Search Results (4)

An arrangement of Patristic quoted sources translated from Greek into Syriac were used by Peter of Callinicus in his works against Damian of Alexandria within the sixth-century Tritheist Controversy. Exemplifying one useful role for a translator, the quotations have been extracted and saved from inaccessibility in Peter’s very hefty volumes and presented side-by-side, author-by-author in checked and (where necessary) revised English. This not only better clarifies the argumentative thrust of Peter’s diatribes and how he himself translates Greek into a Semitic tongue, but it will serve Patristic scholarship in showing how the thoughts of well-known Greek Fathers are conveyed in Syriac in the contexts of earlier theological debates. A key theme of this presentation is the Tritheist Controversy which broke out more than a hundred years after the acrimonious controversy over the Council of Chalcedon had cooled down. The focus is mainly on the dispute over the doctrine of the Trinity between the so-named miaphysites, the Syrian Patriarch Peter of Callinicus/um (d. 591) and Coptic Pope Damian of Alexandria (d. 605), which, in turn, led to the schism between Alexandria and Antioch lasting about 30 years. It comprises two parts: (i) A brief outline of the origins, narrative, and postlude of the Tritheist controversy of Peter with Damian and its doctrinal issues; (ii) identifying, enlisting and reproducing numerous seminal quotations in English from the works of earlier Church Fathers contained in Peter’s magnum opus in support and in refutation of (or ‘against’) Damian of Alexandria; and (iii) reflection on issues of translating Patristic texts. Full article

In Romans 2, Paul uses the Greco-Roman rhetorical technique of diatribe, i.e., a debate with a fictional partner. Reformation interpreters insisted that Paul confronts a hypocritical Jew; this thought remained prominent until the last century and has yielded unintentional anti-Semitic readings of Paul in many Protestant circles to this day. The New Perspective tempered the problem by suggesting that Paul begins the passage opposing a gentile until verse 17 when he has a new, Jewish interlocutor. However, Paul’s language gives no indication of a shift. Scholars of the Radical New Perspective have attempted to solve this language challenge by claiming that Romans 2 contains a single diatribe with a gentile opponent. Although this paper agrees with that basic conclusion, it proposes a new specific identity for that interlocutor that departs from the general consensus of the Radical New Perspective. That consensus identifies the interlocutor as a gentile Judaizer. No scholars, however, have clearly displayed the existence of such people at the time when Paul wrote Romans. On the other hand, Paul’s letter constantly attacks beliefs of gentile supersession, implying that some audience members might entertain such presumptions. This essay, therefore, proposes that Paul debates a single gentile supersessionist. Full article

The Deccan in the first half of the second millennium is marked by political and religious ferment. The Cōḻas, Gaṅgas, Rāṣṭrakūṭas, and Cāḷukyas are contesting its mundane territory, while the Śaivas, Jainas, and Vaiṣṇavas are contesting its spiritual geography. Unlike the interactions of the earthly rulers which spill real blood, the bloodshed of the spiritual gurus is merely metaphorical. But, the animosity driving their interactions is no less intense, for survival is at stake for them just as it is for their secular counterparts. In this essay, I explore the Jaina point of view in sectarian contestations between the twelfth and the fourteenth centuries through the texts of three Kannada authors: Dharmāṁṛtam of Nayasēna (1112CE), Samayaparīkṣe of Brahmaśiva (c.1200CE), and Dharmaparīkṣe of Vṛttavilāsa (c.1360CE). My objective is to identify the sectarian ‘other’ that these authors address, dispute with and vilify, and to explore the changing nature of this sectarian ‘other’ and the shifting attitudes of these authors towards their opponents. Full article

Scholars have long recognized how Romans 1–2 is replete with resonances of Stoic traditions as they have referred to specific similarities in Seneca’s writings and the impact on the interpretation of the letter. Nevertheless, a significant parallel to Paul’s polemic against his fictitious opponent in Rom 2:17–24 has been neglected, namely, Seneca’s invective in Epistle 59. There, the Stoic calls out the “yonder man,” who harms others despite being known as “most gentle”; who robs others despite being considered “most generous”; and who engages in drunkenness and lust despite his reputation of being “most-temperate.” This parallel is also relevant because, like that of Romans 2, the larger context of Epistle 59 also regards human depravity. Therefore, in this article, I will seek to buttress the conclusions from scholars regarding how well Romans 2 aligns with passages from Seneca. I will also aim to show, however, that—in contrast to Paul—Seneca shows solidarity with his interlocutor by recognizing his own shortcomings. Hence, while the similarities help scholars understand how Stoic traditions impact the creation and interpretation of Romans, the convergence between Epistle 59 and Romans 2 also highlights their great divergence. Thus, while the comments in Epistle 59 support the arguments regarding Stoic influence in Romans, the parallels remind the scholar that even as Paul draws upon Stoic ideas and rhetorical devices to deride his interlocutor, he would also consider himself and his fellow believers as not only distant from the likes of the pretentious yonder man but from the humble hypocrisy of Seneca too. Full article