For a Critical Edition of Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae by Ps. John Chrysostom
Barone, Francesca Prometea
For a Critical Edition of Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae by Ps. John Chrysostom - 2011.
59
The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae of Pseudo-Chrysostom ( PG, 56, 313–386) is a document of fundamental importance for the history of the formation and the composition of the biblical canon over the course of the first Christian centuries as it appears as the oldest collection of synopses of biblical books. Nonetheless, in order to correctly evaluate the historical value of this work it is necessary to resolve two problems that characterize it. First, the extension of the text needs to be determined (the text published in the PG is the hybrid result of an acritical combination of sources distant from one another). Second, the relationship of this particular Synopsis to a Synopsis incorrectly attributed to Athanasius ( PG, 28, 281–438) needs to be clarified. The analysis of the direct tradition seems to justify the conclusion according to which the first branch of the tradition ( H P O M) reveals a much older stage of the text, but already shows numerous lacunae in relation to the “original”; the second branch ( N R L) would have intervened to fill these gaps occurring over time, with recourse to available material such as the Synopsis of Ps. Athanasius first; then the Vitae Prophetarum. The article identifies interventions on the textus uulgatus that would have come into play during the constitutio textus.
For a Critical Edition of Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae by Ps. John Chrysostom - 2011.
59
The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae of Pseudo-Chrysostom ( PG, 56, 313–386) is a document of fundamental importance for the history of the formation and the composition of the biblical canon over the course of the first Christian centuries as it appears as the oldest collection of synopses of biblical books. Nonetheless, in order to correctly evaluate the historical value of this work it is necessary to resolve two problems that characterize it. First, the extension of the text needs to be determined (the text published in the PG is the hybrid result of an acritical combination of sources distant from one another). Second, the relationship of this particular Synopsis to a Synopsis incorrectly attributed to Athanasius ( PG, 28, 281–438) needs to be clarified. The analysis of the direct tradition seems to justify the conclusion according to which the first branch of the tradition ( H P O M) reveals a much older stage of the text, but already shows numerous lacunae in relation to the “original”; the second branch ( N R L) would have intervened to fill these gaps occurring over time, with recourse to available material such as the Synopsis of Ps. Athanasius first; then the Vitae Prophetarum. The article identifies interventions on the textus uulgatus that would have come into play during the constitutio textus.
Réseaux sociaux