Athanasius of Alexandria’s list of canonical scriptures has often been taken as a natural terminus in the long, inevitable process that led to the development of a fixed “New Testament.” Recently, however, a number of scholars have challenged this point of view, arguing instead that citations, canon lists, and manuscript copies must each be placed within their own distinctive social and historical contexts before any judgment about the relationship of a given passage or book to the shifting category “sacred writing” can be made. When this careful attention to social context is applied to the use and reproduction of the work known as the Epistle to the Hebrews, a complex story of the book’s reception emerges. The Epistle to the Hebrews was written about, quoted, and reproduced to a variety of ends throughout the early Christian period. As I show, its reception was influenced not by canonical concerns per se, but instead by the utility of its theological arguments, its shifting relationship to the Pauline corpus, the history of its translation into Latin, and, to a lesser extent, its appearance in lists of sacred scripture produced by fourth- and fifth-century theologians. By placing ancient discussions of Hebrews’ status within bibliographic methodologies, assessing citation patterns in light of broader compositional and citational practices, and situating Christian manuscript evidence within the editorial customs of the time, I argue that the “canonicity” of Hebrews was never seriously questioned. Instead, historical accident, late antique book cultures, changing attitudes toward the function of apostolic authorship, and the varying transmission of scriptures in Greek and Latin conspired to produce a complex textual and material record. As the reception of even this one book shows, the transmission of early Christian writings rarely conformed to the supposedly rational decisions of church leaders about the inclusion or exclusion of certain works.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Theatre criticism has evolved with the advancement of technology and the decline of print journalism. As consumers are given increasing agency by which they can filter the news and reporting they read and occasionally replace it with their own, the idea that a sole voice on a certain topic brandishes more dominance over it than the masses of people involved in its creation and sustainment becomes progressively absurd. Conversely, however, readers rely on theatre critics to make theatergoing decisions for them explicitly because critics are supposed experts on the subject and their opinions are to be respected and observed accordingly. This dichotomy is baffling, but it exists in flux of communication and information that continues to grow as social media develops and becomes ubiquitous. From 1925 onward, Brooks Atkinson, Walter Kerr, Frank Rich, and Ben Brantley have inhabited the same position of chief theatre critic of The New York Times for almost ninety years collectively, yet each critic served very different purposes for their readerships. The prestige that exists around their role did not change over time, but prominence of their publication in popular culture and the utilization and connotation of their criticism did change. The trend is also apparent in the criticism that appears in The New Yorker, particularly because the criticism was not originally consumed for its evaluative and scholarly properties but for its entertainment and cultural magnitudes. The American theatre critic will continue to forge its own prominence in the boundless landscape of the potential of modern technology as it progresses, but ultimately, people will buy tickets, the audience will fill the house, and the show will go on.

This essay investigates why the Myth of the Holy Grail continue to occur within popular culture. Myths, tales and legends from ancient times have inspired authors throughout the centuries. The readers are not only served with a spectacular adventure, but the myths also contain messages with a moral and ethical guidance for us as beholders. This particular myth can be found within different media in our time and the essay will attempt to give some answers as to why the myth reappears in new forms over and over again. An analysis is performed by using the methodology of aesthetic reception within reception theory. The material chosen for the analysis is the work of art; The Da Vinci Code by author Dan Brown, where two different media forms will be represented, the novel and the film. The findings in the analysis revealed that the key to understanding the reasons for the occurrence of this medieval myth is the element of a quest that is present within the myth. This ingredient, where you embark on an adventure, will create feelings of excitement for the beholder. A second aspect found is that we as humans have an interest in our history. Therefore, myths and legends from our historical past will be naturally alluring for beholders and especially if they are linked to philosophical questions and ideas that can be applied to our modern society. The success that has followed The Da Vinci Code has its explanation in the fact that Brown has managed to make the myth of the Holy Grail more contemporary, the myth has then been rejuvenated. A suggestion for further research is to perform a study on beholders in focus group interviews in order to validate the findings in the analysis.

This thesis explores the reception history of Antinous, favourite to the roman emperor Hadrian. Using Michel Foucault's genealogical method, the aim of the thesis is to examine and conclude that Antinous is still, albeit at times hidden, the archetype of the young beautifulman in Western visual culture by examining the expressions of the representation and reception of Antinous as a male ideal of beauty and its change over time. The thesis also poses the question whether it is possible, with the employment of Foucault’s concept of genealogy, to approach the development over time of Antinous’s discourse, and to establish that its core is a male ideal of beauty that can at any time be linked, explicitly or implicitly, to Antinous. Furthermore, in order to answer the research questions and thus, be able to trace Antinous's reception, this essay uses material that lies outside a purely art historical discipline. In addition to artistic and visual images of Antinous från antiquity to the late nineteen-eighties, widespread fiction from authors such as Oscar Wilde, Thomas Mann and Herman Bang alongwith the feature films The Wings and Death in Venice have been thoroughly investigated in search of an Antinous type, along with the art historical writings of Johan Joachim Winckelmann and Viktor Rydberg. Lastly, the study succeeds in conveying that Antinous's distinctive traits, which arose from an apotheosis nearly two thousand years ago and which began when the historical figure Antinous ended his days in the Nile, have survived both a disappearance from the public consciousness and a coding as a homosexual icon and, for that specific reason, a concealment during different succeeding historical periods. Nevertheless, as this thesis establishes, the image and myth of Antinous has still operated whilst remaining in a hidden existence, and in spite of all the above, these traits have re-emerged as universal male traits in a typology of beauty whose overall significance for the male ideal is conspicuously provable.

This thesis is a study of the interpretation and reception of the writings attributed to the apostle Paul based on the collation of references to Pauline texts in pre-Nicene Christian writings. The material is analysed utilising a method worked out by Teresa Morgan and Raffaella Cribiore to understand the nature and extent of indebtedness to literary authorities in ancient pedagogy. The application of their method means that the most frequently cited passages from the Pauline corpus become the focus for detailed examination, and a chapter is devoted to the following passages: 1 Corinthians 2.6-16, Ephesians 6.10-17, 1 Corinthians 15.50-58, and Colossians 1.15-20. In each chapter, selections from early Christian texts which use these passages are chosen for in-depth analysis because they are representative in their interpretative approaches of the totality of texts examined. Across many different early Christian writings, images and phrases from these Pauline pericopes were used to support and defend a wide range of theological arguments about the nature of divine wisdom and its contrast with human wisdom, the importance of standing firm in faith, the nature of resurrection and the body, and the nature of Christ. On the basis of the analysis throughout this thesis, conclusions are drawn firstly, about the close connection between scriptural interpretation and theological doctrines; secondly, about early Christian formation, separate from scholarly attempts to recover early Christian catechesis, school teaching, and pedagogy; and finally, about early Christian identity and how it is formed and informed by early Christian use of these four passages.

This study retraces the principal moments of the Latin reception of John Chrysostom between c.1440 and 1600 and how they reflect on the study of ancient Christianity in early modern Europe. After a short Introduction to Chrysostom’s reception in medieval Europe and existing historiography on early modern patristics, the first section of this study focusses on the reception of Chrysostom in the fifteenth century. Chapter 1 examines the collaboration between cardinal Jean Jouffroy and the humanist translator Francesco Griffolini in Renaissance Rome. Chapter 2 explores the career and editorial work of the scholastic writer Johannes Heynlin and his impact on Basel’s rise as a centre of patristic studies. The second part of this study investigates the translations and interpretations of Chrysostom by the renowned Dutch humanist, Desiderius Erasmus. Chapter 3 argues that Erasmus advanced Chrysostom as a Pauline theologian in a way deliberately opposed to contemporary Latin traditions of exegesis. Chapter 4 interprets Erasmus’ editions and translations of Chrysostom against the breakdown of his friendship with the Protestant theologian Johannes Oecolampadius. Chapter 5 asks whether Erasmus’ biography of Chrysostom and criticism of spurious texts of the Greek church fathers confirms or contrasts recent investigations of Erasmus’ scholarship on their Latin counterparts. The third part of this study follows the reception of Chrysostom’s life and works in the Catholic world during and after the Council of Trent. Chapter 6 studies the use of Chrysostom’s works at this Council by cardinal Marcello Cervini and his client Gentian Hervet. Chapter 7 uses Chrysostom’s changing place in the Roman breviary to explore Catholic attitudes to historical scholarship and the Greek church in the sixteenth-century. A short conclusion suggests avenues for future research into the reception of Chrysostom in early modern Europe.