Search

The aim of this paper is to continue the discussion begun at the end of the 19th century comparing the reliability of both the 'indirect tradition' of Contra Celsum (represented by the Philocalia) and the 'direct tradition' (preserved only in the manuscript Vaticanus graecus 386 = A). In the first part of this paper, important conclusions resulting from the above discussion are recalled. Since some readings of Manuscript A are still considered problematic to this day, the second part of this paper deals with the question of whether the reliability of the 'indirect tradition' text has been underestimated in specific cases. Based on recent research on the Alethes Logos and a new analysis of Origen' s reply to Celsus' polemic, it is shown that in three selected fragments (fr. I 9, fr. VI 3 and fr. VI 1) the original words used by Celsus are to be found in the Philocalia instead of Manuscript A, i.e. the source that the modern editors of Contra Celsum followed. In part three of this paper it is shown that by preferring the words of the Philocalia for fr. VI 1, a door opens for a reinterpretation of the larger context of the passage for both the Alethes Logos as well as Contra Celsum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper intends to examine the importance of the medieval Armenian versions from Greek texts: the versions of the so-called Hellenistic School (Yunaban dprocʽ) have a very characteristic feature because they translate the texts in a strictly literal manner: for these characteristics they often allow the philologist to go back to the original Greek text. In particular, the paper investigates and discusses several passages of the translations from Nemesius’ De natura hominis and from Dionysius Areopagites. In the case of pseudo-Dionysius, we can remark that the Armenian version in some passages agrees with the ancient Syriac version, in opposition to all the Greek manuscript of the direct tradition [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper starts from an analysis of the role of astronomy in the De congressu and De opificio by Philo of Alexandria. As a 'queen' among the encyclical disciplines, astronomy represents the vehicle which allows the attainment of philosophy and the aspiration to the knowledge of God. Centuries later, again in Alexandria, in another homonymous De opificio preserved in the same manuscript as that of Philo, John Philoponus seems to put into practice what was theorised by Philo. More mature from a scientific point of view, he will make astronomy his exegetical tool to interpret the cosmogony of Genesis while maintaining the interweaving of exegesis and philosophy already visible in Philo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper looks into the complex manuscript tradition of the Christian Arabic universal chronicle composed by the Melkite patriarch of Alexandria Eutychius, also known as Sa‘īd ibn Baṭrīq (877-940). A textual analysis of the two recensions of the text (the so-called ‘Alexandrian recension’ and the so-called ‘Antioch recension’), together with codicological and paleographical evidence, leads to the conclusion that, contrary to what claimed by Michael Breydy, the manuscript containing the shortest version of the text (the codex Sinaiticus Arabicus 582) cannot be the author’s autograph, nor does it contain the original recension of the chronicle, but rather an abridged version of it. In view of this, a re-assessment of the whole manuscript tradition and a new critical edition are called for, as well as a re-evaluation of Eutychius’ value as a historian. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper offers some methodological and bibliographical comments about the volume The Nag Hammadi Codices and Late Antique Egypt, ed. H. Lundhaug - L. Jenott (STAC 110), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2018. In particular, questions of source evidence and religious contextualization are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Acts of Peter and Paul are an apocryphal text well known and appreciated both in the Western and Eastern worlds, spuriously attributed to one Marcellus (‘pseudo-Marcellus’) who is also mentioned in other apocrypha. After providing a general introduction to the Acts of Peter and Paul in the Greek, Latin, and Armenian traditions, this paper focuses on a comparison between the Greek text and its Armenian translation, providing relevant examples thereof. The philological analysis shows that the Armenian translation depends on a well-attested Greek text and clarifies on which branch of the Greek manuscript tradition it is most likely based. It also offers some possible explanations for the discrepancies between the two texts that cannot be ascribed to accidents occurring in the Greek manuscript tradition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The contribution offers the edition of the Ethiopic and Latin versions of a partially inedited text of ecclesiastical history, originally composed in Greek probably at the end of the fourth century AD. The text, to be distinguished from both the Coptic History of the Church and the Arabic History of the Patriarchs, testifies to a particularly ancient phase of the Patriarchate of Alexandria between the second and fourth centuries AD. The Ethiopic version, unknown until now, is preserved within a codex (siglum Σ) containing a canonical-liturgical collection composed of translations which appear to belong to the Aksumite period (fourth-seventh centuries AD). The manuscript dates from the thirtenth century at the latest, probably earlier. The Latin version has already been known since the times of Scipione Maffei thanks to an old Latin uncial codex of the Biblioteca Capitolare in Verona (seventh-eighth century, Codex Vero-nensis LX [58], siglum V), the two tomes of which contain documents concerning the Church of Africa and a very rich and varied canonical collection, published more than once in the last two centuries. This history, which has been given the title of Historia Episcopatus Alexandriae (siglum HEpA), has been the subject of a long-term research by the authors of this contribution, presented in several papers, notes and articles since 2000. The present edition is at the same time an editio princeps and an editio minor because the Ethiopic and Latin texts are accompanied by critical apparatuses but not the linguistic, literary and historical commentaries which are under their final editing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]