Abstract In early Christianity, scriptural exegesis was central to the life of the church, and from the second to the sixth century, we find the interest in exegesis expressed in numerous interpretive handbooks as well as commentaries on the biblical books. Since the scriptural message was often far from straightforward, there was a consciousness among early Christians that in order for correct – orthodox – exegesis to take place, the exegete must possess not only the necessary skills, but also the right disposition in terms of ethics and religiosity. Early Christian ideas about what characterized the ideal exegete have hitherto been insufficiently studied by scholars, who have been preoccupied rather with discussing methods of exegesis and different exegetical schools. In this article, we wish to shift the focus from exegetical methods to the traits of the exegetes themselves, and particularly pay attention to the ascetic context of exegesis. We compare the views on the ideal interpreter in the work of two major exegetical and ascetical authors, Origen of Alexandria and Jerome of Stridon. Our examination shows that there were significant similarities between Origen’s and Jerome’s ideal exegete: This was, according to both, a learned person, as well as an ascetic, who dedicated his/her life to the service of God, and who was part of an elite of spiritually advanced Christians. However, there were also important differences: Above all, Jerome’s emphasis on the exegete’s place in a community of readers, and of exegesis as a collective task, was not found in Origen to the same extent, and may be seen as an adaption to the monastic ideal of humility that was prevalent in the late fourth century. We argue that in the context of the Origenist controversy, Jerome and his followers were forced to distance themselves from the elite asceticism that was targeted by the anti-Origenist side, even as they simultaneously positioned themselves, in the tradition of Origen, as experts on exegesis and defenders of orthodoxy.
Abstract The present article introduces a chronological fragment quoting Victorinus of Pettau (fl. 260–300 CE ) to the effect that Jesus was born on December 25. Most interestingly, Victorinus affirms this by citing a passage from the autograph manuscripts of Alexander of Jerusalem (fl. 212–251 CE ), where Alexander in turn claims to have learned of the December 25 date from the “exemplars of the apostles” ( exemplaribus apostolorum ). Even discounting Alexander’s words, Victorinus’s testimony would be the earliest to directly state that Jesus was born on December 25. This article therefore analyzes the authenticity of the fragment and determines that it is genuine based on notable parallels with Victorinus’s writings. The article then describes when Victorinus and Alexander flourished and concludes with a brief reflection on the two competing hypotheses regarding how early Christians selected December 25 for the birthday of Jesus: The Calculation Theory and the History-of-Religions Theory.
Abstract Augustine devotes serious attention to dreams in several of his writings. However, he does not clearly affirm dream identity prior to his late treatise on the soul, On the Soul and Its Origin . The earlier discussions of dream identity in Confessions and On Genesis according to the Letter are far more equivocal regarding dream identity, on account of his preoccupation with the issue of culpability for sinful dreams in these works. Augustine’s affirmation of dream identity in this late treatise occurs as he articulates his views on the incorporeality of the soul, the reality of dream emotions, and the nature of dream bodies. This willingness to affirm dream identity is also reflected, in one of his polemical responses to Vicentius Victor in the fourth book of On the Soul and Its Origin , in his treatment of the famous dream of Perpetua shortly before her martyrdom.
Abstract Despite the clear similarities between 1 Corinthians and 1 Clement, it is often claimed that 1 Clement has an authoritarian attitude and argumentative style in contrast to Paul’s democratic spirit. Paul would never have used the category of order and authority, as found in 1 Clement, to settle the dispute in Corinth but instead appealed to humility and love (1 Cor 12:12–31). This paper, however, will demonstrate that, like Paul’s appeal to love and humility, the author of 1 Clement too appeals to th o se rebelling against the presbyters (1 Clem 47:6) to eliminate their pride and boasting, to humble themselves, and to love one another in order that they might be found in the love of God (1 Clem 15–18; 48–54). In this way the author of 1 Clement prolongs Paul’s Corinthian correspondence by insisting on the cultivation of humility and love among the Corinthian “rebels” in order to restore concord and peace within the congregation.
