage in Egypt. Palaeographic analysis suggests dating it back to the 9th or 10th century C.E.

ABSTRACT Without exegesis no philosophy and no theology either: that’s how one could - somewhat pointedly - outline the intellectual situation in Late Antiquity. To read and interprete texts that were generally recognized and taken to be normative, had become constitutive for pagan as well as for Jewish-Christian thinking at the latest since Platonism had acquired its predominant position in the Imperial Period. In the controversy between pagans and Christians, too, the issue of the correct exegesis played a pivotal role. Whereas the right to adopt an “all-egorical” interpretation that transcends the literal meaning was claimed for one’s own tradition as a matter of course, it used on the other hand to be vigorously denied to the opponents. In this paper, Julian the Apostate’s and Cyril of Alexandria’s dealing with the Mosaic account of the “scapegoat” in Lev 16 shall be analysed as a particularly intricate and paradoxical example ( Contra Galilaeos [fr. 70 Masaracchia] and Contra Iulianum 9 [957B-969A] respectively). Whereas Julian, in his effort to highlight congruencies between Jewish und pagan cult practice, advocates a literal meaning of the scapegoat ritual, Cyril considers adequate only a figurative reading referring to Christ, since the passage otherwise would be in conflict with the Bible’s ban on sacrificing to other gods. The Patriarch of Alexandria thinks to be able to recognise in the two goats two different aspects of Christ’s work of salvation: according to his interpretation, the slaughtered goat refers to the passion of Jesus, whereas the “scapegoat” sent into the desert points to Christ’s resurrection, through which mankind has been delivered from death. The fact that Cyril harshly rejects not only Julian’s pagan interpretation but also a di-prosopic, typological interpretation, sheds some light on the role this biblical passage must have played in the christological controversies of the 5th century C.E.

ABSTRACT The adjective αὐτοφυὴς, which is well attested as an epithet of the Christian God, appears also in the pagan oracles (see Lactantius, Divinae institutiones 1,7,1 [28,15-17 H./W.]). The most ancient source in which αὐτοφυὴς is used in relation to the highest god goes as far back as the 5th century B.C.E. This adjective is in fact present in fragment 4 Snell-Kannicht. The fi ve anapaests in fragment 4 Snell-Kannicht belong to the lost tragedy Pirithous , which has been attributed to Euripides, but was probably composed by Critias. The identity of the god addressed in this fragment has been disputed and is problematic. According to the most widely-accepted hypothesis, this god (in what corresponds to an orphic view) ought to be identifi ed with Time who is called τίκτων αὐτὸς ἑαυτόν in a different fragment (3 Snell-Kannicht) of the same work. Supported by Satyrus, Vita Euripidis fragmentum 37 I, II and III (92-94 S.), the author suggests that the Pirithous writer very deliberately chose not to identify the god addressed in fragment 4 Snell-Kannicht. Regarding the concept of the god’s self-generation, which is present in both the fragments from Pirithous , the author emphasizes the great importance this has for the transmission of these fragments by Clement of Alexandria.

ABSTRACT The article proposes a new explanation for a note in 1 Clem that „Christian women had to suffer by playing Dirces and Danaids“: It’s nothing but a variation of the „selected punishments“ which characterize Nero’s persecution of Christians. Using myths which were popular at Rome in his times, the histrionic punishments were expressions of the Emperors rôle as a philanthropic artist. In each case Nero also used the arts to make political statements more pointedly.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Der Artikel führt die Vorstellung des Origenes von der Präexistenz der Seelen insbesondere auf seine exegetische Arbeit zurück, speziell auf die Auslegung der ersten Genesiskapitel. Soweit sich aufgrund der Homiliae in Genesim und der Commentarii in Genesim sowie weiterer Schriften erkennen lässt, hat Origenes den Beginn der Genesis allegorisch gedeutet. Hierfür dürfte nicht nur die inhaltliche Nähe zwischen einer allegorischen Auslegung der ersten Genesiskapitel und einigen Grundgedanken der Vorstellung von der Präexistenz der Seele verantwortlich sein, sondern besonders auch der antignostische Duktus von Origenes’ Theologie. Origenes versucht mit seiner Genesisdeutung, die Theologie und Anthropologie der Gnostiker zu kritisieren und zugleich eine Vorstellung von der Präexistenz der Seelen zu entwickeln, die mit der regula fidei der Kirche vereinbar war. Diese Beobachtungen haben einige Konsequenzen für das Origenesbild insgesamt. Zum einen zeigt sich, dass ausgerechnet der Topos, der in den späteren Verurteilungen des 6. Jahrhunderts für die Verurteilung der Theologie des Origenes wichtig wurde, selbst - Ironie der Geschichte - antihäretisch motiviert war. Gerade die Vorstellung von der Präexistenz der Seele spielte in Origenes’ Auseinandersetzung mit den Gnostikern eine zentrale Rolle. Zum anderen stellt die biblische Begründung der Lehre von der Präexistenz alle Versuche, den philosophischen Anteil im Denken Origenes gegen seinen theologischen auszuspielen, in Frage. Keineswegs führte die Rezeption philosophischer Gedanken Origenes vom Genesistext weg, sondern die Vorstellung der Präexistenz zeigt gerade, wie stark Origenes’ Denken auf der exegetischen Arbeit am biblischen Text beruht.