theolj-58.2.-Reviews 553..801

Description

theolj-58.2.-Reviews 553..801

Informations

• Publié par: itumocow
• Nombre de lectures: 81
• Langue: Français

Extrait

728 R E V I E W S SocratedeConstantinople:Histoire´eccle´siastique.Livres IV–VI. Greek text by G. C. H ANSEN . Translated by ´ yP IERRE P ERICHON , SJ and P IERRE M ARAVAL . Pp.362. ´ (Sources chre´tiennes,505.) Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 2006. ISBN 978 2 204 08170 2. PaperE32. T HE third volume of Socrates, containing books IV–VI, follows on the two reviewed inJTS, NS 56(2005), pp.687–8and57 (2006), pp.328–9. The text is still that of Hansen, without critical apparatus, and there is no variation from it in the text or translation. On at least four occasions, however, Maraval questions Hansen’s textual decisions in the notes (5.10.11, 14.7;6.13.3,19.7). In every case Hansen’s reading is based on the Armenian version, with or without other support, and in every case I would reckon Hansen right. It is true that these are not ‘necessary’ emendations, but one must allow the pre- eminence of the Armenian because of the antiquity of its lost Greek original. In one instance (5.10.11) Hansen has ‘corrected’ the Armenian reading, and there the term ‘unnecessary’ might properly apply: he changes ‘ancient exegetes and bishops’ to ‘ancient exegetes and teachers’, with reference to the tradition of consubstantial trinitarianism. The Greek manuscripts, preferred by Maraval, here have only ‘the ancients (t8n palai8n)’. The chief usefulness of the Armenian is that it has often preserved words and phrases lost from an archetype of all the surviving Greek manuscripts. In one case, a whole story of Pambo the monk, plainly original, has been restored from the Armenian (4.23.27–8). T HE notes continue to be learned and interesting, and use some more recent publications, like P. Van NuVelen,agitenUr´eH depaixetdepie´t´e(Louvain,2004). Socrates’ alarmingly frequent blunders and anachronisms are faithfully pointed out and corrected. There is an interesting suggestion that Gregory Nazianzen’s departure from Constantinople was made acceptable because of his intransigence over the deity of the Holy Spirit, when the Council aimed at reconciliation (p.169, n.3). Less satisfactory is a brief note which implies that the Constantinople Creed is a revision of that of Nicaea (p.170, n. 2). Socrates’ long account in Book6of John Chrysostom at Constantinople is itself of great interest, not least because of the unfavourable comparison with the Novatianist bishop Sisinnios, who is alleged to have shared his virtues without his vices (6.22). This whole episode is well handled by Maraval, and The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [e-mail]