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

273 downloads since deposited on 30 Oct 2013
55 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:18 Feb 2018 07:33
Publisher:De Gruyter
ISSN:0949-9571
OA Status:Green
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

Download PDF  'Exegese als Kampfmittel in der Auseinandersetzung zwischen Heiden und Christen: Zum “Sündenbock” von Lev 16 bei Julian und Kyrill von Alexandrien'.
Preview
Content: Published Version
Language: German
Filetype: PDF
Size: 248kB