Search

This article analyzes the second-century Acts of John 56–57, in which Antipatros seeks healing for his twin sons whom he claims he cannot support as he ages. I argue that this passage turns on a layered critique of Antipatros. First, the text censures medical commerce. Second, it uses his threat of murder, economic circumstances, and name to undermine Antipatros as both father and inquiring disciple. The episode thus leverages criticism of a character whose negative attitudes lead him to contemplate destruction of those with infirmities. However, it retains a mixed message: while the character of the apostle John comes to focus on the sons, the narrative silences them. Ultimately, the text emphasizes what the critique means for the flawed male, elite father, rather than the experience of the impaired sons. Such dynamics warrant close attention as we continue to expand our understanding of attitudes to disability in sources from antiquity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The speaking names of the feuding brothers, Eteocles and Polynices, are the starting point for some reflections on the different way in which Aeschylus, in Seven Against Thebes, and Euripides, in Phoenician Women, focus on the rivalry that leads Oedipus' sons to mutual slaughter before the gates of Thebes. The puns on the name of Polynices, which are repeated in both texts, offer an opportunity to emphasize the origin and common destiny of the two brothers, despite the differences in character. An analysis of several controversial passages and the discussion of interpretations proposed by scholars will show how the meaning of Eteocles ('justly famed') is disproved, while the 'dispute' alluded to by the name of Polynices also defines the identity of Eteocles: this is the only way to achieve both reconciliation and total equality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Stylos is the property of Pontificia Universidad Catolica Argentina and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The author studies an example of the links between interpretation and translation, the ancient comedy of Aristophanes. The first part sets out the main problems of translation, some of its theories and constant obstacles, before focusing attention on the theoretical and practical problems of translating in particular ancient Greek comedy, and the inadequacies of a single method. The second part displays concrete examples of these difficulties through the case of speaking names. The author shows the advantages, limits and presuppositions of some solutions suggested by translators. She concludes on the necessity to translate the names of comedy individually, basing herself on M. de Launay and his claim to translate “articulations de sens”.

In Greco-Roman and Jewish antiquity a so-called nomen est omen principle existed. It played an important role in the mocking of individuals. This article demonstrates that the crucified Jesus might have been mocked because the (messianic) meaning of his name, i.e. “Yahweh saves,” was perceived as a stark contrast to his desolate situation on the cross. The main arguments for this new view are the observations that according to (a) the synoptic crucifixion reports the verb σωζω (= vy) is repeatedly used by Jesus' mockers; and (b) in Mt 27:43 the scribes and Pharisees use a combination of θεóζ and ρνομαι (cf. lxx Ps 21:9) to mock the crucified Jesus. Thus, the mocking words come very close to the meaning and/or sound of Jesus' name. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]