Metadaten

Meier, Mischa [Hrsg.]; Radtki, Christine [Hrsg.]; Schulz, Fabian [Hrsg.]; Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften [Hrsg.]
Malalas-Studien: Schriften zur Chronik des Johannes Malalas (Band 1): Die Weltchronik des Johannes Malalas: Autor - Werk - Überlieferung — Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2016

DOI Seite / Zitierlink: 
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.51241#0258
Lizenz: Freier Zugang - alle Rechte vorbehalten

DWork-Logo
Überblick
Faksimile
1
2 cm
facsimile
Vollansicht
OCR-Volltext
John of Antioch reloaded

257
the diametrically opposite opinions of Patzig and Sotiriadis about which of the two
halves of the corpus should be correctly labelled as “John of Antioch”, a final solution
to the “Johannine Question” still appeared to be out of reach. Karl Krumbacher once
even tried to put an end to the entire debate, pointing out that only the discovery of
new textual evidence would help to overcome the stalemate in the ongoing debate.
It is important to clarify that Krumbacher was not referring to the dividing line but
only to the decision on which of the two halves of the “Maximalbestand” to accept
as “genuine”.
The discovery of the Iviron fragment brought with it the solution which Krumba-
cher had been expecting. As the text of the Iviron fragment corresponded to several
sections in the Constantinian Excerpta de virtutibus and de insidiis, the discovery
made by Spiridon Lampros and his team demonstrated that the Constantinian ma-
terial was derived from a continuous work that must have existed prior to the compi-
lation of the Constantinian excerpts, proving that Patzig had been wrong to consider
this material to be a later compilation. This amounted at the same time to a corrobo-
ration of Sotiriadis’ views. Consequently, this discovery helped to settle the second
problem at the core of the “Johannine Question”, namely it resolved the question of
which of the two parts clearly distinguishable within the “Maximalbestand” should be
given preference, settling the dispute in favour of Sotiriadis and other scholars who
shared his views.

III. Refining and interpreting
the nineteenth-century philological heritage
Sections I and II of this contribution have outlined in general terms the understan-
ding of the “Johannine Question” that our generation of scholars has inherited from
the nineteenth- and earlier twentieth-century scholarship. However, we have inheri-
ted not only solutions but also problems to resolve and issues to refine. Illustration 4
shows where the three most important problems with regard to the corpus of John of
Antioch are to be located.
It is important to underline once again that none of these three problems can be
treated in isolation from the other two. The following sections will explain why this
is so.
III.i
Problem 1: Thefinal sections of the Excerpta Constantini
One of the most important reasons for postulating a caesura between those sections
of the Excerpta Constantini that deal with the historical period after the death of
Anastasios and the material that immediately precedes them is not, as has frequently
been stated in recent secondary literature, the marked differences in language and style
© Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften