The Devil’s Ransom and Christology in Origen and the Cappadocians

Ky Heinze
{"title":"The Devil’s Ransom and Christology in Origen and the Cappadocians","authors":"Ky Heinze","doi":"10.1093/jts/flad048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article identifies a relationship between third- and fourth-century Christology and the idea that Christ’s blood ransomed sinners from the devil. The thesis is that the ‘devil’s ransom’ was a natural conclusion for patristic exegetes but that those who accepted it had to navigate around the outrageous possibility that Christ’s divinity had been offered to the devil. Origen, depending on what some would call a dualistic Christology, solved the problem by saying that the ransom price (Christ’s blood or soul) had not included his divinity; but Gregory of Nazianzus, for whom Christ’s blood was in some real sense ‘the blood of God’, could not say this, which is one of the reasons that he rejected the whole idea of a ransom to the devil. In contrast, Gregory of Nyssa’s emphasis on the concealment of Christ’s divinity within the ransom prevented it from having been part of the agreed-upon price and so saved the devil’s ransom from scandal. This theological manoeuvring shows that the ransom stories should be read within a broader theological context. The recent scholarly recognition that the ransom is one among many colourful and sometimes incompatible soteriological metaphors should not lead us to ignore the degree to which patristic authors treated it with theological seriousness.","PeriodicalId":213560,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Theological Studies","volume":"100 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Theological Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flad048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article identifies a relationship between third- and fourth-century Christology and the idea that Christ’s blood ransomed sinners from the devil. The thesis is that the ‘devil’s ransom’ was a natural conclusion for patristic exegetes but that those who accepted it had to navigate around the outrageous possibility that Christ’s divinity had been offered to the devil. Origen, depending on what some would call a dualistic Christology, solved the problem by saying that the ransom price (Christ’s blood or soul) had not included his divinity; but Gregory of Nazianzus, for whom Christ’s blood was in some real sense ‘the blood of God’, could not say this, which is one of the reasons that he rejected the whole idea of a ransom to the devil. In contrast, Gregory of Nyssa’s emphasis on the concealment of Christ’s divinity within the ransom prevented it from having been part of the agreed-upon price and so saved the devil’s ransom from scandal. This theological manoeuvring shows that the ransom stories should be read within a broader theological context. The recent scholarly recognition that the ransom is one among many colourful and sometimes incompatible soteriological metaphors should not lead us to ignore the degree to which patristic authors treated it with theological seriousness.
魔鬼的赎金和奥利金与卡帕多西亚人的基督论
本文确定了三世纪和四世纪的基督论与基督的血将罪人从魔鬼手中赎出来的观点之间的关系。其论点是,“魔鬼的赎金”是教父注释家的自然结论,但接受这一结论的人必须避开一种令人发指的可能性,即基督的神性已被提供给魔鬼。奥利金根据一些人所谓的二元论基督论解决了这个问题,他说赎金的价格(基督的血或灵魂)不包括他的神性;但纳齐安祖的格列高利认为,基督的血在某种意义上是"上帝的血"他不能这么说,这也是他拒绝向魔鬼赎身的原因之一。相比之下,尼萨的格列高利强调将基督的神性隐藏在赎金中,从而避免了它成为商定价格的一部分,从而使魔鬼的赎金免于丑闻。这种神学操作表明,赎金故事应该在更广泛的神学背景下阅读。最近学术界认识到,赎金是许多丰富多彩的,有时是不相容的救赎隐喻之一,不应使我们忽视教父作者以神学的严肃态度对待它的程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信