Allegory and Ambiguity in Late Antique Canon Lists

J. Ophoff
{"title":"Allegory and Ambiguity in Late Antique Canon Lists","authors":"J. Ophoff","doi":"10.1515/jbr-2023-0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the mid-sixth century, Cassiodorus wrote his Institutiones Divinarum et Saecularium Litterarum to instruct the monks at Vivarium in their scribal work of collecting, codifying, and copying the Christian Scriptures, along with a vast array of Latin Christian literature. His text remained an essential handbook for monks and nuns working as scribes for centuries. Within it, he includes three authoritative canon lists which he takes from Jerome, Augustine, and the Septuagint. To modern scholars these lists often read as nonsense: he seems entirely ambivalent towards which books are “in” or “out” of the canon, he appears unfaithful to his source material, and none of these lists reflects his own system for listing or grouping the Scriptures. What then is the point of them? The answer lies in the importance that Cassiodorus, and other late antique authors, place on numbers as sources of allegorical interpretation in the search for higher meaning. Through a process of “holy arithmetic”, Cassiodorus presents what he claims is an inner logic of these authoritative canon lists, bringing to light three different hermeneutical lenses for understanding what the Scriptures are. As allegories, those lenses can coexist in a complementary fashion, aiding Cassiodorus in his larger mission to codify a Latin Christian tradition. Examining Cassiodorus’s approach to listing the canon and comparing it to modern scholarship on the subject bring into focus some of the key ways in which our own assumptions and methods differ from those of our late antique sources. It also opens up new possibilities for interrogating these sources.","PeriodicalId":17249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Bible and its Reception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Bible and its Reception","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2023-0007","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 In the mid-sixth century, Cassiodorus wrote his Institutiones Divinarum et Saecularium Litterarum to instruct the monks at Vivarium in their scribal work of collecting, codifying, and copying the Christian Scriptures, along with a vast array of Latin Christian literature. His text remained an essential handbook for monks and nuns working as scribes for centuries. Within it, he includes three authoritative canon lists which he takes from Jerome, Augustine, and the Septuagint. To modern scholars these lists often read as nonsense: he seems entirely ambivalent towards which books are “in” or “out” of the canon, he appears unfaithful to his source material, and none of these lists reflects his own system for listing or grouping the Scriptures. What then is the point of them? The answer lies in the importance that Cassiodorus, and other late antique authors, place on numbers as sources of allegorical interpretation in the search for higher meaning. Through a process of “holy arithmetic”, Cassiodorus presents what he claims is an inner logic of these authoritative canon lists, bringing to light three different hermeneutical lenses for understanding what the Scriptures are. As allegories, those lenses can coexist in a complementary fashion, aiding Cassiodorus in his larger mission to codify a Latin Christian tradition. Examining Cassiodorus’s approach to listing the canon and comparing it to modern scholarship on the subject bring into focus some of the key ways in which our own assumptions and methods differ from those of our late antique sources. It also opens up new possibilities for interrogating these sources.
晚期古典表中的寓言与歧义
在六世纪中期,卡西奥多鲁斯撰写了他的著作《神学与文学》,指导维瓦里姆的僧侣们收集、编纂和抄写基督教圣经,以及大量的拉丁基督教文献。几个世纪以来,他的经文一直是僧侣和尼姑作为抄写员的重要手册。在其中,他包括三个权威的正典列表,他从杰罗姆,奥古斯丁,和七十士译本。对于现代学者来说,这些列表通常被视为无稽之谈:他似乎对哪些书是“在”或“在”正典之外完全矛盾,他似乎不忠于他的原始材料,这些列表都没有反映出他自己列出或分组圣经的系统。那么它们的意义是什么呢?答案在于卡西奥多罗斯和其他晚期古代作家在寻找更高意义时,把数字作为寓言解释的来源。通过“神圣算术”的过程,卡西奥多鲁斯呈现了他所声称的这些权威正典列表的内在逻辑,揭示了理解圣经的三种不同的解释学镜头。作为寓言,这些镜头可以以一种互补的方式共存,帮助卡西奥多鲁斯完成他编纂拉丁基督教传统的更大使命。考察卡西奥多鲁斯列出正典的方法,并将其与现代学术研究进行比较,可以发现我们自己的假设和方法与我们晚期的古代文献不同的一些关键方面。这也为审讯这些线人提供了新的可能性。
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