scholarly journals Reception of the Septuagint in the early church

2021 ◽  
pp. 335-345
Author(s):  
Rodoljub Kubat

The aim of this paper is to portray the reception of the Septuagint in the early Church. Firstly, the synagogue view of the translation is provided, from the reports in which the origin of the translation is enthusiastically discussed, to the rejection of the Septuagint. A particular emphasis is placed on theological argumentation attempting to prove the divine inspiration of the translation of the Seventy. In this process, the prominent figures are: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Pseudo-Justin, Epiphanius of Salamis, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom and Augustine. The paper deals with two textual disputes over the authenticity of the Septuagint text as the legitimate successor of the original Hebrew consonant text. Textual deviations were often a reason for such confrontations. The first dispute is between Julius Africanus and Origen. Within it, Origen clarifies textual issues of certain Old Testament books. Jerome and Augustine took part in the second dispute. Jerome leaned more towards the Hebrew truth (Hebraica Veritas), while Augustine put more stock into the translation of the Seventy. These confrontations clearly reflect the status of the Septuagint in the early Church. Finally, a concise review of the further status of the Septuagint in the Western and Eastern Churches is provided.

Author(s):  
Harry Maier

1 Clement is a letter attributed to Clement of Rome (fl. second half of the 1st century ce). It is from a single hand, comprising sixty-five chapters, written from a body of Christ followers in Rome to those in Corinth. It is a long and often rambling writing whose chief aim does not appear until chapters 39–44. Clement, on behalf of the Roman community, advises his audience to restore harmony to the Corinthian church through the reappointment of leaders some have deposed. Parts of the early church treated it as canonical. In Codex Alexandrinus it appears, together with 2 Clement, directly after the Book of Revelation, and in a Syriac manuscript both writings appear before the Apocalypse. Clement of Alexandria quoted the letter as a canonical text. It nowhere states it is from Clement but there are three warrants for accepting the attribution: in the 2nd century Dionysius of Corinth cited him as its author; the Shepherd of Hermas, a document many argue to be contemporary with the writing, identifies a Clement who has the responsibility of sending writings to other cities (Vision 2.4.3), arguably a direct allusion to 1 Clement; the possibility of association as a freed person with the aristocratic family of Titus Flavius Clement and his wife Flavia Domitilla, the latter of whom Eusebius of Caesarea records as persecuted by Domitian for Christian belief. Its chief importance is that it is the earliest preserved Christian letter outside the New Testament. As a text that is contemporary with, if not earlier than, several canonical writings, it offers a snapshot of emergent Christianity in Rome and Corinth. Since its discovery it has played a central role in debates concerning the earliest conceptions of leadership in the ancient church and it is here where most attention has been directed. Scholarly study has also centered on its uses of rhetorical conventions, philosophical traditions, liturgical formulae, and lengthy Old Testament quotations, as well as possible echoes of New Testament texts.


1958 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 205-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert C. Sundberg

For three-quarters of a century the hypothesis of an Alexandrian canon has been the commonly accepted solution to the problem of how the Jewish canon and the Old Testament of the early church came to differ. That hypothesis suggests that a larger canon of scriptures was initiated in Alexandria and circulated throughout Diaspora Judaism than what obtained in Palestine. The Christian church, becoming predominantly Gentile early in its history, adopted this enlarged canon, that included the books of the Apocrypha, from Diaspora Judaism. The hypothesis represents essentially a geographic distinction in canonical usage between Palestinian Judaism and Alexandrian and Dispersion Judaism. It is the opinion of the present writer that the Alexandrian canon hypothesis is not only unprovable, as Pfeiffer has recognized, but is erroneous. This opinion is based (1) on a study of the history of the Alexandrian canon hypothesis, (2) on an examination of the arguments favoring the hypothesis, and (3) on a re-evaluation of the status of canonical usage in Judaism at the time of the emergence of Christianity into the world.


1998 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Carleton Paget

Did Justin Martyr really have a conversation with Trypho the Jew as he states that he did in hisDialogue with Trypho?And even if he did not, does this text, indirectly at least, give evidence of genuine contact between Christians and Jews? When Tertullian in hisAdversus Judaeosreviled Jews for their failure to understand the scriptures in the way he did, was he in fact reviling Jews known to him who actually disagreed with him? Or put another way, do the accusations he makes against Jews give evidence of an ongoing debate with that ancient community?


Vox Patrum ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 53 ◽  
pp. 337-391
Author(s):  
Ewa Osek

This paper is the study of the Greek terms using by John Chrysostom on rea­ring, upbringing, training and teaching of children. The analyse of these terms and their use in all the John Chrysostom's writings shows as strong influence of the Atttic writers' vocabulary (especiallty Platoʼs), even in his commentaries on the Scriptural verses, as of the early Christian litera­ture (New Testament, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa).


2019 ◽  
pp. 44-54
Author(s):  
Tatiana I. Khizhaya ◽  

The article focuses on the analysis of Sabbatarianism, i.e. on clarifying the meaning of the term, identifying various kinds of this phenomenon, as well as researching its history. The topicality of the work stems from both uncertainty of the definitions of the concept under consideration and the lack of works in Russian religious studies that deal with the problem of Sabbatarianism. During the study the author comes to the conclusion that the term “Sabbatarianism” is polysemantic. First, it implies special attention to the fourth commandment of the Decalogue in the Christian tradition, in which, since the period of the early Church, there were different practices of observing the first and/or the seventh day of the week in the East and West of the Christian world. Second, we call Sabbatarian specific religious movements that emerged in Europe during the Modern Era and had genetic connection with the Reformation. The author divides them into Christian (Protestant) and Judaizing, noting the challenge and even the failure of differentiating between both in some cases. The first type is subdivided, in turn, into the First-day Sabbatarians, who did not constitute a particular religious movement, and the Seventh-day ones, who made up separate Protestant denominations. The secon type includes sects that are guided to varying degrees by the Old Testament texts. The study of the Judaizers’ history reveals that their genesis is correlated to the Radical Reformation. They arose among the Anabaptists, Unitarians and Puritans, forming an ultraradical stream in the religious scene of the Modern Era. At the same time, these movements were often millenarian. The most vivid model of Judaizing Sabbatarianism was the phenomenon of Transylvanian Sabbath keepers, who evolved from the Protestant Anti-Trinitarians to the Orthodox Jews. The paper is the first attempt at a special research on the phenomenon of Sabbatarianism in Russian religious studies. Its results are significant for understanding the history of the Reformation, various religious trends within the latter (especially radical), as well as the relationship between Christianity and Judaism.


2019 ◽  
pp. 114-137
Author(s):  
Павел Лизгунов

Цель данной статьи - раскрыть понятие смирения у Климента и Оригена Александрийских. Для этого проводится филологический анализ употребления изучаемыми авторами слов смирение, смиренномудрие и однокоренных с ними, а также богословский анализ учения авторов о соответствующих добродетелях - в сравнении с предшествующей традицией раскрытия этой добродетели. Авторы, стоящие у истоков христианской богословской науки, обобщают сказанное прежде них о добродетели смирения и вносят собственный вклад в христианское учение о смирении. В текстах Климента и Оригена встречаются как античное словоупотребление, в котором термин «смирение» имеет уничижительный смысл, так и христианское употребление в значении нравственной добродетели. Их учение о христианских добродетелях смирения, смиренномудрия и кротости основывается на Священном Писании и содержит в себе черты учения мужей апостольских, ранних апологетов и борцов с гностицизмом. В их текстах впервые ставится вопрос о соотношении христианского и античного учений о смирении, который они пытаются решить в духе примирения античных и христианской этических систем. При этом оба автора указывают на бóльшую древность библейского учения по сравнению с учением Платона, а Климентпрямо называетплатоновское высказывание о добродетельном смирении заимствованием из Ветхого Завета. В ряде случаев зависимость авторов от античной мысли приводит к неточностям и натяжкам в передаче христианского нравственного учения. В частности, это проявляется в учении Климента о добродетельной гордости и в отвержении Оригеном библейских «телесных» форм смирения в пользу смирения по преимуществу интеллектуального. The purpose of this article is to reveal the concept of humility among Clement and Origen of Alexandria. To do this, a philological analysis of the use by the authors of the words humility, humility and cognate with them, as well as a theological analysis of the teachings of the authors about the corresponding virtues, is carried out in comparison with the previous tradition of revealing this virtue. Their teaching on the Christian virtues of humility, humility and meekness is based on the Holy Scriptures and contains features of the teachings of the husbands of the apostolic, early apologists and fighters against Gnosticism. For the first time, their texts raise the question of the relationship between Christian and antique teachings on humility, which they are trying to solve in the spirit of reconciliation of ancient and Christian ethical systems. At the same time, both authors point to the greater antiquity of the biblical teaching in comparison with the teachings of Plato, and Clement directly calls the Platonic statement about virtuous humility borrowing from the Old Testament. In some cases, the authors’ dependence on ancient thought leads to inaccuracies and stretches in the transmission of Christian moral teachings. In particular, this is manifested in Clement’s doctrine of virtuous pride and in Origen’s rejection of the biblical «bodily» forms of humility in favor of humility predominantly intellectual.


Author(s):  
Henry Chadwick

Clement of Alexandria, a Christian Platonist, came to conversion through philosophy. In a series of allusive writings he presented a Hellenized Christianity along with the philosophical syncretism of his age: Stoic ethics, Aristotelian logic and especially Platonic metaphysics. Just as Paul saw the Hebrew prophets and law as a preparation for the Gospel, Clement saw Christianity as making possible a confluence of Plato and the Old Testament, both offering anticipations of Jesus’ teaching. Clement’s fusion of Platonism and Christianity vehemently opposed the dualism and determinism of gnostic theosophy, and stressed free choice and responsibility as fundamental to moral values. Central to his writing is the vindication of faith as the foundation for growth in religious knowledge by philosophical contemplation and biblical study.


1997 ◽  
Vol 53 (1/2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Buchner

This article seeks to explore what the inspired text of the Old Testament was as it existed for the New Testament authors, particularly for the author of the book of Hebrews. A quick look at the facts makes. it clear that there was, at the time, more than one 'inspired' text, among these were the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text 'to name but two'. The latter eventually gained ascendancy which is why it forms the basis of our translated Old Testament today. Yet we have to ask: what do we make of that other text that was the inspired Bible to the early Church, especially to the writer of the book of Hebrews, who ignored the Masoretic text? This article will take a brief look at some suggestions for a doctrine of inspiration that keeps up with the facts of Scripture. Allied to this, the article is something of a bibliographical study of recent developments in textual research following the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.


1975 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 19-30
Author(s):  
William Frend

Chance discoveries have been among the ‘uncovenanted blessings’ that have fallen to the study of new testament times and the early church. The finding of the Isaiah scroll by a shepherd boy in the judaean desert in 1947 led to the greatest discovery in biblical studies of all time, that of the Dead Sea scrolls and the essene monastery of Kharbet Q’mran. Similarly, the recovery of the gnostic library of 48 separate books from a Christian cemetery at Nag-Hammadi, not far from Luxor, in 1946, has thrown a wholly unexpected light on the complex of beliefs and attitudes of orthodox Christianity’s great rival during the second and early third centuries, gnosticism. Recently, professor Morton Smith has made the boldest claims on behalf of a ‘secret Gospel of Mark’ used apparently in Alexandria in the second century AD. An extract from this gospel he found in the library of the monastery of Mar Saba near Jerusalem, quoted in a letter which may be attributed correctly to Clement of Alexandria circa 190 AD.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document