Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Exegese als Kampfmittel in der Auseinandersetzung zwischen Heiden und Christen: Zum “Sündenbock” von Lev 16 bei Julian und Kyrill von Alexandrien


Riedweg, Christoph (2012). Exegese als Kampfmittel in der Auseinandersetzung zwischen Heiden und Christen: Zum “Sündenbock” von Lev 16 bei Julian und Kyrill von Alexandrien. Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum, (16):439-476.

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

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.

Statistics

Downloads

222 downloads since deposited on 30 Oct 2013
39 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:06 Faculty of Arts > Department of Greek and Latin Philology
Dewey Decimal Classification:470 Latin & Italic languages
480 Classical & modern Greek languages
Language:German
Date:2012
Deposited On:30 Oct 2013 09:27
Last Modified:02 May 2016 19:37
Publisher:De Gruyter
ISSN:0949-9571
Free access at:Official URL. An embargo period may apply.
Official URL:http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/zach.2012.16.issue-3/zac-2012-0027/zac-2012-0027.xml?format=INT

Download

Preview Icon on Download
Preview
Content: Published Version
Language: German
Filetype: PDF
Size: 248kB

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations